What BATMAN '66 "got right" that Joel Schumacher's films "didn't"

[TMC]

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4687536.html

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/46...l#cmt149902256

Date: 2014-04-20 01:11 pm (UTC)
From: joetuss
I don't understand how people love this show but not like the Schumacher films?

Date: 2014-04-20 01:48 pm (UTC)
From: icon_uk
Batman Forever came closest to the 60's series I'd say and I rather enjoyed that film partly because of that. It was certainly a step up from the nihilistic dirge that was Batman Returns, though their complete missing the point of Two-Face sort of spoiled things.

Batman and Robin, was just... painful, it didn't know when to stop. It was like the 1960's series with none of the charm because it was trying so hard to have it both ways, camp AND serious, that it messed up both.

Clooney came over more as smarmy than straight man, and Chris O'Donnell bless him, was... well, Chris O'Donnell, which is pleasant enough, but bland as a very bland thing.

Casting Arnie as Freeze (who might well have managed to make a BTAS "frozen all emotion from him" outlook work) as a goofy punster was a misfire, and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy chewed the scenery like few others, which would have been fun for an episode of the series, but for a full length movie it was just too much.

And NO film could survive "Alf Headroom" and "Suit me up Uncle Alfred" with it's dignity intact.

Date: 2014-04-20 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: an_idol_mind
Because the Schumacher films lacked any of the comic timing or subtext that made the 60s series great.

Date: 2014-04-20 04:10 pm (UTC)
From: halloweenjack
I think that Schumacher was trying to make his version of a Tim Burton movie, which earlier in Burton's career meant that mixture of whimsy and gravity that only Burton could really pull off, and even he couldn't do it forever. (I've often wondered what sort of movie Burton could have made of Planet of the Apes if he hadn't felt the need to take it so damn seriously.) The result was an overdesigned movie that seemed to consider the actors almost as an afterthought; Jim Carrey is mostly underutilized (compare his performance in Batman Forever to the one in The Mask), and not only is it difficult to tell what Tommy Lee Jones is really doing in the movie, it's uncertain whether he knew, either.

By contrast, the 60s TV show was simply based on the premise that real people dressing up in superhero costumes would look utterly ridiculous, and just ran with that.

Date: 2014-04-20 06:36 pm (UTC)
From: jaybee3
I think the difference is that the Batman show from beginning to end was meant to be a comedy. Even the "cliffhangers" weren't taken seriously. Meanwhile, the Schumacher films were purposely sequels to the Burton films which were very much serious films (although Batman Returns started the whole two villains and over the top acting that Schumacher continued) and each film got progressively worse. If they were supposed to be comedies that was one thing but the movies themselves couldn't decide so we got serious moments/comic moments and it didn't mesh well.

And Clooney for all his chops as an actor can't seem to pull off jokes straight-faced like Adam West.

Date: 2014-04-21 02:33 pm (UTC)
From: mrstatham
The thing is, Batman Returns at least worked because the film wasn't neutered by the studio wanting a cashcow, which is really what messed up Batman and Robin in particular. There's actually THREE villains in Batman Returns, too, but because of the way the film handles them - treating Catwoman more as a sympathetic, damaged anti-hero and making Schreck the larger mastermind overall - it simply works better than Forever or Batman and Robin. Batman and Robin in particular has some bizarrely out of place sexual moments and jokes with Poison Ivy where I'm not sure what they were thinking, to say nothing of the weird hybrid character of Mr Freeze crafted from several incarnations.

And.. I said before that I think Clooney would possibly make a fine Batman now, that he's moved on from being the 'hot doctor' on ER and establihed he can really freaking act, but I don't think the sloppy tone and bizarre direction of Batman and Robin helped him at all. Is it a comedy? Because hey, here's an actually pretty freaking brilliant scene between him and Gough's Alfred about the notion of Batman being a means to conquer death. Is it a serious movie? Because here comes AHNULD WIF DE EYCE PAHNS.