The Batman - 2022

[Clertar]

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.

The Batman: No Way.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...
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.

Not a wizard - he'll get Supes to fly so fast that time goes backwards, but it'll break causality and someone will say "quantum" so that'll make it science, not magic.

[Tyndmyr]

Is an infinitely repeating set of origin stories or Joker, Riddler, and Penguin much better?

I am certainly tired of this particular approach. I'm quite happy that many of the MCU characters have just skipped over their origin, just tossing them into the mix, or at least, giving us a very abbreviated take on them. Scarlet Witch is a fine character, despite not having spent an entire film on her discovering her powers. Ultimately, very little of most origin stories is something the audience needs to discover, especially for characters that we already know well as superheroes.

But, this thread is specifically about The Batman, which I did see, and will now review.

It's long. Really long, and really slow. The first half was the worst. The second half was also the worst. In the third half, it went into a bit of a decline.

Every shot lingers far, far too long, as if the editor was somehow afraid that you would miss this particular scene. Many of the shots themselves are fine, and very Batmanesque, but if you're not doing anything but standing there, maybe it's time to move on.

The movie doesn't know what the hell it is. Pretty much every fight scene is in the trailer. Bullets don't affect Batman, except when they do. There's mystery, sort of, but very little detective work being done. Go watch Reacher, you'll find a better representation of deduction there than anything in this film. Half the characters appear to have no motivation, or only the most basic, boring, Michael Bay tier motives.

I award this film zero stars, and hope that it is purged from the earth, by nuclear fire if necessary.

[Kyberwulf]

Ooh, edgy take. Better get this person a band aid.

Also it was pointed out to me, but I didn't realize it while I was watching this move. All the, well pretty much "good" guys are minorities, and all the bad guys are all rich white men. Even Batman isn't a good guy per se. As Bruce Wayne he doesn't actively engage in doing anything good with his privilege and money.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes, it's noticeable with Jim, Selina and Bella, but still oversimplification. Bruce / Batman is definitely a good guy by the end, and some of the evil white guys definitely aren't rich.

[warty goblin]

One of the more interesting themes of the movie to me was that at the beginning Batman wasn't a bad guy, he was just effectively useless because he had no idea what was going on. Also because he was pretty clearly way too wrapped up in his own emotional damage to do anything more useful than beat up random street criminals.

This plays into the thing I think I liked most; absolutely none of the personal growth in the movie was expressed as an increase in personal power. I'm quite happy to not see cheap personal epiphany->MOAR PUNCHING for several years at least. Even more engaging, personal growth did not come from just like, believing in yourself man - arguably most of the major failures came from overconfidence. The movie is a lot less inwardly focused than a lot of other superhero stuff.

Spoiler

Show

I think there's an interesting contrast here with Wandavision, which I liked up u til the last episode or so. You know, when it chickened out and ass-pulled a completely unnecessary villain our of the woodwork for standard villain nonsense/tedious CGI battles so the protagonist could save the day instead of really owning the existential nightmare of a superpowered person rewriting your life as a coping mechanism. I mean it didn't completely wimp out, but it like 60% wimped out.

Because The Batman is much more willing to go dark places, it actually has there be real costs to the hero's ignorance and arrogance and inability to imagine other people's emotional damage as valid. I like that, makes it feel a bit less... solipsistic isn't quite the right word, overly protective of the main character is maybe better.

[Dragonus45]

One of the more interesting themes of the movie to me was that at the beginning Batman wasn't a bad guy, he was just effectively useless because he had no idea what was going on. Also because he was pretty clearly way too wrapped up in his own emotional damage to do anything more useful than beat up random street criminals.

This plays into the thing I think I liked most; absolutely none of the personal growth in the movie was expressed as an increase in personal power. I'm quite happy to not see cheap personal epiphany->MOAR PUNCHING for several years at least. Even more engaging, personal growth did not come from just like, believing in yourself man - arguably most of the major failures came from overconfidence. The movie is a lot less inwardly focused than a lot of other superhero stuff.

Spoiler

Show

I think there's an interesting contrast here with Wandavision, which I liked up u til the last episode or so. You know, when it chickened out and ass-pulled a completely unnecessary villain our of the woodwork for standard villain nonsense/tedious CGI battles so the protagonist could save the day instead of really owning the existential nightmare of a superpowered person rewriting your life as a coping mechanism. I mean it didn't completely wimp out, but it like 60% wimped out.

Because The Batman is much more willing to go dark places, it actually has there be real costs to the hero's ignorance and arrogance and inability to imagine other people's emotional damage as valid. I like that, makes it feel a bit less... solipsistic isn't quite the right word, overly protective of the main character is maybe better.

Yea this movie had some really great themes. I love how the core one really turned into an examination of the "Wayne Family Legacy" and how it had been misappropriated through the years by everyone, Bruce included. The bit where

Spoiler

Show

he replies that his father would only have saved a shot mans life because he took an oath and would feel compelled too and not for any other reason whatsoever was very telling, alongside the early bit about Alfred trying to get him to pay attention to what I believe was the finances of the Renewal fund. The Renewal Fund itself also being just a great physical embodiment of the concept.

[Anteros]

Ooh, edgy take. Better get this person a band aid.

Also it was pointed out to me, but I didn't realize it while I was watching this move. All the, well pretty much "good" guys are minorities, and all the bad guys are all rich white men. Even Batman isn't a good guy per se. As Bruce Wayne he doesn't actively engage in doing anything good with his privilege and money.

Completely changing the character and setting to push an agenda. Exactly what I don't want from my movies.

Movies with a message can be fine, but not if you have to change the core of an already existing character and setting to make them work.

[Vahnavoi]

Don't kid yourself. American-Italian mobsters and various rich scumbags causing trouble have been mainstays of Batman stories for decades. Casting African-American actors as Jim Gordon or Selina Kyle is incidental to story and themes and doesn't make the movie any less Batman. The agenda you harp on may exist on a meta level, but doesn't matter for functioning of the movie, to the degree it doesn't even stand out to a viewer who doesn't automatically think people called Falcone and Maroni belong to the same ethnic group as people called Wayne etc.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Casting African-American actors as Jim Gordon or Selina Kyle is incidental to story and themes and doesn't make the movie any less Batman.

And let's face it, Eartha Kitt did a fine job as Catwoman.

[The Glyphstone]

How does Zoe Kravitz stack up against other Catwomen, on a scale from Halle Berry to Michelle Pfeiffer?

[Dragonus45]

How does Zoe Kravitz stack up against other Catwomen, on a scale from Halle Berry to Michelle Pfeiffer?

She's good,

Spoiler: vague spoilers about Catwoman

Show

if her character had more to do I would consider her one of the best but for now I have her in a "need more information" section in my brain

[Vahnavoi]

How does Zoe Kravitz stack up against other Catwomen, on a scale from Halle Berry to Michelle Pfeiffer?

I did not see the Halle Berry movie and my recollection of the Michelle Pfeiffer version is incredibly vague, but I'd say Kravits equals or exceeds Anne Hathaway's version in The Dark Knight Rises.

[Peelee]

And let's face it, Eartha Kitt did a fine job as Catwoman.

Did it come up organically?

[Anteros]

Don't kid yourself. American-Italian mobsters and various rich scumbags causing trouble have been mainstays of Batman stories for decades. Casting African-American actors as Jim Gordon or Selina Kyle is incidental to story and themes and doesn't make the movie any less Batman. The agenda you harp on may exist on a meta level, but doesn't matter for functioning of the movie, to the degree it doesn't even stand out to a viewer who doesn't automatically think people called Falcone and Maroni belong to the same ethnic group as people called Wayne etc.

I don't think I can respond to most of that without breaking forum rules, but I'll say that I don't particularly care what ethnicity Jim Gordan or Selina Kyle are. It does raise some eyebrows when all of the good people look one way, and all of the bad people look another, but Hollywood has been doing that nonsense since the 80s when every single movie villain was Russian.

Back to the main point, I don't like any story that requires you to change core things about a character in order to push an agenda. Even an agenda as agreeable as "you should help people be better instead of just punishing them for being bad". Obviously we all agree with that. Where I disagree was that it's ever a lesson that freaking Batman of all people needs to learn. Bruce Wayne does more charity and social work than every other comic book hero combined. His entire backstory is that the Waynes did everything they could to uplift the city and got murdered for it. He continues to do it anyway, because he believes in the lessons his parents taught him, but he realizes he needs to do more. That's where Batman comes in. Batman does not, and has never "punched people instead of helping them." and a character who needs to learn this lesson is not Batman. I'm not personally interested interested in a story that gets the main character wrong on a fundamental level and focuses the entire plot around their incorrect assumptions.

[Fyraltari]

If someone doesn't feel like watching all three hours of the movie, here is the most important bit:

Spoiler

Show

[Vahnavoi]

Anteros, you are still kidding yourself. You might as well complain that in Batman Begins, Bruce sort-of sucks at combat at the start and spends a good chunk of the movie learning how to fight - in the comics, Batman is already grandmaster of martial arts, why does he needs to learn that lesson?

The answer is that films aren't comics and how Batman is in the comics only matters insofar as they manage to bring it to a screen. Several of things you bring up as central to Batman's backstory are integral parts of the new movie, so you arguing that you don't want to watch it on the basis that it completely misses Batman's characterization for this or that reason mostly just emphasizes that you haven't seen it. Go actually watch it and you'll see what I mean.

[Anteros]

Anteros, you are still kidding yourself. You might as well complain that in Batman Begins, Bruce sort-of sucks at combat at the start and spends a good chunk of the movie learning how to fight - in the comics, Batman is already grandmaster of martial arts, why does he needs to learn that lesson?

The answer is that films aren't comics and how Batman is in the comics only matters insofar as they manage to bring it to a screen. Several of things you bring up as central to Batman's backstory are integral parts of the new movie, so you arguing that you don't want to watch it on the basis that it completely misses Batman's characterization for this or that reason mostly just emphasizes that you haven't seen it. Go actually watch it and you'll see what I mean.

The difference is that Batman learned this lesson an an alleyway while his parents got murdered. It's an intrinsic part of the character. I'm willing to buy that a young untrained Batman doesn't know how to fight. I'm not willing to buy that a Batman who is fully grown and has been active for years needs someone to teach him that helping people matters. One of these things is internally consistent with the character. The other is not.

[Vahnavoi]

You are using your unwillingness to suspend disbelief about a movie sequence you haven't seen in order to justify not seeing it. What's next, saying you can't buy some guy from Brokeback Mountain being threatening as the Joker? The internal logic of the movie work just fine and Batman is recognizably Batman throughout. What you call "internal consistency" is actually a demand for consistency with something external to the movie. Again, the quickest way to see how and why your argument is hollow, would be to watch the movie

[Talakeal]

I did not see the Halle Berry movie and my recollection of the Michelle Pfeiffer version is incredibly vague, but I'd say Kravits equals or exceeds Anne Hathaway's version in The Dark Knight Rises.

Agreed.

Slightly better than Hathaway, not quite as good as Michelle.

[Psyren]

Moviebob put out a Big Picture deeper dive on this one today that explains what makes it different and I'm interested in seeing it now. Not directly linking because of the political parallels he raises.

Like The Joker before it, this one would have worked much better as a standalone, auteur-driven character and setting study than the jumping-off-point for a whole franchise, but while Joker could get away with the former, there's no way they're not going to mess things up by going for the latter.

The biggest problem with this one appears to be the ending and thematic payoff:

Spoiler

Show

"Holy crap, being The Batman the way I've been doing it inspired entirely the wrong sorts of folks and got a lot of innocent people killed. But if I stop beating goons up in alleys I won't really be recognizable to audiences as Batman anymore. And this did make a lot of money. Oh well, guess I'll keep doing that!"

[Dragonus45]

Moviebob put out a Big Picture deeper dive on this one today that explains what makes it different and I'm interested in seeing it now. Not directly linking because of the political parallels he raises.

Like The Joker before it, this one would have worked much better as a standalone, auteur-driven character and setting study than the jumping-off-point for a whole franchise, but while Joker could get away with the former, there's no way they're not going to mess things up by going for the latter.

The biggest problem with this one appears to be the ending and thematic payoff:

Spoiler

Show

"Holy crap, being The Batman the way I've been doing it inspired entirely the wrong sorts of folks and got a lot of innocent people killed. But if I stop beating goons up in alleys I won't really be recognizable to audiences as Batman anymore. And this did make a lot of money. Oh well, guess I'll keep doing that!"

As always Moviebob has the right to be as wrong and mean about as he want's on his own channel. Pretty clear no one else will let him do it on theirs anymore. He certainly won't be stopping anytime soon. He is wrong though. He is projecting what he wanted onto the story and the character arc and ignoring what is actually present and good in it's own right. But because he would have done it different it's bad, heck he made enough noise about how bad this movie inevitably was going to be bad because it wasn't the different direction he wanted people to start taking Batman in film it's hard not to see this as sour grapes about it actually going somewhere. Feels similar to this refusal he has to be fair to Tom Holland's Spider-Man movies because they aren't the, admittedly better in many regards, Toby McGuire ones he loves so much he did a Really That Good about them. (One of his better and less toxic pieces of work and absolutely worth watching for anyone who cares)

Regardless, saying this movie was ruined by the need to franchise is just projecting past failures of DC and the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man and the Universal Monsters fiasco and... gosh there are a lot of real examples of that happening and it is real clear this was just not that. This was written as a movie first with little concern for any real franchise building and what "franchise" expansion has been added in is mostly natural feeling angles leading into some variation of the

Spoiler

Show

Hush plotline, which fits perfectly with all the themes they explored here and he clearly wants them to explore as time goes on

alongside just leaving Gotham big enough as a character in it's own right you can easily see them making any arbitrary number of movies worth of material out of Batmans literally legendary rogues gallery while they work out the interesting character arc they set up for Batman to follow on from the end of the movie.

[Psyren]

Oh I don't agree with Bob on everything (his views on Tom Holland's Spiderman being a key example you mentioned) but I think there's merit in his take on this. The portrayal of the Riddler here lines up perfectly with what I envision of roomful of DC/WB suits would land on as a modern villain for him to be going after, and Catwoman's lines reinforce that.

Earlier in the thread, we were talking - as much as we could do safely anyway - about Anarky being a tantalizing villain for a Batman movie in the 2020s and I think this take is, if not that, certainly testing the waters (no pun intended) for that.

I'm merely lamenting that this made a bunch of dough and isn't a prequel the same way Joker was, so the chances of this exact Batman to show up again in the future are pretty high. And while I do expect him to have learned... something... from this outing, I suspect that whenever the choice comes down to developing the character or sticking close to the established brand, the suits will opt for the latter every time even if it means he continues to stagnate.

As for this Batman taking place on Earth-2, that much at least has been confirmed, and I don't see any reason for them to specify that except for multiverse shenanigans down the line. Especially after Spiderman and Loki blew the doors off that particular money truck

[warty goblin]

I think the point that logically speaking, the end to a story where the protagonist learns that their habit of dressing up and doing some violence as a bad trauma response was to inspire a bunch of other people to dress up and do worse violence as their own bad trauma response should be said protagonist not doing the costumed violence thing anymore is pretty reasonable. Of it wasn't a Batman movie and it did end with the protagonist dropping the whole masked vigilante thing it would feel quite natural.

I don't think this is an inherently fatal flaw though, since while the bad guys are directly inspired by Batman, they miss the bit where he doesn't feed people to rats, destroy cities, or instigate mass shootings. I think the point of the movie is that Batman isn't a hero because he's good at punching, but that he becomes a hero because he acts to protect people. This does, yes, involve punching, but the important contrast between beginning of the movie Batman and end of movie Batman isn't bad guy punching, it's what he does after. At the beginning he fights the gang on the train pretty much because he wants to beat up some criminals, he clearly doesn't care about their victim at all. He can't even say anything to the first Riddler victim's son, for whom he should have an immediate and obvious empathy. By the end he's hauling people out of the wreckage.

Which admittedly does not require dressing like a bat. Most things in life don't, if we're being honest. So, you know, there's still a pretty definite need to service the brand going on.

[Kyberwulf]

I mean, they already have been doing the multiverse basically. With them doing the Flashpoint storyline.

I just wanted to say, This movie seems really generic. Not that its a bad story. I mean its like while they were writing, they were like. "Let's make a batman movie. We will have a guy, do some killing. Then we can have a cop help Batman. While during the investigation he will be helped by a girl." after they started doing it, they were like. Let's make the Cop Jim Gordan, cause people seemed to like that in the Nolan movies and Gotham. OOH I know, lets make the girl Selena Kyle. Ohh, Let's make the Killer THE RIDDLER.. cause the Jokers been done.

I mean, you could change Jim Gordan's name to Ralp Miller. And changed Selena's name to something else. You would NOT notice a change really.

I think its been a problem for Batman movies for a LONG time. They don't seem to have the courage to come out with original characters or villains. "The Riddler" has never seemed to be so concerned with cultural stuff before. I mean, maybe? I have to admit I have never been that into Riddler though. Although, I think they picked Riddler, cause he is one of the people who figured out Batman's identity.

This isn't a dig at the actors, they do fine as actors. In the case of Catwoman, most of the people that portray her, they could have been fine as Catwoman. It's just no one seems to know what to do with the character.


In a side note. Did anyone get the vibe that the Mayors kid is gonna end being Robin? He seemed to put together who Batman was in his scenes. Not like a HUGE in your face.. I KNOW HIM. but he seemed to be featured in a lot of key scenes in a observation way.

[Psyren]

I think the point that logically speaking, the end to a story where the protagonist learns that their habit of dressing up and doing some violence as a bad trauma response was to inspire a bunch of other people to dress up and do worse violence as their own bad trauma response should be said protagonist not doing the costumed violence thing anymore is pretty reasonable. Of it wasn't a Batman movie and it did end with the protagonist dropping the whole masked vigilante thing it would feel quite natural.

I don't think this is an inherently fatal flaw though, since while the bad guys are directly inspired by Batman, they miss the bit where he doesn't feed people to rats, destroy cities, or instigate mass shootings. I think the point of the movie is that Batman isn't a hero because he's good at punching, but that he becomes a hero because he acts to protect people. This does, yes, involve punching, but the important contrast between beginning of the movie Batman and end of movie Batman isn't bad guy punching, it's what he does after. At the beginning he fights the gang on the train pretty much because he wants to beat up some criminals, he clearly doesn't care about their victim at all. He can't even say anything to the first Riddler victim's son, for whom he should have an immediate and obvious empathy. By the end he's hauling people out of the wreckage.

Which admittedly does not require dressing like a bat. Most things in life don't, if we're being honest. So, you know, there's still a pretty definite need to service the brand going on.

This exactly.

But I don't actually have a problem with him going around dressed like a bat. I have a bigger problem with the fact that his detective skills are apparently extremely unpolished in this outing, to the point that

Spoiler

Show

the Penguin has to explain one of the riddles to him because it was in another language and he screwed up the grammar, which in combination with yet another screwup with one of the Riddler's clues later on allows Nygma Nashton to remain un-caught long enough to kill a whooooole bunch of people.

Which is not to say that Batman can't make mistakes. But to me, DC has a problem with their flagship heroes, who are supposed to be archetypical paragons/ideals rather than struggling humans like Marvel's main slate, often relegated to cleanup duty instead of preventing or even mitigating catastrophes. They want to have it both ways where these heroes are able to save the day but also have the big setpiece of the city crumbling or being flooded or descending into lawless anarchy because thousands of police all got locked in the sewer for months () all still happen.

I just wanted to say, This movie seems really generic. Not that its a bad story. I mean its like while they were writing, they were like. "Let's make a batman movie. We will have a guy, do some killing. Then we can have a cop help Batman. While during the investigation he will be helped by a girl." after they started doing it, they were like. Let's make the Cop Jim Gordan, cause people seemed to like that in the Nolan movies and Gotham. OOH I know, lets make the girl Selena Kyle. Ohh, Let's make the Killer THE RIDDLER.. cause the Jokers been done.

I mean, you could change Jim Gordan's name to Ralp Miller. And changed Selena's name to something else. You would NOT notice a change really.

I think its been a problem for Batman movies for a LONG time. They don't seem to have the courage to come out with original characters or villains. "The Riddler" has never seemed to be so concerned with cultural stuff before. I mean, maybe? I have to admit I have never been that into Riddler though. Although, I think they picked Riddler, cause he is one of the people who figured out Batman's identity.

Wasn't it a pretty big plot point that this Riddler

Spoiler

Show

didn't know who Batman was? And so imagined himself to be on Batman's side the whole time, which Batman realized (too late) his actions weren't exactly doing a whole lot to dissuade.

I agree though, they didn't need Riddler for this at all. But the more fitting antagonists like Anarky or Zsasz also can't carry a major movie, so.

[Dragonus45]

I think the point that logically speaking, the end to a story where the protagonist learns that their habit of dressing up and doing some violence as a bad trauma response was to inspire a bunch of other people to dress up and do worse violence as their own bad trauma response should be said protagonist not doing the costumed violence thing anymore is pretty reasonable. Of it wasn't a Batman movie and it did end with the protagonist dropping the whole masked vigilante thing it would feel quite natural.

I don't think this is an inherently fatal flaw though, since while the bad guys are directly inspired by Batman, they miss the bit where he doesn't feed people to rats, destroy cities, or instigate mass shootings. I think the point of the movie is that Batman isn't a hero because he's good at punching, but that he becomes a hero because he acts to protect people. This does, yes, involve punching, but the important contrast between beginning of the movie Batman and end of movie Batman isn't bad guy punching, it's what he does after. At the beginning he fights the gang on the train pretty much because he wants to beat up some criminals, he clearly doesn't care about their victim at all. He can't even say anything to the first Riddler victim's son, for whom he should have an immediate and obvious empathy. By the end he's hauling people out of the wreckage.

Which admittedly does not require dressing like a bat. Most things in life don't, if we're being honest. So, you know, there's still a pretty definite need to service the brand going on.

That bit with the first victims son really stood out to me in a great way too. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Overly Sarcastic Productions but there is a great quote from Red one of the creators on the channel.

“Can you imagine your Batman comforting a scared child? If yes, congratulations that’s a genuine Batman. If no, you haven’t written Batman, you’ve written Punisher with a funny hat.”

And it was blaring in my brain in that moment where you can see he clearly is drawn to the kid and probably does want to comfort him but doesn't for any number of potential and unstated reasons. Contrast this with one of the last scenes of the movie where Batman does stop to comfort someone who looked to me to be fairly young while she is being loaded onto a stretcher. Excellent character arc in it's own right even if he is dressed in a funny outfight.

[Tyndmyr]

She's good,

Spoiler: vague spoilers about Catwoman

Show

if her character had more to do I would consider her one of the best but for now I have her in a "need more information" section in my brain

This is accurate. Despite me hating the film and wanting those thirteen hours of my life back, I have to admit that she did a pretty good job overall. There's a bit of a motivational problem in which she sort of just becomes on Bruce's team while forgetting their prior diverging goals, but that's not really the actresses' fault. She does great with what the script gives her.

I don't think I can respond to most of that without breaking forum rules, but I'll say that I don't particularly care what ethnicity Jim Gordan or Selina Kyle are. It does raise some eyebrows when all of the good people look one way, and all of the bad people look another, but Hollywood has been doing that nonsense since the 80s when every single movie villain was Russian.

Yeah, that's...honestly not a significant part of the film in any case. It isn't a significant part of the characterization of either character, and both characters still feel pretty close to their comic renditions. It's annoying when recasting results in missing the core of a character, but one attribute doesn't matter much if the portrayal overall feels like it fits.

If I'm being less cynical for a moment, the film is decent on how things feel. Gotham does feel like Gotham. Catwoman does feel like Catwoman. It is certainly a Batman film, for better or worse. The shortcomings are in plot, motivation and pacing. They're not in theme.

As a specific example:

Spoiler

Show

Consider the car startup sequence. Is it absolutely Batmanesque? Without a doubt. The car looks like a great Batmobile, and the visual/audio sequence of it is cool and thematic.

Does it make any sense that he had a car already stashed outside the house that his investigations on motorbike eventually led him to? Or that the criminals sit there and watch him start his car up for thirty seconds? Haha, no.

At the beginning he fights the gang on the train pretty much because he wants to beat up some criminals, he clearly doesn't care about their victim at all. He can't even say anything to the first Riddler victim's son, for whom he should have an immediate and obvious empathy. By the end he's hauling people out of the wreckage.

Spoiler

Show

He literally saves their victim, and while the victim is scared of him, he clearly has no intention to hurt him. Heck, he even seems to be fine with letting criminals go if they abandon violence and flee, mostly. There's some rage he's letting out, a few extra punches, definitely, but he's almost always silent, lack of words doesn't mean he's not helping.

He definitely does have empathy for the first Riddler victim's son. Also, saves his life in that same scene. Not really a talking scene, but if we're talking about saving people, he, uh, does just that.

I would agree that there doesn't seem to be much growth in terms of action.

[Psyren]

That bit with the first victims son really stood out to me in a great way too. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Overly Sarcastic Productions but there is a great quote from Red one of the creators on the channel.

And it was blaring in my brain in that moment where you can see he clearly is drawn to the kid and probably does want to comfort him but doesn't for any number of potential and unstated reasons. Contrast this with one of the last scenes of the movie where Batman does stop to comfort someone who looked to me to be fairly young while she is being loaded onto a stretcher. Excellent character arc in it's own right even if he is dressed in a funny outfight.

I'll acknowledge that growth but remember,

Spoiler

Show

Batman's failures are the reason that child is being put on a stretcher in the first place.

Addressing that growth going forward is more what I meant. I don't have much faith that WB/DC will do so adequately, especially when doing so might potentially mean going against the "brand." (Reactive revenge-punching in other words.)

I completely agree with Red's litmus test however.

[Dragonus45]

I'll acknowledge that growth but remember,

Spoiler

Show

Batman's failures are the reason that child is being put on a stretcher in the first place.

Addressing that growth going forward is more what I meant. I don't have much faith that WB/DC will do so adequately, especially when doing so might potentially mean going against the "brand." (Reactive revenge-punching in other words.)

I completely agree with Red's litmus test however.

Batman's not responsible for ****. The crimes committed here were done by people totally independent of him, even if they were inspired by him.