Was it for the best that Batman and Robin (1997) was made?

[Castle]

I know many and if not 99% of all comic fans will freak out on the title, because of the reputation this movie gets. but hear me out about this film and its legacy.

I get it, this movie was bad, so bad you wonder how George Clooney still had a glittering acting career when the rest of the cast careers suffered. However if there had not been a Batman and Robin, I don't think the comic book genre would have forced itself to grow up. When I look at all the comic films that still had the shadow of Batman and Robin to live with or overcome like Blade, X-Men 2000, X-MEN 2 Spiderman 2, V for Vendetta and most importantly Nolan rebooting Batman with the TDK Trilogy.

Even if some people may not like any of these comic films now at least there is a universal clear agreement that this movies put the genre on a far better path, where the genre can be taken a lot more seriously in a way that has never been and may never be again and also, A lot of serious film making thought can be put in comic films not just in story but with dealing with real human themes knitted well in the world of costumes where people dress up as bats and bring claws from their hands.

I don't think many of the good comic films we had in the 2000s would have been if Batman and Robin had been a big critical success and a huge commercial success. Batman and Robin made the genre change immensely in the 2000s in a way I still feel is relevant now.

I don't think Batman and Robin should be a film where all the talk is negative. there was an event horizon since I cannot talk about Batman in movies without saying Batman went through a phase with this film but found its footings again with Batman actually Beginning all over again in 2005 (Batman Begins)

[AnakinFlair]

In hindsight it was best that it was made, but sitting in the theater watching it in '97 it sure didn't feel like it.

The thing is, there were aspects of the movie that I liked. I liked Chris O'Donnell as Robin (though I thought he should have gone by Nightwing). I loved the design for Arnold's Mr. Freeze- both the suit, and the make-up. I thought Clooney made a good Bruce Wayne, if not Batman. I liked that they introduced Batgirl (but hated everything about how they did it). I even liked the subplot with Alfred. And I do think there could have been a good movie in there, with a better writer and director- especially if you could get a director that could stand up to the studio demanding that the movie be more 'Toyetic'.

Aside from that, the almost the entire movie was miscast. Arnold looked good, but they should have gotten a dramatic actor to play Freeze (Patrick Stewart would have been perfect). They could have done a live action retelling of 'Heart of Ice' with a proper dramatic actor in the role, and with a better Batman. If they were going to use Bane, he should have been a main villain, not some dumb muscle. And if you were going to use Poison Ivy, dear GOD get anyone other than Uma Thurman and her horrible May West impersonation.

[Noodle]

Blade started production in February of 1997, before Batman & Robin even came out. It was going to do what it was going to do regardless of either the success or failure of Batman & Robin.

[thwhtGuardian]

Blade started production in February of 1997, before Batman & Robin even came out. It was going to do what it was going to do regardless of either the success or failure of Batman & Robin.

Exactly, the idea that the superhero movies of the early 2000's were a reaction to Batman and Robin is pretty darn silly.

[Castle]

In hindsight it was best that it was made, but sitting in the theater watching it in '97 it sure didn't feel like it.

The thing is, there were aspects of the movie that I liked. I liked Chris O'Donnell as Robin (though I thought he should have gone by Nightwing). I loved the design for Arnold's Mr. Freeze- both the suit, and the make-up. I thought Clooney made a good Bruce Wayne, if not Batman. I liked that they introduced Batgirl (but hated everything about how they did it). I even liked the subplot with Alfred. And I do think there could have been a good movie in there, with a better writer and director- especially if you could get a director that could stand up to the studio demanding that the movie be more 'Toyetic'.

Aside from that, the almost the entire movie was miscast. Arnold looked good, but they should have gotten a dramatic actor to play Freeze (Patrick Stewart would have been perfect). They could have done a live action retelling of 'Heart of Ice' with a proper dramatic actor in the role, and with a better Batman. If they were going to use Bane, he should have been a main villain, not some dumb muscle. And if you were going to use Poison Ivy, dear GOD get anyone other than Uma Thurman and her horrible May West impersonation.

I just dont see Patrick Stewart as Mr freeze and I am trying to remember if he did anything close in Star Trek TNG , Also I think it is strange you said toyetic because I just commented on this factor with Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian wearing his costume in the Black Widow film.

As for the entire cast been miscast I don't agree, I feel it was the direction and dialogue that failed the cast although I agree Bane was not needed for the film. Either way, everything works out for the best with what came after Batman and Robin.

[thwhtGuardian]

I just dont see Patrick Stewart as Mr freeze and I am trying to remember if he did anything close in Star Trek TNG , Also I think it is strange you said toyetic because I just commented on this factor with Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian wearing his costume in the Black Widow film.

As for the entire cast been miscast I don't agree, I feel it was the direction and dialogue that failed the cast although I agree Bane was not needed for the film. Either way, everything works out for the best with what came after Batman and Robin.

How does it come out for the best? Do you have any sources that directors specifically said they approached their films differently because Batman and Robin wasn't viewed as successful?

[Jim Kelly]

I heard George Clooney in an interview say that doing BATMAN & ROBIN opened a lot of doors for him. So I don't think he regrets it. I know he dumps on the movie, now--but I'd say he just does that because it's the popular thing to do. Privately, he knows that the movie was one of his big breaks. It's like Ryan Reynolds dumping on GREEN LANTERN--he says that to get on the right side of fans--but he probably has a very different opinion that he shares with his wife and the mother of his children, who he met on that movie.

In Hollywood, actors often do movies for studios as favours, because the studio will reward them later. Maybe an actor wants the chance to produce or direct his own movie or maybe there's a small project he believes in but he needs the studio to back him--well, if he does this big budget popcorn movie for them, then that greases the wheels. Studios back actors who are good soldiers. So doing BATMAN & ROBIN proved to Hollywood that Clooney was willing to give them what they wanted from him.

[Scott Taylor]

Nah, I can't give B&R credit for anything other than completely killing that franchise off. There are tons of examples of how not to make a movie, doesn't have to be a superhero film. The principles of how to make a decent film probably played more into the hero genre than how not to make one.

Besides, X-Men (2000) and the Spider-Man franchise should get pretty much all the credit for popularization of hero films. The movies that launched a 1,000 movies.

If you look at X-Men for a moment, you see it really flipped the script we had usually seen. It took two classically trained actors and put them in the major leading roles. Previously the formula was to put those kinds of actors in supporting roles only. There were a lot of other things X-Men did right, which other franchises had not tried at all.

[Castle]

Nah, I can't give B&R credit for anything other than completely killing that franchise off. There are tons of examples of how not to make a movie, doesn't have to be a superhero film. The principles of how to make a decent film probably played more into the hero genre than how not to make one.

Besides, X-Men (2000) and the Spider-Man franchise should get pretty much all the credit for popularization of hero films. The movies that launched a 1,000 movies.

If you look at X-Men for a moment, you see it really flipped the script we had usually seen. It took two classically trained actors and put them in the major leading roles. Previously the formula was to put those kinds of actors in supporting roles only. There were a lot of other things X-Men did right, which other franchises had not tried at all.

I dont doubt the good will of X-MEN 2000 I have even said it is only when you are much older you realise just how ground-breaking that film beyond the nazi opening scene for a comic bookie film. that I guess you get as child because it is nazis, but it is only as an adult I even appreciate the more adult approach the film had since this was a comic film the main rivals don't even do the basic expected comic book stuff which is fighting each other, although I dont think Patrick Stewart would have made a strong convincing combatant unlike Ian Mckellen , who was just awesome doing that as Gandalf...so hey, it worked out best of Patrick Stewart. however I still think all of these was possible because of Batman and Robin.

Some have talked about it.

Pictures crashed its Batman franchise into the ground with 1997's disastrous Batman and Robin and showed no signs of resurrecting ... All that changed, however, in 2000, when 20th Century Fox released X-Men

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/how...perhero-genre/
How The First X-Men Movie Changed The Superhero Genre

Consider that prior to this movie, Hollywood didn’t take superhero movies seriously, certainly not after the debacle that was Batman and Robin (1997). Little wonder then that a live-action adaptation of X-Men had also been languishing in development hell for years. I
https://bamsmackpow.com/2019/03/28/x-men-2000-review/

So I will always give Batman and Robin it dues. Batman and Robin is the best example that something good can still come out of something deemed so bad, also hello, the TDK movies.

[thwhtGuardian]

I dont doubt the good will of X-MEN 2000 I have even said it is only when you are much older you realise just how ground-breaking that film beyond the nazi opening scene for a comic bookie film. that I guess you get as child because it is nazis, but it is only as an adult I even appreciate the more adult approach the film had since this was a comic film the main rivals don't even do the basic expected comic book stuff which is fighting each other, although I dont think Patrick Stewart would have made a strong convincing combatant unlike Ian Mckellen , who was just awesome doing that as Gandalf...so hey, it worked out best of Patrick Stewart. however I still think all of these was possible because of Batman and Robin.

Some have talked about it.




So I will always give Batman and Robin it dues. Batman and Robin is the best example that something good can still come out something deemed so bad, also hello, the TDK movies.

But X-Men's production with Singer started before Batman and Robin came out and so did Blade...so how were they influenced by the reaction to Batman and Robin?

[JBatmanFan05]

A fine enough argument for voting "Yes" you laid out Castle. But try as I might, my hand was unable to complete the task of voting "Yes," and so I voted "No."

Xerxes : But I am a generous god. I can make you rich beyond all measure. I will make you warlord of all Greece. You will carry my battle standard to the heart of Europa. Your Athenian rivals will kneel at your feet if you will but kneel at mine.

King Leonidas : You are generous as you are divine, O king of kings. Such an offer only a madman would refuse. But the, uh, the idea of kneeling, it's- You see, slaughtering all those men of yours has, uh, well it's left a nasty cramp in my leg, so kneeling will be hard for me.

[Castle]

But X-Men's production with Singer started before Batman and Robin came out and so did Blade...so how were they influenced by the reaction to Batman and Robin?

X-MEN came out 3 years after, a lot of things can happen during production, I have no doubt, Singer was very aware of the state of the genre between 1997-2000.

[Castle]

A fine enough argument for voting "Yes" you laid out Castle. But try as I might, my hand was unable to complete the task of voting "Yes," and so I voted "No."

Thanks but Not surprised you voted no, I am very much aware of how much people just don't like to even hear about the batman and robin movie and will always feel the negative of the film and the impact outweighed the positives.

[thwhtGuardian]

...Yeah, no. The history of Singer's production was well documented and from its inception was going to be a film that tackled themes of racism and that he wanted to portray Magneto and Xavier's relationship like that of MLK Jr and Malcolm X. This more serious approach was something that was intended well before Batman and Robin, so your whole premise is flawed.

[BeastieRunner]

X-Men was going to be what it was without B&R. Same with Blade, Spider-Man, etc.

If anything, it probably woke up WB to the fact Batman needed a rest AND some revisions in order to be profitable again.

It probably needed to be made in order to get Batman out of his rut.

I voted no but the more I think about it ... probably it was best that it got made to put Batman back on track.