Messages

I like both conductors. I'm a little burned out on Elfman's version though because it was used not only in the movies, but also for the cartoons. So it suffers more from over exposure. But no one can ever mistaken that signature introduction for Batman.

Actually I doubt anyone would like what either one would come up with collectively, because the end result would probably be the darkest interpretation of Batman yet. Clearly Schumacher would dump all of the lighthearted aspects of the films, which would likely make Burton overcompensate by trying to make it more weird as only he can envision it. It would likely not resemble anything like either one has done to date. Interesting thought though.

With Hot Toys picking up the Batman Returns license, I would find every reason to believe they will delve into each movie, if only on a limited basis. Hey if they can make a Superman III figure, there's no reason why they wouldn't make a Clooney Batman. Plus I think there are many more people who liked the look of Clooney as Batman than the movie itself. So I don't think you can gauge potential interest just on the movie.

I think Schumacher's suggestion the studio wanted B&R to be "toy-etic" has placed a label on the film it never should have had. Thematically the film looks every bit like Forever. The over-the-top costumes, lighting, and general environment of the two films are identical. B&R was actually able to enhance some of those aspects simply because technology had already evolved enough between the two films to show it better. But the end result was still the same. Take out the butt shots in the beginning, the sexual innuendo in the dialogue, and give Freeze some actual dialogue without ice jokes and the movie would be virtually identical to Forever. Schumacher just took some unwarranted chances with B&R because he felt like the audience was sold after Forever. Had he tried to keep it pseudo-serious like Forever, we probably wouldn't be having this dialogue today and Schumacher would have completed his trilogy with "Batman Triumphant".

1) Great looking Batmobile
2) Excellent suits for Batman and Robin.
3) Excellent score
4) Great looking Mr. Freeze outfit
5) Great lighting throughout. The whole movie felt like a comic book come to life.

I think trying to compare Schumacher's films to Nolan's are worlds apart, because their objective are polar opposites. The Nolan films conceptualized the Batman myth by asking (and romanticizing) the question, "If this could really happen, how would he do it?" Of course it's in a hyper-reality without any basis in truth. But there are several aspects about it that make it feel grounded. First and foremost, performing the duties of Batman can NOT be a life long career. Despite the advantages of technology, Wayne is still battered from his nightly ventures into fighting crime. So it doesn't take long before the ravages of that abuse take it's toll. But Nolan sets it up to where Batman "the hero" can continue. And for once, Bruce Wayne gets to find that peace that Batman could never provide him. For me, it was a fascinating study on the character, that flushed him all the way out. Certainly not a comic book style direction. But nonetheless, an interesting point of view that clearly brought in enormous box office around the world. So it's accomplishments speak for itself. Being such a huge fan of that trilogy would likely make most believe I'm ready to dismantle the Schumacher films. Not so. I liked those films as well, but for different reasons.

If the history of Batman has proven anything, it's that the concept can be successfully reinterpreted so many different ways. I think Schumacher embraced the comic book aspect from the 60's and essentially said, "Lets have some fun with this." And I'm very glad he did. Because in this day and age where everything has to be taken SO SERIOUS, it's refreshing to have an interpretation where the focus is really on the surface texture of the character. It's about the environment, the costumes, the colorful personalities, and the lighter qualities that make the hero "cool". Because at the end of the day it IS a man dressed up like a bat. Exactly how serious should we take this? So there are times when I look forward to putting in Schumacher's films, while others I want a different take, so I pop in the Nolan versions. But I see absolutely no reason why anyone can't like both, since neither really compete with each other.

I think B&R would have been more broadly accepted had Schumacher dialed back some of the sexual innuendo and tired one liners that littered this film. I love the look of that movie. The costumes, sets, and Batmobile are great looking additions to the Batman universe. I just personally think Schumacher saw the sets and probably felt like everything else would take a back seat. So I think he went overboard in competing with it. And I doubt the studio asked him to shoot butt shots in the opening sequence or encouraged him to lace the dialogue with sexual innuendo like Ivy's, "I'll help you grab your rocks." Or "There's something about an anatomically correct rubber suit that puts fire in a girl's lips." For a film that should have been 100% family friendly, these were awkward moments that didn't belong. So the movie suffered from tonality issues more than anything. That and I don't think Mr. Freeze had a full paragraph of dialogue that didn't contain a ice joke. So those moments really undermined any sense of pathos one could have for his yearning to save his wife . I also would have preferred Clooney at least make some effort to disguise his voice as Batman. He has a very distinctive voice. So talking like the same person in or out of the mask (in a very public setting) effectively killed the notion no one would recognize who he was.  And to me, those aspects of the film are VERY MUCH controlled by the director.

I don't accept Schumacher's excuse the studio ruined the film by asking him to promote the product side of the movie. Being "toyetic" is hardly a new concept for superhero films. What is Iron Man? What is the Avengers? What is Spider-man? And if we want to cross hairs on the definition, we even have HUGE blockbusters based on actual toys. Anyone heard of Transformers?  So being "toyetic" is something EVERYONE should anticipate on some level in a superhero movie. After all, these movies are made to sell merchandise. Yes, the American Express card moment is ridiculous and poorly concocted. But the look of B&R fits with the previous movie, so I don't see where the totality of the film's appearance hurt tickets sales.

At the end of the day, both Forever and B&R are great looking movies and fun to watch in their own right (warts and all). So I have no problem accepting them as I do the Nolan films. Two different approaches and both done mostly well in my book. It's a pity Schumacher took such a beating after B&R. The man certainly got black listed in Hollywood after that. I don't think he remotely deserved it. There are SCORES of poorly made films in this genre that don't even approach the level of quality both of these films still possess. And for all the criticism piled against the Schumacher films, they're both still visually fun to watch after all these years. That speaks volumes right there.