Why is Joel Schumacher still to blame for this film even with studio pressure to make it kid friendly and toyetic?
He could said no to the camp, the bad puns, the batcards or push for a better written script.
[deleted]
The film could have been okay for kids and still not have been half as idiotic as it turned out.
In my opinion it was a team effort of bad direction and terrible writing, coupled with some bad acting, but Schumacher as the director, fairly or not, shoulders most of the blame.
All that went wrong w/ Batman & Robin was a group effort in my humble opinion:
*Warner Bros. for rushing it out only two years after Batman Forever (even though all of the previous Batman films had three year intervals between them) and being too consumed w/ selling merchandise ahead of making a quality film first.
*Akiva Goldsman for his script, which is radically uneven, sloppily put together (when you get right down to it, it's a dumber variation of the Batman Forever script), and out right cynical. It's telling that he wasn't the only credited writer for Batman Forever (Janet and Lee Batchler also worked the script, but I'm willing to bet that Goldsman was behind all of the cheesy one-liners in Forever).
*Joel Schumacher does deserve some blame though. He set the tone on set in terms of how aggressively campy and cheesy it was going to be by basically encouraging the actors to ham it up. He also for better or for worse, was behind the homoerotic subtext and presumably all of the sexual dialogue (w/ help of course from Akiva Goldsman) that Uma Thurman says as Poison Ivy.
*The actors outside of Michael Gough don't rise to the occasion. Arnold Schwarzenegger (I really wish that Schumacher would've been more serious in approaching Mr. Freeze and went after somebody like Patrick Stewart) and Uma Thurman seem to be all too aware of the type of film that they're making act as such. George Clooney seems to be embarrassed at what has to do and is really there for a paycheck. Alicia Silverstone is way, way out of her element in what really accounts to a shoehorned role. I really don't know what the make of Chris O'Donnell's performance. While I found him tolerable in Forever, all that he's giving here is nothing but cliched dialogue.
I don't think sticking to the usual three year wait in between films would've made the film any better, example Spiderman 2 came out two years after one and was a huge hit and well received.
Schumacher was responsible for the miscasting of Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone, they were just cast because they were so popular at the time not cause they thought they should be playing the roles, the last bat films to have stunt casting.
The thing about Joel Schumacher is that his biggest problem as a filmmaker is arguably, that he more than often tries too hard to come across as hip or cool. And for some reason or another, he's off-point like he's either a few years behind in regards to trends or he's trying too hard to be edgy (especially w/ a lot of his post-Batman & Robin movies) or topical. At the end of the day, Schumacher just comes across as somebody who is really out of touch w/ what his audience wants.
shareYeah kinda get that impression with the Lost Boys and Batman DVD documentaries, he tents to go overboard with trying to entertain, as with his Batman films he went too far making them kid friendly.
shareProducer Peter Macgregor-Scott sums up that Joel likes it extreme and bubbly, doesn't like it too serious and states he knew where to go with the film.
shareThe thing about Joel Schumacher is that his biggest problem as a filmmaker is arguably, that he more than often tries too hard to come across as hip or cool. And for some reason or another, he's off-point like he's either a few years behind in regards to trends or he's trying too hard to be edgy (especially w/ a lot of his post-Batman & Robin movies) or topical. At the end of the day, Schumacher just comes across as somebody who is really out of touch w/ what his audience wants.
Think he's not very good at tonality, like how much darkness or lightness the film should have.
Unlike Burton or Nolan Schumacher is more of a commercial director.
[deleted]
A lot of his films tend to deal with subjects that are difficult or taking subject matters at face value.
shareAlways found him to be pretentious, at times he tries to be the big expert of a subject like superheroes etc when he isn't.
shareI've heard arguments that George Clooney really could've been a decent Bruce Wayne/Batman under different circumstances:
http://whatculture.com/film/5-reasons-why-george-clooney-could-have-be en-the-best-batman.php
It's just that here, Clooney seems to play the role as "too cool, too ironic, too self-aware, and too distant" to really succeed. Also, I've always heard that Joel Schumacher immediately thought that Clooney would make a good Batman simply by seeing a poster of him for From Dusk 'til Dawn and drew a Bat-Cowl on his face. At least when Val Kilmer was cast as Batman, it was much more inspired than just the way that he would've possibly looked in the Bat-Cowl. Joel Schumacher was impressed by Kilmer's turn as Doc Holliday in Tombstone.
Clooney was also on ER at the time, which was one of the biggest TV shows around at the time. Clooney was a rising star at the time, so I'm quite sure that since he hadn't quite made his mark in film yet, Schumacher could've avoided another Val Kilmer type incident. ER was like the Batman films, a Warner Bros. production, so they were pretty much keeping thing house. George Clooney himself said on Inside the Actors' Studio that the then chief of Warner Bros. called him in one day and told him point blank that he was going to be the next Batman.
Clooney was only cast because of his good looks over quality but his voice kills every chance of being a great Batman mainly causes he doesn't disguise his voice but his later work doesn't necessarily mean he was capable of making a quality Batman.
The casting of Arnold Schwarzenegger was so wrong not only he was a such a well known star but Victor Fries is suppose to be smaller and stature and nerdy and Schwarzenegger at the time was becoming a caricature of himself and was at the end of his heyday.
The thing that you have to understand (for better or for worse) regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger is that he really is more of a personality than he his an actual actor. I think the fundamental problem w/ hiring somebody w/ such a huge personality is that you'll more than likely see Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of the character that he's playing. Maybe that wouldn't be much of an issue per se if it weren't for the fact that most people going in are more than likely aware of who Mr. Freeze should be about (especially when Batman: The Animated Series greatly enhanced his popularity/visability).
shareactually, Clooney and Arnold and o donnel were NOT miscast. in a serious movie, they would have been perfect. Arnold look GREAT as mr freeze, Clooney while not my favorite actor, could have easily pulled off batman bruce wayne, and o donnel, if he were playing robin the way he did in Forever, would have done just as great as robin. but sadly the movie was not very serious in tone and it suffered. batgirl was usless and should have been left out of the film entirely. plus I never liked the idea of batgirl, its way too silly and she didn't even have the cowl.
Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!
Clooney is as they say himself in every movie he's in, Schwarzenegger as I said was at the end of his heyday and they could've gone with studio choices Patrick Stewart or Antony Hopkins if you wanted a serious Mr Freeze, they weren't perfect choices for the roles and wouldn't have been 100% better in a serious tone, the problem they had is the problem to this day with film stars were your focused on the actor not the character.
Batgirl like Robin is just a gimmick to sell more comics, her wearing a Robin like mask is fine looked good on her All Star incarnation.
Patrick stewart?? hopkins????? WTF? seriously they are the most unphysical people you can think of. aside from a great dome head, freeze has to be a big guy who can manage being in a suit of that kind. Arnold pulled the look off brilliantly, and he was certainly intimidateing in it. its just, like I said, the movie wasn't serious and was more funny and goofy so freeze looked dopey in many scenes. but the casting is brilliant.
and where did you get that robin was made just to sell comics?? hes an integral part of the whole batman myth, batman today is almost never by himself. robin has almost always been there. just cuz Nolan decided not to include robin doesn't make robin stupid or corny. he was done very well in Batman Forever, a serious vengeful character that you felt could truly help batman and wasn't a joke.
Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!
Freeze was never musclebound or massive he's just a stereotypical nerdy science the suit just bulks him up, Schwarzenegger was payed 25 million salary and was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award as Worst Supporting Actor for playing Mr Freeze.
The reason why Robin wasn't in the Burton and Nolan because not just it was Batman's early days but the story lines didn't admit Robin very easily, they added him in the comics to give Batman someone to talk to and appeal to young readers.
Freeze was never musclebound or massive he's just a stereotypical nerdy science the suit just bulks him up, Schwarzenegger was payed 25 million salary and was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award as Worst Supporting Actor for playing Mr Freeze.
When or where in the comics was Victor Fries ever a physically imposing guy w/o his suit on? I always thought (based on at least, what I've seen on Batman: The Animated Series), that Victor Fries (especially when he was still "normal") was an unassuming, average looking man, who's suit greatly enhanced his strength and endurance. In a way, he had the same effect that Michael Keaton had when Tim Burton tried to convince us that he would be a good actor to play Batman (because Keaton up until that point, wasn't known for being physically imposing or intimitating due to his comedic background) back in 1989.
shareThe thing w/ George Clooney in this movie is that he seemed to not entirely shake off the "Clooneyisms" (e.g. nodding his head and looking downward a lot) that he I guess displaced during the earlier part of his notority (i.e. his time on ER). I always got the vibe that Clooney realized early on, that he was making a crappy movie and proceeded to phone it in (e.g. "Bruce Willis Syndrome" to put it in another way) to the point in which he came across as really apathetic. I never truly saw him as Batman (like I did w/ Michael Keaton and even to a certain extent, Val Kilmer), I just saw him as George Clooney wearing a Batman costume if that makes sense.
shareYeah all he was George Clooney in a Batsuit, he's not the kind of actor who can change persona, his mannerisms got in the way, it's still a problem to this day with film stars where a lot of the time you see only the actor than the character they're playing it means casting the best people for the roles at a disadvantage because casting an A list star usually makes casting easier and helps to get people into cinemas but it also can create problems.
shareAs director he allowed everything bad about the film to happen, if he was against camping it up from the beginning he wouldn't have done the film, he could've said no to the camp and toyetic jazz but he didn't instead he went along with it, so nobody gave him a kick in the rear end to mess it up.
share[deleted]
Think he went too far making it kid friendly, guessing it's one of those films that you just did because you could do it not because you felt it should be done.
The one troubling aspect is he really is a good director, he made a lot of well received films like The Lost Boys, Flat liners, A Time To Kill and 8mm which show he wasn't totally incapable of making a quality Batman film or like vwisniewski said he just didn't get Batman or like Warner Brothers he might've been just incorrect with his assessment of what fans and audiences were hoping for, it's not like he set out to make the worst comic book movie in history and stall the Batman franchise for 8 years.
[deleted]
The Batman film series gotten to the point where they were making a two hour toy commercial which is sad because if a filmmaker is allowed to make a great film it will be marketable and sell toys anyway.
Joel gets the majority of the blame cause he allowed everything bad about the film to happen.
Lesson here is there no point in making a film you don't care about or treat the source material as a joke.
[deleted]
It isn't like Schumacher & Co set out to make the worst and most hated Batman film ever and stall the franchise for eight years.
Someone on a Facebook Batman group thinks he made it that way to get back at the studio for not letting him do Year One, thing is if he felt that way he wouldn't have made it, all Schumacher ever comes across as some who's trying too hard to come across as hip or cool which indicates he didn't 100% get Batman or was under the misconception that fans and audiences wanted a wacky, idiotic, silly Batman film. Nobody ever sets out to make a bad film.
Even as a "kids movie" Batman & Robin fails because...:
*I'm pretty sure that many kids went out and saw the 1989 Batman film, which grossed roughly $250 million at the US box office (which back in '89 was a *beep* of money). It's just that Tim Burton went overboard when it came time to make Batman Returns in terms of the violence, tone, and overall vulgarities in the script.
*Batman: The Animated Series, which had been on the air on Fox (and later the WB) for at least four & a half years by that point, was highly acclaimed (to the point in which they even used Mr. Freeze's tragic backstory for Batman & Robin). It managed to appeal to both children and adults, but at the same time, had substance to it (even more so than Batman & Robin).
*If this is a bona-fide, true blue kids movie, then Joel Schumacher shouldn't be inserting a homeoerotic subtext or having Uma Thurman say stuff like "I'll help you grab your rocks!" or "How about when slippery when wet!?" (not to mention Batman & Robin commenting on Ivy's "stems"/legs and "buds"/breasts). What really hurt's Batman & Robin is that it really couldn't decided on whom it was supposed to be marketed towards.
It would've worked as a kid's film if it had substance to appeal to adults as well like the Animated Series.
shareSchumacher did claim he wanted to do Frank Miller's Year One but was rejected ( To me it wasn't the right time to do that)but it doesn't fit into going along with camping it up and making it kid friendly, as we said if he was against lighting it up by going far as turning it into a bad comedy he wouldn't have done the film.
share[deleted]
Batman & Robin is probably one of those movies that the filmmakers just did it for the money or did it because they could which didn't mean you should.
The studio pressure doesn't mean he was forced into it or bullied into camping it up, as he admitted he was an adult, he was awake and he went along with it.
[deleted]
Yeah by listening to the commentary every line is a joke and didn't get how to be kid friendly, The New Batman Adventures at the time was kid friendly but wasn't tongue in cheek, should've been subtle approach for B&R.
His body of work doesn't prove he was totally capable of making a quality Batman film, he simply just didn't get Batman (no matter if he wanted to do Year One) or he was just incorrect with assessment of what fans wanted.
The success of Forever had given them the notion that the series needed to be lighter and softer in order to make money which turned out not to be the case because the fans were hoping they wouldn't gone a little bit darker and less tongue in cheek than Forever.
[deleted]
Exactly, he could've been more subtle but he didn't.
The Burton/Schumacher bat films were made at a time where a darker and brooding batman was relatively new to Hollywood and mass audiences and mainstream movies at that time had to be lighthearted it being the romantic comedy era.
[deleted]
Made at the same time as the Stallone Judge Dredd which was also trying to be kiddy and light hearted and ended up being a *beep* up.
The New Batman Adventures was lighter than the Animated Series but wasn't trying to be a bad comedy or a infomercial for toys it appealed to both kids and adults alike so it your allowed to make a really great film it will be marketable anyway.
Schumacher didn't get how to make a kid's film, his idea of a kid's film is a really bad comedy which doesn't work for Batman.
Still I don't think he would've made it any better if Warner Bros hadn't demanded kid friendly and he just went overboard in doing so by adding the nipples, neon lights and casting for good looks rather then talent.
So by listening to the DVD commentary, you get a sense that this is the wrong man to do it.
That's what happened w/ Spider-Man 3 now that I've come to think of it. The producers/studio pushed for Venom even though Sam Raimi didn't like or understand the character.
shareWhats troubling about that is since the first two Spiderman films were such big hits you would think Raimi would have total control.
shareThe studio pressure when Raimi was doing[the almost made)Spiderman 4 had gotten to the point where he just walked away but Schumacher stayed and went along with the cash cow.
shareBatman & Robin unfortunately thinks it's a comedy but it's not at all funny. This is the same problem w/ something like Superman III as I previously mentioned. It seems like the filmmakers outright hate the Batman character and have proceeded to make an obnoxious parody.
Also, I really don't think that it's entirely fair to say that this is just like the old Adam West TV show. The old Batman TV show despite it's problems (especially by the last season, when they slashed the budget, got rid of the two-part format, shoehorned Batgirl, and perhaps became too broad and blatant w/ the camp/surrealism) was a whole lot more clever then it perhaps get credit too. It was at lot more "meta-textual" w/ the campiness (e.g. the whole bomb scene from the 1966 feature film) when compared to the aggressive cheesiness of the Joel Schumacher Batman films.
[deleted]
I think that it's quite apparent that Schumacher didn't really understand the characters. For example, the way that Two-Face was handled in Forever (the low-point being the scene in which Harvey repeatedly flips his coin so that he can get to the scarred side). Schumacher obviously didn't understand Bane (he even admitted that his godson first told him about the character) other than the most basic elements (i.e. the Mexican wrestler attire, the venom that enhanced his strength). Then again, in fairness, Tim Burton didn't exactly follow to closely to the source material, but at least, Burton make them completely one-dimensional and not so subtle.
shareWith Superman III, they made the comedic aspect more obvious bringing in Richard Prior as an implied agenda. It also fits better because superman is a goofy character (inetnionally) as Clark Kent.
Schumacher went overboard being too hammy and silly. It should be noted the implied homosexualism; the batmobile, the bat nipples, the butt shots were all aspects Schumacher was begged to take out by Bob Kane and WB.
At that stage of Arnolds career he was becoming basically a parody of his earlier self and no surprised portrayed goofy. It should be noted WB wanted Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins, Schumacher pushed for arnold. And in the cancelled fifth film Schumacher was pushing for Howard Stern in lieu of jeff Goldblum.
I don't doubt that WB wanted more merchandising but I also don't believe for a second that if Schumacher was given the carte blanche that he would have came up with anything close to what Burton and Nolan came up with despite what he implies.
[deleted]
I thought that Schumacher recently stated that had he ever got a chance to use Scarecrow, then Nicolas Cage (for whom Schumacher would later work w/ on 8MM) would've been his first choice.
share[deleted]
I think that because Jim Carrey's turn as the Riddler was considered a big factor in why Batman Forever was such a great success (not to the level of the '89 movie but even more so than the darker, "not so family friendly" Returns), that it gave Schumacher, Warner Bros. and company the misconception that we as an audience liked our Batman movies to be extremely jokey, gag-filled, and silly. I think that Schumacher even alluded to that (what he calls "fun and games") on the DVD commentary.
shareYeah fans were hoping they would've gone a little pit darker and less tongue in cheek than Batman Forever which the didn't do they went the way it is because of the success of Forever they got the notion the series needed to be lighter and softer in order to make money.
Schumacher wanting to do Year One makes it sound like the studio bullied him into camping it up but he knew where he wanted to go with the film, he saw no harm in lighting it up, he was an adult, he was awake and he went along with it.
Lost Boys had the same feeling of Schumacher trying too hard to be humorous. He comes off as someone who tends to subjective whatever film he's making whether it's about racism, snuff films in this case a comic book movie.
maybe he enjoys the controversy; he had been accused of racist undertones in falling down but of course he did make a time to kill, a film in which the racist white people are portrayed negatively.
As much as people want to defend him and blame others for the bad things in his films, there's no denying Joel Schumacher has come up with way too many bad ideas on his own and thus never merited the freedom to do whatever he liked that he claims he never got.
I noticed some undertones in a lot of his films that are difficult for perverted reasons or trying to say something about, his bat films have been accused of homoerotic undertones when they're suppose to be kid's films.
Beyond blaming the studio for B&R's failure Schumacher doesn't come off as a poor innocent genius or somebody who would fight to make a really quality film.
I think that the Batman: Braves & Bold animated series is a better example of how to do a "campy" or more "light-hearted" modern version of Batman. It still seem to respect the source material (w/o it feeling too cynical) and you can enjoy it w/o feeling like your intelligence is being insulted or the audience isn't being given enough credit.
shareIt wasn't so much the pushing for toy sales etc for as the casting choices.
Schumacher kinda shoulders most of the blame because he is a very flamboyant director, some people mostly haters find it an annoyance or a distraction or just don't like when filmmakers show off because they're not showing they're the right man for the job or making it look like they know what they're talking about.
It's not like the toy company involvement was a situation Schumacher couldn't get out of or mess it up with camp humor and nipples to get back at the studio for rejecting his Year One plans, but if he was against it all he wouldn't made the film, as director he has the right to make minor changes like the cheesy one liners or make objections which the film needed.
None of his films were masterpieces or great pieces of cinema, what does B&R make him a misguided talent filmmaker or a hack?
Why do people defend him? He openly admitted the nipple costume was his idea and backed it up when it took all the heat. He OKed everything that was going to ruin this movie. People are quick to forget the 80's Batman was kid friendly too, but no one cared and still enjoyed it. If Tim Burton would have made the moves Schumacher made, he would still be getting the blame to this day.
Guessing the pressure to make B&R toyetic makes it sound like he was bullied into making it the way it is, but if he was he wouldn't have made the film, he could've said no to the camp, the nipples, bad one liners and bat card, as he admitted he went along with what the studio wanted with making it more kid friendly, so he's not a poor innocent genius filmmaker who was put into a situation he couldn't get out of and was made to mess up.
You don't need to make it a bad comedy to be kid friendly.
Someone pointed out on YouTube with the DVD behind the scenes making of "It was doomed when they made up their intentions and cast a man who takes concepts too literally. It works for his John Grisham movies but not in comic book movies"
share... because he's an easy target? I thought the production design was the worst thing about it, to be honest. It's cluttered and ugly, and instead of feeling that there's an intentional theme, it just looks like there was an explosion at a paint factory... It hurts my eyes and makes me nauseous every time I look at one of the sets.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
Not just easy target but he allowed everything that is bad about the film to happen, if he was totally against camping it up or making it kid friendly he wouldn't have agreed to make the film, if he truly respected the source material he could've said no to the camp, the toyetic jazz, inappropriate jokes and the bad puns, he could've pushed for a better script but he didn't. Even if the studio demand that B&R be kid friendly but it didn't mean he had to turn it into a bad comedy or a piss poor job of it, he just went overboard.
shareBatman has a history of being 'camp' that goes back further than B&R!
He has since admitted his mistakes and apologised… As the director he deserves to take his share of the responsibility - maybe even the MAJORITY of it - but he can't be the only one… It's a team effort.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
The campy Batman has had it's day by the 90's.
Yes it was a team effort, the studio pushed it to be toyetic, they just cared about selling toys and merchandise than making a great film, Schumacher was responsible for the bad casting choices like Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Clooney.
The campy Batman has had it's day by the 90's.
Yeah it had it's day in the late 60's so because of it B&R felt like it was 30 years behind to how Batman was being portrayed.
shareYeah it had it's day in the late 60's so because of it B&R felt like it was 30 years behind to how Batman was being portrayed.
Agree. And because the other movies had been done more serious.
Quite frankly, it's kind of pointless to bring up names like Denny O'Neil and Frank Miller into the discussion for why Batman & Robin failed because it isn't like Tim Burton exactly followed the source material (he flat out admitted that he didn't/doesn't read comics) to a tee. This is another misnomer that people seem to take when it concerns why they hate Batman & Robin so much. It isn't a "bad movie" per se because it wanted to be lighter, campier (I actually liked the Batman: The Brave & the Bold animated series, because at least it was for the most part, actually funny and clever and seemed to truly have respect for the source material unlike the decidedly cynical and soulless Batman & Robin), or not as dark as say the Tim Burton versions or the Denny O'Neil/Frank Miller respective eras of comics. It's bad because it's a movie that doesn't seem to have the slightest clue of whom it was marketed towards.
shareI don't think it's one reason why Batman & Robin ended up being so bad, it was made at a time were fans were use to seeing a dark and brooding Batman, as I said it was far behind to how Batman was being portrayed in the 80's and 90's, a fan or audience's perspective of all the films are different depending on what generation their in and what type of Batman comics they grew up reading, I'm part of the generation who's use to seeing a dark and brooding Batman.
Unlike the 60's show and Brave & the Bold they weren't making a movie they were making a two hour cash grab for toys and that's pathetic because if your allowed to make a quality film it will sell toys anyway.
Then again, it isn't like Tim Burton's Batman movies didn't have campy elments of their own. I mean lets face it, Batman Returns (only the 1989 movie had some what of a "heightened reality" to it) at one point, had an army of little penguins w/ rocket launchers on their backs walking around the streets of Gotham City.
shareThe penguin army in Returns oh my gosh, comic book movies and Tim Burton movies have a lot of fiction not a lot of logic. The idea of penguins living in the sewer was ridiculous.
Burton's movies had elements of fantasy like Schumacher's but the difference is Batman Returns was a movie Batman & Robin was a toy advert.
I'm not going to fault or complain about Batman movies (regardless of whomever directed them) being adverts for toys because lets be honest, Batman is inherently, a toyetic character in the first place. I mean, are you telling me that side vehicles (besides of course, the Batmobile) the Batwing from the 1989 movie, the Batmissile, the Batskiboat, and the Penguin's big yellow duck car from Returns weren't inevitably going going to be exploited and turned into toys themselves!?
I think the fundamental problem if you want to call it that w/ Batman & Robin is that you can just sense that a large percentage of what went on screen was purely there to be marketed (even if it absolutely makes no sense within the context of the plot) like a glorified action figure commercial (a la those old cartoons from the 1980s like Transformers, G.i. Joe, and Masters of the Universe). The best example that I can think of is when Batman, Robin, and Batgirl are when one their way to battle Mr. Freeze, are riding around in these brand spanking new vehicles. It's just commercialism at it's worse in my humble opinion.
As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, Kenner had a huge hand in the designs of the movie. Basically, they were involved very early on during the production so that the toys would be ready in stores just in time for the movie's release. There's even a line of dialogue in which Poison Ivy tells Batman about how every Poison Ivy action figure comes complete w/ Bane.
The toyetic aspect was more obvious in Batman & Robin because Schumacher and Goldsman did not bother to do better storytelling reasons for the gadgets and vehicles that came out of nowhere.
It was two years after Batman Forever instead of sticking to the usual three year wait, the filmmakers would've liked another year I don't think that would've made it any better but just in terms of less involvement of the toy company during production.
Here a except that may give you a insight into his style
8. Joel Schumacher
Resume: The Number 23, Flawless, 8MM, Batman and Robin, Batman Forever, Phone Booth, The Phantom of the Opera, The Client
Signature Style: Attaching A-list talent to *beep* scripts, Schumacher excels at generic, paint-by-number studio films and cornball hamfistedness; he has a particular knack for wasting excellent casts.
Redeeming Films: Tigerland, The Lost Boys, Flatliners
Pain Scale: Like being beat to death with a codpiece.
http://www.pajiba.com/guides/the-ten-worst-directors-in-hollywood.php
We seem to judge Joel Schumacher by how he comes across than his body of work, he has made some dark and disturbing films but it doesn't mean he was totally capable of making a quality Batman film or get Batman, he does comes as flamboyant.
share