Joel Schumacher, Director of Batman Films, Dies at 80

[The Deadman]

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/j...or-1234644961/

Joel Schumacher, costume designer-turned-director of films including ?St. Elmo?s Fire,? ?The Lost Boys? and ?Falling Down,? as well as ?Batman? films, died in New York City on Monday morning after a year-long battle with cancer. He was 80.

Schumacher was handed the reins of the ?Batman? franchise when Tim Burton exited Warner Bros.? Caped Crusader series after two enormously successful films. The first movie by Schumacher, ?Batman Forever,? starring Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey and Nicole Kidman, grossed more than $300 million worldwide but was criticized by many for an unpleasant manic quality ? the result of having two villains, with one of them played by Jim Carrey.

Schumacher?s second and certainly last film in the franchise was 1997?s ?Batman and Robin,? with George Clooney as Batman and Arnold Schwarzenegger as villain Mr. Freeze; the dark vision that Burton had brought to the first two films in the series had been abandoned for what could only be called camp. The movie still had a worldwide gross of $238 million, but was widely considered a failure both commercially and artistically. Quickly crystallizing into a symbol of all that was wrong with the film was Schumacher?s decision to introduce nipples to the batsuit. The openly gay Schumacher was accused of introducing homoerotic elements to the relationship between Batman and Robin; in 2006 Clooney told Barbara Walters that he had played Batman as gay.

Super long article in the link

[MikeandRaph87]

Batman Forever is my favorite Batman film, mostly because of the inclusion of Dick Grayson and The Riddler. I hated the neon aesthetic as I said recently and Riddler's costume wanting a more psychological look. However, the tone was perfect for me. How much Schumacher had influence on the two characters inclusion and the tone or the studio I do not know if it is the studio or Schumacher I should thank. Also, I read this article only last night.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...204847616.html

[Leo656]

Whaaat? Man, my wife is gonna be pissed. I had no idea he was that old!

Not even close to one of my favorite directors, and I thoroughly despise his Batman movies (although "Forever" had a few moments which imply that it could have been something decent with less studio interference and a more subdued style), but "Lost Boys" was pretty good. It's kind of a shame that his latter-day legacy was mostly intertwined with those two Batman movies, considering he did a lot more than that and Those Movies are not indicative of his overall style or skill at his craft.

Ooof. That one takes me by surprise. I thought he was, like, 70, maybe. Not a favorite of mine - I probably said some Very Mean Things when I was younger and more resentful - but still, that's a shame.

[ZariusTwo]

Batman and Robin would be widely accepted today because it did exactly what every Marvel film now has gotten away with

[Galactus]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think every Batman movie had gotten the 'spirit' of the character and his world in very different ways even if they haven't all been good movies.

In Batman & Robin in particular Bane and Freeze look they were ripped straight out of the comics. It goes for the a tone of what the 60s series would be if it had been made in the 90s and succeeds at that...even if precisely zero people want that.

Batman Forver is a pretty decent movie, the only real flaw is its portrayal of a Two Face which is admittedly horrendous. Beyond that though the movie's plot and characterisation works very well.

Of course the elephant in the room is whole 'gay' aesthetic which runs through both his Batman movies. It's only really that prevelent in the second movie bad even then I wouldn't say it's that much. There is plenty to criticise the movies for that it always baffled me why people zeroed in on bat nipples and butt shots.

Speaking of questionable sexual content I went to the cinema to see Batman & Robin with some friends and the entire place was empty save for one guy on his own sitting alone on the back row. When he started to make odd noises we were convincing he was jacking off to Alicia Silverstone.

[Leo656]

Zarius: I definitely "sort of" agree, but I feel like SOME of that stuff would still be Too Much Ham.


Like I don't think that kinda sh*t would ever fly, Then or Now.

You're right in the broad sense, though, that had that movie come out now in the Popcorn Age of super-hero movies where we've collectively decided that taking the material seriously is a mistake because "They all wear capes! It's silly!", that it would have been more kindly received and maybe even been popular. I'm glad that it failed, because we got Nolan's Trilogy as a reaction, but you're 100% right, some movies only get a specific reaction because of the collective "mood" of society at the time they're released. By comparison, I've always felt like BvS would have done gangbusters if it came out somewhere in the 2005-2008 window when people wanted stuff to be more grounded and violent. Post-RDJ and the rise of Super-Hero Movies as Skitcoms, nobody was in the mood for it.

But something like "Batman & Robin" would be much more warmly received nowadays, definitely. Does it deserve a warm reception? No, it's dreadful, but it better fits the current "mood" as to what comic book movies "should" be, for sure. I just still think it goes too far into camp to say it's exactly like the MCU stuff, though. Same ballpark, though, definitely.

When I was younger and less-informed, I put 100% blame for those two Batman movies at Joel's feet, and I regret that now. I was a teenager, I didn't know just how heavily studios interfered with the work and how little say any director really has on a "blockbuster" movie where McDonald's toys are at stake. I was naive and ill-informed. I will never like the movies, but Joel was only doing what he was told for most of it, so I no longer blame him specifically and have not for a long time. I feel that he was a competent director who got wrangled into a project he didn't have full control over and was shanghaied and then thrown under the bus by the studio. And it's a shame that Those Movies are forever going to overshadow his other work, because that is not fair.
----------

Galactus: You raise fair points, to be sure, but I feel that anyone who was truly aware would have been able to "read the room" and therefore realize that a 60s pastiche of the Adam West TV show was not necessary or desired at that moment in time. But you're right, it's not like that stuff in Joel's Batman movies came out of nowhere or was altogether invalid or "wrong". It was just about ten steps backwards from where the character had evolved to by then and was incredibly ill-timed, and also ill-executed.

If I were to change anything about "Forever", I'd replace the entire cast and scrap all the neon. You might definitely still be able to build something pretty sweet with what's left, even if you were still hellbent on aping the TV series, but the terrible cast and "glow stick" saturation ruined whatever good they may have had. It was like someone decided to throw a gay Batman-themed disco party and someone just happened to film it.

But again, how much of that was Joel and how much was the studio... eh. I've heard that a lot of those choices weren't his. Some were, but not all.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Batman and Robin would be widely accepted today because it did exactly what every Marvel film now has gotten away with

I disagree. Just a few reasons why...

Marvel's characters are more likeable. Chris Evans, Robert downey, Chadwick Boseman...I like those guys and their versions of the character. George Clooney had potential, but I didn't dig his version of Batman at all.

Then there is the action. Movies like Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, Avengers. They don't have the best action in the business by any stretch but they are well-crafted spectacles, fitting of the genre. Does batman and Robin have anything like this??

I'm aware you hate the Marvel movies - I don't enjoy them all either - but this comparison makes me wonder if you've even watched them?

And if so, 22 movies in to a series you dislike...why? Not that there are any rules against that, but it's interesting.

BTW, that image of Bane is probably my favorite thing to come out of B&R and I think those films are fun in their own right. At the end of the day, they've brought a lot of people joy whether they were laughing with them or at them, so good on Joel, who also has a lot of other credentials to his name. RIP.

[MikeandRaph87]

Was Joel to blame for the neon aesthetic? What about Riddler's outfit?

Just months removed from Batman & Robin an obvious jab was thrown in the cartoon.

[oldmanwinters]

Hate to hear that.

Honest Confession: I bought the collector's edition DVDs of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin for the sole fact that they included his director's commentaries. Credit to him for not shying away from one of the most infamous superhero films in history.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Hate to hear that.

Honest Confession: I bought the collector's edition DVDs of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin for the sole fact that they included his director's commentaries. Credit to him for not shying away from one of the most infamous superhero films in history.

I bought the Blu-ray box set partly for that reason, but... I haven't been compelled to watch them. I'm not trying to be mean, but I can't sit through more than 5 minutes of B&R without getting chest pains. It's REALLY bad for my blood Pressure, and my blood pressure was fine until that movie existed.

I'll get around to it one day.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

Was Joel to blame for the neon aesthetic? What about Riddler's outfit?

Just months removed from Batman & Robin an obvious jab was thrown in the cartoon.

I mean, probably? That and the decision to make the costumes fetishise the male anatomy to the point of including nipples, does seem like moves a Homosexual costume designer and music video director would pull.

While they're certainly odd choices for mainstream action movies, they were his movies and what they ended up like should have been his call rather than the studio's, regardless of how they were received in the end. So while B&R is not a good movie, I can at least respect it for mostly being a director's vision and not solely what a studio demanded it should be.

[Leo656]

Why do people ONLY yell at B&R for the nipples? The nipples started in "Forever", they just weren't as prominent.

Joel has in the past taken credit/blame for the costumes, at least, saying that they were based on classical Greek sculptures which had idealized "perfect" bodies as Batman is generally supposed to. It's a way to go, I guess. I don't think anyone except him would have ever come up with that specific idea, but I *almost* understand why it occurred to him.

He did always seem thoroughly confused by the backlash to that choice, though, so... I do think that in general, his Body Fetish overruled his common sense and blinded him to why other people thought it was goofy. It's like, if you have to be told why hard nipples and loving close-ups of male butts are generally anathema to a Batman project, maybe you're a little "too gay" to be objective about the material.

It is what it is. Although that stuff, by far, isn't the worst of what's in those movies. It's just indicative of a larger sense of misplaced priority.

[oldmanwinters]

It is what it is. Although that stuff, by far, isn't the worst of what's in those movies. It's just indicative of a larger sense of misplaced priority.[/QUOTE]

Heh, well said, Leo656.

[Wesley]

I didn?t know he was that old either. I don?t think much of his Batman movies, but I liked his work on Phone Booth.

[sdp]

I prefer the the Joel Schumacher batman movies than the Tim Burton ones, they feel more Batman to me, then again I was a kid when watching them, here is our review, sad to see him go and have gotten so much hate for two good batman movies

[TigerClaw]

Batman Forever was the movie that gave us that Seal song Kiss From a Rose.

[Galactus]

We know Shumacher was explicitly told to lighten up the Batman movies after the poor reception of Burton's Batman Returns and Forever was more financial successful and shifted a lot more toys so the evidence suggested that lightening the tone was the way to go.

I know they've come back into fashion now but before they went away for a while Batman and Robin was one of the last movies to use dailies and the notes they got back from the studio every morning was "yes we love the camp. A lot more of this please". It should be noted that Batman & Robin did make a lot of money but the studio after a while did read the room in terms of audience reception as you say and decided to cancel the series.

Unlike Burton Scumacher actually was a fan of the comics and really wanted to do a straight Year One adaption. His plans for the followup to Batman & Robin seemed sound enough and tackled the big problem with the movie; that criminals in Gotham no longer feared Batman and saw him as a joke. It would have involved Scarecrow and theme of the movie being exploring Bruce's fears. If you think about it what we got with Batman Begins was a mash up of Schumacher's two ideas; a Year One inspired movie featuring Scarecrow exploring Bruce's fears. I have a hard time seeing that as a coincidence. Clearly Joel's ideas still resonated with the studio even if they felt he himself was poison when it came to Batman movies.

[PizzaPower1985]

Ah, the inevitable death of a brilliant director in Joel Schumacher and of course, on a superhero forum we get very little except talk of "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah BATMAN!"

A Time To Kill was his best film. The Client was great too. The Bat-films... are still not nearly as bad as something like that blonde chick superhero... oh Captain Not-Mar-Vel. Yeah and it's not like B&R is a good movie but isn't it better at least than MOST OF Superman 3?

Batman Forever is a good attempt at 90's Batman... B&R is NOT a Batman movie... not really even a movie just a poorly edited toy commercial.

Dolf "I Must Break You" Lundgren's Punisher is still an excellent 80's action movie... but it ain't The Punisher. That 1990 Captain America THING with an Italian Red Skull and a rubber eared RED, WHITE and BLUE costume IS STILL BETTER than B&R.

Anyway why am I digressing about bad superhero celluloid when nobody here has devoted any time to THE FROG BROTHERS. That comic book store scene makes me cry with joy EVERY TIME I see it.

[turtle1237]

RIP.

BUT he did ruin the Batman named until Batman begins in 2005. Almost 8 years with out a Batman movie. Yes he ruin it that bad.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Galactus

If you think about it what we got with Batman Begins was a mash up of Schumacher's two ideas; a Year One inspired movie featuring Scarecrow exploring Bruce's fears. I have a hard time seeing that as a coincidence. Clearly Joel's ideas still resonated with the studio even if they felt he himself was poison when it came to Batman movies.

Oh, it's definitely no coincidence, it's standard practice in the business. Studios pay a lot of money to have scripts written; too much, arguably. There are millionaires in Hollywood who make a living selling scripts and not a single script they've written has ever been filmed. It's wacky, but it's how things go. But anyway, so since the studios pay a lot of money for scripts, nothing ever gets "thrown out"; it gets tossed in a drawer, and the next time someone says "Hey, why don't we make a Super-Hero Man movie?", they open the drawer and pull out the last thing they solicited and see if there's anything in it that's worth carrying over.

Happens all the time, whether it's movie titles or entire plot points or even plots themselves. For example, WB had pretty much decided as far back as 1993 that the next Superman movie might be called "Superman Returns", because they really liked the way "Batman Returns" sounded and they figured "If it worked before...", and so on. When they fell in love with the Doomsday plot from 1994 onward, it briefly was re-branded "Superman Lives", but then they reverted to "Superman Returns" again when they abandoned the death storyline... which in itself was only temporarily abandoned, because they eventually put it to use in BvS. A lot of little pieces of what's in "Man of Steel" came from scripts that were abandoned before the "Superman Returns" project. Or things like what "Batman V Superman" ended up being, lots and lots of the connective tissue of that movie was decided on by WB as far back as 2002-ish, when they first started talking about doing a team-up movie. The movie that eventually came out wasn't identical to what they were hashing out back then, but some of the beats and broader ideas were the same.

Likewise, they paid a lot of money for those unused Batman scripts, so even if they didn't think they were worth making into a movie in and of themselves, they paid too much to let all of the ideas go to waste, and thus they salvaged what they could when starting a new project. Nothing that goes into any movie is ever entirely "new" or original, there's almost always lots of pieces from everything else before that was being worked on before getting abandoned. I've pointed out many times to people how many ideas from "Batman 5" ended up in "Batman Begins". I have to think that Nolan executed the material a LOT better than Joel would have, because they're totally different directors, and sometimes it's less about the ideas on paper and how they're brought to life, with these things. The ideas are very similar, far too much to be coincidence, but based on their individual directing style I have to feel like Nolan was in a better position to execute those elements.

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

Yeah and it's not like B&R is a good movie but isn't it better at least than MOST OF Superman 3?

Nah. Clooney ain't no Chris Reeve, and the Dumb Stuff in B&R is way worse than the Dumb Stuff in Superman III. Superman III at least has the chemical plant disaster scene, the junkyard scene, Annette O'Toole as a tremendous Lana Lang, and Reeve giving his best try, as always, to elevate the weak material. The people making it tried hard, the filmmakers and scriptwriters were just generally incompetent. But there's an earnestness and a sincerity to it that B&R simply does not have. B&R by contrast is a very crass, very loud, very over-cooked and over-stuffed exercise at making a toy commercial as a super-hero movie. Schumacher reportedly shouted "Remember, we're making a toy commercial!" at the actors between takes. Everyone working on it was miserable except Arnold, who's generally a pretty happy-go-lucky guy.

I cannot in good faith or conscience justify B&R, in any way, shape or form, over Superman III, and I absolutely do not like having to defend that movie or the choices in it or even Richard Lester as a director in general because I really don't like that guy. But I have to side with a movie that was crafted with sincerity but fumbled via incompetence, rather than a movie that was created and openly exists as nothing more than a way to push plastic on gullible children. Everything about B&R was conceived in sin. If you made a list of movies that were "Everything Wrong With Movies As An Art Form And Hollywood As An Entity", "Batman & Robin" would have a very high spot on that list.

"Superman III" was a total misfire with good intentions, "Batman & Robin" was an absolute hate crime. There's no contest, although the cinematographer on B&R inarguably did a better job shooting it.

But, most of that was WB. In a vacuum, under different circumstances, Joel might've had a genuinely good Batman movie in him. You can only do so much when the studio is pushing these terrible ideas on you and telling you they love it like that.