MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > Why’s it Forgotten? The Amazing Spider M...

Why’s it Forgotten? The Amazing Spider Man and Batman Forever

posted 6 years ago by TMC-4 (19458)
5 replies | jump to latest

https://lebeauleblog.com/2017/12/30/whys-it-forgotten-the-amazing-spider-man-and-batman-forever/

Kevthewriter ponders the relevance of Val Kilmer’s Batman and Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man.

If you think about it, The Amazing Spider-Man and Batman Forever are kind of similar. They were both superhero movies that had divisive reactions from audiences (ASM did slightly better with critics than BF did) but then had sequels that were trashed by both audiences and critics, disappointed at the box office (though didn’t exactly flop), and ended up getting the franchise rebooted.

Another difference is that Amazing Spider-Man was a complete reboot while Batman Forever was supposed to take place in the same world as Batman ’89 and Batman Returns, despite having a lighter, goofier tone and only having two actors come back.

But, while Batman Forever and Amazing Spider-Man may not be looked back all that fondly, the receptions to those movies were nothing compared to their sequels. The sequels, Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Batman & Robin, were hated so much by everyone that the sequels have basically overshadowed what came before, despite getting worse reviews and doing worse at the box office. Whenever people talk about how much they hated Marc Webb and Joel Schumacher’s iterations of Spider-Man and Batman, I’ve mostly seen them pull examples from the sequels rather than the original films.

But the reason I think they are more remembered than what came before is because they are bad in a more memorable way. Amazing Spider-Man and Batman Forever definitely have their flaws but they are kind of forgettable and just seem like mediocre superhero movies and nothing more at the end of the day. Their sequels, on the other hand, are so bonkers and weird that it’s easier to remember them because their absurdities make them stick out compared to the more normal first films made by the same director.

As a result, because these two sequels were just so odd and weird, it has given them more of an impact with audiences, even if they don’t like them, which, at the end of the day, makes them more memorable than the two films that came before.

[–] MickyMac (2966) 6 years ago

Both had the reset button too soon, TASM was a reboot five years after Spiderman 3 and another origin film ten years after the first film, Forever was a start over three years after Returns, it and B&R suffered constant change of actor just one film after another, If Keaton had been in all four films a new actor many years later would be more accepted.

[–] AP (5259) 6 years ago

Batman Forever was a sequel to Batman Returns and Batman. They just recast Batman.

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 6 years ago

Batman Forever was a hit at the time and was mostly positive with fans, it was only after Batman and Robin that this film got a more critical response.

It was still a sequel to Batman Returns with a different actor playing Bruce Wayne, a different director and a different style but still not a reboot. They were trying to be like James Bond and churn out Batman movies every couple of years.

[–] TMC-4 (19458) 6 years ago

Batman & Robin Tarnishes Batman Forever

https://dejareviewer.com/2018/03/13/batman-and-robin-tarnishes-batman-forever/

[–] TMC-4 (19458) 3 years ago

If Batman Forever is "forgotten" like the article suggest, I would say because it serves as a "middle of the road" Batman movie. It wasn't exactly groundbreaking like the 1989 movie (in regards to how it was marketed and it was meant to show a mainstream audiences a darker, more serious take on Batman in contrast to the campy and silly Adam West version from the '60s), it wasn't controversial/polarizing like Batman Returns, and it wasn't universally reviled and considered an all out embarrassment to the Batman name like Batman & Robin. Batman Forever was just the "safe and marketable" Batman movie that I would imagine that the studio wanted all along.

I agree that Batman & Robin tarnished whatever good will that Forever had. Batman & Robin took the flaws that were in Batman Forever and magnified them. After that, I think that most people saw Michael Keaton as the definitive big screen Batman (at least prior to Christian Bale or Ben Affleck), since Val Kilmer and George Clooney only played the part once.