If Batman Forever came out today...

[The Laughing Fish]

...would it be better received? I'm emphasising Forever only because it's still a widely better regarded film than B&R.

I'm asking this question because nowadays, I've noticed there is this trend where positive reception for comic-based films is emphasised too much with "fun", "light-hearted" and having a share of jokes, albeit sometimes too much. It's something a lot of these critics and bloggers describe a lot of MCU films lately, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Captain America: Civil War. As a sidenote, I'm finding the most critically acclaimed MCU films for these qualities tend to be inferior what came before. In my opinion, GOTG2 is a sorry excuse for a follow-up to the first Guardians, and Civil War is third rate compared to the first two Cap films.

I think it's become such a huge contrast icompared to the consensus towards the Schumacher films. It's debatable this attitude was prevalent when it was first released, but years after, BF was derided for being a huge departure to the darker Burton films, and the stigma for the tone Schumacher chose grew even bigger when B&R was released. Any positive, if imperfect, qualities BF had i.e. Bruce's character arc by overcoming his psychological repression of his painful memories and preventing Robin from becoming a killer, were completely ignored because people were too busy getting upset over Schumacher's aesthetic choices.

But today, it appears among critics and bloggers are suggesting if a film doesn't have "colour", "humour", or as I said, overemphasis on "fun", it must suck. And if a film does have those qualities, but perhaps aren't up to scratch from a plot or thematic point of view...well, who cares? Fun is all that matters, right?

Does anybody else get this impression, or am I talking nonsense?

[thecolorsblend]

I think so. This or a movie like it would be a definite breath of fresh air as far as DC-related films go. It would stand comfortably next to the MCU.

I'm not criticizing the tone of the DCEU up to now; just stating the obvious that it's tonally different from Marvel. Which is no small source of consternation to some.

Batman Forever does explore the darkness of the character somewhat. But it still plays up the coolness factor. In the right vocabulary, there's a coolness to being Batman. Nolan took occasional glances at that in TDK but that's about it. Schumacher indulged it a lot more. BF is a definite keeper, especially in today's world.

Prediction: BF has aged better after twenty years than a lot of MCU movies will. I doubt we'll even still be talking about most MCU movies in twenty years.

[The Laughing Fish]

Prediction: BF has aged better after twenty years than a lot of MCU movies will. I doubt we'll even still be talking about most MCU movies in twenty years.

For what it's worth, I had a buddy of mine talking to me the other night, and he told me he'd rather watch the Schumacher films than any upcoming movies this year. Although he's still keen for Justice League. He is becoming sick of the MCU, although he liked Doctor Strange as I did. Whereas he has become appreciative for the nostalgic effect BF and B&R has, he rated Val Kilmer as a stoic, contemplative Batman. He rates him just below Keaton and Affleck as his all time favourite Batmen.

So yeah, the Schumacher films have left a much positive legacy behind than the masses on the internet would like to believe. And the same is said for BvS.

[The Dark Knight]

Kilmer, much like Dean Cain, is a cool guy. I think it's a real shame he only did one Batman film, because he deserved at least one more. I think people forget just how much of a name Kilmer was back in the day. He had considerable star power, not to mention charisma. Like Affleck and Bale, he also had a muscular frame which helped make him be a believable crime fighter. Which, of course, is not essential, but I think it helps.

It's weird how these little obscure things stay in your memory, but I remember in grade 4 how a kid told me he watched BF every night. Thinking back now, he was probably telling a pack of lies, but regardless, I think it is an indication of how this film captured the imagination of youngsters like myself and this kid at the time. Iclearly remember walking around and discussing BF at the time during school breaks. Folks, it was a big deal, and B&R just as much two years later. You just can't beat that joyful wonder of those early years, and sadly, it can never be replicated.

Thinking back as an adult, BF was quite masterful in the way it softly rebooted the franchise after Tim Burton. It recast the lead actor, but kept him wearing glasses and being socially awkward with the lead female. Batman retained elements of his street reputation but at the same time he stepped out of the shadows. It's similar but different. A clear cut example of this is how they recreate a sequence from BR - the Batmobile speeding towards an old lady crossing the street - but put a whole new spin of things by having Two Face appear with his rocket launcher.

I've said this before but I'll say it again: I like BF as it stands, but a director's cut with all of the deleted scenes reinstated would be one of the best Batman films ever made. I've watched a fan edit and it was dynamite. The positive elements outweigh any niggles I may have about Carrey or Jones.

[riddler]

It should be noted that despite what people say, Batman Forever WAS well received at the time. If it weren't they wouldn't have fast tracked the next movie. Once Batman and Robin came, it got lumped with Forever as the Schumacher movies and was deemed a kiddy movie. If the deleted scenes were used in the film, the change in directors would be less off an issue since it would have fit Burton's tone better (and of course Burton was an executive producer). I'm not just saying that because the deleted scenes are dark, the plotline of Bruce curing himself by finding Thomas last journal entry confirming that the Waynes were off to see the fillm of the parents choosing as opposed to Zorro, thus confirming to Bruce that their deaths were not his fault. This could have been a fitting end to the trilogy.

The problem is that it's hard to live in a world of hypotheticals. After Nolan bored some of us to tears, an injection of fun is what the doctor ordered. But Nolan may not have been green lighted to give us the gritty ultra-realistic Batman had it not been for the Schumacher films. I can't picture Batman and Robin turning out the same way today, I think the studios know better now to try that sort of thing. It was a 90's movie trend for sequels to lampoon the earlier films, heck the Superman series may have started that trend in 1983 bringing in Richard Pryor but at least they were obvious about it.

[Dagenspear]

It should be noted that despite what people say, Batman Forever WAS well received at the time. If it weren't they wouldn't have fast tracked the next movie. Once Batman and Robin came, it got lumped with Forever as the Schumacher movies and was deemed a kiddy movie. If the deleted scenes were used in the film, the change in directors would be less off an issue since it would have fit Burton's tone better (and of course Burton was an executive producer). I'm not just saying that because the deleted scenes are dark, the plotline of Bruce curing himself by finding Thomas last journal entry confirming that the Waynes were off to see the fillm of the parents choosing as opposed to Zorro, thus confirming to Bruce that their deaths were not his fault. This could have been a fitting end to the trilogy.

I feel Bruce discovering that would've made the situation too easy. Him realizing what he blocked out, that he's responsible, in his mind and thus every action he's taken has been of self-punishment and that understanding of why he's like that making him able to realize that despite what him wanting to go the movies, it wasn't his fault would've been better to me.

The problem is that it's hard to live in a world of hypotheticals. After Nolan bored some of us to tears, an injection of fun is what the doctor ordered. But Nolan may not have been green lighted to give us the gritty ultra-realistic Batman had it not been for the Schumacher films. I can't picture Batman and Robin turning out the same way today, I think the studios know better now to try that sort of thing. It was a 90's movie trend for sequels to lampoon the earlier films, heck the Superman series may have started that trend in 1983 bringing in Richard Pryor but at least they were obvious about it.

I don't get this. No Batman movie I've ever seen has been boring. It's all been fun to me. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Andrew]

I think most of the emphasis on light-hearted fun is very selective. A lot of the fans who like the fun of MCU hated that in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 the filmmakers *dared* to have somewhat comical villains, especially comparisons between Max and the Riddler, there was a lot of claiming that that equaled an abysmal, embarrassing film. I like Spider-Man a lot and felt that film was average and the villains likewise, I don't get the vehemence it provoked. Especially as I think the third Iron Man's Kllian was a lot more like the Riddler.

If BF were released today there would probably still be a lot of or more disappointment with its Two-Face and maybe the Riddler but it's hard to say, there is also some increasing (genuine) nostalgia for the '60s series and its lighter style.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think most of the emphasis on light-hearted fun is very selective. A lot of the fans who like the fun of MCU hated that in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 the filmmakers *dared* to have somewhat comical villains, especially comparisons between Max and the Riddler, there was a lot of claiming that that equaled an abysmal, embarrassing film. I like Spider-Man a lot and felt that film was average and the villains likewise, I don't get the vehemence it provoked. Especially as I think the third Iron Man's Kllian was a lot more like the Riddler.

If BF were released today there would probably still be a lot of or more disappointment with its Two-Face and maybe the Riddler but it's hard to say, there is also some increasing (genuine) nostalgia for the '60s series and its lighter style.

Nearly all of the fan responses I saw judging The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 had expressed their wish that Spider-Man himself would join the MCU. That has to be taken into consideration as why the reception is very fickle. While we're on the subject, I don't find it very credible that people judge ASM2 or Spider-Man 3 for being cheesy, but praise Homecoming.

This is why I can't guarantee that BF would've been a flop today. I see critical reception to be very convenient and don't follow a single standard.

[Wayne49]

I think the popularity of films will always be transient in nature because so much is weighed on the current trends of public opinion. When you look at very character-specific genres  like Batman, that becomes an even crazier ride of highs and lows that has occurred for more than 50 years. When Adam West and Burt Ward were being mobbed like the Beatles in the spring of 1966 for donning the costumes of Batman and Robin, how could anyone had known that by late '69 they wouldn't be employable in Hollywood and their show would be largely reviled by the comic book world for the next twenty years? Now they are legends.

The Batman '89 project was essentially the end result of people wanting to craft something that WASN'T the '66 TV show. Nobody from that original cast was even considered for a cameo because the studio was steadfast in wanting people to know this was a "serious" venture into Batman lore. After Burton completely restructured the landscape for this genre, the studio stepped back and gave him the keys to the car without any restrictions. Returns became a less measured and more true to life Burton project which was not what the public apparently "wanted" for the kids.  So as with Burton fighting the '66 franchise, Schumacher was recruited to weed out the now perceived "ills" of the Burton product.

Fans and critics rejoiced at the more colorful and relaxed venture that came with Forever, so the studio took the same detour on the next installment as they did with Burton and Returns. They gave Schumacher the keys to the car with no restrictions which gave birth to  Batman & Robin. It's a narrative that follows the Batman franchise. Most movies are made in response to the previous outing with the studio constantly trying to keep a pulse on what fans want. The fascinating part? When the studio thinks they know what the public wants, that's usually when things start falling apart.

Can we look back with the advantage of retrospect and fairly measure those less popular films as mistakes because the studio should have "known better"? I don't think so. Studios look to the base and whoever screams the loudest is usually what the Studio listens to. Between that, ticket receipts, and toy sales, WB operates on what their pockets are telling them today. But because Batman is such a flexible character, instead of going away for long stretches of time when one treatment falls out of favor, typically the studio can adjust the sails to ride on the winds of a new course.

That's incredible durability for any licensed character, but Batman seems to enjoy it more than any other. However, because he has a broader canvas to work from, that often means opinions will filter in from both extremes.  And emotions ride pretty high when the studio is seen offering up a miscue. But of course those will clash with the many who thought the treatment was perfect. That is the nature of the fan base. Some like him serious. Some like him dark. Some like him fun. And some take him however they can get him. If you're not in the middle then odds are you will either be sitting happy as a clam or so mad you could spit fire at any given time. It's all just a matter of timing.

So I think Forever (and even B&R) will have periods where they register with more validity than others. How does it look today? I think attitudes have shifted away from the heavy criticisms of Schumacher and many fans can just embrace it for the movie it is. With so many treatments out there now, I think there is allot of product for people to adhere to. But the tonal shift has definitely moved towards a more light hearted preference. At least that's how it feels right now. We'll see how people react to Justice League. Of course that will involve more than Batman, so it's hard to know how much his role will play in making or breaking this installment. 

[Dagenspear]

Nearly all of the fan responses I saw judging The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 had expressed their wish that Spider-Man himself would join the MCU. That has to be taken into consideration as why the reception is very fickle. While we're on the subject, I don't find it very credible that people judge ASM2 or Spider-Man 3 for being cheesy, but praise Homecoming.

This is why I can't guarantee that BF would've been a flop today. I see critical reception to be very convenient and don't follow a single standard.

Homecoming has very little cheese to it. Over abundance in comedy, yes, but cheese, no..

I think most of the emphasis on light-hearted fun is very selective. A lot of the fans who like the fun of MCU hated that in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 the filmmakers *dared* to have somewhat comical villains, especially comparisons between Max and the Riddler, there was a lot of claiming that that equaled an abysmal, embarrassing film. I like Spider-Man a lot and felt that film was average and the villains likewise, I don't get the vehemence it provoked. Especially as I think the third Iron Man's Kllian was a lot more like the Riddler.

People dislike Killian too. Having comical villains is different than having over the top cheesy and stupid villains. That's what ASM 2 had. Not comical. It also didn't help that the cheesy villains didn't fit with the story or the tone of ASM 2. Spider-Man turns a plutonium truck into traffic and swings away as it kill multiple people by it demolishing multiple vehicles in ASM 2. ASM 1 is more average. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!