Why the hate for Schwarzeneggar in Batman 4?

[smiling bandit]

I was watching Batman 4 last night (a.k.a., Batman and Robin) and I recall the somewhat vicious hate-on for Schwarzeneggar's character Mr. Freeze in the movie. Heck, I thought he was the one likable thing in it. Sure, the movie was stupid and incredible obnoxious, but I loved Mr. Freee. He had me rolling in stitches. He conducted a band of murderous but shivering hockey thugs in a rousing rendition of "Frost Miser"! And the fact that he pulled off those lame cold-based jokes with a straight face - hilarious.

OK, so it was in some ways symbolic what was wrong with the series. Really bad drama, piss-poor action, halfway decent comedy. But Schwarzeneggar himself can't really be blamed for it.

If anyone, you'd go to the director and producer. But Clooney's Batman and Alicia Silverstone's (chubby) batgirl were incredibly annoying. The later was totally useless and adding precisely zip. Clooney was just awful, though. I could never understand how he got in as Batman. He can maybe pull off a halfway decent Bruce-Wayne-as-playboy, but totally lacks the menace or presence of Batman. Heck, he lacks the menace and presence of Alfred. I don't know why Val Kilmer didn't come back (maybe he saw the script and bailed). He was in some ways the perfect straight man for the Batman-as-parody.

You could also maybe point to Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, but the character was pretty ridiculous and not given much to work with, so I can let it slide. Bane isn't worth mentioning.

Thoughts?

[Sublight]

I have to agree. The Freeze character and his lines were atrociously written (I don't think he had a single line that wasn't written as a catchphrase) was, but Schwartzenegger did about as good a job with it as was possible, and was definitely the least bad part of the film.

[Skald the Rhymer]

:: donning body armor, putting shield on right hand and mace in left before answering ::

I kind of like Batman & Robin. The opening action sequence --everything from the museum to the escape from the FreezeShip--rocks. Moreover, I thought both Clooney & Arnold acquitted themselves as well as was possible given the limitations of the material and the fact that Shumacker is from the anti-matter universe. Okay, Thurman and O'Donnell were horrible, and Silverstone, for some strange reason, remains entirely clothed the entire time, but it's not as bad as it could have been.

By the way, I don't think there's any justification for calling it "Batman 4." None of the movies were numbered, and given the radical shift in tone between Batman Returns & Batman Forever, you could quite reasonably say that Forever is a sequel to the Adam West film, not the Burton series.

[Chimera]

By that time the entire franchise consisted of a couple of very limited things that don't add up to Good Movie.

1> Cram as many villains into the picture for no apparent reason, giving none of them much of anything to do right.
2> The "Oooo look, we got REALLY BIG STAR X to play the part!" Hollywood problem. Who gives a fuck who you got for a part that has no reason to exist? That's not art or entertainment, it's Vanity.
3> Crappy Cliche'd Dialog that exists only for one-liners, trailers and clips. Doesn't make a movie watchable or enjoyable.
4> Plot? We don't need no stinkin' plot! We got Arnold and George and Uma all looking pretty and spouting hilarious one-liners! What more do you want?

[Gadarene]

Chubby??

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Gadarene

Chubby??

She was derogatorially called "Buttgirl" at the time, over the size of her ass.

Right or wrong, I'm not saying I agree with it or anything, but there it is.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Mapcase's Law for Movie Villains:

One villain is good.
Two villains are one-half as good.
Three villains are one-eighth as good.
Four villains are one-sixteenth as good.
Five villains are unwatchable.

Batman and Robin had four villains, including Vivaca A. Fox as "Ms. B. Haven." Her name ought to count as an extra villain all by itself.

[Subway Prophet]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

:: donning body armor

Dude...your armor nipples are showing.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Mapcase's Law for Movie Villains:

One villain is good.
Two villains are one-half as good.
Three villains are one-eighth as good.
Four villains are one-sixteenth as good.
Five villains are unwatchable.

Batman and Robin had four villains, including Vivaca A. Fox as "Ms. B. Haven." Her name ought to count as an extra villain all by itself.

By way of rebuttal, I point to Superman II (either two, four, or five villains, depending on how you count) Batman Begins (two villains) and The Dark Night (two villains).

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

By way of rebuttal, I point to Superman II (either two, four, or five villains, depending on how you count) Batman Begins (two villains) and The Dark Night (two villains).

In some ways that's the exception which proves the rule. Note that in the first two cases, the villains were effectively a team working on the same side. IN the Dark Knight,

SPOILER:

Two-Face wasn't even entirely a villain. Through msot of the movie Harvey Dent is a real hero, albeit one is a desperate situation. He only crosses the line when he cracks. He's not so much a "villain" in that sense.

[BrandonR]

I think this video pretty succinctly sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7tzVu2h6k

[shy guy]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

:: donning body armor, putting shield on right hand and mace in left before answering ::

I kind of like Batman & Robin. The opening action sequence --everything from the museum to the escape from the FreezeShip--rocks. Moreover, I thought both Clooney & Arnold acquitted themselves as well as was possible given the limitations of the material and the fact that Shumacker is from the anti-matter universe. Okay, Thurman and O'Donnell were horrible, and Silverstone, for some strange reason, remains entirely clothed the entire time, but it's not as bad as it could have been.

I'm apparently going to need a force field belt, then, because I can say, without qualification, that I think Batman & Robin is a fantastic movie. Better than Batman Begins.

[JSexton]

Originally Posted by shy guy

I'm apparently going to need a force field belt, then, because I can say, without qualification, that I think Batman & Robin is a fantastic movie. Better than Batman Begins.

I know that, technically, opinions can't be wrong. Regardless, that's an indefensible statement.

I agree that Arnold, the actor, was as good as he could have been. Arnold's character, on the other hand, was so poorly written and conceived that I can't help but blame anyone even vaguely associated with it, and by extension, the entire film.

[Steve MB]

Arnie did as well as can be expected with the material he got. Unfortunately, that material was 99 44/100% crap. That's not Arnie's fault (except insofar as he showed poor judgment in signing up for that movie).

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Arnie did as well as can be expected with the material he got. Unfortunately, that material was 99 44/100% crap. That's not Arnie's fault (except insofar as he showed poor judgment in signing up for that movie).

Everything about that movie screams "Agreeing to play this role was my business manager's idea! I need to make up for a failing Planet Hollywood!"

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by shy guy

I'm apparently going to need a force field belt, then, because I can say, without qualification, that I think Batman & Robin is a fantastic movie. Better than Batman Begins.

Well, I didn't much like Batman Begins, so I'm not sure how to react to that. No, scratch that. BB was boring in spots; B&R, after the amusingly silly opening sequence, was actively repellent.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

I don't know why Val Kilmer didn't come back (maybe he saw the script and bailed). He was in some ways the perfect straight man for the Batman-as-parody.

I've loved Val Kilmer in several roles, but by most accounts, he's a major prima donna and a royal pain to deal with. Before "Batman and Robin" came out, when Premiere magazine asked Joel Schumacher why Clooney had been given the role of Batman, he answered, "Val Kilmer was fired for being an asshole. End of story."

As it turns out, Kilmer was lucky to be fired!

Schumacher gets to be remembered as the hack who destroyed a franchise.

[Bryan Ekers]

It never even occurred to me to hate Schwarzenegger - he was at best the tenth most hateful aspect of the movie and I only have so much energy.

[Bosstone]

I liked Batman Forever. Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones are big names, but they worked with the roles very well. Then Batman & Robin proved Schumacher went off the deep end.

I'm sorry. Bat Mastercard. No.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

By way of rebuttal, I point to Superman II (either two, four, or five villains, depending on how you count) Batman Begins (two villains) and The Dark Night (two villains).

*cough* Three villains in The Dark Knight. Four if you want to include Patrick Bateman as many on Youtube have done quite entertainingly

[Koxinga]

How are the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movies generally regarded? I've always thought they were much better than anything else in that iteration of the franchise. (I haven't seen BB or DK.) But I got the idea that some fans of the later movies looked down upon the first two.

As for Batman Forever, I thought it notable that it took Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones combined to play essentially the same role that Jack Nicholson owned all by himself.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Chimera

She was derogatorially called "Buttgirl" at the time, over the size of her ass.

Presumably by people who have never seen a woman in real life.

Originally Posted by Koxinga

How are the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movies generally regarded? I've always thought they were much better than anything else in that iteration of the franchise. (I haven't seen BB or DK.) But I got the idea that some fans of the later movies looked down upon the first two.

I'm not exactly a fan of the later movies, but I'm not too fond of the first two either. There are parts of the second one that are great (let Tim Burton play and something good will pop out), but in general I find them too light to be dark and too dark to be light. Batman Forever is my favourite of the four, simply because it's a comedy that knows it's a comedy and whose actors know they're in a comedy, acting accordingly. Batman&Robin is pretty much crap, but as said above its actors did what they could with what they were given.

[Hail Ants]

I think the only real hatred came from within the industry. Without looking it up, I'm sure Ah-nold must have gotten at least $25 mil for that role, and probably some points, and top billing (above both the title and Clooney's). So they probably feel that, if he had wanted to, he surely could have made reigning in the, ahem, flamboyance of the project a condition of his being in it. So since he didn't, and mostly, since he got the biggest paycheck, he got most of (or a great deal of) the blame. And the thought isn't entirely without merit.

I think Clooney got the part for most of the same reason Kilmer got it. Because in the Batcowl he looked just like Michael Keaton!

The Schumacher films are sequels in name only to the Burton ones. Schumacher is a competent director, but he is most definitely not an artist. Love him or hate him, Burton absolutely is. The fourth film's abysmal-ness rests squarely on Schumacher's shoulders (and he unflinchingly acknowledges this). It may have been the product of movie executive meddling, but he let it happen.

[Fish]

Michael Keaton was, in my opinion, inspired casting for the first Burton Batman. Kilmer and Clooney were an attempt to cast in the same vein: wry, comic-capable actor.

Unfortunately, what the casting of Kilmer and Clooney missed is that Keaton wasn't an action star. He was cast to be Bruce Wayne, the most unlikely person in the world to be a vigilante. Kilmer had already done the action-hero thing (Willow) as had Clooney (From Dusk Till Dawn). Keaton hadn't; that's why he worked so well as Wayne/Batman, I feel.

I can see why Arnie took the heat (har har) for Batman 4. Schwarzenegger was Ground Zero for the mascara and makeup torpedoes. His ridiculously goofy-looking neon-lit character with the glowing blue teeth represented all the movie's worst and most comic excesses that departed from the darkness of the first Burton Batman. ("Now," Vader would say, "Joel's failure is complete.")

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Fish

I can see why Arnie took the heat (har har) for Batman 4.

Dat kind of "humor" leaves me cold.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

[i]n general I find them too light to be dark and too dark to be light.

Out of Tim Burton's work I don't think this observation would be confined to Batman--I kind of like that about him. But maybe it is the wrong approach (or atmosphere, or whatever) for Batman.

Well, anyway, it coulda' been Johnny Depp under the cowl and just as well it wasn't.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Everything about that movie screams "Agreeing to play this role was my business manager's idea! I need to make up for a failing Planet Hollywood!"

I'm not sure - Arnie seemed to be having way to much fun in the role for that. I think he took the job as a lark.

[FriarTed]

I loved the first Keaton Batman, really liked BR, was disappointed by Kilmer but otherwise liked BF, & was not-disappointed/didn't-expect-much by B&R, EXCEPT...


the identity of Batgirl as the daughter of some old friend of Alfred.

WTF?!?! BATGIRL IS BARBARA GORDON, DAMMIT!


And for my money, callypygian Alicia in the BG suit was A-OK!

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Out of Tim Burton's work I don't think this observation would be confined to Batman--I kind of like that about him. But maybe it is the wrong approach (or atmosphere, or whatever) for Batman.

Good point. What I said could be applied to Nightmare Before Christmas, Corpse Bride, Edward Scissorhands, even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But yeah, I do feel it's completely wrong for Batman. You have to pick whether to make it 60s campy or dark-tortured-hero-barely-on-the-side-of-good.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

You have to pick whether to make it 60s campy or dark-tortured-hero-barely-on-the-side-of-good.

So I take it that the most recent two movies succeed in taking the latter approach? Genuine question--I haven't seen them.

This whole discussion giffs me chills.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

So I take it that the most recent two movies succeed in taking the latter approach?

Damn yes they do. After watching Batman Begins, I said to myself "this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for". After watching Dark Knight, I said "no, this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for" but it might be more accurate to say it's the Joker movie I've been waiting for.

Seriously, watch them. Batman Begins is really good and Dark Knight is... fuck it, I'll go see it again.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by JSexton

I know that, technically, opinions can't be wrong.

This looks like a good opportunity to find out if that's really true or just a technicality.

[WarmNPrickly]

1> Cram as many villains into the picture for no apparent reason, giving none of them much of anything to do right.

This is what is bugging me about this new Batman series. I haven't seen the new one yet (Damned parenthood, why can't I just leave the baby in the car?), so I can't judge it. The first one was OK, because the villains had different purposes. I've never heard of the scarecrow anyway (Adam West didn't do it.) Two-face is interesting. His nature might just make him suitable for multiple villains as long as he doesn't take the show away from the main villain. Now they are talking about Catwoman and Riddler for this one. It just seems like they are trying to hard to do every villain before the franchise runs out. The villains never get a chance to develop.

As for Superman 2, Lex Luthor wasn't a problem. He was hardly a relevent villain and wasn't the main threat anyway. You always knew that if General Zod had succeeded, Luthor was just as screwed as the rest of us puny humans.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Dat kind of "humor" leaves me cold.

It's not a humor. At all.

[shy guy]

Originally Posted by JSexton

I know that, technically, opinions can't be wrong. Regardless, that's an indefensible statement.

Oh, I've defended it plenty, although not, that I can recall, on this board.

But yeah, I don't think it's the best Batman movie (that's always a toss-up between Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and the 60's Batman movie), but I think it's quite good, and has a great deal more to do with Batman than any of Burton or Nolan's movies.

I think the movie is a ton of fun, the dialog is a riot, and all of the actors are clearly having a great time with it. I'd probably put it after Mask of the Phantasm, 60's Batman, and Batman Returns in my list of favorite Batman movies (which doesn't yet include Dark Knight, since I've only seen it once; waiting for some time to pass on that one).

I think that most criticisms of it are unfair and miss the point of the movie.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by WarmNPrickly

Now they are talking about Catwoman and Riddler for this one.

"They" certainly aren't talking about Catwoman, and as for the Riddler I find it very unlikely.

[Diceman]

The problem with the last couple of movies (Riddler/Two-Face and Poison Ivy/Bane/Freeze) is that they didn't spend any time developing the villains. They just glossed over their origins, and didn't let us get into their heads. The first two movies (with the Joker and the Penguin/Catwoman) took the time to flesh out the bad guys, and were far better for it.

Also, Arnie was miscast. The ideal Mr. Freeze, IMHO, would have been Richard Moll (Bull from Night Court). He's tall and imposing like Arnie, but he could play the part sympathetically enough that the audience would feel sorry for Freeze.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

Presumably by people who have never seen a woman in real life.

By Hollywood types who believe that a woman should look like Skeletor.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Chimera

By Hollywood types who believe that a woman should look like Skeletor.

Regardless of the ideals of beauty argument, Alicia Silverstone had gained noticable gained weight, and was crammed into the wrong suit.

[Weirddave]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Regardless of the ideals of beauty argument, Alicia Silverstone had gained noticable gained weight, and was crammed into the wrong suit.

The problem with the B&R suits was that hers DIDN'T have nipples, but Robin and Batman's DID. *shudder*


Amusing video review of the movie. B&R haters will identify with the reviewer.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Regardless of the ideals of beauty argument, Alicia Silverstone had gained noticable gained weight, and was crammed into the wrong suit.

True enough. Black leather or rubber is going to enhance the visual of one's posterior. The costume should have been changed. Hell, even Kate Beckinsale was complaining how big her ass looked in Underworld and Van Helsing. (Whereas those movies put her on my List. )

And Wierddave, how much outcry would there have been if there had been nipples on her costume! Immediate R rating! How obscene!

[Zebra]

The film came out in 1997 and Schumacher and Arnie are totally stuck in 1980's mode of film making and acting.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Priceguy

"They" certainly aren't talking about Catwoman, and as for the Riddler I find it very unlikely.

Goyer can talk all he wants about how he wants to do villains that haven't been done yet in the movie series, but it's just not a realistic statement. Who's left after Catwoman, The Penguin, The Riddler, Bane, Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy?

No one of any note, that's who.

-- The Mad Hatter is lame (and would look ridiculous on screen).
-- Clayface wouldn't really fit within the confines of the Nolan Batverse. You could force him in somehow, but again, the lameness.
-- Man-Bat, see Clayface
-- Harley Quinn could be done, but that would require them to recast The Joker. And that idea is still up in the air last I heard.

Killer Croc is about the only villain left that could be done in the movie series right. And at point, why not just go with the more interesting Bane?

[Bosstone]

There's that one ventriloquist from the animated series. Creepy little sumbitch. He'd work well in Nolan's universe, although moviegoers wouldn't recognize him as immediately as the Joker.

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Sure, the movie was stupid and incredible obnoxious, but I loved Mr. Freeze. He had me rolling in stitches.

I don't think I'll be inviting you to any of my parties.

[Lord Ashtar]

Someone on this board suggested casting Owen Wilson as the Mad Hatter and making him a pedophile. I still can't get past how creepy that could be, and think it would be an inspired casting.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

I don't think I'll be inviting you to any of my parties.

Giving him the cold shoulder, are you?


Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with an intelligent Bane, though what I'd really like to see is a World's Finest movie in which Superman thinks Batman is "cool, because he's so goth and dark" while Batman thinks Superman is a well-intentioned but clumsy amateur.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with an intelligent Bane, though what I'd really like to see is a World's Finest movie in which Superman thinks Batman is "cool, because he's so goth and dark" while Batman thinks Superman is a well-intentioned but clumsy amateur.

Suuuure . . .

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Giving him the cold shoulder, are you?

Ack! You son of a bitch!

[Koxinga]

You need to chill out.