... then I can't understand how you could dislike this film. If this were made in the 60's with Adam West and Burt Ward it would have been the best Batman film without changing a single part of the script. To me this film is all about expectations, if you expect Nolan you'll hate it, if you expect campy 60's Batman then it's just as good as anything from that era.
Similar brand of goofiness, I agree.
shareWell, actually considering the time a movie was made MAY be a good criteria to look when making a judgement about it.
But in the case of Batman & Robin, even by 60s standards this is an absolute POS. There is not many movies that I thought were painful to watch but this is definitely one of them. I won't even start with pointing out everything that didn't work with it, I think everything had been said.
And no I didn't watch the 66's version with Adam West but it comes in any way close to this picture, well even for the time it would be total garbage.
The 66 show was a campy joke, it wasn't actually any good.
shareThey're both camp, but the TV show was broad, deliberate camp from beginning to end, while "B&R" was only partially camp.
Uma Thurman was the only actor who realized it couldn't be anything but camp and played it up, the rest of the cast didn't have a clue. It's one of the reasons I like her.
But that show wasn't good. I watched it as a kid because it was like a silly cartoon, but even then it was just barely passable as childish timekilling. The show was more of a joke than anything else.
shareMe and my brother loved it as kids. Corny/camp comedy was popular at the time.
I hated the comics because it was targeted at older people and too serious.
I don't entirely understand the comparisons between this movie and the old Batman TV series. Adam West's take on Batman had such an earnestness about it. He never to the best of my recollection, gave too much of the impression that he was waste deep or smugly in on the joke (or winking and nodding to the audience) or that we were supposed to be laughing with him. Basically, West took the role seriously even though what was going on around him and what he had to react to was silly and ridiculous.
To me the script read out like the 60's series but like @Otter stated, which I agree with, Uma Thurman is the only one who played it up to that degree...I mean jeez with those lines what else can you do? Without looking at it that way, she becomes the biggest distraction besides batman's nips.
shareAlso, the world on the '60s TV series was set up in such a way, that the decidedly campy and goofy moments worked. What I mean is that the show had its own internal logic and set or rules. Like when the rubber shark is on Adam West's leg, it's easy to go along with that and digest it. When George Clooney pulls out the bat-credit card, it absolutely makes no sense (what I mean is, why would Batman need such a thing otherwise) other than to set up a cheap American Express joke.
shareTo be honest, I haven't seen that movie since the 90's so I'm sure it would be far more annoying and misplaced to me now... although I find it hard to take ANYTHING with Arnold in it serious lol...
There's camp and then there's "camp". The 60s show was like a soap series, it's serious but it's still able to poke fun at itself. This movie was hella meta and went over-the-top in every way. Also, you can't just change the tone of a series. It started out entirely different with the Tim Burton movies.
shareI don't think it's based on the 60's Batman at all, it's more of a botch cut and paste from different eras.
shareFrankly I can't stand the goofy 60s Batman show so I don't like this or Forever that much. Rather watch the 2 Tim Burton ones, Batman TAS from the 90s, or the first 2 Nolan Batman movies.
share