MovieChat Forums > Batman Forever (1995) Discussion > AGE OF HEROES What the hell were any of ...

AGE OF HEROES What the hell were any of us thinking making the terrible Batman Forever a huge hit?


https://www.avclub.com/what-the-hell-were-any-of-us-thinking-making-the-terrib-1825650798?utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=Main

You can see how it happened. The executives at Warner Bros. didn’t set out to destroy the Batman mythos or to make unwatchably shitty Batman movies that would put both the character and the superhero movie genre at large into a state of prolonged stasis. They just wanted a hit. Tim Burton’s Batman Returns, from 1992, had been a hit, but it hadn’t been enough of a hit. The movie made significantly less money than Burton’s original Batman, and parents’ groups complained about its dank, depraved tone. (Parents’ groups complained about everything back then, and big film studios, more often than not, listened.) In Joel Schumacher, Warner found someone who might plausibly be able to keep some of Burton’s mythic, expressionist vibe intact but who would be primarily concerned with making accessible, lucrative entertainments.

Schumacher had started out as a costume designer on movies like Woody Allen’s Sleeper, so he’d clearly be comfortable with the pageantry and theatricality that a superhero movie required. He claimed that he’d grown up with comics. And as a director, he’d made plenty of movies—The Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down—that were messy and often stupid and incoherent but also visually stylish. His movies were about sensation. He’d play ball, and he’d make something that was fun to look at.

And it worked! It’s crazy to think about it now, but Batman Forever, Schumacher’s first stab at the character, was generally considered to be a big success. It definitely made money, more than $300 million worldwide. It out-earned Batman Returns and ended the year as one of the highest grossers. Reviews were mixed, but reviews had been mixed for Batman Returns, too. And anyway, this was the pre-Rotten Tomatoes era; reviews were just not a part of the calculus for studios. Audiences seemed to like the movie well enough. Kids were entertained. Toys were sold. And those same executives presumably high-fived one another before green-lighting another Schumacher sequel.

reply

Go watch Schindler's List, snob

reply

I genuinely like "Batman Forever", I liked it when it came out and I still like it now!

I like it because it's weird and camp, so I totally understand if all the serious, humorless DC fans loathe it.

reply

It was an alright movie then and it still is now. Definitely not great, but just OK and entertaining for what it is. It probably made money because it was Batman and the name alone can draw in cash, but as far as a film goes, it is a strange flashy film noir type of movie.

reply

It was the name Batman that made it a hit not the changes made which they said it was what made it a hit which they shouldn't because it kind of attracted ridicule especially with B&R underperforming, it's if you made an OK film that was a massive hit and said all the things that actually made it unwatchable made it a success.

reply

Yeah I don't have any argument there. The name is why people saw it. It was a very contrasting style to Returns and obviously not for the better. Although really if they would have kept a somewhat darker tone and done some better storytelling/character development the film could have been great. Haha now that I think about it, they probably would need to get rid of Tommy Lee Jones in this entirely to make it a good movie lol.

reply

I don't think a darker tone would necessarily would lead to a better film but i think it would make a more accessible one.

Forever and B&R were only campy with the villains since they were portrayed as Joker knock offs with endless laughter and puns, and featured actors who were playing themselves in the roles.

reply

I think if Carey was the sole villain and they did some more character development for both him and Robin the film would have been much better. The film really should have revolved around Robin and developing his struggles and character.

I think B/R was a different level of suck than Forever. I feel that B&R has many issues beyond saving.

reply

It did fall into the trap most comic book movies fall into about having too many characters.

With B&R I don't think another year wait or no studio meddling would've necessarily made it any better or worse.

reply

Schuamcher wasn't the most obvious choice to make a kid's film or action adventure film.

reply

I liked it when it came out. But I was 14. I tried to watch it a couple years ago and couldn't sit through it. However at the same time I've become more of a fan of the Adam West Batman. Kind of strange how that works.

reply