The Batman Spoiler Discussion Thread

[OnLeatherWings]

I personally love the scene. Can't see anything to say isn't good about it.

It's in this weird limbo where I'm glad it was cut but at the same time I'm bummed it was cut.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I personally love the scene. Can't see anything to say isn't good about it.

It's in this weird limbo where I'm glad it was cut but at the same time I'm bummed it was cut.

It’s so funny. It’s so good but also so obviously the right move to cut it.

 

[Gold Samurai]

It’s so funny. It’s so good but also so obviously the right move to cut it.

I agree. It's just too much for the first movie of Pattinson's era. Imagine after this scene we go The Riddler interrogation? People won't be focused on that. They'll just be thinking "Hey. When are we going back to the Joker?"

They risk playing their winning card too early.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

This is like a great bonus track on an awesome album.

You love the track, but you understand the vibe and flow of the album would be lessened if it was included on the album, proper.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

Barry's laugh is much better here, too.

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind if they went the makeup route for this Joker?

 

[chintai80]

plus the movie already has batman going back to various locations multiple times - mayor's mansion, selina's apartment, iceberg lounge, the bat signal building...having this deleted scene then having the riddler interrogation scene once again at arkham would be overkill.

it would also remove the power of the riddler scene.

 

[C Prometheus]

I personally love the scene. Can't see anything to say isn't good about it.

It's in this weird limbo where I'm glad it was cut but at the same time I'm bummed it was cut.

Completely agreed.

It's also not at all uncommon for filmmaking to sacrifice a great scene for the overall quality of the film as a whole. On its own, the scene is utterly fantastic and I'd rank it up there with many of the film proper's finest moments. But given where it clearly fits into the narrative (it's set somewhere in-between Batman and Gordon going to the morgue to see Savage's corpse and the funeral sequence as the only victims mentioned are the Mayor and Commissioner), the scene has Joker give too much of the game away far too early.

I'd have loved for there to be a way for a slightly adjusted take on this scene making it into the film proper, because I think the combination of this scene and the one at the end of the film makes it clear as day that this Joker is manipulating Riddler.

 

[chintai80]

I'd have loved for there to be a way for a slightly adjusted take on this scene making it into the film proper, because I think the combination of this scene and the one at the end of the film makes it clear as day that this Joker is manipulating Riddler.

this also makes me think yo why they put their cells so close to each other in arkham.
i'm sure they did a psychological evaluation on the joker by this point and gotta know he's manipulative.

gotta isolate that f***er!

 

[C Prometheus]

this also makes me think yo why they put their cells so close to each other in arkham.
i'm sure they did a psychological evaluation on the joker by this point and gotta know he's manipulative.

gotta isolate that f***er!

If I had to guess, since John Doe hasn't fully come unto his own yet and is likely just seen by the cops and staff at Arkham as one of dozens of psychos in the asylum, they are severely underestimating how dangerous he can become by manipulating Riddler into his schemes.

I'll be interested to see how people in Gotham all react to this guy after he fully embraces the Joker moniker and shows what he's really capable of.

 

[TheVileOne]

It’s not an excuse when Matt Reeves has explicitly stated this is not the joker. He’s someone that is very likely going to be the joker but it’s obvious it will likely result in him transforming physically into a more traditional take.

it’s like how people still don’t understand how Bruce Wayne being the way he is, is somehow a bad take on the character that ignores everything Bruce Wayne is portrayed to be normally. Watching the film it’s very clear they have fully acknowledged every aspect of classic Bruce Wayne in order to do the opposite of it as a point.

If he's saying that, it's really stupid. What are we supposed to think this person is?

 

[antsman41]

This is like a great bonus track on an awesome album.

You love the track, but you understand the vibe and flow of the album would be lessened if it was included on the album, proper.

It’s like a Radiohead B-Side. It might not have made the film… but still better than most scenes in any other films.

 

[samsnee]

I don’t want every villain in this universe to be some serial killer. It’s cool what they did with Riddler but Joker also being a sadist, while making sense in a “realistic” universe, would be repetitive.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I'm reading a lot of people say this Joker is more realistic and thus that's why he's good/better than X.

Why is it that only in Batman film fandom, calling something "realistic" is seen as one of the top compliments you can dish out?

Like being far away from anything not grounded is the ultimate sign something is good and up to snuff.

Just weird, to me.

All that should matter is that it fits the world and most importantly = is good.

 

[Boom]

I'm reading a lot of people say this Joker is more realistic and thus that's why he's good/better than X.

Why is it that only in Batman film fandom, calling something "realistic" is seen as one of the top compliments you can dish out?

Like being far away from anything not grounded is the ultimate sign something is good and up to snuff.

Just weird, to me.

All that should matter is that it fits the world and most importantly = is good.

People seem to like realistic Batman.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

This joker is truly horrific, I do think that audiences have become pretty comfortable with the character at this point so it's good to see something so extreme.

I'd thought for a long time that the character should be totally fear inducing. Don't get me wrong I'm sure that any of the other interpretations if you met them wouldn't be pleasant, but this is totally unhinged from what we've seen.

If he's bought back in future films I think this could be the first time that audiences are genuinely scared by the character. Again just to reiterate the other interpretations have been great in their own ways, but this looks like it could be out of a horror movie.

View attachment 54265

Looks like Jared Leto if he got addicted to meth for the last decade

 

[weezerspider]

If he's saying that, it's really stupid. What are we supposed to think this person is?

I think he just means this guy hasn’t adopted the joker persona yet.

 

[antsman41]

…at first I thought his hands looked like that from getting caught, but being 10ish months later that doesn’t make sense.

Its Reeves way of showing this Joker constantly is deteriorating his fingerprints, so he’ll never officially be ID’d.

 

[BattleAngel]

Straight out of the Gotham TV show. Good lord what a bummer. I’m so torn on The Batman - there is SO much unbelievably great stuff. But there are some major, major flaws. And the references to Se7en, mob movies, and here Silence of the Lambs are so spot on that it’s really hard for me to accept it as fresh. The drama with Alfred is SO heavy handed. This take on the Joker… I can see potential but I’m not even remotely convinced. The bloated epilogues…

On the other hand, Pattinson is *so* fantastic, the city feels so palpable, Penguin, Gordon, the aesthetics are gorgeous, the genuine enthusiasm from the team to explore Batman for Batman and not as a morality tale about the real world (ie The Dark Knight and it’s allusions to the war on terror) are great. I don’t love that the main theme is just a loop out of The Imperial March but the rest of the score is outrageously great.

This Joker scene just has more of the stuff I love and more of the stuff I can’t stand. I’m obviously going to take the full ride, but it’s just all SO uneven.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think he just means this guy hasn’t adopted the joker persona yet.

That's very misleading and disingenuous.

 

[jamesb]

It’s a good scene I enjoyed it. It had to be cut though because it’s too similar to the riddler scene. I like his joker more after this sequence

 

[FunkMiller]

Ugh, I hope not.

I edited & added to the end of that post after you quoted, I personally would prefer if the scarring, was more deliberate, something similar to but not necessarily the same as, Ledger's Joker.

I’m hoping it’s scarring from the acid he fell into at Ace Chemicals.

 

[cryptic name]

I personally love the scene. Can't see anything to say isn't good about it.

It's in this weird limbo where I'm glad it was cut but at the same time I'm bummed it was cut.

Same

 

[Luke995]

I rewatched the bootleg streaming version I found, and I really think that this scene should have been between the scene in the morgue with Savage's corpse and the scene of Selina getting the Bat-contact lenses.

Actually that's a strange cut. The Joker scene gives to Batman the insight that Riddler is a nobody who is trying to be a somebody killing important people.
So Batman thinks that in the 44 Below he could find the next corrupted authority.

That's not a so brilliant moment of the script, to me: Batman should have understand that before without Joker (is quite obvious...) and he doesn't try to follow and protect Colson.

But, you know, he isn't an hero, he is vengeance and... "he thinks they deserved it"...

 

[BatLobster]

That's not a so brilliant moment of the script, to me: Batman should have understand that before without Joker (is quite obvious...) and he doesn't try to follow and protect Colson.

This is why the scene feels extraneous to me, whether in the movie or as a deleted scene. It really doesn't move the story forward in any way. It lays out some pretty obvious stuff, but is mainly there to function as a piece of world-building and let the audience know that Batman has already encountered Joker (or pre-Joker) and put him in Arkham prior to this movie.

 

[Luke995]

This is why the scene feels extraneous to me, whether in the movie or as a deleted scene. It really doesn't move the story forward in any way. It lays out some pretty obvious stuff, but is mainly there to function as a piece of world-building and let the audience know that Batman has already encountered Joker (or pre-Joker) and put him in Arkham prior to this movie.

On one side it doesn't move the story forward, but on the other side it makes it's too didactic on themes and the climax of the story.

I'm wondering if Reeves deliberately wrote it having in mind to not put it in the movie. A "fake deleted scene". A canon scene, but born to be something like a short movie.

If that's so, it's a quite smartass move, but it's a nice alternative to the boring and pointless "post credit" scene of the last years...