Batman and Robin Blu-ray Director Commentary includes apology to fans

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Most of that can be blamed on the Adam West series, which poisoned the character for over a decade, and which I am now 100% positive WB will never ever allow to be released on DVD for that very reason

Not really. Besides, the old TV show and Movie was some of the better Batman stuff.

I'll certainly take it any day over the current Batman films. Feh!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Most of that can be blamed on the Adam West series, which poisoned the character for over a decade, and which I am now 100% positive WB will never ever allow to be released on DVD for that very reason

Warner Bros would do a killing if they were to release the 60's TV show on DVD. This show was popular in ways you can't even imagine and I am not the only one who would want this little gem release on DVD. The reason it's not out is because of conflict on who owns the right to Batman who belong to WB & CBS FOX owning the TV rights, I think? There is also some issue over the music that was use in some of the episodes if I recall. Overall the rights issue is a real mess and that is the only reason why this series was not release on DVD yet. If you could have seen the line-up to get Adam West autograph last summer at a convention in Toronto you would know what I mean. Believe me that people where having Batman stuff autograph and not Mayor West stuff

[djluis2k6]

So now they can't have comedy in a Batman movie, are people just digging for reasons to dislike these movies or what?

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

So now they can't have comedy in a Batman movie, are people just digging for reasons to dislike these movies or what?

No, they just see Batman as the brooding and serious type.

Take a look at any comics from modern times. You won't see cheesy puns and bad one-liners there. It's dark and serious, generally speaking.

[djluis2k6]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

No, they just see Batman as the brooding and serious type.

Take a look at any comics from modern times. You won't see cheesy puns and bad one-liners there. It's dark and serious, generally speaking.

What came first, the dark comics, or the original TV show with the punching and kicking word effects?

[Meeklo]

They had to put nipples on the suits so Poison Ivy's line "There something about an anatomically correct bat-suit..." would make sense.

[Lyle_JP]

Sure, much of the content of the films rest on his shoulders as the director, but I don't think the abominations that were the last two films (and the temporary death of the Batman franchise) should be blamed solely on Joel. Of course since he's the director, he's the scapegoat, but some forget that Joel is a truly skilled director who's made some good films.

Sorry, just because he's shown occasional evidence of competence doesn't make him suitable as a super-hero movie franchise director. Directors for these kind of films need a clear, cohesive, stylistic vision for the film; they can't just be paint-by-numbers. I don't think the writer/director of D.C. Cab was up to the challenge, frankly.

And why shouldn't he get the blame. It's his name up there. He had the creative control.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

What came first, the dark comics, or the original TV show with the punching and kicking word effects?

The comic started out relatively dark, so I'd have to go with that. Definitely was played straight at the very least.

It didn't start out with absurd humor. That came much later, either shortly before the TV show came out, or shortly after; I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Sorry, just because he's shown occasional evidence of competence doesn't make him suitable as a super-hero movie franchise director. Directors for these kind of films need a clear, cohesive, stylistic vision for the film; they can't just be paint-by-numbers. I don't think the writer/director of D.C. Cab was up to the challenge, frankly.

He proved he can handle it to a degree with Batman Forever. Even if you hate both of his Batman films, I'd certainly think most everyone would agree that Batman Forever is leaps and bounds ahead of Batman & Robin. Hokeyness is kept to a minimum and despite the more "colorful" stylistic look, things are kept reasonably serious. If Batman & Robin had been handled more like Batman Forever had, the film might have been better and they might've gone ahead in that line of continuity.

Maybe we should be THANKING the existence of this film for making the studio go back and do things more right, rather than crapping out a Superman/Batman crossover where all of Bruce's friends are dead and he's getting married or something. I can't believe they seriously were considering doing that film.

And why shouldn't he get the blame. It's his name up there. He had the creative control.

Except that the idea here is that he didn't have control. Something about the studio forcing merchandising on him or some such malarkey.

And again, I stand by the fact that the writing is the primary problem with the feature. The man's direction paired with a less terrible script should have been able to produce a film of entertaining value similar to Batman Forever.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I love to think of Batman & Robin in the same cheesie way as the Batman series of the 60's, fun, cornie but a lighter type of Batman. Trouble was, Warner bros forgot that it was 1998 after 2 darker Batman that most of the older fans loved. While the Batman series worked well for the 60's (and when will we have this masterpiece on DVD Warner?) it would not work in 1998. Different times and even kids are different now, access to more things then kids the same age did not back in the 60's, kids and audiences were just different then, more innocent.

+1 (and I'm tired of hearing how terrible this film is--- I admit it's the
weakest of the series but there are far worse films to rant about over and over again)

[PCiAM]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Sorry, just because he's shown occasional evidence of competence doesn't make him suitable as a super-hero movie franchise director. Directors for these kind of films need a clear, cohesive, stylistic vision for the film; they can't just be paint-by-numbers. I don't think the writer/director of D.C. Cab was up to the challenge, frankly.

And why shouldn't he get the blame. It's his name up there. He had the creative control.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be blamed. I'm saying he shouldn't shoulder all the blame. If you watch the documentary behind Batman & Robin, he explains that the studio wanted a very 'toyetic' movie--meaning stay away from the darker aspect of Burton's films and adopt a more family friendly movie. However, Joel also says in the documentary that he's not blaming anyone because he signed on board and he was the director and went along with it. He pretty much takes responsibility, whether you like him or not. And it was Warner Bros. that wanted to give him the job.

I think the films worked in terms of appealing to young kids, as was intended. I loved both Batman Forever and Batman and Robin when I was a kid yet now I look back at them with disdain. For true Batman historians, these films were not for them, but like I previously said, there have been many different Batman incarnations over the years and even within the comics. I'm not disagreeing that Batman & Robin was a terrible movie. I am saying however that Joel wasn't solely to blame. Some rests upon him, but I think most people put all the blame on him making him a scapegoat. Plus the director doesn't always have 100% creative control. For business reasons, the studio bosses usually have a say. Joel even said in a documentary that he would have liked to do a darker Batman, but the studio wanted something lighter after the darkness of Burton's films, which left some kids crying reportedly. I loved Batman Returns even as a kid, but I could definitely see how some think it's very dark.

The Dark Knight itself was also extremely dark, with some content perhaps questionable for children by some parents. Us adults tend to prefer the mature Batman with the psychological aspects of the character taken seriously, but apparently there's always been an appetite for a lighter, sillier Batman (i.e. the tv series, Batman Forever did very well). Me, I've preferred the darker. Batman The Animated Series was an awesome "cartoon" and Nolan's films are without a doubt masterpieces compared to the others (though I don't think his are without flaws, either).

[PCiAM]

Plus, while Forever and B&R are clearly bad films, I don't think they're unwatchable by any means. I watched Batman & Robin this weekend and had a great time laughing at the badness of it all. I can't help laughing at Mr. Freeze's awful puns and Poison Ivy coming out of the ground in an "omg, is this forreal" kind of way.

[MAPdead]

Well I am glad he can see how bad it was

[pdw1968]

Not all directors have creative control. If you're a Spielberg or Lucas, then yes....but Schumacher seems more like a director-for-hire who probably has to do what the studio dictates.

That being said, I find the rampant hate for B&R tiresome. It's not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's nowhere near the abomination everyone makes it out to be. To each his own.

[Batman1980]

It is what it is, a campy movie with bad acting and cheesy lines. The only thing I really didn't like about it was the close-ups when they suited up to fight evil. :P

[TheAnimeLegend]

I saw this tonight...I couldn't even finish watching it I disliked it that much. The dialogue was terrible, the puns and cheesy lines annoyed the h*** out of me and I thought that matter of choosing arnold to be Mr. Freeze was a poor decision as well.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by djluis2k6

You act as if that was what the movies were based around. It's just something on the suit. Seriously, some people have the most bizarre reasons to want to hate on a movie just because the rest of the crowd is.

It's still the idea of the director, who's in charge of the whole film. Maybe without such misappropriated ideas, the movie might've been better. I see Burton and Nolan succeeded, and neither of their films had anything as dumb as "bat nipples."

[Shawn Elestren]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Reminds me of that Simpson's episode where they get a Waterworld DVD with commentary and the commentary is just Costner saying "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry,...."

Nope. The Postman.

[OneWayFilms]

I grew up with the old Batman tv series and so the George Clooney and Val Kilmer films bring me back to my childhood. I personally prefer the campier Batman & Robin films over this darker and more gothic Batman.I thought Arnold as Mr.Freeze, the Riddler and Poison Ivy were BRILLIANT.

Yeah, I know I'm in the minority on this, but that's ok....I'll just keep enjoying MY verson and everyone else can enjoy the NEW version and we can all be happy.

[Batmon77]

Batman and Batman Returns has plenty of humor and silliness.
Keaton is a comedian in the first place.

The Schumacher Batmans are just exaggerated remixes.
Its suspect ..IMO.. framing the Burton versions as dark and serious.

[xbs2034]

I believe Schumacher and Clooney have been very open about their disappointment with the final product, and Schumacher has said he wanted to do a Batman Year One adaptation instead of Batman & Robin. Though personally I don't like when actors/directors publically slam their own work, even when the film is bad as is the case with this or Transformers 2.

I also think Schumacher gets too much hate, as the campy take on Batman bothers me less than Batman killed random thugs and the Joker killing Bruce's parents as happened in the 89 Burton movie. And while many parts of Batman Forever are flawed I also think there were parts of the film (such as the Batman and Robin relationship) that felt right on and truer to the character than any live-action interpretation until Batman Begins.