I was a little surprised that you didn't mention Bane being in this movie seeing as how he is the main villain in the new Batman movie. I suppose there wasn't enough time to mention him.Anyhow, I would like to ask you something Bob. In the first part of this Big Picture series you wrote this in regards to the Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, "An in name only version of a crappy 90s villain who wasn't especially interesting to begin with."Now as we know and you posted last year on the news of Tom Hardy's casting, Christopher Nolan unfortunately decided to continue Hollywood's tradition of whitewashing characters and denying nonwhites major roles in movies. So in that sense yes Bane has been changed. What I don't understand though is why you said he was an "in name only version" of the character.Bane in the comics, apart from being a real physical threat, is also highly intelligent. As seen in all of the marketing for The Dark Knight Rises he is being represented that way. In the comment section for that post you answered someone's question as to what Latino actor could play Bane and you put out there Marko Zaror and commented, "Not sure he can "act" for shit, but it IS just Bane, after all..."If you thought playing Bane would require little if any acting talent then it says to me that you didn't know the character of Bane. It would make me lean on the assumption that your biggest exposure to Bane was this movie (Batman & Robin) where he was bastardized completely and made to be just a pea brained muscle. So why would you call the character of Bane "crappy" and say that the version of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises (apart from sadly being whitewashed) is "an in name only version"?
I believe Bob sees Bane as a character with little depth and intrigue beyond being an intelligent muscleman who managed to take down Batman once and hasn't anything worthwhile since. Basically a slightly more dimensional Doomsday in the regard. I think its rare to find any comic villain who either was created or became prominent from the 90s (Venom, Carnage, Bane, etc) whom Bob holds with any high regard outside maybe independent stuff like Sandman. From what I can tell to him they represent the excesses of that particular dork age and (in his opinion) embody the most insecure attempt at providing "grim and gritty" bad guys to differentiate from the supposed corniess of the silver age. I'm more of a Bronze Age guy myself, but to each his own.
Jesus Bob, that picture you tweeted... You´re gonna get crucified by the Nolanites...
although, the Silver Age was still a stupid era that was NOT very good for Batman. And if Frank Miller hadn't revived the character with Dark Knight Returns he might not have been anywhere near as big or worth taking seriously as he is now.
What you fail to get Bob (and this is not an insult, merely a note) is that Batman and Robin is on the GOOD side of 'So Bad It's Good.' It makes just enough effort to not fall into the trap of The Room or Showgirls and because of that it looks all the worse for it. This works both ways, which is why despite my ironic love for The Room, I DESPISE The Condemned.
Dude... really good point about homophobia and Batman & Robin.
I've never seen any homophobia in regard to people hating Batman and Robin. People hated the bat-nipples not because it was "gay" in a homosexual sense, but because it was stupid. It was just a dumb idea to do that. I've never heard people hating B&R because the director was gay or it came off looking like a broadway musical.
This movie sucked. Not because Schumacher is gay (I didn't know that before watching the video), but because it was just a bad movie. I'm also not a big fan of camp.As for the character of Batman himself, you're a little off-base, Bob. The original Bill Finger and Bob Kane stories were about this weird, dark character in a very Gothic setting.After the super hero genre collapsed after World War II, National/DC treated Batman more like a product, adding in all the silver age goofiness you're so fond of, which was perpetuated by the Adam West series.Also, Frank Miller wasn't the creator who brought Batman back to the dark side, so to speak: Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams took over the character in the '70s and really brought him back to his roots during their seminal run.I will admit that Miller took that darkness to a different level, but he wasn't the one that initially made that change.
It is kinda funny that you used a picture of the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh to represent Silver Age goofiness.Grant Morrison reused that idea during Batman: RIP a few years back. Though I think he re-purposed it to be an alternate personality or something.Just thought you might like to know!
haven't the characters of batman and robin for years now been held up as a sort of a symbol of gay culture?
I tell you, I never noticed the nipples until years later when I heard someone complaining about it, went back, saw that there were, indeed, nipples and still didn't care. No, I had other problems. Mainly Mr. Freeze. I think that version of the character came about as a dare in the writing room. I think they had a bet going on that they could write a major character in a feature length movie whose dialog consisted solely of punny one-liners. I'm saying somebody had twenty bucks riding on that.The other thing is that it isn't actually camp. It goes right past camp to slapstick. It's Larry Moe and Curly if Curly is a hot chick and they're all wearing black rubber. Now some people like slapstick, its not my thing but some people like it, but it's not even good slapstick. It's not even funny. Even Hudson Hawk was funny. I'll not bother trying to defend that movie but it did make me giggle. Batman and Robin didn't even make me giggle.
I've watched it recently and after realizing it is a parody (which is like at most 5 minutes in) it was actually quite fun. The amount of silliness in this movie is simply astounding!
Post a Comment