The funny thing is is that WB/DC is getting a damned if you do and damned if you don't by going on. Apparently, there are Batman fans already complaining that the movie is either "too long or too dark", yet none of them have seen the movie yet. Hypocritical biatch fans they be as always.Because Warner Brothers can't deal with the fact that Batman was intended for kids and teens. Clayface, Freeze, Man-Bat, Poison Ivy, immortal Ra's al Ghul, not happening. Not without totally gimping them. Sort of like Bane, who doesn't even get his veins pumped with Venom in TDKR. Being gritty and realistic makes it important, don't you know? Can't have Batman in a textile outfit either. Full armor or it's not getting greenlit.
My big bro got us some tickets to see the movie early. We are going to see this.
If I need the more fantastical and goofy elements from Batman, I got plenty of other options to pick from. I love HBO Max.
You can mainly blame Warner Brothers on that one. The director, nowhere near as much. He got too much blame shifted on them for that one. It didn't excuse the bat nipple on the costumes. I didn't care much for them as a kid, teen, or an adult. I was whatever.I should see if my brother still has that Batman & Robin vhs. I'm having a hard time remembering why I thought it was bad
I'll tell you this: my mom, my dad, and my older brother love all the Batman movies from the late '80s and '90s. They love Batman Forever and Batman and Robin unironically. Batman '89 is still the best of them and me of course, but that's a given.Eh, Batman and Robin was exactly what it was trying to be. Not as good as the Adam West one, but I like it.