The Big Picture: Batman Revisited, Part 4

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
I like the cat suite and I loved Michelle Pfeiffer in it; as for the Bat nipples, never notice or cared since the movie already sucked as it did. =/

Bat credit card on the other end?? lol
 

DeimosMasque

I'm just a Smeg Head
Jun 30, 2010
585
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Sorry, but there's a lot of revisionist history in this post.

Mythological heroes were not 'protectors without peer'. If you actually go back and read some of the ancient myths, characters like Heracles are absolute douchebags. The reason they were celebrated was because of their strength, godlike powers and their ability to overcome huge challenges. They were not celebrated for their philanthropy or their love for mankind. Odysseus? Absolute **** who not only cheated on his wife repeatedly, he then had the nerve to butcher up all the guys trying to chat her up, then lynching every single one of his servant girls who had had the audacity to sleep with them. Aeneas? He invaded a country and enacted the Roman version of Manifest Destiny because he decided that he deserved the land more than the natives did. King Arthur was originally a rapist who, on hearing that his son was destined to kill him, rounded up all the babies born in May and sent them off in a rickety ship, then sank the ship and drowned them all.

This idea of the mythological hero as a benevolent, caring character is actually a fairly recent invention. Up until the time that Christian theology started filtering into storytelling, heroes were people who were admired for the strength and renown of their deeds. Morality had nothing to do with it, and indeed most legendary heroes would be reviled for their utter amorality by today's standards. Which is a far cry from Superman and his desire to protect society from those who want to do evil.
It's not be revisionist, its going by the current definition and looking back at old stories. Yeah they were douchebags, but they also fought the monsters, gods, armies, etc. Guess what... Batman is kind of a douchebag too.

Nothing you said disproved my point that comic books are modern myth and thus we want them to seem more mature and adult than a fairy tale.

Sorry, but that's your problem. If you're so worried about what other people might think about you for watching childish things, then that says more about your insecurities than it does the film or comic in general. I'm 23, and I still like to occasionally watch some Magic Roundabout, or The Moomins. If anyone doesn't like that, it's their fucking problem. I'm not going to try and change the definition of what's acceptable entertainment simply so some people I've never met don't judge me. If they think I'm childish, so what? The Hobbit is a children's book, and it's still one of the best works of fantasy ever written. Finding Nemo is a children's film, yet it still brought my mum to tears when she watched it.

Defining media based on how childish you think others will think it is an excercise in futility. There will always be people who think superhero comics are childish. And for the most part, they'd be right. Better to just accept that and read comics for what they are. If you enjoy them, what does it matter what some other **** thinks?
I didn't say that point made sense or if I even cared if people think I'm childish (I don't) for reading comic books. I was explaining where the mentality came from.

Why doesn't he run any charitable foundations? Why doesn't he use his incredible wealth to fund rehabilitation programs for those in jail? Why doesn't he try and promote awareness and education in Gotham so that young impressionable kids are turned away from a life of crime, rather than towards it? Why doesn't he try and instigate any investigations into the endemic corruption of the Gotham police force?

If you're going to try and get rid of crime in a major city, punching the two bit thugs on the street is akin to putting a plaster over a blasted leg stump. Bruce Wayne could achieve more as Bruce Wayne than he ever could as Batman if he actually sat down and tried to focus on philanthropy, rather than using his latent sociopathy as an excuse to go round beating up poor people.
Because it's a super-hero comic and not real life? Seriously, there's nothing more to it than that.

Actually, Batman and heroes like him are representations of our desire to see those we don't like get smashed in the face. We live in an era where the police and the judicial branch are reigned in by stringent laws and requirements to make sure that no matter how grave the crime, criminals are brought in and handled in a restrained, measured fashion, rather than simply beating the shit out of them. It means that crime is treated in a way where people are held accountable, both on the criminal side and on the judicial side. However, the result is that for many people, we're going too 'soft' on criminals. Characters like Batman allow people to vicariously live out their fantasies of seeing criminals and those deemed 'socially unacceptable' get brought down a peg in brutal fashion, rather than being processed through the justice system. It's the same line of thinking responsible for stuff like Dirty Harry. People like watching other people they don't like get beaten up. Comics like Batman dress this up in a way which is socially acceptable, if somewhat removed from reality.
Okay, so then why did Batman (and superheroes in general) exist in this way in the 1930s before Miranda rights and strict regulations on how the police were supposed to act?

And about living out fantasies of beating up criminals, um speak for yourself only there, I don't read them because I wish I could "let them criminals get what's coming ta dem" nor does anyone I know who does read comics.
 

jaketaz

New member
Oct 11, 2010
240
0
0
This is a weak argument. Just because there was more cogent discussion of nipples on the batsuit than about poor narrative structure, that doesn't mean that there also wasn't poor narrative structure in the movie. And I am 100% pro-gay, pro-equality, pro-gay rights and all of it, but your question "what's the big problem" about Batman and Robin being a "culturally gay movie" has a simple answer: it shows a total lack of respect for the source material since none of that ever existed in Batman comics. Sure you can argue there's plenty of stuff in The Dark Knight or Batman Returns that doesn't respect the source material, and I don't like those parts either. A "culturally gay" Batman movie isn't bad because it has the influence of gay culture in it, it's bad because it's a shit movie.

By saying that the hate for this movie stayed "so visceral and so overblown" because of males that hate anything "gay" mixed in with their media, I think you are overblowing something yourself. The reason I hated this movie is because I love Batman and nothing in this movie has anything to do with Batman. Freeze and Bane are two of the most interesting villains, especially after the Animated Series' re-imagining of Freeze... and Poison Ivy has some fantastic twisted stories in the comics. Schumacher showed a total lack of respect for characters that comic fans like me have spent lots of years and dollars getting to know, completely changing their personalities, appearances, and backstories.

The acting is bad, the dialogue is bad, etcetera, and as you said "its legacy speaks for itself". It has nothing to do with hating gays, it has to do with hating terrible crap.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Kitsune Hunter said:
Good points Bob, but there's still a couple of things i can't forgive about the film, the godawful puns and of course, A BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!!!!!

A BAT CREDIT CARD!!!

(I almost forgot about this atrocity)
 

Brad Gardner

New member
Jun 5, 2012
37
0
0
This one is my favorite movie. When I was a kid, i was not into the comics like I am now, nor did I know what objectively bad was. Like the saying goes, I don't know art, but I know what I like.

I love the Bat Credit card shows how awesome Batman is to make a system to where he can create an identity that has legal rights to finical records, so far it can't be traced. I mean the JLA has credit cards to pay for things they need in crime fighting.

DustyDrB said:
Calibanbutcher said:
Having Batman turn gay, or making him seem gay in any way brings with it horrible implications about his relationship with all the robins...
I'm pretty sure gay men can be around boys without molesting them.
Cali. is kinda right and Dusty you are 100% right. If Batman was turn gay, it may actually set back the gay movement. While most gay men are NOT pedophiles and not all pedophile do it homosexually. There is a group of homosexual male pedos that the gay movement is trying to disassociate with homosexuality. And the act of taking in young boys repeatable will look odd for a hetro or a asexual but... Not going any further with that.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
jaketaz said:
A "culturally gay" Batman movie isn't bad because it has the influence of gay culture in it, it's bad because it's a shit movie.
To whom are you responding, jaketaz?
 

vid87

New member
May 17, 2010
737
0
0
I remember reading that Uma Thurman was nominated for a Razzie (along with everyone else) and looking back, I'm rather sad about it - she was so absolutely into the campiness she was the best part of the whole thing IMO, unlike Clooney, whom I usually like, as he looks so bored and pissed at just being there. At least he apologized.

Also, kind of interesting there was no comparison between Schumacher's involvement with this and The Incredible Shrinking Man/Woman, another iconic, dark and melodramatic fantasy that was rebooted into a stunt-cast, pastel-saturated hyper-camp crapfest.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
I think Bob is overemphasizing the anti-gay reaction to the film. Or at the very least missing some crucial components to it. The backlash wasn't that it was made by a gay man. It wasn't that it had some campy styling. It wasn't even the "Bat Nipples" taken as a singular thing. It was that they made a really really gay Batman movie. Sort of the difference between your gay friends and co-workers and how you interact with them... and the Folsom Street Fair. Batman and Robin was pure Folsom Street fair, and quite frankly the general public was not ready for it then, is probably not ready for it now, and I am not sure when if ever we will be ready for it. When I originally saw it it was with a group of friends including a very openly gay friend. he walked out and declared it was the "gayest thing he had ever seen. Far moreso than his actual Gay porn collection."

I'm not saying that campy over the top gay stylings and innuendo is a bad thing. When packaged right it can make for a great fun movie. But it's just not what the folks were looking for or expecting in Batman.
 

nondescript

New member
Oct 2, 2009
179
0
0
DeimosMasque said:
nondescript said:
Falseprophet said:
Aiddon said:
Also, Batman was originally a far darker protagonist in the Golden Age.
I still don't get why so many people want Batman to be such a dark, serious character when his central concept will always be ridiculous: he's a billionaire who dresses up like a bat so he can punch a clown.
Hallelujah! I thought it was just me.
This is coming from a guy who was 9 when the Tim Burton movie came out and was raised side-by-side with the Adam West series and Animated Series and love it all. (Though I no longer care much for the Tim Burton films for two reasons I might share later)

There are two reasons why they (and me mostly) want dark and serious for Batman.

1. Because Batman, and superheroes in general are modern mythology. In myths, heroes were godlike and serious, they had their silly stories too but they were protectors and warriors without peer. When you have Robin going "Holy Rusted Metal, Batman" or apply a campy standpoint to any of it, it loses its "godlike" mythos and becomes a issue of ridicule. When Batman is torn down to just the ridiculous it reminds us how stupid it is to be "obsessed" with it. They stop being modern mythology and instead become something "not-smart" and only for "losers" who wish they were good at sports.

2. We don't want to be grown adults who are virtually worshiping childish things. Its the same logic of Bronies talking about the hidden adult themes of MLP:FiM. Or talking about Gaming being Art. Or Anime being "so much more mature" than western cartoons. As much as I am not a religious person I do still see the logic of "Corinithians 13:11" run rampant in Western Society. I'm 32 this year, I don't want to be viewed as childish.

To put it a different way, torn down to his most -superficial- he is a guy in a bat-suit punching a clown. At his central concept, tear away the bat suit and the super-hero nonsense. He's a guy who lost his parents violently, grew up and decided... he didn't want anyone else to have to go through that when -he- could do something about it.

He (and most super-heroes) are our inner voice telling us we can do more than what we are doing. Thus, since the world we live in has the theme of dark and serious, we want dark and serious. We want the hero to fit the time period. Because he is our avatar in stories where we do more than worry about "First World Problems."
I speak only for myself, but just because the world is dark and moody doesn't mean he must be. Superman, and Spiderman, just to name 2, were orphaned in tragic circumstances and they ended up well balanced instead of brooding emo boys. WE don't want it.

Is he more than a guy punching a clown? Yes. But when you wax eloquent about his symbolism and impact on post-war America, he's still punching the clown.
 

Warforger

New member
Apr 24, 2010
641
0
0
Falseprophet said:
The comics were way campier than the show. At least in the show there wasn't any time travel, alien invasions, or people being transformed into talking monkeys.
Which show?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUjG1HSSaGI
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
jaketaz said:
JimB said:
jaketaz said:
A "culturally gay" Batman movie isn't bad because it has the influence of gay culture in it, it's bad because it's a shit movie.
To whom are you responding, jaketaz?
MovieBob.
Okay, it's been two days since I watched the video, so I've already forgotten a lot of the details, but I'm pretty sure he never once said, "It's bad because it's culturally gay." I don't think anyone said that. What he said was, "A lot of the people I heard who bitched loudest, hardest, and meanest about this movie laced their rants with so much homophobic language that I believe--whether they realize it consciously or not--their anger comes primarily from a misplaced sense that their sexuality was somehow being threatened." He was describing what he perceives as the source of the intensity of the complaints, not the source of the complaints themselves.

Oh, and before I forget, thank you for answering.
 

CK76

New member
Sep 25, 2009
1,620
0
0
I had no clue (even now) about the director being homosexual. It was a bad film, and I'll admit, it is not my preferred interpretation of Batman (the animated show of the 90s and the Nolan films are my favorite versions, oh and the Arkham games).
 

Britisheagle

New member
May 21, 2009
504
0
0
I remeember watching this as a kid and loving it then rewatching it recently and literally cringing. I think that comedy and slapstick has a place in comic book movies, but to a much lesser extent. This one of the reasons I don't absolutely adore the Dark Knight series as many do, as it is literally too dark (even though a lot of the violenbce is implied and not completely over the top). Don't get me wrong it makes it a better movie overall but not a great comic book movie.
 

Hutzpah Chicken

New member
Mar 13, 2012
344
0
0
This is the movie I remember the most, as I think I watched it on SciFi a few months ago. It was fun to watch when not being "So serious."
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Well say what you want but Mr. Freeze was the coolest villian Batman ever had.