B&R Retrospective

[thecolorsblend]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-robin-at-20-joel-schumacher-more-reveal-what-happened-1014972

This is a pretty informative article. It talks a bit about the conception of, production of and subsequent failure of B&R. It's not sarcastic or snarky. It takes a pretty even-handed approach.

One criticism I have about the movie is that it came about a year too early. The writer concurs. I think debuting in 1997 never allowed people time to completely rinse Batman Forever out of their mouths before getting force-fed a new movie. The creative team behind the movie and the public simply weren't ready for a new Batman film at that time. One extra year could've made all the difference.

We'll never know.

[The Laughing Fish]

I never knew Schwarzenegger had to wear LED lights in his mouth to create that lighting effect, I thought they were using VFX. That's insane. I'm not surprised to hear battery acid kept leaking in his mouth.

One criticism I have about the movie is that it came about a year too early. The writer concurs. I think debuting in 1997 never allowed people time to completely rinse Batman Forever out of their mouths before getting force-fed a new movie. The creative team behind the movie and the public simply weren't ready for a new Batman film at that time. One extra year could've made all the difference.

We'll never know.

I doubt it. The critical and fan consensus over this movie says it was an embarrassing farce that destroyed the movie franchise, Batman should always be dark, blah blah blah. I don't think the movie coming out a year later would've made any difference.

But then again, in today's fickle and unreliable film market, maybe B&R could've been popular if it were released today. 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.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm surprised to hear Alicia Silverstone was body shamed by the media at the time. For better or worse, they wouldn't be allowed to do that today.

[The Joker]

I'm surprised to hear Alicia Silverstone was body shamed by the media at the time. For better or worse, they wouldn't be allowed to do that today.

Yes, I remember the media being pretty ruthless about it, and practically brought it up every time Alicia Silverstone was mentioned in reference to B&R's promotion in 1997. It was definitely the narrative being pushed, where just a few years earlier, in 1995, Silverstone was lauded as a new Hollywood sex symbol. Following her appearances in Clueless, The Crush, and Aerosmith videos.

[The Laughing Fish]

So, the media and the industry built her up just to knock her down? How typical of these assholes. It kinda reminds me of how they lauded Ben Affleck back in that period of time between 2010 and 2012 over his success for directing The Town and Argo, and then these same asshats suddenly turned on him as soon as he got cast as Batman.

There's a saying in Australia to describe this weasel mentality, it's called Tall Poppy Syndrome.

[The Laughing Fish]

In the production office, she also became the target of a joke after rumors circulated that Silverstone was having trouble in costume fittings. Storyboard artist [Tim] Burgard drew a cartoon of Batgirl that nearly got him in trouble (though he notes, it was of the comic book character and was not meant to look like Silverstone).

"I heard that she was in the costume department being synched into a corset to fit into what they were going to try to do the costume," says Burgard. "So I did a cartoon of what I thought that looked like. ... I did it as a movie poster, Clueless 2: The Casting of Batgirl. It was a private joke, just the guys in the art department."

But the joke got out when a production assistant made a copy.

"He put it up by his station, whereof course Bob Ringwood, the costume designer saw it — and had a sh*t fit. I think the quote was, 'She is trying so hard!' Luckily for me, I never signed it. So I got to keep working."

This was the picture Bugard spoke of.



I don't think he intended any malice behind this sketch, but once again, it wouldn't go down well if he did this today. The outrage culture on social media would be through the roof. I can only imagine a petition getting put together demanding Bugard's removal from the production.

[Wayne49]

I was pleasantly surprised at the balance and fairness of that overview. Nice article. I think the buildup to the film's release really gives you the foundation for why fans/media were setting themselves up to be disappointed. Hollywood has a history of overdoing it in sequels when they think they have found a formula. When the audience really likes something, Hollywood feels inclined to drown them in it with the next feature. The Batman franchise in particular has been like that throughout its history.

When Batman hit huge in the 60's, the TV series was so big, they released a movie that showcased all of the campy/wit elements of the show. Within a few years, that style was frowned upon and was kept under lock and key when they decided to make a new film in 1989. The studio would not even consider any cameos from the classic television show. So when Burton made "dark" Batman cool, the studio took the reigns off the director and let him run wild in Batman Returns. While this film would be enjoyed by future generations, it nearly mothballed the franchise back then. Parents complained about the violence and dark images. Plus the film did not perform nearly as well as the debut film.

Like most studios, they panicked and decided the 60's Batman was their friend after all. Enter Schumacher and a considerably more colorful and lightweight interpretation. The business came back and the studio hugged Schumacher for being a genius. How was B&R not inevitable? The studio saw success as more color, more camp, and more OTT characters to give the public more of what Forever had most assuredly introduced.

And just like the reaction to the original Adam West series, the studio ran for cover and mothballed the franchise when they didn't get what they expected. Could any of us really have doubted a more "serious" and "dark" Batman would return? Since then Batman has been all over the map in film and animation. While you had the Dark Knight series running, cartoons celebrated the 60's camp with the Brave and the Bold. Then Snyder got a hold of Batman and gave us the perfect example of why going too serious gets you right back into unintended camp which, for me, is far more painful to watch than when its planned.

So as much as B&R may not have satisfied expectations in its day, the industry was completely different and the marketplace was not sure of its footing with this genre yet. You still had allot of people running these companies that belittled the panel graphic art-form who longed for these kinds of movies to go away. Today you have fans of this genre running the studios and making the movies. Some context needs to be applied. B&R never got to enjoy the advantages these movies get today, including a far greater appeal from the general public. So I think when everything gets unpacked here, the kind of big budget movie that Batman & Robin became was something of a miracle given the forces in play at that time. 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.

[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.

[Wayne49]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.