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

I actually do like the twist they gave in the film with respect to Thomas. Mostly because it would ring a bit truer to someone put in that situation. If he was worried about that story coming out about Martha, most people would probably turn to a guy like Falcone, albeit out of naiveté, in order to protect their spouse and child. The only ones who wouldn't are the true politicians that are so vain they stop at nothing to win.
 
Yeah, I don't ever want it to be as straightforwardly evil as Telltale Thomas but Thomas being a bad person doesn't bother me. For me, it's nothing like how the obvious comparison of point, the Jor-El twist, completely destroyed any chance of me ever liking DCU Superman because... I mean, a white billionaire aristocrat being Not A Great Person doesn't have any unfortunate subtext to it and doesn't really damage anything fundamental about Batman. The trauma/loss is what drives Bruce but if anything there's something powerful to be done with the idea of Batman realizing he doesn't do it just for that reason, that it's not about grief or revenge but has turned into something truly altruistic.

Idk. Not my preference at all but its not a conceptual write off.
And that is what I mean. I don't want Thomas to be Elon Musk because that is just as bad as saintly. But he should be flawed, and he should have some darkness to him. Every old money aristocrat has something to hide or skeletons and The Waynes should as well. (Arkham being one of them)

I mean think of the most philanthropic people in the US (especially "old money" ) and then look at how they got the money to do all that philanthropy? They basically took everything and gave back 1% to make themselves feel better.

As for Jor-El...it isn't even that big of a twist. Jor-El has been a dick in the past. It doesn't have to change Superman, in fact most Post Crisis (prior to Birthright) fans pointed to that being why they loved the character. I heard so many arguments on this subject...
 
And that is what I mean. I don't want Thomas to be Elon Musk because that is just as bad as saintly. But he should be flawed, and he should have some darkness to him. Every old money aristocrat has something to hide or skeletons and The Waynes should as well. (Arkham being one of them)

I mean think of the most philanthropic people in the US (especially "old money" ) and then look at how they got the money to do all that philanthropy? They basically took everything and gave back 1% to make themselves feel better.

As for Jor-El...it isn't even that big of a twist. Jor-El has been a dick in the past. It doesn't have to change Superman, in fact most Post Crisis (prior to Birthright) fans pointed to that being why they loved the character. I heard so many arguments on this subject...

I agree. I think they need to walk that fine line where Thomas makes the wrong decisions for the right reasons. Add enough grey that it continues to impact Bruce's perception of his parents and puts him through that emotional journey. It can be pretty powerful for a character when they realize their parents shouldn't be on a pedestal....but that effect quickly loses potency when they end up being cartoonishly evil.
 
Funny how Colin is talking the most and he has a very small part :hmm
 
From the way Alfred describes Thomas, it just seems like he was extremely naive. Falcone was such a manipulative pos, so it’s possible Thomas was just way too trusting of the wrong people. The most important thing is how the deaths of Thomas and Martha affected Bruce. There is still a lot about them that is shrouded in mystery, so maybe everything seems worse on the surface level than it actually is.
Good man with poor judgment.
To be fair, Al's biased.
 
I mean, he said he had a small part in The Batman, too. And while it wasn't a big one, he still had a certain presence in it. It might be that he has a smaller part in this one, but I also don't expect him to have a Scarecrow-in-TDK-like cameo only.
 
I mean, he said he had a small part in The Batman, too. And while it wasn't a big one, he still had a certain presence in it. It might be that he has a smaller part in this one, but I also don't expect him to have a Scarecrow-in-TDK-like cameo only.
He was a major supporting character in Part I. That's not a small role.
 
Calling it moving is honestly the most promising thing I’ve heard yet. We really need big movies that makes us feel big things in these times. That’s really all I can ask for out of one of these things at this point. All the beautiful cinematography in the world doesn’t mean a damn thing without that.

As for the Thomas Wayne thing, I think if you make him too unredeemable in an on the nose sort of way, it does kind of undermine the tragedy of it all because it becomes a bit like “welp Gotham was probably better off without him anyway”. If he’s otherwise got a level moral decency to him, but made some really bad decisions for misguided reasons then that kind of adds to the tragedy because then it’s not simply that he was bad, but he also failed to live up to his own ideals and then ultimately paid a horrible price for it. Emotionally richer that way IMO.
 
Last edited:
IMG_6304.jpeg

Should I be reading too much into why DC might be reissuing a Hugo Strange-focused story in the lead-up to The Batman Part II? Probably not.

Am I going to anyway? You bet.
 
I had this thought… What if Hush is revealed to be Harvey Dent? After all, look at the Two-Face designs for TDKR and Beware the Batman:

latest
latest



It would be a fresh take on Two-Face and pretty unexpected. I think they should definitely play with Hush’s identity. Maybe introduce Tommy as a red herring or establish multiple Hush killers. I definitely want Harvey in this trilogy but it will be hard not to feel like a retread of TDK.
 
I had this thought… What if Hush is revealed to be Harvey Dent? After all, look at the Two-Face designs for TDKR and Beware the Batman:

latest
latest



It would be a fresh take on Two-Face and pretty unexpected. I think they should definitely play with Hush’s identity. Maybe introduce Tommy as a red herring or establish multiple Hush killers. I definitely want Harvey in this trilogy but it will be hard not to feel like a retread of TDK.
Eeeeeh, my problem is it'd feel a little too similar to a twist they used for the Hush animated movie. "Hush is actually THIS guy!" didn't really work then either because Thomas Elliot is what makes Hush a unique character and what gives Hush a unique connection to Batman. It's the same reason people disliked Venom being Harry Osborn in the Insomniac Spider-Man games and I'd see it being a similarly polarising thing here.

You don't necessarily have to hide to the audience who Hush is to still tell an interesting mystery over it. It's not like we didn't know Riddler was Edward Nashton in the last movie
 
I might have posted these designs I made years ago, but with the Robin talk I wanted to bring them up again. How do you guys think Robin would look, and how might they modify his story to fit a more realistic take?

I think a more drifter type Robin design would make sense, letting him blend in on the streets in a believable way. The rain poncho works to me because you get a lot of the visual design elements of Robin in a very realistic way. The collar, the hood, the short cape silhouette, the short sleeves, and a common poncho design has black on the outside and yellow on the inside. Replace the domino mask with the drifter style neck gaiter and eye shadow.

Then have Robin be one of many kids orphaned by the flood, trying to fight the rise of street crime and looting in his neighborhood, or maybe actively looting to feed his community. Almost wish they set that up in The Penguin.

20251012_171441.jpg

20251012_171505.jpg
 
I had this thought… What if Hush is revealed to be Harvey Dent? After all, look at the Two-Face designs for TDKR and Beware the Batman:

latest
latest



It would be a fresh take on Two-Face and pretty unexpected. I think they should definitely play with Hush’s identity. Maybe introduce Tommy as a red herring or establish multiple Hush killers. I definitely want Harvey in this trilogy but it will be hard not to feel like a retread of TDK.

No, but I did mention here before that I wanted Harvey and Hush in the same film, because I believed that using that fact that both characters have worn full bandages could be very interesting if used correctly.

Don’t get lost in “character combinations” as that is not Matt’s mindset nor approach and that is also how this huge misconception of Riddler came about.

It’s also really not difficult to make Harvey different than he was in TDK, because I highly doubt that he and Bruce will be fighting over the same woman. There’s a long history of Two-Face comics and a multitude of inspirations that can be used for him to fit this particular story. You have to think beyond comic book cannon. Consider other films and real life counterparts. Not just with Harvey, but with all characters. That’s where Matt is.

I know that Hush is pretty much a blank slate character, but this is why I believe that he is so great for how Matt is building these characters. He doesn’t need to be combined with another villain to be interesting in this story, he already is.

The son of a reporter whose murder was seemingly plotted by one of the most famous local figures. That son grows up to be a successful surgeon and secretly seeks to avenge his father. It’s a deeply intertwined tragedy that bound two innocent children to a destiny of hatred and loss — turning them into lifelong enemies.
 
No, but I did mention here before that I wanted Harvey and Hush in the same film, because I believed that using that fact that both characters have worn full bandages could be very interesting if used correctly.

Don’t get lost in “character combinations” as that is not Matt’s mindset nor approach and that is also how this huge misconception of Riddler came about.

It’s also really not difficult to make Harvey different than he was in TDK, because I highly doubt that he and Bruce will be fighting over the same woman. There’s a long history of Two-Face comics and a multitude of inspirations that can be used for him to fit this particular story. You have to think beyond comic book cannon. Consider other films and real life counterparts. Not just with Harvey, but with all characters. That’s where Matt is.

I know that Hush is pretty much a blank slate character, but this is why I believe that he is so great for how Matt is building these characters. He doesn’t need to be combined with another villain to be interesting in this story, he already is.

The son of a reporter whose murder was seemingly plotted by one of the most famous local figures. That son grows up to be a successful surgeon and secretly seeks to avenge his father. It’s a deeply intertwined tragedy that bound two innocent children to a destiny of hatred and loss — turning them into lifelong enemies.
Sure aren't helping the comparison to Riddler when you lay it out like that. Of course execution is everything but it's very same-y if you don't add some other distinct elements.
 
Sure aren't helping the comparison to Riddler when you lay it out like that. Of course execution is everything but it's very same-y if you don't add some other distinct elements.
My call is that Hush will either be basically literally an OC to such an extent it negates Riddler comparisons or the childhood best friends aspect will be the entire core of the story.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"