I'm Reading Your Stuff: General News and Discussion Thread

[DarthSkywalker]

To me it's a balancing act with fans. Not all comic book ideas are great and should be open to adaptation.

I read court of owls and some of it probably wouldn't translate well to screen in Matt Reeves world, so if he adapts it I would see no issue, but would a superfan focus group be upset about the talons not being more or less zombies?

Would the focus group have been happy with the way dent was handled in the dark knight? He wasn't really like the comic book character but in the context of the movie it worked.

Those are the things that I think about when going down that route.

At the same time, I look at a movie like the Joker (2019) and think, why is this movie using DC IP when he clearly wanted to make his own movie and just used the character of joker.

I have always thought that marvel has had a certain luxury outside of spider-man and X-Men because on some level, there was a smaller sample of great stories for iron man, captain america and Thor which allowed them to take the best ideas and remix them into a great story without much backlash.

But then I see some of these influencer comic book posters and I roll my eyes. I get the game though, they need engagement so they say ridiculous things.

I honestly think very little outside of the general idea of the Court of Owls would work. Much like Riddler, it would probably be a very nuts and bots reinvention. Though even less recognizable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

While obviously there are certainly people out there who cry wolf a bit when they pretend that the only reason someone wouldn't like The Acolyte (haven't seen, no opinion on it) is bigotry, it's also not like most of the criticism of toxic fandom is coming from hardcore Disney era SW or comparable Content Soup fans looking for a defence. Look at this community: the posters who make up our own local woke mob mostly dislike all that stuff on an artistic level.

 

[flickchick85]

The decline of cinema/television into “content” coinciding with the rise of social media is not coincidental. Listening to “fans” has absolutely been detrimental to art in general. No question.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Fans are inherently unpleasable because fans are divided - that isn't even a bad thing necessarily, a lot of the time it's just taste. That's why the most beloved and accepted adaptations are usually ones that are very distinct and not something anyone knew they wanted. Ticking off one section of fandom's wishlist is just going to piss off an equally large number of them most of the time.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Fans are inherently unpleasable because fans are divided - that isn't even a bad thing necessarily, a lot of the time it's just taste. That's why the most beloved and accepted adaptations are usually ones that are very distinct and not something anyone knew they wanted. Ticking off one section of fandom's wishlist is just going to piss off an equally large number of them most of the time.

Seriously. I think back to a lot of my own criticism in the past and hate myself, because I was getting up in my feelings. Still do from time to time, but I'm trying to cut back.

Artists create. And in doing so, they are creating for themselves. It's the only real way to do it. The beauty of the artform of cinema is how many visions come together to create it. Even the idea of the committee, just robs art of it's entire essence. Turning it simply into a product to sell. Content. And why would you want something you love to just be content?

 

[Snow Queen]

I think Matt Reeves should just open up this website and start using it as a focus group and the villain of the sequel should be decided by whoever yells loudest.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

While I think its a stupid idea (more focus groups and movies made by committee is the last thing we need in Hollywood), I do think its time for studios and creatives to start remembering they are making entertainment. Your job is to give the audience their money's worth. That comes first.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Any random character could be used to do this though.

>The character whose origin story, where Batman displaying his compassion is paramount, literally won a goddamn emmy
>Any other random character

Like...does it make sense why I think he's the best fit? Cuz yeah, any "random character" could be used to do that. Doesn't mean they're the best bet. Freeze imo is the best bet.

So, with all that was built on in the first film, is Mr. Freeze going to just show up and put people with terminal illnesses in a meat locker to research how he can cure his Nora? Is she part of the corruption? Mr. Freeze is essentially an introverted anti-villain, so how would he bring the story to the climax of the saga?

Batman trying to deal with the overarcing corruption seeping into Gotham from the floods only to be blindsided by somebody putting people with terminal illnesses in meat lockers and freezing entire corporations to death with a reverse engineered flamethrower is probably the most Batman thing there is

So yeah, I'd be cool with that.

 

[BatLobster]

Fans are inherently unpleasable because fans are divided - that isn't even a bad thing necessarily, a lot of the time it's just taste. That's why the most beloved and accepted adaptations are usually ones that are very distinct and not something anyone knew they wanted. Ticking off one section of fandom's wishlist is just going to piss off an equally large number of them most of the time.

Well said.

To me the discussion begins and ends with the fact that a fan focus group could never in a million years have resulted in something like The Dark Knight. That movie for my money is still the epitome of a fan-based movie that honors the source material, and then takes enough liberties-- both stylistically and narratively, to deliver something that we didn't know we needed. The result was something surprising- shocking at times, yet wholly satisfying (for most people). For one, if a fan focus group was informing the decisions, they would've been against killing Harvey Dent, insisting he should be saved for a third film. Some fans might still feel that way to this day, but they would be wrong. We would've been denied one of the all-time greatest endings in a superhero movie and the story as a whole would've lost so much of its dramatic heft.

Now I do think it can be actually important for creators to have their finger on the pulse of what the fans want. Not so they can just blindly tick off boxes, but so they can effectively use expectations to their creative advantage. Sometimes to lean into them, other times to blindside us. Unfortunately, post-TLJ (not to kick up a hornet's nest), the whole "subvert expectations" thing has gotten a bad rap and it's sort of become a lazy go-to criticism. Leaving however you feel about that movie aside, I think most reasonable people agree that sometimes we do want our expectations subverted. And there's a lot of space between Captain America: The First Avenger and Joker: Folie à Deux to explore what that balance can be.

 

[Mindreaper21]

>The character whose origin story, where Batman displaying his compassion is paramount, literally won a goddamn emmy
>Any other random character

Like...does it make sense why I think he's the best fit? Cuz yeah, any "random character" could be used to do that. Doesn't mean they're the best bet. Freeze imo is the best bet.


Batman trying to deal with the overarcing corruption seeping into Gotham from the floods only to be blindsided by somebody putting people with terminal illnesses in meat lockers and freezing entire corporations to death with a reverse engineered flamethrower is probably the most Batman thing there is

So yeah, I'd be cool with that.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Mr. Freeze isn’t a great character. He has the greatest transformation of all of the Rogues gallery. I’m not debating that at all. I would even love to see a live action version of Heart of Ice someday. It’s easy to understand why people want to see Mr. Freeze.

I only have simple questions for this. Let’s say Mr. Freeze does show up. It’s a very high probability that he’s not going to be like the version that he’s popular for. Similar to how underwhelming Bane was in TDKR. Are people willing to sacrifice many of his recognizable elements just to have him? Personally, I wouldn’t.

My other major question that seems to go unanswered is where does this story go if he is in this? Sure, Mr. Freeze can just go around freezing people, but how would it connect to everything and where would it take this particular story? I’m not trying to be Mr. Anti-Freeze. I’m looking at this trilogy in 3 acts. Mr. Freeze would be showing up literally in the middle of everything and would be the pivotal character of the series to bring it to a climax. Is this leading to a Batman: Arkham City sort of story for some of you?

Does anyone see where I’m coming from on this?

 

[J.Drangal]

Just to briefly add some generality (or babbling) on the subject of the relation between fandom and creator : It's all about balance.

When you're in a creative position in popular fields and/or using popular properties, you're obliged to know and respond to a demand (from the market, from fans) from those who are going to finance the project. The trick is to find the balance between something relatively unifying so that it can be distributed, innovative to attract attention and intelligent (in the sense of well-constructed) to stimulate the public.

But perhaps beyond these notions, I think what bothers many viewers today is the feeling that their beloved licenses are in the hands of people who aren't always honestly interested in them, and who dissolve their identity in formulas, whether old recipes or new trends like “reinvention”, “deconstruction”, etc.
If we can talk about TLJ and put aside obvious trolls and haters, I think there was also a part of the public that was very interested in a breath of fresh air on the Lucas saga (I remember a positive emulation around the set pics) but felt, faced with the finished project, that the innovation wasn't “honest”, in the sense of a lack of genuine love for the material.
This could be contrasted with TDK where Nolan, even not being a huge Batman fan, was sufficiently seduced by the concept and its aura/identity to use it as a starting point to create something more personal...

Of course, it's all debatable, but I think you can, more often than not, identify whether that love is present or not.
To me, that's where it all starts and kind of a prerequisite to let myself be drawn into the vision of a writer/director/etc.
It's a matter of sincerity. But sincerity has to be a two-way street.
Many people also confuse their taste with everything else, and are unable to recognize the merits of an adaptation they don't like... and you get social medias.

 

[BobJM]

If Harvey’s in Pt. II and scarred by Penguin, then that’d be a great way to launch Arkham on HBO. With Harvey Dent as it’s newest patient…

He slowly descends into madness (setting up a Dark Victory-inspired Pt III) while in the Asylum, marked by group sessions with other notable patients: Joker, Riddler, Professor Pyg, Firefly, Scarecrow, and Victor Fries, the latter still grappling with the death of his wife after society/Wayne Enterprises stood in his way.

Jeremiah Arkham (Bruce’s uncle) runs the Asylum with his protege Dr. Harleen Quinzel. In some adaptation of Mad Love, Quinzel will help orchestrate an escape that allows Joker, Two Face, and all of the patients back into the streets of Gotham City for Batman (and Catwoman, Gordon, Alfred, and Robin) to face in Pt III.

 

[J.Drangal]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Mr. Freeze isn’t a great character. He has the greatest transformation of all of the Rogues gallery. I’m not debating that at all. I would even love to see a live action version of Heart of Ice someday. It’s easy to understand why people want to see Mr. Freeze.

I only have simple questions for this. Let’s say Mr. Freeze does show up. It’s a very high probability that he’s not going to be like the version that he’s popular for. Similar to how underwhelming Bane was in TDKR. Are people willing to sacrifice many of his recognizable elements just to have him? Personally, I wouldn’t.

My other major question that seems to go unanswered is where does this story go if he is in this? Sure, Mr. Freeze can just go around freezing people, but how would it connect to everything and where would it take this particular story? I’m not trying to be Mr. Anti-Freeze. I’m looking at this trilogy in 3 acts. Mr. Freeze would be showing up literally in the middle of everything and would be the pivotal character of the series to bring it to a climax. Is this leading to a Batman: Arkham City sort of story for some of you?

Does anyone see where I’m coming from on this?

Without wishing to be self-promotional ( ), a few pages ago I suggested a way of making Mr.Freeze exist in this universe without the whole “cold” aspect falling into gratuitous gimmickry.
To me, it's just a matter of a few more ideas to link this man's journey of revenge to common targets with the mob or the Court of Owls, etc.

I think the character can exist in this "Crime Saga" as the "wild card", the guy who moves forward on his own and shakes up everything and everyone else in an unpredictable way.
The figure of a solitary mercenary who is ultimately no stranger to "film noir".

And there are also all the thematic potentials about "vengeance" consuming the being.
In the manner of the Riddler in the first film, Mr. Freeze could be another mirror for Bruce Wayne.

It's up to the writers to find the right angle, but to me, it's far from impossible to organically integrate Mr. Freeze and everything that makes the character so special into this saga... if Reeves wants it.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

with the sequel still another 2 years out....

I wonder how much time will actually past in the movie itself?

will it pick up where it left off or jump a head a year or 2? if so, how much of his character development will we see or miss out on...

if there's a jump-time between events of the films, will this movie just start off with at full fledged Batman (complete with new suit/ car/ gadgets...) an a new sense of authority

or do we watch him make those changes on screen...?

the first movie was very much a rookie/year one Batman still figuring things out (of what it means to be Batman/ and how to really help) it was really only in the end that what he had to become to be "the Batman" clicked for him...

so, where should this next movie pick up???

 

[J.Drangal]

with the sequel still another 2 years out....

I wonder how much time will actually past in the movie itself?

will it pick up where it left off or jump a head a year or 2? if so, how much of his character development will we see or miss out on...

if there's a jump-time between events of the films, will this movie just start off with at full fledged Batman (complete with new suit/ car/ gadgets...) an a new sense of authority

or do we watch him make those changes on screen...?

the first movie was very much a rookie/year one Batman still figuring things out (of what it means to be Batman/ and how to really help) it was really only in the end that what he had to become to be "the Batman" clicked for him...

so, where should this next movie pick up???

From what I understand, Reeves would have implied that the end of The Penguin leads directly into The Batman Part II.
Now I don't know if he was only talking about themes/events or if we really are talking about temporality.
Maybe I have a wrong idea because of the way the first film bleeds into the series...

But also, knowing that Reeves had originally imagined the show as being the first act of his next film, I think the sequel won't take place much after The Batman.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Mr Freeze will be in Part II, Harvey Dent will not. I have never been wrong.

 

[BatLobster]

I only have simple questions for this. Let’s say Mr. Freeze does show up. It’s a very high probability that he’s not going to be like the version that he’s popular for. Similar to how underwhelming Bane was in TDKR. Are people willing to sacrifice many of his recognizable elements just to have him?

To be honest, I still think Bane in Rises feels more like his comic book counterpart than even The Riddler does in The Batman. Even with the aesthetic changes, it captured the tone of Bane and what he represents in the comics really well. The venom has always been a little gimmicky and such an easily exploitable weakness IMO, so I didn’t miss it. I dig what The Batman did with The Riddler, but it was also very clearly “What if the Zodiac wore green?”. It felt like more of a ground-up reinvention to me.

I think a version of Freeze translated with a similar level of faithfulness as Bane was could be agreeable to a lot of fans. You come up with a reason for him to wear some sort of mask/helmet, some sort of freezing apparatus and MO for freezing victims, and the tragic backstory with Nora. As long as you retain those elements I think you’re being pretty true to the character. I don’t think it’s impossible to make it fit this universe. To me it’s just a question of whether the character fits the story Reeves is looking to tell.

 

[Mindreaper21]

To be honest, I still think Bane in Rises feels more like his comic book counterpart than even The Riddler does in The Batman. Even with the aesthetic changes, it captured the tone of Bane and what he represents in the comics really well. The venom has always been a little gimmicky and such an easily exploitable weakness IMO, so I didn’t miss it. I dig what The Batman did with The Riddler, but it was also very clearly “What if the Zodiac wore green?”. It felt like more of a ground-up reinvention to me.

I think a version of Freeze translated with a similar level of faithfulness as Bane was could be agreeable to a lot of fans. You come up with a reason for him to wear some sort of mask/helmet, some sort of freezing apparatus and MO for freezing victims, and the tragic backstory with Nora. As long as you retain those elements I think you’re being pretty true to the character. I don’t think it’s impossible to make it fit this universe. To me it’s just a question of whether the character fits the story Reeves is looking to tell.

I’ve actually given a very detailed post here on how this version of The Riddler is everything he’s always been. The only things that were inspired by The Zodiac were the outfit, the cypher and the “goodbye” quote. The suit is a unique combination of Zodiac’s outfit and Riddler’s original outfit. A full body suit with a mask. In the comics Riddler has attacked Gotham’s elite, flooded the city, and uses various types of riddles and puzzles. Riddler also has an affinity for death traps, torture and has no regard for human life. It’s all there. So, saying Bane was more himself than The Riddler was himself is highly debatable.

As far as Mr. Freeze is concerned, I agree. He’s not impossible. I imagine he would be limited though. Possibly having only days to live and using the remainder of his time to save his wife then leave his death ambition the end. Though, like you said, it depends on Reeves.

 

[BatLobster]

I’ve actually given a very detailed post here on how this version of The Riddler is everything he’s always been. The only things that were inspired by The Zodiac were the outfit, the cypher and the “goodbye” quote. The suit is a unique combination of Zodiac’s outfit and Riddler’s original outfit. A full body suit with a mask. In the comics Riddler has attacked Gotham’s elite, flooded the city, and uses various types of riddles and puzzles. Riddler also has an affinity for death traps, torture and has no regard for human life. It’s all there. So, saying Bane was more himself than The Riddler was himself is highly debatable.

As far as Mr. Freeze is concerned, I agree. He’s not impossible. I imagine he would be limited though. Possibly having only days to live and using the remainder of his time to save his wife then leave his death ambition the end. Though, like you said, it depends on Reeves.

That’s fair. I think it’s apples and oranges to an extent, because with Riddler, his history goes a lot further back and includes a lot more of the more camp versions, including some that were huge in pop culture. And that was obviously never going to fly in a modern, serious Batman movie. It’s subjective of course as to which is more “faithful”. I think both retain a lot of the essence, I just think this was definitely one of the darkest depictions of the Riddler in terms of tone. There was a sheer savagery to his murder of the mayor that felt a lot more up close and personal than the methods we’re used to seeing from him even in the darker comics versions, and leaned a lot more into straight horror vibes. That moment felt like a statement— “this is a different sort of Riddler.”

But I also just really hope the method of adapting other baddies in these movies isn’t limited to “what if they were a real life serial killer?”. I think it worked with Riddler, I just think we can expand a bit from that while still fitting into this world.

 

[Eddie Dean]

The Riddler is not generally portrayed as homicidal though

 

[Mindreaper21]

Well, here’s the thing. Riddler was homicidal since his first appearance. It explains his persona very well. Though the next time he appeared is when everything turned campy, which is why many of his stories are that way.

Think about it. His method of killing is extreme. Torturing people and putting them in death traps. Even Gorshin’s Riddler was dark at times. It really just depends on which versions of The Riddler you view, but he has displayed acts of violence since his inception.

I can say that the opening scene of The Batman was a huge surprise, though I do love that his character went that far. I love that he was primal for a change. It reminds me of Riddler and the Riddle factory.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just to briefly add some generality (or babbling) on the subject of the relation between fandom and creator : It's all about balance.

When you're in a creative position in popular fields and/or using popular properties, you're obliged to know and respond to a demand (from the market, from fans) from those who are going to finance the project. The trick is to find the balance between something relatively unifying so that it can be distributed, innovative to attract attention and intelligent (in the sense of well-constructed) to stimulate the public.

But perhaps beyond these notions, I think what bothers many viewers today is the feeling that their beloved licenses are in the hands of people who aren't always honestly interested in them, and who dissolve their identity in formulas, whether old recipes or new trends like “reinvention”, “deconstruction”, etc.
If we can talk about TLJ and put aside obvious trolls and haters, I think there was also a part of the public that was very interested in a breath of fresh air on the Lucas saga (I remember a positive emulation around the set pics) but felt, faced with the finished project, that the innovation wasn't “honest”, in the sense of a lack of genuine love for the material.
This could be contrasted with TDK where Nolan, even not being a huge Batman fan, was sufficiently seduced by the concept and its aura/identity to use it as a starting point to create something more personal...

Of course, it's all debatable, but I think you can, more often than not, identify whether that love is present or not.
To me, that's where it all starts and kind of a prerequisite to let myself be drawn into the vision of a writer/director/etc.
It's a matter of sincerity. But sincerity has to be a two-way street.
Many people also confuse their taste with everything else, and are unable to recognize the merits of an adaptation they don't like... and you get social medias.

And those people would be wrong. Because Rian Johnson is a bigger fan of Star Wars then Nolan is of Batman. He loves it. So logically it should be the fans' perfect film.

The problem with fandom, is so much of it is protective of their vision of it. Not the actual material itself. Which is why what they identify as love is super subjective. To the point that they jump on trains that are fundamentally toxic. It's impossible to remove the toxicity around TLJ, anymore then you can remove it from Gamergate. Because it all comes from the same source. Where people want to complain about women, POC, and LGBTQIA+ folk having any role in the series that isn't in service to cis straight white men. All they need is something that can twist into being super divisive.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Isn't it a bit of copout to blame white male incels for everything? There are women, POC and LGBTQIA people who also didn't like The Last Jedi. The second weekend box office dropoff for the movie was pretty substantial.

 

[solidsnake86]

Going back to the superfan focus groups. I think one of the issues with comic book characters in general is that there is no end. Which is inconsistent with film in that there should be an end to your main character or at least closure.

I'll be honest, I think the Nolan series worked because it told a story and there was closure. This resonated with audiences.

Now with batman I think having an ending could also mean he never stops being batman, but with all movies, you need to have a compelling main character. The difficulty is, Batman has such great villains that you lose focus on batman. That's why, for me at least, when I hear Reeves talk about keeping the focus on Bruce Wayne/batman, I feel like he will deliver something special. Because of that I don't care if he changes certain things like not using cobblepot and shortening it to Cobb.

The problem is, you have some fans that just want this stuff to continue with no ending and that's when the story telling gets boring. If you know everything that happens and no stakes exist, what's the point.

 

[Gothamsknight]

To be honest, I still think Bane in Rises feels more like his comic book counterpart than even The Riddler does in The Batman. Even with the aesthetic changes, it captured the tone of Bane and what he represents in the comics really well. The venom has always been a little gimmicky and such an easily exploitable weakness IMO, so I didn’t miss it. I dig what The Batman did with The Riddler, but it was also very clearly “What if the Zodiac wore green?”. It felt like more of a ground-up reinvention to me.

I think a version of Freeze translated with a similar level of faithfulness as Bane was could be agreeable to a lot of fans. You come up with a reason for him to wear some sort of mask/helmet, some sort of freezing apparatus and MO for freezing victims, and the tragic backstory with Nora. As long as you retain those elements I think you’re being pretty true to the character. I don’t think it’s impossible to make it fit this universe. To me it’s just a question of whether the character fits the story Reeves is looking to tell.

Agreed on both counts. And in the process of doing so, whether you love TDKR or not, Nolans version of Bane has become one of the most iconic movie villains of all time.

I've said it numerous times that Mr. Freeze is my #1 on must see villains for the Reeves verse. I still hope it happens, but I guess we'll see. I know this world is ultra grounded, but Reeves said himself that it he would be a fun character to adapt. There are multiple ways to go about it.