If you look at Lost Boys, Flatliners or Falling Down etc they don't look like the work of the same director. Some people say he could've made B&R better because he made those films and John Grisham but there is this thing going "Yeah but", no one seems to give him any credit for the good of those films, everything he's ever done is so different in quality, style and subject matter.
shareExactly, which is why at the time he was attached I was like yea this could be good. Problem is he does not respect comic books as a medium. To him, they are kids stuff and camp. He more or less says that directly on the commentaries with his flippant remarks about not being serious in a comic film, it's not a tragic book, you can't have a real disease in a comic book, etc.
If I didn’t talk the way I talk I wouldn’t know who the hell I am, Sean Connery on his accent
His remarks makes it feel like he's a few generations behind or trying too hard to be kid friendly, he talks to the audience like 5 year olds. Even through there was pressure to be kid friendly after Batman Returns it feels like Schumacher went hogwild like he's years behind with the young generation of fans or just doesn't take the material seriously. It's a lesson that you should only make a movie that you care about.
The opposite happens in his post B&R films where he's trying to prove he's not a campy director to the point of being too dark and gritty.
It's no mystery Schumacher screwed up his reputation due to his stupid remarks about comic books.
Even through there was pressure to be kid friendly after Batman Returns it feels like Schumacher went hogwild like he's years behind with the young generation of fans or just doesn't take the material seriously.
Beyond him saying he wanted to do Year One ( not that it mattered f he did it) he comes off as being more into the campy Batman from the 40's,50's and 60's. If his Batman films were suppose to be Adam West inspired why have semi serious stuff like Alfred dying, Robin's parents dying? the dark elements of Forever like Batman's repressed memories are mostly due to the original script.
Schumacher doesn't do or say anything constant, he always switch from one way of addressing or discussing something to the next.
And him saying he wanted to do Year One made it sound like he was a few installments behind to where people are with the series, because 89 film was his first year as Batman and Returns already had Catwoman.
shareI'm not sure he would've made it any better without studio meddling as said he just comes off as somebody who's stuck in the silver age of comic books.
It's the director's job to have a strong vision and see it through, make it their own, the studio is always gonna push it in a way that's demeaning to the film and it's the director's job to push back, if the director doesn't push back and fight to make a quality film or walk away from the project then it becomes a crappy story. No mystery Schumacher screwed up his reputation due to his own stupidity of letting his employers tell him what to do.
In spite of his supposed love for year one, he sounds like he just knows comics from what he read as a kid, if that. Like a lot of film makers he's stuck in the past of those characters, but he takes it irreverently to boot.
it's not a tragic book, you can't have a real disease in a comic book, etc.
I'll give you "The Lost Boys" and "Flatliners". I even liked "8MM" (despite Nicolas Cage). And I'll admit that there may be another decent title or two. I didn't like "Falling Down" because the protagonist is portrayed as an everyman who finally snaps under the weight of everyday pressure, only to find out that the cheese fell off his cracker a long, long time ago.
So yeah, there's been some alright-ers. But even taking "Batman & Robin" out of Schumacher's cinematic rolodex, one doesn't have to flip through too many titles before one finds a card of pure, unadulterated, 24-carat suckiness, almost as unbearably bad as "B&R", in the form of "ST. ELMO'S FIRE"!
I'm sorry but when you've got two of the worst movies ever made in your repertoire, it trumps any accomplishments you might have otherwise made.
All his stuff range from good to mediocre to awful, the reason why his career suffered through so many ups and downs because he keeps his moth shut and lets his employers tell him what to do, lets the actors play the roles as they would or how they want and shoots the script as it is, he doesn't put anything personal into them.
People who like his genre films are going to be put off by his melodramas, ones who like his edgier films are gonna be turned off by his mainstream blockbusters. He doesn't have an audience who knows what to expect like other Batman directors like Burton, Nolan and Snyder for one he doesn't have a style of his own.
Issue is he's more of a studio for hire guy, he just does what his employers tell him to do, shoots the script the way it is, just lets the actors play the roles how they would or how they want, he doesn't put anything personal into his films. All the reasons why his career suffered through so many flops and forgotten films.
shareAt times it feels like he tries to blame shift how his Batman films turned out, by trying to prove he's not a campy director or go on about Year One.
shareA lot of good directors go into very different subject matter and even styles. Schumacher will probably be most identified, negatively, with Batman but I think a lot of people do give him credit for the Grishams, Phone Booth and TPotO plus his earlier films.
shareYeah but he's not what you would call an auteur or a big name or celebrated filmmaker.
There's nothing about him for geeks to grasp onto. He works best at small scale films, when he's given flashy or lighthearted material he goes off point like trying too hard to be humorous like his Batman films or the Lost Boys.