The Batman Spoiler Discussion Thread

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah he definitely had Bale vibes during that scene. Never went into full growl mode, though. Also, Rob’s face behind the mask during that scene was top tier stuff. He looked like he was so close to breaking.

 

[Boom]

Did he say that? I don't recall that. I thought he said he's unsure he'll be in the next movie.

People are reading way too much into Reeves' comments.

He doesn't know what he'll do with The Joker yet. That's really all he was trying to communicate.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Seeing it a second time last night that scene cuts the momentum out of the end of that movie.

 

[The Guard]

Also, how sexy was that “you don’t need to pay anymore” line Bats gives to Selina?

He sort of saved her, but they actually saved each other… she also showed him he needed to not assume things about others,

The "shhhh! shhh shhh shhh" was kind of sexy, too. And hilarious.

After seeing the film I wonder why the Mcfarlane Catwoman figure has a whip. When that Riddler goon was about to shoot Batman in the head I seriously expected a whip to come from off screen and yank it out of his hand Indiana Jones style. Wonder if the whip was part of her original design.

For the same reason Spin Master made ANY of this movie into toys.

But seriously, she used a whiplike gadget at the drophouse.

 

[antsman41]

Seeing it a second time last night that scene cuts the momentum out of the end of that movie.

…no. Batman heroism shines, then we get the Arkham buffer into the poignant send off for Selina.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

While of course it has to be acknowledged that it is ultimately sequel bait the reason the Joker scene works for me is that within the context of the story it isn't about Joker, it is about Riddler. He wants to be seen and acknowledged and appreciated, Joker sees that and plays on it.

It shows an emotionally predatory quality to Joker that I am really, really interested to see developed further.

 

[WayneMB]

do we call every angry, shouting man Bale now? Never got Bale vibes from Rob's voice. there's a moment during the 3 riddle bomb scene, when he snaps and yells "HOW MUCH" to colson after speaking normally for a while and it doesn't sound even remotely close to a growl.

 

[BatLobster]

Joker scene still doesn't play that well for me on second watch. It's fine, it's just kind of there. Don't buy Reeves' reasoning for keeping it. I completely understand that Gotham is a rough place and there's a difficult fight ahead without it. There were better ways to accomplish that more organic to this film IMO. I can't shake the feeling of it seeming like a scene from a different movie.

It is a minor gripe, but it's an area where I felt like Reeves' inner fanboy and desire to create a Joker in this world ASAP may have gotten the better of him.

I feel like Riddler loses most of what makes him interesting without the identity twist - him being a Batman fanboy is, far as I am concerned, central to the entire point of the movie and you probably lose that if he knows Bruce is Batman. It is a little bit artificial in its dialogue, but I can roll with it for the sake of drama.

You're probably right. It may grow on me over time. I just think there may have been a few too many "it's this, no it's that" exposition moments in a row for me between the Wayne revelations and then Riddler's moment. A bit jerky to me in terms of Bruce's arc and where he is emotionally.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Joker scene still doesn't play that well for me on second watch. It's fine, it's just kind of there. Don't buy Reeves' reasoning for keeping it. I completely understand that Gotham is a rough place and there's a difficult fight ahead without it. There were better ways to accomplish that more organic to this film IMO. I can't shake the feeling of it seeming like a scene from a different movie.

It is a minor gripe, but it's an area where I felt like Reeves' inner fanboy and desire to create a Joker in this world ASAP may have gotten the better of him.



You're probably right. It may grow on me over time. I just think there may have been a few too many "it's this, no it's that" exposition moments in a row for me between the Wayne revelations and then Riddler's moment. A bit jerky to me in terms of Bruce's arc and where he is emotionally.

I think Batman's narration of saying how there's a power grab and showing Penguin as well as Selina leaving because of her cynicism of the city conveys all of that. They just needed to cut out that Joker scene!

I love this movie, and on second viewing loved it even more. This is a great movie. It's just that Joker scene is a blemish.

 

[BatLobster]

I love this movie, and on second viewing loved it even more. This is a great movie. It's just that Joker scene is a blemish.

It has a powerful effect of engaging one's cynicism about the state of modern IP franchise-building (mileage will vary here) that nearly threatens to undermine everything the movie just did so well.

It's the type of scene that was parodied with such righteous contempt in The Matrix Resurrections.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It has a powerful effect of engaging one's cynicism about the state of modern IP franchise-building (mileage will vary here) that nearly threatens to undermine everything the movie just did so well.

It's the type of scene that was parodied with such righteous contempt in The Matrix Resurrections.

I wouldn't go that far. To be fair it seems it was a scene Reeves came up with and Reeves left that in for his own reasons and wasn't studio mandated. I can at least appreciate that, but I just disagree with his reasoning. If the studio forced him to put that there then sure it's cynical, I just havent seen the evidence for that yet. Right now it's just a mistaken creative choice, however well intentioned it was.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I don’t think the concept of setting things up for a sequel is an inherent act of creative bankruptcy. Franchise films are a serialized medium, there’s a balance to be struck but l fail to see how a singular scene laying groundwork - that still has some relevance to one of the primary characters of the film - is equivalent to the worst impulses of franchise building.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Just got back from my 3rd viewing and this time with my brother. I still love it and so did he! However, unfortunately, there was a glitch in the system so the tickets essentially were never ours and we lost our seats. We had to sit up against the screen and was almost 10 minutes. I'm lucky I saw it already but I feel bad he missed the opening haha.

Regarding the movie, he said Pattinson is his favorite Batman and that it's his second favorite Batman movie.

 

[BatLobster]

I don’t think the concept of setting things up for a sequel is an inherent act of creative bankruptcy. Franchise films are a serialized medium, there’s a balance to be struck but l fail to see how a singular scene laying groundwork - that still has some relevance to one of the primary characters of the film - is equivalent to the worst impulses of franchise building.

I guess for me its potency is felt in a stronger way because it is the most iconic villain, and we've seen a lot of Joker lately which adds to the feeling of it being gratuitous. It may just be a victim of the environment it's being released in, but nothing exists in a vacuum.

 

[BobJM]

I like the inclusion of a Barry Keoghan Joker in the proceedings of this film but I think there may have been a more seamless integration already baked into the story that the filmmakers could have capitalized on:

Keoghan should have played the funeral-goer that Bruce Wayne sees at Don Mitchell’s memorial—the man who cozies up to Wayne to share his disdain for the late mayor and the city’s elite.

This man is only later seen again as part of the assault against Mayor Real at Gotham City Garden. He’s one of the Riddler’s army—one of 500 nameless Gothamites. This universe’s Red Hood Gang (or green mask gang, as it were).

At the GCG, this man nearly gets the drop on Batman but is stopped by Selina who he in turn nearly kills. Batman is barely able to subdue him.

When Gordon arrives and asks the man his identity, he responds among the choked laughter… “I’m vengeance,” which causes Batman to remember his face.

The Riddler is the match to this city’s powder keg…

The nameless man laughs maniacally and sets an explosion/throws a grenade which causes him to fall into the water as a dangling wire sparks with electricity.

Instead of searching for this random Riddler goon’s body, Batman goes to save the mayor’s son and mayor-elect Bella Real from the wreckage and lead them out of the Garden.

The end of the film could have a quiet scene of this nameless man, now reborn as Joker, shrouded in shadow and smoke, surveying the chaos of No Man’s Land Gotham City as his laughter echoes into the transition to the film’s final scene between Selina and Batman in the graveyard.

 

[DKDetective]

I don’t think the concept of setting things up for a sequel is an inherent act of creative bankruptcy. Franchise films are a serialized medium, there’s a balance to be struck but l fail to see how a singular scene laying groundwork - that still has some relevance to one of the primary characters of the film - is equivalent to the worst impulses of franchise building.

While unfortunately franchises like the MCU and its post-credit scenes have rightfully conditioned us to see such scenes as existing for such cynical, base purposes, I agree. I think hinting at future conflict at the end of a story can actually often be a sign of nuance and have thematic relevance. Good storytellers admit that not everything should be wrapped up in a tidy bow at the end.

While Reeves very much tells a self-contained story, a big part of the end of this story is about how Gotham is going to get worse before getting better and Bruce has to commit to the long haul or get out like Selina. Bruce doubling down and believing in Gotham, rather than just engaging in the selfish gratification of his own desire for vengeance, is a big part of his arc. The Arkham scene and its intent is like the Joker card scene at the end of Begins. I don't see that at all as sequel bait, but an organic consequence of the story being told.

While I think the Arkham scene here was not as well executed as the Joker card scene at the end of Begins, which is why it sticks out, I don't think it was Reeves' intention to engage in cynical sequel bait.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I guess for me its potency is felt in a stronger way because it is the most iconic villain, and we've seen a lot of Joker lately which adds to the feeling of it being gratuitous. It may just be a victim of the environment it's being released in, but nothing exists in a vacuum.

Sure, but there also hasn't been a Batman/Joker story on film since 2008. We are coming off two recent Joker's but one of them was such a laughing stock he's barely worth counting and the other makes a conscious effort to (unsuccessfully, mind you, Joker has intense prequel vibes) divorce itself from the broader Batman mythos and features a version of the character that has only the broadest similarity to anything from the source material, mostly riffing on a fairly shallow interpretation of Ledger. The mere fact it sets up Joker in his proper context gives it a unique flavour.

 

[BatLobster]

I guess it feels more like "franchise spinoff bait" to me than sequel bait. The Begins card flip gets your imagination to run wild wondering what The Joker might be like in that world. It's an epilogue that teases the theme of the next film. Not to mention a nice little nod to the end of Year One.

This one makes you ask questions about the backstory and his history with Batman that you know are going to be filled in on HBO Max and the other deleted scene soon to be released. Those are the primary thoughts running through my mind when I watch it vs. anything having to do with the themes of the film.

I wouldn't have minded some type of more subtle acknowledgement of Joker's existence in this world, but just going right in with giving us the actor, a glimpse at the look, the laugh, etc....seeing the debut of those things for the first time can be a lot of fun, and this made it feel more obligatory to me. Just kind of like "let's just rip the band aid off here".

Totally respect if people liked it, but it's a misstep for me, even though I definitely am interested to see a better look of Barry's prosthetic and his take on the character.

 

[Rod]

About the Batmobile:

Tumbler was a military support vehicle prototype built by the Wayne Enterprises using possibly it's full R&D dept in this regard.

For The Batman's Batmobile, James Chinlund (Production Designer for the movie) revealed he received very clear and specific instructions from Reeves this "initial" car should look like a vehicle Bruce built himself, basically only using his money alone and machinery he himself acquired from bits or parts of others and put together on his own garage (the prequel comics do display this Bruce's affinity engineering these cars).

Reeves was precise to point the car should not resemble as if Bruce is already making use of Wayne Enterprises resources or accessing their full technology to his disposal "yet".

According to Chinlund, the whole cinematic tone of Reeves' take on year two of Bruce Wayne (played by Robert Pattinson) being Gotham City's Dark Knight started with first nailing down the style of the Batmobile.

"We loved the idea that Bruce was a gear head," (...)

"Often Batman is dependent on Wayne Industries and is almost like a James Bond-type"

"We were really excited about Bruce getting some dirt under his fingernails."

This idea made Pattinson's Batmobile the least flashy in the history of the franchise.

"It isn't a tank or a futuristic machine, it's a car," Chinlund said of their Batmobile. "At this point in Bruce's journey, it felt appropriate that he would be in the shop tearing apart other cars and repurposing them."

"There's a lot of talk that it's a Dodge Charger," said Chinlund, who admits they didn't really have a model as an inspiration. "It was more the idea of Frankensteining from things that Bruce had around."

And yes, the Batmobile will evolve (as Bruce now will start accessing Wayne Enterprises):

Chinlund said if there's a sequel to "The Batman" the Batmobile will certainly get supped up more.

"Our Batmobile is mission-specific, so I think every visual decision we made on the film came back to the story: What is Bruce trying to do, and why does he need this thing?" Chinlund said. "I think going forward with the design of the car it's what challenges lay ahead for Batman and what changes will he need. I think we expect the Batmobile to evolve along with his mission."

As a matter of curiosity, Rob did alot of the Batmobile stunts himself:

Chinlund said despite stunt drivers being involved in the production, Pattinson also did a lot of the driving in the Batmobile.

"Rob put it through its paces," he said. "He was there working it out for sure. He got it to some top speeds. He was heavily involved in his stunt driving work."

From:
Production designer of 'The Batman' says new Batmobile needed to feel like Bruce Wayne built it himself]

 

[SwordOfMorning]

That’s a fair interpretation. I’m all in on heavy serialization and heavy world building, I feel like that was one of the major ambitions creatively for The Batman in the first place, so that probably helps me like it.

 

[Van Werewolf]

People are reading way too much into Reeves' comments.

He doesn't know what he'll do with The Joker yet. That's really all he was trying to communicate.

'The Batman' Ending: Matt Reeves on Barry Keoghan's Role - Variety

 

[WatchProtect]

With all the talk of the deleted scene by Reeves do you think it's canon in his mind that Batman and Joker have met or do you think he'll take the opportunity to have them meet for the first time In the prequel or sequel?

 

[SwordOfMorning]

With all the talk of the deleted scene by Reeves do you think it's canon in his mind that Batman and Joker have met or do you think he'll take the opportunity to have them meet for the first time In the prequel or sequel?

I suspect they’ll release it and make a big deal out of it so I would assume it’s canon.

 

[Rod]

hehehe

 

[flygerr5]

yeah I read the variety article.

he explained he has no intentions of using joker, his role was to show there is more to fear in Gotham then just riddler and made the final catwoman scene with bats make sense when she asked Batman to come with her.
Because if riddler is locked up why not?

it’s a good article. Describes the joker’s underlying disease where he has a permanent smile. But he says in the article he has no interests in exploring the character fully as there are others he is interested in.
I like that idea yet I don’t.

No he didn't. I swear people interpret quotes in the worst ways possible. He did NOT say he has NO plans for Joker, he's playing coy about it. It's clearly obvious a lot of thought was put into the origin, design and characterization of this Joker for Matt to just go "Nah tbh I have no plans for him, it was just a cameo!". They CLEARLY have plans for him. Matt just announced today that the GCPD show has evolved into a horror style series depicting Arkham Asylum and he specifically mentioned that we'd see characters from the film that were in Arkham. Sounds to me like that's the perfect show to build up Joker even more, possibly even introduce Harley Quinn as Joker's doctor/therapist

He's stated multiple times when asked about Joker that he wanted to express that this an early days Joker when he isn't fully formed yet, that's why he wanted to deliberately hide his face in both scenes that he shot, so it can tease the audience for what's to come.

Matt is obviously just trying to hide his sequel plans as it is very early days, but you can bet on it there's a very high chance Joker plays a part in the sequel. You don't cast an actor like Keoghan, give him prosthetic design by Mike Marino, develop his origins with meeting Batman for the first time and film two entire scenes with him..... just to never use him again lol

They OBVIOUSLY have big plans for this character