Originally published July 18, 1997, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1235
Let us now praise famous butlers…
Just as “But the dinosaurs were great” became my personal mantra for slogging through The Lost World, I very quickly found that a new mantra helped to stabilize me and anchor me through the assault on both my visual senses and reasoning faculties called Batman and Robin, as follows:
Thank God for Michael Gough.
I’ll come back to that.
I saw the film under somewhat unique circumstances: A private screening for DC employees. That meant that the audience was atypical. We, after all, make our living in comic books. It is “serious” to us. So seeing a comic book related movie that takes comics less than seriously–that actually has the villain Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwazzen… Schwarzne… aw, the heck with it, you know who plays him) declare, “Today, Gotham City… tomorrow, the world!”—is going to prompt guffaws and annoyance. For Batman and Robin (more properly Batman and Robin and Batgirl and Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy and Bane and the Fluronic Man… or perhaps simply Batman Et Al.) is about as far removed from Tim Burton’s vision of Batman as could possibly be.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to completely hate a film that so thoroughly accomplishes everything that it set out to do. B&R isn’t really about telling a story, any more than a James Bond film is about giving an accurate depiction of the British Secret Service. B&R is, first and foremost, about maintaining and perpetuating the Batman franchise for Warner films. And that it will very likely do.
Back in 1989, Tim Burton produced a film that was, essentially, Batman for the 1990s. So now we’re in 1997 and director Joel Schumacher has given us a Batman for… well… the 1960s.
If we’re going to compare the films, think of Batman as a cat and Batman and Robin as a dog. The former was sleek, dark and mysterious: Incoherent story-wise, as is typical of a Burton film, but with an enigmatic world view that was not what Joe Public expected. Keep in mind that the vast audience knew Batman only from his goofy Adam West incarnation; Burton’s vision challenged audiences to accept it on its own terms. A cat.
Batman and Robin, on the other hand, is a big, goofy dog. Rather than coaxing you into its world, it charges out to you, big and slobbering and jumping all over you, thrilled to see you (and your ticket money), licking you ferociously and barking, “I’m so happy you’re here! Wanna play? Scratch me! Play with me! Love me love me love me!” while shoving its nose into your private parts with nippled armor and crotch-and-butt shots thirty seconds into the film.
It’s Batman back when he was “Batman” rather than “The Batman” (probably because “The” never works when Robin’s aboard; saying “The Batman and Robin” sounds off, and “The Batman” and “The Robin” is just plain silly). See Batman and Robin trade quips during fight scenes. See Batman and Robin just-so-happen to have ice skates in their boots to combat Mr. Freeze’s “hockey team from hëll.” See Batman and Robin serving as special guest auctioneers at a charity function. Can you envision the Michael Keaton Batman emerging from the shadows to stand there and say, “How much am I bid?”) Thrill to dialogue that would have to descend 30,000 feet just to be over-the-top, villains who never talk but always declaim, and a visual styling that once again–as Paul Dini said of Batman Forever–looks like it was edited with a salad shooter.
But it’s hard to hate something that, like that slobbering canine mentioned before, so desperately wants to be loved.
To summarize: Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O’Donnell) confront the ominous Mr. Freeze, clomping around in armor the size of Fresno and freezing everyone and everything via a freeze gun that’s powered by diamonds (yes, you read that right: Diamonds are apparently an energy source. Yes, it’s news to me, too.) Much of Freeze’s backstory is lifted straight from Batman: The Animated Series: Scientist Victor Frieze, attempting to save his nearly dead wife who remains frozen in suspended animation, encounters a mishap that turns him into a walking popsicle. In this instance, we’re told that his wife suffers from “MacGregor’s Disease.” It’s not spelled out, but we assume that the symptoms include speaking with a thick brogue, battling annoying rabbits named Peter, and–in its final stages–writing comic book stories with three times the verbiage required to make your point.
But the animated Freeze was far better realized. In BTAS, Freeze was appropriately devoid of human feeling: Cold, heartless, icy. I would have liked to see the same from Arnold’s Freeze. The flat, detached delivery of the Terminator with an electronic flanging added. But instead we get another cackling, histrionic nut, no different in execution and style than Two-Face, Riddler, or any other villain since Jack Nicholson’s subtle Joker.
Yes, Nicholson was subtle. Go back and watch it. Knowing that the character was visually over-the-top with his purple clothes, white face, green hair and red lips, Nicholson wisely (or at Burton’s direction) reined himself in. By and large, the Joker spoke in soft, understated, quiet tones. His occasional hysterical outbursts of demented laughter were, consequently, far more effective because they had something with which to contrast. But every villain since then has taken their incarnation as a comic book villain to play–well–a comic book villain.
He is joined by Oprah–sorry, Uma–Thurman as Poison Ivy: As conceived here, basically a vegetative redo of Selina Kyle/Catwoman from Batman Returns. She starts out mousy, is done wrong by a man, apparently killed and then embraced by that which will become her symbol (cats for Selina, Mother Earth this time around). Uma is stuck with the same lousy dialogue that Arnold has–demented speeches regarding her plans for obliterating all human life. She handles it a bit better, generating fewer unintentional laughs, but her grasp on the character is in-and-out. Sometimes she’s Michelle Pfeiffer, sometimes she’s Venus from Baron Munchausen (and is even addressed as such by Robin), and during one sequence, inexplicably, she’s doing Mae West. Perhaps unsurprisingly, her best moment comes when she first appears in full costume, sashaying across a crowded dance floor while an instrumental of the song “Poison Ivy” filters through the background. It’s the one sequence in which she doesn’t say a dámņëd thing. We just get to look at her, prompting the realization that if Akiva Goldsman never writes another line of dialogue for any Batman character, we can all die happy.
Oh, and she’s accompanied by Bane, who is reduced to a monosyllabic muscleman. I found myself muttering under my breath, “Bane hates puny Bat people.”
Plot? There’s something about freezing Gotham. And tomorrow the world. But you knew that.
There are visual insanities, such as the sight of Batman rolling along in a car more heavily protected than a Sherman tank, while Robin–and later Batgirl, played relatively cluelessly by Alicia Silverstone–are sitting ducks on motorcycles. It evokes memories of Decoy the Pig Hostage from Tiny Toons (“You draw their fire, Decoy, whilst I hide in the all-concealing shadows”). And then there’s the sequence where, in order to “protect” his partner, Batman shuts off Robin’s cycle while it’s still rolling. Since objects in motion tend to stay in motion, Batman’s safety concerns not only result in Robin skidding out, but also nearly plummeting out-of-control to his death. Robin later voices concerns that Batman doesn’t trust him. Batman doesn’t trust him? Why in God’s name does Robin trust Batman? If I were Robin, I’d be convinced Batman is trying to kill me. And then there’s Poison Ivy holding up a baby man-eating plant, during which half the audience was chorusing, “Feed me, Seeeeymour!” In short, the film has such an “anything goes” feel to it that, when Batman and Robin first set eyes on Poison Ivy, you almost expect to see a shot wherein their codpieces have swollen to several times their normal size.
The theme for the film is “family.” We know this because it’s jackhammered into the audience with more on-point dialogue than you’d see in a hundred beginner creative writing courses. To scriptwriter Goldsman, “subtext” means words written on the side of the Red October, and subtlety means that you say something only twenty times rather than fifty. Understatement is not Goldsman’s strength (unfortunately, neither is characterization, nor dialoguing nor plotting.)
George Clooney is the third Batman in the past decade. Michael Keaton gave us quirky and mysterious: As intended, you could see something akin to the Joker’s thought process going on behind Bruce Wayne’s eyes with Keaton, except that those energies were channeled towards protecting rather than hurting. Val Kilmer never really worked as Wayne: One got a sense of quiet intelligence, as befits a real genius. But with Kilmer, one couldn’t help but get the feeling that this guy would be smart enough not to risk his life in a rubber suit, no matter how guilt ridden he felt. To say nothing of the fact that, as I noted at the time, I had trouble with Ðìçk Grayson having darker beard stubble than Bruce Wayne.
What Clooney brings to the mix is not the helter-skelter eyes of Keaton, or the pure intellect of Kilmer, but rather quiet, rugged authority. He’s comfortable in his role as Batman, a solid parental figure for Chris O’Donnell to rebel against–as opposed to Kilmer, when the two of them seemed more like frat brothers. He’s solid without being stolid, confident without being smug, and sensitive without being overly vulnerable. Although I admit that his ER notoriety did get in the way for me at one point. While making out with his girlfriend, Julie Madison (Elle MacPherson), he’s called on the carpet by Julie when she angrily informs him that he had been saying the name “Ivy.” “Who’s Ivy?” she demands. And I found myself wanting Clooney to cover by saying, “Uhm… no, I was… actually asking for an I.V… sometimes I think I’m a doctor…”
But with all the over-the-top insanity, all the sensory barrage, all the bits tossed in that you have to rub your eyes and ask yourself, “Did I just see that?” (Batman’s credit card comes to mind), there is a core of humanity to the film that raises it a few notches–just a few–above pure eye-candy overload.
And that core is Michael Gough.
Gough, along with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon, are the only constants in the four-film series. But whereas Hingle is usually wasted (this time more than ever) someone came to the realization that–no matter what sort of silliness has gone on around him, no matter how awful the dialogue being tossed about, no matter how implausible the events–Gough’s Alfred has been a source of quiet dignity and humanity. This time out, Alfred is made the target of one of the film’s key subplots as a progressive illness threatens to end his tenure at Stately Wayne Manor (which hardly qualifies as a spoiler: The credits haven’t even ended before Alfred has a pained expression on his face, so you know up front that something’s wrong with him.)
This is, of course, a mixed blessing. Becoming a plot focus in a Batman film means having to deal with more awful dialogue and unlikely happenstances than one did before. But Gough not only rises above it, he brings everyone on screen with him at any given moment to his level, including the insufferably whiny O’Donnell (you just want Batman to slap him or something) and Silverstone, whose character motivations (she’s been risking her life racing motorcycles ever since her parents died in an auto accident) drew the loudest guffaws from the DC crew.
It is the Alfred sequences that underscore the greatest problem with the growth of the Batman movie series. The original film was basically about a broken, emotionally crippled individual who had cloistered himself away in a mansion or in armor, keeping the world at arm’s length, and yet making the first attempts to break through those barriers by reaching out to a woman. There was a wealth of humanity in the pain we saw in Keaton’s eyes. Slowly but surely, the humanity has been leached out of the films, replaced by more villains, more effects, more costumes, more dazzle for the eyes that leaves the mind and heart uninvolved.
But Gough sells the dialogue and restores the emotional balance in a way that Batman Returns (with its grotesqueries and freak-show air) and Batman Forever (with Kilmer’s pouting and O’Donnell’s petulance) never managed. Once we’re past Mr. Freeze’s absurd blustering or Poison Ivy’s preening, we find ourselves back with George Clooney, looking moody in a long black dressing gown, pondering his own psyche with Gough as the patient mentor and sounding board. In a film chockablock with sturm und drang, every one of Gough’s scenes is an oasis of quiet contemplation (although not even Gough can save the “Alfred Headroom” sequence that I won’t even try to explain to you).
When a film has so much going on in it, so much to distract the eye, so many places to look–like a circus with twenty nine rings rather than three–all one has to do is speak softly to gain attention. It’s a lesson well-learned. The thing that always separated Batman from the rest of his “super-brethren” was that he was, basically, just a human. A well-trained, incredibly observant, rich human, but human nonetheless. And is it Alfred–not Clooney’s rugged good looks, not the codpieces, not the plastic nipples (which Batgirl, I should point out, does not possess)–it is Alfred who puts the genuine “man” into “Batman.”
You can bag the rest of the film, but thank God for Michael Gough.
(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705. My favorite moment involved Mr. Freeze’s freeze ray striking and icing over a dog next to a hydrant, freezing the pooch in mid-piss. Why my favorite moment? Because there was an advisory in the closing credits which said, “All jeopardy to animals was simulated.” Simulated. No kidding. And here I thought they actually built a genuine freeze gun and iced the dog. Glad that got cleared up.
• 
Where to begin with this movie ? Well, to summarize, after that, I have decided that I wold never watch a Joel Schumacher movie again. And second, to wash my brain of that monstruous assault on my senses, I went to an art theater and watched “It’s Always Fair Weather”. Nothing like a good Gene Kelly/Stanley Donen musical to restore one’s faith in movie makers (apart from a good Fred Astaire musical, of course).
For what it’s worth, I can’t recommend the RiffTrax version of BATMAN & ROBIN highly enough. Well worth the $2.99.
The MST3K folks also took on B&R in one of their “Summer Blockbuster Movie” specials (which I sadly suspect will never be released on dvd due to licensing fees). For me, the highlight was seeing Mr. Freeze fly through the air with the weird wings while one of the MST3Kers proclaims, in a Schwarzenegger impression, “Behold, I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.”
B&R is, first and foremost, about maintaining and perpetuating the Batman franchise for Warner films. And that it will very likely do.
Thankfully, you were wrong this time. 🙂
I was just about to say the same thing
Not really, no. The movie did turn a profit, albeit a small one. And because of the extremely negative response, Warners decided it was time to reboot the franchise and started looking at doing “Batman: Year One,” which eventually led to “Batman Begins.” So it not only did perpetuate the franchise, but it sent it off in a positive direction that was extremely successful and continues to this day.
PAD
There would have been another Batman film some day, regardless. Just as WB is now rebooting Superman after just rebooting Superman (and will probably reboot both again if they can actually pull off a Justice League film).
But seeing as WB couldn’t get another Batman film together for 8 years, after getting 4 in 8 years between Batman to Batman & Robin, I’d say B&R was pretty effective at killing the franchise for a time.
No, Craig, it really didn’t. It redirected the film aspect of the franchise, but saying, “It took eight years between films” is meaningless and saying it killed the franchise is demonstrably wrong. The film turned a profit when it came out. But they decided to then reboot the series. Development on “Batman Begins” began in 2003 after several years of trying different writers and approaches. Meanwhile, in the intervening years, “Batman Beyond” and “The Batman” were television hits, and they even toyed with a live action “Batman Beyond” before settling on Nolan’s vision. So at no time was Batman-the-Franchise dormant, dead, or even pining for the fjords. It was in constant development. What you describe as a franchise killer was, in reality, nothing more than a speed bump.
PAD
Peter David: No, Craig, it really didn’t. It redirected the film aspect of the franchise, but saying, “It took eight years between films” is meaningless…
Luigi Novi: It is not “meaningless”. If the film were substantially successful, the next film would’ve not only have come out within 2 or 3 years, it would’ve followed the same tone or sensibility. The fact that it did not is testament to the fact that it was not a very well-liked film. Spider-Man‘s success did not lead in roundabout, indirect fashion to a sequel eight years later. It lead to a sequel just two years later. Conversely, the reaction to Superman Returns precluded future films in that continuity and with those creative personnel, regardless of the fact that it made $391 million and was the sixth-highest grossing film of 2006. The same holds true for Batman & Robin. To argue that it “led” to Batman Begins is tenuous, to put it mildly. As Craig pointed out, another Batman film would eventually have been made, just as was the case with another Superman film. Do you dispute this? It makes no sense to argue that this film “led” to a film that began a completely different continuity eight years later, and after an aborted attempt at a different approach with Year One. Yeah, this film “led” to the subsequent film in the sense that its poor reception “led” WB to not doing another one soon after. Batman & Robin “led” to Batman Begins in the same way that some yahoo who jumps in front of a parade can be said to have “led” it.
Peter David: and saying it killed the franchise is demonstrably wrong. The film turned a profit when it came out.
Luigi Novi: Non seqitur. Whether it made money has nothing to do with whether it killed the then-current franchise (or continuity, if you prefer, since the series that is distinct from those by other creators or featuring the same continuity seems to be what is meant here). Again, Superman Returns made money. But it killed future films with Brandon Routh and Bryan Singer, and delayed future Superman films in general.
It didn’t kill the franchise, it just wounded it.
I have to agree with the others that you did get it wrong (thankfully). I mean, we could go for the tortured argument that such a terrible film led the Warner’s to rethink the franchise, which led to a better direction, but it seems to me your original prediction suggests mindless masses eagerly gobbling up the film and related merchandise, thus confirming for WB that they went in the right direction. But obviously that’s not what happened, so I don’t think it can reasonably be said that B&R was helpful in maintaining and perpetuating the franchise.
Wow! I wholeheartedly agree with Craig for once..I seem to remember a lot of people, fans and critics alike, who felt this might not only be the end of the franchise, but of comic book movies in general for a good, long time. This was 1997 remember..a full year before Marvel came out with their first decent and successful comic book movie with “Blade” and three years before “X-Men”. And except for Batman, what superhero films did DC have in the pipeline? Even then, it had been a full decade since “Superman IV”.
.
It was the success of Marvel’s movies that made Warner decide to see the upside in superhero films again…There is no guarantee there would have been another “Batman” movie….Heck, people are still waiting on more sequels to “Fletch”, “Ghostbusters” and films like “Quantum Leap”…And an effort at some levels have been made to take advantage of branding, locked-in fan base, etc….There are no guarantees when it comes to movies…Look at the 19 year gap between “Superman IV” and “Superman Returns”…Eight years is not an insignificant amount of time..I don’t doubt some people learned lessons from the excesses of the Schumacher films, but to credit them with “perpetuating” the franchise is stretching things a bit, in my opinion/
I wholeheartedly agree with Craig for once
And this, folks, is more likely indicator of the impending Apocalypse than any so-called Mayan prediction. 😉
I’d say the strongest argument that it killed the franchise was that prior to the release of ‘Batman and Robin’, they were planning the fifth film as ‘Batman Triumphant’, with Clooney and O’Donnell. After the box office and reviews of ‘B&R’, suddenly it was back to the drawing board and eight years before a new director, actor, and direction.
Sorry, Peter, but if you’d been right, we’d have been talking about ‘Triumphant’.
“B&R is, first and foremost, about maintaining and perpetuating the Batman franchise for Warner films. And that it will very likely do.”
Sorry, couldn’t help but smile at that.
That was a franchise killer if I ever saw one. Using “saw” in a less than accurate manner, since I never watched this movie.
A franchise killer? It turned a profit and three more Batman films, including the one coming out next month, were a direct result: direct as in, “We need to reboot the franchise.”
PAD
So it “led” to it in the sense that its poor quality led to a reboot that delayed future films? Yeah, that’s right. It “led” to it in the same way that the Challenger explosion led to a delay in future shuttle missions.
If it made a profit, it was microscopic…When you take into account the budget, marketing, etc…Plus, the Keaton “Batman” broke VHS sales records…Sales of “Batman and Robin” were average at best…and that’s the thing with big-budget pictures…they need to do more than make a slim profit..which is why films from “Tomb raider” to “John Carter” get bashed for not meeting expectations despite earning more in a weekend than a typical rom-com…it’s big-risk, big-reward liind of thing..If the rewards are no longer big,…they will be more likely to avoid taking the risk.
Val Kilmer … as Wayne: One got a sense of quiet intelligence, as befits a real genius.
I see what you did there… 🙂
Michael Gough did an excellent Alfred in his day. I was actually a little leery of Michael Caine at first (having only seen him in comedy roles prior to BB . . . LOVE “Without a Clue”) because of Gough’s portrayal of the character. Still, thank God for Christopher Nolan et al.
Incidentally, there’s a line of 3 figures for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES that’s made up of Batman, Bane, and Alfred. Yes, Alfred. Not Catwoman. Not Commissioner Gordon. Not Joshua Gordon Levitt’s character. They went with Batman’s butler.
At least it’ll make some money for Michael Caine. I remember Robert Wuhl talking about being in Tim Burton’s BATMAN and saying something like “I also get a percentage of licensing fees for my character. Which is great: I’m sure lots of kids saw the movie and said, “I want to be the reporter!'”
“Nevertheless, it is difficult to completely hate a film that so thoroughly accomplishes everything that it set out to do.”
No, no it isn’t. It’s rather easy actually.
Peter David: “Nevertheless, it is difficult to completely hate a film that so thoroughly accomplishes everything that it set out to do.”
Luigi Novi: Using that rationale, I can’t object to snuff films.
And people who dislike pørņ can’t do so.
Accomplishing what it sets out to do is certainly one criteria of film assessment, but it’s hardly the only one.
I have to agree with Jerry and Luigi on this one. In most cases, the later films in horror franchises (like FIRDAY THE 13th, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) manage to achieve exactly what they wanted: keep the franchise star amassing a large body count. There’s no creativity or intelligence to it, and it usually contradicts the previous film when the villain was killed off “for good,” but it’s what the filmmakers set out to do.
(And I *like* pørņ, dámņìŧ! How many other genres so consistently deliver what they promise?)
See, this is why I sometimes have problems with you, PAD. I’m a generally a big fan of your work (and have never lamented a cancellation before or since like the end of Soulsearchers & Company), and I read this blog because I frequently find that you have interesting and well thought-out opinions.
.
That said, its cases like this that drive me nuts, when you just cannot admit that you’re wrong, no matter how obvious it is or how tortured your defence. You claimed that Batman & Robin would ensure the future of the franchise…that, Schumacher, Michael Gough-including, Chris O’Donnell-as-Robin, franchise that died after B&R. As I think any reader would, I interpret your point to say that it would lead to another film in the shared-continuity franchise that ran for four films.
.
I do not believe you will convince ANY reader that:
1. The continuation of the then-60-year-old IP of Batman was what you meant
2. That the Batman Begins/Dark Knight film series owes anything directly to the Schumacher franchise (as opposed to appearing in the same medium, drawing on the original IP).
.
Can you not see how downright foolish and childish you look to sit here and twist words to try to justify a mistaken prediction from fifteen years ago?
.
For crying out loud, just be an adult and say “Whoops, I flubbed that one! Thank goodness it helped lead to the current film series, the latest of which we’re eagerly awaiting?”
.
It’s what a man would do (used in contrast to child, not to woman), and your fans, of which I do honestly count myself one, would respect you more for it.
Well, I’m glad you’re all agreed, and I particularly appreciate the concept that if I continue to disagree, I’m not a man. Because if one person doesn’t bow to the majority, he’s unmanly.
In the meantime, I’m considering that the modern day franchise of Batman films was begun by exec producer Michael Uslan. And “Batman and Robin” came along and, although it didn’t do as well as its predecessors and was critically reviled, it still made enough money to keep Batman viable as a film franchise. And then the franchise was rebooted, and we have the latest Batman film coming out and look who’s exec producing it: Michael Uslan. Not bad for a franchise that “Batman and Robin” ostensibly “killed.” All the film really killed was the direction in which the franchise was going: bigger, broader, more and more over the top, much of which was at Warner’s direction because they were still smarting from parental complaints over the excessive darkness of “Batman Returns.” Ultimately, though, B&R gave Warners execs exactly what they wanted: something evocative of the 1960s series. And then after the negative reaction, they decided they wanted something else.
PAD
Good grief, PAD, what is wrong with you?
.
Disagreeing is all well and good, but what you are doing is denying reality, lest you have to admit that you made a mistake fifteen years ago! And that, sir, is childish.
.
Your original review claimed that Batman & Robin would MAINTAIN and PERPETUATE the franchise. It did not. Schumacher knew it, Clooney knew it, Warner execs knew it, every reader of this blog who has taken the time to comment knew it.
.
For crying out loud, you weren’t even that firm on it in your original post, just saying that it PROBABLY would succeed. Its not like you staked your reputation on it.
.
Yes, Michael Uslan is producing the new Batman films. Why? Because he has the film rights to the character! His involvement is REQUIRED if there is to be a Batman film, it does not imply continuity with the earlier films.
.
The simple fact that, following a boom of other, well-done comicbook movies, Warner Brothers went back to a once-successful property does not mean that B&R MAINTAINED and PERPETUATED the franchise. Without those outside factors, do you really think that Batman Begins would have been made? You really mean to say that, based purely on B&R, in world with no X-Men, no Spider-Man, that Warner execs would really have had another go? Not for a long time, not until they forgot about B&R! Notice how all of the follow-on projects languished in development hëll until other super hero films showed it was possible.
.
Let’s remember what you claimed: MAINTAIN and PERPETUATE. You didn’t say, “Great news fans, this one’ll be an shameful under-performing stinker, and it’ll put the franchise on life support paving the way for it to be done right within the decade!” They are two very different things.
.
Because Warner Brothers had film all lined up, already in development, ready to MAINTAIN and PERPETUATE the franchise: remember Batman Triumphant? Remember why you didn’t see it in theatres? Because B&R killed it off!
.
But forget all that. We all know that B&R was a flop that did anything but MAINTAIN and PERPETUATE the franchise. And I truly believe that you know that too, you’re too smart not to. (Yes, spare me your snide response thanking me for telling you what you know, we’ll take it as read that you so replied).
.
And yes, your behaviour in this thread is not manly; it is childish. You are stamping your feet, reinterpreting terms, twisting meanings, redefining what your original claim was, arguing irrelevant details, all to avoid having to admit that a fifteen year-old half-hearted prediction was wrong!
.
So no, I’m not going to bow to your barbed comment, I’m going to stand by mine. You are acting like a child. It is shameful, and humiliating to watch a man I used to respect act so petulantly.
.
I don’t know why I’m writing this, since I’ve been following this board long enough to know that you will not possibly admit a mistake in this regard, though I’d love to be proven wrong. Not because I want you to bow to the majority opinion, but because I want to hear you bow reality, to accept your own words printed in black and white (grey?) at the top of this very page!
.
I guess my disappointment, and reason that I’m actually bothering to reply again, is because this time is just so very, very, very petty. Its not politics, its not about defending your professional reputation, it has no takes whatsoever, and still you cannot find it you to say “Whoops, I was wrong.”
.
So yes, I will say it again, but make sure to phrase it more clearly: You are a grown man, with an enviable career and a lovely family (by all accounts, though I’ve not had the pleasure, nor do I imagine I’ll be making the guest list next time you’re in Canada). But, in this regard…..
.
You. Are. Acting. Like. A. Spoiled. Child.
In other news, the kettle is black.
You’ll have to forgive him, Robert. I think he’s new here.
He doesn’t realize that displaying infantile behavior when you’re accusing someone of infantile behavior is the height of irony.
He also doesn’t know that sometimes I like to stake out ridiculous positions just to see if I can defend them. Never about anything of any importance, like politics or life and death issues. Usually I’ll go for something meaningless, like movies. Keeps things interesting. At least to me.
There have been times when people have said to me, in regard to my column, “I agree with everything you’ve ever written.” And I always says the same thing: “Really? Even I don’t agree with everything I’ve ever written. Sometimes I just say stuff to get people talking.”
I mean, OBVIOUSLY I was wrong back then, at least in the long term. At the time I wrote it, the movie seemed destined for success. The freaking thing opened huge, one of the highest box office takes of the year. Predictions were massively favorable. So with all the information at hand, it seemed right. It was only after the word spread of just how ghastly it was that ticket sales took a nosedive.
So when I read it now, I kind of smiled and thought, “Yeah, screwed the pooch on that one.” And then some of you leaped in and eagerly pointed that out, and I was about to acknowledge it and then thought, “Wait…y’know…the argument COULD be made…” and so I made it. I wasn’t doing it to mess with anyone so much as just engaging in a basic debating exercise: stake out a contrary position you don’t really believe and see if you can defend it vehemently. Particularly against some of the people here, who are formidable debaters. I mean, if I’d straight out copped to being wrong, that ends the discussion. I like discussion. You never know what’s going to come out of it. And it’s especially entertaining when it’s about something that’s ultimately inconsequential.
Granted, I was a bit disappointed since I thought the right wingers might jump in because, hey, I was wrong, and everyone else was saying I was wrong, so wouldn’t it be great to be part of the group mind for once? But they were quiet, so that was a bummer. On the other hand we had a guy go completely thermonuclear, so that was entertaining.
What can I say? It’s been 102 degrees outside for a week, my wife and daughter are in another country, the house is dead silent, all my favorite TV programs are in reruns, DEXTER doesn’t start again until September, and I have to find my intellectual challenges where I can.
PAD
I kind of suspected that, as there would be no reason for you to feel the need to sincerely defend that prediction. You’ve just got a bit of the contrarian in you. 😉
If anything, I suspect you must feel some relief that you did underestimate the intelligence of the American public!
A “bit” of the contrarian? Way to understate it there, Matt.
I’ve never been anything less than honest about my dishonesty. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: writers are professional liars. We sit around and make šhìŧ up and people pay us for it. I’m amazed anyone ever believes anything we say.
And yeah, good point about being relieved to have underestimated the American public. You’ll remember a few years ago, I was concerned that despite the positive polling numbers for Obama, I was still concerned he’d lose the election because I was worried the numbers were deceptive. I just figured that voters didn’t want to admit to a pollster that they’d never vote for a black guy, so I thought the poll results were unreliable. Man, I was happy to be wrong about that.
PAD
I can’t recall what it was, but I know there has been at least one occasion with a major storyline where, when you saw that so many people guessed the direction, you decided on the spot to zig instead of zag. And knowing you have that contrarian streak, I have sometimes kept guesses about where a storyline was going to myself because I wanted it to continue in that direction 🙂
Well, it seems I must apologize. So, I’m sorry, PAD.
.
I didn’t realize, being new enough that I’ve been following this blog for less than a decade, that you would take an indefensible position as an intellectual exercise an maintain it stubbornly even when called on it.
.
Obviously, when I took your repeated posts at face value and first replied to them, you didn’t have the option of saying “Gotcha!” and leaving me red-faced to enjoy the gag. Clearly I was foolish to take your replies at face value, and you’ve nicely pulled the rug out from under me for it. Kudos, sir, well-played and not at all immature.
.
I’m certainly glad to hear that I was right in my mind-reading act, though!
.
I would say, though that thermonuclear seems a bit of an extravagent embellishment. I never swore, kept replying to your arguments, and only called your actions childish. Since you weren’t denying reality, you were merely shamelessly trolling for a fight and feeding it when it started…well, clearly “childish” was way off base.
.
It’s funny the old debate club instincts, eh? I’ve got ’em too.
.
Anyway, my apologizes again for mistaking your innocent trolling for childish behavior, I am duly chastened. Thanks for clearing it up before things got heated.
.
PS – all this behind us, my opening post’s introduction reminded me of an off-topic question: given that it’s creator-owned, has there been any chance of a Soulsearchers revival? Man, I miss that series!
While “Batman and Robin” certainly played a key role in turning the Batman franchise away from camp, you have to wonder about another event that probably changed. After all, what happened between “Batman and Robin” and “Batman Begins?” September 11th. Not to throw the 9/11 bomb in here for nothing, but you do have admit that Nolan’s films have been far more contemporary, as it were, than its predecessors. You could argue the political elements in “Batman Returns” diffuse that argument, but really, it was played for farce than anything.
Which goes back to PAD’s point, that “Batman and Robin” perpetuated the franchise. I agree. And what’s more, I can’t be certain that Warner Brothers would have completely turned away from the campy elements if not for 9/11. After all, making a franchise that people still define through Adam West into something gritty and dark? That’s a big risk. But 9/11 made it relevant. Yes, we have “Transformers” and etc. as escapist fantasies after the attack, but Batman has always been the darker echo of the superhero motif. That’s why, in the end, I think Warner Brothers allowed Nolan the reins to the film – they knew it would connect. And they might not have done that based on Schumaker’s flop alone. After all, as PAD pointed out, the film turned a profit.
What were Batman and Batman Returns if not gritty and dark by the standards of their day?
X-Men, released in 2000, was also more contemporary. But then, you could argue that the X-Men have pretty much always been that from the start. There’s always plenty of hate and fear in the world.
No, I don’t think 9/11 has anything to do with it.
“No, I don’t think 9/11 has anything to do with it.”
.
I think it definitely impacted “The Dark Knight”.
Well, to an extent, 9/11 impacted on EVERYTHING. Every movie produced in the 2000s was produced in a post-9/11 world, and the Batman movies were no expection.
But I don’t see direct influences in the first movie. There is a bunch of them in the sequel.
I think the Nolan Batman movies were more influenced by Spider-Man, X-Men, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter movies. They all showed that there was greater interest in faithful adaptations. Hollywood execs let the nerds call the shots.
“But with all the over-the-top insanity, all the sensory barrage, all the bits tossed in that you have to rub your eyes and ask yourself, “Did I just see that?” (Batman’s credit card comes to mind),…”
You might have listed to Schumacher’s commentary in the years since, but in case you haven’t, a bank was offering credit cards as a tie-in to the movie, and Schumacher was told he had to put it in. While Schumacher understandably likes the movie more than most people, it’s clear that it’s not something he wanted in the movie.
Bane stood out for me actually in this mov1e, since some of his dialogue could be interpeted as critique of the film: “Exit !”; “Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!”