The Batman (Matt Reeves) ***spoilers from post 1030***

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118807829#Comment_118807829

In the Court of Owls comic the Bat family is present and they deal with them (in their own solo series), the Batman story has him pretty much going solo for the most part. I didn't watch the animated film but I imagine they adapted a part in the story where Batman confronts Dick about the possibility that he could be an assassin for the Court of Owls without knowing it.

I would say TDK trilogy is grounded in reality absolutely. They gave everything a logical and real world basis. Batman Begins being perhaps the one exception. Something like the Lazarus Pit became a pit in the desert. All the weapons he has are possible, even the batmobile is given the explanation that it can jump and is built like it is as it is a bridging vehicle. While it featured comic book elements they were made more plausible. There's nothing outher worldly about the Nolan trilogy. Reeve's film may be even more grounded in reality based off this film.

A grounded Freeze could in theory work but I wouldn't be expecting him to whip out a freeze ray or be a very physical villain if they are sticking with a realistic tone. His origin story is very dramatic and I think the New 52 take was a bit less fantastical again. I think if you look at the Arkham games they did a good job with him, being an imposing force and in the right circumstances and setting his weapons don't need to be too comic book-y.

As for that video, I think he makes good points. I agree, I don't think the homo-erotic element would be an issue, I think he just mentioned it as for a long time the Seduction of the Innocent book sort of tarred them with that brush. I think the name Dick is okay, I think that was more of a comedic observation. As for why he didn't mention Titans, I haven't watched Titans. Maybe I'm wrong but I think some people feel and I've heard some say that Robin in this doesn't so much feel like the character of Robin but more Batman-lite. I don't know though as I said I haven't watched it. That's a question for Willems. I think the season finale is to do with a narrative he has running through his videos.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118807961#Comment_118807961

The Court of Owls appears in one of a trilogy of animated films. I don’t remember it in detail but I do know that Nightwing in those movies and that the Court of Owls tries to use Robin (Damien) somehow.

I know Nolan’s intent was to make a Batman in the real world but I never saw it that way. If it was meant to be realistic then why did all those trapped police officers emerge from underground clean shaven and in perfect health after six months? :)

Yes he makes good points in that video. I should have said that I did think he was funny by bringing up the homo-erotic relationship and the Dick but they are also issues (though very minor).

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118808076#Comment_118808076

I think that's a bit of a minute detail to focus on for the Nolan trilogy being realistic. They go through the effort of showing them getting supplies to explain it to a certain degree. There's often nitpicks or lapses of logic in films but I don't think that would make them unrealistic films. More akin to saying, why don't they call the police in a horror film, cause then there's no movie. Like why didn't Bane just kill all the cops? Cause then they couldn't make a triumphant return at the end as a grand visual metaphor for law and order returning to Gotham. Nolan's films are often self-aggrandising and at times it leaves logical flaws.

He still went to great lengths to explain how Batman could work in the real world, even explaining how the cape could become rigid through an electric current. Or that Bane doesn't seemingly have strength due to gas mask but that it keeps him from feeling pain and therefore he can push his body to more extremes.

Anyway, I think we've derailed the thread a bit 🤣

pixelburp

I think a lot of Dark Knight Rises' mess of a story is easily explained by it being Nolans' most phoned script of the three Batman films. More concerned with set pieces than stringing a coherent believable story to thread them all together, but the lack of care was more evident. Some of the gaps were bordering on absurd, almost childlike in their simplicity: all the cops, Chris? Like, every single uniform? It was of the "kajillion schmillion" school of writing

FunLover18

I remember loving TDKR in the cinema, thought it was the best Nolan Batman film. I've rewatched it a few times since and it is completely daft with plotholes you could fly the Batwing through.

Brief_Lives

I saw it again there last night... only 2 of us in the cinema.....

so Alfred was in a circus, or is that a joke reference to the military being a circus..

so how was he trained, by ALfred...?

fabulous film, but i realise you have to be into Batman.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809411#Comment_118809411

I missed that reference but circus could be a reference to the British secret service. In Le Carré's spy novel, it is often referred to by that name.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118808895#Comment_118808895

Getting “supplies” doesn’t explain it but the ridiculous goof about the trapped cops (and it it is a goof) isn’t the reason I don’t think of the Bale movies as less realistic. It is simply one - I just didn’t want to spend time listing them because as you rightly point out this thread is not about them. However before I leave that tangent I do want to say that The Dark Knight Rises feels to me like it was written and directed by completely different people to the first two films. I was going to say more but pixelburp summed it all up above much better than I could. The end. :)

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809411#Comment_118809411

The Michael Caine Alfred, the Animated Series Alfred and several comic backstories have Alfred with a military background.

The Caine Alfred was SAS I think.

I took the “circus” comment and Bruce’s reaction to it to mean it was a reference to his time in the British military. However someone pointed out earlier that this Alfred has also been in the British Secret Service - so my guess is that Alfred was referring to that, since he was trying to crack a code when he said it.

pixelburp

IIRC the Alfred in "Gotham", played by Sean Pertwee, had full on action scenes n all. Pertwee being a bit younger to carry off those set pieces probably helped.

Man... remember Gotham? I bailed after one season but the fact that show not only existed but lasted for 5 seasons remains amazing. I had heard it increasingly went off the rails into full comic bonkers'ness.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809509#Comment_118809509

Yup, I heard him say it and immediately thought of that; the moniker used to mean MI5/6.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809537#Comment_118809537

I wasn't saying that is explains everything but more that they made some (albeit weak) attempt to explain them being okay underground. I mean the alternative is what, show them washing their clothes, shaving or devoting more time to a minor subplot in an already two and a half hour film. Again I will go to bat (pun intended) that the Bale movies are far more grounded and realistic than most comic book movies and I think most would agree. Plot holes don't make a movie less grounded in reality, it just points to bad or inconsistent writing.

I do agree incidentally that TDKR is way under the levels of Begins or TDK, although I enjoyed it more than I did previously on a rewatch after not seeing it in years. It features a lot of the hallmarks of some of Nolan's lesser work. Shame we didn't get more of Serkis' Alfred in the new film.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809624#Comment_118809624

The success of Gotham is something I never could understand. Tried on three separate occasions to make it through Season 1 and couldn't. Not sure about some of the upcoming Batman without Batman shows we're slated to get.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809649#Comment_118809649

I never said you said it explains everything.

And regardless that it is a goof it is a part of the story. The trapped cops emerge as though almost no time has past and are fit to go into battle. This is not not realistic. Hence, it is a fantasy element of the story.

The League of Shadows, the Scarecrow gas (is it a gas? I can’t remember), Dent’s injuries and that he can still function, etc.

The Nolan films have a “real world” setting and the Bat-gadgets have scientific explanations and the Batmobile is a working vehicle but there is an equal level of pure fantasy.

The Batman is also a fantasy but several elements make it seem more “real”.

We just are not going to agree. That is okay.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809649#Comment_118809649

I couldn’t get through the first few episodes.

James Gordon is supposed to be a good man and an incorruptible police officer. In the first episode he pretends to kill a guy so that a criminal doesn’t kill him. That makes him look corrupt. Plus the actor often looked like he wanted to murder someone.

The corrupt cop prequel series is not going ahead. The Penguin rise in the underworld show is set before the film so he can’t cross paths with Batman since it is his meeting and Batman doesn’t need to be a part of it. I think the plan for Arkham Asylum is each episode to focus on different inmate and I assume some will be know Batvillains and for it to be a horror show inside the building. Batman can be occasionally mentioned and referenced since he will have apprehended some of the patients. Both shows can easily work without showing Batman and not be “no Batman” shows.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809411#Comment_118809411

...

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809873#Comment_118809873

The League of Shadows has no supernatural basis like they do in the comics as the League of Assassins.

Scarecrow's Gas is a hallucinogenic gas, such things exist. In fact they literally show you that it comes from a natural flower.

People have survived horrific injuries including facial burns. They make a point to say that he is refusing medical attention. He would likely die over time from infection, then again there isn't much time between when he gets burned and ultimately dies so that is not a factor. As for his functions, technically possible although unlikely.

I think you're missing my point that the fact they made attempts to explain these is what makes it more grounded in reality.

While we won't agree, I just don't see how you can equate cops surviving and having clean clothes underground as the film being a 'fantasy' if you view films through this lens a lot of films are fantastical. Not to mention, the easy answer to that is that just because something is not seen on screen doesn't mean it doesn't occur in the subtext. We don't know what supplies they were given, we don't know the intricacies of them being underground, maybe they found running water, maybe there was areas sunlight got in. I can't believe I'm having to defend the dumbest part of the movie here. The idea though that this scene alone makes the film, fantastical though is just not reasonable though. I would definitely not agree that there is an equal part of TDK trilogy that is fantastical and realistic though. Again this debate started about Robin so I don't know how we got to here. Maybe it's our definitions of 'fantasy' or where were are coming from as realistic. I'm talking about how Nolan's trilogy took some of the more fantastical (comic book-y) things about Batman and tried to give them a real world basis.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118809952#Comment_118809952

I'm aware of the status of the new shows. I don't think they're particularly interesting concepts though. The Penguin we get in this isn't really the Penguin yet, so we're meant to be interested in watching a character become the number two in a criminal gang? What separates this from being a standard procedural with a pointless Batman connection?

The Arkham show seems largely pointless as a series. I don't imagine any major villain is going to be introduced in the show as they'll save that for the film series. So we have villains talking about how they were apprehended? Does that really make for a compelling show? Is it just going to be villains fighting cops? That will get a little stale, no? Maybe I'm just cynical but I think it will largely be inconsequential to this Batman universe, this just screams of worldbuilding that probably won't be reflected on the big screen, that people will watch cause it's in the world of The Batman. My point is how do you make this show work without Batman? Is it really going to be majorly building anything up for this universe? I'm interested but pretty skeptical.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118810065#Comment_118810065

An ancient secret order of assassins who regularly destroy cities and civilisations?

not a fantasy?

I will agree on the gas. Plus I have dreams more freaky than the films nightmare visions without being exposed to drugs or gas.

I have already said that the ridiculousness if the trapped cops was just element and I didn’t want to to off tangent further but listing them but I did - you bringing up the cops again and really going out of the way to try explain something that the filmmakers didn’t have the sense to see was just stupid.

If you have to “defend” a movie then you don’t have faith in the movie. No one asked you “defend” a gaping plot hole. You are the one making a big deal of it.

Penguin in the movie is the Penguin. He is just on the verge of being great. The series will detail how he got to his point in the film and maybe what he does next.

Batman doesn’t need to the one in Gotham who capture all the mad and wicked. And he doesn’t need to be a series about what happens next to the ones he caught. IF the show also covers events outside the Asylum then test it can show cops arresting people or show the shadow of Batman as he captures the character the episode is about.

You are talking a negative view of shows the that you doesn't even have details for.

And what is wrong with world building? It might add something to next movie of Batman encounters one of the characters from the Asylum or mentions a case and we know “okay that woman is in that episode”. Maybe the Arkham series can have an epidemic about Dano and Keoghan?

maybe neither show will go to production. Maybe they will disappoint us. Maybe they’ll be great and you you think “I shouldn’t have been so negative” :)

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned the Nolan trilogy is not as “realistic” as people say. It just isn’t. You don’t seem the type to need to change my mind so I don’t know why that is a big deal.

And I really would much rather talk about Reeves film here. I don’t mean but talk about the other but I never intended to spend those posts on all that.

EDIT: and I also did not intend to respond with such a long post. Am I the only one who loses time when posting on boards.ie? I think it was before 5pm when I started typing :p

ThePott

I'm not going to get into a big debate, I'd rather move on than drag this out further. Again as I said, they took the supernatural component out of the League of Shadows to make it more grounded. Secret societies do exist and have, again as I said, pointing to something that is not an everyday occurence as fantastical makes just about every work of fiction fantastical.

You say I keep bringing up the cops underground, you brought it up initially. I just think that using that as a basis for saying the films don't have a more realistic tone is ridiculous. I'm "defending" it on those grounds, it's dumb and I don't like it but using a plot hole to say a film is fantastical is silly. Also ironically you saying I'm explaining something the filmmakers didn't is exactly what you're doing by saying "it's fantastical". Which is just handwaving away any issue with the scene. It doesn't make sense but it's a fantasy. I'm just offering a counterpoint that you're saying how are they clean/fit etc. is never addressed but neither is it proven impossible in the context of the film, hence why I mentioned subtext. I've brought up multiple instances to show areas where they deliberately made the film more realistic compared to the comic book origins of the character.

As for the shows. I don't know why you're taking it so personally, it's my opinion. They just don't do anything for me but I hope I'm wrong and they're good.

Penguin is hardly the character we know in the Batman though. It's him in his early years, same as Batman. What benefit is there from going backwards from the point we first met him? We'll see how he got the Iceberg lounge? Why he pursued a life of crime? None of these are questions that need answering. Same as how we don't need a humanising story or origin for every movie monster. Not to mention, as much as I didn't like Gotham from what I saw they did the Penguin well. I just don't think it's a character that needs a spin-off. It reeks of what every studio is doing now which is banking content for a streaming service necessary or not.

World building is fine when it has consequences and not just a nodd and wink, otherwise it's hollow fanservice. I'm sorry but I don't think there is a chance in hell that WB are going to have the reveal of one of their next major villains in an Arkham series and then put them as the focus of one of the movies. If anyone thinks this series is where they give us the first look at the Joker in this universe they are delusional. People will show up to cinemas for that character same with most of the Batman villains you can name. WB have a history of not letting characters they see as having a cinematic future show up on TV, why we only actually got "The Joker" in the finale of Gotham and the rest of the time was them teasing it could be him. I don't know how any of the possibilities you mentioned can excite you for an Arkham show though. Like hinting that the Batman is in this universe isn't interesting cause we already know he is. What do the villains do in Arkham? Scheme to get out probably, what's interesting about that? Not to mention is there any real tension if these characters show up again if a) Batman has defeated them already or b) the cops didn't even need Batman.

I go into everything I see with an open mind, on paper I think it's a bad idea. You're going off the same information I have and seem to be excited for them, more power to you. I can paraphrase your quote back to you "You are talking a Positive negative view of shows the that you don't doesn't even have details for." By that logic our arguments are exactly as valid. We're not gonna agree on the Nolan stuff. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

pixelburp

I'd say the most likely scenario is the Arkham series will feature a gaggle of "lesser" villains, but as ThePott says there's not a snowflake in héll's chance we'll meet Two-Face, Joker, Harley or any of the Top Tier villains. Maybe there'll be some edge-cases like Dr. Freeze Clayface (redrawn as a psychotic actor who had too much plastic surgery, his face held together with putty ala Michael Jackson?), who you could quibble are Top Tier - but more likely we'll see some versions of Calendar Man, Scarface etc, portrayed as grounded, broken people. And based on this film, seems there's no appetite or interest in the supernatural or openly science-ficitonal.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118810719#Comment_118810719

That is a long post for something you are not getting into a big debate about. If I read it I’m going to be feel that I should answer because you went to the effort of typing all that out and this is just going to on and on. There is no fun in the conversation - if there is no fun the. What is the point?

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118812613#Comment_118812613

I don’t think I said that it could feature “top tier villains” (other than Joker and Riddler who are already there - just used it as idea for what it could be about). But didn’t Gotham use the top villains? If they allowed that show to do then why not this? As long as the character isn’t going to be in the movies then why not? isn’t Arkham where Joker “corrupts” Harley ?

It may not even use known Batvillains.

Reeves and Pattinson have said they are interested in using Calendar Man in a film so even lesser known members of the rogues gallery might be off limits.

They have also mentioned wanting to to use Mr. Freeze so there is an interest in the science fiction characters (but I imagine they’d adjust them to fit their world like he attacks people using liquid nitrogen).

I enjoyed Gotham* and glad I stuck to it. I really liked their take on the riddler, penguin and the mad hatter.

*Fish Mooney can get in the sea though. The worst acting I’ve ever seen on anything that had a bigger budget than a mars and a packet of tayto.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118812734#Comment_118812734

I wasn't replying to you directly: just speculating on what we might or could see in a show set within Arkham; the reason why I'd not expect to see the more famous villains is that these spin-offs can be one-directional in terms of what each series/film has access to. Gotta keep the big ticket items for the megabucks movies.

Films tend to be lowest common denominator in terms of characters, plotting etc. whereas Gotham was its own thing, its own universe, so got to use whatever it wanted from the toybox. I'd expect a leeriness to make any TV show required viewing to be up to speed on any future film sequels. Even the MCU, probably the most intentionally interconnected universe out there, has been slow to make the TV a prerequisite for understanding any of the films. There's no even a sense of that changing. So I'd be genuinely surprised if any Batman TV show dived into the Big Ticket characters.

Penn

Finally got to see this yesterday. Really enjoyed it. Pattinson, Kravitz and Dano were utterly terrific. Farrell was great too, though with the level of prosthetics etc, can't help but wonder if someone else could have done an equally good job. Jeffrey Wright was good, but wasn't really given a lot to do.

The story and how they managed to make the riddles work was really well done. My biggest gripe were a few missed opportunities. Bruce learns his father was involved with the mob, was involved in a journalists death etc, and it's instantly disregarded by Alfred. And after Riddler is caught and they find the videos he made to his followers, he kinda went from chilling to "Hey best friends, don't forget to like and subscribe and kill everyone!" Batman being absolutely wrecked with a shotgun right to the chest was also kinda weak. He let himself be shot in the chest far too much in the film anyway, and he just walked right towards a guy with a shotgun. Him getting absolutely lamped by the bridge during his GCPD escape too was a bit needless.

None of that detracted from my overall enjoyment of the film. Dark and gritty without going the BvS route of Batman straight up just murdering goons. No adding in stuff about Bruce dealing with Wayne Enterprise stuff which, although it can be good to see the dichotomy between Batman and Bruce, just wasn't needed in this film. Making Batman more of a detective worked really well, as did jumping ahead to see him already working with Gordon.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118812694#Comment_118812694

It was a long post to address all your points in the previous post? Should I not have addressed your points? Agreed, done. Move on.

As pixelburp is saying, I think the actualy connectivity between the shows and the movies is yet to be seen and I don't think for a second that they're gonna give away their best stuff on TV if they're trying to sell their movies because the day the general audiences think they get the better experience watching it on TV as opposed to watching it in the cinema then the franchise will be in trouble. There's already concern that putting the film on HBO Max early could damage its legs. We should also remember that the TV shows are more than likely going to be supplemental as opposed to pivotal, they don't want to scare people away by saying you need to watch 2 seasons of a show (minimum) to see the new film. I've already had two people ask me this about The Batman incidentally, if you need to have seen "any of the other ones".

As for Gotham, I think a lot of the villains were half-formed and didn't really seem like the villains and if they did become their full villains it was only at the very end of the run. I know for some DC shows, notably the CW shows certain characters weren't allowed be as pivotal as the shows wanted. No Batman, Superman only came on the table recently, No Green Lantern, no Harley Quinn. On Gotham they had a 'Harley Quinn like' character and same with the Joker. Maybe that will change with HBO Max but it remains to be seen.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118815566#Comment_118815566

You said you didn’t even want to be having the conversation so why the long posts “addressing points”. You addressed the same points in previous posts and I responded and it just repeated itself. I had already moved on which is why I didn’t want to read the previous post. I’m glad you have moved on too.

MOR316

Not getting into a debate but, the cops underground in TDKR, Bane specifically says they'll be fed, clothed, watered and supplied with what they need. The intention wasn't to kill them, it was to break the spirit of Gotham as he and LoS believed it to be a corrupt shithole.

Essentially, he was having fun before blowing the place up.

You can argue that the cops and Batman to an extent wouldn't have been in shape to battles against the escaped criminals at the end but, you're trapped for months, you're seething with rage, criminals are about to destroy your city etc so we (audience) go along with it.

To put it another way though, if I was trapped for 5 months and someone was messing with my family and friends, I'm not gonna pop to the gym for a few weeks training, I'm gonna go and batter the prick, right away

yourdeadwright

Seen this last night haven't read anything on here yet,

Thought it was brilliant up until the beginning of the end then it was a bit poor for me, still very enjoyable

it went off track to be a truly great movie,

yourdeadwright

IS there a squeal officially due ?

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827630#Comment_118827630

Nothing confirmed but, Reeves and Pattinson basically said, yeah...

I genuinely don't mind them going down The Joker route but, they seriously need to recast Keoghan...

One scene, he can't even be seen so he doesn't even have to act, he's playing one of the most infamous characters in pop culture and he can't even change his **** voice or laugh? Get to ****...

johnny_ultimate

Speak of the devil, there's a deleted scene with Keoghan just been released:

https://youtu.be/FBeccCU_pEE

I think the Joker is just an overdone character in cinema (and clearly shoved into this film as awkward sequel bait), but I also think Keoghan is a damn good actor (doing Ireland proud, alongside the likes of Jessie Buckley) and an ideal fit for the role.