Batman-Online.com

How is it being celebrated?

Do we have to?  ;)

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  4 Jan  2012, 15:05
How is it being celebrated?

By everyone going nuts over Chris Nolan's films?

In all honesty, I enjoy the film, but it's not one to go overboard on.
The best way to celebrate it is for Warner Bros. to allow a certain label to release the flippin' music finally!

Awww, we forgot about the anniversary! I feel terrible! :(

..I think I'm the only one that liked it, and still do....

Both one of my favorite comedies and one of my favorite Batman flicks.

Coming soon to the site is an article I wrote about the secret greatness Schumacher's films possess. You'll get my full feelings on it then.

Yep Doc, sorry for the delay. I will have it up as soon as I can!

since I created the topic I'll give my 2 cents;

It was the first batman film i saw in theatres (age 14). I didn't hate it at the time but thought it was over the top. Even then I remarked how un-gritty (is that a word?) it had come since the fairly realistic original Batman. I did like Clooney as Bruce Wayne and still do, we all know he mailed it in as Batman. Now of course at that age I didnt get the obvious homosexual innuendos Schumacher put in.

15 years later I look at it as Shumacher simply getting it wrong. There were decent elements in there; Alfred getting sick, the partnership crisis. Sadly they got buried by everything else he got wrong.

Wow. 15 years has passed since I drank alot of Pepsi at Taco Bell. Just goes to show that life can move pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.  :(

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_2kjisMm3M9Y%2FTUWfty7H16I%2FAAAAAAAAOZk%2FvILINwOFi_E%2Fs1600%2F1997-TACO-BELL-batman-robin-movie.jpg&hash=08b470fe9b3f0bfb63e6ee823e93c584d0f78abd)

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 26 Jul  2012, 01:27

Wow. 15 years has passed since I drank alot of Pepsi at Taco Bell. Just goes to show that life can move pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.  :(

How did it get so late so soon? It's night instead of afternoon, winter's here instead of June, my goodness how the time has flewn! how did it get so late so soon? _{Dr. Seuss}

I've got happy nostalgic memories of the summer Batman and Robin came out. I was 11 at the time, and I remember me and my best friend going straight from school to the cinema on the first day of preview screenings. It was the very first showing of the movie at any cinema in our home city. We were so stoked about seeing it. And the weird thing is I remember liking it. I could tell there was something not quite right about the movie, something different from the previous films. But I was too young to understand what that difference was. So I went back and saw it a second time a couple of weeks later. And I enjoyed it again.

I was really into all the merchandising too, as were many impressionable kids. I remember literally running through a crowd on a hot summer afternoon to buy Denny O'Neil's comic adaptation.


I had the Heroes and Villains posters up on my bedroom wall

Quote from: gordonblu on Thu, 26 Jul  2012, 13:04
How did it get so late so soon? It's night instead of afternoon, winter's here instead of June, my goodness how the time has flewn! how did it get so late so soon? _{Dr. Seuss}

Ah, a Dr. Seuss quote. So cuddly.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi416%2Fjokertdk%2FBatman%2FJokerSeuss001.jpg&hash=8f8300ade48c88d11f724d3b4ff0634802638471)


And since it's a B&R thread, and we already got a bunch of Poison Ivy images ... might as well throw one more in for good measure.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi416%2Fjokertdk%2FBatman%2FBatmanRobinGIFPoisonIvy.gif&hash=bd51f157e4911f9d696ee4ce1724b2b77030b6dd)

Doc's feature

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/7/26/in-defense-of-the-neon-knight-where-schumachers-batman-succeeded

There's some interesting food for thought in that article. It makes me want a licensed alternate cut of Batman Forever with the deleted footage restored. The theatrical cut doesn't do justice to the film's promise.

I think Batman and Robin is beyond saving. But as Doc says, it's best to just enjoy it as a comedy.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 27 Jul  2012, 11:39
There's some interesting food for thought in that article. It makes me want a licensed alternate cut of Batman Forever with the deleted footage restored. The theatrical cut doesn't do justice to the film's promise.

I think Batman and Robin is beyond saving. But as Doc says, it's best to just enjoy it as a comedy.

definitely, I have the special edition Batman Forever and it may be the only film where just about every deleted scene adds to the film;
-there's the alternate opening which shows two faces escape from arkham. A lot of people complain that Schumacher gave no origin or development to two face and mr. freeze until halfway through the films. The first scene is literally batman going off to fight them. Also in hindsight seems Arkham itself is becoming one of Batmans most popular sub characters
-the critical plotline being deleted over batman revisiting his parents death due to what is happening with Dick Grayson. To recap; on the night of the murder Bruce and his parents had an argument over which movie they were going to see, Bruce wanted to see Zorro, his parents a different film (at another theatre). Bruce always believed they were going to see Zorro and thus blamed himself for their death. In the deleted scene he falls into a cave (actually similar to what Nolan did put into Batman Begins) and finds his fathers journal with the last entry being "Bruces movie will have to wait until next week" thus making Bruce realize that it wasn't his fault.
The deleted plot basically gives more relevance to the title of the film as Bruce no longer realizes he has to be batman, he is now choosing to be. It also explains why he is not acting dark and tortured in the next film as he gets cured in this one.



Anyhow some positives on Batman and Robin without silly comedy attempts the wannabe comedians come up with (ie. it ends, leads to batman begins, the credits etc.)
-the partnership crisis was a good interesting plot point although probably one film too early. They basically just joined forces at the end of the last film, it's too early for Dick to start whining. But it added an interesting plot of dick going solo and Bruce realizing Dick is going through Bruces journey but taking a different path
-George Clooney was an excellent Bruce Wayne; note I said Bruce Wayne meaning he was great without the suit. He played up the millionaire philanthropist playboy. He also has the right look for Bruce Wayne and brought far more energy to that role than Kilmer. It's interesting because there's many discussions over how Bruce Wayne needs to essentially mask himself from Batman to avoid people making a connection. Clooney rightfully gets criticized for using the exact same voice in both roles but he does what Bale expands on and acts like someone you wouldn't expect to be batman outside the cowl. Everyone loves Keaton as do I but the way in which he acts socially awkward and seemingly a hermit and mystery man, it wouldnt have been a shock to many people to find out his identity (as those attempting to piece the puzzle likely realize Batman is rich or has resources). 
-the Alfred scenes aside from the opening one were all well done. It grounded Batman in the sense that he saves so many lives but has trouble coping with the fact that he couldn't fight what was killing Alfred. The scene of Alfred telling bruce that there is no defeat in death was a moving one. It's also apparent that Alfred seems to believe his time is coming and is attempting to instill the ability for Bruce to trust others. If there is anyone other than Alfred bruce should trust, it is Dick.
-Clooney finally does show a glimpse of his  acting ability IN the cowl in his final scene as batman; he finally acts serious after defeating freeze and his monologue over 'saving a life is true power'.
-

That day, those succesive B&R facebook shares were a laugh riot, but I had my reasons for being totally "invisible" from FB, and that meant no comments or "likes".

I agree it's beyond saving, I LOVE it exactly for the crapfest it is. Even if you remove the sillier moments, I don't think it can work as a "serious" batfilm. Michael Gough did a great job given the script he had to work with, but his illness plot was handled poorly, even, I repeat, if you remove the silly action moments in between. If you try with clever editing and different music to make it more "serious", the result will be insufferable. Maybe Gordon's stupidity (and uniform) is one of the worst elements beyond the skysurfing and the batcard.

But as a comedy and a tribute to the 60s Batman? It rocks! As long as the campy version of Batman is kept separate from Burton, Nolan and the comics, I love it.

To celebrate the 15th anniversary, I'm posting this recap that I always get a big laugh out of. Take a read:

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Batman___Robin_1997.aspx

Ah, I love this recap!

I was 20 when Batman and Robin came out.  I saw it with an ex-girlfriend, and while I didn't care for it as much as the other ones, I didn't immediately hate it, though I'd like to think I did.  Part of it was I wanted more Batman films, and since this one had such poor buzz I figured that the next one would have a darker tone.

It didn't hold up for repeat viewing.

I'm less offended by it now than in the past.  With all the variations of the character available it's hard to be bitter about it still.  My little kids get a kick out of it. It's bright and colorful and fun.  Though, for balance, they also like Batman Returns.  Not the first Batman film I'd fire up in the DVD player, but I've come to the conclusion that it has the right to exist. :)

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 26 Jul  2012, 19:48Doc's feature

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/7/26/in-defense-of-the-neon-knight-where-schumachers-batman-succeeded

For crying out loud, anybody who hasn't read this yet GO FREAKING READ IT!!

Agreed.

Also, it just dawned on me; if Batman & Robin was released in the 60's it would have been a smash hit.

I'm pretty much a Schumacher convert, believe it or not. Butt shots, nipples, quips and all. Not my number one or anything, but they're pretty darn fun and are better than Nolan's pretentious offerings, that's for sure.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 30 Jan  2013, 05:17
I'm pretty much a Schumacher convert, believe it or not. Butt shots, nipples, quips and all. Not my number one or anything, but they're pretty darn fun and are better than Nolan's pretentious offerings, that's for sure.

Funny, I just posted something similar before reading this. But yeah, this is it. Nolan has gone a long way toward legitimizing Schumacher in my eyes (with a major assist for DocLathropBrown). Time was I would've told you that would be impossible but a lot can change in just a few years.

Indeed. As Keaton Batman says in BR, things change. And my opinions have. Nolan's three films put things into perspective for me. I now have a firmer grasp of things. I value rewatchability quite a lot, and Schumacher has that. Really, the opening segment of TDKR makes little sense. I won't go into forensic detail as to why, but just know that it doesn't. With the opening of Batman and Robin, I can sit back with a bucket of popcorn and truly turn off my mind to have real fun.

The work of DocLathropBrown and Silver Nemesis have helped a great deal.

Very true. It was me and my brother's most-watched Batman film back in the day. As kids, we didn't give a damn about critical reviews or character depth. We just wanted to see Batman. And that's what we got. To this day, it's entertaining, and I agree that it definately has a lot of rewatchability to it. With it's long length and dull moments, the Dark Knight Rises can be quite the undertaking to watch. Batman & Robin is just a fun flick.

Quote from: Slash Man on Thu, 31 Jan  2013, 01:59
Very true. It was me and my brother's most-watched Batman film back in the day. As kids, we didn't give a damn about critical reviews or character depth. We just wanted to see Batman. And that's what we got. To this day, it's entertaining, and I agree that it definately has a lot of rewatchability to it. With it's long length and dull moments, the Dark Knight Rises can be quite the undertaking to watch. Batman & Robin is just a fun flick.

Exactly right. There is a long section in TDKR particularly when Bruce is locked up, Blake, Bane and these guys have the floor and its just boring. Things really drag. There's none of this with the Schumacher flicks.

On this note, it's well timed that What Culture has just posted an article called '6 things Schumacher did better than Nolan'. Give it a read. 

http://whatculture.com/film/joel-schumachers-batman-6-things-he-did-better-than-nolan.php

Joel Schumacher's Batman: 6 Things He Did Better Than Nolan (http://whatculture.com/film/joel-schumachers-batman-6-things-he-did-better-than-nolan.php)
(whatculture.com)

"Schumacher's Batman films were far from perfect but they don't deserve half the hate they receive. If people were to step back and take the Bat blinkers off they would see that both Schumacher Batman films have their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Since we never hear about anything but weaknesses, I've chosen to highlight 6 things that I believe Joel Schumacher did right in adapting Batman for the big screen, and 6 things that consequently make him a better Batman director than Christopher Nolan."

(Don't know if it's the most elaborate troll feature ever, I know I cannot unread this, lol)

(EDIT: I just saw that TDK's post above had exactly the same link at the end)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.whatculture.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fbatman-forever-batsignal-2.png&hash=c22d25ef41abc181dcf7e23754b1f436e36a9e9f) (http://whatculture.com/film/joel-schumachers-batman-6-things-he-did-better-than-nolan.php)

I would have tackled the article differently, but the author still makes valid points, especially:

Villains that for better or worse are more flambouyant and all out:

QuoteYet, in today's society it seems that the more dark and joyless a film is the better.

Schumacher had better visuals. Nolan doesn't know show don't tell.

QuoteEven at his worst Joel Schumacher still has better chops as a cinematic stylist than Christopher Nolan. All Nolan could do was load down the audience with lame visuals and dull repetitive nihilism and then try to be theatrical and cinematic by tying everything together with a lame contrived ending.

Makes me want to write an article like this, actually. Taking a set of films which is perceived to be the worst and stacking them up against the series which is for some reason held up at the pinnacle.

Immense nostalgic value, yeah. Schumacher's flicks remind me of being a carefree kid where the most serious problem in life was how crappy the latest Bat-films were. Love Goldenthal's scores, some production design, yeah, they're interesting from an aesthetic POV.

But to even consider comparing Shumacher's with Nolan's seems absurd. It's almost like devaluing the entire Batman affair really - "Batman? What's the point in making Batman films that try to be a little dark, serious or whatever? Batman is, you know, for kids, and subtlety is not a requirement, just big boom shake the room" (The last sentence is not mine but stolen from a 1997 article from EMPIRE magazine)

No offense, really, but promoting Schumacher's movies (we came from "defending" to "promoting"), placing them on equal footing with Burton's films, actually damages the reputation of the latter.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat,  2 Feb  2013, 04:08Immense nostalgic value, yeah. Schumacher's flicks remind me of being a carefree kid where the most serious problem in life was how crappy the latest Bat-films were. Love Goldenthal's scores, some production design, yeah, they're interesting from an aesthetic POV.

But to even consider comparing Shumacher's with Nolan's seems absurd. It's almost like devaluing the entire Batman affair really - "Batman? What's the point in making Batman films that try to be a little dark, serious or whatever? Batman is, you know, for kids, and subtlety is not a requirement, just big boom shake the room" (The last sentence is not mine but stolen from a 1997 article from EMPIRE magazine)

No offense, really, but promoting Schumacher's movies (we came from "defending" to "promoting"), placing them on equal footing with Burton's films, actually damages the reputation of the latter.

Couldn't disagree more. Even when I was, shall we say, less an admirer of Schumacher, I still felt like he, Burton and Nolan had shown some of the many different approaches one can take with Batman. I'd argue Schumacher is worth defending on that basis alone.

My opinion of Schumachers has only risen due to the stark tonal difference Nolan presented. If it was just the Burton series and Schumacher around, chances are high I'd be ripping Schumacher as per usual. For me to value Schumacher's series over Nolan's speaks volumes.

I have no problem whatsoever with darkness. I love darkness. But selling realism is another thing. You can tackle those themes, but you have to do them well. Just having that stuff doesn't make it gold. Nolan tried to be clever but it didn't work for me. It's the pretentiousness that gets my goat.

I maintain it would make for a very interesting article. You can compare anything you want, especially when they're all Batman movies. As I see it, the fact Schumacher and Nolan are day and night makes comparisons perfect. Schumacher gave us neon and Nolan gave us unnatural, repetitious dialogue. At times Nolan's flicks come off as unintentionally hilarious, and Schumacher is Schumacher.

Batman movies should not all be like Schumacher, though I feel he was on the right track. Reality should not be the go for Batman. By the time TDKR came out, it was tired. They started this trend with Begins as a reaction to Schumacher, and they had to finish it. And I'm glad it's done.

In terms of entertainment, Schumacher kills Nolan. In terms of visuals, soundtrack, equipment, vehicles...Schumacher kills Nolan. Naturally it's personal preference, but that's how I see it. Nolan lacks spark and flamboyance. Schumacher may have had too much of it, but I think that's better than precious little.

Not much to add (Dark Knight has summed up for me) but I'm pleased some are respecting the Schumacher films finally. Even as a kid I knew Batman and Robin was nowhere near the same class as Batman Forever. I'd always defend them however. Keaton's were always my favourites in the nineties but I grew up with Schumacher's too (they were the first of the films I saw in cinema's). For a while in the nineties Batman Forever was not only the very best (and my personal favourite Bat film) it was even one of the greatest films ever seen. People now forget that. I wish fans would have the guts to admit more they enjoy them than go along with what others now feel about them. I'm no sheep who follows other opinions so I feel they are still great, fun entertainment. If your introducing a young kid to the joys of Batman I think you can do far worser that stick Batman Forever on with it's utterly wild action and comic book colours. I certainly wouldn't expose them to the deep, pretentious, "court room drama" world of the Bale films at first. Where's the fun in that?

As for Nolan I read a quote recently in which he praises Burton's Batman but felt the surreal world of those films could only be explored so far which is one reason he decided to bring in the real world based Batman idea. Ironically I think this quote applies in bucket loads to his concept too. The reality based universe has run it's course and is official dead in the Batcave's water supply. It completely drains the fun out of Batman in more ways than one. It's now time to re-enter the comic book styled Batman movie of times past and I don't know about you but I find that a hugely exciting future proposal.

It's one thing to defend them as flawed movies with their own merits and entertainment value, and another to promote them as good films, placing them on equal footing with Burton's and Nolan's, this is my prime "problem"

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  3 Feb  2013, 08:02
It's one thing to defend them as flawed movies with their own merits and entertainment value, and another to promote them as good films, placing them on equal footing with Burton's and Nolan's, this is my prime "problem"

Which I am doing neither. I am placing them above Nolan by default, though.

This movies kind of a guilty pleasure to me. I saw it in the theaters as a kid with my Dad so it kind of holds a special place in my heart.

It's not the best superhero movie but it's one of those dumb fun movies where you can turn your brain off and not have to think too much.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Feb  2013, 23:53Which I am doing neither. I am placing them above Nolan by default, though.

This would have been unthinkable to me even after TDK. But the older I get, the more I just want these things to be fun. Maybe there's enough seriousness, darkness and drama in other parts of my life. Maybe that's it. But there's a certain fun factor in being Batman that Schumacher seemed to easily connect to.

There can be fun in darkness. I get a kick out of Tarantino movies, Django Unchained being his latest. For example in that movie, two men are on the floor wrestling in a life and death match inside a luxurious bar. Leonardo Dicaprio and company are right into it, cheering, clapping and loving it. We hear bone cracks and the loser is finally finished off with a hammer blow. But it's the way it is handled. The juxtaposition and irony. It's not completely set one way. I suppose its like the Joker talking to a fried corpse laughing his head off. Sure, it is disturbing, but on another level it is funny. In my opinion there has to be a degree of colour. Call it camp, call it whatever. But it does add charm and a sense of fun.

Indeed. Another good example from B89 is the Joker infomercial. Which, if watching it in a literal sense, is pretty disturbing. As viewers, who had just witnessed a news anchor fatally poisoned on live television, are then treated to a infomercial featuring the ghoulish images of two Gotham City models who were just previously announced as being dead, along with the 'Brand X/Smilex' comparison featuring a man who is tied to a chair and gagged (with a disclaimer reading "Not An Actor") is said to have been using Brand X ("Oh No!"), which then segues to a corpse with a rictus grin that further illustrates the effects of Joker's Smilex. Capped off by the obvious insinuation that Gotham's shopping products have already been poisoned, and that you, yes YOU, could be at risk!

However, with how this scene is presented, along with the overall tone and such, it comes across in a very comical way that adds to the overall charm. It's absolutely one of my very favorite scenes in the entire film itself, largely due to the unique way in how it was handled. As it is a VERY Joker moment that's straight out of the comic book source material, that, if handled by a different filmmaker, could have been directed with a decidedly different tone that in effect, would have lost that fun and charm the scene, thankfully, DOES have.

I miss the fun aspect.

Yep, I know exactly what you mean, Joker. Playing a straight bat to disturbing aspects as if it's nothing at all. Having glee for serious subject matters is scary and confronting. The commercial was a pure capture of the character.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  8 Mar  2013, 09:43

Indeed. Another good example from B89 is the Joker infomercial. Which, if watching it in a literal sense, is pretty disturbing. As viewers, who had just witnessed a news anchor fatally poisoned on live television, are then treated to a infomercial featuring the ghoulish images of two Gotham City models who were just previously announced as being dead, along with the 'Brand X/Smilex' comparison featuring a man who is tied to a chair and gagged (with a disclaimer reading "Not An Actor") is said to have been using Brand X ("Oh No!"), which then segues to a corpse with a rictus grin that further illustrates the effects of Joker's Smilex. Capped off by the obvious insinuation that Gotham's shopping products have already been poisoned, and that you, yes YOU, could be at risk!

However, with how this scene is presented, along with the overall tone and such, it comes across in a very comical way that adds to the overall charm. It's absolutely one of my very favorite scenes in the entire film itself, largely due to the unique way in how it was handled. As it is a VERY Joker moment that's straight out of the comic book source material, that, if handled by a different filmmaker, could have been directed with a decidedly different tone that in effect, would have lost that fun and charm the scene, thankfully, DOES have.

Yeah, that's a tone that resonates throughout Jack's entire performance. Just like the comic book chararcter... you don't see the danger of the Joker until you're already dead. He seems amusing on the surface... but it's a dark, thinly veild facade.

As such, that's why people do not realize just how dark/twisted Jack's Joker was. I run into this constantly at the comic shop I work at, or even online... it's why people think his Joker was 'camp,' because it's been forever since they watched the movie, and they weren't even paying close enough attention.

I mean, I've counted. Jack's Joker kills more people in the museum gassing scene alone than Ledger does in all of The Dark Knight.

I often wonder if this film will eventually get embraced after enough time has passed (and people have watched enough other incarnations) to just appreciate B&R on it's own merits and not with the totality of the franchise weighing on it. That being said, it will be interesting to see what the studios do with Ben Affleck now that Batman has seen extremes from very cartoonish to very dark and worldly. Is there a wrong direction to take here?

figured it was a good time for a bump. It is interesting to see how some have changed their tune after the 3rd Nolan film.

Maybe the worst thing about the film was the timing; Had it come out 10-30 years earlier (between Adam west and michael Keaton) it would have fit the ideals of batman better. Or had it come out now I think it would have been more tolerable; Nolan bored us to tears and barely showed us Batman. Schumacher set out to entertain and did keep the essence of the character vs making everything ultra realistic. While we could all do without the homosexual innuendos, we are in a far more tolerant society now than we were 18 years ago.

I'll admit that I rarely watch the movie as a whole, but small bits of it are hilarious (Freeze scenes) or very pleasing to look at (Poison Ivy scenes)

The most frustrating thing about Schumacher's films is that it's not like they're inherently worthless. There's surprisingly quite a good amount of material in terms of plot, it's just that the execution of the films were way off. I've never quite jumped on the bandwagon to hate on these films, but if there is one thing I do kind of resent about them is that they left behind a damaging legacy that made fans lower their expectations in the franchise. Suddenly, people became desperate for a more serious Batman movie to the point that they were willing to turn a blind eye to whatever flaws they'd normally condemn another movie for having. All because that they were glad the film was nothing like Schumacher's.

I really believe that if Schumacher and WB were smart enough to tone down the overacting, removed the inappropriate sexual undertones and made a few adjusts to the script i.e. improving the humour, they would've been a lot better and appreciated by fans. Who knows, maybe the original franchise could've lasted a bit longer, or if it did get rebooted, people would be observing the recent movies more honestly without rose-tinted glasses. I honestly have no problem if Schumacher went for a lighter-hearted movie compared to Burton. Like I said, if he made those adjustments I'mentioned, Batman & Robin could've been highly regarded as a great film for kids.

I think aging at 18 years, Batman & Robin is absolutely finding it's audience and cult following if you will. I believe what the Nolan films did is essentially kill the reasoning fans had for hating this movie. Because what Nolan did is remove all the fun and color of the concept and instill this unyielding drudge of depression and darkness to try and flush out the concept as something intended to be "serious". What it did, I think, is force some fans to see the concept as it is and understand that seeing the character in a lighthearted, fun, and colorful manner is not the unforgiving treatment the Schumacher films embraced so warmly.

In many respects I see Batman & Robin going in the same direction as Flash Gordon from 1980. These days that film has an enormous cult following. But it took a long time for new generations to absorb and appreciate what that film was intended to be. Reading all of the comments on this thread and the thoughtful reflections of so many (along with others in different forums) are leading me to believe the days of the harden naysayers are dying out. Yes, there will ALWAYS be that compartment of people who seem to live to hate this film. But it's nice to finally see that awakening of people who are essentially saying, "Hey, kids love this movie. I think it's okay to relax and watch this movie so I can be that kid again too." After all isn't that what the magic of movies are in this genre?

Lately I've come to a simple realization. It's not always what's better, per se. It's about what you enjoy. What is more entertaining and what you watch more often. It's been said a million times, but if you want to sit back in a recliner with a tub of popcorn and chill, B&R fits the bill. More so than any of the other Batman films.

Does that make it better? Of course not. But if we dig into the other positives, there's merit.

Aesthetically, Mr Freeze was spot on. I like his suit, the gun looked good and so did the freeze ray CGI. Aesthetically, Poison Ivy was spot on. Her flower ball outfit rivals Catwoman from BR. Seriously, it's a stunning costume. And again aesthetically, Bane is on the money, more so than Tom Hardy's version.

So in terms of visuals, Schumacher knocked it out of the park.

Goldenthal gets too much negativity thrown his way for not being Danny Elfman, and from me too in the past. But his Batman theme is one of the best. His soundtrack fits the film like a glove and I couldn't imagine anything else.

B&R is the only film to properly address the elephant in the room - Alfred's mortality. We also get some juicy content which the other films haven't covered, namely Batman and Robin at each others throats. Batman and his allies not getting on hasn't been done other than Alfred leaving Bruce in TDK Rises. Except here, we receive a more satisfying conclusion with both parties realizing the importance of trust and working in a team.

If you like your Batman to be infallible in terms of killing his foes, look no further. This guy has a spotless record. And we must not forget - the film truly brings Batman from the brooding loner from B89 who had vengeance on his mind, to a man with a new family - enter Batgirl. He still fights for justice but he has mellowed over the years.

So yes, B&R is a fun two hours. But let's not pretend it's not without a story or themes.

I enjoy Batman Forever more than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises. Do I think it's "better" ? Not entirely, aside from the entertainment. And if I had to choose between watching Batman & Robin and any of Nolan's films right now, I think I'd watch the former. Same for Batman 1966.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue,  1 Oct  2013, 13:21I often wonder if this film will eventually get embraced after enough time has passed (and people have watched enough other incarnations) to just appreciate B&R on it's own merits and not with the totality of the franchise weighing on it.

It's happening right now. You're looking at it. B&R has nowhere to go but up. Nolan's trilogy has nowhere to go but down. Time is on Schumacher's side. Kids will always be Batman's bread and butter. I think history has been kind to Schumacher and will be kinder still in the future.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue,  1 Oct  2013, 13:21That being said, it will be interesting to see what the studios do with Ben Affleck now that Batman has seen extremes from very cartoonish to very dark and worldly. Is there a wrong direction to take here?

From a commercial standpoint, not really. A dark Batman sells well. A film like Batman Forever could never get made today. I wouldn't go so far as to call that "progress" but Zack Snyder looks to be bringing the late 80's/early 90's status quo to BvS with a very Miller'ish influence, a dead Robin, etc. That's an aspect of Batman which, oddly enough, wide audiences have never seen before. And they could respond very well to it.

Well said thecolorsblend. I agree that Batman is durable enough to survive just about any artistic direction. I think in film, it just depends on how well directors match the mood with the audience's expectation. We've been in "dark mode" for a while now. Audiences tend to get fickle on these heroes after a treatment has been applied for a while. There's a degree of redundancy that sets in for the public if studios don't find a new way to make these "must-see" events (Hence the constant treatment swaps).

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I've been alive long enough to see that pendulum swing wildly from one end to the other. I saw Batman '66 on TV during it's first run. Monster success. It's reception was like the Beatles on TV. The public was manic for West and Ward. Who could guess just a few short years later the public would completely walk away and disown them? Even still there would be an estrangement from those actors to Hollywood for decades.

Batman '89 rolls out and no one from the last celebrated venture is allowed even so much as a cameo in the film. The paranoia was high. How THEN could we predict the camp and light-hearted approach would be back in full swing in just six years? Better yet how could we know rewarding the massive audience from Forever with a similar treatment would make them rebel on the franchise once again?

Now we've had a dark and moody Batman for three movies. All huge successes. ONCE AGAIN, studios THINK they're dialed in on what the public wants for the next movie. Affleck has even been given the green light to write, star, and direct solo Batman movies before the first ticket has been ripped from BVS. Hmmmmm. Do I smell history repeating itself? I think if we can learn anything from history, it's that audiences like change ups in the character. But they don't always amplify that to the studios until after the next movie is in the can. The lessons in Batman movies are always post-reflective. It's nearly impossible to predict on the frontend while they're in development.

So from my life experience, it feels like we're approaching that grey area again.  Warner bros has bathed in the cash flow from the Nolan movies. They're not about to drift too far from that treatment. And from what I see in trailers, Snyder is definitely taking the Nolan tone and practicality of the character and mixing them with his own fantasy-with-a-message style. But his hero movies have never gone over very big like Nolan's have. They tend to be divisive with fans for a variety of reasons. Will this bank like the Nolan films because he's giving Batman that influential nod? I have no idea. I just have this gut feeling the pendulum is swinging and the studio is unaware. I would never look further ahead than the current project when it comes to Batman. Audiences are just too fickle on treatments.

Well, now it's 20 years! (no reason to start a new thread)

I agree with several opinions expressed in the posts above. Nowadays, this movie is fun. Of all the big-budget movies of its era, successful (Titanic, Independence Day, Men in Black, Twister, Armageddon) or not (remember The Avengers, Lost in Space, Battlefield Earth?) this one is still one of the most watchable.

There isn't really such a thing as a boring, or forgettable, Batman movie.

Despite what some may say, this isn't a bad movie. It's not perfect by any means or great, but it's solid. Over the top, with ridiculous stuff is a good way to describe it. It's fits well with the Burton movies there and that's not an insult. This movie has some great personal moments that are some of the best of Batman movies in general. I can honestly say I'd want to see what a more serious version of this movie would be, but I like what we got. I used have this pad or something that had Mr. Freeze's lines from the movie in it, like, "Tonight's forecast: A freeze is coming!" The puns are great and this movie is awesome to me. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 21 Jun  2017, 11:53I can honestly say I'd want to see what a more serious version of this movie would be

I wouldn't. To me, the over-the-top elements are what MAKE the movie. Toning that stuff down is a lot like removing the Silver Age elements from All-Star Superman. I mean, yeah. I guess you could do it. But that doesn't make the doing of it a good idea.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 22 Jun  2017, 02:49I wouldn't. To me, the over-the-top elements are what MAKE the movie. Toning that stuff down is a lot like removing the Silver Age elements from All-Star Superman. I mean, yeah. I guess you could do it. But that doesn't make the doing of it a good idea.

The movie wouldn't be exactly the same, I'd think. No puns, more attuned to the B89/BR/slightly BF aesthetic. It'd be like having BF have Robin Williams and Billy Dee Williams instead of Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones. That would obviously be very different than the BF we got, which I also wouldn't mind. Like Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze and Gillian Anderson or something like that as Poison Ivy. It's be kinda neat.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 21 Jun  2017, 11:53
Despite what some may say, this isn't a bad movie. It's not perfect by any means or great, but it's solid. Over the top, with ridiculous stuff is a good way to describe it. It's fits well with the Burton movies there and that's not an insult. This movie has some great personal moments that are some of the best of Batman movies in general.

I can agree with that. I can't imagine Keaton's Batman starring in this, but regardless, the themes that began in BR, and continued in BF, came to their fruition in B&R. It's not my favorite film by any stretch but it's harmless fun.

I'm glad Batman and Robin exists because it served as an important lesson for comic and films in general.

It became common for 90's sequels to lampoon previous films in their series. It's actually  surprising that Burton fans seem to respect the Schumacher films more than the Nolan fans since it could be argued that Schumacher spoofed the Burton films. That being said I agree plotwise it does follow just fine. Schumacher respected Burton's continuity as evident by the fact that he easily could have recast Pat Hingle and Michael Gough claiming their characters would need new actors with the new Batman. He didn't try and reinvent any aspect Burton established, only modifications and you can't possibly consider Chase Meridian's quip about a whip and skin tight vinyl as anything else but a reference to Catwoman. We can live in a world of hypotheticals all we like and wonder what would have happened if Burton and Keaton stayed on or if WB didn't interfere and make everything 'toyetic' but the bottom line is in the world we live in, Burton, Elfman and Keaton gave us two films before Schumacher took over and that's that. Here are things I appreciate about this film:
-A very underrated line is the foreshadowing by Alfred "do bring this one back in one piece sir" at the beginning. This ends up being the only film in the series in which no bat-vehicles are destroyed (the Batwing in the first film, batmobiles in the second film, and all three bat vehicles we see in the third film.
-the lighter tone does fit the character's progression if you consider the deleted scenes from the previous film as canon. Bruce finds his fathers last entry and realizes their death was not his fault- all along he believed that they were on the way to see Zorro at Bruce's insistence while the entry indicates they were putting Zorro off until the next week. Also I do agree with George Clooney that Bruce Wayne isn't the only person to suffer loss and tragedy and that he can't keep sulking about it forever especially when he's warding a youth who went through the same thing (even worse Dick lost a sibling as well)
--thematically speaking they handled the frozen Gotham part well. This movie actually has one of my favourite teaser posters of all time (the frozen Bat logo).
-this was definitely the biggest role Alfred had in any bat film and so it remains a nice send off with Michael Gough. For those who hate the silliness of the film, the only silly lines Alfred gives are in the opening and closing lines ("I'll cancel the pizzas sir" and "we're going to need a bigger cave").
-While Clooney wasn't exactly trying while he was wearing the cowl, he was an excellent Bruce Wayne. I think he would have done better acting like a ditzy playboy than Christian Bale did. I think this film would have been better if they showcased more of Bruce Wayne. Clooney was also excellent when paired with Gough.
-from the 1966 batman film through to Batman v Superman this is the only bat film in which there is no damsel in distress. I understand why superhero films put the heroe's loved ones in peril but it does make them come across as selfish. The Nolan series especially is guilty of this, every time there was danger Bruce always chose those he had personal relationships over Gotham which is why I don't believe that Batman was the hero Gotham deserved.
-another clichee omitted was the villains or supporting characters finding out Batman's true identify. The only character who find out Bruce Wayne is Batman through the events of the film is Barbara Gordon. In the first 3 films, every single love interest and villain learns Batman's secret. Julie Madison remains the only live action love interest for Bruce or Batman who never learns. Again compare that to the Dark Knight Rises where everyone and their grandmother learns who Batman is. To be fair though I'm quite certain despite Batman removing his mask being an important plot point, not a single character learns his identiy in the Dark Knight
-if you like the Robin character, this and Batman 66 are the only ones he remains present throughout the films.


By the way I don't know if it's been stated but this film turned 20 on June 20th.

^^^ That was an excellent post Riddler. You know when the 20th anniversary hit, everyone of note seem to revert back to the apology stance for this film and I am forever DONE with the herd mentality that seems to cultivate those connected to this film. It's like they are required to hate it when in fact they don't seem to want to, outside of Clooney and Schumacher. Even Joel seems pretty ambivalent if you listen to his commentary on the Blu Ray.

For all of the over correction that occurred as a result of this film, it can safely be said that now it has gone too far the other way. Even though BVS made a huge chunk of money from it's extremely front loaded opening weekend, that film actually had bigger drops after the opening weekend and left theaters quicker than B&R. It's now become equally as campy for Batman to be TOO SERIOUS with Affleck overacting in the cowl and creating his own mark of shame on the franchise. Martha anyone?

So when people point to this film as the commercial shame of the series, it's actually BVS that carries that crown now. And with Justice League being officially "tweaked" to lighten Snyder's overstated seriousness, one has to wonder if the pendulum is now pushing back towards the more lighthearted treatment. Do we need to look any further than Spider-man Homecoming to reinforce that suggestion? 

In short I think there will always be a time and place for a lighter and brighter version of our heroes. It doesn't make them flawed so much as a reflection that the public is tired of our heroes being depressed and otherwise uninteresting. After all these are masked and costumed vigilantes. Exactly how serious do we need to take them without remembering their ultimate purpose is to touch the child in all of us? B&R does a fine job of addressing that idea.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 22 Jun  2017, 14:27-A very underrated line is the foreshadowing by Alfred "do bring this one back in one piece sir" at the beginning. This ends up being the only film in the series in which no bat-vehicles are destroyed (the Batwing in the first film, batmobiles in the second film, and all three bat vehicles we see in the third film.

Don't the Batmobile and Robin and Batgirl's ice vehicles get destroyed? Been a while since I've seen this.

Also, this is the only Batman movie there's ever been where it's obvious that Batman never killed anybody, either deliberately or accidentally.

I can't see anybody but Keaton in Burton's movies. Nobody but Kilmer in BF. And honestly, nobody but Clooney in B&R. His Batman and Bruce are both perfect for the tone of B&R. The movie itself is, in retrospect, a worthy ending to the original franchise. Clearly this is a Batman who won't likely ever retire so it makes sense to lighten the tone as things go. I don't begrudge Nolan for his view that Batman is strictly a temporary gig for Bruce. And I don't mind Schumacher steering the eternal Batman in a lighter direction. And I love Snyder taking the eternal Batman in a very dark direction.

I like them all and love some of them.

It's three things time.

1. Freeze blasts the Batmobile with his cannon, but it's repaired in the following scene.

2. This scene feels more relevant today than in 1997.

(https://i.imgur.com/I9HJRPs.gif)

3. The "will you help me?" scene in the batcave is fantastic.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 00:39
For all of the over correction that occurred as a result of this film, it can safely be said that now it has gone too far the other way. Even though BVS made a huge chunk of money from it's extremely front loaded opening weekend, that film actually had bigger drops after the opening weekend and left theaters quicker than B&R. It's now become equally as campy for Batman to be TOO SERIOUS with Affleck overacting in the cowl and creating his own mark of shame on the franchise. Martha anyone?

Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy than Bale's overacting with that idiotic voice, and speaking in grandiose terms about his moral code, only to get people killed anyway. Or betraying everything he stood for to protect a criminal. Come on now!

Mark of shame, my ass.  ::) If you still think Batman and Superman stopped their dispute because their mothers share the same name...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 11:38Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy than Bale's overacting with that idiotic voice, and speaking in grandiose terms about his moral code, only to get people killed anyway. Or betraying everything he stood for to protect a criminal. Come on now!

Mark of shame, my ass.  ::) If you still think Batman and Superman stopped their dispute because their mothers share the same name...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Still better than Batman betraying everything he stands for by trying to murder another hero and never facing any consequences for it.

We all get it. Bruce saw him as a person because by their moms having the same name, he saw himself as the monster, etc. etc.. It's all still because their mom's have the same name though. Otherwise Bruce would have murdered Clark right there. That's a problem. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 11:38

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 00:39
For all of the over correction that occurred as a result of this film, it can safely be said that now it has gone too far the other way. Even though BVS made a huge chunk of money from it's extremely front loaded opening weekend, that film actually had bigger drops after the opening weekend and left theaters quicker than B&R. It's now become equally as campy for Batman to be TOO SERIOUS with Affleck overacting in the cowl and creating his own mark of shame on the franchise. Martha anyone?

Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy than Bale's overacting with that idiotic voice, and speaking in grandiose terms about his moral code, only to get people killed anyway. Or betraying everything he stood for to protect a criminal. Come on now!

Mark of shame, my ass.  ::) If you still think Batman and Superman stopped their dispute because their mothers share the same name...well, I don't know what to tell you.

What is rubbish? No one is asking you to not like Affleck. If he's your favorite, God love ya. I'm simply stating the film financially had bigger drops and left theaters faster than any Batman film of modern record. And what makes it's especially insulting is the fact it opened in a noncompetitive month like March. It didn't survive for even 90 days. In fact it didn't even survive 80 days. B&R was released in the middle of the Summer schedule and held together over three months. Which film you love or hate and how you rank them will always be subjective. But there's nothing subjective about the fact the public ran this film out of theaters faster than any other Batman movie since the modern movies started with Keaton. I'm not counting the Adam West movie in the 60's or the serials.

OPINION: The Martha scene (for me) remains impossibly embarrassing. It's one thing to knowingly play to a camp theme like B&R did. It's something entirely different to construct a fundamental barrier between Batman and Superman that entirely rides on Wayne saying, " Even if there is a ONE PERCENT chance that he is our enemy, we must take that as an ABSOLUTE certainty!" That statement alone is so over-the-top it really suggests that Wayne is not only paranoid, but at bare minimum a clinical schizophrenic all rooted in his scars from his past. The film goes to great lengths to establish this.

So please... PLEASE... forgive me if Superman uttering "Martha" at such a unnatural and unrealistic moment to denote his own earthbound mom is a notion that would somehow take Batman out of a kill strike which he finds himself in with all of his emotional reasoning completely lost to the moment. It's such a ridiculous leap of logic, I doubt even the Superfriends cartoon would go there. And even allowing for the rest of the exposition in the film, which is minimal, it's IMPOSSIBLE to not laugh out loud at the end when you see a somber Batman calling Superman his friend with as much remorse as he had hatred earlier. It makes Batman look like a complete buffoon having these wild slides in opinion based on whatever emotional maze you catch him in. He's worse than a teenager.

That's why I always say Batman as a concept will always ride on a fragile edge between ludicrous and entertaining. It's a guy dressed up like a bat to fight crime. How you walk in with that idea often dictates how you will take to each new film on the subject. Personally I think Burton has been the best because he made the world around Batman semi-surreal. He stylized that world so Batman could translate. But more importantly he allowed the outfit to do the work. Keaton's eyes really did much of the talking in that mask. He treated Batman as a state of mind.

Val Kilmer really copied Keaton through the first half of Forever before bringing his own personality to the role. Clooney I don't feel really brought any notions to Batman as much as he did Bruce Wayne. We can blame him or Schumacher, but Batman's alternate personality was absent in B&R which probably did more to alienate people than anything. It broke the allusion that Batman and Bruce Wayne could exist in the same world and no one notice.

Christian Bale's performance certainly plays to a wider issue because Nolan tries to cater to this idea that Batman could be a corporate hidden product of sorts. Of course what kills that concept immediately is when he uses a concept vehicle that HAD to be recognized by any number of engineers that originals drafted the vehicle for the defense department. That alone made me roll my eyes in Batman Begins. Did he overdo it on the vocal exchange? I would certainly give you that. Without a doubt that can be laughed at in many places. But to underscore those moments only reinforces the issues with BVS which tries to emulate the darker themes of the Dark Knight.

But to reiterate, the "shame" of the series comes from this film being billed as the second coming during a noncommercial period for films, and the movie gets run out of theaters faster than any modern film of it's kind in the Batman series. If you're being objective at all, it's hard to argue against the grand collapse this film suffered.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 11:38Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy

Not directed at you specifically but I really wish people would stop abusing the terms "camp", "campy" and all that. The "camp" idiom has a specific meaning. Nothing Affleck did in BVS or Suicide Squad even remotely approaches camp.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 16:58

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 11:38Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy than Bale's overacting with that idiotic voice, and speaking in grandiose terms about his moral code, only to get people killed anyway. Or betraying everything he stood for to protect a criminal. Come on now!

Mark of shame, my ass.  ::) If you still think Batman and Superman stopped their dispute because their mothers share the same name...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Still better than Batman betraying everything he stands for by trying to murder another hero and never facing any consequences for it.

We all get it. Bruce saw him as a person because by their moms having the same name, he saw himself as the monster, etc. etc.. It's all still because their mom's have the same name though. Otherwise Bruce would have murdered Clark right there. That's a problem. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

No that's not the point. Batman/Bruce is fearful of Superman because he perceives him as an alien with the power to wipe out the human race. During their fight Batman learns that Superman isn't so different, he has humans he protects and cares for, he considers his family to be human and Batman was about to do to the Kents what Joe Chill did to his family. He stops when Lois helps him realize that superman isn't the enemy, he's just trying to protect the ones he loves.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 22:39

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 11:38Still on about that rubbish? Affleck is not any more laughable or campy

Not directed at you specifically but I really wish people would stop abusing the terms "camp", "campy" and all that. The "camp" idiom has a specific meaning. Nothing Affleck did in BVS or Suicide Squad even remotely approaches camp.

Yep. Campy is nothing to be ashamed about anyway. What's not to love? A roaring fire. Marshmallows. Looking at the stars. Keeping a loaded and cocked 44 Magnum in your back pocket in case of bears and serial killers. Good times folks.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 10 Aug  2017, 03:11No that's not the point. Batman/Bruce is fearful of Superman because he perceives him as an alien with the power to wipe out the human race. During their fight Batman learns that Superman isn't so different, he has humans he protects and cares for, he considers his family to be human and Batman was about to do to the Kents what Joe Chill did to his family. He stops when Lois helps him realize that superman isn't the enemy, he's just trying to protect the ones he loves.

The point is that Batman tries to murder someone because they exist. It doesn't matter why he tries. He still tries and would have without Lois or the Martha thing to make him see Superman as a person. But Batman doesn't see anything during the fight. He sees it after the fight, when Superman is down for the count. Superman is an alien with the power to wipe out the human race. That means nothing and doesn't give Batman license to murder someone. Killing criminals is messed up for Batman, but broken Batman the movie's trying to show how he can become better, sure, I'll accept it, but the minute the movie decides that Batman's going to murder Superman just for existing is the minute he's closer to Owlman than any Batman. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
What is rubbish? No one is asking you to not like Affleck. If he's your favorite, God love ya.

That's not what I said. I'm talking about your reaction to that Martha scene.

As for box office? Sure, the movie had a drop. But it also made more than enough to stay afloat. Judging by it under superficial terms, its box office can be compared to that of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, despite that movie gaining critical acclaim. Keep in mind, I personally don't care too much box office results. The Winter Solider, for example, is a far better film than Civil War, in my opinion, but its $714 million gross is quite tame compared to the latter's billion dollar gross revenue. Does that make Civil War better? I don't think so. What I'm saying is box office isn't always a reliable indicator concerning quality.

Besides, the film made lots of money on home video.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
OPINION: The Martha scene (for me) remains impossibly embarrassing. It's one thing to knowingly play to a camp theme like B&R did. It's something entirely different to construct a fundamental barrier between Batman and Superman that entirely rides on Wayne saying, " Even if there is a ONE PERCENT chance that he is our enemy, we must take that as an ABSOLUTE certainty!" That statement alone is so over-the-top it really suggests that Wayne is not only paranoid, but at bare minimum a clinical schizophrenic all rooted in his scars from his past. The film goes to great lengths to establish this.

I seriously don't understand your opposition to this premise to the first place. The film depicted a traumatised Batman who rationalised his hatred following the devastation he witnessed at Metropolis. The film even spelled out this Batman has a history of seeing good people who become corrupt. It is really out of the ordinary for him to react the way he did?

Besides, you must really hate the idea of Batman being the most psychologically disturbed out of all the Justice League heroes, because this wasn't the first time he took such a drastic and paranoid stance. In Justice League: Doom he created contingency plans against the JL in case if any of them were to go rogue one day. You might not like the paranoid side of him, but it's a valid interpretation for a such a psychologically-troubled character.

Anyway, I've actually posted once that this "1% chance" was inspired by former Vice-President Dick Cheney's justification for the US government's much-maligned stance on the War on Terror. It's too long to post here, so I'll post you the link for you to read and get your review:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3274.msg54200#msg54200

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
So please... PLEASE... forgive me if Superman uttering "Martha" at such a unnatural and unrealistic moment to denote his own earthbound mom

We've already discussed about this before in great detail before, and I can't believe you still literally think that Batman stopped his rage against Superman because both of their mothers share the same name. You completely disregarded, yet again, that Superman also emphasised that somebody has taken this Martha hostage i.e. "You're letting him" and "Find him!". Not to mention the fact that Batman not only realised Lex had taken advantage of his blind rage and used it to manipulate him to kill Superman, he finally woke up and realised he was about to kill somebody's son, and become indirectly responsible for another person's death. Which would make him no better than the scumbag who murdered his parents - hence why we got those flashbacks of their deaths during that scene.

If you were criticising Superman for referring to his mother's first name because nobody talks like that in real life, okay, that would actually be fair. If you were criticising that the conclusion of the fight could've been prevented if Superman tried a little harder to tell what's going on, that would be your prerogative.

But the idea that Superman and Batman settled their differences aside because both their mothers are named Martha is not only a gross misunderstanding of what's going on in that scene, it's foolish, quite frankly. You don't have to like how it was written, but continuing to misunderstand that scene is deliberate on your part.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
And even allowing for the rest of the exposition in the film, which is minimal, it's IMPOSSIBLE to not laugh out loud at the end when you see a somber Batman calling Superman his friend with as much remorse as he had hatred earlier. It makes Batman look like a complete buffoon having these wild slides in opinion based on whatever emotional maze you catch him in. He's worse than a teenager.

If you're referring to the scene where Batman tells Martha "I'm a friend of your son's" after rescuing her, a perfectly good rebuttal to that is he was trying to comfort her in any way he could. Which makes sense after all the hell she had been through.

Besides that, I find your dismissal of this to be completely cynical. The film definitely doesn't shy away from the fact this Batman was a shell of his former self, but that was the whole point. This was a man who was broken by a violent world full of tragedy that ultimately was breaking him, and didn't realise he was becoming everything he stood against until he nearly executed Superman. He spends the last half hour trying to redeem himself by rescuing Martha Kent, helping out in stopping Doomsday, even secretly paid for Clark's funeral, vowing he would not let him down in death by honouring his memory in his desire to create the Justice League. Apart from maybe Batman Forever, what other Batman movies do you know where the character actually has a redemption arc? Where he makes amends for mistakes?

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
Christian Bale's performance certainly plays to a wider issue because Nolan tries to cater to this idea that Batman could be a corporate hidden product of sorts. Of course what kills that concept immediately is when he uses a concept vehicle that HAD to be recognized by any number of engineers that originals drafted the vehicle for the defense department. That alone made me roll my eyes in Batman Begins. Did he overdo it on the vocal exchange? I would certainly give you that. Without a doubt that can be laughed at in many places. But to underscore those moments only reinforces the issues with BVS which tries to emulate the darker themes of the Dark Knight.

Honestly Wayne, I notice that every time I mention a serious writing flaw in the Nolan trilogy, you never address any of these points, particularly when compared to BvS. Yes, I did mention Bale's voice acting and have complained about Nolan's approach towards realism many times in the past. But those things are quite small compared to the sloppy writing, as the examples I mentioned earlier, e.g:

• The inconsistent and nonsensical no-kill stance where he kills villains anyway but won't kill the mass-murdering Joker. How the hell does that make any sense? The film constantly flip flips and glosses over this blatant inconsistency that it insults the audience's intelligence. And people still call this rubbish "realistic, cerebral writing"?
• How he blindly falls into every trap and gets manipulated by the likes of Joker, Catwoman (which Bruce knows she's a criminal who already robbed him TWICE and played her part in bankrupting him before she locked him up in a cage with Bane. Incredibly, he still trusts her after this, and he only gets vindicated for it because of plot convenience). All made worse when in Batman Begins, Bruce supposedly traveled the world and started committing some crimes in the hopes of learning how the criminal mind works. Well, it clearly didn't work because he learned absolutely nothing.
  
  At least when Batman was manipulated emotionally in BvS, he was psychologically damaged and struggled to deal powerless after and coping never-ending tragedy, which Lex took advantage of to force a battle with Superman. What was Bale's excuse for constantly getting manipulated and not learning from his mistakes?
  
  Once again, if you want to talk about ridiculous character transformations, what about the way Harvey Dent became Two-Face? One minute Harvey would do anything to stop the Joker in order to protect Rachel, but in the next, he's listening to the Joker's nonsense and let's himself to be manipulated into starting a killing spree. Despite knowing Joker succeeded in getting Rachel killed. I think it's hysterical and even hypocritical that you criticise the Martha scene so much when unlike Batman, Dent knew he was being manipulated by his own tormentor! It doesn't matter how mentally ill Two-Face was, he had a hatred for anyone who dared to harm him and Rachel. I laughed at that garbage, and even more so when people ate it up. Destroyed any sympathy I had for him.
• How he corrupted his own symbolism and betrayed everything he stood for by taking the fall for Two-Face and mislead Gotham for eight years, which came back to haunt him as Bane easily exposed the truth under already chaotic circumstances. Had Batman told the truth, the Dent Act would never have existed, but he wouldn't have any blood on his hands. How the hell can anybody still say TDK had a great ending despite this I'll never know.
• The supposed theme that being Batman was a temporary phase for Gotham to undergo social reform at the end of Rises isn't true because Blake is taking over the mantle. While Bruce runs away with Selina in a completely forced romance as Gotham faces an uncertain future, if you think about it.

There is even less to no logic to what Batman does in this trilogy, and yet, you think BvS made Batman look like an incompetent buffoonish teenager in comparison? Seriously, how?

If you like the Nolan trilogy better as a spectacle than BvS, hey, go for it. But how can you honestly account for all these problems and say the writing here was better?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Aug  2017, 13:22

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  9 Aug  2017, 20:09
So please... PLEASE... forgive me if Superman uttering "Martha" at such a unnatural and unrealistic moment to denote his own earthbound mom

We've already discussed about this before in great detail before, and I can't believe you still literally think that Batman stopped his rage against Superman because both of their mothers share the same name. You completely disregarded, yet again, that Superman also emphasised that somebody has taken this Martha hostage i.e. "You're letting him" and "Find him!". Not to mention the fact that Batman not only realised Lex had taken advantage of his blind rage and used it to manipulate him to kill Superman, he finally woke up and realised he was about to kill somebody's son, and become indirectly responsible for another person's death. Which would make him no better than the scumbag who murdered his parents - hence why we got those flashbacks of their deaths during that scene.

If you were criticising Superman for referring to his mother's first name because nobody talks like that in real life, okay, that would actually be fair. If you were criticising that the conclusion of the fight could've been prevented if Superman tried a little harder to tell what's going on, that would be your prerogative.

But the idea that Superman and Batman settled their differences aside because both their mothers are named Martha is not only a gross misunderstanding of what's going on in that scene, it's foolish, quite frankly. You don't have to like how it was written, but continuing to misunderstand that scene is deliberate on your part.

Referring to his mother by first name is exactly what I mean. No one does that. And the greater reason why it's so painfully contrived is that it references young Wayne when he hears his father's last words become "Martha". Now come on. That's horribly staged. You know as well as I that when you're building a story you introduce plot points that explain character motivation, play to social metaphors, and in some cases service a plot twist for irony. There's NO logical way Superman can surmise (especially at THAT moment) that a formal reference to his mom through her first name would spark a trauma filled moment only Bruce Wayne knows about.

Yes, we can argue he knew about Wayne's parents being killed. But he can't know about the final words. What Snyder did here is purposely create that death scene to service this plot point later and to me that is ludicrous. That is so forced, it abandons reason.

And I thank you for your character study reference. I understand your perspective on the subject. But seeing Batman as a traumatized vigilante is not something I missed in all this. It's actually been a pretty consistent and tired theme in the Batman franchise. Identifying my cynicism would be spot on in terms of looking at the arc of Batman in film. I compare it to the constant Spider-man reboots. How many times do we need to see Parker in his psychological Underoos learning to be a superhero? I GET IT...

But where this particular story just collapses on itself (for me) is the fact Snyder takes nearly three quarters of the film to build Batman up as this tragic and reluctant hero, then pulls the rug out. In fact he borrows from the Nolan universe by playing to the idea that if you survive long enough as a hero, you could eventually become the villain. That's what is happening to Batman. He's so jaded from loss and betrayal; he has virtually no code left to distinguish himself from the villains.

But keep in mind we're not talking about a young Batman here. We're talking about an aging Batman with much of his life BEHIND him. He's no longer dealing with his angst in a free form clinical manner where you can talk him into a new perspective. He's now living in his rage that is by no means just tied to one moment in his life with his parents. He's the product of a LIFETIME of internal torture so it's instinctive now, not just a mood driven occasion.

So am I saying Batman should be beyond repair? No I'm not. But to spend the majority of a story underscoring his anger and rage only to flip the script is too much for one film. I have read your analysis and I completely understand what you're saying. But you are also adding exposition where the film does not. It's not a matter of me not understanding what the story is implying. What I'm saying is he gets there way too fast given that his attitude and opinion sway wildly in a very short frame. No one with that kind of bruised and clinically ill psyche mends that fast (even with the examples referenced). Batman is operating on a deeper level than the results of one positive outcome in his life.

The human mind does not find hope and rationale from a brief string of moments that can point in a new direction. For one, you have to be open to see it in that way. And second, you have to be receiving it from someone who has sold you on the notion you can entrust what you think their saying or the situation that involves them. Something appearing to be positive to one person does not automatically show itself to be positive in front of others who are jaded by a lifetime of tragedy. Snyder's entire rationale in that final chapter is a huge leap of assumption that Batman can retrain his thinking just because he knows Lex has manipulated him (which actually caters to his angst about humanity) and Superman is not as bad as he thought.

You're arguing that a person can find sudden clarity from very removed circumstances that might share some association, but nothing that addresses loss over a lifetime that feeds the instincts of his perspective. That's an enormous leap to reconcile in one film at the end. Can we agree Batman could eventually find his way to that understanding? Yes, but not this quickly. And not under the duress he's facing both when he's fighting Superman and later in that final battle.

Batman is stepping way outside his immediate circumstances to find that kind of objectivity. To suggest that is to say his suffering was not as deep as it was portrayed because it took very little to overcome it. Snyder dug too deep a hole for Batman to crawl out of at the end and I believe most audiences felt that way, which is why it was beat up so badly both by critics and fans. It felt like Jason taking off his hockey mask and telling the campers he wants to be a Boy Scout instead of kill them. Batman's new attitude at the end is just too neat, too swift, and honestly out of character for how he was presented.


In many ways BVS falls into the same traps you perfectly construct for the Nolan series. And I wouldn't argue against those. We're in agreement there. But it illustrates the trap (and corner) writers and directors fall into when they take this material too serious or apply real life concepts to embellish the character study. In the Nolan series, Bruce Wayne should NEVER have had a no-kill clause because quite frankly he did it allot. And his quandary over the Joker "trapping" him to reveal his identity to stop killings is absurd. Ultimately the Joker is killing these people because he is insane. Trying to transpose blame to Batman based on a completely transparent lie that he would stop killing is an obvious rationale Batman should have concluded. World's greatest detective? Not here.

So it's not that I give the Nolan series a pass. I don't. But the iconic meeting between Superman and Batman was advertised as something most people would universally want to see. In the comics, you had two entirely different operating principles in play which served as the rub between these two heroes. Superman never became that hero from the comics in Snyder's version, so the rub had to come from a darker origin that made them both pretty dysfunctional. Snyder had to sell his idea and quite honestly audiences didn't like it.

I think that is why allot of people reacted as they did to the particulars on Batman and quite honestly Superman as well. Snyder does not create likable characters. When I watched it, I didn't find that I cared for either one. They were both so conflicted and bitter, it felt more like a mercy killing to just let them both die. So Snyder never gave it the kind of grandeur a film of this kind should have had. A suicidal Batman meets the death of Superman was way too much weight to put on a film that should have farmed out a better story for people to celebrate rather than mourn and feud over.

And of course now we're about to get a complete tonal flip in Justice League as every hero will likely have a one-liner every five minutes. So Justice League will have to carry some of the liability from this movie. In the final analysis (for myself) I think Snyder gambled too much on the philosophical side of the story instead of building on basic fundamental differences that didn't require as much angst to uncover a ray of hope.

All the analysis in the world doesn't take away from the fact as a superhero film there's not much to celebrate. And yes, we can go there on other films in the series too. But right now we're talking about BVS and for me the movie had a load of potential but missed out because of Snyder's tendencies to make characters too cynical and unlikable. Justice League is having to correct that direction, so we'll see what that does for continuity of the established characters.

Circling back to Batman and Robin, it's been brought up in this thread that DC may have since gone too far in the other directions after Batman and Robin. This may be why they are so afraid to have a little fun with their films or terrified to add any humour or jokes and attempt to make everything grounded and realistic. I think in turn this helped the Schumacher films image, it's a nice change of pace to get a lighter version of the character and a Bat film that sets out to entertain us instead of take itself too seriously. Some go as far as to say that the reason why Batman and Gotham became so unrecognizable is that Nolan and Bale were borderline embarrassed to be making a film out of a comic book. Say what you will about the Schumacher films, they embrace the source material more than any other solo Batman films.

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:28
Circling back to Batman and Robin, it's been brought up in this thread that DC may have since gone too far in the other directions after Batman and Robin. This may be why they are so afraid to have a little fun with their films or terrified to add any humour or jokes and attempt to make everything grounded and realistic. I think in turn this helped the Schumacher films image, it's a nice change of pace to get a lighter version of the character and a Bat film that sets out to entertain us instead of take itself too seriously. Some go as far as to say that the reason why Batman and Gotham became so unrecognizable is that Nolan and Bale were borderline embarrassed to be making a film out of a comic book. Say what you will about the Schumacher films, they embrace the source material more than any other solo Batman films.

I think the Schumacher films are the most HONEST with the material. Look at cartoons like the Brave and the Bold. Very stylized and aimed at the Silver age of Batman I think that's primarily where the Schumacher films lean. Everything else has pretty much been a rewrite of Frank Miller which is getting pretty old. You have to let these heroes breath a bit. I have absolutely no problem with an occasional dark and edgy Batman. I think if the concept has demonstrated anything, it's that Batman has the flexibility to play to more than just one idea. He's not a one note hero.

But I think the fake hysteria over B&R created this dark rut we've been in for the past decade. The funny thing is Schumacher was a reaction from Studios to Burton being too dark with Returns. So it's all relative if you look at the marketplace and what people were wanting for it's day.  And from my perspective B&R is not THAT removed from Forever. I think they are both pretty much of the same mindset. I didn't hear a soul complaining about Forever when it came out. And actually it took some time for even B&R to get it's distinction. It wasn't really until the social media age that fanboys took out their anger on that film and cemented it's legacy.  It doesn't really matter. The movie still sells to this day and it's merchandise line is constantly in demand on Ebay. Just a quick scan of sold auctions on Ebay revealed 23 copies of B&R sold in August alone. Batman Forever 16 copies. It's Batman. The license is healthy no matter which movie you pick. 

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 17:40
And actually it took some time for even B&R to get it's distinction. It wasn't really until the social media age that fanboys took out their anger on that film and cemented it's legacy.

Back in 1998-1999, when Altavista and Yahoo were the most popular search engines and anyone could sign up and do a personal site using services like geocities.com and angelfire.com, the web had numerous anti-Schumacher sites. It's during the more recent, post-Nolan times that many fans have made peace with B&R.

Quote from: Azrael on Sat, 12 Aug  2017, 03:53Back in 1998-1999, when Altavista and Yahoo were the most popular search engines and anyone could sign up and do a personal site using services like geocities.com and angelfire.com, the web had numerous anti-Schumacher sites. It's during the more recent, post-Nolan times that many fans have made peace with B&R.

This is true. I remember some of those sites. The one that stands out was called "Harp On Batman Forever", which went online circa 1996 and was, as the name might suggest, an anti-Batman Forever screed.

I can only assume B&R sent that guy off the deep end.

This notion that B&R only became reviled the day after MySpace went online is pure revisionist tripe. It's not true. B&R was a joke even before it came out. The relative acceptance it has now is a completely recent (though welcome) thing.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
Referring to his mother by first name is exactly what I mean. No one does that. And the greater reason why it's so painfully contrived is that it references young Wayne when he hears his father's last words become "Martha". Now come on. That's horribly staged. You know as well as I that when you're building a story you introduce plot points that explain character motivation, play to social metaphors, and in some cases service a plot twist for irony. There's NO logical way Superman can surmise (especially at THAT moment) that a formal reference to his mom through her first name would spark a trauma filled moment only Bruce Wayne knows about.

I don't even think Superman was smart enough to surmise that, to be honest. It wouldn't surprise me that Superman tried to tell Martha Kent was in danger without referring to her as his mother because he had some misguided reason to continue keeping his identity a secret.

Look, as you might have guessed in my last post, I'm not really defending the choice of saying Martha, per se. I also agree it's contrived. The only time I've seen anybody refer to their parents as their first name is when they're working in the same job together. Otherwise, nobody talks like that, as you say. I've even posted a few weeks ago that I'd change that line to  "Save my mother!" because it's a lot more realistic, and it would've resulted in the same conclusion.

But the difference is I think that is more of a criticism against Superman than Batman. We can debate about whether or not Batman reacted too quickly upon learning what was going on, but I think people are being too literal to think the fight simply ended because the two heroes both have mothers called Martha. That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
I understand your perspective on the subject. But seeing Batman as a traumatized vigilante is not something I missed in all this. It's actually been a pretty consistent and tired theme in the Batman franchise. Identifying my cynicism would be spot on in terms of looking at the arc of Batman in film. I compare it to the constant Spider-man reboots. How many times do we need to see Parker in his psychological Underoos learning to be a superhero? I GET IT...

In my opinion, I don't really think there is a comparison between Spider-Man and Batman, because Spider-Man's origin has been told as close as it could get, and comprehensively. Whereas in Batman's case, his origin story has never really been done faithfully. As much as I like B89, I can't deny the backstory only served to connect with the Joker's story, and it ended with Batman avenging his parents. BF was meant to be a continuation to the Burton films, so portions of the re-enacted scene was sort of redundant. BB also had the League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham City economically, which indirectly caused a poor and struggling Joe Chill killing the Waynes. Not to mention that film took just as much liberties that weren't in the source material, as Burton was criticised for.

In contrast, not only does the BvS interpretation closely resemble to the comics, specifically Dark Knight Returns, it built upon the theme of tragedy and powerlessness for Batman's character arc. The Waynes killer never got found (which happens quite a lot in the comics than some people think), and his inability to save the people around him because the circumstances were always out of his control increased his cruelty and paranoia. It's only when he recognised what he was becoming and Superman pleading for his help did he realise he can still make up for his mistakes, he can still be a hero and redeem himself. That's why I liked it.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
But where this particular story just collapses on itself (for me) is the fact Snyder takes nearly three quarters of the film to build Batman up as this tragic and reluctant hero, then pulls the rug out.

If you found the transition happened too quick to be believable, very well, I can't argue with that.

What I can say is that there have been analyses suggesting the writers were influenced by Ancient Greek tragedy, including literary concepts such as Anagnorisis – which is supposedly a moment where a character makes a dramatic discovery; learning what the true situation is about and sometimes reflect their own true nature. I won't say I'm an expert in these areas, but I think there's a fascinating insight and has some merit to what Batman's arc was aiming for here.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
So am I saying Batman should be beyond repair? No I'm not. But to spend the majority of a story underscoring his anger and rage only to flip the script is too much for one film. I have read your analysis and I completely understand what you're saying. But you are also adding exposition where the film does not.

Not everything needs expository dialogue though. The flashbacks and Batman's horrified reaction upon learning what's happening, and what he was really about to do before throwing the Kryptonite spear away in disgust, shows this isn't some lucky spur of the moment. It's just too on-the-nose, so to speak. For me at least.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
In many ways BVS falls into the same traps you perfectly construct for the Nolan series. And I wouldn't argue against those. We're in agreement there.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I apologise for sounding a little hostile earlier, I didn't know this was your true stance in this area.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
Snyder dug too deep a hole for Batman to crawl out of at the end and I believe most audiences felt that way, which is why it was beat up so badly both by critics and fans.

My problem with this is, more often than not, these critics and fans are the same ones who blindly accepted everything Nolan did to the character. You and I may be on the same page when it comes to the issues affecting the Nolan films, but I notice that the very same criteria these people held against Snyder's films, conveniently does not apply when it comes to the Nolan films. As a matter of fact, they unfavourably compare Snyder's film to Nolan, while blatantly ignoring all of Nolan's terrible mistakes, awful writing and muddled moral messages.

For example, these people continuously complained about Batman killing BvS, and Keaton and Kilmer in the past, but never uttered a single word when Bale did it too, despite he explicitly stated he was against killing. It's idiotic and hypocritical. These people need to wake up: the only WB live action Batman who never killed anyone was George Clooney. But they can't do that, because not only they would be forced to admit uncomfortable truths about Nolan's trilogy, they'd have to acknowledge something positive about Batman & Robin. Because God forbid saying anything good about Schumacher's movie, right? But what do you expect, I've seen people trying to argue that TDK's Joker was the true hero of the second film. When it gets to that, then there's something seriously wrong with critical consensus. If people were more consistent with their criticisms, I'd be a lot more empathetic towards their feedback on BvS. Who knows, maybe if people bothered to actually scrutnise Nolan's work, WB wouldn't have taken some cues in terms of tone from him and MOS and BvS may have turned out differently.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
I think that is why allot of people reacted as they did to the particulars on Batman and quite honestly Superman as well. Snyder does not create likable characters. When I watched it, I didn't find that I cared for either one. They were both so conflicted and bitter, it felt more like a mercy killing to just let them both die.

No matter how conflicted they were, ultimately I found both of them redeemable. Superman, despite all the troubles he faced in a divisive world and the mistakes he made, still cared too much for the world to let it succumb to ruin by Doomsday, and sacrificed his own life to save it. In turn, it touched everybody in Metropolis as they expressed their gratitude, and it inspires Batman even more to become a better man, and his death was the whole reason there is a need to start the Justice League. If that isn't a Superman trait, then I honestly don't know what is.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
A suicidal Batman meets the death of Superman was way too much weight to put on a film that should have farmed out a better story for people to celebrate rather than mourn and feud over.

I don't know what you're getting at there. Batman was definitely self-destructive, but there was nothing suicidal about him. He never did anything like cheating death during a charity car race in the beginning of Dark Knight Returns. Same with calling Superman 'bitter'.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 13:10
Justice League is having to correct that direction, so we'll see what that does for continuity of the established characters.

I don't see this as correcting course, because changing the tone was always the plan to begin with. Chris Terrio confirmed that JL would be lighter in tone to BvS, a week before the latter came out. https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/03/11/inside-chris-terrios-vision-for-batman-superman-and-justice-league/.

As the saying goes, there's always sunshine after the storm.

Anyway, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree with this topic. No hard feelings.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 12 Aug  2017, 06:43
Anyway, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree with this topic. No hard feelings.

No hard feelings at all. This was a great conversation and I thank you for an engaging and thoughtful reflection on the subject. This is what being fans is all about. We should be able to share our opinions (both shared and opposing) and still move forward unified. We love Batman. THAT is what matters. Have a great weekend my friend.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 11 Aug  2017, 17:40
I have absolutely no problem with an occasional dark and edgy Batman. I think if the concept has demonstrated anything, it's that Batman has the flexibility to play to more than just one idea. He's not a one note hero.

I think Batman is in a good place right now. In Justice League there seems to be a good balance of light and dark. He's forced to work with other heroes for the safety of the world, but he's still trying to hold onto his individuality. Which is both true to the character and opening up room for humor. Batman's being serious like Adam West's incarnation, but others could find his statements funny. Except him. "It's good to see you playing well with others again - "it may be temporary." And it's not just that. Depicting Batman himself with a comic aesthetic (standing on gargoyles, clearing warehouses like the Arkham games) has also brought the character out of realism and into something more fantastical.

Ironically I think the perception on this film changed around the time I started this thread; at its 15 year mark in 2012

We can't blame the bad reception of B+R on the internet or marketing or anything else. 1997 was a time in which people were using the internet but it was still in its infancy and message boards weren't quite popular yet. The critics didn't like it even at the time, Siskel and Ebert both went off on their show about it.  1997-2005 remains the longest gap without a bat film since the 23 year gap between 66 and 89 and many people blamed this film for it. After their contractual promotions, it seemed that's when people from the cast started denouncing the film: Shumacher publicly apologizing and Clooney refunding people's money for seeing it. During the time of the first two Nolan films, many felt that Nolan was putting Schumacher in his place based on how different his films were.

To me things changed after the Dark Knight Rises exposed the fact that Nolan and Bale don't have all the answers either. The gritty and grounded concept became tiresome after three films especially when people were realizing how often these film makers were breaking their own rules. I suspect after seeing Rises, more than a few people went back to watch Batman and Robin just to  see a recognizable Batman do his thing and have some fun instead of being ultra serious.

Lastly I'll address the big elephant attached to this film since it's release- the homosexual undertones. I think we can agree that at least to some extent Schumacher sprinkled some male sexuality into his Bat-films and of course he is openly gay himself. In the past 20 years though, homophobia has become increasingly socially unacceptable and thus the criticisms of the butt shots, nipples, and shape of the Batmobile are far less legitimate in 2017 than they were in 1997. In fact these things may outright be perceived differently now than they were then; Such directorial decisions may not even be considered 'gay' by today's standards, if anything they come off now as an exploration of the male anatomy as opposed to the implication of male-on-male sexuality. Even though this film isn't known as the grounded one, I think common sense would tell us why Alfred didn't put nipples on the Batgirl suit for his niece.  I definitely don't think Joel set out to make these films gay. He has been honest about his sexuality for a long time but he's kept out of the limelight in that respect, he doesn't seem to advocate gay rights or act flamboyant and hasn't seemed to incorporate homosexuality into any of his other films.I think Shumacher just got guilty of deciding "hey we have this big budget, might as well use it." At worst he just might not have understood how male sexuality can make straight men uncomfortable, especially in this days hence the quick label of 'gay' on any form of male sexuality.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 13 Aug  2017, 13:42
Lastly I'll address the big elephant attached to this film since it's release- the homosexual undertones.

On this subject, I find the whole gay interpretations of Batman rather annoying. Bruce adopts a young orphan and the usual voices claim this is proof he's gay. Uh, no. Anything that is a good deed is interpreted through a twisted lens. People have reason to be suspicious these days, but a mindset has developed where I'd think twice about helping someone, especially a youngster. If a youngster was injured or in need, and I went over to help them or simply be kind, there's a good chance I'd be accused of predatory behavior or some other gross accusation. So sadly, we choose to do nothing.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Aug  2017, 00:13

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 13 Aug  2017, 13:42
Lastly I'll address the big elephant attached to this film since it's release- the homosexual undertones.

On this subject, I find the whole gay interpretations of Batman rather annoying. Bruce adopts a young orphan and the usual voices claim this is proof he's gay. Uh, no. Anything that is a good deed is interpreted through a twisted lens. People have reason to be suspicious these days, but a mindset has developed where I'd think twice about helping someone, especially a youngster. If a youngster was injured or in need, and I went over to help them or simply be kind, there's a good chance I'd be accused of predatory behavior or some other gross accusation. So sadly, we choose to do nothing.

Sadly this mentality has been around for a while. It's been well documented that the reason why Aunt Harriet existed in the 60's show despite rarely having any relevance to the plot was to combat the supposed rumours that Bruce and Dick were gay. A grown man who witnessed his own parents murdered by criminals takes in a teenage boy who also witnessed his family being murdered by criminals and people use homosexuality to validate this?

Happy 20th birthday Batman & Robin. I still like this movie better than The Dark Knight.

Riddler I think because of the modern day shift in attitudes, the traditional jabs at B&R are bordering on being almost taboo to mention. But while B&R may be enjoying a swing in attitude towards the general tone of the film, I absolutely believe the heyday of it's supposed "hate" was completely spurred on by the internet. With the advent of fan forums that fed into Youtube channels becoming THE place to vent one's opinion, it became the "in" thing to rag on this movie.

Plus there are a couple of things people forget that actually elude to your aforementioned reflection on evolving attitudes. Back in 1997 superhero films were still in their infancy. Superman had collapsed into oblivion ten years earlier with 'Quest for Peace' and outside of Batman, the comic industry really had nothing on it's plate to look forward to. So when these films came out, fans put allot of weight on how they looked because it was a reflection on them and this new attitude about getting away from the loose interpretations from the 60's and 70's on television that bothered so many people back then.

And to be quite honest I was surprised the revolt did not happen with Forever after we had Robin literally saying " Holy metal Batman!" Keep in mind this was only a few short years after the industry first gave Batman a try with Keaton and kept everyone associated with the '66 show far away because they wanted no suggestions of camp. The industry was THAT paranoid and THAT aware of the stigma at that time. But a funny thing happen - Batman Returns was TOO DARK. In many circles it was regarded as too adult-like with the dialogue between Penguin and Catwoman. And as much as folks like to talk about B&R "tanking" the franchise, Returns actually took the ship down first. WB was so concerned about the fall off in box office after the initial film, they did not believe they had a viable future left. Keep in mind, this was before superhero films were really even considered a legitimate direction for studios to make money. So seeing Batman drop off so quickly after only one film made studios panic fast. They had gone the opposite direction of the '66 show and the 70's attitudes with Superheroes. But people were already complaining and revenues were already well down.

When Schumacher came onto the scene, he had to sell the project to the studio and to investors to get people back on board. Even Kenner was not big on putting much merchandise out because Returns had been lukewarm. So making Forever was not riding off the grand sails of Returns. It was fighting against the headwinds and pushing a boulder uphill with an industry that didn't believe these characters deserved to be on the big screen. So as much as I know many love to hate on Schumacher, he actually deserves credit for keeping Batman (and the comic license) on life support when the Industry already felt it was dead. And that was the only reason why the Industry went in this direction because no one thought Batman had a future.

So when Forever came out and Batman suddenly had a gleam in his eye and a wry smile on his face and oh wow look?! It's Robin at his side and they're having fun! That brought audiences back and the toys sold like hotcakes. Everyone in the industry was surprised. The critics liked this movie and the public was once again excited to see Batman on the big screen. There is NO WAY you get that connotation today reading anything online or even seeing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a living document that reflects the modern day views as well.

So however we choose to see Batman and Robin, there is one undeniable fact to history. That film DID have the momentum of Forever, but also the fatigue of opening too soon after Forever did so well. The movie stayed in theaters longer, had extended toy lines, and was only out on DVD for a relatively short amount of time before B&R hit the theaters. So while B&R ironically became the film Studios had sworn never to make, the instincts it got from Forever fostered that notion. And while fans might have reviled at what the series became, that distinction was mostly leveled at B&R, not Forever.

Forever did not remotely start taking on the flack it got at the height of B&R hate until the internet age when the people complaining started comparing notes and decided all things related to Schumacher had to be trashed. And you know that is not a new thing. Attitudes change as new generations see films. Some movies that were critical and commercial failures in the 80's ( Big Trouble in Little China & the remake of The Thing) are now heralded as classics and loved by all, including the critics that originally trashed them. So there is absolutely a meaningful influence to films and how much the opinions of the public lay weight to them now that we have sites that allow fans to congregate and build support for (and against) films. No one was going to utter one positive word in Schumacher's defense for anything he did in the Batman universe once the popular narrative became that he "destroyed the franchise". That's a complete falsehood. Studios had already considered shuttering the windows after Returns. But once they went the other direction with Forever (and that tone went south after the second entry), they had no idea where to go and quite honestly no confidence in the license. Now tell me... does WB not knowing what to do with their DC license sound like a new idea?

How many times did they start and stop Superman projects? How many times did they announce a Justice League film? How many times did they mention other characters and mothball those? They did the same with Batman including the idea of moving forward with a third film from Schumacher. Sure B&R under-performed, but the merchandise line sold well and the movie made money after the box office receipts and DVD sales were tallied in. It's not like the Batman license was not profitable. It was just the standard cold-feet from WB executives upstairs who have never believed much in the license to begin with.

Batman & Robin carried more heat on itself back in the 1997 because there wasn't really any other superhero films out there, so every fan had to answer for this movie. These days there are SO MANY hero films , even when they tank (like FF) they are quickly forgotten and people move on to the next offering. B&R didn't have that luxury of being lost in a crowded industry. It had to carry the disappointment of every single fan and that anger and disappointment took on a life of it's own once fan forums and the internet became all the rage. People from that era vented and suddenly new generations looked at them and thought, "I guess I have to vent this way too." So yeah. I absolutely think raging on Schumacher was it's own thing for a while. But now there is enough water under the bridge and enough time spent with other films being less than completely serious that I believe people are understanding its okay to have movies like this. It's just a different perspective and it's okay to enjoy them as they are. Not just the way certain fans (and generations) need them to be.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Aug  2017, 00:13
On this subject, I find the whole gay interpretations of Batman rather annoying. Bruce adopts a young orphan and the usual voices claim this is proof he's gay. Uh, no. Anything that is a good deed is interpreted through a twisted lens.

Yeah, but the comics didn't exactly help. You've got to admit, some of these panels are a tiiiiiiiiiny bit suggestive (and if anyone doesn't get why they're suggestive, please don't ask me to explain).


The prosecution rests. Now let us never speak of these images again.

While all of that is certainly funny, there's allot of baited innuendo given the topic you mentioned. We can play semantics and consider what was and wasn't intended given the times and a logical reference versus a more darker connotation. But allot of that was an easy target for groups who didn't like, nor understand, the heart of the material. Back in the 40's and 50's comics were a highly valued and well sought after form of entertainment.  And many groups considered them a main source of juvenile delinquency. They measured the degree of violence in each issue and of course parsed words to suggest other meanings.

One could almost cater to the notion that Batman and Robin played on those old accusations to stir the pot since Schumacher was looking at it with older eyes and from the context of a comic book brought to life by a man in his position. Perhaps we can say his lifestyle influenced that perspective, or maybe he was just looking at it literally the way the comics portrayed them and his open statements about being a gay man caused people to look for every moment that was suspect. I believe like most things in life, the truth always lays somewhere in between. But if we have to split hairs at that level and say it's so obvious then what have we been reading for decades when you have men in tights fighting criminals?

Like most things you can take it literally, figuratively, or simply look at it as a exaggerated view of the Alpha male to market to those looking for their hero. We could discuss this to the end of time if we had to read between the lines and search endlessly for the double meaning to this concept. Like most things in life, it's exactly what you need it to mean and nothing more. People who grew up in the depression era had to share everything including beds. So that became a known and accepted form of sleeping. There was no sexual connotation placed to that and you sure didn't have to be poor to be placed in those circumstances.

There were times when I had to share a bed with my brother and it never occurred to me to think of that as unusual. I grew up watching Mego superhero commercials when the kids would play with their figures and then walk off hugging each other as buddies at the end of the commercial. Was I supposed to think they were being intimate or just being best friends as the commercial intended? I won't even get into Mattel and Big Jim. Geez...Today's society has gone ape-sh*t over the implications of male bonding there.

Unfortunately our society today see's too much through the lens of implied sexuality when the intent was not considered back then. So comics, toys, even the social norms of kids some 40 to 50 years ago have evolved somewhat due to shifts in social attitudes. But you know what? My grandson hugs his buddies when I pick him up from Kindergarten. So maybe these old ideas are not so passe' after all. Ultimately people see what they want to see.

RE: the perceived gay influences of Batman comics, Fredric Wertham must've used this to suit his agenda against comics and promote his book Seduction of the Innocent.

I'm well aware of those comic panels from the early years. But to me, that's all about as credible as this stuff:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicsalliance.com%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F09%2Fbatmancostumes-1284704031.jpg&hash=18b5153e685e11950abe9b4b900e8b8cea5d266c)

It was a loony time and I'm happy to ignore it. As Stan Lee said when asked who would win between [insert name here] and [insert name here], it depends on who the writer is. The same thing can be said of the suggestive narratives in those early comics, or whenever era they appear in.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Aug  2017, 21:58
RE: the perceived gay influences of Batman comics, Fredric Wertham must've used this to suit his agenda against comics and promote his book Seduction of the Innocent.

Without getting too far into the weeds with this, you probably should read that book at some point. What it says and what people think it says are very different things.

The word 'gay' itself has gone through a transition from meaning 'happy' or 'bright' to homosexuality in the 70's. Rainbows and colours were also not yet perceived as symbols for homosexuality in the days those comics were printed. So honestly it's quite juvenile to poke fun at how they would be perceived as gay now. Likewise two men sharing a bedroom in those days did not imply the same thing as it does now.

The insinuation that Batman and robin are gay has always been based on people jumping to their own conclusions. If Batman were gay, that changes the perspective on just about every encounter he's had with Catwoman? Bruce dates Chase Meridian and Julie Madison and lusts for Ivy. Dick kisses a girl he saves and lusts for Barbara and Ivy. I've even seen silly arguments that Bruce and Alfred may be gay. Heaven forbid a man has a close relationship with a man who has taken care of him all his life through the death of his parents.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 16 Aug  2017, 03:39
The word 'gay' itself has gone through a transition from meaning 'happy' or 'bright' to homosexuality in the 70's. Rainbows and colours were also not yet perceived as symbols for homosexuality in the days those comics were printed. So honestly it's quite juvenile to poke fun at how they would be perceived as gay now. Likewise two men sharing a bedroom in those days did not imply the same thing as it does now.

The insinuation that Batman and robin are gay has always been based on people jumping to their own conclusions. If Batman were gay, that changes the perspective on just about every encounter he's had with Catwoman? Bruce dates Chase Meridian and Julie Madison and lusts for Ivy. Dick kisses a girl he saves and lusts for Barbara and Ivy. I've even seen silly arguments that Bruce and Alfred may be gay. Heaven forbid a man has a close relationship with a man who has taken care of him all his life through the death of his parents.

Well said. I may as well have typed this.

I don't understand why the innuendos never mentioned the pederasty angle of these homo-erotic undertones (whether they were intentional or not). I would've thought that would be the bigger scandal, tbh.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 13 Aug  2017, 13:42
We can't blame the bad reception of B+R on the internet or marketing or anything else. 1997 was a time in which people were using the internet but it was still in its infancy and message boards weren't quite popular yet. The critics didn't like it even at the time, Siskel and Ebert both went off on their show about it.

From Ebert's print review he was underwhelmed by it but not very much, not appalled by it (and he previously found the past films to be OK at best). I think in general the audiences felt more positive about the past films than the critics so the audiences at least felt a lot more disappointed with B&R than critics did.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 14 Aug  2017, 00:59And as much as folks like to talk about B&R "tanking" the franchise, Returns actually took the ship down first. WB was so concerned about the fall off in box office after the initial film, they did not believe they had a viable future left. Keep in mind, this was before superhero films were really even considered a legitimate direction for studios to make money. So seeing Batman drop off so quickly after only one film made studios panic fast.

It made less money but was still the third-highest grossing film of the year domestically, that may be underwhelming (especially if studio expectations were too high) but I don't see why it should have caused panic or considering abandoning the series. And in terms of the audiences I think it was perceived as you love it or hate it rather than widely hated or considered embarrassing. BF was also love it or hate it among the comic fans (and critics)  but probably indeed more popular with general audiences and especially as-family viewers.

Personally as a kid I loved BF but wasn't really interested in B&R (I read the junior novelization, watched the latter part of the film on television a year or two later and then watched the whole film in 2004 or '05), I just wasn't real interested in George Clooney, Mr. Freeze, Arnold as Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy and I may have subconsciously gotten that Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy teaming up was dumb/didn't really make sense.

Quote from: Andrew on Thu,  2 Nov  2017, 17:51
Personally as a kid I loved BF but wasn't really interested in B&R (I read the junior novelization, watched the latter part of the film on television a year or two later and then watched the whole film in 2004 or '05), I just wasn't real interested in George Clooney, Mr. Freeze, Arnold as Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy and I may have subconsciously gotten that Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy teaming up was dumb/didn't really make sense.

I got to see Forever in the theatres, and as a result, there was a greater sense of magic for me...especially being a *youngin'. I had (and still have) the official movie book, several story books and action figures - Robin, Riddler and Two-Face.

I was all over it. I was very interested to see B&R for the simple reason it was more Batman. But yeah, I preferred Forever and still do. It's one of the most underrated pieces of Batman media.

*Not a form of onion, but a young person.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  3 Nov  2017, 12:52I got to see Forever in the theatres, and as a result, there was a greater sense of magic for me...especially being a *youngin'. I had (and still have) the official movie book, several story books and action figures - Robin, Riddler and Two-Face.

I was all over it. I was very interested to see B&R for the simple reason it was more Batman. But yeah, I preferred Forever and still do. It's one of the most underrated pieces of Batman media.

*Not a form of onion, but a young person.

I was pretty disengaged from Batman by the time B&R came out. I adored BF but the lead-up to B&R didn't capture my attention. I wasn't one of those was "let down" by B&R because I never gave a crap about it in the first place. It's really only been in the last few years that I've been able to enjoy it at all.

But BF... man, that was a summer TO REMEMBER. History may not remember this but the Batman fanbase was up for the game in a big way in the summer of 1995. This revisionist nonsense of vast segments of the core Batman audience rebelling against the movie is wishful thinking. Some comic book pros criticized it, yeah. But core audiences and wide audiences were both on board with Schumacher's vision in 1995. People tend to forget that but it's true.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  3 Nov  2017, 12:52
I got to see Forever in the theatres, and as a result, there was a greater sense of magic for me...especially being a *youngin'. I had (and still have) the official movie book, several story books and action figures - Robin, Riddler and Two-Face.

I was all over it. I was very interested to see B&R for the simple reason it was more Batman. But yeah, I preferred Forever and still do. It's one of the most underrated pieces of Batman media.

*Not a form of onion, but a young person.

I felt the same. Batman Forever was the first Batman movie I got to see. At the time, it was the first time I experienced my own Batmania at the cinema.

But over the years, I lost interest in that particular film as I got older. I never exactly jumped on the hate bandwagon, but I thought the few times I saw it several years after it was first released was silly. Watching it again a few years ago however made it appreciate what they were going for in terms of character development. It's flawed, but the intentions were good.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 00:20
But BF... man, that was a summer TO REMEMBER. History may not remember this but the Batman fanbase was up for the game in a big way in the summer of 1995. This revisionist nonsense of vast segments of the core Batman audience rebelling against the movie is wishful thinking. Some comic book pros criticized it, yeah. But core audiences and wide audiences were both on board with Schumacher's vision in 1995. People tend to forget that but it's true.

Being a kid makes things seems bigger and cooler than they usually are. But nonetheless, Batman Forever was a special time. I will never forget the hype. Lots of chatter at school about the film, and how some kid claimed he watched the film on VHS every night. I don't necessarily believe he did - but I will say we spoke about the film nearly every single day. That's the type of excitement and wonder I'm talking about.

It was a perfect capsule of its time. Jim Carrey is a scumbag and I have no time for him now as a person or whatever else. But as a kid? Wow man. This was the funny guy I watched in The Mask, Dumb and Dumber and Ace Ventura playing THE RIDDLER? I was all over it. It was his time.

You simply cannot undervalue the power of that Seal music video. The song is still mysterious and powerful. I've since dropped U2 like a hot potato, but their song for the film was also brilliant. Again, the 90s era was strongly represented with these two songs. It's the vibe.

Batman/Bruce Wayne was depicted as a cool guy - more so than Burton's depiction. Not a putdown or anything, but it's just the truth. Take a look at his relationship with Chase, who has to be one of the most beautiful Bat women ever. I used to think Batman was a tad cowardly or whatever when he encountered her on the rooftop - when he turns away. But these days? Nope. He's a player.

She was interested in him and he knew it. It soon reversed and HE was actively pursuing HER. He visits her apartment, invites her to the circus, attends Edward's party with her, visits her as Batman and then invites her to Wayne Manor. Regardless of what happened in B&R, he ends the film locking lips with a smile on his face. Either way you look at it, once Kilmer's Bruce decided to go pursue Chase, he didn't look back. Chase dropping her gown on the rooftop was what sealed the deal IMO. A horny teenager? Who cares? He's a man and he doesn't have to explain himself to anyone.

The action was a huge drawcard. We all know the deal there, so I won't elaborate.

I will go through this part, though. Riddler destroying the bat cave. As a youngster, this hurt me. It was a complete violation of the character and his world. I hated watching it. Especially with the glee in which it was done. These days I can see how the film created a brilliant finale. The bat cave destroyed. Dick Grayson ran away. Chase has been kidnapped..and Riddler only grows in strength. One of the most dire situations for a Batman film when you think about it. Bravo.

Tommy Lee Jones goofed around, but whatever. There are many different incantations of these characters and he's just one more. Take it or leave it. It's not a huge deal for me when the premise of Forever is to sit back and have a good time. It is what it is.

For a two hour film, they certainly made something that captured my imagination as a kid. That's what we need to hold onto. It's only when we get older do we reassess our past and reject objects of 'shame'. Which isn't always a bad thing. But it's also sometimes unnecessary.

@The Dark Knight  lol what did Jim Carrey do to you that you're calling him a scumbag?

Quote from: arnaud187 on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 01:50
@The Dark Knight  lol what did Jim Carrey do to you that you're calling him a scumbag?

Google Jim's deceased ex-girlfriend Cathriona White and see for yourself. Calling STD Jim a scumbag is putting it mildly.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 01:10
For a two hour film, they certainly made something that captured my imagination as a kid. That's what we need to hold onto. It's only when we get older do we reassess our past and reject objects of 'shame'. Which isn't always a bad thing. But it's also sometimes unnecessary.

The funny thing is that for me it was the exact opposite. Disliked it as a kid, appreciated it as an adult.

I had seen Batman and Batman Returns in the theater, and Batman Forever left me with a sour taste. For many years I maintained a love/hate relationship with it - I liked things about it (the production design, the score), got some merch (still have the Kenner Batmobile and Batwing, souvenir books and mags) but never felt it as "my Batman" the same way I did with Burton's. Not even close.

It was several years after, late 00s, when I re-evaluated it. A mix of nostalgia and the visual "realism" of the Nolan films outstaying its welcome. Compared to that, I preferred a throwback to something more lighthearted and colorful with great visuals and interesting designs.

Nowadays, one of the most anachronistic things for me is to see someone bash on these films, like it's still 1995 or 1997.

Loved it as a kid.
Grew out of love with it.
Loved it again.

It's so good to re-discover things like that. I think Forever works for me because of the mix you perfectly describe. It's not the comedy channel and it's not the horror channel. It's something in between and I enjoy the balance it manages to strike.

When I say Kilmer was cooler, I mean in terms of him being the public face of Wayne Enterprises and kicking ass in a more stylistic way. He has a fleet of vintage cars and drives them around town. When he attends the Nygmatech function he's a big star and not a weirdo recluse. As soon as he arrives, Sugar says how handsome he looks. The reporters seek his opinion on various things. He's a respected identity.

Truth be told, that's the template I prefer these days, much like Affleck's Bruce. Someone who is a big name celebrity who happens to run a business and attend parties, even if it's only to pursue a lead or find out more information on something. I think that template is a more complete version of the character, much like B:TAS. Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet and Bruce Wayne runs Wayne Enterprises.

But I still find Keaton's Bruce really interesting and I love how secretive he is. Affleck may be my number one Batman these days, but B89/BR are still my top two films in the franchise. There's something so timeless and unforgettable about them.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 20 Jun  2017, 20:53

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impawards.com%2F1997%2Fposters%2Fbatman_and_robin_ver1_xlg.jpg&hash=2bcf4b6413354af3bc313cba3aeccdda0f027230)

Well, now it's 20 years! (no reason to start a new thread)

I agree with several opinions expressed in the posts above. Nowadays, this movie is fun. Of all the big-budget movies of its era, successful (Titanic, Independence Day, Men in Black, Twister, Armageddon) or not (remember The Avengers, Lost in Space, Battlefield Earth?) this one is still one of the most watchable.

There isn't really such a thing as a boring, or forgettable, Batman movie.

And five years later – happy 25th anniversary to Batman & Robin!

Should Chase Meridian have returned? She basically could have easily had the role Julie did have, aside from already knowing Bruce was Batman, but that might have been too underwhelming for, and misuse of, Kidman after having a bigger role before in BF and also felt weird for Batman to mostly, though briefly, be interested in and lusting after someone else. BF did seem to try to say that Chase was the one.

Also, could it have been cool if B&R had also used "Kiss from a Rose," its meaning with the film having Ivy now seen as being pretty different?

I wouldn't have disliked her returning, but I do think it was better for Clooney to have someone new to play against. The other supporting cast provided enough connective tissue to the past movies. Some relationships are harder to believe after recasting, which unfortunately is the case for me with Rachel Dawes. In B&R's instance I think moving on and going for an entirely new character was for the best.

FLASHBACK 1997

An interesting scan from Wizard magazine that was published just a few months prior to the theatrical release of "Batman & Robin".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fo8I80PagAAwhnW?format=jpg&name=large)

Wizard also had a small feature after the first B&R trailer came out. I remember the article was titled "Batman Lite". It was a fairly prescient assessment of how things were shaping up with the movie. It predicted the vitriolic response that was coming in June.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 15 Feb  2023, 16:23
Wizard also had a small feature after the first B&R trailer came out. I remember the article was titled "Batman Lite". It was a fairly prescient assessment of how things were shaping up with the movie. It predicted the vitriolic response that was coming in June.

"WILL AUDIENCES EMBRACE NEW FACES AND A LIGHTER TONE IN THE FOURTH BAT-FILM?"

No.

Quote from: Andrew on Mon,  2 Jan  2023, 18:41
Should Chase Meridian have returned? She basically could have easily had the role Julie did have, aside from already knowing Bruce was Batman, but that might have been too underwhelming for, and misuse of, Kidman after having a bigger role before in BF and also felt weird for Batman to mostly, though briefly, be interested in and lusting after someone else. BF did seem to try to say that Chase was the one.

Also, could it have been cool if B&R had also used "Kiss from a Rose," its meaning with the film having Ivy now seen as being pretty different?

I don't think she should have returned.

By the way, Julie Madison didn't find out Bruce was Batman. She was rather underused.

To further expand upon Silver's last post:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqA1mtwaQAA3CZq?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqA1necaMAArKjm?format=jpg&name=large)

Also, DC Comics in synergy with the release of B&R, released one-shot issues featuring each new character that was cinematically introduced that year.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqBZQgNagAEOGVP?format=jpg&name=large)

I love how epic the Schumacher finales are. In both movies we have the heroes using vehicles to enter battle against foes that are already winning, and winning big. In Forever we have Claw Island at full strength after the cave was destroyed and hostages taken. In B&R Freeze is using his cannon on the city and there's mere minutes to thaw it - while an armada protects the location. I love how comic heavy it is too - reflecting freeze rays, grappling around at will, using equipment like bat heaters, heat pistols and the like. This is a good ending any way you slice it, and surprisingly tense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f5f9jmigQQ

Scan from Wizard Magazine in 1998 where Joel Schumacher briefly discusses his tenure on the franchise, and what his desire was in returning as director for a third time.

Quote from: Joel Schumacher"Now, I owe the hard-core fans of the Batman movie they would love me to give them."

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3RKiFHbMAAEEg2?format=jpg&name=large)

Chuck Dixon revealed that he and Graham Nolan got more royalty checks for Bane's appearance for B&R than Dark Knight Rises, despite Jeep Swensen having much less dialogue to work with than Tom Hardy. That includes merchandise. Dixon even cashed in checks for the Redbird name that was given to Robin's motorcycle, which was originally the name for Tim Drake's very own Batmobile-type car:

https://youtu.be/KoToLiwLRV0?t=98

Interesting time capsule article from Wizard magazine on where things stood in 1998 following B&R's release the year prior (In addition, Nic Cage comments on what was going on with "Superman Lives" as well).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD45O4ca8AAR8F6?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 16 Jan  2024, 01:36(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD45O4ca8AAR8F6?format=jpg&name=large)

It's always been a bit of shame to me that Cage was more interested in being an "unusual" interpretation of Superman instead of embracing a more traditional depiction. There's some great fan art out there of him looking like the spitting image of Joe Shuster's drawings. Going by the available test footage, you can see Cage being more enthusiastic over details like his longer hair length and sporting a Mickey Mouse t-shirt and the more traditional the costume started to look, the less enthused Cage becomes. He could have served the character as well as Keaton did and it would have been quite a sight to have seen those two on screen together. I'd rather picture Keaton with Cage than with Reeve.

Wizard Magazine's B&R "Calling All Heroes" contest scans from 1997.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJkRL5vbkAAleFa?format=jpg&name=medium)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJkRX0MbsAAV-Tt?format=jpg&name=medium)