I didn't say James Cameron was making T2 solely to sell toys, although I'm not saying that wasn't part of the motivation, as toys bring in lots of money, an more importantly, the studio are going to be interested in selling toys.
T2 was obviously a big budget, hollywood summer blockbuster, which was heavily marketed unlike the original Terminator. Hell, I had T2 toys, and I don't recall ever seeing the movie in theatres (I was 9-10 at the time).
Then again the point of this discussion has flown way over your head. You keep saying ad nauseum that other movies merchandise and sell products and toys. Nobody is denying that. It's obvious. Movies are merchandise business.
The difference between movies like T2, Robocop, Aliens, the other comic book movies etc and Schumacher's Batman is they were not made with the primary goal of selling toys. That's why they're not called the toyetic Robocop, or Aliens, or Dark Knight trilogy etc. I don't know how many times that has to be said to you before that simple point sinks in.
Is there a point you're trying to make posting that?
Didn't say it was Lucas' number one priority.
So why are you bringing him up? Unless his attitude was I was making this to try and sell toys, he has no place in this discussion.
So you think Warner Bros didn't have this as at least one of their priorities? Why? Because Christopher Nolan took the reins? It doesn't make any difference. Part of the reason these films are made is to sell toys. Has been since Batman '89. This doesn't change all of a sudden just because Christopher Nolan takes over the franchise.
Obviously it's for the same reason any movie gets merchandise. It's to make money. But for the umpteenth time the difference is selling merchandise is not the primary goal behind making those movies. Unlike with Schumacher's.
Even R rated comic book movies get toys and video games based off them like Blade. That doesn't mean that was priority goal when they made the movie. Again unlike Schumacher.
"It's all part of the plan".... to sell toys.
No, it's not.
A fair and valid criticism. That's why it's the majority one, and it's stuck around as the majority one 17 years.
Besides, Schumacher was honest about it, and even sent it up in the movie with the line "Every Poison Ivy action figure..". Just because Nolan doesn't talk about it (apparently), doesn't make the 'toyetic' value of his Batman movies any less so.
No comic book movie director, or any director that gets merchandise based off their movies talk about it because unlike with them they didn't go into these movies thinking my main objective here is to sell toys. That was Schumacher's plan. Not Nolan's, or Raimi's, or Singer's, or Whedon's or any other director who makes great CBMs.
Yes. So how is Batman and Robin any different? Why is it so bad that it sells toys just like every other comic book movie that sells toys (including the Nolan trilogy)? How is that a criticism of the movie?
BECAUSE THE MOVIE WAS MADE CAMPY AND SILLY AND CARTOONY SO THEY COULD SELL TOYS. THAT WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE. NOT TO MAKE THE BEST MOVIE THEY COULD MAKE BUT TO MAKE ONE THEY COULD SELL LOTS OF TOYS OFF!
The grand scheme being what?
To make the best movie they could make.
"It's all part of the plan.." And they planned it WELL in advance. At least the studio executives did.
Because all comic book movies have merchandise lines. As well as many non comic book ones. Unlike with Schumacher's though that was not a main goal for making the movie.
I feel like a broken record telling you that over and over.
And this is different to Batman and Robin, how?
I'm not repeating that for the 89564785247th time to you. You know the answer to that.
You're trying to say that Batman and Robin was made solely (or mostly) to sell toys, aren't you?
No I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. Because it's a fact.
Yet the 'toy factor' is exactly the same in both cases. The only difference is the tone of the movies. Batman and Robin is much more colourful and camp. But both B&R and TDK trilogy are rated the same (in the US) - PG-13.
Wrong. The toy factor is not the same in both cases because Schumacher is the only one who turned his movies into campy cartoons so they would be more toyetic and child friendly because selling toys was his main goal. His "job" as he put it.
So your case - one was made for kids and to sell toys while the other is a serious film which only incidentally sold toys as an afterthought..... just entirely your opinion. In reality, they were both made to sell toys (not as the number one priority, but a priority all the same), they're priorities were no different (just because Christopher Nolan does not admit so, doesn't make it any less so).
Schumacher said something along the lines of "I was told to make it more toyetic".... not that the PRIMARY goal was to sell toys.
Wrong again. My case is one was made to make the best movie they can make, and making them to sell merchandise off the movies was never one of the main objectives. They did not go in with the mind set of making it in a way that would allow them to sell lots of toys. Schumacher did.
The only thing you got right is they had different priorities. One wanted to sell toys most, the other wanted to make a great movie. The results prove which approach was the right one.
In his own words, he said (from the article above):
“I was supposed to do a fifth one,” Schumacher says. “I was talking to Nic Cage about playing the Scarecrow. I had begged the studio for [the Frank Miller comic] ‘The Dark Knight [Returns],' but they wanted a family friendly, toyetic thing.”
Doesn't mean he made the movie PRIMARILY to sell toys. He is saying the studio wanted it family friendly and toyetic.
What are you talking about? He's talking about a potential fifth movie there, and saying the studio still wanted the toyetic family friendly movie. Meaning movies that are more kid friendly and able to sell lots of toys. That was the main goal.
That's why he said he did his job with B&R. It was family friendly and sold lots of toys.
Quotes like this should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Why because they shoot apart your whole argument? Yeah sorry but that's the second quote from him where he admits it was about selling toys.
Maybe Schumacher was just being cynical.
On two separate occasions? Get out of your denial state.
Doesn't mean Batman and Robin was just one big, long toy commercial. That's a cynical way of looking at it.
No it's the honest way of looking at it. That's what it was. One big toy commercial made to sell toys. Straight from the horse's mouth. Twice.
You can live in a state of denial and think Schumacher was being cynical.
At the end of the day, all of the Batman movies sold toys, what's the difference? The only difference, is Schumacher had talked about the mechandising side of the business (actually, Tim Burton mentioned it too, but said he was too focused on making the movie to deal with it). You really think the 'toy factor' would all of a sudden disappear? It's a major part of the Batman franchise, now even more so than back in 1997.
At the end of the day all of the Batman movies sold toys. The only difference is Schumacher made his ones primarily to sell toys while Burton and Nolan didn't.
Who said the toy factor would disappear? You keep going off on these tangents that nobody has said, or even implied. I have said numerous times from the get go all comic book movies get merchandise and toys, and even showed you many examples from movie franchises that have nothing to do with kids that got toy lines, too.
Repeating one last time those comic book movies don't get made with the frame of mind that we're making this to sell lots of toys. That was Schumacher's frame of mind.
In the future, could you please refrain from making childish accusations of "trolling". Thank you.
I'm not accusing you. I said
maybe you are. I never outright said you were. I think it's possible you are because of how you are consistently ignoring basic simple points and making up arguments that have no relevance. Clearly I'm not the only one who's noticed it.
It's like you're trying to create disagreements for the sake of it.
I am sure the mods are smart enough to differentiate between intelligent/civil discussion/debate and trolling.
What makes you think the mods have been reading this discussion?
