The "Comparing The Batman to past incarnations" thread

[DeadlyWest]

It's interesting.

I remember at the time Begins came out, there was a quote where Bale said that basically their aspiration was to create the "Christopher Reeve" equivalent for their version of Batman. Obviously we know Nolan himself was heavily influenced by the Donner Superman films in his approach.

But in reality, I truly believe there's no such thing as a "definitive" Batman. It's a mirage that fans keep chasing. People have their own definitive Batmans.



I timestamped it here, there's a part of the trilogy doc where Guillermo del Toro and then Jonathan Nolan hit on this point very nicely. I think creatively there's always an ambition to do something that 'feels' definitive and has a lasting impact, but I think it's cool when creators acknowledge that there own take is still just one version in a much bigger tapestry.

I agree that there isn't strictly a definitive interpretation of the character, but I do think there's a definitive "core" of the character which carries over from comic to comic. He dresses as a bat, he's a rich and traumatised dude called Bruce Wayne, his parents died in an alley, he does not kill and has absolutely no exceptions to that rule, he cares about people. Those main aspects carry over from comic to comic even if the nuances change when different writers take him on. There hasn't been a main continuity comic which broke one of those aspects in literal decades. And I feel like Pattinson encapsulated this core of the character the best out of all of them. That's what it means to be definitive, in my eyes. His core is 1:1 with modern comic Batman's core, while everyone else had something that was missing.

 

[BatLobster]

I agree that there isn't strictly a definitive interpretation of the character, but I do think there's a definitive "core" of the character which carries over from comic to comic. He dresses as a bat, he's a rich and traumatised dude called Bruce Wayne, his parents died in an alley, he does not kill and has absolutely no exceptions to that rule, he cares about people. Those main aspects carry over from comic to comic even if the nuances change when different writers take him on. There hasn't been a main continuity comic which broke one of those aspects in literal decades. And I feel like Pattinson encapsulated this core of the character the best out of all of them. That's what it means to be definitive, in my eyes. His core is 1:1 with modern comic Batman's core, while everyone else had something that was missing.

I'm sorry to play this card....but if you're talking "absolutely" no exceptions, then I have to wonder how many people died when Batman was recklessly pursuing The Penguin by driving into oncoming highway traffic and a semi truck exploded.

Collateral damage or not, innocent people died there. The film glosses over it, just like similar incidents in the other films, but it's there. He could likely be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter at the very least for that one. So personally, I don't put Pattinson over any of the others in this category.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I'm sorry to play this card....but if you're talking "absolutely" no exceptions, then I have to wonder how many people died when Batman was recklessly pursuing The Penguin by driving into oncoming highway traffic and a semi truck exploded.

Collateral damage or not, innocent people died there. The film glosses over it, just like similar incidents in the other films, but it's there. He could likely be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for that one.

In JLU, someone possesses Batman and kills someone while using his body. By that same logic, that's Batman killing. Same principle here.

People only started dying because Penguin brake checked a truck, which led to a domino effect of a bunch of cars, including the Batmobile, getting caught in the crossfire. If there's a big queue of traffic and someone goes at 100 MPH, rear ending the first one which creates a massive domino effect of each car going into the one in front of them, is any car other than the initial hitter responsible? No. Same thing here.

That's not what I mean by he doesn't kill. He, himself, does not intentionally do anything which leads to the loss of a life. Someone kickstarting an event where he gets caught in the crossfire obviously doesn't count there.

Also I never got the claim that Batman was reckless for pursuing Penguin. Reckless for driving into oncoming traffic, sure, but nobody dies at that point and I'm fine with that because if anyone's gonna pull something like that with no loss of life, it's gonna be Batman. People literally only start dying because Penguin does something borderline suicidal.

 

[The Batman]

If you put live action aside, there’s already a definitive Batman: BTAS Batman. That Batman has the kind of universal acclaim that the live action counterparts don’t.

Personally, and no offense to anyone, it’s kind of baffling to me when people act like it’s impossible for Batman to have a definitive live action version. It seems like one of those situations where because people haven’t seen it happen, it’s assumed that it can’t be done. I’ve seen several fictional characters, which like Batman have had several notable actors step into the role, with varied takes at that, still have a version that’s wildly considered definitive.

It can be done for Batman in live action, it just hasn’t been done yet.

 

[BatLobster]

In JLU, someone possesses Batman and kills someone while using his body. By that same logic, that's Batman killing. Same principle here.

People only started dying because Penguin brake checked a truck, which led to a domino effect of a bunch of cars, including the Batmobile, getting caught in the crossfire. If there's a big queue of traffic and someone goes at 100 MPH, rear ending the first one which creates a massive domino effect of each car going into the one in front of them, is any car other than the initial hitter responsible? No. Same thing here.

That's not what I mean by he doesn't kill. He, himself, does not intentionally do anything which leads to the loss of a life. Someone kickstarting an event where he gets caught in the crossfire obviously doesn't count there.

I understand the distinction you're making here, but at the same time, I think it's completely fair to say that the incident would not have happened if Batman wasn't being reckless. He was part of a chain of events that led to that. This wasn't an ordinary traffic jam, this was a vigilante chasing a criminal driving against highway traffic. He put himself in that situation. He has to bear some responsibility for it.

I am certainly not a fan of murderous versions of Batman or a Batman who doesn't care about human life, but I'm just saying that stuff like the above puts him on roughly equal footing with Bale to me in that department. We also don't know how Pattinson's Batman would react to stuff like Two-Face with a gun to Gordon's kid's head or a villain who is trying to destroy all of Gotham City. There's not enough in this movie for me to just accept that Pattinson's is the most morally upstanding version. He also definitely would've punched that guy to death at the end had Gordon not happened to stop him. The point I am making is his no-kill rule hasn't truly been tested yet.

If you put live action aside, there’s already a definitive Batman: BTAS Batman. That Batman has the kind of universal acclaim that the live action counterparts don’t.

Personally, and no offense to anyone, it’s kind of baffling to me when people act like it’s impossible for Batman to have a definitive live action version. It seems like one of those situations where because people haven’t seen it happen, it’s assumed that it can’t be done. I’ve seen several fictional characters, which like Batman have had several notable actors step into the role, with varied takes at that, still have a version that’s wildly considered definitive.

It can be done for Batman in live action, it just hasn’t been done yet.

I just don't agree. I'll believe it when I see it, put it that way. I guess I find the idea kind of boring too, to an extent.

If we ever reach a point where we've achieved the "definitive" Batman, where everyone agrees this is IT....then....what's the point of continuing? Why not just close up shop and say, no need for anymore Batman movies, it's been perfected. You'll never get more definitive than this, this says everything you can say about the character.

In fact, that's what I find so annoying about the Snyder cult. They are so convinced that Batfleck is definitive that they'd rather disrupt the continued evolution of the character and revive that version than move forward. And these people are going to go to their graves convinced that Batfleck is the one true definitive Batman. So the idea of 'universal acclaim' for a cinematic Batman on par with BTAS...I dunno. There are so many different camps in Batman fandom. People get attached to different cinematic incarnations for a lot of reasons, including the time and place in their life they came to it. Which is also a big part of why people hold BTAS so high. It's high quality stuff, but it's also the way a lot of people really learned about the Batman lore growing up. So in that sense, it literally helped 'define' Batman for people.

I think versions can be definitive in their own way. They can be definitive for their time, for a certain style/tone of Batman, etc. But the idea of ONE definitive cinematic take, that all others must be rendered inherently inferior by...I dunno. I don't see it. I think with Batman especially, the reinvention aspect feels very inherent to what has kept the engine running on the character for so long. It's a big part of what has kept me interested, certainly.

Also, BTAS is a cartoon. For instance, people think Conroy's Bat-voice is definitive. But I fully believe that voice wouldn't work in live action. There are just so many inherent differences in that medium that I have to put it in a separate category.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I understand the distinction you're making here, but at the same time, I think it's completely fair to say that the incident would not have happened Batman wasn't being reckless. He was part of a chain of events that led to that. This wasn't an ordinary traffic jam, this was a vigilante chasing a criminal driving against highway traffic. He put himself in that situation. He has to bear some responsibility for it.

I am certainly not a fan of murderous versions of Batman or a Batman who doesn't care about human life, but I'm just saying that stuff like the above puts him on roughly equal footing with Bale to me in that department. We also don't know how Pattinson's Batman would react to stuff like Two-Face with a gun to Gordon's kid's head or a villain who is trying to destroy all of Gotham City. There's not enough in this movie for me to just accept that Pattinson's is the most morally upstanding version. He also definitely would've punched that guy to death at the end had Gordon not happened to stop him. The point I am making is his no-kill rule hasn't truly been tested yet.

I can't say I buy that makes Batman reckless though. By that same logic, if a police officer gets into a car chase with a criminal and that criminal does something absolutely insane that nobody would expect someone who has vague concepts of preserving their own life to do (such as brake check a truck), which leads to a significant amount of innocent people dying, does that mean the cop was responsible for those deaths or reckless for trying to pursue the criminal? No. The only difference between a cop and Batman in that situation is that Batman is a vigilante. And while in reality, that's obviously something to be condemned, that's not the case in a Batman story. That's just one of the things you look past because it's a fictional story. Him trying to pursue the Penguin is not reckless, in my opinion. Him going into oncoming traffic, sure, but not pursuing him period. He didn't do anything to "force" Penguin to do what he did, Penguin did that out of sheer desperation. Penguin could've just as easily pulled over or at absolute minimum Not Brake Check A Truck. There was absolutely no indication he was going to do something that crazy.

I also don't agree that Battinson's examples put him on the same level as Bale. Bale by all accounts murders Ra's Al Ghul with a train. He makes the intentional choice to leave the train and leave Ra's no means of escape. That is a far more blatant breaking of the no kill rule than this, in my opinion.

While true, Battinson likely would've beat the dude to death, Batman getting in situations where he would've killed someone but something stopped him is nothing new even in the comics. There was a recent story where Batman nearly stabbed Riddler with a sword but Joker stopped him by putting his hand in the way, there's when he nearly strangles Joker to death in Hush, I'm pretty sure he nearly killed Lex Luthor at some point because he thought he killed Nightwing, etc. In reality, he would absolutely kill someone at some point. The fact that he hasn't is just something to suspend your disbelief over.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

There are plenty of legal loopholes and laws rewritten to serve such a story about a guy who engages in vigilantism approved by the police commissioner and less so by other members in the force, debating this idea will bring so much headache I won't engage in it.... aside from this paragraph.... today.




Before watching this movie I'll take a gander and expect this to be a closer rendition than what Michael Keaton was allowed to play for the sole reason that his Batman nonchalantly burnt a clown alive and we didn't see that crook roll in the snow or get any info about his corpse later, or any of the other corpses Keaton's Batman dropped in a stream of water that was not found on the other end of a tunnel by a young hotheaded cop.

 

[BatLobster]

I can't say I buy that makes Batman reckless though. By that same logic, if a police officer gets into a car chase with a criminal and that criminal does something absolutely insane that nobody would expect someone who has vague concepts of preserving their own life to do (such as brake check a truck), which leads to a significant amount of innocent people dying, does that mean the cop was responsible for those deaths or reckless for trying to pursue the criminal? No. The only difference between a cop and Batman in that situation is that Batman is a vigilante. And while in reality, that's obviously something to be condemned, that's not the case in a Batman story.

That's where I tend to differ. To me, what we're talking about here is ultimately morality and ethics. That's the root of the convo. So the context of him being an illegal vigilante who takes the law into his own hands matters. The Batman as a movie itself is extremely concerned with presenting Batman's crusade in a realistic way, where you can see how horrific it would actually be if a man dressed as a bat was basically dishing out vigilante style justice in a city and beating the crap out of common thugs. His violence is portrayed in an extremely visceral way. It's borderline deconstructing the entire idea of Batman (before finally reconstructing it by the end). I have a hard time just sidestepping that giant elephant in the room if the goal here is to try and keep a scorecard and quantify which Batman is the most morally righteous or whatever.

And the logic you're using here to defend Pattinson is actually the exact same line of thinking that Bale uses against Ra's. Ra's put himself on that train, jammed the controls himself, he was on a suicide mission. Not saying Bale made the right choice or defending that just that...I think the ethics of it is murkier than most fans give it credit for, especially considering Ra's was trying to kill off an entire population.

We simply don't know how Pattinson's Batman, or any of them, would've reacted in the same situation. At the end of the day these aren't real people, these are fictional scenarios set up by writers, and sometimes the point is to prod at and challenge Batman's code. The alternative there is Batman saves Ra's, hands him over to the authorities, stands trial. Inevitably he would've revealed Bruce's identity. Goodbye TDK and TDKR, those no longer happen.

Or what if it was written so that Ra's managed to escape somehow and came back in a later film? He's a ninja who trained Batman after all, it always seemed like a possibility to me. Would that retroactively make it better and a "close call"?

I know I'm being pedantic, but what I'm getting at is why I ultimately don't find these sorts of tit for tat examples useful. You're dealing with a vigilante who has taken a very extreme approach. Things are gonna get murky from time to time, and even moreso if a writer wants to directly challenge that in places. The more important thing to me is does Batman at least feel like a hero, overall? Is it a version character that I want to root for, who I feel is trying to take his dark impulses and channel them towards a greater good? I ran into a disconnect there with Batfleck in BvS. And then in JL, he was more heroic sure, but he was also boring to me. Keaton, it's hard to say, because he was my childhood Batman and these types of concerns were nowhere on my radar.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word here. If Pattinson is your definitive and the closest to the comics to you, that's totally cool and I respect that. Just sharing my perspective.

 

[BMW 224]

Can't believe I'm saying this but I'm kinda starting to wish this was an origin story Batman movie.

Pretty much all my dislikes probably wouldn't exist if this was an orgin because the things I really wanted to be fleshed out more would have been.

To much if stuff for me felt like it was saying you already know these characters know need to expand or emotionally grab this detail it's year 2 now.

 

[The Batman]

If we ever reach a point where we've achieved the "definitive" Batman, where everyone agrees this is IT....then....what's the point of continuing? Why not just close up shop and say, no need for anymore Batman movies, it's been perfected. You'll never get more definitive than this, this says everything you can say about the character.

Jeremy Brett is often considered the definitive Sherlock Holmes, it doesn't mean that people who feel that way don't enjoy the takes that came after him. Same thing with a lot of people who consider Christopher Reeve's Superman the definitive Superman.

People finding one version of the character definitive doesn't mean they won't enjoy subsequent versions.

Also, being "definitive" isn't necessarily about covering every little nook and cranny of a character in the first place.

In fact, that's what I find so annoying about the Snyder cult. They are so convinced that Batfleck is definitive that they'd rather disrupt the continued evolution of the character and revive that version than move forward. And these people are going to go to their graves convinced that Batfleck is the one true definitive Batman.

Most people who would consider something definitive don't behave like Snyder extremists, though. They're an exception, not the rule.

People get attached to different cinematic incarnations for a lot of reasons, including the time and place in their life they came to it. Which is also a big part of why people hold BTAS so high. It's high quality stuff, but it's also the way a lot of people really learned about the Batman lore growing up. So in that sense, it literally helped 'define' Batman for people.

It explains apart of the ongoing attachment to BTAS, but it's not, IMO, a big reason why many would still consider it the definitive Batman after all this time.

Also, BTAS is a cartoon. For instance, people think Conroy's Bat-voice is definitive. But I fully believe that voice wouldn't work in live action. There are just so many inherent differences in that medium that I have to put it in a separate category.

Cartoon or not, the point was that a consensus of Batfans have no problem finding a version of the character definitive. It's not the impossibility people make it out to be.

 

[BatLobster]

Jeremy Brett is often considered the definitive Sherlock Holmes, it doesn't mean that people who feel that way don't enjoy the takes that came after him. Same thing with a lot of people who consider Christopher Reeve's Superman the definitive Superman.

People finding one version of the character definitive doesn't mean they won't enjoy subsequent versions.

Also, being "definitive" isn't necessarily about covering every little nook and cranny of a character in the first place.



Most people who would consider something definitive don't behave like Snyder extremists, though. They're an exception, not the rule.



It explains apart of the ongoing attachment to BTAS, but it's not, IMO, a big reason why many would still consider it the definitive Batman after all this time.



Cartoon or not, the point was that a consensus of Batfans have no problem finding a version of the character definitive. It's not the impossibility people make it out to be.

You could be right, maybe there's a "capital D" definitive take and we just haven't seen it-- or we have, depending on who you ask. I just don't really know what that looks like for me, and I kind of enjoy the possibility that Batman is more of a constantly evolving thing where every generation gets theirs. Up to this point, that's what the evidence suggests to me. Definitive is just such an all encompassing word here, if we're just talking about the actor and portrayal which I think you are-- okay that's one thing. Are we including aesthetics in that though? What is the definitive Bat-suit? Is it the blue and grey with the yellow oval? Then there's the world of Gotham, the villains, the Batmobile, the score, the overall aesthetic, etc. It's hard for me to separate the actor from the overall vision they're a part of. What would Michael Keaton's Batman have been without the iconic Elfman theme and Burton's vision?

There are just so many iconic components to the Batman world besides just Batman himself, I think that's part of what makes it tricky. It seems to me like people are always going to have specific elements they favor about each of them. It's entirely possible Pattinson will be the overall favorite actor in the role by the time he's through though, I'm not discounting the possibility of that.

 

[Filmfreak]

This is something that took me some time to nail down. I felt like Gordon and Batmans relationship was great, but at the same time it felt a bit hollow to me. I mean, I get that it's year 2, but aren't we supposed to be invested in when they work together? It ended up feeling a little cold at times to me. It's hard to emotionally connect if I don't know their past.

I agree with that and there are many aspects of the film that feel like that to me. A very distinctive example was also

Spoiler

the moment that the bomb in Bruce's mansion goes off and and we don't know if Alfred survived or not, which I admit that due to the dark tone of the movie I certainly believed that there was a strong possibility he might not have made it out alive. I know I was supposed to care more for that scene and this Alfred in general but the truth is he was barely present in the movie. The only reasons that I could possibly give a damn was because I already was familiar with the characters from other iterations and because of how much I like Serkis and wanted to see more of him, but I don't think that's enough. Nothing within the context of the film itself or the story earned that emotion from me. I feel that this could've been a much more impactful moment had it happened in future movies, when they'd have expanded on their relationship.

And yeah, overall the movie gave me the impression that it leaned a bit too much on the fact that both fans and general audience have knowledge of the characters and the Batman mythos, due to the numerous adaptations we've seen in a relatively short time period and that it didn't try that hard to differentiate itself and build on some things. And it's fine in some cases. I certainly didn't want to see another origin or the Waynes get murdered in that alley for the millionth time. I do, however, think that a film should always treat its characters and lore like you've know idea who or what they were before, which I missed seeing in this. At first it was something that I barely gave attention to, but the more I thought about it the more I believe it loses some points due to that approach. And again, this is not me throwing mud at the film. I still think it's a great Batman movie and I'm certainly interested to see where it's going to go from here and if it will fix some of the issues I have.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I agree with that and there are many aspects of the film that feel like that to me. A very distinctive example was also

Spoiler

the moment that the bomb in Bruce's mansion goes off and and we don't know if Alfred survived or not, which I admit that due to the dark tone of the movie I certainly believed that there was a strong possibility he might not have made it out alive. I know I was supposed to care more for that scene and this Alfred in general but the truth is he was barely present in the movie. The only reasons that I could possibly give a damn was because I already was familiar with the characters from other iterations and because of how much I like Serkis and wanted to see more of him, but I don't think that's enough. Nothing within the context of the film itself or the story earned that emotion from me. I feel that this could've been a much more impactful moment had it happened in future movies, when they'd have expanded on their relationship.

And yeah, overall the movie gave me the impression that it leaned a bit too much on the fact that both fans and general audience have knowledge of the characters and the Batman mythos, due to the numerous adaptations we've seen in a relatively short time period and that it didn't try that hard to differentiate itself and build on some things. And it's fine in some cases. I certainly didn't want to see another origin or the Waynes get murdered in that alley for the millionth time. I do, however, think that a film should always treat its characters and lore like you've know idea who or what they were before, which I missed seeing in this. At first it was something that I barely gave attention to, but the more I thought about it the more I believe it loses some points due to that approach. And again, this is not me throwing mud at the film. I still think it's a great Batman movie and I'm certainly interested to see where it's going to go from here and if it will fix some of the issues I have.

Yep, my thoughts too, and I certainly LOVED what Serkis did in the movie, even though it wasn't much. Things like that have left me scratching my head a bit. I also can't get over the fact that Alfred, having been nearly killed, and in tough shape in a hospital bed, wakes up and smiles at Bruce only for him to instantly start being a little ******* again. Bruce Wayne was unlikeable in the movie for me, unfortunately. he had moments like that in Batman Begins, but was not nearly as infuriating as it was here.

In the sequel, I hope Bruce is more likeable and I hope Batman acts more like a creature of the night too. I feel like this movie had a tough job of trying to do something new, not retread old ground, and feel different. It does feel different, which I love that it did, but I felt like it retread old ground in a way that wasn't on the level of what Nolan did, for me, personally. You learned everything you needed to know about Batman and Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. The idea of vengeance not being the answer didn't hit me as hard because I saw that done already. I think that's what bothers me a little tbh. If you're gonna do a 3 hour movie, I'd rather see something that wasn't covered mostly already in another film. That's why I hope the sequel is very surprising. What this movie did accomplish extremely well though is the aesthetic and the noir angle. That was amazing, and Reeves knocked it out of the park there.

also, for me, what made the Oldman/Bale version work is that we got to see Gordon comfort Bruce as a child, and we got to see, in depth, how Gordon doesn't really like working with the corrupted cops that he unfortunately must be acquainted with. That whole relationship had a beginning, middle, and end which obviously came full circle in TDKR when Batman essentially tells Gordon who he is with reference to the coat scene from BB. I get that they don't want to go over those things again, but it's those moments that help us identify and feel for these characters. Here, we are dropped in the middle of everything expecting to care about their relationship and stuff. It's hard because film adaptions aren't like comics. There needs to be development over time. Don't get me wrong, I like what we got of Batman and Gordon, but it felt hollow to me. It's as if we were dropped into a random Batman comic, which hey, maybe that was the intention.

 

[BatLobster]

It's as if we were dropped into a random Batman comic, which hey, maybe that was the intention.

I do think, for better or worse, that was the intention. It's a catch-22. I really wouldn't have wanted to see a re-do of Batman Begins and re-establishing all of that stuff and it's clear Reeves strongly felt that wasn't necessary either. So it's hard, I don't really know the alternative.

I think I'm just viewing this version a bit more like the 60s series or BTAS, where you're just kind of dropped in with a lot of elements of the world already in play. That may have felt a bit fresher if we didn't basically get the same approach with Batfleck though...

I get that it's hard to emotionally invest in the same way though. You felt tremendous sympathy for Oldman's Gordon from the start.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I do think, for better or worse, that was the intention. It's a catch-22. I really wouldn't have wanted to see a re-do of Batman Begins and re-establishing all of that stuff and it's clear Reeves strongly felt that wasn't necessary either. So it's hard, I don't really know the alternative.

I think I'm just viewing this version a bit more like the 60s series or BTAS, where you're just kind of dropped in with a lot of elements of the world already in play. That may have felt a bit fresher if we didn't basically get the same approach with Batfleck though...

I get that it's hard to emotionally invest in the same way though. You felt tremendous sympathy for Oldman's Gordon from the start.

That's true. I think this is where it becomes difficult with new adaptions with so many versions already done. what Reeves did definitely works, but at the same time, it makes it so that I have less of a connection to those characters and less ability to be emotionally invested. it works, and I dug their team-up very much, but the investment takes a back seat for that reason. In Batman Begins, you establish that Gordon has a wife and a family, which helps even more. I'm curious if Wrights version will be explored more in sequels.

 

[BMW 224]

I do think, for better or worse, that was the intention. It's a catch-22. I really wouldn't have wanted to see a re-do of Batman Begins and re-establishing all of that stuff and it's clear Reeves strongly felt that wasn't necessary either. So it's hard, I don't really know the alternative.

I think I'm just viewing this version a bit more li
ke the 60s series or BTAS, where you're just kind of dropped in with a lot of elements of the world already in play. That may have felt a bit fresher if we didn't basically get the same approach with Batfleck though...

I get that it's hard to emotionally invest in the same way though. You felt tremendous sympathy for Oldman's Gordon from the start.

I still think there a way to do origin story with out simply doing a redo of Begins.

It's the same problem I had with Batfleck personally I didn't see the beginning so it difficult to emotionally invest in the implied.


The implied works for something like Batman and Joker's realtionship for me or the comics.

But doesn't work as well for me with a brand new take on Batman and his mythos on the big screen.


A year one movie with this cast tweaking the story a bit would have been perfect in my opinion.

 

[Rick190293]

I kinda agree that I wish I saw the origin for Battinson too, even with BB being almost perfect as a origin movie. There's other ways to explore it, maybe in a not linear way, but this definitely helps being attached emotionally to the characters.

 

[BMW 224]

I kinda agree that I wish I saw the origin for Battinson too, even with BB being almost perfect as a origin movie. There's other ways to explore it, maybe in a not linear way, but this definitely helps being attached emotionally to the characters.

I honestly feel that way for most of the main players beside Selina.

Riddler for example impact was really lessened for me when we got zero exploration of his time in the orphanage just exposition of what sounded like a powerfully painful experience.

Jim Gordon and Batmans realtionship was already brushed over and established same thing.

A complety numb and empty Bruce Wayne and PTSD ridden Alfred a brand new concept barley explored because we're already in the second act of them becoming whole again.


A major difference between begins and this could have been having the Wayne's be corrupt.

I respect Matt Reeves alot but I really disagree that we've "seen the origin tale so many times no need to do that again" we've seen Bruce Wayne parents die so many times yes but we've only seen the beginning of Batman and his supporting characters once on screen back in 2005.


Even though this movie is 3 hour's I feel like know more about the plot and the story and less about the actual characters and what they mean to each other.

 

[Filmfreak]

I do think, for better or worse, that was the intention. It's a catch-22. I really wouldn't have wanted to see a re-do of Batman Begins and re-establishing all of that stuff and it's clear Reeves strongly felt that wasn't necessary either. So it's hard, I don't really know the alternative.

I don't think that anyone really wanted to see the same things all over again. And in theory I do believe this was the best approach in order to keep things fresh and to avoid a rehash. But I think there's some confusion between going back to the beginning and reintroducing something. They didn't need to show us how Bruce became Batman or how he met Gordon, but I did miss showing us more of their relationship and his motives. The film had a lot going on and even with the three-hour runtime it felt that most of the characters needed to be more fleshed out, which could have given us a better introduction to them and the entire universe.

I guess, like everything, it comes down to preference and what one expects to see from a comic book movie adaptation. Many don't have any need to get to know characters and lore they already are familiar with, I on the other hand, want to start fresh with each iteration and being emotionally invested to these specific versions of protagonists and events. And this was a bit of an issue for me. It was a great depiction of Batman's universe but at the same time it felt distant and cold.

A major difference between begins and this could have been having the Wayne's be corrupt.

I would have loved to see them being corrupted. The Telltale game did it exceptionally. Here it was like a half measure. They were building for Thomas having a dark past but they played it safe and didn't go all the way through. In the end it didn't mean anything.

 

[BMW 224]

I don't think that anyone really wanted to see the same things all over again. And in theory I do believe this was the best approach in order to keep things fresh and to avoid a rehash. But I think there's some confusion between going back to the beginning and reintroducing something. They didn't need to show us how Bruce became Batman or how he met Gordon, but I did miss showing us more of their relationship and his motives. The film had a lot going on and even with the three-hour runtime it felt that most of the characters needed to be more fleshed out, which could have given us a better introduction to them and the entire universe.

I guess, like everything, it comes down to preference and what one expects to see from a comic book movie adaptation. Many don't have any need to get to know characters and lore they already are familiar with, I on the other hand, want to start fresh with each iteration and being emotionally invested to these specific versions of protagonists and events. And this was a bit of an issue for. It was a great depiction of Batman's universe but at the same time it felt distant and cold.

I think you hit the nail on the head.



I would have loved to see them being corrupted. The Telltale game did it exceptionally. Here it was like a half measure. They were building for Thomas having a dark past but they played it safe and didn't go all the way through.

I

I think you hit the nail on the head for me personally I prefer emotionally investing with these specific versions of Batman and his world instead of relying on known information from the lore.

As for the Wayne's going full telkatile yeah I couldn't agree more I originally I was against the idea and when I looked on the spoilers section here it seems really divise when it was being speculated.

Ironically it was Bat Lobster explanation on why it could work well with the themes of "vengeance" and others who seems on board that really changed my mind on the whole idea.


I think it would really made Battinson and this iteration stand out and be even more fresh.

This may be a bit of hot take but even though I love the "arc" we got for the most part I think the angle of Bruce Wayne being the one good Wayne and having his relatively simple motivation of vengeance for his parents death he flipped on it's head from the reveal of his parents being just like the criminals he's beating the piss out of with glee and force Bruce to mature and redefine Batman purpose would made the theme of vengeance not being the answer stronger and help make this feel different from how Begins essentially explored the idea.

I feel the speculated arc for this Batman and how they were gonna have him grow from vengeance to a hero ended up being more original and more risky than what we got.

 

[Filmfreak]

Yeah. Personally I would have been ok with a more conventional Waynes backstory, like we've seen in the other movies, too. But if you're going to try the corrupt angle, go all the way. Don't do a watered down version of what we've already seen elsewhere (Telltale, Joker).

And honestly, I don't see the Vengeance Batman being all that different from a regular one or from what they showed at the end of the film. God knows, I didn't want to see another Batfleck characterisation, but Bruce's journey in The Batman would make more sense in that version. Even Daredevil in season 3 of the Netflix show did a better job in showing the hero's journey of finding his lost humanity and in differentiating the more hard-boiled version to the more classic one he managed to become again. Pattinson's Batman was just a bit more angry at first, that's all. He always had the same moral code.

 

[BMW 224]

Yeah. Personally I would have been ok with a more conventional Waynes backstory, like we've seen in the other movies, too. But if you're going to try the corrupt angle, go all the way. Don't do a watered down version of what we've already seen elsewhere (Telltale, Joker).

And honestly, I don't see the Vengeance Batman being all that different from a regular one or from what they showed at the end of the film. God knows, I didn't want to see another Batfleck characterisation, but Bruce's journey in The Batman would make more sense in that version. Even Daredevil in season 3 of the Netflix show did a better job in showing the hero's journey of finding his lost humanity and in differentiating the more hard-boiled version to the more classic one he managed to become again. Pattinson's Batman was just a bit more angry at first, that's all. He always had the same moral code.

He was more lost and confused than normal but that was about it.

I prefer when Batman has the no kill rule but I wish they showed the orgin of it in this one as well so we could see a more angrier brutal Batman calm the **** done and become more compassionate and careful not to do lethal harm.

After Batfleck I wanted to see Batmam explore "why" he has the no kill rule and why it's important almost sell it in way to the audience not just have be an already established thing.



It's weird because I think the trailers and marketing hinted at a more mortally conflicted Batman than the actual movie.

"I'm Vengeance" beat down scene has a different uncomfortable sinster vibe in the trailer compared to the movie which felt more heroic and triumphant.

Bruce Wayne was the one this felt different to me.

 

[TheGDBatman]

I still think there a way to do origin story with out simply doing a redo of Begins.

It's the same problem I had with Batfleck personally I didn't see the beginning so it difficult to emotionally invest in the implied.


The implied works for something like Batman and Joker's realtionship for me or the comics.

But doesn't work as well for me with a brand new take on Batman and his mythos on the big screen.


A year one movie with this cast tweaking the story a bit would have been perfect in my opinion.

I would low key love to see them dive into some weird ninja/semi mystical stuff if they ever did go back and do an origin story. Does anyone remember that animated Gotham Knight movie that came out around the time TDK did? There was one story where Bruce seeks out a "witch" in a foreign country, and she teaches him how to control his reaction to pain. It was super out there and also a really refreshing approach to some of his origin stuff. I'm probably messing up the particulars, but that was the general idea.

 

[BMW 224]

I would low key love to see them dive into some weird ninja/semi mystical stuff if they ever did go back and do an origin story. Does anyone remember that animated Gotham Knight movie that came out around the time TDK did? There was one story where Bruce seeks out a "witch" in a foreign country, and she teaches him how to control his reaction to pain. It was super out there and also a really refreshing approach to some of his origin stuff. I'm probably messing up the particulars, but that was the general idea.

That would be cool.

Although it's more realistic I do think Bruce only getting his training from Alfred is kinda..... Boring and takes some of unquie experiences from Bruce becoming Batman.

I also don't really get why this version of Alfred in particular would do that since there realtionship isn't nessarcarily pro Gotham experiment.

Seems like this Alfred isn't really apart of this side of Bruce's life until the events of the movies brings them closer or at least that's the vibe I got.

 

[TheGDBatman]

That would be cool.

Although it's more realistic I do think Bruce only getting his training from Alfred is kinda..... Boring and takes some of unquie experiences from Bruce becoming Batman.

I also don't really get why this version of Alfred in particular would do that since there realtionship isn't nessarcarily pro Batman.

I could be smoking all sorts of crack, but didn't the junior novelization or whatever mention that Bruce still travels the world and gets some of his training? I know Alfred trains him in some of his fighting, but I don't know if that's the totality of it.