The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[shauner111]

I've always held the opinion that the trilogy is gonna be about Bruce refining the key aspects required to turn him into Prime Batman. The Batman has instilled the need for a symbol of hope for the people of Gotham. Next, just move onto a new aspect of himself. The reason why I want Freeze is because of how that type of story challenges Bruce's compassion above all else. Bruce knows he needs to give the people something to believe in, but by all accounts he still has a fairly damning opinion of people who have already "crossed that line", as it were. Prime Batman (in my opinion) is the exact opposite. He always holds the belief that people can be better, it's why he doesn't kill. Freeze would be the perfect story to develop this Bruce into having that aspect.

I do agree with using a character to showcase Bruce’s compassion while he’s under the cowl. And of course i’d mark out if Freeze was announced, because a grounded take on Victor would be bold. But right now I’d use Harvey Dent to tell that story and evolve Bruce’s character. Only because you can slow burn it and on the other hand, Freeze’s origin story is very predictable. I also expect a good but one note performance from whoever is cast. I’ll take a super unpredictable, moody performance from whoever plays Dent over the consistently monotone Freeze. I want the freak villains coming in next to be wild AF.

I’d love for Reeves to choose a villain who is normally seen as a B or C lister (and a complete unknown to the general audience). That would be nice. When you have Penguin etc surrounding you, there’s no need for more popular villains. Give someone else a chance. Make em’ a good foe for Penguin.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I've always held the opinion that the trilogy is gonna be about Bruce refining the key aspects required to turn him into Prime Batman.\

This grates on me a bit - because this was the same issue I had with Tom Holland's Spider-Man, Jon Berenthal's Punisher, Charlie Cox's Daredevil, much of the Nolan Batman, etc.

These prolonged origin stories, really.
It's happening all over media where we have to go through several seasons of a show or many films before X character becomes the 'version we all know and love'.

Can't we just get Batman in his prime for 3 films? What's the point of skipping the parents' death, the making of the suit, the car, the formation of his image - only to still have him 'learning the ropes' anyway?

The benefit of skipping an established origin should be to get ahead when Batman isn't still in his learning phase.

I think that's why so many fans got hung up on Affleck's Batman. Shoddy quality films, but it was nice to have Batman who knew what he was doing full-stop.

It seems that film writers of Batman don't know what to do with him if he's not 'starting out' or 'in his final years'.

 

[BatsAndNights]

This grates on me a bit - because this was the same issue I had with Tom Holland's Spider-Man, Jon Berenthal's Punisher, Charlie Cox's Daredevil, much of the Nolan Batman, etc.

These prolonged origin stories, really.
It's happening all over media where we have to go through several seasons of a show or many films before X character becomes the 'version we all know and love'.

Can't we just get Batman in his prime for 3 films? What's the point of skipping the parents' death, the making of the suit, the car, the formation of his image - only to still have him 'learning the ropes' anyway?

The benefit of skipping an established origin should be to get ahead when Batman isn't still in his learning phase.

I think that's why so many fans got hung up on Affleck's Batman. Shoddy quality films, but it was nice to have Batman who knew what he was doing full-stop.

It seems that film writers of Batman don't know what to do with him if he's not 'starting out' or 'in his final years'.

The difference between this and say, Tom Holland's Spider-Man or Bernthal's Punisher is that those were the stories of just getting those characters to be those characters period. Tom Holland's Spider-Man felt like it was them just trying to get the foundational elements for an entire trilogy. Him being independent, his life frankly being ****ty and him putting others before his own life. If you applied the same to this Batman, the ending of Batman 1 would've been the end of an entire trilogy. Bernthal's Punisher frankly only becomes the Punisher in the last ten seconds of the show. Battinson however is Batman. The teething phase of Battinson learning to be Batman has already been passed, that was in this universe's version of Year 1. This isn't that, it's developing the character into the best version of himself that he can be. There's a big difference between that and an entire trilogy or two seasons of a TV show before we actually get Batman. If anything, Mazouz' Bruce from Gotham is the best comparison to Holland's Spidey or Bernthal's Punisher.

I do agree with using a character to showcase Bruce’s compassion while he’s under the cowl. And of course i’d mark out if Freeze was announced, because a grounded take on Victor would be bold. But right now I’d use Harvey Dent to tell that story and evolve Bruce’s character. Only because you can slow burn it and on the other hand, Freeze’s origin story is very predictable. I also expect a good but one note performance from whoever is cast. I’ll take a super unpredictable, moody performance from whoever plays Dent over the consistently monotone Freeze. I want the freak villains coming in next to be wild AF.

I’d love for Reeves to choose a villain who is normally seen as a B or C lister (and a complete unknown to the general audience). That would be nice. When you have Penguin etc surrounding you, there’s no need for more popular villains. Give someone else a chance. Make em’ a good foe for Penguin.

Eh, I'm not really that concerned over a predictable backstory. If that was an issue, Batman would be screwed lmao. What matters is where Reeves goes from there, which I'd have 100% faith in.

While obviously Harvey would be another fantastic choice, my main reservation with that is simply that I wanna steer away from TDK trilogy's main villains as best we can. You can still tell different stories with him obviously, but I wanna see radically different villains from what we've seen in the last 20 years. And Freeze is practically top of the list there. I also don't agree that Freeze has to be one note because by all accounts, Batman is a very "one note" style character, with this version of Batman having (imo) the highest potential to be one in the entire live action franchise. And yet, here comes Pattinson to give one of the most emotive yet internal performances I've ever seen. The "one noteness" is still there, but you can see into his eyes and see the severe scars upon his soul, the intense pain from what he needs to say to those he loves but can't, how he wants so badly to live but can only watch from afar. So I see no reason why Freeze has to be one note, you just need another actor who can bring that sorta internal suffering to it just as Pattinson brought it to the character of Batman.

 

[emc5466]

Also I get not liking Frank Miller, he's done more stinkers than good stuff at this point but

That doesn't change him making the definitive Batman origin story. Taking inspiration from it with a story similarly tied to his early years is inevitable.

Christopher Nolan already did the Frank Miller version to perfection.

 

[BatsAndNights]

Christopher Nolan already did the Frank Miller version to perfection.

Nah, Nolan's Batman has his **** together way too much. Frank Miller's Batman borders on sociopathic

 

[Sawyer]

I like Matt Reeves but sometimes he comes across like a poseur who has no idea what he’s talking about.

Go outside, nerd.

 

[Black Narcissus]

The Batman is my favorite live action Batman flick thus far.

 

[cryptic name]

I like Matt Reeves but sometimes he comes across like a poseur who has no idea what he’s talking about.

When I read or listen to Matt Reeves talking about Batman, it’s the the most passionate, informed, and thoughtful I’ve ever heard a filmmaker discussing a comic book character they’re adapting. The only one on his level is Sam Raimi talking about Spider-Man.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I like Matt Reeves but sometimes he comes across like a poseur who has no idea what he’s talking about.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

The difference between this and say, Tom Holland's Spider-Man or Bernthal's Punisher is that those were the stories of just getting those characters to be those characters period. Tom Holland's Spider-Man felt like it was them just trying to get the foundational elements for an entire trilogy. Him being independent, his life frankly being ****ty and him putting others before his own life. If you applied the same to this Batman, the ending of Batman 1 would've been the end of an entire trilogy. Bernthal's Punisher frankly only becomes the Punisher in the last ten seconds of the show. Battinson however is Batman. The teething phase of Battinson learning to be Batman has already been passed, that was in this universe's version of Year 1. This isn't that, it's developing the character into the best version of himself that he can be. There's a big difference between that and an entire trilogy or two seasons of a TV show before we actually get Batman. If anything, Mazouz' Bruce from Gotham is the best comparison to Holland's Spidey or Bernthal's Punisher.



Eh, I'm not really that concerned over a predictable backstory. If that was an issue, Batman would be screwed lmao. What matters is where Reeves goes from there, which I'd have 100% faith in.

While obviously Harvey would be another fantastic choice, my main reservation with that is simply that I wanna steer away from TDK trilogy's main villains as best we can. You can still tell different stories with him obviously, but I wanna see radically different villains from what we've seen in the last 20 years. And Freeze is practically top of the list there. I also don't agree that Freeze has to be one note because by all accounts, Batman is a very "one note" style character, with this version of Batman having (imo) the highest potential to be one in the entire live action franchise. And yet, here comes Pattinson to give one of the most emotive yet internal performances I've ever seen. The "one noteness" is still there, but you can see into his eyes and see the severe scars upon his soul, the intense pain from what he needs to say to those he loves but can't, how he wants so badly to live but can only watch from afar. So I see no reason why Freeze has to be one note, you just need another actor who can bring that sorta internal suffering to it just as Pattinson brought it to the character of Batman.

Totally with you on Dent. I think that character is better fleshed out on say, the Penguin show, as a new D.A. Going after Gotham’s organized crime.

 

[Sawyer]

Looks like Zoe’s staying in business with Warner Bros…

 

[antsman41]

...give me 4 hours next time.

 

[WatchProtect]

I want the 9 hour cut

 

[WayneMB]

i think 4 hours is really pushing it but i honestly wouldn't be surprised if Matt pulled it off. imo The Batman is one of the best paced near 3 hour flicks. i could honestly sit through 3 hours 15 minutes. there were no scenes in which I thought to myself "mmm yeah, i'd cut that out"

 

[BatLobster]

I would kind of love it if the sequel goes in the extreme opposite direction and was a lean and mean, two hours and change noir thriller with more of a contained story.

Then you could still bring it back around with another long epic to close off the trilogy.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Personally speaking, there's no reason Batman films should be remotely close to 4 hours. The Batman managed to justify most of its runtime, but I really dont think each film in the trilogy needs to be super long.
I think even 2 and a half hours is reasonable. TDKR was close to 3 hours but that was wrapping up a whole trilogy, and even then, The Batman was still longer. I'm just hoping for some trimming in the next one.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Give me the 2.5 hour Affleck version where Batman says "f***" a lot.

 

[Kane52630]

Fellow dudes, which pair of sunglasses are you sportin?

 

[dhandler01]

Keaton or Pattinson most of the time.

 

[shauner111]

Keaton.

 

[titansupes]

Affleck, probably.

 

[Mani-Man]

Personally speaking, there's no reason Batman films should be remotely close to 4 hours. The Batman managed to justify most of its runtime, but I really dont think each film in the trilogy needs to be super long.
I think even 2 and a half hours is reasonable. TDKR was close to 3 hours but that was wrapping up a whole trilogy, and even then, The Batman was still longer. I'm just hoping for some trimming in the next one.

I would say the first one in a series can, and that not only in terms of batman.
If you reintroduce or so a character, i do think the first movie is allowed to use length for world building, character introductions etc.

But i absolutely dont want every The batman to be 4 hours, because not every one of the movies needs to have the tone the first has.
Its suspense and all worked for the whole thing, for what Reeves was going for with Riddler etc...but thats not something that needs to be done for the future movies.

2:45-2:50 or so is fine, maybe even 3...but 4 hours is not needed every time.
But it comes down to how you do the story and what the general theme of the movie is supposed to be.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

...give me 4 hours next time.

Right? That was the fastest three hours of my life lol. Never wanted it to end.

 

[TheGDBatman]

2.5 hours is my sweet spot. I just find I'm more likely to re-watch something when it's in that range. Anything longer and I have trouble carving out time to re-watch it more.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

2.5 hours is my sweet spot. I just find I'm more likely to re-watch something when it's in that range. Anything longer and I have trouble carving out time to re-watch it more.

I never noticed this about myself until your post - but you're on the money for my feelings, too.