Batman & Robin...Comic Book...Influences??

[thecolorsblend]

And secondly it was an opinion piece. It's one thing to steal facts from someone else's research. It's another thing altogether to plagiarise their personal opinions and try and pass them off as your own.

That sort of goes back to the Internet's inherent flaw: It gives everybody a voice... but we realized too late that most people have absolutely nothing to say.

[Paul (ral)]

It's my fault really. I should have got the Batman and Robin analysis up as a feature sometime last year. Ral gave me the go ahead to proceed with it, but I never got around to doing it until now.

You're not at fault at all SN, whether it was in the forum or the main site, you're still the author of it and that guy (or anyone else) has no excuse for claiming it as his own work...and changing the intent of it. Never mind the fact that he tries to incorporate us into his agenda when he copied Doc's feature!

[BatmAngelus]

Not much I can add here, other than to say thanks to Paul for setting the record straight and defending Silver & Doc's great work.

Looks like this wasn't the only copy and paste job he's done:
http://batmannrobinonfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/merry-christmas-my-burton-keaton-batman.html
http://shazamaholic.blogspot.com/2011/06/retrospective-on-burton-keaton-batman.html

[DocLathropBrown]

Well, to be fair my article wasn't exclusive to this site, as I had already written it for print publication in Shadowland Magazine, but since I was not paid for the contribution, I thought no harm in providing it for Batman Online as well (and it would get it a wider audience). At the very least in the entry using my article, he credits us for the article and does not say it's his own words. Though he credits me as "California guy." 

My only problem with his use of my article is that he risks de-legitimizing it by association. And if you look at the artcle here on the site, its comments are hardly supportive as it is. I knew the article would be an uphill battle to be taken seriously, but the guy doesn't help.

[thecolorsblend]

My only problem with his use of my article is that he risks de-legitimizing it by association. And if you look at the artcle here on the site, its comments are hardly supportive as it is. I knew the article would be an uphill battle to be taken seriously, but the guy doesn't help.

A year ago, I was pretty much "Burton rules!!!" After reading your piece, I'm a lot more prepared to give Schumacher his time in the sun... and not in spite of B&R, but (partially) because of it. I've never considered myself an open-minded person. If you can persuade me, you can rest assured you did your job well. Kudos, sir.

[DocLathropBrown]

My only problem with his use of my article is that he risks de-legitimizing it by association. And if you look at the artcle here on the site, its comments are hardly supportive as it is. I knew the article would be an uphill battle to be taken seriously, but the guy doesn't help.

A year ago, I was pretty much "Burton rules!!!" After reading your piece, I'm a lot more prepared to give Schumacher his time in the sun... and not in spite of B&R, but (partially) because of it. I've never considered myself an open-minded person. If you can persuade me, you can rest assured you did your job well. Kudos, sir.

I can tell you this, it's kind of a giddy thrill 'getting' things that others don't. I'll never forget the first time I watched through Schumacher's two films and really saw them for what they were. I felt like I had unlocked a special puzzle that was just for me. While everyone else looks at them and only sees Neon and Nipples and Jokes, I saw pathos and drama and artistry and above all that, I saw fun.

I was 10 when B&R came out, and 8 for BF. I'm unique in the fact that I never went through a period where I disliked the two films--I've always liked them. But until recently and I saw the films through adult eyes, I never loved them like I do now. Are they imperfect and do they make mistakes? Yes. But I'm not inclined to discuss them--everyone else has done that enough. They're not the best Batman films, but they do so much well that it baffles me how people can't at least give them due credit.

Films are pieces of a whole. It doesn't matter the film (big budget films, anyway), an unparalled amount of work goes into making any major studio film. For people to judge any film by a few bad parts does a disservice to the whole, and all the people who spent hours upon days upon weeks upon months crafting it. I advocate appreciating what the production was trying to do, even if you don't agree with it.

I dislike most of Nolan's approach, but do I hate the films? No. I dislike the fans associated. Nolan isn't responsible for their actions, and likewise a lot of work went into The Dark Knight Trilogy. I can't discount what he was going for. I only would were he revealed to be an elistist dick. Any director is honestly trying when they make a film--it takes too much of their time to do otherwise.

[thecolorsblend]

I think certain gripes just become a strange party line after a while. Nobody is openly calling for group think but that's what ends up happening. It's bizarre.

To your point though, the one bit of credence I'll give to the Schumacher-bashing is that it underlines how important every single element of any film is. One bad idea has the strange ability to wipe out 10 or 12 good ideas. Once the shrieking masses get a hold of any common gripe and turn it into a meme, you're done.

Of course, it doesn't help that people have a very hard time understanding style and intent. For example, it bugs the piss out of me is when people say the Star Wars prequels have "bad effects" because a lot of the effects "don't look realistic". Well, the style and intent of the director is to make eye candy effects sequences but that seems to be forgotten about. It just kind of irks me that style, tone and intent aren't taken into account when people make these kinds of judgments. There's a school of thought that says "the audience is always right" but if the audience is comprised of ignorant buffoons who don't know their buttholes from their elbows when it comes to cinema, sorry, but there are several cases where the audience is completely full of it. The Star Wars prequels (and a lot of other misunderstood films) may have other problems but I would argue they're damned near bulletproof on technical, cinematic and stylistic levels.

[Azrael]

I can tell you this, it's kind of a giddy thrill 'getting' things that others don't. I'll never forget the first time I watched through Schumacher's two films and really saw them for what they were. I felt like I had unlocked a special puzzle that was just for me. While everyone else looks at them and only sees Neon and Nipples and Jokes, I saw pathos and drama and artistry and above all that, I saw fun.

You know what, this is exactly how I felt with the game based on Batman & Robin - even though overall the game isn't quite there, the love and attention to detail by the developers is quite obvious. While everyone else was probably seeing "another bad licenced game" (and possibly a retro gamer gone mad in praising it), I saw a valiant effort by Probe to use Batman & Robin as a vehicle in delivering the definitive Batman game for 1998. During the period when everyone was saying that the sky is blue ("Arkham City is incredible") I was curious to re-discover and see the merits of this 1998 Probe game. No one cared. Whatever.

[thecolorsblend]

None of this is likely to be breaking news for any of you but if the ambition here is to be complete and thorough, we should probably talk about some of the vehicles.

It was fairly well-established in the comics that both Batgirl and Robin rode motorcycles. Batman & Robin did not innovate much in giving those characters that mode of transportation.

Batman Family #12 (August 1977)


For Robin though, Schumacher went one better in calling the motorcycle the Redbird. In Detective Comics #668, Tim, having received a hardship driver's license, took possession of a vehicle Bruce had intended to give him once he became a legal driver. The vehicle's handle? Redbird. Schumacher could've simply skipped assigning any type of name to Robin's vehicle but calling it the Redbird was good attention to detail. In giving Dick a motorcycle but naming it after Tim's car, Schumacher played up the fact that the movie version of Dick Grayson was something of an amalgamation of all comic book Robins up to that point.

Detective #668 (November 1993)


As to the Batmobile, the concept of Batman driving a topless sports car is no great innovation on Schumacher's part as it has considerable precedent in the comics.

Batman #164 (June 1964)


This may be the first example of a completely topless Batmobile. I would defer to others on that one. But it is interesting to note that not only does this Batmobile obviously predate Batman & Robin, it also predates the Adam West TV show, which also featured a topless Batmobile.

As to the fact that the movie Batmobile apparently seats only one, that works on a few levels. Metatextually, Batman in the movie struggles with partnership with Robin. By giving Robin a separate means of transportation, Batman can exert control over him (as the film shows us). The transportation reflects the discord between the two characters. Plus, Dick had already been established as a motorcycle enthusiast so there is logic in depicting Robin on a motorcycle.

There is also precedent in the comics for a single-seat Batmobile.

Legends of the Dark Knight #15 (February 1991)


So yeah, anyway...

[BatmAngelus]

Great additions (and analysis), colors!