The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[ironwez20]

Lmao!!!

 

[Gandhi]

Reminded me of this from the Sherlock Holmes movie.

 

[Marvel united]

In this day & age, glorifying two billionaires perhaps wouldn't be the smartest move.

This isn't 1939, or even 2005 anymore, people today, esp younger people, have a more critical pureview of wealth (especially old money wealth), and billionaires, and how they are made.

You can't make a Batman film in 2022, tackle the moral and economic conundrums of poverty, privilege and capitalism, and NOT address the elephant in the rook-- which is the Waynes being part of the 1% of society. What Reeves is doing here is a brilliant way to ground the character in a modern, relevant social context.

I fully expect the typical complaints of "wokeness" - but Reeves is doing the right thing here

 

[Rod]

Did anyone notice Giacchino unvelied the "high speed/action" variation of the theme here:

(and damn, some serious cello badassery going on)

 

[DKDetective]

Did anyone notice Giacchino unvelied the "high speed/action" variation of the theme here:

(and damn, some serious cello badassery going on)

Yep, and the high, fast violin parts give the effect of bats squeaking/wings flapping (at least to me).

 

[BatLobster]

I'm never quite sure in these situations if we're hearing actual score from the movie, or modified music based on the score custom-made for marketing purposes. Either way that sounded pretty cool!

 

[AndrewGilkison]

In this day & age, glorifying two billionaires perhaps wouldn't be the smartest move.

This isn't 1939, or even 2005 anymore, people today, esp younger people, have a more critical pureview of wealth (especially old money wealth), and billionaires, and how they are made.

You can't make a Batman film in 2022, tackle the moral and economic conundrums of poverty, privilege and capitalism, and NOT address the elephant in the rook-- which is the Waynes being part of the 1% of society. What Reeves is doing here is a brilliant way to ground the character in a modern, relevant social context.

I fully expect the typical complaints of "wokeness" - but Reeves is doing the right thing here

The problem with this is that Batman still uses their wealth to be Batman. He can't be Batman without their money.

So its not "right" to glorify the Wayne's in today's world, because "**** capitalism", but... its still okay to glorify Batman even though without his parents money he can't really do what he does? So glorifying rich people is okay as long as they beat up criminals and have a cool car and cool gadgets? Feels a little hypocritical to me.

 

[FunkMiller]

In this day & age, glorifying two billionaires perhaps wouldn't be the smartest move.

This isn't 1939, or even 2005 anymore, people today, esp younger people, have a more critical pureview of wealth (especially old money wealth), and billionaires, and how they are made.

You can't make a Batman film in 2022, tackle the moral and economic conundrums of poverty, privilege and capitalism, and NOT address the elephant in the rook-- which is the Waynes being part of the 1% of society. What Reeves is doing here is a brilliant way to ground the character in a modern, relevant social context.

I fully expect the typical complaints of "wokeness" - but Reeves is doing the right thing here

It’s fine to present the Waynes as making poor or morally grey decisions in an effort for the greater good. That provides a fabulous way to examine Batman’s own morally grey vigilantism.

It is utterly wrong to present the Waynes as villainous. Undercuts Batman’s entire origin, and makes the whole thing completely nonsensical.

Awful people don’t raise heroes. At least not in popular commercial fiction like this is.

And Batman is a hero, first and foremost.

I don’t believe for one second that Reeves is going down the Waynes were corrupt and terrible route.

 

[BatLobster]

Awful people don’t raise heroes. At least not in popular commercial fiction like this is.

In total fairness, Alfred is the one who ultimately raised him.

But as someone said, if the Waynes were corrupt to the core and actual villains, then it also begs the question of why Alfred is so loyal to them.

 

[C Prometheus]

It’s fine to present the Waynes as making poor or morally grey decisions in an effort for the greater good. That provides a fabulous way to examine Batman’s own morally grey vigilantism.

It is utterly wrong to present the Waynes as villainous. Undercuts Batman’s entire origin, and makes the whole thing completely nonsensical.

Awful people don’t raise heroes. At least not in popular commercial fiction like this is.

And Batman is a hero, first and foremost.

I don’t believe for one second that Reeves is going down the Waynes were corrupt and terrible route.

You'd be wise to revisit both of Reeves' Planet of the Apes films and pay close attention to how he depicts the overall cast in those films. He absolutely could go down this route.

Take Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, for example. Almost any other director would've made Gary Oldman's character an outright villain, to fit with the obvious "commercial fiction" stereotype of the human leader being a bigoted instigator of destruction. Reeves instead opted to make him a man prioritizing the safety of his community that was reacting to an attack that the apes instigated.

I won't be surprised if there's some level of ambiguity or moral grey debate with the Waynes in this continuity, but do not assume that "Awful people don't raise heroes" is a viable narrative expectation when Matt Reeves is in the room.

 

[FunkMiller]

In total fairness, Alfred is the one who ultimately raised him.

True, but the formative years of a child’s life with its parents are the early ones, and the comics have always leaned hard on the morals instilled in Bruce by Thomas and Martha when he was a small boy.

And absolutely. There’s no way Alfred would have butled (not a word probably) for the Waynes if they had been corrupt.

 

[FunkMiller]

You'd be wise to revisit both of Reeves' Planet of the Apes films and pay close attention to how he depicts the overall cast in those films. He absolutely could go down this route.

Take Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, for example. Almost any other director would've made Gary Oldman's character an outright villain, to fit with the obvious "commercial fiction" stereotype of the human leader being a bigoted instigator of destruction. Reeves instead opted to make him a man prioritizing the safety of his community that was reacting to an attack that the apes instigated.

I won't be surprised if there's some level of ambiguity or moral grey debate with the Waynes in this continuity, but do not assume that "Awful people don't raise heroes" is a viable narrative expectation when Matt Reeves is in the room.

You’re actually… agreeing with me? I said I’m fine with the Waynes taking morally grey decisions for what they think is the greater good, but there’s no way Reeves will present them as out and out villains.

 

[C Prometheus]

You’re actually… agreeing with me? I said I’m fine with the Waynes taking morally grey decisions for what they think is the greater good, but there’s no way Reeves will present them as out and out villains.

Not exactly. My point is more that it'd be very unwise to expect Reeves to take the "commercial narrative" route with the Waynes. And there's more than one way to explore the "moral grey" beyond just the well-intended person making horrific mistakes.

For instance, Reeves could actually opt to depict Thomas Wayne as a kind and loving father to Bruce, only for Bruce to discover as an adult that his father did some very terrible and corrupt things to the citizens of Gotham. That discovery wouldn't suddenly mean Thomas wasn't a great father to his son, but it absolutely shatters any illusion that he was a good man.

 

[FunkMiller]

For instance, Reeves could actually opt to depict Thomas Wayne as a kind and loving father to Bruce, only for Bruce to discover as an adult that his father did some very terrible and corrupt things to the citizens of Gotham. That discovery wouldn't suddenly mean Thomas wasn't a great father to his son, but it absolutely shatters any illusion that he was a good man.

Okay, but that wouldn’t feel particularly believable as a character to me, so I hope he doesn’t go down that route.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's funny to talk as if being "the 1%" was any sort of crime. It isn't. And you can absolutely make a Batman film in 2022 without making an issue out of it. However, for the sake of the story, it's always nice to use it against Bruce. But even that isn't anything new. Wasn't it done in Rises? And countless other comics?
.

“Rich people always bad” is performative, immature nonsense, and I really don’t see Reeves trying to push that notion. An examination of how money can be used as both a tool for good and for evil… absolutely. But the lazy idea that rich people must automatically be evil because they’re rich? Nah. He’s a much more mature and intelligent film maker for that kind of silliness.

 

[DKDetective]

In this day & age, glorifying two billionaires perhaps wouldn't be the smartest move.

This isn't 1939, or even 2005 anymore, people today, esp younger people, have a more critical pureview of wealth (especially old money wealth), and billionaires, and how they are made.

You can't make a Batman film in 2022, tackle the moral and economic conundrums of poverty, privilege and capitalism, and NOT address the elephant in the rook-- which is the Waynes being part of the 1% of society. What Reeves is doing here is a brilliant way to ground the character in a modern, relevant social context.

I fully expect the typical complaints of "wokeness" - but Reeves is doing the right thing here

First off, the MCU's Tony Stark being the biggest, most bankable superhero of the last decade says otherwise. (And that is with Howard Stark being portrayed in a positive light as a neocon, warhawk arms manufacturer!)

Second, I agree with you that a good Batman movie that lives up to the character's thematic potential indeed needs to address the Wayne's wealth and privilege. However, making the Waynes overtly corrupt and criminal isn't a very sophisticated or nuanced way of doing that. It makes it into a caricature of rich white people=bad.

To quote myself:

But you don't see that as much now, the current superrich like Trump, Bezos, and Musk are all in it for personal self-grandisement. I like the idea that Bruce and the Waynes in general offer a heroic counterpoint to that, a reflection to a time when at least notionally the upper classes believed they had obligations of charity and betterment to those less fortunate.

I get that it makes sense to mix it up a little as Nolan nailed these points with his portrayal of Thomas Wayne, but I think you can add grey and nuance to it without fundamentally changing the character. For instance, Nolan portrays Thomas's non-involvement in the family business to instead be a surgeon as noble. What if Reeves portrays that decision as while not actively corrupt, but instead irresponsible. That by leaving Wayne Enterprises in the hands of corrupt executives, the company's poor wages, lack of employee benefits, shoddy products, etc. caused more harm to the working classes than any personal live-saving that Thomas could do as a doctor. That to me is more interesting...

 

[Vyper]

First off, the MCU's Tony Stark being the biggest,

To quote myself:

Exactly. Some people are living in CNN's lala land. Most of these things are a non issue unless you start screaming about it. People, in general, absolutely don't care.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Exactly. Some people are living in CNN's lala land. Most of these things are a non issue unless you start screaming about it. People, in general, absolutely don't care.

Don't underestimate Hollywood's wokeness. There are people that 've been a fan since ever and lost total respect for them after hearing them talk about certain political issues. Used to find Snyder a great guy until he threw a tantrum at those youtubers who actually helped him, because they held some right wing views. He just went full zombie brain dead "everything's racist" mode. I don't like that.

Craig also just said Bond should be a black guy. To me Bond should be whoever fits the part the best. I really can't stand wokeness. "You deserve this opportunity because of your gender and color of your skin".

I can guarantee you Matt is no different. He's not gonna take any stance that is anti hollywood wokeness. He just won't.

Do you HONESTLY believe Catwoman and Gordon, two characters who have always been white in the comics(and no, selina isn't black in year one.) were given these parts simply because they are the best they can get for the roles? Do you have any idea of how many amazing actors and actresses that look closer to the comic book characters are there?

And listen, i'm not saying these are bad choices. I like Jeffrey. Zoe, i'm sure. She looks good, but not the greatest actress. But regardless, even if they end up crushing it, it's VERY UNLIKELY that the color of the skin wasn't a factor. Like i said, you don't really have much of a choice if you wanna win an oscar. You absolutely need minorities in the movie.

My guy, go to therapy.

 

[Eddie Dean]

This guy seems familiar.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Thanks for proving my point. You're the type of person i was talking about.

My guy, you’re trying to make an argument that nobody cares about making things “woke”, and yet your on an message board, letting people you will never meet, know how much this all bothers you.

 

[Erik Lensherr]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

“Rich people always bad” is performative, immature nonsense, and I really don’t see Reeves trying to push that notion. An examination of how money can be used as both a tool for good and for evil… absolutely. But the lazy idea that rich people must automatically be evil because they’re rich? Nah. He’s a much more mature and intelligent film maker for that kind of silliness.

Depends on how rich. You don't become a billionaire without being a rather terrible person. I guess the exception is divorce a billionaire, but alas...

 

[shauner111]

Haven't you guys learnt anything from the Sopranos or Breaking Bad? You can do evil selfish things in this life and still have a heart. I guess we live in a world now where if somebody says something horrible or out of line, they're immediately burnt at the stake at least publically. You see it all the time now, where ppl proudly boast about cutting family members and friends out of their lives because they said something extremely offensive. So now it's like it seeps into the forums for the folks who don't wanna hear that Thomas could have been corrupt or even done unforgivable acts. "That undercuts Bruce.." no it really doesn't man. Thomas could have still told the truth when he said he loved his wife and child. He still could have tried to set a life up for Bruce so he can excel in a positive manner. Batman would go through the **** my parents phase but soon he'd realize that he still loves them and grey exists in the world. Just like some ppl on social media need to be taught a lesson in that their family member or friend with the weird world views could still be your friend, could still have a heart. But a lot of people don't want to hear that.

Thomas Wayne could have been a Walter White or even a Gus Fring. Doesn't mean Gus doesn't do good for his employees and help them advance without ulterior motives. Doesn't mean Gus didn't and doesn't love his friend/boyfriend that was killed. Understand what I'm getting at? Tony Soprano can kill his nephew and should be held accountable for his f'd up actions, but he does he love his two kids? Yes he genuinely does and would die for them. You see the complexity.

I'm over the one dimensional Thomas was a surgeon and saint. It doesn't work in today's world or any world because in that particular city and with that kind of money on the line, you can't be squeaky clean. You also don't have to be Hitler.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Stop projecting. Replying to a message doesn't mean i'm bothered. You and your lack of life don't reflect everyone else's reality. Someone talked about it being an issue and i said it really isn't an issue for the majority. Which it isn't. The majority don't get pissed watching a Batman movie because Bruce is rich. That's fiction. It doesn't exist. It's the world of a very few. Maybe yours.

You went out of your way to start a tangent about CNN and your perceived media bias, and wokeness in Hollywood. What the heck are you talking about?
Literally no one was talking about wokness or liberalness being endemic to Hollywood until you joined the conversation.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Billionaires in DC is an interesting thing to talk about.

Oliver Queen is a former billionaire who had to sell his company, he was once a politician in the pre-crisis era, and became the mayor of Star City before the Blackest Night event. A big fighter for civil liberties and struggle against racism, someone who loves to show the positives of democracy as beneficial to people.

Lex Luthor became the president, he made a deal with Brainiac to use his technology to advance human technology, to do that he gave away his infant daughter to Brainiac as a mean to end his invasion of Metropolis and Earth. He did a lot of evil things, and did plenty of good for Metropolis as a president while the Justice League still keeping tabs on him for his criminal past and still questionable decisions as a president, and that was before he went nuts when a meteor of massive kryptonite was shooting its way to Earth.

In the Long Halloween (at least in the movie, I haven't read past issue 2 of the comics yet) it was revealed that Carmine Falcone thinks of Thomas Wayne as a friend of sorts, and both worked together to build a hospital for children. One of them is a billionaire who stands for charitable work while the other is a Godfather figure of sorts.

Thomas Wayne is a guy who didn't mind mixing with the wrong types if it meant good things for his city, his son Bruce is sterner on crime and dealing with shady people, but still manages to be diplomatic toward the friend of his father.