Teaser trailer from DC FanDome. Not bad considering Reeves has only shot like 25% of the film. Think it gives a taste of where he's going with it. I watched the panel, and I *really* like what he said there. As has been reported, it's not an original story but will feature a young Batman still figuring things out and struggling with himself. As the teaser shows, it starts with a murder mystery, and as he pulls on threads the story gets bigger.
We can argue about Batmobiles or Batsuits all day long, but I'm psyked to get a Batman being a detective.
I think there are just some heros that, at this point, just need to be retired from media for a bit, Batman is one of them, he is so played out i think
I am going to argue about batsuits and batmobiles.
I love them.
I think that is the best looking of both we have seen on screen in live action so far.
The batmobile is practical and can actually maneuver on a road.
The Batsuit is armored in a way that doesn't make it bulky or weird. He LOOKS like batman. I don't really understand what the tubes on the gauntlets are for yet, but the rest of it is all aces.
I LOVE that its a murder mystery. I am so glad we get a detective Batman again. Riddler? Yes please. Practical Catwoman? Yes please. Penguin as an arms dealer? Yes please.
This is the first DC property I think I am actually excited for in like... a decade.
Here are my hopes.
1) No guns for Batman.
2) No killing for Batman.
3) He actually solves the murder mystery and isn't some kind of idiot that gets the plot explained to him at the end of the movie ala Christian Bale.
Was not expecting the Court of Owls, a pleasant surprise to be sure, and all the "?" makes me wonder if the Riddler will play some part in it. Nice to see the mystery/Detective element apparently being an important part of the film.
There's not much I saw. Just the card easter egg. Though all the references to lies and what Bruce doesn't know about his family/cities history could definitely point that way (but I'd expect more in a mostly resolved in a sequel sense)
I presume that Jeffrey Wright is playing Gordon; how did I miss the announcement that Jeffrey Wright is playing Gordon?!
Also using the Riddler in a mystery thriller style is a great way to differentiate this film from all of the other recent films. Rather than dark and gritty, this has a brooding, almost arty, atmosphere to it. Sort of reminds me of Seven and/or The Crow (and that is a good thing!)
I can be down for a more grounded murder mystery detective story. It’s why Grave of the Batman is my current favorite of the Batman comics. That and it has peak Alfred sass.
There's not much I saw. Just the card easter egg. Though all the references to lies and what Bruce doesn't know about his family/cities history could definitely point that way (but I'd expect more in a mostly resolved in a sequel sense)
Yeah, Reeves’ comments during the panel did seem to point to CoO.
I don’t know the director’s intent, but to me he looks appropriately haggard. Like a guy who’s up all night every night. Like maybe he hasn’t had time to get a haircut. Still figuring out the Bruce vs Bats balance.
BrianDavion wrote: something about the Mask seems off to me, not sure what though
Same for me. I think it's because it seems to be more of a helmet than a cowel, like it has space between it and the head/face for padding etc.
Whilst him dishing out a physical pasting is in line with what we expect of batman nowadays... He looks too small. I'm not one for a small and agile batman personally, other heroes can get away with it due to super powers, but now amount of martial arts is going to help you when you go against someone who is trained and out sizes you.
He doesn't need to be overtly stacked, but he looks more like bat boy than bat man.
Well I’m cautiously optimistic for it. Especially since they’re going down the detective route. Maybe it’s because I’ve been on a Fargo binge but I’m all for more detective stuff.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: He looks too small. I'm not one for a small and agile batman personally, other heroes can get away with it due to super powers, but now amount of martial arts is going to help you when you go against someone who is trained and out sizes you.
How many gangbangers are actually trained, though, as opposed to picking up bits and pieces on the mean streets of Gotham?
It's not like he's going to have to deal with the likes of Lady Shiva, David Cain, Deathstroke, etc.
I was talking to someone and mixed two different things that were released at the DC event. Court of Owls was shown in the Gotham Knights trailer.
You may actually be right though. In the panel, Reeves talked about how Bruce will discover things about his family and the city of Gotham. Also...look at what’s on the cover of the card from the Riddler. Would be interesting to have the Riddler as the villain, but one carrying a warning about a greater threat.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: He looks too small. I'm not one for a small and agile batman personally, other heroes can get away with it due to super powers, but now amount of martial arts is going to help you when you go against someone who is trained and out sizes you.
How many gangbangers are actually trained, though, as opposed to picking up bits and pieces on the mean streets of Gotham?
It's not like he's going to have to deal with the likes of Lady Shiva, David Cain, Deathstroke, etc.
Yeah sorry, I meant he is small for your very capable villains, some you have just named... Not necessarily your run of the mill crew people, though some would be conditioned and trained you would have thought, he still looks too small for them also. I think if Pattinson reprises the role for more than one film, and in line with the idea this is a new/young/inexperienced batman in this film, he needs to bulk up a bit and put on some size for future iterations tbh. Like I said, Batman, not batboy.
If this is meant to be a Year Two Bat, then the lack of physical size makes sense. Even without size, a "bottle covey" mindset in a fight may still carry him through.
Riddler/Penguin/Catwoman feel about the right tier of villain for this level of Bat - he hasn't yet earned the title of "Detective" from Ra's, Bane has yet to hear of him, and a number of his Big Villains probably haven't even taken their first steps to villainhood yet, outside of the organised crime families.
Dysartes wrote: If this is meant to be a Year Two Bat, then the lack of physical size makes sense. Even without size, a "bottle covey" mindset in a fight may still carry him through.
Riddler/Penguin/Catwoman feel about the right tier of villain for this level of Bat - he hasn't yet earned the title of "Detective" from Ra's, Bane has yet to hear of him, and a number of his Big Villains probably haven't even taken their first steps to villainhood yet, outside of the organised crime families.
Yeah Reeves said that Selina isn’t yet fully Catwoman and Cobblepot is called the Penguin but hates it.
Edit: I don’t think he looks that small in the batsuit.
Blackie wrote: Is that Robert Pattinson? Lol, easy pass then.
Any other role, I would agree with you. But man, Batman? You can never ever call it. Who would have thought that Michael Keaton - Mr. Mom - would make a great Batman? Who would have thought that peak fame George Clooney would be a terrible Batman? Or that Gigli would be the only good part of the non-Wonder Woman DCEU?
I now always reserve judgement on Batman castings.
Pattinson has also supposedly done pretty solid work, post-Twilight. Can't say for sure, personally, as he hasn't been in anything I've actually been interested in watching... But yeah, happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think there's been a Batman yet who hasn't been panned as a bad choice prior to release... and most of them have actually turned out pretty good, even in the, er... 'less good' movies.
Blackie wrote: Is that Robert Pattinson? Lol, easy pass then.
Any other role, I would agree with you. But man, Batman? You can never ever call it. Who would have thought that Michael Keaton - Mr. Mom - would make a great Batman? Who would have thought that peak fame George Clooney would be a terrible Batman? Or that Gigli would be the only good part of the non-Wonder Woman DCEU?
I now always reserve judgement on Batman castings.
In order?
No one, and they were right.
Anyone, and they were also right.
And... what? Affleck was, as far as I could tell, completely asleep for all his DC appearances.
I'm open to it as he strikes me as a reasonable choice for a Batman finding his way. I'm more excited by the Long Halloween through a Fincher Seven lens vibe the trailer presented.
insaniak wrote: Pattinson has also supposedly done pretty solid work, post-Twilight. Can't say for sure, personally, as he hasn't been in anything I've actually been interested in watching... But yeah, happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think there's been a Batman yet who hasn't been panned as a bad choice prior to release... and most of them have actually turned out pretty good, even in the, er... 'less good' movies.
Yeah, Pattinson has proven himself to be an excellent actor in recent years. You might have seen him and not realized it if you saw The Lost City of Z. He was the tall bearded guy...really disappeared into that role.
"ROTFL sparkly Batman lulz" is a better pithy 'hot take' for today's idiocracy, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: And... what? Affleck was, as far as I could tell, completely asleep for all his DC appearances.
JL, yes. BvS, no.
He definitely brought it in BvS...it's just a movie that a lot of people didn't like. He did look like he was sleepwalking in JL, and now we know why. Cripes, that reaction and weird grin when Superman shows up for the Steppenwolf fight is community theater-level awkward. And "I don't...not...like you" and lines like it are painful. Whedon wanted to turn Bruce Wayne into Tony Stark, and I don't think Affleck really knew what to do with the material or how to marry his understanding of his character to Whedon's vision. And he's not RDJ! IIRC, the talk was that Affleck wanted the cast to walk out in protest. Most of the stuff that Snyder shot got dumped, and probably any decent Affleck performance with it. So it'll be interesting to see if that changes for Snyder's version.
FYI, if the cowl looks a little tight on Affleck's head in the theatrical version of JL, that's because it is. Apparently when they brought him in for the Whedon reshoot he'd gained weight and didn't fit in the suit so well anymore.
Edit: This was that painful open-mouthed grin...thing. Affleck had no idea what he was supposed to be doing in that shot, lol.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. There has never been a batman casting that people were happy with. Christian bale was too skinny. Keaton was mr mom. Cloony was too happy.
Batman has to be seen to be judged. Its a total crap shoot.
Wow just wow
Michael Keaton was the best Bruce Wayne / Batman so far - by a huge margin - IMO.
Afleck as angry older Batman was great
Anyway seldom going to please everyone - lots of people thought Hugh jackman was wrong for Wolverine or Gal Gadot for Wonder Woman - I wonder if some even thought RDJ is not Iron Man....
Honestly, RDJ *wasn't* Tony Stark. Stark wasn't a loveable, monogamous wisecracker in the comics pre-feature film. He was more of a straight-up rich guy playboy jerk.
Marvel redefined many of their characters for film. General audiences just weren't as familiar with the characters they had left after they sold Sony all of their best. And there was little to no previous film version baggage.
gorgon wrote: Honestly, RDJ *wasn't* Tony Stark. Stark wasn't a loveable, monogamous wisecracker in the comics pre-feature film. He was more of a straight-up rich guy playboy jerk.
Marvel redefined many of their characters for film. General audiences just weren't as familiar with the characters they had left after they sold Sony all of their best. And there was little to no previous film version baggage.
Thats fair - I had little knowledge or interest in the character until the Iron Man film - now he is one of my fav Marvel characters - but most of the MCU versions I prefer to the comics.
It’s all gonna come down to the writing and direction.
You can take any actor, give them a Sow’s Ear of a script, and they’ll struggle to make you a Silk Purse.
For me, the DCEU is of such variable quality, I’ll have to watch it for myself.
So far, I’ve not been terribly impressed by any of their offerings, but I do acknowledge a general upward trend in the quality.
Just as when it was first announced, I expected Guardians “who?????” of the Galaxy to be the start of the MCU’s decline, and was proven solidly wrong, I’m open to this take on Batman being a return to form for D.C. movies in general.
gorgon wrote: Honestly, RDJ *wasn't* Tony Stark. Stark wasn't a loveable, monogamous wisecracker in the comics pre-feature film. He was more of a straight-up rich guy playboy jerk.
Marvel redefined many of their characters for film. General audiences just weren't as familiar with the characters they had left after they sold Sony all of their best. And there was little to no previous film version baggage.
Thats fair - I had little knowledge or interest in the character until the Iron Man film - now he is one of my fav Marvel characters - but most of the MCU versions I prefer to the comics.
He is now
He's mostly a better character on film. Iron Man was like a C-list comics character pre-RDJ...primarily known for his Demon in a Bottle and Armor Wars storylines, and being the money behind and a near-constant presence on the Avengers.
Of course, for Civil War they actually made RDJ more of a crazy jerk than the comics version, who was presented as having more of a legitimate point.
Of course, for Civil War they actually made RDJ more of a crazy jerk than the comics version, who was presented as having more of a legitimate point.
Watering down the Civil War storyline from an expansive issue affecting the civil rights and privacy of every mutant and superhero on the planet to 'How dare they tell us what to do!' was one of the few major mis-steps in the MCU, for me.
IIRC (it's been a long time since I read any Iron Man) Stark's character did evolve considerably over the years, though.
Crazy this movie is 12+ months from release, only 25-30 percent of it being filmed and it gets a trailer. But Dune with 3-4 months till release has the most timid marketing i've ever seen.
I suspect that the very early start with the trailers is to assuage concerns over the casting... people have been very vocal online about the casting of Pattinson and Wright in this. Showing a glimpse of them in action might be the studio's way of saying 'See! They're ok, really!'
Speaking of which, I'm actually pretty darn excited about Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. He absolutely looks the business in that trailer.
insaniak wrote: Pattinson has also supposedly done pretty solid work, post-Twilight. Can't say for sure, personally, as he hasn't been in anything I've actually been interested in watching... But yeah, happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think there's been a Batman yet who hasn't been panned as a bad choice prior to release... and most of them have actually turned out pretty good, even in the, er... 'less good' movies.
I've only seem him in The Lighthouse which is a pretty subtle film acting-wise, but he was fine in that. If Heath Ledger can be an Oscar-Winning Joker I think Pattinson can do fine as a young Batman. I think he fits the look more than Bale.
He looks great in the suite. Not super fond of the Crow look without. For a moment I thought they were going with a The Batman style emo Riddler before I realized that was supposed to be Bruce. On the whole though, he looks like he's got it down, and more of detective story will greatly help this movie stand apart from the rest. Overall, I think it looks quite good.
Of course, for Civil War they actually made RDJ more of a crazy jerk than the comics version, who was presented as having more of a legitimate point.
It's a shame he went from legitimate point to removing anyone who wouldn't comply from this dimension and forcing kids into military service if they happened to be born without powers (but weren't a mutant for... raisins...)
As a supporting character, Pattinson was good in Lost City of Z. Also heard that he wasn't bad as Lawrence in Queen of the Desert, though I've yet to see that film.
I believe the "Crow look" is just after removing the cowl and is why the hair is sweaty and there is masking around the eyes. It is a transitional image between removing the Batsuit and putting on his Bruce Wayne costume.
That spoiler reminds me of the Riddler’s riddles about “how do you tell if Lady Gaga is dead?” or “What’s the difference between a fish, a piano and a bottle of glue?”
So, I watched the trailer. A few years ago, I'd have been really excited for this, I'm generally a huge fan of grimdark, and I can't think of anything to criticize Pattinson's look or performance in the trailer.
But today among current events, there's some cringey awkwardness in the subject matter, it looks like they're trying a bit too hard to turn Batman into the Punisher, and I'm having a hard time digging the vibe.
He definitely brought it in BvS...it's just a movie that a lot of people didn't like. He did look like he was sleepwalking in JL, and now we know why. Cripes, that reaction and weird grin when Superman shows up for the Steppenwolf fight is community theater-level awkward. And "I don't...not...like you" and lines like it are painful. Whedon wanted to turn Bruce Wayne into Tony Stark, and I don't think Affleck really knew what to do with the material or how to marry his understanding of his character to Whedon's vision. And he's not RDJ! IIRC, the talk was that Affleck wanted the cast to walk out in protest. Most of the stuff that Snyder shot got dumped, and probably any decent Affleck performance with it.
I still mostly think of Affleck in terms of Kevin Smith films. Whedon's 'quippy' reshoots seem like they'd be the perfect kind of material.
The 'dark, edgy brooding' Snyder-vision seems more incompatible with the actor to me.
Vaktathi wrote: ... it looks like they're trying a bit too hard to turn Batman into the Punisher, ...
I didn't get that from the trailer. What I got was a Batman who is going all out to be terrifying. Most of the time, he's still, or moving fairly slowly, restrained. And then he bursts into motion, and is just savage. This is a Batman who lurks in the shadows and thinks his way through things, but when violence is called for, he makes sure his opponent stays down. Or is too terrified to fight back.
And that's right on the money, for me. Batman is supposed to be terrifying. That was the whole point of the suit.
Maybe I'm just way too used to animated/Kevin Conroy Batman, and I admittedly am not versed in all iterations of the character
Hitting some dude in the face repeatedly to wet squishy sounds after already breaking and putting him down and declaring oneself to be "vengeance" feels a bit off from most of my experiences, Batman brought people to justice, he didn't implode their skull just to make a point, though again, freely admit that I haven't read whatever comic iteration this may be based on (and honestly outside the main bad guy fights I don't recall much of the Dark Knight series off the top of my head).
I'm also working through the Harley Quinn animated cartoon which, while extremely violent (and also an amazing watch), also doesn't portray Batman in quite this manner. He's scary, but he's less "cripple a random henchman for life just to prove a point" scary, more "your plan is definitely pooched and you're absolutely going to jail" scary
The comics have varied over the years as to just how 'dark' they present Batman, although by their nature (and labeling regulations) I don't think they're ever going to be as full on as is more generally accepted in movies, where higher ratings allow for things to get a bit more bloody.
So yes, a more accurate take on my above post would be to say that this seems a bit more brutal than is commonly portrayed in the comics and cartoons, but is absolutely in keeping with how the character 'should' be, in my head...
Ahtman wrote: I believe the "Crow look" is just after removing the cowl and is why the hair is sweaty and there is masking around the eyes. It is a transitional image between removing the Batsuit and putting on his Bruce Wayne costume.
First off, I think it’s probably from the “all is lost” moment; he looks pretty dejected in that scene and has just taken off the cowl in frustration/sorrow. Second, the more I look at it, the more Joker-ish he looks (like the henchmen he intimidates); I wonder if they’re playing into the theme of the villains (particularly Joker) being a dark mirror of Batman and hinting at how close to the edge he is?
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. There has never been a batman casting that people were happy with. Christian bale was too skinny. Keaton was mr mom. Cloony was too happy.
Batman has to be seen to be judged. Its a total crap shoot.
Wow just wow
Michael Keaton was the best Bruce Wayne / Batman so far - by a huge margin - IMO.
Afleck as angry older Batman was great
Anyway seldom going to please everyone - lots of people thought Hugh jackman was wrong for Wolverine or Gal Gadot for Wonder Woman - I wonder if some even thought RDJ is not Iron Man....
I wasn't saying those were MY opinions. I was saying that was the general reaction to the announced casting each time. No Batman casting has ever made people generally happy until they see them on screen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Maybe I'm just way too used to animated/Kevin Conroy Batman, and I admittedly am not versed in all iterations of the character
Hitting some dude in the face repeatedly to wet squishy sounds after already breaking and putting him down and declaring oneself to be "vengeance" feels a bit off from most of my experiences, Batman brought people to justice, he didn't implode their skull just to make a point, though again, freely admit that I haven't read whatever comic iteration this may be based on (and honestly outside the main bad guy fights I don't recall much of the Dark Knight series off the top of my head).
I'm also working through the Harley Quinn animated cartoon which, while extremely violent (and also an amazing watch), also doesn't portray Batman in quite this manner. He's scary, but he's less "cripple a random henchman for life just to prove a point" scary, more "your plan is definitely pooched and you're absolutely going to jail" scary
If you can get access to it I recommend watching Gotham by Gaslight. It is the best version of Batman in cinema atm. And the first time you see him fight he is terrifying and brutal in exactly the way Batman should be. Batman knows that 1 vs 9 is a bad situation. Brutality and fear is how he wins. It dwindles their numbers before the fight starts and takes all their heart out of trying to win.
Ahtman wrote: I believe the "Crow look" is just after removing the cowl and is why the hair is sweaty and there is masking around the eyes. It is a transitional image between removing the Batsuit and putting on his Bruce Wayne costume.
First off, I think it’s probably from the “all is lost” moment; he looks pretty dejected in that scene and has just taken off the cowl in frustration/sorrow. Second, the more I look at it, the more Joker-ish he looks (like the henchmen he intimidates); I wonder if they’re playing into the theme of the villains (particularly Joker) being a dark mirror of Batman and hinting at how close to the edge he is?
If it is based at all on the Long Halloween then that story has heavy themes of how dark Batman is getting. He pushes everyone away and takes more and more of his crusade onto his own shoulders. Almost burning down the relationship he has been forming with Gorden and District Attorney Dent. The sequel Dark Victory intoduces Dick Greyson and kind of shows him being pulled back from the brink.
Future War Cultist wrote: He was great in The Lighthouse, which was a good movie imo but was somewhat spoiled for me because all could hear in my head was:
I wasn't too excited by the trailer to be honest. For one that it's yet another restart, not even matters to me, that it's going to be an Elsewhere thing. I'd rather have some continuation of SOMETHING, cause in the end all of them have some repeating things like the origin story and such.
Only thing that caught my attention was that the one guy with the tapes on his face makes me think of Hush.
But hey, I'm gonna wait til it's out and check it out then, not sure if it will be in a cinema though, cause this was more like a teaser than a trailer.
I might be ok with the 'squishy sounds' as you put it if.
1) he doesn't kill the guy
2) it is portrayed as a moment, in context, where he goes 'too far' and there's a 'what have I done?' pause (eg maybe the mirror scene)
So yeah, I might be contextually ok with it, like someone said earlier Batman going 'too far' when he is working alone is a thing
Lance845 wrote: If it is based at all on the Long Halloween then that story has heavy themes of how dark Batman is getting. He pushes everyone away and takes more and more of his crusade onto his own shoulders. Almost burning down the relationship he has been forming with Gorden and District Attorney Dent. The sequel Dark Victory intoduces Dick Greyson and kind of shows him being pulled back from the brink.
Yep! Batman: Ego has also been cited by Reeves more than once as an influence. And that's about his two halves confronting each other. Reeves said in the panel that he's going to be working through some stuff. Is he really doing it for justice and noble reasons, or is he doing it for...vengeance? Also note that the relationship between Bruce and Alfred is supposed to be central to the film.
The comments about the darkness and violence are mostly on point. But we should give the movie a chance to tell its story.
Ahtman wrote: I believe the "Crow look" is just after removing the cowl and is why the hair is sweaty and there is masking around the eyes. It is a transitional image between removing the Batsuit and putting on his Bruce Wayne costume.
Yeah, the eye makeup is just to hid his face with the mask. I was referring more to the hair, which looks really odd on Bruce in the business suit.
Future War Cultist wrote: He was great in The Lighthouse, which was a good movie imo but was somewhat spoiled for me because all could hear in my head was:
Based on stuff I've read, I'm actually pretty sure that we're going to get some Bat-family out of this new Bat-universe. Provided this one is successful, of course.
I find it weird that people are acting as if Batman being brutal is weird or too "grimdark".
Batman, the man who routinely leaves his opponents crippled, is being too brutal? Come on...
Besides, as they said during the panel, this is Year 2 Batman. He doesn't quite know what he's doing yet, and can go too far. Him beating the snot out of that goon is a good example of that.
Seems to be some sensitivity about it coming off Batfleck, who branded and killed dudes. Of course, that was meant to be a Batman who'd gone over the edge, and obviously there have been everything from campy to dark Batmen. Still, I think Batfleck is the sore spot for some people.
Not so much the supervillains, but just the regular street level criminals he beats up. Some of the stuff he does in the comics/movies would be enough to cause some serious damage to people.
In the Dark Knight film I seem to recall he deliberately drops the mafia boss (can’t remember his name, it’s been a while) from a non-lethal height, breaking at least his legs, in order to extract information. That’s pretty fethed up when you think about it.
Not so much the supervillains, but just the regular street level criminals he beats up. Some of the stuff he does in the comics/movies would be enough to cause some serious damage to people.
Thats true of any super hero when they are fighting "normal" people, we don't always see it of have it highlighted but its happening - MCU Heroes kill plenty.
Keatons Batman killed plenty in his (IMO awesome film) - given that he used chain guns, explosives and missiles- in fact very similar to Batfleck
They specifically talk about how Batman puts many of his adversaries in the hospital before they make it to Arkham or Blackgate. That includes the street level thugs. Breaking arms and legs is just regular ol' Batman Batmaning.
Not to be too analytical, but the specific way he breaks the arm in the trailer will leave permanent injuries on the person, the arm will be usable but it will never be the same again... Batman does such things plenty of times.
Not live action, but the dark knight animation (never read the graphic novel so cannot verify if it is in there) but what he does to the leader of the mutant gang, breaks the arm at the elbow joint and the knee at the joint... That's life changing right there. Not to mention he takes the jokers eye and paralyses him...
Batman is brutal and I don't mind it tbh, but I also like that he stops himself from killing.
I'd be interested in knowing that also, though it's fair to assume that GCPD is corrupt AF and batman knows it... I wouldn't be surprised if Jim refused to take anything from him in fear of it falling into the wrong hands.
Just the other week Batman’s Grave had a passing line from Alfred about how he knows Batman doesn’t share his tech with the police because he knows the police would turn around and use it against him.
The DefundBatman thread is a fun read. I think it goes out of its way to miss the obvious answer of "hire better mystery writers" but the general idea that the character needs a revamp beyond what was established 30+ years ago isn't beyond merit. Mostly it makes me long for what Batman Incorporated could have been. Not so much in need of a retcon as a "this isn't working" kind of change to shift the status quo. It's something the comics touch on from time to time, but then really kind of go nowhere with.
This feels like Gotham: The Movie. Like they didn't want to move forward with the kid from the show as Batman (Legit, he's still little) but wanted that timeline. The villains support the idea too.
I might see it. It's far enough away I might have been starved from theaters being closed for long enough that it'll make the list. I dislike twilight as batman but if I can forgive so many other actors of quality for being stuck in a bad franchise I can forgive him. He was solid in that elephant movie.
The funny part is that we've seen whole bits about some of how Batman and Bruce Wayne both help the city in some meaningful ways. Notable example came out of the one-shot "Ghost in the Machine" by Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV.
Spoiler:
The premise there is that the infrastructure in Gotham is absolute gak and the electrical grid should absolutely, 100% be incapable of functioning if one crunches the numbers...but yet it does.
The power company thinks nothing of it because their levels check out at their meters after their upgrades over the years but one of their techs, Harper Row, gets to thinking after an encounter where Batman saves her and her brother from some yoofs. She's trying to figure out how nobody has actual surveillance camera footage of Batman in action or anything like that. Cameras are everywhere right? So why is it just cell phones or handheld stuff?
Answer: because he's tapped into the power grid. But that can't just be remotely done via a hacker or the like. It has to be physically connected somehow. So she starts looking for evidence at old, supposedly decommissioned junction stations...and finds it. Underneath of every single Wayne Foundation supported housing project, every orphanage supported by it, drug rehabilitation center, halfway house, etc...there are these 'Batboxes'. They're 'boosters' that help manage the power flow of the aging, underfunded power grid--if not just outright powering homes and apartments during outages.
There's definitely some attempts to explore the angle of 'but what does Batman REALLY do for the community?' out there. It's sadly just usually in one-shots though, because it does not really fit as something that works as an ongoing story arc.
There's definitely some attempts to explore the angle of 'but what does Batman REALLY do for the community?' out there. It's sadly just usually in one-shots though, because it does not really fit as something that works as an ongoing story arc.
The current run seems to be playing with the idea again as WayneTech is basically rebuilding the city as Bruce envisions post City of Bane. That angle doesn't seem like it was going anywhere interesting though and I pretty quickly lost interest when it immediately reverted to "secret plot to kill Batman" without anything that made it stand apart from any other random run.
Kanluwen wrote: There's definitely some attempts to explore the angle of 'but what does Batman REALLY do for the community?' out there. It's sadly just usually in one-shots though, because it does not really fit as something that works as an ongoing story arc.
Think we're going to get more exploration of that with this version, since Reeves has described him as a humanist.
Thats true of any super hero when they are fighting "normal" people, we don't always see it of have it highlighted but its happening - MCU Heroes kill plenty.
But none of them are ever highlighted as having a code of not killing.
That's such a defining part of batman, effectively the only thing which separates him from those he fights against. But the levels of violence he actually uses makes the claim pretty ridiculous. We all know one punch with a bare fist which makes a person land awkwardly can kill, yet are expected to believe that batman can beat someone in the head with armoured gloves and boots and nobody dies.
So yes, he exercises the same level of force as say Captain America (when he isn't shooting Nazis with a literal gun) but we aren't expected to believe that Steve Rogers isn't killing people. He accepts that killing is sometimes necessary. So there isn't any dissonance between the narrative we are told and the narrative being shown on the screen.
So yes, he exercises the same level of force as say Captain America (when he isn't shooting Nazis with a literal gun) but we aren't expected to believe that Steve Rogers isn't killing people. He accepts that killing is sometimes necessary. So there isn't any dissonance between the narrative we are told and the narrative being shown on the screen.
Well, sometimes. The moment Cap started bashing police going about their jobs with a portable battering ram, knocking them off a multi-story staircase (in Civil War), was the moment it was clear that his position in the narrative was fundamentally wrong.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Cap went out of his way in that fight to ensure that he didn't kill anyone (and that Bucky didn't kill anyone).
He smashed one guy in the head with a battering ram, and shoved others down the open center of what was a three-to-four story flight of stairs. There's no way he didn't kill anyone.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Cap went out of his way in that fight to ensure that he didn't kill anyone (and that Bucky didn't kill anyone).
He smashed one guy in the head with a battering ram, and shoved others down the open center of what was a three-to-four story flight of stairs. There's no way he didn't kill anyone.
No he didn't. Bucky did. Cap threw his shield about and hit some people real hard, but it was Bucky that started using the portable ram on his arm to hit people. Bucky I think killed people in that stair case. He also killed people who showed up with kill on sight orders over something he was framed for. So... yeah. Justified.
But regardless of that, Cap and Bucky are both professional soldiers and spies. Jobs that basically requiring killing. Batman is neither and specifically takes up a code of never crossing that line. Cap can and will kill the Red Skull. If Batman is willing to kill then why are any of his villains still alive?
Future War Cultist wrote: I just realised that Robert Pattinson has went from Twilight to Gotham...I guess vampires really do turn into bats after all.
AduroT wrote: I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.
Disagree. Batman's villains pretty much all fit the criteria for diminished capacity due to insanity.
What Gotham needs is more funding for its psychiatric institutions.
...with security as a definite priority for that funding - the number of times people break out of Arkham Asylum, or take it over from the inside, is a touch ridiculous.
Once they can keep people there, then they can work on trying to cure them.
AduroT wrote: I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.
Disagree. Batman's villains pretty much all fit the criteria for diminished capacity due to insanity.
What Gotham needs is more funding for its psychiatric institutions.
...with security as a definite priority for that funding - the number of times people break out of Arkham Asylum, or take it over from the inside, is a touch ridiculous.
Once they can keep people there, then they can work on trying to cure them.
I always got the impression Arkham was part of the problem
Thats true of any super hero when they are fighting "normal" people, we don't always see it of have it highlighted but its happening - MCU Heroes kill plenty.
But none of them are ever highlighted as having a code of not killing.
That's such a defining part of batman, effectively the only thing which separates him from those he fights against. But the levels of violence he actually uses makes the claim pretty ridiculous. We all know one punch with a bare fist which makes a person land awkwardly can kill, yet are expected to believe that batman can beat someone in the head with armoured gloves and boots and nobody dies.
IIRC, Batman: Ego -- cited by the director as an influence on this film -- deals with this. Think we can expect to see him struggling with his dual nature. Yeah, he was way over the top with that thug, and I think that's intentional and relevant.
In the most recent Batman story line (Joker War) the Joker taunts Batman by asking him who he thinks hates him more: the people that died early on because Bats didn't realize the level of threat he was or the more recently deceased that died because Bats hasn't really stopped him and allowed him to go on killing by not killing him. He goes on to tell Batman that this proves that Batman doesn't really care about the people of Gotham but cares about being right and feeling righteous.
Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.
Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.
"The deliberate taking of human -- even superhuman life goes against every believe I have -- and that you have. That's the one thing we've always had in common. It's what made us what we are.
More than anyone in the world, when you scratch everything else away from Batman, you're left with with someone who doesn't want to see anybody die."
That always just summed him up completely for me.
Then, of course, there's this, for a 'realistic' take on Batman, that isn't miserable. - Though I'd like to highlight that I'm NOT 'prejudging' this movie. There's no indication that they're NOT going this way.
The downside being that it isn't a quick process to produce such quality.
I tend to think he works better as a cover artist than the main artist for a story, due to time constraints - the series of character study covers he did for the JSA, for example, are stunning.
greatbigtree wrote: Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.
Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.
I don't know, The Joker seems like a pretty reliable guy. We should trust him on this.
greatbigtree wrote: Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.
Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.
The problem is he knows that the system absolutely can not cope with the super villains.
So don't kill the Joker - cripple him and know that he is no longer a threat to others.
As I said the main reason that he does not do either is that comics need ongoing villains - films don't.
Batman does, frequently, beat the Joker to within an inch of his life. I think it’s at the end of “The Killing Joke” that the Joker says to Bats, “Go ahead, beat the hell out of me like you always do.” Or something along those lines. And Bats replies with something along the lines of, “I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you. I don’t want for one of us to wind up killing the other.”
To which the Joker says something like, “Yeah, that would be good, but it isn’t gonna happen.”
Batman can’t relent on the possibility that it could though. He can’t condemn someone to Death, because that precludes the possibility of redemption.
And yes, as a “real world” issue, recurring villains are importan in comic books. Batman, the character, has a motivation that coincides with this.
Sometimes I feel like Batman and Gotham don’t quite fit into the wider DC universe. It’s the all round lack of super powers, aliens, magic etc. and darker tone in comparison to the others. But I’m not an expert so feel free to scoff and roll your eyes.
The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.
gorgon wrote: The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.
I did not know that! Love new information. (This is not a sarcastic post, just in case)
Batman does, frequently, beat the Joker to within an inch of his life. I think it’s at the end of “The Killing Joke” that the Joker says to Bats, “Go ahead, beat the hell out of me like you always do.” Or something along those lines. And Bats replies with something along the lines of, “I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you. I don’t want for one of us to wind up killing the other.”
To which the Joker says something like, “Yeah, that would be good, but it isn’t gonna happen.”
Batman can’t relent on the possibility that it could though. He can’t condemn someone to Death, because that precludes the possibility of redemption.
And yes, as a “real world” issue, recurring villains are importan in comic books. Batman, the character, has a motivation that coincides with this.
Beating him up does nothing - he is on the masocist scale anyway - he knows, it batman knows it.
Cripple him, take his limbs or something similar, - then let him repent.
Batman the film character does not have to worry about future issues so he does not have the same restrictions because he is a similar but different character.
gorgon wrote: The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.
Ehh... thats not really true.
Marvel as we know it started with the invention of the Fantastic 4. There were many character that were created before the first "cross over" in the Avengers 3 years later. But things still didn't really wholly cross over until years after that.
Both DC and Marvel are created off the back bone of acquisitions of other comic companies and characters. But DC more so than Marvel. And that acquisition led to a lot of characters that where wholly separate suddenly being able to cross over. With Avengers and other team books becoming popular we got more Justice Society and such. Thats what led to more and more cross overs which eventually built to the idea of a cohesive universe of characters that can interact. The inter connectivity isn't so much a product of planning and attention as it is a sales gimmick that then took shape.
greatbigtree wrote: Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.
Well, guilty according to Batman.
They had a few issues here not Too long ago of an incident where Batman shows up and beats the snot out of Freeze, including breaking a limb or two. Bruce Wayne then gets on the jury for his trial and argues Freeze had been set up by someone else and they can’t just assume he’s guilty because Batman thought he was.
gorgon wrote: The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.
Ehh... thats not really true.
Marvel as we know it started with the invention of the Fantastic 4. There were many character that were created before the first "cross over" in the Avengers 3 years later. But things still didn't really wholly cross over until years after that.
Both DC and Marvel are created off the back bone of acquisitions of other comic companies and characters. But DC more so than Marvel. And that acquisition led to a lot of characters that where wholly separate suddenly being able to cross over. With Avengers and other team books becoming popular we got more Justice Society and such. Thats what led to more and more cross overs which eventually built to the idea of a cohesive universe of characters that can interact. The inter connectivity isn't so much a product of planning and attention as it is a sales gimmick that then took shape.
I'm probably overstating the Marvel situation and considered that when I typed it. However, DC is definitely much more of a hodgepodge with overall older characters. It's the 'original sin' that's helped drive all the reboots...and 'tweaks' like the DC multiverse to make sense of the timelines. Wonder Woman was a Justice Society member, then she wasn't anymore, then an alternate Earth WW was, then she wasn't again but her mother was, and now IIRC she was again. And I'm probably missing a few turns.
Sure I get that they are now part of the lore but like Spider-Man origins I really don't need to see Batman take on any of the versions of Joker, Scarecrow, Harley, Mr Freeze, Penguin, CatWoman, Ivy, Bane, Riddler (well maybe a Heath Ledger-esque one).
I know Punisher hasn't had a big box office movie success, but the series seemed pretty good and didn't seem to have many recurring super villains. Sure the Punisher isn't Batman and is maybe only after lower tier but they do tend to not be a recurring problem.
Whether they need to keep on reusing the same villains in every reboot... I think the answer is an emphatic no. - There's a wide variety and storied history of excellent Batman villains, from the classic to the modern (Such as the much lauded Court of Owls).
However, I've always felt the most interesting thing about Batman is his villains. - I've always had the theory that in the 80 plus years of Batman, there's only really been 8 good stories about Batman. Sure, there's been plenty of great Batman stories, but they're often great because it's a story about the villain.
A great example of this is the emmy award winning 'Heart of Ice' from Batman The Animated Series. Bruce isn't really a massive part of the story, but where he works in it, is that he's a window into the mystery, the events and the tragedy of Mr Freeze.
It's kinda why the Gotham TV show worked (for whatever extent of work you want to use), except that it swapped out Bruce being the window for Jim.
Usually there's a bit of a twist to it, but there are various villains that comes under.
Roland Daggett
Rupert Thorne
Maxie Zeus
Ferris Boyle (The 'real' badguy of Heart of Ice).
Max Shrek (Batman Returns)
The story, 'Batman: War on Crime' posits that this is a reason why Batman still does Bruce Wayne things and is actively involved in Wayne Enterprises. - So he can suss out the unethical money-making schemes that the rich are up to so that he can thwart them, and, hopefully, find a way to tie it back to them.
It IS worth saying though that overall, while there are some Batman stories that tend to deal with it, it's much more of a trademark of Green Arrow stories, which has it very much placed as his stories, hearkening back to the Robin Hood inspiration.
I think most comics observers would say that Batman has the greatest rogue's gallery of any superhero. (Spidey in second place, I guess?) So I don't know why anyone would want to shy away from them. I think they're not just good characters on their own...most are particularly interesting in how they interface with Batman's own psyche.
One of the subplots of White Knight is the wealthy elite of Gotham basically contorted Batman and all of Bruce's efforts to improve the city into an insurance scam to profit off the carnage.
Kayback wrote: Question. Are the major super villains needed?
Yes. Because we know they're the only ones who can provide an actual challenge for Batman. A Batman movie without substantial supervillains would be like the corridor fights from Daredevel, or almost all of the fights in Luke Cage... sure, there might be some visual spectacle, but the outcome is never in any doubt.
There's certainly room to not reuse the same set of villains every go around the merry-go-round, though, although I can understand why they do so. Particularly when they get them right the second time... hell, if they'd dismissed 'villains we've already used' then Tommy Lee Jones' giggling idiot would have been the only version of Two Face we would have had on screen, and we would have missed out on the much better rendition in Nolan's version.
I think the real question we need to be asking here is whether or not Batman was wearing a mask and why he was not following social distancing guidelines.
Someone going out and engaging in physical contact with random people on the street with no precautions? I highly doubt all of these so-called criminals that he is assaulting at night are within his support bubble.
I think the real question we need to be asking here is whether or not Batman was wearing a mask and why he was not following social distancing guidelines.
Someone going out and engaging in physical contact with random people on the street with no precautions? I highly doubt all of these so-called criminals that he is assaulting at night are within his support bubble.
He wears a mask, it just doesn’t cover his mouth or nose.
I think the real question we need to be asking here is whether or not Batman was wearing a mask and why he was not following social distancing guidelines.
Someone going out and engaging in physical contact with random people on the street with no precautions? I highly doubt all of these so-called criminals that he is assaulting at night are within his support bubble.
He wears a mask, it just doesn’t cover his mouth or nose.
A true American mask, following the letter but not the spirit. Batman is all about freedom of expression xD
I think the real question we need to be asking here is whether or not Batman was wearing a mask and why he was not following social distancing guidelines.
Someone going out and engaging in physical contact with random people on the street with no precautions? I highly doubt all of these so-called criminals that he is assaulting at night are within his support bubble.
He wears a mask, it just doesn’t cover his mouth or nose.
A true American mask, following the letter but not the spirit. Batman is all about freedom of expression xD
Let's not over-generalize, more than half of Americans wear masks properly for medical considerations and only a (granted, large) minority refuse to over political considerations instead.
I think the real question we need to be asking here is whether or not Batman was wearing a mask and why he was not following social distancing guidelines.
Someone going out and engaging in physical contact with random people on the street with no precautions? I highly doubt all of these so-called criminals that he is assaulting at night are within his support bubble.
He wears a mask, it just doesn’t cover his mouth or nose.
A true American mask, following the letter but not the spirit. Batman is all about freedom of expression xD
Let's not over-generalize, more than half of Americans wear masks properly for medical considerations and only a (granted, large) minority refuse to over political considerations instead.
That's fair, didn't mean to offend the sane part of America that hasn't bought into the over-politicized madness over mask wearing. Batman would definitely be social distancing by throwing batarangs than with fists afterall.
Whedon wanted to turn Bruce Wayne into Tony Stark, and I don't think Affleck really knew what to do with the material or how to marry his understanding of his character to Whedon's vision. And he's not RDJ! 
