The Batman General News & Discussion Thread

[Eddie Dean]

Scarecrow isn't the major villian, Ra's is.

 

[Sawyer]

Yeah. Crane gets bested by Rachel Dawes tasering his face.

 

[Kane52630]

They forgot that Mister Razz Al Ghool was the main villain? lol

 

[shauner111]

I don't think that's a bad take at all. He's not wrong, it is kind of odd that the major villain of the first film shows up for these tiny cameos in the sequels.

He’s not the main villain. But I don’t think that’s odd. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dano comes back for a cameo in each sequel. It’s more odd to me that all these Batman movies kill their villains off after one movie or they survive but to never return.

 

[Captain Tired]

Scarecrow isn't the major villian, Ra's is.

Scarecrow is A major villain of Begins. He's the secondary villain.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Notice how Art said The, not A!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

In a genre where the villain dies at the end most of the time, Crane popping up here and there throughout the trilogy was a breath of fresh air.

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

 

[BatLobster]

The Crane cameos were fun, and I liked the idea of tracking the state of Gotham through one scrappy survivor of a baddie who kind of bridges the gap between the freaks and the 'normal' criminals. It was one little thing to create a nice sense of continuity as the films expanded in different directions. And Gordon even says "We still haven't picked up Crane" at the end of Begins, so to leave him unaddressed would've been a bit of a loose end.

Also, the idea of Crane pawning off his fear toxin to unsuspecting buyers to try to get by as a drug dealer is pretty hilarious. I want a series that explores the entire trilogy timeline from Scarecrow's point of view. Let's have that on Disney+ please.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Yes please!

 

[Art Vandelay]

He’s not the main villain. But I don’t think that’s odd. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dano comes back for a cameo in each sequel. It’s more odd to me that all these Batman movies kill their villains off after one movie or they survive but to never return.

Maybe I should have worded it better, but my point was he's a major villain, and yet he continues to pop up in a really small way for the later movies. I think the reason they killed off villains in past movies was because the studio likely only had the actors for that one movie. After The Lord of the Rings came out, though, it was standard for actors to be signed on for multiple movies.

 

[cryptic name]

Eyes peeled for preorders

 

[Mani-Man]

Hell yeah.
But i just had a horrible thought...what if Hot Toys makes The Batman figures too?
Dude, i need to pay taxes and food and have living costs, have mercy on my wallet.

 

[Spoonman]

Hell yeah.
But i just had a horrible thought...what if Hot Toys makes The Batman figures too?
Dude, i need to pay taxes and food and have living costs, have mercy on my wallet.

"What if"? My wallet is already weeping because of the inevitable release of HT Battinson.

 

[Gothamsknight]

So is the drifter Bruce Wayne from Mcfarlane toys essentially confirmation that drifter Bruce Wayne is sort of like Matches Malone?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Not really. It could be that look of him on the motorcycle we saw in the trailer and set photos. Might not. No way of really knowing without a picture.

 

[Gothamsknight]

All this praise for how great the cinematography is has me so hyped

 

[Kane52630]

Spoiler

 

[Doctor Jones]

I know it's a piece of artwork, but that's not real is it?

 

[Gothamsknight]

After watching the trailer again, just noticed that after the bit where Pengin and his goons are shooting, there's a quick shot of the bullets hitting a car and if you look super close, there looks to be a figure hiding on the other side of the car which obviously has to be Bats. Or I'm just bored, I don't know.

 

[Kane52630]

I know it's a piece of artwork, but that's not real is it?

fanart

 

[cryptic name]

That is rad.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Did we hear about the budget before? I just saw it listed on wikipedia as $100 million (with Variety as the source).

There's no way that's true. Batman Forever had the same budget back in 1995. Crazy bargain for WB if it is true though.

 

[Kane52630]

That is honestly a relief if true, I'm glad they're not doing giant set pieces on their first outing.

 

[J.Drangal]

Reeves is definitely aiming for a more psychological Batman movie, and if we're taking Seven as a benchmark, then by nature there's no need for the astronomical budgets that are usually given in that genre. On that matter, I still think that all of this money is, most of the time, just wasted out in CGI to hide how badly planned and wrote most of these movies are...
A relatively low budget here could mean that the story is in itself solid enough that you don't need to add unnecessary (and nowadays more than often numbing) action scenes to stimulate the entertainment. That's a very good sign to me.

More generally, Batman, as a franchise, is an absolute gold mine and could be even more profitable when you realize that his movies could be made for a lot less money than other popular IPs. Sure for that, you have to put some guts in your writing, but judging by the passion of the director here, everything is in good hands. And this is something that seemed way too rare in recent years imo ...