Is it possible for ANY Batman film to not be toyetic?

[Wayne49]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

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.

[Catwoman]

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.

[Edd Grayson]

I agree, Catwoman. People from any age group enjoy collecting and playing with Batman toys.

[Wayne49]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

Is 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!

[The Laughing Fish]

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?

[OutRiddled]

Batman & Robin has been labelled "toyetic" by the group-think mafia because Joel Schumacher was the only one brave enough to admit it!    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.

[Azrael]

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)

[johnnygobbs]

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.