How come Schumacher was chosen to direct the next film?

[Slash Man]

Hell, his original work on Batman Forever showed he could handle dark films

What do you mean?  Batman Forever wasn't dark.
[/quote]Yeah, Edd Grayson's post sums it up. Remember that Burton picked Schumacher to carry on the series. When the project started, Schumacher wanted to continue what Burton's work established, but studio interference saw a much more watered down theatrical cut.

[Wayne49]

I think it's pretty easy to see why they picked Schumacher to direct this series. When you look at movies like Lost Boys and Flat-liners, you can see his knack for bringing mood to film through visual elements. The fact they were dark doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact the director demonstrated he could successfully instill a prescribed mood to those projects. The studio was most likely looking for a director that understood how to inject that component and operate in the world of Batman. That being said, there were allot of cooks in the kitchen for this film. That is abundantly clear when you compare with B&R.

In many ways, Forever is a very restrained film. If there is a tonal meter you could dial into this film, there are moments when the studio has Schumacher pull out all the stops, then Burton quickly interjects and starts reeling him (and the studio) back on the tracks towards a darker mood. It's a very measured film in terms of conveying a tone. That mood needle never sits on just one treatment for very long. B&R is decidedly one direction and never really lets off the gas except for a few obligatory moments with Alfred as the sympathetic character in trouble. So you can definitely tell there were allot of people pulling the strings in Forever.

[arnaud187]

I think it's pretty easy to see why they picked Schumacher to direct this series. When you look at movies like Lost Boys and Flat-liners, you can see his knack for bringing mood to film through visual elements. The fact they were dark doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact the director demonstrated he could successfully instill a prescribed mood to those projects. The studio was most likely looking for a director that understood how to inject that component and operate in the world of Batman. That being said, there were allot of cooks in the kitchen for this film. That is abundantly clear when you compare with B&R.

In many ways, Forever is a very restrained film. If there is a tonal meter you could dial into this film, there are moments when the studio has Schumacher pull out all the stops, then Burton quickly interjects and starts reeling him (and the studio) back on the tracks towards a darker mood. It's a very measured film in terms of conveying a tone. That mood needle never sits on just one treatment for very long. B&R is decidedly one direction and never really lets off the gas except for a few obligatory moments with Alfred as the sympathetic character in trouble. So you can definitely tell there were allot of people pulling the strings in Forever.

Thanks for the clarification mate!

Do you suppose part of the reason Batman Forever was a better because of Burton's involvement? Speaking of which, what exactly Burton was responsible for in the film?

[The Laughing Fish]

From what I understand, Burton was given a producer credit, but he didn't really have much involvement in actually producing the film other than approving Schumacher as the new director.

[Edd Grayson]

This is one scene they never should have cut. In fact I would've kept in the film all the "Forever" cut scenes I've seen on the internet. 

[Wayne49]

^^^ I like that scene all the way up until he walks out. But when he comes out with a smile and says, " I'm Batman", I think that's a bit too much resolution to a symbolic scene. If they could cut it where it ends with him meeting the bat face to face, I think that would be perfect.

[Edd Grayson]

Although I like that small bit, I agree that the affirmation seems to be unnecessary. I don't mind what comes before it either.

[thecolorsblend]

It's the wrong place in the narrative for a scene like that. Dick has run away (to nowhere apparently), Chase has been kidnapped and the Batcave has been destroyed. The narrative naturally wants to accelerate after those things and that scene puts the brakes on the unfolding of the plot even more for character development.

Character development is fine in its place but when the stakes have been raised that high, it's the wrong time to do a moody character study when the audience is ready for fights and explosions. As painful as it might be to lose that scene, Schumacher made the right decision in cutting it to keep the pace of the film active.

[Edd Grayson]

If the film was restructured to make the darker scenes fit it, it could have easily been as great as the Burton films for me.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's the wrong place in the narrative for a scene like that. Dick has run away (to nowhere apparently), Chase has been kidnapped and the Batcave has been destroyed. The narrative naturally wants to accelerate after those things and that scene puts the brakes on the unfolding of the plot even more for character development.

Character development is fine in its place but when the stakes have been raised that high, it's the wrong time to do a moody character study when the audience is ready for fights and explosions. As painful as it might be to lose that scene, Schumacher made the right decision in cutting it to keep the pace of the film active.

The thing is, that scene was supposed to enable Batman to recover from his repressed memories once and for all before he could go after Riddler and Two-Face. Without it, the transition between surviving the gunshot wound to the head and suit up to travel to Claw Island feels very jarring.