Why is Joel Schumacher still to blame? - Batman & Robin (1997) Discussion

[–] MickyMac (3254) 7 years ago

All the fanboy hate towards him is all about him as person. He's always trying to come off as trying to be cool, all his interviews and audio commentaries reek of seeking approval. I always found Schumacher difficult to look at with his half open eyes and high eyebrows and difficult listen too because every word from his mouth is a pathetic joke.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 7 years ago

When Batman & Robin first came about, the internet was around but it was still in its relative infancy. In other words, I doubt that many film-goers were fully aware of the goings on behind the scenes (like why Val Kilmer was replaced by George Clooney as Bruce Wayne). There wasn't any social media yet (at the time, it was really big deal when Ain't It Cool News reported on it being bad) so the behind the scenes information that people got relegated to the trade magazines or what we saw on Entertainment Tonight/Extra/Access Hollywood.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

true.

the internet wasnt much for me till much much later.

reply

[–] sanrain (74) 6 years ago

He made a terrible film. No one complains Forever the way they did this. He could have made a good movie with this stakes. Giving barbara story, selecting bad villains and actors. Director could still make a good toy selling movie. When u compare this, Forever seemed good.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Just because he was following studio orders didn't mean he had to make a terrible movie. I don't think it being dark and gritty would've necessarily lead to a better film but I think it would make a more fan pleasing one.

reply

[–] sanrain (74) 6 years ago

Yes I agree. Even if studio demanded he could have still made a better toy selling movie compared to trash he made.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Shows he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and many years behind regards to trends or simply trying too hard.

Him saying he wanted to do Year One felt like he was seeking approval, nobody cares if he did Year One it wasn't like it was the most obvious choice to go after Returns or a story that fans desperately wanna see on the screen, so didn't matter to anyone other than to him it would seem.

I don't think he cares about anything he makes, they're just jobs.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

I think that there were simply as the old saying goes "too many cooks in the kitchen"! Warner Bros. seemed to be more concerned with how much merchandise they could sell before they were concerned whether or not people would truly like the movie. They if you ask me, fell in a spot of complacency.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Not sure why they wanted Schumacher in the first place when they wanted a kid's film when none of Schumacher's films are like kid's films or action adventure films.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

Well, think about it this way, Richard Donner hasn't directed a lot of "kids' movies" (outside of The Goonies) in his career, and yet that didn't stop him from making a pretty good Superman movie (before that he directed The Omen). Also, keep in mind that action-adventure movies weren't exactly Tim Burton's forte. Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice were really more like quirky, black comedies then action-adventure movies.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11349) 6 years ago

Blame is never placed where it should be: on the producers and the studio. Joel is who he is and he was hired to direct a script he was given. They wanted a nutty movie they got one. You don't fire the painter for painting your house the color you told him to.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Most of the blame on Joel is an attack of him as a person because of him being flamboyant and effeminate. Always found him difficult to listen and to look at, he makes every word from his mouth sound pretentious.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Most of the blame on Joel is an attack of him as a person because of him being flamboyant and effeminate. Always found him difficult to listen and to look at, he makes every word from his mouth sound pretentious.

I'm confused by your comment.

I agree with the first part. There is a homophobic subtext to some of the criticisms levelled at Schumacher over his Batman films (and I say that as someone who would have dearly preferred another Burton Batman film over the two Schumacher films we ended up with). But you then process to say he's 'difficult to listen and to look at' and that he sounds 'pretentious'.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Well he does come across as somebody who doesn't take himself seriously.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

I don't think Joel cares about the films he makes they're just jobs, he isn't like an auteur or a young hotshot director.

Fans wanted a sequel with Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face and with a returning Michael Keaton.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11349) 6 years ago

I disagree completely. His filmography is filled with celebrated and incredible movies that feature amazing detail and technique and convey powerful themes dealing with the nature of humanity.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It's a shame we didn't get a Batman film from Schumacher anywhere near as good as, say, The Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, or Tigerland.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

I don't think his filmography necessarily means he would've made a better film but a more fan pleasing one.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11349) 6 years ago

You mean like, How did the guy who made Lost Boys and Falling Down mess up a Batman movie?? haha. Yeah.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

He's not an auteur like most Batman directors or a big name filmmaker, nobody really associates with many of his none Batman films because they're so different in style, budget, quality and subject matter, none of them look like the work of the same director.

Year One doesn't look like the most obvious way to go after Returns for one half of the stuff in it like the police seeing Batman for the first time and meeting Catwoman for the first time and it's a bit time worn to do a Batman film where he only fights ordinary criminals. A reboot or prequel can't happen just because the director wants to. There has to be more than two Batman films in the first place to do something like a prequel. Outside of the comic book world there's little or no good reason to do a prequel.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/b8vn1a/batman_batman_returns_batman_forever_and_batman/ek0zgox/

I would honestly put more of the blame for Batman Forever and Batman and Robin on Akiva Goldsman

Joel Schumacher has at least shown that he can make good films like A Time To Kill although Goldsman did adapt the Grisham novel but tbh its not hard when the novel was good in the first place.

He also made Phone Booth which although is dated, is very interesting and unique because of how its more or less a one location film and everything happens in realtime.

Also did Phantom of the Opera and Falling Down too.

Whereas Goldsman has relied more on his directors to make the few good films he has to his name like A Beautiful Mind.

Also the people who came up with the story for Batman Forever and Batman and Robin have only done one major film since then and that was Pompeii with Paul WS Anderson.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/b8vn1a/batman_batman_returns_batman_forever_and_batman/ek15vre/

Yeah I put the big blame of Joel's movies on Goldsman being a hack and on Joel not really caring about the source material or comic books in general to insist on better writing.

And even then, I understand why a director like that would look down on comics in the 90s. It was a different time.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

"Yeah I put the big blame of Joel's movies on Goldsman being a hack and on Joel not really caring about the source material or comic books in general to insist on better writing.

And even then, I understand why a director like that would look down on comics in the 90s. It was a different time."

It's always best to go with the newer approach when doing a superhero movie. And it's best to hire an auteur or a young hot shot director to make a superhero movie.

Schumacher may have made good films but doesn't have the clout of Burton, Nolan or Matt Reeves, pretty much light years behind with the likes of them, from beyond him claiming he wanting to do Year One Schumacher comes across as someone who doesn't take himself seriously and somebody who is out of touch with modern audiences.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

In fairness, Joel Schumacher has gone on record in saying that when he was hired to direct Batman Forever, he thought that he was going to work with Michael Keaton. But as we all know, Keaton didn't want to do business with Schumacher so they needed to find a new actor.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

I think that it's an awfully ignorant assumption to say that any director doesn't at all care about the films that they make (unless of course, it wasn't totally they're vision and was meddled to hell and back). Of course, filmmakers want to make the best movie possible. I've never heard of a director who intentionally tried to make as shitty of a job as possible just for the sake of a paycheck.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

I refuse to believe they forced to do a piss poor job of it because of the parents, also refuse to believe that Schumacher would've done a better job without studio meddling the first film was massively successfully so lighting was not gonna strike in the same place twice and there's plenty of really dark Batman stories that are completely mediocre.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

I think that if you want to blame somebody for the direction that the Batman movie took, then we also have to lay it on the hands of Tim Burton. Had Batman Returns not generated so much controversy and was as well regarded as the 1989 Batman film, then we probably wouldn't be talking about Joel Schumacher in the first place.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

If Returns had been a direct continuation and not a generic Tim Burton movie things could've been different.

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

Schumacher was too flamboyant and effeminate to make a Batman film.

reply

[–] TMC-4 (20488) 6 years ago

What the hell went wrong with Joel Schumacher's Batman?

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/byr1un/what_the_hell_went_wrong_with_joel_schumachers/

For years, I always gave him shit by discounting him as a director based off his work on the two Batman movies, Batman & Robin specifically. But as I got older, I started to watch his movies prior to Batman and after.

St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, Flatliners, A Time To Kill, Phone Booth, Falling Down are all great movies.

Joel Schumacher is a pretty damn good director.

If you think about it... and if you watch Phone Booth and Falling Down prior to watching his first Batman movies, you would really think he'd do a great job with a deep, rich character like Batman. None of his films have as much neon and a funky aesthetic as his two Batman movies. Along with that, Joel Schumacher has said in the past, he's a huge Batman fan and went as far as to reference him in The Lost Boys. The direction and atmosphere of that seemed like he would be a pretty perfect candidate for Batman.

So personally, who was to blame for Batman's reception? His movie pretty much wasted Tommy Lee Jones as an actor and fucked up his Two-Face (which he was perfect for), and the direction of the movie felt wayyyy off for a Batman movie. But there are some compelling arcs that seemed thrown away in favor of stupid shit such as Bruce Wayne's inner debate whether he should be Batman forever, going deep into the psychology (mind you, this hasn't been done before on film)... and cut out what I think is one of the best scenes in a Batman movie. That makes me to think it was WB is to blame...

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

His body of work is nowhere as recognisable as other Batman directors due to being different in quality, style, budget and subject matter.

All of the fan hatred of him is more of an attack of him as a person because of him being flamboyant and effeminate.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

What are you talking about? You sound like a bot, constantly repeating the same line about him being flamboyant and effeminate. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm saying you literally sound like a bot, that is how they post

Most fans, or moviegoers in general, do not know anything about how a director looks or acts. Most general audiences don't go out of their way to watch director interviews. I'm a movie buff and am aware of Schumacher's sexuality, yet have never bothered to watch him in an interview

A director can act effeminate in real life and still make masculine films. Bryan Singer is super gay and none of his X-Men films have been super flamboyant. Roland Emmerich directed Independence Day, which is a fairly macho movie

A flamboyant gay man can make a good Batman film, they just need a good script, a studio that only cares about selling action figures, and yes, less homoerotic subtext

reply

[–] MickyMac (3254) 6 years ago

I don't think B&R being dark and gritty would've necessarily lead to a better film but I think it would've made a more fan pleasing one.

He does say it's a comic book a lot which does attract ridicule, it's like saying the same thing if you were making a Disney film, it's one thing if it's coming from audience members but when it comes from the director himself it isn't so much reassuring it's in good hands as inducing eye rolls.

Him being flamboyant can attract homophobes which must've contributed to him being scapegoated.

reply