The Big Picture: Batman Revisited, Part 3

[Nomanslander]

Yes, I'm one of the Batman fans that hate Robin. Batman is the iconic loner--brooding--stoic type, and it works. But when you throw in Robin that's when it starts the conflict with the nature of Batman and what we understand about him. Now I'm not even against the idea of another younger version of Batman running around the in the same universe (that might work with Batman on occasion), but once again, Batman is the lone--brooding stoic type that would never EVER take on a protege; at least that's my opinion. And the years and years I've spent watching the two together and shaking my head is conformation enough that it doesn't work!

Now I'm not against gay superheroes either, but I know that in today's industry they'd only be doing that for some "PC-pandering" bullshitting reasons. Or another words, to gain popularity and controversy point instead of trying to put meaning behind that and bring about character arch.

 

[Brundlefly]

"you might prefer Burton's style but aesthetic preference isn't the same thing as objectively better."
This is a long-winded way of saying "that's just your opinion, maaaaaan", which is the stupidest internet argument ever.

 

[disappointed]

Is bad casting, boring dialogue and an ugly, nineties, purple and green aesthetic not enough grounds to hate Batman Forever? I mean, it wasn't irredeemable but it's a hard movie to enjoy.

No. The film was great. As a target audience at the time, the dialog, colourful visuals associated with the positive 90's, and famous actors whom were huge at the time, was exactly what we wanted to see.

I was a target audience at the time too, buddy. I was more into the Kurt Cobain end of the nineties than the Spice Girls end, though. Let me ask you this: do you honestly think Forever stands up as well today as the Tim Burton Batmen do, in purely aesthetic terms?

 

[Lilani]

So...next episode is the nipple suits, then?

 

[DeimosMasque]

-snip-

Now I'm not against gay superheroes either, but I know that in today's industry they'd only be doing that for some "PC-pandering" bullshitting reasons. Or another words, to gain popularity and controversy point instead of trying to put meaning behind that and bring about character arch.

Um, where did the whole gay super-hero thing come from?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Of course he's going to do that. Can't wait to have another round of "Let's all get unreasonably pissed off and defensive about Moviebob's opinions".

I've already got a bucket of popcorn ready for it.

Anyway, it is very jarring about how poorly the previous Batman movies have aged. The Burton feels are merely okay and Keaton was just not the right fit for the Dark Knight. Kevin Conroy is probably the best rendition of Batman with Christian Bale being the best live action version. Kilmer was equally as bad and I do feel bad that Schumacher had his rep damaged by how bad Forever and B&R were.

 

[Trishbot]

-snip-

Now I'm not against gay superheroes either, but I know that in today's industry they'd only be doing that for some "PC-pandering" bullshitting reasons. Or another words, to gain popularity and controversy point instead of trying to put meaning behind that and bring about character arch.

Um, where did the whole gay super-hero thing come from?

Joel Schumaucher is gay. He added rubber nipples and butt shots to the films. George Clooney even said he played Batman "gay" in Batman & Robin. There are lots of homoerotic undertones in Joel's two campy movies...

As a bisexual woman, those additions to Batman Forever and Batman & Robin didn't do much for me. I just found them eye-rollingly stupid.

But apparently Bob's gonna talk about that next episode. I hope to high heavens he doesn't think we hate the Schumaucher films because of some bizarre homophobic tendency, instead of hating the films for being, well, stupid, crappy films in their own right.

 

[loudestmute]

There's a couple main themes that seem to be running through the comments right now. First is "Y u no Batnips Bob?" Deep breaths. Your patience will be rewarded.

More disheartening to me is the idea that Batman has to be grim and gritty all the time, no exceptions. Now, I liked the Dark Knight and look forward to replaying both Arkhamverse games before seeing Bane blow up PittsburghGotham. But in an era of movies, TV, gaming, and comics where everything has to be DARK and GRITTY and SERIOUS BUSINESS and BROWN N' GRAY EVERYWHAR, we are in need of some palate cleansing.

And since this next Batman flick appears to be Nolan's sendoff, why not let the next guy lighten things up a bit? Doesn't have to reach shark repellant levels of crazy, but maybe it needs to remember that the caped crusader used to punch villains like Clock King and Gentleman Ghost.

Color and camp are not the enemy.

 

[Howling Din]

"Objectively better"? Is that even feasible? How can "This is better than that" ever be objective?

 

[vid87]

I think it might be more than just "gay-bashing", though I'm sure that'll be addressed. From what I've read from his past columns about current trends with movies, comics, and gaming, I get the feeling it's leading to a discussion on the current rigid devotion to dark, serious, and violent as the one and only interpretation for geek culture, and that color, humor, and fun have become forbidden as "kiddish" or "demeaning" when applying it to beloved, though be honest ridiculous, franchises, especially Batman - I'll bet anything Frank Miller gets mentioned at some point. I mean, there was an article about how he loathes Venom and wishes a Spiderman movie would just have Rhino and Shocker rob a bank, in addition to his praise for X-men First Class featuring yellow jumpsuits ("we finally have an X-men movie where they LOOK LIKE THE X-MEN"). I wasn't alive during the early years of comics and I don't read much now, but I recently skimmed through a graphic novel collection of the Phoenix Saga - good Lord those colors were practically neon! I imagine it's an "oldschool" sensibility one would develop from living through shifting eras rather than be exposed only to the current, so, if that's what Bob is indeed hinting at, I can definitely see where he's coming from.

*Aaaannnnndddd ninja'd

 

[Henson]

You know, even if the way Batman beat The Riddler at the end was dumb, I always liked Batman Forever.

Although that may have had more to do with 'Kiss From a Rose' than anything else...

 

[lead sharp]

I think Forever was the perfect contemporary movie version of the sixties series and thus with that in mind was a lot of fun

 

[Frankster]

Yey for Batman forever not being lazily dismissed as just a crap batman movie that started a downward trend xP

Its campy, corny, maybe too colorful, and list goes on, but is Forever my 2nd fav batman after number 2. Guess im style over substance when it comes to batman films as I love batman 2 and 3 for their esthetics and feel but despise Nolan's batman for the exact same reasons (that and the characters spouting these long dialogues felt more off to me then the campiest of villians).

Got no particular love for batman 4, but...reacted "warmly" to arnies constant puns.

 

[talideon]

First up, +1 all around!

Thirdly, I'm surprised Bob just sort of ignored the true aspect of the "stunt casting" the Schumaucher films did. Let's be honest; Jack Nicholson was a big-name actor for the 1989 movies... but he was not just cast because he was a big-name. He was legitimately the best man for the role of that Joker at the time, and you won't find many people disagreeing. His Joker was SO good that it made people feel that Batman was overshadowed (I disagree... I agree with Keaton's philosophy that Batman was always a creature of shadows and actions, existing as the boogey-man of the criminal underworld). Same goes for DeVito's Penguin, and Michelle Pfeiffer was exceptional. You lose yourself in those early villains; DeVito, Pfeiffer, even Nicholson, largely disappear and their villains take over. But Jim Carrey's Riddler is totally just Jim Carrey the whole time, and Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face had zero actual personality at all... both of which were far more cartoony than the ACTUAL cartoon versions airing on TV at the time (what irony).

What I truly loved about DeVito's Penguin is that he gave the character *real* pathos. I really didn't understand Bob's criticisms of the character, especially given what a deviation from the comic book norm Ledger's rightly-celebrated interpretation of the Joker was. Burton's Penguin was a thoroughly unpleasant character, but DeVito played him like he had good reason to be like that, even if he was a grotesque character both on the surface and within. The bit where he's carried off by the penguins still gives me shivers.

I didn't like Pfeiffer's Catwoman, but I don't blame that on her at all as her performance was excellent so much as the script demanded the character be completely nuts.

The problem with Carrey's Riddler isn't so much that he's just playing himself so much as he's giving exactly the same performance he gave in The Mask. I don't think anybody got the Riddler right outside of comicbook or animated form until the Arkham games. Now, *that* is the kind of Riddler I'd like to see.

The less said about Jones's Two-Face the better. Man, I hated that character.

The thing is, there's place for an intelligent move that combines elements of what Burton and Schumacher did, and Batman and Robin ought to have at least found a middleground between its predecessors. And it's not as if they didn't have the perfect antivillain for the job in the form of Victor Fries. There are even element in the movie like his redemption through saving Alfred. All that needed to be done was to cut back on the cast size and tone down the silliness. And cast Patrick Stewart.

The worst of it was that while all this was happening, the cartoon was showing everybody up, giving us complex characters and compelling stories, mixing levity and depth in just the right proportion. That's what annoyed me most about the '90s movies: the small screen version showed that it could have been done so much better.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Batman Forever was... interesting. I always had a certain appreciation for "campy" Batman and i did like Joel Schumachers Vegas-esque artstyle. But it should have had some more depth. Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face doesn't work at all and Jim Carreys Riddler wasn't much better. Those two characters would have required subtlety but Schumacher made them into a punchline. Shame about that.

Of course about a decade later, Jim Carrey would have been perfect for the role, having grown some depth and versatility by that point. Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand... yeah, every movie he acts in should have the subtitle, "featuring Tommy Lee Jones as..." attached to it. That man plays himself very well.

 

[blackrave]

I actually liked Batman Forever
[ducks down and covers face with hands]
Please not in the face!!!

Captcha: old man winter
are captchas slowly becoming self-aware?
And if yes, than even they are making fun of Batman and Robin

 

[Gunjester]

So, Bob's gonna connect the Schumacher bashing to the fact that he is gay?

I've heard many people call "Batman Forever": "The first gay Batman movie directed by one of the first openly gay directors"....
My Dad's a Conservative Catholic, I meet many people like that.

 

[Knight Templar]

Batman Forever has the best logo of any of the movies, don't know if anything in the comics beats it.

I do not have any clue where the next video is going. I thought we were going to get to the glorious puns next.

 

[DeimosMasque]

-snip-

Now I'm not against gay superheroes either, but I know that in today's industry they'd only be doing that for some "PC-pandering" bullshitting reasons. Or another words, to gain popularity and controversy point instead of trying to put meaning behind that and bring about character arch.

Um, where did the whole gay super-hero thing come from?

Joel Schumaucher is gay. He added rubber nipples and butt shots to the films. George Clooney even said he played Batman "gay" in Batman & Robin. There are lots of homoerotic undertones in Joel's two campy movies...

As a bisexual woman, those additions to Batman Forever and Batman & Robin didn't do much for me. I just found them eye-rollingly stupid.

But apparently Bob's gonna talk about that next episode. I hope to high heavens he doesn't think we hate the Schumaucher films because of some bizarre homophobic tendency, instead of hating the films for being, well, stupid, crappy films in their own right.

I know all that stuff. And as a bisexual man those so called "additions" didn't do anything more me either. And I think Bob is really reaching if he thinks there is a homophobic element to why Batman and Robin is considered a bad movie.

I meant more that Normanslander basically wrote a whole paragraph about hating Robin then through in a sudden "And I have no problem with gay superheroes except its mostly a PR stunt." It didn't match with anything anyone had said or even what his own post had said.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Is the big issue the Bat-nipples? I'd really like that to be the issue. Or maybe making movies where, after a few character creatures, Batman quickly runs out of reasons to be Batman? Or maybe it was the terrible puns? The way they turned Bane into a henchman (not that Bob likes Bane anyway)? The lack of noteworthy villains to appear as profound as they are in the comics and animated series?




It's going to be about the gay thing, isn't it?