MovieChat Forums > Batman & Robin (1997) Discussion > Someone on a Batman Facebook groups thin...

Someone on a Batman Facebook groups thinks Schumacher purposely made B&R bad


As payback against WB for not letting him do Year One.

Which is absolute BS, nobody sets out to make one of the most hated films in history and stall the Batman franchise for eight years, a third and fourth movie in all likelihood going to be sequels nothing, more and Frank Miller's Year One doesn't fit into the continuity of the Burton films because the first we're introduced to Keaton's Batman had been active for some months and the police didn't know he was real until the Axis Chemicals incident and Returns Catwoman was never a hooker like in Year One and would be confusing to do another movie Catwoman so soon after Mchelle Pfeiffer.

reply

I believe he said he did because he didn't like making them.

reply

He could've said no in making them, looking back I'm not sure why WB wanted him in the first place when none of his films are what you consider kid's films or adventure films.

reply

At that point, he came off as "super gay" and didn't seem like the type of person who would be able to grasp what Batman means, and he couldn't!

I don't understand how Hollywood can make such bad decisions.

reply

It's always best to go with an auteur or a young hot shot director to take on a superhero movie.

A lot of people scapegoat Schumacher just because he come across as flamboyant and effeminate. He just seems like somebody who doesn't take himself seriously and is light years behind with everyone else.

reply

Effeminate males tend to only be interested in themselves and aren't good for much.

If I was in Hollywood and I saw anything he was doing on these movies and it would have been game over for him.

reply

He was probably only hired because he was more of a studio friendly guy than anything.

Think coming off as flamboyant and effeminate isn't reassuring that the film is in good hands as just attracting ridicule and homophobes, maybe ok if it was a minor actor or crew member but when it's the director himself it's not much inducing faith in them as inducing eye rolls.

reply

Different types of people have different interests.

I haven't met any gay men into action and adventure movies let alone understand the ethical stuff that makes superheroes appealing.

They are sexually focused people, thus their overt behavior, and why a big deal was made about nipples on the costumes. Pathetic.

reply

Well in all fairness the studio was pressuring him into making a family friendly film that would sell toys

reply

That seems like it could make a certain type of person angry.

Still, you could make a great Batman movie, have it be family friendly, and sell huge numbers of toys. You have to think that your movies are there to make people enjoy life.

reply

Dark and gritty doesn't necessarily mean a great film but I think it would make a more fan pleasing one.

Reason Schumacher's career has endured several flops because he keeps his mouth shut and takes up jobs no one wants.

It's unclear how family friendly automatically means a bad film, the Animated Series was dark without being R rated or a tale of Shakespearean proportions.

reply

All the DC animated shows and films have been very good.

You can easily make a family Batman movie that is worth talking about. What NO BATMAN FILM has done is explore his personality.

He's a guy that was hurt so badly he decided to do all of this work and become Batman. That is a very wild story and I recall stuff like that impressing me when I was a kid.

I was little in the early 70s but I am very smart. I was aware of things going on then like the war, racism, etc. I was even thinking about religious stuff when I was very small. I had to go to the hospital for something and my mom's friends knew I loved comics. They got me BAGS of them!

I will never forget seeing Captain America and Falcon. I saw that they were friends and I was astonished that a black guy and white guy were friends! It literally changed my life because I always remembered that.

These stories can have a very important impact and to make them stupid is a huge waste.

reply

God, you speak some shit.

reply

Meanwhile, you have said nothing.

reply

I don't think he cares about anything he makes, they're just jobs, when people say 8MM is dark it was only he was trying to emulate Se7en with the same writer.

reply

Doesn't make sense, he came out and apologized for Batman and Robin and accepted responsibility for it. He never tried to blame Warner Brothers for it.

reply

He always seems go from saying he wanted to do Year One to it's a comic book or cartoon without any sort of consistency.

reply

I get the impression that Joel Schumacher is essentially what you could call a studio director. What that means is that he's a very pragmatic filmmaker who will do as the studio requests. He will generally produce the safest product possible, which leaves little room for amazing works of art, but still decent and sometimes good films. It's arguable that Schumacher is when you get right down to it, a director in the TV mold in that once you give him a script, and he'll bring you movie on time and on budget. How good the film is depends on the quality of the script. It's unclear that his better films were how much due to his own skill as a director.

With all due respect to Joel Shumacher, he at the end of the day can for the most part, be considered a good director (at least on a technical level), but nothing approaching an auteur or a strong creative presence. I mean a director with more artistic clout would either not take the scripts for the two Batman movies (especially the latter one) or at least greatly alter them into something more than what they were. But it's safe to say that Schumacher bowed to the studio pressure for a more marketable, cartoony film with no regard for making a thoughtful or artsy movie out of the mess.

reply

Totally agree.

reply

Nobody wanted a director whose flamboyant and effeminate to make a Batman film.

reply

I don't think he would've necessarily made a better film without studio meddling but I think he would've made a more fan pleasing one.

I seriously doubt that his Year One would've happened anyway, a third of four movie in all likelihood would've sequels nothing more.

reply