Discussion in 'Batman World' started by The Joker_1000, Feb 26, 2008.
Batman and Robin is more like a live action version of Brave and the Bold than the 60s tv show.
The 60's show is waaaaaay better than B&R so yeah.
This scene is iconic, haha.
I don't have a problem with Batman & Robin. It's my least favourite Batman movie, but I own it on blu-ray and enjoy it when I watch it.
What I like about it are the visuals - the production design, the lighting, the cinematography. The costumes. Freeze looks awesome. The naked male torso statues are a bit much, but apart from that the cityscape is incredible. The lighting in Isley's lab and Woodrue's dungeon. The blue-black of the batsuit is really cool. The shots of Freeze in Arkham - a bright blue man in an almost black room.
This video really illustrates what a great visuals the movie has:
I love the colors on Poison Ivy's green costume. The one with red fingers on the gloves. Beautiful.
Yeah, the visuals are top notch. I also like Elliot Goldenthal's score.
Poison Ivy and Freeze are great villains too. Hell, I don't mind the ice puns or the Mae West impersonation either, adds to the fun.
Bane is really just another mindless thug, though.
I think that Mr. Freeze's character design was pretty awesome in this movie, actually. I think that Poison Ivy looked fantastic as well. I've been wanting to dress up as Poison Ivy for Halloween or a convention at some point, and the B&R look is probably the one I'd go for; if only for the leaf eyebrows, which still look really cool to me.
I can't say that I like the set designs for B&R, but I'll give it this much credit: It has a style and a personality. At least Joel Schumacher didn't try to just regurgitate Tim Burton's Gotham (which looked awesome, but it's Tim Burton's style; I wouldn't want someone to just imitate it).
You're a woman, right?
I don't think the visuals themselves are the problem.
The problem is people take these films too seriously. I'm glad we have the Nolan Batmans, but I'm also glad we have the Schumacher Batmans. Not every film has to be super-serious. This is just plain fun and escapism.
Hahahaha, yessir, I am.
I imagined a hairy guy in a Poison Ivy costume saying: "I really am to die for".
Re-watched the movie last night.
What an horrendously painful, yet entertaining and amusing ride.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but after I saw this movie for the first time -I went to see it with a friend on a weekday- I don't remember coming out hating it, or liking it, or feeling anything in regard to the film's quality... but I do remember being very, very aroused by Poison Ivy. I remember telling my friend, "I think that if she wanted to kiss me... I'd let her". Yup.
I watched this again last night. I unashamedly love this movie. It doesn't pretend to be some serious statement about society. You know what kind of film you're getting from frame one. Still, the scenes with Alfred are the best out of all the Batman movies (including Nolan's). This Alfred would never leave Bruce Wayne, even if he was dying.. as he says, his only regret is he can't be with Batman when he fights crime. The scene where Bruce Wayne says "I love you old man" are quite touching and not silly at all.
Also notice how Batman comes full circle - from brooding, loner, vigilante killer in the first movie, to family-oriented, doesn't kill, accepted by society and is part of a team. The change is gradual, it starts with Catwoman, then Robin, then by the fourth movie, it's one big bat family.
There are elements of this movie that I like, but they're outweighed by what I don't:
* The tone is so drastically and dramatically different from the previous 3 films (even with Batman Forever introducing more light-heartedness and humor, it still retained the noir/macabre undertones of Batman and Batman Returns) that it's impossible to actually believe they're set in the same universe
* George Clooney was a piss-poor choice to play Bruce/Batman; he's a completely different kind of actor than Keaton and Kilmer, and the way he plays the character demonstrates that
* There's absolutely no connection between the previous movies and this one other than actors coming back
* The relationship between Bruce and Dick doesn't jive with where they were at the end of Batman Forever in any way, shape, or form
From a pure storytelling perspective, there are a number of elements that should've made this movie work, but the fact that somebody convinced Schumacher and Co. that it was a good idea to depart so dramatically from the things that linked the previous 3 movies together so as to render those connections either non-existent or obsolete - completely cancels out anything good about the film and just makes it a complete disaster.
Actually, B&R follows Batman Forever quite effectively. Batman Forever cured Bruce Wayne (and I'm always amazed more fans don't complain about this) - "I'm both Batman and Bruce Wayne, not because I have to be - now, because I choose to be." Bruce gives his nightmares of the giant bat and personality crisis to Nygma instead (which I think was a fantastic ending, and much darker than many give it credit for.)
Batman & Robin begins with a Bruce Wayne who has come to terms with his parents' death and put it aside, and is now embracing other people and having a family (albeit a weird non-genetic one) of his own.
In interviews with writer Akiva Goldman and Clooney and Schumacher, they all said things like, "He's got over his parents' death and it's time for him to enjoy being Batman."
Not something I agree with, but a planned progression nonetheless.
Hmm. Good point, although I was referring more to tangible connections between B&R and the other three films when I said there wasn't anything that connected them.
As an aside, I wanted to clarify what I meant when I said that the relationship between Bruce and Dick doesn't jive with where they were at the end of BF. BF ends with Bruce accepting Dick's partnership and friendship and the two of them in a fairly good place, but in B&R, they're constantly competing with each other, and, as was pointed out by a guy named James Donnelly of The Shadow Gallery on Youtube, Bruce even calls Dick a DICK (in the scene where he says, "She's trying to kill you, Dick").
The blatant homo-eroticism of the way Clooney plays Bruce doesn't help matters, either, and, again as pointed out by James Donnelly, the film has a TON of innuendo (actually more, I think, than Batman Returns, which makes me wonder why Warner Bros. had a problem with the innuendo and sexual overtones of that movie but not with the innuendo and sexual 'gratuitousness' in this one).
Obviously some time pased between movies. Heck, Robin ha a new costume in this. So does Batman. The cave had to be rebuilt. That probably didn't happen overnight. The dynamic of the relationship changed. Use your imagination dude.
BTW, I haven't seen this film in it's entirety since 1997
^ The passage of time wouldn't have resulted in the characters engaging in a 'pissing contest' where Bruce is constantly trying to outdo and undercut Dick.
It's totally inconsistent with the way Batman Forever ended.
Absolutely. It's there simply because Robin needed something to do.
Another interesting thing is that Batman & Robin argues against Nightwing. In the script, Robin even declares that he's now called Nightwing (and he is wearing a Nightwing costume) and he tries to leave Batman and be a solo crimefighter. It basically says Dick going solo is a petulant and arrogant idea, and he belongs by Batman's side.
You can understand why they cut the line, as audiences watching a film called Batman & Robin would be bemused to find Robin calling himself Nightwing instead. But it kind of spoils a specific subplot in the movie.
Could you provide some specific examples of their "pissing contest"? Examples not related to:
a) Bruce trying to protect Dick
b) The Duo affected by Ivy's pheromones.
Did you even pay attention to the movie? Robin almost got killed by Mr Freeze, and because of this Mr Freeze escaped. This is why Batman lost his trust in Robin, yet regained it by the end of the movie.