The Official Batman & Robin Thread

[Batsfan1]

I don't necessarily think that a lighter or dare I say "campy" Batman movie isn't warranted. What made the 1960s TV series for the most part work is that there was a certain wit and charm about it. Batman & Robin on the other hand, thinks that the best idea for "humor" is to fill the dialogue w/ a bunch of sexual innuendos and cheesy puns. The 1960s show deliberately played it tongue in cheek with Adam West's Batman as the oblivious straight-man to those around him. The Joel Schumacher movies are just not as clever or subversive.

It sounds to me like it was following in Burton's footsteps with the innuendos.

 

[Decepticonus]

If people can't see that this movie was a blatant homage to the 1966 series, they're nuts. I still adore this move - for what it is. But it really irritates me when people proclaim such love for the Adam West show and then turn around and trash this. It's a tiny bit hypocritical.

Take away the nipples and I honestly think the suits are perfect. I think Schumacher's Gotham was perfect. I think Eliot Goldenthal's scores were great. I think the cinematography was great. The script itself is what paid homage to the '66 series, but the script just happened to be bad. That's what made it a bad movie. It always starts with script.

Michael Uslan has said the same thing - each Batman director's interpretation depicted the Batman of every era - Schumacher was the 60s. This is what was coming out during that decade:

Spoiler

So to say that the film "didn't follow the comics" is a huge error. It just didn't follow YOUR comics. If it's a bad movie, it's a bad movie (I don't think it is), but to say it misrepresented Batman is totally wrong.

You make a very good and valid point. I do think the villains are all around better and memorable in the '66 series. I don't care what anyone says, Thurman turned in a horrible performance. Yet, I wasn't expecting much from the governator anyways.
Meanwhile, Robin in this is just such a d-bag. And Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl uuuum I'm gonna have to go "NO" with this.
However, Clooney was not bad as Bruce Wayne, he is a decent actor. And yes you make a valid point about the film is basically campy Batman which had already existed, it wasn't a complete butchering of this character.

Do I hate this film anymore? To be honest, no. After viewing it, thinking about and reading up it was meant to sell toys and appeal to kids. So with that said, don't expect much. I honestly put Batman Returns at the very bottom of the list in the original four. Returns lacks plot and any direction, it wants to do too many things while doing nothing with all these points and doesn't know how to get from point A to point B. It's like watching a dark, sad, gloomy movie on a really bad high. You cannot wait for it to end, it leaves you bitter and just wanting to watch something cheery like a cartoon or heck, Batman & Robin.

 

[Cain]

The 1966 series was actually competently written (at least the first 2 seasons) and it's genius was that everything was played straight where as B&R is way too self aware much to the hindrance of it's own quality.

I still enjoy B&R for what it is (I agree that Thurman was unbearably terrible though) but it's definitely not in the same class as Batman '66 despite superficial similarities.

 

[Cain]

Returns lacks plot and any direction

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there but I digress as it's a subject for another thread altogether.

 

[Rocketman]

I think Returns is the best of the original four, clearly. It's a true, twisted piece of art. Just my opinion though. And I think it has qualities that are superior to Nolan's films.

But to stay on topic...
I think in all honesty, George Clooney was the PERFECT Bruce Wayne. It just sucks that he still played Bruce Wayne with the suit on. I would've been thrilled to see what he did actually portraying Batman.

For what it's worth (not much), Uma Thurman stole the show in B&R. She had the most to do as an actor, and judging by the script alone, she translated what was on the page perfectly.

I think the issue was that she basically had to follow Jim Carrey's performance, and you can tell that they followed the formula from Batman Forever (Carrey stole the show in that movie too). The formula was that you had two villains, one was zany and crazy and the other one was more of the straight-man; the zany and crazy one also wore green and had red hair. You also saw the origin of the crazy and zany one in real time, while the straight-man's origin was seen on a monitor depicting the past.

 

[The Joker]

I'd say Michael Gough had the most to do as an actor. Ironically Batman and Robin was the movie where he gave his best Alfred performance. Ivy, next to Bane, had the least to do since she pretty much was a mustache twirling character. Freeze was at least rooted down a bit in the saving his wife angle which allowed him some moments of humanity. Clooney had those great scenes with Gough, and even some good confrontations with Robin. Even Silverstone's Barbara and her yearn to help her kind old Uncle gave her more to do as an actor than Thurman had as Ivy.

She was just a walking cliche going around spouting Saturday morning cartoon dialogue and blowing love dust at men. Even her origin was comical. That rant she has at Woodrue was camper than camp. "You corrupt my research into some MANIACAL scheme for world domination. When I get through with you you won't be able to get a job teaching High School chemistry. You hear me...you PSYCHO!!!!!".

Thurman looked sexy as hell, and she's a great actress, but she was one of the least impressive performers in this movie, and had little to work with.

 

[Kane52630]

Woodrue's line back to her was hilarious.

Sadly, I'm not good at rejection.
I'm afraid you'll have to die! HAAAAHA!!! *push*

 

[Decepticonus]

Woodrue's line back to her was hilarious.

Sadly, I'm not good at rejection.
I'm afraid you'll have to die! HAAAAHA!!! *push*

Best part in the movie. I love John Glover in this.

 

[Leenie]

I love Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy for all of the wrong reasons. She delivered some cringeworthy dialogue in the style of Mae West ... It makes me laugh. What can I say? :laugh:

She totally looked the part though, and I still think that her character designs and costumes were gorgeous. I can see why there are still a lot of cosplayers who draw some inspiration from the Schumacher design.

 

[Kane52630]

http://kane52630.tumblr.com/post/125385529004

 

[Kane52630]

http://kane52630.tumblr.com/post/126279799194/batman-robin

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

False advertising there. I had to buy my Ivy and Bane separately

 

[BradenPickering]

Yeah, I never understood that, even at the time. Maybe at some point they were intended to be sold as a set?

 

[Decepticonus]

I still love that she points with her leg.

 

[Batsfan1]

http://kane52630.tumblr.com/post/126279799194/batman-robin

That's not the line. She says, "That's why every Poison Ivy action figure comes complete with him!"

Sorry.

 

[Batsfan1]

Uma Thurman on the criticism of Batman & Robin (Huff Post)

I think that Uma Thurman and whomever was interviewing her completely missed the point for why Batman & Robin is so loathed. It isn't simply because it was a campier take on Batman. Hell, Batman Returns from Tim Burton had campy elements too whether you want to admit it or not. It's just that it's an extremely lazy, unfocused, bloated, cynical, glorified toy commercial.

I don't know how to properly explain it right now, but Batman & Robin seemed too self-satisfied or self-aware of how ridiculous or campy it was trying to be. It's one of those movies in which it thinks that it's funnier or more clever than it actually is.

It isn't cynical, bloated, unfocused or lazy. It's not glorified either.

I think the issue here isn't that it thinks it's more clever or funnier than it actually is, but that people don't get how clever and funny it actually is.

 

[BradenPickering]

It isn't cynical, bloated, unfocused or lazy. It's not glorified either.

I think the issue here isn't that it thinks it's more clever or funnier than it actually is, but that people don't get how clever and funny it actually is.

SO much this. If anything Batman Forever is the one that fits the description from the previous poster. That's the movie that struck me as totally unaware of its own silliness, whereas B&R really embraced it and was the better movie for it.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

This movie has no genuine cleverness or humor. Every joke is easy and obvious and yes... lazy. No effort put into the writing at all.

"Hey, a bat credit card everybody!! Action figure references!! We know we are a heavily merchandised summer blockbuster!! See how funny we are for pointing this obvious fact out to you in sight gags and clunky references!!!"

Was that really the best they could do?

I don't understand why I am supposed to love B&R just because I love the 60's Batman TV show. How are they the same just because they are campy and take a light approach to Batman? They only have similarities on the most obvious superficial level.

 

[BradenPickering]

I too am a bit dubious about comparisons to the original Batman TV show, but then again I must admit I haven’t seen much of it since I was a really little kid. On its own though, I think Batman and Robin is clever simply BECAUSE it went for the most obvious, stupid jokes and dialogue…all of Freeze’s “cool party” puns and the like. The audience may groan, but they DO also laugh, and they remember it. That’s my type of humor anyway, though.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Who made this video made weird choices for what is horrible dialog.

But it's funny to sit through.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

At least 95% of the dialogue in Batman & Robin IS horrible though.

 

[Nardz937]

At least this movie is never boring. Even if it's for all the wrong reasons. The worst thing a movie can be is boring.

Ghost Rider is so bad it's boring, Superman Returns is so bad it's boring, Amazing Spider-Man is so bad it's boring . Batman And Robin is so bad it's entertaining.

So at least it has that going for it.

 

[Webhead38]

I think Batman & Robin will always speak to a segment of society that enjoys the lighthearted comic book quality that best described him in the 50's and 60's. If you look at the history of Batman just in comics alone, he has never remained this dark and menacing hero. So Schumacher's Batman is not in any way a film that betrays the history of the character. In many ways, it speaks directly to a quality that was prevalent for a very long time.

While I understand those who prefer a dark and gritty hero, I think there is plenty of room for one less anguished. I loved the Dark Knight movies. They were excellent. But even those films had their harsh critics. Some just as harsh as those who often attack this film. But clearly modern audiences gravitate towards this style since those films made a truckload of money. That being said, it will be interesting to see if Ben Affleck comes across with equal appeal. I think there is always a line movie studios eventually cross in giving too much of what they think audiences want. Camp can be achieved by coming across too serious as well. I think we're approaching that with this new movie. Time will tell.

But in closing I have to say that Batman & Robin should not have been much of a surprise to people after Batman Forever. The consensus at the time was that audiences liked Forever measurably better than Returns because it was more lighthearted and not so dark. That's an endorsement to do more of the same and that's exactly what Schumacher did. Forever is stylistically the same movie as B&R, only a little more measured since it's transitioning from Returns. Also note Burton produced Forever.

So Batman and Robin is honestly an example of giving audiences what they seemed to want at the time. It will be interesting to see if Batman VS Superman doesn't play to that same note this time around.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Batman & Robin killed the Batman franchise for seven years so obviously it didn't give the audience what they wanted.

 

[Webhead38]

Batman & Robin killed the Batman franchise for seven years so obviously it didn't give the audience what they wanted.

Studios have to work from a perspective. Batman & Robin is very much like Forever, only giving you more of the same style. It has comic book motivations, tons of sexual innuendo, and over-produced/over-lit sets. It plays to the same sensibilities the other did. The reason why Forever got away with it and B&R did not is because Burton was in charge of production. There was at least some intent to transition Batman and so you still had shared themes from the Burton universe (deeper voice for Batman and a degree of violence although lightened and more cartoon like).

But ALL the issues that people point to in B&R reside in Forever as well. Bat-nipples present in both. Robin's opening line - "It's the car. Chicks like the car." Borrowed directly from Forever when Batman is talking to Chase. And when we're talking about dialogue, Forever certainly shares the trophy with B&R. Batman says, " You trying to get under my cape?" or "The Bat-signal is not a beeper." How about, "Holy metal Batman. You know? Holy?"

They even used costume pieces from Forever to build the infamous "silver" suits in B&R. So everything plays to the same style and content. What IS different is Schumacher is left in complete control, so there is no restraint on his sensibilities about going over-the-top. When you have audiences and critics alike saying Forever brought the "fun" back into Batman, that was a public endorsement from the studio's perspective as well as the director to give them more of that. How could they possibly know audiences didn't want more of what made Forever appealing?

The Studio saw Schumacher's new approach as the difference between Forever and Returns. I don't think they gave a moments hesitation to letting him have free reign when Batman & Robin was placed on the table. The Studio did the same thing with Nolan after Batman begins and that worked out better than they ever imagined. So I'm sure they were shell-shocked to hear people complain about characteristics in Batman & Robin that Forever shared as well.

I think what it comes down to is that people start combing over a movie to critique it badly when they are not happy with the results. I think when they have some degree of satisfaction they choose to overlook those very same shortcomings. But at the end of the day history shows that Schumacher in one breath saved the franchise, then tanked it using what is honestly the same formula. The ONLY difference is it was more measured in Forever.