More defense of Schumacher's films (video)

[DocLathropBrown]

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.

Actually, I disagree. I think it was perfect for building tension... Alfred even lists all the reasons why they're in deep sh*t to Bruce while he's in the bed lying down. Chase is kidnapped, the cave is destroyed, Dick has run away, and there's another riddle. Bruce's entire world is scattered and blown apart... and he's forgotten his life as Batman.    Admittedly not psychologically realistic but hey, it's a movie.

So the villains are poised to win completely, and the audience would have been worried that Batman was as good as dead already, since he was (metaphorically) dead in Bruce. We see a bit of a hushed moment between Bruce and Alfred, and we see Bruce at his lowest point in the film, he's timid, afraid of confronting the reality of this life he's forgotten...the responsibility... in a way he's freed in the way he wants to be because if this were any other situation, the curse of Batman'd be lifted but he has to face it, so he goes into the cave.

Cue finding the book, the bat, the pan-around shot with Bruce and the bat puppet (which, had it been scored, would have been epically toned) and he emerges from the cave.... Batman has returned and the villains are in trouble. Would have been more effective than Batman's sudden return in TDKRises, on the ice coming out of the dark with no fanfare. Under Joel's hand in a final edit it would have been a stand-up-and-cheer moment.

I'll give you that it coming so late in the film and only being a subplot that lasts about 3 minutes is less effective than the idea deserves, but under the hand of a skilled director such as Schumacher, with a full score and a final, tightened edit, it would have been effective even through it's brevity.

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.

I agree. As a Spider-Man fan and a Venom fan... he was great in SM3. I actually think Grace's Brock is more interesting and entertaining than the comics version. Playing up the "evil Spider-Man" aspect by making Brock more like Peter was a great enhancement to Venom. I could have done with more screen time for him, but he was fantastically done.

[riddler]

Alfred even lists all the reasons why they're in deep sh*t to Bruce while he's in the bed lying down. Chase is kidnapped, the cave is destroyed, Dick has run away, and there's another riddle. Bruce's entire world is scattered and blown apart... and he's forgotten his life as Batman.    Admittedly not psychologically realistic but hey, it's a movie.

I think the scene of bruce finding out his parents death was not his fault made too much sense to leave out; he stops being tortured (which explains why doesn't act that way in the next film) and makes the transition to choosing to be batman.

I agree. As a Spider-Man fan and a Venom fan... he was great in SM3. I actually think Grace's Brock is more interesting and entertaining than the comics version. Playing up the "evil Spider-Man" aspect by making Brock more like Peter was a great enhancement to Venom. I could have done with more screen time for him, but he was fantastically done.

I'm as big of a spidey fan as I am a batman fan and Venom is my favourite villain. I think if the series continued and we got reduced to lesser villains, I'd have been unhappy in the back of my mind knowing we barely got any Venom and no Carnage. But since the series is over, I liked the way he was handled. I definitely though Topher Grace was passionate about his role, I don't think they need a big strong actor playing venom; they played Brock as more of a parallel version of Parker but with less morals. Topher explains his characters inspiration as "what if a bad person got Peter's powers". He basically is the evil version of spider-man with slightly more powers.

But anyhow keep in mind that film was made with the series intended to continue so I think if it did go the planned 6 films, the lack of Venom would have been a legit criticism.

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.

But MSJ did not get to make what he signed on for; initially it was expected to be a modestly profitable R rated film. After filming had completed (and the success of spider-man), the studio made him reshoot and recut the film to have it PG. You have to admit it's hard for any director to completely finish a film assuming and R rating and then be told "we changed our mind, we need you to make it lighter and PG"

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...

It was on the top 250 list in 2005 well over 8 on the IMDB. Today it sits at 7.4 : two main factors brought it down- the Nolanites inability to accept any other superhero films (I'm sure they all gave it low ratings) and some peoples opinion on Raimi changing from 'genius' to 'hack' after being underwhelmed by the third film. Also while the new vs old debate isn't nearly as bad with the spider-man films than the batman films, there are inevitably fans of the new series which lowered their opinions of the old series.

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!

To be fair the original plan was Gwen Stacy getting kidnapped, Raimi had to change it to MJ once Bryce Dallas Howard got pregnant. That being said the 'danzel in distress' was badly overdone with Parker saving MJ's life SIX times in that trilogy as well as saving Gwen once.

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.

favreau was more constricted with what he could do in the second film vs. the first. The avengers references aren't overloaded but consider the following; the first film had cap's shield barely visible in a scene and nick fury in the credits, that's it. The second film had Fury and Coulson as characters in the film, the avenger initiative discussed at the end with the Hulk rampage on the monitors, Caps shield, Black Widow as a main character, and Thor's hammer in the credits.

I think by IM3, they didn't need to heavily reference the avengers; it already happened, no need to build it up, the challenge was more to go back and do a successful solo film. That was actually the first film in the avenger series which has NO foreshadowing for any future films; they talk a little bit about the avengers but even the credit scene doesn't give any hints like all the ones before, it's merely for comedy.

[thecolorsblend]

But MSJ did not get to make what he signed on for; initially it was expected to be a modestly profitable R rated film. After filming had completed (and the success of spider-man), the studio made him reshoot and recut the film to have it PG. You have to admit it's hard for any director to completely finish a film assuming and R rating and then be told "we changed our mind, we need you to make it lighter and PG"

This I did not know. Okay then.

It was on the top 250 list in 2005 well over 8 on the IMDB. Today it sits at 7.4 : two main factors brought it down- the Nolanites inability to accept any other superhero films (I'm sure they all gave it low ratings) and some peoples opinion on Raimi changing from 'genius' to 'hack' after being underwhelmed by the third film. Also while the new vs old debate isn't nearly as bad with the spider-man films than the batman films, there are inevitably fans of the new series which lowered their opinions of the old series.

I'm sort of in the middle on that. I thought the Raimi films were far too parasitic of the Reeve Superman films and, irrespective of BDH getting knocked up, too repetitive in some respects.

On the other hand, Raimi's Spider-Man is more in line with the Lee/Romita Spider-Man and I have a real fondness for that era. So hmm.

Then you get into the, in my view, completely unnecessary reboot... which was nevertheless fun to watch and took inspiration from other eras of the character... and I dunno, it's tough to bash on it too much. Plus, Garfield killed it in a way that Maguire just didn't.

To be fair the original plan was Gwen Stacy getting kidnapped, Raimi had to change it to MJ once Bryce Dallas Howard got pregnant. That being said the 'danzel in distress' was badly overdone with Parker saving MJ's life SIX times in that trilogy as well as saving Gwen once.

Speaking as someone who's not a director and doesn't have to deal with potential fallout from a major Hollywood starlet potentially risking her pregnancy just to shoot an action scene, part of me wonders why he couldn't have used her for close ups and body doubles/stunt doubles/CGI doubles for the action stuff. Only use BDH for the moments when she can stand stock-still.

Also, I realize the BDH thing is the narrative that gets floated around but I don't see why Sandman or Venom would target her. It's simply not logical. MJ is the more likely hostage.

Bear in mind, I'm arguing from ignorance on a lot of this but it just doesn't look like the "it was supposed to be Bryce" bit holds up.

favreau was more constricted with what he could do in the second film vs. the first. The avengers references aren't overloaded but consider the following; the first film had cap's shield barely visible in a scene and nick fury in the credits, that's it. The second film had Fury and Coulson as characters in the film,

Common in franchise films.

the avenger initiative discussed at the end

Five or ten minutes out of how long a movie?

with the Hulk rampage on the monitors,

That's a visual effect. It could've been anything on the "screen" for all the difference it made to how easy or difficult or long or short the setup for the shot was. The specifics are the computer effects guys' territory.

Caps shield,

Prop department. Would Favreau have felt somehow more placated if the prop had been an encyclopedia or a stack of unsold Swingers DVD's?

Black Widow as a main character,

She was a supporting character in that movie. Cumulatively she probably had less than 15 minutes of screen time. And I don't see how this is any different from any other franchise movie where the studio says a certain character must be thrown in.

and Thor's hammer in the credits.

The camera starts on Thor's hammer and then drifts up to Coulson who speaks into a cell phone or walkie talkie or something. That is (or could be) pure second unit. There's no reason Favreau would necessarily have had to direct that shot himself when signature stuff like Stark's landing at the Expo is obviously more deserving of his attention.

More broadly, and again speaking as someone who's not a director and doesn't have to deal with this BS... part of the gig, man. If you do big tentpole movies like this with big budgets then you should know ahead of time that it's filmmaking by committee. That's especially true for a start up movie studio that's betting their entire existence on a movie designed to secure their long term future. I don't see how Favreau's task was any different from directors who are instructed to insert a certain catch phrase here, product placement there, room for a video game sequence here, an idea from the toy designers there and so forth.

I think by IM3, they didn't need to heavily reference the avengers; it already happened, no need to build it up, the challenge was more to go back and do a successful solo film. That was actually the first film in the avenger series which has NO foreshadowing for any future films; they talk a little bit about the avengers but even the credit scene doesn't give any hints like all the ones before, it's merely for comedy.

All the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

[Edd Grayson]

 I call Batman Forever an average comic book flick that could've been better, and Batman & Robin a trainwreck.

That said, I like Batman Forever more than Singer's X-Men films or Raimi's Spider-Man films (Spider-Man 2 was pretty good though)

[BatmAngelus]

All the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

Not to derail the Schumacher thread further with Iron Man discussions, but did Favreau ever say that he left the Iron Man franchise due to what happened behind the scenes of the second movie?  From what I read, he left the director's chair for exactly what you say- he wanted to move onto different projects, with Disney's Magic Kingdom coming up.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/

And I agree that it's believable.  I feel that if there was any lasting ill will between Favreau and Marvel, it wasn't evident in Iron Man 3.  Even though he wasn't in the director's chair, Favreau still had his biggest acting part out of all three IM movies in that one.  He could've easily walked away from the franchise and Shane Black could've replaced his character with someone else (or recast him.  See Terrence Howard and Ed Norton, who had much bigger parts than Favreau ever did as Happy Hogan).

[riddler]

All the more reason for Favreau to stay, yes? "Hey Mr. Favreau, Kevin Feige here, say, we've got the Avengers stuff out of our system so you know that standalone movie you said you wanted last time? Well I've got good news, buddy, we're doing a standalone Iron Man 3. Who's your friend? Huh? Who's your buddy? Who makes stuff HAPPEN for you, huh?" C'mon, I think the more logical explanation is that Favreau had some interesting offers to direct other movies come his way as a direct result of his success with Iron Man and he naturally wanted to explore those and experiment with telling other types of stories. Who could blame him? I don't begrudge him that.

Maybe you're exactly right, maybe Favreau left for all the reasons you say but based on the examples you (and people from other boards) have cited, I just find that kind of hard to believe. It doesn't add up for me.

Not to derail the Schumacher thread further with Iron Man discussions, but did Favreau ever say that he left the Iron Man franchise due to what happened behind the scenes of the second movie?  From what I read, he left the director's chair for exactly what you say- he wanted to move onto different projects, with Disney's Magic Kingdom coming up.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/jon-favreau-explains-why-he-traded-iron-man-3-for-disneyland-trip/

And I agree that it's believable.  I feel that if there was any lasting ill will between Favreau and Marvel, it wasn't evident in Iron Man 3.  Even though he wasn't in the director's chair, Favreau still had his biggest acting part out of all three IM movies in that one.  He could've easily walked away from the franchise and Shane Black could've replaced his character with someone else (or recast him.  See Terrence Howard and Ed Norton, who had much bigger parts than Favreau ever did as Happy Hogan).

I don't think it's been conclusively revealed why Favreau was not in the chair for iron man 3 (was he even offered it or did he decline?). Either way it didn't seem like he was a malcontent, he says good things about the experience and that he felt it helped improve his own character (which it does, Happy's best film as a character was the third film).  It seems like it was kind of more mutual.  Now maybe this is marvels plan, interesting to note that at this point in time, Favreau is the only man to direct two films in the avengers series; Thor and Cap are both changing directors for their sequels. Now maybe it's directors not enjoying having their films constricted by Marvel's ultimate plotlines or maybe Marvel is doing it hoping each individual film can get its own feel and identity (as some people do feel the second iron man was too similar to the first).

[johnnygobbs]

Now maybe it's directors not enjoying having their films constricted by Marvel's ultimate plotlines or maybe Marvel is doing it hoping each individual film can get its own feel and identity (as some people do feel the second iron man was too similar to the first).

I always thought it was the latter.  Get fairly distinctive directors, if not necessarily auteurs, to add their own stamp to each film to give them a degree of uniqueness.  Makes sense bearing in mind that these films are part of a continuous series and therefore might otherwise run the risk of looking 'samey'.

[Wayne49]

I think trying to compare Schumacher's films to Nolan's are worlds apart, because their objective are polar opposites. The Nolan films conceptualized the Batman myth by asking (and romanticizing) the question, "If this could really happen, how would he do it?" Of course it's in a hyper-reality without any basis in truth. But there are several aspects about it that make it feel grounded. First and foremost, performing the duties of Batman can NOT be a life long career. Despite the advantages of technology, Wayne is still battered from his nightly ventures into fighting crime. So it doesn't take long before the ravages of that abuse take it's toll. But Nolan sets it up to where Batman "the hero" can continue. And for once, Bruce Wayne gets to find that peace that Batman could never provide him. For me, it was a fascinating study on the character, that flushed him all the way out. Certainly not a comic book style direction. But nonetheless, an interesting point of view that clearly brought in enormous box office around the world. So it's accomplishments speak for itself. Being such a huge fan of that trilogy would likely make most believe I'm ready to dismantle the Schumacher films. Not so. I liked those films as well, but for different reasons.

If the history of Batman has proven anything, it's that the concept can be successfully reinterpreted so many different ways. I think Schumacher embraced the comic book aspect from the 60's and essentially said, "Lets have some fun with this." And I'm very glad he did. Because in this day and age where everything has to be taken SO SERIOUS, it's refreshing to have an interpretation where the focus is really on the surface texture of the character. It's about the environment, the costumes, the colorful personalities, and the lighter qualities that make the hero "cool". Because at the end of the day it IS a man dressed up like a bat. Exactly how serious should we take this? So there are times when I look forward to putting in Schumacher's films, while others I want a different take, so I pop in the Nolan versions. But I see absolutely no reason why anyone can't like both, since neither really compete with each other.

I think B&R would have been more broadly accepted had Schumacher dialed back some of the sexual innuendo and tired one liners that littered this film. I love the look of that movie. The costumes, sets, and Batmobile are great looking additions to the Batman universe. I just personally think Schumacher saw the sets and probably felt like everything else would take a back seat. So I think he went overboard in competing with it. And I doubt the studio asked him to shoot butt shots in the opening sequence or encouraged him to lace the dialogue with sexual innuendo like Ivy's, "I'll help you grab your rocks." Or "There's something about an anatomically correct rubber suit that puts fire in a girl's lips." For a film that should have been 100% family friendly, these were awkward moments that didn't belong. So the movie suffered from tonality issues more than anything. That and I don't think Mr. Freeze had a full paragraph of dialogue that didn't contain a ice joke. So those moments really undermined any sense of pathos one could have for his yearning to save his wife . I also would have preferred Clooney at least make some effort to disguise his voice as Batman. He has a very distinctive voice. So talking like the same person in or out of the mask (in a very public setting) effectively killed the notion no one would recognize who he was.  And to me, those aspects of the film are VERY MUCH controlled by the director.

I don't accept Schumacher's excuse the studio ruined the film by asking him to promote the product side of the movie. Being "toyetic" is hardly a new concept for superhero films. What is Iron Man? What is the Avengers? What is Spider-man? And if we want to cross hairs on the definition, we even have HUGE blockbusters based on actual toys. Anyone heard of Transformers?  So being "toyetic" is something EVERYONE should anticipate on some level in a superhero movie. After all, these movies are made to sell merchandise. Yes, the American Express card moment is ridiculous and poorly concocted. But the look of B&R fits with the previous movie, so I don't see where the totality of the film's appearance hurt tickets sales.

At the end of the day, both Forever and B&R are great looking movies and fun to watch in their own right (warts and all). So I have no problem accepting them as I do the Nolan films. Two different approaches and both done mostly well in my book. It's a pity Schumacher took such a beating after B&R. The man certainly got black listed in Hollywood after that. I don't think he remotely deserved it. There are SCORES of poorly made films in this genre that don't even approach the level of quality both of these films still possess. And for all the criticism piled against the Schumacher films, they're both still visually fun to watch after all these years. That speaks volumes right there.

[The Laughing Fish]

I thought about starting another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post this here.

I listened to this podcast on a show called Trentus Magnus Punches Reality. The show's host defends the Schumacher's movies by arguing they aren't the biggest crimes against humanity as many people make them out to be, despite their legitimate problems. Magnus - the host - argues that there is a bit of depth going on in BF and B&R e.g. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from going down the same murderous path as he did, and how the two needed to make amends in the fourth film for not only Alfred's sake, but themselves as a team. And among other things, he he doesn't mind how Two-Face is portrayed in Forever; in fact, he argues that people would be scared of him if he existed in real life.

You can listen to the podcast here, but you'll need to fast forward to get to the topic. It starts on 13 minutes and 50 seconds.

http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/TheSecondEpisodeAnniversaryEpic.mp3

[thecolorsblend]

I thought about starting another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate to post this here.

I listened to this podcast on a show called Trentus Magnus Punches Reality. The show's host defends the Schumacher's movies by arguing they aren't the biggest crimes against humanity as many people make them out to be, despite their legitimate problems. Magnus - the host - argues that there is a bit of depth going on in BF and B&R e.g. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from going down the same murderous path as he did, and how the two needed to make amends in the fourth film for not only Alfred's sake, but themselves as a team. And among other things, he he doesn't mind how Two-Face is portrayed in Forever; in fact, he argues that people would be scared of him if he existed in real life.

You can listen to the podcast here, but you'll need to fast forward to get to the topic. It starts on 13 minutes and 50 seconds.

http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/TheSecondEpisodeAnniversaryEpic.mp3

The title of that episode is The Second Episode Anniversary Epic Milestone Retrospective Spectacular Extravaganza. The common consensus among a lot of people (myself included) is that takes some serious balls to do a retrospective in the second episode of your podcast.