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

I really hope the next film deepens this family history, because I still found this whole part really clumsy in the first film. I understand that it was necessary to have the Riddler plant doubt in Bruce's mind about his parents (and to an extent about his crusade) but that whole video felt like such an explanation dump that I hope the sequel will retroactively smooth that part out a bit...
I think there will be some stuff involving the Arkhams, who are the Arkhams that covered up Martha's parents' death? Did they have anything to do with Martha being institutionalized?
 
Hush going around using Bruce's face to murder folks could be interesting. Hush getting caught on camera, with Bruce's face, Bruce questioning whether he did it do to his mental health history.
 
Hush going around using Bruce's face to murder folks could be interesting. Hush getting caught on camera, with Bruce's face, Bruce questioning whether he did it do to his mental health history.
I like this idea.

Have it tie into Bruce going to therapy sessions with Hugo Strange.
 
There is less time between the announcement of the film and its initial release date (approximately 16 months) than there is between today and the new release date (24 months).
1758295648308.jpeg

To be honest, my hype is relatively dormant at the moment. I'm getting my Batman fix elsewhere, and I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by the Clayface movie. So, it's fine.

It's fine.
1758295961333.png
 
With Mattson Tomlin saying that Appointment in Crime Alley is one of his favorite BTAS episodes + including Leslie on Batman: The Imposter and Matt teasing we're learning more about the Waynes, then I think it's looking pretty likely that we'll have Leslie on the movie, which is exciting to me as I've always wanted to see her on a Batman movie.
 
I’ve seen some discussion about the semantics of Reeves’ exact quote regarding “never really been done before”.

Do you believe he means:

a) Someone who has never appeared on screen?
b) A different take on a villain who has already appear i.e., Mr Freeze and it being a completely different version to what Schwarzenegger did?
 
I’ve seen some discussion about the semantics of Reeves’ exact quote regarding “never really been done before”.

Do you believe he means:

a) Someone who has never appeared on screen?
b) A different take on a villain who has already appear i.e., Mr Freeze and it being a completely different version to what Schwarzenegger did?
I'm inclined to think the former, because if you look at the villains that had been done before, they were all pretty faithful adaptations to the source material. I mean honestly, the only two exceptions to that would probably be Zsasz and Bane.
 
I’ve seen some discussion about the semantics of Reeves’ exact quote regarding “never really been done before”.

Do you believe he means:

a) Someone who has never appeared on screen?
b) A different take on a villain who has already appear i.e., Mr Freeze and it being a completely different version to what Schwarzenegger did?
... or :
c) An approach to the story that would differ from the usual formula that puts a new villain at the center stage.

It's hard to judge an improvised statement, but for my part, this kind of wording would come to me more when talking about something more general than just a character's identity.

But really, he's taking about Hush. :o
 
What Matt means is that there has never been an on screen villain that has had deep personal ties to Bruce and his past in the way that he’s doing. The closest thing to that was Nicholson’s Joker with him being responsible for killing the Waynes.

The most obvious villain is Hush and it really is a very good twisted story. Thomas being responsible for inadvertently putting a hit on Edward Elliot. The Waynes are mysteriously killed afterwards. Both Tommy and Bruce grow up on separate paths until Riddler reveals what happened. Now, like Bruce, Tommy seeks to avenge his father.

You know what would be even more twisted? If Tommy is actually Bruce’s half brother because Thomas had an affair with Tommy’s mom. Then Tommy was actually named after him and this is why he was drawn to the medical field.
 
What Matt means is that there has never been an on screen villain that has had deep personal ties to Bruce and his past in the way that he’s doing. The closest thing to that was Nicholson’s Joker with him being responsible for killing the Waynes.

The most obvious villain is Hush and it really is a very good twisted story. Thomas being responsible for inadvertently putting a hit on Edward Elliot. The Waynes are mysteriously killed afterwards. Both Tommy and Bruce grow up on separate paths until Riddler reveals what happened. Now, like Bruce, Tommy seeks to avenge his father.

You know what would be even more twisted? If Tommy is actually Bruce’s half brother because Thomas had an affair with Tommy’s mom. Then Tommy was actually named after him and this is why he was drawn to the medical field.

This sounds pretty great. And very much a nice Hush/Court of Owls mash-up

You didn’t need to go this hard lol
 
You know what would be even more twisted? If Tommy is actually Bruce’s half brother because Thomas had an affair with Tommy’s mom. Then Tommy was actually named after him and this is why he was drawn to the medical field.
Superman & Lois sends its regards :o
 
My guess for who the villain is, Dr. Death.
Never appeared in live-action nor in cartoons that I know of.
Current BATMAN scribe Matt Fraction is writing a comic book special with Dr. Death as the villain.

1758343486808.png
 
It would be cool to see Gillian Anderson as Leslie.View attachment 148430

Sure, but it be Kerri Russell instead.

Also, in an alternative timeline Christopher Abbott would be our Bruce/Batman. For some reason he reminds me of a modern Keaton. I’m sure Reeves is plugged in, so he knows how great an actor he is and would make a great villain as well.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"