MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > If Batman Forever came out today...

If Batman Forever came out today...


http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3579.msg54393#msg54393

...would it be better received? I'm emphasising Forever only because it's still a widely better regarded film than B&R.

I'm asking this question because nowadays, I've noticed there is this trend where positive reception for comic-based films is emphasised too much with "fun", "light-hearted" and having a share of jokes, albeit sometimes too much. It's something a lot of these critics and bloggers describe a lot of MCU films lately, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Captain America: Civil War. As a sidenote, I'm finding the most critically acclaimed MCU films for these qualities tend to be inferior what came before. In my opinion, GOTG2 is a sorry excuse for a follow-up to the first Guardians, and Civil War is third rate compared to the first two Cap films.

I think it's become such a huge contrast icompared to the consensus towards the Schumacher films. It's debatable this attitude was prevalent when it was first released, but years after, BF was derided for being a huge departure to the darker Burton films, and the stigma for the tone Schumacher chose grew even bigger when B&R was released. Any positive, if imperfect, qualities BF had i.e. Bruce's character arc by overcoming his psychological repression of his painful memories and preventing Robin from becoming a killer, were completely ignored because people were too busy getting upset over Schumacher's aesthetic choices.

But today, it appears among critics and bloggers are suggesting if a film doesn't have "color", "humor", or as I said, overemphasis on "fun", it must suck. And if a film does have those qualities, but perhaps aren't up to scratch from a plot or thematic point of view...well, who cares? Fun is all that matters, right?

Does anybody else get this impression, or am I talking nonsense?

reply

I don't think so.

The goofy tone of Guardians of the Galaxy works because it involves a raccoon and talking tree in space. The premise is silly so they got James Gunn and Chris Pratt (a comedic director and comedic actor) involved to turn it into a full-on comedy. If they played Rocket Raccoon straight, it would be unintentionally laughable and the movie would have flopped.

Captain America movies are not comedies and don't have the silly tone that Guardians does. Sure, there were some funny moments, but no more or less than, say the X-Men films, which are dark but don't shy away from a funny comment here or there. This is because Captain America is a more serious premise. You have a super soldier from another time unraveling political conspiracies. That sort of story requires a little more gravitas.

Batman is a very dark and brooding hero, even more so than the X-Men or Captain America. Campy doesn't work for him in the modern era, at least in live action (animation is a different story). You need to play him straight for him to work.

reply

I don't think this film would be terribly well received today. Not only has Hollywood lost their knack for making high camp, but today's audiences don't know how to appreciate it properly. If it came out today, it'd be criticized for being neither good action nor good comedy, and too absurd to fit into the comic genre.

So I enjoy this film and I like the Marvel films in general, because I'm all for fun, color, belly laughs, camp, absurdity, and all that other marvelously entertaining stuff that DC fanboys don't get. Real life is gritty enough, what kind of a person wants to pay money to see stuff that's gray and grim?

reply

No. Now imma give you what you asked....

Guardians of the Galaxy's humor (particularly its sequel) may be too much for some to handle, but when all is said and done they respect the source material, don't suffer from a wildly uneven and terribly executed tone, and are basically unique and well-made movies. Batman Forever? I do like it but it sure as hell didn't accomplish any of this. While the flashbacks with Bruce are appreciated, they feel extremely put out of place in what’s an otherwise very campy movie. I mean after Burton's darker, faithful, and yes, still entertaining take on the character, getting a massively flawed movie that had more in common with the classic 60’s series understandably left a bad taste in many.

On to the almighty and popular to hate Marvel (from butthurt DC stans to pompous film snobs)....

Civil War third-rate compared to the first two? To you, but the overwhelming consensus is that it's as good as, if not better than the revered first sequel - and validly so. Light-hearted? Um, no. As Marvel effectively brings in some moments of levity in most of their movies and shows, Civil War does contain a few delightful moments. But its overall tone? It's by no means any different than the intense and very mature The Winter Soldier. In the case of this year's Spider-Man, it aggravated a certain few that wanted a not-so kid-friendly movie, yet its tone worked extremely well for a movie that wanted to differentiate itself from previous Spidey movies as much as possible by putting the focus on a young, naive and thrill-seeking Peter Parker. Homecoming wasn't only a fun movie, it was a finely acted, well written and well executed one. And not for nothing but this incarnation really did feel like Spidey.

Moreover, can't a superhero movie be dark and still get praised? OF COURSE. Forgetting about the recent... Logan? Most thought it was so good it deserves a best picture nominee. And why is that? Because it is a remarkably made film with a HEART. The problem with majority of the apparently dark as hell superhero movies (obviously those coming from DCEU) is they have been, well, subpar. You might believe there's more to it, an asinine conspiracy, but what has hurt these movies is simply just the fact that they’ve been terribly executed and soulless. Zack Snyder is responsible for the tone of the DCEU and, as far as I see it, the guy is all style no substance. It’s as if he makes his movies grim and dark simply for the sake of it. Man of Steel was a solid effort, but on the whole Snyder, to me, isn’t someone who really understands these characters. His work lacks true depth and it’s inconsistent in various ways... not unlike Logan or the aforementioned Civil War. The recent Wonder Woman though? Fortunately not a Snyder film, and it proved to be rather great in many aspects. One of the things that made it stand out compared to all the other DCEU movies was its more noticeably colorful tone, good direction, and the way it all felt respectful to the character.

Now Marvel movies, even the lesser entries, have resonated far more with audiences because the superhuman but relatable characters in these movies have been well-written, perfectly cast, and they’ve gotten to shine like they’re supposed, i.e - amazing bigger than life superheroes. Doesn’t hurt that the movies haven’t felt lifeless and dull like most of the DCEU ones. Oh, a superhero movie wants to be pure fun? I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever. After all, these are... SUPERHEROES! It all works out great when the final product is not only fun - like it should be - but it’s actually quality stuff (which it mostly is in Marvel’s case). Every other movie from the MCU includes humor (how dare they follow the comics!), though not all... or any of them... are obsessed with jokes as the haters claim. Even with the few missteps, Marvel has essentially done their heroes justice from day one.

Lastly, the MCU has become a rich universe with multi-layered characters, magnificent action set pieces, fantastic visuals, top-notch performances, and above all great storytelling. Not to mention, contrary to hater belief, so many of these shared universe movies have been so different from one another in many ways. GOTG? NOTHING like The Winter Soldier. Thor? NOTHING like Ant-Man. Age of Ultron? Hell, its tone and overall look feels different from even the first Avengers.

What you’ve gotten from this cinematic universe is unprecedented... and that’s not only my opinion — even critics not big into CBM’s have acknowledged this.

reply

It was made during the era of the romantic comedy of the mid 90's where all PG 13 films had to be lighthearted and over the top.

reply

Yea I feel it would do worse nowadays, movies were more, as you said, lighthearted in the 1990s. Everything is dark and serious now.

reply

Forever and B&R would never be as camp back in the 90's if they were made now, a lighter tone would be more subtle now. they wouldn't feel very LGBT.

reply

Batman & Robin never should have been made. Awful

reply

But if it was made in 1998 and not 1997 things could've been different.

reply

True, they did rush through to get that movie out.

reply

Not that it would've made it any better but a but more successful.

Looking back at B&R a lot of it looks pretty badly shot and executed due to it being rushed, felt like it needed more time shooting and writing.

reply


All I remember about this movie is how incredibly beautiful Nicole Kidman looked in it.

SEE: https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/memorydelta/images/c/ca/Chase_sexy_black_dress_2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140116211413

(Tho actually, it was with this performance that Jim Carrey started to officially get on my nerves...so there was that, too.)
.

reply

It's weird to recently see Nicole Kidman play Aquaman's mom after playing one of Batman's girlfriends almost 25 years earlier.

reply

A lighter Batman film can work, Lego Batman does it well, other that there usually isn't a good reason to do a lighter version.

reply

IMHO "Lego Batman" wasn't made for Batman fans, it was a parody of Batman movies made for the mainstream.

True Batman fans are not noted for their senses of humor, they like their entertainment dark and grim, and are so far from a sense of humor that they complain if there are funny lines in their movies.

reply

I think others would've done the same even if it was dark. I don't think dark and gritty would necessarily lead to a good film but a more fan pleasing one. You don't need to be like torture porn or a tale of Shakespearean proportions to be dark.

reply

I think that a "lighter" or more colorful Batman film can work if say, it were in the style of the 1990 Dick Tracy movie with Warren Beatty. What I mean is that even though its characters and world are larger than life (in particular, Al Pacino as Big Boy Caprice), it still takes itself completely seriously (and doesn't feel like it's a self-parody like Batman & Robin was often guilty of being) and doesn't risk ruining the integrity of the characters.

reply

A lighter Batman film can work, Lego Batman does it well, other that there usually isn't a good reason to do a lighter version.

I think Lego got away with it because it wasn't live action. I don't believe audiences would want a light live-action Batman.

reply

No. It's objectively better than B&R but for me, the movie is just kind of noisy yet dull.

reply