The Big Picture: Batman Revisited, Part 4

[General Vengeance]

Thank you Movie Bob for this feature on Batman. I'm looking forward to your review on The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Never knew the movie was considered bad, because of gay undertones...
I just thought it was bad, because it sucks.

A lot of younger males will use the term "gay" as an epithet for anything that doesn't fit their particular definition of "badass" or "manly" without really intending homophobia. So a guy in a tight black PVC bat costume can get into extended bear-hugs with sweaty thugs and that's okay, but add some neon lights and nipples on the suit and all of a sudden it's "gay".

And honestly, I undertstand why a Batman movie should not be gay in any way.
Having Batman turn gay, or making him seem gay in any way brings with it horrible implications about his relationship with all the robins...

There is no more of a link between homosexuality and child molestation than there is between heterosexuality and child molestation.

Then let me elaborate:
1. Version: Batman, a vengeance-driven psycho, kidnaps a boy to live with him and to help fighting crime.
2. Version: Batman, a vengeance-driven psycho, who is also a homosexual, kidnaps a boy to live with him and to help him fighting crime, wearing underpants and a shirt.

Now, I never said, that homosexuals are all child-molesters( although, with some nice editing, you could make me say that now) but if a homosexual kidnapped a boy, made him wear a silly costume and forced the boy to live with him, would that not raise some flags?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Never knew the movie was considered bad, because of gay undertones...
I just thought it was bad, because it sucks.

A lot of younger males will use the term "gay" as an epithet for anything that doesn't fit their particular definition of "badass" or "manly" without really intending homophobia. So a guy in a tight black PVC bat costume can get into extended bear-hugs with sweaty thugs and that's okay, but add some neon lights and nipples on the suit and all of a sudden it's "gay".

And honestly, I undertstand why a Batman movie should not be gay in any way.
Having Batman turn gay, or making him seem gay in any way brings with it horrible implications about his relationship with all the robins...

There is no more of a link between homosexuality and child molestation than there is between heterosexuality and child molestation.

Then let me elaborate:
1. Version: Batman, a vengeance-driven psycho, kidnaps a boy to live with him and to help fighting crime.
2. Version: Batman, a vengeance-driven psycho, who is also a homosexual, kidnaps a boy to live with him and to help him fighting crime, wearing underpants and a shirt.

Now, I never said, that homosexuals are all child-molesters( although, with some nice editing, you could make me say that now) but if a homosexual kidnapped a boy, made him wear a si
lly costume and forced the boy to live with him, would that not raise some flags?

You know what, I want to rephrase that:

Homosexuals, in general, are not child molesters.
Homosexuals, in general, are neither good nor bad.
I have friends, who came out as homosexuals, and I would never think them to be pedophiles.
But when a grown man abducts a little boy for companionship, an act which is always more than questionable, it does not get any better IF said man is a homosexual.

 

[The Random One]

You know, I think the backlash against the backlash against grim and gritty 90's (cue Smells Like Teen Spirit) aesthetic is a much better explanation than 'ew gay', but then again, the white straight male demographic is so used to having all of culture pander to them that I wouldn't be surprised if they found something intrinsically wrong with the 'gay aesthetic' of that movie that they couldn't consciously recognize or verbalize but that still coloured their perception.

I liked that movie, actually, and didn't even notice the bat-nipples. As someone who hates comic book art[footnote='art' in this sense meaning 'drawings, as opposed to text'[/footnote] that show women in impossible backbreaking poses so they can show both boobies and ass I think I can say without hipocrisy that the bat-nipples are indeed too silly.

I am personally disappointed at you, MovieBob, for not illustrating the words 'the bigger picture' with a logo of your show. You'll never defeat Yahtzee at this pace!

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

[

Hey man, why snow serious?

Because puns are painfully mediocre and lazy comedy

 

[gorfias]

Thought of another complaint about Bob's review:
He implies this movie is why the Xmen dress in a boring manner. But Hollywood has long been afraid of color. Check out the first Star Trek movie from the 1970s. They all look like they're dressed in space pjs. They were afraid the TV version outfits would blind people. Check the new one, color works just fine.

I hate this movie, but not because it caused Hollywood to fear color. I hate it because it betrayed the tone of the series, exchanging fantasy for camp.

 

[hathfallen]

For the record Joel Schumacher also directed The Lost Boys and Falling Down, so I don't think he deserves to be vilified for his Batman movies.

 

[malestrithe]

Batman was origionally supposed to be a pulp hero in the vein of THE SHADOW, DOC SAMPSON ect. He started off with guns and was origionally a much darker character than he eventually became. The sea change for the character was the introduction of Robin, a character i've personally never liked and never thought suited the batman world. I wish Bob would quit pretending the early Bob kane stuff never happened so he can pretend every artist with a darker take on the character is somehow ruining him. Supeman is the bright colorful character and I take exeption when artists try and make him dark and edgier (or even remove the classic parts of the costume and have him wear jeans and a t-shirt.) just as much as I dislike the camp and colorful version of batman.

Who cares about that? Did you know Bob Kane wanted Batman to be Bright red, very similar to the Zurr En Arr costume? Original intent is not a good justification for turning things dark and edgy. It may make revisionists feel better about reading comic books. That was a product of the 90s and not a rescue attempt to return the character to his dark and edgier roots, which only lasted 7 months btw.

Quit pretending that Batman was not colorful and campy for about 50 years, longer than the grimdark reimagining ever was.

 

[theultimateend]

I loved this movie when I was a kid. It was only when I grew up that I decided it was a horrible, horrible movie to defend myself from the backlash of my peers, the same ones that think all the other crappy movies we watch when we were little are still great because of nostalgia. I wouldn't be able to sit through the movie now that I'm older but I can say the same thing about a lot of other movies from the days of old.

I bet I could watch it and still love it now.

Mostly because of all the great quotes from Arnold.

But personally I thought Clooney made perfect sense as Batman. He's an attractive rich playboy.

I just...I don't remember if he was a good actor. His performance in the Oceans films made me genuinely laugh but I don't know if I could say he's good? I've seen so few films with him in them that it would be unfair of me to say one way or the other.

And honestly, I undertstand why a Batman movie should not be gay in any way.
Having Batman turn gay, or making him seem gay in any way brings with it horrible implications about his relationship with all the robins...

The fuck?

Do you realize there is no data to back up that comment?

People who prey on kids do so because they are kid, the actual gender of the child rarely comes into play.

Shit one of the defining characteristics of children is that they are pretty much androgynous, its their clothing and hairstyles that make it most obvious what gender they are in public.

The only implication would be that they'd be at odds with who they found attractive, presuming Robin was straight in this story.

For fucks sake Bob, do you have to spoil every one of your videos with some gender rights, gay rights or similar agenda? This is getting really annoying. So what, people are douchebags on the internet. You're not going to annihilate it by trying to be an antidouchebag.

Same goes for pretty much everything on the Escapist though. It's so friggin' tiring. I'm visiting this site to have fun and find out something new about games and movies, and not EVERY FUCKING TIME listen about some political correctness issues. Shit.

It gets old fucking quick doesn't it.

Everyone and their dog has something to say about it recently.

My cats are quite opinionated.

Mostly about squirrels and how much they should be eaten.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I hate how whiny fan boys of any stripe try to insist that the version of Batman that they prefer is the one, true version of a fictional character with a history spanning seventy years that has been informed by the contributions of many different authors and artists. Still there is no denying the fact that the darker, grittier version of Batman has been demonstrably shown to appeal to a wider audience that exists outside that of the traditional comic book based crowd.

As for the whole Batman, Robin and homosexuality thing?

Could work, but only if Batman meets a nice domestically-minded guy named Steve and they end up adopting Robin and form some semblance of a traditional family unit. It strikes me as more than just a little bit of self-defeating behaviour when I see otherwise intelligent gay men romanticise a pair of comic book characters who were only associated with homosexuality in the first place in order for pundits to attack both the comic book medium and homosexuality itself. Not to mention the grim specter of the delusion that all gay men are pedophiles, which hangs over any homosexuality-charged depictions of the Batman & Robin relationship.

 

[nondescript]

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.

 

[ManInRed]

I think I draw the line from being so bad its good after the 8th ice related pun. You don't deserve to be called funny after that.

That being said, its still an entertaining movie and not on my list of movies I'd run out of the room of if someone put it on. It's not even my least favorite Joel Schumacher movie. Its hard to make Batman not be entertaining.

 

[Semitendon]

Massive "sigh". . .

Most of the time Movie Bob is somewhere between good and okay. . .but every once in a while he churns out an episode like this one. . talking out his ass.

Batman WAS originally "dark" and "edgy", but by the standards of over a decade ago. So, yes by todays standard it wasn't but back in the day it was. The movie Psycho by Hitchcock isn't remotely scary by todays standards, but when it came out, it pushed the envelope. The same principle applies to Batman's original comics.

I agree that Adam West didn't start the ruin of Batman, but it sure skyrocketed it into the awful range. Without the Adam West version an argument could be made that Batman would have returned to his darker roots much sooner.

I also agree that Miller didn't reinvent Batman as a dark character, but that's because Batman should have always been a dark character, not whatever convoluted reason Bob might come up with.

Finally, I agree that the whole Schumacher "gay" thing added to the dislike of the movie, but the effect of this is completely blown out of proportion by Movie Bob. Essentially, the only valid reason for the "gay" issue is the Batman and Robin close up crotch shots, ass shots, and nipple shots. I am puzzled by the inclusion of "camp" as being an influence in the gay undertones of the movie. People don't like camp when it's applied to something that they're taking seriously, not because it's "gay" ( incidently, this is news to me that anyone would associate camp with gay, but whatever) Parody of something you love is one thing, turning it into an embarrassing version of itself is quite another.

Bob draws a comparison to Catwoman against the close ups on Batman and Robin. I don't think that's fair. All of the characters in those Batman movies were wearing skin tight clothes. But I don't remember cameltoe shots, close ups of ass, or close ups of the chest for Poison Ivy or Catwoman. The difference is that the character's are all presented as oversexualized versions of people. ( just like they are in the comics). Women wear unrealistic tight clothes, men have unrealistic buldging muscles and tight clothes. Schumacher skewed it to one side by focusing on the men almost exclusively, while providing no counter balance for the women. I think that makes complaints about the homosexual aspects of the movie valid, but ( as stated before) is minor compared to the massive amount of other problems/flaws in the movie, which quite frankly are too numerous to list.

 

[DeimosMasque]

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."

 

[DeimosMasque]

Massive "sigh". . .

Most of the time Movie Bob is somewhere between good and okay. . .but every once in a while he churns out an episode like this one. . talking out his ass.

Agreed, Bob's been on the defensive since Amazing Spider-Man because of the backlash of "you're not a real critic anymore" stuff. Right or wrong on that criticism of him, he's been trying to fix that by pointing out things we've never known.

To put it quickly, I didn't know Schumacher was gay until a bit before Batman Begins came out so my dislike of Batman and Robin had nothing to do with that, and I -was- the target audience for that movie when it came out.

Batman WAS originally "dark" and "edgy", but by the standards of over a decade ago. So, yes by todays standard it wasn't but back in the day it was. The movie Psycho by Hitchcock isn't remotely scary by todays standards, but when it came out, it pushed the envelope. The same principle applies to Batman's original comics.

I call bull on the 'Psycho' comment, it's not scary if you already know about it all, but even by today's standards of stupid jump stares and gore porn, Psycho is an intelligent and scary movie.

Having read some digital versions of the Golden Age and Silver Age of Batman, he was very pulp. Which is why DC used him in their "First Wave" stories which were comics that modernized the concept of pulp heroes like Doc Savage and the Fabulous Five using more modern sensibilities.

Pulp was the "dark and edgy" of the time so you're right. But he was still written with children in mind. Golden Age comics were written for children much like pulp novels were written for young adults. The rule during the Golden Age of comics was that you didn't hold a reader for more than two years, so after two years you could repeat stories and no one would be the wiser.

This was also when Batman was first adapted to the silver screen in a series of serials in 1939. This actually effected the comics as Alfred was a clean shaven overweight man until these serials, where Alfred was played by a thin man with a tight mustache... the version of Alfred we basically all known.

I agree that Adam West didn't start the ruin of Batman, but it sure skyrocketed it into the awful range. Without the Adam West version an argument could be made that Batman would have returned to his darker roots much sooner.

I don't think Batman would have "returned to his roots" earlier without the Adam West series (which is great for its own reasons.) The truth was, Batman and comics in general were on a minor down slide. Something had to change.

Honestly, we have Andy Warhol to blame for campy Batman stuff. He made an unauthorized movie where Batman faced Dracula and put his "pop culture" sensibilities into it. He was a satirist and oddly enough, gay. His work were mostly jabs at modern culture and how vapid it was. Batman Dracula, in my opinion, was his crowning achievement making superhero comics and gothic literature into nothing more than a joke (though he was mostly poking fun at Universal Studio's movies of monsters.)

The thing was that Andy Warhol was extremely popular and just being his friend was enough to become a minor celebrity. So when the idea to make the show came there were two things in the popular culture to draw on... the now unintentionally campy 1940s serials which had just been re-released and the Andy Warhol satirical version.

We got a great show, that influenced the comic (much how even modern comics are influenced by movies... Amanda Waller (an overweight, middle-aged, long haired black woman) in the DC reboot suddenly looks like her actress in Green Lantern (a thin, young, short haired black woman.) Batman silliness was selling, so DC Comics gave the people what they wanted.

I also agree that Miller didn't reinvent Batman as a dark character, but that's because Batman should have always been a dark character, not whatever convoluted reason Bob might come up with.

I think that Miller -did- reinvent Batman, he took away the camp and brought back the dark. He wasn't trying to deconstruct Batman as others have said in this thread, he was trying to tell the end of a Superhero. Something that never happened in the 80s. Frank Millar was already doing the reinventing heroes for Marvel starting with the Wolverine mini-series (which Chris Claremont has given him all credit for as the idea was his and Claremont only fixed up the writing for) turning him into a failed samurai rather than berserker.

He was rewriting Batman to be darker again, to fit the 80s. He wasn't the first by any means, he's just the one we all remember doing it. Because he did it right.

Finally, I agree that the whole Schumacher "gay" thing added to the dislike of the movie, but the effect of this is completely blown out of proportion by Movie Bob. Essentially, the only valid reason for the "gay" issue is the Batman and Robin close up crotch shots, ass shots, and nipple shots. I am puzzled by the inclusion of "camp" as being an influence in the gay undertones of the movie. People don't like camp when it's applied to something that they're taking seriously, not because it's "gay" ( incidently, this is news to me that anyone would associate camp with gay, but whatever) Parody of something you love is one thing, turning it into an embarrassing version of itself is quite another.

Like I said I was, what 17 at the time the movie came out, and the problem wasn't the camp or that Schumacher was gay (which again I didn't know before Begins came out) it was just, we grew up. We weren't buying toys of Batman... we wanted SPAWN!!! We wanted YOUNG BLOOD! We wanted X-FORCE!!! We were all so worried about being adult and mature and x-treme we sort of lost interest in the hero who's been around since 1939. DC did try to replace Bruce Wayne with Azrael but honestly we didn't care. The Bat was old-school. We wanted Cable, Bedrock, Deadpool, Spawn, Savage Dragon and Pitt! We wanted blood and gore and POUCHES! Don't forget the pouches, add them to Jean Grey's and Cyclops's costumes while were at it!

We were the target (13-17) but we were now getting blood and gore and MATURE THEMES! We didn't need a campy Batman. Hell we didn't even need a Batman who blew up people and shot up chemical plants anymore. We had our hard-core characters now!

I remember when Batman and Robin came out. My friend, Kenny, said something like "This sucks! When do we get a Cable movie! He'd shoot up all of Batman's villains before the even knew what happened!"

Bob draws a comparison to Catwoman against the close ups on Batman and Robin. I don't think that's fair. All of the characters in those Batman movies were wearing skin tight clothes. But I don't remember cameltoe shots, close ups of ass, or close ups of the chest for Poison Ivy or Catwoman. The difference is that the character's are all presented as oversexualized versions of people. ( just like they are in the comics). Women wear unrealistic tight clothes, men have unrealistic buldging muscles and tight clothes. Schumacher skewed it to one side by focusing on the men almost exclusively, while providing no counter balance for the women. I think that makes complaints about the homosexual aspects of the movie valid, but ( as stated before) is minor compared to the massive amount of other problems/flaws in the movie, which quite frankly are too numerous to list.

There's a lot of truth to that. Honestly, I barely noticed the "Bat Nipples" until years after years of seeing the movie. And Yeah, I wanted to bone Catwoman (not Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy which is sad, she could have played the role well if it wasn't turned into a Mae West impersonation.)

What I remember the most is Batman Forever and the "suit with the sonar modifications" and the "bat-thong" from Batman Forever. Sad because I really like that movie. Looking back Jim Carrey was good, Tommy Lee Jones was trying to out over-act Jim Carrey and Val Kilmer worked as Bruce Wayne.

As a bisexual man myself, I can say that the few ass shots and the obvious "gay" metaphors like battling next to grecco-roman wrestling statues and the like, Batman and Robin has very little "gay" in it. There's nothing about Batman and Robin I'd say was titillating to a homosexual or bisexual male. Instead everyone just seems to be collecting a check. Putting in the absolutely minimum amount of effort in order to make a toy commercial that was 90 minutes long.

EDIT: Captcha: loaf of bread

Yeah, captcha, they just wanted a loaf of bread... so they did Batman and Robin. BTW, does it bother anyone that the New 52 version of Nightwing is dressed in the Batman and Robin costume?

 

[WolfThomas]

I won't lie, I saw B&R when I was 6 and I thought it was freakin' awesome.

 

[DeimosMasque]

The 90's sort of sucked for superheroes but the main problem was image comics and artists portraying their heroes with guns and paramilitary uniforms.

Ain't that the truth, brother(sister?)

Image Comics and the idea of "guns are cool" and "kill the damn villain" nearly killed the comic industry.

Add to that the "Let's make a #1 issue Collectors Special Ultra Edition" out of everything because the speculator market was paying attention and... I'm surprised Marvel and DC are still around.

And one of the biggest failed experiments was Wildstorm Comics (mostly known for the Wild C.A.T.S. comics)... it's owner... is DC comics co-publisher, Jim Lee....

Is it any question that failed characters and series like Grifter, Voodoo and WildCATS are suddenly canon in the DC reboot?

Or that the over-designed costumes of the 1991 X-Men reboot were made by the same man?

Guns, swords and pouches... we loved it all...until we grew out of it four years later.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I loved this movie when I was a kid. It was only when I grew up that I decided it was a horrible, horrible movie to defend myself from the backlash of my peers, the same ones that think all the other crappy movies we watch when we were little are still great because of nostalgia. I wouldn't be able to sit through the movie now that I'm older but I can say the same thing about a lot of other movies from the days of old.

I bet I could watch it and still love it now.

Mostly because of all the great quotes from Arnold.

But personally I thought Clooney made perfect sense as Batman. He's an attractive rich playboy.

I just...I don't remember if he was a good actor. His performance in the Oceans films made me genuinely laugh but I don't know if I could say he's good? I've seen so few films with him in them that it would be unfair of me to say one way or the other.

And honestly, I undertstand why a Batman movie should not be gay in any way.
Having Batman turn gay, or making him seem gay in any way brings with it horrible implications about his relationship with all the robins...

The fuck?

Do you realize there is no data to back up that comment?

People who prey on kids do so because they are kid, the actual gender of the child rarely comes into play.

Shit one of the defining characteristics of children is that they are pretty much androgynous, its their clothing and hairstyles that make it most obvious what gender they are in public.

The only implication would be that they'd be at odds with who they found attractive, presuming Robin was straight in this story.

For fucks sake Bob, do you have to spoil every one of your videos with some gender rights, gay rights or similar agenda? This is getting really annoying. So what, people are douchebags on the internet. You're not going to annihilate it by trying to be an antidouchebag.

Same goes for pretty much everything on the Escapist though. It's so friggin' tiring. I'm visiting this site to have fun and find out something new about games and movies, and not EVERY FUCKING TIME listen about some political correctness issues. Shit.

It gets old fucking quick doesn't it.

Everyone and their dog has something to say about it recently.

My cats are quite opinionated.

Mostly about squirrels and how much they should be eaten.

Alright alright, I repent all my sins, forgive me oh lordy lord for I have made a mindless comment, which I already followed up with two other comments.
For my sins I must pay, etc...

So let me be VERY clear:
Homosexuals are not pedophiles, implying that a homosexual COULD be a pedophile is so incredibly wrong it's not even funny any more.
And may the good lord strike me down for an insensitive joke I made, which was in turn a reference to all the "batman and robin must be gay"-jokes on the internet.
Oh, how I regret ever being born, the world would be a better place without my slightly insensitive jokes.
Oh woe is me.