The Batman Spoiler Discussion Thread

[antsman41]

It doesn't sound like Batman was at a point he could take down the mob yet. He was focusing more on the crime he could handle like local gangs and letting the fear grow on the streets. Like Batman '89.

Riddler I believe said he worked as an accountant for the city or something so he was able to see the files on how the Wayne plan was corrupted and didn't work. He pieced it together from that foundation. (probably started stalking various people) Plus he lives across the street from the Iceburg.

I feel like Edward Nashton precured that location, after getting his idea to take down Gotham's elite... to benefit his plan.

Also, since I didn't comment on it last night. I really enjoyed when he got weird and heightened. The unstableness was a nice counter-balance to his mechanicalness. It was a perfect rounding out of a Zodiac/BTK meets current day School Shooters. They're all pent up man-babies who can't handle their emotions and usually spiral out after bottling up their anger from one bad day. Thinking they deserve more or are "the answer" to something they don't truly understand.

 

[BatLobster]

It doesn't sound like Batman was at a point he could take down the mob yet. He was focusing more on the crime he could handle like local gangs and letting the fear grow on the streets. Like Batman '89.

Riddler I believe said he worked as an accountant for the city or something so he was able to see the files on how the Wayne plan was corrupted and didn't work. He pieced it together from that foundation. (probably started stalking various people) Plus he lives across the street from the Iceburg.

That's fair. I guess my feeling is he knows stuff in the movie that people get killed for knowing or choose to die before revealing. I wish the movie would've maybe given us a few more breadcrumbs to understand how Edward knows what he does considering it's so central to movie and it feels like such an intricate mystery, but it's not a deal-breaker or anything and I'm still not sure if there are a few additional details I'm forgetting. I can probably just round up to "smart conspiracy theorist/internet sleuth" who was able to follow the money.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I have a few issues with the revelation of The Wayne family… It appears that this version of Martha is a descendant of Arkham not Kane like in the comics. She also suffered from a mental illness…. Which could kinda explain Bruce’s physiological issues and torment.

The whole dirty dealing between Thomas and Carmine regarding Elliot Thomas the reporter . Seems like Thomas had a moment of weakness in the pursuit of protecting his family and made a deal with the devil.

Personally I have a problem with this because I prefer The Wayne family as an incorruptible family that inspired Gotham with their unwavering efforts through service and dedication . That once they were killed the city unravel into crime, corruption, chaos and despair until the arrival of Batman.

 

[weezerspider]

I have a few issues with the revelation of The Wayne family… It appears that this version of Martha is a descendant of Arkham not Kane like in the comics. She also suffered from a mental illness…. Which could kinda explain Bruce’s physiological issues and torment.

The whole dirty dealing between Thomas and Carmine regarding Elliot Thomas the reporter . Seems like Thomas had a moment of weakness in the pursuit of protecting his family and made a deal with the devil.

Personally I have a problem with this because I prefer The Wayne family as an incorruptible family that inspired Gotham with their unwavering efforts through service and dedication . That once they were killed the city unravel into crime, corruption, chaos and despair until the arrival of Batman.

I have always liked the idea that Bruce gained his strong moral compass from Thomas, but I felt this struck a good balance between Thomas Wayne being a good person and The Wayne’s being “corrupt”(If Alfred’s version of the events is true). With the themes of this particular story, I think it would have been weird if the Wayne’s had no blood on their hands.

 

[BatLobster]

Have to sit on that aspect a bit more. It felt a bit trying to have it both ways to me. Although not necessarily my preferred take, I thought exploring the Waynes' being a bit more morally grey could be one key way to distinguish this version. In the end, it just seems like Thomas is still an essentially good man who made one tragic mistake, coming from a place of fear and love for his wife. I feel like it teases the idea of it being more morally complex than it ultimately is. And the film immediately walks it back from one scene to the next, when I wonder if letting Bruce sit with that knowledge for a bit might've been more effective.

I kind of hope they dig more in the sequels.

 

[antsman41]

Have to sit on that aspect a bit more. It felt a bit trying to have it both ways to me. Although not necessarily my preferred take, I thought exploring the Waynes' being a bit more morally grey could be one key way to distinguish this version. In the end, it just seems like Thomas is still an essentially good man who made one tragic mistake, coming from a place of fear and love for his wife. It feel like it teases the idea of it being more morally complex than it ultimately is.

I kind of hope they dig more in the sequels.

This... Alfred laid it all out. It's no different than what Loeb or Johns created.

Thomas made a mistake, he wasn't "dirty" - he only was shown as corrupted because of that said mistake out of the love for his family.

It will be a huge aspect to this Bruce and certifies why his "no gun" rule is even more important. Look at how he saved Selina from making that mistake, from killing her father. [literally getting goosebumps from typing this out]

 

[OnLeatherWings]

Have to sit on that aspect a bit more. It felt a bit trying to have it both ways to me. Although not necessarily my preferred take, I thought exploring the Waynes' being a bit more morally grey could be one key way to distinguish this version. In the end, it just seems like Thomas is still an essentially good man who made one tragic mistake, coming from a place of fear and love for his wife. I feel like it teases the idea of it being more morally complex than it ultimately is. And the film immediately walks it back from one scene to the next, when I wonder if letting Bruce sit with that knowledge for a bit might've been more effective.

An issue for me is that it doesn't look like it effects him much.

His demeanor, posture, eyes, tone of voice and such is just as depressed and void of humanity as he was prior to this knowledge.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I adore that they left Thomas Wayne a fairly ambiguous figure. Yes, Alfred says it was a mistake and that Thomas never thought Falcone would actually kill Elliot... but of course Alfred would have the most charitable interpretation of his friend's actions. The remaining ambiguity over the Wayne murders was also wonderful.

I do wish Alfred had more screentime and the Wayne family stuff had more room to breathe. There's so much happening in this movie (which doesn't bother me, I love more novelistic storytelling on film) that it could probably have been even more compelling as a mini-series.

 

[The Caped Knight]

See I don't see Thomas as corrupt through. He made a deal with the devil that ultimately cost a man his life at the hands of the mob.

But there's nothing definitive that shows Thomas Wayne was profiting of the oppression of Gotham misfortunate or poverty-stricken citizens. The renewal project was intended to be a successful entrepreneur endeavor to help all walks of life in Gotham City had Thomas actually become Mayor.

 

[antsman41]

An issue for me is that it doesn't look like it effects him much.

His demeanor, posture, eyes, tone of voice and such is just as depressed and void of humanity as he was prior to this knowledge.

His butler is still injured, his city still has a terrorist on the loose. Pattinson sold what he needed to...

 

[antsman41]

See I don't see Thomas as corrupt through. He made a deal with the devil that ultimately cost a man his life at the hands of the mob.

But there's nothing definitive that shows Thomas Wayne was profiting of the oppression of Gotham misfortunate or poverty-stricken citizens. The renewal project was intended to be a successful entrepreneur endeavor to help all walks of life in Gotham City had Thomas actually become Mayor.

And, that one cop laid that all out. Falcone took advantage of the Renewal Project, after killing The Waynes.

 

[Boom]

I will be curious to see this cut scene eventually.

"This character in Arkham goes back to the Joker before he was the Joker. He hasn't decided to claim that concept yet. But I wanted to make him someone that Batman met in his first year, and that he had him locked up because he was a killer. And because Batman was disturbed by the Riddler writing to him, he had to go to Arkham to try to establish his profile, see if he could succeed in entering his state of mind to understand the reasons for these letters."

"When he goes to the asylum, the Joker who is locked up - but who is not the Joker because there is none - manages to read in Batman: 'Why do you wonder why he's writing to you ? You are exactly the same, both masked vigilantes.' He draws a comparison between the two, and Batman is so pissed off by the idea that he rejects it."

"The scene was originally in the movie, and Barry Keoghan was great, as was Robert Pattinson. But seeing how big the movie is, I ended up realizing it didn't need to be there. I Still kept his second scene. Because it marked the end of the Riddler arc, but also because it showed that more trouble was coming."

There is a lot to unpack here. But yeah, I need that deleted scene released tomorrow.

 

[BatLobster]

This... Alfred laid it all out. It's no different than what Loeb or Johns created.

Thomas made a mistake, he wasn't "dirty" - he only was shown as corrupted because of that said mistake out of the love for his family.

It will be a huge aspect to this Bruce and certifies why his "no gun" rule is even more important. Look at how he saved Selina from making that mistake, from killing her father. [literally getting goosebumps from typing this out]

I can't help but wonder if the film might've had more teeth and a more powerful arc for Bruce though if he had to come to terms with the fact that his dad actually did make some shady deals. But maybe it's too big of a bridge to cross though. I'm not one of the people who was saying they had to "go there", but the way the movie kind of knocks at the door, only to immediately walk it back felt a bit....I dunno, still processing. I was relieved on one hand, but also wondering if it could've been more powerful if Bruce had to find a reason to carry on (and adjust) his mission in SPITE of that.

Ultimately I think the film may have undelivered a bit for me on Reeves' "discovers something that shakes him to his core" premise. It's there, but I think I wanted to feel that a bit more.

I adore that they left Thomas Wayne a fairly ambiguous figure. Yes, Alfred says it was a mistake and that Thomas never thought Falcone would actually kill Elliot... but of course Alfred would have the most charitable interpretation of his friend's actions. The remaining ambiguity over the Wayne murders was also wonderful.

I do wish Alfred had more screentime and the Wayne family stuff had more room to breathe. There's so much happening in this movie (which doesn't bother me, I love more novelistic storytelling on film) that it could probably have been even more compelling as a mini-series.

I have felt since seeing the first teaser that this take looks like it would almost be better suited as the live-action Batman streaming series, and seeing the film only reinforced that to me. Happy to experience it on the big screen, don't get me wrong, but I just feel that this take feels like it's potentially better suited to long-form storytelling-- which it partially will be with the spinoffs.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

His butler is still injured, his city still has a terrorist on the loose. Pattinson sold what he needed to...

He acted the same way before all that happened.

 

[antsman41]

The thing that I think Reeves was actually speaking on, is heroism. Bruce now knows vengeance isn't the only answer.

Its easy to misconstrue the Wayne/Falcone twist being that shocking moment... but deep down, it is important. But, not the huge character changing moment - which was seeing that Batman needs to be more than a fist.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Dano's Riddler seems to be a bit divisive but I was actually surprised at how interesting he was. I was expecting much more of your traditional cold, John Doe style serial killer but what he actually is in the film is... a huge, pathetic dork. Dano's performance especially in his video messages is really big and cartoony but of course it is: he's a mentally unstable weirdo putting on a voice and persona like Batman.

To me the most chilling moment of Riddler was the video they find in his apartment where he's sitting on his bed in the mask, talking in his normal voice about how much his little community has meant to him... while the comments section is filled with his supporters advising each other on the best kinds of fire arms to use, etc. It feels very real and visceral - wish it had been more developed throughout.

On that note, need a second viewing to unpack this fully but did anyone else feel there's a running theme throughout the film that on some level putting on a mask and violently lashing out at the world is a deeply childish and unhealthy impulse. People are reading the opening shot being a little boy playing in a ninja costume as a Robin reference but I suspect it's more linked to these themes than any kind of mythology gag.

Falcone was also fascinating and surprisingly disturbing. On the surface he's a very typical mob boss character but there's such an extra underlining darkness to him in the way he clearly loves strangling women. Again, there's something visceral and real and unpleasant about The Batman's villains.

 

[The Batman]

I have a few issues with the revelation of The Wayne family… It appears that this version of Martha is a descendant of Arkham not Kane like in the comics. She also suffered from a mental illness…. Which could kinda explain Bruce’s physiological issues and

Martha being an mentally ill member of the Arkham family is straight from the Earth One comics.

 

[Boom]

At least they gave Martha more of a critical role here instead of being "the wife who gets shot with Thomas."

She's the spark that sets the entire thing in motion.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Was super happy to see Bruce being an Arkham was included. The Earth One books are unimpressive as stories, underwritten and half-baked, but the world building is excellent and a great well of lore to draw from for more talented writers.

 

[antsman41]

Dano's Riddler seems to be a bit divisive but I was actually surprised at how interesting he was. I was expecting much more of your traditional cold, John Doe style serial killer but what he actually is in the film is... a huge, pathetic dork. Dano's performance especially in his video messages is really big and cartoony but of course it is: he's a mentally unstable weirdo putting on a voice and persona like Batman.

To me the most chilling moment of Riddler was the video they find in his apartment where he's sitting on his bed in the mask, talking in his normal voice about how much his little community has meant to him... while the comments section is filled with his supporters advising each other on the best kinds of fire arms to use, etc. It feels very real and visceral - wish it had been more developed throughout.

This.

I loved that about his acting/character. He's no different than the Columbine kids. A loser trying to make a difference and the only way he knows how is through evil ways. While he started out hurting bad people... he eventually started to hurt anyone. That's what happens to these freaks and weirdos. They use an excuse to get what they want... and in their minds, they're being a "Batman" when in actuality they're not.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Martha being an mentally ill member of the Arkham family is straight from the Earth One comics.

still don’t like it I prefer Martha Kane.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

So there were two scenes with the Joker initially. Reeves told the French press about it here:

The Batman : la surprise du film expliquée par le réalisateur Matt Reeves

Translation of Reeves' statement:

“Does the film introduce us to the main antagonist of the next film? No, that was not the intention”, affirms Matt Reeves to our microphone. "I don't even know who the villain will be in the sequel. The character was supposed to appear earlier, in another scene, but it's all about the context: I didn't want to do a Batman origin story, because I had the feeling that it had been done, and very well, in several other films."

"Instead, I wanted to show him in his younger years as a vigilante. Like a 'Batman: Year Two'. And as I delved into the comic books, I discovered that a lot of his enemies emerged as a reaction to the presence of this masked individual called Batman in Gotham, and I realized that's where their origin story lay. "

"This character in Arkham goes back to the Joker before he was the Joker. He hasn't decided to claim that concept yet. But I wanted to make him someone that Batman met in his first year, and that he had him locked up because he was a killer. And because Batman was disturbed by the Riddler writing to him, he had to go to Arkham to try to establish his profile, see if he could succeed in entering his state of mind to understand the reasons for these letters."

"When he goes to the asylum, the Joker who is locked up - but who is not the Joker because there is none - manages to read in Batman: 'Why do you wonder why he's writing to you ? You are exactly the same, both masked vigilantes.' He draws a comparison between the two, and Batman is so pissed off by the idea that he rejects it."

"The scene was originally in the movie, and Barry Keoghan was great, as was Robert Pattinson. But seeing how big the movie is, I ended up realizing it didn't need to be there. I Still kept his second scene. Because it marked the end of the Riddler arc, but also because it showed that more trouble was coming."

"When Selina tells Bruce in the epilogue that the city will never change, removing the scene [with the future Joker] changed the stakes. Because you didn't have the feeling that something was already brewing. Even if the intention wasn't to say: 'This is where the next film will go!' The idea was more to give some context to this world, and to show that even if the stranglehold of corruption has been broken to some degree, trouble is not going to stop coming."

"And that explains in part why Bruce doesn't go with Selina. Why he can't. He is forced to do what he does, and that's why I saved this scene. Anyway, all this to say that this character is the one you're thinking of, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be the next movie's villain."

___​

I have to say I don't find that justification for keeping only this second scene very convincing. The movie ends showing how a part of the citizen had quickly followed a murderous psychopath, we know that Oz is becoming the new crime lord and obviously we're not gullible enough to think you can stop corruption and crime just by taking some people off...
I wonder if WB asked him to kept at least one of the two when he decide it hasn't really its place in the movie. I would have deleted both or just kept the other aha. On paper, it just seems so much more relevant to the plot in several ways. Also, I would have been curious to see Keohgan in this one, as I found the little snippet we got rather sterile (but like I said, I won't condemn his casting, the apparition was too short to be fairly judged).

Glad that scene was cut even though I'm excited to see it. The idea of Riddler possibly being a Batman copycat being made explicit before the confrontation in Arkham would take away from that scene and Joker's little cameo at the end would be less impactful if he already had a whole scene.

Plus, a scene where Batman just visits Joker in Arkham to have a chat even if its plot relevant feels a lot more artificial and sequel bait-y to me. Obviously the scene itself still is but Riddler making a new friend after Batman's rejection feels like it has some substance for his arc.

 

[BatLobster]

The thing that I think Reeves was actually speaking on, is heroism. Bruce now knows vengeance isn't the only answer.

Its easy to misconstrue the Wayne/Falcone twist being that shocking moment... but deep down, it is important. But, not the huge character changing moment - which was seeing that Batman needs to be more than a fist.

Where is 'that' moment though? Is it when he stops Selena from killing Falcone? I know we have the moment of the Riddler goon saying "I'm vengeance". I get the signficance. But is that where Batman fully realizes it? Is it before then?

This is where I think I'm struggling, but want to see how it tracks for me when I see it again. I think we see that Bruce already has heroic instincts. He has a no-gun rule established already. The way he saves the kid at the funeral.

At no point in the film did I think Batman wouldn't try to save innocent people if he could. The flare moment is a beautiful bit of visual poetry that conveys the idea, so I get it, but I feel like the movie is lacking that real moment of clarity where Bruce is making a conscious decision to transition from vigilante to hero with a bigger purpose. He just tells us via voiceover. It's there, but I think the arc is maybe a bit muddier than I would've liked.

This is something that I think both TDK and TDKR handle really well. There are clear moments where a pivotal choice is made that rounds out the character journey. Batman chooses to take the fall for Dent. Bruce chooses to make the climb without a rope and embrace fear again. They're just really big moments that you really feel, that clearly demonstrate the character transitioning-- either his purpose as Batman, or emotionally as Bruce. I understood Batman to be acting in character with the Batman I know here in the 3rd act, but that was inferred more from my outside knowledge of the character vs. something that I felt was clearly earned in this story.

That's just my initial impression though. I'm really hoping a second viewing irons this out for me, because that would pretty much take me from really liking to loving it.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

This.

I loved that about his acting/character. He's no different than the Columbine kids. A loser trying to make a difference and the only way he knows how is through evil ways. While he started out hurting bad people... he eventually started to hurt anyone. That's what happens to these freaks and weirdos. They use an excuse to get what they want... and in their minds, they're being a "Batman" when in actuality they're not.

There's an argument to be made that in a meta-sense this is a movie about the toxicity of superhero/Batman fandom that is primarily interested in it as a power fantasy of rage and violence, rather than something constructive and heroic. Some big Magnum Force energy to Reeves and Craig's screenplay.

Don't think that is (fully) intentional but it's an interesting subtext to mull over.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Where is 'that' moment though? Is it when he stops Selena from killing Falcone? I know we have the moment of the Riddler goon saying "I'm vengeance". I get the signficance. But is that where Batman fully realizes it? Is it before then?

This is where I think I'm struggling, but want to see how it tracks for me when I see it again. I think we see that Bruce already has heroic instincts. He has a no-gun rule established already. The way he saves the kid at the funeral.

At no point in the film did I think Batman wouldn't try to save innocent people if he could. The flare moment is a beautiful bit of visual poetry that conveys the idea, so I get it, but I feel like the movie is lacking that real moment of clarity where Bruce is making a conscious decision to transition from vigilante to hero with a bigger purpose. He just tells us via voiceover. It's there, but I think the arc is maybe a bit muddier than I would've liked.

This is something that I think both TDK and TDKR handle really well. There are clear moments where a pivotal choice is made that rounds out the character journey. Batman chooses to take the fall for Dent. Bruce chooses to make the climb without a rope and embrace fear again. They're just really big moments that you really feel, that clearly demonstrate the character transitioning-- either his purpose as Batman, or emotionally as Bruce. I understood Batman to be acting in character with the Batman I know here in the 3rd act, but that was inferred more from my outside knowledge of the character vs. something that I felt was clearly earned in this story.

That's just my initial impression though. I'm really hoping a second viewing irons this out for me, because that would pretty much take me from really liking to loving it.

While I agree its maybe not made as explicit as it could be - I feel like it is trying very hard to largely avoid expressing themes through dialogue apart from Battinson's narration in that wonderfully theatrical manner the TDK trilogy had - but I'm not sure it is so much about how Bruce wouldn't have helped those people earlier in the film so much as it is the start of him making helping people his focus.

It is pretty clear to me that he has first and foremost been going around beating the **** out of street thugs. He clearly hasn't been targeting the Falcone's of the world, he's trapped in his trauma and rewriting it every night by interceding in similar crimes. He doesn't have as defined a mission as Bale's Batman did for instance, even though he's clearly telling himself he does.

Just my read on it anyway.