The Batmen

[Kyberwulf]

So, with the possiblilty of the current rumors, what do you think of all the Batmen coming out? Michael Keaton, Ben Afflack and Robert Pattison?

I am kind of hopeful that they do Batman Byond with Keaton.

The exploring of Ben Afflacks.

I am not in the automate of Pattison. I don't see him as Batman.. but I am hoping he does a decent job.

[Peelee]

What rumors?

[GloatingSwine]

Michael Keaton might be returning to the batsuit in the Ezra Miller Flash movie.

The Ezra Miller Flash movie is, I think, going to be based on Flashpoint so that might actually put Keaton in the role as Thomas Wayne/Batman from Flashpoint.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Michael Keaton returning to his wheelhouse: flying animal based supers.

But what about Adam West? Are they not digitally reanimating him to play Batman again?

[Palanan]

...is this a joke thread?

[Precure]

So, with the possiblilty of the current rumors, what do you think of all the Batmen coming out?

How progressive.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How progressive.

Batman is pretty much based on Zorro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K22iiWlNpvg), after all.

[Bartmanhomer]

...is this a joke thread?

And it's not even April Fools Day anymore. :biggrin:

[Peelee]

Batman is pretty much based on Zorro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K22iiWlNpvg), after all.

I've always liked Zorro, but that dialogue is bangin'.

"You are the bravest man I've ever met"
"I'm very impressed with myself, too."

[GrayDeath]

I am not in the automate of Pattison.

I have no idea whatsoever what that is supposed to mean.


That aside, I would LOVE a Batman beyond with keaton as Bruce.

I MIGHT watch the FLash Movie if it does some serious evolution of the same old, but I am not optimistic about that....


Edit: edited cause spellcheckers make Keraton out of Mr. Keaton.

[Peelee]

That aside, I would LOVE a Batman beyond with keraton as Bruce.

I would stop at "I would LOVE a Batman Beyond.":smallwink:

[Hopeless]

Do you think they're planning on using this to swap Keaton for Affleck from now on or wait until the Snyder Cut is released?

[Clertar]

Do you think they're planning on using this to swap Keaton for Affleck from now on or wait until the Snyder Cut is released?

The Snyder Cut will be the first live action Batman that we're going to see next.

[Dienekes]

The Snyder Cut will be the first live action Batman that we're going to see next.

Wooh that things actually being released? Oh boy, I am skeptical as heck.

Especially since the only parts of JL I enjoyed were the bits of inter-character dialogue that was clearly written by Whedon.

I’m actually somewhat morbidly curious how that will go down. I’m not sure an edit can save that mess.

[GrayDeath]

Well, it woint do anything for you if you were expecting anything but a dark dystopic Movie.


Cause thats what Snyder does.

But for some info, google "Cyclops actor Snyder Cut" and youll read some disturbing things regarding the cut we got.

(I mean, the cut we got had in my view 3 main problems.

1st and 2nd: it was actually 2 "movies" in feel the dark melancholic one that started with that AMAZING Intro scene and song, and the dorky funny one in between that made Everybody knows, Steppenwolf Blows" a meme.

Both could have been good, but mixed AND shortened by about 40 minutes, well...

And 3rd that there was no Darkseid.

And all these a Snyder Cut would fix.

One might not like what happens with that version, but at least itll be internally consistent.

Lets hope.

[ben-zayb]

Michael Keaton might be returning to the batsuit in the Ezra Miller Flash movie.

The Ezra Miller Flash movie is, I think, going to be based on Flashpoint so that might actually put Keaton in the role as Thomas Wayne/Batman from Flashpoint.
What are the chances of that movie still pushing through after all the Ezra Miller stuff? That's bad PR.

[Dilvish]

Michael Keaton returning to his wheelhouse: flying animal based supers.

But what about Adam West? Are they not digitally reanimating him to play Batman again?

Digitally reanimating Adam West? As long as it is for Batman: Into the Bat-verse, I'm for it. :smallbiggrin:

[Ramza00]

But for some info, google "Cyclops actor Snyder Cut" and youll read some disturbing things regarding the cut we got.

(I mean, the cut we got had in my view 3 main problems.

1st and 2nd: it was actually 2 "movies" in feel the dark melancholic one that started with that AMAZING Intro scene and song, and the dorky funny one in between that made Everybody knows, Steppenwolf Blows" a meme.

Both could have been good, but mixed AND shortened by about 40 minutes, well...

And 3rd that there was no Darkseid.

And all these a Snyder Cut would fix.

One might not like what happens with that version, but at least itll be internally consistent.

Lets hope.

The Snyder Cut (referring to the past thing) is not a single thing, it is a fluid thing that is always changing. Some of this is due to Snyder himself, but a lot of it has to do with outside people of Snyder such as management with how they are changing how many movies there are, budget, ideas, and so on.

Take for example that these movies are not "stand alone" but are trying to tell a layered story much like a television season or a comic book arc. Well after the disappointing returns of Batman v. Superman the Justice League Movie went from 2 movies down to 1.

But it is more than that. Batman v. Superman came out in March 2016, and the next movie in this series was the Suicide Squad movie that came out in August 2016. There were extensive reshoots of this movie (Suicide Squad) but 4 months and change is barely enough time to do all these modifications.

Well in 2018 the director of Suicide Squad, David Ayer, stated that the plot of Suicide Squad originally was The Enchantress being manipulated, and the manipulator was Steppenwolf trying to open a motherbox portal to Earth. He was going to be the final boss fight at the end of Suicide Squad and this was going to dovetail into the Justice League project. Except upper management had different ideas for Justice League and thus Suicide Squad was changed and the new villians were The Enchantress and her brother (who is the final boss fight.)

My point here is the DC movie Extended Universe (DCEU) is a floating and moving thing. Much like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the 3 most recent Star War movies in that trilogy. Some other franchises stuck their flow and landing better, and some of them did not. In many ways the DCEU did its job better than Star Wars did. (And I do not like the DCEU, but I adore the Timmverse animated DC shows of the 90s and 00s. That said Star Wars is a train wreck with the final product.)

[Velaryon]

I'd be happy to see Keaton put on the cowl one more time, whether it's in a Batman Beyond kind of scenario or not.

I'm largely indifferent to further Ben Affleck outings as Batman. He's been better in the role than I expected, but I still haven't liked any of those movies and am frankly skeptical of all DC movies (other than perhaps Wonder Woman) until they prove themselves.

No interest whatsoever in seeing Pattinson as Batman. I concede that he could do well (after all, I expected nothing from Affleck either), but I'm not a fan of his anyway so I have no anticipation for that.

[Peelee]

I'd be happy to see Keaton put on the cowl one more time, whether it's in a Batman Beyond kind of scenario or not.

Imean, if it was a Batman Beyond scenario, he wouldn't put on the cowl. Well, maybe for the pilot/intro.

[Traab]

Imean, if it was a Batman Beyond scenario, he wouldn't put on the cowl. Well, maybe for the pilot/intro.

Which is pretty vital considering it quickly establishes WHY batman is no longer in gotham. That scene is still stuck in my head and I havent seen the cartoon since it was new. It just fit and made perfect sense as to why he wont be batman till he dies.

[Peelee]

Which is pretty vital considering it quickly establishes WHY batman is no longer in gotham. That scene is still stuck in my head and I havent seen the cartoon since it was new. It just fit and made perfect sense as to why he wont be batman till he dies.

Fair point, but even without that scene, an elderly Bruce Wayne could do well to explain it already. He's rather famously an in-augmented, normal biological human, after all. Nobody could expect septagenarian Bruce to still stalk the city during the nights. Well, barring Lazarus pits, but old Bruce naturally bysteps that to begin with.

All that being said, I totally agree that BB showcased it fantastically. There's a lot about that show I completely loved, they did a wonderful job overall on it.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I would stop at "I would LOVE a Batman Beyond.":smallwink:

I’m going to +1 this; I loved that show.

[Traab]

Fair point, but even without that scene, an elderly Bruce Wayne could do well to explain it already. He's rather famously an in-augmented, normal biological human, after all. Nobody could expect septagenarian Bruce to still stalk the city during the nights. Well, barring Lazarus pits, but old Bruce naturally bysteps that to begin with.

All that being said, I totally agree that BB showcased it fantastically. There's a lot about that show I completely loved, they did a wonderful job overall on it.

Agreed, they didnt HAVE to spell it out, as you said, just looking at bruce when terry runs into him is enough to make it obvious as to why he isnt batman. But it also clarified a few things without having to come right out and cover it. There was no replacement, no robin, no batgirl, no 5th generation of either to take over. By showing him as a grey haired dude still in the suit it established that there was nobody he could count on to take over. Without that scene you could still guess that was the case, but by putting it in, it confirmed it for us. And by showing us his breaking point it have us a tangible reason beyond "Im getting too old for this" for why he stopped.

It probably would have worked just as well as any of the other flashbacks where we learn what happened to tim, or barbara, but ah well. (I especially loved the return of the joker for the continuity it created)

[Ramza00]

All that being said, I totally agree that BB showcased it fantastically. There's a lot about that show I completely loved, they did a wonderful job overall on it.

"Welcome to My World" [music plays in the background]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHT7A_BghHc

[Rodin]

I've never understood the Keaton love myself. I was too young to fully appreciate the 1989 Batman when it came out, so I went back and watched it as an adult. It has not held up well, but I can see why it was liked at the time.

Even so, I thought one of the biggest flaws with the movie was Keaton as Batman. He was passable in the cowl but was horribly flat as Bruce Wayne - a far cry from the playboy he's supposed to be. Everyone acts like he's handsome and charming, and all I saw was a balding middle aged guy who nobody would have paid attention to without his money.

He wasn't the worst Batman ever, but that's a pretty low bar.

I would say that it's a "Not My Batman" scenario like Daniel Craig not being my Bond, but Keaton was the first serious take on the character I was exposed to. It could be that all the animated versions + Balebat have created a different expectation for me over the years.

Or maybe I'm just weird.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eh, I thought Afflek was fine in Justice League; but admittedly, that was only one of that sequence I saw (Wonder Woman, obviously, but not any of the others).

I was actually surprised by JL, considering all the negative press, I thought it was pretty good. Not really on the same level as the MCU, but compared to what I'd been expecting.



(I can't imagine it being at all improved without rhe snarky banter at all, though.)



In general, though, I'm never massively fussed about actors as long as they are not really actively bad. (I mean, no-one is ever going to top Adam West Batman, so, y'know...) Dudes and dudettes (et al) are only doing their jobs at the end of the day. I care rather more if the writers and directors/editors have put together a good production. Good casting is notable, but to some extent it's like background music to me; if I notice it, it's either because it's exceptionally good or it's really bad. So long as it runs the gamut of functional to good, it generally goes unnoticed.

[Traab]

Thats the thing, there are actually two parts to being the best batman, and thats, who plays under the cowl well, and who plays BRUCE well. I always felt the dark knight rises set of batman was terrible, but he did a good job as bruce wayne the party boy rich man with a secret. I HATED that gravely voice. It just killed my enjoyment of the character. Keaton did a good job of being batman, especially with the restrictions he was working under, but didnt fit as bruce wayne at all. This reclusive mystery man who, if asked, you could see being strange enough to be batman. With nolanverse you would see people responding, "Wait, you think BRUCE WAYNE is batman? That idiot? He is too busy chasing tail and wasting money at parties to chase down bad guys!" Which was the point. So thats why you see so much arguing over who the best batman is because its not easy to play both roles equally well.

[Ramza00]

Thats the thing, there are actually two parts to being the best batman, and thats, who plays under the cowl well, and who plays BRUCE well. I always felt the dark knight rises set of batman was terrible, but he did a good job as bruce wayne the party boy rich man with a secret. I HATED that gravely voice. It just killed my enjoyment of the character. Keaton did a good job of being batman, especially with the restrictions he was working under, but didnt fit as bruce wayne at all. This reclusive mystery man who, if asked, you could see being strange enough to be batman. With nolanverse you would see people responding, "Wait, you think BRUCE WAYNE is batman? That idiot? He is too busy chasing tail and wasting money at parties to chase down bad guys!" Which was the point. So thats why you see so much arguing over who the best batman is because its not easy to play both roles equally well.

*Nods*

I been told there are two archetypes that often date.

The anxious goth boy, and the golden retriever boyfriend. The golden retriever is often socially oblivious yet still very earnest, much like Joey from Friends, or Mr. Peanutbutter from Bojack.

Part of the Batman Mythos is he is both of those two things. Batman is an anxious goth boy who punches things and thinks an emotional suit of armor will protect some of his vulnerability (if I become an archetype I can help others and it will not hurt.) While the fake Bruce Wayne persona is the earnest golden retriever billionaire who just wants to be happy and gets to do whatever he wants for he is a billionaires and billionaires need not have "leashes" for money is a wonderful social lubricant making you free of many social repercussions and suddenly everyone wants to be your friend.

[Rodin]

Perhaps that's why I like the animated Batmen so much more. They don't have to find someone that looks the part in both roles. Voice actors are also much better at swapping between different characters, which makes it easier for them to play both Bruce and Bats without it being incongruous.

[Velaryon]

Perhaps that's why I like the animated Batmen so much more. They don't have to find someone that looks the part in both roles. Voice actors are also much better at swapping between different characters, which makes it easier for them to play both Bruce and Bats without it being incongruous.

Yes. If you cobbled all the best bits of Keaton, Bale, Affleck, and even Adam West's Batman together into one performance, it still wouldn't touch the utter perfection that is Kevin Conroy's portrayal.

[Ramza00]

The CW just announced Javicia Leslie will be the new Batwoman.

Sidenote I understand the old Batwoman, Ruby Rose, deciding to leave after she had a stunt accident that damaged her spine and required two surgeries. Sure she completely recovered but you have to ask it if its worth it if you were almost a paraplegic. (My father is a spinal chord injury survivor, he can walk but he lost perception and sensory nerves with his legs.)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yes. If you cobbled all the best bits of Keaton, Bale, Affleck, and even Adam West's Batman together into one performance, it still wouldn't touch the utter perfection that is Kevin Conroy's portrayal.

But how about if we add... George Clooney's performance? It just gets worse? Right, okay...

[LibraryOgre]

Digitally reanimating Adam West? As long as it is for Batman: Into the Bat-verse, I'm for it. :smallbiggrin:

Into the Bat-Verse needs a role for Burt Ward.

But, of course, there's also "Return of the Caped Crusaders (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5973626/)", the last good Batman movie.

[Aotrs Commander]

Into the Bat-Verse needs a role for Burt Ward.

But, of course, there's also "Return of the Caped Crusaders (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5973626/)", the last good Batman movie.

Hey, Batman vs. Two-Face was almost as good as the first one. I mean, it had William Shatner and Adam West attempting to, like, out mug each other, that could never be anything less than glorious...

(Assuming that you knew they did do a second one before Adam West died; if you didn't: Surprise!)

[Callos_DeTerran]

I'm just going to throw this out into the universe in the hope it comes true.

Batman Beyond

Micheal Keaton as old Batman.

Robert Pattinson as Terry McGuiness(sp). (Look at him, he's perfect for it!)

Idris Elba as Derek Powers/Blight

Scarlett Johanson as Inque

If the movies do well enough...

...Mark Hamill as old man Tim Drake to finally play a live-action Joker.

[Traab]

The return of the joker, man I loved that final battle between him and terry. They did an EXCELLENT job comparing and contrasting classic batman versus new batman and how joker does things versus how terry handles them. Just seeing the joker absolutely lose it when terry started mocking him and laughing at him was perfectly setup. The joker is obsessed with bruce waynes batman, and despises being mocked, so when he has to face this "pretender" who dares to mock him? Oh yeah, he wasnt happy.

[Sapphire Guard]

The CW just announced Javicia Leslie will be the new Batwoman.

Sidenote I understand the old Batwoman, Ruby Rose, deciding to leave after she had a stunt accident that damaged her spine and required two surgeries. Sure she completely recovered but you have to ask it if its worth it if you were almost a paraplegic. (My father is a spinal chord injury survivor, he can walk but he lost perception and sensory nerves with his legs.)

I believe another stuntwoman also got injured or killed as well. Not a great recommendation.

All the supporting characters at the moment are Kate Kane's family and exes (except Luke Fox) Hard to know what they'll do going forward.

[Saintheart]

Thats the thing, there are actually two parts to being the best batman, and thats, who plays under the cowl well, and who plays BRUCE well. I always felt the dark knight rises set of batman was terrible, but he did a good job as bruce wayne the party boy rich man with a secret. I HATED that gravely voice. It just killed my enjoyment of the character. Keaton did a good job of being batman, especially with the restrictions he was working under, but didnt fit as bruce wayne at all. This reclusive mystery man who, if asked, you could see being strange enough to be batman. With nolanverse you would see people responding, "Wait, you think BRUCE WAYNE is batman? That idiot? He is too busy chasing tail and wasting money at parties to chase down bad guys!" Which was the point. So thats why you see so much arguing over who the best batman is because its not easy to play both roles equally well.


*Nods*

I been told there are two archetypes that often date.

The anxious goth boy, and the golden retriever boyfriend. The golden retriever is often socially oblivious yet still very earnest, much like Joey from Friends, or Mr. Peanutbutter from Bojack.

Part of the Batman Mythos is he is both of those two things. Batman is an anxious goth boy who punches things and thinks an emotional suit of armor will protect some of his vulnerability (if I become an archetype I can help others and it will not hurt.) While the fake Bruce Wayne persona is the earnest golden retriever billionaire who just wants to be happy and gets to do whatever he wants for he is a billionaires and billionaires need not have "leashes" for money is a wonderful social lubricant making you free of many social repercussions and suddenly everyone wants to be your friend.

I have a feeling that what makes Batman so difficult to play, or at least more difficult than usual, is that Hollywood sometimes gets the character around the wrong way. It's not that Batman is really just Bruce Wayne in a suit ... it's that Bruce Wayne is really just Batman, in a suit. Batman is the real identity, Bruce Wayne is the fiction. I suspect this is why Keaton's Batman works and Christian Bale's Batman doesn't. Keaton's version of Bruce Wayne is that his picture as millionaire playboy doesn't quite fit, it always seems like there's some other character sitting underneath the Wayne persona. And I think this was intentional on Tim Burton's part, because we're given moments where Bruce Wayne's real identity is hinted at: when he's hanging upside down from the bar, when he picks up a firepoker and starts screaming at the Joker with no apparent defences. We are being told, again and again, that Bruce Wayne died a long time ago and some gothic monster puts on his skin from time to time.

Christian Bale's Batman unfortunately is the other way round. Bruce Wayne/Batman never seems to get cataclysmically angry or seems to lose control while in the Wayne persona, he never seems to let the mask slip. Indeed since Batman Begins we know the character's motivation: he puts the suit on to deal with his own fears, Batman is the artifice, not the real person. Bad choice in character terms, because it makes the gravelly voice seem more like an artifice and thus so much more fake. I get what Christopher Nolan was going for: he wanted to portray Batman as this quiet, deadly semi-assassin type, and that sort of character rationally doesn't get angry, or at least always has a handle on his temper. The problem being that this leaves you with a character who's really the same whether he's got the suit on or off, and that character just doesn't work. It sure allowed Heath Ledger to act Bale completely off the screen because we had no idea what's going on under the Joker's facepaint, that's what makes him compelling to watch ... as opposed to Batman, who we have a pretty good handle on.

(I would also argue this is why the Frank Miller version of Batman works. Frank Miller took the 'Bruce Wayne is just keeping Batman restrained' to a near literal level, too, and indeed it's the fact the Batman persona can't be restrained that causes Batman to come out of retirement.)

And then we have the BvS Batman. I was actually looking forward to Ben Affleck as Batman; more than I did Christian Bale, to be honest. Affleck had experience playing jerks and he had some miles in terms of divorces and drug addictions under his belt to draw on, I was hoping for a lot better than we got. But again I think we ran into this problem that there wasn't a lot of distinction between the Wayne persona and Batman. It was just ... Affleck, playing Affleck, whether he was in the Batsuit or out of it. You sure got the idea that Bruce Wayne and Batman were the same person, but that was the problem: you didn't get a clear idea which of these two personas was in control. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the idea of an older Batman, and Affleck had the right look for the part. The problem was that -- partially because of limited runtime -- we just didn't get enough of a look at this Batman's psychology to really let the two different personas emerge. In particular it was a major misstep not to make more of the suggestion/implication that Robin had been murdered by the Joker (and might possibly have become the Joker.) You could have swung the entire character on that incident. Consider a story where, until Robin is murdered by/becomes the Joker, the persona is Bruce Wayne playacting as the Batman ... but after that incident, Batman takes over the Wayne persona.

[Peelee]

I have a feeling that what makes Batman so difficult to play, or at least more difficult than usual, is that Hollywood sometimes gets the character around the wrong way. It's not that Batman is really just Bruce Wayne in a suit ... it's that Bruce Wayne is really just Batman, in a suit. Batman is the real identity, Bruce Wayne is a fiction. I suspect this is why Keaton's Batman works and Christian Bale's Batman doesn't. Keaton's version of Bruce Wayne is that his picture as millionaire playboy doesn't quite fit, it always seems like there's some other character sitting underneath the Wayne persona. And I think this was intentional on Tim Burton's part, because we're given moments where Bruce Wayne's real identity is hinted at: when he's hanging upside down from the bar, when he picks up a firepoker and starts screaming at the Joker with no apparent defences. We are being told, again and again, that Bruce Wayne died a long time ago and some gothic monster puts on his skin from time to time.


Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book.
Which, to me, explains Batman.

Now that I've gotten that shamelessly-stolen-from-Kevin-Smith joke out of the way... I totally agree with him. I love Michael Keaton, but he was a terrible choice for Batman/Wayne, and the Burton Batman film just really isn't that good. It was, at the time, amazingly good for a comic book movie, which was one hell of an achievement. We may not have comic/superhero movies today, or at least nothing like they are today, if it weren't for Burton's Batman. But it's very different to say that Burton's Batman was an important stepping stone for actually good superhero movies than it is to say that Burton made a good superhero movie.

Christian Bale's Batman doesn't work because his Batman is just a guy who can fight and has money. Batman is intelligent. Batman is a genius. Batman the world's greatest detective. So when Batman just yells "WHERE ARE THE DRUGS? WHERE'S THE MONEY? WHO HIRED YOU?" at people, he just seems like a dumb ninja who's got more toys than the other ninjas.

Michael Keaton's Batman doesn't work because Batman has a strict moral code - no killing. He is Batman because his parents were killed. He doesn't want to kill. No killing is his line in the sand. So, naturally, he has his plane equipped with guns which he totally shoots at the Joker with after getting him in the crosshairs, because who needs a moral code when guns go bang?

[Saintheart]

Michael Keaton's Batman doesn't work because Batman has a strict moral code - no killing. He is Batman because his parents were killed. He doesn't want to kill. No killing is his line in the sand. So, naturally, he has his plane equipped with guns which he totally shoots at the Joker with after getting him in the crosshairs, because who needs a moral code when guns go bang?

There is an obligatory spiel that one could respond with here which would basically amount to cataloguing all the times Batman has let someone die, or beaten the living snot to the point of death without then killing them, but let's just leave it as having different interpretations or different pictures of what we think the character is.

[Peelee]

There is an obligatory spiel that one could respond with here which would basically amount to cataloguing all the times Batman has let someone die, or beaten the living snot to the point of death without then killing them, but let's just leave it as having different interpretations or different pictures of what we think the character is.

Imean, there's letting someone die and beating up someone so badly that they may die without medical intervention but it's kind of hard to be sure of that, and then there's actively putting guns on your stuff and targeting a dude in crosshairs and pulling the trigger.

[Saintheart]

Imean, there's letting someone die and beating up someone so badly that they may die without medical intervention but it's kind of hard to be sure of that, and then there's actively putting guns on your stuff and targeting a dude in crosshairs and pulling the trigger.

Maybe it's just that Hollywood/scriptwriters/directors/etc have an obsession with artifice/lying/being two-faced/masks (what else is acting if not wearing a mask?). The symbol the theatre arts frequently use to identify themselves is that of Janus: two faces. That therefore bleeds into how they bring Batman to the screen. There's a fascination with the idea that things are never what they seem to be on the outside. Batman therefore is only seen as interesting if the exterior is ordinary and the interior, the real person, is monstrous - hence the characterisations.

And he's seen only as interesting if the exterior is ordinary and the interior monstrous because the other, most well-known double-faced character is Superman. There, the exterior is ordinary and the interior is a god. But my guess is that the film industry doesn't know how to work with that story any further because Richard Donner used the godlike theme in 1978 and treated it with such timeless beauty that nobody including Zack Snyder has any idea how to reinvent or retell the story ... and I say that having liked Man of Steel for all its dark tone. So they keep coming back to Batman because his story is easier to tell on film. It has (what on film is likely seen as) that natural dynamic of the interior not matching the exterior in an interesting way.

Comics, of course, are a different medium, so you can tell different stories, have different standards. The precise problem with comic book movies is that what works in one medium doesn't necessarily work in another; graphic novels/comics are not storyboards, something that was explicitly proven when you compare the film and comic versions of Watchmen, which tried pretty damn hard to bridge the gap.

[Peelee]

Maybe it's just that Hollywood/scriptwriters/directors/etc have an obsession with artifice/lying/being two-faced/masks (what else is acting if not wearing a mask?). The symbol the theatre arts frequently use to identify themselves is that of Janus: two faces. That therefore bleeds into how they bring Batman to the screen. There's a fascination with the idea that things are never what they seem to be on the outside. Batman therefore is only seen as interesting if the exterior is ordinary and the interior, the real person, is monstrous - hence the characterisations.

And he's seen only as interesting if the exterior is ordinary and the interior monstrous because the other, most well-known double-faced character is Superman. There, the exterior is ordinary and the interior is a god. But my guess is that the film industry doesn't know how to work with that story any further because Richard Donner used the godlike theme in 1978 and treated it with such timeless beauty that nobody including Zack Snyder has any idea how to reinvent or retell the story ... and I say that having liked Man of Steel for all its dark tone. So they keep coming back to Batman because his story is easier to tell on film. It has (what on film is likely seen as) that natural dynamic of the interior not matching the exterior in an interesting way.

Comics, of course, are a different medium, so you can tell different stories, have different standards. The precise problem with comic book movies is that what works in one medium doesn't necessarily work in another; graphic novels/comics are not storyboards, something that was explicitly proven when you compare the film and comic versions of Watchmen, which tried pretty damn hard to bridge the gap.
Possibly. Or, if I may venture a dissenting opinion...

Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book.

[Saintheart]

And yet there's this:


I loved The Killing Joke. It's the first comic I ever loved.

[Velaryon]

But how about if we add... George Clooney's performance? It just gets worse? Right, okay...

There are no best parts of George Clooney's performance. But I see you already knew that.

[Traab]

The thing about batman that would probably be hard to really get across in a film is, neither batman nor bruce wayne are who he really is. He is PRETENDING to be the rich party boy whose company is more run by advisors than him in order to distance himself from batman who is him playing the part of the terror that flaps in the night. The "real" bruce wayne is the man you see glimpses of interacting with alfred and maybe his sidekicks in between missions. The vulnerable guy who is terrified of losing the few people he has left. And who has terrible coping mechanisms for dealing with those feelings. So an actor playing the part needs to get across that he is playing an actor who is himself playing two roles. Makes me think eddy murphy should get the role considering he tends to play 6 parts in every film he is in. :smallbiggrin:

[Rodin]

The thing about batman that would probably be hard to really get across in a film is, neither batman nor bruce wayne are who he really is. He is PRETENDING to be the rich party boy whose company is more run by advisors than him in order to distance himself from batman who is him playing the part of the terror that flaps in the night. The "real" bruce wayne is the man you see glimpses of interacting with alfred and maybe his sidekicks in between missions. The vulnerable guy who is terrified of losing the few people he has left. And who has terrible coping mechanisms for dealing with those feelings. So an actor playing the part needs to get across that he is playing an actor who is himself playing two roles. Makes me think eddy murphy should get the role considering he tends to play 6 parts in every film he is in. :smallbiggrin:

If he wasn't already engaged I'd nominate Robert Downey Jr. "I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude". And that's without counting the extra level of "dude" you have to add on since Kirk Lazarus is himself fictional.

[Hopeless]

This thread is amazing!

Just reordered the Batman movie collection despite George Clooney simply to watch this all again!

Keep it up this is great!

[Lord Torath]

I've just got to say, I think Will Arnett is my favorite Batman. Followed by Keaton (even if Tiffany Haddish preferred him as Beetlejuice).

[Saintheart]

The thing about batman that would probably be hard to really get across in a film is, neither batman nor bruce wayne are who he really is. He is PRETENDING to be the rich party boy whose company is more run by advisors than him in order to distance himself from batman who is him playing the part of the terror that flaps in the night. The "real" bruce wayne is the man you see glimpses of interacting with alfred and maybe his sidekicks in between missions. The vulnerable guy who is terrified of losing the few people he has left. And who has terrible coping mechanisms for dealing with those feelings. So an actor playing the part needs to get across that he is playing an actor who is himself playing two roles. Makes me think eddy murphy should get the role considering he tends to play 6 parts in every film he is in. :smallbiggrin:

As said it's probably really hard to portray on film. I would also argue, though, that the films do have it mostly right. The theme keeps coming back into Batman stories again and again: you might have started out thinking that you control the image of the playboy and the image of the night monster, that these are not the real you. But the fact is that the monster consumed you long ago, consumed you pretty much right from that terrible night in the alley. That's the theme driving The Killing Joke and which was stolen for The Dark Knight: the Joker became what he was because of One Bad Day(tm) and Batman's no different.

That said I reckon if one went for this idea, the three roles the person would be playing would be the rich playboy, the night monster ... and one other personality which I'll get to. Dissociative personality disorder, in effect: where, because of extreme trauma, the personality quite literally splits and creates multiple personalities to protect itself from dealing with the pain of that trauma, the personalities being coping mechanisms and all self-contained.

Fun and meaningless psychoanalysis, so far as you can psychoanalyze a comic book character who was designed mainly for thrills and to sell paper:

Bruce Wayne - as in, the man we think is somewhere down in there, not the playboy or the bat - is emotionally still a little boy. What is the Batcave filled with, what are Bruce Wayne's trophies? Oversized toys. Giant pennies, playing cards, playacting costumes, dinosaurs. Indeed the cave is built at gargantuan scale, because that's the size Bruce Wayne is most familiar and comfortable with ... it's the perspective that a child sees the world from, where everything is huge and terrifying. In terms of emotional maturity, Bruce Wayne never left Crime Alley on that awful night. Who are Batman's sidekicks? Adolescent boys. Playmates, in effect. Girls don't get to hang out in Wayne Manor, that's the clubhouse. Girls are icky. When Richard Grayson gets too old and too big, he can't be Robin anymore. Jason Todd didn't live long enough to stay in the role. Tim Drake became Robin at the age of 14. And Alfred? He's essentially Bruce's teddy bear. He has a loyalty to the Wayne family so powerful he might as well be furniture. Sure, Bruce loves him, damaged people can still love, but ... Alfred just isn't quite as real as Bruce. He's ... not fully formed. An extra, in the film of Bruce Wayne's life.

So a film that wants to portray Bruce Wayne as something that underlies both the Bat and the Playboy likely needs to lean into that. Let Batman have a few nightmares in his bed, let him go find Alfred to receive comfort. Emphasise the sheer scale of the Batcave, make a couple of offhand remarks about the Hardy Boys or the Goonies, ET or similar. Hell, even make a reference to IT, that's a story about adolescent kids confronting monsters too.

[Sapphire Guard]

"One Bad Day" is the snappiest line, but Killing Joke refutes it. Joker tries to 'prove' everyone is one bad day away from snapping, but the answer is 'No, you're just a ****'

Girls don't get to hang out in the cave... except Cass. And Barbara. And Stephanie.

[Dienekes]

As said it's probably really hard to portray on film. I would also argue, though, that the films do have it mostly right. The theme keeps coming back into Batman stories again and again: you might have started out thinking that you control the image of the playboy and the image of the night monster, that these are not the real you. But the fact is that the monster consumed you long ago, consumed you pretty much right from that terrible night in the alley. That's the theme driving The Killing Joke and which was stolen for The Dark Knight: the Joker became what he was because of One Bad Day(tm) and Batman's no different.

That said I reckon if one went for this idea, the three roles the person would be playing would be the rich playboy, the night monster ... and one other personality which I'll get to. Dissociative personality disorder, in effect: where, because of extreme trauma, the personality quite literally splits and creates multiple personalities to protect itself from dealing with the pain of that trauma, the personalities being coping mechanisms and all self-contained.

Fun and meaningless psychoanalysis, so far as you can psychoanalyze a comic book character who was designed mainly for thrills and to sell paper:

Bruce Wayne - as in, the man we think is somewhere down in there, not the playboy or the bat - is emotionally still a little boy. What is the Batcave filled with, what are Bruce Wayne's trophies? Oversized toys. Giant pennies, playing cards, playacting costumes, dinosaurs. Indeed the cave is built at gargantuan scale, because that's the size Bruce Wayne is most familiar and comfortable with ... it's the perspective that a child sees the world from, where everything is huge and terrifying. In terms of emotional maturity, Bruce Wayne never left Crime Alley on that awful night. Who are Batman's sidekicks? Adolescent boys. Playmates, in effect. Girls don't get to hang out in Wayne Manor, that's the clubhouse. Girls are icky. When Richard Grayson gets too old and too big, he can't be Robin anymore. Jason Todd didn't live long enough to stay in the role. Tim Drake became Robin at the age of 14. And Alfred? He's essentially Bruce's teddy bear. He has a loyalty to the Wayne family so powerful he might as well be furniture. Sure, Bruce loves him, damaged people can still love, but ... Alfred just isn't quite as real as Bruce. He's ... not fully formed. An extra, in the film of Bruce Wayne's life.

So a film that wants to portray Bruce Wayne as something that underlies both the Bat and the Playboy likely needs to lean into that. Let Batman have a few nightmares in his bed, let him go find Alfred to receive comfort. Emphasise the sheer scale of the Batcave, make a couple of offhand remarks about the Hardy Boys or the Goonies, ET or similar. Hell, even make a reference to IT, that's a story about adolescent kids confronting monsters too.

Eh? Dissociative personality disorder derives from distinct actual personalities accompanied by memory gaps. One of the keys of the disorder being dissociate. That doesn't describe Bruce at all. He had forethought in the construction of these disguises. He is always present, always observing. Unless he's being affected by some sort of fear gas or toxin he is shown as being in control. Hell, some comics go even further with this ability to purposely slide into roles when he uses the playboy persona to get information, or when disguised as Matches Malone.

There have also been many female sidekicks. Several Batgirls, a couple Bat-Woman, at least one female Robin. Hell Oracle spends more time in said clubhouse than the boys during their missions, for obvious reasons.

**** Greyson was not kicked out he chose to leave because Bruce was too controlling.

I'm not saying Bruce doesn't have a pile of issues. But this analysis of them doesn't really ring true to me.

[Dilvish]

The thing about batman that would probably be hard to really get across in a film is, neither batman nor bruce wayne are who he really is. He is PRETENDING to be the rich party boy whose company is more run by advisors than him in order to distance himself from batman who is him playing the part of the terror that flaps in the night. The "real" bruce wayne is the man you see glimpses of interacting with alfred and maybe his sidekicks in between missions. The vulnerable guy who is terrified of losing the few people he has left. And who has terrible coping mechanisms for dealing with those feelings. So an actor playing the part needs to get across that he is playing an actor who is himself playing two roles. Makes me think eddy murphy should get the role considering he tends to play 6 parts in every film he is in. :smallbiggrin:

Eddie Murphy as Batman. Could it work? Now that you've put the idea in my mind.

I can see Eddie Murphy playing a new Adam West Batman, say in Into The Bat-Verse? :smallbiggrin:

[Saintheart]

Eh? Dissociative personality disorder derives from distinct actual personalities accompanied by memory gaps. One of the keys of the disorder being dissociate. That doesn't describe Bruce at all. He had forethought in the construction of these disguises. He is always present, always observing. Unless he's being affected by some sort of fear gas or toxin he is shown as being in control. Hell, some comics go even further with this ability to purposely slide into roles when he uses the playboy persona to get information, or when disguised as Matches Malone.

And Hollywood refuses to put that sort of character on film, because audiences don't find that interesting ... or at least Hollywood seems to think audiences won't find that interesting or easy enough to understand. Or perhaps it doesn't currently understand how to put that sort of character on film. The last time Batman was portrayed as the world's greatest detective on film, he was wearing light grey spandex and had Bat-shark-repellent. (And the last time they portrayed the actual world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes, they turned him into a bohemian 19th century Tony Stark.)

[Ramza00]

"One Bad Day" is the snappiest line, but Killing Joke refutes it. Joker tries to 'prove' everyone is one bad day away from snapping, but the answer is 'No, you're just a ****'

Girls don't get to hang out in the cave... except Cass. And Barbara. And Stephanie.

How did the Killing Joke refute it? Are you referring to Gordon not going mad? If so I would argue that no Gordon does not disprove the joker.

The Joker has no social support, and no one to live for. Gordon still had several things to live for including his inner belief that the law matters. Yes Gordon had a bad day, but it was nowhere as extreme as the bad day of the red hood character. (Which may not be The Joker's origin story since he is an unreliable narrator.)

If something refuted it, it was not Gordon. Instead it was the dark man who dresses as a bat, trying to give The Joker another chance even though The Joker has nothing to live for. The dark man who dresses as a bat played the role of a good samaritan, the stranger who still reaches out in this insane world. The Joker turned down this offer of assistance, instead telling his Lunatic Asylum joke. The Joker does not want to change, he fears change for he has been burned by this world, he wants to remain himself, and he wants at least one other person to be in on the joke for someone laughing with him makes this reality a little less maddening.

Followed by the dark man who dresses as a bat laughing, and then the ambiguous ending.

The Joker did has something to live for, the stranger he has not met, but the problem with the stranger is that he/she/they are shrouded in shadows and with the shadows there is still the possibility of hope but also endless despair. It takes a leap of faith to engage with the shadows.

[Peelee]

How did the Killing Joke refute it? Are you referring to Gordon not going mad? If so I would argue that no Gordon does not disprove the joker.

The Joker has no social support, and no one to live for. Gordon still had several things to live for including his inner belief that the law matters. Yes Gordon had a bad day, but it was nowhere as extreme as the bad day of the red hood character. (Which may not be The Joker's origin story since he is an unreliable narrator.)

Barbara's day was pretty bad.

[tomandtish]

"One Bad Day" is the snappiest line, but Killing Joke refutes it. Joker tries to 'prove' everyone is one bad day away from snapping, but the answer is 'No, you're just a ****'

Girls don't get to hang out in the cave... except Cass. And Barbara. And Stephanie.

Joker fails to prove it, but that doesn't automatically disprove it, because all you can say for sure is that THIS isn't the one bad day for Gordon that pushes him over the edge. He comes much closer at the end of No Man's Land, where he would have killed Joker if Batman hadn't talked him down.

And as others have indicated, Bruce had his one bad day. His crazy just went in a different direction.

[Sapphire Guard]

Everyone's scale of suffering is different, but for me, what Gordon and Barbara went through rates as well ahead of what Joker's presented backstory was.

Joker has his whole thing of 'you're all just one bad day away from being me' but Gordon didn't crack, Barbara didn't crack. Bruce had his one bad day, but cracked in the opposite direction, so the premise of 'you're all just one bad day away from being me' is more, 'no, you're a ****'.

No Man's Land Gordon didn't go insane, he just wanted to kill the Joker. Even a Gotham jury would have trouble committing him for that.

[Saintheart]

Barbara's day was pretty bad.

And what was the result of that?

Giving yourself a name linking you with an all-powerful mythical seer and routinely hacking most top-tier law enforcement mainframes without consent to supply that material to vigilantes doesn't strike me as a healthy coping mechanism in response to traumatic spinal injury and paraplegia.

[Sapphire Guard]

She was already Batgirl. It's not a coping mechanism at all, it's just what she wants to do.

[LibraryOgre]

And what was the result of that?

Giving yourself a name linking you with an all-powerful mythical seer and routinely hacking most top-tier law enforcement mainframes without consent to supply that material to vigilantes doesn't strike me as a healthy coping mechanism in response to traumatic spinal injury and paraplegia.

Babs was always Batgirl because she wanted to help people. When TKJ made Batgirl impractical1, she changed her focus to things she could do... information gathering and sharing.

Babs is, and always will be, a librarian.

1**** you, Len Wein. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Gordon#Batgirl_Special_and_Batman:_The_Kil ling_Joke_(1988))

[Peelee]

Babs was always Batgirl because she wanted to help people. When TKJ made Batgirl impractical1, she changed her focus to things she could do... information gathering and sharing.

Babs is, and always will be, a librarian.

Psh. I've never seen any canonical source that she has so much as an MLS, much less a doctorate!

Imean, I suppose she's a librarian in the same sense that Batman is a detective - not formally commissioned, and technically lacking the academic credentials, but better than almost anyone who has gone through academia/the police system to gain the title "properly". But what's wrong with "Doctor Gordon"?

Note to self, read links before commenting. Also, it's super cool that they legit got her to have a doctorate in library science!

[Dienekes]

And Hollywood refuses to put that sort of character on film, because audiences don't find that interesting ... or at least Hollywood seems to think audiences won't find that interesting or easy enough to understand. Or perhaps it doesn't currently understand how to put that sort of character on film. The last time Batman was portrayed as the world's greatest detective on film, he was wearing light grey spandex and had Bat-shark-repellent. (And the last time they portrayed the actual world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes, they turned him into a bohemian 19th century Tony Stark.)

I'm confused here. Your description was not accurate to the comicbook Batman, nor was it accurate to any of the main film Batmen, nor the main tv show versions of the character.

So what were you trying to describe?

[Saintheart]

I'm confused here. Your description was not accurate to the comicbook Batman, nor was it accurate to any of the main film Batmen, nor the main tv show versions of the character.

So what were you trying to describe?

I was describing your version of the Batman: basically mentally and emotionally balanced, with his own stable personality underneath the roles of the Bat and the playboy. That's the version Hollywood doesn't know how to put on screen. It's also the version closest to the classic 'world's greatest detective', which hasn't been on screen since Adam West really.

[LibraryOgre]

Note to self, read links before commenting. Also, it's super cool that they legit got her to have a doctorate in library science!

I am, as the Library Ogre, of two minds about this.

One, for most librarians, a PhD is a waste. But, she's also supposed to be the head of the Gotham City Library system, and a lot of library systems have doctorates at their head.

But the idea that she'd be on a library desk while being the head of a major metropolitan library system is likewise hilarious.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I am, as the Library Ogre, of two minds about this.

One, for most librarians, a PhD is a waste. But, she's also supposed to be the head of the Gotham City Library system, and a lot of library systems have doctorates at their head.

But the idea that she'd be on a library desk while being the head of a major metropolitan library system is likewise hilarious.

There are bosses and politicians that stay in touch by working in the field a few hours to a day in the week/month. But it's not common.

[Peelee]

I am, as the Library Ogre, of two minds about this.

One, for most librarians, a PhD is a waste. But, she's also supposed to be the head of the Gotham City Library system, and a lot of library systems have doctorates at their head.

But the idea that she'd be on a library desk while being the head of a major metropolitan library system is likewise hilarious.

For some time now I've been under the impression that for most librarians, the diminishing returns on a doctorate is largely due to the lack of job openings at that level. How accurate is that?

[LibraryOgre]

For some time now I've been under the impression that for most librarians, the diminishing returns on a doctorate is largely due to the lack of job openings at that level. How accurate is that?

Hell, that's also the cause for an MLIS.

Basically, an MLIS is cast as a masters degree, but it's really a professional degree. The PhD in Library Science is essentially if you want to teach library science or want to be the head of major library system... and the 2nd only because big library systems want you to have your DLS, even if it doesn't make you a better library director.

[Velaryon]

Hell, that's also the cause for an MLIS.

Basically, an MLIS is cast as a masters degree, but it's really a professional degree. The PhD in Library Science is essentially if you want to teach library science or want to be the head of major library system... and the 2nd only because big library systems want you to have your DLS, even if it doesn't make you a better library director.

Basically this. The MLIS is already one of the lowest-earning master's degrees, and even still a lot of library systems have de-professionalized certain tasks by replacing jobs that don't require the degree, in addition to replacing full-time retirements with 2 or more part-time jobs (in order to avoid giving benefits). This has led to an ongoing debate within library circles about whether the degree is or should be necessary at all, with some valid points on both sides of the debate. But that's a whole thing that veers way off-topic here.

The long & short of it is that yes, Ph.D's in library science are mostly the territory of library school professors, some (but not all or even most) library directors, and the occasional WAY overqualified librarian.

[LibraryOgre]

The long & short of it is that yes, Ph.D's in library science are mostly the territory of library school professors, some (but not all or even most) library directors, and the occasional WAY overqualified librarian.

My perspective on PhDs for directors may be a BIT skewed, since, of my three systems, two have been for big city systems (#4 and #7 for population in the US, both of which had 30+ branches). My one small system had a friend of the long-time mayor as the director (and, who, by all reports, was an amazingly corrupt individual).

[Velaryon]

My perspective on PhDs for directors may be a BIT skewed, since, of my three systems, two have been for big city systems (#4 and #7 for population in the US, both of which had 30+ branches). My one small system had a friend of the long-time mayor as the director (and, who, by all reports, was an amazingly corrupt individual).

I've worked at 3 libraries and volunteered at a few more. As far as I'm aware, the only person I've ever met with a Ph.D in library science who wasn't a professor was a reference librarian at my home library who seemed overqualified for (and not particularly happy at) her position.