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

[Scott Taylor]

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!"

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

[thwhtGuardian]

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.

It has nothing to do with negative feeling about Batman and Robin and everything to do with your completely imaginary positives.

[numberthirty]

You've got to ignore a lot of "Basic Reality 101..." sort of stuff to even entertain a lot of the "X Paved The Way To Y..." assertion that it feels like is happening here.

For starters, one would have to completely ignore that the writer who had a hand in all of Nolan's "Batman..." films wrote the version of the "Blade..." IP that came out in '98.

[Jim Kelly]

I'm a fatalist, so yes I do believe that all events are causally connected and that there is no alternate path. It's no good torturing yourself with thoughts like if only this didn't happen. It happened. It was always going to happen. You can't change things--there's no going back. So instead of making yourself miserable wishing that you could change the past, accept that everything that happens had to have happened. It's much better to look at the world that way rather than being trapped in thoughts of what might have been--it never would have been otherwise. Accept it and move on.

[Malvolio]

I voted yes because that film taught Akiva Goldsman what NOT to do. Fringe wouldn't have been as great a show as it was without Goldsman's writing.

[numberthirty]

I voted yes because that film taught Akiva Goldsman what NOT to do. Fringe wouldn't have been as great a show as it was without Goldsman's writing.

Politely, I have to disagree with that assertion. After this film and before Fringe...

- Lost In Space(Arguably worse than this film...)
- Practical Magic(Still Lousy...)
- A Beautiful Mind(Solid...)
- I, Robot(Again, arguably worse than B&R...)
- Cinderella Man(Solid...)
- The Da Vinci Code(Toss Up...)
- I Am Legend(Still Lousy...)

That's setting aside that Transformers: The Last Knight happens years after Fringe.

The idea that a lesson was learned, and someone actually got better?

I just don't know about that one.

[Powerboy]

I think Clooney got an unfair reaction. He's considered the worst Batman ever. But had Keaton, Bale or anyone else had to wear that costume and say those lines, he would be considered the worst.

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.

If anything, it allowed the first X-Men movie to look good by comparison.

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

[The_Lurk]

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).

[Somecrazyaussie]

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.

The studio wouldn't have backed down on the "toyetic" part. The merchandise sales is a big reason the sequels even happened. Loss of merchandise sales is what caused them to do Forever. So saying it needed a director who "wouldn't" have backed down is silly. If Schumacher didn't do it, they just would have got someone else and made the same demands. It is also why Batgirl got introduced as well - to open up further merchandise for young girls.

There is a lot I like/dislike about Batman and Robin. But Warners was as much to blame how that movie turned out. It was greed. Pure and simple. Even if the director and writer had gone in with ideas/suggestions, the ultimate decision makers were the executives who signed off on it.

[Somecrazyaussie]

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!"

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

I am pretty sure they signed on because of Nolan. Bale was considered for, and auditioned I believe, to be Robin in Forever. So I think he was partial to doing a superhero film.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

The answer to the title is yes.
Because yes.

[thwhtGuardian]

Politely, I have to disagree with that assertion. After this film and before Fringe...

- Lost In Space(Arguably worse than this film...)
- Practical Magic(Still Lousy...)
- A Beautiful Mind(Solid...)
- I, Robot(Again, arguably worse than B&R...)
- Cinderella Man(Solid...)
- The Da Vinci Code(Toss Up...)
- I Am Legend(Still Lousy...)

That's setting aside that Transformers: The Last Knight happens years after Fringe.

The idea that a lesson was learned, and someone actually got better?

I just don't know about that one.

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

[WebLurker]

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

Never saw Lost in Space but never got why I, Robot was that bad.

[Valentis]

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

[Username taken]

The studio wouldn't have backed down on the "toyetic" part. The merchandise sales is a big reason the sequels even happened. Loss of merchandise sales is what caused them to do Forever. So saying it needed a director who "wouldn't" have backed down is silly. If Schumacher didn't do it, they just would have got someone else and made the same demands. It is also why Batgirl got introduced as well - to open up further merchandise for young girls.

There is a lot I like/dislike about Batman and Robin. But Warners was as much to blame how that movie turned out. It was greed. Pure and simple. Even if the director and writer had gone in with ideas/suggestions, the ultimate decision makers were the executives who signed off on it.

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.