The Batman - 2022

[warty goblin]

See, I liked Batman getting things wrong. Partly because infallible detective always gets it right immediately is kinda boring and also very done, and because it worked to reinforce the characterization they were going for. If you're a super wealthy anti-social loner, you are going to have a lot of difficulty relating to people and understanding anything outside that limited-by-design world. His failure to solve the clues was part and parcel of his emotional failure up until the end of the film, I don't think either works on its own.

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.

See, at least when it comes to movies, I think Marvel really wants the audience to think of its characters as struggling humans, but they lack pretty much all follow through. Everybody has their token struggle right where the three act structure says they should, then they learn to believe in themselves and fix everything in act three. Their mistakes have so little consequence its hard to even call them mistakes.

I really respected that this movie had mistakes that mattered, and did not fawn over its protagonist. That made it feel much more struggling human than Marvel has ever managed for me. This is definitely not true of the mainline Justice League DC movies, but that's maybe the real advantage of not hammering all your movies into one giant, increasingly beige, continuity.

[Tyndmyr]

See, I liked Batman getting things wrong. Partly because infallible detective always gets it right immediately is kinda boring and also very done, and because it worked to reinforce the characterization they were going for. If you're a super wealthy anti-social loner, you are going to have a lot of difficulty relating to people and understanding anything outside that limited-by-design world. His failure to solve the clues was part and parcel of his emotional failure up until the end of the film, I don't think either works on its own.

Getting a clue wrong is pretty common to escalate tension in detective movies, and allow the weaving of another tale. However, in this particular case, they chose to have Batman get really obvious stuff wrong.

Spoiler

Show

Like, I get if he doesn't speak Spanish, but this was a very basic mistranslation. It's not a complex thing, it's "el rata alada" and Batman doesn't understand that Spanish uses "el" and "la" as gendered terms. That's such a basic thing that even I, and I do not speak Spanish, know this.

The "it means URL" is a bit more of a reach, and ends up being kind of a lame clue on the Riddler's part. The second, also apparently valid solution, is Falcone, which...okay, yeah, Italian for Falcon, sure, but calling that a rat with wings is a pretty useless clue. It sort of makes sense if you already know who the rat is, but it's useless to lead you to the rat, which is what Riddler intends.

And then we have the Riddler, who has put in frankly insane preparations to everything else, deciding to let the USPS handle his entire plan for Bruce Wayne. And Alfred, who is previously portrayed as a wise person who is directly helping with this case and most certainly knows the Riddler is a serial killer who has very specific handwriting....just becomes stupid when faced with this threat.

This is not really top tier detective stuff, here.

[Kyberwulf]

Now, I thought during the scene in the prison. It was pretty explicate that Riddler always has known who Batman, was and that the whole thing was set up to get Bruce Wayne on his side.

[Psyren]

See, I liked Batman getting things wrong. Partly because infallible detective always gets it right immediately is kinda boring and also very done, and because it worked to reinforce the characterization they were going for. If you're a super wealthy anti-social loner, you are going to have a lot of difficulty relating to people and understanding anything outside that limited-by-design world. His failure to solve the clues was part and parcel of his emotional failure up until the end of the film, I don't think either works on its own.

Again, I don't mind DC heroes making mistakes. What I'm against are the sheer body counts when they screw up, which seem astronomically high, and I think it's out of a misguided need to make DC movies "dark" instead of truly heroic and uplifting like they deserve to be. Like, if Batman is some super-detective, that's not saying he can't be wrong, but it's saying that he should figure it out quickly enough to save more lives than he does.

Like, Winter Soldier was one of the darker and grittier Marvel movies, and what deaths did occur largely stayed inside SHIELD. The heroes still stopped the helicarriers from actually firing on innocent people. If that were a DC movie, half of Gotham would be riddled with bullets before Batman shut even one of them down.

Hell, Spiderman Homecoming had no deaths at all! (Well, there was that one henchman.)

See, at least when it comes to movies, I think Marvel really wants the audience to think of its characters as struggling humans, but they lack pretty much all follow through. Everybody has their token struggle right where the three act structure says they should, then they learn to believe in themselves and fix everything in act three. Their mistakes have so little consequence its hard to even call them mistakes.

I really respected that this movie had mistakes that mattered, and did not fawn over its protagonist. That made it feel much more struggling human than Marvel has ever managed for me. This is definitely not true of the mainline Justice League DC movies, but that's maybe the real advantage of not hammering all your movies into one giant, increasingly beige, continuity.

I disagree with that; their consequences just get shown in subsequent movies. For example, Cap dismantling SHIELD led to the Iron Legion, which led to Ultron, which led to destroying Sokovia, which led to Zemo, which led to Civil War, which led to Thanos rolling in unopposed against a fragmented team, which led to the Snap. Or Spiderman's trusting nature led to Edith falling into the wrong hands, which led to hid identity being exposed by Mysterio, which led to his friends' lives being ruined, which led to getting help from Doctor Strange, which led to the multiversal spell going awry, which led to Aunt May getting killed.

Marvel is able to do that because they have another strength the DC movies currently lack, continuity.

Getting a clue wrong is pretty common to escalate tension in detective movies, and allow the weaving of another tale. However, in this particular case, they chose to have Batman get really obvious stuff wrong.

Spoiler

Show

Like, I get if he doesn't speak Spanish, but this was a very basic mistranslation. It's not a complex thing, it's "el rata alada" and Batman doesn't understand that Spanish uses "el" and "la" as gendered terms. That's such a basic thing that even I, and I do not speak Spanish, know this.

The "it means URL" is a bit more of a reach, and ends up being kind of a lame clue on the Riddler's part. The second, also apparently valid solution, is Falcone, which...okay, yeah, Italian for Falcon, sure, but calling that a rat with wings is a pretty useless clue. It sort of makes sense if you already know who the rat is, but it's useless to lead you to the rat, which is what Riddler intends.

And then we have the Riddler, who has put in frankly insane preparations to everything else, deciding to let the USPS handle his entire plan for Bruce Wayne. And Alfred, who is previously portrayed as a wise person who is directly helping with this case and most certainly knows the Riddler is a serial killer who has very specific handwriting....just becomes stupid when faced with this threat.

This is not really top tier detective stuff, here.

This too.

[Dragonus45]

Now, I thought during the scene in the prison. It was pretty explicate that Riddler always has known who Batman, was and that the whole thing was set up to get Bruce Wayne on his side.

Spoiler

Show

I took it as the opposite. He understood who Batman was in the "you are Batman and the person without that mask on is the disguise" kind of way but totally missed that Bruce Wayne was Batman because despite being quite brilliant he was blinded by his own preconceived notions and beliefs.

[Vahnavoi]

Tyndmyr, I think you're forgetting a detail:

Spoiler

Show

Batman didn't need Penguin to point out the bad Spanish, Alfred did the same thing once they were done with the initial translation. Penguin isn't telling Batman and Gordon anything new in that regard, it's the fact that Penguin isn't the guy they were looking for that makes Batman rethink the meaning of the clue - namely, that maybe Riddler used bad Spanish on purpose. That's how he gets the URL part - which Gordon points out is a reach by noting that "maybe [the Riddler] just isn't that smart".

EDIT:

Now, I thought during the scene in the prison. It was pretty explicate that Riddler always has known who Batman, was and that the whole thing was set up to get Bruce Wayne on his side.

Spoiler

Show

I took it as the opposite. He understood who Batman was in the "you are Batman and the person without that mask on is the disguise" kind of way but totally missed that Bruce Wayne was Batman because despite being quite brilliant he was blinded by his own preconceived notions and beliefs.

The situation is ambiguous. Batman certainly goes in thinking the Riddler has it figured out, but some of the things the Riddler says leave room for doubt. Which you think it is changes interpretation of some key events in the movie

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr, I think you're forgetting a detail:

Spoiler

Show

Batman didn't need Penguin to point out the bad Spanish, Alfred did the same thing once they were done with the initial translation. Penguin isn't telling Batman and Gordon anything new in that regard, it's the fact that Penguin isn't the guy they were looking for that makes Batman rethink the meaning of the clue - namely, that maybe Riddler used bad Spanish on purpose. That's how he gets the URL part - which Gordon points out is a reach by noting that "maybe [the Riddler] just isn't that smart".

EDIT:

Spoiler

Show

It's not bad because of who is pointing out the error, so that is irrelevant.

And since the same clue ended up being reused for Falcone regardless, the URL thing as a second solution doesn't really redeem the bad spanish. After all, Falcone, like the Penguin, is male. The same objection applies both ways.

And the URL thing is just a reach. I can kind of see it as a homage to the cheesy old timey riddler puns and stuff, but that doesn't really fit the style of this film.

The situation is ambiguous. Batman certainly goes in thinking the Riddler has it figured out, but some of the things the Riddler says leave room for doubt. Which you think it is changes interpretation of some key events in the movie

Naw, it's a straight fakeout for the viewers. Bruce(and us) is led to think the Riddler knows, but the finale pretty clearly reveals that he does not. It doesn't really make sense for the Riddler to keep that hidden if he did know, and isn't consistent with his plan or anything shown.

[Sapphire Guard]

Spoiler

Show

So where they end up is 'saving people only matters if you give them a comforting hug afterwards'.

It's hard to articulate what's weird about this. Batman is most useful doing things that other people can't, especially high stakes hostage takings. If he goes from being the emergency services' ace in the hole to replacing them in things that ordinary EMTs can do, how helpful is that really? He's just in the way of the actual emergency services, who had to mysteriously disappear from that stadium to give him his moment.

Deconstructing superheroes is pretty well worn by now, but honestly if you're making a superhero story about why superheroing is a bad idea...well, yeah. What's next, a zombie movie about why zombies don't make sense?

"rat with wings" is a bad clue, because if if you're going down the list of 'bird/wing' themed Batman villains, it's a long list and there's nothing particularly pointing at a falcon. You can go from penguin to the court of owls to man bat. The most intuitive answers are 'bat' and maybe 'pigeon'.

If Riddler knew Bruce was Batman, why would he have tried to kill him? He thinks Batman is his friend until Arkham.

[Psyren]

Spoiler

Show

So where they end up is 'saving people only matters if you give them a comforting hug afterwards'.

It's hard to articulate what's weird about this. Batman is most useful doing things that other people can't, especially high stakes hostage takings. If he goes from being the emergency services' ace in the hole to replacing them in things that ordinary EMTs can do, how helpful is that really? He's just in the way of the actual emergency services, who had to mysteriously disappear from that stadium to give him his moment.

Deconstructing superheroes is pretty well worn by now, but honestly if you're making a superhero story about why superheroing is a bad idea...well, yeah. What's next, a zombie movie about why zombies don't make sense?

"rat with wings" is a bad clue, because if if you're going down the list of 'bird/wing' themed Batman villains, it's a long list and there's nothing particularly pointing at a falcon. You can go from penguin to the court of owls to man bat. The most intuitive answers are 'bat' and maybe 'pigeon'.

If Riddler knew Bruce was Batman, why would he have tried to kill him? He thinks Batman is his friend until Arkham.

All of this. And for the bold part in particular - again, that works great as a standalone observation, but all signs (both in-universe and financially) indicate that they're going to build on this foundation, narratively rickety though it might be.

For the last sentence - yeah it's pretty clear to me he didn't actually know.

[3SecondCultist]

Spoiler

Show

So where they end up is 'saving people only matters if you give them a comforting hug afterwards'.

It's hard to articulate what's weird about this. Batman is most useful doing things that other people can't, especially high stakes hostage takings. If he goes from being the emergency services' ace in the hole to replacing them in things that ordinary EMTs can do, how helpful is that really? He's just in the way of the actual emergency services, who had to mysteriously disappear from that stadium to give him his moment.

Deconstructing superheroes is pretty well worn by now, but honestly if you're making a superhero story about why superheroing is a bad idea...well, yeah. What's next, a zombie movie about why zombies don't make sense?

"rat with wings" is a bad clue, because if if you're going down the list of 'bird/wing' themed Batman villains, it's a long list and there's nothing particularly pointing at a falcon. You can go from penguin to the court of owls to man bat. The most intuitive answers are 'bat' and maybe 'pigeon'.

If Riddler knew Bruce was Batman, why would he have tried to kill him? He thinks Batman is his friend until Arkham.

That is probably the least charitable way to interpret the ending, in my opinion.

Spoiler: Ending

Show

Batman has always saved people. At the very beginning of the film, he saved a guy from that gang of Not-Jokers (I wonder after seeing it whether it's meant to imply that the Joker has mad fanboys just like the Riddler did). Said guy did not get a hug, but I think it's a fair argument to say that Batman saved him from a fatal - or at least crippling - beating. Even when he's 'vengeance', in his mind he's still trying to protect the people of Gotham... he's just going about it by instilling fear and delivering brutal beatdowns on guys.

The argument the film is making is that Bruce, by virtue of his trauma and upbringing, has not yet understood that to be an effective protector of Gotham he needs to inspire not just fear, but also hope. You're drawing a false dichotomy where it doesn't necessarily exist. It's honestly hard to speculate exactly what form of superheroism that Batman will have if and when there is a sequel (there probably will be). That being said, I think it's fair to assume that he'll still be hunting down and punching criminals while also spending time helping out civilians as Batman and/or Bruce Wayne. He doesn't stop being 'the vigilante with resources and equipment that nobody else can rival', but neither is he just a glorified EMT.

Also, are you seriously going to say that the EMTs 'mysteriously disappeared' in the final act? Surely they couldn't be dealing with the mass flooding all throughout the city, or just be plainly unable to get vehicles like fire trucks, ambulances, cars to the stadium because there are torrents of water everywhere? The film actively shows us police cars getting swept into the building. I'm pretty sure the point of that scene was that 'Batman could have just kept beating on those goons, but instead he learns to help for the greater good'.

My point is that the film isn't saying that 'superheroing is a bad idea'. The takeaway for Bruce is that 'if I want to be a superhero, I can't just be an emo thug who beats on people in alleys'. If anything, that's a reconstruction of superheroism, albeit an imperfect one. One of my only gripes about the ending is that it doesn't show Bruce actively learning to embrace the value of his civilian persona, after deconstructing what happens when he ignores it throughout. The whole Renewal fund plot arc would have been more neatly underlined if the denouement showed Bruce learning that he needs to actively take charge as his billionaire self to ensure oversight on urban development and rehabilitation projects, to avoid the very kind of corruption that the film portrayed. Maybe he could have hired a fleet of helicopters or boats or something?

Oh and yes, fully agreed on the whole Riddler not knowing he's Batman thing. Nashton was very clearly operating under the assumption that Bruce and Batman were separate people - otherwise, he would not have bothered to send the letter bomb to Wayne Tower in the first place. Also he says to Batman 'we' nearly got him, referring to both of them. He clearly had Batman on a huge pedestal the entire movie, which again is kind of the whole point. Batman, by being 'vengeance', inspired exactly the wrong kind of action. Riddler clearly looked up to him - he called Batman 'his secret friend', which unlike most serial killer movies was meant as 100% genuine sentiment. He actually thought that by solving his puzzles - all of his puzzles, including the sea wall bombs - Batman was helping him clean up the corrupt people of Gotham. And to a certain extent, he was right! Batman did help the Riddler for the whole movie. Their goals were actually remarkably in-line, stopping short of the whole catastrophic bombing thing. The Riddler just happens to murder his targets, whereas Batman beats them into a pulp but keeps to his no-killing code, arresting Falcone and turning him over to Gordon and the legal authorities.

I personally loved that misdirect. It's very in keeping with comics Riddler to have all the information he needs to put the pieces together about Bruce being Batman but just can't reconcile the uber-privileged rich heir to the Wayne fortune with the crime-fighting vigilante who goes to work on criminals.

Spoiler: The Cameo & Sequels

Show

On another note, Matt Reeves said in an interview after the film came out that Barry Keoghan's Joker is not intended to be sequel bait. That is to say, if (let's face it, when) they do a sequel, the Joker isn't automatically going to be the definitive Big Bad of the piece. He had a deleted scene early in the film wherein Batman actually goes down to Arkham to ask the Joker about Riddler, ala Silence of the Lambs. I don't think a sequel will so blatantly ape the Dark Knight trilogy like that. Apparently, Reeves made that choice to emphasize that this is a Batman who has been active for at least 2 years and has some experience under his belt.

I get the sense that Batman 2 will be an ensemble piece; we'll see Penguin, Joker, and Riddler all in villainous supporting roles. Reeves has at least earned some narrative trust to put out a movie with more than one bad guy.

[Tyndmyr]

That is probably the least charitable way to interpret the ending, in my opinion.

Some things are left open for interpretation. Some are not. This doesn't appear to be intended to be a very vague film.

Like, you could always say "What if all the events in the movie are just a dream" but unless that's actually specifically brought up as an option, what does that interpretation add to the narrative? We have to work with what we are actually shown.

Spoiler: Ending

Show

It's honestly hard to speculate exactly what form of superheroism that Batman will have if and when there is a sequel (there probably will be). That being said, I think it's fair to assume that he'll still be hunting down and punching criminals while also spending time helping out civilians as Batman and/or Bruce Wayne.

It is not difficult to speculate that Batman will be superheroing in sequels by being a ninja fist-detective hybrid, pretty much like always. If there's one thing that DC is good at doing, it's resetting back to the same basic archetypes, no matter what came before.

Skipping the spoiler on this, because I expect this speculation to surprise exactly nobody.

Does this inherently limit character growth? Sure. There are things that can be done, but the need for sequels has always somewhat limited the kind of stories the big name supes tell, or they get told anyways, but the consequences are undone. That's an ol' comic book thing.

My point is that the film isn't saying that 'superheroing is a bad idea'. The takeaway for Bruce is that 'if I want to be a superhero, I can't just be an emo thug who beats on people in alleys'.

Yes, and...this is not a very deep lesson for Batman to learn. It's one that is already part of the character, and it's hardly novel. This is quite well trod ground.

[warty goblin]

Again, I don't mind DC heroes making mistakes. What I'm against are the sheer body counts when they screw up, which seem astronomically high, and I think it's out of a misguided need to make DC movies "dark" instead of truly heroic and uplifting like they deserve to be. Like, if Batman is some super-detective, that's not saying he can't be wrong, but it's saying that he should figure it out quickly enough to save more lives than he does.

See, that's the thing though, in a lot of ways I found this more uplifting, or maybe more accurately inspiring, than something that didn't go as dark. It felt honest to me, because it was willing to be bleak, to say things are bad, they're gonna get worse, but progress is possible.

It also gave the movie actual dramatic stakes, because failure is possible and means something. If/when they make a sequel, the bad guy can be actually menacing, because I can believe he is genuinely capable of causing harm. I trust the director to allow bad things to happen, which means I trust the story to not to cheat.

Like, Winter Soldier was one of the darker and grittier Marvel movies, and what deaths did occur largely stayed inside SHIELD. The heroes still stopped the helicarriers from actually firing on innocent people. If that were a DC movie, half of Gotham would be riddled with bullets before Batman shut even one of them down.

If Winter Soldier has grit, I'll need to reevaluate my standards for sandpaper to include moist towelettes.

This is a good example of lack of stakes. Oh no, looks like we've been accidentally working with stealth super-nazis! What will happen now? Answer, effectively nothing that matters, we will win because hero, or technobabble, or something.

At some point because the threat is always averted I conclude the movies are bluffing. Which just leaves the tedious "drama" of the smug heroes quipping at each other and oh please kill me I got tired if this in like Season 5 of Buffy.

I disagree with that; their consequences just get shown in subsequent movies. For example, Cap dismantling SHIELD led to the Iron Legion, which led to Ultron, which led to destroying Sokovia, which led to Zemo, which led to Civil War, which led to Thanos rolling in unopposed against a fragmented team, which led to the Snap. Or Spiderman's trusting nature led to Edith falling into the wrong hands, which led to hid identity being exposed by Mysterio, which led to his friends' lives being ruined, which led to getting help from Doctor Strange, which led to the multiversal spell going awry, which led to Aunt May getting killed.

I guess I just don't find those to really be consequences. They're more drama to be sure, but it's just more second act defeat followed by the painfully inevitable third act victory. Anything bad that happens will be undone, the heroes always look good no matter the absolute narrative BS that must be pulled to get us there, and we'll be back at a universe that feels functionality the same by credits. I'm so bored.

Marvel is able to do that because they have another strength the DC movies currently lack, continuity.

If the price of continuity the inability to actually do anything new, drown continuity in the sink.

[Clertar]

If the price of continuity the inability to actually do anything new, drown continuity in the sink.

I would counter that the MCU has been the main trailblazer in modern blockbusters, and still is to this day. Multiple approaches that we're now seeing other franchises jump on and adopt were innovated first by Marvel.

Cinematic universes? Marvel started it. Superheroes mixed with genre film? Also Marvel (Winter Soldier). Comedy superhero films? Also Marvel (Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor 3). Big crossover film? Also Marvel (Avengers, Endgame, etc). Gritty superheroes dealing with dark issues? Also Marvel (Daredevil, Jessica Jones). Gritty superheroes dealing with big social issues? Also Marvel (Luke Cage, Black Panther).

Just to name a few. Now I am not saying that all innovation has come from Marvel. Eg. high concept superhero property that screws with audiences' minds was done very well in Legion well before WandaVision, for instance.

But Marvel has been pushing forward and setting the bar for a decade and a half now, they're doing something new as much as anyone, if not more. And we're about to see a Sam Raimi Doctor Strange movie, Thor 4, Wakanda Forever, Moon Knight, Ms Marvel... All of these will be pretty different from one another I should think.

[Kyberwulf]

IN regards to Riddler knowing who batman is. It is in his character to keep that he knows a secret. The whole PLOT of the movie is him knowing something and making people dance to try guess what he knows. Him just going, oh by the way, Bruce Wayne is Batman, is randomly out of character for him.

Did he try kill Bruce Wayne,... really? For all the other guys he went through Saw Levels of kill these guys.. but for Bruce Wayne he sends a letter?

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the movie is really just a generic, LOOK it's ARTSIE kind of movie.

Not that He played a bad Batman, but does anyone else thing they miscast Edward as Bruce Wayne. When he was on screen in his human suit, he gave off The Crow vibes.

[warty goblin]

I would counter that the MCU has been the main trailblazer in modern blockbusters, and still is to this day. Multiple approaches that we're now seeing other franchises jump on and adopt were innovated first by Marvel.

Cinematic universes? Marvel started it. Superheroes mixed with genre film? Also Marvel (Winter Soldier). Comedy superhero films? Also Marvel (Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor 3). Big crossover film? Also Marvel (Avengers, Endgame, etc). Gritty superheroes dealing with dark issues? Also Marvel (Daredevil, Jessica Jones). Gritty superheroes dealing with big social issues? Also Marvel (Luke Cage, Black Panther).

I get that argument, but to me pretty much every single Marvel movie feels 95% identical to every other Marvel movie. The only exceptions are the first half of Black Panther before it regrettably turns into a normal Marvel movie, and probably 80% of Infinity War, because watching Thanos not care about the Avengers' inane lunchroom drama and clobber them right in their smarmy faces is hilarious. I'll give Wandavision credit right up until the end, which I thought was a reall wimp-out, and did the least interesting thing possible with an inventive premise. Winter Soldier is kinda a spy movie I guess, but like a D-tier James Bond at best. I recall Guardians of the Galaxy was funny, but I'm incapable of conjuring up Amy detailed recollection of either of them.

Which is sort of most of the MCU for me, maybe vaguely enjoyable if I keep my brain 100% turned off, so they all kinda melt into a homogeneous morass of samey action, awful color grading, and smarmy heroes quipping away, forever. I've never been able to care about any of the heroes to the point of having a favorite, or caring what happens to them.

It's not that I hate Marvel movies, they don't even conjure enough of a reaction to hate. If I go to see one that's fine, but if I never watched one again I wouldn't care in the slightest. I'm sure they'll keep churning out new things, and maybe one of these days they'll do something I find really engaging, but it hasn't happened yet. I got bored part way through Iron Man, and that hasn't really changed since.

With The Batman I was 100% engaged right from the word go, up until about the second unneccessary ending. Which was much more than I expected to get out if it. This is a case where the idea of a sequel is genuinely exciting to me, and I would be disappointed if they didn't make another one.

[Psyren]

See, that's the thing though, in a lot of ways I found this more uplifting, or maybe more accurately inspiring, than something that didn't go as dark. It felt honest to me, because it was willing to be bleak, to say things are bad, they're gonna get worse, but progress is possible.

It also gave the movie actual dramatic stakes, because failure is possible and means something. If/when they make a sequel, the bad guy can be actually menacing, because I can believe he is genuinely capable of causing harm. I trust the director to allow bad things to happen, which means I trust the story to not to cheat.
...
This is a good example of lack of stakes. Oh no, looks like we've been accidentally working with stealth super-nazis! What will happen now? Answer, effectively nothing that matters, we will win because hero, or technobabble, or something.
...
I guess I just don't find those to really be consequences.

All I can say to this is that too many DC fans thinking this way is why their movies may be doomed to circle the grimdark drain.

Luckily for you, directors like James Gunn and David Sandberg are rejecting this thesis and trying their damnedest to save your franchise. You should, you know, let them.

If the price of continuity the inability to actually do anything new, drown continuity in the sink.

I find this hilarious given that the DC movies are the ones stagnating currently, minus stuff like The Suicide Squad, WW1 and Shazam as mentioned that are willing to be actually (gasp) heroic. Imagine that!

[warty goblin]

All I can say to this is that too many DC fans thinking this way is why their movies may be doomed to circle the grimdark drain.

Luckily for you, directors like James Gunn and David Sandberg are rejecting this thesis and trying their damnedest to save your franchise. You should, you know, let them.

It's not my franchise, I don't really care if there's more Superman Batman or Wonder Woman movies or whatever because I have no investment in those characters. If they make a good, interesting movie about them, cool. If not, it bothers me no more than any other bad movie.

I hope this specific movie gets a sequel because i liked this specific movie, and I'm interested in where the director goes from here. I'd think this if it didn't involve Batman at all because I don't care about Batman as a thing. Never have, probably never will.

[Tyndmyr]

IN regards to Riddler knowing who batman is. It is in his character to keep that he knows a secret. The whole PLOT of the movie is him knowing something and making people dance to try guess what he knows. Him just going, oh by the way, Bruce Wayne is Batman, is randomly out of character for him.

If true, it makes his whole plan nonsensical.

Did he try kill Bruce Wayne,... really? For all the other guys he went through Saw Levels of kill these guys.. but for Bruce Wayne he sends a letter?

I think that's just a movie error/convenience. After all, if he took the same care and did it personally, well, the movie ends there, one way or the other. And while I clearly think they should have ended this film at least a half hour earlier, for some reason they wanted it to drag on longer.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize the movie is really just a generic, LOOK it's ARTSIE kind of movie.

Not that He played a bad Batman, but does anyone else thing they miscast Edward as Bruce Wayne. When he was on screen in his human suit, he gave off The Crow vibes.

It is that kind of film, yeah.

Overall, I think he made a fine Batman, but a poor Wayne. Wayne is....barely present in this movie, mostly just staring moodily. There's very little for him to, yknow, do.

Spoiler

Show

The one exception is the crossover of his Wayne role to support his Batman persona. That *could* have been an interesting thing to explore, risking his secrecy in order to get the job done. They don't really commit to this, though.

And in this film, it doesn't seem like he even really cares about his identity as Bruce Wayne. It's nothing but a bother to him. This takes the "I am batman" aspect to such an extreme that it undercuts the risk of his secret identity being discovered. Why should we care about the possible loss of his Bruce Wayne anonymity when he so clearly doesn't?

I recall Guardians of the Galaxy was funny, but I'm incapable of conjuring up Amy detailed recollection of either of them.

It's pretty much exactly the same as the newer, better, Suicide Squad film. Which I enjoyed, by the way, but which was definitely something Marvel did first.

The older Suicide Squad, by contrast, was a slog. It also tried to copy GotG, but did so very poorly.

[The Glyphstone]

So thinking with regards to future sequels, hypothetically. In the new style with 'gritty/realistic' Batman, the Bale/Pattinson era, we have seen most of the classic rogues gallery in one form of another. Riddler, Joker, Ra's , Catwoman, Penguin, even Bane (allegedly) have all been re-imagined and adapted to fit the aesthetic. Anarky, Zsaz, and others can be slipped into that grounded mold as well.

But could you do the King of Cold, the Iceman himself, the one and only Mr. Freeze? Is he possible in the minimally cartoonish paradigm we have now?

[Kyberwulf]

so

Two things. I think this movie would have been if they went mask of the Phantasm, or Batman: the Animated series. Where they come up with new original characters. They seem to always want to do some weird thing about class warfare with batman. They turn a lot of the Rogues gallery into some freedom fighters

Second thing is, They should turn Batman into some kind of British serial. Kind of like Sherlock Holmes. Where they can actually focus on story arcs without trying to shove them into a 2-3hour movie.

[Beleriphon]

So thinking with regards to future sequels, hypothetically. In the new style with 'gritty/realistic' Batman, the Bale/Pattinson era, we have seen most of the classic rogues gallery in one form of another. Riddler, Joker, Ra's , Catwoman, Penguin, even Bane (allegedly) have all been re-imagined and adapted to fit the aesthetic. Anarky, Zsaz, and others can be slipped into that grounded mold as well.

But could you do the King of Cold, the Iceman himself, the one and only Mr. Freeze? Is he possible in the minimally cartoonish paradigm we have now?

I can see Freeze working, with less cold suit and more cold obsessions.

Hugo Strange would work as well, especially if a sequel took a more psychological thriller feel.

[Tvtyrant]

So thinking with regards to future sequels, hypothetically. In the new style with 'gritty/realistic' Batman, the Bale/Pattinson era, we have seen most of the classic rogues gallery in one form of another. Riddler, Joker, Ra's , Catwoman, Penguin, even Bane (allegedly) have all been re-imagined and adapted to fit the aesthetic. Anarky, Zsaz, and others can be slipped into that grounded mold as well.

But could you do the King of Cold, the Iceman himself, the one and only Mr. Freeze? Is he possible in the minimally cartoonish paradigm we have now?

I don't think it would be that hard honestly. He's a guy who dies from getting hot who wears power armor and tortures people. Make the armor a government weapon suit and he was one of the engineers who stole it and it's done.

I would just go ham on that since government corruption seems to be the focus of the setting. US government weapon lab, he is messed up from an experiment there and his wife died during it. He wants to save her, setting is otherwise the same and he acts emotionless while engaging in sadistic acts.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I think I downloaded the wrong Batman movie...

[hungrycrow]

I think I downloaded the wrong Batman movie...

No, I think you definitely found the right one.

[Psyren]

Friend took me to see it. Thankfully they paid

I agree with the comments that it was way too long, but that's a consequence of them getting to the logical endpoint and realizing "oh crap, we need a big fight scene at the end otherwise it was just Batman being a bad detective for 2 hours."

My biggest criticism of this one is that very little of it feels like it needed Batman. You could have put any vigilante in here.

Spoiler

Show

He uses exactly two gadgets the entire runtime (three if you count his grappling hook). The villains are far more scared of the Riddler than they are of him. Other than Gordon, all the police hate him until suddenly they don't. He barely saves anyone. He messes up two of the key riddles. And even the fight scenes are pretty dull (I think Catwoman's was actually the best one.) The fights in Netflix's Daredevil beat the pants off everything in this movie. (But I guess that's to be expected when apparently Alfred trained this version instead of the League of Shadows??)

It is that kind of film, yeah.

Overall, I think he made a fine Batman, but a poor Wayne. Wayne is....barely present in this movie, mostly just staring moodily. There's very little for him to, yknow, do.

Not to mention his awful treatment of Alfred.

And Bruce doesn't just do nothing for the plot, he does nothing you'd expect his character to do either.

Spoiler

Show

No lavish high society parties to feel out the corrupt officials, no meeting with Lucius to come up with new toys, no struggle between his identities at all beyond a few snide remarks from Alfred that he ignores. Riddler hates him, not because he is in any way acting like the other 1%ers Riddler has targeted, but because he got a lot of news coverage in the wake of Thomas and Martha's death.

[Bartmanhomer]

I don't mind The Batman movie was almost 3 hours long.

[Dragonus45]

Friend took me to see it. Thankfully they paid

I agree with the comments that it was way too long, but that's a consequence of them getting to the logical endpoint and realizing "oh crap, we need a big fight scene at the end otherwise it was just Batman being a bad detective for 2 hours."

My biggest criticism of this one is that very little of it feels like it needed Batman. You could have put any vigilante in here.

Yea a lot of the traditional modern trappings of Batman were missing from the story in that sense, but I also think that if you tried this with anyone other then Bruce Wayne you would have to change enough of the story that he felt necessary.

And Bruce doesn't just do nothing for the plot, he does nothing you'd expect his character to do either.

Spoiler

Show

No lavish high society parties to feel out the corrupt officials, no meeting with Lucius to come up with new toys, no struggle between his identities at all beyond a few snide remarks from Alfred that he ignores. Riddler hates him, not because he is in any way acting like the other 1%ers Riddler has targeted, but because he got a lot of news coverage in the wake of Thomas and Martha's death.

Spoiler

Show

I agree that a lot of that was missing, but I also think that it was deliberately conspicuous in it's absence as a story choice. If Bruce were properly thinking about things and leveraging who he was outside of the costume instead of being so focused on his brooding violence he could have figured out everything the Riddler did and more and done it much faster. Literally his first scene out of costume and the first thing Alfred says the whole movie is taking him to task for not keeping track of the finances of the Wayne family and if he was willing to go to those meetings more often he might have noticed the Renewal Fund being pillaged. For me, I think this is a complaint where I really have to see what happens to him in the sequel and to see if this is something that is going somewhere or just an omission.

[Psyren]

Yea a lot of the traditional modern trappings of Batman were missing from the story in that sense, but I also think that if you tried this with anyone other then Bruce Wayne you would have to change enough of the story that he felt necessary.

Spoiler

Show

I agree that a lot of that was missing, but I also think that it was deliberately conspicuous in it's absence as a story choice. If Bruce were properly thinking about things and leveraging who he was outside of the costume instead of being so focused on his brooding violence he could have figured out everything the Riddler did and more and done it much faster. Literally his first scene out of costume and the first thing Alfred says the whole movie is taking him to task for not keeping track of the finances of the Wayne family and if he was willing to go to those meetings more often he might have noticed the Renewal Fund being pillaged. For me, I think this is a complaint where I really have to see what happens to him in the sequel and to see if this is something that is going somewhere or just an omission.

I can certainly buy "he was a bad Batman in this movie to set the stage for him being a better one in The Batman 2." I don't find it particularly satisfying but it's plausible.

He himself says that crime has gone up in his 2 years of being Batman which supports that.

[Dragonus45]

I can certainly buy "he was a bad Batman in this movie to set the stage for him being a better one in The Batman 2." I don't find it particularly satisfying but it's plausible.

He himself says that crime has gone up in his 2 years of being Batman which supports that.

Even if there was never a second movie I think this movie was pretty clear in it's presentation of "Bruce was bad at being Batman but the end of the movie shows he recognizes his flaws and wants to move foreword overcoming them/"

[Peelee]

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.

Yeah, lesser characters can't carry major movies. Could you imagine the failure if Marvel tried to make, like, an Iron Man movie, for example?

Getting a clue wrong is pretty common to escalate tension in detective movies, and allow the weaving of another tale. However, in this particular case, they chose to have Batman get really obvious stuff wrong.

Spoiler

Show

Like, I get if he doesn't speak Spanish, but this was a very basic mistranslation. It's not a complex thing, it's "el rata alada" and Batman doesn't understand that Spanish uses "el" and "la" as gendered terms. That's such a basic thing that even I, and I do not speak Spanish, know this.

This is not really top tier detective stuff, here.

I think you know more Spanish than you think. I don't know Spanish and while I know there is a difference, I don't know in what circumstances the difference is and don't even know which is which. "I happen to know this dorcofic thing so the hero should know it" didn't really sell that well for me.

Again, I don't mind DC heroes making mistakes. What I'm against are the sheer body counts when they screw up, which seem astronomically high

You didn't mind half the universe dying because one guy didn't even check enough futures to have a 50/50 shot of getting a winning powerball ticket?

That's not really fair, though, since nobody dies for long in Marvel universe. Except Uncle Ben.

All that being said, I loved it. Villain being half Riddler, half Anarky gives me hope for a full fledged Anarky in the future, but I'm optimistic in general.