What was in Batman Forever that is missing from this one?
Don't get me wrong, I cringed when I first saw it, now it's one of my favorite films, however Batman Forever I think is a better film, what was missing in this one?
shareIt was missing Bruce's motivation for being Batman. Clooney stated in an interview somewhere, when talking with the filmmakers regarding Bruce revisiting his parents backstory, that he felt it wasn't really necessary with the film being the fourth installment in the franchise. I can imagine Director Joel Schumacher being in agreement, wishing to act as a company man, conceding with Warner Bros. wishes to make a safe, mainstream film for general audiences. That's not to say Schumacher had no involvement in turning 'Batman and Robin' into a more colorful atmosphere similar to that of the 60s series to meet this prerogative.
shareGeorge Clooney truly knows shit about cinema.
shareI'd say Batman Forever is a more seriously taken film than Batman & Robin in terms of it's design and direction. I felt like they were actually trying to make Batman Forever an actual movie. It seems with Batman & Robin that they thought that making it an even more colorful movie with even more ridiculous stunts would make it good movie without even thinking seriously about how good or bad it could be.
shareWhile Batman Forever isn't a perfect film, there's unlike Batman & Robin, still at its kernel, a good movie. If Forever had been a bit less goofy and cheesy, had a bit more of a serious tone, and had some things in the story dropped and others fleshed out (such as the subplot involving Bruce's father's diary), it could've been a great movie.
shareThey pretty much made a dumbed down version of Batman Forever:
*Mr. Freeze is Two-Face: A villain who has already gone through his origin story (they were both in some freak "accident" that disfigured them) and forces Batman into a confrontation at the very start.
*Poison Ivy is Riddler: A reclusive and eccentric scientist who concocts an invention (something involving mind-control or what not) that Bruce Wayne decides is too dangerous. Ivy like Riddler, decided to become a green-claded supervillain in order to make it possible anyway.
*Both villains agree that Batman is a problem (in fairness, Batman Returns did that too with Penguin and Catwoman) and decide to team-up to eliminate him.
*Batgirl is Robin: A kid with a tragic past who is staying at Wayne Manor somehow stumbles upon the secrets of Batman and decides to want to become a superhero. Ultimately, Batman has to learn that it's better to work as a team instead of alone and has no choice but to take the kid on as a sidekick.
*Julie Madison is essentially a blander version Chase Meridian: They're both played by tall Australian women (Elle MacPherson and Nicole Kidman respectively).
Wow, TMC, your revelation is a curious one! While films burrow tropes from each other all the time, it is remarkable to think that Batman and Robin (1997) is a subtle reboot of the franchise in disguise. It is a downright clever way to speed up production by copying and pasting Batman Forever's (1995) elements.
The question is: why would the creators of Batman and Robin decide to mimic a previous installment's style, amp it up, instead of going in a different direction to keep the franchise fresh? I'm aware of McDonald's input in maximizing their commercial output to satisfy angry parents who made their thoughts known after taking their children to see Batman Returns (1992), which influenced creative minds behind the scenes.
~~/o/
They likely decided to (by-the-numbers) mimic the style of Batman Forever because simple logic suggests that "expectations being met=money". When Warner Bros. tried to go into a radically different direction with their Batman movies, we got Batman Returns, which wound up biting them in the ass. This time, Warner Bros. seem to not want to "rock the boat" too much while at the same time doubling down on what they believed the audience liked the most about Batman Forever.
shareWhoa! Schumacher is an even more limited filmmaker than I'd thought... he remade his own last film!
Only without Jim Carrey, who'd made the previous one work.
Yes, Jim Carrey is arguably the saving grace of Batman Forever.
Unfortunately, with Batman & Robin, Schumacher didn't have anyone who possessed anything like Carrey's comedic talent and capacity to make the campiness work (and I'm not using 'campiness' as a homophobic pejorative here - I'm simply saying that not every actor is as adept as Carrey, or indeed Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito, when it comes to such material).
Having Jim Carrey in his prime after a few extremely successful movies certainly helped. Since the Riddler was already a comedic villain it worked.
shareI'll give Joel Schumacher credit for this, he admitted that he wasn't fully proud of the end-result of Batman & Robin and he tried to apologize to any Batman fans that he let down. It isn't like say any other filmmaker like say Zack Snyder or the makers of Howard the Duck, don't want to admitted that they f'ed up and we as a general public, just didn't "get it". Hell, I don't think that even Tim Burton will admitted that he messed up when making Batman Returns and that it was McDonald's and parental groups' fault.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/586755/rebook-dceu