Believe me, it's ruined. Keaton left because Burton left(unless it was the other way around), which they did because the studio heads wanted a product closer to the Adam West series and these two were totally against it. So when they left, Schumacher promised to give the idiots in the front office what they wanted, and then did so. He worked his way into it, as Batman Forever isn't half as bad as Batman and Robin(not even a quarter in my book), but it was there from the outset with the neon and the over the top action, and the outrageous science(science? really? there was science?).
Worst Third Superhero Movie
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I must admit, I always viewed BF as a bit of a lite-reboot. As has been pointed out, it has the same Alfred, Gordon and the Catwoman reference. However, Bruce/ Batman are very different characters, Gotham looks entirely different and the whole tone of the series is radically different. Certainly, it's impossible to imagine that the campy B&R is in the same continuity as Burton's grim first movie and you can't imagine that Clooney's grinning playboy is the same man as Keaton's tortured oddball.
I suppose it's a bit like the difference between the Connery and Moore 007 movies - they are perhaps meant to share a similar background or loose continuity but it's impossible to imagine Connery wearing a safari suit and waggling his eyebrows through the increasingly silly adventures of the Moore era.
Honestly, it makes as much sense to claim that Batman Returns is a reboot from the first Batman. There are as many stylistic differences between those two movies as there are between the Burton & Schumacher movies.
Honestly, if we start claiming that series reboot every time there's a change in direction, quality or casting, or there's a minor continuity glitch, there won't be any "series" left.
Even though the Batman films suffered as we went from Burton to Schumacher, they were clearly intended to be in the same series . . . and that's certainly how they were perceived by the studio and the general public. You had the same theme music, the same Batmobile, the same supporting cast, etc. Nobody was talking "reboot" back in 1995 when the third movie came out. The whole world thought of it as BATMAN III.
Seriously, does anyone really think that BATMAN FOREVER was not conceived, produced, and marketed as BATMAN III? Just because the Schumacher films were inferior to the Burton films doesn't mean they weren't the same series. Most film series go through cast changes, personnel changes, and dips in quality.
Is SON OF FRANKENSTEIN a "reboot" because it wasn't directed by James Whale and isn't quite as good as the first two films? Of course not. It's the third film in the old Universal FRANKENSTEIN series.
As opposed to, say, BATMAN BEGINS, which was obviously meant to represent a clean break from the previous cycle.
Even though the Batman films suffered as we went from Burton to Schumacher, they were clearly intended to be in the same series . . . and that's certainly how they were perceived by the studio and the general public. You had the same theme music, the same Batmobile, the same supporting cast, etc. Nobody was talking "reboot" back in 1995 when the third movie came out. The whole world thought of it as BATMAN III.
Seriously, does anyone really think that BATMAN FOREVER was not conceived, produced, and marketed as BATMAN III? Just because the Schumacher films were inferior to the Burton films doesn't mean they weren't the same series. Most film series go through cast changes, personnel changes, and dips in quality.
Is SON OF FRANKENSTEIN a "reboot" because it wasn't directed by James Whale and isn't quite as good as the first two films? Of course not. It's the third film in the old Universal FRANKENSTEIN series.
As opposed to, say, BATMAN BEGINS, which was obviously meant to represent a clean break from the previous cycle.
Last edited:
Well, I'd say X-Men is a series but all 20-something Bond movies are not. We mostly all agree with both of those, right?
So we clearly have very good examples on both sides of the divide. I don't think that debating the stuff in the middle suddenly means X-Men or James Bond ceases to exist.
So where does that leave Singer-Superman and Schumacher-Batman? Somewhere in the middle, I'd say. Whether they go left or right is debatable, sure. I'm not saying I'm 100% right. But I don't believe either of those are so far to one side or the other that it's pointless to even talk about it.
The Batmobile was not the same. (Pretty much the only thing the same was the windshield shape.) That's all I'm saying...I think you're remembering connections that weren't there. The link may not be as strong as you remember.
Clearly there ARE connections...but are they enough? Was having the same 'Q' enough to link the Bond films? There's a certain threshold that must be passed. Just having a few details the same isn't enough in my book.
Well, WB definitely viewed Batman Forever as the third film in the series. They wanted Michael Keaton to return but he said no. They kept as many actors as they could in the supporting roles. When Joel Schumacher came onboard, he actually wanted to do a reboot or prequel with an adaptation of Batman: Year One but according to Schumacher, WB wanted a sequel and not a prequel.
(Interestingly enough, WB would later go the prequel/reboot route with first commissioning Batman: Year One just without Schumacher)
Nicole Kidman said at the time of Forever that she was under the impression from the studio that they wanted to view the Batman series as like James Bond, where you could keep the same sense of (loose) continuity but change actors every now and then. I think the Bond comparison is apt. The lighter, campier tone was mandated by the studio and films like Flatliners and The Lost Boys prove that Schumacher could have done a dark Batman movie had he been allowed to. Schumacher was essentially following orders with the campy tone of his films.
So I view the first four films with a sort of loose continuity like the James Bond series. People tend to forget that with every new Bond we got a stylistic change, not unlike the stylistic change we got from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney. The Moore films were campier than the occasionally more serious Connery films, the Dalton films were grittier and more down-to-earth than the Moore films, and the Brosnan films were a mixture of the Connery and Moore era of seriousness and lightheartedness.
(Interestingly enough, WB would later go the prequel/reboot route with first commissioning Batman: Year One just without Schumacher)
Nicole Kidman said at the time of Forever that she was under the impression from the studio that they wanted to view the Batman series as like James Bond, where you could keep the same sense of (loose) continuity but change actors every now and then. I think the Bond comparison is apt. The lighter, campier tone was mandated by the studio and films like Flatliners and The Lost Boys prove that Schumacher could have done a dark Batman movie had he been allowed to. Schumacher was essentially following orders with the campy tone of his films.
So I view the first four films with a sort of loose continuity like the James Bond series. People tend to forget that with every new Bond we got a stylistic change, not unlike the stylistic change we got from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney. The Moore films were campier than the occasionally more serious Connery films, the Dalton films were grittier and more down-to-earth than the Moore films, and the Brosnan films were a mixture of the Connery and Moore era of seriousness and lightheartedness.
That's true. The changes just seem more extreme in the Batman movies because they were compressed to under a decade.
Are you sure?
I've seen interviews with Shulmaker and he said the only Batman he knew was from the 60's TV show. He's never seen or read any other version of Batman, so he wanted his films to reflect what he knew of Batman. He never said he was following orders, he said it was his choice.
Actually, you had different theme music - Elliot Goldenthal replaced Danny Elfman and brought in a different theme. The Batsuit and Batmobile were different, while the supporting cast you refer to was comprised solely Gough and Hingle (Alfred & Gordon). Precisely twice as many as returned from Die Another Day to Casino Royale (Judi Dench).
I do agree that everyone thought of it as Batman III - but then again, many people were describing Batman Begins as a prequel to the previous 4 movies. I agree also that the term reboot wasn't floating about in connection with that movie. But like I say, given all the ways in which it differs from its predecessors (especially the dark-as-night Returns), I view it as a 'reboot lite.'
The licensors definitely wanted a lighter, more kid-friendly sequel. I used to attend ToyFair regularly, and, trust me, the toy manufacturers were NOT happy about how dark and disturbing BATMAN RETURNS was . . . . and they let Warner Bros. know it.
Do toy manufacturers dictate to movies studios what films to make so they can sell toys?
I thought the toys sold well for Batman Returns?
One of the producers of the BATMAN films later admitted that, by BATMAN & ROBIN, the merchandising was driving the movies, and the films had basically turned into two-hour toy commercials. This was mistake, he conceded.
And I'm not sure exactly how the BATMAN RETURNS merchandise sold, but I remember that parents complained that the film was "inappropriate" for the kids buying the Happy Meals and such. There was a whole big stink about it.
And I'm not sure exactly how the BATMAN RETURNS merchandise sold, but I remember that parents complained that the film was "inappropriate" for the kids buying the Happy Meals and such. There was a whole big stink about it.
I'm completely sure. Schumacher wanted to direct Batman: Year One and make it gritty but WB wanted a lighter and campier approach. I believe Schumacher talks about the studio wanting to make a lighter movie on the Batman Forever anthology special edition commentary/behind-the-scenes.
I also believe he talks about the studio's desire to do a sequel and not a prequel on there as well, but I could be mistaken. I know he's said that elsewhere, though.
Even though Wikipedia isn't the most reliable, they do source other links to this information, and I remember seeing those links before...
Click here for more.
Plus, as others have said, there was a severe backlash after Batman Returns, which was incredibly morose and dark. Daniel Waters, the writer of the film, said that he saw crying kids leave the theaters with their angry parents. McDonald's and other toy merchandising outlets were pretty pissed when parents complained how WB could advertise a movie to kids that was decidedly not for kids.
Personally, I never really bought that Schumacher wanted to direct a film version of Batman: Year One. I think he was just trying to save face by telling the fanboys what he thought we wanted to hear (In my case, that would be, "I will be personally paying back anyone who bought a ticket to this monstrousity and I am now legally prohibited from ever directing anything ever again." But that's just me).
You mean like Dark Knight?
You mean like Dark Knight?
Schumacher is actually a very talented director. His litany of impressive work contrasts with the two Batman films he directed which make me think he was definitely pressured by the studio. I mean, how you go from directing movies like The Lost Boys, Flatliners, A Time to Kill and then direct two flashy, campy films is beyond me. He may never wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One but I definitely think had he been allowed to, he could have delivered a dark Batman film.
Well, WB didn't really market or advertise either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight to kids. I don't remember seeing McDonald's Happy Meals for either film. I think they learned their lesson after Batman Returns. However, we also live in a different time where younger audiences are subjected to more morose subject matter than back in the early 90's. We get blood and guts on shows like CSI and House when twenty years ago (hard to think it's been that along) that stuff would never be allowed on television.
I voted "Superman III"...I think there should be a poll for most disappointing third superhero film of which "Spider-Man 3" would get my vote followed by "X-Men: The Last Stand".
I always thought that Joel was the one who wanted the campy, 60's series equse Batman films, but then I wouldn't be surprised if it was Warner Bros who dictated that either. I think Schumacher would have no problem delivering a dark Batman film if he had wanted/been allowed as well. It's too bad they decided to go camp because I really thought and was excited at the time to see George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Val Kilmer wasn't entirely awful.
I always thought that Joel was the one who wanted the campy, 60's series equse Batman films, but then I wouldn't be surprised if it was Warner Bros who dictated that either. I think Schumacher would have no problem delivering a dark Batman film if he had wanted/been allowed as well. It's too bad they decided to go camp because I really thought and was excited at the time to see George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Val Kilmer wasn't entirely awful.
Val Kilmer was just very wooden. His Batman was all right; his Bruce Wayne was dreadful.
Could he be Mr. Wooden 2?
More's the pity. Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both good films and it's great that they're characterizing Batman well, but I still think it's a shame they're making Batman movies that you can't take a six-year old to.
I thought his Batman was just a poor imitation of Keaton's. He didn't bring anything new to the character, IMO. It's too bad that George Clooney didn't get more of a shot at the role. With the right script and director, I think he could've been great.