The Batman - 2022

[Psyren]

Eh, it'd be novel, but also would just be another superhero movie in the fold of all the other superhero movies without any commentary whatsoever.

I think Hugo Strange has plenty of commentary. One of the biggest problems people have with modern Batman is his focus on violent takedowns and terrorizing criminals over both rehabilitation and empathy. He beats them up, traumatizes them, breaks a few limbs, throws them in jail/Arkham and moves on - out of sight out of mind until they break out or the next one comes along. And of course in macrocosm, that's a metacommentary on ______ system's similar failure.

A Batman like this is something we've never seen (and are extremely unlikely to see at this rate) in live-action; in other words, the polar opposite of the Batman we're getting in this new movie.

Hugo Strange embodies that better than perhaps any other Batman villain - the dark mirror of Batman's ineffectiveness and lack of empathy for the villains he is perhaps more responsible than anyone else in Gotham, and what Batman could become if he loses sight of that. He's also uniquely dangerous as a supervillain due to (a) knowing Batman's identity and (b) being able to unite and unleash any number of lesser villains and mutated/roided-up goons to give Batman direct trouble. Commentary, name recognition, and blockbuster action all in one neat package, based on perhaps the most popular Batman video game of all time.

[Fyraltari]

Infinity War took place after BP, i.e. after T'challa and Nakia joined the UN and started founding STEM education centers aimed at enriching BAME children across the globe. I was under the impression that their use of hiding tech was more to do with wanting to keep their super-advanced toys out of the wrong hands longer, than it was continuing to hoard them only for their own use. In short, having an embassy now doesn't mean they need to point neon signs at their backyard

But the whole point was that they were going to share their super-tech with the rest of the world. What else do they have to share?

Besides which, hiding your population center by default is just prudent when you know there are plenty of extraterrestrial threats too - which they do.

I was under the impression the country wasn't really big.

(Moreover, the mere fact that they mobilized all their defenses to defend the planet from alien invaders instead of telling Steve Rogers to take a hike back to SHIELD, suggests that they are looking out for more than their own interests by that point.)

Huh, they were targets too. They weren't coming to the help of an unrelated third-party, they were defending themselves.

Eh, it'd be novel, but also would just be another superhero movie in the fold of all the other superhero movies without any commentary whatsoever.

In addition to what's been said upthread. You can make commentary with pretty much any villain, depending on how the story handles them.

Also, your proposed take, as I understand it is that Anarky would be right in his ends but not his methods, which, as far as commentary go is very well-trod ground. Also also, a greater focus on the wrong way to solve a problem rather than on the problem itself usually amounts to saying "don't try to solve this, the cure is worse than the illness." Which, I think, is not the angle you want.

Also, I don't share the idea that change has to be enacted by said character, because that is way too close to "the ends justify the means" for me.

But Killmonger is not the one who enacts any meaningful change in the movie. His thesis is that Wakanda should have used its technology to prevent many atrocities throughout the years and his plan is to use said tech to conquer the planet in clear emulation of those very atrocities (dude's established as an hypocrite in his very first scene).

T'Challa, the hero, happens to agree with his thesis, but rejects hisn"solution" and after giving a piece of his mind to his dead forefathers (magic, don't ask), killing Killmonger and taking back the throne, his solution is to share the tech they have with the put-upons of the world.

[Psyren]

But the whole point was that they were going to share their super-tech with the rest of the world. What else do they have to share?
...
I was under the impression the country wasn't really big.

Yes, in a controlled way. Not by waving a giant flag that says "here be Vibranium!" And keep in mind that stuff is valuable even outside of Earth.

Huh, they were targets too. They weren't coming to the help of an unrelated third-party, they were defending themselves.

They were targets solely because they volunteered to help Steve Rogers and Wanda with separating Vision from his stone. They didn't have to do that - they could have thrown him out on his ear and likely been a lot safer. (Not once they got snapped mind you, but when you consider that every pre-Snap casualty stayed dead they still bled/lost more than most.)

In addition to what's been said upthread. You can make commentary with pretty much any villain, depending on how the story handles them.

Also, your proposed take, as I understand it is that Anarky would be right in his ends but not his methods, which, as far as commentary go is very well-trod ground. Also also, a greater focus on the wrong way to solve a problem rather than on the problem itself usually amounts to saying "don't try to solve this, the cure is worse than the illness." Which, I think, is not the angle you want.


But Killmonger is not the one who enacts any meaningful change in the movie. His thesis is that Wakanda should have used its technology to prevent many atrocities throughout the years and his plan is to use said tech to conquer the planet in clear emulation of those very atrocities (dude's established as an hypocrite in his very first scene).

T'Challa, the hero, happens to agree with his thesis, but rejects hisn"solution" and after giving a piece of his mind to his dead forefathers (magic, don't ask), killing Killmonger and taking back the throne, his solution is to share the tech they have with the put-upons of the world.

Agreed with all this.

[Peelee]

I had a point by point rebuttal but decided to go simpler. Let me rephrase. Im not saying I wouldn't like a movie with Hugo Strange as the antagonist. I'm saying that what I would most like to see is Anarky as the antagonist.

As for Marvel, I can't speak to much of it. Even Black Panther I only remember enough to go remember that the bad guy had a point.

[GloatingSwine]

Killmonger has correctly identified a problem, but misidentified the solution.

His solution is to preserve the imbalance of power but change whose hand is holding the whip.

[Peelee]

Killmonger has correctly identified a problem, but misidentified the solution.

And sadly that's the point where I can't talk about Anarky on these boards anymore.

Well, it may not be the exact point, but erring on the side of caution doesnt hurt.

[Psyren]

I had a point by point rebuttal but decided to go simpler. Let me rephrase. Im not saying I wouldn't like a movie with Hugo Strange as the antagonist. I'm saying that what I would most like to see is Anarky as the antagonist.

I didn't say you wouldn't like a Hugo Strange movie either - I was just objecting to your "without any commentary whatsoever" judgment. As Fyraltari said, any of his rogues can serve as commentary on something deeper, even the more two-dimensional ones like Zsasz and Killer Croc could - and Strange is most definitely not two-dimensional, he's a top-tier antagonist for the dark knight.

As for Anarky - I agree he could be a compelling antagonist and definitely has that deeper commentary built in, but there's a couple of hurdles. First - despite the character's longevity he's still fairly obscure (I don't think he's been in any medium outside the comics and a brief stint in the Arkham Origins game, which was already scraping the bottom of the rogue barrel regarding Batvillains to include - lol Copperhead - but I could be wrong.) Second - to make him a compelling antivillain a meaningful change to the status quo would need to result from his underlying point, otherwise you just end up with Karli Morgenthau 2.0 going out with a whimper. There's already plenty of parallels between him and Karli, such as him being an idealist and barely past being a teenager despite his brilliance, so ending the movie with his execution/wasted potential will feel off (even moreso if Batman of all people can't prevent it and save someone who is essentially a child.)

For me what would make Anarky work is having him be the deuteragonist to a more prominent villain who's pulling his strings/manipulating him into a confrontation with Wayne Enterprises for their own goals - a tycoon weaponizing the movement to take their rivals off the board without actually doing anything to address inequality as a whole (and in fact making it even worse if their plan succeeds.) Penguin would work really well here as he's unscrupulous, filthy rich and extremely intelligent, making him a worthwhile eleventh-hour heel-face target for Anarky in the third act, and getting Batman involved as Gotham is caught in the crossfire. Plus he's nearly Batman's equal when it comes to an arsenal of gadgets (and definitely Wayne's equal when it comes to an arsenal of lawyers, which could be fun), which is something we haven't seen in the movies in a while.

Hugo could work here too because Anarky's origin story involves breaking out of Arkham, so they would have a personal connection, but you'd need more setup to establish Strange as a threat in his own right (e.g. explaining where his resources and mutant muscle squad come from) so I think Penguin would be stronger alongside Anarky here. Penguin can be summed up fairly easily - rich jerk who hates both Bruce Wayne and Batman, and wants to rule Gotham by any means necessary up to and including organized crime - which leaves a lot more time for developing Anarky.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok, I saw the movie The Batman early this morning in IMAX and these are my thoughts about this movie.

Spoiler: My Thoughts About The Batman

Show

Batman is about the caped crusader who stopping crimes and corruption in Gotham City. What I like about this movie is the action pack and I like how the movie portrays the Riddler as a serial killer. What I don't like about the movie is that some of the scenes were slow-paced. This movie was pretty serious just like in the comic book. I think that this movie was very solid. So I'll give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars.

[Vahnavoi]

I'd say this movie is in top three of Batman filmatizations, but would have to rewatch the Nolan movies to decide the exact order. I found it comparable to the Joker in quality, and almost as dark. Some thematic similarity too. Great acting all around. I'm not sure Pattison is the best Batman, but he might be brest Bruce Wayne since Keaton.

[Peelee]

filmatizations

Today I learned a new word, which I love. It sounds so 1920's.

Also, it's hard for a big-name actor to not play a pretty good Bruce Wayne, since they don't need to do much acting at all to do so (immensely wealthy people playing a immensely wealthy playboy doesn't require a big stretch), but I'd say Clooney probably did the best Bruce Wayne. That movie had among the worst everything-else, of course.

As for Anarky - I agree he could be a compelling antagonist and definitely has that deeper commentary built in, but there's a couple of hurdles. First - despite the character's longevity he's still fairly obscure (I don't think he's been in any medium outside the comics and a brief stint in the Arkham Origins game, which was already scraping the bottom of the rogue barrel regarding Batvillains to include - lol Copperhead - but I could be wrong.) Second - to make him a compelling antivillain a meaningful change to the status quo would need to result from his underlying point

I thought I'd replied to this at the time, but apparently it never posted.

I strenuously disagree that for him to be a compelling antivillain requires a meaningful change to the status quo. Lord of War is a fantastic rebuttal to your claim. Yuri is a straight villain rather than an antivillain but that does not make any substantial difference. Thematically, it works out just as well. Dark endings can be fantastic, especially when making social commentary.

Spoiler: First Blood

Show

Rambo should have died!

[Kyberwulf]

I liked the movie, Wasn't bad. Wasn't good either. Meh. Edward did a decent job as batman, mediocre job as Bruce Wayne. I just gotta gripe about the fact that.. this seemed like we got the highlights reels of a series.

[lord_khaine]

So whats the non-spoiler conclusion?
Worth watching if you got a free afternoon?
Or better stuff to wait for?

[Sapphire Guard]

Good, not great.

Spoiler

Show

Veers into weird places like 'trauma doesn't count if you're rich', and they're trying to have a great new mayoral candidate but forgot to give her any policies.

A lot of things done pretty well that don't quite stick the landing, Riddler's plans are meticulous for every other victim but for Bruce he just sends a letter bomb and hopes for the best. Because if tried to do it in person like everyone else, the movie is over.

Robert Pattinson has a great 'I am exhausted' look.

The overall message is 'don't just beat people up, help them too'... How revolutionary.

Ugh, Joker tease. You have a rich rogues gallery, please use someone else.

[Dragonus45]

So whats the non-spoiler conclusion?
Worth watching if you got a free afternoon?
Or better stuff to wait for?

At least as good as Dark Knight. Probably better personally. I got what I wanted out of it. Worth checking out in theaters if available if only because the soundtrack is 100% 10/10 and works best in a big theater space.

[Kyberwulf]

I would say if you have an afternoon to kill. Thats another thing I forgot to mention. Its almost 3 hours long. Not to say I didn't notice the time till towards the end. So thats a plus.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Overall movie wasn't the greatest. Non spoiler is it tried to do something different but attempt was mediocre at best. Some scenes were well done but plot was weak. Movie as well was frankly to long. A lot could have been cut and wouldn't been missed like the entire catwoman subplot which added nothing of worth. If your wanting to see this I would wait until cheap showing or it comes up for free on streaming. It isn't worth a full ticket price.

[Vahnavoi]

You'd have to give me an example of what you'd consider a "strong plot", because this easily has a plot as strong as Dark Knight. The reason it drags towards the end is actually the same why Dark Knight did - it has a bit too much plot to tell.

Spoiler

Show

If I'd cut anything, I'd cut everything past the Batman going to talk with the Riddler in Arkham, and would've left the last riddle as pure sequel hook.

[Clertar]

So far audiences and critics are loving it, many people claiming it to be the best Batman movie ever.

I wonder how that will work out with the future of the DCEU. With Joker and The Batman being so successful, non-mainstream DCEU stories support the idea of going forward with a "worlds of DC" approach to the DC movies... but just now DC is pedaling back on this idea, with the Flash movie intended to be a soft reboot that will result in a new main DCEU continuity, whose tone is almost impossible to merge with The Batman. And yet, perhaps audiences would rather see sequels to these peripheral DC settings than to some characters of the core one.

With the possibility of a Joker sequel, The Batman getting a sequel and possibly a series, and a rebooted DCEU continuity, I wonder how many different simultaneous Jokers we'll end up with.

[Beleriphon]

So whats the non-spoiler conclusion?
Worth watching if you got a free afternoon?
Or better stuff to wait for?

100% worth going to see. It is a fantastic noir detective story, that just happens to feature Batman. There are enough set piece action scenes to keep the superhero vibe going, but over all its a noir detective bit. The overall scheme that drives the plot is entirely mundane, which I think works for the movie and setting that it builds.

Reeves has confirmed the Unnamed Arkham Patient is exactly who we think, and Batman dealt within him in the two years before the movie starts. He also is specifically not setup as sequel bait, but rather because Reeves likes the actor and the actor said he wanted to do that.

[Peelee]

100% worth going to see. It is a fantastic noir detective story, that just happens to feature Batman.

This, more than anything else, has convinced me to see it asap. That's what a good batman story should be.

[warty goblin]

Saw this last night with the girlfriend: short version, I really liked, she did not.

I really liked how non-reverential it was about it's protagonist. This was not a movie that found the concept of Batman inherently impressive, and therefore felt no compunction about having the protagonist miss stuff, mess, up, occasionally fail, and generally just get put through the ringer. Compared to Marvel movies, or other DC stuff, this was both completely unexpected and I found incredibly relieving. Batman never wins because, well, he's the hero and he had his moment of personal growth and has now unlocked +100% punching power.

Spoiler

Show

Really quite the contrary. The problem was never that Batman couldn't punch hard enough, the problem was that the villain was right about everything but the solution, and Batman was too busy being Goth Edgelord Guy to see what was going on. And the lesson wasn't just be more yourself you perfect special snowflake, it was stop indulging in your worst feelings and actually help people. I felt this movie started where most superhero movies end (hero beats up bad guys because hero and everybody else only matters so far as the bad guy can show he's bad by threatening them) and then spent the next three hours smacking its protagonist upside the bat-cowl until he figured out that other people matter. To my mind the movie should have ended with him carrying people out of the wreckage, in that marvelously composed flare-lit shot, because thematically it did end there. Also the movie had like fifteen endings, and all of them after that were superfluous.

Also in here, because spoiler. I have to take my hat off to just how gutsy the movie is. I really, really did not expect the bombs to actually go off, even when they went off I thought it was showing what would happen, but of course wouldn't because Batman would go save the day. Imagine my profound narrative relief when instead the movie had the balls to go there.

I also appreciated that it had very striking aesthetic, and stuck to its guns about that. Some of the shots in this were just gorgeous.


My girlfriend disliked it, thinking it too serious and to borderline real for a superhero film.

[Talakeal]

Very good. One of the best.

Really liked the noir atmosphere; right up there with the Joel Shumacher neon lights and over the top statuary for the best depiction of Gotham.

[3SecondCultist]

Absolutely loved the movie. Without spoilers, I will echo the sentiments about the noir movie sensibilities. This version of Gotham is dark and dripping with danger, and the film prominently features sleazy locales, femme fatales, shady dealings, and tons of moral ambiguity. It sometimes takes itself a bit too seriously - in particular there were some voiceover montages that seemed narmy to me - but Reeves does an excellent job of throwing us into a world where Batman actually works as an anti-hero.

More to the point, this is a fantastic detective story. Batman is and has consistently been referred to in comics as ‘the world’s greatest detective’, and I love that Reeves understands and actively shows us that part of the character. The movie is strongest to me when it leans into the mystery plot.

Spoiler: More Details

Show

Some of the more specific things I loved about the film:

The cinematography. Holy wow, is this movie gorgeous. The shots are moody and aesthetic, the camera cuts are clean and not jittery, and whoever penned the action scenes knows to craft set pieces.

The introduction of the Batmobile and subsequent car chase with Penguin (lamentably spoiled in trailers, but start to finish just an exquisitely well-done sequence). The assault on Falcone’s lair when Batman cuts the power and takes on the gang in the dark. The shot of Batman leading the people of Gotham out of the flooded stadium (?) with the flare.

The movie had a level of intention behind its camera that I didn’t see in any of the Nolan films, to say nothing of any of the older movies. As much as I loved the Dark Knight trilogy, Nolan’s action sequences always left something to be desired in terms of clarity and weight. Not so here.

Also, the soundtrack was so engaging. I loved the bombastic Hans Zimmer scores from the Nolan ones, but Michael Giacchino really mixes in the brooding dark leitmotifs with a triumphant beat that serves the protagonist and atmosphere so well.

Finally, I want to give credit to Pattinson, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Kravitz, and Paul Dano for their performances. All of their characters felt lived-in, grounded, and human. Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne in particular was a huge standout to me for just how broken he was. Gone is the suave billionaire; he’s a recluse here; a shut-in who is not a hero but a symptom of the corruption that is ravaging Gotham. His journey to move beyond his hollow vengeance and learn to be a symbol for hope sends simple but evocative and timely message: we must be more than our trauma, face uncomfortable truths and overcome cruelty and hardship in order to start enacting positive change on the people around us.

Does the movie reinvent the wheel with its themes, plot, and characters? No. But I don’t believe that was ever the burden or the intention of the directing team. Instead, they tell a creative and dynamic story that is anchored by a great cast, stellar visuals, and a solid noir motif.

[Peelee]

More to the point, this is a fantastic detective story. Batman is and has consistently been referred to in comics as ‘the world’s greatest detective’, and I love that Reeves understands and actively shows us that part of the character. The movie is strongest to me when it leans into the mystery plot.

If Beleriphon hadn't already, you would have absolutely convinced me to see it with that.

[warty goblin]

If Beleriphon hadn't already, you would have absolutely convinced me to see it with that.

The detective stuff is indeed fun, and given plenty of time. It's occasionally a little weird that the lead character walks around dressed like a bat, but it's a good time. Full of nice dark stuff, and a couple decent, well maybe not twists, but unexpected developments.

[Talakeal]

The Batmobile's introduction may have been the most epic reveal ever put to film; really made me feel good about paying the extra ticket price for a theatre with Dolby Atmos sound.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Beleriphon
It is a fantastic noir detective story, that just happens to feature Batman.

Originally Posted by warty goblin
I really liked how non-reverential it was about it's protagonist. This was not a movie that found the concept of Batman inherently impressive, and therefore felt no compunction about having the protagonist miss stuff, mess, up, occasionally fail, and generally just get put through the ringer.

You know, that actually sounds worthwhile.

After going full Iron Bat in recent movies, I’ve been wondering if they’ve completely forgotten that Bats was supposed to be a detective, not Juggernaut.

If this movie remembers that…I may have to see this one after all.

Originally Posted by Clertar
…I wonder how many different simultaneous Jokers we'll end up with.

Someone will reveal Batman’s identity to the world, and he’ll ask a wizard to cast a spell that goes horribly wrong, and Batman will have to fight Jokers from across the multiverse. Ben Affleck and George Clooney will lend a hand.

[Bartmanhomer]

This movie deserved a sequel.

[Anteros]

Edit: Adding spoiler tags

Spoiler

Show

None of what I'm hearing here actually sounds like Batman. A character who needs someone to tell him things like "other people matter" or "don't just punch people, help them as well" was never Batman in the first place. That's never been who Batman is. This has always been a criticism from people who don't read comics and think they're clever. Just like how public perception is that Peter Parker is a high school student despite that only being the case for 10 issues out of his thousands, it's not an accurate portrayal of the character. Batman doesn't want to hurt people. He just wants no other little orphan child to ever feel like he did. He's never lacked empathy, and he's always been a major proponent of social programs. He's literally the biggest contributor for basically every single charitable organization in Gotham. A movie about a Batman who needs to learn to do more than punch people misses the point of the character almost as badly as a movie where he decides he has to murder Superman for being powerful.

[Talakeal]

Edit: Adding spoiler tags

Spoiler

Show

None of what I'm hearing here actually sounds like Batman. A character who needs someone to tell him things like "other people matter" or "don't just punch people, help them as well" was never Batman in the first place. That's never been who Batman is. This has always been a criticism from people who don't read comics and think they're clever. Just like how public perception is that Peter Parker is a high school student despite that only being the case for 10 issues out of his thousands, it's not an accurate portrayal of the character. Batman doesn't want to hurt people. He just wants no other little orphan child to ever feel like he did. He's never lacked empathy, and he's always been a major proponent of social programs. He's literally the biggest contributor for basically every single charitable organization in Gotham. A movie about a Batman who needs to learn to do more than punch people misses the point of the character almost as badly as a movie where he decides he has to murder Superman for being powerful.

IMO this movie takes place early in Batman's career, and is about how he starts the journey from Dark Knight to Caped Crusader.