15 years of Batman and Robin

[The Dark Knight]

I'm pretty much a Schumacher convert, believe it or not. Butt shots, nipples, quips and all. Not my number one or anything, but they're pretty darn fun and are better than Nolan's pretentious offerings, that's for sure.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm pretty much a Schumacher convert, believe it or not. Butt shots, nipples, quips and all. Not my number one or anything, but they're pretty darn fun and are better than Nolan's pretentious offerings, that's for sure.

Funny, I just posted something similar before reading this. But yeah, this is it. Nolan has gone a long way toward legitimizing Schumacher in my eyes (with a major assist for DocLathropBrown). Time was I would've told you that would be impossible but a lot can change in just a few years.

[The Dark Knight]

Indeed. As Keaton Batman says in BR, things change. And my opinions have. Nolan's three films put things into perspective for me. I now have a firmer grasp of things. I value rewatchability quite a lot, and Schumacher has that. Really, the opening segment of TDKR makes little sense. I won't go into forensic detail as to why, but just know that it doesn't. With the opening of Batman and Robin, I can sit back with a bucket of popcorn and truly turn off my mind to have real fun.

The work of DocLathropBrown and Silver Nemesis have helped a great deal.

[Slash Man]

Very true. It was me and my brother's most-watched Batman film back in the day. As kids, we didn't give a damn about critical reviews or character depth. We just wanted to see Batman. And that's what we got. To this day, it's entertaining, and I agree that it definately has a lot of rewatchability to it. With it's long length and dull moments, the Dark Knight Rises can be quite the undertaking to watch. Batman & Robin is just a fun flick.

[The Dark Knight]

Very true. It was me and my brother's most-watched Batman film back in the day. As kids, we didn't give a damn about critical reviews or character depth. We just wanted to see Batman. And that's what we got. To this day, it's entertaining, and I agree that it definately has a lot of rewatchability to it. With it's long length and dull moments, the Dark Knight Rises can be quite the undertaking to watch. Batman & Robin is just a fun flick.

Exactly right. There is a long section in TDKR particularly when Bruce is locked up, Blake, Bane and these guys have the floor and its just boring. Things really drag. There's none of this with the Schumacher flicks.

On this note, it's well timed that What Culture has just posted an article called '6 things Schumacher did better than Nolan'. Give it a read. 

http://whatculture.com/film/joel-schumachers-batman-6-things-he-did-better-than-nolan.php

[Azrael]

Joel Schumacher's Batman: 6 Things He Did Better Than Nolan
(whatculture.com)

"Schumacher's Batman films were far from perfect but they don't deserve half the hate they receive. If people were to step back and take the Bat blinkers off they would see that both Schumacher Batman films have their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Since we never hear about anything but weaknesses, I've chosen to highlight 6 things that I believe Joel Schumacher did right in adapting Batman for the big screen, and 6 things that consequently make him a better Batman director than Christopher Nolan."

(Don't know if it's the most elaborate troll feature ever, I know I cannot unread this, lol)

(EDIT: I just saw that TDK's post above had exactly the same link at the end)

[The Dark Knight]

I would have tackled the article differently, but the author still makes valid points, especially:

Villains that for better or worse are more flambouyant and all out:

Yet, in today's society it seems that the more dark and joyless a film is the better.

Schumacher had better visuals. Nolan doesn't know show don't tell.

Even at his worst Joel Schumacher still has better chops as a cinematic stylist than Christopher Nolan. All Nolan could do was load down the audience with lame visuals and dull repetitive nihilism and then try to be theatrical and cinematic by tying everything together with a lame contrived ending.

Makes me want to write an article like this, actually. Taking a set of films which is perceived to be the worst and stacking them up against the series which is for some reason held up at the pinnacle.

[Azrael]

Immense nostalgic value, yeah. Schumacher's flicks remind me of being a carefree kid where the most serious problem in life was how crappy the latest Bat-films were. Love Goldenthal's scores, some production design, yeah, they're interesting from an aesthetic POV.

But to even consider comparing Shumacher's with Nolan's seems absurd. It's almost like devaluing the entire Batman affair really - "Batman? What's the point in making Batman films that try to be a little dark, serious or whatever? Batman is, you know, for kids, and subtlety is not a requirement, just big boom shake the room" (The last sentence is not mine but stolen from a 1997 article from EMPIRE magazine)

No offense, really, but promoting Schumacher's movies (we came from "defending" to "promoting"), placing them on equal footing with Burton's films, actually damages the reputation of the latter.

[thecolorsblend]

Immense nostalgic value, yeah. Schumacher's flicks remind me of being a carefree kid where the most serious problem in life was how crappy the latest Bat-films were. Love Goldenthal's scores, some production design, yeah, they're interesting from an aesthetic POV.

But to even consider comparing Shumacher's with Nolan's seems absurd. It's almost like devaluing the entire Batman affair really - "Batman? What's the point in making Batman films that try to be a little dark, serious or whatever? Batman is, you know, for kids, and subtlety is not a requirement, just big boom shake the room" (The last sentence is not mine but stolen from a 1997 article from EMPIRE magazine)

No offense, really, but promoting Schumacher's movies (we came from "defending" to "promoting"), placing them on equal footing with Burton's films, actually damages the reputation of the latter.

Couldn't disagree more. Even when I was, shall we say, less an admirer of Schumacher, I still felt like he, Burton and Nolan had shown some of the many different approaches one can take with Batman. I'd argue Schumacher is worth defending on that basis alone.

[The Dark Knight]

My opinion of Schumachers has only risen due to the stark tonal difference Nolan presented. If it was just the Burton series and Schumacher around, chances are high I'd be ripping Schumacher as per usual. For me to value Schumacher's series over Nolan's speaks volumes.

I have no problem whatsoever with darkness. I love darkness. But selling realism is another thing. You can tackle those themes, but you have to do them well. Just having that stuff doesn't make it gold. Nolan tried to be clever but it didn't work for me. It's the pretentiousness that gets my goat.

I maintain it would make for a very interesting article. You can compare anything you want, especially when they're all Batman movies. As I see it, the fact Schumacher and Nolan are day and night makes comparisons perfect. Schumacher gave us neon and Nolan gave us unnatural, repetitious dialogue. At times Nolan's flicks come off as unintentionally hilarious, and Schumacher is Schumacher.

Batman movies should not all be like Schumacher, though I feel he was on the right track. Reality should not be the go for Batman. By the time TDKR came out, it was tired. They started this trend with Begins as a reaction to Schumacher, and they had to finish it. And I'm glad it's done.

In terms of entertainment, Schumacher kills Nolan. In terms of visuals, soundtrack, equipment, vehicles...Schumacher kills Nolan. Naturally it's personal preference, but that's how I see it. Nolan lacks spark and flamboyance. Schumacher may have had too much of it, but I think that's better than precious little.