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

[AnakinFlair]

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.

I don't know if you've ever seen it, but go watch the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Heart of Ice". It was the Mr. Freeze origin story that Batman and Robin did take several things from; but Mr. Freeze in that show was a smaller, slender man. He was an intellectual man, whose imposing size later on only came from the refrigeration suit he wore. At the time, a lot of people had fan cast Patrick Stewart (probably because he was the one bald, intellectual man they knew), and I think it could have really worked, if they had taken a more serious tone with the movie. For the campy tone we got, though, I think Arnold was the perfect choice.

As for the toyetic thing- Batman and Robin and Black Widow are two entirely different things. In Batman and Robin, Schumacher himself stated that even during preproduction, the toy company was bugging him about his designs so that they could make the molds and start producing the toys for the movie. The toy companies had to sign of on all of the designs. Hell, Chris O'Donnel said 'With Batman Forever, we felt like we were making a movie. With Batman and Robin, we felt like we were making a toy commercial.' And that's a pretty fair assessment.

With Black Widow and Red Guardian, it wasn't just about selling a toy (though I know they've made some). It was a gag. It was Alexi stating to Dreykov in the opening of the movie he wanted to put the suit back on, and his 'journey' to get back in the suit- only to discover it was too small, but still putting it on anyway. The toy sales were incidental to the movie, not something mandated by the studio like in Batman and Robin.

Of course, if they release a Red Guardian Hot Toy, I will be picking him up.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Hey now, I actually really liked Lost in Space and I, Robot.

I didn't see Lost in Space, but like I, Robot and I Am Legend. Two I's and Will Smith.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Exactly.

There've been some interesting mini-docs on Batman and Robin and it was clear the studio simply wanted a "toy commercial".

Looking back at Schumacher's body of work before and after Batman and Robin, it's clear he could have made a more "serious" take on the character. He said explicitly that he wanted to make the next movie darker but that obviously never came to fruition. When Batman Forever cleaned out at the box office (it outgrossed Batman Returns) with the lighter approach, the studios were basically not going to have it any other way.

We shouldn't forget the massive backlash to Batman Returns when sponsors were spooked at the parents freak out at the movie (i'm old enough to remember this, Batman Return grossed far, far less than the first one). WB was NEVER going to back down on the toyetic part, that was the direction the studios had pretty much agreed upon. If Schumacher didn't do it, they would have gotten someone else to do it.

I remember the furore all right. The McDonald's situation was the biggest out of all the merchandise partners who were freaked about Batman Returns. So, when Forever became a huge hit with its stellar promotional campaign and merchandise push, potential partners were lining up to be involved with Batman and Robin. It's why we have so much product placement in it.

Schumacher definitely could have done a serious film. In fact, the original cut of Forever was. Hence why I support a directors cut of it.

Was he entirely without blame? No. Because the bat-nipples was his idea. He also wanted to implement a camp tone to match what Warmers wanted. Bane also got tossed into the mix because his nephew (or kid he knew. I haven't watched the relevant doco in ages) liked him and told him he was a cool character.

At the end of the day, that film was made solely to turn a profit with merchandise sales.

[Starter Set]

Well, they tried something new to get some life back into a slowing franchise, that's fair.

The final result is of course very questionable but they tried to make something more light hearted, i can respect that. A change of tone is always a risky move with a franchise, especially when it's done that poorly.

And yes, of course they wanted to sell toys, they ALWAYS want to sell toys lol. They would have made toys out of Schindler's List if they thought that it has any chance to sell.

[DrNewGod]

B&R probably made WB finally get serious about a Batman movie, as a change...

Pretty much this. I didn't like either of the post Burton films, but B&R was the one that convinced TPTB they were going to have to do something else with that IP if they wanted it to continue paying off.

[Jim Kelly]

In an alternate timeline Bones, Spock and Kirk go back in time and get Burton to make a third Batman movie with Michael Keaton; however, that sets in motion a series of events that twenty years later results in World War III.

[Scott Taylor]

In an alternate timeline Bones, Spock and Kirk go back in time and get Burton to make a third Batman movie with Michael Keaton; however, that sets in motion a series of events that twenty years later results in World War III.

To fix it, Kirk realizes that he has to convince Keaton to make Multiplicity instead of the third Batman film.

[Surf]

In spite of how bad it was, I actually liked it nostalgically as a sort of return to the 1960s Batman. But it was a horrible mishmash that could not decide if it was serious or campy comedy.

Yea this was as close as we've ever gotten to a successor to what was quite a popular show at the time, don't forget there was a movie as well. Had B&R it not come out there would always be questions of 'What If' a Dozier version ever hit the screen again. Good we have the answer I guess.

I'm still kind of baffled who exactly was the movie for. I was 13 when Burton Bat came out and by 97 we'd already beeb 5 years out from 2 of the darkest versions of Batman we'd ever seen so other than nearly 50 year olds at the time, who were teenagers when the 60s one came out, who was this for? That **** was in syndication and it didn't even hit the same for us back in the 90s. That's Hollywood for you, money to burn.

To this day, I love the Arnold Mr. Freeze no matter that it was the worst version ever.

All of the Mr. Freeze dialogue was the lone entertaining part of the movie.

[Powerboy]

Yea this was as close as we've ever gotten to a successor to what was quite a popular show at the time, don't forget there was a movie as well. Had B&R it not come out there would always be questions of 'What If' a Dozier version ever hit the screen again. Good we have the answer I guess.

I'm still kind of baffled who exactly was the movie for. I was 13 when Burton Bat came out and by 97 we'd already beeb 5 years out from 2 of the darkest versions of Batman we'd ever seen so other than nearly 50 year olds at the time, who were teenagers when the 60s one came out, who was this for? That **** was in syndication and it didn't even hit the same for us back in the 90s. That's Hollywood for you, money to burn.



All of the Mr. Freeze dialogue was the lone entertaining part of the movie.

In fairness, I don't think it answers the question of a Dozier Batman because it never commits to being campy comedy or serious. I read an interview with Paul Dini, the writer who created the new origin of Freeze for the Batman animated series. He addressed the Arnold movie version. Boy, was he being nice. He said the intention was to pay homage to his revised origin of Mr. Freeze, to say that it would always, in some form, be his origin now. BUT, he thought the movie was also paying homage to the Adam West Batman. As Dini put it, these are both worthy goals and the West Batman deserves being given a nod. The problem was that they were mutually exclusive goals that had contradictory intentions.

Also, I've been watching the animated Batman: the Brave and the Bold. It seems made for a young audience while still having good plots. I'd say it is the modern equivalent of the Adam West Batman. I mean, not completely but as close as it can get and still draw grownups as well as kids.

[Powerboy]

To fix it, Kirk realizes that he has to convince Keaton to make Multiplicity instead of the third Batman film.

Or get him to make the Birdman movie where he is actually the superhero, Birdman plus BM 2, 3 and 4.

[Alan2099]

I don't think it was nearly as bad as people say it was. There was something off about the tone though, and it wasn't just because it was campy. They could have made campy work if they had a director that could do campy. Instead they got a serious director and told him to do camp. Schumacher was working against his skill set.

If they had got a director that was more used to camp, like say Sam Raimi for example, I think they could have easily pulled off the lighter sillier tone they were going for.

[Castle]

The only positive about the film was Clooney making a good Bruce Wayne. I am voting No. The movie should not have been made.

I never thought Clooney made a good Bruce Wayne, he lacked the mystique of Bruce Wayne. Val Kilmer made a better Bruce Wayne in the earlier film. Batman Forever

B&R probably made WB finally get serious about a Batman movie, as a change. It was such a fail that WB really had no other direction to go. And in that sense B&R definitely paved the way for Nolan to get that shot and for a movie trilogy that truly earns the name "Dark Knight Trilogy." But I do wonder if the involvement of Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman and Christian Bale might not have been due to Stewart and McKellan being involved in X-Men. Probably its a number of factors like that all coming together, with B&R firmly in the background looming there as if saying "do anything but this!"

it took me a while to even look at how legendary serious actors can be used that way in comic films. Yeah you are right with that. I think because of Batman and Robin and the reshaping of the genre in the 2000s , many other high profile actors started to do more comic films were their characters did get some axe to grind, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman are great examples and were sort of used the same way as McKellen and Stewart. I think this also worked because they were in more drama setting comic book movies that were taken a lot more seriously to counter attack what Batman and Robin did and back then, CGI Action had a lot of restrain. it is kind of strange looking back now because I feel right now even when high profile actors are in comic films, it gets over looked.

As much as B&R is reviled, it has more in common with the MCU films than with the DCU films. Aquaman and Shazam are really the first WB hero films to feature any humor since B&R

Agreed.

[Castle]

The disappointment stems from people watching it with the expectations of a Burton Batman (reasonable since its in the same era and the official followup). It is a much more fulfilling experience expecting it to be an Adam West Batman (minus Adam West of course).

Were people expecting it to be Adam West Batman? Batman had already come a very long way since the West era by the time the 90s rolled in.

We have had the Burton Films

We have had Batman TAS

There were Batman animated movies.

I think what people were expecting was more growth in story and style for Batman movies, not something like Batman and Robin, a movie the Robin actor once said, he felt like he was just shooting a long 2 hours commercial for Toys.

The Nolan Batman films were the next fitting stage after the Burton films but was put on hold because Batman and Robin, was destined to happen. if it had not happen, high chance the Nolan film would not have happened.

[thwhtGuardian]

Were people expecting it to be Adam West Batman? Batman had already come a very long way since the West era by the time the 90s rolled in.

We have had the Burton Films

We have had Batman TAS

There were Batman animated movies.

I think what people were expecting was more growth in story and style for Batman movies, not something like Batman and Robin, a movie the Robin actor once said, he felt like he was just shooting a long 2 hours commercial for Toys.

The Nolan Batman films were the next fitting stage after the Burton films but was put on hold because Batman and Robin, was destined to happen. if it had not happen, high chance the Nolan film would not have happened.

Why wouldn't have Nolan's film happened?

[Jim Kelly]

The Nolan Batman films were the next fitting stage after the Burton films but was put on hold because Batman and Robin, was destined to happen. if it had not happen, high chance the Nolan film would not have happened.

Actually between BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN BEGINS, the Warner execs went madly off in all directions trying to come up with a Batman movie before they finally produced the Nolan one--BATMAN UNCHAINED, BATMAN: YEAR ONE, BATMAN DARKNIGHT, BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, BATMAN BEYOND.

With 20/20 hindsight it might seem obvious that the Nolan Batman was the way to go, but Warner bosses have the wrong eyewear prescription.