Was it really necessary to reboot Batman?

[shauner111]

Hey, at least ill be sexy!

 

[milost]

Hey, at least ill be sexy!

And technically we banged.

 

[Travesty]

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

So...am I the only one who wants the "Batfleck" movies to last a while before they reboot the entire series?

 

[shauner111]

And technically we banged.

 

[milost]

So...am I the only one who wants the "Batfleck" movies to last a while before they reboot the entire series?

Wrong question.

Should have been, "will Affleck Batman kill"? After seeing MoS, Batfleck might give Keaton and Bale a run for their money in the bodies department.

 

[Shikamaru]

So...am I the only one who wants the "Batfleck" movies to last a while before they reboot the entire series?

I kinda have the exact opposite opinion. I'm not looking forward to that entire universe at all.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Wrong question.

Should have been, "will Affleck Batman kill"? After seeing MoS, Batfleck might give Keaton and Bale a run for their money in the bodies department.

"I'm Snapman!"

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I kinda have the exact opposite opinion. I'm not looking forward to that entire universe at all.

Why? We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Shikamaru]

Why? We'll just have to wait and see.

Plenty of reasons.

1) I think this film is being released prematurely. MOS was just a setup film for greater things to come. We've barely seen any of the supporting cast do stuff, we haven't seen the world's reaction to Superman yet, Superman hasn't had his dynamic with Luthor established yet, Clark just got at the DP right at the end, and the list goes on. You can easily tell this wasn't the natural step/direction they were going to go in and this was entirely WB's idea (I think Snyder even admitted that). Now, if you're a brilliant writer though, this wouldn't be a problem. A great writer easily has the ability to make this feel like the next logical step, even though it isn't. But that brings me to my next point...

2) Goyer and Snyder are writing solo (again). Snyder can't write and Goyer is a great ideas man that needs a good co-writer. I thought MOS was fantastic when I first saw it but the more I sat down and thought about it, the more I realized that it was just ok. It has tons of issues that should have been fixed, especially execution issues. It gets worse when you consider the fact that they got extra time to work on it. So I am supposed to buy that the same guys who couldn't nail Superman's origin are the best guys for this prematurely released project? Sure that the film will now be delayed, but so was MOS. Like I said, some writers are good enough to make such project work and feel "natural" but Goyer and Snyder are definitely not those guys. They couldn't even deliver on everything promised with MOS (i.e. we never see the general public's reaction to Superman).

3) I dislike what they're doing with Batman. The idea of a Batman that's about a decade older than Superman (and potentially about a decade older than most other JL superheroes) is something that doesn't sit well with me at all. A lot of Superman fans are worried this will make Superman look like Robin, but I think it can make Batman look bad as well. With Batman being older, there are only 2 possibilities of what could happen: he will either be on par with Superman & the JL or he will be superior (similar to a mentor) to Superman & the JL. I dislike the superior/mentor idea because it changes the dynamics between Batman and the JL, especially his dynamic with Superman that I was really looking forward to. And if he is on par with Superman and the JL, why does he need to be so much older than the rest just to be "on par" with them? And what does that say about this universe's Year One Batman? In a way, it also suggests Batman's whole intellect in a direct byproduct of his experience and that him needing a jump start of about a decade is the only way he can be useful to the JL. I don't like that idea at all. On top of that, it also looks like they're going the "crazy right wing extremist" route with Batman that we saw in stories like Dark Knight Returns/Kingdom Come, with Batman apparently having drones that surveillance Gotham and having a dysfunctional estranged relationship with Robin. Again, I was never a fan of that particular take on Batman. It worked fine in Dark Knight Returns but it is by no means a Batman that I want to see get translated to the big screen, especially not in what is meant to be the "mainstream" DCCU.

4) Stunt casting. We already know a few roles in the film are stunt casts, with the biggest one out of all being Affleck. Now let me just say that stunt casting doesn't mean the actors won't do a good job. There have been plenty of stunt castings throughout history that lead to a good/great performance in the end. So Affleck and co. being stunt casts doesn't mean they can't nail their roles, but the fact that WB resorted to stunt casting doesn't help the film's credibility and makes the film look even more pushed by suits. It also shows WB's lack of confidence in a non-Nolan Batman. "We don't think the GA will accept a new Batman so soon so let's hire a huge A-list actor." That's what it feels like. Again, this doesn't mean the performances themselves will be bad, but it is very annoying that they limited their casting range to the A-lists. For all we know, the best man for the job could have been a B-list or lower (maybe even an unknown) that they missed completely.

5) Snyder asked/will ask Frank Miller to input/advice. This is self-explanatory.

These are all the big reasons. I have some smaller reasons here and there but these are the big ones that put me off from this universe as a whole. I may still tune in for the solo Batman films presuming they look good (and I hope Affleck has a lot of input in terms of writing/directing there) but I'll probably ignore the rest of DC films as a whole. By "ignore", I don't mean that I won't see them but that I'll try to pretend as if they're not in the same continuity as the Batman films.

 

[shauner111]

Goyer IS getting his script rewritten though.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Plenty of reasons.

1) I think this film is being released prematurely.

2) Goyer and Snyder are writing solo (again).

3) I dislike what they're doing with Batman.

4) Stunt casting.

5) Snyder asked/will ask Frank Miller to input/advice. This is self-explanatory.

These are all the big reasons. I have some smaller reasons here and there but these are the big ones that put me off from this universe as a whole. I may still tune in for the solo Batman films presuming they look good (and I hope Affleck has a lot of input in terms of writing/directing there) but I'll probably ignore the rest of DC films as a whole. By "ignore", I don't mean that I won't see them but that I'll try to pretend as if they're not in the same continuity as the Batman films.

Great post!

1. I agree. I also think it's a bit early. I would like to know the characters better... I wanted Superman to be the first hero, if you know what I mean. Superman shouldn't be the new kid on the block.

2. Isn't there a new writer on Superman vs Batman? I could be mistaken. Some of the dialogue in both The Dark Knight Trilogy and MOS was horrible and unnatural.

3. I wanted a younger Batman as well. But I'll wait and see.

4. Same as 3.

5. Yeah, I don't like that... I have no problem with The Dark Knight Returns (it's one of my favorite stories), but it's not the Batman I want to see on the big screen right now. I like Batman best when he's portrayed as a human... I would like to see something like the O'Neill/Adams or Rogers/Englehart. A balance between darkness and light.

 

[Shikamaru]

Goyer IS getting his script rewritten though.

Really? I haven't heard that. And by who?

Great post!

1. I agree. I also think it's a bit early. I would like to know the characters better... I wanted Superman to be the first hero, if you know what I mean. Superman shouldn't be the new kid on the block.

2. Isn't there a new writer on Superman vs Batman? I could be mistaken. Some of the dialogue in both The Dark Knight Trilogy and MOS was horrible and unnatural.

3. I wanted a younger Batman as well. But I'll wait and see.

4. Same as 3.

5. Yeah, I don't like that... I have no problem with The Dark Knight Returns (it's one of my favorite stories), but it's not the Batman I want to see on the big screen right now. I like Batman best when he's portrayed as a human... I would like to see something like the O'Neill/Adams or Rogers/Englehart. A balance between darkness and light.

2) As far as I know, there isn't.

3) I don't mind an older Batman. Heck, I actually prefer an older Batman. I just don't like him being older when everyone else is young. Plus, the age isn't the only issue I have with this Batman, as I stated in my last post.

5) I wouldn't mind it Snyder asked Miller for input back in the 80's or 90's. But Miller isn't the same man today that he was back then. Oh, how I miss classic Frank Miller .

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

5) I wouldn't mind it Snyder asked Miller for input back in the 80's or 90's. But Miller isn't the same man today that he was back then. Oh, how I miss classic Frank Miller .

Sin City destroyed his mind.

 

[random_havoc]

Yes, Batman needed rebooting. Dark Knight Rises was a terrible movie with a terrible ending that left Wayne broke and a completely untrained, unequipped rookie to take over the role of Batman.

Better to start fresh after that.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Yes, Batman needed rebooting. Dark Knight Rises was a terrible movie with a terrible ending that left Wayne broke and a completely untrained, unequipped rookie to take over the role of Batman.

Better to start fresh after that.

I was thinking of the older movies

(And yes, Reeve is still the best Superman)

 

[Snow Queen]

Really? I haven't heard that. And by who?

Chris Terrio, who won the Oscar and BAFTA Award last year for Argo's screenplay.

 

[Travesty]

Yes, Batman needed rebooting. Dark Knight Rises was a terrible movie with a terrible ending that left Wayne broke and a completely untrained, unequipped rookie to take over the role of Batman.

Better to start fresh after that.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Robin John Blake has been trained in seeing faces. He's totally equipped to be Batman.

 

[Human Torch]

The thing about the age difference that doesn't bother me (at least not as much as some OTHER movies coughcough ) is that, we really don't know if it'll be set right after MOS.If they go by "real time" Supes will be 36 with 3 years of heroics under his belt.Not too big a leap from 39/40 y/o Batman,who supposedly has been on the job for 10 years.

 

[Elevator Man]

Plenty of reasons.

1) I think this film is being released prematurely. MOS was just a setup film for greater things to come. We've barely seen any of the supporting cast do stuff, we haven't seen the world's reaction to Superman yet, Superman hasn't had his dynamic with Luthor established yet, Clark just got at the DP right at the end, and the list goes on. You can easily tell this wasn't the natural step/direction they were going to go in and this was entirely WB's idea (I think Snyder even admitted that). Now, if you're a brilliant writer though, this wouldn't be a problem. A great writer easily has the ability to make this feel like the next logical step, even though it isn't. But that brings me to my next point...

2) Goyer and Snyder are writing solo (again). Snyder can't write and Goyer is a great ideas man that needs a good co-writer. I thought MOS was fantastic when I first saw it but the more I sat down and thought about it, the more I realized that it was just ok. It has tons of issues that should have been fixed, especially execution issues. It gets worse when you consider the fact that they got extra time to work on it. So I am supposed to buy that the same guys who couldn't nail Superman's origin are the best guys for this prematurely released project? Sure that the film will now be delayed, but so was MOS. Like I said, some writers are good enough to make such project work and feel "natural" but Goyer and Snyder are definitely not those guys. They couldn't even deliver on everything promised with MOS (i.e. we never see the general public's reaction to Superman).

3) I dislike what they're doing with Batman. The idea of a Batman that's about a decade older than Superman (and potentially about a decade older than most other JL superheroes) is something that doesn't sit well with me at all. A lot of Superman fans are worried this will make Superman look like Robin, but I think it can make Batman look bad as well. With Batman being older, there are only 2 possibilities of what could happen: he will either be on par with Superman & the JL or he will be superior (similar to a mentor) to Superman & the JL. I dislike the superior/mentor idea because it changes the dynamics between Batman and the JL, especially his dynamic with Superman that I was really looking forward to. And if he is on par with Superman and the JL, why does he need to be so much older than the rest just to be "on par" with them? And what does that say about this universe's Year One Batman? In a way, it also suggests Batman's whole intellect in a direct byproduct of his experience and that him needing a jump start of about a decade is the only way he can be useful to the JL. I don't like that idea at all. On top of that, it also looks like they're going the "crazy right wing extremist" route with Batman that we saw in stories like Dark Knight Returns/Kingdom Come, with Batman apparently having drones that surveillance Gotham and having a dysfunctional estranged relationship with Robin. Again, I was never a fan of that particular take on Batman. It worked fine in Dark Knight Returns but it is by no means a Batman that I want to see get translated to the big screen, especially not in what is meant to be the "mainstream" DCCU.

4) Stunt casting. We already know a few roles in the film are stunt casts, with the biggest one out of all being Affleck. Now let me just say that stunt casting doesn't mean the actors won't do a good job. There have been plenty of stunt castings throughout history that lead to a good/great performance in the end. So Affleck and co. being stunt casts doesn't mean they can't nail their roles, but the fact that WB resorted to stunt casting doesn't help the film's credibility and makes the film look even more pushed by suits. It also shows WB's lack of confidence in a non-Nolan Batman. "We don't think the GA will accept a new Batman so soon so let's hire a huge A-list actor." That's what it feels like. Again, this doesn't mean the performances themselves will be bad, but it is very annoying that they limited their casting range to the A-lists. For all we know, the best man for the job could have been a B-list or lower (maybe even an unknown) that they missed completely.

5) Snyder asked/will ask Frank Miller to input/advice. This is self-explanatory.

These are all the big reasons. I have some smaller reasons here and there but these are the big ones that put me off from this universe as a whole. I may still tune in for the solo Batman films presuming they look good (and I hope Affleck has a lot of input in terms of writing/directing there) but I'll probably ignore the rest of DC films as a whole. By "ignore", I don't mean that I won't see them but that I'll try to pretend as if they're not in the same continuity as the Batman films.

Well said. I agree with a lot of your concerns and more. I don't have much interest in it either. It's obvious WB hadn't put a lot of thought in developing this project, imho. When it was announced yesterday that the release got pushed down another year I was hoping it was canceled instead. I know it's too soon to make this judgment but I smell a dud.

 

[random_havoc]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Robin John Blake has been trained in seeing faces. He's totally equipped to be Batman.

lol

 

[random_havoc]

I was thinking of the older movies

(And yes, Reeve is still the best Superman)

Ooooh. Okay.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Never forget Robin John Blake.

Never....

Lol, yes. Never will forget about him, someone who wasn't more Robin than Alfred, Lucius or Rachel.


**********************************

He already doesn't. As I said, his no-kill rule is an actual part of his character and defines him in a way it doesn't define anyone. Most other superheroes don't kill because, well, "I'm a superhero and I'm a good guy!" That's what it boils down to. The no-kill rule for the rest is kinda just there. That already makes Batman's no-kill rule unique IMO.

Still don't get how the no killing rule is any different here. You just said it is. All of them got this rule because it was requested for the CCA.

But anyways, the no killing rule only works when it's a way in which Batman does no kill even when he needs to, not when he does it anyways.

I wouldn't say they "lack" something. Just that time brings in more and more layers to a character. Not always, but usually provided that the characters was in the hands of good writers.

Time brings more things. That doesn't mean they were incomplete before, as you suggested ("they never are who they are right at their inception"), or that they need everything right away. Like with Robin.

In Batman's case specifically, you can almost say he started as a ripoff of the Shadow. The first story in Detective Comics #27 was almost an exact copy of a Shadow story. The idea of Batman carrying a gun came from there. He was originally Shadow 2.0 mixed in with some Sherlock Holmes, and later with Zorro. Eventually, he separated himself more and more from those characters and became his own character in his own right.

Well, every character has been based on something previously existing. That doesn't mean they're rip-offs. I don't remember Batman having mystical powers as The Shadow.

1) There was no Robin in BB/TDK because Nolan's Batman was still "a young Batman", as Nolan himself said. Then in TDKR which takes place 8 years later, there kinda is a Robin (although it isn't that well done IMO, but there is still a Robin nonetheless).

There's no Robin; Batman got help from a lot of people, Alfred, Rachel, Lucius and John Blake. But none of them was an orphan whose parents had been killed and was raised by Bruce Wayne.

2) The purpose of Robin is to hold Batman back from crossing that line and becoming the Punisher. If a particular version of Batman has enough control, then there is no need for Robin. Based on what we saw of Nolan's Batman, he still had some control in him to not let his anger get the better of him and murder criminals willy-nilly. There was technically no need for Robin.

Oh, so if they make a Batman that doesn't need it, you don't add those things from the comics that you claim define the hero.

Same with the no killing rule when you have Batman as it was originally conceived.

To be honest, most superheroes back then were lacking in character compared to today. They were, for the most part, generic archetypes and a lot of them read the same. It wasn't until Marvel's debut in the 1960's (starting with the Fantastic Four) that superheroes became the more three-dimensional characters we know today.

Well, it was Marvel then. Not the Comic Code Authority's no killing rule.

I agree. But what does that have to do with the importance of Batman's no-killing rule? Just because Nolan created excuses to break it doesn't mean it isn't a huge part of Batman's character.

Just like Robin.

So the fact that it's there in the comics for decades doesn't make it mandatory for every cinematic incarnation.


************************************

Since the Joker said he'd be at the parade at midnight, that was how long they had. He made this announcement during the day. So he had a few hours at least. Not minutes like in the TDKR situation.

Well, Bruce Wayne was watching the Joker's challenge on TV, then he had his flashback where he remembers he's the Waynes's killer. Then he had a little chat with Vicky Vale (that involved his secret identity so it had to happen) and immediately later he goes after Axis chemical plant.

So he didn't wait hours.

But you're right: the announcement was done in daylight. Only thing I can guess is that it was a few minutes before sunset, so the flashback, conversation and trip to Axis were enough to have Batman arriving at Axis at night.

Furthermore how did Bruce suddenly realize Axis was where Joker was producing his poisons? Did he know all along? Why didn't he shut it down before when Joker was tampering with the products?

There's no explanation in the movie. When Batman took Vicky to the cave, he didn't know or he would have told the press just like he did with the combination of beauty products.

I don't remember every detail, but I'd say that everything else happened next day?

Of course he was too late. He waited until night time to act when Joker had made the announcement during the day lol.

No, he went right away. Only Vicky delayed him a little bit.

That is nonsense. Why should a car equipped with machine guns make anyone think they are about to be blown sky high? Did Batman really think the whole factory was going to mass evacuate just because the Batmobile went driving in and shot down one wall?

Is it nonsense to think that a car that is heavily armed (machine guns) could have more killing weapons so it's dangerous to stay?

And no, I think Batman didn't care if they were going to evacuate: they were poisoning the city and were preparing to kill people that very night, so the priority was to blow the place up. But if an armored car firing machine guns is not warning enough that you're in serious danger, then they were willing to take the risk.

A whole three seconds. Don't nit pick.

And he had like less than two minutes until the bomb exploded. Three seconds meant something in that situation.

Now, how could he get the bomb so far that the radiation wouldn't kill people, and jump (? or whatever he did) to save himself and fake his death in less than 2 minutes?



*******************************************

Because most people are astute enough to see the difference between bombing hapless goons,and accidentally knocking a guy trying to shoot a kid over the edge.

"Hapless goons"? Oh, those murderers that were poisoning the city.
"Accidentally knocking a guy"? Oh, when he purposely pushed Harvey so he could rescue Gordon's son.

Anyways, did any of these astute people find the right excuse for Batman shooting directly to the truck's driver and killing him with a bullet and then doing similarly with Talia?

Or maybe these two Batmen are not too different, so when murderers are about to kill innocent people they go that far to stop them.

Why hasn't Batman killed Joker yet?"The Rule"
I think the only person Bat's would kill is the person who murdered his parents.By making Joker that guy you've turned one of the best adversarial relationships in comics into a 2D revenge plot.

Apparently, Batman would kill far more than just the guy who killed his parents. He would kill if someone is threatening Gordon's son and he would kill to stop a truck with an a-bomb.

Well, in comics, Joker became who he was because of Batman, so the revenge motif between them has been there before.

By being the Waynes's killer, the Batman-Joker relationship gained a concrete reason, not just this "I'll be the symbol that goes against your symbol."

I guess cops are not required to find non-lethal means whenever possible either?

Because Batman is a cop?


*****************************************

I dont know how leaving Ras on a train to die can be considered "cold blooded murder". He didnt put Ras on that train, Ras Al Ghul did. He didnt save him, he left him to die by his own hand. Ill never see that as murder. Ras killed Ras.

Thing is, Bruce stated that compassion was what "separated us from them." So compassion is the key. And no killing someone is one important expression of it.

And by leaving Ra's to die, he literally crossed the line he had said it was what separated him from criminals as he forgot about compassion.

Two-Face , yes he killed him, but that wasn't the intention. It wasn't murder with intent. It was to save a boy.

I absolutely agree.

Talia, we dont know if her death or the drivers was intentional or just a way to stop the truck. I dont think he intended on killing them. But if he did, that would be the one time he truly broke his one rule. And in this case, it was reasonable (like with Superman killing Zod to save a family + billions on earth). He killed to save Gotham as a whole.

Well, when you shoot directly to a truck, not its wheels or around it (as Batman had indeed done shortly before), then he has to expect some deaths happening. He executed the driver. Just like that.

Burton's Batman was simply a killer. And that's OK because it was based off of the 1939 Batman.

And yet when Jack Napier was about to fall, he didn't just say "I don't have to save you." He went to help him.

But Batman didn't kill those thugs on the rooftop, nor anyone at Axis, so it's not like he went on a nighttime killing spree every night.

 

[milost]

 

[Human Torch]

*

"Hapless goons"? Oh, those murderers that were poisoning the city.
"Accidentally knocking a guy"? Oh, when he purposely pushed Harvey so he could rescue Gordon's son.

Anyways, did any of these astute people find the right excuse for Batman shooting directly to the truck's driver and killing him with a bullet and then doing similarly with Talia?

Look,try as you may,you're never going to convince me or anyone with a lick of sense that dropping a BOMB in a building full of goons and blowing it sky high is in any way the same as killing of a truck driver with a bomb set to blow up an entire city in a matter of minutes.
One is clearly a spur of the moment act,while the other is premeditated murder.

Now I've gone on record saying how disappointed I was that Nolan had Batman kill.So it's not as if I was saying he (Nolan) could do no wrong.But in context,the way he handled it,you can give him the benefit of the excuse.There's no way in Hades Burton can have the same.His Batman kills without regard.Pure and simple.

Well, in comics, Joker became who he was because of Batman, so the revenge motif between them has been there before.

Perhaps initially.But Joker really doesn't want to kill Batman,as much as he wants to toy with him.They got their relationship wrong in their attempts to make it a "mythic" version of "We created each other,so now one has to kill the other."That had nothing to do with them as originally conceived.

Because Batman is a cop?
.

Uh,he's not.That's why the cops were after him.(and rightfully so,when he's leaving BODIES all over Gotham.)