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]
You can hold Warner Bros. just as accountable if not more for rushing the film into production so soon after Batman Forever.
https://bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/1997-2/batman-robin/
Back in 1995 when Batman Forever was still in theaters and on its way to a massive $336.5M global haul, WB wanted to quickly begin development on a fourth Batman entry. After the three year spaces between the previous installments, Batman & Robin was immediately set for a summer ’97 release. WB was adamant on continuing the series with Schumacher and writer Akiva Goldsman, as the two had first collaborated on the The Client (Goldsman’s first produced screenplay) for WB and continued to work with the studio on Batman Forever and A Time To Kill. With the director and writer set for the fourth entry and Val Kilmer and Chris O’Donnell expected to reprise their roles, development actually began one week before filming began on A Time To Kill in early September 1995. With the extra prep time, the movie could be properly budgeted and cast, without the stress of rushing to get everything in order to beat a mandated production start date.
After Tim Burton’s oddball and demented Batman Returns (1992) had infuriated parental groups and corporations who had tie-in programs, many companies had shied away from promoting Batman Forever. But once Forever moved the series into safe family friendly territory and was one of the biggest money makers of the year, corporations were lining up to shill for Batman & Robin — an absolutely foul movie that was designed as a marketing venture to sell merchandise. WB Consumer Products put their full weight behind the picture and secured a reported $125M from promotional partners! Taco Bell supported the release with $20M in TV spots; Kellogg’s slapped Batman over 13 cereals and committed $10M for TV ads; QVC heavily pushed Batman merchandise; there was a tie-in with Amoco; America Online; Six Flags and dozens more. WB tapped their sister divisions on TV (Turner Broadcasting) to promote the hell out of Batman & Robin. It can not be overstated enough just how eventized the marketing push was for Batman & Robin.
A 1998 release would've helped but no guarantee it would've necessarily made a better film.
B&R was shot from September 96 to early 97, if you wanted a two year wait has to be shot in early 96. Looking back at the film many of the action sequences are pretty badly executed, the museum fight looks pretty bare, all the sets look like something out of Disney Land.
Yeah I can't see that really making much of a difference. Some of the effects may have been a bit more polished (at one point the shot is very clearly stopped and played in reverse) but the film's overall problems of ridiculous script and over the top campiness wouldn't have been helped. Plus I think the sets that look like they're out of Disney Land is what they were going for so I don't think additional time would've helped in that regard.
shareFirst film was hugely successful so lighting was never gonna strike in the same place more than once. Also don't think it being darker would've necessarily made a better film but a more fan pleasing one.
The costumes look like something out of a gay disco or porn film, B&R looks and feels very LGBT probably due to Schumacher being gay himself.
It's nearly always best to go with an auteur or a young hotshot director to take on a superhero movie.
Fans seem to blame him simply because he's flamboyant and effeminate.
share