Reputedly everyone was, which was more the fault of the directing and the shallow material than the actors. But the actors still get blamed for it by people who don't bother to look deeper.
News Variety Reports Robert Pattinson is the new Batman
- Thread starter auntiehill
- Start date
- Status
Reputedly everyone was, which was more the fault of the directing and the shallow material than the actors. But the actors still get blamed for it by people who don't bother to look deeper.
Maybe you shouldn’t use the word abomination after going on and on about how offensive you found the idea of a Batman you assumed was a “flaming homosexual” for very bizarre reasons. Makes it look like you just have a problem with gay people and not a shitty Batman movie.
I didn't assume that Clooney played his Batman as a flaming homosexual; he himself stated so directly.
People can dismiss those comments as being a joke, but he made them on at least two different occasions, the most recent being an interview with Barbara Walters in 2006.
And I'm offended by his portrayal because of my support for the LGBT community, so, no, I don't "have a problem with gay people".
People don’t understand how movies are made and just assume that all actors are the kind who made a conscious decision in a role, most of whom are extremely high profile and so respected that they can do that.
Patterson has actually admitted he hated the Twilight films and only tried out for the role because he had a crush on Kristen Stewart. He’s called the source material garbage and seems to treat it as a source of shame. That’s why he’s done nothing similar to it and likely could be paid a lot to do so.
Michael Sheen is in them too, honestly because I think he thought it would be funny and plays the villain as a giggling buffoon. He makes a laugh that I can only assume was done in every single take due to how weird it is.
Humor is a difficult concept for some.
He’s attracted to women in the film, he and Robin fight over one. But let’s just ignore that because of homophobia and some sort of anger over seeing his butt and nipples.
Please tell us you're only joking. That you saw the interview and you aren't REALLY that disconnected from reality. Please.
(Sometimes jokes don't easily come across in written form. Benefit of the doubt. This is a joke.)
Anyways, Clooney wasn't the big problem with the movie, the script was first to be blamed I think.
Last edited:
It surprises me, given what you've revealed about yourself, that you're dismissive of Clooney and O'Donnell's repeated statements about how they treated their characters in Batman and Robin, but this is not a subject I want to argue about.
It was 20 something years ago and Clooney has changed and Batman isn’t real. You’re doing it right now and actually seem to have a huge problem.
I'm only mad about that because it makes very little sense on the nipples part. Other than that, I don't see much anger here, just a lot of circular argumentation.
Cool! I've been out of touch the last few years in the franchise but it's nice to know his era has been embraced again!
Ah, but who's the target audience? Based on the feel and inclusion of all original voice actors, arguably fans of the 1966 original. Anyone who likes the format, more power to 'em, but I'll not disagree that the hatred of the 1960s edition is as strong as it was for a while (IMHO, the 66 version is still one of THE best.) At least they kept the animated specials in the original feel and tone of the 66 original and paying respect to their creation, which was big. So many revivals or continuations just disregard the tone and feel and put in something so apocryphal... And did you see the one with Two Face, as played by William Shatner? It's an absolute must-see.
Plenty of people didn't see Clooney's interpretation of Wayne or his Batman as being any homosexual stereotype - or any stereotype of anyone or anything in general. Meaning it makes more sense that the claim he was being facetious in an interview was to wind up someone in some audience (or he was trying to be a comedian) is the more likely possibility. More to a point, what I thought about his performance as the Caped Crusader, as have many, was that Clooney "phoned in" his performance out of not wanting to be in that atrocious script but couldn't get out of the movie. And after "Batman Forever' (which IMHO is underrated) , the 1997 entry was so shockingly dismal...
I find it hilarious. Watch those movies with a bottle of wine and it’s a blast.I'm only mad about that because it makes very little sense on the nipples part. Other than that, I don't see much anger here, just a lot of circular argumentation.
I think there's a new generation of fans, given how many tie-ins there have been -- not just those movies, but an ongoing DC comic set in (a version of) the '66 show's universe, and a lot of toys and other merchandise now that the licensing issues have finally been cleared up.
I think a lot of the groundwork was laid by Batman: The Brave and the Bold, the animated series that ran on Cartoon Network from 2008-2011 and was a loving pastiche of Silver Age Batman comics, with a lot of nods to the Adam West series as well. Its success probably did much to expose modern audiences to Silver Age DC and to show how fun it could be. I think people were ready for an alternative to 20-odd years of grimdark, Frank Miller-style Batman. (I remember what a revelation it was for me as a high school senior to be exposed to The Dark Knight Returns after growing up knowing Batman only from the Adam West show and Saturday morning cartoons. I was fascinated by what a completely different and unexpected approach it was to characters and concepts I knew. I imagine a lot of modern viewers had a similar revelation in reverse when they saw BB&B.) And of course a lot of its fans were just the young kids who watched Cartoon Network and maybe were being exposed to Batman for the first time through BB&B. By now they'd be grown up.
Last edited:
You take that back !
When I was a kid and FX aired the '66 show in syndication, it was a must-watch for me whenever I visited my grandparents (at the time we only had local tv at home but they had satellite). As I grew older and liked to think myself more "sophisticated" (e.g., teenage and early 20s years), I adopted exactly that sort of attitude where I looked down on the show.
These days I'd be inclined towards giving it another shot, years and years later and actually maturing (or so I hope...). Too bad it's not on any subscription streaming services; I don't really want to buy the Blu-ray set or the individual seasons digitally.
The recently concluded Gotham was plenty campy (in an often dark and twisted way wholly different from '66 of course), and I quite liked that show.
Anywho, this is all a long-winded way of coming around to agreeing with your last comment about the length of time over which Batman has endured as a character. Different takes are essential to that and I think it's definitely a good thing that different versions exist to appeal to different audiences.
Do people really bash Batman 66 anymore? I thought it had fallen into being so campy that was seen as fun. It helped that Adam West started doing more comedic work, especially on Family Guy.
This thread is openly, flamingly awful.
Well put.
It's less and less but I still see it occasionally.
I haven’t noticed it with younger audiences. It’s more affectionate teasing.
- Status