Why all the bad feelings towards Schumacher?

[Majik1387]

No, this is not a troll post. I would like to have a civilized conversation regarding Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let’s start off with the first things that come to mind when people bash these films.

Now before you read my comment, I'm just letting you know I am not a Schumacher basher. But one of your comments made me confused.

1. Nipples on the Batsuit.
If this really bothered people, they need to get out more often. Sure it’s homoerotic to have nipples on the Batman and Robin suits, but then again hasn’t the relationship between the two caped crusaders always been a little awkward? Even so, being a gay man himself, Schumacher brought Batman into the 90’s.
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Batbed.png

How exactly do nipples = homerotic?

I liked Batman Forever, Kilmer was good and Two-Face/Riddler team was entertaining.
Batman & Robin however was dreadful, too much OTT-ness and of course George Clooney...yikes!

OTT-ness?

1. And yet, Two-face and Riddler kept hugging and touching each other, and even dressed up in the "pretty" jewelery they stole from the jewelery store. The so-called "bad" side of two-face's suit is extremely flamboyant, hinting he is bi-sexual instead of good/evil. And seriously, if you don't think Riddlers silver outfit at the end isn't something a gay man would wear, you were watching a different movie then the other 99% of us.

What the ****? First time I've ever heard anything alluding to this.

3. No. Your original point was that film makers should make movies to sell toys. Batman's extra suit has nothing to do with that. The toymakers will put out 20 different versions of Batman whether he gets a different suit in the movie or not. So how do you explain the giant man statues all over Gotham? Was Kenner going to put out a 'Homoerotic Gotham playset' that they told Joel Schumacher to put that in? No. He CHOSE to make his Batman films they way they were, toy companies be damned.

Are you that close minded that you didn't notice that they are sipmly Greek/Roman influences used the movie, instead of calling them gay?

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Yeah, you’re right Majik1387. It was a little ignorant for me to infer that.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Here's a link of a fan made Batman Forever trailer that really captures the greatness of the film…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNeHN4P7Fo

 

[Adam West]

You seem pretty hung up on all of these quote on quote homoerotic undertones. If you ask me, you’re starting to sound like a homophobe. Almost all super heroes can be interpreted as being gay, hell look at Wonder Woman. It all depends on a certain point of view. Do you think Batman and Robin are gay in this movie too? These characters are essentially children in the bodies of adults, sex is the last thing on their mind.

You keep on comparing these characters to the Joker, but in reality they are quite watered down next to Jack Nicholson. Sure we didn’t see the tragic story of Harvey Dent turning into two-face in Forever like we did in TDK, but the plot didn’t call for it. The plot called for two antagonists to give the two protagonists a hard time.

These movies aren't supposed to be a deep intellectual study into the criminal mind, they’re supposed to be fun, flamboyant, and ridiculous. WB was catering to a different breed of Bat fan, and the majority of them at the time were children. I was entertained when I saw these films, because they were simply fun. If I really needed to see the dark, and moody Batman that I like, I could just watch 89’ or Returns.

Don’t rip a film for being too campy, when it was made for kids. If you want to see the darker version of the character, read Year One or TDKR instead of watching a movie made to appeal to pre-pubecent boys. I accept these films for what they are, and I love every second of it.

Nope, not a homophobe, just pointing out something that is obviously pushed to the forefront of the film. A film as you are often fond of pointing out, is made for children. Explain to me how Superman or Spider-man are gay?

Yes, they are watered down versions of the Joker, which I've been saying from my first post.

They definately are flamboyant and ridiculous. Wb was catering to pissed off soccer moms, not Bat-fans.

Wasn't ripping your precious films, just voicing my opinion which I believe is merely what you are doing.

What the ****? First time I've ever heard anything alluding to this.


Are you that close minded that you didn't notice that they are sipmly Greek/Roman influences used the movie, instead of calling them gay?

No, not closed minded at all. But the greeks and romans also sculpted statues of women. Don't see any in Schumachers Gotham. And I didn't call them gay, I simply pointed out that there are many homoerotic influences in the films. Close up shots of Batman and Robin's butts and codpieces are another example of this. For a so called kids movie, I find these to be interesting choices to sell toys.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Well, not to be mean to any gay people, but Superman could be the most blatantly homoerotic character around. Superman is about a man pretending to be a “normal” guy, but when there’s trouble he COMES OUT of a phone booth and emerges as a guy wearing red cowboy boots. The whole secret identity thing is what is most noticeable (double lives and sexual repression). The same for Spider-man and his colorful costume; all I’m saying is that you can infer anything you want from any fictional character.

If you think that Schumacher had some sort of secret gay agenda for Batman, fine. Believe what you want to believe. But don’t be an ignorant person and say that there is only one correct version of Batman and everything else should be ignored. Batman through his different incarnations can appeal to everyone, not just “pissed off soccer moms.”

 

[MrQuinn]

you said "you should get out more" about the nipples on the suits.... Is that a direct quote from Shumacher himself, because I'm pretty sure he said exactly that when addressed about the nipples and enlarged codpiece on Robin's suit.

Anyways... I loved Forever when I was little (as well as the first two movies) and I still like the movie a lot. The nipple thing, I think is stupid but doesn't really interfere with the movie to me. I thought it was a nice transition from the dark burton films to what they were going for eventually in B&R, which I actually hated then and still hate now. It's not because of Clooney, or Arnold, or any other bad casting, I just don't like the movie at all or how any of the characters are portrayed. Not my cup of tea, is all. I'm also not a fan of the Adam West era, so go figure.

 

[Adam West]

Well, not to be mean to any gay people, but Superman could be the most blatantly homoerotic character around. Superman is about a man pretending to be a “normal” guy, but when there’s trouble he COMES OUT of a phone booth and emerges as a guy wearing red cowboy boots. The whole secret identity thing is what is most noticeable (double lives and sexual repression). The same for Spider-man and his colorful costume; all I’m saying is that you can infer anything you want from any fictional character.

If you think that Schumacher had some sort of secret gay agenda for Batman, fine. Believe what you want to believe. But don’t be an ignorant person and say that there is only one correct version of Batman and everything else should be ignored. Batman through his different incarnations can appeal to everyone, not just “pissed off soccer moms.”

So by using your Superman example, Batman and Robin go into a silver CLOSET, to put on their fetish nipple and codpiece outfits then COME OUT. and you still don't see Schumachers symbolism with that? And the soccer moms comment was to illustrate the fact that if Warners hadn't recieved complaints from parents about the darkness of Batman Returns, Batman Forever would never had been made. They changed the tone of the films to placate over-protective parents, not bat-fans.

Funny, I never said there was one correct version of Batman, just a predominant one. One that if you looked at the history of the character has been at the forefront for two thirds of his existence. And I guess that since you've resorted to name calling, this so called civilized conversation is a sham. You asked why people dislike these movies, but keep trying to impose your opinion on them as though it is fact.

 

[MrQuinn]

Well, not to be mean to any gay people, but Superman could be the most blatantly homoerotic character around. Superman is about a man pretending to be a “normal” guy, but when there’s trouble he COMES OUT of a phone booth and emerges as a guy wearing red cowboy boots. The whole secret identity thing is what is most noticeable (double lives and sexual repression). The same for Spider-man and his colorful costume; all I’m saying is that you can infer anything you want from any fictional character.

If you think that Schumacher had some sort of secret gay agenda for Batman, fine. Believe what you want to believe. But don’t be an ignorant person and say that there is only one correct version of Batman and everything else should be ignored. Batman through his different incarnations can appeal to everyone, not just “pissed off soccer moms.”

This homo erotic thing can be said about almost EVERY male superhero. But then again, you could even break it down to professional wrestling, football, and men and their sports in general. Or men and cars. Anything can have a homosexual innuendo if you want it to. Schumacher being gay I doubt had anything to do with what the suits looked like, as I'm pretty sure costume design is done by someone else entirely?? Sure I suppose he had to okay them...but....whatever I dunno. if he wanted the movie to be gay he would have just had a Batman and Robin shower scene or something.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Quoting the user Adam West, “YOU think they are fun and entertaining, and that’s fine for you. But that is your opinion, and unfortunately for you 99.9% of Batman fans do not share it.”

By stating that 99.9% of Batman fans dislike the Schumacher films, you are saying there is a correct version of Batman. This is why I called you an arrogant person. You are in no way capable of estimating which, if any, version of Batman people enjoy the most. You can only gossip with fellow like-minded fan boys on websites like this one on a “predominant” version of Batman.

I don’t need to be lectured on the history of Batman, ever heard of Batmite? The Batman mythos is full of a wide variety of interpretations of the character so that a wide variety of people can enjoy it. As a real Batfan, you should embrace the full spectrum of everything related to the character, because if you don’t, you are ostracizing your fellow Batman fan. If you can’t do this, at least respect them.

 

[Mandalore464]

As a real Batfan, you should embrace the full spectrum of everything related to the character

This one sentence makes your whole argument irrelevant, stupid, and not worth discussing.

I'm starting to believe that you're just a fake who tries to have some fun defending something that you know most people don't like.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

No, I’m serious about everything I have said here. The Schumacher films are a punching bag for Bat fans to whine and complain about the inaccuracy of the character, and I’m sick of it. These films were entertaining and fun to me as a kid and now because they are representative of hyperrealism in 90’s cinema. No, it’s not the dark version of the character that so many people love, but it reminds us that Batman can appeal to any audience. This adaptive nature is why I appreciate the character so much. And so should you.

“Don't kill him! If you kill him, he won't learn nothin'!”

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's not just Batman fans who (generally) don't like B&R - look at it's ratings by general movie fans on the IMDb, or critics on the MRQE.com. It always appears high, usually nukmber one, in lists of worst movie ever made or worst comicbook movie.

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

Yeah, like IMDB is reliable after TDK made the #1 spot in the top 250. I mean come on, better than the Godfather or Star Wars. Um, no.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Yeah, like IMDB is reliable after TDK made the #1 spot in the top 250. I mean come on, better than the Godfather or Star Wars. Um, no.

I agree it's ridiculous as a ranking of movies, but that's not the point here. It's the best indicator of what people like and dislike.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Batman Forever was a big success in terms of profit and box office, I'll give you that much, but Batman & Robin dropped like a stone, indicating that the "majority of the audience" didn't think that "Arnold kicked some serious ice in 1997" as much as you did, NameIsn'tBuddy.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

Yeah, like IMDB is reliable after TDK made the #1 spot in the top 250. I mean come on, better than the Godfather or Star Wars. Um, no.

TDK deserves #1 in my opinion...not that I have a real arguement other than I like Godfather but not as much as TDK and Im not a fan of Star Wars...
but to get on topic
Batman Forever was a very decent movie although Tommy Lee made me cringe...but B&R was just god awful

 

[DACrowe]

I haven't read the whole thread (I'll try to do so later), but I'll make it simple. Not only did it return Batman to the self-deprecating camp of the 1960s in an attempt to sell more happy meals IT STILL WAS A BAD MOVIE. You can make a kid-friendly superhero movie that is still a good movie (the first two Superman and Spider-Man movies spring immediately to mind) with good stories, character development and meat for the adults. Or you can at least make it entertaining.

But BF and B&R are bad movies. Forget they royally raped the villains in both movies and that each film had an increasingly wooden Batman and they had the exact same plot structure/story....

They were simply bad movies. Yeah an 8 year old can like it, but they can also like Power Rangers the movie. That doesn't make it good. Adam West did Batman camp in a funny way that is worth defending if you like that. These movies did not.

They were bad movies, so all the complaints you mentioned add onto them and cannot be so easily swept away, thusly.

 

[DACrowe]

Another thing to consider is that this was the "sequel" to BR which was an extremely dark movie that ended on an existential question being posed to Batman about the value of heroism and whether it worked or not (i.e. is there such a thing as heroes) and Catwoman being set up to return for another one and Harvey Dent was still a realistic and likable (black) dude in B'89.

This movie discards all that and Keaton (who became accepted as a fine Batman) like a bag of old bricks.

 

[the_scream]

Here's a link of a fan made Batman Forever trailer that really captures the greatness of the film…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNeHN4P7Fo

No, it misrepresents the film. It focuses on a few dark moments in the film, plays the Danny Elfman music from Burton's films, and cuts out most of the neon, camp, ugliness of the film. This isn't Batman Forever. This is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZsYQklsrng&feature=related

Note the terrible one liners, excessive neon lights, idiotic villains etc.

 

[justinianus]

If you think that Schumacher had some sort of secret gay agenda for Batman, fine. Believe what you want to believe.

Nobody talked about a "secret gay agenda", probably he simply had fun by suggesting and having all these elements included in the two movies, the "anatomically correct suits" with nipples, the naked statues, the naked men in Poison Ivy's jungle party, the erotic element in Riddler's and Two-Face's interactions etc.

These films were entertaining and fun to me as a kid and now because they are representative of hyperrealism in 90’s cinema.

I agree that these films can be entertaining for what they are (many movies are really bad, but still watchable in a slow day), especially for very young children, but how exactly these movies are representatives of hyperrealism in 90s cinema?

Here's a link of a fan made Batman Forever trailer that really captures the greatness of the film…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNeHN4P7Fo

The music can't change the images

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

somehow I knew this thread was going to end up like this!

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

All I can say is this.

In an uncertain world. In a chaotic time. Justice wears a mask.

Courage, Now.
Truth, Always.
Batman, Forever.

The real trailer is even better than the fan made one! "But first, let’s meet our contestants.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZsYQklsrng&feature=related

 

[terminalpicture]

because he's a horrible hack who has made some of the crappiest movies of all time? When your career highlight is "DC CAB," you know there's going to be trouble.

 

[Adam West]

By stating that 99.9% of Batman fans dislike the Schumacher films, you are saying there is a correct version of Batman. This is why I called you an arrogant person. You are in no way capable of estimating which, if any, version of Batman people enjoy the most. You can only gossip with fellow like-minded fan boys on websites like this one on a “predominant” version of Batman.

I'm not so let the box office speak for itself. Heres the link so you can see for yourself...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm?page=1&p=.htm

Batman Forever=184,031,112

Batman and Robin=$107,325,195

The Schumacher films total gross=291,356,307

The Dark Knight=$393,751,065

So it looks like BOTH the Schumacher films, in their entire runs at the box office have made LESS than the Dark Knight, which has only been out for TWO WEEKS. So which version do fans like better now?

 

[NameIsn'tBuddy]

So how did you calculate 99.9% again? LOL.