I know there has been so much criticism weighed on Batman & Robin for having toy companies on board for design considerations. And I think it's fair to say Schumacher is to blame for that perception since he brought it up in his overview of the film on DVD. But, at the end of the day, isn't every Batman movie a vehicle for toys and related merchandise? The Nolan movies had a slew of toys, as did the Burton films. And Batman '66 has just recently enjoyed a new resurgence of merchandise after the licensing issues were resolved a few years back. So every iteration of this character (minus the serials) has enjoyed an enormous campaign of toys to profit Warner Bros.
I tend to like allot of the design sensibilities in Batman & Robin. Now, it's a given that the Bathammer and Bat-sled are little more than product endorsements since they really did next to nothing in the film. But does that really make them any less valid than the Batmobile, Bat-planes, or Nolan's Tumbler and Batcycle since the end game is promoting licensed goods with the logo splashed across most of it? What is the Batmobile but the ultimate example of licensing toys?
To me that is part of the appeal of Batman. He is this fascinating hero that carries all of these wild gadgets and drives this custom car fashioned to promote his image with it's own weapons to boot. Batman Vs. Superman promises to be another bonanza of merchandise as well. So is there a point where we should accept the blatant commercialism of this character and not presume to be selective on where it's used best? For me, this kind of drives home why the appeal of Batman will live on long after we're gone. Batman just touches the kid in everyone who sees him and I think that is the magic of this hero.
I never understood why Schumacher's films specifically were called toyetic. If anything, they were more prone to one-liners and actors "chewing the scenery" than the Burton films, but they didn't feel like they existed only to sell toys to me... the Burton films had a toyline too.
I don't think it is possible for anything related to Batman. The movies, the video games, everything tied to him has action figures and stuff produced for it because he is such a massive brand. They may not be little kid toys, but they are still toys.
I think the reason they use that term "toyetic" for B&R is because of how light and kid friendly it was, with "toyetic" meaning toys as in the kind you buy at walmart that you can play with without them breaking after two adventures. But to me, B&R's toy line wasn't at all the biggest, I think Forever has all the movies covered because that was like the peak of Batmania Part II and there was stuff EVERYWHERE. I remember there being far more stuff for Forever than for B&R. Returns had a TON of stuff too, like candy dispensers and stuff, the fun knick knacks. I don't remember those for B&R but maybe I'm wrong. And above all of that, there were no kids meal toys for B&R I don't think. I know Taco Bell had the fast food partnership for B&R because my mom wanted to "pray the gay away" because of how attracted her 11 year old daughter was to the window poster of Poison Ivy (but that's a story for another day) but I don't remember there being any toys for it. So....yeah. Everything has the toy tie-ins but I guess those are the only two that the critics (I hate critics) deem appropriate for the term since they're light and I guess critics are dumb enough to think that toys are just for little kids. Whatever.
Ok idk if I came remotely close to adding anything to the conversation but there's my attempt lol. Long story short is that Batman himself is toyetic. Movies, comics, video games (not tie in video games), etc. and just the character himself. Look at those action figures they have been selling for a couple of years now and now they've made a movie based off of them, the Animal Instincts thing. So yea. It is just people trying to slap labels for the sake of slapping labels.
I agree, Catwoman. People from any age group enjoy collecting and playing with Batman toys.
Great comments Edd Grayson and Catwoman! I completely agree. I think this common complaint from the "outraged" critics is little more than hypocrisy in it's finest form. The best part for me? Often times on Youtube you have critics making this statement with toys BEHIND THEM! Wow...talk about contradicting yourself. Plus as Edd said so well, since when were toys just for kids anymore? The collector heavy market is alive and well in those isles often fighting for those same pieces.
With regards to merchandise volume, Batman & Robin actually had more vendor participation because of the results from Forever. But it didn't hang around as long because of the movie's short theatrical life. So allot of what was being sold before the movie's release dried up once the movie hit and left theaters during a crowded Summer box office. Forever had fewer vendors on board because they didn't believe the license was still viable. But the ones who did believe, like Kenner, were rewarded when the film became a surprise hit and they had product in stock. Forever product was a massive success and stayed in stores for a long time because of this. I think the B&R merchandise was profitable for Kenner and Warner bros, just no where on the scale like Forever.
QuoteIs it possible for ANY Batman film to not be toyetic?
You've seen Nolan's movies, right? "Which psycho in a business suit do
YOU want?"
B89 had a kind of crappy toy line but Batman Returns through B&R had very dynamic, very colorful ones. B&R had several vehicles, villains, alternate costumes and other crap you could make a toy collection from.
Is that good? Bad? Eye of the beholder. But I think Batman movies should have a cool factor to them. Of course, kids these days only care about video games. I truly will never understand the appeal of being a "gamer". Oh, so you're an unemployed slob living off Cheetos. Boy oh boy, now there's something to aspire to!
And get off my fvcking lawn!
As it was already posted by others, all Batman films are toyetic. Do people seriously mean to tell me that merchandise wasn't one of the key motivations behind designing and introducing Batman's vehicles on screen?
Batman & Robin has been labelled "toyetic" by the group-think mafia because Joel Schumacher was the only one brave enough to admit it! ;D As others have said, ALL the Batman films are toyetic! Yet somehow they take Schumacher's comments as complete gospel and thus a major 'valid criticism' of Batman & Robin. Just because, say, Christopher Nolan didn't say that his movies weren't "toyetic", it doesn't mean that they weren't at all.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 04:44
Of course, kids these days only care about video games. I truly will never understand the appeal of being a "gamer". Oh, so you're an unemployed slob living off Cheetos. Boy oh boy, now there's something to aspire to!
And get off my fvcking lawn!
...said a reader of comics! And the "non-geek" crowd who wouldn't be caught dead reading comics, playing video games, or analyzing superheroes in forums, laughed.
No offense intended, of course, they're all good IMO, I just didn't expect such a comment from a person who is more or less "in" the so-called "geek culture", or fandom, or whatever one wants to call it. Or were you being sarcastic.
(yes, I know this is a reply to a 5+ months old comment, I just saw it)
Well, not all of us here are big comic-book readers. We just like some comic-book films. And for what it's worth, although I don't necessarily share colors' particular terminology, I've never really understood the appeal of video games either. Until the medium grows-up it seems quite limited in terms of artistic aspiration and depth.
This was aimed at someone else and was OT to the thread's title (the topic is about toyetic Batmovies, not games) yet johnnygobbs felt compelled to reply less than 30 minutes after my post, with a reply showing enmity.
Quote from: Azrael on Sat, 9 Apr 2016, 15:15
This was aimed at someone else and was OT to the thread's title (the topic is about toyetic Batmovies, not games) yet johnnygobbs felt compelled to reply less than 30 minutes after my post, with a reply showing enmity.
I'm sorry Azrael. I wasn't trying to show you enmity, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
In fact I was trying to build bonds with thecolorsblend, because he and I haven't always gotten along in the past, and I was partly demonstrating some common ground on this occasion. It wasn't my intention to throw you under the bus in the process.
Anyway, I hope you accept my apology. I wasn't trying to suggest anything you said was wrong (it wasn't) but that I simply share
some of colors' sentiments when it comes to video games (albeit not the 'unemployed slob' stereotype he used).
Well, it's the nature of forums - typed dialogue between strangers - to blame.
I think whatever vice gets you into a Batman movie ultimately caters to how you perceive the film. For me I like different interpretations, but I don't need a nonstop psychoanalysis of why a man dresses up like a bat. I think that tends to betray the fantasy of the subject matter and wander into unintended camp. Batman will always be a hero that fights with plenty of style points for presentation. That translates into lots of merchandise for kids of all ages.
I'm coming back to this.
I always thought "toyetic" meant a product designed to create multitudes of toys. In BF, Batman gets a new suit and then pulls the Batwing and Batboat out of nowhere. Riddler wears several different outfits through the movie. Most of the production sets could probably have had toy playsets built from them.
In B&R, all the heroes get new suits and then cruise around in sparkly snow mobiles. Poison Ivy has several different costumes as well. Same thing applies for the production sets.
Whatever their artistic merits, both are rather toy-friendly.
As the eventual Toy Biz line showed, B89 had less toy potential to it. You had Batman and the Joker. And that's basically it. BR was probably slightly more toy-friendly, though not by much. Kenner's BR toy line only really got as big as it did when the toy designers began making stuff up as they went along and developed Batman figures that had nothing to do with the movie. The "Deep Dive Batman" figure comes to mind.
Yes, those same things can be said of the Schumacher toy lines. But the difference is that the films which inspired (to whatever degree) those toy lines already lent themselves to characters wearing different outfits, driving different vehicles, running around all different types of environments and so forth. A toyline featuring a Batman wearing a suit he never wore in the movie is more of a piece with Batman & Robin than it is BR.
That's the difference.
And the Nolan movies weren't all that great for toys either as has been said (by me if nobody else). The villains mostly wear business suits of some kind. Batman gets a new outfit in TDK but a case can be made it was Nolan who instigated that for various reasons. It's telling that he kept the same basic suit more or less in TDKRises.
There's a reason Tony Stark's armor is always different in each new movie. It isn't an artistic or creative decision. The studio wants to sell toys so he needs the Mark 1 Billion Armor With Hulk Smash Action.
I found this news report about B&R's toyline reaching to retail outlets before the film came out. It must've been a sure bet in terms of profit. The enthusiasm was high back then.
https://youtu.be/_h6PgBWNCUk
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 21 Nov 2016, 00:30I found this news report about B&R's toyline reaching to retail outlets before the film came out. It must've been a sure bet in terms of profit. The enthusiasm was high back then.
https://youtu.be/_h6PgBWNCUk
The licensees were a lot more excited about B&R than the core audience and the wide audience were. For a lot of people, the writing was on the wall when the first trailer hit.
It's smart business. But that said, I'm probably a bigger collector these days compared to when I was younger. Which is funny. I actually reached a stage in my life where I felt a little embarrassment in having Batman stuff around the place. But I grew out of that mentality and embraced the character more than I ever had done.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 21 Nov 2016, 11:27It's smart business. But that said, I'm probably a bigger collector these days compared to when I was younger. Which is funny. I actually reached a stage in my life where I felt a little embarrassment in having Batman stuff around the place. But I grew out of that mentality and embraced the character more than I ever had done.
Weird how that works, huh? The stuff of childhood becomes embarrassing for a while but then you grow into your "I don't give a crap what anybody else thinks" mentality.
And I think that goes for greater society as well. I don't go a day without seeing someone, both old and young, wearing a Batman, Superman, Spider-Man or Captain America tshirt. These people are broadcasting their fandom to the world. It's definitely not an embarrassing or childish hobby these days. It's a full blown movement. People are basically saying 'this is what I like, and this is who I identify with'. I think that's very cool, personally. Comics have become more mainstream than ever.
I think The Dark Knight does qualify as not-toyetic, at least the least so that can be made, while there were some characters (not really that many or colorful) that you could make toys of, the Joker and Two-Face would be pretty not-appealing for kids, there wasn't that much traditional action, Batman a pretty non-traditional type of hero, the tone was really not mainly trying to appeal to, excite or be directed to kids.
Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:13Batman a pretty non-traditional type of hero
If Batman isn't a traditional type of hero, idk who is.
It all comes down to the depiction. Batman can be anti traditional sometimes, but even then he's always been marketable. True, Dark Knight had a look that was more alluring for older people (hot) toys, but kids still bought the merch, and remember that some kids stuff gets dazzled up on the shelves, like TDK Batman with accessory/vehicle/color scheme you ain't never seen before. Batman moves toys. Period, but I understand that the character changes, and the depiction doesn't always scream toys for the kids. The sellers make reinterpretations.
A non toyetic Batman film would be something like a pure adaption of Ego, which is something I would love. Or a true crime drama like Bruce Wayne: Murderer, but streamlined down into courtroom and prison settings, which I would also enjoy.