More defense of Schumacher's films (video)

[The Laughing Fish]

I also echo the sentiment that I'd take Forever over TDK any day, even though Forever is mediocre. That being said, are the rumours about Forever undergoing several edits true, or are they nothing more than a myth?

10 Great Movies Ruined Entirely By Last Minute Changes

8. Batman Forever

Schumacher has been credited many times with killing the franchise, and he's accepted most of the criticism in stride. But in reality, Schumacher gets unfairly blamed for things that were far beyond his control. Originally, Schumacher wanted his Batman films to have a similar tone to the 1989 Batman. When Schumacher was hired, he wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One and do a prequel film, but Warner Bros. refused, saying they were only interested in a sequel. Schumacher conceded, and his initial cut of Batman Forever was around two and a half hours long.

This initial version was reportedly much darker than the theatrical cut, and far more similar to Batman than Batman & Robin. The studio forced the movie through several major edits, with somewhere around forty minutes of footage being cut. As opposed to a much darker version of Two-Face and the Riddler, the more camp aspects of the two became highlighted.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3

[BatmanFanatic93]

I also echo the sentiment that I'd take Forever over TDK any day, even though Forever is mediocre. That being said, are the rumours about Forever undergoing several edits true, or are they nothing more than a myth?

10 Great Movies Ruined Entirely By Last Minute Changes

8. Batman Forever

Schumacher has been credited many times with killing the franchise, and he's accepted most of the criticism in stride. But in reality, Schumacher gets unfairly blamed for things that were far beyond his control. Originally, Schumacher wanted his Batman films to have a similar tone to the 1989 Batman. When Schumacher was hired, he wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One and do a prequel film, but Warner Bros. refused, saying they were only interested in a sequel. Schumacher conceded, and his initial cut of Batman Forever was around two and a half hours long.

This initial version was reportedly much darker than the theatrical cut, and far more similar to Batman than Batman & Robin. The studio forced the movie through several major edits, with somewhere around forty minutes of footage being cut. As opposed to a much darker version of Two-Face and the Riddler, the more camp aspects of the two became highlighted.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-great-movies-ruined-entirely-by-last-minute-changes.php/3

Man i hope it's true cause i hope with that version of forever haters can stop bashing it & see a brighter side of BF 

[Silver Nemesis]

^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

[BatmanFanatic93]

Eh even without the Nolan worshippers i still don't like the nolan films at all i mean they aren't bad movies it's just that they ain't my cup of tea of batman. 

[johnnygobbs]

^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

That's the way I tend to feel Silver Nemesis.  Perhaps I'm being unfair but I see too much hardened Burton or Nolan hatred from each set of fans.  Personally, I think the Burton and Nolan Batman films are great, the Schumacher ones not so much although I'm glad to see people still derive pleasure from them.

[thecolorsblend]

As long as no one here is saying that the Schumacher films are as good as the Burton ones...

The Schumacher films are as good as the Burton ones. Burton nailed a lot of key aspects of the character while Schumacher nailed other ones. To me they're both equally Batman. I enjoy them a lot.

Gobbs, you seriously should look into more of Joel's filmography---Generally he's made nothing but exceptional (and even dark/nihilistic) films, such as Falling Down, Trespass, Blood Creek, The Number 23, Phone Booth, 8MM, etc.... His Batman flicks are actually the odd set out, and what does that tell you? It was all WB, baby.

I could be wrong but what it told me was that Joel was willing to subordinate his usual style to accommodate Batman. I admire that. A lot of directors out there would sooner attempt to force the material to suit them... but maybe we should leave Bryan Singer out of the discussion.

And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest. The only difference is one set is more serious than the other--quality is relative.

On any other forum, those would be fighting words. But here, more and more it's becoming the prevailing sentiment.

^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

Hate. I don't know about that. Hate... it's such a strong word.

There's a sequence in TDK where Bruce pretends to run off with the Russian ballet ladies but it's actually just an alibi for Batman to kidnap Lao. Batman field tests his new suit, beats the piss out of Lao's security guards, kidnaps Lao and drags his ass back to Gotham City.

In TDKRises, there's a bit where Batman takes down a few of Bane's thugs and then is forced to escape from Gotham City PD, first using the batcycle and then with the batcopter.

I love both of those sequences because they scream Batman to me. They're just cool and lots of fun to watch!

But the Nolan movies are more than just cool scenes strung together; they deal with ideas too... and I simply don't like very many of those ideas.

Burton and Schumacher had ideas in their movies too but they understood they had to make the real world into myth... while Nolan tried to drag myth into the real world. I find Burton and Schumacher's end results more engaging to my sensibilities than I do Nolan. There's a lot to enjoy in Nolan's movies but ultimately they're not for me.

If other people enjoy them, hey, more power to them. Me being an old fuddy-duddy shouldn't be rain on their parade... but FFS they shouldn't rain on mine and, as others have said, the Nolan Nazis have done that very thing lo these past several years.

[DocLathropBrown]

I don't hate Nolan's films... they just don't give me any particular joy overall. I'm not going to be inclined to talk-up their enjoyable aspects because... they get praised to death. Overpraised, really. So I'm just less inclined to think about them in general. I'm indifferent on them.

..Which is a lot more than you could say for most fans and their less liked interpretations.

[The Laughing Fish]

^ I'll take a thousand Batman Forevers over one TDK any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And I'll echo the stated sentiment: Joel's movies mop the floor with Nolan's. No contest.

I didn't realise you fellahs hated Nolan's films that much. It's nice to see people defending Schumacher's movies, but it's sad to see the same people not getting any pleasure out of Nolan's trilogy. I can't help thinking you guys might have liked the more recent trilogy more had it not been for the Nolan worshippers attacking the old films.

I can only speak for myself, but I could care less about what other people have to say about the old films, I judged these new movies on their own merits and thought they just sucked. I thought the first one was just poorly made, and story-wise the sequels got worse every time and were an insult to the intelligence.

I mean, I'll admit as long as I treat the third film as a farcical comedy; I tend to enjoy it much better than the other two. But the only few things I genuinely liked were Tom Hardy's comical portrayal as Bane, Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, JGL, and Michael Caine and Gary Oldman in the first film. And I even liked a couple of actions scenes in the second one and the final chase sequence in the third. Otherwise I found everything else in the trilogy to be unworthy of my time. And for such movies that took themselves so seriously, I expected better storytelling than what we got, in my honest point of view.

But the Nolan movies are more than just cool scenes strung together; they deal with ideas too... and I simply don't like very many of those ideas.

I don't mind if themes in a story are actually clever and are well thought out, like the divided public opinion over Batman's crime-fighting stance in The Dark Knight Returns. But, if you're going to simply throw ideas like Batman is supposed to stand for order as opposed to Joker's chaos, but still have Batman trash the city and endanger everybody else while driving vehicles in pursuit of the Joker, then I'm not going to be impressed.

[riddler]

It's interesting how many times studio interference has ruined comic films;

Schumacher had a great film lined up with Forever, everyone I've spoken to who has seen the deleted scenes believes they would have improved the movie.
As we all know the studio interfered heavily with Batman and Robin and got the film they wanted; a 2 hour toy commercial appropriate for children. And of course the studio ran Burton out in the first place.

Mark Steven Johnson was left alone while making daredevil because the studio didn't see it as a box office smash. After spider-mans success, they began to interfere and similar to batman forever, forced the director to churn out a more family friendly movie which was far worse; if you haven't seen the directors cut, check it out.

Sam Raimi was well on his way with the spider-man films, the second one was considered the greatest comic film of all time at the time (then Batman Begins came and the Nolanites had to trash every film which rivaled it but that's another story); with the third film they pressured him to include Venom and it brought down the franchise and Rami gets criticized for misusing a character he didn't want there in the first place.

Iron Man 2 as well was underwhelming with John Favreau having less control over the first film although at least in this case it is understandable with the avengers coming.

[thecolorsblend]

Schumacher had a great film lined up with Forever, everyone I've spoken to who has seen the deleted scenes believes they would have improved the movie.

The cuts made improved the flow of a movie intended to be a summer actionfest. Goldsman placed the scene where Bruce reconciles his guilt over his parents death in the absolute worst part of the movie. The stakes have been raised as high as they can be and it's time for Batman to go into action... not an introspective voyage of self-discovery. Don't blame the studio; blame Goldsman for not putting the scene some place else.

As we all know the studio interfered heavily with Batman and Robin and got the film they wanted; a 2 hour toy commercial appropriate for children. And of course the studio ran Burton out in the first place.

I'll grant this... with the proviso that none of this was kept secret from Schumacher. He knew what he was getting himself into.

Mark Steven Johnson was left alone while making daredevil because the studio didn't see it as a box office smash. After spider-mans success, they began to interfere and similar to batman forever, forced the director to churn out a more family friendly movie which was far worse; if you haven't seen the directors cut, check it out.

The studio wanted a fast-paced, 90 minute film. MSJ should've given them a fast-paced, 90 minute film. I realize he wants to satisfy his inner artist. But whatever, the studio is paying the bill and they were clear up front that this son of a son needs to be about 90 minutes. I blame him.

Sam Raimi was well on his way with the spider-man films, the second one was considered the greatest comic film of all time at the time (then Batman Begins came and the Nolanites had to trash every film which rivaled it but that's another story);

Day-um, son, I'd totally forgotten about Spidey 2 being so crowned but you're right. You're absolutely right, that's how things were shaping up until Nolan came along. Man...

with the third film they pressured him to include Venom and it brought down the franchise and Rami gets criticized for misusing a character he didn't want there in the first place.

Venom wasn't the center piece villain of the film, that much is true, but I don't think he got shortchanged. Eddie Brock is a loser who found the symbiote. The movie showed Eddie Brock as a loser who found the symbiote. Apart from quibbling over his use of personal pronouns, I don't see how Spider-Man 3 was too far off in its presentation of Venom.

If anything, I'd say what kind of ruined that franchise for me was Mary Jane getting kidnapped and used as bait by the villain in every goddamn one of them. Find a new plot already, Raimi!

Iron Man 2 as well was underwhelming with John Favreau having less control over the first film although at least in this case it is understandable with the avengers coming.

Iron Man 2 is an underwhelming story. Tony is getting poisoned. Okay, that's a little interesting. Tony is getting harassed by the government who think they own the citizens. Alright, the libertarian in me can definitely see Tony's point of view. But the key conflicts and baddies revolve around warmed over leftovers from the first Iron Man. Someone is using Stark's technology against him... so Stark has to use his own technology better to win the day! Eh. The Avengers infomercial aspects are what sustain my interest in that movie.

And Favreau wasn't happy about the Avengers stuff? Coulson and Fury only have a few scenes. The references to Avengers stuff isn't as heavy as he seems to think from what I remember. Frankly, I think Favreau wanted to find other stuff to do and the Avengers excuse was a convenient one. Iron Man 3 was a fairly stand alone movie. You can't not acknowledge what Tony went through with the Avengers but it's not like IM3 was an Avengers film guest starring Iron Man. I like Favreau as an actor and as a director but I don't buy his excuse for leaving the franchise. He was ready to move on and I think he invented an ejection seat to do so. Fine, good for him, but I don't believe him.