You notice B&R kinda copys Forever in terms of the storyline, music, tone.
Films starts with Batman suiting up to fight a villain, second villain that's a scientist, a teenager who comes to join Batman and joins him to fight the villains at the finale, Batman gets a new costume just before the grand finale, and of course the films ends with Batman and Robin running in front of the bat signal.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Watch it back to back with Batman Forever. You'll see that Forever wasn't substantially any better than Batman & Robin.
Forever just did better financially, $336.53 million on a $100 million budget vs. $238.2 million on a $125 million budget for B&R. So the studio didn't care and didn't take a hard look at what Schumacher was doing and if it could be sustained. B&R was hardly a failure, it just thankfully didn't justify taking a chance on a third Schumacher film.
Forever was more popular only because Jim Carrey was a big deal during the mid 1990s. The Riddler was more forgiving a character in terms of cheesy lines than Mister Freeze was. Two Face was utterly butchered in Forever with bad writing and acting just as badly as was Poison Ivy in this film.
Carrey was genuinely funny. Arnold was more like a punchline. Forever didn't exactly resort to puns.
Definitely the villain handling was spot on; one is already terrorizing gotham at the beginning with the 'backstory' shown in one scene later in the film. The second villain is an undervalued scientist more fleshed out.
Even Robin and Batgirl get their starts a similar way; they know Bruce Wayne holds a secret, start snooping around and find their ways to the bat cave, eventually stalking Batman in costume.
Compare that to Burtons two film which were very different with the only plot similarity being Batman using a special bat villain to save Gotham in the end.
I agree that the fast tracking is likely the reason this film was a carbon copy of the first film. I'm not saying an extra year would have saved the film but we would have gotten a diffent plot.
The problem is everyone misinterpreted what made Forever so successful financially. They made it family friendly to the extent that parents weren't boycotting the film like they were in Returns. The goofiness was not the reason, it was one of the weaker points of forever. Take out the goofy lines from everyone other than Carrey (ie. "I'll get drive thru") and add in the deleted scenes and you get a much better film that likely won't make less money. Instead they made the fourth film even more goofy and a parody of the earlier films to the extent that any rational adult or fan of the character would be let down. Making it more 'kiddie' didn't get more kids to go but likely deterred adults.
Also the fast tracking is probably another reason for having the toy companies be involved in design the film so the toys would be out when the film is coming out.
A extra year wouldn't have made the film any better but just with a different involving Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy.
Schumacher & Co thought the wackiness of Forever is what made it a huge success but in reality fans were hoping B&R would've gone a little darker than Forever or a more even tone, since they've fast tracked the production there wasn't a lot of time or thought to think about what worked or didn't work about Forever or listen to what fans thought.
Forever was more popular only because Jim Carrey was a big deal during the mid 1990s. The Riddler was more forgiving a character in terms of cheesy lines than Mister Freeze was. Two Face was utterly butchered in Forever with bad writing and acting just as badly as was Poison Ivy in this film.
Since this script is basically a total retread of BATMAN FOREVER, I guess Freeze = Two Facem Poison Ivy = The Riddler. Real original…
It's a nearly identical formula with different characters. Batgirl is the new Robin essentially. Even Forever somewhat borrows from Batman Returns' formula of the pre-established villain teaming up with a brand-new villain who was previously a meek nerd who has problems with his/her boss.
shareSpeaking of rehash; only saw bits and pieces of "Prometheus," but it was so "Alien," Weaver's 'Ripley' should have been cast! lol!
- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/2012/12/batman-forever.html - -
- http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html - Batman Homage
That's what I've been saying ever since it came out, I feel it's just as cheesy as Forever. For people to accept Forever as good but not this one doesn't make sense. It sure would've been fun to see Tim Burton do all 4 movies.
shareIf you're to ask me what the story for B&R should've been ideally if you wanted Mr Freeze and Batgirl the animated film Batman Sub zero.
shareBatman & Robin was sort of the '90s, superhero movie version of Pierce Brosnan's last James Bond movie, Die Another Day. Both movies are very bloated, embarrassingly cheesy, simultaneously too self-aware and tone-deaf, and virtually a self-parody that still wants to take itself very seriously.
shareIt's one of those franchise instalments Like Terminator Genisys or Dark Fate where people like "No no you fucked it up".
shareThe other day I came across this article on WhatCulture concerning movies that didn't understand what their audiences wanted and of course, Batman & Robin was on the list:
https://whatculture.com/film/10-movies-that-didnt-understand-what-the-fans-wanted?page=7
In the case of Batman & Robin, it seems like Joel Schumacher thought that because Jim Carrey was a big reason why Batman Forever was such a box office success, they needed to double down on the goofiness and silliness. Schumacher even admitted so on the DVD commentary when he was talking about the in his words "fun and games" aspect of the Batman movies. Batman & Robin comes off like a self-parody but it still wants to take itself seriously. So the movie has this weird, bipolar vibe throughout.
I think the bio-polarness came from the contradictions of the producers who didnt know what they wanted and their lack of fire power cast to overcome it.
share