The Batman General News & Discussion Thread

[shauner111]

I thought he had a few movies lined up. You
might be right but i see him wanting to do a few indies between Batman movies.

 

[shauner111]

I doubt this universe will be as grounded as Nolan's. There will probably be some supernatural elements to this.

Everything looks more realistic than Nolan’s so far. Just more style.

 

[Invader Joker]

I thought he had a few movies lined up. You
might be right but i see him wanting to do a few indies between Batman movies.

Even if he keeps doing indies, those are usually shot pretty quick. Most of his indies took him a month to shoot.

 

[Rorschach2012]

TBH I’m just hoping for Hugo Strange, Clayface, Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy.

 

[cryptic name]

I would really love to see Hugo Strange. That's my big one.
The other obsession I've had lately is taking the Mad Monk story and merging it with The Cult and making a really gnarly Se7en tinged Batman story where he's up against this cult leader who's convinced he's a vampire.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

JJ’s rep shouldn’t be defined by TROS. I don’t think anyone would be able to come up with anything better after TLJ. TLJ was the most disappointing movie experience of my life. I loved TROS. It made me cry.

I mean, Colin Trevorrow who actively sucks wrote a muuuuuch better sequel to TLJ than JJ did so it ain’t hard, but I don’t think TROS is totally JJs fault, that movie has studio shenanigans written all over it.

Not to make everyone’s blood run cold with TLJ discourse but total opposite for me, TLJ was everything I want from SW and made me feel excited for the franchises future while TROS made me feel embarrassed for everyone involved and absolutely killed my interest.

JJ would do a fine Superman movie. It would be nonesense held together with duct tape but he’d get a great cast and it’d be a good time.

 

[C Prometheus]

I mean, Colin Trevorrow who actively sucks wrote a muuuuuch better sequel to TLJ than JJ did so it ain’t hard, but I don’t think TROS is totally JJs fault, that movie has studio shenanigans written all over it.

Not to make everyone’s blood run cold with TLJ discourse but total opposite for me, TLJ was everything I want from SW and made me feel excited for the franchises future while TROS made me feel embarrassed for everyone involved and absolutely killed my interest.

JJ would do a fine Superman movie. It would be nonesense held together with duct tape but he’d get a great cast and it’d be a good time.

Yeah, I loved TLJ. It ain't a perfect movie, but I'd go on record saying that the only 'perfect' Star Wars film is The Empire Strikes Back. I went into TROS optimistic, but walked out very frustrated at the film. I don't blame it all on JJ, but at this point, the SW fandom is just such a mess that I've stopped wasting time caring about it as much as I used to.

As for JJ helming a Superman film, I feel it'd be a 50-50 chance of it being a good movie or not. JJ seems to either hit gold with a well-made entertaining blockbuster (Mission Impossible 3, Star Trek 09, The Force Awakens) or a very messy film that has a lot of entertaining elements throughout anyway (Star Trek Into Darkness, The Rise of Skywalker).

That said, I doubt Reeves' Batman stuff will cross over into another more superhero-y franchise anytime soon. I get the feeling Reeves wants this iteration of the Batlore to mostly be grounded, between what we've seen so far of The Batman and this mysterious new show about the Gotham police department and how the city became so corrupted and crime-ridden.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Invader Joker]

That said, I doubt Reeves' Batman stuff will cross over into another more superhero-y franchise anytime soon. I get the feeling Reeves wants this iteration of the Batlore to mostly be grounded, between what we've seen so far of The Batman and this mysterious new show about the Gotham police department and how the city became so corrupted and crime-ridden.

I think that since the first thing Abrams is doing is JL Dark, it wouldn't be that hard to make a crossover between that. Something about the supernatural creepy stuff like that lends itself a bit better for that type of grounded world, as seen in Let Me In. It'd kinda be like the first steps towards building a new world. And I just keep thinking of Batman Damned and how that gritty aesthetic that Bermejo and Azzarello create which is not that dissimilar from the one in this movie really didn't seem out of place at all with all the supernatural imagery present in that story.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

 

[Gothamsknight]

View attachment 35719

Man, this is amazing.

 

[Gothamsknight]

As for JJ, I've always been a fan and became even a bigger fan after TFA. I loved TFA, but I didn't like TROS. I was a fan of TLJ, and I was very let down with how unoriginal TROS was. But I don't really blame JJ for that.

 

[Iceman]

Very nice Batman in the rain image above.

 

[C Prometheus]

I think that since the first thing Abrams is doing is JL Dark, it wouldn't be that hard to make a crossover between that. Something about the supernatural creepy stuff like that lends itself a bit better for that type of grounded world, as seen in Let Me In. It'd kinda be like the first steps towards building a new world. And I just keep thinking of Batman Damned and how that gritty aesthetic that Bermejo and Azzarello create which is not that dissimilar from the one in this movie really didn't seem out of place at all with all the supernatural imagery present in that story.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's not impossible, of course, but after revisiting some older interviews with Reeves, I've grown to have a clearer understanding of how he approaches 'fantastical elements vs realist elements' in his films.

Your movies are very much grounded in reality despite having fantastic scenarios. Cloverfield works because it feels so authentic, as if it’s developing in real time in front of you. With Let Me In you were able to introduce a child vampire into a small American town while still retaining an overall sense of normalcy—that sets up the foundation for the rest of the film to work. You continued that trend with Dawn, and it looks like you’re sticking with it for War for the Planet of the Apes.

It’s funny, I never thought I would be a genre filmmaker. I always loved genre films, but I was more interested in the emotional content of whatever I did. The one thing about Cloverfield that got me so excited was realizing that you could use the metaphor of a giant monster to talk about our fears. The whole idea was to keep the monster as the sole fantastic element in the film, grounding everything else in real emotion. I took the same approach with Let Me In; it reminded me of my childhood — I was also bullied — this idea of the vampire being a metaphor for the pain of adolescence. I’m always looking for what is under the surface of the metaphor. Trying to ground emotionally some great fantastical tale comes to be what I find most exciting about these kinds of movies.

Director Matt Reeves Returns to the Planet of the Apes Franchise, Leading Caesar and Company Into an All-Out War - Boxoffice

Reeves seems to prefer approaching one or two fantastical elements in his stories and using them as a metaphor for something else. And with it being apparent that Reeves wants to focus heavily on telling an emotional journey for Bruce Wayne/Batman in these films, I'd wager that he won't push very heavily into the more supernatural or fantastical sides of that world.

It's not impossible, of course, and there's certain ways in which it can work... but I just don't see him going all in on that side of the spectrum.

As for JJ, I've always been a dan and became even a bigger fan after TFA. I loved TFA, but I didn't like TROS. I was a fan of TLJ, and I was very let down with how um original TROS was. But I don't really blame JJ for that.

Yeah, this is largely where I stand on the matter.

 

[TheFuture]

Hahaha! I loved/hated that show. They had some great moments though, maybe the love hate was like 70/30 or 80/20.

They clearly had fun with the material but I'm looking forward to The Batman's more serious Gotham centric show.

It was a frustrating series, but in terms "best of" live action moments in the Batman lore, the show had its fair share.

Bruce telling Selina about his Silver St Cloud con job is one of my all time favourites. That was the peak of their relationship but they unfortunately made a balls of it from there, falling back on old romantic teasing, will they won't they, tropes.

 

[thebatfan5194]

I would hope Reeves finds a middle ground between realistic and supernatural elements. I love the Nolan Trilogy but if it’s the same exact tone/feel Reeves’ movies would feel a little been there done that. Give us something new.

 

[C Prometheus]

I would hope Reeves finds a middle ground between realistic and supernatural elements. I love the Nolan Trilogy but if it’s the same exact tone/feel Reeves’ movies would feel a little been there done that. Give us something new.

I don't think it's going to be exactly like the Nolan trilogy. What we've seen so far is certainly far more stylized than most of that trilogy aside from Batman Begins. And to be fair, we did just get Batman fighting off against Superman, Doomsday and a ton of Parademons in his most recent cinematic appearances.

 

[shauner111]

I would hope Reeves finds a middle ground between realistic and supernatural elements. I love the Nolan Trilogy but if it’s the same exact tone/feel Reeves’ movies would feel a little been there done that. Give us something new.

So if there’s no supernatural stuff, it’s the exact same tone/feel as Nolan’s? That’s a very limited view of storytelling.

 

[flickchick85]

I don’t know why people are assuming Reeves’ take is gonna be “even more realistic than Nolan’s” based on the released pics, unless we’ve heard something concrete about this that I’ve missed? Because A.) these pics already appear to be from a more stylized universe than Nolan’s to me, and B.) Reeves’ cinematic M.O. so far has been to use grounded aesthetics and emotional realism to sell fantastical elements (giant aliens, child vampires, talking apes). So that seems like quite the premature assumption to make if it’s just based on the pics we’ve seen so far, imo.

 

[Boom]

You guys all realize that "gritty/realistic" is a pretty general description that can encapsulate many things, right? Both Burton and Schumacher made Batman films that are "heightened fantasy" and they're wildly different from one another.

Nolan had a more operatic approach, leaning heavily into themes and just a touch of melodrama. Reeves seems to be angling for something more intimate and personal. Not to mention the very obvious difference in aesthetic style between the two.

Calling Reeves film "Nolan 2.0" is lazy, quite frankly.

 

[TheFuture]

I don’t know why people are assuming Reeves’ take is gonna be “even more realistic than Nolan’s” based on the released pics, unless we’ve heard something concrete about this that I’ve missed? Because A.) these pics already appear to be from a more stylized universe than Nolan’s to me, and B.) Reeves’ cinematic M.O. so far has been to use grounded aesthetics and emotional realism to sell fantastical elements (giant aliens, child vampires, talking apes). So that seems like quite the premature assumption to make if it’s just based on the pics we’ve seen so far, imo.

This is what I expect it to be as well; gritty, but will embrace the fantastical elements. It's a fine balance to achieve and there's probably not many better than Reeves who can do it.

 

[shauner111]

I don’t know why people are assuming Reeves’ take is gonna be “even more realistic than Nolan’s” based on the released pics, unless we’ve heard something concrete about this that I’ve missed? Because A.) these pics already appear to be from a more stylized universe than Nolan’s to me, and B.) Reeves’ cinematic M.O. so far has been to use grounded aesthetics and emotional realism to sell fantastical elements (giant aliens, child vampires, talking apes). So that seems like quite the premature assumption to make if it’s just based on the pics we’ve seen so far, imo.

You could be right but most of the cast and crew have been saying it’s more of a real world approach. Unless I’m living in a parallel universe I sorta remember multiple interviews where those words were said. More stylized doesn’t mean less grounded either.

Nolan’s influences on each Batman movie were Bond, David Lean, Spielberg, Donner, Mann, Ridley Scott. Matt Reeves on the other hand has been talking about Fincher, Hitchcock, Polanski, Scorsese. So it comes off like he’s making more realistic, smaller scale murder mysteries that are focused entirely on the protagonist. As opposed to Nolan’s epic, large scale blockbusters where plot takes priority.

Also, Mattson Tomlin has gone on record saying they were focusing more on character than plot and that’s how he usually writes scripts. So I doubt we will be seeing fusion reactors that turn into nuclear bombs taking center stage. Or microwave emitters, clean slates. These devices have more in common with Mission Impossible or James Bond action franchises. A detective noir is completely different. Maguffins can exist too within those parameters but it’s definitely not at the forefront.

Doesn’t mean Man Bat won’t make an appearance, or Joker falling into a vat of chemicals and surviving. Judging by Reeves’ past work, it’s certainly a possibility. But you also can’t rely on a director’s past to inform his future. He could do 16 movies about vampires, that doesn’t mean his newest project will have the same rules. Filmmakers change and want to try new things. The Batman could be that change. Maybe the idea of having a Batman is Reeves’ idea of “using a little bit of fantasy”, filling the rest up with realism.

 

[C Prometheus]

You guys all realize that "gritty/realistic" is a pretty general description that can encapsulate many things, right? Both Burton and Schumacher made Batman films that are "heightened fantasy" and they're wildly different from one another.

Nolan had a more operatic approach, leaning heavily into themes and just a touch of melodrama. Reeves seems to be angling for something more intimate and personal. Not to mention the very obvious difference in aesthetic style between the two.

Calling Reeves film "Nolan 2.0" is lazy, quite frankly.

Boom gets it.

 

[Boom]

And while Nolan's films had elements of detective work in them, Reeves flat-out identifies his film as a detective story. So again, different.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I've always preferred my Batman stories to have a feel of being grounded, which i think Reeves will, but I don't think it's gonna be a copy of Nolans world.