j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
You will note that Bob himself said that his major problems with the film were more to do with the narrative structure, art direction, acting and casting than they were to do with the sexual imagery.
Yes... and yet he dedicates a majority of the video NOT talking about these problems and addressing the other issues he perceives are a core problem... while sort of saying they're not a core problem. Hard for it to be a core problem when he himself admits they aren't.
Also that Bob clearly stated that Joel Schumacher's sexuality has no bearing on his opinion of the film.
But his apparently enjoyment of the film, and the backlash against the film, he feels has strong bearings upon Schumacher's sexuality. I disagree almost entirely with him on that. I have yet to see anyone hate on The Lost Boys or Phone Booth because Schumacher is gay.
What Bob spoke about was the backlash the film got, nearly all of which was focused on the fact that Batman and Robin were dressed up in sexualised outfits. He points out that a lot of this was hypocritical considering that the same fans who cried out against the Batsuit also loved the Catsuit from Batman Returns...
Here's a big difference though; Catwoman's suit in Batman Returns actually has a thematic reason for being what it is, and the creators created a very clever metaphor for her own frazzled psyche that has been stitched together and is slowly coming apart as the film goes on and on. Catwoman's sexuality has always been a key part of her character since her very inception, and the suit, in particular in Batman Returns, was a shell, a mask, she used to vicarious live out her own highly repressed sexual side. Even in the comics, Catwoman has stated she feels sexier and stronger in her suit and more vulnerable without it... despite there being no real difference. Tim Burton and co. "got' the layered psychology of its character in Batman Returns, and the suit had actual MEANING. There is NO meaning to Schumacher's suits other than "sell more toys".
...and that a lot of the supposed 'gay' that people were whinging about was actually just stuff that came from the Batman comics before Frank Miller got all grim and dirty with the mythos.
People really need to learn that Frank Miller did not kick-start the "darker" Batman stories. Dennis O'Neil was dealing with darker issues almost a whole decade before Miller's seminal piece of work. It was under Denny's pen that Batman dealt with drug abuse, environmental terrorism, and psychologically disturbed criminals. The "campy" Batman of the 50s and 60s was largely a reaction against the Comic Code Authority stepping in, a public outcry over the book "Seduction of the Innocent" (ironically a book saying comics promoted homosexuality to children), and the fact that EVERY DC character was having campy stories at the time, including Wonder Woman, Batman, and the rest of the gang. Batman was just along for the ride, fighting robot monkeys in space and time traveling in the past to stop guys like "Quilt Man" from messing with the colors of the world. That was a "dark period" of creativity that, while silly and fun, moved away from Batman's origins as the terror of the night and scourge of criminals. Frank Miller's work was a capstone on a push away from that that started in the early 70s.
The issue isn't that Schumacher is gay, or that you seem to think that Bob was laying the blame at Schumacher's feet for being gay (despite the fact he didn't). The issue is that fans still can't shut up about Batnipples and codpieces despite the fact that such imagery has been a part and parcel of comic imagery for decades.
Someone claimed this last review, and I said the same thing: find me a picture of Batman with hard rubber nipples in the comics. Go on. I'll wait....
... ... ... ... Yeah, you didn't find anything either? That's because giant rubber codpieces and rubber nipples WEREN'T in the comics for decades.
The issue is that no-one ever criticises Batman and Robin for its flawed plot or ridiculous stretches in logic, they only ever talk about the fact that Schumacher put nipples on the batsuit.
You must not get out much. THOUSANDS of complaints about Batman & Robin's flawed plot and stupid logic have been argued, by both professionals and fans, endlessly, and often the bat-nipples aren't even mentioned.
But that's the thing. The Bat-nipples are not the "problem" so much as they became the SYMBOL of the problem. The bat-nipples became the symbol of all that is wrong with the Joel Schumacher Batman films. When someone says "bat-nipples", the entire "wrongness" of the movie is summed up. It is like "jumping the shark", "nuking the fridge", and "unobtainium"... pieces of a movie or show that, while not the only problems, came to symbolize the entire flaws of the experience. So, no, the bat-nipples aren't the only problem by a country mile, but they symbolize in one image, one decision, the entirety of the fans displeasure.
Which says a lot about how insecure the fanbase must be that it can happily handle the likes of Wonder Woman and Catwoman appearing in all kinds of fetishy gear...
Again, if Wonder Woman or Catwoman shows up with giant rubber nipples, I would not "happily handle it". I would laugh at it and then complain that the creators were f***ing idiots. And Wonder Woman's leotard is not "fetishy" gear, nor was Catwoman's catsuit originally fetishy gear. They were just plain old COSTUMES. And, well, in the TV show and movies, they are still largley costumes. It was the fanbases that chose to ascribe fetishy characteristics to them.
...yet the minute Batman appears in anything even like an S&M outfit (ignoring the fact that even on a good day, the Batsuit is only a few steps away from outright kink) then everyone throws a collective tantrum and causes a shitstorm that is still being discussed today.
If you can't see the difference between battle armor, Kevlar, full-body plating, functional spandex/lycra, and a design meant to enable mobility and blend into the shadows, and that of an S&M, ball-gagged, bare-chested, leather-jock-strap-wearing sado-masochist sex fiend, you probably need to broaden your horizons, or you had a traumatic experience as a child dressing up as Batman for Halloween.
I mean, let's be honest. The Batman suits in the Shumacher films aren't THAT dissimilar to the Tim Burton Batman films. They're really not. The nipples are a incredibly stupid change, but it's still a very minor one. Batman is no more "fetishy" in the Schumacher films than he is in the older ones, but the bat-nipples, again, became a symbol to express the stupidity of the entire Schumacher approach. They are NOT the end-all-be-all criticism, and some fans get confused and think the nipples alone are the problem. Trust me, they're not. Otherwise people would be raving about that episode in the Animated Series where Batman took his shirt off and had *gasp* fully drawn nipples.
Again, the nipples are the "unobtainium" and "Jar-Jar Binks" of the Schumacher films. A symbol of all that went wrong, but not the end of the discussion.