Batman-Online.com

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-robin-at-20-joel-schumacher-more-reveal-what-happened-1014972

This is a pretty informative article. It talks a bit about the conception of, production of and subsequent failure of B&R. It's not sarcastic or snarky. It takes a pretty even-handed approach.

One criticism I have about the movie is that it came about a year too early. The writer concurs. I think debuting in 1997 never allowed people time to completely rinse Batman Forever out of their mouths before getting force-fed a new movie. The creative team behind the movie and the public simply weren't ready for a new Batman film at that time. One extra year could've made all the difference.

We'll never know.

I never knew Schwarzenegger had to wear LED lights in his mouth to create that lighting effect, I thought they were using VFX. That's insane. I'm not surprised to hear battery acid kept leaking in his mouth.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Jun  2019, 02:41
One criticism I have about the movie is that it came about a year too early. The writer concurs. I think debuting in 1997 never allowed people time to completely rinse Batman Forever out of their mouths before getting force-fed a new movie. The creative team behind the movie and the public simply weren't ready for a new Batman film at that time. One extra year could've made all the difference.

We'll never know.

I doubt it. The critical and fan consensus over this movie says it was an embarrassing farce that destroyed the movie franchise, Batman should always be dark, blah blah blah. I don't think the movie coming out a year later would've made any difference.

But then again, in today's fickle and unreliable film market, maybe B&R could've been popular if it were released today. I know for certain if Disney made the exact same film, it would've been lauded as "Making Batman fun again", as we saw with a lot of MCU Phase 3 crap getting overpraised. But as it is, any praise for the movie is subdued because of the stigma behind how it spelled the end of the Burton/Schumacher series.

I'm surprised to hear Alicia Silverstone was body shamed by the media at the time. For better or worse, they wouldn't be allowed to do that today.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 24 Jun  2019, 22:30
I'm surprised to hear Alicia Silverstone was body shamed by the media at the time. For better or worse, they wouldn't be allowed to do that today.

Yes, I remember the media being pretty ruthless about it, and practically brought it up every time Alicia Silverstone was mentioned in reference to B&R's promotion in 1997. It was definitely the narrative being pushed, where just a few years earlier, in 1995, Silverstone was lauded as a new Hollywood sex symbol. Following her appearances in Clueless, The Crush, and Aerosmith videos.

So, the media and the industry built her up just to knock her down? How typical of these assholes. It kinda reminds me of how they lauded Ben Affleck back in that period of time between 2010 and 2012 over his success for directing The Town and Argo, and then these same asshats suddenly turned on him as soon as he got cast as Batman.

There's a saying in Australia to describe this weasel mentality, it's called Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Quote
In the production office, she also became the target of a joke after rumors circulated that Silverstone was having trouble in costume fittings. Storyboard artist [Tim] Burgard drew a cartoon of Batgirl that nearly got him in trouble (though he notes, it was of the comic book character and was not meant to look like Silverstone).

"I heard that she was in the costume department being synched into a corset to fit into what they were going to try to do the costume," says Burgard. "So I did a cartoon of what I thought that looked like. ... I did it as a movie poster, Clueless 2: The Casting of Batgirl. It was a private joke, just the guys in the art department."

But the joke got out when a production assistant made a copy.

"He put it up by his station, whereof course Bob Ringwood, the costume designer saw it — and had a sh*t fit. I think the quote was, 'She is trying so hard!' Luckily for me, I never signed it. So I got to keep working."

This was the picture Bugard spoke of.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/batmananthology/images/7/76/SilverstoneCartoon.png)

I don't think he intended any malice behind this sketch, but once again, it wouldn't go down well if he did this today. The outrage culture on social media would be through the roof. I can only imagine a petition getting put together demanding Bugard's removal from the production.

I was pleasantly surprised at the balance and fairness of that overview. Nice article. I think the buildup to the film's release really gives you the foundation for why fans/media were setting themselves up to be disappointed. Hollywood has a history of overdoing it in sequels when they think they have found a formula. When the audience really likes something, Hollywood feels inclined to drown them in it with the next feature. The Batman franchise in particular has been like that throughout its history.

When Batman hit huge in the 60's, the TV series was so big, they released a movie that showcased all of the campy/wit elements of the show. Within a few years, that style was frowned upon and was kept under lock and key when they decided to make a new film in 1989. The studio would not even consider any cameos from the classic television show. So when Burton made "dark" Batman cool, the studio took the reigns off the director and let him run wild in Batman Returns. While this film would be enjoyed by future generations, it nearly mothballed the franchise back then. Parents complained about the violence and dark images. Plus the film did not perform nearly as well as the debut film.

Like most studios, they panicked and decided the 60's Batman was their friend after all. Enter Schumacher and a considerably more colorful and lightweight interpretation. The business came back and the studio hugged Schumacher for being a genius. How was B&R not inevitable? The studio saw success as more color, more camp, and more OTT characters to give the public more of what Forever had most assuredly introduced.

And just like the reaction to the original Adam West series, the studio ran for cover and mothballed the franchise when they didn't get what they expected. Could any of us really have doubted a more "serious" and "dark" Batman would return? Since then Batman has been all over the map in film and animation. While you had the Dark Knight series running, cartoons celebrated the 60's camp with the Brave and the Bold. Then Snyder got a hold of Batman and gave us the perfect example of why going too serious gets you right back into unintended camp which, for me, is far more painful to watch than when its planned.

So as much as B&R may not have satisfied expectations in its day, the industry was completely different and the marketplace was not sure of its footing with this genre yet. You still had allot of people running these companies that belittled the panel graphic art-form who longed for these kinds of movies to go away. Today you have fans of this genre running the studios and making the movies. Some context needs to be applied. B&R never got to enjoy the advantages these movies get today, including a far greater appeal from the general public. So I think when everything gets unpacked here, the kind of big budget movie that Batman & Robin became was something of a miracle given the forces in play at that time. The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 30 Jul  2019, 16:07
The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Aug  2019, 12:05

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 30 Jul  2019, 16:07
The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

I think if you take that movie and turn the sound down, you see everything it could have been, because what you hear really gets in the way of that film. First Clooney was never given a Batman "voice", so that alone rattles the viewer because its a big continuity problem from the first three. He looks fine as Batman and he makes a great Bruce Wayne. But its painfully obvious he looks lost in the outfit because he's not really playing anyone. He's just dressed up with essentially the same personality as Bruce Wayne and you can see that look on Clooney's face that says, " What the hell am I doing?" So I give the biggest blame of that to the director who should have seen his awkwardness right away. But I also shoulder some of that on Clooney too, who should have said, " I don't have a character to play."

And that's further supported by the commentary Schumacher gives in the movie when he says the costume is akin to Elvis's wardrobe going on tour by itself. He says, "All fans really want is the suit."  Well we all know how that worked out, and this movie demonstrates the flaws in that thinking. So if you lose the audience with the primary hero, the rest of the film will suffer as well because now the suspended disbelief is removed and the audience is just reading the film literally which leads to people looking for more gaffs that all films have anyway. If the actors don't believe in it, neither will the audience. Let's face it, if Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford were not delivering those lines in the original Star Wars, could you really find merit in the dialogue just by reading it? I doubt it. For the most part its pretty bad. Charisma and conviction are a great dressing for dialogue that is absurd. It would be interesting if someone dubbed in a new voice for Batman to see if added characterization made a big difference. I really wish someone who had good skills in this area would do that for just a handful of scenes to see how it reads. It would be interesting.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Thu,  8 Aug  2019, 12:42

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Aug  2019, 12:05

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 30 Jul  2019, 16:07
The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

I think if you take that movie and turn the sound down, you see everything it could have been, because what you hear really gets in the way of that film. First Clooney was never given a Batman "voice", so that alone rattles the viewer because its a big continuity problem from the first three. He looks fine as Batman and he makes a great Bruce Wayne. But its painfully obvious he looks lost in the outfit because he's not really playing anyone. He's just dressed up with essentially the same personality as Bruce Wayne and you can see that look on Clooney's face that says, " What the hell am I doing?" So I give the biggest blame of that to the director who should have seen his awkwardness right away. But I also shoulder some of that on Clooney too, who should have said, " I don't have a character to play."

And that's further supported by the commentary Schumacher gives in the movie when he says the costume is akin to Elvis's wardrobe going on tour by itself. He says, "All fans really want is the suit."  Well we all know how that worked out, and this movie demonstrates the flaws in that thinking. So if you lose the audience with the primary hero, the rest of the film will suffer as well because now the suspended disbelief is removed and the audience is just reading the film literally which leads to people looking for more gaffs that all films have anyway. If the actors don't believe in it, neither will the audience. Let's face it, if Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford were not delivering those lines in the original Star Wars, could you really find merit in the dialogue just by reading it? I doubt it. For the most part its pretty bad. Charisma and conviction are a great dressing for dialogue that is absurd. It would be interesting if someone dubbed in a new voice for Batman to see if added characterization made a big difference. I really wish someone who had good skills in this area would do that for just a handful of scenes to see how it reads. It would be interesting.

I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  8 Aug  2019, 15:43

Quote from: Wayne49 on Thu,  8 Aug  2019, 12:42

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Aug  2019, 12:05

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 30 Jul  2019, 16:07
The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

I think if you take that movie and turn the sound down, you see everything it could have been, because what you hear really gets in the way of that film. First Clooney was never given a Batman "voice", so that alone rattles the viewer because its a big continuity problem from the first three. He looks fine as Batman and he makes a great Bruce Wayne. But its painfully obvious he looks lost in the outfit because he's not really playing anyone. He's just dressed up with essentially the same personality as Bruce Wayne and you can see that look on Clooney's face that says, " What the hell am I doing?" So I give the biggest blame of that to the director who should have seen his awkwardness right away. But I also shoulder some of that on Clooney too, who should have said, " I don't have a character to play."

And that's further supported by the commentary Schumacher gives in the movie when he says the costume is akin to Elvis's wardrobe going on tour by itself. He says, "All fans really want is the suit."  Well we all know how that worked out, and this movie demonstrates the flaws in that thinking. So if you lose the audience with the primary hero, the rest of the film will suffer as well because now the suspended disbelief is removed and the audience is just reading the film literally which leads to people looking for more gaffs that all films have anyway. If the actors don't believe in it, neither will the audience. Let's face it, if Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford were not delivering those lines in the original Star Wars, could you really find merit in the dialogue just by reading it? I doubt it. For the most part its pretty bad. Charisma and conviction are a great dressing for dialogue that is absurd. It would be interesting if someone dubbed in a new voice for Batman to see if added characterization made a big difference. I really wish someone who had good skills in this area would do that for just a handful of scenes to see how it reads. It would be interesting.

I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

Bruce Wayne being a billionaire invites suspicion, no doubt. Suspension of disbelief is still required, but I think it can be reasoned to seem more palatable. Batman has been depicted as working alongside police, so the general public could assume he's receiving some kind of internal assistance. He could be on their books as a special project. Police denying Batman is their operative isn't going to convince conspiracy theorists otherwise. If anything, some would see it as a confirmation, because whoever gets asked is always going to say no anyway. Batman being a former marine or a highly decorated officer wouldn't seem outrageous. Gordon as a new Batman was explored in the Scott Snyder run, and GCPD built the suit and the gadgets.

To widen the net, consider how many billionaires there are in the US and abroad. Batman definitely lives and operates in Gotham, but he could plausibly be funded by any of these outside people. It's reasonable for someone to surmise if Batman was running a top secret operation he'd be trying to keep his operation off grid as much as possible.

Batman driving, flying and boating out from Wayne Manor is something that can't really be explained as easily, especially in the surveillance state of 2019. But I think it's a reminder that no matter how gritty and realistic you make these characters, they have grounding in wish fulfilment and best case scenario fantasy - much like Clark Kent's disguise being a pair of spectacles, and I think that's why we still find comics so enjoyable. They're from a much simpler time, and times have changed. But that's not to say the characters shouldn't be treated seriously.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  8 Aug  2019, 15:43
I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it. In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara. He also showed an enormous amount of toughness yet compassion at  Alfred's bedside when he thought he was dying. And when he would be indecisive about the marriage question by the media or when Poison Ivy approached him and said, " You're not going to hurt me are you", its all said in a mocking kind of droll manner like he's humored by it, but not threatened. I felt he was pretty consistent throughout. Heck, he joked more as Batman than he did as Bruce Wayne!

100% agree with you on the degree of disbelief we have to afford other characters more so than Batman here. Clark and Superman will always be the most blatant offender in that category. And I also agree both of these films would be enormous hits with today's audience and their general sensibilities to this genre. That too is where I return to my earlier point about the expectations of the day in 1997. In today's marketplace there's a kind of "next batter up" mentality to the genre'. People are open to an enormous array of treatments that involve immense devotion to the comic sensibilities all the way to a more grounded realism. It's all there.

In 1997, Batman was the ONLY active superhero franchise in the world. I was almost 33 when that film came out... ... ...damn I'm old.  But during that period, it contained people like me who either loved comics and thus loved everything we could get out of it, or we had others who thought it was for individuals who were challenged to be anything serious in life. My generation was still fighting an older world that mocked the genre, but those folks were still in control of the entertainment industry. So B&R had ridiculous weights on it. You had the fans who were reading Frank Miller's Dark Knight needing their 'dignity' well represented and then there was the old world mentality of, " Well this genre was never viable to begin with." Its not like it is today where you have generations of people who see this genre as a normal part of the entertainment field, while my generation (that grew up reading those stories only in comics) are essentially running the industry. It's an entirely different playing field top to bottom. But I digress...

So with me now in my mid-50's, I was hoping these younger generations would find some bonding to B&R or at least have less of a critique to it. And that seems to be the case. This  "embarrassed/hatred" attitude seems to be losing traction. And while there will always be that segment that deplores it, just like the '66 series, I think the general complaint about it's treatment is becoming harder to argue given the volume of product out there that treads on similar notes.  The general audience for this genre has lightened up and embrace the fun in these films much more so in today's world.

And let me end on this note - If my life experience has taught me one thing about movies and television, its that you can never assume something hated in one generation will not find its audience and be embraced much later. Movies have an ongoing life of their own, long after their theatrical run has ended and the fans/critics have offered their assessment. That's just a stitch in time.  The one similarity B&R has to other movies that have gone on to be embraced decades later, is this persistence by people to continue talking about it. That right there is a tell-tell sign that a movie has life. Bad movies are forgotten. Movies that entertain, endure. For all it's quirkiness, I will always enjoy watching this movie. There is a timeless quality to it that most other Batman films do not possess. It's very much its own animal with a visual palate that has yet to have lost its allure. And to do that in this day and age where effects are so visually incredible is really saying something about a film made 22 years ago.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri,  9 Aug  2019, 12:19
I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it. In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara. He also showed an enormous amount of toughness yet compassion at  Alfred's bedside when he thought he was dying. And when he would be indecisive about the marriage question by the media or when Poison Ivy approached him and said, " You're not going to hurt me are you", its all said in a mocking kind of droll manner like he's humored by it, but not threatened. I felt he was pretty consistent throughout. Heck, he joked more as Batman than he did as Bruce Wayne!

I'm on your side here. When Clooney says "Hi Freeze, I'm Batman", I think 'no you're not'. Of all the actors to play Batman, I can't see him as anything more than George Clooney in a batsuit. He didn't become the character in the same way as the others. Any differences are minimal, almost to be irrelevant. But again, Clooney was operating in the context of the film. So in fairness, he wasn't there to be anything else other than what he depicted.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri,  9 Aug  2019, 12:19I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it.

Bale played a very different kind of Batman.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri,  9 Aug  2019, 12:19In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara.

Dick already knew his secret and he occasionally found himself in conflict with Barbara before she discovered his secret.

Clooney played Bruce in public as scatterbrained and a bit vapid. The press conference about the telescope is a good example. Even during his dinner scene with Julie, he's not taking things seriously. The only time Clooney's Bruce is ever serious is mostly when he's around people who know his secret.

There are differences between Clooney's Bruce and his Batman.

Detective Comics #1009.

(https://i.imgur.com/elKmOt0.jpg)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 11 Aug  2019, 05:27

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri,  9 Aug  2019, 12:19I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it.

Bale played a very different kind of Batman.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri,  9 Aug  2019, 12:19In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara.

Dick already knew his secret and he occasionally found himself in conflict with Barbara before she discovered his secret.

Clooney played Bruce in public as scatterbrained and a bit vapid. The press conference about the telescope is a good example. Even during his dinner scene with Julie, he's not taking things seriously. The only time Clooney's Bruce is ever serious is mostly when he's around people who know his secret.

There are differences between Clooney's Bruce and his Batman.

I get what you're saying and I realize if we split hairs over nuances of personality in any given moment, one can conclude a slightly different take on a character. But to be fair if we compared what both characters had in common, it would be easy to connect the dots in that world as to who was under the mask. It didn't help that Batman was as much a celebrity in the public eye as Bruce Wayne, so the advantage of being elusive and in shadow were not factors here.

Ultimately I accept it as it is. I can channel my disbelief to another frequency when I watch this movie and just enjoy the ride. But I DO think general audiences for the day would have been more receptive of this interpretation had Schumacher not broke continuity and kept the Batman character cloaked under a different vocal presentation. I think it was too radical a departure given this was supposed to fit with the other films in the series up to that point.

When I watch this movie by itself, its always enjoyable. But if I'm watching it in chronological order with the others, it knocks me out of that ongoing story because of the abruptness in depiction of the Wayne/Batman characters. There's no association with them and the characters played by Kilmer and Keaton. Val at least tried to play Keaton's Batman through much of the first half of Forever. He then gradually came into his own as the story developed from there. You get no transition with this film. You get a new actor and a completely different depiction.

A couple of days ago, Akiva Goldsman apologised for how the film turned out.

Quote
As for Batman & Robin, that one just confused me. I mean, we didn't mean for it to be bad. I swear, nobody was like, 'This will be bad,' I mean, here's the irony: There was a reel that was put together halfway through [filming] where it actually looked dark in an interesting way. It just is what it is and I'm sorry. I think we're all sorry.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2496299/batman-and-robin-writer-apologizes-about-the-quality-of-the-movie

I'm curious to see if there is any difference between the original scripts and the final product. Forever had earlier drafts that were darker and more connected to Burton's world than the theatrical cut. The only dark content that I could find was this concept art of Poison Ivy walking over a dead guard, while breaking Mr. Freeze out of Arkham Asylum.

(https://i.imgur.com/j6fY2of.jpg)

Good find, Fish! Nice work.

Still, I'm a bit done with these people apologizing for the movie. They made a movie and they wanted it to entertain people. I think both Schumacher films have aged amazingly well (esp considering how comic book films are going these days, pre-COVID) and I'm able to put B&R in its place as a fun action romp starring a reasonably happy Batman who is reasonably well-adjusted.

The movie is only "bad" if the viewer thinks something like TDK is the only valid approach to the character. I suppose that's valid but the cast and crew still have nothing to apologize for.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 19 May  2020, 04:52
The movie is only "bad" if the viewer thinks something like TDK is the only valid approach to the character. I suppose that's valid but the cast and crew still have nothing to apologize for.

I don't think they need to apologize, either. I'm perfectly fine with lighter takes on Batman, but just don't care much for this one.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 22 Jun  2019, 08:32I know for certain if Disney made the exact same film, it would've been lauded as "Making Batman fun again", as we saw with a lot of MCU Phase 3 crap getting overpraised. But as it is, any praise for the movie is subdued because of the stigma behind how it spelled the end of the Burton/Schumacher series.

Would it? I think there are complaints about Thor 2.

George Clooney has condemned B&R yet again, and claimed he never met Arnold Schwarzenegger while filming. This means all the Batman and Mr. Freeze interactions were used with stunt doubles. I'm surprised.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/george-clooney-says-it-physically-hurts-him-to-watch-batman-robin

Clooney might be right. I've skipped through the first ten or so minutes of the movie and so far, you never see Clooney or Arnold's face in the frame at the same time. In the few cases where you see Batman and Freeze, at least one of them is definitely a double.

O'Donnell has said the same thing. He and Arnold hung out on set all the time but they never shot even one scene together. Presumably, Uma Thurman did tho.

I'm surprised Clooney keeps getting asked about this film. He's made it pretty clear over the years that he's not a fan of how it turned out. Just goes to show that when you play Batman it's a role that sticks with you for your entire career for better or worse.

I'm surprised that Arnold didn't show up to read the lines with Chris and George. Even Nicholson did that.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Fri, 18 Dec  2020, 00:11
I'm surprised that Arnold didn't show up to read the lines with Chris and George. Even Nicholson did that.

It's incredible and I never gave it any thought. Going through the movie in my mind now, it seems to be true. The skydive is all CGI, so Clooneyman jumping into Freeze's back doesn't count. I'd have to check how they handled the scenes at the observatory when the two fight. But apart from that...yeah.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Fri, 18 Dec  2020, 00:11
I'm surprised Clooney keeps getting asked about this film. He's made it pretty clear over the years that he's not a fan of how it turned out. Just goes to show that when you play Batman it's a role that sticks with you for your entire career for better or worse.

I'm also surprised that Arnold didn't show up to read the lines with Chris and George. Even Nicholson did that.

Yeah, I can't recall one shot with both actors in it.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Fri, 18 Dec  2020, 00:11
I'm surprised Clooney keeps getting asked about this film. He's made it pretty clear over the years that he's not a fan of how it turned out. Just goes to show that when you play Batman it's a role that sticks with you for your entire career for better or worse.

B&R became a running joke. I do see merit in areas of the film but on the whole I think they went too far. But with that said, I'd watch B&R any day over something like Superman III, IV or Returns. Forever was a hit, and they probably thought audiences wanted more of that but amped it up to 11. When you're in the eye of the storm, sometimes that can be difficult to judge or see.

I have a different perspective on Batman & Robin than most people I think. I saw the film when I was 5 and I absolutely loved it. I didn't have the experience of seeing the Batman franchise have a slow decline over the years. While I do see the bad in it now, I still have nostalgia for the film. There are some comic book films that are hard to sit through but B&R isn't one of them for me. For all its faults I still find it to be entertaining.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sat, 19 Dec  2020, 02:58
I have a different perspective on Batman & Robin than most people I think. I saw the film when I was 5 and I absolutely loved it. I didn't have the experience of seeing the Batman franchise have a slow decline over the years. While I do see the bad in it now, I still have nostalgia for the film. There are some comic book films that are hard to sit through but B&R isn't one of them for me. For all its faults I still find it to be entertaining.

Same, mostly. I've come around to B&R. I see it as Dick Sprang in live action. On that basis, I find it highly enjoyable. If someone's looking for a dark knight, this isn't the movie for them. But it's a lot of fun and I enjoy it.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sat, 19 Dec  2020, 02:58While I do see the bad in it now, I still have nostalgia for the film. There are some comic book films that are hard to sit through but B&R isn't one of them for me. For all its faults I still find it to be entertaining.

I've also got a soft spot for B&R. I was 11 when it came out and I have very happy memories of the summer of 1997. Later that same year I began secondary school and entered my cynical teenage phase, at which point I started to hate both of the Schumacher Batman movies and resent them for derailing the franchise. I saw B&R twice at the cinema during that summer and enjoyed it both times, but when I received the video for Christmas later that same year I had a totally different attitude towards it.

In adulthood I've come to accept the film for what it is. B&R reminds me of a more innocent time in my life. Nostalgia is a significant factor in why I'm more tolerant towards it than most. I still watch it once a year.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 19 Dec  2020, 13:22Same, mostly. I've come around to B&R. I see it as Dick Sprang in live action. On that basis, I find it highly enjoyable. If someone's looking for a dark knight, this isn't the movie for them. But it's a lot of fun and I enjoy it.

This is the key to enjoying it. The movie's not trying to be like the Modern Age comics, but is instead drawing most of its inspiration from the Silver Age. If you evaluate Schumacher's Batgirl based on how closely she resembles the comic book Barbara Gordon then you're going to be disappointed, but if you evaluate her based on how closely she resembles the original Betty Kane Batgirl then it's a whole different story.

My advice for fans revisiting B&R is to first read the following Silver Age comic stories, all of which were published in the sixties:

•   'Batgirl!' (Batman #139, April 1961)
•   'Beware of -- Poison Ivy!' (Batman #181, June 1966)
•   'A Touch of Poison Ivy!' (Batman #183, August 1966)
•   'Mr. Freeze's Chilling Deathtrap!' (Detective Comics #373, March 1968)
•   'Angel—or Devil?' (Batman #216, November 1969)

These should equip open-minded fans with a better appreciation of the movie. They might still hate it, as is their right, but hopefully they'll at least see where Schumacher was coming from in relation to the source material.

Comic accuracy aside, I really like the B&R version of Gotham City. As I wrote in another thread last year:

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  3 Feb  2019, 17:02And since I've probably just lost whatever credibility I may have had by admitting that, I'll also say that this movie's version of Gotham City is one of my favourites. This Gotham feels like a fantasy city built entirely from the ground up, just like the Gotham in Batman Returns. In fact the architectural style isn't a million miles away from what we saw in BR. Just take away the colours, and many of the buildings look strikingly similar. Both cities were influenced by early 20th century fascist architecture; BR was influenced by German architects like Albert Speer, while B&R's production design takes many of its cues from Russian Constructivism.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1XrcbNy5/4.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg856jry/1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvQDNL90/2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/c1RmvPfy/3.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Qt5qkyP7/5.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/pXPBzkB9/6.jpg)

Like the BR Gotham, this version is filled with statues. But these statues are designed to evoke a neoclassical aesthetic. This is further evidenced in Batman and Robin's cuirasses and the pediment above the portico of the museum at the start of the film. The influence of ancient Greek and Roman art adds a mythical dimension to the film's production design. This is something I would like to see more of in future Batman movies.

(https://i.postimg.cc/JnY0drkH/classic-1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/pr9TwwfG/classic-2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/HWKjwLmf/classic-3.jpg)

The B&R Gotham is also more Gothic than many people give it credit for. I've spotted a fair number of gargoyles on the rooftops, and the portrayal of Arkham Asylum is superb.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8zTHS4Yd/gothic-1.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/W1S7brRB/gothic-2.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/2567q6rV/gothic-3.jpg)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 19 Dec  2020, 18:24This is the key to enjoying it. The movie's not trying to be like the Modern Age comics, but is instead drawing most of its inspiration from the Silver Age. If you evaluate Schumacher's Batgirl based on how closely she resembles the comic book Barbara Gordon then you're going to be disappointed, but if you evaluate her based on how closely she resembles the original Betty Kane Batgirl then it's a whole different story.

There are some overlooked eras in Batman history. 1978-1985, for example. It seems like once Englehart and Rogers called it a day, fans forgot about Batman until Frank Miller.

I'll even suggest that the period between No Man's Land and Hush is another era that's falling down the chasm. Perhaps for good reason, but still.

And I think it's safe to say that a lot of fans lack familiarity with Batman from about 1950 or so through 1964. Perhaps 1969, even.

For that reason, B&R reminds them of the Adam West show since they don't have anything else that otherwise lines up the movie. As a result, their analysis of the movie is deeply flawed. It's easy to find examples of this in the plethora of "Everything wrong with B&R" videos on YouTube.

Five positive points I made in 2013:

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 26 Jul  2013, 11:34
Five points.

Gliding back to Gotham on the verge of space, ejecting from frozen Batmobiles, etc.
The overall, fun 'I don't give a beep' tone of the film. Take it or leave it.
The look of the vehicles and the expressionism of Arkham Asylum.
Goldenthal's score. Hopefully it sees the light of day via LaLa Land Records.
Michael Gough. The guy was a class act.

I also enjoy Uma Thurman's Ivy in this. A comic accurate costume and controlling vines just like the comics and video games. I think B&R Ivy is actually a strong representation of the character's credible threat level as a villain, and why she should be used more often. As a fan of manipulation tactics, she essentially always gets what she wants, has no problem killing and actually relishes it. Plants are #1, and humanity comes last.

As a collector of die cast Batmobiles, I'd really like to have the 1997 version in my collection along with the others. I'd also like an official expanded soundtrack, just as they did with Forever. Who knows, maybe they've done market research and determined anything from the film just wouldn't sell. But in any case, I think that merchandising blackout is unfair. The film does exist, even if some want to pretend it doesn't.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Dec  2020, 03:33
I also enjoy Uma Thurman's Ivy in this. A comic accurate costume and controlling vines just like the comics and video games. I think B&R Ivy is actually a strong representation of the character's credible threat level as a villain, and why she should be used more often. As a fan of manipulation tactics, she essentially always gets what she wants, has no problem killing and actually relishes it. Plants are #1, and humanity comes last.

The Long Halloween and Hush both imply that Ivy is a rapist. Not sure what to think of that. On the one hand, her misanthropy easily explain that. When people aren't people to one, it's probably easy to justify harming them in that way.

But still, rape is pretty heavy stuff and I don't think it belongs in materials ultimately intended for children's enjoyment.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Dec  2020, 03:33As a collector of die cast Batmobiles, I'd really like to have the 1997 version in my collection along with the others. I'd also like an official expanded soundtrack, just as they did with Forever. Who knows, maybe they've done market research and determined anything from the film just wouldn't sell. But in any case, I think that merchandising blackout is unfair. The film does exist, even if some want to pretend it doesn't.

I've got a Hot Wheels B&R Batmobile. Love the movie or hate it but it's a seriously cool car and it deserves recognition.

I sometimes think the merch blackout owes to overall brand protection. Is there enough interest in the movie to turn a profit on merch? I have to believe the answer is yes. But my hunch (based on nothing) is that the marketing wonks don't want inevitable YouTube videos and hack click bait articles deriding the choice to merch B&R when [insert Batman property here] gets "ignored". That would be my main idea behind blacking out merch but maybe I shouldn't project it onto them. It might be that licensees see B&R as a risk, full-stop.

I'm after a 1:18 scale version, and one hasn't been made yet unfortunately. The car isn't my favorite or anything, but I'd like to have one for completist purposes. It's the only live action Batmobile not to receive that treatment, and I'm not surprised. There will never be anything like B&R again, and the dark and gritty is here to stay. So the film's threat level has well and truly subsided. Once Begins came that happened, and that's now 15 years ago.

Completists would get B&R merchandise. I could possibly see members of the public getting B&R stuff as a cult classic laugh. The question is at what volume. Batman Forever seems to have dislodged itself somewhat from negative perceptions. The stigma around B&R will probably always be too great, and thus the cycle will continue.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 19 May  2020, 04:52
Good find, Fish! Nice work.

Still, I'm a bit done with these people apologizing for the movie. They made a movie and they wanted it to entertain people. I think both Schumacher films have aged amazingly well (esp considering how comic book films are going these days, pre-COVID) and I'm able to put B&R in its place as a fun action romp starring a reasonably happy Batman who is reasonably well-adjusted.

The movie is only "bad" if the viewer thinks something like TDK is the only valid approach to the character. I suppose that's valid but the cast and crew still have nothing to apologize for.

I think the movie outright made fun of the characters too often, particularly Bane barely speaking and saying "Monkey work", most of Freeze's dialogue and the Bat-credit card and butt shots.

Agreed that Poison Ivy was a fine adaptation and that Arkham was well done.

Bane was effectively Ivan, Ivy's plant based henchman from 1981's Batman #339, as referenced by GothamAlleys and his blog. Ivan is strong, doesn't speak much other than simple sentences, and also drives Ivy from the airport as she disguises herself with a wig.

As a Bane fan (I have him neck and neck with the Joker) I lament this portrayal as it detracts from the strategic beast of Knightfall. But I get what they were going for. In B&R she was the strategist. Ivy sees men as nothing but pawns to do her bidding. Bane was loyal muscle - in simplistic terms she was beauty and he was the beast.

Woodrue made Bane a freak loaded with Venom, and Pamela became a freak with aloe. In that sense they were kindred spirits with shared origins. Bane had the iconography they were after, but I would've preferred Ivan or someone like him instead. But alas, it is what it is.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 22 Dec  2020, 12:11
Bane was effectively Ivan, Ivy's plant based henchman from 1981's Batman #339, as referenced by GothamAlleys and his blog. Ivan is strong, doesn't speak much other than simple sentences, and also drives Ivy from the airport as she disguises herself with a wig.

If I may, I'd just like to clarify a few facts about this particular storyline. Most of Gotham Alleys' blog post on this subject was copied from my original forum post, but I don't think he read the 1981-82 Poison Ivy storyline since he misrepresented some of the information pertaining to it. It was a story arc written by Gerry Conway that ran through the following issues:

•   'A Sweet Kiss of Poison' (Batman Vol 1 #339, September 1981)
•   'A Dagger So Deadly...' (Batman Vol 1 #343, January 1982)
•   'Monster, My Sweet!' (Batman Vol 1 #344, February 1982)

Ivy has two separate henchmen in this storyline. In Batman Vol 1 #339 she has a henchman named Evan. He chauffeurs her like Bane, but at no point does he drive her from an airport as it implies he does on Gotham Alleys' blog.


Gotham Alleys stated that this character was called Ivan, and later renamed Ivor. His name is Evan. Ivy has a separate henchman named Ivor who appears in Batman Vol 1 #344 and is also depicted as her chauffeur.


Ivor is the character she turns into a brutish plant-human hybrid.


In my forum post, and the resultant site feature, I speculated that Evan and Ivor were one and the same and that Conway simply changed the character's name in between issues. However this is just my theory and is not canon. Gotham Alleys must have misunderstood and posted it as fact.

He also captioned an image of Ivy taken from Batman #344, saying it showed it her spreading her seeds as Ivan stands behind her. The character standing behind her in that panel is Ivor, and Ivy is remorsefully picking up the remains of a plant she knocked over in anger, not planting seeds.


I stand by what I wrote in my original post on this subject – I think Evan and Ivor are meant to be the same character, and I think this storyline might have influenced the 1997 movie. Similarities include:

•   Ivy disguising herself with a wig to get close to Bruce Wayne at a social event early in the story so she can cast her influence over him
•   Ivy creating a human-plant hybrid
•   Ivy using a vine like a whip (she does this in both Batman #339 and #344)
•   Ivy snaring Batman in a vine which then almost squeezes him to death
•   Batman having to fight Ivy's super strong mutated henchman, who was shown chauffeuring her earlier in the story

Mix this storyline with Ivy's first two appearances from the Silver Age (Batman Vol 1 #181 and #183), throw in her connection to Jason Woodrue from the Modern Age comics, and cap the whole thing off with the ending of 'Hot House' where Ivy is playing 'he loves me, he loves me not' in her cell at Arkham (this scene is from Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight Vol 1 #43, not #42 as Gotham Alleys stated in his blog)...


...and you get her.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 22 Dec  2020, 14:33
If I may, I'd just like to clarify a few facts about this particular storyline. Most of Gotham Alleys' blog post on this subject was copied from my original forum post, but I don't think he read the 1981-82 Poison Ivy storyline since he misrepresented some of the information pertaining to it.

Thanks for clearing that up, maestro.

Hope all is well in the UK.

Arnold Schwarzenegger looked back at B&R when he sat down to talk about his most iconic characters with GQ in 2019.

https://youtu.be/srksXVEkfAs?t=1036

It might've been easier for him to say because he was paid extremely well, but he was very complimentary towards the whole experience. But I don't think he's being totally genuine, because he said working with Clooney was great to work with despite the fact that Clooney went on record saying the two didn't meet on set. :-\

Figure I would post this here.

Time capsule 1996 Batman and Robin (plus some Superman TAS tidbits as well).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTO3T8zUsAAzyyx?format=jpg&name=large)

Uma Thurman was recently asked about B&R, and said this:

Quote"That was a fantastic experience. I had to wear lots of rubber suits. I did not have a rubber mask. I had my own face. But I had some rubber appliances on my face sometimes. That was about as much rubber as I've ever worked with, personally."

Bravo to Uma for having the guts to resist the expected rubbishing of the film and instead choosing to communicate what was true for her.