B&R Retrospective

[The Dark Knight]

The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

I think if you take that movie and turn the sound down, you see everything it could have been, because what you hear really gets in the way of that film. First Clooney was never given a Batman "voice", so that alone rattles the viewer because its a big continuity problem from the first three. He looks fine as Batman and he makes a great Bruce Wayne. But its painfully obvious he looks lost in the outfit because he's not really playing anyone. He's just dressed up with essentially the same personality as Bruce Wayne and you can see that look on Clooney's face that says, " What the hell am I doing?" So I give the biggest blame of that to the director who should have seen his awkwardness right away. But I also shoulder some of that on Clooney too, who should have said, " I don't have a character to play."

And that's further supported by the commentary Schumacher gives in the movie when he says the costume is akin to Elvis's wardrobe going on tour by itself. He says, "All fans really want is the suit."  Well we all know how that worked out, and this movie demonstrates the flaws in that thinking. So if you lose the audience with the primary hero, the rest of the film will suffer as well because now the suspended disbelief is removed and the audience is just reading the film literally which leads to people looking for more gaffs that all films have anyway. If the actors don't believe in it, neither will the audience. Let's face it, if Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford were not delivering those lines in the original Star Wars, could you really find merit in the dialogue just by reading it? I doubt it. For the most part its pretty bad. Charisma and conviction are a great dressing for dialogue that is absurd. It would be interesting if someone dubbed in a new voice for Batman to see if added characterization made a big difference. I really wish someone who had good skills in this area would do that for just a handful of scenes to see how it reads. It would be interesting.

I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

Bruce Wayne being a billionaire invites suspicion, no doubt. Suspension of disbelief is still required, but I think it can be reasoned to seem more palatable. Batman has been depicted as working alongside police, so the general public could assume he's receiving some kind of internal assistance. He could be on their books as a special project. Police denying Batman is their operative isn't going to convince conspiracy theorists otherwise. If anything, some would see it as a confirmation, because whoever gets asked is always going to say no anyway. Batman being a former marine or a highly decorated officer wouldn't seem outrageous. Gordon as a new Batman was explored in the Scott Snyder run, and GCPD built the suit and the gadgets.

To widen the net, consider how many billionaires there are in the US and abroad. Batman definitely lives and operates in Gotham, but he could plausibly be funded by any of these outside people. It's reasonable for someone to surmise if Batman was running a top secret operation he'd be trying to keep his operation off grid as much as possible.

Batman driving, flying and boating out from Wayne Manor is something that can't really be explained as easily, especially in the surveillance state of 2019. But I think it's a reminder that no matter how gritty and realistic you make these characters, they have grounding in wish fulfilment and best case scenario fantasy - much like Clark Kent's disguise being a pair of spectacles, and I think that's why we still find comics so enjoyable. They're from a much simpler time, and times have changed. But that's not to say the characters shouldn't be treated seriously.

[Wayne49]

I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it. In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara. He also showed an enormous amount of toughness yet compassion at  Alfred's bedside when he thought he was dying. And when he would be indecisive about the marriage question by the media or when Poison Ivy approached him and said, " You're not going to hurt me are you", its all said in a mocking kind of droll manner like he's humored by it, but not threatened. I felt he was pretty consistent throughout. Heck, he joked more as Batman than he did as Bruce Wayne!

100% agree with you on the degree of disbelief we have to afford other characters more so than Batman here. Clark and Superman will always be the most blatant offender in that category. And I also agree both of these films would be enormous hits with today's audience and their general sensibilities to this genre. That too is where I return to my earlier point about the expectations of the day in 1997. In today's marketplace there's a kind of "next batter up" mentality to the genre'. People are open to an enormous array of treatments that involve immense devotion to the comic sensibilities all the way to a more grounded realism. It's all there.

In 1997, Batman was the ONLY active superhero franchise in the world. I was almost 33 when that film came out... ... ...damn I'm old.  But during that period, it contained people like me who either loved comics and thus loved everything we could get out of it, or we had others who thought it was for individuals who were challenged to be anything serious in life. My generation was still fighting an older world that mocked the genre, but those folks were still in control of the entertainment industry. So B&R had ridiculous weights on it. You had the fans who were reading Frank Miller's Dark Knight needing their 'dignity' well represented and then there was the old world mentality of, " Well this genre was never viable to begin with." Its not like it is today where you have generations of people who see this genre as a normal part of the entertainment field, while my generation (that grew up reading those stories only in comics) are essentially running the industry. It's an entirely different playing field top to bottom. But I digress...

So with me now in my mid-50's, I was hoping these younger generations would find some bonding to B&R or at least have less of a critique to it. And that seems to be the case. This  "embarrassed/hatred" attitude seems to be losing traction. And while there will always be that segment that deplores it, just like the '66 series, I think the general complaint about it's treatment is becoming harder to argue given the volume of product out there that treads on similar notes.  The general audience for this genre has lightened up and embrace the fun in these films much more so in today's world.

And let me end on this note - If my life experience has taught me one thing about movies and television, its that you can never assume something hated in one generation will not find its audience and be embraced much later. Movies have an ongoing life of their own, long after their theatrical run has ended and the fans/critics have offered their assessment. That's just a stitch in time.  The one similarity B&R has to other movies that have gone on to be embraced decades later, is this persistence by people to continue talking about it. That right there is a tell-tell sign that a movie has life. Bad movies are forgotten. Movies that entertain, endure. For all it's quirkiness, I will always enjoy watching this movie. There is a timeless quality to it that most other Batman films do not possess. It's very much its own animal with a visual palate that has yet to have lost its allure. And to do that in this day and age where effects are so visually incredible is really saying something about a film made 22 years ago.

[The Dark Knight]

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it. In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara. He also showed an enormous amount of toughness yet compassion at  Alfred's bedside when he thought he was dying. And when he would be indecisive about the marriage question by the media or when Poison Ivy approached him and said, " You're not going to hurt me are you", its all said in a mocking kind of droll manner like he's humored by it, but not threatened. I felt he was pretty consistent throughout. Heck, he joked more as Batman than he did as Bruce Wayne!

I'm on your side here. When Clooney says "Hi Freeze, I'm Batman", I think 'no you're not'. Of all the actors to play Batman, I can't see him as anything more than George Clooney in a batsuit. He didn't become the character in the same way as the others. Any differences are minimal, almost to be irrelevant. But again, Clooney was operating in the context of the film. So in fairness, he wasn't there to be anything else other than what he depicted.

[thecolorsblend]

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it.

Bale played a very different kind of Batman.

In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara.

Dick already knew his secret and he occasionally found himself in conflict with Barbara before she discovered his secret.

Clooney played Bruce in public as scatterbrained and a bit vapid. The press conference about the telescope is a good example. Even during his dinner scene with Julie, he's not taking things seriously. The only time Clooney's Bruce is ever serious is mostly when he's around people who know his secret.

There are differences between Clooney's Bruce and his Batman.

[The Dark Knight]

Detective Comics #1009.

[Wayne49]

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it.

Bale played a very different kind of Batman.

In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara.

Dick already knew his secret and he occasionally found himself in conflict with Barbara before she discovered his secret.

Clooney played Bruce in public as scatterbrained and a bit vapid. The press conference about the telescope is a good example. Even during his dinner scene with Julie, he's not taking things seriously. The only time Clooney's Bruce is ever serious is mostly when he's around people who know his secret.

There are differences between Clooney's Bruce and his Batman.

I get what you're saying and I realize if we split hairs over nuances of personality in any given moment, one can conclude a slightly different take on a character. But to be fair if we compared what both characters had in common, it would be easy to connect the dots in that world as to who was under the mask. It didn't help that Batman was as much a celebrity in the public eye as Bruce Wayne, so the advantage of being elusive and in shadow were not factors here.

Ultimately I accept it as it is. I can channel my disbelief to another frequency when I watch this movie and just enjoy the ride. But I DO think general audiences for the day would have been more receptive of this interpretation had Schumacher not broke continuity and kept the Batman character cloaked under a different vocal presentation. I think it was too radical a departure given this was supposed to fit with the other films in the series up to that point.

When I watch this movie by itself, its always enjoyable. But if I'm watching it in chronological order with the others, it knocks me out of that ongoing story because of the abruptness in depiction of the Wayne/Batman characters. There's no association with them and the characters played by Kilmer and Keaton. Val at least tried to play Keaton's Batman through much of the first half of Forever. He then gradually came into his own as the story developed from there. You get no transition with this film. You get a new actor and a completely different depiction.

[The Laughing Fish]

A couple of days ago, Akiva Goldsman apologised for how the film turned out.

As for Batman & Robin, that one just confused me. I mean, we didn't mean for it to be bad. I swear, nobody was like, 'This will be bad,' I mean, here's the irony: There was a reel that was put together halfway through [filming] where it actually looked dark in an interesting way. It just is what it is and I'm sorry. I think we're all sorry.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2496299/batman-and-robin-writer-apologizes-about-the-quality-of-the-movie

I'm curious to see if there is any difference between the original scripts and the final product. Forever had earlier drafts that were darker and more connected to Burton's world than the theatrical cut. The only dark content that I could find was this concept art of Poison Ivy walking over a dead guard, while breaking Mr. Freeze out of Arkham Asylum.

[thecolorsblend]

Good find, Fish! Nice work.

Still, I'm a bit done with these people apologizing for the movie. They made a movie and they wanted it to entertain people. I think both Schumacher films have aged amazingly well (esp considering how comic book films are going these days, pre-COVID) and I'm able to put B&R in its place as a fun action romp starring a reasonably happy Batman who is reasonably well-adjusted.

The movie is only "bad" if the viewer thinks something like TDK is the only valid approach to the character. I suppose that's valid but the cast and crew still have nothing to apologize for.

[The Dark Knight]

The movie is only "bad" if the viewer thinks something like TDK is the only valid approach to the character. I suppose that's valid but the cast and crew still have nothing to apologize for.

I don't think they need to apologize, either. I'm perfectly fine with lighter takes on Batman, but just don't care much for this one.

[Dagenspear]

I know for certain if Disney made the exact same film, it would've been lauded as "Making Batman fun again", as we saw with a lot of MCU Phase 3 crap getting overpraised. But as it is, any praise for the movie is subdued because of the stigma behind how it spelled the end of the Burton/Schumacher series.

Would it? I think there are complaints about Thor 2.