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

[OnLeatherWings]

Riddler is often written as a pathetic, snivelling weirdo who isn't as tough/cool/smart as he thinks he is.

This wasn't the problem, for me. When they cast Dano, I wanted that guy you just described. I'm still ticked they covered his face for most of the film because looks-wise, he'd be great for Riddler.

The serial killer with a grudge against the Waynes, who picks off Gotham's elite one by one, covering his face and going full-blown terrorist at the end just isn't The Riddler, to me.

Dano's Riddler just...wasn't Riddler. His character has more in common with Hush than with The Riddler. He was a re-skinned Zodiac Killer down to the logo on the jacket.

Sure, you can point to "Oh, he's like THIS version a little bit combined with THIS specific one" - but we all know what we mean when someone say 'The Riddler'. And Dano's Riddler wasn't close to that guy most people imagine.

I love reinterpretations - but at some point, you can go too far and it's not even that character anymore.

It's like Batman. We all know what someone means when they say Batman. If I put Batman in a Zebra-Batsuit or show him laughing it up with Bat-Mite, technicallyyyyyy that IS Batman because there were interpretations when he was that way. But we all know that's not 'Batman' when people say Batman.

 

[flickchick85]

I like both takes on the Riddler. 🤷‍♀️

Also at this point, Forever is my favorite of the 90’s Batflicks. I find it endlessly rewatchable, and the only one that seems to give a s*** about Bruce Wayne. Sorry not sorry!

 

[SwordOfMorning]

This wasn't the problem, for me. When they cast Dano, I wanted that guy you just described. I'm still ticked they covered his face for most of the film because looks-wise, he'd be great for Riddler.

The serial killer with a grudge against the Waynes, who picks off Gotham's elite one by one, covering his face and going full-blown terrorist at the end just isn't The Riddler, to me.

Dano's Riddler just...wasn't Riddler. His character has more in common with Hush than with The Riddler. He was a re-skinned Zodiac Killer down to the logo on the jacket.

Sure, you can point to "Oh, he's like THIS version a little bit combined with THIS specific one" - but we all know what we mean when someone say 'The Riddler'. And Dano's Riddler wasn't close to that guy most people imagine.

I love reinterpretations - but at some point, you can go too far and it's not even that character anymore.

It's like Batman. We all know what someone means when they say Batman. If I put Batman in a Zebra-Batsuit or show him laughing it up with Bat-Mite, technicallyyyyyy that IS Batman because there were interpretations when he was that way. But we all know that's not 'Batman' when people say Batman.

I dunno. A pathetic sniveling weirdo who commits riddle themed crimes in an effort to prove he’s smarter than everyone sure feels like The Riddler to me!

 

[Lily Adler]

I like both takes on the Riddler. 🤷‍♀️

Also at this point, Forever is my favorite of the 90’s Batflicks. I find it endlessly rewatchable, and the only one that seems to give a s*** about Bruce Wayne. Sorry not sorry!

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I dunno. A pathetic sniveling weirdo who commits riddle themed crimes in an effort to prove he’s smarter than everyone sure feels like The Riddler to me!

On paper, I can see that to a degree (though, I'd argue Dano isn't desperate to seem smarter so much as he's desperate to exact his own vengeance).

In execution - not so much.

It goes into the conversation people have had about a Reeves Clay-Face who isn't made of clay, but kills people and uses their skin or whatever to 'change' his appearance. Is it still Clay-Face after a certain point?

Same for The Riddler, for me. Dano's version went too far from the genesis of what the character is known as.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I still sometimes think about how Snyder wanted to use riddler in his JL trilogy. IIRC, I think the character was supposed to solve the anti life equation and then be like “welp, only one more riddle to solve now” and then blow his own head off haha

Good lord we really dodged a nuclear warhead when you look back on things

 

[BatLobster]

I think the main difference is that Dano's version wasn't really so much about trying to prove his intellect, that aspect just kinda happened to be there but it's more of a background element (IE him liking puzzles as a kid). His main deal is that he was on a self-appointed holy mission to expose Gotham's corruption. It was part terrorist, part Zodiac killer/John Doe, part modern day incel/mass shooter, with splashes of comic book Riddler.

To be fair, I think a lot of fans had been clamoring for a gritty reinterpretation of the Riddler since the Nolan days, and this version definitely delivered on that. I don't really have an issue with it, but one day I would love to see a more charismatic/intellectual, less gruesome, but still serious take on the character.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

On paper, I can see that to a degree (though, I'd argue Dano isn't desperate to seem smarter so much as he's desperate to exact his own vengeance).

In execution - not so much.

It goes into the conversation people have had about a Reeves Clay-Face who isn't made of clay, but kills people and uses their skin or whatever to 'change' his appearance. Is it still Clay-Face after a certain point?

Same for The Riddler, for me. Dano's version went too far from the genesis of what the character is known as.

It’s still Clayface because there is literally a version of the character in the comics, the original, who works that way. So if he’s Basil Karlo especially then yes he is Clayface.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

It’s still Clayface because there is literally a version of the character in the comics, the original, who works that way. So if he’s Basil Karlo especially then yes he is Clayface.

Batman started by carrying a gun and killing criminals.

But that's not 'Batman' to most everyone. And if that version of Batman was made into a film - you bet there'd be a majority being unhappy about it.

What a character starts off as does not mean that's what the character is and evolves into.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Batman started by carrying a gun and killing criminals.

But that's not 'Batman' to most everyone. And if that version of Batman was made into a film - you bet there'd be a majority being unhappy about it.

What a character starts off as does not mean that's what the character is and evolves into.

There is a giant gap between ‘Batman’ and ‘Clayface’. Clayface is a relatively obscure villain to begin with and also literally multiple separate characters.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

There is a giant gap between ‘Batman’ and ‘Clayface’. Clayface is a relatively obscure villain to begin with and also literally multiple separate characters.

So...the more obscure and less-known a character is - the more justifiable it is to alter them?

Batman has literally multiple, tons of crazy interpretations that far outnumber Clayface's too.

Either way, it's not an unpopular opinion to say that sometimes you can reinterpret too much to the point where it's not really the same character anymore.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

So...the more obscure and less-known a character is - the more justifiable it is to alter them?

Batman has literally multiple, tons of crazy interpretations that far outnumber Clayface's too.

Either way, it's not an unpopular opinion to say that sometimes you can reinterpret too much to the point where it's not really the same character anymore.

To an extent? Yes. Characters like Hush, Clayface etc. are completely open to total reinterpretation but that's somewhat missing the central point which is that doing Golden Age Clayface is an entirely valid choice because it is literally its own character. But, hey, I'd also be fine with a full on Golden Age Superman movie so what do I know!

You sure can but, IMO, none of the examples you've given are remotely "not really the same character anymore". Reeves Riddler is the Riddler, Golden Age Clayface would still be Clayface, etc.

 

[Captain Tired]

Oh, are we now allowed to post videos with curse words in them?

Because I have been holding it in for far too long...

 

[emielaen]

Oops, maybe not? Should I get rid of that? A mod liked it so maybe I'm in the clear.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Oops, maybe not? Should I get rid of that? A mod liked it so maybe I'm in the clear.

Sadly, no. I lowkey forgot it was ****ing dreamworld and not just dreamworld so didn’t rewatch the clip.

 

[emielaen]

Sadly, no. I lowkey forgot it was ****ing dreamworld and not just dreamworld so didn’t rewatch the clip.

Fair enough! My mistake.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Fair enough! My mistake.

No big deal!

 

[AnneFan]

I’m a little worried about this universe to be honest. I bought the script not ready explanation but we’ve heard nothing from Reeves at all. Momentum for the series his stalled with this delay, even if The Penguin comes out this year. The spectre of Gunn’s DCU wanting to fire up and get that new Batman in the picture is definitely there. I hope Gunn keeps the Reeves films around and doesn’t push them out so shared universe continuity stands alone.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah the more I think about this situation...something seems a bit fishy here. The silence from Reeves when he’s been known to be active on Twitter when news drops is a bit odd. Just makes it seem like there’s some politics going on.

You gotta ask yourself this question. If you're James Gunn and you're tasked with building a DCU, do you want to have to compete with an established, acclaimed Batman franchise? If you're really honest with yourself, the answer is simply no. But the optics of outright cancelling it at this point are also really bad, especially when you haven’t proven that your own ideas for DC work yet and The Batman was one of the more successful DC projects in recent memory.

I was listening to Jett’s podcast he definitely seems to be getting more and more vocal about his concern about the direction DC is headed under James Gunn, for whatever that’s worth.

 

[solidsnake86]

I listened to his latest podcast and I don't disagree, personally I would have rather seen a solo superman film with only superman characters. For example, you have Mr. Terrific but why couldnt you have used Steel instead of they are both tech based characters.

That said, Jett is also completely unreasonable when it comes to the dcu. It still is a business and loose connections could be made without directly affecting a solo series.

There is probably a happy medium that could be struck between having a connected universe where one film doesn't depend on another, just small references here and there.

The batman II will happen, the problem is Reeves taking so long on the script is going to do him no favors. At some point Gunn will have to make a difficult decision as an executive because the mandate is to have a joined universe and the batman with Reeves is in direct competition with that. From a fan perspective it's frustrating because we finally have a director that's all in on batman and is willing to create a batverse with multiple spinoffs in different mediums but the dcu will likely get in the way of that. If the Batman II doesn't hit big, that will probably be it.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Yeah the more I think about this situation...something seems a bit fishy here. The silence from Reeves when he’s been known to be active on Twitter when news drops is a bit odd. Just makes it seem like there’s some politics going on.

You gotta ask yourself this question. If you're James Gunn and you're tasked with building a DCU, do you want to have to compete with an established, acclaimed Batman franchise? If you're really honest with yourself, the answer is simply no. But the optics of outright cancelling it at this point are also really bad, especially when you haven’t proven that your own ideas for DC work yet and The Batman was one of the more successful DC projects in recent memory.

I was listening to Jett’s podcast he definitely seems to be getting more and more vocal about his concern about the direction DC is headed under James Gunn, for whatever that’s worth.

That's making me a little nervous. I'd like to make it clear that I'm absolutely excited about Superman Legacy, and i do think it has the potential to be very special. That being said, part of me feels like something is going on internally when it comes to Reeves universe and the one Gunn is trying to establish. There's no evidence of it yet, but I still feel like The Batman Part II being the end of Reeves Batman run is a real possibility.

 

[BatLobster]

I listened to his latest podcast and I don't disagree, personally I would have rather seen a solo superman film with only superman characters. For example, you have Mr. Terrific but why couldnt you have used Steel instead of they are both tech based characters.

That said, Jett is also completely unreasonable when it comes to the dcu. It still is a business and loose connections could be made without directly affecting a solo series.

There is probably a happy medium that could be struck between having a connected universe where one film doesn't depend on another, just small references here and there.

The batman II will happen, the problem is Reeves taking so long on the script is going to do him no favors. At some point Gunn will have to make a difficult decision as an executive because the mandate is to have a joined universe and the batman with Reeves is in direct competition with that. From a fan perspective it's frustrating because we finally have a director that's all in on batman and is willing to create a batverse with multiple spinoffs in different mediums but the dcu will likely get in the way of that. If the Batman II doesn't hit big, that will probably be it.

I think it's just too soon to know where this is all going at this point.

Something to keep in mind. By the end of this year, WB execs will have seen dailies and possibly even an early rough cut of Gunn's Superman. Enough to start creating buzz and gauging whether they think they have a hit on their hands. I wouldn't be surprised to see more decisions made based on those internal perceptions on WB's part, but then again nothing really shocks me anymore when it comes to WB.

Another different angle to consider- if they are indeed trying to prep the studio for a sale, an "unmade" The Batman sequel actually might actually create more value for them for a potential buyer. Especially if it's somewhat of an insurance policy against a DCU failure. It's one of the safest bets they have in their current pipeline of projects. With the irony being that they possibly are diminishing some of its value by delaying it so aggressively. Zaslav has shown how shrewd he can be when it comes to this kind of stuff, so there is that.

This isn't to get all tinfoil hat, it's just that we truthfully have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I think it's a given that this is a complex, fast-changing situation with a lot of different agendas at play.

 

[solidsnake86]

I think it's just too soon to know where this is all going at this point.

Something to keep in mind. By the end of this year, WB execs will have seen dailies and possibly even an early rough cut of Gunn's Superman. Enough to start creating buzz and gauging whether they think they have a hit on their hands. I wouldn't be surprised to see more decisions made based on those internal perceptions on WB's part, but then again nothing really shocks me anymore when it comes to WB.

Another different angle to consider- if they are indeed trying to prep the studio for a sale, an "unmade" The Batman sequel actually might actually create more value for them for a potential buyer. Especially if it's somewhat of an insurance policy against a DCU failure. It's one of the safest bets they have in their current pipeline of projects. With the irony being that they possibly are diminishing some of its value by delaying it so aggressively. Zaslav has shown how shrewd he can be when it comes to this kind of stuff, so there is that.

This isn't to get all tinfoil hat, it's just that we truthfully have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I think it's a given that this is a complex, fast-changing situation with a lot of different agendas at play.

All very good points and I definitely agree, it's way to soon but thats the fun in speculating. If I was Reeves I would have said no to Gunn in joining the DCU last year as well. Not a single frame of footage was shot, the script wasn't even done so why tie yourself to something that may or may not work. This delay actually allows them to pivot if they could convince Reeves and show him footage etc. it's not like anything would have to change for the Batman II either.

Just like we have these conversations, this is happening at WB as well. I always laugh at the people who say "Reeves would never add his batman to the dcu". Nobody knows what he would do.

 

[Mysteryman]

That's making me a little nervous. I'd like to make it clear that I'm absolutely excited about Superman Legacy, and i do think it has the potential to be very special. That being said, part of me feels like something is going on internally when it comes to Reeves universe and the one Gunn is trying to establish. There's no evidence of it yet, but I still feel like The Batman Part II being the end of Reeves Batman run is a real possibility.

They dropped the Legacy bit..Now its just called,SUPERMAN!

 

[Mysteryman]

Am I the only one who NEVER expected the sequel toThe Batman to come out in, 2025?