Homophobia in criticism of BF and B&R

[Angeloz]

I can't comment on "Batman & Robin" (I might soon be able too - I doubt I'll like it) as it's been too long. But I find it ludicrous that people would object to a shot that lasts less than 5 seconds. Then label it homoerotic. Because more of the audience would be female I suspect than there would be gays. But I guess sexy semi-clad women are OK - maybe great - but sexy men is bad. Does that mean one should label the women shots lesbian? Does that mean you have one standard for male shots and another for female? 'Cos it seems to be the case. By the way the males weren't even shirtless.

Angeloz

 

[Surge38]

I can't comment on "Batman & Robin" (I might soon be able too - I doubt I'll like it) as it's been too long. But I find it ludicrous that people would object to a shot that lasts less than 5 seconds. Then label it homoerotic. Because more of the audience would be female I suspect than there would be gays. But I guess sexy semi-clad women are OK - maybe great - but sexy men is bad. Does that mean one should label the women shots lesbian? Does that mean you have one standard for male shots and another for female? 'Cos it seems to be the case. By the way the males weren't even shirtless.

Angeloz

Again, it depends who your target audience is. A close up of George Clooney's butt would be different if it were in Bridges of Madison county, for instance, or a movie clearly targeted and marketed at women. But in a movie like Batman, where all the marketing was targeted at men, it feels out of place.

In fact, my wife made a comment about a Cameron Diaz movie "The sweetest thing", that had alot of gratuitus shots of her in just her panties and bra...she thought the movie had lesbian overtones....because it was a movie that was targeted towards WOMEN.

Frankly, they probably COULD have targeted this movie towards women...it had Chris O'Donnel, George Clooney (both popular hearthrobs at the time) and was introdcuing a new kick arse female lead, Batgirl. They could have easily played up the "hunk appeal" with BM&R, and marketed it accordingly. Instead they sold it and promoted it as a high octaine action flick, and the result was aalot of people left scratching their heads.

Showing male sexuality isn't "bad" while showing female sexuality is "ok"...it's all about context, and matching your choices up with your target audience.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Ok after my post, someone pointed out that the nature of this thread was not whether homosexual overtones EXIST in Batman and Robin, but that people should stop blaming the homoerotisism for the movie sucking. I direct you to this quote, that motivated me to post:




So yes, the original post was CLEARLY making the argument that there was NO homoerotic overtones in the movie, and thats why I posted.

Now I've never said that there is anything wrong with overtones. But when you have a movie with a target audience of 99% hetero males, then such overtones aren't really appropriate for THAT movie. And Shumacher should have known that. Just like it was inappropriate for that same target audience to make the movie so CAMP. Bottom line is Shumacher didn't make the movie the fans wanted to see...he made the one he persoanlly wanted to make. THAT is why it sucked.

Putting that aside...it was also the WAY the homoerotic elements were used. They were played for laughs, not to be sexy. We didn't get a sweeping shot of shirtless Chris O'Donnell working out...I could understand why that would appeal to the ladies (or gay fellas). Instead, we get a quick zoom shot of batman hiking his batsuit up to his ass cheeks...with a "swish" noise. It was meant for a giggle, not as a sexy treat. Handling Batman for laughs is a surefire way to cheese off most of that target audience.

And by the way sorry about the Sparticus/Ben Hur confusion. I saw the documentry a while ago.

I highly doubt 99% of audience of the Batman movies are hetero males.

The majority yes? But they do not make up a percentage that big. I'd guess about 40% of the audience is female alone.

 

[Mladen]

Bottom line? Grow up.

you made a punny

 

[Angeloz]

Again, it depends who your target audience is. A close up of George Clooney's butt would be different if it were in Bridges of Madison county, for instance, or a movie clearly targeted and marketed at women. But in a movie like Batman, where all the marketing was targeted at men, it feels out of place.

In fact, my wife made a comment about a Cameron Diaz movie "The sweetest thing", that had alot of gratuitus shots of her in just her panties and bra...she thought the movie had lesbian overtones....because it was a movie that was targeted towards WOMEN.

Frankly, they probably COULD have targeted this movie towards women...it had Chris O'Donnel, George Clooney (both popular hearthrobs at the time) and was introdcuing a new kick arse female lead, Batgirl. They could have easily played up the "hunk appeal" with BM&R, and marketed it accordingly. Instead they sold it and promoted it as a high octaine action flick, and the result was aalot of people left scratching their heads.

Showing male sexuality isn't "bad" while showing female sexuality is "ok"...it's all about context, and matching your choices up with your target audience.

I highly doubt 99% of audience of the Batman movies are hetero males.

The majority yes? But they do not make up a percentage that big. I'd guess about 40% of the audience is female alone.

I agree with Mr. Socko. Just because women aren't all of the audience doesn't mean we're none of the audience. As for "Batman & Robin" I thought it a travesty. On what they did to the characters. But can't comment in a detailed way as it's been too long since I've seen it. I did think "Batman Forever" was entertaining and as stated I liked that it explored a little about duality. I guess some males here can't take other males being shown sexily but for women it's considered de rigueur. As I said there wasn't even shirtlessness or anything.

Angeloz

 

[RobC]

Again with this thread...

This has been going on for ages, WB should take note, this is what you make us do!

I agree though, the audience for B+R was not 90% hetero male, it never will be. Gay people can watch action flicks as well you know.

 

[Mladen]

I always thought they were primarily aiming at children for Batman Forever and Batman+Robin?

 

[RobC]

Sort of, its a yes and a no. Schumacher was effectively told by WB to make a 'lighter' style film, mainly because they were effectively told themselves by McDonalds and other toy companies who had several complaints due to them giving away Catwoman in a gimp suit with happy meals.

This 'lighter' feel, which is more obvious in B+R than in BF is undoubtedly one of the problems that people have with the Schumacher movies.

However it is also stated by Schumacher that he wanted to make a live action comic, and from what we see on screen he used the 60's comics, which were rather camp and ridiculous, as his source material.

 

[Spoonman]

What RobC said, also in the commentary of BF Schumacher states that even with the WB mandate of making a lighter film he tried to make a film that also appealed to teens and adults (with BF). I don't know what he said in the commentary for B&R since I don't own that DVD but he didn't seem to care about the mature audience at all on B&R.

EDIT

IMO Batman Forever seems to evocate the 50's comics rather than the 60's comics, at least thats what it seems to me, and the Batman comics of those two decades are not the same.

 

[RobC]

Yeah, BF is still dark, yet B+R is just... Awful. I dunno where the thought he was going with it. BF I can understand the lighter tone compared to BR, that's what WB hired him for...

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Yeah, BF is still dark, yet B+R is just... Awful. I dunno where the thought he was going with it. BF I can understand the lighter tone compared to BR, that's what WB hired him for...

I always did understand this too, BF isnt as bad as B+R.

 

[RobC]

Exactly, and yet it'd make sense if it was the other way around. WB put the pressure on Schumacher for BF, they wanted the kid friendly movie, and yet BF is still dark in places. B+R, where surely Schumacher would have more creative control, is the most friendly of them, so that surely means Schumacher wanted to carry on the light tone. He just took it too an extreme...