Myth: Batman and Robin was the first Batman movie to give Batman nipples and focus on his codpiece.
Reality: Batman Forever was the first Batman movie to have these, um...stylistic traits. Yet, to this day, people act as if B & R was the first.
Case in point:
QuoteJOEL SCHUMACHER knows how to endure. Best known for creating big-budget Hollywood entertainment like ?Batman Forever? and adapting John Grisham thrillers like ?The Client,? he has floundered since the widely panned ?Batman & Robin? in 1997. (The nipples and enlarged codpieces of its superhero suits were just one aspect that came in for ribbing.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/movies/25twelve.html
The biggest is probably the whole Man-Bat in the Cave in Forever, I had never heard of it, and when I finally saw a picture of it, I was stunned, of course very soon after that I read about how it wasn't Man-Bat, but still, was quite interesting to hear something like that.
A few myths I'm tired of (though all but one are about Batman Forever):
Myth: Schumacher changed Batman's origin and Harvey Dent was the Waynes' killer in Batman Forever
Reality: Nonsense. This is all brought about through clear misinterpretation of the scene where Bruce flashes back to his parents' murders and talks to Alfred ("I killed them." "What?" "Two-Face, he murdered that boy's parents.)
Myth: Christian Bale auditioned for Robin
Reality: All started on a posting in IMDB Trivia, suspiciously after Bale was cast as Batman. Bale himself debunked it.
Myth: Tim Burton wanted to do Riddler with Robin Williams in the third film.
Reality: Burton never got to the stage of choosing the villain. It was Lee and Janet Scott Batchler who wanted the Riddler and Schumacher who wanted Robin Williams.
Myth: There were darker scenes in Batman & Robin in which Poison Ivy stabs Julie Madison to death.
Reality: Again, the glory of IMDB trivia. No evidence of this happening, other than postings on IMDB and Wikipedia. There's a possibility that this is true, but I'd have to hear it from a legit source. I wasn't convinced that they were thinking of killing off Vicki Vale until Peter Guber confirmed it for me.
Look at the draft of the script online (if you dare)- Julie's last scene is walking out on Bruce 'cause he picks Pamela Isley over her. So instead of killing Bruce's fiancee, Ivy simply kills Bruce's already tenuous love life through her pheromones. Not exactly the dark tragedy that the IMDB/Wiki trivia want you to believe.
I actually believed that last one about Julie Madison. I was rather upset when I found out it wasn't on the deleted scenes of B & R. Well, actually B & R only had one deleted scene on the dvd--and it was just an extended scene of Barbara's first appearance.
Is there any mention of it in the DVD behind-the-scenes features? I've looked for interviews or hard evidence from the cast and crew (or news articles) on this, but haven't found anything besides IMDB and Wiki. I'll take it down if it turns out to be true.
No, I think you're right. I'm trying to think of where I read it and I can't think of any official source.
It makes sense that it would be a myth because that wouldn't fit into the tone they were going for. Having said that, it was such a small part that I'm sure there were more scenes with her. Ditto with the character known as, um, Ms. B Haven, who was played by the equally odd-sounding Vivica A. Fox.
If memory serves, she's only in one scene and never heard from again. She must've had more scenes. Perhaps Poison Ivy offed her? ;D
One of the few redeeming things about Batman and Robin is that it's the only film in the original series where the villains do not find out Batman's identiy. Especially having a female character falling in love with Bruce Wayne AND Batman had already been done in the last two films.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 16 Dec 2011, 17:39
One of the few redeeming things about Batman and Robin is that it's the only film in the original series where the villains do not find out Batman's identiy.
And if these things bother you, the villains don't die.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 4 Aug 2010, 00:17
A few myths I'm tired of (though all but one are about Batman Forever):
Myth: Schumacher changed Batman's origin and Harvey Dent was the Waynes' killer in Batman Forever
I always thought when I first saw it in theaters. Now I just picture it being Jack Napier/Joker.
It's definitely not implied who Batmans killer was from this film. Also keep in mind it is a dream/flashback sequence so it doesn't need to be accurate. You could argue that since Two face killed Dick's parents, Bruce is hallucinating him killing his own parents to put himself in Dicks shoes or realize the path he's about to take.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 4 Aug 2010, 00:17
A few myths I'm tired of (though all but one are about Batman Forever):
Myth: Schumacher changed Batman's origin and Harvey Dent was the Waynes' killer in Batman Forever
Reality: Nonsense. This is all brought about through clear misinterpretation of the scene where Bruce flashes back to his parents' murders and talks to Alfred ("I killed them." "What?" "Two-Face, he murdered that boy's parents.)
That's funny to me that someone would actually interpret that scene as being Harvey Dent.
Mainly because I distinctly remember seeing 'Batman Forever' on it's opening Friday, and recall several people in the theater saying "Joker" when the flashback of the Waynes being murdered took place. And these were very likely casual fans at best who probably only knew of the movie continuity. In addition, I felt Schumacher gave a nod to Batman 1989 during the Wayne/Grayson argument where Grayson says that Bruce's parents were not killed by a maniac (or something along those lines), which causes Bruce to sternly reply, "Yes. They were."
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 21 Dec 2011, 00:11In addition, I felt Schumacher gave a nod to Batman 1989 during the Wayne/Grayson argument where Grayson says that Bruce's parents were not killed by a maniac (or something along those lines), which causes Bruce to sternly reply, "Yes. They were."
Exactly! Also, the scene where Chase says "Or do I need skintight vinyl and a whip?" as a blatant nod to Batman Returns ;)
Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Thu, 29 Dec 2011, 09:32
Exactly! Also, the scene where Chase says "Or do I need skintight vinyl and a whip?" as a blatant nod to Batman Returns ;)
Indeed. Would love to see a director's cut as it's been stated that the original beginning and ending to Batman Forever were much more Burton influenced than what we ended up getting with the theatrical cut.
Totally - I'd dig a Schumacher DC of Batman Forever. Take out the butt shots, and the "I'll get drive thru" bit and you've got a pretty solid Burtonesque Bat-flick. :D
The DVD and Blu-ray releases were Schumacher's Director Cut.
Speaking of Blu-rays, guess what guys? A few days ago I bought BF and B&R on the format. They were dirt cheap, in a two for one combo deal. I thought what the hell?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, 11:38
Speaking of Blu-rays, guess what guys? A few days ago I bought BF and B&R on the format. They were dirt cheap, in a two for one combo deal. I thought what the hell?
Hey, they are amazing films, seriously.
I love both of them, and don't really get the hate that they both get, especially Forever. Sure they're lighter, but thats what everyone wanted after Returns, well I didn't but the vast majority did.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, 11:35
The DVD and Blu-ray releases were Schumacher's Director Cut.
I've been reading stuff to the contrary for years.
http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_Forever#Original_cut_and_deleted_scenes
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, 11:35
The DVD and Blu-ray releases were Schumacher's Director Cut.
They don't have the opening sequence at Arkham with "Dr. Burton"...
I think Schumacher's suggestion the studio wanted B&R to be "toy-etic" has placed a label on the film it never should have had. Thematically the film looks every bit like Forever. The over-the-top costumes, lighting, and general environment of the two films are identical. B&R was actually able to enhance some of those aspects simply because technology had already evolved enough between the two films to show it better. But the end result was still the same. Take out the butt shots in the beginning, the sexual innuendo in the dialogue, and give Freeze some actual dialogue without ice jokes and the movie would be virtually identical to Forever. Schumacher just took some unwarranted chances with B&R because he felt like the audience was sold after Forever. Had he tried to keep it pseudo-serious like Forever, we probably wouldn't be having this dialogue today and Schumacher would have completed his trilogy with "Batman Triumphant".
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013, 15:49
I think Schumacher's suggestion the studio wanted B&R to be "toy-etic" has placed a label on the film it never should have had. Thematically the film looks every bit like Forever. The over-the-top costumes, lighting, and general environment of the two films are identical. B&R was actually able to enhance some of those aspects simply because technology had already evolved enough between the two films to show it better. But the end result was still the same. Take out the butt shots in the beginning, the sexual innuendo in the dialogue, and give Freeze some actual dialogue without ice jokes and the movie would be virtually identical to Forever. Schumacher just took some unwarranted chances with B&R because he felt like the audience was sold after Forever. Had he tried to keep it pseudo-serious like Forever, we probably wouldn't be having this dialogue today and Schumacher would have completed his trilogy with "Batman Triumphant".
As much as I felt B&R left much to be desired, I would have welcomed
another Schumacher Bat-Sequel with
Batman Triumphant. Just the mere thought of having Jack reprising the Joker in a cameo during (at what would have been) the late 1990's, is enough for me to get excited about a follow-up. And from what I gather, the overall tone probably would have reflected the Burton films to some extent, or provided dramatic beats that
Batman Forever had at the very least. Not to say B&R didn't have a dramatic element to it. The whole Alfred dying subplot was serviceable, with the tender dialogue scene between Alfred and Bruce being the real highlight of the film itself...
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 1 Oct 2013, 15:36
As much as I felt B&R left much to be desired, I would have welcomed another Schumacher Bat-Sequel with Batman Triumphant. Just the mere thought of having Jack reprising the Joker in a cameo during (at what would have been) the late 1990's, is enough for me to get excited about a follow-up. And from what I gather, the overall tone probably would have reflected the Burton films to some extent, or provided dramatic beats that Batman Forever had at the very least. Not to say B&R didn't have a dramatic element to it. The whole Alfred dying subplot was serviceable, with the tender dialogue scene between Alfred and Bruce being the real highlight of the film itself...
I agree wholeheartedly. What has always puzzled me about the production of B&R is the studio's excitement over seeing the dailies from this film. What were they looking at that no one else saw? Because a majority of the most egregious mistakes in the film (save for Bane and Bat Girl) were fixable with re-shoots and editing. If anyone should have been fired from this production, it should have been the studio execs in charge of overseeing this project. Clearly no one was paying attention and let Schumacher off the hook without any guidance. Just fixing the tonal discrepancies alone would have made an enormous difference in how people saw the film.
I do think Schumacher does deserve some of the blame; he pushed for the nipples, redesign of the batmobile and butt shots. He also pushed for Arnold Schwarzenegger in lieu of Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins.
That being said we all know WB wanted things more child friendly; Burton was let go and Schumacher was forced to cut some darkness in Forever.
Neither film is terrible, the last film just had too much going on. Batgirl was brought in far too early and overshadowed Robin. Bane was kind of pointless. While she didnt play a big role, Elle Macpherson's character was also pointless.
I did like the villains overall plan in this one; freezing and rebuilding Gotham. It was a good contrast of two villains. I wish they played more into the Nora Freeze plotline.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 1 Oct 2013, 23:15
I do think Schumacher does deserve some of the blame; he pushed for the nipples, redesign of the batmobile and butt shots. He also pushed for Arnold Schwarzenegger in lieu of Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins.
That being said we all know WB wanted things more child friendly; Burton was let go and Schumacher was forced to cut some darkness in Forever.
Neither film is terrible, the last film just had too much going on. Batgirl was brought in far too early and overshadowed Robin. Bane was kind of pointless. While she didnt play a big role, Elle Macpherson's character was also pointless.
I did like the villains overall plan in this one; freezing and rebuilding Gotham. It was a good contrast of two villains. I wish they played more into the Nora Freeze plotline.
Removing Batgirl and Bane completely would have helped measurably since their inclusion was pointless.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 1 Oct 2013, 23:15
He also pushed for Arnold Schwarzenegger in lieu of Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins.
Does anyone else think that Schwarzenegger was literally the worst choice they could've picked for Freeze?
I mean, wouldn't any other male actor (from Kurt Russell to Harrison Ford to, um, Steve Buscemi) have worked better?
What's interesting is that at one point it appeared that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be able to do the film because of another commitment. It was then that Sylvester Stallone voiced his desire to take the role if his friend Arnie couldn't do it. I say "interesting" because IMHO Stallone would've been the second worst choice for the role...
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sun, 6 Oct 2013, 04:22
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 1 Oct 2013, 23:15
He also pushed for Arnold Schwarzenegger in lieu of Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins.
Does anyone else think that Schwarzenegger was literally the worst choice they could've picked for Freeze?
Nope. You even mention a worst choice, Stallone. Heck, I read somewhere that Hulk Hogan was considered as a back-up if both Schwarzenegger and Stallone had passed.
This may be a highly unpopular opinion but I always felt that Schwarzenegger's casting was one of the few elements that 'Batman & Robin' got right. Not to say that Schwarzenegger is a great actor or was even the right person to pull off the emotional intensity a decent rendering of this character might require, especially one based on the tragic 'Heart of Ice' episode of the animated series, but I always saw Freeze as a tall, physically imposing, powerful Teutonic or Scandinavian type with a literally cold demeanour/personality and a deep monotone voice (Schumacher said that he saw Freeze as a man who was 'big and strong like he was chiselled out of a glacier'). To be fair, Schwarzenegger ticks all those boxes. It's a pity he was not a better actor but then again there are far worse in Hollywood, and in all other respects I thought the choice was pretty sound, even if it was representative of Schumacher's star-driven 'stunt casting'.
I personally thought the depiction and casting of Bane and Batgirl was far worse than Freeze, and I certainly don't think Schwarzenegger was any worse than Uma Thurman with her bright-red fright-wig and annoying try-too-hard Mae West impression.
I hate Mr Freeze in B&R, but it wasn't really the casting of AS that bothered me, it was the lines they gave him. He easily could've passed as a convincing villain if they got rid of the terrible puns.
Now, let's be clear. Batman Returns is my favourite of the series - but it is divisive. Batman and Robin is divisive as well, obviously. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but the end result remains the same. Which is we are never going to see the likes of these two again. So I lap it all up these days. I sit back with a tub of popcorn and laugh at the freeze puns. Hate is too strong of a word, so enjoy the moment in time.
I think Arnold, esthetically speaking, looked fine for the role. That look has stood the test of time, which is the best measure to go by. But what remains evident is the poor dialogue asked of him to deliver. Arnold is not exactly a master of the English language anyway. So giving him lines that required a certain tonality in delivery to sell it was completely above his skill level as an actor. He needed a certain inflection to dampen the camp of those lines. And that's where Schumacher deserves the chief blame here. He was probably spending too much time appeasing Arnold on the set, instead of directing him. The same goes for Uma Thurman. Note the number of times her accent changes from scene to scene. There was a huge degree of sloppiness to the continuity of every character portrayed here. So I never got the sense Schumacher was doing his job, so much as just shooting the script and not really paying attention to the performances. And as previously stated, that's where Clooney carries so much heat for his role as Batman. Schumacher never had him change his vocal delivery when he wore the cowl, so the performance came off ludicrous, given there was no difference in the performance between Bruce Wayne or Batman. So after all of these years and watching it countless times, I think my final consensus is Schumacher had a good cast. He just didn't do his job of getting them into character to play these roles. I think he felt the names alone would sell the project. He was wrong.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 7 Oct 2013, 09:05
Now, let's be clear. Batman Returns is my favourite of the series - but it is divisive. Batman and Robin is divisive as well, obviously. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but the end result remains the same. Which is we are never going to see the likes of these two again. So I lap it all up these days. I sit back with a tub of popcorn and laugh at the freeze puns. Hate is too strong of a word, so enjoy the moment in time.
I agree. I find more enjoyment out of watching B&R than I do the slightly less controversial and more accepted BF.
BF is an uncomfortable attempt to blend a vaguely sophisticated script (Two-Face is still too under developed though) with a campy atmosphere.
B&R was meant to be a fun romp from day one with no attempts to be a dark Batman film, and I think it actually succeeds in that respect. Does that make it a perfect movie? No, Batnipples and Silverstone sink it somewhat, but those are minor in comparison to watching Arnold, Clooney, and Thurman romping around clearly having a good time.
Actually, Clooney is my second favorite Live-Action Bruce Wayne after Keaton, while his Batman, admittedly not the kind of Batman I prefer, is straight out of the early comics code days.
^ Yes, I remember someone saying that Batman & Robin was everything Batman Forever pretended not to be. When something is supposed to be silly fun, better go all the way.
(I think the scenes in Batman Forever where the two villains act silly are some of the most entertaining: their robberies with Two Face teaching the Riddler how to punch a guy (the security guard just calmly waits for his punch); acting like school kids when dressed up for Halloween and about to storm Wayne Manor; Two Face crying on Riddler's shoulder because Batman survived the subway attack; playing Battleship... if it's the villains that defined Batman movies from the 90s, this is what Batman Forever is)
What both have in their favour are the designs - great stuff. The first thing I look for in anything, be it a movie, video game, or comic, are the sets or background designs. The overblown Gotham with this mix of neogothic/ baroque/ neoclassical/ fascist/ communist/ Albert Speer etc. architectural elements is still more interesting visually than a mundane city on real locations.
(Believe it or not there were people who commented negatively on Arkham City for the design of the buildings - "too Schumacher", they said, possibly referring to it being more in tune with the elaborate cities in the 90s movies than with Nolan's realism. Maybe there's two kind of Batman fans, those who see it as pure fantasy and embrace an enjoyably otherwordly setting, while some others want it to feel "real")
I think the Nolan movies were the end result of all the fallout from the Batman and Robin critical drubbing. And while I do thoroughly enjoy the Nolan films, I still find great fun and enjoyment out of the Schumacher movies. It's like anything, you have to be in the right mood for either kind. But now that those movies have established themselves, we have to wonder what treatment will be used for Affleck. Will they try to find a happy medium? Or will they go for another all out depressed hero?