Why all the bad feelings towards Schumacher?

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

No, this is not a troll post. I would like to have a civilized conversation regarding Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let’s start off with the first things that come to mind when people bash these films.

1. Nipples on the Batsuit.
If this really bothered people, they need to get out more often. Sure it’s homoerotic to have nipples on the Batman and Robin suits, but then again hasn’t the relationship between the two caped crusaders always been a little awkward? Even so, being a gay man himself, Schumacher brought Batman into the 90’s.
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Batbed.png

2. Too far removed from the comics.
Liberties were taken for Batman and Batman Returns, and both were excellent films. Just because it doesn’t follow the comics to the dot, doesn’t make it unwatchable. Nolan failed to be true to all of the villain’s origins in Begins and TDK, who cares if Batgirl isn’t Commissioner Gordon’s daughter. Anyway it worked for the story and everyone during 1997 thought Alicia Silverstone was hot. Movies and comics are two different things; there are aspects that work and some that don’t in both mediums.

3. They were movies made to sell action-figures.
Yeah, so what? Everyone loves Batman merchandise no matter how ridiculous. When a Bat film comes out it should be a marketing *beep* storm, I want to see Batman pajamas, Batman shower radios, and Batman ice cream. A film has to turn a profit somehow.

4. Batman should be dark.
No. Batman is a character in constant change and needs to be adapted for its target audience. I loved the Schumacher movies for the same reason I loved the Adam West show, entertainment. It’s all subjective to which interpretation you like more, but personally I like them all.


I’m tired and worn-out with the constant bashing of these films. I consider Batman Forever to be one of my favorite films, ok maybe just a good one. The Riddler and Two-face rocked the cinema in 1995, and Arnold kicked some serious ice in 1997. The films were made for a different audience, the majority of the audience at the time. If you can’t take these films in for pure entertainment, then I’ll be laughing on the day when Christian Bale is fighting neon goons in an alley.
Nuff' said.

 

[the_scream]

Well, if you prefer the camp version of Batman, with neon lights, and nipple suits, then that's fine.

Myself, I prefer to watch films that have something more meaningful to them. The Nolan films are fun. They're just fun in a different way. I find the Schumacher films were embarrassingly bad.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

I like both versions of the character. Why are people so against the Schumacher films? Batman Forever was awesome! The beginning sequence is classic, "Oh no not boiling acid!" And the helicopter crashing into the Statue of Liberty is pretty sweet. Fans should learn to appreciate more than just the "dark" versions of Batman. Even IMO Batman Forever was pretty dark. I like the Adam West show, Burton films, Schumacher films, and the Nolan films. People shouldn’t be so picky.

 

[Adam West]

1. Schumacher didn't bring Batman into the nineties, he returned him to the sixties. The nipples are just one little flaw in a movie filled with them. Schumacher may be gay, but that doesn't mean he needs to make every character in the movie gay as well. Two-face and Riddler were obviously portrayed this way, and the naked men statues found all over the city were in your face homoeroticism.

2. Yes, but Nolan made films with a solid story structure and developed characters. Two-face and Riddler in Batman Forever and Mr. Freeze in Batman and Robin were merely copycats of the Joker from Burtons original. The only difference were in their gimmicks. And I disagree about Batgirl, not everyone thought Alicia Silverstone was hot which isn't even the point.

3. Yes, but a filmmakers job isn't to sell toys, it is to deliver compelling films. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin share the exact same plot points. Not very compelling watching the same movie twice with slightly altered situations.

4. The Batman in the Schumacher versions is more of a spoof on Batman which is why fans dislike it. And yes, Batman has always been intended to be dark. He was originally introduced as a dark character and for only two out of seven decades has been portrayed as anything else.
Nuff' said.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

1. How were Two-face and the Riddler portrayed as being gay? Two-face lived in a split condo with two female prostitutes. I can see the comparison if you were referring to the ugliness of Drew Barrymore. And hey, I expect a Batman movie with Robin in it to be about in your face homoeroticism. Hell, if you really wanted to you could pin that stereotype on almost ALL superheroes.

2. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but super villians for the most part have been about gimmicks. The Riddler leaves riddles, two-face robs banks on the second of February at 2:22, and Mr. Freeze freezes stuff. If the villains didn’t have gimmicks than Batman wouldn’t be able to defeat them as easily.

3. Oh come on. You loved the fact that there wasn’t just one new suit in Forever, but TWO! It’s only fair that they market a children’s movie, for uh children.

4. Batman has gone through tons of changes to keep up with the times. You should know that better than anyone else, Adam West.

I’m not saying you should LOVE these films, all I’m saying is that Bat fans need to admit that these films are fun and entertaining. In the end, isn’t that the reason why we go to the movies?

 

[the_scream]

1. How were Two-face and the Riddler portrayed as being gay? Two-face lived in a split condo with two female prostitutes. I can see the comparison if you were referring to the ugliness of Drew Barrymore. And hey, I expect a Batman movie with Robin in it to be about in your face homoeroticism. Hell, if you really wanted to you could pin that stereotype on almost ALL superheroes.

2. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but super villians for the most part have been about gimmicks. The Riddler leaves riddles, two-face robs banks on the second of February at 2:22, and Mr. Freeze freezes stuff. If the villains didn’t have gimmicks than Batman wouldn’t be able to defeat them as easily.

3. Oh come on. You loved the fact that there wasn’t just one new suit in Forever, but TWO! It’s only fair that they market a children’s movie, for uh children.

4. Batman has gone through tons of changes to keep up with the times. You should know that better than anyone else, Adam West.

I’m not saying you should LOVE these films, all I’m saying is that Bat fans need to admit that these films are fun and entertaining. In the end, isn’t that the reason why we go to the movies?

I get the feeling you are playing devil's advocate. I fell for it.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

No, not really. I loved these films when they first came out. In fact when Forever was in theaters I didn’t know anyone who disliked it. Val Kilmer, Nicole Kidman, Seal, all at the top of their game. Batman and Robin was cheesy, but come on man, it’s a kids movie. And for a kid’s movie, I thought Arnold was pretty cool (pun intended). Only looking back do people start to criticize these films. They might not be compelling crime dramas, but the Schumacher films are great popcorn movies.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If ever there was a thread doomed from the very beginning....

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

No, this is a legitimate problem. Schumacher made two extremely entertaining films. If we as fans of Batman can’t accept even this, then we can’t accept the entire whole of the character. Any film is worth watching, ANY FILM. If anything, maybe these films turned some kids into fans, just like us. And possibly, they even went to a comic store and started to explore that character even more. The movies aren’t the definitive portrayal of the character, that’s why we have comics. I like the Schumacher films because of this, and so should you.

 

[Mandalore464]

I don't really think that everybody bashes Schumacher. I think most people just bash Batman & Robin.

I like Forever, have always liked it, will always like it. But I do think that B&R was pure crap coming out of a monkey's arse.

I also agree with some points you made, and some points your opponents made.

I think you cannot defend the argument that the villains from these two movies (Two-Face, Riddler, Freeze) were just silly. And the guy your replied to hasn't said that their gimmicks were BS, so your reply does not make sense. He said they were rip-offs of the Joker, only with different gimmicks. The bad thing about it is not their gimmicks, of course they should have one. What he criticized was that they were portrayed in a silly way, which is an argument that works.

I personally cannot stand Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, or Bane in B&R. They were both outrageously painful to watch. I can live with comical Mr. Freeze (After all as you said, it doesn't have to be faithful to the comics in every way if it's still entertaining to watch).

The nipples on the Batsuit... Seriously, do you really want to defend those?

When I'm going to see a Batman movie, I want to see something new, a different take than the comics, a director's vision of the myth. But I won't like it just because it's different. I think in Forever, Schumacher made something flashy and silly, but still entertaining to watch. B&R however, was horrible to watch. The only redeeming feature in it is Nightwing's suit. Even though it has nipples on it.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

This should make you feel better (pandering to the Nolan fans), if the Schumacher films had never come out, then there would be no Begins or TDK. B&R was a very different take on the character, but you know what? Do you criticize the Power Rangers? No. This is what Batman had to compete with at the time. It is what it is and I’m not going to nit-pick it to death. Any version of Batman is good enough for me because it introduces a person to the vast universe of interpretations of the character. If its one more Bat fan, I’m all for it.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

No, this is a legitimate problem. Schumacher made two extremely entertaining films. If we as fans of Batman can’t accept even this, then we can’t accept the entire whole of the character. Any film is worth watching, ANY FILM. If anything, maybe these films turned some kids into fans, just like us. And possibly, they even went to a comic store and started to explore that character even more. The movies aren’t the definitive portrayal of the character, that’s why we have comics. I like the Schumacher films because of this, and so should you.

So, just to clarify; you are coming onto these boards and, without even highlighting the good elements of the Schmacher films (i.e. cinmatogtaphy, production design), you are not just suggesting people like them, you are aggressively telling us we have to-?!

Really--?

It shouldn't matter to you if other people liek them or not. By all means point out what elements of these films deserve more recognition, but saying that every Batman fan shoud like them by default is a bit silly.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Fair enough. Ok, story. The whole plot with Michael Gough dying and the only man who can save him is a super villain was pretty compelling. Again, being an Alicia Silverstone fanatic, having her in the movie was great (for a kid going through puberty and all). Cinematography and style were almost identical to Forever. Elaborate set pieces, lighting, color filter. Again, this film was made for kids who enjoyed watching the Power Rangers and yeah, it shows. The one thing that stands out for me the most was the marketing. I loved it all! Mr. Freeze pops, the toys, it all brought me immense happiness at the time. I thought that John Glover was great as Dr. Woodrue, “Time to Scream!” I guess for me the film is more of a nostalgia trip that had to do with the ecstasy of 90’s hyperrealism.

 

[the_scream]

So they're just made for kids? You referred to this point:

Two-face lived in a split condo with two female prostitutes.

Kid's movie? Or a film for young adults like all the Batman films?

But I don't really get your argument. You seem to be saying that all the things people didn't like about Forever and B & R were actually good. Therefore, we should like them? That's a bit like saying "Na-a, 'fraid not".

These films are only good to laugh at not with. Like Superman 3 and 4, they represented the worst detour for comic book fans. B & R in particular is an incoherent re-tread of Batman Forever with a bloated budget, bloated performances, production design, and absolutely no substance.

When there are the obligatory "serious" scenes with Alfred, this just makes you hate the film more for trying to make us care after we have just seen Arnold drive around in a giant penis car, Clooney hold out a Batman Forever Gold Card, and Uma Thurman dress up as a gorilla suit.

These films represented everything wrong with the film industry which will green light a multi-million dollar picture with an appalling script with no depth or even any wit and intellect. What's really sad is that Schumacher is actually a pretty good director whose reputation was tarnished after B & R.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

No, not just for kids, but at the time largely for children. I just personally feel that this is an entertaining movie if you just let go of any preconceived notions of the character you have. No, it’s not on par with TDK and 89’, but you know what? This movie brings about a lot of good memories. Every time I see this, I can’t help but get a stupid smile on my face, just like the first time I watched it. You don’t see a movie called Batman & Robin for a heart-wrenching story; you go to remember what it was like to be a kid. Schumacher wanted to entertain, nothing else.

[sighs] Well, I can respect your opinion, Sadly I'm not good at rejection, I'm afraid you'll have to die! Agggggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

 

["V"]

Hey! Who's talking about Batman? I love Batman. All those muscles, the tight rubber armor and that flashy car. I heard it can drive up walls.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

That's an awesome episode of BTAS. Michael Ironside as Batman in TDKR is beyond cool.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

So, just to clarify; you are coming onto these boards and, without even highlighting the good elements of the Schmacher films (i.e. cinmatogtaphy, production design), you are not just suggesting people like them, you are aggressively telling us we have to-?!

Really--?

It shouldn't matter to you if other people liek them or not. By all means point out what elements of these films deserve more recognition, but saying that every Batman fan shoud like them by default is a bit silly.

That's basically the gist of what you go around spouting about various incarnations of Batman characters. The mentality goes: "They're different interpretations of a character, and if you don't like them, you're ignorant of the Batman mythos."

How are the movies themselves much different? The OP is using your own logic. Try not being such an insufferable hypocrite for once, Kev.

 

[justinianus]

that doesn't mean he needs to make every character in the movie gay as well. Two-face and Riddler were obviously portrayed this way

LOL so true. These two villains act like a mischievous couple in love. It's not a case of the viewer projecting what he knows about the director in the film, this is blatanly obvious.

and the naked men statues found all over the city were in your face homoeroticism.

hahaha, so true. I kept saying this to other people and nobody was listening. They took the two large communist/fascist statues from the Batman Returns Plaza and extrapolated them into something you'd see in Ancient Roman villas, in gigantic proportions of course.

Anyway, I see some of your points, NameIsn't Buddy. If the old films in their post-Burton incarnation didn't die with a huge car-crash (Batman & Robin), they would die slowly and out of boredom with lackluster "dark" films by lesser directors, or Schumacher himself, repeating the Batman-Vs-Villain formula of the first one.

After Burton had his take with two films I personally like a lot, something completelly new was needed and not a continuation of the Batman-Vs-Colorful-Villain-that-dies-in-the-end formula, and Nolan provided exactly that in 2004-05.

I *can* have some fun in a slow weekend with these toy commercials for what they are, as two oddities and not real films featuring the character.

However, the humor one can get out of them is not the humor the screenwriters intended. The sight of little bugs running on the gigantic arm of a naked guy, jumping at the end of his fingertips, is something almost surreal. The same goes for Two-Face crying on the Riddler's shoulder, or Poison Ivy "dominating" almost-naked guys in loincloths.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

That's basically the gist of what you go around spouting about various incarnations of Batman characters. The mentality goes: "They're different interpretations of a character, and if you don't like them, you're ignorant of the Batman mythos."

I have never said that. Please find me a quote where I say that.

I have numerous times said that there are endless different versions of Batman and it's for the good of the character that they are always changing. I have also said that some fans are not aware of the light-hearted 40/50s Batman comics, which Schumacher very much is aware of.

I have never said anybody should or shouldn't like anything for any reason. That's their decision. My post is arguing that it's ridiculous to tell people they shouldn't make their own opinion but share that of the poster.

To put it another way; I would argue with anyone that a director has the right to make Batman as campy or as dark as suits his vision. That's 100% valid. This does not in any way mean his actual film is any good.

How are the movies themselves much different? The OP is using your own logic. Try not being such an insufferable hypocrite for once, Kev.

Again, please show me some examples of hypocrisy.

 

[Serious_?]

I liked Batman Forever, Kilmer was good and Two-Face/Riddler team was entertaining.

Batman & Robin however was dreadful, too much OTT-ness and of course George Clooney...yikes!

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

If ever there was a thread doomed from the very beginning....

this is it! lol

 

[Adam West]

1. How were Two-face and the Riddler portrayed as being gay? Two-face lived in a split condo with two female prostitutes. I can see the comparison if you were referring to the ugliness of Drew Barrymore. And hey, I expect a Batman movie with Robin in it to be about in your face homoeroticism. Hell, if you really wanted to you could pin that stereotype on almost ALL superheroes.

2. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but super villians for the most part have been about gimmicks. The Riddler leaves riddles, two-face robs banks on the second of February at 2:22, and Mr. Freeze freezes stuff. If the villains didn’t have gimmicks than Batman wouldn’t be able to defeat them as easily.

3. Oh come on. You loved the fact that there wasn’t just one new suit in Forever, but TWO! It’s only fair that they market a children’s movie, for uh children.

4. Batman has gone through tons of changes to keep up with the times. You should know that better than anyone else, Adam West.

I’m not saying you should LOVE these films, all I’m saying is that Bat fans need to admit that these films are fun and entertaining. In the end, isn’t that the reason why we go to the movies?

1. And yet, Two-face and Riddler kept hugging and touching each other, and even dressed up in the "pretty" jewelery they stole from the jewelery store. The so-called "bad" side of two-face's suit is extremely flamboyant, hinting he is bi-sexual instead of good/evil. And seriously, if you don't think Riddlers silver outfit at the end isn't something a gay man would wear, you were watching a different movie then the other 99% of us.

2. Yes they all have different gimmicks, but that doesn't mean they should all have the same personality. Mr. Freeze is an angry, vengenance fueled man. Not one that cracks jokes and laughs like an idiot. Two-face is a man obsessed with duality, not one that cracks jokes and laughs like an idiot. Do you see? They made the villians the same personality, just with a different gimmick. It's like they said "let's re-create the Joker from Batman 89" and then wrote the villains to mimick him.

3. No. Your original point was that film makers should make movies to sell toys. Batman's extra suit has nothing to do with that. The toymakers will put out 20 different versions of Batman whether he gets a different suit in the movie or not. So how do you explain the giant man statues all over Gotham? Was Kenner going to put out a 'Homoerotic Gotham playset' that they told Joel Schumacher to put that in? No. He CHOSE to make his Batman films they way they were, toy companies be damned.

4. Yet for all those changes, he always returns to the dark crusader he was always intended to be. If people really loved wisecracking, fun Batman. We would be seeing the seventh Joel Schmacher Batman about now. But the fact remains, his movies were not readily embraced by the public.

I don't love these films. I don't even remotely like them. YOU think they are fun and entertaining, and thats fine for you. But that is your opinion, and unfortunately for you 99.9% of Batman fans do not share it.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

i really thought the world in batman forever was cool...

it was dark, monolithic, structured, and i didn't mind the neon lights & the panther suit was one of the best we've seen sans the nipples...

i thought this was the best gotham so far...

but the camp aspect shouldn't have been there

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

You seem pretty hung up on all of these quote on quote homoerotic undertones. If you ask me, you’re starting to sound like a homophobe. Almost all super heroes can be interpreted as being gay, hell look at Wonder Woman. It all depends on a certain point of view. Do you think Batman and Robin are gay in this movie too? These characters are essentially children in the bodies of adults, sex is the last thing on their mind.

You keep on comparing these characters to the Joker, but in reality they are quite watered down next to Jack Nicholson. Sure we didn’t see the tragic story of Harvey Dent turning into two-face in Forever like we did in TDK, but the plot didn’t call for it. The plot called for two antagonists to give the two protagonists a hard time.

These movies aren't supposed to be a deep intellectual study into the criminal mind, they’re supposed to be fun, flamboyant, and ridiculous. WB was catering to a different breed of Bat fan, and the majority of them at the time were children. I was entertained when I saw these films, because they were simply fun. If I really needed to see the dark, and moody Batman that I like, I could just watch 89’ or Returns.

Don’t rip a film for being too campy, when it was made for kids. If you want to see the darker version of the character, read Year One or TDKR instead of watching a movie made to appeal to pre-pubecent boys. I accept these films for what they are, and I love every second of it.