I know that the executives at WB wanted to make a lighter and more kid friendly BATMAN movie after BR. What I am curious about is why did the executives feel that Schumacher would the best choice.
Don't get me wrong, I think that he is a fine film maker, but if you look at his works pre 1995, then there's nothing that suggest camp, flamboyant, kid friendly or something along those lines. Yes, he has directed some really decent films, but it's not like they were hiring Baz Luhrman.
Is there an article or any piece of information on that subject?
I do recall reading that Sam Raimi was also considered as a potential replacement for Tim Burton. But if the studio wanted to go lighter post-Burton I can't imagine them thinking the guy behind the Evil Dead series and Darkman was a serious option.
With Spider-Man Raimi demonstrated that he was perfectly capable at making a successful comic-book movie that was neither too dark nor too light, but that was seven years later after he had added several dramatic/non-horror movies to his filmography.
I can see how they'd get Raimi from Burton. Both were very creative and visually inventive, as well as sticking to usually dark subject matter. I was a big fan of his interpretation of Spider-Man. I'd say he did to Spider-Man what Burton did to Batman. But we'll never know if he could do Batman.
It's a shame Schumacher went for such a light, camp and goofy tone because his work on the horror films, The Lost Boys and particularly the relatively sombre and affecting Flatliners, demonstrated that he was capable of making a more serious, albeit wholly commercial, take on Batman. Sadly, I think the studio essentially instructed him to make Batman as 'toyetic' as possible, possibly as a direct response to the Happy Meal fiasco on Batman Returns.
Hell, his original work on Batman Forever showed he could handle dark films
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 4 Nov 2015, 17:27
Hell, his original work on Batman Forever showed he could handle dark films
What do you mean? Batman Forever wasn't dark.
Batman Forever was darker before studio interference. Bruce questioning being Batman more, Two-Face's Arkham cell, Bruce literally facing his trauma...
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 4 Nov 2015, 18:21
Batman Forever was darker before studio interference. Bruce questioning being Batman more, Two-Face's Arkham cell, Bruce literally facing his trauma...
Has there ever been a cut with all those scenes inserted into the film?
Also, some of the scenes that remained within the film, like the goofy fight between Batman and Two-Face's incompetent henchmen at the start, and the easy way Batman manages to save Chase and Dick, let Batman Forever down for me a little. :-\
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 4 Nov 2015, 18:48
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 4 Nov 2015, 18:21
Batman Forever was darker before studio interference. Bruce questioning being Batman more, Two-Face's Arkham cell, Bruce literally facing his trauma...
Has there ever been a cut with all those scenes inserted into the film?
We had a fan here who made an unofficial director's cut of BF awhile ago. He included those deleted scenes and edited out some lousy lines in the film.
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1582.30
They wanted to have a more kid-friendly Batman film, they did that, and I like Batman Forever even so, but it could have been more serious.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 4 Nov 2015, 18:01
Hell, his original work on Batman Forever showed he could handle dark films
What do you mean? Batman Forever wasn't dark.
[/quote]Yeah, Edd Grayson's post sums it up. Remember that Burton picked Schumacher to carry on the series. When the project started, Schumacher wanted to continue what Burton's work established, but studio interference saw a much more watered down theatrical cut.
I think it's pretty easy to see why they picked Schumacher to direct this series. When you look at movies like Lost Boys and Flat-liners, you can see his knack for bringing mood to film through visual elements. The fact they were dark doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact the director demonstrated he could successfully instill a prescribed mood to those projects. The studio was most likely looking for a director that understood how to inject that component and operate in the world of Batman. That being said, there were allot of cooks in the kitchen for this film. That is abundantly clear when you compare with B&R.
In many ways, Forever is a very restrained film. If there is a tonal meter you could dial into this film, there are moments when the studio has Schumacher pull out all the stops, then Burton quickly interjects and starts reeling him (and the studio) back on the tracks towards a darker mood. It's a very measured film in terms of conveying a tone. That mood needle never sits on just one treatment for very long. B&R is decidedly one direction and never really lets off the gas except for a few obligatory moments with Alfred as the sympathetic character in trouble. So you can definitely tell there were allot of people pulling the strings in Forever.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, 13:03
I think it's pretty easy to see why they picked Schumacher to direct this series. When you look at movies like Lost Boys and Flat-liners, you can see his knack for bringing mood to film through visual elements. The fact they were dark doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact the director demonstrated he could successfully instill a prescribed mood to those projects. The studio was most likely looking for a director that understood how to inject that component and operate in the world of Batman. That being said, there were allot of cooks in the kitchen for this film. That is abundantly clear when you compare with B&R.
In many ways, Forever is a very restrained film. If there is a tonal meter you could dial into this film, there are moments when the studio has Schumacher pull out all the stops, then Burton quickly interjects and starts reeling him (and the studio) back on the tracks towards a darker mood. It's a very measured film in terms of conveying a tone. That mood needle never sits on just one treatment for very long. B&R is decidedly one direction and never really lets off the gas except for a few obligatory moments with Alfred as the sympathetic character in trouble. So you can definitely tell there were allot of people pulling the strings in Forever.
Thanks for the clarification mate!
Do you suppose part of the reason Batman Forever was a better because of Burton's involvement? Speaking of which, what exactly Burton was responsible for in the film?
From what I understand, Burton was given a producer credit, but he didn't really have much involvement in actually producing the film other than approving Schumacher as the new director.
This is one scene they never should have cut. In fact I would've kept in the film all the "Forever" cut scenes I've seen on the internet. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HwRnU4ryM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HwRnU4ryM)
^^^ I like that scene all the way up until he walks out. But when he comes out with a smile and says, " I'm Batman", I think that's a bit too much resolution to a symbolic scene. If they could cut it where it ends with him meeting the bat face to face, I think that would be perfect.
Although I like that small bit, I agree that the affirmation seems to be unnecessary. I don't mind what comes before it either.
It's the wrong place in the narrative for a scene like that. Dick has run away (to nowhere apparently), Chase has been kidnapped and the Batcave has been destroyed. The narrative naturally wants to accelerate after those things and that scene puts the brakes on the unfolding of the plot even more for character development.
Character development is fine in its place but when the stakes have been raised that high, it's the wrong time to do a moody character study when the audience is ready for fights and explosions. As painful as it might be to lose that scene, Schumacher made the right decision in cutting it to keep the pace of the film active.
If the film was restructured to make the darker scenes fit it, it could have easily been as great as the Burton films for me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 15:46
It's the wrong place in the narrative for a scene like that. Dick has run away (to nowhere apparently), Chase has been kidnapped and the Batcave has been destroyed. The narrative naturally wants to accelerate after those things and that scene puts the brakes on the unfolding of the plot even more for character development.
Character development is fine in its place but when the stakes have been raised that high, it's the wrong time to do a moody character study when the audience is ready for fights and explosions. As painful as it might be to lose that scene, Schumacher made the right decision in cutting it to keep the pace of the film active.
The thing is, that scene was supposed to enable Batman to recover from his repressed memories once and for all before he could go after Riddler and Two-Face. Without it, the transition between surviving the gunshot wound to the head and suit up to travel to Claw Island feels very jarring.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 6 Dec 2015, 01:21The thing is, that scene was supposed to enable Batman to recover from his repressed memories once and for all before he could go after Riddler and Two-Face. Without it, the transition between surviving the gunshot wound to the head and suit up to travel to Claw Island feels very jarring.
I've never seen how. If you can buy that someone can survive getting shot (or grazed) in the head with a gun, I don't think his recovery is a much bigger bridge to cross. In fact, that's hardly the biggest leap of faith Batman Forever as a film asks the viewer to make. If you can believe Batman can dangle off a helicopter without his arms getting wrenched out of his shoulders, surviving a gunshot wound like that should be a snap.
Besides it transforms Bruce's character arc. Instead of the viewer seeing Bruce resolve his conflict in that deleted scene, the viewer is left to infer that the combination of his therapy sessions with Chase combined with Chase getting kidnapped and Dick becoming Robin are what galvanize his psychological recovery. So his new found mental stability is a reveal for the audience rather than part of the journey they take along with the character.
I'd say that works well enough to get the job done.
Fair enough, both of you bring good points. I wish Two-Face's escape from Arkham Asylum was still in the film. Not that I love Tommy Lee Jones in the role, but he had potential.