Apparently, at the insistence of the studio, they'd written a storyline about Dick's parents getting killed by the Joker, Bruce taking him under his wing and more or less the birth of Robin. This was eventually dropped for whatever reason (budget?), but honestly, this movie could've still used a Dick Grayson cameo, even a small one. There was enough room for it. Instead we got the Chris O'Donnell travesty!
shareThe late 80s were a bad time for Robin's.
shareThey could've gone back to the roots. This was meant for a mainstream audience anyway.
shareYes, but having Dick Grayson around in any capacity would have conjured up thoughts of the 1960s TV series they were trying so hard to steer away from.
shareThis Batman was different from Adam West's campy Batman, so they could've done Dick/Robin differently as well. It was too soon to actually introduce Robin, but they could've tested the waters with just a short cameo of the Graysons. Maybe even a death scene, which was never really part of the 1960s show.
shareYes but it was also the 50th anniversary of Batman and they wanted to take him back to his roots as a grim longer.
Sorry for going on about this. I really do see your point.
Oh no, this movie should definitely have been all about Batman. I just mean a short cameo as a set up for a sequel.
shareFunny, I felt Chris was the only actor out of the main cast who actually looked like he was trying.
shareChris was really too old, it was kind of silly. I'm just disappointed that Dick was introduced in such an inferior movie.
shareOh me too and I totally agree he was way too old for the part. Having said that aside from his age I thought he was a good choice for the role and the fact that things didn't really work out for him I don't think were his fault, I place most of the blame with the way the film was written and Schumacher's direction.
I will say when I watched this as a kid his story was the only one I really gave a sh!t about.
Yeah, Robin was pretty much the only reason to watch the movie. It's a shame they decided to go such a different route just because the second film didn't do as well as the first.
shareYeah Kilmer and Kidman were underacting as hell and their dialogue was just atrocious ("chicks love the car", "hot entrance", etc.), while Jones and Carrey were on the opposite end of suck and were overacting as hell and had equally atrocious acting ("the bats stubborn refusal to expire it's driving us insane", "joygasm") and OMG those ridiculous pajamas Jim Carrey was wearing.
shareYes, very true.
And don't forget about that Bowie-like haircut and the mask that looks more like those 80s slim shades. A vomit-inducing combination. Jones looked like the aftermath of an explosion in Elton John's wardrobe closet.
Apparently getting doused in acid makes your skin look like bubble gum. Also what was up with those weird noises Jones kept making??? Two-Face also isn't supposed to act like that, he's supposed to be a tragic character who can't decide if he wants to be good or bad which is why he has the coin. With Jones's performance I just saw a crazy yet obnoxious Joker rip off. And with the Riddler I just saw Ace Ventura Part III
shareI got the feeling they were trying to outdo each other. They made it way too campy and just annoying.
I also didn't like Batman and Robin's outfits, although I'm sure Schumacher did!