Ok, let's get real for a sec

[Wayne49]

Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

You know when Warner Bros. released B&R, they had already seen the final product and were ecstatic. Schumacher was already set up to start a third installment and there was absolutely NOTHING that suggested Joel had tripped over his own sexuality in making this film. He simply gave the public more of what it had asked for. And quite honestly it's been something of a joke to see the public crucify him for essentially listening to their requests. Forever was the vehicle that ushered in B&R. Val had nips and we had scores of camp lines littering that film. It's every bit the same movie B&R is. The only difference is it has a tragic moment within it with the origin of Robin. Perhaps that gave enough edge to the story that fans didn't notice what was being served to them.

But either way, in my eyes it was NEVER the travesty the internet era went on to paint it as. And honestly I think new generations picked up on the scorn and just laughed in unison without stopping to think if they should watch it on it's own merits instead of just following that herd mentality. It's a fun movie and really by no means a bad movie. It has it's moments when it could have been better, but most movies do. But in this age where we have grimacing heroes overacting their anguish in their hammy costumes, one has to wonder if Schumacher didn't have the right idea all along.  At least Batman never had to turn to Robin and say... "Martha"...

[The Laughing Fish]

Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

You know when Warner Bros. released B&R, they had already seen the final product and were ecstatic. Schumacher was already set up to start a third installment and there was absolutely NOTHING that suggested Joel had tripped over his own sexuality in making this film. He simply gave the public more of what it had asked for. And quite honestly it's been something of a joke to see the public crucify him for essentially listening to their requests. Forever was the vehicle that ushered in B&R. Val had nips and we had scores of camp lines littering that film. It's every bit the same movie B&R is. The only difference is it has a tragic moment within it with the origin of Robin. Perhaps that gave enough edge to the story that fans didn't notice what was being served to them.

But either way, in my eyes it was NEVER the travesty the internet era went on to paint it as. And honestly I think new generations picked up on the scorn and just laughed in unison without stopping to think if they should watch it on it's own merits instead of just following that herd mentality. It's a fun movie and really by no means a bad movie. It has it's moments when it could have been better, but most movies do. But in this age where we have grimacing heroes overacting their anguish in their hammy costumes, one has to wonder if Schumacher didn't have the right idea all along.  At least Batman never had to turn to Robin and say... "Martha"...

I feel that history is repeating itself with BvS, in a way. WB executives reportedly gave Snyder's 3 hour cut a standing ovation, before the film was cut down to 2 and a half hours. But now some critics and movie goers suddenly dismissed the film for its tone, despite otherwise embracing that dark tone in previous movies, and conveniently forget that the only Batman who has never killed was George Clooney.

I don't quite understand the furore over the Martha moment either. It's not anywhere as bad as, say, Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit.

[Wayne49]

I don't quite understand the furore over the Martha moment either. It's not anywhere as bad as, say, Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit.

For myself the "Martha" scene was such a leap of utter disbelief in reasoning because it violated it's own rules of engagement. Snyder had Batman colored as this hyper paranoid, obsessed, and considerably older version of our hero who was more than a little set in his ways and his view of perceived threats. Now here's a man that reasoned that if Superman was even a one percent risk to mankind, that was enough to eliminate him. Think about that. By Batman's own calculations, which he himself can't possibly meet, if Superman is 99% risk free, we still need to take him down to eliminate that one percent. Well that's insane reasoning. But I accepted that statement based on his STATE OF MIND and how they sold him (and his actions)  for nearly TWO HOURS.

Now we enter a scene where Batman has managed to outwit (and is on the verge of eliminating) the perceived threat of Superman that he has not only obsessed over but has had dreams of an army bearing Superman's symbol taking him and the world out of commission...Batman's moment of reconciliation is upon him. He can soon breath easy again by eliminating that threat that has kept him in a mental frenzy since Superman's introduction to the world... but Superman utter's "Martha"... AND SUDDENLY BATMAN FEELS BETTER ABOUT HIM?

Here Superman has been trying to reason with him the whole movie and Batman is blind with rage. He's obsessed to kill him. But he utters 'Martha' (like Batman is unaware there was likely better than one percent chance someone in the world has a mother with his mom's name ) and he's suppose to feel different about the threat? If Lex's mother is named Martha, does Batman run to his aid? It was just a complete collapse in logic. The worst wasn't even that. Then he goes to save his mother and tells her he's Superman's friend. Dear Lord. But even there, Snyder isn't done. Now Batman is going to DEVOTE HIS LIFE to this man whom moments earlier he was devoted to killing? LOL! It just makes him look like a complete idiot and entirely removes the whole narrative the film has been selling to us about Wayne's damaged psyche. It's more like a hypnosis than a emotional scar. One word and he's fixed. That's so bad, I can't even find the words to express my disbelief.

And see that's why I like the Schumacher Batman from a creation process so much better. You don't have to like the treatment, but Joel was 100% focused on who the character was and what kind of tone he was setting. Schumacher understood the material and completely connected with the spirit of the comics from that golden age. Where other directors get their short hairs twisted is when they try to oversell the seriousness of the concept. Again... we're talking about a guy who dresses up in a Bat costume. You can decorate it with story points about his parents being killed, and toss all kinds of social messaging into the formula. But at the end of the day, you better come back home to the fact you're telling a comic book tale, not going on some psychological journey that can't be sustained by the lightness of the concept. I'm sorry, but both Nolan and Snyder took the concept just a bit too serious (Nolan more so at the end of his run and Snyder pretty much all the time). We love Batman because he looks great in his costume and he drives an extremely cool car.  Sure that sounds shallow, but if Bruce Wayne just fought crime in a sweatsuit none of us would care how he got there.

There's a pageantry to the superhero experience. Sure, we can build them up and give them added dimension and perceived "weight" by injecting social and psychological themes. But ultimately you have to service the purpose in them existing in the first place. And that's to ENTERTAIN. Batman & Robin entertains on a grand scale, but it's also honest with the material. It doesn't take itself overly serious and some take that a bit too...personal. Schumacher did not insult the legacy of Batman, he embraced it. And I think the truth of that scared some die-hard fans who possibly take the concept a bit too serious in their lives.

[thecolorsblend]

For myself the "Martha" scene was such a leap of utter disbelief in reasoning because it violated it's own rules of engagement. Snyder had Batman colored as this hyper paranoid, obsessed, and considerably older version of our hero who was more than a little set in his ways and his view of perceived threats. Now here's a man that reasoned that if Superman was even a one percent risk to mankind, that was enough to eliminate him. Think about that. By Batman's own calculations, which he himself can't possibly meet, if Superman is 99% risk free, we still need to take him down to eliminate that one percent. Well that's insane reasoning. But I accepted that statement based on his STATE OF MIND and how they sold him (and his actions)  for nearly TWO HOURS.

You find it hard to believe that a man who puts on a rubber bat costume and puts the stuffings out of people because his parents were murdered before his eyes might have his head turned when he hears his own mother's name from the lips from an avowed enemy?

Cool story, bro.

[Wayne49]

You find it hard to believe that a man who puts on a rubber bat costume and puts the stuffings out of people because his parents were murdered before his eyes might have his head turned when he hears his own mother's name from the lips from an avowed enemy?

Cool story, bro.

Turn his head? LOL. Snyder had him born again. I wonder if he would have a change of heart if he realized Kal-el's mom was actually named Lara. Ooops!

[Catwoman]

He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.

[Wayne49]

He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.

I'll tell you why that reasoning doesn't fit with me. Because Superman's perspective on Batman does not lend itself to this notion that speaking his mother's name should mean anything at that moment. And Batman is hardly in a state of mind to be shell-shocked by hearing that name since he has absolutely no bond with Superman to reach that deep and find that kind of connection strictly off a name. So it's not about the name that is the issue. It's how Batman reacts after the fact. Batman didn't spend the movie worrying about whether he had a mother. He considered Superman a threat because of what had already transpired in MOS. How does Superman having a mother remove that perceived threat for Batman when he says Superman is no good at 99% risk free?

The world's greatest detective is unmoved by anything Superman does or says, but is suddenly slapped awake by the utterance of a name with no context? Sorry. I get the intent to move the plot along, but the director spent the whole damn film showing Batman as some kind of hard-*ss that makes Dirty Harry look tame. To have him do a complete flip like that from really nothing just makes him look like a buffoon. Here's his mind set - "I don't trust him" - "I hate him" - "Does he bleed?" - "I'll make him bleed" -  "Wait. Your mother's name is Martha?" -  "Hello I'm Superman's friend." - "I'm going to devote my life to his name."  That's what you have here. This pic below pretty well sums up how serious I can take his anger now.

[The Dark Knight]

He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.

Well, this quote from Schumacher's Batman and Robin sums the situation up for me succinctly.

"Death and chance, stole your parents. But rather than become a victim, you have done everything in your power to control the fates. For what is Batman? If not an effort to master the chaos that sweeps our world. An attempt to control death, itself."

In some ways, Bruce saying "Martha won't die tonight" is him making up for his own mother's demise. He was too young to do anything as a child. But now? He's a grown man making sure it won't ever happen again. He's helping out a new ally, but make no mistake, it's relating to his own haunted past as well.

[The Laughing Fish]

How does Superman having a mother remove that perceived threat for Batman when he says Superman is no good at 99% risk free?

To have him do a complete flip like that from really nothing just makes him look like a buffoon. Here's his mind set - "I don't trust him" - "I hate him" - "Does he bleed?" - "I'll make him bleed" -  "Wait. Your mother's name is Martha?" -  "Hello I'm Superman's friend." - "I'm going to devote my life to his name."  That's what you have here. This pic below pretty well sums up how serious I can take his anger now.

If you seriously think that Batman stopped his misguided anger at Superman because their mothers share the same name then I'm afraid that you missed the point about that scene completely.

Superman cried out "You're letting him ("him" as in Lex) kill Martha. Find him. Save Martha", and when Lois intervened, Batman realised that he had been emotionally manipulated by Lex all along. The fact that Superman pleading him to save his mother made Batman pause and understand that he was becoming everything he stood against. It made Batman realise that he was wrong; he wasn't about to kill a threat to protect the world from danger, he was about to kill a man in cold blood, thus making him no better than own parents' killer. He's be indirectly responsible for allowing his mother to die as well; which would be another huge failure because this was supposed to be very thing Batman was created in the first place - to prevent such tragedies from happening.

You might hate that Batman had such a deeply flawed mindset to begin, but the film establishes why he behaved this way. Batman had been going down a dark path where he had not only experienced the horrors of what happened in Metropolis, but also expressed bitterness about his own existence as a crimefighter. Not only did he lose Robin to the hands of the Joker, we can definitely infer that he had been betrayed by people who he had considered as good people, as says rebuts Alfred's claims about Superman is no enemy by saying "Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?". It's because of this growing disillusionment, together with witnessing the most shocking event in history that changed reality as the world knows it, makes Bruce making the same mistake as Wallace Keefe and anybody else who mistrusted Superman. If anything, I give the film credit for not trying cover up Batman's flaws like the Nolan films, where we're supposed to accept Batman's reasoning for killing Ra's al Ghul because innocent people were in danger...but we're lead to believe he's too "incorruptible" to kill the Joker despite the fact he was ready to blow up thousands of people?! And people complain about Batfleck?!

I like the end of the battle between Superman and Batman because it brought Bruce back from his insane mindset and began his journey to redemption. As Superman died to save the world, Bruce and Wonder Woman began to look for the other metahumans in memory of Clark, with an ashamed Bruce promising "I failed him in life. I will not fail him in death".

Look, I can understand the complaints about the serious tone of the movie. After all, I was bothered by how serious dreary the Nolan films were. But unlike those films, this film had a positive story arc going on when it comes to redemption. Nolan never gave me that satisfaction, and because of this, I can cut the film some slack.

Besides, this scene is nowhere near as moronic as Two-Face's sudden turn in The Dark Knight. This parody sums up that stupid hospital scene very nicely:

AARON ECKHART
You asshole, why did you kill my girlfriend?

HEATH LEDGER
I'm an agent of chaos. I just do things.

AARON ECKHART
Wow, that's some sophisticated characterization there. As soon as I get out of these surprisingly strong bandages, I'm going to kill you!

HEATH LEDGER
Look, you don't want to kill me for murdering her. You want to kill everyone else for failing to stop me from murdering her!

AARON ECKHART
That doesn't make any sense at all.

HEATH LEDGER
And yet, it's going to be your main character motivation for the rest of the movie. Now make with the murder, Sir Skins-A-Lot.

http://www.the-editing-room.com/thedarkknight.html

^Now THAT is pure f***ing bullsh*t. Absolute nonsense. If you can accept that, then what happened in BvS shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Wayne49]

If you seriously think that Batman stopped his misguided anger at Superman because their mothers share the same name then I'm afraid that you missed the point about that scene completely.

Superman cried out "You're letting him ("him" as in Lex) kill Martha. Find him. Save Martha", and when Lois intervened, Batman realised that he had been emotionally manipulated by Lex all along. The fact that Superman pleading him to save his mother made Batman pause and understand that he was becoming everything he stood against. It made Batman realise that he was wrong; he wasn't about to kill a threat to protect the world from danger, he was about to kill a man in cold blood, thus making him no better than own parents' killer. He's be indirectly responsible for allowing his mother to die as well; which would be another huge failure because this was supposed to be very thing Batman was created in the first place - to prevent such tragedies from happening.

I enjoyed reading your explanation and I think had the film carved out situations in the movie for Batman to arrive at that moment, I would be in lock step with your thinking. The problem here is Batman's reaction comes from nowhere. Yes, Superman says, "You're letting him kill Martha." Which by itself is an odd thing to say to someone you don't know. Why even say her first name when that is his mother? Wouldn't he prefer to tell Batman it IS his mother by title? But then Batman just stops, like that's a trigger word and appears stunned...he looks around as if blown back by the name and says, "What does that mean? Why did you say that name?" Then Superman continues, "Find him. Save Martha." Batman has a flashback and then screams again, "Why did you say that name!!"

Everything that comes after that, including Lois running in to explain "Martha", just feels like I'm being hit over the head with the obvious. I got the blinding inference from that initial scene, then I get a flashback, and now we have Lois there spelling it out. I don't think audiences are that dumb. So the whole scene feels very staged and forced to advance the narrative. I totally understand the implication here (to ad nauseam). But, for me, Batman doesn't arrive at it naturally. The name stuns him and when he finds out it's Superman's mom, he tosses the Kryptonite staff and becomes a new person. Had he been a young Batman who was still wrestling with his demons as a result of his inexperience and just being a young man, I could reason and accept that moment to advance the story.

But to be a grizzled veteran in this role with more than a few other tragedies under his belt, I can't possibly reason him walking around with a trauma fixation that is no better reasoned after all that time than to react so disoriented to the name. That's an enormous leap of logic to sell audiences. It played more like a poorly constructed plot device and audiences reacted accordingly. Which is why I say, knowing what the director WANTED to say, and demonstrating it are two different worlds. I believe as a director, you have to competently bring your audience onto that emotional ledge with the character. It can't just be a plot moment, it has to be a real emotionally charged moment because of the story responsibilities it carries. For myself, it almost came across as unintended humor the way he stepped back from hearing the name. It just didn't feel believable or remotely natural.