WHY HOLLYWOOD CANNOT MAKE A DECENT BATMAN FILM:
Crap source material. Plain and simple. The source material is not that good. To make matters worse, Hollywood, the home of left wing liberal communist thought, seems to have no grasp on the character to begin with. How can they be expected to make a decent film when they don't understand the nature of the Dark Knight Detective?
Since Tim Burton's little opus the Hollywood movie machine has tried to work the dual identity theme, the humour theme, and the "all my villians are psychos" theme and failed at every turn. Why is this, you ask. Because this is not the essence of WHO Batman is. Nay, WHAT Batman is. Batman is, to put it frankly, a Co-Dependent Faggot.
The proof: Batman could prevent future crime by putting his enemies in a facility with a proven track record for keeping them locked up. Like OZ. Rather, he makes sure they go to Arkham Asylum. If they weren't crazy before their incarceration, they certainly will be afterwards. I imagine that a typical hearing in a Gotham court of law goes something like this:
Judge: Counselor, the defendant seems rational, reasonable, and to have a full grasp of right and wrong. Prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant was motivated by greed and a callous disregard for the sanctity of the law. While this behaviour is reprehensible, it hardly qualifies as insane.
Counselor for the Defense: Ahh, your honour, you see my client was apprehended by The Batman!
Judge: I see. I rule criminal insanity. I see no other alternative but a lengthy stay at Club Arkham.
Thus Batman creates a subculture of villians that define their existence around him. They seek revenge against Batman. They blame Batman for their failures. They attempt escape in order to commit crimes, not for gain but soley to thwart (and thereby draw the attention of) Batman. To the average Gothamite there are far more important day to day issues than the Joker, the Riddler and whether or not some homo running around in tights and a swiss army belt exists. They have bills to pay. By making himself a thing of the night and the shadows, Batman needs something to justify his existence. That thing is a set of "villians" that are utterly devoted to his existence, or the ending of it, as the case may be. Thus Batman is co-dependent. QED.
He is also a fag. Batman avoids relationships with women. So does James Bond, but at least Bond exercises his misogyny by dominating the women he meets. Bond is not a homosexual. Batman avoids sexual tension like the plague. Like most self-respecting homosexuals, he will not have sex with women, and thus knows that his line ends with his death. How to avoid this problem? Like all biological organisms he seeks immortality through replication, but since he cannot, or rather will not, have sex with a woman, how does he achieve immortality of his genetic code? The answer is simple: Robins.
Batman seeks out youths that have had a tragic life of some kind, all the better when they have lost their parents as he lost his own. But rather than rehabilitate the young men and help them cope, becoming useful members of society, he fuels their childish desires for revenge and fantasy by training them, equipping them, and giving them skin-tight gay bondage fetish gear. The young men remain with him until they either grow up and realize how creepy the old queen really is, or die. Batman sets up a sick incestous father/lover figure relationship with his young wards. One can only assume that Bruce Wayne was educated classically, if you get my meaning and I think you do.
Batman's homosexual repression does not extend only to Robin. Batman wants only men around him. Commissioner Gordon and Alfred being his two closest companions. He is obviously in a number of repressed homosexual relationships with some of his oldest and most implacable foes. Reading the dialogue exchange between Batman and the Joker whenever Joker escapes from Arkham (yet again) is like seeing two old lovers who've long since stopped being intimate but still smolder with their old passions and are forced to run into one another in awkward social situations. The old queens are catty, petty, insulting, but it is obvious that their verbal and mental games are reminiscent of the passion they once shared when their love was new and full of promise. There is less of the nature of antagonism to their banter and more of the nature of foreplay. As though Batman is saying to the Clown Princess of Crime, "We've been through it all before, ducky, you know how it must end. Ah, our time together is always so brief."
Sure, on the surface Batman is saying, "Once and for all Joker, this has to stop. I will put you away again. And don't think for a minute that if you escape I won't be there to put you back."
But his subtext is saying, "I've never forgiven you. You know that. I'll never forgive you for making me love you so."
It's obvious that the Joker could kill Batman easily, but he doesn't because he only wants Batman to know that in his way, despite all they've been through, he still cares deeply and truly.
And that is why Hollywood cannot make a decent Batman picture. They have it all wrong. The Dark Knight, his boy wonder, the crazy villains; it is all just a big faggot opera about men in spandex with their packages crammed into tight fitting rubber underpants.
Next Time: Superman-What sort of crazy Nazi wet dream is he?
posted by Vargr @ 9:14 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Wow, just wow. You have stopped me in the tracks of the post I was trying to create.
Do you suppose that Bob Kane himself was a repressed homosexual, or that over the years of writers trying to out bad-ass each other with their portrayals of the Dark Knight, that Bats has accidentally become the character you exposed in your piece?
Comic books are like Wrestling. The characters, specifically the hero characters, are personas of a young man's outlook on life, when idealistic youth believe anything is possible and still believe in overcoming the overwhelming odds. The skin tight, muscle revealing clothing my be a homoerotic fantasy to some, but I doubt few true believers see it that way. Comic book readers love their women to be well endowed in the chest, skinny in the waist and big in the hips.
The problem is they (Comic Books) become like Soap Operas. The story can't end. A monthly offering must be produced, or in the case of Wrestlers a weekly offering. There are only so many plots, and so many characters that can be developed, less the reader lose interest, which is inevitable anyway, but the creators want you hooked as long as possible. There is also the task of recruiting new readers, thus the dependence on recurring popular villains.
Comic book characters are also trapped in the genre. Comic book readers don't want to see CSI:Gotham; with Batman solving complex forensic puzzles to fight crime. They want to see Batman whopping bad guys asses in a way they (the reader) only dreams of being able to do. Speaking of which, we could just as easily discuss why so many women in Prime Time TV shows look like skinny boys, and dress like trendy European men. Is this the doing of a latent, or even outspoken, homosexual execs at the networks, as some have suggested? While your theory is quite entertaining, and extremely compelling, I would say the average comic book illustrator or writer, is less likely to be homosexual than the average TV exec.
Also, you didn't address the Catwoman factor in all this vitriol against Batman.
Very good post though.
Rik
Let us address the Catwoman factor right here. It's a cover up. Batman is in the closet. He hates the fact that he might be a homosexual and attempts to cover it up by choosing the one woman that is truly inaccessable, thus safe to be his fag hag. She's a criminal, he is ostensibly a crime fighter. It's dramatic, it's ironic, it's cliched as hell. He knows there can never truly be anything there and therefore she is safe to him. Plus, he admires her fashion sense. He wishes he could pull that off.
But you comments about youth fantasy culture simply do not hold water. Comic books are not a youth driven market anymore. Arguably they never really were. The comic owes its existence to pulp fiction. There first racy detective stories about steely eyed private dicks and sultry cigarette smoking dames are the literary fathers of Batman, at least as Bob Kane saw him. That Batman was something that young men and older men could both admire. Something changed along the way.
Several successful comic series have been a single story done in monthly installments and eventually come to an end. Other heroes dispose of their villains in a far more sensible manner. I point to Spider-Man. Married. Enjoys his non-super hero life. Until the death and reborn saga (current Spidey timeline) he dressed sensibly and always tried to make sure the crooks went to jail, not some asylum where you can just walk out of the front door whenever you feel better. Spidey wants the criminals stopped. Witness the original three issues where Carnage first appeared. He did what it took, including betraying Venom to the authorities. That's gritty.
I don't think you are giving the audience enough credit and I know the TV, movie and comic execs aren't either. Give us a well written detective story and give it a few issues so we can get interested. Don't put out one issue and say, "Didn't sell enough, give me T&A and some fags in tights Stat!" I've given this some thought here. We've all talked about Batman being just an insane as the villains he fights, we've all talked about Batman's dual personality issues and his lack of touch with reality, but I've decided to tackle the deeper issue with this one. It's not a man that pretends to be a playboy but is driven by an obsessive need to bring justice to the world, it is a co-dependant faggot in blue underpants that is stuck in a self-destructive cycle.
Once upon a time his villains were greedy, mean, bad, evil, or bored. Now they are all crazy. They must be crazy, they don't move the hell out of Gotham and go to a town without superheroes. But does every villain have to be insane? Batman makes them that way to continue justifying his own unhealthy existence. He's decided that being Batman is his morose lot in life and that is all he's capable of doing. For a man that is supposedly so smart and the greatest living detective, he is awfully obtuse when it comes to his own motivations.
Damn Frederic Wertham and his subjective views on a modern icon!!
The parts are plain to see: Two or three men living in lavish surroundings, alternative dress codes and alter-egos. Gay it up if you wanna, but I stand firm on this: Batman/Bruce Wayne is not more gay than Vargr.
A linear look at his life will clearly show that the Dark Knight is very hetero. Many aforementioned points are mixed and not clearly defined. What genre of the Bats are we dealing with here? If you look at Kane's creation, he DID kill and severely injury his foes. His attire is simply a matter of acceptance. How many other superheros where tight fitting suits? I find it extremely ironic that an openly gay director opted NOT to go with tights for the X-men.
And so what of Wayne's choice in company? Because if your rationale plays out, then every sailor in the history of sailing is a homosexual waiting to pounce.
Let us not forget Batman is but an extension of other pulp fiction heros. The likes of which would scoff at your accusation. And Bruce Wayne is but name forged by two historical figures, defined by there manly qualities...certainly not the queer eye which you so aptly long for.
Pax per potens
That is a specious and weak arguement Jin.
Many sailors were gay, but not for the reasons that Batman is gay.
You look back on history with rose coloured glasses that fail to accept the reality of life. Faggots have always been with us. Just look at Alexander the Great.
I am not convinced of your arguement as yet.
Find fallacies where you may, but my argument isn't as unsound as yours.
You also failed to address Batty's historical characters...was Zorro also gay? What of The Phantom...a peter puffer as well??
I will contend the bits are there for one to assemble a homosexual scenario. But the same goes for many situations in life...interpretation is truly in the eye of the beholder.
No, it isn't.
You honestly think your arguement is more sound than my own?
Are you retarded?
I made points and provided evidence. You simply gainsaid my arguements while providing no evidence to the contrary.
Take this brilliant bit of wit, for example: "And so what of Wayne's choice in company? Because if your rationale plays out, then every sailor in the history of sailing is a homosexual waiting to pounce."
How, logically, does your point follow? Are you saying that sailors, choosing a job, often because they could do no other job, or perhaps because the conditions of life on shore for the ill-educated and orphaned, that required them to spend long months in tight spaces are the same as a single man choosing to live in a mansion with a butler and a young boy? I think that is what you are saying. That is flawed and erroneous logic. You have failed to address my arguements in any way, shape, or fashion. All you have done is asked me and other readers to consider evidence without actually providing any evidence.
Consider this gem: "A linear look at his life will clearly show that the Dark Knight is very hetero. Many aforementioned points are mixed and not clearly defined. What genre of the Bats are we dealing with here? If you look at Kane's creation, he DID kill and severely injury his foes. His attire is simply a matter of acceptance. How many other superheros where tight fitting suits? I find it extremely ironic that an openly gay director opted NOT to go with tights for the X-men."
Point One: A linear look at whose life? The character of Batman, or the creation process of all Batmen throughout the DC comics run?
Neither linear look proves your point. You see, I am very familiar with the first appearance of Batman, once owning a reprint that is since lost to me. When we first see millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne he is relaxing in the his stately manor with none other than Jim Gordon. There is not a woman or a mention of a woman in the entire first issue.
What you seem to be failing to understand, Jin, is that literature (I do not feel that I am stretching things by calling comics Literature) is a reflection of its creator and its audience. James Bond is the way he is because Ian Fleming liked smoking, drinking martinis, and was a Naval Crypto Officer. He was also an un apologetic womanizer. Womanizing is a prime attitude of misogynists. If you pay attention to the source material you will KNOW why Bond is a mysogynist.
You cannot separate the character and his motivations. You cannot accept this truth about Batman because you are living a childish fantasy wherein YOUR heroes must fit YOUR ideal, whether or not that is the character itself.
Until you can provide some concrete evidence you had best bow out. Remember, an arguement is a collected series of statements intended to prove a proposition, it is not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Oh, and I have been reading comics since the time when you were suckling at your mother's teet. So let's not even begin to think you know more on the subject than I.
Vae Victis!
V.
I too provided evidence, I don't know what else to call the references to Zorro, The Phantom, Anthony Wayne and Robert Bruce.
And if you are to seriously look at his lifestyle and attribute it to his creator, then you must point to both Bob Kane and Bill Finger. Neither of which, to my knowledge are homosexual. If Ian Fleming was a misogynist, ergo so was/is 007, does that mean Mary Shelley was really a bunch of people sewn together??
When I said a linear look, yes, I meant a chronological examination into the Bat's world. Thus the reason why I stated Batman did kill people in his early issues. Yet another fact you glanced over. And exactly how does the omission of a woman from a single comic equate to the Dark Knight being a nancy?? I know you've providied other points upon which your hypothesis rests, but I fail to see the logic in that particular one.
If MY heroes fit MY ideals, then what' wrong with that? As I stated before, interpretation is the key. Art, in it's myriad of forms, cannot being nailed down by one man's reasoning. It belongs to the public, for them to decide and garner truth from.
Your age has no bearing on this subject, my misguided Advocate comic book reading friend. For I dare say I know slight bit more about an automobile or the internal combustion engine than you, yet I am younger. Edison was only 15 when he invented the telegraph repeater...
Do you really know more about automobiles than myself? Upon what do you base this? Have we ever spoken together of automobiles? Simply having a website showing your sad devotion to a single automobile does not qualify you to tell me that you know more about them than do I.
You provide your so-called evidence of Zorro, the Phantom and Robert the Bruce. But your evidence amounts to nothing at all. Batman is not Zorro. Plain and simple. I state that Batman is co-dependant and a fag. This is the case today and has been for many, many years. If you want simply to point out Finger and Kane and their creation of Batman, then you are speaking of one instance in a long, long line.
Was Mary Shelley a bunch of people sewn together? Again I ask if you are retarded? That is stupidest thing I have read yet.
Frankenstein was a novel that was NOT about a body sewn together. In fact the protagonist of the piece, Frankenstein, was a student of the unhallowed arts, not the sodding monster. Read a book.
But, I digress, the entire novel was a parable born of Mary's life. Her parents, both rabid feminists, taught her the extremely liberal philosophies that make up the story itself. If anything, Victor Frankenstein was the antithesis of Mary Shelley, but an creation that is the opposite of its creator is still a part of the creator, for its creation stands as the other side of its creator's coin, as it were.
Let's look at your linear look, shall we?
Batman did kill in his early stories. Batman did not have recurring 'super' villains then either. But along the way he got nancy about taking life and became the co-dependant twat that he is today.
A faggot can kill. But I am giving you the credit for using the killing thing as an arguement against my co-dependency statement.
Women are not, and never were, a large part of Batman's story. True, the golden age Batman did settle down and marry the golden age Catwomen and their daughter was the Huntress, but DC couldn't let a good hero die well, they had a Crisis to correct all that nonsense and created the Batman of today, a co-dependant pussy faggot of a man in tights and rubber pants.
Your heroes fit your ideals. No, they don't. You either pick heroes that you believe fit your ideals or you force your heroes to fit your ideals. It's called rationalization and you are guilty of it, mein freund. Do you really think that interpretation is the key? If you do then MY interpretation is valid. If you gainsay my interpretation to supplant it with your own, your statement becomes false. If you do NOT defend your interpretation then your statement becomes false. Either way, you lose. But let's play this interpretation game, shall we?
We've all read the Bible, right? Let's look at the story of Job. Job was the victim of a contest between G-d and the Devil. Job was dicked over to prove a point. While the man was not sinless, he was certainly ill-used by his Creator. Thus do I interpret that Hashem is a jealous twat with a childish disposition who uses our people for his sport. Is that fair?
But we've already established in previous posts that YOUR Bible and YOUR G-d are irrefutable and immutable. Those words cannot be interpreted they simple are.
But you were talking of literature, weren't you?
So sorry. How about this: Moby Dick was a sodding whale. It's obvious from the book. High school English teachers have spent decades trying to convince their students that there is some symbolism to the sodding whale. But he's still just a whale. While interpretation may be the key, you've missed the lock, mate.
Finally, although I've already said that you should not dare say you know more about automobiles and the internal combustion engine than do I when we have never spoken of them before, I am more concerned about your Edison worship. You are older than fifteen, what the hell have you invented?
Billy the Kid has famous and dead before he ever reached either of our ages, does that somehow lend creedence to your point.
My arguement was and is this, I know comics and I can provide examples. You throw out names and buzz words and think that makes you a fiendish disputant. QED.
I am a Johnny-Come-Lately to the comic universe, and a chick to boot, so be gentle with me. Here goes:
The original source material for Batman was put into print in the 50's. During this time, comics were not considered literature or anything other than entertainment/pulp for young boys. Now, I only speak as an observer of a young boy, so my knowledge may be limited, but I find that most young boys don't "like" girls. If they do, the girl in question is a mother figure of some sort. What boy doesn't love his mother, right? So - That may explain the lack of women in the original source material.
As for the seemingly homosexual relationship between Bats and the Boy Wonder - As I stated before, when these comics were first written, they were for boys. The Robin dynamic is nothing more than male adolescent escapism and fantasy. What boy doesn't dream of saving the world along side his hero? Bob Kane just made that easier for them to imagine.
As time has gone on, our hero, as well as comics as a whole, have become much more complex. Our heroes are not flawed, torn, and conflicted. Much more so than 60 years ago. It appears to me that perhaps Bruce Wayne doesn't keep female companionship because he's not willing to risk her life because of his lifestyle. Now why he would risk a boys life and not his pun's life is a question that I don't think I can answer. I'm just sayin'.
Detective Comics #27 in May 1939.
Weak interpretation. Co-dependant faggot.
A PS...I am not suggesting Robin is a faggot. I am suggesting that Batman is a creepy pederast faggot and as the Robins mature (if they manage to do so without being killed) they see the nature of the relationship and move on.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home