Some movie about a guy dressed as a bat beating people up.

The only DC movie I am excited for!

That ad is hilariously try-hard. Decent production value, but the lighting, color palate and tone feel like Nolan phoning in another Rises.

The weird timing of Pattinson’s shouting scene is awkward. Hopefully it’s edited better in the film.

The new Shazam looks promising and Black Adam, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That ad is hilariously try-hard. Decent production value, but the lighting, color palate and tone feel like Nolan phoning in another Rises.

The weird timing of Pattinson’s shouting scene is awkward. Hopefully it’s edited better in the film.

Is it a Nolan film?

I don’t think so. Sure wishes it was.

It is not. I am glad it's not. Nolan has no fething idea how to make a Batman movie.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That ad is hilariously try-hard. Decent production value, but the lighting, color palate and tone feel like Nolan phoning in another Rises.

Agreed. Super emo Bats, bizarre spectator Cat and someone confused Riddler for Joker.
Try-hard is the precise term.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That ad is hilariously try-hard. Decent production value, but the lighting, color palate and tone feel like Nolan phoning in another Rises..

Honestly, this looks completely different to me. More like they're trying to lean hard into the idea that Batman should actually be this scary thing looming out of the shadows, which Nolan never really got. He just put Bruce in a batsuit and called the job a good'un.

I mean, I enjoy the Nolan movies (although Rises is certainly not my favourite) but this feels like a very different take on the character. Nolan's were action movies. This looks and feels more like a thriller, just with the 'monster' being the good(well, ish) guy.

Looks great. As rumored, they really do seem to be drawing on some terrific stories from the comics, including Ego, Long Halloween, and…something more recent that is much discussed but I won’t spoil because I expect it to influence the whole trilogy. Hard to go wrong with that kind of source material.

The usual suspects will complain about the usual gak, but they can go watch the Schumacher films, ‘60s show or various cartoons for children if four-color camp is their thing. There’s more than enough of that already. I’m excited to see a young street-level Batman who does detective work and struggles to keep his head on straight doing it.

I like my Knight dark, so this looks really promising.

My reservations remain solely around emo Bruce.

Prediction: Riddler will die by the end of this movie, since comic book movie writers/directors have still not fully grasped the idea of audiences wanting a popular character to return in a future installment. Since Batman is known for not killing people, this death must be an arbitrary result of the Riddler's actions which occurs after he has already been defeated, and therefore extremely disappointing as a conclusion to his character. Penguin, on the other hand, will not die, as he will be a secondary antagonist and thus not important to kill off for added drama.

I dunno if the Riddler will die or not. I think it actually remains to be seen just how much of a primary antagonist he is. But they certainly could kill him off since this is a self-contained trilogy like Nolan’s. This isn’t the “main DCEU” Batman.

 gorgon wrote:
I dunno if the Riddler will die or not. I think it actually remains to be seen just how much of a primary antagonist he is. But they certainly could kill him off since this is a self-contained trilogy like Nolan’s. This isn’t the “main DCEU” Batman.

I mean, an MCU Sinister Six movie is literally in the works as we speak and Sandman, Hydro-Man, and Molten man have already been canonized as fictional video projections, and Mysterio is dead. I feel it's safe to say that crossover continuity has little effect on whether writers decide to keep their characters around.

I'm not explicitly anti-character death in superhero movies, but there have been so, so many times in the past (Killmonger comes to mind) where a character dies in their debut role and posthumously becomes a fan favorite which can now never be used again. It's baffling.

 Flipsiders wrote:

I'm not explicitly anti-character death in superhero movies, but there have been so, so many times in the past (Killmonger comes to mind) where a character dies in their debut role and posthumously becomes a fan favorite which can now never be used again. It's baffling.

It's not really that much of a puzzle. They keep the villains around in the comics because they need to churn out (at least) a story a month and recycling characters means they don't have to keep endlessly creating new ones. Movies, for the most part, get a trilogy out before most of the people involved are ready to move on to other things, so it almost always going to be preferable to play with new characters instead of bringing back those that were already used.

 Lance845 wrote:
It is not. I am glad it's not. Nolan has no fething idea how to make a Batman movie.

You just have people in masks growl their lines, I think. Pretty simple stuff.

 insaniak wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

I'm not explicitly anti-character death in superhero movies, but there have been so, so many times in the past (Killmonger comes to mind) where a character dies in their debut role and posthumously becomes a fan favorite which can now never be used again. It's baffling.

It's not really that much of a puzzle. They keep the villains around in the comics because they need to churn out (at least) a story a month and recycling characters means they don't have to keep endlessly creating new ones. Movies, for the most part, get a trilogy out before most of the people involved are ready to move on to other things, so it almost always going to be preferable to play with new characters instead of bringing back those that were already used.

There's also the fact that the comics code authority GENERALLY didn't like heros killing, it relaxed in the 80s or so, but it was very much in force during the silver age when most of the big name comic book characters really where developed as characters.

 Flipsiders wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I dunno if the Riddler will die or not. I think it actually remains to be seen just how much of a primary antagonist he is. But they certainly could kill him off since this is a self-contained trilogy like Nolan’s. This isn’t the “main DCEU” Batman.

I mean, an MCU Sinister Six movie is literally in the works as we speak and Sandman, Hydro-Man, and Molten man have already been canonized as fictional video projections, and Mysterio is dead. I feel it's safe to say that crossover continuity has little effect on whether writers decide to keep their characters around.

I'm not explicitly anti-character death in superhero movies, but there have been so, so many times in the past (Killmonger comes to mind) where a character dies in their debut role and posthumously becomes a fan favorite which can now never be used again. It's baffling.

Mysterio is not dead. You need to pay more attention to what actually happened in that movie and less on what Mysterio was showing you.

 insaniak wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

I'm not explicitly anti-character death in superhero movies, but there have been so, so many times in the past (Killmonger comes to mind) where a character dies in their debut role and posthumously becomes a fan favorite which can now never be used again. It's baffling.

It's not really that much of a puzzle. They keep the villains around in the comics because they need to churn out (at least) a story a month and recycling characters means they don't have to keep endlessly creating new ones. Movies, for the most part, get a trilogy out before most of the people involved are ready to move on to other things, so it almost always going to be preferable to play with new characters instead of bringing back those that were already used.

That's obviously true, but it doesn't explain why killing characters in movies is seen as so much more preferable than, you know, locking them in prison for an arbitrary period of time. Some characters have better arcs if they die at the end, sure, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule. The Joker is a perfect example: "This evil clown guy is Batman's philosophical arch-nemesis, and keeps coming back to trouble him again" is a lot more intriguing than "One time, Batman fought a guy dressed as a clown. The clown-man died in a preventable accident and will never be mentioned again. That was pretty weird in hindsight, huh?"

Again, there are obvious exceptions, but for the most part, I don't see why you would go out of your way to kill a character unless you were absolutely certain you wouldn't be reusing them.

 Lance845 wrote:
It is not. I am glad it's not. Nolan has no fething idea how to make a Batman movie.

Agreed - this does not look too bad....sort of young Batman. see how it goes but can't be worse than Nolans films.

That's obviously true, but it doesn't explain why killing characters in movies is seen as so much more preferable than, you know, locking them in prison for an arbitrary period of time. Some characters have better arcs if they die at the end, sure, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule. The Joker is a perfect example: "This evil clown guy is Batman's philosophical arch-nemesis, and keeps coming back to trouble him again" is a lot more intriguing than "One time, Batman fought a guy dressed as a clown. The clown-man died in a preventable accident and will never be mentioned again. That was pretty weird in hindsight, huh?"

Disagree - I watch it and go why is the Joker allowed to kill again and again and again with no conseqences.. The end of Burtons original Batman was much better. Yes you donlt want to kill them in comics as Flispiders said but movies.....anything goes.

As much as I am a no heroes killing people guy, an exception really needs to be made for Joker. His murder count is Astronomical at this point and they keep tossing him back into the same asylum where he just tortures the staff until he feels like breaking out again at his leisure to go murder even more people.

 AduroT wrote:
As much as I am a no heroes killing people guy, an exception really needs to be made for Joker. His murder count is Astronomical at this point and they keep tossing him back into the same asylum where he just tortures the staff until he feels like breaking out again at his leisure to go murder even more people.

This discussion has been had many times before, but I think the real problem is that Arkham Asylum is fairly lenient when it comes to the topic of security. There's a reason why there aren't too many prison breaks in the real world (to my knowledge, of course), and most of Arkham's residents don't even have super-powers. The in-universe explanations for the breakouts are generally equally embarrassing; I remember one comic in which it's detailed that a pyromaniac escaped the asylum by building a makeshift hot-air balloon out of prison uniforms and floating out a skylight. If an incident like that won't get the place closed, I don't know what will.

Yeah, Arkham works within the context of incredibly corrupt Gotham City, but would be absurd pretty much anywhere else.

Although given how much he's spent on the rest of Gotham, it does seem like an obvious fixer upper purchase for Bruce Wayne...

Batman doesn't kill because Batman is every bit as Bat-gack insane as his entire rogue's gallery. It doesn't matter how many people Joker kills; Batman's not going to kill him because, presumeably, SOMEONE out there cares about him. Batman knows what it's like to have someone you love killed; he's not mentally capable of deliberately inflciting that pain on someone because he's been through it.

Even when it would be undoubtedly the right thing to do.

And... let's face it. The Joker could easily get away with an insanity defense, even if I don't think he fits the legal defintion of insane. He clearly knows right from wrong, after all. He just chooses 'wrong' because it's more fun. And... once that happens, off to Arkham he goes.

Granted, in reality sooner or later a cop with a dead loved one is going to get the Joker in his sights and take the shot... but in reality how hard would it be to track down the manufacturer of something like the BatJet? There aren't THAT many aircraft manufacturers out there that could make something like that, and there will be a paper trail. The police might not be able to get legal evidence, but an investigative reporter would figure it out in a year or two.

Some things you let go because it's fiction.

I'm worred about this film. WAY too many villains shoehorned into the trailer. Riddler for sure, potentially the Joker (the gang in white facepaint could be his minions), possibly Catwoman, possibly Poison Ivy, maybe even Two-Face? Leave some villains for the next movie!

I'd say that's a "probable" on Catwoman (or at least Selina Kyle), though I didn't pick up anything that looks like Ivy or Two-Face.

It has been said for a long time that this is based on Long Halloween. Which means just because enemies are jam packed into it doesn't mean many of the have all that much to do. They are mostly background elements that fill out the world. I wouldn't be too worried about it. Or that could just be my wishful thinking talking.

I think one of the smartest things the film can do is realise that practically everybody will know who the major players are already, and not labor under the assumption we need it all explained to us for the umpteenth time. So if Ivy is in it, let her do what she needs for the purposes of the narrative and let's not spend 20 minutes of exposition explaining who she is.

While i never saw the movie the first trailer i watched of Robert Pattinson's Batman seems kind like The Crow as far as i can tell.

https://theposterdb.com/posters/3887

Now just a guess but I imagine it is going to open with the Batman showing up at the Penguins club and will end with that chase in the rain we see. Then it will transition to the Riddler running some games and Bats (hopefully) having to do some detective work to find out what the plot is while occasionally crossing paths with Catwoman and Gotham gangs.

It does seem to be doing the "villain meant to be caught" thing which has been so popular for the past decade.

 Ahtman wrote:

It does seem to be doing the "villain meant to be caught" thing which has been so popular for the past decade.

To be fair, 'Hey, Bats, let's see if you can figure out my dastardly plan!' has always been the Riddler's thing.

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd say that's a "probable" on Catwoman (or at least Selina Kyle), though I didn't pick up anything that looks like Ivy or Two-Face.

A redhead is shown walking down the street, center screen front and then back. It wasn't the actress that appers to be Catwoman. That screams Poison Ivy.

There was at least one shot of a man with lots of scars on his face. We only see him from the right, so it could be Two-Face. Or maybe not, thus 'maybe'.

 Vulcan wrote:

A redhead is shown walking down the street, center screen front and then back. It wasn't the actress that appers to be Catwoman. That screams Poison Ivy.

Pretty sure it's just Selina wearing a red wig.

There was at least one shot of a man with lots of scars on his face. We only see him from the right, so it could be Two-Face. Or maybe not, thus 'maybe'.

That's Penguin. He has scars on his right cheek.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd say that's a "probable" on Catwoman (or at least Selina Kyle), though I didn't pick up anything that looks like Ivy or Two-Face.

A redhead is shown walking down the street, center screen front and then back. It wasn't the actress that appers to be Catwoman. That screams Poison Ivy.

There was at least one shot of a man with lots of scars on his face. We only see him from the right, so it could be Two-Face. Or maybe not, thus 'maybe'.

I doubt it's two face, assuming this is based on the long Halloween he won't apper in it. havey dent actually is a major character in the story but not as two-face. no spoilers as the comics worth reading WITHOUT knowing the story that said IIRC Harvey becomes two-face in the "sequal" series.


The Long Halloween is IIRC sort of the 2nd of a unoffical 2 part trilogy with part 1 being batman year 1, and the 3rd part being, I can't recall the name, but basicly deals with, among other things, Harvey becoming two face IIRC.

I like the vibe its going for. Lot of room for that to go wrong, but in particular I like the feeling that its less about one particular villain and has more of the living world of Gotham vibe going on. Penguin and Catwoman look very well done, Pattinson seems good in costume as well. My main concerns are how Bruce is portrayed and that in general I'm not getting the Riddler one way or another.

 LunarSol wrote:
I like the vibe its going for. Lot of room for that to go wrong, but in particular I like the feeling that its less about one particular villain and has more of the living world of Gotham vibe going on. Penguin and Catwoman look very well done, Pattinson seems good in costume as well. My main concerns are how Bruce is portrayed and that in general I'm not getting the Riddler one way or another.

Yeah I really agree with the Gotham vibe. Supposedly 'Chinatown' was an influence. Gotham is definitely going to be a 'character' of sorts in the film -- where it never really was in the Nolan films -- and that especially makes sense considering one of the storylines they seem to be pulling from (it's hinted in the teaser trailer in an awesome little easter egg).



And yeah, the gangster with scars is Colin Ferrell (under a ton of makeup) as the Penguin. Supposedly he's in the movie for like 10 minutes or something. The red-haired woman is obviously Zoe Kravitz wearing a wig. I'd be surprised to see "villain overload" be an issue. It isn't an origin movie, and I don't think Reeves is following the standard superhero movie template with this. Penguin is likely someone he nabs looking for information or while chasing something else down.

Hell, Zsasz or Calendar Man or whomever could be in it also and it wouldn't be overload if what we're talking about is a cameo or brief interrogation. Where movies like SM3 went wrong is with packing in too many main/main-ish antagonists and cramming in origin stories for all of them. I think we can expect Pattison to be the dominant character in the film, and lot of these other characters to be kinda like faces that pass by briefly as he works on his case and advances through the plot.

Anyway, I also really like that as grounded as this is -- moreso than the Nolan films -- it's still somehow more comic-booky...I think thanks to the photography. It looks more like comic panel shots where the Nolan films were overall less stylish (although they still had their moments).

BrianDavion wrote:
The Long Halloween is IIRC sort of the 2nd of a unoffical 2 part trilogy with part 1 being batman year 1, and the 3rd part being, I can't recall the name, but basicly deals with, among other things, Harvey becoming two face IIRC.

Dark Victory?

Yup. Dark Victory.

 Ahtman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
The Long Halloween is IIRC sort of the 2nd of a unoffical 2 part trilogy with part 1 being batman year 1, and the 3rd part being, I can't recall the name, but basicly deals with, among other things, Harvey becoming two face IIRC.

Dark Victory?

thanks thats the one

Interesting that they're hiding the Riddler's face. Something's probably going on there more than a question-shaped scar on his cheek or whatever, lol.

New trailer.

Review embargo has lifted and they're coming in strong.

Gonna see it on Thursday. Was a little bummed that I didn't get an offer (as a DC Universe Infinite subscriber) to see it the week prior like I did with TSS and BoP. But it looks like this one will be worth the wait.

Got my tickets for Saturday night. Avoiding any reviews or discussion until after that.

I'm watching it this Friday. This is the first DC movie I've been actually excited to watch in years. I think Zoe as Catwoman was a great choice. I'm reserving judgment on Pattinson. The director has banked a gak load of goodwill with me on the quality of the Planet of the Apes reboots he's done, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Well...Reeves did it. That was the best Batman movie I've seen.


Edit: Adding some quick non-spoiler thoughts to my super-quick thought from last night:

There's no shortage of Batman doing Batman things, and in that way it feels the most like the comics of any Batman movie. It really is about him working a case, and it follows him for the vast majority of the film. It even has some noir-style narration. It definitely isn't an origin story...but in a way it still kinda is. I'll save more commentary about that part for the spoiler discussions. I thought the movie moved at a really good pace and I didn't feel the 3 hours.

Visually it's a treat. Greig Fraser crushed it...again. So many shots have the dramatic flair of comic book panels, but in a motion picture. Loved the way they shot some of the shadows, and how Batman comes out of them. The lighting is amazing.

The cast is terrific and spot-on. Some people may not like aspects of Pattinson's performance, but the film is about a young Batman at a particular stage of his development. Without spoiling anything, his Batman grows and clearly will continue to grow in the films to come. He's menacing in the suit and kind of subdued and broken out of it. Pattison has great chemistry with both Kravitz (Catwoman) and Wright (Gordon) in particular. The rooftop scenes are perfect. Dano is as great as we expected as the Riddler. And Kravitz was kind of a revelation for me...she's THE best Catwoman we've seen yet IMO. She's sexy, dangerous, flirty, shifty...felt right out of the comics for me.

When the Batmobile started up for the first time, I think I giggled like a kid. And...just go see it.

Just came back from watching it. Gonna keep this totally spoiler free.

Cinematography was excellent. It's a beautiful looking film, hands down. Action and choreography are top notch. The performances are great. Pattinson was actually quite good I thought. You actually see him do detective work which I really appreciated. Not only that, but you actually see him get a couple of things wrong which was a genuine surprise. I think the soundtrack was absolutely killer as well.

What really kills this movie for me is the length. It's just way too long. I got very invested very quickly, but for the last hour I was pretty checked out. It's a real shame because it does so many things right. It's absolutely worth a watch though, I'd recommend a viewing for anyone even remotely interested in superhero movies.

IMO, Robert Pattison was previously a B or C tier actor and to me it is always nice to see an actor advance or improve their career via legit performances. I don't know if I'll go see this in theaters, but I'm glad he's progressing so much.

So regarding it being not an origin story, but still kinda that (recommend avoiding these if you plan to see the movie):






Automatically Appended Next Post:

trexmeyer wrote:
IMO, Robert Pattison was previously a B or C tier actor and to me it is always nice to see an actor advance or improve their career via legit performances. I don't know if I'll go see this in theaters, but I'm glad he's progressing so much.

I don't think he was ever actually that. It was just that Twilight was B/C material. His body of work over the past 5-10 years is really good.

Enjoyed it. It is an origin story but not the usual one, which is nice. The cinematography was really nice and the music was fitting. It was good to see it really be more of a mystery with Bat's actually getting to be a detective.

Riddler starts out strong but kind of falls into movie crazy by the end. On the other hand Farrel's Penguin was always fun when on screen.

His relationship with both Kyle and and Gordon with both well done and the groups had good chemistry.

I saw it pointed out somewhere else but apparently the name Batman is only said once or twice the whole time. The letters left behind by Riddler have it written on them but it isn't spoken out loud. I can only think of the one time it was said but there cou8ld have been another I am forgetting.

Well, I am only really familiar with cinematic Batman, from the 1960's to all the other ones. This one definitely set the right tone and ambiance for a "dark knight' style of film.

Killer score, great shots, and strong performances all around. However, the character "arc" and the mystery are no great shakes, but fit in as this is a comic book movie.

Riddler was suitably modernized to be a villain for our time and place, while Penguin was a bit more of a throwback style villain to the days of big organized crime.

Hard not to compare it to the story and themes of Daredevil S1. Overall, I think a cinematic viewing is the way to go, but there was something about this that was lacking? Perhaps the fact that many of the best set-pieces were blown in the trailer, which left me feeling a bit hollow about the whole thing? That or I have seen too many batman movies, cartoons, etc.

Waiting for a sober comparison of this film and the Dark Knight.

For me, Christopher Nolan's weakness was character development. As enjoyable as his films are, crafting authentic / believable backstories for the unreal characters and events depicted seemed a little beyond his reach.

Not that I don't trust the praise being heaped in this thread. Really a question of whether I see it in theaters or after it reaches streaming.

It is not a perfect film, but I think watching at home will lose a bit of something from the theatre version.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Waiting for a sober comparison of this film and the Dark Knight.

For me, Christopher Nolan's weakness was character development. As enjoyable as his films are, crafting authentic / believable backstories for the unreal characters and events depicted seemed a little beyond his reach.

Not that I don't trust the praise being heaped in this thread. Really a question of whether I see it in theaters or after it reaches streaming.

Well, Bruce/Batman definitely has some character development in this one. It's kinda what the movie's about. I feel like if I got into comparisons with TDK, I'd spoil the film for you.

I can say this...although both are "grounded", The Batman has much more style. This has the visual flourish and choreography that TDK was missing at times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
It is not a perfect film, but I think watching at home will lose a bit of something from the theatre version.

Well, it's a superhero film. But I think it's one of the best SH films ever made.

I'm sure the effect of the Batmobile starting up in IMAX will be lost in the old home theater.

 gorgon wrote:
I'm sure the effect of the Batmobile starting up in IMAX will be lost in the old home theater.

I didn't see it in IMAX but at a Dolby Deluxe with big comfy seats that also have speakers and the moment the engine came on the entire theater started to shake and rumble. It was awesome.

 Ahtman wrote:

Spoiler:

When I referred to it as an origin story but not the usual one I was referring to Batman/Bruce actually having a character arc. It isn't about how he decided to wear a costume and beat people up but how he went from angry punchy man to realizing that he needed to inspire people. At the start he is says how he has been fighting crime for two years but it doesn't seem to be helping. In the early scene where he saves the guy near the subway even after stopping the gang the victim is still scared of him. By the end he is literally a light leading people out of the darkness. The shot where he is putting the person on a stretcher and they are scared and he holds there hand and nods to them to let them know it is ok is one of my favorites in the film.

The part where the different criminals are looking at the dark and imagining he is there is a pretty good moment as well.

Yep. I really, really appreciate his arc in this one.



FWIW, I read some comments from Reeves that any sequels will similarly have an emotional arc for Bruce. I think this franchise is in really good hands.

Paul Dano’s Riddler was really the best part of the movie for me. Much like Heath Ledger’s take on the Joker, he gives it a creepy and evil tone without making it look too cartoony.

I'm surprised that there isn't more conversation going on about this terrific film. It's doing good work at the box office, so I know people are seeing it. I've seen it a second time already.

Here's a story point that I haven't seen people discuss much:

You know what shocked me the most? It was funny, genuinely funny.
I went into it with low expectations and honestly, it blew me away. The story was good, the visuals were gorgeous (Gotham actually felt like Gotham and not just "American Cities copy-pasted"), the score was brilliant and the cast was awesome. It felt like Batman: The Animated Series but a little bit more grown-up (in a good way).

 Gert wrote:
You know what shocked me the most? It was funny, genuinely funny.
I went into it with low expectations and honestly, it blew me away. The story was good, the visuals were gorgeous (Gotham actually felt like Gotham and not just "American Cities copy-pasted"), the score was brilliant and the cast was awesome. It felt like Batman: The Animated Series but a little bit more grown-up (in a good way).

Spoiler:

I think the best part was how I thought it was going to end about 3 times, and it just kept going and getting better.

"You could have pulled your punch."
"I did."



The Batman-Gordon relationship was easily the best of any Batman movie. Like perfect.

And yeah, I've heard a few complaints about the third act/ending, and I don't get them at all.

 gorgon wrote:
And yeah, I've heard a few complaints about the third act/ending, and I don't get them at all.

I think it is because people (read internet nerds) are obsessed with the idea that Batman is the opposite of Superman. Where Superman is openly good and a symbol of hope, Batman is a grim reaper of justice who only doesn't kill because of a moral code. The reality is that Batman can be that but is better when he isn't some edgelord fantasy that beats up all the criminals all the time. Stuff like when he sits with Ace as she dies in JLU or when he helps ex-cons or people in need get jobs at Wayne Enterprises so they don't go back to their old ways. That's the one I think we're hopefully going to see with this trilogy. Still dark when the needs must but a good person when it matters most.

It felt like the team making this understood that the relationships between the characters are what make the quality go up, not the number of fights, car chases and explosions.

 Gert wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
And yeah, I've heard a few complaints about the third act/ending, and I don't get them at all.

I think it is because people (read internet nerds) are obsessed with the idea that Batman is the opposite of Superman. Where Superman is openly good and a symbol of hope, Batman is a grim reaper of justice who only doesn't kill because of a moral code. The reality is that Batman can be that but is better when he isn't some edgelord fantasy that beats up all the criminals all the time. Stuff like when he sits with Ace as she dies in JLU or when he helps ex-cons or people in need get jobs at Wayne Enterprises so they don't go back to their old ways. That's the one I think we're hopefully going to see with this trilogy. Still dark when the needs must but a good person when it matters most.

I really hope we do get more of that. I am so over what you described above. My ideal Batman is, of course, TAS Batman; the empathetic one from Harley's Holiday. This could hew a lot closer to that, depending on how it goes.

 Gert wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
And yeah, I've heard a few complaints about the third act/ending, and I don't get them at all.

I think it is because people (read internet nerds) are obsessed with the idea that Batman is the opposite of Superman. Where Superman is openly good and a symbol of hope, Batman is a grim reaper of justice who only doesn't kill because of a moral code. The reality is that Batman can be that but is better when he isn't some edgelord fantasy that beats up all the criminals all the time. Stuff like when he sits with Ace as she dies in JLU or when he helps ex-cons or people in need get jobs at Wayne Enterprises so they don't go back to their old ways. That's the one I think we're hopefully going to see with this trilogy. Still dark when the needs must but a good person when it matters most.

We all know the real Batman...

Warren Ellis wrote in 2002:

It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker's nipples off.

I mean, treatment doesn't work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.

A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.

Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.

I mean, who's going to argue?

"Batman, I've heard disturbing reports that you ripped the Joker's nipples off."

"Choke on my feth, Commissioner Gordon."

"…okay."

I mean, crime in Gotham City doesn't exactly seem to be affected by a man dressed as a bat flapping around the place. But no-one disobeys a man wearing a necklace of human nipples.

"I'm Batman" isn't cutting it in the striking-fear-into-their-hearts stakes. But "I'm Batman — and I'm here for your nipples" is an entirely different proposition.

Criminals would see the error of their ways after a man in a black leather pervert suit had their nipples off with the edge of a Batarang, you mark my words. Or a Bat-Denipplizer.

I'm off to ring DC Comics.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Spoiler:

The friend made by the antagonist during the ending part was the only real cringe I felt. Otherwise, very decent version of the character.

It felt like the team making this understood that the relationships between the characters are what make the quality go up, not the number of fights, car chases and explosions.

Here's a deleted scene:

I'm glad they cut it. I am beyond over the Joker.

That doesn't feel like a deleted scene from the film but a fan made thing. More of a Ledger Joker impression than what we heard in the film; I recognized Barry's voice and this is not the same voice.

Edit: To be clear it is from the cutting room floor but it really doesn't feel like it fit and I'm glad it wasn't used.

Well I definitely like that Joker more than Leto's. But I agree with Ouze. Batman has other compelling villains. Lets see more of them.

Saw it over the weekend finally and really a fantastic film. My one actual major gripe is that the action relies entirely too much on the suit being completely bulletproof. He just tanks way too many shots, particularly towards the end, which was really set up to be the perfect kind of Arkham game takedown scenario.

My other big gripe is that Pattinson is just... terrible as Bruce. That's kind of the role he's given, being far more of a child that hasn't really allowed himself to become a part of Gotham. In truth, it serves the movie well and gives him room for growth and in many ways the ending serves as an origin story for the Bruce Wayne persona, but its very odd throughout the film for everything to flip to "the grownups are talking" when he's not wearing the mask.

Any complaints I have about Pattinson as Wayne vanish completely under the cowl. He's a phenomenal Batman. As a film, its probably not as good as The Dark Knight but I think its the first time we've seen a film really do Batman justice as a complelling character in his own film. The detective work is consistently engaging and gives Batman time to develop a rapport with not just Gordon and Alfred and Catwoman, but minor characters and villains and the works.

Capping off with that ending:

How would folk say it compares to my favourite visual media Batman, the TV Series Gotham?

The city itself feels like Gotham which I think is the killer part. The DK trilogy was just different US cities spliced together and the tiny bit of Gotham we got in the WB stuff didn't really feel different from Metropolis because all those movies were far too dark.
The Gotham show did it well (until it went a bit bananas) and The Batman follows on the same way.

Nice.

Might go see it this weekend.

The movie is fundamentally The Long Halloween, more than the Dark Knight was. As such, the city is far more of a character than past films.

 Lance845 wrote:
Well I definitely like that Joker more than Leto's. But I agree with Ouze. Batman has other compelling villains. Lets see more of them.

My gut is telling me rather strongly that the next film isn't Joker-centric. That's what Marvel would do with that kind of tease, but I don't think his appearance is meant that way. Reeves said he kept it in to make it very clear that things will get worse for Gotham now. It also lets us know that there IS a Joker in that universe. But Reeves talked about there needing to be an emotional journey in these films, so I think he's NOT going to come at it from a 'here's your obligatory Joker film' checklist perspective. The villains will be chosen to serve the story.

Also, I've noticed he's brought up the Arkham series a couple times when talking about this in interviews. Might mean something.

I think the important thing for a sequel is that its not really focused on a specific villain. This movie juggles so many so deftly because they're all pieces to a larger story. I feel like the correct follow up would be something like the Owls or Black Glove (or a hybrid of the two considering their similarities). Given how the Joker is used in the latter story, I can definitely see this version of the Joker being woven in pretty effectively similar to how we see the Penguin here. He just really can't be given center stage.

I REALLY do enjoy that this story is set up for Batman creating the Bruce Wayne Persona. People treat him like the kid because nobody has seen him since he was a kid. He's been a recluse while he traveled around learning to be Batman. And Batman IS who he really is. The stuff with the mayor and the idea that terrifying the criminal element isn't enough. It's all pointing to him realizing that he needs Bruce Wayne to drive social changes while Batman fights the crime element.

It's the first movie to really nail that aspect of Batman as well. That Bruce is a mask he wears for the sake of the mission.

I really hope the next movie is some kind of take on No Man's Land.

I took myself to the The Batman yesterday, and enjoyed it immensely. I don't have a lot of observations that haven't already been made in this thread, but I will say that the movie never felt long to me. It was long-- really long-- but it never really dragged or slowed down. To my amateur eye, that's fine film making.

I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

Fair enough. Personally I can't stand that stuff. If nothing else it immediately took me out of the film's immersion, my personal disagreements with the specific message and opinion that it was an unnecessary insertion into the film notwithstanding. There were other things too. The new mayor for example. What did she add to the storyline exactly? Other than being someone batman could rescue at the end, pretty much nothing. No epistemologically relevant character traits, no moral message; BUT she does possess a certain 'identity' and that seems, at least to me to be her only reason for being in the plot at all.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

There were other things too. The new mayor for example. What did she add to the storyline exactly? Other than being someone batman could rescue at the end, pretty much nothing. No epistemologically relevant character traits, no moral message; BUT she does possess a certain 'identity' and that seems, at least to me to be her only reason for being in the plot at all.

She is there to talk to Bruce and insert the idea that his family's legacy has been one of charity and social support which is reinforced when Alfred talks about the family Legacy. Something Bruce denies throughout the movie because he is so single minded in his mission to be Batman. Her presence at the end when she gets rescued is there to show how people are fighting for change from another angle. That these people are allies that need support. Coupled with Batman not being enough, that things are not getting better when it's just Batman as a monster in the dark, that not only does Batman need to be a symbol of hope for the people who are innocent, but that Bruce needs to be a symbol for social and structural change the way the new Mayor is.

Her character is a perfect reflection of the "more" that Bruce Wayne could and should be doing. And she is pivotal in the story for being an echo and outspoken version of Alfred's unspoken message about what the Waynes used to be and should be through him. She is both a moral message and a call to action.

How you could interpret that as a damsel in distress role is beyond me.

 LunarSol wrote:

My other big gripe is that Pattinson is just... terrible as Bruce. That's kind of the role he's given, being far more of a child that hasn't really allowed himself to become a part of Gotham. In truth, it serves the movie well and gives him room for growth and in many ways the ending serves as an origin story for the Bruce Wayne persona, but its very odd throughout the film for everything to flip to "the grownups are talking" when he's not wearing the mask.

Any complaints I have about Pattinson as Wayne vanish completely under the cowl. He's a phenomenal Batman. As a film, its probably not as good as The Dark Knight but I think its the first time we've seen a film really do Batman justice as a complelling character in his own film. The detective work is consistently engaging and gives Batman time to develop a rapport with not just Gordon and Alfred and Catwoman, but minor characters and villains and the works.

Yes, this is the thing which probably struck me the most in the movie. I had heard very little previews, two friends saw it, one liked it, other didn't. Didn't even see the trailers because honestly I am not such a huge Batman fan though I have seen all the movies.

A constant with Batman movies is that the leads almost without exception cut it big time as Bruce Wayne. Not all of them are great Batman (Batmen?). I suppose this makes sense. A popular handsome Hollywood actor only has to be himself to be a convincing Bruce Wayne. But with Pattinson, it was completely opposite. We see him first as Batman, and this is a great choice because he is pretty damn great in that. Then after some time he puts on the Bruce Wayne guise...and he is terrible. He doesn't come across at all like a billionaire, or even a moderately wealthy person. He is just some average emo kid. It was a really weird dynamic in the movie. Any way, I much better it that way: better to have a great Batman and lousy Bruce Wayne, than other way around.

The glaring problem for me was Catwoman. I think Kravitz was miscast here. She had no chemistry with Pattinson and although she is very beautiful, she lacks the charisma and glamour Pfeiffer and Hathaway brought. On her defence, Catwoman was mis-written too. They tried too hard to make her a sympathetic figure. See, she had horrible childhood, lives in a dump, tries to stand up for her roommate, major daddy issues. Catwoman is a criminal. She might not be actually evil in he fullest sense of the word, but she is not a saint. She lies, steals and cheats, and she occassionally might kill. That's what makes the Batman-Catwoman dynamic exciting: they're conflicted about each other. Here she was just a co-heroine and it destroyed her character. In addition, too much was revealed of her, too soon. Catwoman should have certain mystery around her.

As for the movie in itself....I thought the first half, or maybe two-thirds were fantastic. Slow, sure, and I am not sure how much rewatch value it has, but it felt really dark, moody yet different and original compared to earlier Batman movies. It sold me this Batman just as much as Batman Begins. However, the movie collapses upon itself during the last third. Ending drags too much, revelations about the villains are mostly tepid in nature, and the end scene gets into 'Dark Knight Rises' territory of megalomania not in a good way. And I really hope they don't put the Joker in for the next sequel. Enough already.

Backfire wrote:

The glaring problem for me was Catwoman. I think Kravitz was miscast here. She had no chemistry with Pattinson and although she is very beautiful, she lacks the charisma and glamour Pfeiffer and Hathaway brought. On her defence, Catwoman was mis-written too. They tried too hard to make her a sympathetic figure. See, she had horrible childhood, lives in a dump, tries to stand up for her roommate, major daddy issues. Catwoman is a criminal. She might not be actually evil in he fullest sense of the word, but she is not a saint. She lies, steals and cheats, and she occassionally might kill. That's what makes the Batman-Catwoman dynamic exciting: they're conflicted about each other. Here she was just a co-heroine and it destroyed her character. In addition, too much was revealed of her, too soon. Catwoman should have certain mystery around her.

This is the way Selina Kyle is often portrayed in "prequel" comics. More sympathetic of the criminal nature of the city and often dancing around the actual Catwoman persona as much as possible. I think there's probably as much room to grow her into a more traditional version of the character after the end as there is to see Pattinson take on a more traditional Bruce Wayne.

Maybe, but usually villains get more, not less, symphatetic when their characters are deepened.

You didn't think her mother being killed, her being abandoned by her father, her friend being murdered, and then finding out it was your father that murdered your mother was sympathetic?

Finally saw it a few days ago, currently amidst my second viewing.

Pretty damn amazing. My only complaint is that they made Batman damn near Ironman-esque with the amount of direct hits he took from gunfire.

 Lance845 wrote:
You didn't think her mother being killed, her being abandoned by her father, her friend being murdered, and then finding out it was your father that murdered your mother was sympathetic?

None of that justifies

Don't get me started on her

I just read that Patterson has been signed for the sequel to The Batman.

Need to find a proper link now......

I did see a headline somewhere that a sequel had been confirmed. Didn’t actually read the article though.

That's pretty much all that's been said. Sequel confirmed. FWIW, Pattinson's original contract was for 3 films, so he wasn't really signed for the sequel, its just them confirming that they're going to continue with the agreement.

I liked this movie because the main character was Batman. He was Batman for 90% of the movie.

Most Batman movies, even the truly excellent ones, only have him in the suit during action sequences. The rest of the time it's Bruce Wayne always struggling with the duality of who is is and who Batman is.

Not with this film. It's Batman nearly 100% of the time, and the times where he's Bruce Wayne you can see it's really uncomfortable for him.

Seeing him work with the GCPD, who are in equal parts awe and fear of him, was fantastic. I hope that continues as we move forward in this world. I also really liked how the 'fear' aspect of Batman was emphasised, especially in that opening sequence where the criminals stop their activities just at the thought that Batman might be hiding in that shadow over there. And the Batmobile was less car and more monster. It was excellent.

And I liked the cut Joker scene. I like the idea that the Joker is someone Batman has already 'dealt with' in this universe, and that he visits him Hannibal Lecter style.

I wonder if they're brave enough to keep their powder dry on ole Chuckles until the third movie and do something different with the next one, so everything is already firmly established in this version of the world before Joker escapes Arkham, and then we can have them really go at it for a whole movie.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seeing him work with the GCPD, who are in equal parts awe and fear of him, was fantastic. I hope that continues as we move forward in this world. I also really liked how the 'fear' aspect of Batman was emphasised, especially in that opening sequence where the criminals stop their activities just at the thought that Batman might be hiding in that shadow over there. And the Batmobile was less car and more monster. It was excellent.

And I liked the cut Joker scene. I like the idea that the Joker is someone Batman has already 'dealt with' in this universe, and that he visits him Hannibal Lecter style.

I caught this on HBO and it's probably the first movie since Shazam to come out of DC I'd consider truly good.

It's also unique among Batman films and DCU films. This movie is a detective story. With a superhero. They finally figured out (after what, more than a half-dozen failures?) what it is that makes the MCU so consistently successful; genre flicks with superheroes. And they did great. The movie is maybe a bit too long but w/e. I liked how it's watching Batman actually be a detective, pursuing leads, investigating clues, trying to put a puzzle together. The choice of Riddler for an enemy was a good one even if he has little in relation to the comic character. The only part I'd really criticize is that Catwoman felt a bit tacked on. IMO, her subplot could have been cut and nothing really would have been lost except unnecessary runtime but that's a small complaint I think.

Kudos to DC. They finally found the formula that's been bloody obvious for 10 years and put out a solid film with their staple characters. I enjoyed Patterson a lot more than I thought I would, though I think Gordon's actor was too good for being second fiddle XD Can we get a Gordon movie? I'd watch a Godron movie with this guy playing Gordon.

Jeffrey Wright is good in pretty much anything he's in. I'm still convinced his character on Boardwalk Empire was a vampire...

I think we would've got a GCPD show if that hadn't somehow mutated into the upcoming Arkham Asylum show, which sounds far less interesting to me. I always wanted a Law & Order: Gotham City, where it focuses on the GCPD and the DA's office (with Harvey Dent being an optimistic coin-flipping new assistant DA to start with who eventually becomes Two-Face after several seasons of getting to know him), and where the Batman is a periphery character who only shows up occasionally.

Doubt we'll ever get that...

Anyway, back to The Batman. Yes. A detective story. And a very noir one at that. It's almost never day time, and it's pretty much raining constantly. The atmosphere of Gotham felt oppressive, as it should, making it a big part of the story.

I felt Catwoman was included so they could go "Look! Catwoman!" and not much else, not that I minded her in the film. I like that it touched on her father really was.

Turning Riddler into a more 7even-esque serial killer rather than a tight green suited man with a question mark cane was a good choice. The performance was outstanding.

More Alfred though, next time. Andy Serkis never gets enough to do in anything he's in.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wonder if they're brave enough to keep their powder dry on ole Chuckles until the third movie and do something different with the next one, so everything is already firmly established in this version of the world before Joker escapes Arkham, and then we can have them really go at it for a whole movie.

I think the best use for this Joker would be something similar to how he appears in the Black Glove. Particularly if they use the Court of Owls as a stand in for the Black Glove, I think that could come together into a worthy follow up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The choice of Riddler for an enemy was a good one even if he has little in relation to the comic character.

He actually has a lot in common with the comic character.... sort of. The villain of this movie is really Hush, who has always been pretty intertwined with the Riddler to the point where they just made them the same character in the animated adaptation. Here we get a similar merger of the characters. The Riddler's name is revealed to be Edward (Last Name Unknown), but all the clues point to him being the son of the reporter Falcone killed. The reporter is T. (Thomas) Elliot, the real name of Hush in the comics which means the Riddler is probably supposed to really be Edward Elliot.

It’s up on Amazon Prime in the U.K. now. Giving it a watch, as I’m having a quiet night in before moving house tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’m genuinely enjoying this! Whilst Keaton will always be my Batman, this is better than Batman Begins trilogy in my book.

He actually has a lot in common with the comic character.... sort of. The villain of this movie is really Hush, who has always been pretty intertwined with the Riddler to the point where they just made them the same character in the animated adaptation. Here we get a similar merger of the characters. The Riddler's name is revealed to be Edward (Last Name Unknown), but all the clues point to him being the son of the reporter Falcone killed. The reporter is T. (Thomas) Elliot, the real name of Hush in the comics which means the Riddler is probably supposed to really be Edward Elliot.

Oh.

I did notice the Hush connection in the film but assumed it was meant to be a reference. I really known know about Hush because of the animated movie.

Whilst late to this thread’s party. My thoughts, but spoiler tagged.



However I do wonder if this is making Bad Sequelitis more of a foregone conclusion?

To be fair, the only other thing I know Pattinson was in is Twilight where 'just a pretty face' was basically the role.

 LordofHats wrote:

He actually has a lot in common with the comic character.... sort of. The villain of this movie is really Hush, who has always been pretty intertwined with the Riddler to the point where they just made them the same character in the animated adaptation. Here we get a similar merger of the characters. The Riddler's name is revealed to be Edward (Last Name Unknown), but all the clues point to him being the son of the reporter Falcone killed. The reporter is T. (Thomas) Elliot, the real name of Hush in the comics which means the Riddler is probably supposed to really be Edward Elliot.

Oh.

I did notice the Hush connection in the film but assumed it was meant to be a reference. I really known know about Hush because of the animated movie.

My favorite Hush instance has to be in a comic where Batman goes undercover as Hush, and Penguin tells him both he and Hush have a poor Bruce Wayne impression.

Pattinson impressed me in the film Cosmopolis.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wonder if they're brave enough to keep their powder dry on ole Chuckles until the third movie and do something different with the next one, so everything is already firmly established in this version of the world before Joker escapes Arkham, and then we can have them really go at it for a whole movie.

I think the best use for this Joker would be something similar to how he appears in the Black Glove. Particularly if they use the Court of Owls as a stand in for the Black Glove, I think that could come together into a worthy follow up.

Yeah, I think too many people have their undies in a wad over that Joker cameo. It doesn't mean anything other than that there's a Joker in that world. If the sequel was going to be a lazy, ordinary superhero movie, sure, the next film would be a Joker vehicle. I think it's pretty clear that Reeves isn't a lazy filmmaker, and that we can trust that the villain will be chosen to serve the story he wants to tell about Bruce/Bats.

I think Court of Owls almost has to be coming at some point. It fits very well into this Gotham.

It was good. The setting seemed more real and less contrived than Nolan's.