Amph Batman in print and animation

Plus, Robin's costume was basically Nightwing's costume, even so far as to forecast the New 52 version with all the red.

Fact.

 

And the coke nullified the irony and charm, just as Mr Smug and his obnoxious sense of self-awareness annihilated everything we love about Adam West. It all makes sense, now, and explains why the Cloon didn't have the bollocks to do the role in tights. Too worried about his abs not being 100% perfect. Hate him. Hate him.

I would support bringing back George Clooney for a future Batman film, solely for the purpose of his Batman being disembowelled by Killer Croc at the Joker's orders, while the rest of the Rogue's Gallery look on and cheer.

"Waak waak waak! Half a million for one of his kidneys! Waak waak waak!!!"

"Riddle this this, riddle me that - what's that coming out of the ears of the big bad bat?
Oh, it's his brains... sorry, that's sort of gross"

 

Yeah, because George Clooney had final say in his costume and what lines he said.

You do realize that Clooney's biggest role at the time was in ER, right? His breakthrough movie was From Dusk 'til Dawn, which is possibly the most mediocre Tarantino screenplay ever coupled with Robert Rodriguez doing zombie vampires and everyone watched it because Selma Hayek was a stripper. So you take Clooney into this movie where he's replacing Val Kilmer in a sequel to a movie that had (at the time) the highest-grossing opening weekend ever and you cast him as your main character, but you give Arnold Schwarzenegger top billing (true story) because he was the bigger box-office draw and the most famous person in that movie.

So the movie already has a lead actor who's being displaced by his hammy supporting actor playing the villain, not to mention massive shoes to fill because seriously did you see how much money Batman Forever made? Batman Returns was considered "disappointing" by WB, likely because of how damn grim that movie is. There's no real happy ending, a lot of horrible stuff happens, and it got criticism for its violence and sexual innuendo (oh man it's always there in that movie). McDonald's pulled their Happy Meal promo tie-in for it. So it's understandable that Forever, with a new director (because apparently Tim Burton only likes dark and gritty stuff, ha ha ha), would get a lot of pressure to be more marketable, especially towards kids. A lot of the movie is campy and generally silly, and it worked, because they tripled their budget - still not enough money for WB. Batman and Robin comes around, Kilmer goes on to other pastures, Clooney is brought into the situation where they want to keep making money, Schumacher is telling people that they're making a live-action cartoon, and everyone is generally just there for the paycheck and to ham it up.

That said, it's a total riot of a movie to watch, so bad that it's good, and it's got some good moments hidden under the veneer of mass-marketed pop camp.

So I have to say, Darth_Nub, your wish for a Clooney cameo where he gets gutted by Croc is kind of disproportionate retribution for a guy who really didn't have a hell of a lot to do with making the movie.

 

I read an article where Shumacher states he wanted to do a serious Batman film but WB wouldn't let him, they told him it needed to be campy and whatnot. But it's what you said about Batman Returns being too gloomy and dark for their taste so they changed it up.

 

I honestly think Schumacher is just saying that to salvage his reputation. He goes around claiming he's a massive Batman fan and how he was told what he had to do - I'm certain it's true, but come on, Schumacher, do the best with what you're given!

EDIT: Quick clarification, the movie could have been campy, silly, goofy, but also a lot better. I don't mean I expected him to make Year One with the crayons he was given, just that his final product doesn't reflect kind of anything he's said after the fact.

 

Batman and Robin also sadly killed Alicia Silverstone's career all kinds of dead.

 

She was in that one Aerosmith video, though! That counts for something, right?

Right?

Oh wait, she was in three.

 

She worked with Aerosmith?

 

It's metaphorically based on the Lazarus Pit, but it is more based on Pena Dura, which is where Bane was born and raised. And spent several years in a pit, that filled with water when the tide came in.

In April or May of 1997 issue of Wizard, Schumacher said that he didn't want to make a film with Bruce being as dark as he had been in the previous films. That he wanted a lighter and more fun film. In a 2000 radio interview, he stated that the studio was the one that pushed for the product placement and the use of the secondary costumes and vehicles because of toy sales. But he still owned up to the tone.

Yes. She appears in "Cryin", "Amazing" and "Crazy". The latter which also featured Liv Tyler and Terry Bradshaw. These all came out around the same time she did "The Crush", her feature debut. She was the only Aerosmith girl to appear more than once in their videos.

 

I'd forgotten about Pena Dura! And here I am claiming Knightfall is my favourite arc - the shame!

 

I wanted to discuss some Bat-controversy that flared up a little while ago - Batwoman being denied permission to marry Maggie Sawyer by DC (I swear I remember Sawyer from the Bloodsport run in Superman in the 80s!).

The interwebs erupted with rage over an apparently homophobic stance by DC. Had people thought about it, they'd probably remember that Alan Scott (Green Lantern) was gay in addition to Batwoman. If.

The explanation from DC is that under the current "rules" of the New52, no DC character can marry. I suspect this was actually aimed more at Clark and Lois, rather than at gay characters.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Certainly I can't see Batman giving a damn about gay marriage. He's the goddam Batman.

 

No. Get out. You are not allowed to post videos in any of my threads, ever.

 

I think the 'rules' thing is BS by DC in an effort to try and quell the backlash their getting over denying the Batwoman/Sawyer marriage. A rather stupid attempt at that.

I think they tried to have their cake and eat it too, in that they went "look how forward we are by allowing this couple to be engaged," while at the same time trying to placate the 'family values' crowd that would lose their **** even over two fictional drawn characters of the same sex being married by going "but they can never be married" and came up with the "Because nobody can be married in our universe now" as a way to cover their butts. And it backfired on them.

 

OK Juliet, so why go to the trouble of having several gay characters*, one of whom was a cornerstone of the Justice League (Alan Scott GL) back in the day, if you just back down over gay marriage?

It's hard to fathom, if you think about it.

(* Batwoman, Alan Scott Green Lantern, Renee Montoya aka the new Question, Maggie Sawyer).

 

Because quite frankly IMO,(at least here in the US) the bigots have come to a point where their like "Okay, we can't stop these icky gays from showing up in various media, but we can prevent the media from showing them married if we just so much as hint that we'll stop buying their products." and sadly, companies like DC and some others still bow to that pressure.

And I agree, it's hard to think that DC has several gay characters, including a committed same - sex couple, but won't go all the way with it, especially with the tide turning in many ways on same - sex marriage for the positive here in the US.

And kind of sad when Disney, a company that's all about family values, will go there with a positive portrayal if a Same Sex married couple in ABC's Modern Family, and yet DC/Warner Brothers chickens out at seemingly the last minute.

 

Ender you should become mod again, lock the current "What are you listening to?" thread, start another one, and govern the **** out of it.

 

I wouldn't say DC's decision regarding Batwoman is anti-gay, just incredibly stubborn and idiotic, which is actually totally in keeping with many of their recent decisions.

Making original Green Lantern Alan Scott gay is a bold move, but sadly that's in an alternate universe, so DC can just ignore that whenever they feel like it. Renee Montoya hasn't really shown up in the New 52, and The Question is now one of the Trinity (alongside the Phantom Stranger and Pandora) and a dude again, so they're just ignoring that. Batwoman is the one thing they've actually taken a legitimate stand on, and that stand is pretty dumb. I'm of the opinion that Dan DiDio, Jim Lee, and Geoff Johns saw sales numbers for the atrociously ill-conceived Spider-Man: One More Day and told themselves, "We want some of that pie, screw the controversy."

I read an article recently that made a very convincing case that DC isn't trying to do anything better than Marvel, they're just trying to ensure that they have as big a piece of the pie as they can get. Simply put, quality isn't a concern as long as people are buying - and they are buying.

I don't think any of DC's decisions have been based around bigotry as much as total idiocy. There is absolutely no shame in them looking at Marvel and cribbing a few ideas.

As for Batman's reaction, it wouldn't matter one ounce to him. People are people.

 

You also forgot that a Marvel character (I don't read Marvel, so I forget who) got married. But regardless, I've bolded the word which is key here.

How many new 52 titles are you reading?

You could arguably castigate DC for deciding to pull Babs out of a wheelchair and throwing her back into the Batgirl suit, on the grounds that it removed an empowered disabled female role-model from comics. That would require an assumption that the decision to put Barbara back into the role was motivated by her being disabled; that is, the decision was to fix her being a disabled character. It becomes analogous when you make the same assumptions about Batgirl, namely that the reason they stopped her getting married was because she was gay. Which falls apart when you ask the question "Ok, so why allow her to be gay in the first place, if you have an issue with homosexuality?"

Right now, in the New 52, Superman and Wonder Woman are dating. Geoff Johns has already said that when it ends, it'll end badly. OK, so that suggests it will end and as this was prior to the Batwoman fiasco, consistent with DC's editorial line. If for some reason they got married, and DC didn't stop them, then - and only then - I would concur with your response.

For now, though, it's just a knee jerk reaction armed with precisely no facts.

 

The New 52 sounds too much like the B-52's.

 

That being said, the New 52 isn't really that new anymore. I wonder when theyre getting rid of that?

Also, is anyone getting Villains month? I got a few but it's just a money grab and people are going absolutely CRAZY over these 3D covers. Charging 20 dollars for some issues. Like WHAT?!

 

I don't even know where to start with this except


Have you read a DC comic lately? They broke up literally every single marriage any character was in. If it's a "recent" asspull to try and placate a demographic that literally does not read their comics (This ties into that first question, DC tends to be rather graphic as regards violence and sexual promiscuity anymore) it's apparently been incorporated into Flash and Superman canon via some incredibly prodigious use of time travel. Even Geoff Johns, who's basically their darling, only got to marry off his favorite couple in a very long distance "You know, eventually, at the end of all things" flash forward, so that it didn't screw with the current storytelling.

 

It seems everyone who didn't read DC had an opinion about what DC was doing, and that opinion was different to what people who read DC held as a view.

 

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that DC's current problems are general "HERP A DERP" idiocy and crap editorial calls.

 

There have been some positives; I really enjoyed the Court of Owls and Death of the Family arcs in Batman (just the notion that the Joker is more important to Batman than the Batfamily) and Aquaman is pretty damned badass now. The revised costumes look good except I wouldn't have put the black S on Supes' cape.

That is, it's like, 10% not crap?