The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Invader Joker]

So Clayface can't carry a Batman movie as the lead villain or even as a villain... but he can carry his own movie as the lead character?

Yeah because it allows you to delve into the backstory without having to tie it back to Batman or focus on big setpieces of spectacle. You can make it way more intimate that way.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Yeah because it allows you to delve into the backstory without having to tie it back to Batman or focus on big setpieces of spectacle. You can make it way more intimate that way.

But... he's a Batman villain. I don't need a spinoff movie to give Clayface depth as a character.

Again, why are we already diluting this universe with endless spinoffs?

 

[Sawyer]

Eh, Clayface isn't a super integral villain to Batman in a way someone like Freeze or Hugo Strange is.

Ehh… I like the idea of Clayface getting his own showcase, but this doesn’t really track for me.

How integral any given villain is to Batman, either on film or in the comics, is entirely up to the creator(s) in charge.

 

[AndyTrevino]

If these don't pan out, they can always turn them into comics.

 

[AndyTrevino]

Ehh… I like the idea of Clayface getting his own showcase, but this doesn’t really track for me.

How integral any given villain is to Batman, either on film or in the comics, is entirely up to the creator(s) in charge.

I get that, but he just doesn't seem like a pivotal villain to Bruce either. It's just......I don't know. Clayface in general is pretty much a nothing character to me. Maybe this movie could be his "Heart Of Ice", but......eh.

 

[Invader Joker]

But... he's a Batman villain. I don't need a spinoff movie to give Clayface depth as a character.

Again, why are we already diluting this universe with endless spinoffs?

If the films and shows are great they don't dilute it.

 

[AndyTrevino]

All these different rogues are kinda making me think we might get something approaching classic Joker with Barry, at the very least in mannerisms and wardrobe.

 

[Jermobooka]

Today’s a great day to be a DC fan, not to mention how fantastic it is to be just a Batman fan today too.

 

[Doctor Jones]

DC Movies: James Gunn Pitches in Secret, Dwayne Johnson Eyes Superman – The Hollywood Reporter

 

[DeadlyWest]

They'll never touch the cinematic perfection of this:

"He's still inside you Victor. Buried. Deep within the snow. Will you help me, doctor?"

Akiva Goldsman should have two Oscars on his shelf.

Ain't even gonna pretend, a part of me wishes that Joel got the chance to do Batman movies where the primary focus wasn't toy sales

 

[Boom]

Boy golly there are some heated Clayface debates on social media, fam. Didn't realize people were so passionate about that character.

 

[Closerframe]

This is so exciting! I love Reeves’ Gotham aesthetic and his mix of realism and fantasy is the perfect balance for Batman’s world so seeing this world explored more—especially through the lens of his rogue gallery is something I’ve wanted for a long time. Scarecrow getting proper treatment, and finally seeing Clayface and Hugo Strange in something that’s now a CW show is great!

 

[BatLobster]

Gotta be honest...there is nothing inherent about a Clayface movie that moves the needle for me. I don't know. I've always cherished the fact that Batman had the best rogues gallery in comics. Hard to argue otherwise. I've never once in all my years following this stuff have felt that each of them needed to have their own movie or show. Has the idea of "less is more" truly just lost all value these days? I just don't get the insatiable appetite to turn every single thing within this universe into its own IP. Even a Joker movie was (and still is) pushing it for me. Joker without Batman is still inherently less interesting to me. This is just....idk. On the one hand I'm glad there's ambition and whatnot, but I guess I just wish all this planning was happening more on the DL and I didn't have to have this stuff plastered all over the trades so early in the game. Just a bit exhausting and cynical for me. We have one solidly successful film that has something like 5-6 spinoffs already in various stages of development. That seems a little excessive to me, but what do I know. It's a lot of projects contained to one "version" of a city- while also other spinoffs like Joker + DCEU stuff happen outside of it on different Gothams/Earths.

I guess for me, it just feels like verything in The Batman-verse feels like it's going to be a similar flavor of crime/horror/noir. Obviously I don't know if that's the case, but seeing how specific the tone of The Batman was it's just hard for me to imagine any of the other material deviating from that too much. Hopefully they'll find ways to differentiate these projects enough to keep it interesting, but it's definitely a situation where I'll need to see a great trailer to get interested vs. having an inherent longing for any of this. A lower-budget Clayface horror movie could be cool, don't get me wrong. It's just the context of all of this stuff being planned, in an already embarrassingly oversaturated genre space that makes me feel like I'm staring at an all you can eat buffet when I'm already stuffed.

I still think one thing these cinematic universes ought to utilize a lot more than they already have: SHORT FILMS.

I would totally dig short films set in The Batman-verse. Obviously much less of a time investment (which is a good proposition to have these days), and they can still be a super effective in how they necessitate efficient storytelling. Also could be a great and (less risky for studios) way to bring up young, up and coming filmmakers into the franchise/blockbuster space.

 

[antsman41]

...this is all I want; Batman-this and Batman-that. DCEU can be it's own little (uninteresting) thing.

Just let Reeves cook - have his own expansive universe, where Pattinson's Batman Universe is as plentiful as the whole lot of Wonder Woman/Flash/Shazam, etc.; baby.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm genuinely happy for you guys that want all of it. I hope y'all eat well and enjoy. I just am not there, yet, anyway. I think I would just respect the crap out of it if Reeves was like, "Nope, not concerned about spinoffs, I'm devoting 100% of my attention to making the best individual films I can and maybe down the line that's something we can explore." I guess I can't help but feel like we leave no virtually stone unturned in this corner of the Bat-verse, what is going to be left on the table that's fresh and a big enough deal for the next Batman filmmaker to explore? Where does this all end? Does the Reeves-verse stand for the forseeable future like the MCU, even once he walks away from it? What's the endgame here? Is this the new normal that every iteration of the Batman franchise is going to have now to try to replicate? Just wondering where it's all going in the big picture, that's all.

 

[Closerframe]

Does there have to be a big picture? That’s the problem with the MCU currently. It had three relatively successful phases of interconnected stories that have now made the current phase look like a complete mess because it seems unorganized. DC has a worse track record, but Batman has been their golden goose and Reeves seems to fully understand what makes the character and his villains so interesting. I know you said you didn’t like Joker, but obviously most of the public did. So WB wants to capitalize on that success. Whether we like it or not, it’ll likely result in some hit-or-miss films/tv shows, but I’d rather they take chances with these characters versus letting them collect dust only to have the same rotating door of Jokers/Catwoman/Penguins every decade.

 

[antsman41]

Soft simple back-bone, yes...

Film | The Batman [start of year 3]

TV > The Penguin [gap year]

Film | The Batman II [year 5]

TV > Harvey Dent / Selina / etc. [gap year]

Film | The Batman III [year 7ish]

TV > Arkham Asylum

...then let it expand out into separate genre films that at most need a Pattinson cameo based on a certain villain.

 

[BatLobster]

Does there have to be a big picture? That’s the problem with the MCU currently. It had three relatively successful phases of interconnected stories that have now made the current phase look like a complete mess because it seems unorganized. DC has a worse track record, but Batman has been their golden goose and Reeves seems to fully understand what makes the character and his villains so interesting. I know you said you didn’t like Joker, but obviously most of the public did. So WB wants to capitalize on that success. Whether we like it or not, it’ll likely result in some hit-or-miss films/tv shows, but I’d rather they take chances with these characters versus letting them collect dust only to have the same rotating door of Jokers/Catwoman/Penguins every decade.

A couple of things-- I don't mean big picture in terms of Reeves' universe. I mean beyond that. I've enjoyed the baton passing of each director getting a 'take' on Batman and his world and then it's onto the next for a creative reinvention. It's been talked about endlessly how that is one of the greatest assets to the Batman world and character over the years. This land grab to seemingly do as many villains as possible in one universe is a big change from tradition of the franchise and I'm just wondering out loud what that may mean for future versions of the character. Personally, I feel it helped Riddler and Penguin's inclusions in The Batman feel like more of a big deal that they both hadn't been used in like 30 years. Not saying things need to lay dormant for THAT long, but for me that's been a part of the fun. You need some time for the appetite to build-- it's a value that seems to have gone almost entirely missing in today's mass entertainment. I get that the Clayfaces and Pygs of the world tend to get overlooked and this could be a cool way to give them some shine, but who's to say there's not a talented director out there who has an amazing take on Clayface as the main villain of a Batman movie but kind of gets beat to the punch here for the novelty factor?

Also to be clear, I don't "dislike" Joker, I do think it's a well-made movie even if it's essentially Taxi Driver with a new coat of clown paint. Great performance, great score, great cinematography. I think it's good even though it has little to do with the actual Joker character or what makes him interesting to me. But one of the things I feared after the movie's success was how it was going to inevitably lead to WB racing to give other villains their own spinoffs and...here we are. Not trying to be negative for negative's sake though, I geniunely just question if this is ultimately best for the health of the franchise/genre or not. And to be clear, this is in no way giving a pass to the MCU while criticizing DC here. Don't get me started on the MCU, its own fumbles, and the troubling effect its success has had on franchise filmmaking.

 

[Closerframe]

A couple of things-- I don't mean big picture in terms of Reeves' universe. I mean beyond that. I've enjoyed the baton passing of each director getting a 'take' on Batman and his world and then it's onto the next for a creative reinvention. It's been talked about endlessly how that is one of the greatest assets to the Batman world and character over the years. This land grab to seemingly do as many villains as possible in one universe is a big change from tradition of the franchise and I'm just wondering out loud what that may mean for future versions of the character. Personally, I feel it helped Riddler and Penguin's inclusions in The Batman feel like more of a big deal that they both hadn't been used in like 30 years. Not saying things need to lay dormant for THAT long, but for me that's been a part of the fun. You need some time for the appetite to build-- it's a value that seems to have gone almost entirely missing in today's mass entertainment.

Also to be clear, I don't "dislike" Joker, I do think it's a well-made movie even if it's essentially Taxi Driver with a new coat of clown paint. Great performance, great score, great cinematography. I think it's good even though it has little to do with the actual Joker character or what makes him interesting to me. But one of the things I feared after the movie's success was how it was going to inevitably lead to WB racing to give other villains their own spinoffs and...here we are. Not trying to be negative for negative's sake though, I geniunely just question if this is ultimately best for the health of the franchise/genre or not. And to be clear, this is in no way giving a pass to the MCU while criticizing DC here. Don't get me started on the MCU, its own fumbles, and the troubling effect its had on franchise filmmaking.

Completely understandable, but arguably, that’s been the problem with the Batman franchise for a long time. We’ve had this continuous pendulum swing between varying tones and styles which of course has merited great results, but it also has fostered a limited scope of the Batman character via a very narrow view of Gotham and by extension, the characters that live there. I see the apprehension of flooding the market with Batman related content overnight—especially with what we’re seeing Disney do with Marvel and Star Wars—but again, I’d rather they try something different versus following the same formula for over 30 years. Batman isn’t James Bond and doesn’t need to be limited in the same storytelling way.

If Reeves wasn’t involved, I would be much more hesitant about this entire concept, but given his passion and filmography, I trust his position to be the guiding hand in this new venture.

Regarding Joker, and to avoid this turning into a back and forth on that film in particular, the thing is indeed just a mix of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, but by comparison to other comic book movies, still felt fresh. It’s hard to argue what defines what the Joker character is and isn’t since he’s an enigma in many ways and I’d argue the movie was just as accurate of a representation of the character as any other depiction seen prior.

 

[dhandler01]

DC Movies: James Gunn Pitches in Secret, Dwayne Johnson Eyes Superman – The Hollywood Reporter

Professor Pyg, you say?

I side-eye any re[port that calls The Batman making $770 million "respectable".

(the rest is delicious though!)

 

[Sawyer]

I side-eye any re[port that calls The Batman making $770 million "respectable".

Why? I think it’s a fair estimation. Some of the more recent releases have gone larger, but at the time it was only really behind No Way Home and No Time to Die as far as pandemic era box office has gone.

 

[BatLobster]

Completely understandable, but arguably, that’s been the problem with the Batman franchise for a long time. We’ve had this continuous pendulum swing between varying tones and styles which of course has merited great results, but it also has fostered a limited scope of the Batman character via a very narrow view of Gotham and by extension, the characters that live there. I see the apprehension of flooding the market with Batman related content overnight—especially with what we’re seeing Disney do with Marvel and Star Wars—but again, I’d rather they try something different versus following the same formula for over 30 years. Batman isn’t James Bond and doesn’t need to be limited in the same storytelling way.

If Reeves wasn’t involved, I would be much more hesitant about this entire concept, but given his passion and filmography, I trust his position to be the guiding hand in this new venture.

Appreciate and respect your take, though for me I think Batman and the central appeal of the franchise IS a lot more like James Bond than it's not. At least personally speaking and in a broad sense. I love the Batman world, I grew up on BTAS and appreciate the vast and fascinating history of the comics. But the Batman movies were always their own special, holy grail sort of thing to me and I guess I lament the loss of that a bit. It was never about trying to encapsulate the entire Batman world into one movie or series, it was about getting one really specific version of that world that distilled core aspects of the character in new ways. To me the whole point is it's all like one big "Legends of The Dark Knight" episode with everyone gathered around taking turns telling stories about how they see Batman. I don't know if there's another franchise out there that's big enough to sustain creative visions from both Tim Burton (at his most Tim Burton-yness) and Christopher Nolan, two directors who could not be more different across the board. And there's something very unique and cool about that IMO. That's it though, end of my rant.

 

[antsman41]

Why? I think it’s a fair estimation. Some of the more recent releases have gone larger, but at the time it was only really behind No Way Home and No Time to Die as far as pandemic era box office has gone.

Plus... it was 3 hours and released in March.

Whoever thinks The Batman was underwhelming at the BO is a fool.

 

[J.Drangal]

I'm genuinely happy for you guys that want all of it. I hope y'all eat well and enjoy. I just am not there, yet, anyway. I think I would just respect the crap out of it if Reeves was like, "Nope, not concerned about spinoffs, I'm devoting 100% of my attention to making the best individual films I can and maybe down the line that's something we can explore." I guess I can't help but feel like we leave no virtually stone unturned in this corner of the Bat-verse, what is going to be left on the table that's fresh and a big enough deal for the next Batman filmmaker to explore? Where does this all end? Does the Reeves-verse stand for the forseeable future like the MCU, even once he walks away from it? What's the endgame here? Is this the new normal that every iteration of the Batman franchise is going to have now to try to replicate? Just wondering where it's all going in the big picture, that's all.

Yeah, I'm kind of with you there.
On paper, the porspect of having Batman world about to be developed in such depth is pretty exciting. Especially through Reeves' approach, which seems to be, more than ever, close from the ideal fantastic-noir sensibility for that licence to shy in a fresh way. But at the same time, I can't help but be a little bit perplexed.

Obviously, Reeves isn't going to write all of these spin-offs himself. But it does seem like he wants to be a sort of "Feige" of his Batman Universe, which still require a huge, huge amount of work. By his own admission, he needs time to develop things, so I'm very surprised by this quite sudden avalanche of annoucements... Especially since nothing seems to be 100% set in stone, which makes me think that there is no real master plan here. For the moment, except for the Penguin show, I still have the impression that things are in a "throwing on the wall and see what sticks" mode. And we've very rarely seen it end well.

Of course, nothing is impossible, and maybe Reeves is actually much further along in all of this than I think. Maybe, by design, his Batman can tolerate side adventures at the hands of other creative teams, outside of the main trilogy he'll be dealing with. Perhaps each of his films will take significant leaps forward in time, allowing all these shows the liberty to enrich the intervening periods... Hey, that's a plan I could find a bit of trust in !
But more generally, I just really hope this won't end with Reeves' very sincere interpretation of this universe diluted and apetized by yes-men to run a gigantic money machine on automatic pilot...

So, it's "wait and see" for me. I really enjoyed The Batman and completely understand people getting very excited. There's a chance to see something special here. I won't denied that.
But personnaly I can't blindly put my faith in a so large and, apparently, fast tracked project like that. At least not yet.

I admit I may have a little PTSD from the way WB/DC have handled things over the past decade (minus some truly special exceptions).

 

[WayneMB]

Wow. been away for a while. Great news to come back to. I love all of this, but i will be disappointed if there will be no Battinson presence in some way. He needs to cameo in these things.