Why all the bad feelings towards Schumacher?

[Superwoman Prime]

To be fair, take note that TDK has only made so much because of its connection to Heath Ledger.

 

[Adam West]

So how did you calculate 99.9% again? LOL.

Wow, so I keep giving you facts to back up my claims and thats all you've got? Sorry, maybe it's more like 99.5%

To be fair, take note that TDK has only made so much because of its connection to Heath Ledger.

How do you mean? His great performance or that he died? I agree with you if it's because of his performance, but many actors have died and not had their movies go on to break box office records.

 

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

I enjoyed Forever, but B&R was just unwatchable. Over a decade later and I still, to this day, haven't seen the ending of it. I've tried, lord I've tried, but I just cannot stomach it, it's a bad movie period.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Ok, so I guess you can blame Batman Returns poor sales because of the dark tone of the character (which you claim 99.5% of people enjoy). LOL. Returns made $162,831,698 in domestic sales, while Forever made $184,031,112 in domestic sales. So in that situation, camp beat out dark. There goes your theory.

Also Forever made $336,531,112 worldwide, and it came close to Begins with $371,853,783.

You can spin the number's either way (just showing how futile it is). But you're forgetting what I'm trying to say in this post. You don't have to LOVE the Schumacher films, just try to be a little more open to the interpretation of the character. As you have stated before there is no CORRECT version.

 

[Adam West]

Ok, so I guess you can blame Batman Returns poor sales because of the dark tone of the character (which you claim 99.5% of people enjoy). LOL. Returns made $162,831,698 in domestic sales, while Forever made $184,031,112 in domestic sales. So in that situation, camp beat out dark. There goes your theory.

Also Forever made $336,531,112 worldwide, and it came close to Begins with $371,853,783.

You can spin the number's either way (just showing how futile it is). But you're forgetting what I'm trying to say in this post. You don't have to LOVE the Schumacher films, just try to be a little more open to the interpretation of the character. As you have stated before there is no CORRECT version.

No, I blame Batman Returns poor sales on Tim Burton making it so bizarre. And my theory still holds up pretty well. Batman 89=dark, $251,188,924: Batman Begins=dark, $205,343,774: The Dark Knight=dark, $393,751,065, so dark beats camp overall.

So the point is this; When you take Batman to extremes, wheter it is ultra campy as in Batman and Robin, or extremely bizarre as in Batman Returns, it just doesn't work. They are interpretations of the character, however, they are interpretations that didn't resonate with Bat-fans or general movie audiences. The Dark (not bizarre) interpretation has been the most agreeable to both fans and the general public. The best example of this? The Dark Knight is about to cross the 400 million mark, the highest grossing Batman film to date, and it isn't even close to the end of its run yet.

I appreciate that you love the Schumacher films, I really do. But being open to the interpretation of the character doesn't mean I have to like each and every one. Camp-Batman just doesn't work for most of us.

 

[Mandalore464]

No, I’m serious about everything I have said here. The Schumacher films are a punching bag for Bat fans to whine and complain about the inaccuracy of the character, and I’m sick of it. These films were entertaining and fun to me as a kid and now because they are representative of hyperrealism in 90’s cinema. No, it’s not the dark version of the character that so many people love, but it reminds us that Batman can appeal to any audience. This adaptive nature is why I appreciate the character so much. And so should you.

The problem is that you're basically saying that a Batfan should like anything batman-related just because it's Batman.

You know, I don't like all the Bat-stories featuring a dark Batman. The fact that it's dark does not make all the dark stories good.

Same goes for Batman & Robin. Everybody here acknowledges that Batman has had different periods, with some focusing on camp and others on dark, and everybody accepts the fact that directors have tried different takes on the character as well.

But just because it offers something different, just because it offers a version of the character that's faithful to (or let's say, "in keeping with") the campy Batman from WWII era, does not make the movie worth-liking if it's a p.o.s

Batman & Robin is a p.o.s I can't like that movie and I won't, and it has nothing to do with me being an unworthy Bat-fan or anything. That's just plainly stupid.

Forever worked for me, and B&R didn't. Being a Bat-fan does not mean I have to switch off my critic mind at the door and accept whatever's thrown my way. The fact that it has a Bat logo on the poster does not make it a good movie.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Wow, so I keep giving you facts to back up my claims and thats all you've got? Sorry, maybe it's more like 99.5%



How do you mean? His great performance or that he died? I agree with you if it's because of his performance, but many actors have died and not had their movies go on to break box office records.

Mainly the performance, but really both.

Case in point: My mother always had a huge crush on Ledger, A Knight's Tale being her favorite movie. She never liked Batman, and hates theaters. But she wanted to get in on Ledger's last role on the big screen, so went to see TDK.

I mean imagine all the Ledger fangirls who aren't into Batman, but went to see TDK because of the extra hype his involvement and sudden death created.

Brandon Lee, for instance, had a following, but not near as strong as Ledger had.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Batman & Robin is not a good film, plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with homoeroticism; it has to do with filmmaking.

There are good elements. The effects are good for their time, the art direction and costumes are very pretty.

The script, however, is abysmal. The acting is, save for Michael Gough, truly terrible.

For the most part, it fails to be entertaining, even in that "so bad it's good" way. The only time is succeeds is when Arnold is on screen, doing his classic Arnie bits. The rest of the movie drags. The motorcycle racing subplot is agonizingly boring. Ivy's story is agonizingly boring.

The movie fails where the Adam West series succeeded. You know why? Because Clooney (in this part, for some reason - he's usually great), O'Donnell, Thurman - they all lack the charm and comic timing that made the 60s show so much fun. Adam West and Burt Ward are side-splittingly funny, in the best way. B&R's leads were a damn snooze, not helped at all by the terribly unamusing lines they were forced to read. Again, Schwarzenegger was the only one who seemed to be having any fun - when he's not onscreen delivering ice puns, the movie completely falls apart.

 

[justinianus]

The only time is succeeds is when Arnold is on screen, doing his classic Arnie bits. (...) Again, Schwarzenegger was the only one who seemed to be having any fun - when he's not onscreen delivering ice puns, the movie completely falls apart.

He was paid 25 mil to utter "ice to see you", so he had a lot of fun
Good that there's someone else that aknowledges the fact that Arnie is hysterically funny in this (especially when you watch the movie in a room with a poster of T2).

 

[DACrowe]

And lets of booze to drink every time there is a pun, two sips if the pun involves ice.

 

[justinianus]

A non-drinker would be wasted halfway through the museum sequence

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Alright everyone...!

CHILL!

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Ice to see you, Paste Pot Pete.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Really, if you're a fan of 50's Batman & Robin, BF and B&R weren't even good adaptations of it, or modernized versions. The movies arent good because they are flat, all the gayness and cheesiness is just easy to make fun of.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The movies arent good because they are flat

I wouldn't call them "flat." Maybe "excessively misguided."

I liked Poison Ivy, though. That's some hawt stuff.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I wouldn't call them "flat." Maybe "excessively misguided."

I liked Poison Ivy, though. That's some hawt stuff.

Really... Uma Thurman... dressed like a Drag Queen???

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Nooo. Uma Thurman in green tights?

 

[elgaz]

Batman was originally intended to be a dark character, and the most memorable and successful Batman media (films and books) are the ones which stay true to that mythos : take for example, Batman ('89), Batman Begins as 2 film examples, and The Dark Knight Returns as a classic graphic novel example.

For most of Batman's history, he has been written and portrayed as a dark character asides from the obvious Adam West incarnation in the 60s. I'll blame that on the period; the 60s had just too much of an uplifting youth & hippy culture to allow a dark character like Batman to become popular, so they lightened him a bit. And whilst that show was successful, it's far from being the definitive version in my eyes - in fact, I don't particularly enjoy it at all.

I will grant that - like any long running comic book character which has appeared in many different guises - Batman is open to different interpretations. However, you have to have a fundamental backbone which stays true over the years. For example, you can't take Superman and suddenly change him from being this overgrown boy scout to being a character who kills villains, wears a different suit and womanises. When you stray too far from that backbone, the results aren't good.

Hence I'm of the belief that you can't take this hugely dark and complex Batman character and suddenly put him in a neon-lit Gotham full of corny jokes, shiny suits, cars driving up the sides of buildings, cliched villains and of course ............. nipples on suits. It just doesn't gel together, and that's probably why the Schumacher films are almost universally ridiculed. They're almost like a spoof take on the whole Batman mythology. Somewhere down the line, someone forgot that the whole reasoning behind Batman's whole being is the brutal death of his parents and his burning, searing need for vengeance and justice. You can't make a spoof popcorn movie and expect your audience to seriously believe in a tortured Batman character who's surrounded by so much ridiculous spectacle and the over-the-top performances of Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones.

Nolan hit the nail bang on the head and brought us back Batman as he should be - and all whilst still making it entertaining.

Gaz

 

[justinianus]

The Shumaker is a miracle maker, he managed to make one of the sexiest women of the late 90s seem like a wasted drag queen that utters dreadful sexual puns. The only moment Uma looks sexy is when we see her as Poison Ivy for the first time, but then... she opens her mouth to speak...

LOL... we've moved on hopefully, but there's always something to say about why that movie sucked so bad.

 

[onDgrind]

Batman forever wasnt that bad, i can still sit through it, could have been better if it was just The Riddler and no Twoface. However Batman and Robin, is an abomination that shouldnt have got the thumbs up from Warner in the first place, i wonder sometimes did they actually sit through the movie and go oh yeah we got a hit on our hands here, before releasing it

 

[MrQuinn]

lol.
Ive heard enough complaints about B & R. Everyone knows it's terrible. The end.

and Uma Thurman isn't sexy. Ever.

 

[MacLeod]

The problem is that you're basically saying that a Batfan should like anything batman-related just because it's Batman.

You know, I don't like all the Bat-stories featuring a dark Batman. The fact that it's dark does not make all the dark stories good.

Same goes for Batman & Robin. Everybody here acknowledges that Batman has had different periods, with some focusing on camp and others on dark, and everybody accepts the fact that directors have tried different takes on the character as well.

But just because it offers something different, just because it offers a version of the character that's faithful to (or let's say, "in keeping with") the campy Batman from WWII era, does not make the movie worth-liking if it's a p.o.s

Batman & Robin is a p.o.s I can't like that movie and I won't, and it has nothing to do with me being an unworthy Bat-fan or anything. That's just plainly stupid.

Forever worked for me, and B&R didn't. Being a Bat-fan does not mean I have to switch off my critic mind at the door and accept whatever's thrown my way. The fact that it has a Bat logo on the poster does not make it a good movie.

All good points. I am a huge Batman fan, have been so for more than twenty years. With that said I can't stand B&R and I have to be in a mood to get through Forever. Just because there are different interpretations of the character doesn't mean I have to like them all. It's like watching your favorite TV show, some episodes are just bad or pointless. The problem here is the creator of this thread expects everyone to like Batman all the time in all media by whomever creates that media. That's just never going to be the case, ever. Forever had flaws due to being campy and B&R is just horrible, no question to it. That doesn't make me less of a Batman fan, it actually makes me more of one because I know what I like and don't follow the fandom blindly.

 

[Alchemyst]

And lets of booze to drink every time there is a pun, two sips if the pun involves ice.

damn.....that was cold hearted



cheers

 

[Alchemyst]

ok...maybe we can not be AS harsh towards the guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6epsGrcuTs&feature=related

 

[darkseid26]

I enjoy watching BF...