Who unfortunately paid to see Batman and Robin in theaters?

[Doctor Octopus]

I saw it in theaters with my parents, had a great time.

Growing up, I see it in a much better light and guess what? it's the modern age version of the Adam West show. No ifs ands or buts about it. Batman fans shouldn't be embarrassed for this movie, it's a straight up campy movie which isn't any less legitimate than the Nolan films. I always ask those fans, why so serious?

It's not about legitimacy, it's about quality. It's a poor quality movie. A campy piece of garbage with bad performances, terrible dialogue, and a stupid plot. It's not a modern version of the Adam West show, and it was never designed to be anything associated with the West show according to Mr. Schumacher. It's just a bad campy toy commercial movie.

 

[Kane52630]

Talk about nauseating verbatim....

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I suggest you don't read threads like this if you find it so nauseating. Opinions on Batman and Robin rarely change.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I remember watching it in theaters with my parents as a kid and loved it, coming home to recreate scenes with my action figures lol

 

[Kane52630]

I suggest you don't read threads like this if you find it so nauseating. Opinions on Batman and Robin rarely change.

Nah i've seen the worse in the Batboards, this is nothing.



This movie gets a lot of bad rap because it wasn't their Burton's dark and super serious Batman, that is pretty much true. Like the previous posters have sated here...it's not Batman because it's not dark, which I think is fanboy bullsh**. The things you pointed out could very well be said about Adam West's Batman. I dunno, I just find it strange people vaguely think highly of Adam West's Batman yet trash B&R for doing pretty much the same things the show did.




¯\_( &#12484_/¯

 

[Majik1387]

Majority of Adam West's Batman is trash to me honestly. Some of it worked, but it overall was bad and not in a good way. Sorry to the 60s lovers.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Nah i've seen the worse in the Batboards, this is nothing.



This movie gets a lot of bad rap because it wasn't their Burton's dark and super serious Batman, that is pretty much true. Like the previous posters have sated here...it's not Batman because it's not dark, which I think is fanboy bullsh**. The things you pointed out could very well be said about Adam West's Batman. I dunno, I just find it strange people vaguely think highly of Adam West's Batman yet trash B&R for doing pretty much the same things the show did.




¯\_( &#12484_/¯

I don't think you could legitimately say those things about the Adam West show because the show was made to be a funny tongue in cheek approach to the material, and it worked successfully that way. That's how the writers and actors approached it, and utilized their talents to make it that way, and that's why the show was so successful, popular, and still holds it's popularity all these years later. Look at the two style, Adam West's show never took itself seriously for a moment, whereas Batman and Robin tried to get serious a few times in the movie.

Batman and Robin was not made in the same vein, and Schumacher did not want to make it this way. From what I understand he wanted to do Batman Year One. But he could not because he was under studio orders to make a more child friendly and toyetic Batman. The results were terrible, and that is why the movie is not well liked and never was. It was not made with the same kind of quality approach that the Adam West series did it.

Batman Forever was not the same dark serious Batman the Burton did but it was not as hated as Batman and Robin.

Majority of Adam West's Batman is trash to me honestly. Some of it worked, but it overall was bad and not in a good way. Sorry to the 60s lovers.

Why would you apologize for having this opinion? Even if it was not a minority opinion it would still be your right to say it.

 

[shauner111]

I have to disagree with Kane here. I know for myself, and for many others, it's not necessarily that it's "not dark and serious". It's that Adam Wests Batman was actually original at the time (fresh) and the silliness, jokes, were actually funny. They were taking the piss and it was all done with Adam West at the center of it. He was one of a kind. He was Batman and he was the guy who would deliver lines in such a way, even without saying a word sometimes, he would sell it with a stupid look on his face.

With B & R they were painfully trying too hard to bring it back. Now, Wests Batman is not my cup of tea. Not my Batman but i see why it was a success, because for what they were trying to achieve, they did it right and they cast everyone brilliantly.

Clooney wasn't right for the part. He was chosen to replace Kilmer because he was the next big thing in Hollywood and the ladies loved him. But he's the one person who isn't funny at all in this movie. Arnold was the funny one. But it wasn't enough. If they wanted to bring the West era back, for a new generation with a bigger budget, they should have cast an actor who can sell a joke or pun just with a single look on his face. Perhaps somebody who had comedic timing. Think Alec Baldwin, who would have been awesome in a serious Batman movie back in the 80s, but he would have also nailed it in Batman and Robin if the writing was better.

It also reeked of desperation. People moved on from the full-on campy Batman by this time. It was a sign of moving BACKWARDS not progressing and people didnt buy into it. People bought into Batman Forever because it was only half campy, plus it was coming off an ultra-depressing tone for kids. It was a nice contrast at the time, it was welcomed, but still had that black humor.

There were villains and sidekicks that just made people roll their eyes. The villains were characters who the general audience never heard of on top of that.

It was not well-made, and that's why it failed so miserably. That's why we will never see campy Batman again on film or on television.