Is Batman v Superman another Batman Returns?

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not convinced, but this guy at 'Forbes' magazine seems to think so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/02/12/i-dont-worry-that-batman-v-superman-is-bad-but-rather-that-its-unconventionally-great/#35894efa2e13

By the way, he likes Batman Returns, a lot, and has similarly high expectations for BvS, yet worries that it might turn-off a lot of audience-members the way Batman Returns did.

And for what it's worth, I am also a fan, maybe the only other fan, of Sucker Punch. 

[Edd Grayson]

The link doesn't work for me, it redirects to a "Forbes Welcome" page with nothing showing...

[johnnygobbs]

That's annoying.

Okay, I've cut and pasted the article text:

I Don't Worry That 'Batman V Superman' Is Bad. I Worry That It Is Unconventionally Great

Scott Mendelson, Forbes Contributor, I cover the film industry.

Yesterday was a kind of "good news, bad news" day for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The good news is that Warner Bros. (or someone connected to Warner Bros., since I presumed they were going to wait until Monday morning's Good Morning America event) dropped the most explicitly crowd-pleasing trailer yet. There is a conversation to be had about whether or not they made the Lone Ranger mistake (too many okay trailers, capping off with a great final one), but that will wait until I see it on a big screen in the near future. The other issue was a much-publicized video chit-chat via HitFix's Drew McWeeny which highlighted what a lot of us have been hearing about the film. Namely that Warner Bros. is nervous, that Ben Affleck's Batman (and Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor) is testing better than the other elements, and that there may be big changes/delays to the already announced DC Extended Universe if this thing doesn't hit big next month.

For the record, I have not seen the film, and, as a lifelong DC Comics fan and general Zack Snyder fan (I'm the freak who likes Sucker Punch and That Owl Movie), I am rooting like crazy for Zack Snyder to have pulled this thing off and prove us all to be idiots. But truth be told, my fear is not that the film will be bad. I disliked Man of Steel and life went on even if I immediately regretted purchasing the soundtrack prior to seeing the movie. No, my fear is that the movie is good, really good in an individualistic and distinctive fashion. I fear that even if it fails it will fail while attempting something genuinely interesting with the superhero sub-genre, and that the very things that make it interesting are the things currently turning off would-be preview audiences and studio executives.

I worry that the allegedly poor screening results are because it's full of boldly fantastical imagery and big ideas that challenge easy assumptions about superhero movies and their place in pop culture. I worry that audiences will grow weary of engaging characters played by great actors (Holly Hunter, Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons, Ben Affleck, etc.) engaging each other in both moral debates and quirky conversation while the would-be audience members merely want to see a Ben Affleck's "God-Dammed Batman" kicking ass for 140 minutes. That's a simplification, but the first two trailers promise something really different, while the last two seem to be more about convincing audiences that it's not as different as they might fear. I am afraid that Zack Snyder has made his Batman Returns and that the audience at large will deliver unto him the same reaction that Tim Burton suffered twenty-four years ago.

Today we all (right-thinking folks) hold up the second Batman movie as a near-masterpiece of comic book cinema. But back in 1992 it was pillared for its grim fairy tale mythology, grotesque violence, frank sexual content, and overly adult thematic elements. This was way before the normalization of the so-called R-13, so the film's borderline R-rated content and pitch-black tone was a huge controversy that summer, especially in light of McDonalds including the film in their Happy Meal promotions. Despite earning $162 million in America and $266m worldwide (compared to $252m/$411m for Batman), it was considered a massive disappointment and we had a number of (hehehe...) "Can this franchise be saved?!" articles from Entertainment Weekly and the like. Three years later, we got the light, more kid-friendly, and altogether less challenging Batman Forever courtesy of a game Joel Schumacher.

There is a history of sequels allowing their directors to dive headfirst into their own id with mixed results. If Batman was 40% studio/60% director (as Burton has often claimed), then Batman Returns was pure unfiltered Tim Burton. And sadly audiences didn't quite respond to that. Ditto the "we're in a bad place right now" Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom from a post-divorce George Lucas and a "wanting to go dark" Steven Spielberg. And for that matter, ditto Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The first film was a Michael Bay film with the guiding hand of executive producer Steven Spielberg, but the sequel was full-blown Bay. Obviously it was a huge $836m-grossing hit (as for that matter was Temple of Doom, with $333m back in 1984), but the third installments all had certain adjustments to make sure the films were either "better" or more conventionally crowd-pleasing. Hence Transformers: Dark of the Moon (a somewhat more serious narrative) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (lighter, more emotional, somewhat reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark).

A better example is The Matrix Reloaded, where the Wachowskis overdosed on the very things fans claimed to love about the first film (elaborate martial arts sequences, naval-gazing philosophy, twisty narratives, and challenging ideas) and yet audiences and critics quickly turned on the film. Yes, it was a massive smash ($742 million worldwide, still the biggest R-rated hit ever), but The Matrix Revolutions suffered horribly (still a solid $427m worldwide) and the legacy of the Matrix franchise was forever tainted. You can even make the case that Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace was unfiltered George Lucas and that Attack of the Clones was a "course correction," but I still think Phantom Menace is much better than Attack of the Clones.

Sometimes a director going all-in for a franchise sequel works for audiences (The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2), sometimes it does not (Batman Returns, The Matrix Reloaded). And I wonder, comparing all four trailers, whether or not the real issue isn't that the movie is bad in a conventional sense but rather that, without Chris Nolan as a hands-on producer this time out, it's truly the so-called Holy Trinity filtered through the mind of the guy who gave us Sucker Punch. I find that notion incredibly exciting, even if it doesn't work, but I imagine it would be terrifying to studio executives and many a general audience member.

But in all of those other examples the other thing at stake was the specific singular franchise, not an entire ten-year expanded universe plan.  And it's doubly terrifying because it's not just a singular franchise at stake this time out. Hence the danger of so-called connected universes.  In a normal world, where every franchise is merely responsible for itself, the potential failure of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, either financially or in terms of buzz/word-of-mouth, would merely be a matter of either abandoning ship or making course corrections.

Warner Bros. responded to Batman Returns by hiring Joel Schumacher to direct the more audience-friendly Batman Forever and the franchise was (temporarily) saved. But this is a post-Avengers world. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice isn't merely a Man of Steel sequel but rather a glorified backdoor pilot for Justice League, the entire fate of the DCEU is at stake in a way that it would not be if the film were merely responsible for the stand-alone success of a stand-alone Superman franchise.

If the worst-case scenario comes to pass, there are solutions of course. Namely delaying Justice League and stressing that the upcoming solo films (Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc.) absolutely stand on their own and aren't necessarily going to play like Dawn of Justice. And a Ben Affleck The Batman movie remains their ever-present "get out of jail free" card. But I would imagine the pressure for this film to succeed would be significantly less, and the consequences of its relative failure noticeably less severe, if it were merely Zack Snyder's sequel to Zack Snyder's Man of Steel which happened to have Batman and Wonder Woman cameos. Instead it's an all-in superhero team-up event that has been sold as not just one movie or part of one franchise but rather the cornerstone of Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.'s DC Extended Universe/next great IP-driven hope for the next decade.

That's the irony of all of this, come what may. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice may be great and may be huge, or it may be terrible and may be a relative financial failure. But what grand unfortunate irony it would be if the film didn't click with audiences for the very reasons that made it unique and special, and the very thing done out of potentially short-sided/short-term interest (turning a Man of Steel sequel into a Justice League prologue) is the very thing that dooms us all. I don't worry that Zack Snyder made Batman & Robin, but rather that he made The Lone Ranger and that I'll have to spend the next five years defending it. How good it has to be and how much money it has to make may turn out to be two mutually exclusive things in the end. And while it doesn't have to make $1 billion to be a hit, that's for another day. Wowsers, the next six weeks are going to be fascinating to watch. Here's to hoping for the best.

[Wayne49]

The link works, you just have a website ad in front of it. Note the option to go to the article top right of your screen. Regarding the article itself...Until I see the movie, it's hard to know if there are any relevant comparisons between the two treatments.

That being said, on the surface I DO get what the author is generally referring to, which is a less than appealing profile of our heroes, (even our villains), in an effort to show us there are not allot of differences between the two sides outside of a definition of what their violence stands for and who it's aimed at. But if this is indeed going to be a similar trait shared with Batman Returns, then the wisdom of why these films get made at all needs to be reexamined.

At the end of the day, this is a superhero movie. Studios ultimately make them to make big money off of merchandise and hopefully a reasonable payday at the box office after the bills gets paid. So the appeal factor needs to be high to move the merchandise. Sure there is a new standard that resides in these films today which dictates the average ticket buyer wants more than eye candy for two hours. They want a story and if it involves human drama all the better.  They don't mind being asked to buy into a new concept in varying degrees as long as that pageantry and reverence for the hero still abounds. In other words they still want their superhero moments without it getting lost in a pretentious shout out about what's wrong with the world.

So until this movie is released, we really don't know what the balance of those qualities will be. Does this movie get bogged down in it's own social quagmire, so much so that it can never rise above it's own self awareness? Or does it offer some social perspectives while trying to remain true to the action adventure gauge to control it's pacing and keep the story vibrant and colorful for the spectator? Is this going to be like a roller coaster ride of comic book fantasy or a second installment of the Watchmen with new costumes where everyone's job is to be troubled in a way that makes them virtually unlikeable? With Snyder it's really a crap shoot.

He can shoot allot of scenes that, broken apart without context to the bigger story, look really good in a trailer. But once you attach it to the rest of the story, it sometimes loses it's luster and becomes something entirely different. I'll be honest here and say, I really don't know what we have (yet) because what history has taught me is to never trust Snyder at face value. Sometimes he hits it well, other times he's about as far away from the mark as a person can try to be. We'll see how this plays.

[Edd Grayson]

I didn't have any option when I first tried loading it, it was just a page with the title "Forbes Welcome" and nothing showing. Could've been my adblocker messing it up or something else.

Anyway, thanks for pasting the content. Interesting read for sure, and I do hope "B v S" will turn out to be a classic. And for the record I didn't think Man of Steel was bad, and I had seen Watchmen and 300 from Zack Snyder.

I think he considered many possible outcomes though I would say almost certainly that the film will be a success.

[Dagenspear]

I'm not convinced, but this guy at 'Forbes' magazine seems to think so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/02/12/i-dont-worry-that-batman-v-superman-is-bad-but-rather-that-its-unconventionally-great/#35894efa2e13

By the way, he likes Batman Returns, a lot, and has similarly high expectations for BvS, yet worries that it might turn-off a lot of audience-members the way Batman Returns did.

And for what it's worth, I am also a fan, maybe the only other fan, of Sucker Punch. 

I don't think I dig that implication at the end that Batman & Robin is bad. It rocks. That's an unconventional movie that's disregarded. I like Batman Returns, but I wouldn't call it challenging. It's a gothic movie that has some nonsensical stuff in it, but you just go with it because it kinda fits with the tone.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Wayne49]

I'm not convinced, but this guy at 'Forbes' magazine seems to think so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/02/12/i-dont-worry-that-batman-v-superman-is-bad-but-rather-that-its-unconventionally-great/#35894efa2e13

By the way, he likes Batman Returns, a lot, and has similarly high expectations for BvS, yet worries that it might turn-off a lot of audience-members the way Batman Returns did.

And for what it's worth, I am also a fan, maybe the only other fan, of Sucker Punch. 

I don't think I dig that implication at the end that Batman & Robin is bad. It rocks. That's an unconventional movie that's disregarded. I like Batman Returns, but I wouldn't call it challenging. It's a gothic movie that has some nonsensical stuff in it, but you just go with it because it kinda fits with the tone.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Well said! He must be one of the last holding on to that desire to hate B&R. He needs to give it up. And nope, there has never been a Batman movie that was challenging. The measure is more of how enjoyable they are from installment to installment.

[johnnygobbs]

Well said! He must be one of the last holding on to that desire to hate B&R. He needs to give it up. And nope, there has never been a Batman movie that was challenging. The measure is more of how enjoyable they are from installment to installment.

I'm not a hater but I don't know many people who have a good word to say about Batman & Robin.  It's generally voted one of the worst films ever in such polls (not saying I agree but that's just how it is).

And I don't know what you mean by challenging but a smart, intellectually-engaging Batman movie is possible, and arguably a few of them have already been made.

[Wayne49]

Well said! He must be one of the last holding on to that desire to hate B&R. He needs to give it up. And nope, there has never been a Batman movie that was challenging. The measure is more of how enjoyable they are from installment to installment.

I'm not a hater but I don't know many people who have a good word to say about Batman & Robin.  It's generally voted one of the worst films ever in such polls (not saying I agree but that's just how it is).

And I don't know what you mean by challenging but a smart, intellectually-engaging Batman movie is possible, and arguably a few of them have already been made.

I was simply building off what Dagenspear said, which is he doesn't feel any of these films in the series have been challenging to comprehend, whereas the author of this editorial seems to think differently. I don't feel Batman Returns is a terribly complicated film that is misunderstood. I just don't believe it was a treatment people wanted at that time. It was top heavy of social commentary which, for many, bogged down the entertainment value of the movie not only for themselves but for kids who should always be regarded in these stories. And when I say kids, I'm not suggesting it has to be dumbed down, just not overpowered with commentary that belittles the audience with a lecture on society. No matter the treatment, these are superhero movies. Directors need to get out of the way and let them breath on their own merits. Batman vs. Superman is not a heady title. The expectation from that seems fairly baked in. We don't need an Ang Lee-style profile on their state of minds. Stage the differences and let them rumble.

In terms of Batman & Robin, no I don't see that many people hating it anymore. It has it's detractors on Youtube and Clooney has his insecurity tour that never ends with making it the butt of his jokes. But the remaining cast have made peace with it and there have been countless people who have come forward and said it's part of their regular viewing when Batman is on the DVD menu. It's not Dark Knight because that was not the prescribed intent at that time. It's meant to be a comic book come to life. It's no more serious than Ron Howard's take on the Grinch.  All I'm saying is most people have figured that out, and with all the various treatments of Batman today, from the renewed interest in the '66 series to cartoons that cater to the camp of the 60's like Brave and the Bold, B&R is no longer an odd outsider in this Batman universe. The people who overreact to it's style now look like fanatical nerds that are saying more about their own insecurities and obsessions than the treatment. Do you have to like it now? Of course not. But I believe most people get it now and don't have the hang ups with it that older generations did. Put a Blu ray copy into a 4K HDTV and watch it. It's probably the most eye popping movie in the entire series.  Pure eye candy, which is not necessarily a crime.

[johnnygobbs]

I've seen Batman & Robin many times and I enjoy it for what it is.  I'm certainly no die-hard hater of the film and I am often mystified why it tops so many 'worst film of all time' polls.

But these polls are often found on movie sites and magazines, and aren't particularly affiliated with comic-book or Batman fans, and yet, as I say, Batman & Robin is still often cited by many as among the worst films ever made (regardless of whether you and I think it actually deserves that label).

That said, I also realise that Batman Returns and Ang Lee's Hulk are not universally popular, although the former's 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes does at least indicate that it has a big following and is far better regarded than Schumacher's follow-ups (and you certainly don't have to agree with this consensus).  But for what it's worth, I like that Batman Returns and Hulk (2003) are relatively personal comic-book movies that come straight from their respective creators' hearts.  If a comic-book movie isn't going to slavishly attempt to recreate the comic-books then why shouldn't they provide entirely unique and idiosyncratic takes on the characters they're adapting, and why shouldn't they offer some social and/or psychological commentary amidst all the punch-ups and carnage?  Whatever else their faults, it's not as if one can argue that Batman Returns and Hulk (2003) are bereft of visual spectacle in addition to the commentary (and whilst Burton may arguably fall down when it comes to action sequences, the Hulk's mid-film fight sequence where the big green one flings a tank by its gun barrel is still one of the best CBM fight scenes yet by my reckoning).  Yet the great thing about a film like Batman Returns is that it's sub-textual themes and characterisations linger in the memory far longer than the brainless action that is traditionally the stock and trade of most summer blockbusters.

And for what it's worth, even though I have many misgivings about the style and tone of Schumacher's Batman movies, I like that even Batman Forever, and to lesser extent Batman & Robin, offer some occasionally witty and insightful psychology (for all his faults, you can tell that the films' writer, Akiva Goldsman was the child of psychologists and thus had a real interest in exploring his characters' psychoses) and subtext alongside all the bad puns and dutch-angle-framed action sequences.