Messages

I don't consider Forever to be part of the Burton narrative. Schumacher may have made reference to prior events and perhaps there was some intent to make them LOOSELY cohesive, but the overall feeling of the movie and portrayal of the characters do not, in my opinion, reflect what Tim Burton would have done. So I don't see it being a story Tim Burton or Michael Keaton would have agreed to do. Keaton in fact bowed out because of the story.

I'm just wondering what kind of costume design the studio will go after this time. My instincts tell me it will be something similar to the video game version this time.

I think the Nolan movies were the end result of all the fallout from the Batman and Robin critical drubbing. And while I do thoroughly enjoy the Nolan films, I still find great fun and enjoyment out of the Schumacher movies. It's like anything, you have to be in the right mood for either kind. But now that those movies have established themselves, we have to wonder what treatment will be used for Affleck. Will they try to find a happy medium? Or will they go for another all out depressed hero? 

Esthetically speaking both movies by Schumacher are pleasing to watch. Where the rubber leaves the road (so to speak) is the dialogue. Both movies are plagued with cringe-worthy lines that take you out of the scene because they are so over-the-top. Batman & Robin suffers from that more than Forever, simply because the novelty of the new look Schumacher introduced in Forever is off the table now. People are paying more attention to what is being said and less about the spectacle in each scene. But I enjoy the films as true comic book movies. I like the sets and lighting. The costumes are fun and still hold up to this day. I think time has spoken more for these films than their critics. In my mind, Forever would be a better movie if it got trimmed with a few edits. B&R would be a better movie if you just turned the sound off. Too much to fix in the delivery and dialogue there. But in appearance, both are still strikingly good looking films, even now. So they may yet find a resurgence in popularity, as more Batman films are made and each new generation discovers them. There are so many films I grew up watching that were deemed utter failures (critically and commercially) by my generation. Yet many have gone on to become huge cult classics by a younger audience. I can only believe these films will find their audience (and following) as time goes by as well.

I think Arnold, esthetically speaking, looked fine for the role. That look has stood the test of time, which is the best measure to go by. But what remains evident is the poor dialogue asked of him to deliver. Arnold is not exactly a master of the English language anyway. So giving him lines that required a certain tonality in delivery to sell it was completely above his skill level as an actor. He needed a certain inflection to dampen the camp of those lines. And that's where Schumacher deserves the chief blame here. He was probably spending too much time appeasing Arnold on the set, instead of directing him. The same goes for Uma Thurman. Note the number of times her accent changes from scene to scene. There was a huge degree of sloppiness to the continuity of every character portrayed here. So I never got the sense Schumacher was doing his job, so much as just shooting the script and not really paying attention to the performances. And as previously stated, that's where Clooney carries so much heat for his role as Batman. Schumacher never had him change his vocal delivery when he wore the cowl, so the performance came off ludicrous, given there was no difference in the performance between Bruce Wayne or Batman. So after all of these years and watching it countless times, I think my final consensus is Schumacher had a good cast. He just didn't do his job of getting them into character to play these roles. I think he felt the names alone would sell the project. He was wrong.

I do think Schumacher does deserve some of the blame; he pushed for the nipples, redesign of the batmobile and butt shots. He also pushed for Arnold Schwarzenegger in lieu of Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins.

That being said we all know WB wanted things more child friendly; Burton was let go and Schumacher was forced to cut some darkness in Forever.

Neither film is terrible, the last film just had too much going on. Batgirl was brought in far too early and overshadowed Robin. Bane was kind of pointless.  While she didnt play a big role, Elle Macpherson's character was also pointless.

I did like the villains overall plan in this one; freezing and rebuilding Gotham. It was a good contrast of two villains. I wish they played more into the Nora Freeze plotline.

Removing Batgirl and Bane completely would have helped measurably since their inclusion was pointless.

As much as I felt B&R left much to be desired, I would have welcomed another Schumacher Bat-Sequel with Batman Triumphant. Just the mere thought of having Jack reprising the Joker in a cameo during (at what would have been) the late 1990's, is enough for me to get excited about a follow-up. And from what I gather, the overall tone probably would have reflected the Burton films to some extent, or provided dramatic beats that Batman Forever had at the very least. Not to say B&R didn't have a dramatic element to it. The whole Alfred dying subplot was serviceable, with the tender dialogue scene between Alfred and Bruce being the real highlight of the film itself...

I agree wholeheartedly. What has always puzzled me about the production of B&R is the studio's excitement over seeing the dailies from this film. What were they looking at that no one else saw? Because a majority of the most egregious mistakes in the film (save for Bane and Bat Girl) were fixable with re-shoots and editing. If anyone should have been fired from this production, it should have been the studio execs in charge of overseeing this project. Clearly no one was paying attention and let Schumacher off the hook without any guidance. Just fixing the tonal discrepancies alone would have made an enormous difference in how people saw the film.

Treatment, treatment, treatment. I think the history of this character has proven it's not necessarily the actor chosen, but the treatment applied that determines it's success. Actually the most high profile fan uproars over actors picked to play Batman have never panned out at the box office. Ironically I never heard much fuss over Clooney when he was selected and we all know how badly that cratered in theaters. But Clooney has gone on to have a very successful and lucrative acting career today. Interesting since most actors have spiraled out of demand after their stent in the role.

What makes Affleck a provocative pick are the colorful flops on his resume. And these types of movies are not his strong suit. And with the current depictions suggesting Batman will be a "tired" and "weary" hero, I cringe a bit wondering if Affleck will overact the part. Playing Batman typically requires little more than a grimace. But if Affleck has to denote some kind of angst with social commentary, we then begin to tread on painfully thin ice that borders on camp. It's one thing to provide a state of mind in the cowl. But to engage in a dialogue between two heroes is tricky business. I'm certainly not saying it can't be done. Joss Whedon proved it can be done with the Avengers. But he has a unique gift for gab when it comes to characters in outrageous situations. The key word to this film is pretty simple - balance. Can Snyder balance the tone of the picture without overstepping into campy material? This is a much bigger challenge than I think many are realizing. The treatment will have to be very clever in it's approach. Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

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?

Once in the theater and probably only five or six times on DVD until recently. However, my grandson is now old enough to start finding topics that he likes. Batman & Robin is very appealing to him and that's easy to understand, with it's bright colors and wild looking characters. So he needs almost a daily dose of B&R for about 30 minutes. So there's no telling where that viewing count would be for me now. But of course those are partial viewings without any real intent to watch the material so much as let my grandson get his fill. Thank God the toys are still relatively cheap. He enjoys the little figures Kenner made from the movie.