Which is better: Batman & Robin or Superman IV: The Quest for Peace?

Batman & Robin gets my vote. It looks absolutely gorgeous and I find the whimsical nature of the film to be really charming.


You're a dirty liar if you say the bit at 1:08 isn't cool  

Where's the poll?

Tanmann wrote:Where's the poll?

I knew I had forgotten to do something

Superman IV for me.

It's the easier watch, and Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder at least seem to give more of a shit than anyone in Batman & Robin.

Where's the poll for neither, both are pretty shit. But, out of the lesser of two evils, I'd say Batman and Robin is the easier one to watch.

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe wrote:Where's the poll for neither, both are pretty shit. But, out of the lesser of two evils, I'd say Batman and Robin is the easier one to watch.

I guess they don't call it "Superman IV: The Quest For A Fuck To Give..." for nothing.

Tanmann wrote:

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe wrote:Where's the poll for neither, both are pretty shit. But, out of the lesser of two evils, I'd say Batman and Robin is the easier one to watch.

I guess they don't call it "Superman IV: The Quest For A Fuck To Give..." for nothing.

Maybe they should have called it Superman IV: The Quest for Coherence instead. Why did they think it was a good idea to cut out nearly forty minutes of footage? So many plot holes were created because of this bewildering decision. Reeve cared, but I can't say the same about the director or the editor. The Cannon Group certainly didn't. I did enjoy the UN speech and the subplot involving Clark and Lacy as well as the music and Nuclear Man's mullet. Superman II is still my least favourite film in the original series.

Batman & Robin is a very competent production with a unique stylish look and an appealing cartoony feel. I certainly don't think Joel Schumacher should have apologized for it.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:I certainly don't think Joel Schumacher should have apologized for it.

It's the least he could've done.

Giving Batman a Bat-Credit Card isn't the kind of thing you just forgive.....

Tanmann wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:I certainly don't think Joel Schumacher should have apologized for it.

It's the least he could've done.

Giving Batman a Bat-Credit Card isn't the kind of thing you just forgive.....

It certainly annoyed the Nostalgia Critic. I confess that I don't really have a problem with the Bat-Credit Card thing. It doesn't feel out of place in the universe the film takes place in. I don't have a problem with Superman rebuilding the Great Wall of China in Superman IV either. That particular scene really irks some people.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:

Tanmann wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:I certainly don't think Joel Schumacher should have apologized for it.

It's the least he could've done.

Giving Batman a Bat-Credit Card isn't the kind of thing you just forgive.....

It certainly annoyed the Nostalgia Critic. I confess that I don't really have a problem with the Bat-Credit Card thing. It doesn't feel out of place in the universe the film takes place in.

Yeah my main problem with the film isn't really that bit. It's more that with the exception of a few poignant scenes with Alfred, there's pretty much no conversation in the film. It's just an onslaught of silly one-liners, and for me that made a very hollow viewing despite the admittedly grand production and visuals.

I don't have a problem with Superman rebuilding the Great Wall of China in Superman IV either.

That bit was just bollocks.

That particular scene really irks some people.

I think what really irks about it is it really comes off as a sign the writers weren't even trying.

Both are shite but Batman And Robin is the less shit one just for the scenes with Alfred as well as Alicia Silverstone and Uma Thurman.

Tanmann wrote:Yeah my main problem with the film isn't really that bit. It's more that with the exception of a few poignant scenes with Alfred, there's pretty much no conversation in the film. It's just an onslaught of silly one-liners, and for me that made a very hollow viewing despite the admittedly grand production and visuals.

I do prefer a bit of substance, but I'm not against a "leave your brain at the door" type of film either. I admire the wacky "we're making a cartoon, folks" attitude although I know a lot of people don't. Batman Forever is a much richer film because it really explores Bruce Wayne's dilemma and the downsides to being a crime fighter. I think the silly stuff with the Riddler and Two Face drag the whole thing down for a lot of fans. Again, I quite like the tone of that film and would probably consider it to be a better experience than Batman Returns.

Tanmann wrote:That bit was just bollocks.

Less so than this  

[/quote]

Batman Forever was decent. Not as good as the Burton flicks but not as shite as its followup and certainly more entertaining than the Nolan films.

Indrid Mercury wrote:Batman Forever was decent. Not as good as the Burton flicks but not as shite as its followup and certainly more entertaining than the Nolan films.

I think it’s dull as fuck, myself. In some ways, I actually prefer B&R due to how outrageously rubbish it is- it can make for a very good laugh sometimes, which I don’t tend to experience with Batman Forever as such.

As for the thread, I’d go for Batman and Robin on the grounds that it is slightly better directed and more visually appealing, though both are total shite.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:

Tanmann wrote:That bit was just bollocks.

Less so than this  

[/quote]

I think that bit was on the more charming, beguiling side of silly.

The brick-layer vision bit was just lazy in a 'can't be arsed resolving this properly, let's just move to the next pointless set-piece' way.

Indrid Mercury wrote:Batman Forever was decent.

I agree. I find Batman & Robin to be more entertaining and fun, but I really appreciate the fact that Batman is actually the main focus of the story in Batman Forever. The Joker steals the show in the first film and Batman disappears for large stretches of the runtime in Batman Returns. I also like Jim Carrey and the successful balance of humour, romance, action and drama.

I really need to watch the first 4 Batman movies again. It's been far too long. But in general I just prefer Batman movies.
I don't mind the Superman films, but Chris Reeve's Superman sometimes came across a bit corny somehow. He was too nice.

One of my favourite ways of trolling MCU fans is suggesting that if Batman and Robin came out now, it'd make Avengers money, as it's really just the same formula as them.

Superman IV for me. The weakest of the Chris Reeve series not helped by the studio's reluctance to spend any money on it - but still better than Supergirl.

Batman and Robin was too camp but at the same time not at all funny. When his casting was announced I thought Clooney would be ideal as Batman but not in this film. It had potential - nice photography, great set design, cool looking batmobile (much better than Chris Nolan's tank thing) - but i felt it was somewhat wasted. If it was an attempt to revive the feel of the old Adam West series then it failed for me.

It was decent of Schumacher to apologise for it. I dont say this lightly. The contrast is these days when actors / production crew slag off the cinema going public when their films get panned. e.g., Rian Johnson and Elizabeth Banks. Its as if we, the audience, owe them a living.

I much prefer the music in Superman IV:





Mariel Hemmingway also looks scrumptious in the film:





Wouldn't mind jizzing all over those glasses!

I'd probably give the film a five or a six. The third gets an eight, the second gets a four and the original gets a nine.

Superman IV because of the awesomeness that is Nuclear Man

Superman at least still has Reeve in the lead role, as opposed to George "I can act, but I choose not to" Clooney.

Nemesis T-Type wrote:Superman IV because of the awesomeness that is Nuclear Man

Nuclear Man rocks! He is probably the most identifiable character in the film for me because we're both horny for Mariel Hemmingway I'll always prefer him and his crazy mullet to boring old Zod anyday.