Ok, let's get real for a sec

[The Dark Knight]

Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

[The Laughing Fish]

Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

But Rotten Tomatoes tells us they both suck, so we can't really say anything positive about them...right? 

[The Dark Knight]

Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

But Rotten Tomatoes tells us they both suck, so we can't really say anything positive about them...right? 

I'm meaning to get my hands on the 1:18 scale Hot Wheels BF Batmobile. It's my third favourite live action vehicle. First being the Burton car, then Affleck's.

[The Laughing Fish]

My ranking of live action Batmobiles are:

• Furstmobile
• 1966
• Forever
• Batfleck's ride
• B&R
• Tumbler

[thecolorsblend]

I'm going to ask a controversial question here: is there a sense of homophobia among hardcore haters of the Schumacher costumes? Schumacher had been accused of projecting his own sexuality into the movies by some critics

What I've never understood is why that line of inquiry is supposed to be off-limits.

Nobody bats an eye when you question whether or not his parents divorce when he was a child influenced him on a very deep, personal level.

It's no big deal at all to conjecture that Tim Burton's isolated, lonely childhood affected much of his early work and arguably still influences him somewhat today.

Schumacher is gay but for some reason we're not allowed to suggest how that subculture has influenced him as a filmmaker. Because something something homophobia.

It's just asinine.

[Catwoman]

My ranking of live action Batmobiles are:

• Furstmobile
• 1966
• Forever
• Batfleck's ride
• B&R
• Tumbler

I can agree with this. And I like the first 5 a lot. That last one, I was glad when Joker blew it up.

[The Dark Knight]

My full order:

1. Burton's car
2. Affleck's car
3. Kilmer's car
4. West's car
5. Clooney's car
6. Bale's tank

[thecolorsblend]

-- Batmobiles
01. Kilmer- This may be sacrilege to some people but this is #1 on my list. I really dug the lines, the lights, the size of the Giant Freaking Flame of Doom coming out the back, the sharp bat-fins on it, the whole program. 1995 was a really inspired time for me as a Batman fan. I loved the comics and wanted them to BE comics, not movies. But, then as now, I wouldn't have minded if the Forever Batmobile had been ported to the comics.

02. Burton- As much as I love Furst's Batmobile, it's of a piece with Burton's films. I wouldn't have wanted to see this in a comic (apart from an Easter egg in Hush or something). This car is loud, mean and not to be messed with. This Batmobile is formative for me but I just don't have the same affection for it as I do the Forever car.

03. Clooney- I *LOVED* this car in 1997 and I still do now. I like the symbolism of Batman building a one-seat car. On a subconscious level, he still hasn't accepted Robin as his partner, which is an element of the movie. I dig the 1940's roadster-on-steroids thing Schumacher was going for. It really fits in well with that iteration of Gotham City. Wouldn't change a thing!

04. Affleck- I regard this as a step in the right direction. It has some of the utilitarian aspects of Nolan's Batmobile but it doesn't strive as hard to be realistic. Snyder was perfectly content to combine ideas from previous designs. In the modern era, this may be as good as it gets with a stylized type of Batmobile.

05. Bale- I've always struggled with this Batmobile. It's loud and aggressive, yes, but it's boxy and a bit too utilitarian for my tastes. Nolan's vision is very much form follows function and to me Batman is all about the stylization. Then again, what other choice did Nolan have? He had to distinguish his version of Batman from what came before. The Batmobile is a big part of forging his own identity. I understand the mentality; it's the final product I have issues with. To this day, I don't miss this Batmobile after the Joker blows it up and Batman tools around using the Batcycle. That feels more appropriate for this iteration of the character.

06. West- I admire the effort and vision behind this version of the Batmobile but it just eludes me. If I was ten years younger, I'm convinced this would be THE Batmobile in my imagination. But I'm not ten years younger and this Batmobile is fun on a nostalgic or kitchy level. It's fun for what it is but it's not really for me.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm going to ask a controversial question here: is there a sense of homophobia among hardcore haters of the Schumacher costumes? Schumacher had been accused of projecting his own sexuality into the movies by some critics

What I've never understood is why that line of inquiry is supposed to be off-limits.

While we do live in an age of political correctness, I don't think it's entirely true that Schumacher's sexuality is prohibited when it comes to analysing its influence on his films. This analysis has this to say (bear in mind, it also suggests there is gay subtext in the 60s TV show too):

Since the Batman television show became synonymous with camp, and flamboyantly gay behavior later became described as campy, the association perpetuated. The idea was later reinforced by Joel Schumacher in "Batman Forever." The often mentioned nipples on the suits eroticized their leather costumes in the inane film. Robin does not become Batman's ward, and Batman meets him when he's a young, legally consenting adult. Chris O'Donnell's haircut is butch-styled, and Chase Meridian, the alleged female love interest, is marginalized throughout the film.

In that same analysis, it quoted Alan Grant taking a swing at the director:

Well, the Batman I wrote for 13 years isn't gay. Denny O'Neil's Batman, Marv Wolfman's Batman, everybody's Batman all the way back to Bob Kane...none of them wrote him as a gay character. Only Joel Schumacher might have had an opposing view.

I find Grant's words to be in poor taste, by the way. Just because Kilmer and Clooney wore these bizarre costumes, that doesn't automatically make their portrayals gay. Especially when in Kilmer's case, he was seeking support - therapeutically and romantically -  from Chase Meridian to overcome his burden as Batman.

Source: http://comicsbulletin.com/batman-gay/

I can agree with this. And I like the first 5 a lot. That last one, I was glad when Joker blew it up.

Same here. I prefer a Batmobile design with style, and the Tumbler doesn't have it.

The funny thing is, a lot of comics in the past didn't always feature a Batmobile that had bat motifs or had any style at all. In the early Golden Age comics, the Batmobile resembled an Oldsmobile, and in the 1970s, it resembled more of a Corvette.





http://www.batmobilehistory.com/1972-batmobile.jpg

But despite how ordinary they look for a comic book, they still have more style than the Tumbler.

[thecolorsblend]

While we do live in an age of political correctness, I don't think it's entirely true that Schumacher's sexuality is prohibited when it comes to analysing its influence on his films. This analysis has this to say (bear in mind, it also suggests there is gay subtext in the 60s TV show too):

And...

In that same analysis, it quoted Alan Grant taking a swing at the director:

I wouldn't call that a "swing".

I find Grant's words to be in poor taste, by the way. Just because Kilmer and Clooney wore these bizarre costumes, that doesn't automatically make their portrayals gay. Especially when in Kilmer's case, he was seeking support - therapeutically and romantically -  from Chase Meridian to overcome his burden as Batman.

They also wore nipple suits with giant codpieces. The subtext is there for those inclined to view it that way.

My point was to say that analysis and interpretation are not "homophobic". The consensus seems to be "We shouldn't talk about that because muh homophobia" and it's just idiotic.

I one time saw a rather compelling essay about Bryan Singer's homosexuality actually working against him with Superman Returns because he didn't have a real context for understanding a romantic relationship between a man and a woman. I wish I'd bookmarked it but the bottom line was the writer said words to the effect of "Superman and Lois in that movie aren't really a romantic couple. They're what a gay man THINKS heterosexual couples are like". It wasn't really meanspirited or anything. It was the writer saying that maybe not every director is cut out to tackle just any subject matter.

Mind you, the writer was still smeared anyway because the reactionaries out there have no understanding of subtlety and nuance. This, incidentally, is why most "online analysis" of anything are worthless to me. Most people are blithering idiots and they have all they can say grace over in just living their lives and treading water.

You see all the time people critique (or praise) the visuals of a movie or comic or whatever. That's really all they're intellectually equipped for. They can't tell you what something MEANS but they can sure as you-know-what tell you what they think of how it LOOKS.

And when that bunch of drooling, glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, cave-dwelling, knuckle-dragging freaking morons see someone analyze a Bryan Singer film or a Joel Schumacher film through the prism of how their lifestyle might affect and shape their creative decisions, this weird, primitive, borderline retarded reflexive action kicks in and they start carrying on about this and that "homophobia" or some such idiotic nonsense even though the writer they're slamming said nothing mean or hateful or anything.

Ahhhhh, feels good getting that off my chest.

Seriously though, the great thing about the Internet is how it's given everybody a VOICE.

The bad thing about the Internet, though, is how it's given EVERYbody a voice... including those who maybe don't deserve one.