BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - - Part 26

[regwec]

Bale was right to leave when he did. TDKR had a definite sense of finality, if nothing else.

 

[BvS117]

Bruce Wayne

 

[John-An]

Bale is such a gentleman, I will never forget his good performance on Batman and his great one as Bruce Wayne.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I commend Nolan and Bale for being adamant on their 3 and done stance, because now we can finally get the Batman I've waited years to see

 

[craigdbfan]

I commend Nolan and Bale for being adamant on his 3 and done stance, because now we can finally get the Batman I've waited years to see

That's kind of a backhanded comment m8.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

That's kind of a backhanded comment m8.

 

[hafizbat]

It's going to be extremely hard for Batfleck to top Bale, aside from the aesthetics.

 

[matt47]

Not gonna lie, I thought this was gonna be a link to Bane saying, "For you"

 

[DeadPresident]

The funny thing about the people criticizing Nolan/Bale's TDKT are the same ones who would be calling for a more "grounded" interpretation if they got a fantastic Batgod iteration first. If we got Affleck/Snyder Batman first, which is probably going to be a lot more open to bending what he's physically capable of, people would be yearning for a more realistic approach. Batman fans are pretty lucky that they've got numerous renditions of the character so far, not just one cinematic representation.

 

[matt47]

The funny thing about the people criticizing Nolan/Bale's TDKT are the same ones who would be calling for a more "grounded" interpretation if they got a fantastic Batgod iteration first. If we got Affleck/Snyder Batman first, which is probably going to be a lot more open to bending what he's physically capable of, people would be yearning for a more realistic approach. Batman fans are pretty lucky that they've got numerous renditions of the character so far, not just one cinematic representation.

No doubt. It's just always gonna happen.

 

[matt47]

Especially in Batman Begins.

I love Begins so damn much. It's my fav.
You know what, I might watch it soon t:

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The funny thing about the people criticizing Nolan/Bale's TDKT are the same ones who would be calling for a more "grounded" interpretation if they got a fantastic Batgod iteration first. If we got Affleck/Snyder Batman first, which is probably going to be a lot more open to bending what he's physically capable of, people would be yearning for a more realistic approach. Batman fans are pretty lucky that they've got numerous renditions of the character so far, not just one cinematic representation.

eh, i've never been one to ask for realism in comic book movies, just good movies overall.

i don't read comic books/watch CBM's for realism.

 

[DeadPresident]

eh, i've never been one to ask for realism in comic book movies, just good movies overall.

i don't read comic books/watch CBM's for realism.

What you watch them for is up to you, but speaking with a moderate knowledge of the Batman comics a more grounded take is quite accurate to comic source material. A lot of the DKT haters claim "Batman is stronger, Batman fights better, Batman is more X, Y, Z" when Nolan actually depicted how Batman and Bruce are in comics like Year One, The Long Halloween and some of the older story lines. Now that we've had a trilogy of grounded Batman everyone is crawling out of the woodwork saying a more supernatural take is "the real Batman".

Now they want him to be able to keep up with Clayface and Solomon Grundy while dodging freeze rays and being flung through buildings by Man-Bat. Weirdly, the people complaining about Batgod invading BvS are probably the same ones that say Nolan's Batman wasn't strong/smart/powerful enough. My point is just that people won't appreciate TDKT properly until quite some time has gone by, and they're clamoring for a less restrained take because of the recency of TDKT. Not because a less grounded take is somehow more faithful to the mythos, despite what they say to rationalize it.

Something that also occurred to me is people don't seem to grasp the historic relevance of TDKT having the tone that it does. Before BB the GA's last encounter with Batman on the big screen had a camp and highly fantastic atmosphere. Mr Freeze's suit ran on diamonds (So "ice" being slang for diamonds means they can somehow generate cold?) and Poison Ivy had her trademark pheromones and poisoned lips. If they were going to get anybody to buy into the concept of rebooting Batman they had to go to a polar extreme to not be bunched in with the ridiculous Schumacher movies. The only way Batman would reenter the GA's notice positively would be to have a very restrained take on the source material, instead of trying to make an episode of BTAS come to life on screen.

 

[matt47]

What you watch them for is up to you, but speaking with a moderate knowledge of the Batman comics a more grounded take is quite accurate to comic source material. A lot of the DKT haters claim "Batman is stronger, Batman fights better, Batman is more X, Y, Z" when Nolan actually depicted how Batman and Bruce are in comics like Year One, The Long Halloween and some of the older story lines. Now that we've had a trilogy of grounded Batman everyone is crawling out of the woodwork saying a more supernatural take is "the real Batman".

Now they want him to be able to keep up with Clayface and Solomon Grundy while dodging freeze rays and being flung through buildings by Man-Bat. Weirdly, the people complaining about Batgod invading BvS are probably the same ones that say Nolan's Batman wasn't strong/smart/powerful enough. My point is just that people won't appreciate TDKT properly until quite some time has gone by, and they're clamoring for a less restrained take because of the recency of TDKT. Not because a less grounded take is somehow more faithful to the mythos, despite what they say to rationalize it.

I'm fine with them having those far fetch villains, just make it look like they're in a real world. Just like Aliens coming to Earth in MoS.

 

[Jekecy]

What you watch them for is up to you, but speaking with a moderate knowledge of the Batman comics a more grounded take is quite accurate to comic source material. A lot of the DKT haters claim "Batman is stronger, Batman fights better, Batman is more X, Y, Z" when Nolan actually depicted how Batman and Bruce are in comics like Year One, The Long Halloween and some of the older story lines. Now that we've had a trilogy of grounded Batman everyone is crawling out of the woodwork saying a more supernatural take is "the real Batman".

These aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'm fine with them having those far fetch villains, just make it look like they're in a real world. Just like Aliens coming to Earth in MoS.

That's a little different. If you bring aliens into it you can say "Oh, they're from a different planet, they can just do amazing things we don't have to explain it". How does one explain Clayface, Man-Bat, Poison Ivy and Solomon Grundy without descending into B&R territory? It's a fine line. It's a line I think Snyder can walk, but people disregard the Nolan trilogy now like it was an inconvenient necessity to get to "the real Batman", which makes me wonder how much of the history they know about outside the Arkham Games a few BTAS episodes.

 

[Iceman]

I have a feeling BatFleck will be my favourite Batman & Bruce Wayne and if he is that won't diminish Bale's great work.

 

[DeadPresident]

These aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree, but a few people seem to think the real Batman is the one that survives Grundy's punches whereas a Batman that has to adhere to inconveniences like the rules of physics is a "watered down impostor". My point is there is no "real" Batman, just different versions. Nolan's TDKT was a good iteration of a certain view on Batman, we're about to get a different one. I just look at some people's responses to TDKT and shake my head at how entitled they can be that they somehow "deserve" all the different versions of Batman to be brought on screen.

Which other CB character has had 3 different conceptualizations of his universe brought to the silver screen? Batman fans have to be some of the most needy people I've ever seen articulate their thoughts.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

you're right, there is no one true batman.

I just prefer the one who shares a universe with other superheroes.

 

[Jekecy]

That's a little different. If you bring aliens into it you can say "Oh, they're from a different planet, they can just do amazing things we don't have to explain it". How does one explain Clayface, Man-Bat, Poison Ivy and Solomon Grundy without descending into B&R territory? It's a fine line. It's a line I think Snyder can walk, but people disregard the Nolan trilogy now like it was an inconvenient necessity to get to "the real Batman", which makes me wonder how much of the history they know about outside the Arkham Games a few BTAS episodes.

I don't think so at all. B&R territory is a result of merchandising taking precedent over genuine storytelling. And it's a prime example of throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks.

All those characters you've named have done just fine in "serious" stories. Fantasy has its place, regardless of tone.

Take alien invasions and compare the likes of Signs, with that of Mars Attacks, and to Transformers. Generally the same overall premise for the antagonists, but worlds apart in execution.

I agree, but a few people seem to think the real Batman is the one that survives Grundy's punches whereas a Batman that has to adhere to inconveniences like the rules of physics is a "watered down impostor". My point is there is no "real" Batman, just different versions. Nolan's TDKT was a good iteration of a certain view on Batman, we're about to get a different one. I just look at some people's responses to TDKT and shake my head at how entitled they can be that they somehow "deserve" all the different versions of Batman to be brought on screen.

Which other CB character has had 3 different conceptualizations of his universe brought to the silver screen? Batman fans have to be some of the most needy people I've ever seen articulate their thoughts.

Batman definitely is one of the more flexible fictional icons in recent memory, though I do think the advent of the lighter tone popularised in the 50s and 60s allowed the character to go on the other end of that spectrum. Thus the return to the darker roots make it come around full circle and gives the impression Batman can be as dark or as light as we want it to be.

Moving forward, I don't think the brand will have that luxury. I find it hard to fathom the fanbase would allow the property to dip its toes into that territory again, long-term.

 

[KillerWolf]

What you watch them for is up to you, but speaking with a moderate knowledge of the Batman comics a more grounded take is quite accurate to comic source material. A lot of the DKT haters claim "Batman is stronger, Batman fights better, Batman is more X, Y, Z" when Nolan actually depicted how Batman and Bruce are in comics like Year One, The Long Halloween and some of the older story lines. Now that we've had a trilogy of grounded Batman everyone is crawling out of the woodwork saying a more supernatural take is "the real Batman".

While it is a fair point, "problem" with Batman is that, while being a grounded character in a matter of seeing him getting hurt and bleeding almost every night when he goes on his "patrol" and having certain limitations due to the fact that he is indeed just a human, he's also supposed to be an extraordinary character, a person who trained himself into becoming the best a human can be, in both mind and body.

And that's where Nolan's version falls short in my opinion. I strongly disagree with the notion "that everyone can be Batman", it's not just the training and will to do something, but also an inner strength that not every person posses nor can everyone achieve via meditation and martial arts. In a matter of speaking, it's actually unrealistic for someone who spends years devoting himself to both spiritual and physical training, to fight and act the way Nolan's Batman did. Though, it must be noticed that this version wasn't really trained in mind as much as in body.

For this reason, Batman can be a tough character to be done right. It has to be smartly thought-out to have him fall in that middle ground between batgod and a grounded character. He has to have usual human weaknesses, but also to be extraordinary enough to be able to ignore some of them.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

It's going to be extremely hard for Batfleck to top Bale, aside from the aesthetics.

It will be hard but not extremely hard. To me, Bale's performance praise has been a bit exagerrated. He was very good (don't get me wrong) but he can be topped. Just my opinion.

 

[Harley2004]

His Batman was good in BB. Not a bad Bruce Wayne, though.

Bale, was the best Bruce Wayne, has been.

 

[DeadPresident]

you're right, there is no one true batman.

I just prefer the one who shares a universe with other superheroes.

And that's cool. I can appreciate a bunch of different renditions. I like a gritty story where he's just a man in an outfit, but when he tussles with super powered entities that's also awesome. I just notice this trend for people to write off TDKT like little children that didn't get every single present they asked for for Christmas.

I don't see people talk about RDJ's Stark saying things like "Well Tony's actually taller, he's more of an alcoholic, the comics don't have him as the omnipotent god he seems like in the MCU, his repulsors are stronger in the cartoons". They just appreciate a good iteration of the character. It makes me want to tell people to just shut the **** up when they go on tirades about how they haven't been given the real Batman on screen like they're owed a debt.

 

[DeadPresident]

I don't think so at all. B&R territory is a result of merchandising taking precedent over genuine storytelling. And it's a prime example of throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks.

All those characters you've named have done just fine in "serious" stories. Fantasy has its place, regardless of tone.

Take alien invasions and compare the likes of Signs, with that of Mars Attacks, and to Transformers. Generally the same overall premise for the antagonists, but worlds apart in execution.

"Serious stories" were comics or cartoons. Making it fit on screen is different, but I agree with the notion. Serious and grounded or campy and fantastic don't need to be inseparable. Serious and fantastic is very possible, and Snyder could pull it off. Watchmen was a good combination between the very human and very bizarre, almost magical elements in comic books.

Batman definitely is one of the more flexible fictional icons in recent memory, though I do think the advent of the lighter tone popularised in the 50s and 60s allowed the character to go on the other end of that spectrum. Thus the return to the darker roots make it come around full circle and gives the impression Batman can be as dark or as light as we want it to be.

Moving forward, I don't think the brand will have that luxury. I find it hard to fathom the fanbase would allow the property to dip its toes into that territory again, long-term.

I think we'll see it again relatively soon. It's moved in cycles throughout the decades. When TDKT came out people loved it, but they've seen it and they want something new. The same reaction will follow the Snyder/Affleckverse.