Q. O.K., let’s talk about “Batman & Robin.” You were successful with “Batman Forever,” but that sequel derailed the whole franchise until Christopher Nolan came in to revive it.
A. I’d had such a string of successes. You kind of think, like, wow, I’m hitting these balls out of the park every time. And I felt I was making quality films, and so I think I didn’t have passion to do “Batman & Robin.” I think I was paid a lot of money, and we were supporting the Warner Brothers stores, and so I felt like my job was very corporate for the first time in my life. I think it still made a fortune and stuff sold and all of that, and I blame no one else but myself — a Joel Schumacher film. The buck stops right here.
I dunno if I can ever forgive him for putting nipples on Batman and calling it "children's entertainment".
Can you?
Joel Schumacher
On
2010-07-30
2
comments
2 comments:
I can't ever see that directors name now without shuddering in disgust, which is to bad, since he's made quite a few films that I enjoy, such as Tigerland, Fallingdown, A Time To Kill, and Flatliners. Of course, he is also responsible for The Number 23, and we all know what a turd that one was.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the interviewer that "Batman Forever" was that successful either, at least from a Bat-fan perspective. I do agree that the studio had a hand in ruining the film as well. Working within a similar corporate/creative system now, the bean-counters weigh everything against formulas designed to achieve maximum profit, which goes to show you why some many genre TV shows and movies suck ass (every single video game movie in particular); they try too hard to appeal to a mass audience, and usually alienate the minority crowd that made the show worth producing to begin with. Unfortunately that's a tough nut to crack since "pure" adaptations can suck just as bad if it is too dense for an outsider to pick up. Getting back to our Batman theme, that's why Nolan's recent Bat-films have been successful: an auteur filmmaker with a proven track record of intelligent and successful films was allowed to modernize the franchise his way, which catered to us geeks, yet was good enough to appeal to the mass audience. I mean I loved both films (even the stuff that was outside the official comic book canon) for being superb Batman films, but I know folks that could give a rat's ass about Batman, but worship Dark Knight as a superb piece of noir/crime storytelling.
In the end it's nice to see Schumacher take the blame for the shit he created (especially since I read interviews years ago when he adamantly defended the neon-lit pile of Bat-turd), but more than anything else this dismal failure of the film should have given Warner Brothers the hint that their corporate greed actually cost them money in long run by destroying a huge franchise. It should have...
Sad thing is that this kind of shit will never change.
Video movie games that didn't entirely suck:
* Boob-Raider (err Tomb Raider, well the first one wasn't all that bad)
* Prince of Persia (this was actually very enjoyable)
Okay, it's a short list but you still can't say "all" :D
I agree completely regarding the maniacal adherence of Hollywood to "the formula". But those few 'close adaptations' that get made sometimes back fire. I'm talking specifically about Watchmen here. I loved it, but it's pace and downer ending have contributed to Hollywood's notion that being a little too heady with such (superhero) material doesn't work. Hopefully they can keep it all in perspective and bring us more work like Nolan's and less like Schumacher's.
Post a Comment