Who unfortunately paid to see Batman and Robin in theaters?

[The Joker]

It is one of the worst comic book movies that's my opinion if some people like it - then fine.

1. Batbutts like I wanna see that in a Bat film I even hated that in Forever too

2. Nipples I didn't like it then don't like it now. I don't understand why Schumacher accomplished here by putting nipples on the suit

3. Bat Credit card Why would he carry one or even have one?

4. Robin (Just annoying I love the way they gave his origins in Forever he wasn't annoying like in B&R

5. Villains Too many in this film, Bane is wasted, Ivy was ok and Freeze was badly acted like Clooney as Batman

6. Batgirl (Making her as Alfred's niece from England) Why would she have American accent if she studied or lived in London? Having Batman & Robin as heroes was enough.

7. The music I understand if composer uses same theme but teaks it around so that it's not the same. I liked Elliot G's theme for Schumacher's Batman but he's just lazy here

8 Clooney as Batman I don't blame him well maybe a little but even he saw what a joke the film is here I reckon if given another chance and give proper script he would have played the character differently.

9. Noen Gotham I didn't like it in Forever and same in B&R

10. Just like Burton Schumacher went over the top with the cash I still think Forever was decent film than B&R. But then Jim Carrey is likeable in my opinion.

I even just learned recently that Clooney admitted to playing Batman gay: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/03/03/brokebat-mountain-batman-is-gay-says-george-clooney/

I don't mind the cast, I found them pretty entertaining, especially Arnold Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman as the villains. Michael Gough gave the best performance.

Yeah I know you liked the cast. You're not telling us anything we don't know. You found the cast entertaining, most people didn't, and for valid reasons. Just because you liked them doesn't make people's dislike of them invalid. Yet you keep crowing that it's wrong for anyone to see this as a bad movie.

Makes perfect sense. The purpose of the freeze gun was to kill people, not to freeze the planet. As the sun would have melted the ice (hence, that was Batman's plan, to undo the effects of the freeze ray). After everyone is dead, Poison Ivy would probably killed Mr Freeze, then started growing her plants.

Their plan was to freeze the whole world. Which means everything dies. Plants included. I don't need to be a botany expert to know plants don't grow on dead frozen earth.

Your comment on Ivy killing Freeze and then growing her plants is nothing but idle speculation.

Where? In the Batman and Robin commentary or on the docs in the 2005 dvd set?

On the Batman and Robin commentary. I can even give you the specific scene; the part in Freeze's cell in Arkham when he and Ivy and Bane are escaping by freezing the water pipes to break the wall.

All I've heard of the reasons you've given is 'bad acting' and 'paper-thin plot'. That's a very common criticism of movies, anyway.

Because a lot of bad movies are guilty of it. No decent story + bad acting = bad movie.

Acting is yet another art form that can be done in a variety styles.. fair enough if you don't like the acting, but it's only 'bad' if it fails to achieve what it sets out to do.

It fails on every level. If the intention was to be poorly acted caricatures then they get full marks. But that doesn't make the acting good or passable because they purposely acted bad.

As for plot, it doesn't always have to be the strongest part of the movie, either. Some movies have little to no plot. Some movies are more based in visuals or ideas. Not saying Batman and Robin doesn't have a good plot, because the plot is entirely serviceable for the kind of movie it is.

Movies that have little plot usually have strong characters and acting to fall back on. A movie relies on either it's cast, story, or both. Batman and Robin has neither. It doesn't have good characters, nor a good story. That makes a bad movie.

 

[CountOrlok]

I even just learned recently that Clooney admitted to playing Batman gay: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/03/03/brokebat-mountain-batman-is-gay-says-george-clooney/

their relationship has several parallels with the gay relationship from Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain."

http://www.iconsoffright.com/A_BrokeBat.htm

^I found that interesting analysis while searching the web. Not saying it's true, but that would indeed fit if Clooney was deliberately playing that way.

Yeah I know you liked the cast. You're not telling us anything we don't know. You found the cast entertaining, most people didn't, and for valid reasons. Just because you liked them doesn't make people's dislike of them invalid. Yet you keep crowing that it's wrong for anyone to see this as a bad movie.

Of course it doesn't make their dislike invalid. They're entitled to their opinions. You're entitled to your opinion. But as opinions go, neither is superior. So, just like you did, I stated my own opinion.

Their plan was to freeze the whole world. Which means everything dies. Plants included. I don't need to be a botany expert to know plants don't grow on dead frozen earth.

I'm no botanist but, according to several sources many plants can survive freezing temperatures much longer than humans can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobiology#Plants

Your comment on Ivy killing Freeze and then growing her plants is nothing but idle speculation.

It may be speculation but her intentions towards Freeze appeared to be merely as a pawn to achieve her goals. There was little if any romantic interest between them. So, if the glove fits..

On the Batman and Robin commentary. I can even give you the specific scene; the part in Freeze's cell in Arkham when he and Ivy and Bane are escaping by freezing the water pipes to break the wall.

I don't own the dvd, but if I ever do, I'll check it out, thanks.

Because a lot of bad movies are guilty of it. No decent story + bad acting = bad movie.

Depends on what you call a 'bad movie'. Depends on what you mean by "no decent story" or "bad acting".

It fails on every level. If the intention was to be poorly acted caricatures then they get full marks. But that doesn't make the acting good or passable because they purposely acted bad.

Again, it was the camp style of acting. They knew what they were doing. Uma Thurman, Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Clooney have all given serious dramatic performances in their careers. They are versatile actors, they can do comedy, camp and drama.

Movies that have little plot usually have strong characters and acting to fall back on. A movie relies on either it's cast, story, or both. Batman and Robin has neither. It doesn't have good characters, nor a good story. That makes a bad movie.

Well, everyone probably has a different concept of what makes a 'good story' and 'good characters', anyway.

 

[Two-Face]

Fair enough, but there might be women or gay men who like that sort of thing.. For example, I've never heard of anyone complaining about the closeup of Alicia Silverstone's breasts in the Batgirl costume.



To emulate the statues of ancient Greek gods (ancient mythology were the first 'superhero' type tales).



Because he's a billionaire and probably owns his own bank so he can issue himself a credit card.
What's wrong with Robin? You could even call Batman and Robin a Nightwing origin movie.




Bane - yeah, he wasn't exactly like the comics, but the fact he was even put in the movie when he'd only been introduced a few years previously and was not as well known as the other Batman villains... is pretty remarkable IMO.

.

Freeze - Arnold gave an entertaining performance, it wasn't dramatic like something out of the Nolan movies because it wasn't that type of film.

I
Ivy - more than "ok", she was fantastic in the role.. and even won a Blockbuster Entertainment Award in 1998.


Batgirl was introduced to continue the theme of family. Also to give a role model to young girls, as stated by Schumacher (see the Making of Batman and Robin)

As for the American accent, it's possible she's an expatriate.


Some of the themes were re-used, but we got new themes as well. The same with the other Batman scores by Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman.



Maybe Clooney doesn't personally like the film. He's entitled to his opinion.



The 'neon look' actually emulates the bright colours of a comic book, and gives the film a distinct visual style.



But with both Batman Returns and Batman and Robin... we got something a little more extreme, and perhaps more interesting than their relatively 'moderate' predecessors. They weren't playing it as 'safe' anymore, and let go of their creative inhibitions.


Some would argue it didn't work, but I see what both director's were going for in their artistic vision. And it was a brave and bold (pardon the pun) experiment.

1. Well some people might like it or the people you have mentioned here but not me.

2.What does got to do with a Batsuits?

3. He's owner of Wayne Enterprises, Wouldn't that give away a his secret identity by owing a bank? I'm sure Gotham Bank is owned by someone else not Bruce Wayne.

4.Bane crated in 1993 if my memory is correct so they had a chance to do something great with him but they didn't.

5. If you watch Heart of Ice the episode from animated series he was done much better even Subzero animated film did great job with him in 1008.

6. SAme as Clooney if given proper script she might have done much better job As for awards they liked it back then so that's why they gave it.
7. I understand that but there was already too many characters in the film Batman, Robin, Alfred, Gordon, Bane, Freeze, Ivy see too many. I say they should NOT use Bane and Batgirl.

8. Again Elfman & Zimmer tweaked their scores so that it's not the same from last films otherwise it just shows laziness

9. Fair enough but he knew it what he gotten himself into.

10.Personally, I didn't like it it's not something I would use in a Batman film. Animated series & Burton's Gothic style what I prefer.

 

[The Joker]

their relationship has several parallels with the gay relationship from Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain."

http://www.iconsoffright.com/A_BrokeBat.htm

^I found that interesting analysis while searching the web. Not saying it's true, but that would indeed fit if Clooney was deliberately playing that way.

If Clooney was trying to play it that way, or any credible way like that, he would have said so in his defense. But all he says was he played the character gay, and he destroyed it.

Of course it doesn't make their dislike invalid. They're entitled to their opinions. You're entitled to your opinion. But as opinions go, neither is superior. So, just like you did, I stated my own opinion.

You're backtracking now. You were saying people are wrong for seeing it as a bad movie because you never heard a good objective reason for it. Your words.

Then you turn around and say it's a genius movie just because it's camp and has good comic book action. You're either living in severe denial over this, or you're trolling by trying to be as controversial as possible with people over this.

I'm no botanist but, according to several sources many plants can survive freezing temperatures much longer than humans can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobiology#Plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost#Effect_on_plants

Plants on the whole are either severely damaged or killed by severe freezing.

Plants cannot grow and thrive on dead frozen earth. But that was Ivy's brilliant plan. Mother Nature can start again on a dead frozen planet lol.

It may be speculation but her intentions towards Freeze appeared to be merely as a pawn to achieve her goals. There was little if any romantic interest between them. So, if the glove fits..

Idle speculation. You're going into fan fic territory. She referred to him as a god, which implies she respects him. She killed his wife because she saw her as competition, implying she wanted to be the only woman in Freeze's life.

There was no implication on her behalf that she intended to kill him, and even seemed to love his idea of 'Adam and Evil'

Depends on what you call a 'bad movie'. Depends on what you mean by "no decent story" or "bad acting".

Batman and Robin. That's what most people call a bad movie with no decent story and bad acting.

Again, it was the camp style of acting. They knew what they were doing. Uma Thurman, Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Clooney have all given serious dramatic performances in their careers. They are versatile actors, they can do comedy, camp and drama.

It has nothing to do with camp. The cast of the 60's show were doing their acting in campy style but the difference is they were doing it well. They were giving great performances in a campy style and tone.

Real pros putting effort into their characters to make them the best they could be. Look at Burgess Meredith for example. He wasn't a smoker, but had to smoke constantly as the Penguin, and the smoke would irritate his throat. Rather than let that spoil his performance he turned it into one of the most iconic traits of the Penguin; a bird like sqwaking laugh. They were actors who played their characters well.

The actors of Batman and Robin played their characters as bad cartoonish caricatures. They were flaccid, one note, performances except for Michael Gough. The only actor to do some real acting in the movie.

Well, everyone probably has a different concept of what makes a 'good story' and 'good characters', anyway.

Yes they do. Batman and Robin doesn't meet the standards of most. Hence why it's so frequently seen as a bad movie. Because it is.

 

[CountOrlok]

2.What does got to do with a Batsuits?

I meant with the nipples and the anatomical correctness, it was trying to emulate ancient greek statues:

3. He's owner of Wayne Enterprises, Wouldn't that give away a his secret identity by owing a bank?

Why would it give away his secret identity?

4.Bane crated in 1993 if my memory is correct so they had a chance to do something great with him but they didn't.

They already had 2 other villains. They didn't have to put him in there but they did, even though he wasn't well known to the general audience at the time.

5. If you watch Heart of Ice the episode from animated series he was done much better even Subzero animated film did great job with him in 1008.

I agree, but this is a different version of Mr Freeze than in the animated series.

6. SAme as Clooney if given proper script she might have done much better job As for awards they liked it back then so that's why they gave it.

Some of the reviews say she was channeling Mae West:

[YT]FJS670okmZc[/YT]

7. I understand that but there was already too many characters in the film Batman, Robin, Alfred, Gordon, Bane, Freeze, Ivy see too many. I say they should NOT use Bane and Batgirl.

Bane and Batgirl where small roles, anyway. Though the film managed to balance out all these characters.

8. Again Elfman & Zimmer tweaked their scores so that it's not the same from last films otherwise it just shows laziness

So did Goldenthal. There were new themes for Ivy and Freeze. Other new tracks as well. I particularly like this one:

[YT]vyZutiUrTc4[/YT]

10.Personally, I didn't like it it's not something I would use in a Batman film. Animated series & Burton's Gothic style what I prefer.

A little variety doesn't hurt.

If Clooney was trying to play it that way, or any credible way like that, he would have said so in his defense. But all he says was he played the character gay, and he destroyed it.

I understand that George Clooney is a famous actor but that doesn't mean that every single thing he says is gospel.

You're backtracking now. You were saying people are wrong for seeing it as a bad movie because you never heard a good objective reason for it. Your words.

Then you turn around and say it's a genius movie just because it's camp and has good comic book action. You're either living in severe denial over this, or you're trolling by trying to be as controversial as possible with people over this.

My exact words were:

"I have never heard of one good objective reason for why people don't like it. If that's your personal taste, fine, but that hardly justifies calling it 'one of the worst movies of all time'. "

Which means, if you don't like B&R, that's fine. It's your opinion. But saying it is 'one of the worst movies of all time' is making a statement. Two entirely different things.

This is the third time you've accused me of trolling. I will again request that you please stop making false accusations against me. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost#Effect_on_plants

Plants on the whole are either severely damaged or killed by severe freezing.

Plants cannot grow and thrive on dead frozen earth. But that was Ivy's brilliant plan. Mother Nature can start again on a dead frozen planet lol.

The sun would melt the ice. That's why Batman directed sunlight from the other side of the world to un-freeze Gotham.

Idle speculation. You're going into fan fic territory. She referred to him as a god, which implies she respects him. She killed his wife because she saw her as competition, implying she wanted to be the only woman in Freeze's life.

There was no implication on her behalf that she intended to kill him, and even seemed to love his idea of 'Adam and Evil'

I know, I admitted I was just speculating. I'm just going by her actions, not her words. She appeared to be just using Freeze as a pawn, like she was using Bane.

As for Freeze and "Adam and Evil", this was just after he learned his wife was 'dead', and he wanted to take revenge against the world, so I don't take his statement very seriously.

It has nothing to do with camp. The cast of the 60's show were doing their acting in campy style but the difference is they were doing it well. They were giving great performances in a campy style and tone.

So, you think that the Batman 1960s show achieved the camp style yet Batman and Robin didn't? Is that what you are saying?

Real pros putting effort into their characters to make them the best they could be. Look at Burgess Meredith for example. He wasn't a smoker, but had to smoke constantly as the Penguin, and the smoke would irritate his throat. Rather than let that spoil his performance he turned it into one of the most iconic traits of the Penguin; a bird like sqwaking laugh. They were actors who played their characters well.

I have nothing but respect for Burgess Meredith.

The actors of Batman and Robin played their characters as bad cartoonish caricatures. They were flaccid, one note, performances except for Michael Gough. The only actor to do some real acting in the movie.

Nothing wrong with 'cartoonish'. Otherwise there would be no value to such classic characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, etc..

Yes they do. Batman and Robin doesn't meet the standards of most. Hence why it's so frequently seen as a bad movie. Because it is.

'Many', you mean.

And I'm glad they chose you as their spokesperson.

 

[The Joker]

I understand that George Clooney is a famous actor but that doesn't mean that every single thing he says is gospel.

It is when it comes to his own performance. More so than anyone else. Who else but the actor playing the role would know better about what he was trying to do with it.

My exact words were:

"I have never heard of one good objective reason for why people don't like it. If that's your personal taste, fine, but that hardly justifies calling it 'one of the worst movies of all time'. "

Which means, if you don't like B&R, that's fine. It's your opinion. But saying it is 'one of the worst movies of all time' is making a statement. Two entirely different things.

No, saying you never heard any good objective reasons means any valid reasons why people don't like it, and think it's one of the worst movies of all time, which means you're saying that their reasons for calling it bad are invalid. Don't try and side step what you're saying.

This is the third time you've accused me of trolling. I will again request that you please stop making false accusations against me. Thank you.

When someone calls millions of other people's opinions invalid because you don't see them as good objective reasons about one of the most unpopular movies of all time, that's either severe denial or trolling. You can disagree with an opinion, but don't call them invalid. That's the same as saying they're wrong.

The sun would melt the ice. That's why Batman directed sunlight from the other side of the world to un-freeze Gotham.

Before the severe damage was done. Meaning before the freezing was left long enough to kill everything. What was the deadline they said, eleven minutes or something.

It's the same principle in real life. Freezing someone doesn't instantly kill them. If they're thawed out in time they can survive.

I know, I admitted I was just speculating. I'm just going by her actions, not her words. She appeared to be just using Freeze as a pawn, like she was using Bane.

Bane was a henchman who followed orders. Freeze she treated like a partner, whom she manipulated.

As for Freeze and "Adam and Evil", this was just after he learned his wife was 'dead', and he wanted to take revenge against the world, so I don't take his statement very seriously.

Why don't you take it seriously? They were going to kill the world by freezing it, then Ivy proposed that once that happens they will be left alive and rule it with her plants. Freeze was all for the idea.

So what reason did you have to not think he was serious about it? Just because he made a cheesy one liner? The whole character's basis was cheesy lines.

So, you think that the Batman 1960s show achieved the camp style yet Batman and Robin didn't? Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying the 60's show achieved a camp style that was done in an excellent classy way that was handled to bring out great performances and stories. The actors understood the tone and style they were doing and used that to make their characters the best they could be.

I have nothing but respect for Burgess Meredith.

Likewise.

Nothing wrong with 'cartoonish'. Otherwise there would be no value to such classic characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, etc..

They're cartoon characters in kids cartoons. Naturally they'll be cartoonish because that's where it works.

That doesn't mean Batman villains should be the equivalent to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.

'Many', you mean.

No I mean most. It's by far the majority that dislike Batman and Robin.

And I'm glad they chose you as their spokesperson.

They don't need me for that. That would be like appointing a spokesperson to say the earth is round.

 

[Two-Face]

When Freeze freezes stuff in beginning of the film my eyes start to hurt too many colours around I'm not joking. B&R is a bad film end of the day if I had only two Batman films to watch and no Burton or Nolan films existed I rather watch Batman Forever. BF is decent compared to B&R.

 

[C. Lee]

Yet you keep crowing that it's wrong for anyone to see this as a bad movie.

Just as many others can't seem to get past that some may have found it a fun movie.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[-Arya-]

B&R is absolutely terrible, but I still found it to be hilarious in certain parts. You know just to have playing in the background during a party or something. But I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can actually defend B&R as anything other than that.

 

[The Joker]

Just as many others can't seem to get past that some may have found it a fun movie.

I never refuted anyone could or did see it that way. Nobody here has. He can see it as the greatest movie of all time if he wants.

Different strokes for different folks.

Exactly.

 

[Hordakfan]

To quote Randall on the Clerks cartoon episode where he is in court with many famous directors who made clunkers including Joel in a batsuit with nipples on meaning it's Schumacher and Randall wanted his 8 bucks back saying "Man Batman and Robin was soooo gay", LOL.

Anyone glad Nolan rebooted the series?

 

[Team Andino]

While I haven't watched B&R in years I imagine I could at least enjoy it for the sake of laughing at how over the top it is now that the Nolan trilogy redeemed the character on the big screen. If we had never gotten those Nolan films then I imagine I'd still be bitter and just frustrated trying to sit through it.

 

[CountOrlok]

It is when it comes to his own performance. More so than anyone else. Who else but the actor playing the role would know better about what he was trying to do with it.

I can understand him critiquing his own performance, many actors/actresses do it. I was referring to his other comments like "..I so terribly destroyed the part" (http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/27/georg...-i-cant-comment-i-destroyed-the-role-4123713/) or that it 'ruined the franchise'.. well, that's obviously untrue because they are still making hugely successful Batman movies and two more actors have stepped into the role after him.

No, saying you never heard any good objective reasons means any valid reasons why people don't like it, and think it's one of the worst movies of all time, which means you're saying that their reasons for calling it bad are invalid. Don't try and side step what you're saying.

When someone calls millions of other people's opinions invalid because you don't see them as good objective reasons about one of the most unpopular movies of all time, that's either severe denial or trolling. You can disagree with an opinion, but don't call them invalid. That's the same as saying they're wrong.

Not at all. When did I say that? I've always said that people are entitled to their opinions.

It's only when people start passing off their opinions as cold hard facts, that I have a problem with.

Before the severe damage was done. Meaning before the freezing was left long enough to kill everything. What was the deadline they said, eleven minutes or something.

It's the same principle in real life. Freezing someone doesn't instantly kill them. If they're thawed out in time they can survive.

Yeah, 11 minutes to save the people from death. Just like Freeze said when he blasted Robin with his freezing ray "You have 11 minutes to thaw the bird".

Bane was a henchman who followed orders. Freeze she treated like a partner, whom she manipulated.

That's because her pheromones didn't work on Freeze, so she had to rely on other methods.

Why don't you take it seriously? They were going to kill the world by freezing it, then Ivy proposed that once that happens they will be left alive and rule it with her plants. Freeze was all for the idea.

So what reason did you have to not think he was serious about it? Just because he made a cheesy one liner? The whole character's basis was cheesy lines.

Of course Freeze was for the idea. He had just learned his wife was 'dead'. His whole world was destroyed in an instant. Ivy offered the solution. It wasn't like some grand romantic gesture on Freeze's part lol.

No, I'm saying the 60's show achieved a camp style that was done in an excellent classy way that was handled to bring out great performances and stories. The actors understood the tone and style they were doing and used that to make their characters the best they could be.

So you don't think that the actors in Batman and Robin, who were mostly very intelligent and experienced actors, knew exactly what they were doing and trying to achieve? The same with Joel Schumacher, who is a seasoned director, responsible for many highly successful and critically acclaimed movies in his career? You don't think that they understood 100% what they were doing?

They're cartoon characters in kids cartoons. Naturally they'll be cartoonish because that's where it works.

That doesn't mean Batman villains should be the equivalent to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.

The Batman comics of the 1950s and 1960s had cartoonish aspects to them which Batman and Robin was emulating. So it isn't out of place at all.

No I mean most. It's by far the majority that dislike Batman and Robin.

If you mean based on the sample size from stats compiled by sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, yes, no arguing there.

They don't need me for that. That would be like appointing a spokesperson to say the earth is round.

Well everybody has a different opinion. Even if they don't like it, they may have different reasons for not liking it than you do.

Just as many others can't seem to get past that some may have found it a fun movie.

Different strokes for different folks.

Exactly.

B&R is absolutely terrible, but I still found it to be hilarious in certain parts. You know just to have playing in the background during a party or something. But I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can actually defend B&R as anything other than that.

Well if you found it hilarious than the film worked for you as a comedy, so it is successful in that sense. The purpose of a comedy is to make people laugh.

 

[The Joker]

B&R is absolutely terrible, but I still found it to be hilarious in certain parts. You know just to have playing in the background during a party or something. But I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can actually defend B&R as anything other than that.

Likewise.

But to each their own. I don't pretend to always understand the rationale behind some people's opinions.

I can understand him critiquing his own performance, many actors/actresses do it. I was referring to his other comments like "..I so terribly destroyed the part" (http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/27/georg...-i-cant-comment-i-destroyed-the-role-4123713/) or that it 'ruined the franchise'.. well, that's obviously untrue because they are still making hugely successful Batman movies and two more actors have stepped into the role after him.

He is obviously referring to the infamous 1997 to 2005 period where the franchise was dead and had to be rebooted because of Batman and Robin.

Not at all. When did I say that? I've always said that people are entitled to their opinions.

I'm not talking about you saying people are entitled to their opinions, it's you saying that they're invalid.

It's only when people start passing off their opinions as cold hard facts, that I have a problem with.

What like you saying B&R is genius?

Yeah, 11 minutes to save the people from death. Just like Freeze said when he blasted Robin with his freezing ray "You have 11 minutes to thaw the bird".

Right, so the sun melting them hours later wouldn't matter a jot because by then everything would be dead. Frozen to death. That's why Batman had to get the sun from the other side of the world reflected into Gotham using the satellites before the 11 minute deadline.

So what point were you trying to make there? People were obviously the first priority to save. "People come first, Dr. Isely".

That's because her pheromones didn't work on Freeze, so she had to rely on other methods.

She didn't have to use any methods at all. For example she never even knew he had a wife until Freeze told her right before they escaped from Arkham.

She had a respect for Freeze. She called him a God. She got rid of the wife because she was competition to her.

Of course Freeze was for the idea. He had just learned his wife was 'dead'. His whole world was destroyed in an instant. Ivy offered the solution. It wasn't like some grand romantic gesture on Freeze's part lol.

I never said it was a romantic gesture. You said you didn't take his statement seriously. He was deadly serious. It was an analogy to them being the only two people left alive on earth, a man and a woman, like Adam and Eve. He didn't attach any romantic connotations to it.

So you don't think that the actors in Batman and Robin, who were mostly very intelligent and experienced actors, knew exactly what they were doing and trying to achieve? The same with Joel Schumacher, who is a seasoned director, responsible for many highly successful and critically acclaimed movies in his career? You don't think that they understood 100% what they were doing?

Oh no they knew what they were trying to achieve, they just did it with less love, care, and effort. They were just phoning in one note cheesy half baked performances for a movie who's main goal was to sell toys.

The Batman comics of the 1950s and 1960s had cartoonish aspects to them which Batman and Robin was emulating. So it isn't out of place at all.

Yes it was. It wasn't trying to emulate the 60's comics, or the 60's show. It wasn't trying to be a representation of that era of Batman. Schumacher himself said so. He addressed it specifically about people accusing him of trying to copy the campy 60's show, which is based off those comics, and he said it was never their intention. Not his or Akvia's.

That's why there's a tonal clash in the movie with the more somber serious scenes with the Alfred dying sub plot. You didn't get that kind of thing in the 50's/60's comics or show.

If you mean based on the sample size from stats compiled by sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, yes, no arguing there.

I mean based on any stats, not just those. The haters are always the majority.

Well everybody has a different opinion. Even if they don't like it, they may have different reasons for not liking it than you do

Possibly yes, but the end result is still the same, regardless of the various reasons. They don't like it.

 

[CountOrlok]

He is obviously referring to the infamous 1997 to 2005 period where the franchise was dead and had to be rebooted because of Batman and Robin.

It wasn't dead between 1997 - 2005, as they were trying to get various projects off the ground - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_in_film#Other_proposals

I'm not talking about you saying people are entitled to their opinions, it's you saying that they're invalid.

Where did I say that?

What like you saying B&R is genius?

IMO.

Right, so the sun melting them hours later wouldn't matter a jot because by then everything would be dead. Frozen to death. That's why Batman had to get the sun from the other side of the world reflected into Gotham using the satellites before the 11 minute deadline.

So what point were you trying to make there? People were obviously the first priority to save. "People come first, Dr. Isely".

11 minutes to save the people. People. Not plants.

She didn't have to use any methods at all. For example she never even knew he had a wife until Freeze told her right before they escaped from Arkham.

She had a respect for Freeze. She called him a God. She got rid of the wife because she was competition to her.

Because with Freeze having a wife, it would make it much harder for Ivy to sexually manipulate Freeze, as Freeze says himself: "My passion thaws for my bride alone." This infuriated Ivy, as her main power besides her plants and poison is her ability to seduce others.

I never said it was a romantic gesture. You said you didn't take his statement seriously. He was deadly serious. It was an analogy to them being the only two people left alive on earth, a man and a woman, like Adam and Eve. He didn't attach any romantic connotations to it.

Ok, even if he was serious, you still have to take into context with everything else in that scene.

Oh no they knew what they were trying to achieve, they just did it with less love, care, and effort. They were just phoning in one note cheesy half baked performances for a movie who's main goal was to sell toys.

Why would they hire an award-winning (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001708/awards?ref_=nm_ql_2) director like Joel Schumacher plus several high-calibre actors just to make a toy commercial? Doesn't make sense to me.

Yes it was. It wasn't trying to emulate the 60's comics, or the 60's show. It wasn't trying to be a representation of that era of Batman. Schumacher himself said so. He addressed it specifically about people accusing him of trying to copy the campy 60's show, which is based off those comics, and he said it was never their intention. Not his or Akvia's.

Can you post the exact quote?

That's why there's a tonal clash in the movie with the more somber serious scenes with the Alfred dying sub plot. You didn't get that kind of thing in the 50's/60's comics or show.

Well you could argue the same thing with Batman Forever.

I mean based on any stats, not just those. The haters are always the majority.

Well 'hate' is a strong word. The majority of voters on IMDB gave it less than 5 out of a score of 10.

Possibly yes, but the end result is still the same, regardless of the various reasons. They don't like it.

Not exactly. They might like some things about it.

 

[The Joker]

It wasn't dead between 1997 - 2005, as they were trying to get various projects off the ground - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_in_film#Other_proposals

That's a dead franchise when they couldn't get another movie off the ground for years, so they rebooted it.

Where did I say that?

"I have never heard of one good objective reason for why people don't like it."

IMO.

You didn't state it as an opinion, you stated it in a factual way. The same way you're complaining about other people using.

11 minutes to save the people. People. Not plants.

Don't be so pedantic. They didn't say 11 minutes to save dogs either but you see a dog being saved when they were thawing out the city.

Because with Freeze having a wife, it would make it much harder for Ivy to sexually manipulate Freeze, as Freeze says himself: "My passion thaws for my bride alone." This infuriated Ivy, as her main power besides her plants and poison is her ability to seduce others.

Not once did you see Ivy infuriated by her lack of ability to sexually manipulate Freeze. On the contrary she was impressed with him, hence why she called him a God.

Freeze's wife could never have figured into the equation because Ivy didn't even know she existed until she was busting Freeze out of Arkham.

Ok, even if he was serious, you still have to take into context with everything else in that scene.

I do. And he was deadly serious about freezing the world and leaving him and Ivy the only two alive to rule it.

Why would they hire an award-winning (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001708/awards?ref_=nm_ql_2) director like Joel Schumacher plus several high-calibre actors just to make a toy commercial? Doesn't make sense to me.

Simple. He made a financial success out of Batman Forever (bigger than Batman Returns) with the lighter approach, and casting notable names is always a sure way to attract audiences, so they wanted him to do it again for Batman and Robin. He didn't want to keep doing the campy lighter approach, but he was under studio constraints to make a toy selling money maker;

"I think I'm the most envious of Chris Nolan because he got to do The Dark Knight—and that's the one I begged to do as my second Batman film," he said. "I wanted to do a whole other thing, because we had kind of re-invented the franchise with Val as Batman and it was a very young, sexy, and much less expensive movie. We brought in Robin and I wanted to make The Dark Knight desperately, but the studio didn't want that and it's their money and they're my bosses."

https://www.blastr.com/2011/10/joel_schumacher_defends_v.php

Critically Forever was a failure compared to Burton's, but WB didn't care about that. All they care about is making money.

Can you post the exact quote?

"It's funny because a lot of people thought we were trying to homage the campy style of the 1960's Adam West show with this movie, but the truth is we never were. There was no conversation between myself and Akvia to do that. We were just trying to make it more light hearted. Though I can understand why people thought we might have been".

Well you could argue the same thing with Batman Forever.

To a much lesser extent. There was more of a balance in Forever with Bruce's nightmares storyline, and Dick's family loss and revenge storyline.

Well 'hate' is a strong word. The majority of voters on IMDB gave it less than 5 out of a score of 10.

Dislike/hate, you're being pedantic again. The majority of people don't like the movie. It's why it's average total is a pathetic 3.6/10

Not exactly. They might like some things about.

Even if that idle speculation was true, how does that equate to them not disliking the movie?

Wouldn't make a jot of difference. For example a lot of people like Henry Cavill as Superman but still disliked or hated Man Of Steel. Or Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey, but still hate The Amazing Spider-Man movies.

I like Michael Gough as Alfred, and some of the action scenes in Batman and Robin but I still hate the movie overall and think it's truly terrible.

Liking a few elements in a bad movie doesn't mean people don't still dislike it.

 

[Raelis Shae]

I unfortunately paid to see this movie. I did not like George Clooney for Bruce Wayne, did not like Alicia Silverstone for Batgirl, and was kind of 'meh' on Chris O'Donnell. My thinking was, it's Batman; it's not gonna be that bad.

When Poison Ivy appeared out of that furry disguise, I knew it was time to leave the theatre.

I'm sure some people find the film entertaining. I myself was laughing at all the bad/cheesy parts...but there was just so much awfulness that a Batman fan could endure. So I left and have never watched it again.

Is it a terrible film? Yes, even for a comicbook/superhero film. Is it one of the worst of all time? Maybe, but I'm sure if young children watch it they would find it enjoyable or at least hold their interest. But for older members of the audience, given what they had seen before, it was just awful in comparison.

 

[CountOrlok]

That's a dead franchise when they couldn't get another movie off the ground for years, so they rebooted it.

It wasn't 'dead' (now I'm tempted to put a Monty Python joke here).. it was just in development hell. 'Dead' would be totally done and dusted, to never be touched again.

"I have never heard of one good objective reason for why people don't like it."

Ok,,but that's different than saying: "..that they're invalid." (your quote)

You didn't state it as an opinion, you stated it in a factual way. The same way you're complaining about other people using.

I just admitted I meant it as an opinion.

Now, on the other hand, can you admit that your statement about Batman and Robin being 'one of the worst movies ever made' is just your opinion?

Don't be so pedantic. They didn't say 11 minutes to save dogs either but you see a dog being saved when they were thawing out the city.

Dogs are mammals like humans. Plants aren't even animals, so...

Not once did you see Ivy infuriated by her lack of ability to sexually manipulate Freeze. On the contrary she was impressed with him, hence why she called him a God.

"You never said you had a wife!" - Ivy was clearly pissed.

Freeze's wife could never have figured into the equation because Ivy didn't even know she existed until she was busting Freeze out of Arkham.

Precisely. Why would she go to all that trouble to break Freeze out of Arkham? Ivy doesn't care about people, only plants. She needed Freeze to execute her plans, which she earlier presented to Bruce Wayne as Pamela Isley, but were rejected. This is just like you saying Joker in '89 was in love with Vicki Vale, even though he tried to kill her lol.

I do. And he was deadly serious about freezing the world and leaving him and Ivy the only two alive to rule it.

Ok, but even so, only because he had just learned that his wife was supposedly dead.

Simple. He made a financial success out of Batman Forever (bigger than Batman Returns) with the lighter approach, and casting notable names is always a sure way to attract audiences, so they wanted him to do it again for Batman and Robin. He didn't want to keep doing the campy lighter approach, but he was under studio constraints to make a toy selling money maker;

Of course, there are studio constraints to all big budget hollywood films. It's not really about the constraints, but how the director is able to work within those constraints to deliver his/her cinematic vision.

https://www.blastr.com/2011/10/joel_schumacher_defends_v.php

That's pretty interesting. Would have liked to see WB greenlight that movie, since I know Schumacher can go gritty and dark.

Critically Forever was a failure compared to Burton's, but WB didn't care about that. All they care about is making money.

And that's all they ever care about.

"It's funny because a lot of people thought we were trying to homage the campy style of the 1960's Adam West show with this movie, but the truth is we never were. There was no conversation between myself and Akvia to do that. We were just trying to make it more light hearted. Though I can understand why people thought we might have been".

That's interesting, though the quote might be taken out of context. I'll have to listen to the commentary myself.

Even if that idle speculation was true, how does that equate to them not disliking the movie?

Wouldn't make a jot of difference. For example a lot of people like Henry Cavill as Superman but still disliked or hated Man Of Steel. Or Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey, but still hate The Amazing Spider-Man movies.

I like Michael Gough as Alfred, and some of the action scenes in Batman and Robin but I still hate the movie overall and think it's truly terrible.

Liking a few elements in a bad movie doesn't mean people don't still dislike it.

Ok, but that's different than saying "I hate everything about this movie".

 

[The Joker]

It wasn't 'dead' (now I'm tempted to put a Monty Python joke here).. it was just in development hell. 'Dead' would be totally done and dusted, to never be touched again.

Yes, it was dead. Failed attempts at reviving it doesn't mean it was still going.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/30-franchise-killing-movies/batman-robin-1997

But you're side stepping the point. This is what Clooney meant when he said he destroyed Batman. Batman and Robin put the franchise out of action for 8 years. Whether you agree with him that he destroyed it or not is irrelevant. That's what he meant.

Ok,,but that's different than saying: "..that they're invalid." (your quote)

No, it's not. It's the same thing just worded differently. You're saying you have not heard one valid reason why anyone thinks it's a bad movie. That means you're saying all the opinions you've heard from everyone on this are invalid.

I just admitted I meant it as an opinion.

Yeah after you were challenged over it when you accused others of speaking in a factual manner.

Now, on the other hand, can you admit that your statement about Batman and Robin being 'one of the worst movies ever made' is just your opinion?

Of course I can. The majority opinion, too. But still an opinion. And a valid one.

Dogs are mammals like humans. Plants aren't even animals, so...

You're having a laugh right? Just because dogs are mammals doesn't make them people. Or maybe you consider the likes of goats and squirrels people, too.

"You never said you had a wife!" - Ivy was clearly pissed.

Yeah because she never knew she existed til then, and saw her as competition.

Precisely. Why would she go to all that trouble to break Freeze out of Arkham? Ivy doesn't care about people, only plants. She needed Freeze to execute her plans, which she earlier presented to Bruce Wayne as Pamela Isley, but were rejected.

I know that. I never said otherwise. She obviously only wanted to team with Freeze because she wanted something from him. Even Freeze knew that. "An enticing offer, but what does the lady want in return?". He wasn't idiotic enough to think she was just helping him escape out of the kindness of her heart.

What's your point?

This is just like you saying Joker in '89 was in love with Vicki Vale, even though he tried to kill her lol.

Three things;

1. I never said he was in love with her. I said he fancied her.
2. Trying to kill her doesn't negate the fact that he still fancied her. Psychos often try and kill women they fancy and are infatuated with.
3. How is that argument similar to this?

Ok, but even so, only because he had just learned that his wife was supposedly dead.

Yeah so?

Of course, there are studio constraints to all big budget hollywood films. It's not really about the constraints, but how the director is able to work within those constraints to deliver his/her cinematic vision.

And Schumacher couldn't work at all to making the movie he wanted to make. His words right there. He wanted to make his own 'Dark Knight' but WB didn't want that, and it was their money and they were his bosses so he had to do what he was told.

That's pretty interesting. Would have liked to see WB greenlight that movie, since I know Schumacher can go gritty and dark.

I agree. If Schumacher had been left to his own devices he could have made an excellent Batman movie. You can see the glimpses of his potential in Batman Forever with the Bruce and Dick storylines.

And that's all they ever care about.

Right, so you have no reason to be wondering why they brought in Schumacher and notable actors to help them make the big bucks.

That's interesting, though the quote might be taken out of context. I'll have to listen to the commentary myself.

It wasn't taken out of context. It was very specific and to the point. He flat out addressed the issue of people thinking this movie was trying to emulate/homage the 60's show, and it wasn't. Never crossed his mind, or Akvia Goldsmith's he said.

Ok, but that's different than saying "I hate everything about this movie".

Nobody said that (well obviously there are people who hate just about everything in the movie). But the point is you don't have to spell out that you dislike everything in a movie to specify that you dislike or hate it overall. Even someone as pedantic as you are about insignificant details should know that. You citing that they may possibly like some elements in it doesn't change their attitude towards the movie as a whole.

 

[C. Lee]

The movie was funny.

The movie was the most unfunny movie ever in the history of movies.

I liked the movie.

Everyone in the world hates the movie.

It reminded me of the comics and TV show I saw as a kid.

The makers were idiots who never saw a Batman comic in their life.

I had fun.

No you didn't.

I liked it.

No you didn't.

...........................

 

[Lantern Venom]

There were so many things wrong with this movie, it's difficult to keep them all straight. However, it all comes back to tone. I can accept some comic book heroes in funny/light-hearted movies, but Batman is certainly not on that list. I remember groaning in the theater when the ice skates came out, and it was all downhill from there.

 

[Webhead38]

I saw it in the theaters and was disappointed by it's uninspired script. I had a reasonable expectation on the treatment after seeing Forever in theaters two years earlier, but didn't expect the story to leave the tracks of reason quite like this did. But in saying that, my kids liked it and watched it repeatedly once it came out on VHS and DVD. Now my grandson watches it nonstop. So I've made peace with my issues in the film and understand it has a loyal following that grows as each new generation is exposed to it. That fact can't be ignored.

I accept it for what it is (and what it isn't). I have no animosity towards it and pretty much understand that despite it's lazy script, visually it remains a great looking film. So it speaks to generations of fans and remains a memorable (if not infamous) installment in the series. Funny how these kinds of movies endure? Between Dark Knight Rises and Batman & Robin, how many lines of dialogue can you quote from each movie? There you go. Bad movies tend to be forgotten. I consider this film to be either wholeheartedly loved or just misunderstood for it's intent. But hating it seems to be a waste of energy. It will be selling new copies long after we're gone.

 

[Nardz937]

I had my mom pay. And I was 3 years-old and loved the movie. Even memorized entire scenes from the movie and had posters from it all over my bedroom walls.

Embarrassing.

 

[Kane52630]

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?

 

[Majik1387]

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?

This.