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

[dhandler01]

I just don't get the desire for Hush...

 

[BigBatTheory]

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.

How would they make the childhood best friend part not extremely awkward with what they've established? Not a rhetorical question btw, I'm genuinely curious if people have ideas. Like it's weird on multiple levels, first of all, his best friend's father was reporting with intent to hurt Thomas Wayne; it makes Thomas Wayne look much worse if he goes to a mob boss to threaten someone he is somewhat close to, and it feels like something that would have been mentioned by Alfred or Bruce. And I think you could make the case that they were friends growing up after their parent's died, and just never knew how their father's deaths may have connected. But no matter what, if you try to establish their friendship being meaningful enough to come up in the sequel, it feels awkward to not have mentioned it. If the extent of their friendship is "oh my god I do remember hanging out with you! and now you want to kill me!", that doesn't feel that interesting. Only thing I can think of is like, they bonded in some teen therapy group and Thomas Elliot went by his mother's last name so Bruce doesn't make the connection lol. Another thing to consider is, Matt Reeves doesn't really do flashbacks, so there needs to be dialogue that builds up that friendship, and with the revelation from the first film, they can never have their friendship feel untainted by that revelation; it makes it very hard to present the relationship from the beginning of Hush that makes the revelation meaningful.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I just don't get the desire for Hush...

I have no desire for Hush. But I also trust Reeves. So I'm willing to follow him into the dark.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

How would they make the childhood best friend part not extremely awkward with what they've established? Not a rhetorical question btw, I'm genuinely curious if people have ideas. Like it's weird on multiple levels, first of all, his best friend's father was reporting with intent to hurt Thomas Wayne; it makes Thomas Wayne look much worse if he goes to a mob boss to threaten someone he is somewhat close to, and it feels like something that would have been mentioned by Alfred or Bruce. And I think you could make the case that they were friends growing up after their parent's died, and just never knew how their father's deaths may have connected. But no matter what, if you try to establish their friendship being meaningful enough to come up in the sequel, it feels awkward to not have mentioned it. If the extent of their friendship is "oh my god I do remember hanging out with you! and now you want to kill me!", that doesn't feel that interesting. Only thing I can think of is like, they bonded in some teen therapy group and Thomas Elliot went by his mother's last name so Bruce doesn't make the connection lol. Another thing to consider is, Matt Reeves doesn't really do flashbacks, so there needs to be dialogue that builds up that friendship, and with the revelation from the first film, they can never have their friendship feel untainted by that revelation; it makes it very hard to present the relationship from the beginning of Hush that makes the revelation meaningful.

I don't think it really contradicts anything apart from Bruce not explicitly mentioning Tommy onscreen after the the HUSH!!!! scene and there are probably ways to link Edward Elliot getting that info or being set on the trail in the first place to his son being welcomed into the Wayne household.

I think it would probably be a little contrived but that's not really a knock against its likelihood. It's not even an idea I like all that much. I just think its extremely dramatic hook in a way that to a filmmaker who wants to adapt Hush I'd sort of assume it was the reason they'd want to adapt Hush. Immediately the story becomes super personal to Bruce, which we know is probably Matt's priority - I suspect every movies central mystery will in some way be related to Wayne/Arkham Drama. It's more or less the only actual hook Hush has other than being named Hush and wearing a sick trenchcoat with bandages on his face - a look that lowkey isn't even that cool.

 

[BigBatTheory]

I just don't get the desire for Hush...

The more difficult I find a character to reinterpret, the more fun I have theorizing how he might approach it. With how much Reeves' really wrote himself into a corner with Hush, and with how damn boring the character is in comics, I've become genuinely hyped to see his take on the character, hopefully impacting giving us a new take on the character that can inspire a better comic version.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I have no desire for Hush. But I also trust Reeves. So I'm willing to follow him into the dark.

Yeah, I actively dislike Hush but Matt Reeves is awesome and will cast an awesome actor. It'll be fine.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How would they make the childhood best friend part not extremely awkward with what they've established? Not a rhetorical question btw, I'm genuinely curious if people have ideas. Like it's weird on multiple levels, first of all, his best friend's father was reporting with intent to hurt Thomas Wayne; it makes Thomas Wayne look much worse if he goes to a mob boss to threaten someone he is somewhat close to, and it feels like something that would have been mentioned by Alfred or Bruce. And I think you could make the case that they were friends growing up after their parent's died, and just never knew how their father's deaths may have connected. But no matter what, if you try to establish their friendship being meaningful enough to come up in the sequel, it feels awkward to not have mentioned it. If the extent of their friendship is "oh my god I do remember hanging out with you! and now you want to kill me!", that doesn't feel that interesting. Only thing I can think of is like, they bonded in some teen therapy group and Thomas Elliot went by his mother's last name so Bruce doesn't make the connection lol. Another thing to consider is, Matt Reeves doesn't really do flashbacks, so there needs to be dialogue that builds up that friendship, and with the revelation from the first film, they can never have their friendship feel untainted by that revelation; it makes it very hard to present the relationship from the beginning of Hush that makes the revelation meaningful.

Wait, why would it have to come up in the first film where Thomas Elliot is nowhere to be seen?

 

[BigBatTheory]

Wait, why would it have to come up in the first film where Thomas Elliot is nowhere to be seen?

It completely recontextualizes Thomas Wayne's actions if they were taken against Bruce's best friend's father. Suddenly, the main question should be, why wasn't Thomas able to convince him not to run the story. Why was he running a story against someone he had this apparent relationship too? Was Edward Elliot being threatened by the Maronis and that's why Thomas went to Falcone? It brings up a lot of weirdness that the movie did not allude to at all, despite having many chances to do so. Bruce, in his discussion with Alfred about his father being a bad person, where Alfred explains his perspective on what really happens, should have made some comment about the closeness between the two men and how that made his actions more upsetting. Or how Thomas Wayne felt bad about Elliot's death, not because he feels bad about causing a death in general, but about how deeply he would have hurt his son's best friend.

I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm just saying it feels strange to have planned Hush's origin with the death of his father and all they did, and then to actively make the childhood friend part more awkward to establish.

 

[BobJM]

There’s plenty of opportunity with Hush; and it’s a fun look. If he’s the villain, I’m sure Reeves has something good cooked up. I’m partial to a dark/anti-Batman type (Prey, Imposter, Knightfall). Maybe Hugo Strange/Amadeus Arkham got his hands on Tommy Elliot after his parents’ deaths and taught Tommy to blame the Waynes for his misfortune.

Plus, if it’s anything like the first, we’ll get a handful of bad guys for Batman to contend with.

I’m moreso curious if we don’t have a Selina who the female lead will be. If it’s a Bruce Wayne story, we could get Julie Madison. Or maybe the return of Vicki Vale.

Or maybe Andrea Beaumont reappears in Bruce’s life, stirring up old heartbreak. And she’s secretly working with Tommy Elliot. She studied at Oxford with him or something

 

[Mindreaper21]

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.

Riddler was an orphan whose future was destroyed by greed and corruption orchestrated by Carmine Falcone. Once Riddler put the pieces together he sought revenge on Falcone and everyone associated with Renewal and used Batman to help him. Then hit the reset button on Gotham by flooding it.

Riddler was neither trying to avenge anyone nor was his main target Bruce Wayne. He was a psychopath on a mission to expose the corruption in Gotham. How is this like Hush?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Isn't Hush's whole thing that he tried to have his parents killed when he was a kid because he wanted to inherent their wealth, and failed because Thomas Wayne was able to save the mom? He wanted both of his parents to die.

 

[BobJM]

Isn't Hush's whole thing that he tried to have his parents killed when he was a kid because he wanted to inherent their wealth, and failed because Thomas Wayne was able to save the mom? He wanted both of his parents to die.

Yes; then you get Heart of Hush where Dini explores more of Tommy’s upbringing with his mother, who constantly belittled him & wished he was more like Bruce Wayne. Then he ends up killing her

 

[Johnny Frost]

I just don't get the desire for Hush...

He's a bland character, but in the hands of the right writer, something interesting can emerge. Paul Dini showed that. I think Reeves can also do something interesting with it.

It helps that Reeves seems to have already fixed one of Hush's biggest problems, for me, which is his origin and motivation. Here, he's the son of the dead reporter who wants revenge, simple and effective. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Elliots' feud with the Waynes goes back even further; they seem to have been a more influential family in the past since there's a big bridge named after them.

 

[Mindreaper21]

Since when have these characters origins ever been 100 percent comic book accurate? This version of Hush doesn’t have to be childhood friends with Bruce, because it’s not all that important to this particular story. He has an entirely different origin like all of the other characters.

 

[BigBatTheory]

Riddler was an orphan whose future was destroyed by greed and corruption orchestrated by Carmine Falcone. Once Riddler put the pieces together he sought revenge on Falcone and everyone associated with Renewal and used Batman to help him. Then hit the reset button on Gotham by flooding it.

Riddler was neither trying to avenge anyone nor was his main target Bruce Wayne. He was a psychopath on a mission to expose the corruption in Gotham. How is this like Hush?

Riddler was absolutely trying to get vengeance, it's a huge part of the plot. He's trying to get revenge on the city and the people he blames for it hurting him, and he includes Bruce Wayne as a primary target in that, for what his father did, and for the life Bruce Wayne got to have that he himself did not. That motivation is incredibly similar to Thomas Elliot, who would be targeting Bruce Wayne for the "sins of his father". Like I'm not saying comic Riddler and comic Hush are at all similar, but in this adaption there would clearly be some big overlaps. I'm of the opinion they should somewhat lean into this and do it with intent, this Hush would have to be a character inspired by Riddler's actions and what he reveals in a way, don't shy away from it. Give his Hush mask the "No More Lies" writing lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Since when have these characters origins ever been 100 percent comic book accurate? This version of Hush doesn’t have to be childhood friends with Bruce, because it’s not all that important to this particular story. He has an entirely different origin like all of the other characters.

And you know this how?

 

[BigBatTheory]

Since when have these characters origins ever been 100 percent comic book accurate? This version of Hush doesn’t have to be childhood friends with Bruce, because it’s not all that important to this particular story. He has an entirely different origin like all of the other characters.

I agree with you 100%. Did you read my pdf?

 

[BigBatTheory]

And you know this how?

If it was important they would have set it up, I'd imagine, like they set up so much else.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Riddler was absolutely trying to get vengeance, it's a huge part of the plot. He's trying to get revenge on the city and the people he blames for it hurting him, and he includes Bruce Wayne as a primary target in that, for what his father did, and for the life Bruce Wayne got to have that he himself did not. That motivation is incredibly similar to Thomas Elliot, who would be targeting Bruce Wayne for the "sins of his father". Like I'm not saying comic Riddler and comic Hush are at all similar, but in this adaption there would clearly be some big overlaps. I'm of the opinion they should somewhat lean into this and do it with intent, this Hush would have to be a character inspired by Riddler's actions and what he reveals in a way, don't shy away from it. Give his Hush mask the "No More Lies" writing lol

The Riddler is an incel who blames everyone else for his woes. Ascribing any sort of vengeance to him misses the point imo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If it was important they would have set it up, I'd imagine, like they set up so much else.

 

[BigBatTheory]

The Riddler is an incel who blames everyone else for his woes. Ascribing any sort of vengeance to him misses the point imo.

Riddler is very clear that he thinks what he is doing is getting vengeance for the injustice done to him by an unjust system. You can disagree that what they are trying to achieve is vengeance, but they make very clear that's what they think they are doing. It's why they love Batman, because they think they are like him. "I'm Vengeance", and everything.

 

[BigBatTheory]

Sure, I think one possibility is that Matt put that big nod to Hush in there simply because he likes the character so much and thought it was cool to work him in, if even just as an easter egg for comic fans that would get people talking. In that case, he didn't write the film with consideration for Hush as a sequel villain. To then consider making Hush the sequel villain, he would have to put a lot of consideration into how he makes the character work with what he set up and how that distinctly changes the backstory from the comic. It becomes a fun writing exercise to imagine how he does that, and yeah, we need to make some assumptions. You can assume his favorite thing about the character is the childhood friendship, but if that was the part that interests him so much, I just don't think he'd write himself into such a corner. Like he doesn't blatantly say they weren't childhood friends, but I don't know how anyone could think he made it easy for himself to establish that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Riddler is very clear that he thinks what he is doing is getting vengeance for the injustice done to him by an unjust system. You can disagree that what they are trying to achieve is vengeance, but they make very clear that's what they think they are doing. It's why they love Batman, because they think they are like him. "I'm Vengeance", and everything.

The Riddler is a child justifying his actions by copying someone else. He's lashing out with no actual goal outside of appeasing his own delusion. Hence:

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure, I think one possibility is that Matt put that big nod to Hush in there simply because he likes the character so much and thought it was cool to work him in, if even just as an easter egg for comic fans that would get people talking. In that case, he didn't write the film with consideration for Hush as a sequel villain. To then consider making Hush the sequel villain, he would have to put a lot of consideration into how he makes the character work with what he set up and how that distinctly changes the backstory from the comic. It becomes a fun writing exercise to imagine how he does that, and yeah, we need to make some assumptions. You can assume his favorite thing about the character is the childhood friendship, but if that was the part that interests him so much, I just don't think he'd write himself into such a corner. Like he doesn't blatantly say they weren't childhood friends, but I don't know how anyone could think he made it easy for himself to establish that.

Fun writing exercises? We're folks on a message board trying to speed the days along because Part 2 is still two years away.

There is no way Reeves had Part 2 planned out in any real meaningful way when Part 1 came out. If he did, it wouldn't of taken as long as it did to write Part 2. And I know there were issues beyond his control and I'm certainly not complaining. But the truth is closer to George Lucas then Ozymandias. And that's fine. Each movie is it's own thing. That's how it should be.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Sure, I think one possibility is that Matt put that big nod to Hush in there simply because he likes the character so much and thought it was cool to work him in, if even just as an easter egg for comic fans that would get people talking. In that case, he didn't write the film with consideration for Hush as a sequel villain. To then consider making Hush the sequel villain, he would have to put a lot of consideration into how he makes the character work with what he set up and how that distinctly changes the backstory from the comic. It becomes a fun writing exercise to imagine how he does that, and yeah, we need to make some assumptions. You can assume his favorite thing about the character is the childhood friendship, but if that was the part that interests him so much, I just don't think he'd write himself into such a corner. Like he doesn't blatantly say they weren't childhood friends, but I don't know how anyone could think he made it easy for himself to establish that.

At the end of the day, there was literally no scenario where The Batman spent time talking about Tommy Elliot. None. No matter what Reeves plans were. That would have been a far bigger problem than the concept being introduced in 2 feeling like a bit of a retcon.