What is worse, B&R or SMIV?

[david icke]

I am honestly not sure what one is worse.

Yes, SMIV still has Reeve in the role and he still has the charisma, but the movie around him is so god awful, he is a reminder of how far this innovative movie series has fallen from grace, and it can *almost* reflect badly on the first two movies.

B&R...well there is no iconic performance in jeopardy here, just a boring new 'Batman', or is it Batman at all? Just Bruce in a mask is my opinion.
About the biggest thing this has going for it, and completely trounces SMIV in, is the sfx. John Dystraka's CGI is great work, and holds up better than some of today's superhero CGI. MrFreeze's 1st freezing of the guard; the figures of B&R flying out from that explosion; Robin on the Redbird flying down that man-arm bridge; the figure of Batman ejecting from the frozen Bat-mobile and turning in mid-air.

What one do you manage to get through without turning off? Or get the best laughs out of and enjoy in a so bad it's good way? Is Nuclear Man better value for the laughs with the big fingernails and smell the fart acting? Or are Arnie's puns the height of poetic genius in your book?
For whatever depraved reason, is there one you actually genuinely like?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

This is actually a hard one. I'm going with SMIV for several reasons:

1. It looks like actual effort was put into B&R (sadly)

2. B&R could be played for laughs

3. At least the special effects doesn't look like it was done by a 12 year old in B&R

 

[akfj]

1. It looks like actual effort was put into B&R (sadly)

The fact that there was actual effort put into it may hurt it even more. It's like, "They had all those resources at their disposal and this is what they come up with?"

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Maybe, but actual effort with poor results is still better than no effort with poor results.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Batman and Robin attempted to be lame and succeeded. It attempted to be stupid like the 60s Batman.


Superman IV attempted to be a serious take that had a real-world issue at the core of it, and it turned into one of the biggest farces in cinematic history.


Superman 4 is worse.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Batman and Robin attempted to be lame and succeeded. It attempted to be stupid like the 60s Batman.


Superman IV attempted to be a serious take that had a real-world issue at the core of it, and it turned into one of the biggest farces in cinematic history.


Superman 4 is worse.

Exactly. Thats what I was trying to say as Man of Tomorrow so eloquently put it.

 

[Webhead2006]

hmmm this is a tough call, i guess i would say equally hate them.

 

[some guy]

I would give SMIV an A for effort. The premise had potential, and the actors were really trying, but cheap producers, shoddy special effects, a bad script and bad directing ultimately doomed it.

B&R had every reason to be good film, but it's like no one involved really cared. They just had the actors clown around in kinky suits, nipples and butt shots galore, confident in the fact that they would be making money anyway. This is a movie that mocks me in my face: "Yeah, this is a terrible movie, we made it that way, and you just forked over good money to watch it! Nyeeeh!"

I can look at Christopher Reeve in SMIV and still think of him as Superman. Hard for me to do the same with George Clooney (okay Bruce Wayne, terrible Batman). The effects in SMIV were lame, but I appreciate the idea behind them and can at least imagine how amazing they would have been with a proper budget. I see dazzling effects in a POS like B&R, and I just think "What a waste."

I consider SMIV as a missed opportunity. B&R just pissed all over me.

 

[david icke]

Ok, I went for SMIV being worse. Reeve makes it watchable, but only up to a point, when I watch the movie it is more as a bizarre curiosity, and I always end up wanting to switch it off.
After about a 20yr break from it, when I got the first released vanilla dvd, I was looking forward to seeing if I got any genuine enjoyment from it, but even after drinking a bottle of wine I struggled to enjoy it, it was the curio value that got me through it.


I could say the exact same thing for B&R in regards to wanting to switch it off, and it being a bizarre curiosity, but, I think if I had saw B&R after a 20yr break I would have got some genuine enjoyment out of it.
There is one scene that I think could belong in a genuinely good and serious Batman and Robin movie, the car chase scene with Freeze. And there are some scenes here and there with Bruce and Alfred that are good.

As movie making goes, even aside from budget constraints, Superman IV is the worst movie. When they pull stunts like having normal people flying around in outer space as if it's within Earth's atmosphere, you know the filmaker just does not give a crap, and has no respect for the kids or comicbook crowd who are the fans eagerly waiting for this movie. He thinks they will just lap up any outlandish rubbish, as , y'know, none of it is real anyway.

For laughs though...I get more of a laugh out of crazy old Nuclear Man than Arnie, NCM is just so bizarre and awful, he is genuinely funny to watch with all those facial expressions, the outfit(arnie's outfit is good), the fingernails, the ott Hackman vocals.

 

[super85]

I prefer Superman IV. B&R is worse becouse its a big budgeted pile of crap with a ashamed George Clooney and a Arnie with tourettes. And garish costumes, and neon. It has tons of money pushed into it and a star cast and its just awful. Not fun awful, just horrible ****e. Superman IV, ...cheap , B-film crew, B-film director , visible wires etc, Himbo-Nuclear Man. But it still has Christopher Reeve, the proper Superman-costume, and the Superman-Theme. That wins.

 

[Jordacar]

These two suck in almost opposite ways. SM4 is like trying to reboot a megafranchise for $5, while B&R is like giving a huge budget to the old '60s TV show. Studio meddling vs studio apathy.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Thats why I say SM4 was worse because believe it or not there's an actual audience that likes the 60s show and huge fans of the 60s show love Batman and Robin. Not all of them will, but they do have some an audience.

SM4 was so badly done its incredibly hard to sit through even for comedic value.

But honestly I couldn't sit through either but if I had to pick my poison I'd pick B&R.

 

[Metallo]

As many problems as Superman IV had its better than Batman & Robin.

Batman & Robin had the advantage of a budget over 100 million dollars, popular actors all over, a director that had already done a Batman film, huge promotion, and it not only underperformed but it was a total piece of crap. B&R is the poster child for Hollywood excess and creation by committee.

With that big budget the production design is garish even compared to Batman Forever and the CGI looked cheap even by 1997 standards.

In Superman IV Reeve was still good in the role and even if he was coasting he was never so far off the mark that it was mind numbingly terrible. Clooney simply played Doug Ross in a cowl. There was nothing Bruce Wayne or Batman about the guy. I'd lay more of that on the script and direction but it is the way it is.

Hackman was entertaining even if NM was awful. Arnold was playing Arnold not Mr Freeze. Totally wrong for the part. They basically butchered Dini's new take on Mr Freeze. Batgirl was almost nothing like the classic Batgirl. Uma Thurman channeled Mae West. And just look at what they did to Bane. Pat Hingle's Gordon became a total joke.

Michael Gough is the only person to come out of the movie with any dignity.

Goldenthals B&R score was almost totally recycled from BF while I think Alexander Courage did a better job in the SIV score. Even though it used old themes it at least sounded different. SIV had an almost totally traditional score. It wasn't littered with out of place hip hop and rock like the B&R soundtrack mostly was.

Finally....they didn't put nipples on Chris Reeve's Superman suit....unlike another caped hero.

With SIV some people behind the scenes had good intentions while behind the scenes in B&R it was one big joke and a blatant money machine fort them because they clearly thought the comic book movie audience was either all children or all stupid.

"FREEZE IN HELL, BATMAN!" What?

 

[david icke]

With SIV some people behind the scenes had good intentions while behind the scenes in B&R it was one big joke and a blatant money machine fort them because they clearly thought the comic book movie audience was either all children or all stupid.

No, this is untrue. SMIV was just as much of a blatant attempt to make money at the expense of creativity. Cannon films were notorious for spending low to maximise profits, they cut a vast percentage off the budget just b4 it started filming, ie before anyone like reeve who had agreed to a certain budget, could back out.
They also planned a SMV that would again reuse old footage from the previous movies, including some leftover footage of Reeve from IV, thankfully they never did when SMIV did not turn much profit for them.
Reeve knew it was a cheapo cash in. he only agreed to do the film when Cannon promised to finance 'Street Smart' in return, a script Reeve had been hawking around the studios for years as a vehicle for himself, to no avail due to typecasting. Street Smart is a good movie though, so something good came out of it.

and in regards to the CGI work by Dystryka in B&R, I beg to differ, I see very few CGI figures of superheroes , even in today's films, that look as convincing as the Batman that ejects from the bat-mobile, and there is other work that is on a par with work being done in current films. That 1st freeze blast of the guard looks exactly how it ought to, and is pretty flawless.

 

[Bren]

B&R annoyed me far more than SMIV, although both were horrible, so it's the 'winner' for me...

 

[batlovescatDC]

Superman IV was really bad but Batman & Robin was HORRIBLE. And I can't knock the classic actor Christopher Reeve (may he rest in peace) as easily/as much as I can George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Alicia Silverstone.

 

[Metallo]

No, this is untrue. SMIV was just as much of a blatant attempt to make money at the expense of creativity. Cannon films were notorious for spending low to maximise profits, they cut a vast percentage off the budget just b4 it started filming, ie before anyone like reeve who had agreed to a certain budget, could back out.
They also planned a SMV that would again reuse old footage from the previous movies, including some leftover footage of Reeve from IV, thankfully they never did when SMIV did not turn much profit for them.
Reeve knew it was a cheapo cash in. he only agreed to do the film when Cannon promised to finance 'Street Smart' in return, a script Reeve had been hawking around the studios for years as a vehicle for himself, to no avail due to typecasting. Street Smart is a good movie though, so something good came out of it.

and in regards to the CGI work by Dystryka in B&R, I beg to differ, I see very few CGI figures of superheroes , even in today's films, that look as convincing as the Batman that ejects from the bat-mobile, and there is other work that is on a par with work being done in current films. That 1st freeze blast of the guard looks exactly how it ought to, and is pretty flawless.

Is it ok for me to have an opinion without being called out on it? I didn't do that to you. The thread starter asked for my opinion and I gave it just like everyone else did but you single me out.

I know all about the history of Superman IV and Batman & Robin. SIV at least TRIED to have some kind of serious story in the background. B&R is one big BAD cartoon. The Mr Freeze story has no traction because Schumacher and Arnold didn't take the character seriously at all.

SIV wasn't concerned about selling toys or a ridiculous soundtrack. B&R was. Was Superman in a "freeze resistant batsuit" which was a cheap version of the sonar suit with tin foil on it? No. The entire scene of them in the freeze resistant suit and debut of the freeze resistant vehicles near the end was done to sell toys. There was no other logical reason for that. B&R LOOKS like a cartoon to appeal to kiddies ALL over but even kids didn't bite.

As for the CGI...most of the time it looked bad and gaudy. The freeze effects looked like a lot was done in them but that doesn't make them look good. A lot of CGI doesn't mean good special effects. Gotham itself looked like something out of a video game half the time.

Nolans batman movies use CGI to enhance the story telling experience in a non glaring manner most of the time. B&R was gaudy cheap looking CGI that actually cost a lot to COVER for the fact that the movie was terrible. The CGI wasn't a supplement it was just spectacle. It was (bad) style over substance and thats why the movie is an utter failure. How is the CGI at the end when they all zoom up to the telescope any good? For every good fx scene I can name a bad one.

ALL movies are made to make money more than anything and SIV was a cash grab but with B&R WB thought the audience was either stupid or childish. The fact that they had to RUSH the movie out in two years is another sign of their total greed.

Cannon at least had the common sense to keep Reeve. WB clearly thought Batman himself didn't matter and treated the role like musical chairs by that point. Just when people were getting used to Kilmer the role changed and Clooney and Kilmer were different animals in the part but to WB that didn't matter. Reeve helped his movie far more than Clooney helped his. Reeve could phone it in by that point and still be far more enjoyable than Clooney's Batman.

SIV dissapointed me. B&R offended me with an insult to my intelligence.

 

[david icke]

Is it ok for me to have an opinion without being called out on it? I didn't do that to you. The thread starter asked for my opinion and I gave it just like everyone else did but you single me out.

Dude, your sounding a little paranoid here. It's a discussion board, I didn't 'call you out', I'm just saying that what you said could apply to both movies, that's all.

I know all about the history of Superman IV and Batman & Robin. SIV at least TRIED to have some kind of serious story in the background. B&R is one big BAD cartoon. The Mr Freeze story has no traction because Schumacher and Arnold didn't take the character seriously at all.

There is as much of a serious story attempt in B&R. There is the whole subplot with Bruce and Alfred, dealing with issues of family and the nature of Batman. These are usually the scenes that peoplee cite as the only ones they like from the movie.

SIV wasn't concerned about selling toys or a ridiculous soundtrack. B&R was. Was Superman in a "freeze resistant batsuit" which was a cheap version of the sonar suit with tin foil on it? No. The entire scene of them in the freeze resistant suit and debut of the freeze resistant vehicles near the end was done to sell toys. There was no other logical reason for that. B&R LOOKS like a cartoon to appeal to kiddies ALL over but even kids didn't bite.

Yeah, it was just the same motive of making a cash grab, just by different means. I thought that was quite easy to understand from my post.

As for the CGI...most of the time it looked bad and gaudy. The freeze effects looked like a lot was done in them but that doesn't make them look good. A lot of CGI doesn't mean good special effects. Gotham itself looked like something out of a video game half the time.

Nolans batman movies use CGI to enhance the story telling experience in a non glaring manner most of the time. B&R was gaudy cheap looking CGI that actually cost a lot to COVER for the fact that the movie was terrible. The CGI wasn't a supplement it was just spectacle. It was (bad) style over substance and thats why the movie is an utter failure. How is the CGI at the end when they all zoom up to the telescope any good? For every good fx scene I can name a bad one.

Well, you have only named one example of a zoom up to a telescope , and I don't really understand your criticism of the freeze ray at all.
and you don't really understand what I was talking about, I'm talking about the CGI effects *on their own*, not the movie as a whole. If there was a good movie there, the criticisms you have for the CGI effects would be null and void, as you are talking about the movie as a whole being a 'spectacle' rather than something of substance.

ALL movies are made to make money more than anything and SIV was a cash grab but with B&R WB thought the audience was either stupid or childish. The fact that they had to RUSH the movie out in two years is another sign of their total greed.

So, now you agree SMIV was just as much of a cash grab.
As for B&R having some kind of exclusive rights to treating the audience stupidly, I wonder when the last time was you watched SMIV?
It has a normal woman flying about in outer space, able to breath, with no detrimental effects, it uses the same piece of footage of Superman flying towards the camera about 12 times(which is originally a SMIII shot), Nuclear Man shows up at the Daily Planet and somehow Superman knows psychically that he is there for the woman, Lois Lane flies in mid-air for a time when Superman lets go of her hand...
this is why i started the thread, they both suffer from similar problems, but i think SMIV outweighs B&R on the stupid, nonsensical scenes.
it's one thing to say it, and it's fine to disagree of course, but I'd like to hear exactly what B&R scenes are more stupid than that if you are so sure about it.

edit: Also, I think Cannon cutting SMIV's budget from about 30mil to 17mil(something like that anyway) just before they started shooting is worse than a 2yr gap. Lots of sh movies have a 2yr gap, Iron-Man2, FF:ROTSS, Spider-man2, I don't think it's a good idea either, but there are worse things that can happen like the budget getting slashed to a ridiculous level just before they start shooting.

Cannon at least had the common sense to keep Reeve. WB clearly thought Batman himself didn't matter and treated the role like musical chairs by that point. Just when people were getting used to Kilmer the role changed and Clooney and Kilmer were different animals in the part but to WB that didn't matter. Reeve helped his movie far more than Clooney helped his. Reeve could phone it in by that point and still be far more enjoyable than Clooney's Batman.

You say that you know everything about the movies, but it doesn't sound like it here. Keaton quit, Kilmer quit, they had no choice but to get another actor in to play Batman.

edit: and I agree with you on SMIV having that advantage over B&R of the leading man, that is in fact the main advantage i cited in the OP.

SIV dissapointed me. B&R offended me with an insult to my intelligence.

Ok, so you were not so bothered that SMIV expected you to believe people can float around in outer space with no ill effects.

I don't care at all what one you prefer, I wasn't sure myself, part of the reason I started the thread.
But it's a discussion forum, if you come on and say 'B&R had these problems...SMIV did not', when it obviously did, and there are easily cited examples, someone might respond to that. no need to get touchy about it.

 

[some guy]

Ok, so you were not so bothered that SMIV expected you to believe people can float around in outer space with no ill effects.

On the other hand, B&R had an entire city of people encased in ice for a significant amount of time, then thawed out later alive and well. I'm not sure if cryogenics has been a proven science, is it?

I do prefer SMIV, but I'm not blind to it's faults. It's kind of like the Superman Returns of it's time, it was basically remaking scenes from the previous films. I think nostalgia has something to do with my tolerance for it, I was just a kid when I saw it and I didn't think much sucked back then. By the time I got to B&R, I was already very much capable of identifying a bad movie when I saw one.

 

[david icke]

On the other hand, B&R had an entire city of people encased in ice for a significant amount of time, then thawed out later alive and well. I'm not sure if cryogenics has been a proven science, is it?

I never said that B&R didn't have stupid stuff in there, just that it was not exclusive from SMIV in that degree.
Anyway, they establish the sci-fi conceit in that movie that you have to free them in X amount of minutes, 11 minutes I think it is. So at least they gave a sci-fi explanation that you can accept for the technology, remember we're talking science fiction, not a factual movie. edit: All you have to do is accept that Freeze came up with a freezing solution that allowed for that amount of exposure without folk dying.
So, I think there is a major difference between that and having people floating around in outer space, there's no explanation for that, and I struggle to think of one that could fit.

I do prefer SMIV, but I'm not blind to it's faults. It's kind of like the Superman Returns of it's time, it was basically remaking scenes from the previous films. I think nostalgia has something to do with my tolerance for it, I was just a kid when I saw it and I didn't think much sucked back then. By the time I got to B&R, I was already very much capable of identifying a bad movie when I saw one.

I would have been 12/13 when I saw it and I was highly embarrased that this was out there representing comicbook/superhero fans. Everytime the tv showed the clip of him using his 'bricklayer-vision' on the Great Wall of China, I cringed inside.

edit: I was trying to think of the stupidest thing from B&R, the one that comes to mind is the bat-ice-skates. BM only knows he is going to be facing a villan called MrFreeze on the way to the place, so how do they know they will need their special boots, unless of course their regular boots have all sorts of appliances that shoot out depending on how many times they click their feet together, rollerskates etc.
and if that's the case, why dn't they click them out rightaway?
and Robin leaving a perfect hole in the wall that is shaped like his symbol.

 

[Metallo]

First off someone explain to me why in Batman & Robin some of the earliest footage in the movie is shots of Batman & Robin suiting up and the camera is focused on their molded rubber butts? Those shots alone could've decided this poll for me.

Dude, your sounding a little paranoid here. It's a discussion board, I didn't 'call you out', I'm just saying that what you said could apply to both movies, that's all

my post is the only one you single out when there's plenty of other people here that have said similar things. why don't you pick everyone's post apart that have critisized B&R? You wanted my answer you got it as far as whats worse so I don't see the need to try to argue against my opinion. If you didn't expect me to say what I said you shouldn't have asked the question.

There is as much of a serious story attempt in B&R. There is the whole subplot with Bruce and Alfred, dealing with issues of family and the nature of Batman. These are usually the scenes that peoplee cite as the only ones they like from the movie.

That subplot was a MUCH smaller part of B&R and that doesn't counteract all the other cheesy stuff. The Alfred is dying subplot seemed tacked on while SIV's subject matter was part of the core of the movie. everything sprung from it. SIV never had such a wide gulf between serious and silly as B&R.

Yeah, it was just the same motive of making a cash grab, just by different means. I thought that was quite easy to understand from my post.

all movies do that so your point is moot. B&R dropped ALL pretense about even trying to be a quality movie though.

Well, you have only named one example of a zoom up to a telescope , and I don't really understand your criticism of the freeze ray at all.

and you don't really understand what I was talking about, I'm talking about the CGI effects *on their own*, not the movie as a whole.

The scene I cited was mostly all CGI effect. I understand you fine. The movie as a whole sucked AND most of the special effects looked bad considering the budget.

If there was a good movie there, the criticisms you have for the CGI effects would be null and void, as you are talking about the movie as a whole being a 'spectacle' rather than something of substance.

you've confused yourself. The CGI was a symptom of the movies excess and reliance on spectacle over substance.

So, now you agree SMIV was just as much of a cash grab.

i never said it wasn't, but B&R was far worse and far more blatant about it.

As for B&R having some kind of exclusive rights to treating the audience stupidly, I wonder when the last time was you watched SMIV?

Superman IV didn't have puns like lets kick some ice, R Kelly on the soundtrack calling Gotham the city of love, Barbara Wilson as Alfreds niece, Gordon in his pajamas, nipples on the suit, Batman with an American express card, Robins motorcycle bursting through a wall to form a perfectly shaped bird symbol, etc.

It has a normal woman flying about in outer space, able to breath, with no detrimental effects, it uses the same piece of footage of Superman flying towards the camera about 12 times(which is originally a SMIII shot), Nuclear Man shows up at the Daily Planet and somehow Superman knows psychically that he is there for the woman, Lois Lane flies in mid-air for a time when Superman lets go of her hand...

And Batman & Robin has people being frozen with no ill effects, a dog frozen mid piss, Batman and Robin more or less defying gravity, a REVERSED shot of Robin in Ivy's botanical pool, awful wire work, Batman and Robin SKY SURFING on metal plates, and this movie cost 5 times as much as SIV and looks just as terrible if not worse? Thats a far bigger failure. most of SIV's problems can be chalked up to a slashed budget. B&R's excuse is sheer greed and incompetence. Why is Bane a blithering idiot? Cause Shumacher didn't give a crap. How is Arnold a good choice for Mr Freeze? cause he's a star and thats it. B&R is soaked in the absurd. Even the animated series team took a jab at Schumacher and his Batman movies.

this is why i started the thread, they both suffer from similar problems, but i think SMIV outweighs B&R on the stupid, nonsensical scenes.

"Don't leave the cave without it" I don't think so. and as far as i can tell poll is showing B&R in the lead as the worst.

it's one thing to say it, and it's fine to disagree of course, but I'd like to hear exactly what B&R scenes are more stupid than that if you are so sure about it.

I just listed some.

B&R is one long almost unending stream of terrible scenes so its hard to chop out just one. What about batman introducing himself to Mr Freeze and sliding down a dinosaurs tail.

Bane beating up the neon colored gang to steal a hideout for poison Ivy with the LOONEY TUNES sound effects...in a Batman movie.

If Mr Freeze is so angry and bitter why the hell does he make constant puns and laugh like a maniac? Why would Freeze and Ivy even work together at all? Ivy's plants COULDN'T survive the world Freeze wanted to make. Obvious from the start of their partnership.

Digitized Alfred and Barbara "Wilson" (WHAT?) telling Uncle Alfred to suit her up?


SIV at least had GOOD with the bad. Chris Reeve's Clark Kent's early scenes on the Kent farm depends solely on Reeves acting. Very little fx, very little dialogue. And as far as acting as Superman he kicks Clooneys butt as Batman.

edit: Also, I think Cannon cutting SMIV's budget from about 30mil to 17mil(something like that anyway) just before they started shooting is worse than a 2yr gap. Lots of sh movies have a 2yr gap, Iron-Man2, FF:ROTSS, Spider-man2, I don't think it's a good idea either, but there are worse things that can happen like the budget getting slashed to a ridiculous level just before they start shooting.

You just proved my point. SIV at least had that excuse. B&R was ruined totally by greed and incompetence. They had the budget but WB, Schumacher, and Goldsman didn't gvie a crap about making a good movie. Just one that would pull in the most cash.

And Iron Man 2 and FF2 BOTH have their critics. That doesn't help you point. Didn't FF2 make LESS than the first movie? right. We got Cloudactus thanks to Fox and their gun for hire yesman director

You say that you know everything about the movies, but it doesn't sound like it here. Keaton quit, Kilmer quit, they had no choice but to get another actor in to play Batman.

There were a lot of issues with Kilmer. Scheduling, he and Scumacher had problems. WB was the one that rushed the movie out in two years instead of three. They could have negotiated with Kilmer harder but with their schedule its clear they weren't interested. Sean Connery quit playing Bond but Cubby Broccoli found a way to lure him back...twice. WB could have had Kilmer if they wanted him bad enough. They didn't. They could have maybe had Keaton if they'd made different choices but they wanted it all their way.

edit: and I agree with you on SMIV having that advantage over B&R of the leading man, that is in fact the main advantage i cited in the OP.

Reeve was the man. Clooney looked like he wandered into the wrong movie. That alone puts SIV over Batman & Robin.

Ok, so you were not so bothered that SMIV expected you to believe people can float around in outer space with no ill effects.

I never said it didn't bother me so why are you putting words in my mouth?

I don't care at all what one you prefer, I wasn't sure myself, part of the reason I started the thread.
But it's a discussion forum, if you come on and say 'B&R had these problems...SMIV did not', when it obviously did, and there are easily cited examples, someone might respond to that. no need to get touchy about it.

I never said SIV didn't have problems. Thats clear to anyone. b&R just had worse problems and even less of an excuse and even less going for it. At least SIV had a guy behind the cape that didn't come off as a total fool. There's a reason Clooney gave refunds to people for a while.

 

[david icke]

my post is the only one you single out when there's plenty of other people here that have said similar things. why don't you pick everyone's post apart that have critisized B&R? You wanted my answer you got it as far as whats worse so I don't see the need to try to argue against my opinion. If you didn't expect me to say what I said you shouldn't have asked the question.

yeah, i only responded to you because no-one else worded their posts to the effect that B&R exclusively suffered from certain things like 'treating the audience as if they were stupid.'

And please my friend, don't say I am putting words in your mouth, when you say 'Superman IV left me disapointed. B&R insulted my intelligence.' Then you are saying SMIV did not insult your intelligence by the disaccociation you made from the statement you made about B&R.
If you're not smart enough to know what you are saying, or are trying to backpedal out when you realise you have said something stupid and your ego can't handle it, then that's not my problem.
The thread is meant as a bit of fun, with some discussion for comparisons. You continue to have the tone of being overly paranoid I am attacking your 'intelligence', which suggests that your ego far outweighs your fun factor. That, combined with the fact that the rest of your post is full of irrelevancies due to the fact that I have already said earlier in the thread I share these pov's, and you are preaching to the choir when offering up reasons as to why B&R was bad, means I wont be wasting anymore time on the old 'post dissection', as it would be a monumental waste of time.

edit: and just to say, Kilmer vowed never to work with Schumacher again, it wasn't to do with the Saint being in production. That was just the professional excuse given by Schumacher to save face.

and as to 'proving your point' about SMIV's budget. That was an entirely different conversation we were having in regards to the budget. We were talking about the motives behind the makers, *not* how that reflected on the actual movie's quality. Nice try at twisting that around.

 

[Metallo]

yeah, i only responded to you because no-one else worded their posts to the effect that B&R exclusively suffered from certain things like 'treating the audience as if they were stupid.'

And please my friend, don't say I am putting words in your mouth, when you say 'Superman IV left me disapointed. B&R insulted my intelligence.' Then you are saying SMIV did not insult your intelligence by the disaccociation you made from the statement you made about B&R.
If you're not smart enough to know what you are saying, or are trying to backpedal out when you realise you have said something stupid and your ego can't handle it, then that's not my problem.
The thread is meant as a bit of fun, with some discussion for comparisons. You continue to have the tone of being overly paranoid I am attacking your 'intelligence', which suggests that your ego far outweighs your fun factor. That, combined with the fact that the rest of your post is full of irrelevancies due to the fact that I have already said earlier in the thread I share these pov's, and you are preaching to the choir when offering up reasons as to why B&R was bad, means I wont be wasting anymore time on the old 'post dissection', as it would be a monumental waste of time.

edit: and just to say, Kilmer vowed never to work with Schumacher again, it wasn't to do with the Saint being in production. That was just the professional excuse given by Schumacher to save face.

and as to 'proving your point' about SMIV's budget. That was an entirely different conversation we were having in regards to the budget. We were talking about the motives behind the makers, *not* how that reflected on the actual movie's quality. Nice try at twisting that around.

So now you just insult me by questioning how smart I am because I don't agree with you? nice one. Do you always get so personal when someone disagrees with you on a movie? Lets try to keep this on the subject.

Point it where I said exclusively that only B&R had stupid stuff in it and SIV didn't. Go right ahead and bring up the exact quote.

When you talk about SIV's special effects you automatically have to talk about the budget. Do you not understand that? Certain scenes like the ones you complain about had to be altered because of BUDGET issues. Don't try and suddenly change the rules to suit your bias opinion.

Looney tunes sound effects in a batman movie insults my intelligence. Batman's molded rubber @$$ on a giant screen insults my intelligence. was Reeve's keester plastered on the big screen for everyone to see? No. What was the point of that? Arnold unleashing pun after pun when he's supposed to be a cold villain insulted my intelligence.

Introducing new stuff solely to sell toys insults my intelligence. Reeve didn't trot around in an anti nuclear man suit at the end of the Superman IV movie. B&R movie is one big toy commercial. the fact that they tried to pretend otherwise insults my intelligence.

I never said the Saint was the sole issue but it was one of many issues. I pointed out the problems Shumacher had with Kilmer before you did. If they had tossed enough money at Kilmer he would have been back. Connery also said "never again" in the 60's. Plenty of actors have. But money talks. WB could have had Kilmer back if they REALLY wanted him but they figured he wasn't worth the effort. They figured the brand was the draw, not the man in the suit.

I'm not backpedaling. If you just wanted this thread to be fun you'd leave people to have their opinion. You basically want everyone to agree with you.

Clearly your opinion is the right answer in your mind.

as for the motives behind the movie Cannon wanted to make money. Reeves motive was a socially conscious film, get a check, and financing for Street Smart. those good ideas for IV got lost along the way.

Schumacher and WB's motive for Batman & Robin was to make a toy commercial/cartoon to make money. Schumacher has ADMITTED that it was a cartoon and he told the actors to treat the material that way on set. did you not know this? "Its all just a big cartoon" were his words.

You've got Mr Freeze singing "I'm Mr. White Christmas" for God's sake. Do you not think thats awful?

Both movies are weak, but B&R is just a giant bad joke. Sorta like Arnies puns.

 

[Metallo]

[YT]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mlW1Cfwepz8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mlW1Cfwepz8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YT]

[YT]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iy4Pg1GRT2c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iy4Pg1GRT2c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YT]

 

[david icke]

Dude, it's not about disagreeing with you, it's about the fact that you have ignored things I said and twisted around other things just so you don't lose face.
There is no point in me responding to you as you will doubtless continue to do so.

eg I agreed with you that a 2yr period between these kind of films is not long enough, but that it's a far worse thing to pull out half the budget just b4 shooting.
You ignored the part where I agreed that a 2yr gap is bad, and proceeded to give examples where a 2yr gap is bad, totally ignoring the point I made about the budget being pulled from SMIV being a worse of two evils.
You've done similar things throughout your posts in an attempt not to lose face. There's no point in discussing this with you, it's not honest discussion, and therefore, not much fun.

edit: Also, and this is quite funny actually, you keep trying to persude me that B&R is a bad movie. Read the OP, try to recall the thread motive, I know both of them are amongst the worst examples of superhero movies, that's why I put them together in the thread question. jeeziz.

edit: and I have to respond to this...

Point it where I said exclusively that only B&R had stupid stuff in it and SIV didn't. Go right ahead and bring up the exact quote.

I already explained this, but I will try to explain in more detail.... When you finish off your argument with the twoconsecutivly joined statements...'Superman IV disapointed me. B&R insulted my intelligence.'

...you are disasociating one statement from the other..you are grandly finishing up your argumeny by saying not only what you said, but the reverse...you are also saying that SupermanIV did not insult your intelligence, and B&R did not disapoint you.

You don't always have to plainly say something to communicate it, and if you finished off an essay for college/uni with such a statement , your tutor would tell you the same thing I am, that that is the impression you are deliberating giving by such a statement. Placing the two statements against each other gives the effect of disasociating one from the other. It's a 'fancy' way of saying something without plainly stating it, by saying one thing for both movies, you are saying two things for both movies. It's a deliberate effect used in writing.