MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > Michael Keaton reveals the moment he kne...

Michael Keaton reveals the moment he knew 'Batman Forever' would suck


http://batman-news.com/2017/01/03/michael-keaton-knew-batman-forever-would-suck/

Micheal Keaton decided to walk away from the world of Batman after two successful movies when director Tim Burton left the franchise. Joel Schumacher would direct Batman Forever instead, and on The Hollywood Reporter’s “Awards Chatter” podcast, Keaton revealed exactly when he knew that the movie would suck.

“It sucked,” Keaton said of the script he was shown. “I knew it was in trouble when he [Schumacher] said, ‘Why does everything have to be so dark?'”

Schumacher definitely brightened things up a bit. Tim Burton’s dark and gloomy Gotham City was replaced with bright, neon lights. And there were nipples on the Batsuit too. Can’t forget those!

Maybe it’s because I grew up with these movies, but I don’t think that Batman Forever “sucked”. I can even watch Batman & Robin and get enjoyment out of it!

How do you feel about Schumacher’s Batman movies? Let me know in the comments below.


https://t.co/OlDtJ2PCDB

reply

Batman is "the Dark Knight" after all.

reply

"The script was never good, I didn't understand why he [Schumacher] wanted to do what he wanted to do, and I knew it was in trouble when he said, 'why does everything have to be so dark?'"


Schumacher doesn't sound like a guy I wanna make a superhero film with. The whole "Why does everything have to be dark?" sounds really embarrassing to say out loud and he has to make every comment of his sound pretentious.

reply

I think Schumacher obviously was going for the batman of the 60s and 70s which was camp and full of color

http://www.youtube.com/oneinchvag

reply

Or any version since it was a botched mish mash of different tones.

reply

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part.html

The writers of Batman Forever, Lee Batchler, Janet Scott-Batchler and Akiva Goldsman, also referenced various decades but focused much more on the graphic novels and centered more frequently around the Bronze Age, particularly the 70's. This alone should tell everyone how different Joel Schumacher's take was because it drew primarily from different sources, different streams. To read about Batman Forever's portrayal of the Batman character, check http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/01/batman-in-movies-part-ii-val-kilmer.html

reply

STILL a fave of mine. Always will be.



Annoying the world since 1960!

reply

STILL a fave of mine. Always will be.
Denial will do that to you.

reply

I'm not denying anything, I'm affirming my love for the film.



Annoying the world since 1960!

reply

As Much as I love Michael Keaton I think he is full of it first off Forever is way better then that train wreck Batman Returns AKA Tim Burton Movie. 2nd he says when he read the script plus Joel asking him why it needs to be so dark he said he know it would suck so I want to know when he read the script for Jack Frost/Herbie Fully Loaded along with other crap films that he has done why didn't he walk away from those? hmmm.

reply

Doing an overly campy Batman film like Forever would have hurt Keaton's Batman tenure and those films he did later were forgettable and at least don't stick to you like the terrible Forever does.

reply

Batman Forever made Money unlike those films had he done Forever it wouldn't have hurt his career like those other films had.

reply

Those other films were forgettable so Keaton would eventually rebound from them, Batman Forever left a stink that never went away.

reply

Batman Forever never left a stink its your opinion so I will respect that for a movie that made money at the box office/vhs sales/merchandise sales it out did Return's in every department I wouldn't call it a stink or a failure Forever only gets dump on because Burton Fans get upset that he didn't do the 3rd film but after what he did with Returns am glad he didn't this film gets dump with B&R also but they are nothing a like Batman Forever is an underrated film am willing to bet a million dollars with everyone that with all the deleted footage back in some editing putting all the dark back in take out the silly parts everyone would praise it.

reply

Batman Returns is a 100x the film Forever is, Forever was the precursor to bad summer blockbusters like Transformers in that making a lot of money is more important than quality. Its success is the reason why B&R ever came to be so we have Forever to blame for laying the foundation for craptastic camp and the audiences for eating it up. Forever deserves to be lumped in with B&R as the bottom of the barrel Batman films. I actually like B&R more than Forever because it knew it was terrible and had fun with itself.

reply

The Kardashians make money too.....there are a lot of #GRUBERS in America.



Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

I don't agree on that Batman Forever did something positive for the Batman Franchise Batman & Robin Killed it Batman & Robin is a stink not Forever Haters Hate but Batman Forever and Batman 89 are the two best of the Original Series.

reply

Forever is the stink that lead to the turd that is B&R, Batman Forever is the worst Batman film. B&R was so bad that it was good but Forever was so bad that it was just bad. If all was right in the world and Forever rightfully flopped we would have been spared B&R since Forever laid down the foundation that people want more craptastic camp.

reply

That's Funny that you say that because I always said the success of Batman lead to that stupid crap called Batman Returns which is not even a real Batman Movie at all its a Tim Burton movie its so crap a horny Penguin really Penguins taking care of a baby. I can go on and on about Returns its funny how you said you like Batman & Robin more then Forever as someone else said Forever made Money Batman & Robin didn't if Forever was so bad as you say it would have never done excellent at the box office and other sales that it did word of mouth would have killed it like Batman & Robin. Kilmer fit more as Wayne then Keaton ever could as the other poster said if you do a little edit to this film then everyone would praise it which you can't do to Batman & Robin that film has no heart maybe it has two or three moments that are great nothing else wear as Forever has tons of darker elements has a better story does an excellent job showing Bruce Wayne being haunted Batman & Robin has nothing they can't be lumped no *beep* way.

reply

Batman Forever is Underrated.

reply

I liked Forever when I first saw it but over time it has gotten worse to the point where I view it as the worst of the franchise, I don't enjoy any of it nowadays.

reply

Good thing he avoided it. Kilmer I think could've been a great Batman, but I think the direction and dialogue really let him down.

reply

Batman Forever is good, especially for 1995, it was just a let down that it wasn't consistent with the previous two's darkness. If anything they should've kept it dark.

reply

“It sucked,” Keaton said of the script he was shown. “I knew it was in trouble when he [Schumacher] said, ‘Why does everything have to be so dark?'”


Schumacher's comments " why does everything have to be dark?", "It's a comic book not a tragic book" did nothing but damage him and his Batman films.

reply

Hey, I genuinely love "Batman Forever", but I love it because it's an extreme-camp festival of weirdness! Of course not everyone shares my taste, if Keaton doesn't share my sense of humor I understand. In fact I approve, if Keaton doesn't like camp or strangeness then he would have ruined the fun.

I also wonder if Keaton gave it a miss because it's Jim Carrey's film. He'd already spent the last film playing second fiddle to Catwoman, did he want to do the same thing again in a less serious film?

reply