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

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830656#Comment_118830656

You definitely don't need to introduce him in his second year as a crime fighter though and in his second film. Not to mention plenty of Batman stories have worked without Joker being pivotal.

There's plenty of Batman villains, why we keep going back to the same 4 or 5 is beyond me. I understand the corporate reason but creatively it's so overdone. To double down on your Beatles analogy, McCartney did well as part of Wings and as a solo artist and has endured beyond the Beatles. Batman can exist without Joker for a while. To go even further with the Beatles analogy, would they have the same staying power and legacy if they had reunited and (assuming they were all still living) continued to reunite, most would probably argue they wouldn't be as iconic.

Same with Batman and Joker, it's been done to death give it a rest. We know the Joker is in this universe now, if he's one of the major villains in the next one personally my interest drops. I don't agree with saying he should be gone from other mediums either, it's not the same thing. As in the comics it's often a long running version of the character across multiple titles across years, the animated movies normally adapt them or are based on one iteration of the character. The ratio of Joker in live action properties in recent years has skyrocketed and it's hard to get excited for another portrayal as a result.

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830745#Comment_118830745

McCartney done well with Wings... You must be having a laugh 🤣 It was a creative low point

MOR316

Anyways, if you don't Joker then you shouldn't want Superman with Lex.

Joker, he may play a part in future movies in this universe but, he's not going to be a main villain.. Or least I don't think so. My money is on Hush, maybe Mr. Freeze.

The Penguin will be part of the ongoing universe anyways for sure

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830756#Comment_118830756

The band the beatles could have been.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830756#Comment_118830756

I mean, number one I was talking about how he had a lifespan far removed from the Beatles as you used it as if to suggest Batman can't work without the Joker, which he absolutely can. I'm not gonna argue about Wings as a creative success but they were a success and proved that McCartney could succeed without the Beatles. Which was my point.

Seems weird to focus on my Beatles point instead of all the other ones, I wouldn't have gone with a Lennon/McCartney analogy to begin with as I don't think it fits.

arthursway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830674#Comment_118830674

I agree with you.

The action hero movie scene is saturated to with an inch of its life in the last decade.

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830925#Comment_118830925

I didn't take your other points because I, with respect, I'm not taking it seriously, as my last paragraph will explain

"I'm tired of The Joker. There is too much of The Joker. I don't want him in any films but I want him in everything else" That's what you're basically saying

"Batman can work without Joker"

OK so if Reeves decides to go down a route where Arkham prisoners break out, which is really being hinted at, like the AA game, you're telling me that would work without The Joker?

Batman and Joker are intertwined. There is not one without the other. Comic books, Frank Miller of all people, animated series, WB, Rocksteady, Chris Nolan all went to great lenghts to show and say this.

To sum it up, they don't really care if you or me are "fed up" of it because I can guarantee, you and everyone else moaning, that if The Joker is the next main villain (he won't be) you'll still buy a ticket and watch it.

pixelburp

I don't think anyone was naive to think we wouldn't get a new iteration of Joker, but above many other comic characters Batman can boast a fairly phenomenonal bench of villains, both superficial and characterful. We don't know anything about the inevitable sequel - I doubt even Matt Reeves knows for sure - let alone the extent to which Joker might be involved. And if this film's anything to go by Joker won't be the only villain either. But it's poor form to cast disappointment or frustration as moaning IMO; Batman works fine without the Clown Prince, sure doesn't this very film show this?

So I hope given that large roster of compelling villains, sequels give some screen-time to great characters sorely missing from cinematic representation; I suspect Batman and Robin has put a black mark on Mr Freeze, while I'll always have time for Clayface (especially the Animated Series' tragic take), though I suspect he and all the other overtly Sci-Fi villains like Killer Croc or Poison Ivy mightn't get a sniff in this iteration. Not unless they get another lo-fi downgrade ala Riddler. Black Mask might be a bolter given he fits easily into the mob structure. While I don't think any of the movies have gone near Dr Strange yet, himself IMO a solid antagonist.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118831091#Comment_118831091

No what I'm "basically saying" is that I'd be far more excited if we got a film featuring a villain that we hadn't seen done ad nauseam. Will I go see it? Sure but am I going to be excited about another actor taking on the Joker on the big screen for what is now the third time in 6 years, no. How anyone could be excited by the way he was teased in the film and then revealing him in a deleted scene is just odd. You don't have to point out the obvious, they've said the same thing about horror reboots, the people bitching will be the first to buy tickets, doesn't mean it's a good creative choice. You should be more concerned about the casual audience who's going to tire of seeing Batman and the Joker rebooted again.

Saying the Batman and Joker are intertwined (or needing each other) as if it's some grandiose point is ridiculous. Like obviously they are intertwined but that doesn't mean one can't exist without the other. I don't know why you say Frank Miller "of all people" as if his takes haven't informed every Batman on screen since it was rebooted in 2005, of course the Joker would have an influence on that. In fact if anything you're highlighting how much we've been beaten over the head with this point. Why you wouldn't think an Arkham breakout would work without the Joker doesn't make any sense. As if villains breaking out of the asylum isn't literally a trope already or that The Riddler or anyone else couldn't orchestrate a break out despite Batman's rogues gallery being generally fairly intelligent and capable of escape already.

The ending directly hints at Zero Year which barely features the Joker too. The Joker is his biggest villain but acting like you can't tell a decent story without him is dumb when plenty of good Batman stories haven't needed him and he has one of the best rogues galleries in comics. Clearly he's not going to be the sole focus but when you have a villain bench as deep as Batman why bring the Joker back so soon? No one is dumb enough to think the Joker wouldn't be in this universe but do we really need him hinted at immediately?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118831265#Comment_118831265

This 👆️, it's reductive of the character of Batman and his rogues gallery to suggest that he can't work without Joker. Why can't we get Hush? Or Court of Owls? Or any of other villains that haven't made it to screen or been done justice in the films?

Slydice

Yikes! I found that joker creepy! Definitely felt like part of the world they've built.

I'm half imagining they could get Keoghan to do the Red Hood backstory.

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118831329#Comment_118831329

You're shifting the goalposts now completely...

You said you're tired of The Joker. I said Batman and The Joker are intertwined (Which you agreed with and then said it was stupid to say in the very next sentence 🤣 ) and that regardless of whatever universe you create, he is going to be involved and now you're going off on a rant, over a **** deleted scene, that has zero bearing on the sequel...

I never once said you can't tell a good Batman story or create a single movie without The Joker...I said you can't create a Batman universe, over an expanded period of time and not have him included or referenced in some way. Even without his presence, there is always a reference to him! Examples, The Nolan Trilogy...He is referenced in all three and two of them he's not even there!

I also never said Batman can't work without The Joker. I said they're intertwined and if you're telling a story over a period of time, which Reeves is doing, you can't have one without the other, which is true. And as for your Arkham Asylum breakout, ha right OK...The Riddler is going to lead a pack of criminals out of Arkham....Not the most infamous, manipulative and feared villain in The Batman rouges gallery, who has done it numerous times on screen, paper and in gaming...Also, what about if Harley Quinn wasn't The Joker's therapist but, Hugo Strange and he became the main villain in one of the movies, through his work with Arkham inmates like The Joker? There are plenty of uses for The Joker character in this world...He's also not even The Joker yet, as Reeves has said

I said: "YOU CAN'T HAVE A BATMAN UNIVERSE WITHOUT THE JOKER!" I never said you can't have a Batman film without him or anything like that. And you also said in your rant, "No one is dumb enough to think The Joker wouldn't be in this universe"

So you're agreeing with me...Apology accepted.

Finally, it's a deleted scene...If The Joker really was going to be the next main villain, it wouldn't have been thrown out like this. Freeze, Penguin, Hush, Scarecrow and Court of Owls have been touted around. No mention of Joker.

Killer Croc, Deadshot, Deathstroke are never going to be Batman's main villains in a movie. Nothing to do with marketing or anything. Clayface, I'd love to see but never gonna happen as the fans would lose their **** over the CGI. Ivy could work but, you'd need someone alongside her. Two Face would be great again but again, you need someone alongside him. Ventriloquist/Scarface would work alongside Penguin I imagine...

Jervis? Pyg? Nah...Black Mask is or has been practically done with Falcone. Unless he rises too and himself and Penguin are in rival gangs in this universe

MOR316

Watching it again, I can understand why cut this scene, from a story perspective, it shows Batman's internal struggle that Gordan alluded too earlier in the morgue and the similarities between Riddler and Batman. May as well take the viewer by the hand... It would have made the ending scene with Joker & Riddler a whole lot better though

I don't think they're trying to make the character stand out like Jack/Burton or Ledger/Nolan did, I think it's Reeve's Joker, in this universe and he's just there, if that makes sense? (Or least it does in my head)

He is 100% modelled after the Arkham City Joker

El Duda

The Batman – 9/10 (Cinema)

I loved this. The entire film was drenched in a sort of oppressive moodiness from the first frame till the last. It’s so beautifully photographed that it’s like watching a live-action graphic novel. You could take stills from it and easily convert it into one. 

The Se7en style murder mystery plot is exactly what we’ve wanted to see in a Batman film for years. If you take the various aspects of The Riddlers clues/Batman and Gordon’s problem solving and break it down, it’s not exactly up to much. Some of the riddles are a bit silly in fairness, but I didn’t mind as I felt it was more of a mood piece than a Fincher style, forensic crime film. 

I thought Pattinson nailed it and I liked how Reeves flipped it and put The Batman persona front and centre and had Bruce Wayne be the murky oddball who lurks in the shadows. We’ve barely scratched the surface of this version of Bruce Wayne and that adds to my intrigue for the sequel.

The only major gripes I have with it are people standing too close to explosions and an under-written Alfred. Other than that I thought it was superb and the 2 hr, 47minute runtime flew by for me. I can’t wait to see how Reeves follows this up.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118831949#Comment_118831949

I'm not even gonna bother. Cause this is just going to go in circles. So this is my last post on the matter.

I didn't shift any goalposts, you're totally misprepresenting what I said in my "rants". Think whatever you want, introducing the Joker this early is unnecessary, the Batman universe doesn't desperately need him, certainly not immediately. I'd rather see other villains get the focus he would get. Those are my thoughts, sure plenty of people feel the same. You don't, that's fine.

I don't know why you want an apology, on a discussion forum of all places, if you don't want a discussion then why post and if you're getting this worked up over a difference of opinion why bother at all.

Riddle101

Just saw the movie today and thought it was really good. I got a Tim Burton vibe off it which I think is a nice little nod to the classic films. I also like that they showed Batman's detective prowess in the films more too, which I think is something that the previous films lacked. Also, the casting was good, and the costumes blew my mind. I mean Colin Farrel's Penguin is some of the best makeup effects I've ever seen in a movie. He really doesn't look like Colin Farrel. Paul Dano is always a delight to watch, and Robert's Batman was an interesting take on the Batman character. He really nailed the dark and brooding nature of the character.

The Bollocks

Emo Batman load of shite. Dragged the bollocks out of it too. Farrell was the best thing about it. 6/10

pixelburp

Farrell's prosthetics really were something to behold and I'd be curious to rationalise what the difference here was compared with other, much more obvious cases of actors wearing rubber. Jared Leto's recent turn as Paulo Gucci drew mockery and comment. Maybe it's down to the performance behind the latex, I dunno but Farrell hardly played things nuanced either, his Cobblepott a big, brash gangster type.

growleaves

Batman in the New Orleans Superdome. Yikes.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118837522#Comment_118837522

Totally different performances honestly a world away from each other. Farrell was in a comic book film, Leto was playing a real person horrendously badly, zero relation to what he looked or sounded like in real life.

Gwynplaine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118830190#Comment_118830190

Brutal, I turned it off after about 2 minutes.

Going to Batman again some night this week

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118835523#Comment_118835523

Apology accepted. I'll be the bigger man and drop it 😎

Sirsok

With all of Batmans detective work in the film you would think he would investigate where those photos of the Mayor coming out of the lounge were taken from.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118844488#Comment_118844488

This was the part of the storytelling that most frustrated; the film tried to play this big reveal that - shock, who'd have thought it - the Riddler was holed up in that apartment (block) ... from which those photos outside the lounge were obviously taken. I'm usually the type who kinda misses plot holes and inconsistencies til they're pointed out - or I twig it about a week later. I definitely get lost in the spectacle of things. But I do remember sitting in the cinema thinking "wait, THAT'S where he was all this time?? Did nobody think to check? Given this Riddler guy clearly likes winding games"

I know the film was trying to portray this Batman as a WIP and a bit of a hot mess ... but the script really didn't do enough to convince this guy even hinted at the Greatest Detective moniker: the "riddles" he solved were no better than those form Batman Forever; the great reveal in the last act pure fluke, because of the cop he was with; and even the cypher (IIRC) was in part solved because of Alfred. I think Matt Reeves was so focused on this tortured Bruce, and the deep thematic look of the thing (and no question, this remains a handsome feature), he forgot to give the script a once over to make Batman seem like someone worth soliciting.

The Dark Knight achieved this quite simply, during the middle act, when Batman figured out the source of a bullet through ... well, detective work. Searched the crime scene then used some "science" and money to figure out the source of the bullet.

Stone Deaf 4evr

I enjoyed it for the most part, the one thing that didnt sit right with me though - why was he such a d1ckhead towards alfred?

Sonics2k

Posting this very interesting image below on an imgur link so it's not spoiled.

https://imgur.com/a/Ba8iajD

Slydice

HBO getting a trailer as it's showing up there on Monday..

The Batman | Official Trailer | HBO Max

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7_mH2PWHs

dublinman1990

The deleted scene showing Barry Keoghan as The Joker, that is available online, is not the only deleted scene for the movie.

There are more deleted scenes that will be included for the Blu-ray release of this movie which is due to be out sometime in late May.

The main thing from this news though we don't know how many deleted scenes are included in this physical release as of yet. More information will be included at a later date.

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/the-batman-blu-ray-special-features-deleted-scenes/

klose

Finally got around to catching this last night, must say the hype was real and a gripping watch. Really liked the gritty real tone the film set and the world building was on point. Nice change from the dark Knight trilogy which was ridden with tech and in this its largely batman a couple gadgets and his fists. Excited to see what reeves and co can offer up in another installment.

fritzelly

I'm only just over an hour into the film and I'm bored, could rewatch the Nolan films over and over but I'm struggling with this and Pattison doesn't do it for me as Batman, or maybe doesn't do it for me as Wayne

Hoping it gets better

Well that was utterly disappointing

Far too long for an insubstantial script - 1½ hours would be more than enough

Pattison is too puny for Batman

I'm going to flood the city - everyone under 2 feet of water saying ok...

No sense of doom or impending threat

Why does he wear eye shadow when not batman?

Far too friendly with the police - supposed to work alone in the night, not being all pally with the local cops

Catwoman story was totally unnecessary - only dragged the film out even more

As for the riddles why make it about the Riddler when you are gonna solve all the riddles in 2 seconds???

Lots more issues...

Cannot believe this film got such an high score, seen references to Seven, not even close to that film - will have to rewatch The Dark Knight to scrub my memory of this rubbish

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118941703#Comment_118941703

"Why does he wear eye shadow when not Batman"

Every Batman before him has worn eyeshadow under the mask and it mysteriously disappears when they take it off. I liked seeing that bit of realism personally.

flasher0030

Wow. Watched it yesterday. Really enjoyed it. The 3 hours flew by. Robert Pattinson really nailed it. Christian bale was also excellent. But Pattinson brought something extra - that element of Bruce Wayne being psychologically scarred. And therefore an angry Batman. Loved that element of it.

woukd definitely give it a rewatch. I’d have it easily on par with the Dark knight. I thought the music really led to the tension. Especially “something in the way’

Brief_Lives

I am lucky enough to have a HBO Max account, so will be watching this again tonight. As for the poster who asked "why is there a catwoman"??? for shame. A brilliant character brought to life by Zoe Kravitz. Almost as good as Michelle Pfieffers version.

Watched it last night, enjoyed it a lot. Pattison is a very good Batman, the rest of the cast is excellent, and the music is fantastic. It is long, but I didn’t think it dragged as much as the recent Bond film. This is a different, more detective themed take on Batman rather than a purely beat em up based hero. They finished on a good note, introducing the joker, and keeping the Penguin alive.

DrZeuss

I thought this was a good film but not great, and the problem is I am comparing this film to both Begins and Dark Knight which are films that upon first viewing could almost instantly be re-watched. I didn't get that sense with The Batman.

The first 20 minutes were amazing, the tone was set and we knew what Batman we were getting. A broken, lost soul and possibly willing to go too far to fix Gotham. But I feel after this it started to drag and should possibly have finished around the 90/105 minute mark (if I recall there felt like an ending spot there). It felt every minute of its runtime to me.

I would like to see a sequel, but as mentioned a few times back I don't think it should be another Joker (unless Phoenix is cast), and I don't think I'll be re-watching this anytime soon either.

flasher0030

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118945956#Comment_118945956

The Batman is miles better than Batman Begins. I wouldn't rewatch Begins if I was paid to do so. I'd happily watch The Batman right now (saw it 3 days ago). I'd equate The Batman to The Dark Night alright. That was also top-notch.

DrZeuss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118946454#Comment_118946454

Oh I wouldn't have it anywhere close to Begins or Dark Knight, its better than Dark Knight Rises alright. I personally thoroughly enjoyed the origin story aspect of Begins and while most seem to regard TDK as the best I still find Begins is the one I return to the most.

Differing opinions is good though, or we would all be watching the same film repeated.

flasher0030

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118946578#Comment_118946578

True about differing opinions.

I seem to have taken a dislike to Batman begins. It's a while ago since I watched it. But I think a lot of it is set out in the mountains where he is growing up and doing training etc. I found thaty really tedious. And then when a bit of action sets in, I though The Scarecrow was a pure waste of space. Didn't think he was any good as a villain. However, the riddler was menacing with a capital M. And for me, Bale was good. But I think Pattinson absolutely nails it altogether. To be honest, I didn't think he would. But then again, it's probably one of the easier roles to take too. The Bruce Wayne character is constantly forlorn and as The Batman, the actor is practically faceless and just has to be angry the entire time.

Potatoeman

This was too long, three hours is ok for an ending of a series but even then it’s not comfortable for a cinema. They could have ended it when they caught the riddler. It feels like they were trying to cram two movies into one.

He was hardly the greatest detective in the world either. He seemed to miss some basic things.

Snake Plisken

Watched The Batman on HBO Max last night really enjoyed it. A solid and different take on Batman. Still not as great as Nolan's trilogy but I have a lot of faith in Matt Reeves take on Batman and look forward where he takes the franchise.

Btw poster saying he hates Batman Begins, not sure if your trolling but that Movie was everything I wanted in a Batman movie and didn't get from Burtons take on the franchise. A perfect movie from start to finish. I cried tears of joy watching it in the cinema at how epic it was and it still stands up today on repeat viewing

My rankings below

1) Batman Begins.

2) The Dark Knight

3) The Dark Knight Rises

4) The Batman.

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118947491#Comment_118947491

The Dark Knight

Batman Begins

The Batman

Batman

Batman Returns

Batman Forever

daylight

daylight

Batman Returns

Batman & Robin

buried

The world looked absolutely brilliant, seemed physically real and genuine. But then the poor writing takes over and I was taken out the game big-time on a good couple of occasions.

The first section of the film seems to take place in a totally different world to the last section. The first section is absolutely brilliant. Once the car chase was over it quickly descended into a weaker and weaker realm and the entire thing kind of becomes ruined.

The art direction in this is brilliant though, very much like the world of 'Batman' from 1989. Pity it couldn't have kept it up towards the end though, art direction was lost there in the last section too.

pixelburp

Say what you will about the respective quality of each of the films, the Batman franchise has often had distinct visual identities, beyond what you'd normall get from superhero films: from the gothic Burton versions; to the neon vulgarism of Schumacher's iteration; the clean urban Michael Mann inspired landscapes of Nolan's attempts; and now Matt Reeves added his own style with all the blacks & reds of what was probably the most hellish of the Gothams.

The script really really wanted to be up there with Zodiac or Seven but didn't come close; in fact it fell apart in some key areas. But the look of the thing was never a flaw.

buried

The look of Nolan's films, especially his last two ,were very much based on the look of actual real life American cities, Chicago/New York. Kind of boring because you have seen them countless times before. This one, but especially in the first half, the city had the definite look of its own design and almost gothic motif, similar to Burtons ones. It completely lost that artistic motif in the last hour. Was very off-putting.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118948753#Comment_118948753

I dunno: it depends on what you expect one's fictional cities of course; but to take your comments at face value Michael Mann's Heat (or Collateral), Nolan's inspiration, was boring 'cos we've seen LA innumerable times before. But obviously, part of Heat's success was how Mann shot the locations. IMO part of the cinematic language is taking places and giving them a sense of grandeur, a scale to match the events happening on the ground. They're not just backdrops but part of the pulse of the overall feature itself.

Nolan's movies never tried too hard to disguise the fact it was Chicago - and the manner in which the Kowloon inspired Narrows just disappeared from existence more than a little sloppy. But those latter films were basically epic mob thrillers, taking cues from Mann's opus. Chicago Gotham never looked so epic, in a purely hyper-real sense. Not especially artistically interesting, but a colosseum all the same.

The White Wolf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118945956#Comment_118945956

I'm of a similar feeling, just watched it on Monday.

It's ambitious, ballsy and plays to the character's strengths, but I'm not sure I'll be rewatching it in the years to come like I do with Nolan's films.

It's a weird one, I enjoyed it but I guess I'm suffering from exhaustion with the character and extended library. Which is insane because I'm a fan boy for the character. I look forward to the next film but won't be putting half as much thought into it as I was in years gone by.

jo187

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118784665#Comment_118784665

I'm bit confused to your first point about not knowing the character arc going in?

It up to the film to tell us there. I Dont think we should have to read and listen to interviews and essentially do homework to watch a film.

I also saw what the film was trying to do with his arc but think they failed. On point 2 I am a batman fan but didn't like the direction they took.

MOR316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118954148#Comment_118954148

If you were a Batman fan, you'd know all about Bruce's character development and his younger years so not sure what your issue is. It's not all suits and pretending to be a playboy, as I'm sure you know... Unless you mean you just watch the movies...

"I shouldn't have to read about or know what the film is about, it should tell me"

Different level of arrogance that :D

The White Wolf

On a separate note, having finally watched it, I really have to stop getting riled up by the opinions of fans who are 'pundits' in the media. Seen plenty of claims that it surpasses Nolan's interpretation and maybe it will, but all it was is merely a solid start just like Batman Begins was.

It really pisses me off that there are people out there making a dime on such over the top analysis.

jo187

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956500#Comment_118956500

Not sure what different level of arrogance comment mean?

The film should deliver a story in it's running time. Obviously a trend in comic book films is to have easter eggs which is one thing.

To have no character in the film as Bruce or Batman and expect people to get it, if they read the comics seems a failure of the film.

pixelburp

Ah now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

If a film's narrative requires clarification from its director or actors then arguably, the script failed. Subtly is fine, preferred even if it opens up debate and interpretation from the audience, but any standalone film should be able to tell its story in isolation. Doesn't matter if it's Batman, or, I dunno, something really abstract like Under the Skin.