Would anyone but a hack or weakling go along with it?
People like Tim Burton and Michael Keaton would want to make a film their way if not just walk away. Schumacher is someone who just say yes regardless, doesn't really care about whatever projects he's given they're just jobs, he usually takes up gigs nobody wants.
Can't see Tim Burton or someone like Sam Raimi wanna make a two hour toy commercial because they're the types who would fight to make a quality final product.
shareI don't know guy, but I don't think commercial is a toyetically transmitted disease.
Can't, I'm afraid. Matinee of Le Miz. Christ, I'll call you.
Come glynis23-282-577521, your joke was amusing but it had one fatal flaw: Burton is such a dork, such a spineless lightweight, now if you'd said Nolan or Singer. Otherwise your joke was amusing. Now if you'll excuse me.
Can't, I'm afraid. Matinee of Le Miz. Christ, I'll call you.
But unlike Burton, Nolan or Singer Schumacher is not an auteur or a big name director or a celebrated filmmaker and doesn't have a following who knows what to expect.
shareHohoho, what about Lost Boys, honey? Doesn't that affect us too? I mean, don't you know anything about The Lost Boys, how like the fans were bitching tons over the sequel?
Can't, I'm afraid. Matinee of Le Miz. Christ, I'll call you.
Lost Boys was the only film he was at the right place at the right time.
shareno any one who signed a contract that says they have to make the movie would have to make the movie an what the studio says goes if burton would have been signed to director he to would have had to make this
shareBut doesn't mean they have to do a real screw up job of it.
Burton is the type of director who would want to make a film his way or if not leave as you see with post Batman Returns.
Reason why Schumacher's career has a few instances of success and endured several flops is he just does what others want or take up jobs nobody wants.
he diddnt screw it up this is the film the studio wanted thats the point everything you see in this film is what the studio wanted an forced the director to put in the studio had the toy company come on set an design the very vehicles they use lol burton diddnt tell the studio to eat it an leave lol the studio made him leave he came to them an said he has ideas for the next one an they said suck it an told him to leave the only reason batman returns became what it did was because the studio diddnt take control an force burton to make the movie they wanted it wasnt because burton is some bad ass who said im doing it my way what happened was the first was a huge hit an they said we trust you you can have full control over the sequel that was it then when number 3 came along the studio had control an they wanted a more light hearted film because the majority hated returns they even forced the director of batman forever to take scenes out that made it darker then when it was a hit they forced him to make batman and robin how they wanted
shareBut if the intent was to make a kid'd film why put in homoerotic undertones like the nipples and codpieces and giant male statues everywhere.
Schumacher doesn't necessarily feel like a guy who was under pressure or was against studio preferences, he goes from claiming he wanted to do Year One to "it's a comic book not a tragic book, it's a cartoon" which questions if he was really under pressure or just went hogwild with what he's given.
Think you should only make a movie that you care about otherwise it won't turn out great.
the cod piece stuff an all that was just a carry over from the last film that was the director but all the cars an gadgets an story was all the studio its a film that is considered a kids film but the studio told the director even when they started that the film is being made to sell toys they were hoping that kids would buy all the toys made from the film an that would be how they made a profit they told him they were making a 2 hour toy commercial they even told him make it toyetic also the homoerotic stuff was honestly mostly people who are homophobic getting upset cause they dont want there fav superheros associated with anything gay the only thing that felt homo erotic was the close up of batmans ass at the start an any one could very well say that is for the women lol the whole nipples on the batsuit complaint is just stupid that was started from prudish americans who are scared of any thing remotly representing the human body like barley shown nipples lol no body would have noticed them if parent groups haddnt pointed them out burtons idea for the third was a return of catwoman robin in a small role with the ending hinting at him joining batman an the riddler as the main villain with a question mark shaved in his head with a pet mouse it would have been another gothic batman like returns
shareDirector was behind all the stupid casting choices, stunt casting actors just because they were popular, everyone overacted or underacted.
Just because they were told to make it toyetic didn't mean they had to do such a piss poor job of it. It's still possible to make a quality film out of it. They could've a better written script to hide the fact they were making a toy commercial.
Funny thing is half the toys don't look like anything from the film.
The Animated Series was made at the same time and was able to appeal to kids without turning into a bad comedy.
you do realize there is no way to make a good batman movie thats meant to be a toy commerical the movie you got is what the studio wanted thats what they told him to make the casting is also what the studio wanted yes the director picked them but the studio also wanted those actors everything about this movie is from the studio the animated seriers was based from tim burtons show not batman an robin those are two totally different things again batman an robin was meant only to sell toys it was a commercial not a movie batman the animated series is a very serious show like the dark batman movies it wasnt really a kids show but kids liked it because it was mature i feel you think a great director could have made a better movie from this but the answer is no the movie you got is an all ways will be the movie the studio wanted every director would have had to make this film or they would have been fired also again this isnt a movie its what the studio said its a commerical your trying to put blame on the director when the entire thing was an is the studio they wanted a toy commerical they even said they wanted the movie made just to sell the toys that were in it there is no way to make a better script to hide anything this movie was trying to do i dont think you get it everything about this film is what the studio wanted they wanted a weak script they wanted those actors its all what they wanted the script was weak because the studio diddnt care about the story they just wanted to sell toys thats the only reason this film exists
shareDo you know why people blame the director? all he ever comes across as is a showy douchebag, every word from his mouth is nothing but a pathetic joke, he's always trying to come off as the cool guy when he isn't. He has the kind of face I wanna thump. You don't come off like that if you were under studio pressure.
Only a bunch of hacks would do a toy commercial, Schumacher doesn't care about anything he makes they're just gigs. If a director does not say no and walk away from a project thats forced to be something then it becomes a crappy story.
Unlike most Batman directors Schumacher doesn't have a style of his own and isn't the type who would want to make it his own, he usually takes up jobs no wants.
The whole forced to make it bad is utter BS, in all likelihood it was gonna be a disaster given the rushed nature of the production. Nobody sets out to make one of the world films in history and stall the Batman franchise, they simply misinterpreted what made Forever a success.
Don't think Schumacher & Co would've made it any better.
Will you but commas and full stops.
people all ways blame the director when its actually the studio it happens all the time also the people that blame the director are usually people who do no research an see who the real person to blame is the bottom line is simple the studio makes the rules an you give them what they want thats really all there is to it
shareWho cares.
There always a limit to what you wanna do, when your doing a DC or Marvel movie there really isn't gonna be much creative control for one fear of straying away from the source material.
Reason why people still blame Schumacher because of how he comes across as a person and a filmmaker, a lot of the time he's trying too hard to be hip and cool, which is problematic because it's all that people are gonna see not a genius.
1993 -1997 was the era of the romantic comedy and toy related films, on anther thread a poster pointed out 1997 had a lot of action adventure films that didn't take themselves too seriously.
i dont know any one who blames him for batman an robin anymore i dont know anyone who even cares about that movie anymore its been forgotten by most except as a memory of a joke its brought up but no body really cares they just laugh about it as for limits no a director makes what the studio wants everything you saw in that film is what the studio wanted or asked for again if you refuse you are fired every director has been in this situation an every one of them has done the same thing pleased the studio theres nothing more to it then that if a director keeps refusing to give the studio what they wanted or trys to not take it as far as they want they will either be fired or wont get that many jobs from other studios because they wont want to work with someone who wont listen
shareWill you stop defending him, all he is a flamboyant douche bag or do you like somebody like that at the helm?
Better be fire or quit, filmmakers quit or replace all the time you moron, if one can't do give it to someone else you idiot.
sure being fired or quitting is fine if you want to loose money but thats not the real world an holly wood is a business an in reality you would be black balled very quick for that also what are you even talking about which style of batman you prefer is up to each persons taste as for him as a person hes a very nice man an even if he was a douche bag that has nothing to do with his talent as a film maker
shareKeaton said no to a third outing learning the direction, so people have a right to turn down a project. Some have walked without being blacklisted and had successful runs elsewhere. Everyone involved in Forever and B&R are mixed bags with people and some of them have had their careers ruined because of how B&R.
Schumacher is really a mixed bag and why his career endured several flops because he keeps his mouth shut and is too much of a studio friendly guy. He's at his his best at small scale films dealing with real world issues, for some reason whenever he's big budget or flashy material he goes off point like he's many years behind or trying too hard. From studio pressure Schumacher just across as somebody who is really a step behind with everyone else.
You should put pronunciations.
keaton said no due to his payment he was still coming back but he turned it down due to him wanting higher pay an in return keatons carrear was utter crap in every year prior an he knows it an everyone will tell you it was as well it wasnt until birdman a random surprise hit that he finally came back an thats the way it would go for every one else the only way this works for any one in holly wood is if they only want to make independent an low budget films for a majority of there carrear an thats not what most actors want again its buisness welcome to the world
shareWith Batman & Robin, I just think that Joel Schumacher's scope was too broad. In other words, he and Akiva Goldsman's script tried to do way too much at once.
There's naturally, setting up two separate backstories for the villains just like in Forever, there's the fan-service like inclusion of Bane, there's Robin's growing jealousy/resentment of Batman, there's the introduction of Barbara/Batgirl, there's the subplot involving Alfred's illness, and there's the whole mess involving Bruce's fear of commitment to Julie Madison.
It's like Schumacher and company had all of these rather half-baked, cookie cutter ideas and threw them in a blender.
this is much better than the first batman
shareI would like to guess that with Batman Forever, Joel Schumacher took the job seriously or decidedly more seriously. This can explain why Forever still has an inkling of sophistication and depth/substance/weight (a good amount of material deleted for length). With Batman & Robin, Schumacher must have totally given into making a movie to sell merchandise. As a result, he treated the whole project as more of a joke.
share