What are people's thoughts about the way Dick Grayson/Robin has been portrayed in the Schumacher films?
I'm not too bothered about him. Yes, he might come across as a bit bratty sometimes. And he does go back and forth from being too flippant, and then going back to brimming with rage at Two-Face. But Robin is still shown to have more of a cheerful personality as opposed to the somber Batman, like in the comics. And he is a bit of showboat, which is natural since he was a circus performer.
One thing I do like about how Bruce tries to discourage Dick from taking revenge is that he's drawing his own personal experiences after avenging his parents himself:
"The pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. And then you'll take your anger out on another face. And another. Until you'll wake up on one terrible morning and realize you've spent your whole life looking for revenge, and you won't remember why."
From what I understood that Forever was trying to establish without fully acknowledging the Burton films, Bruce realizes his desire for vengeance was destroying him and he wanted to spare Dick from entering the same dark path. Which is why he takes Two-Face's life in the end. Dick still takes satisfaction in Two-Face's demise, but in the end he has been prevented from losing his conscience.
I agree. That line was one of the best from the Schumacher films. I liked Chris O'Donnell as Robin in Batman Forever. He was too bratty in Batman & Robin and unfortunately that's the image many casual fans have of Robin thanks to it...
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 6 Dec 2014, 09:00
I agree. That line was one of the best from the Schumacher films. I liked Chris O'Donnell as Robin in Batman Forever. He was too bratty in Batman & Robin and unfortunately that's the image many causal fans have of Robin thanks to it...
Dick was a regular, working class guy in Batman Forever. By Batman & Robin he'd moved into Wayne Manor and was being treated like a surrogate son by billionaire Bruce, and Alfred. Maybe that's why he was behaving so 'bratty'. :-\
Bruce also seemed changed.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 6 Dec 2014, 15:50
Bruce also seemed changed.
Yeah, he seemed younger-looking and his receding hairline seemed to have been sorted out. :P
He also made public appearances as Batman and had a Batcard :P
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 6 Dec 2014, 17:17
He also made public appearances as Batman and had a Batcard :P
Oh, I was talking about the first change.
This time after growing back his hair, it had suddenly gone grey within two years...
Midlife crisis, people. Midlife crisis.
As for Robin and the revenge I would have been like him but I probably wouldn't have had the guidance of a Bruce Wayne to keep me from getting killed lol.
rather than quote anyone i'll respond to some points brought up;
-I think the film acknowledges the Burton films with Bruce implying he killed his parents killer.
-the main difference is that Bruce was a child when his parents died and knew he was incapable of killing their killer. He didn't even know who his parents killer was until the main part of the film when he pieces it together. Dick is an adolescent and knows two face killed his parents and believes he can avenge his parents.
-one difference is that Dick seems hellbent on killing two face while in the first film it's debatable whether Bruce eventually did kill the joker on purpose or in self defense. Clearly he had several chances throughout the film to kill Jack/joker
-I definitely did like Dick not killing two face when he had the chance. There was quite a bit of character development in Batman Forever (heck way more than the nolan films)
-the reason why Bruce was written differently in Batman and Robin is that the events of the previous film cured him and he no longer mourns his parents.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 6 Dec 2014, 21:00
-I definitely did like Dick not killing two face when he had the chance. There was quite a bit of character development in Batman Forever (heck way more than the nolan films)
:o How dare you question the cerebral genius of the Nolan films....bahahahahaha who am I kidding? ;D
Cheap jokes aside, this is yet another reason why Batman Forever and even Batman & Robin were great missed opportunities. Each movie had a lot of good narrative ideas, but sadly they were marred by the execution. None of these movies would have the negative reputation they have today if, once again, the lame jokes, bad costumes and bad acting never existed. The fact that Batman continues his crusade by turning a new leaf and prevented his sidekick from falling into the abyss is worthy of any Batman movie. I'd say that Batman Forever could have potentially been the best Batman movie ever made if it weren't for studio interference and bad directing choices.
I wonder if part of the reason those films have such a negative rep is that not too many fans have horses involved;
Tim burton, Michael Keaton, Pfeiffer, Devito, Walken, and Nicholson all have loyal fan bases who fight to bump up the rep
likewise for fans of Nolan, Bale, Ledger, and Oldman
Silverstone, Kilmer, Schumacher, and O' Donnell are all but forgotten. Schwarzenegger fans don't exactly prop this one up since it wasn't his vehicle and since Clooney himself denounced his film, his fans dont need to defend his performance.
Now part of the above is a reason you can blame the producers; the burton and nolan films had established good people who were right for their roles while the Schumacher films simply put the biggest people at the time in those roles without giving consideration to how they could perform. O' Donnell and Silverstone were teen fads at the time whos careers fizzled out due to lack of talent (though you could argue O Donnells career failed due to this film). Schwarzenegger and Jones had successful careers but neither were right for their roles (though both were poorly written). Actually most of the things which made us mad about the criticisms of the 89 film on its latest DVD (attempting to make a big blockbuster instead of a film) do apply to the schumacher films.