The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - Part 156

[BatLobster]

To the bean counters, it's guilt by association.

Correlation being causation.

I wouldn't blame that one on the execs tbh. Don't forget, it was that WB initially approached Reeves about directing Affleck's DCEU Batman movie. One thing led to another with Affleck dropping out and Reeves getting a full blank slate, and I think that's how we ended up where we did.

And to be fair, Rises was massive and larger than life even though it wasn't straight up fantastical. Then you had BvS/JL and a plethora of comic booky Marvel films. So I think the pendulum was probably due to swing back to the more grounded end of things with Batman regardless. They defaulted back to the thing that has historically worked for Batman-- a director with a vision. It just so happens that it was another grounded vision this time, for better or worse.

I am with you in the sense that I feel ready for a more fantastical Batman movie. I would be interested in something that felt inspired by Grant Morrison's trippier stuff and his whole concept of embracing the entire history of Batman as canon. I think we're finding that reality is far stranger than we thought on a near daily basis these days, so I actually think there's room for a take that feels 'enough' like our reality, yet has some more out there elements in it. Not sure it will go there with this series though, so I guess we just ride out this cycle. Someone was going to run with the detective angle eventually, so if I'm being glass half-full about it, at least it's someone like Reeves who is a good filmmaker and seems to have a real passion for the material. Even with whatever complicated feelings I have about this take so far, I still am more interested in seeing a filmmaker's vision than if it were a studio hack-job.

 

[shauner111]

Bale’s Bruce felt like a man who knows what he’s doing. He’s got his **** together. He’s moved passed a lot of pain. I haven’t. And that’s why I relate to Rob more. I also prefer the horror.

The new Black Panther still doesn’t sit well with me. Feels like they’re cashing in on a actor’s death. It’s unnecessary to write that into a fictional Marvel movie. It’s emotionally manipulative. The actor died not the character, so recast. They got everyone hook, line and sinker with this gimmick. I felt nothing from the trailer. Not buying it. Won’t watch it either since I didn’t like the first movie. I’m more interested in Spawn and Blade.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

Batfleck is coming back for Aquaman 2. The dream of Batman in fantastical contexts still lives! Let’s hope James Wan (or whomever is directing) does Batman justice.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

This whole weird era of Batfleck, Battinson and Keatman existing all at the same time is kind of...not great.

WB has no idea what they're doing. They're the kid in the back of the class eating paste, while the MCU is the class smarty-pants.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I'm honestly super glad that with all these Batmen coexisting lately, we've still got Bat-Bale staying retired. There's a certain dignity to that and I'm glad that Batman isn't being muddled into the mess that is the current WB/DCEU debacle.

 

[The Batman]

If Phase 4 is any indication, MCU is the class smarty pants whose grades are slipping.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

If Phase 4 is any indication, MCU is the class smarty pants whose grades are slipping.

True. But their Phase 4 is still more focused than the DCEU was even at its most organized.

Which says something.

 

[The Batman]

It doesn't mean much to me, to be honest, especially since we don't know the context of Affleck's return.

To me, it's about the quality of the films. I know it's cool to hate on DC/WB, but no Phase 4 films have very rarely been as good as The Batman or The Suicide Squad, and there definitely isn't a phase 4 TV show as good as Peacemaker. "They're more focused" doesn't mean much when they've become consistently mediocre.

 

[Awest66]

One of the most eye-rolling complaints I've read in regards to Batman Begins was how he "killed all those ninjas in the monastery explosion".

 

[shauner111]

It’s just a cameo to replace Keaton’s cameo.

Was just thinking how Burton’s Batman movies and Raimi’s spidey movies used to be so free of the shared universe virus and now they’ve both been infected. Both director’s had no say in the matter. It all came down to the actors. I don’t know how I feel about that.

How would you feel if Nolan and/or Reeves had no say in the future if something similar happened with Bale & Pattinson.

 

[The Joker]

Regarding Spider-Man I don't think it hurt Raimi's movies at all. They didn't try and rewrite any of the history from the Raimi trilogy and I thought Spidey, Doc Ock, and Green Goblin were all handled well and stayed true to the Raimi characterizations.

God knows though what the Flash is going to do with Keaton's Batman. He might be the only decent thing in it. After all the ugly publicity with Ezra Miller its not a movie you really want to be associated with.

 

[shauner111]

I feel bad for the actress playing Supergirl.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Can we at least wait until the film comes out before decrying that Keaton's return has ''infected'' the Burton movies?

Batman '89 and Batman Returns can never be ''ruined'' by anything that comes after. The product will never change no matter what happens in the future. Childhoods can not be destroyed because the product you love has not been changed. Just like if Bale came back in the future, it doesn't impact Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy one bit. Art is art... judge each one on it's own merits.

 

[BatLobster]

Well Bale just recently said that he wouldn't do it without Nolan being involved. Then again, that's what Keaton used to say about Burton too, haha.

I tend to view those two cases a bit differently to be fair. Keaton's Batman always felt like there was some unfinished business there, since the plug was pulled on his version after the second film and there was no sort of resolution there. And although Burton had some input on the story, he isn't a writer so I didn't see him as a full blown "author" of Keaton's Batman.

With Bale, he completed a trilogy, which had a definitive ending to his character arc, and Nolan was certainly a co-author of that as well as the director. So I think it's fair to say that without him or at least someone from that creative braintrust coming up with a reason to tell another story, it could feel very cheap. That's not to say Keaton's comeback won't, but at the very least...it's Keaton. I feel like he's still gonna pull off a great Batman, even if everything around him is a disaster.

 

[Rick190293]

It all depends on execution. Tobey's and the villains returns were well done, and we still don't know that much about Keaton (even through chances of being bad are so high).
With the Nolanverse, logically it shouldn't have a comeback, cuz it had a definitive ending. But who can forget Matrix 4 and Palpatine 'ressurection' in Rise of the Skywalker? So...

 

[OnLeatherWings]

But who can forget Matrix 4 and Palpatine 'ressurection' in Rise of the Skywalker? So...

True. It's not like WB has to worry about keeping Nolan happy, anymore. That bridge is burned.

But. If Bale doesn't want to do it without Nolan, which he's stated, I think that's the nail in the coffin for that idea.

 

[Gothamsknight]

The Raimi verse was handled so damn well in No Way Home, and I feel like that movie is just so emotional overall. Being able to see Tobey, Dafoe and Molina again is the gift that keeps on giving and I find the movie very rewatchable. To see such an integral part of my childhood/teen years return was amazing.

I do think Keaton will be the main saving grace of The Flash, but It just sucks that his return has to be attached to controversy. It's not fair at all, and i don't even know if that movie will have a theatrical release at this point.

I've said it before, but I'd obviously be super hyped if Bale returns, but I really don't think it should be done without Nolan. I'd rather savor the beautiful ending we got with TDKR than it be tarnished because of some greedy urge to multiverse everything. At this point, I say please don't.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

True. It's not like WB has to worry about keeping Nolan happy, anymore. That bridge is burned.

But. If Bale doesn't want to do it without Nolan, which he's stated, I think that's the nail in the coffin for that idea.

Bale in 10 years:

 

[The Joker]

After recently appearing in that stinker Morbius, I don't think Keaton is that choosy about what he says yes to being in, at least when it comes to CBM's. I have never liked Ezra Miller's Flash so that was already a red warning flag when I heard his movie of all things is what Keaton's Batman would be returning in.

 

[shauner111]

Can we at least wait until the film comes out before decrying that Keaton's return has ''infected'' the Burton movies?

Batman '89 and Batman Returns can never be ''ruined'' by anything that comes after. The product will never change no matter what happens in the future. Childhoods can not be destroyed because the product you love has not been changed. Just like if Bale came back in the future, it doesn't impact Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy one bit. Art is art... judge each one on it's own merits.

I didn’t say it would be ruined. I was only half serious. It’s more of a me thing. A bad sequel doesn’t take away my enjoyment for the older movie but it does water it down as a whole. I’m one of those people who feels like a director’s filmography is watered down if they make too many movies or you start seeing some major duds in between. Same with music/bands. So I guess I feel the same about a trilogy/arc/storyline. You can have a good trilogy but when a fourth comes out down the road and it isn’t on the same level (sorry but No Way Home was fine but not as rewatchable to me as the Raimi movies) it makes me look at the overall story in a different way. I can always pop in TDK and forget about everything else, that’s not a problem. But if Bale came back for a mediocre or horrible cash grab, it does have an effect on me when I think back on the entire arc.

Nothing will stop me from loving T2. But it’s hard to ignore what happened with the sequels. It’s there in the back of your mind somewhere. It weakens the franchise and overall story. I wish they were never made.

Not expecting anyone else to feel the same way as me, I just have a strange OCD thing with wanting a tight, cohesive quality franchise/discography/filmography. Only talking “big picture” stuff here, when you look back at the overall project.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

After recently appearing in that stinker Morbius, I don't think Keaton is that choosy about what he says yes to being in, at least when it comes to CBM's. I have never liked Ezra Miller's Flash so that was already a red warning flag when I heard his movie of all things is what Keaton's Batman would be returning in.

He had a cameo in an end credits scene. It's not like he poured over the script and thought ''Yep, this is a masterpiece!''. There is no way he even read the script.

Acting is a career. A job where you want to earn money... since when did you need to have the most discerning taste and become the next Roger Ebert turning your nose up at any script that comes your way.

Maybe he likes Andy Muschietti. Maybe he genuinely liked the initial script he read. Maybe he felt he had unfinished business with the character. Maybe, as a 70 year old, he wanted a BIG payday that he can leave to his son and two grandkids.

What does it matter? Keaton's legacy with this character was secured on June 23rd 1989 and nothing will change that.

 

[BatLobster]

I think Keaton is in a "F*** it, I'm gonna have fun with this" stage of his career, so I don't really fault him for it. I think it's similar to Harrison Ford kind of making the rounds with all of his classic roles one more time. The heart probably grows fonder for those times as these guys hit the twilight of their life/career, especially knowing these are the things they'll be most remembered for.

I still weirdly hope to see Beetlejuice 2 happen. I could easily be a total disaster, but it's a disaster I'd happily pay money to see.

 

[shauner111]

He had a cameo in an end credits scene. It's not like he poured over the script and thought ''Yep, this is a masterpiece!''. There is no way he even read the script.

Acting is a career. A job where you want to earn money... since when did you need to have the most discerning taste and become the next Roger Ebert turning your nose up at any script that comes your way.

Maybe he likes Andy Muschietti. Maybe he genuinely liked the initial script he read. Maybe he felt he had unfinished business with the character. Maybe, as a 70 year old, he wanted a BIG payday that he can leave to his son and two grandkids.

What does it matter? Keaton's legacy with this character was secured on June 23rd 1989 and nothing will change that.

You raise a good point but that’s also how you perceive it. Which is fine. You don’t seem to mind if they make 20 stinker sequels because to you the original movies were good and will never be tarnished. Not saying you’re wrong. But I know I’m not alone when I say that I feel differently about stuff like that. It’s like it doesn’t have an effect on the old movies but it kinda does at the same time. It doesn’t even really make sense to me either but it’s just how I am with big picture stuff.

 

[The Joker]

He had a cameo in an end credits scene. It's not like he poured over the script and thought ''Yep, this is a masterpiece!''. There is no way he even read the script.

Acting is a career. A job where you want to earn money... since when did you need to have the most discerning taste and become the next Roger Ebert turning your nose up at any script that comes your way.

Maybe he likes Andy Muschietti. Maybe he genuinely liked the initial script he read. Maybe he felt he had unfinished business with the character. Maybe, as a 70 year old, he wanted a BIG payday that he can leave to his son and two grandkids.

What does it matter? Keaton's legacy with this character was secured on June 23rd 1989 and nothing will change that.

Yes I am sure his cameo in Morbius was not Sony's way of opening up the possibility of future villain solo movies for him to appear in. No it was just thrown in there so Keaton could have a quick buck. I know you're not that naive to believe that. I get you're a die hard Keaton fan, but he's not teflon.

Nobody is talking about the legacy being ruined. Godfather 3 didn't ruin the legacy of the first two masterpieces. John Carpenter's Halloween is not tainted by any of the bad sequels. Cameron's first two Terminator movies are not ruined by the league of crappy sequels. Same for the first two Alien movies etc etc.

Chillax.

 

[Rick190293]

True. It's not like WB has to worry about keeping Nolan happy, anymore. That bridge is burned.

But. If Bale doesn't want to do it without Nolan, which he's stated, I think that's the nail in the coffin for that idea.

I forgot about Nolan v WB... that's important if they consider one day bring back Batbale.
Oh, and money talks. Always. Give an older Bale some millions in a few years, play nostalgia factor and there it is. Affleck is saying since 2017 he's not coming back as Bats and he's doing two more movies haha.

 

[BatLobster]

I'll say this. While I don't think anything that happens narratively in The Flash, Batgirl or any films where Keaton appears as Batman will taint the Burton films for me, there is still something to be said for...when something is more rarified, it maintains a certain special quality. Previously, if you wanted to see Keaton's Batman, you could only find it in two places. Batman and Batman Returns. Which up to now has given those movies a lot of added value and mystique.

Kind of the same principle as inflation. It doesn't bother me in this case, but I can understand how some might prefer to just let a good thing be, especially if it doesn't turn out well.