Why 1997's 'Batman & Robin' Might Be 'The Most Important Comic Book Movie Ever Made'

[Diesel]

Link

Newsflash: 1997's "Batman & Robin" might be the most important film that the comic book movie genre has ever seen.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger—those words are coming straight from the mouth of Marvel Studios bigwig Kevin Feige.

The LA Times recently reviewed the career of Akiva Goldsman, the producer-director-writer with involvement in comic book properties such as "Jonah Hex," "The Losers" and—that's right—"Batman & Robin," the George Clooney-starring film that nearly destroyed the superhero movie genre in the late 1990s.

But Feige, one of the many creative minds behind "Iron Man" and the newly reinvigorated Marvel Studios lineup, said that the current renaissance of comic book movies wouldn't be possible without the widespread critical failure of "Batman & Robin."

"That may be the most important comic-book movie ever made," said Feige. "It was so bad that it demanded a new way of doing things. It created the opportunity to do 'X-Men' and 'Spider-Man,' adaptations that respected the source material and adaptations that were not campy."

In the interview, Goldsman admitted that there were some flaws with "Batman & Robin," though he wouldn't fully apologize for the film's failings.

"What got lost in 'Batman & Robin' is the emotions aren't real," he said. "The worst thing to do with a serious comic book is to make it a cartoon. I'm still answering for that movie with some people."

Many of the film's cast members, like actress Alicia Silverstone, weren't fully aware of the campiness of "Batman & Robin" at the time, but such a lapse in judgment is forgivable if you look at it through Feige's logic — not only does Marvel have "Iron Man 2" and other movies on the horizon, but fans also have "The Dark Knight" thanks to Hollywood's newfound respect for the comics genre.

Do you agree with Feige's logic about "Batman & Robin," or is there nothing that can be said to atone for that movie? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section!

He has a point.

[Grand Bob]

I'm not sure about "important", but it's probably ranks as one of the most "expensive" made. Actually, I didn't really mind the movie that much. Alot has been discussed pertaining to the bad acting, gay innuendos inserted by the director, etc., etc., but if you don't take the movie too seriously and just look at it as mindless fun, it was actually entertaining.

[EricJ]

"That may be the most important comic-book movie ever made," said Feige. "It was so bad that it demanded a new way of doing things. It created the opportunity to do 'X-Men' and 'Spider-Man,' adaptations that respected the source material and adaptations that were not campy."

No, Spiderman was already floating around a dozen bad versions from Golan/Globus (was "Captain America" a similar influence?) to James Cameron, and Richard Donner still hadn't gotten around to an X-Men script before New World Pictures started playing with their "Wolverine sequel"--
Their curse-breaking versions just came out of breaking the curse to get the darn things MADE.

As for the straw that broke Marvel's back for making their own movies...DC could be laughed off for its failures, but "Fantastic Four" and the Ang Lee "Hulk" traumatized the company for life...

[Propellarhead9]

What about the Hasselhoff Nick Fury movie and the Dolph Punisher movie. Those are awful.

[Clark Kent]

Batman & Robin was an abomination that should have never made it past the script stage. It is laughable to think of it as having an important role in comic book-movie history. We got serious movies because Hollywood took a risk and started producing more serious movies around superheroes.

[ngkf7]

I think the success of Blade, a moderately unknown Marvel character at the time, helped them realize the potential if they did something right with a major and well-known character.

But man was Batman and Robin horrendous.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Batman & Robin was an abomination that should have never made it past the script stage. It is laughable to think of it as having an important role in comic book-movie history. We got serious movies because Hollywood took a risk and started producing more serious movies around superheroes.

Do you not get that what they are saying is if Batman & Robin was not made then Hollywood would still be making campy comic book movies not respecting the source material? Movies such as Fantastic Four from Fox never learned that lesson that Warner Bros learned big time.

[NL197]

Batman & Robin may be the worst movie I've seen, but without it there would be no Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, let alone the X-Men series, Spider-Man series and now Iron Man films.

Have to side with Feige on this one, big time.

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by Propellarhead9

What about the Hasselhoff Nick Fury movie and the Dolph Punisher movie. Those are awful.

Yes, but those were straight to video, so everyone knew they were gonna be bad. Batman and Robin however was a major summer release.

[Afrobean]

I'd say 1989's Batman was the REAL most important. It proved that it was possible to take things seriously and make things dark and more mature.

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were just roadblocks on the path to absolute realization of this fact that came with the likes of the Nolan Batman films and the X-men films and all of everything else.

Hopefully it'll be some time yet before the industry cycles back into more crap. Then again, Fox is already leaning that way with some of its adaptations...

[EricJ]

In the interview, Goldsman admitted that there were some flaws with "Batman & Robin," though he wouldn't fully apologize for the film's failings.
"What got lost in 'Batman & Robin' is the emotions aren't real," he said. "The worst thing to do with a serious comic book is to make it a cartoon. I'm still answering for that movie with some people."

IIRC, Goldsman didn't immediately get the blame for B&R--
We were too busy picking on Schumacher for his "It's called a comic book, people" comment, but no one thought to look at the screenwriting credit.
(Like, does it matter who writes action movies, anyway? )

And then, seven months later, Goldsman's "Lost in Space" script came out, turned out to be equally bad for the suspiciously exact same "Insultingly goofy", "Smugly studio-generated" and "Catchphrase-whoring" reasons as B&R, we all rushed to look names up on IMDB, and realized "....AHA!! "
Only then was the Legend born.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by ngkf7

I think the success of Blade, a moderately unknown Marvel character at the time, helped them realize the potential if they did something right with a major and well-known character.

I agree with that, plus spier-man 1. I think they saw the unleashed potential in money making just by giving people what they want.

[Daredevil666]

Probably right. As far as I'm concerned, Batman Begins is the movie that should have come out in 1989, not Batman. Hopefully, the disaster that was B&R helped bring that era of bad comic-book movies to end.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Probably right. As far as I'm concerned, Batman Begins is the movie that should have come out in 1989, not Batman. Hopefully, the disaster that was B&R helped bring that era of bad comic-book movies to end.

I feel Fantastic Four is way worse than B&R. At least with B&R, they knew they were making a joke. Fantastic Four is the joke.

Batman and Batman Begins take on the source material is just as different as Frank Miller's and Grant Morrison's take on the source material. Both are just as good, but for different reasons.