Was George Clooney under-rated as Bruce Wayne?

[Wayne49]

I have never had any issue with Clooney from the context of an actor. As Bruce Wayne I thought he was quite good. I also thought he was ten fold better than Val Kilmer. I couldn't accept Kilmer as a mentor for Robin. They looked the same age. Where I take issue is that Schumacher got lazy with him as Batman. Clooney has such a unique and recognizable voice. Had Schumacher paid attention and altered it, even slightly, it would have translated much better. But that's not Clooney's fault. I think he made a great looking Batman. Wish we could have seen him again with a more developed character. It appears Schumacher was headed that way based on his idea for a third film. Damn shame we'll never know what it would have looked like.

[The Laughing Fish]

Wish we could have seen him again with a more developed character. It appears Schumacher was headed that way based on his idea for a third film. Damn shame we'll never know what it would have looked like.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Batman's character development in this film was a problem at all. If you look at it from the context to what evolved compared to the Burton films, Batman had gone from being a loner who carries a burden over the loss of his parents, to overcoming it and accepts being who is as a choice by the end of BF. In B&R, he is willing to open a partnership with Robin, but he has difficulty dealing with Dick's immaturity and selfishness. But in the end, the two had to put their differences aside for Gotham and Alfred's sake, and finally, Bruce's newly extended family grows after accepting Batgirl as a new member of the team. The ending goes to show that Batman is not alone any more. Despite the many mistakes in the direction that Schumacher went for, I still admire this plot development.

It's sad that all of that gets ignored and overlooked because of the choice in costumes and bad comedy. And that's a real shame because it goes to show that Clooney, and the entire film for that matter, was a wasted opportunity.

[Wayne49]

To tell you the truth, I don't think Batman's character development in this film was a problem at all. If you look at it from the context to what evolved compared to the Burton films, Batman had gone from being a loner who carries a burden over the loss of his parents, to overcoming it and accepts being who is as a choice by the end of BF. In B&R, he is willing to open a partnership with Robin, but he has difficulty dealing with Dick's immaturity and selfishness. But in the end, the two had to put their differences aside for Gotham and Alfred's sake, and finally, Bruce's newly extended family grows after accepting Batgirl as a new member of the team. The ending goes to show that Batman is not alone any more. Despite the many mistakes in the direction that Schumacher went for, I still admire this plot development.

It's sad that all of that gets ignored and overlooked because of the choice in costumes and bad comedy. And that's a real shame because it goes to show that Clooney, and the entire film for that matter, was a wasted opportunity.

All very good points. More reasons why I think Clooney should have been given a chance to carry this franchise with a tonal change that could have altered public perception. Honestly I think if that same movie was released today, it would still get criticized to some degree, but no where close to how it was received in 1997. People today tend to forget comic book movies were not prominent in '97 like they are now. The industry was still trying to find legitimacy as a genre that could be expanded. So anything that came out was really scrutinized to meet that standard.  So B&R not only had to satisfy Batman fans, but also carry a kind of dignity for the whole industry.

The irony in all this is only 8 years earlier (when the Keaton film was coming out), Studios were SO paranoid of having ANY comparisons to the '66 Batman image, they ran from even the suggestion of cameos by TV cast members. So there was this iron clad front that said, "Nothing involving camp gets in this project." So it was with much amazement I saw that attitude relaxed, considerably, when Batman Forever came out. Sure I understood there was a perception that Burton's Batman was getting a bit graphic in tone, but to actually use that as a platform to start injecting '66 references in "Forever" felt like a huge correction from where they had sworn never to tread.

What surprised me more was the fact critics and the audience didn't punish them for dabbling in the formula given the fragility of the comic industry in theaters at that point. Remember there was still allot of analysts that felt the comic book concept had already run it's course in Hollywood. So I guess the treatment for Batman & Robin really shouldn't have surprised anyone. If you stand in the shoes of Studio heads at that moment, you have to ask yourself if the public was not endorsing the camp tone given Forever swam in it, and was rewarded with considerably higher returns at the box office. No wonder they were thrilled when they saw the dailies on this film.

So while I think Schumacher had some good ideas cooking in this installment, it seems pretty clear the studio jumped in and told him to go hog wild on the fun aspect. History shows it was a massive overcorrection. But I find that wisdom sadly lacking when people reflect on the movie. There are more than a few nerd boys who think this movie carries the "shame" of the franchise and I find that well overstated. It's really what the public seem to be clamoring for. So I think this bloated "outrage" is pretty hypocritical to the facts as they stood at that time. It feels very much like the same hypocrisy that ripped over the '66 show after audiences grew tired of it. People kind of disavowed it once it ceased to be "hip". This film carries so much more collateral damage though because that disenchantment has even forced the actors and director to stand back from it. And I think that's tragic. I feel if they had dialed back their own defensive posture, some of the wounds from this film may have healed by now, because there would be less emphasis to pigeon hole this as being anything other than another installment in the series. The attitudes from the general public have changed considerably regarding superheroes and their various vintages. So my feeling is this film should gain some favor in that evolution.

[Dagenspear]

Wish we could have seen him again with a more developed character. It appears Schumacher was headed that way based on his idea for a third film. Damn shame we'll never know what it would have looked like.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Batman's character development in this film was a problem at all. If you look at it from the context to what evolved compared to the Burton films, Batman had gone from being a loner who carries a burden over the loss of his parents, to overcoming it and accepts being who is as a choice by the end of BF. In B&R, he is willing to open a partnership with Robin, but he has difficulty dealing with Dick's immaturity and selfishness. But in the end, the two had to put their differences aside for Gotham and Alfred's sake, and finally, Bruce's newly extended family grows after accepting Batgirl as a new member of the team. The ending goes to show that Batman is not alone any more. Despite the many mistakes in the direction that Schumacher went for, I still admire this plot development.

It's sad that all of that gets ignored and overlooked because of the choice in costumes and bad comedy. And that's a real shame because it goes to show that Clooney, and the entire film for that matter, was a wasted opportunity.

A lot of people thinking it's a wasted opportunity doesn't make it a wasted opportunity. The Burton films, particularly batman returns is full of bad comedy. Bruce's character in batman & robin is the natural continuation of his character development, I agree with that.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

Honestly I think if that same movie was released today, it would still get criticized to some degree, but no where close to how it was received in 1997. People today tend to forget comic book movies were not prominent in '97 like they are now. The industry was still trying to find legitimacy as a genre that could be expanded. So anything that came out was really scrutinized to meet that standard.  So B&R not only had to satisfy Batman fans, but also carry a kind of dignity for the whole industry.

I'd say that people have gotten kinder towards Schumacher's films nowadays, even appreciating them for certain things they got right to an extent (myself included). But I still see occasional complaining from those extreme nerd fanboys as you mentioned. And I've noticed that they tend to be rather immature themselves, especially if you go to sites like ComicBookMovie.com or some other cesspool. For what it's worth, those very same people don't seem to be very fond of the Adam West show either.

I personally can't help but feel those who hate the Schumacher films (well, B&R more so than BF usually) are rather homophobic. The very first thing they tend to do is passionately complain about the costumes and claim the close-up suit shots are oversexualised. And of course, they attribute all of that to Schumacher being gay himself. Although I don't necessarily agree that the suit-up shots are homoerotic, because the close-up shots of Batgirl's body as she puts on her suit is just as sexualised.

I do have some issues with those things myself, but the difference is I can put that aside, and objectively assess the film's positive qualities. Like nearly everyone else on this forum. Which makes me wonder if B&R's general consensus would've improved as "a fun film for kids" had those costume and camera choices never existed? This is why I understand that the Adam West show is better regarded because its light humour, no matter how "campy" it may have been (whatever the hell that even means any more), wasn't crude.

[Edd Grayson]

Some fans complained that after three more serious movies they did not want to see a comedic one. They gave the counter-example of what if the franchise started with a movie like Batman & Robin and ended with a film like Batman (1989), would the latter still be successful?

I think that's not a real possibility and has little to do with my own enjoyment of the films though.

[Wayne49]

I do have some issues with those things myself, but the difference is I can put that aside, and objectively assess the film's positive qualities. Like nearly everyone else on this forum. Which makes me wonder if B&R's general consensus would've improved as "a fun film for kids" had those costume and camera choices never existed? This is why I understand that the Adam West show is better regarded because its light humour, no matter how "campy" it may have been (whatever the hell that even means any more), wasn't crude.

Yeah, if I could edit one thing from this movie, it would be the opening suit-up sequence. Even my three year old grandson catches the awkwardness of that scene because he says, " Look! They're showing their butts!" Kids say the darnedest things.  So if the most innocent of viewers can see the nonsense of that scene, it should have been more acute to the director NOT to go there in an effort to exploit the eroticism of the outfits.

The brilliance of the first year in the '66 Batman show was the innuendo was carefully buried under their enthusiasm in the moment. I grew up with that show (first run and syndication) and I took it dead seriously because the characters did. It didn't even occur to me to think (until I was a teenager) there was a send up going on in the midst of all that. It was very clever in execution and was absolutely deliberate.

Batman & Robin borrowed more of the lighting and cosmetic treatment from that show, but never really nailed any of the cleverness in script. I think Schumacher was going after a relaxed (kind of fun) approach but got a little sloppy when he tried to inject "moments" of humor that betrayed the treatment he was crafting. Had he kept it a kids film throughout, I think we would be having a different conversation today (and it's reputation would be more favorable). So I absolutely agree with you. He should have dialed back the sexual innuendo entirely and just let the movie breath as a comic book film because those two ideas contradict if not played properly. And that right there is my greatest criticism of the film. The rest of it, I actually enjoy.

I love the look of the movie. It's a beautiful looking picture. It's something I'll put in occasionally when I've had a rough day and need to decompress. It's one of those movies you can just ride off the energy of the visuals which is relaxing. I can't do that with any of the other Batman movies. I can also get in the mood for it if I'm wanting the Batman world without all of the heaviness of the psychological struggle. So the movie services in a number of ways the others do not. For me, movies do not always need an Academy award performance to deliver the kind of entertainment I require. And I tend to believe that's true for most people. Sometimes you just need a fix and some movies have a way of taking care of that better than others. I like the Nolan movies just fine. Well written and acted. But those darker themes are less desirable when I want to throw in a movie to chill...ahem no pun intended.

[thecolorsblend]

The irony in all this is only 8 years earlier (when the Keaton film was coming out), Studios were SO paranoid of having ANY comparisons to the '66 Batman image, they ran from even the suggestion of cameos by TV cast members. So there was this iron clad front that said, "Nothing involving camp gets in this project." So it was with much amazement I saw that attitude relaxed, considerably, when Batman Forever came out. Sure I understood there was a perception that Burton's Batman was getting a bit graphic in tone, but to actually use that as a platform to start injecting '66 references in "Forever" felt like a huge correction from where they had sworn never to tread.

I don't find that unusual at all. As you say, their commitment in 1989 was creating a different kind of Batman than the public had seen before. And in 1989, I think they were pretty successful at what they set out to do.

But there was something of a backlash to BR in 1992. I personally think it was a tempest in a teakettle and it got blown way out of proportion. The way people tell it these days, there was some huge parental rebellion against BR, there were crusades against the film occurring everywhere it opened, etc etc etc, and I lived through that. I'm here to say it wasn't true. Yes, some parents found some elements of BR scandalous or in poor taste. But it's not like it was a huge nationwide uprising against the movie or something.

The sentiment surrounding the outrage parents had was Adam West. Again, I lived through that stuff. I remember some talking heads on TV saying "that's not what Batman is supposed to be". Given their age, Adam West HAS to be their formative experience with Batman. These same people rolled with B89 because it was more serious but not necessarily all that explicit in terms of subject matter. BR was more suggestive and at times more graphic. That stuff combined with BR not having the same type of bulletproof hype B89 had meant that the naysayers were given more attention.

So I think WB interpreted this as a mandate to change courses. It was a time when people heard "Batman" and thought "Adam West" so I think WB simply decided to make a Batman film that wasn't as heavy and dark as what had come before. And I think Schumacher, having the same Adam West association as some of BR's critics, interpreted his mandate through the lens of Adam West since that was his formative Batman experience too.

But I could be wrong.

If you stand in the shoes of Studio heads at that moment, you have to ask yourself if the public was not endorsing the camp tone given Forever swam in it, and was rewarded with considerably higher returns at the box office. No wonder they were thrilled when they saw the dailies on this film.

To be fair to them, the public embraced BF in a way that it didn't BR. It had a manifestly more commercial tone to it and the future looked bright. It's a simple case of greed, really. They pushed a sequel into production before I think one was really ready. I rather enjoy the final product these days... but another year probably wouldn't have hurt anything.

I think WB learned their lesson too. I assume they would've preferred a followup to TDK before 2012. But they stayed off Nolan's balls about it and they reaped the bountiful profits as a result. In the old days, I can't help thinking they would've rushed a sequel for the summer of 2011 at the latest and replaced Nolan if they'd had to. But they knew to bide their time for TDKRises. Good on them.

So I think this bloated "outrage" is pretty hypocritical to the facts as they stood at that time. It feels very much like the same hypocrisy that ripped over the '66 show after audiences grew tired of it.

I agree. But at the same time it's human nature to seek consensus and conformity. I doubt half the people who bash on B&R these days have actually seen it or were even alive when it came out. Fanboy groupthink says the movie sucks and that's the line people are expected to toe. So people toe that line. Even on this forum it's not all that easy to find people who enjoy B&R.

But history has been pretty kind to B&R (maybe because it couldn't possibly be any crueler than the present moment had been). I think BF and B&R are actually pretty good palette cleansers after all of Nolan's darkness.

And of course, they attribute all of that to Schumacher being gay himself. Although I don't necessarily agree that the suit-up shots are homoerotic, because the close-up shots of Batgirl's body as she puts on her suit is just as sexualised.

Not to split hairs but it does make you wonder exactly what "homoerotic" even means. A heterosexual woman would not find the Schumacher costumes or butt-closeups "homoerotic" at all. So it does raise the question of what makes those elements "homoerotic" exactly?

If Batman and Robin were, shall we say, doing things to each other in those shots, yes, that would certainly be homoerotica on a fairly objective basis. That would speak for itself. But simply showing the abstract human form is "erotic". Whether that general imagery is received homoerotic or heteroerotic should depend upon the viewer, should it not? It's sexualized, yes, but it's not objectively orientated. The filmmaker presents it; the viewer orientates it. Thus it's impossible to say that showing a closeup of Clooney's butt at the beginning of the movie is objectively "homoerotic" inasmuch as homosexual men are not the only people viewing that shot. It's only homoerotic to them. For heterosexual women, it's heteroerotic. For straight men and homosexual women, I guess that closeup is neutral.

It's funny. Not to sound all PC or anything but I can't help but wonder if Tim Burton or Chris Nolan did shots like that, it would be a virtual non-issue. So are we to assume this is only a topic of discussion because of Schumacher's orientation?

I'm accusing you of nothing and criticizing you for nothing, obviously, and I want to be clear on that. Hell, I'm not even criticizing that interpretive approach. I very much believe a filmmaker's life influences his art and thus analyzing his art must include an evaluation of those influences. I'm simply curious as to your thoughts on this.

[Wayne49]

Excellent points throughout "thecolorsblend". I was 28 when BR came out and I definitely took note of the backlash. But I absolutely agree, it was not as big as what people claim it to be today. Why it was even noteworthy is because it was the first followup to the initial blockbuster. Warner Bros was trying to build another franchise like Superman had been. So this idea, it could already be "offensive" to a portion of it's audience with criticism of this kind, made the studios perk up since that demographic in question drove much of it's merchandise sales. Without question it was a knee jerk reaction.

You make a very good point about consensus and conformity. A point further underscored by the advent of social media that often drives these flash polls that create this kind of flash mob mentality towards...well...really whatever the topic is. I think B&R is a classic example of people getting caught up in the social media game and following suit as opposed to actually sitting down and wondering whether they really have anything to be upset about. I see these Youtube reviews by people younger than 20 and I think to myself, " You were either too young or not even born when this movie came out. What possible outrage can you share from the fans of that day?" The answer? None.

Public opinion of superheroes has evolved so dramatically in the past 15 years, they now carry the kind of box office clout Spielberg and Lucas films did back in the 80's. It's a bonanza of licensing riches that taps the interest of the most traditional actors in Hollywood these days. Can you imagine the insanity if B&R had never existed and Clooney was tapped to play Batman today? Polling would be off the scales with his current resume. So context is truly important when looking at these films and the environment they resided in (regarding public perception and industry attitudes) at the time of their release.

Ultimately what makes me roll my eyes over those who really drill it hard, is the fact their criticisms are pretty baseless when you try to balance their outrage with the justifications they use for getting that worked up over it. Batman, in any iteration, is pretty implausible (as well as ridiculous) if we can quit being fans for five minutes and just ask ourselves what we would think if we saw someone running around in a bat costume. And the best part about every iteration of Batman to film thus far is our beloved superhero is sustained by the backbreaking work of either one butler (who is quite the old man) or an aging engineer that really has no purpose to be involved. They do the work of hundreds of people, yet we as fans forgive this ridiculous exaggeration as "tradition", but critics get outraged when he says, " I'll cancel the pizza." REALLY? 

So from my point of view, when I see some of these people complaining quite loudly about issues they've clearly cherry picked from a concept loaded with impossibilities, I often wonder if they realize how insane the entire concept really is. There's a substantial level of disbelief that needs to be checked in no matter how you like your Batman. So whether it's Nolan trying to ground Batman as a corporate contrived experiment or Schumacher embracing all the outrageousness the comics and past television shows celebrate, neither is really much closer to being probable than the other. Hell, Donald Trump can't even walk around without the authenticity of his hair being questioned. What chance does Bruce Wayne have fighting crime and looking lucid and physically capable for public appearances?

So I guess in an age now where we have an infinite number of treatments to Batman in cartoon, comics, television, and movies, it seems utterly impossible to believe a movie like Batman & Robin can (under ANY reasoning) look or feel like an outcast to the collective body of work that has already been done. Configure that with much younger generations who have grown up with all of these treatments and their criticisms sound utterly disingenuous to this film. I'm a 51 year old man with kids who have grown up with this movie and now a grandson who adores it. I think when a movie speaks to each new generation in an enthusiastic way, we as the older lot have to take notice of that and consider there are always redeeming qualities to these films. I think what I've come to learn (if not appreciate)  through all these years is that because Schumacher was never really a diehard fan of Batman , he was able to see the material a little more honestly than those who have such a personal affinity for the material, every iteration must be "dignified". I believe that's why I like it more as I get older. This movie decidedly drops any pretense that Batman is reality. And for that reason, I respect Schumacher. Outside of Lorenzo Simple who wrote the Batman '66 formula, Schumacher is the only other person in film to relax the concept and let it breath on its own merits. I think young kids see that and have a wonderful time embracing the core ideas that bring out the best in this character.

[The Laughing Fish]

]Not to split hairs but it does make you wonder exactly what "homoerotic" even means. A heterosexual woman would not find the Schumacher costumes or butt-closeups "homoerotic" at all. So it does raise the question of what makes those elements "homoerotic" exactly?

If Batman and Robin were, shall we say, doing things to each other in those shots, yes, that would certainly be homoerotica on a fairly objective basis. That would speak for itself. But simply showing the abstract human form is "erotic". Whether that general imagery is received homoerotic or heteroerotic should depend upon the viewer, should it not? It's sexualized, yes, but it's not objectively orientated. The filmmaker presents it; the viewer orientates it. Thus it's impossible to say that showing a closeup of Clooney's butt at the beginning of the movie is objectively "homoerotic" inasmuch as homosexual men are not the only people viewing that shot. It's only homoerotic to them. For heterosexual women, it's heteroerotic. For straight men and homosexual women, I guess that closeup is neutral.

It's funny. Not to sound all PC or anything but I can't help but wonder if Tim Burton or Chris Nolan did shots like that, it would be a virtual non-issue. So are we to assume this is only a topic of discussion because of Schumacher's orientation?

I'm accusing you of nothing and criticizing you for nothing, obviously, and I want to be clear on that. Hell, I'm not even criticizing that interpretive approach. I very much believe a filmmaker's life influences his art and thus analyzing his art must include an evaluation of those influences. I'm simply curious as to your thoughts on this.

When I saw the film as a kid back in theaters, I never thought too much of the Batsuit anatomy shots. I thought it was weird, yes, but I looked at it as "Batman and Robin are getting for battle and kick some ass!" and nothing else. It's funny how you look back at things at an innocent age and you don't pay attention to other (i.e. cynical) point of views.

Now that I'm older of course, I have a more informed opinion of the subject. And honestly, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I definitely understand that the suits look very erotic, and don't think it was necessary or appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if there were parents out there who took their kids to see this movie and felt uncomfortable with these scenes.

But on the other hand, I completely disagree when people read too much into it and say the entire tone of the film is gay, or that Batman and Robin are closeted homosexuals themselves. That part is especially over-exaggerating. And by the way, Clooney is as guilty for encouraging this overanalysis because he claimed that he played the part gay awhile ago. It's such a stupid thing to say because I saw nothing in his role Bruce Wayne/Batman that even remotely suggests that.

I find it a little bit of a coincidence that you mentioned Tim Burton, because I was thinking how the 1989 Batsuit had a muscular design too. But the difference is that costume wasn't as, shall we say, "flamboyant" compared to the B&R costumes. I read online that Schumacher wanted them to resemble Ancient Greek statues, but why? They don't add anything to the plot and only exist to get the viewer's attention. Putting this together, and learning Schumacher's sexual orientation much later, I did begin to look at those suit-up scenes as if they had gay undertones behind them, even if the characters weren't even gay themselves. My guess is that Schumacher knew he'd be creating a lot of attention and did it to test the audience, because the last thing that comes to mind whenever I watch/read Batman media is eroticism. And let's face it, no other superhero movie had this sort of "controversy" in the past, which makes the erotic undertones of the costumes even more unique. Nonetheless, I won't be joining the over-exaggerating sheep by claiming that the suits say something about Batman and Robin's sexuality. If there were no rubber nipples and such camera shots never existed, I guarantee you that those costumes wouldn't be looked at as any different to the 1989 Batsuit.

The thing with me and my opinion of B&R is that despite regarding it as one of the worst Batman movies ever made, I never really resented it or even disliked it that much. I never went too far like the rest of the herd do, and instead my attitude towards it was "oh well, the movie wasn't great, I'm moving on". But deep down, I knew the film did have good narrative qualities behind it (hell I like plot points of this and BF WAY better than Nolan's overblown crap), and I look it at more of a missed opportunity instead of a disaster.

Ultimately what makes me roll my eyes over those who really drill it hard, is the fact their criticisms are pretty baseless when you try to balance their outrage with the justifications they use for getting that worked up over it. Batman, in any iteration, is pretty implausible (as well as ridiculous) if we can quit being fans for five minutes and just ask ourselves what we would think if we saw someone running around in a bat costume. And the best part about every iteration of Batman to film thus far is our beloved superhero is sustained by the backbreaking work of either one butler (who is quite the old man) or an aging engineer that really has no purpose to be involved. They do the work of hundreds of people, yet we as fans forgive this ridiculous exaggeration as "tradition", but critics get outraged when he says, " I'll cancel the pizza." REALLY?

By aging engineer, I assume you mean Lucius Fox?

This may be totally beside the point of what we're talking about, but what makes me laugh is that people get so upset over trivial things like introducing comedy into the films, or should Batman wear a yellow insignia on his chest or not, but don't care too much if Batman's characterization goes from the World's Greatest Detective to a cheap James Bond knock-off with a sore throat. Out of all the things that gets changed dramatically, the one integral part that makes Batman a unique character for being good at things like forensic science and so on because of how driven he is...and when that gets removed, it gets accepted with arms wide open?