This might seem a difficult sell, and to be honest I’m really gonna have to dig deep into my recesses to pull this off – but then, I’m up to the challenge. Why? Because I think it’s a worthwhile undertaking: I happen to think that Joel Schumacher is a very good director and it’s sad to see how two silly superhero movies have tarnished an otherwise interesting and artistically fulfilling career. Also I feel that Schumacher’s two Batman films, as flawed as they are, still have more worth and merit than the unholy trilogy that Nolan and his company produced, and I wince a little bit each time I hear someone singing the praises of Christopher Nolan his great Batman films while ignoring the vastly superior Burton and Schumacher films. Burton will at least get a condescending shout out by Batman fans but Schumacher is still regarded as the devil himself.
I feel that most of the problems people find in Schumacher’s Batman films are stupid nit-picky fanboy critiques that don’t have anything to do with assessing the films as works of art but as comic book fanboy properties. It’s utterly ridiculous for a film to be judged as bad just because there are nipples on a bat suit, or because somebody uses a bat credit card. Call me crazy but I happen to think that a film should fail or succeed based on things like acting, plot, direction, writing, etc.
It seems that Schumacher gets a lot of flak solely for not depicting the “right kind” of Batman mystique: the kind of Batman people wanted to see. Forget all that frivolous business about making a good movie, just make sure you get the characterization of Batman correct, and if you do then the movie will get a pass even if it’s an awful incoherent poorly directed mess. At least that’s how it clearly worked for Christopher Nolan.
Schumacher’s Batman films were far from perfect but they don’t deserve half the hate they receive. If people were to step back and take the Bat blinkers off they would see that both Schumacher Batman films have their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Since we never hear about anything but weaknesses, I’ve chosen to highlight 6 things that I believe Joel Schumacher did right in adapting Batman for the big screen, and 6 things that consequently make him a better Batman director than Christopher Nolan.
Maybe if we focus on the good and stop over-emphasizing the bad, we can learn to once again appreciate the cinema a great modern day auteur.
Let’s get into it…
We are currently seeking Batman contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Batman contributor, click here.
130 Comments
I totally agree! Schumacher had a much bigger understanding of Batman than Nolan.
At last someone understands.
I can only presume this article was deliberately pulling everyone’s leg… with the exception of Eliot Goldenthal’s scores, the Schumacher films were nowhere near Chris Nolan’s trilogy, although Schumacher himself has admitted they were made in very different times for a very different audience than the post-9/11 marketplace.
As a big, colorful, and deliberately OTT comic-book movie in it’s own right, ‘Batman Forever’ isn’t actually half bad, I enjoyed it at the time, but it hasn’t aged well (Tim Burton’s two films have gotten better with age), but no one – and I mean NO ONE – could possibly defend the utter atrocity that is ‘Batman & Robin’… not even Schumacher, who apologized for it on the DVD commentary, and who once lamented to Woody Allen “I’ve made the worst film ever”, to which Allen replied “you haven’t even done that”… ’nuff said.
Whilst ‘Batman & Robin’ is a garish neon-soaked horror show of a movie, Schumacher is an excellent director with some great films to his credit… and Warner Bros should release Shumacher’s original 160-minute cut of ‘Batman Forever’ that is both darker and considerably better than the severely truncated theatrical version.
Bilge would be too kind a word for this article. Jim Carrey one of the biggest comic talents of all time? Er, yeah, right, sure he is. He’s a regular Peter Sellers.
Clooney a better Batman than Bale?
Uma Thurman better than any of the Nolan villains? The only thing she was better than were Mr Freeze and Bane in the same film. And that was only because of how atrocious they were.
Bilge…I’ll have to use that word in one of my articles. Its a good word to describe Nolan’s Batman films.
In all seriousness thanks for the feedback Ben. You wont believe this (since I didn’t put it in the article, but I had commented to someone the other day how Jim Carrey is like a modern Peter Sellers. Of course I meant it seriously.
Yes Clooney being better than Bale is a hard pill to take, but I had to pick the lesser of two evils. At least you can understand what Clooney is saying.
I’m sorry I completely disagree with this article, every point is wrong in my opinion; especially the fast that Bale is the worst Batman when he quite clearly the best, he does his bat-voice so no one knows who he is, clever.
I also disagree with every point of this article (the Poison Ivy and Riddle were the worst), and i think this is not a serious article, i mean, like… Really? Looks like a troll…
Things that have rational explanations in movies (like bale using his batman voice to confuse people)doesn’t mean it makes practical sense to the movie goer. Its sort of like a director blaming the audience for not getting something when in reality the director made a mistake and should have tone down the rasp a bit in Bale’s voice to make it go down easier with the viewing audience. It the directors job to involve the audience. If the decision you make as a director, no matter how much sense they make in the movie, alienates the audience then you lose impact with the audience which I’m pretty sure no director wants to happen.
Same here. And as far as ‘things that have rational explanations in movies doesn’t mean it makes practical sense to the movie goer,” that makes little sense. A film’s reasons, if put together well and the film is involving, should be explanation enough. If an element is integral to the world of a film that works and the film goer doesn’t like it, that only means the movie was not for the viewer, but doesn’t constitute a flaw in the film. And certainly doesn’t mean that the director made a mistake — only that that element doesn’t work for a particular viewer, perhaps because the entire world of that film doesn’t. Many folks hated the voice, but many didn’t — it’s just one controversial element that alienated a lot less than it did.
I can’t wait to see the comment section on this one…
Me neither.
Im a burton/Nolan guy but great article. I think he gets a little to much stick too
I’m not trying to say people should consider Joel Schumacher to be the greatest director ever, but he certainly deserves to be known for something other than being the guy who ruined Batman. Why can’t he be known as the guy who directed Lost Boys, Flatliners, Flawless, Falling Down, ect.
This article seems less about saying why Schumacher’s films are not as bad as they’re made out to be and instead hypocritically making out the Nolan films to be worse than they are. There wasn’t a page where there wasn’t a cheap shot or an excuse to piss and moan about it
You make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs. Just look at it as my way of balancing out the film universe. Nolan, an awful director, gets a pass for bringing to the screen the best incarnation of batman, even though he housed that incarnation in three awful films. Schumacher, a good director, gets denigrated because he brought a subpar incarnation of batman to the screen even though he housed his incarnation in better directed films. The compare and contrast is meant to showcase the unfair way Schumacher is being treated.
…By, objectively, acting quite hypocritically. Also I’m curious; why do you say that Nolan brought the best incarnation of the character to the screen but then rank him last?
Christopher Nolan is definitely not an awful director. The billions his films have made at the box office prove otherwise – not to mention his critical acclaim.
This article must be made in jest……otehrwise…WHAT??
i like the Schumacher Batmans when i was a kid and didnt get Batman but now im a batman nerd and an adult, they’re just awful. #
Each to there own though.
If growing up means you gotta embrace Nolan’s putrid poorly directed dark pseudo intellectual view of Batman’s world, then here’s hoping we can stay young forever.
The difference is, Nolan read the comics and incorporated them in his movies, while obviously Joel Schumacher never read one and Burton himself said “If you know me, you know I’d never read a comic book”. This makes Nolan a much better Batman director than any of those two – as well as the fact his movies are actually, you know, good.
Um, Christopher Nolan would admit regularly that he never reads comic books. The other writers, however, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer are both huge Batman fans. Christopher Nolan may be responsible for the quality of the movie as a whole, but the Batman character was fleshed out by the others.
Spare me, the majority of Nolan villains have almost nothing in common with their comic counterparts except their names.
Ummm what Patrick and penfold said. Also I would like to add that just because you keep something close to the source material, doesn’t make the adaptation by default better. Brian De Palma carrie’s a good example of totally disregarding the source but still achieving a superior product. If you think that sticking close to the source material equals a better film then I urge you to watch Stephen King’s TV remake of the Shining.
So your what saying is that bane in the Batman and Robin is a better representation than bane in TDKR where was a clever stratagist who was a effective fighter than bane as grunting bodyguard who had zero intelligence
This article is horrible I rather watch the joker crash that party over and over then watch Joel batman movies I rather have bane break my neck then watch Joel movies
“Uh-oh. He don’t look happy. He’s been using Brand X.”
Hey Ray, don’t be quoting Burton to shut down your opponent– you argued that Schumacher>Nolan, so don’t bring Burton into this.
You should just give up writing.
But it’s sooooooooo much fun.
I’ll be honest, I quit reading after you said that Val Kilmer was a legitimate Batman. With that said, I wish you good luck in your future endeavours, because you writing on whatculture.com will cause nothing but controversy and angry comments.
If the people who read my articles are as honest as you Dez, then I have a lot to look forward to.
Dear Raymond,
I’d really like your article as I love Batman Forever I can’t enjoy it because you Nolan-hate. Why did you have to compare the two? BTW my opinion about your points?
6. Agreed. Jim Carrey is a great Riddler of his era but wouldn’t it be intersting to see a more modern take on the character? He doesn’t have to be a serial killer but rather something like in Arkham City.
5. All of the actors played different takes of the characters so it’s just plain stupid to “rank them”. I think you did it because you wanted to show how smart you are to list all the actors (which is fine) but Christian Bale wasn’t the worst one. Michael Keaton was far worse, he didn’t have enough muscles to play Batman and wasn’t charming enough to play the real “mask”, Bruce Wayne. Wasn’t convincing.
4. That homeage was sweet and suited well for Schumaker’s Batman universe but it would have sounded awful in a more serious take. You can’t blame Nolan for that.
3. Really? I see your point in every page and I do agrre with you sometimes but you can’t be serious about this one! It’s extremely cheesy and awkward. Why would Batman do that? I understand the metaphors it’s just so gay that I don’t really understand why it was needed at all.
2. Uma Thurman would have been great if she could have played a real character like Ivy from Batman TAS.
1.The score is totally awesome but it does nothing to do with Nolan and Schumaker, just the composers.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me respond to each point individually.
6. Thanks for agreeing that Jim is a great Riddler. I doubt that a more interesting take would be any better. 9 times out of 10 they would make it too dark. And as much of a fan of Arkham City as I am, seeing the Riddler portrayed as a skinny mod-syled hipster with stubble is not my idea of a good Riddler. Keep the funny in it.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me respond to each point individually.
6. Thanks for agreeing that Jim is a great Riddler. I doubt that a more interesting take would be any better. 9 times out of 10 they would make it too dark. And as much of a fan of Arkham City as I am, seeing the Riddler portrayed as a skinny mod-syled hipster with stubble is not my idea of a good Riddler. Keep the funny in it.
5. If it wasn’t for ranking and comparing the characters then each and everything that comes out would be considered the best in the world, since you wouldn’t be able to compare to anything. Also muscles to not a good batman make. Bale had muscles galore but still played batman like a freak with throat cancer.
4. I’ll give you that. I just thought the homage was something cool. I think it’s Nolan’s loss though, that he doesn’t have the sense of humor to be able to incorporate a scene like this in his Batman trilogy.
3. It’s called symbolism dude. Literally Batman probably wouldn’t do something like that, but symbolically it a perfect representation of the heroism of the Batman mythos.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me respond to each point individually.
6. Thanks for agreeing that Jim is a great Riddler. I doubt that a more interesting take would be any better. 9 times out of 10 they would make it too dark. And as much of a fan of Arkham City as I am, seeing the Riddler portrayed as a skinny mod-syled hipster with stubble is not my idea of a good Riddler. Keep the funny in it.
5. If it wasn’t for ranking and comparing the characters then each and everything that comes out would be considered the best in the world, since you wouldn’t be able to compare to anything. Also muscles to not a good batman make. Bale had muscles galore but still played batman like a freak with throat cancer.
4. I’ll give you that. I just thought the homage was something cool. I think it’s Nolan’s loss though, that he doesn’t have the sense of humor to be able to incorporate a scene like this in his Batman trilogy.
3. It’s called symbolism dude. Literally Batman probably wouldn’t do something like that, but symbolically it a perfect representation of the heroism of the Batman mythos.
2. I agree but that doesn’t detract from the awesome camp quality of Uma’s performance
1. The scores are different and I respect individuality but if someone does it better then I’ll admit it.
Wow, usually the trolling is in the comments, not the whole article.
We like to switch it a bit here at Whatculture! It keeps the readers on their toes.
The Scores for Nolan’s Batman were brilliant. Oh and perhaps if you get your facts correct, I could take you seriously. Hans Zimmer Composed Nolan’s Batman with James Newton Howard.
Saying that James Newton Howard worked with Hans Zimmer isn’t a good thing. That’s like saying Jack the Ripper worked with a partner. I’m glad to be corrected but that doesn’t make the score they made for the film any better.
Looking over your previous articles you clearly have horrible taste in a lot of stuff. Maybe you should rethink your position as a writer on this website.
You hiring?
Dude, pick up a Batman graphic novel. Read it. Then re-write this article. ‘Batman and Robin’ was not only a terrible film, it may be one of the worst comic book films ever made. And it has nothing to do with the nipples. It has to do with plot, acting, and anything close to being entertaining. And I wanted to like it. I really did. I liked and grew up with the campy TV series, so its not just a matter of what kind of Batman one likes. Now Batman Forever was decent. And I can still watch it and enjoy it. But I can’t get more than ten minutes into Batman and Robin and I just have to turn it off. It is absolutely awful.
In the very first page, the author makes the point that “most of the problems people find in Schumacher’s Batman films… don’t have anything to do with assessing the films as works of art but as comic book fanboy properties,” and even says, “Call me crazy but I happen to think that a film should fail or succeed based on things like acting, plot, direction, writing, etc.” Yet he spends the entire article not talking about acting, plot, direction, writing, etc. but rather about how Nolan’s movies didn’t reflect the camp style of the ’60s Batman, completely ignoring the fact that the largest influences in the movies were from Frank Miller and Alan Moore versions of Batman. No consistency exists in his points, and his complaints are that of someone wanting a modern version of Adam West rather than an actual film critic.
This article coultn’t be any worse.
trololololol
I sincerely doubt that.
oh sorry, i meant that for the guy above you. I’m glade at least Barloq that I could make you laugh.
Holy Right you are!! Joel’s Batman Forever was Fantastic, alot of things that changed in that film but overall more thought about visually than Nolan’s Dark Knight Franchise.
Here’s The thing that bugs me… all these Nolan Batman lovers are just 16-18 year olds that havent any interest in comic books they just wanna see a wild ride movie with some guns and some blood, well that aint how it works, if it wernt for the comic books you wouldent have your crazy movie that all in all means nothing to you but ‘yer the joker was amazing’ at the end, Tim Burton’s Batman Changed the character to what most of us know today, and was the influence behind three more movies after that and An AMAZING batman animated tv show that spawned alot more spin off’s and other animated films.
But as i said people who dont appreciate batman to the full dont know what the characters true form is, you just walk round in hoodies with the bat logo on because its cool or you seen the film well read what below EVERYONE because from a true batman fan this is how it is!!
Tim Burton’s Batman: The game changers, the correct look for Gotham, The Correct look for Batman and true villain’s who had great chemistry with the hero, an utter pleasure to watch and the way batman should be.
TAS: Nothing to say but Truly amazing Batman Should Be On Tv for the much loved stories to be told like this animated dream.
Joel’s Batman: Great cast in forever and Yes Val Kilmer is An Exellent batman/bruce wayne, same gotham tone as burtons but with abit more ‘Glow’ shall i say, nothing wrong with this fun rollercoaster ride of a family film even if it does leave the tone of the two before it.
Batman and robin, OHH THE HORROR… Not apart from the batnips it isnt joel’s fault, the powers to be were to blame for this kids film that was rushed, but as i put it KIDS FILM which it is and all you batfans know you loved it as kids, So do me a favor smile about it, it wasent that bad when you were young so just let it be.
Nolan’s Batman: Yes it does leave the comic book universe to try to be something alot more real and serious, and to be fair it pulls it off brilliantly, i love these film’s so much… but Go Back you nolan Fanatics who think hes god, go and watch Tim’s two movies and The Entire Animated TV show, and educate yourself with batman year one,the dark knight returns and the man who laughs graphic novels/comic books and you will see that nolan has done little thought and alot of pulling from past batman stories Mainly the Tv AS Show to pull off his Batman Movies.
Overall: You should all see that all the films have there own good qualitys and bad qualitys someone just needs to put them them together to make the ultimate batman film. (tho i would rather see a tv show as there are alot of stories to tell)
For those who want to know:
My Favorite’s:( I love them all but if i had to choose )
Batman: 1. Michael Keaton
2. Kevin Conroy
3. Christian Bale
4. Val Kilmer
5. Adam West
6. George Clooney
Bruce Wayne:
1: Christian Bale
2: Kevin Conroy
3: Val Kilmer
4: Michael Keaton
5: Adam West
6: George Clooney
Batmobile’s:
1: Burton
2: West
3: TAS
4: Forever
5: Clooney
6: Bale
Any questions Or just for a chat E-mail me a hindley98@hotmail.co.uk
or
Add me On Facebook @ Michael Paul Hindley
Thank you
what the hell is wrong with you. also your remark against 16-18 year olds is offensive
Overall: You should all see that all the films have there own good qualitys and bad qualitys someone just needs to put them them together to make the ultimate batman film. (tho i would rather see a tv show as there are alot of stories to tell)
Great response dude, you rock. Although I’ll still argue that even the faults of Burton’s and Schumacher’s film still have more merit than the few strengths of Nolan’s saga.
Oh and if you wanted to do that ultimate batman film as a fan edit I will be waiting in line to but it.
This guy is super clever. He’s probably so clever that he has no one to talk to because no one can match his super level of cleverness. If HE were a super hero, his name would be Supercleverman.
I’m seeing the same thing in the writing of this article and some of the comments that I see a lot on the web, and it’s something that drives me INSANE: complete arrogance and condescension in the expression of their opinion. The writer seems to think that his opinion is the Word of God, and that it should be so blatantly obvious to everyone which films are better. I liked all of the films by Burton, Schumacher, and Nolan, and the reason is that they each have their own distinct flavor.
If you’re going to write articles like this, you need to drop that tone.
I think I’ll get that trademarked. I can see it now. Issue number 1 of Supercleverman: Titled Supercleverman vs the Stupid Masses.
Sorry David I meant that for Billy.
That’s Cloony on page 3 not Kilmer.
I know. I just wanted a shot where the nipples are displayed prominently.
Bcs of 5 I stopped reading clearly u r talking thru ur ass
Oh so Jim Carrey can do it and I can’t.
This is just awful. Other than the score, your article makes absolutely no sense. Christian Bale behind Adam West as a better Batman?! What was going through your head when you were writing this? I think I’ll try to avoid any other articles you have…jeez. And by the way, I don’t think I’d say Jim Carrey is one of the funniest actors of all time…maybe not even the funniest of the 90′s.
Check out Carrey in Liar Liar and Dumb and Dumber not to mention his work on the Fox show In Living Color. Maybe that will change your opinion on Carrey as a comic.
This comparison between Nolan and Schumacer is coming from the man who wrote an article called “10 Funny Moments From Aaron Seltzer And Jason Friedberg Movies”. I can’t take him seriously. Clearly he has a terrible taste in everything.
Ouch….Come one man. You didn’t think Date Movie was at least a little bit funny. The cat had diarrhea! Lol!
I agree with the article to some degree, Burton and Shumacher had a better grasp and feel for the character and tone of the franchise. While I do believe that what Nolan did with it is interesting and the movies are well made, they are not true BATMAN movies in my opinion. You take out the masked vigilante with a few script changes and you are still left with decent crime drama movies. Batman is not meant to be taken that seriously, he is a grown man fighting crime dressed as a bat for Christ sake! The fans that balk at the Burton and Shumacher films (at least Batman Forever) are not true Batman fans. Its like come on you Nolan-ites you might as well suck his D*** while you’re at it. Again nothing against nolan’s films but if you consider them better than burton’s you are not a batman fan.
Thanks Bruce and I’m glad to have you on my side. Still for me its not about being a Batman fan or not. Its about being a fan of good movies. Nolan didn’t make good movies. Even if he just made crime drama they would probably still be subpar because he lacks a dynamic interesting visual language and only can give the audience pseudo intellectual musings on evil. Burton and Schumacher at their worst are still more talented filmmakers than Nolan and had a less contrived messages they tried to convey in their batman films (good vs evil, destiny, guilt, letting go).
His parents were also brutally murdered in front of him as a child. Yeah, nothing serious about that. Your opinion is invalid dumb donkey
Hey you can say what ever you want to about me but leave donkey’s out of it.
To be fair, I very much enjoy Batman Forever (in its own way). And I enjoyed Jim Carrey as the Riddler (though I feel that he went over-board). But I love Nolan’s Batman movies (and I haven’t been eighteen for a while). I like that Nolan downplayed the over-fancy effects, and I feel that Christian Bale made a fantastic Batman. The comics are dark (have been for a while) and in my opinion these movies did an excellent job of capturing that.
Alexander you are a poet and a scholar. Thanks for your measured and well articulated response.
“[I]n today’s society it seems that the more dark and joyless a film is the better.”
Thank you. People really do seem think that cynicism equals maturity.
Sir/Madam, I owe you a drink.
I disagree with you (the Schumacher films are abysmal and Batman & Robin is so incoherent that I literally have never been able to sit through the whole thing) but I also agree with (the Dark Knight films and Nolan himself are grotesquely overpraised).
That being said, I take my hat off to you and your moxie for putting this out there. You expressed yourself with conviction and without resorting base invectives.
Thank rainestorm. By the way, your blog looks very promising. I’ll give it a look see.
The one thing I think Nolan missed was a true Batman theme. It’s hard for me to say that Joel Schumacher did anything better than Nolan. Just as it’s hard for me to say that Nolan did anything better than Burton or Schumacher. It’s a completely different interpretation. I do wish there had been more iconic Batman moments in Nolan’s trilogy. I have to disagree about the bit about how you’d rather see the joker in the museum than Joker crashing the party. Nobody thinks the joker is funny in Gotham City, so why should he be funny to the viewer? He is a terrorist. There should be no joy or humor in that. I do have my issues with Bale’s bat voice in certain scenes from the trilogy but he no doubt captured the presence of Batman. He was a perfect Bruce Wayne. No one has truly brought the pain and loneliness that Bruce feels and the necessity he feels to be Batman.
I must commend you for writing this article because fan boys are crazy.
Well not everyone in Gotham city thinks Batman is a hero so why should we? So there is no joy or humor in terror, huh? Ever seen Team America World Police or the Dictator? I’m all for empathizing with the characters on the screen, but at some point it can go to far. Empathizing is great, but taken too far and you risk alienating yourself from a film. The viewer/audience is a sounding board. The director bounces ideas, characters, plots off of them. If they don’t like it fine, but they shouldn’t dislike a film because it doesn’t exactly mirror reality. If that was the case, you wouldn’t have a film like Inglorious Basterds. Perception, time, distance, all these things contribute to humor. War isn’t funny in reality. War had it’s humorous moments in that film, and Tarantino took generous liberties with history, sometimes ignoring it altogether. Don’t sacrifice vision on the altar of reality. You’ll lose the ability to appreciate good ideas, characters and films.
Awful simply awful, I can’t believe any sane person would write such rubbish. This article was so full of sugar honeyed iced tea. You should be fired and banned
Dude Sugar honey ice tea is an absolute good. How dare you!
Couple of points that I disagree with, one you made and arbitrary list of the actors who have portrayed Batman leaving out several actors who have played Batman/Bruce Wayne. Either you are being ignorant or just plain lazy. Here is a far more comprehensive list. These are actors who have either played Batman in live action or animation/occasionally both
Lewis Wilson (1943)
Robert Lowery (1949)
Adam West (1966-69. 1977-78, 1984-86)
Olan Soule (1968-69, 1973-83)
Michael Keaton (1989-1992)
Kevin Conroy (1992-Ongoing)
Val Kilmer (1995)
George Clooney (1997)
Rino Romano (2004-08)
Jeremy Sisto (2008)
Diedrich Bader (2008-11)
William Baldwin (2010)
Bruce Greenwood (2010-13)
Peter Weller (2012/13)
Also Uma Thurma was way over the top as Poison Ivy.
And finally in closing, I loved Jim Carrey as the Riddler, I thought it was perfect casting. Although I would love to see something inline with the B:TAS version.
Also I agree Nolan’s trilogy did lack that much needed theme for Batman. Over all I found the scoring of the trilogy very lacking in distinct themes.
Thanks Lieutieant
I hate to correct a member of the armed forces, but I don’t think I wrote that I was putting up a “comprehensive” of all the people who played batman. Just all the people who mattered to me.
I also never said that Uma was over the top. I admitted that. My argument was that it was the kind of over the top performance that qualifies as great enjoyable camp.
comprehensive list I mean.
Don’t mind me, I just get really obsessive compulsive over Batman lists.
and to be honest once I saw you had an incomplete list I just sort of went into a nerd frenzy and couldn’t think clearly till I had corrected your obvious* oversight.
Also at this point I feel the need to say I really enjoyed this article, as I rarely see someone pro Schumacher. Gave me a reason to check out the films again.
Plus I am sucker for any and all articles related to the Dark Knight.
*Obvious to deranged fools like me anyway.
seriously dude… watch this please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj2KcFj1jbE&list=WLE46555EF289FD433
Dear Christ in heaven I can’t even finish that clip. It’s edited even worse than the movie it’s trying to lampoon.
This is literally the most insane of all the Nolan-bashing articles whatculture have vomited out.
What’s up yo. Well, you wanna stand out for something. If writing the most insane Nolan Bashing article of all time is my claim to fame, then hey, I’ll take those lemons.
After reading this article and some of the comments, I’m still waiting for a valid point as to why Schumacher is a better Batman director than Nolan. I know I’m never going to agree with you, but I’m at least trying to understand your viewpoint. And with what you’ve said I just can’t. I am a massive Batman of comics, shows, games and films. I can never read enough Batman so I’d like to think that I have well rounded opinion on the character and his surroundings. In a way it’s almost unfair to compare these films, as the Burton/Schumacher films are very comic booky (and no that’s not an insult to them) whereas Nolan’s films are what would happen if Batman where real and in our universe, hence the darkness of the film series. We live in very dark times. It’s a parallel to our own world.
I have to say, while I, like most, heavily disagree with you, both in hating Nolan and loving Schumacher, I have to praise you for your ability to give a compelling argument. If ever I was close to being persuaded against my view, it was now. Also, Congrats on enduring the ramblings and idiocy the less-educated Nolan-fanboys are dishing out in full force.
That honestly is one of the greatest compliments I’ve ever received on this website. Persuasive, intelligent writing is my goal.
Wrong on all accounts
Geez, talk about blanket criticism.
Kicked over the proverbial hornets nest with this one, eh? At first, I thought this was going to be satirical. But as I read, I realized that you meant what you wrote.
I liked “Batman Forever.” I thought that Jim Carrey was very good as the Riddler; he managed to make a memorable character out of what was given to him. To this day, it remains the only Carrey performance that I have been willing to watch more than once. I gave up on him after “Dumb and Dumber” (I STILL want that two hours of my life back). I’ve not seen “The Truman Show,” but that’s because I was so disappointed in D&D and “Ace Ventura.”
On my review for the box set of the first four “Batman” movies, I noted the following about Schumacher (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2009/03/bd-batman-anthology-1989-1997-is-a-repackaged-effort/): “Director Schumacher has been roundly reviled for the cartoonish style of “Batman Forever” and especially “Batman & Robin.” I myself have compared the latter to the campy 1960s TV show, stating that the only difference was the absence of the “BIFF, POW, BOOM!” graphics. In “Part 6: Batman Unbound,” Schumacher states that the design of the film was taken over by the marketers, who wanted to build a toy empire more than make a film. To his credit, he mans up to the charge, stating “I knew what they were doing. However, I’m an adult, and I signed on to the project anyway.”
I disagree with you about Schumacher’s films being superior to the Nolan films. In my opinion, Nolan resurrected the franchise. But I commend you for putting your opinions out for the world to see. When I get nasty comments about something I wrote in a BD/DVD review, I often remind myself that the thing that everyone one forgets is that criticism is subjective. What one person regards as utter crap is another’s masterpiece.
I don’t give somebody credit for resurrecting a franchise unless they actually made a good movie while doing it. Nolan didn’t. Also I don’t agree that criticism is subjective. I think that the basis of criticism functions on the belief that there is a standard in art to be aspired to. Those who do are commended and those who don’t are chastised. If we just view criticism as subjective then we run the risk of denigrating the art forms we care about by shielding it from correction and growth.
Also, Good intentions don’t make a good film. Good solid filmmaking, coupled with great writing, cinematography, ect do. Some of the greatest movies have been made under the most commercial of conditions. Even of the greatest movie studios in the world MGM was referred to as the Dream “Factory”.
Also I admire your unconventional sense of humor. Tell me, what movies do you find funny.
I agree with some points, Val Kilmer and Uma Thurman for example (I wish that Ivy had been in Forever instead of Two Face, i love Tommy Lee Jones but the idea of Uma and Jim scheming to take over the world sounds great.) I prefer the score to Burton’s Batman because it sounds… well i just think it flows better. I disagree completely on the ending shots though, i think that The Dark Knights ending was one of the best parts of the movie. as for Schumacher: i think he;s a great director as well, i just don’t think that after Burton’s take on Batman he should have taken the character in the direction he did. Enjoyed the article even though i prefer Nolans trilogy to Schumachers films (but not Burtons, love Burtons)
“i think he;s a great director as well, i just don’t think that after Burton’s take on Batman he should have taken the character in the direction he did.”
I can respect that. I hope you don’t dislike Schumacher’s take just because of nit-picky reasons like Bat Nipples. It may be indicative of a problem but it wasn’t what made the film not work.
If you are using a quote by Armond White to back up any point, you immediately invalidate that argument. You have your opinions and while I agree with very little of it, they are still yours, but that guy is known for going against what everyone else thinks just to get attention.
Isn’t that called just having an original opinion. This high school mentality film criticism, where critics are attacked and called trolls for not following the crowd is a shame. Especially since Armond is one of the most intelligent, intuitive, passionate film critics we got. Why don’t you try reading some of his less incendiary reviews. You’ll find yourself in the presence of a man who truly understands film on a deep leve.
level I mean.
No, I’m sorry you are wrong on this one. Having a different opinion is one thing, but this guy has been banned from sites like Rotten Tomatoes for his proven antics. Its a high school mentality to disagree with or rebel against something just because its the popular opinion and becomes worse when you do it to specifically drive up hits to your site.
I recently downloaded Batman & Robin because I know I had watched it as a kid, but I couldn’t remeber it. Once I watched it, I thought “luckily, I didn’t pay for it”. It is a filthy, horrible, disgusting piece of cinema, but hey, it’s fun for a while.
Schumacher’s depiction of Batman was having him using all kind of gadgets to accomplish his tasks, so that they’d make more money off toys sales. With Nolan, we had a crazy billionaire who dressed up as a bat, was a detective, used darkness, worked with Jim Gordon. Clearly, Nolan and his team understood way better what Batman had to do in order to be Batman. Schumacher had a Batman suit, but was it even Batman we saw on the screen ? I think it’s safer to assume George Clooney was portraying one of the impostors we saw in TDK.
I guess we could say that, as a writer, you have taken a huge risk by going so all-out against the Nolan series, so congratulations on that. You defended your points, but really made yourself look like a fool, you clearly missed something from Nolan’s movies to hate them like that. Even worse, you prefer Batman & Robin over any of the last three Batman movies we had. That is really sad, man.
Man Julien, a filthy horrible, disgusting piece of cinema…..you sure you didn’t download a snuff film version of batman.
Nolan didn’t understand Batman any better because Nolan didn’t even believe in the notion of a hero. That kind of idealism is way too uncool to fit in with his hip pseudo intellectual nihilism. All Nolan believes in (but doesn’t fully understand) is revenge, brutality, hate, and fear. Maybe he should have laid off the psych courses in college and focused on his filmmaking technique.
“All Nolan believes in (but doesn’t fully understand) is revenge, brutality, hate, and fear.”
well Batman is human and he can feel all those emotions right ? have u ever thought for a second that those human elements r the reason why his bat movies r so successful ? the fact that he can’t fly..shoot laser out of his eyes and turn into a big green monster is the reason it worked. hope u get it. i guess u don’t like change. all u want is same old interpretation of goofy batman. he understood Batman a hell lot better than Joel ever did.If Joel had better understanding, y didn’t people like it ? the answer is as simple as that.
I agree with this article i would also say that the visuals that Schumacher used for the Batman and robin forever gave it more that comic book feeling than that dark mess of black that nolan used, only thing i disagree with on this article is who you think was the best batman Michael Keaton is the best than Val Kilmer is second
Thanks for the comments Jeff. Joel Schumacher gave his Batman films (particularly forever) a great since of style. Sadly it was misunderstood in the same way Ang Lee’s Hulk was. It seems the summer movie audiences just wanted unimaginative explosions and action scenes. Well, at least with the Avengers they got what they wanted.
Also I would recommend you go watch Batman Mask of the Phantasm before you say Kevin Conroy doesn’t deserve to be number 1.
I aggree with this. This website constantly sucks off Nolan when. Watch Inception again. That movie blows. If realism in movies is what everyone wants now, then get ready for the Jersey Shore movie to come out. I’ll stick with fun
Noodles you rock. Again I quote Rouben Mamoulian the great director of Hollywood’s Golden Age:
What attracts me to films is not the dialogue It’s the imagery, the magic of the camera. And I’ve always believed in stylization and poetry. If you preserved the psychological truth of the emotions and thoughts of the actors, and combine that with the physical expression that is utterly stylized and that couldn’t happen in real life the impact upon the audience is one of greater reality. Perhaps that’s why they call it surrealism. This becomes more real to the audience than if you had done it in a realistic manner. Done correctly, stylization carries greater reality in its impact on the audience than everyday kitchen naturalism ever can achieve.
Also remember that Whatculture! is currently looking for writers. If you want to see more articles that don’t tout nolan as the g.o.a.t then I urge you to join up and change things.
I have to just say that I enjoy all of the movies. I just enjoy them differently depending on my mood. If I want something fun and action-packed, I go for the older movies, with Nicholson’s Joker, the Riddler, or even Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze. If I’m in a darker mood, I go for the Nolan trilogy. I can’t help it; I really do love both Nicholson’s Joker and Ledger’s Joker, but for completely different reasons. I think that comparisons of the two types tend to be generally unfair, because they really are totally different subgenres. That is, of course, my opinion. I just believe you can thoroughly enjoy each movie as long as you don’t constantly try to compare.
“I can’t help it”
Try. You can do it. I don’t reward originality and give lax criticism just because something is different from something else. If that was the case then every movie performance would be the greatest of all time since you wouldn’t be able to hold it up against any thing else. Art does have inherent standards. Every critic worth their salt knows this.
First off, I love the Nolan movies. Second, I LOVE Batman Forever. When I saw it in the theaters I thought, “finally a comic book movie.” I hated the day-glow stuff, but at least he goes around and kicked butt. He rolled out of the elevator and karate kicks the heck out of goons at the beginning. Carrey’s Joker was great. I even thought O’Donnell was good, if a bit too old.
I thought Batman & Robin was one of the worst movies of all time, but I know think it was geared for the kids and not adults. I’m sure if I was ten I would have thought it was the bees knees. Same with Phantom Menace.
I almost feel bad for Schumaker because I thought his earlier movies were awesome. Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, Time to Kill, etc. This one destroyed his credibility.
I’ll be honest, I disagree with some stuff on here, but you are right about a lot of stuff too. For example, Carrey is brilliant. I think the main reason that people hate the Schumacher films, is that he took Burton’s somewhat increasingly camp tone, and just went too far with it, hence batnipples. C’mon even you can’t defend that. Other than that, great article, and fair enough for having your own opinion.
Wait how did Schumacher cast the Riddler, Poision Ivy etc better then Nolan? They were never in any Nolan films!! Clearly this article is just someone hating on Nolan’s films as most of your points are completely invalid!
Exactly!
Looks like you have a full time job here responding to all the posts.
Out of interest, what do you think of The Long Halloween graphic novel?
I disagree with this entire article, actually your comments regarding the Batman character make me question whether or not you’ve ever actually read a comic book. However rather than bash every point I’m going to bite my tongue, although one thing I do feel the need to comment on is how exactly are the casting choices for two villains completely absent from Nolan’s films is something Schumacher did better than Nolan? I also must point out Schumacher’s films also had Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr Freeze which was perhaps the worst casting choice for a major villain in a superhero movie ever. Say what you want about the writing, direction, production etc.. of Nolan’s films but the casting was solid, and at the very least there was no one obnoxiously bad like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Let me preface by saying that I too believe Shumacker has been unfairly railroaded. That being said, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the three directors’ films. Nolan made Batman films for grown-ups, with real drama and real consequences to the characters. With the exception of the deaths of the Flying Graysons, none of the heroes in Shumacker’s films were ever in real “danger” with real consequences-adults identify with that type of story more. Shumacker made Batman films for kids and, as a kid, they were fun as hell. They told good Batman stories with bright colors and over the top villains-almost a live-action cartoon, with the added benefit if huge merchandising. The fact that they were made with toy sales in mind doesn’t diminish them, but it’s important to remember the audience they were made for. Burton, more than the other two, made Batmsn films for all ages. They had Drama and consequences for adults to identify with, and stylization and villains that children could also enjoy without being frightened (except maybe the scene where penguin bites the dude’s nose off). Three very different styles of Batman film. To me, it’s a little like comparing Star Wars and Star Trek. They all have their merits, but they were simply made for different audiences. I think it’s a great disservice to all three if them to say which one is “better”. I mean, having a favorite is one thing, but they’re all so different tonally that you might as well compare Kubrick to Spielberg for all the sense it makes. Sorry to be so long winded…
Surely Batman flying towards the screen at the end Batman Begins, with his cape spread out in that iconic symbol, is better than two (or three) people running towards the screen?
There are many critics of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s work for the Dark Knight Trilogy, but it can’t be all bad? Music from the series is used quite prominently across the globe and for all its detractors there are a veritable slew of acolytes across the globe and on score forums who very much enjoy the dark, brooding nature of the score, more-so than the quirky, almost chirpy scores Danny Elfman provided.
I will be very interested to read future posts regarding the upcoming Nolan-produced Man of Steel movie; as you appear to despise everything Nolan has done with Batman I can only imagine the outpouring of vitriol that awaits when you realise the new Superman film isn’t produced/directed by Richard Lester – a man also infamous for almost massacring a franchise
What an excellent contrarian article.. I would agree Shumacher is the “Best of the Rest” and maybe on what are you looking for his may be better than DKR…
However Begins and DK are far superior to the other batmen films and as a threesome the Nolan trilogy are better than the rest…
As well, I am disappointed over Peter Weller in DK Returns… That shoulda be Conroy or an unknown..
Go on wayching films, reading about films and listening podcasts about films and stop writing stupid things like this article. You know nothing about Batman and not much about films at all. Accept this as a fact and we might be able to talk,
I’ll just leave this here… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T__uN5xmC0
Oh and, before I depart, the Nolan scores are not superior to its predecessors? I’ve always admired Zimmer as a composer, and the main theme for the trilogy is regarded worldwide as not just a great ‘batman’ theme, but a truly excellent piece of music.
Raymon Keith woods your article is fantastic agree whole heatedly with every single word may I put it on my anti Nolan ant Jett the Nolan cocklover from batmanonfilm my anti nolan batsite calle http://www.batmannrobinonfilm.blogspot.com def will credit you this article is great I recently had an anti Nolan YouTube vid called shumacher is better the Nolan screw what you heard that got 20’000 hits an an article on ign lol
I disagree about everything in this article. first, Jim carrey is an excellent actor, and his portrayal of the Riddler is amazing, but it’s the only portrayal since the West series. Ledger’s Joker wasn’t about makng people laugh. you think someone like the riddler is truly logical in this world if he can’t make a man budge with a whole punch? Joker is the better man because of the intensity and suspense durng the film.
Val Kilmer was not the right choice for Batman. If we were living in that universe, I’m sure anyone could tell Bruce Wayne is Batman. He never seemed different AT ALL between Batman and Wayne, and the only dfference was one wearing the mask, and vice versa. Christian Bale expressed the enjoyment that Bruce Wayne had as a billionaire playboy, and being someone else entirely as Batman. i hate to say that Keaton’s Batman was very similar to Kilmer, but Bale is the only one to completely step out of character to hide himself as Batman.
Poison Ivy, and the rest of the villans in Batman and Robin sucked. Poison Ivy talks to herself all the time, and only looked good once in the entire film.
And the score to Schumacher’s films were not, at all, good. Nolan’s films had a score which expressed the emotion and feel of the scene. the score of Schumacher’s films failed just like the rest of the films did.
And the ending scenes to thos films sucked! they served no purpose other than two to three people wasting their breath to pose like a kid with a blanket tied on his shoulders. the dark knight clearly expressed a needed hero in a city similar to modern society. And Robin’s holy…Batman…don’t even get me started with that.
Overall, this review is just hating on Nolan’s vision to make Schumacher look good. Burton did an excellent job, but Keaton’s protrayal was weak compared to how Bale established two different people between Bruce and Batman. it’s not about comedy, camp, and a colorful city with purple and green lights that Batman stands over. i can see that with Marvel, but DC. Nolan made Batman what he truly is…a legend with a story. whilst the previous films only happened one villain after another, just like Raimi’s awful Spiderman trilogy.
I’m sorry, but this is a joke article. I’ll admit Uma Therman Poison Ivy was absolutely amazing in every way, but other than that, this is not serious. Jim Carrey as Riddler is possibly the worst casting ever in a comic movie. Then add Arnold Mr. Freeze (I forget how the spell the last name), Tommy (or Billy. I forget) Lee Jones Two-Face, and his Bane = immediate failure. Nolan movies has Tom Hardy Bane. Thus, Nolan wins by default.
I’m a fan of Bale and Nolan, but seriously, in TDKR the bomb’s gonna go off soon and the guy decides to graffiti the suspension bridge with a bat symbol in flammable substance?
I’m just going to be relatively neutral and say I like them all, each having there good and bad points. Sometimes love of one film can blind you to its flaws, hence why there is usally some quite intense hatred for another version. There is nothing wrong in having a preference, just I think we take films way to seriously and expect to have the best of the best all the time. In reality, all films are flawed in one way or another, its just how much we notice and dwell on it that ruins our perception.
Haha this article is ridiculous you obviously aren’t qualified to be writing this because you’ve obviously never read a batman comic in your life. And it’s funny because the picture for the part about how great Val Kilmer is is a picture of George Clooney…
This article suddenly made sense when you quoted Armond White. Reminds me of the review he gave Jack and Jill (a positive review,written in a pseudo-intellectual manner, about an Adam Sandler in drag movie).
But hey if they are your opinions fair enough.If you’re just trying to garner views and comments hopefully you are suitably ashamed at being so successful at it.
i think i just threw up in my mouth a bit. i totally disagree with this. batman and robin was terrible u cant spin it any other way. joel didnt understand the purpose of the character, nolan did and joel totally missed with wat the essence of batman truly is. this is a scarred man a man with anger and demons not a kidder with bat credit cards. nolan encompassed the anger of a man who will do watever it takes to rid his city of crime. batman and robin was a disgrace to tru batman fans that understand and read the comics. batman is brutal if u wanna laugh watch the power rangers better known as the avengers
I assume that you don’t teach film or know anything about movies for that matter. Your comparison is like a starving man staring at a painting of food. What good is it. Forever and Robin were and still are trash. I was a kid then and I knew they sucked….. hey while on this subject please tell me if ur a fan of Superman IV: Quest for Peace? Bet u think that’s art as well. Oh well.one mans trash is another man trashy treasure I suppose.
just imagined nic cage doing that 89 batman scene instead of keaton, that IS him!
i think the main problem with nolan is his fetish for talky pictures, almost 2/3 of each of his batman films is all about people talking and talking and talking… and the way he expects us to belive that a nutjob detective which uses a bat costume to hunt down criminals could exist in our world.
Lol…dude, you just said the reason Bale’s Batman didn’t work was because his lack of levity makes the performance seem over the top, and that Schumacher gets points in your eyes for understanding this!? Schumacher’s Batman is the definition of over the top. Batman and Robin is inarguably a horrible movie…box office shows this, fan contempt shows this, Schumacher’s apology shows this…and it is specifically BECAUSE it is over the top is why it is unwatchable.
I stopped reading your article at that point. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.