In the name of all that is good and holy, let this be the end of it: Batman and Robin comment commentary, Part Two.
Well, you knew it was coming, so let’s get it over with: more follow-up on the feedback to this “liveblogging” of Batman and Robin.
As noted previously in the comments, director Joel Schumacher was the target of some derision in an episode of the animated Batman series…you can see the brief scene in question right here. Pal Dorian notes
“That scene has always struck me as needlessly mean-spirited, and just over the line into outright homophobia.”
And yeah, it’s a bit over the top. You know, if it weren’t for the kid rubbing the pink feathered boa all over himself, the scene might have been fine as a swipe at Schumacher. But having him posing with the boa makes the scene read like “oh, and Schumacher is totally gay, too…let’s laugh at that!” It’s pretty crass.
Matt adds
“…The gay-bashing in that scene was totally uncalled for, especially because it tarnishes what is otherwise one of the best episodes in the animated series.”
What he said. It’s just this ugly little thing in the middle of some clever adaptations of Batman stories and styles, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.
“I’m still a little surprised this film hasn’t become more popular with fans of bad films. Is it possible that it crosses the line from so-bad-it’s-good into so-bad-it’s-simply-unwatchable?”
Well, there was one fella I pointed out yesterday who enjoyed the film strictly for its comedic value. And I suspect there are more than a few people who’ll watch the film just for the sheer ridiculous slow-down-for-the-car-wreck feel of it.
CW asks, slightly off the B&R topic:
“Thirty-two responses? Mike, is that a record for your blog? I don’t ever remember seeing that many before, but I could be wrong.”
Oh, no, I’ve had several posts with far more than that. But I don’t tend to get a whole lot of comments, usually. Not like my internet chum Chris who can post “I farted,” and immediately get, like, 60 responses. Of course, some of those comments will be “why didn’t you sneeze instead” or “I liked your old farts better” or “why do you hate Strangers in Paradise,” so there you go.
Ah, insular humor for fellow webloggers. The snake is eating its own tail, friends. Let’s move on.
Rob says
“There is one thing that made Batman and Robin wonderful. It killed the comic movie franchise for a couple of years and made Hollywood take a long and serious look about how comic movies should NOT be made.”
There’s certainly something to that…Batman and Robin pushed things about as far as they can go, re: goofiness and “camp,” and by and large, everyone said “no, thank you, sirs” and rejected the film. So having reached the goofy ceiling, there’s nowhere to go but down. At least, that’s what we can hope.
Suedenim writes
“I actually think Schwarzenegger gets something of a bum rap for this movie… if only because I can’t imagine *anyone* doing much with the abominable material they give his character.”
Yeah…that’s why I’m willing to give Clooney a pass, too. There’s only so much you can do with what you’re given. But they did have their moments…after Arnie and Clooney have their final confrontation, with Batman simply talking to him…as I said previously, that was a reasonably solid scene from both actors aside from Arnie’s terrible “take two of these” line read. But Uma…she was trying to do “over-the-top sexy cartoon vamp,” and only succeeded in making me wish that almost anything else was on my sceen at those moments.
Jay V is trying to kill me:
“Mr Freeze lines that didn’t make it into the movie.
‘I’m hungry, lets have some chili.’
‘I’m freezed to meet you.’
‘You might say Batman and I are polar opposites.’
‘Don’t like the temperature in my hideout? Are you some sort of brrrly-man?’
“I’m freezed to meet you.” Oh, Jay.
And now, because things aren’t confusing enough…a couple of comments on comments for my post about comments.
First up is M.A., who says three things
“A) By posting on comments and allowing further comments on that post, you’ve proven that Batman and Robin is a perpetual blogging engine.”
Oh, God, let’s hope not.
“B) I think we can all agree that the third film, which introduced Robin, should have had the Batman and Robin title, while the fourth should have been Batman 4ever.”
That does seem like a bit of a missed opportunity. I remember people wondering about the “Forever” name (“for the 3rd film? Really?”) at the time the third film came out.
“C) The theater I saw it in was packed, and remained so. The movie didn’t make over 100 million (1997) dollars from elves, you know.”
…to which he adds that he isn’t arguing the movie’s good, just that it wasn’t entirely the unpopular flop people remember. And that’s a fair point…Batman still had enough draw to get people’s butts in seats, and it does amuse me slightly that so many people actually sat through this film. And depresses me that so many of them would likely never read a comic. Or certainly won’t after seeing this film.
Aqualad Knox strikes again:
“When we were in the theater watching Batman and Robin,my friends and I alternated between cringing in embarrassment and guffawing at the ineptitude up there on the screen.”
And that’s the other thing, perhaps tying into why, as Tim above wondered, this film didn’t become some classic of bad cinema. Perhaps the cringe quotient was just too high to allow for an enjoyable “bad movie” experience. That “burning shame” feeling for viewers on behalf of the film doesn’t sound like too much fun to me!
And finally, because I gotta stop at some point, Mercury727 has this to say:
“Comments on a blog post devoted to comments, how meta!”
Not the first time this sort of thing has happened here, and likely not the last time. BLOGGING EATS ITSELF.
