Batman has a picked pool of source Material Problem in the same way Star Trek Movies have a problem with remaking The Wrath of Khan. I'd personally like a 1970's Batman on screen... that was an interesting period for Bruce Wayne especially.
Finally, someone who shares my gripe. I've had enough with the "grounded, realistic" Batman. They keep milking Batman's ip more than other DC heroes but they keep going to the more realistic, more, More.!!! I want to see a Batman from the comics, who do absurd things, with an over-the-top and bat-like Batmobile and ridiculous gadgets. Batman who can punch walls, kick someone flying to the other side of the rooms. He's a comic book character, a "superhero". Let's go crazy!!!!
I agree with this. We’ve already seen gritty realistic Batman. I don’t understand why that makes it better? It limits what you can do in the long run because a lot of Batman’s enemies are totally unrealistic.
Exactly this is what I’ve been saying to people who always use the excuse batman is realistic that’s why he’s so good how can he be realistic when his enemy’s aren’t
@@doger6531 He’s good at everything humanly possible and he knows everything, and he has all the money in the world. How is that in any way realistic. The guy is the living breathing definition of a mary sue, or a gary stu
@@youtubeistryingtocensorme at least he trained for his power rey from Star Wars is the perfect example of a Mary Sue she got everything without training in the slightest
What’s funny to me is when the studios say they’re making a realistic Batman again the fans always get amnesia like this is the first “realistic” take on the character ☠️
There is no such thing as a realistic take on Batman - the premise is ridiculous. All you have is versions with differing degrees of humor. None are actually realistic.
@@UnleashthePhury realistic Batman is where your butler Alfred taught you how to be an expert at hand to hand combat. Goofy movie. Chris Nolan’s version was miles better than this slog of a movie.
@@adam346 no dude, film-noir is way more interesting than "the batman". They made a very boring movie, and an even more boring "film-noir" movie. The Animated series did film-noir properly: it didnt suffer from the plainness of this movie.
I think folks that don't like Robin have this image in their head that hasn't changed since Adam West and Robot Chicken after that. Him being a ridiculous character is a meme from those, but Robin in DC lore is a very deep and interesting character. Watching how the various Robin's grow up with their relationship to Batman has produced some of the best Batman and Robin stories. It's a little sad they don't know what a complex and interesting character the Robins can be.
Batman & Robin sadly did a lot of damage to the public perception of Robin. It seems like in recent times this has softened considerably thanks to a growing awareness of how deep and interesting the character can be (Ex. Teen Titans). I too am hoping that Robin will FINALLY be brought back into the live-action film canon with this Reeve's series.
I think the animated films got robin right. Not so much the animated series though. I also feel like Robin in the Schumacher films was pretty close to accurate, even though the films aren’t great.
Where I think a lot of people get wrong when making “realistic” batman stories is that they miss that the world of Batman is steeped in Gothic Fantasy, not edgy realism. The Tim Burton films lean into this a bit, but not enough, and the Schumacher films squander it. It’s a missed opportunity that has never been forfilled.
Iv always said Tim Burton but a tiny bit more fantasy, enough for a proper clay face because if we get a clay face in the New movie's he will just be a Man with scars and a bit of makeup.. they are holding themselves back
I think what most people forget about The Dark Knight Returns is that the story isn't just dark and gritty but also deliberately over-the-top and operatic. For instance, the image of Batman and Robin riding into Gotham on HORSES after the EMP has taken out the city's power is as absurd as anything Adam West and Burt Ward did in 'the 66 Batman series. And as youtuber Patrick WIllems pointed out in his own video essay on Batman, without Robin, Batman has no opportunity for growth as a character, he remains a brooding weirdo dressed up as a bat to fight crime out of some overdeveloped need for vengeance. With Robin and the other members of the Bat family, he grows past a simple need for vengeance and becomes a mentor guiding the next generation of costumed heroes so that they're more than just brooding walking tragedies. To paraphrase Patrick WIllems, because of Batman's mentoring, Dick Grayson as Nightwing is essentially a better adjusted Batman.
That's something I've noticed too. Frank Miller's work is not just dark, but also grotesque; you can definitely see the seeds of Tim Burton's freak-show version of Gotham City sown throughout. Whether it's the cyberpunk "Mutants," the bug-eyed guy on the street holding up a sign saying "WE ARE ALL DOOMED," or Batman disguising himself as an impossibly ugly old woman as he chases down a half-naked neo-Nazi girl, Miller manages to treat us to a setting that is unforgettably surreal without being goofy. Nothing like that had ever been seen in the Batman comics before; the elements had been either only slightly stylized or made so campy they became trite, without ever hitting that intriguing twilight zone between them. I even appreciate the cameo appearances by Ronald Reagan and (a fictionalized) David Letterman, even though those appearances now date the comic; they give the illusion that Gotham exists in our own world, but without ever sacrificing the fantasy elements.
The “best” of Batman is when he is shown in his ‘Caped Crusader’ aspect...when he is just as much a symbol of Hope and Justice as Superman, but ‘darker’, not because he’s all grim and moody, but because he literally strikes fear into the hearts of criminals by being the toughest, smartest, most relentless guy in Gotham... he doesn’t have to be a jerk to everyone to be seen as a serious threat... to criminals...
I think you are right that what made TAS so good was that Batman had heart and empathy as well as rage, and so did the villains. They also recognized the difference between funny and campy. Episodes like “Almost Got Him” show off Batman’s detective skills while slyly poking fun at some of the more outrageous aspects of his rogues gallery. It would be a refreshing change to see sympathetic villains Baby Doll or a Poison Ivy/Harley Quinn team up that still had the “buddy comedy” vibe of their team ups in TAS.
For what it’s worth (and if anyone cares), I really lament that we never got a solo Batfleck movie. I thought he was great, and his moments in BvS were the standout cinematic Batman for me.
100% agreed. For me, when Batman stories are truly at their best is not just when everything's all dark and gritty and hopeless - it's when there's CONTRAST. That's the key - contrast between darkness and tragedy and realism on the one hand, and colorful, eccentric zaniness on the other. They should be fun, but with darkness and depth - and far too many fans decry the former and over-praise the latter.
I think Batman The Animated Series tows the line between realistic and fantasy. There are episodes where Batman gripples with his fears and he also punches a werewolf. The best episode to many is Heart of Ice which tells the story of a husband who would do anything to avenge his fallen wife but he is also in a space suit and shoots ice beams from a gun.
This feels like a third entry into the “Robin should be introduced in the next Batman movie” trilogy by you, Steve Shives, and Patrick H. Willems. And I honestly can’t agree more with that sentiment, now, this is only coming from a guy who hasn’t read the comics, but I feel like while it could be hard to pull off (at least with the red, yellow, and green costume) Robin in the sequel, the end of The Batman felt like the perfect set-up for Bruce mentoring Robin, especially considering how The Batman is pretty much about the consequences a dark, edgy vigilante like “realistic” Batmen have on Gotham. I also think that considering Matt Reeves has admitted to loving the campier side of Batman, up to taking inspiration from the 1966 Batmobile, that I would be much more surprised if they DIDN’T include Robin.
To be fair they can still introduce Richard Grayson in a different way & let him become Nightwing if they want to avoid the Robin phase. It's still possible within a grittier Darker story. Instead of circus he could be a young gymnast whose parents gets killed. But still studios are afraid to introduce Richard. Most likely not wanting Batman to grow old. Maintaining the status quo.
Robin is lame though, especially Grayson. If they do Robin, they need to go with Tim Drake who was independent from Batman. I much prefer Casdandra Cain as Batgirl or Black Bat.
The Funny thing is, mist of those comics that serve as inspiration for the more "realistic" are what you wished for. Sure Year one had a realistic touch when Batman showed up and Gotham was about Mobsters and corrupt cops. But in The long Halloween after Batman was established, the freaks took over and the style was more eerie and fantastic. The dark Knight returns had Mutants and Superman. And a Robin was a central part of that story.
I started out the same, but what changed things for me is everything after the Riddler thug throws the word "vengence" back at him: that's the turning point of the story where it looks like he's sufficiently rattled by it that he knows he can't continue to be the "gritty, dark" Batman he's been up until then, and has to be a symbol of hope.
Me too I think the movie is about him realising he can be so much more than just a vigilante he can be a hero as similar hope and at the end of the movie I think he realises that cannot wait for the sequel
I think this Batman would be great if they leaned into absurdity that is inherent to the Batman rogues gallery. For example the next movie with a series of crimes that seem humanly impossible but it turns out to be clayface. The humor can from a relatively normal human dealing with a monster. Also I do hope they keep Batman as a symbol of hope like he was becoming at the end of the movie. Since being the candle in the dark is much more interesting than I am vengeance and darkness.
If it weren't for potential issues with a certain marvel character, I'd 100% be for pairing Dr. Hugo Strange with Clayface. Clayface is potentially a very tragic character, and him being manipulated by Strange dangling a cure over his head like a carrot on a stick would be good motivation. Strange also offers something Clayface doesn't: an intellectual equal to batman. This gives us an opportunity in clayface for batman to have an opponent that the bat can't beat, instead that he has to win over with his humanity... essentially, by embracing the "Man". Admittedly, this would probably deny us the ever so popular third act punch-up, the big dramatic action sequence to end it all on, but I think it would be a better story... and clayface has been known to work with batman from time to time in the comics.
The heart of the Batman character and the Batman story is the story of a traumatized 8-year-old boy who nobody rescued from his trauma, so he made himself into someone who could rescue others. And the beauty of that simple story is that it can be done with any number of tones and trappings. It can be silly, it can be fun, it can be campy, it can be serious, it can be tragic, or it can be multiple of those at once. And a Batman who is forever alone misses another core part of the character: Batman is a person who lost his family and creates a new one, with Alfred as his father figure, sometimes Leslie thompkins or someone else as a symbolic mother, and with his sidekicks as symbolic children. I think a version of Batman without that is a version of Batman that only tells part of the story.
Empathy. What makes Animated Series Batman great is his empathy. He watches the video of Victor Fries being turned into Mr. Freeze and he’s horrified one human being could do that to another. He even gets *why* Freeze is doing what he’s doing, but Batman can’t let Freeze hurt innocent people in the name of revenge (and not just to protect the innocent; he knows becoming a murderer will be bad for Fries). That’s one of the things Nolan Batman gets right, and what Snyder missed about Batman. Batman may not always express it in a healthy way, but he *cares* about people being hurt (even his villains).
And I thought I was losing my mind with all the Batman reviews lol totally agree with your take. I'd love to see a swash buckling batman sword fight Ra's Al Ghul in a castle 🤣
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” - CS Leiws
"Realistic Batman" is overdone, and your analysis of the early comics that Bill Finger created with Bob Kane taking all the credit, is correct. They were for children, but it was a time when children's media was much more diverse in tone and less policed by adults trying to control what kids were reading. It's dark, like The Shadow pulps were dark. But silly is OK, too. I love watching the 60s show, and it was evocative of the Batman of the time. The 50s were a time of being desperate to NOT be controversial, in any way, after Doctor Wertham, the Kefauver juvenile delinquency hearings, and the comics code. I also think a new version of Robin would be incredibly welcome. Now...I also think the "My favorite Batman is the Kevin Conroy/Bruce Timm/Paul Dini animated version" is about as cliché at this point as the grimdark thing. I say that as a MASSIVE fan of that show, too, but it's legacy is just as stultifying as the "realistic" thing. As for THE BATMAN - I think it was "realistic," while still feeling "comic book-esque." My best comparison would be the 70's comics the O'Neal/Adams or Englehart/Rogers stuff. It felt dark, Batman felt scary, while still embracing a silliness. The "mystery" was fine, and good to have, while not really being all that great...like a lot of those 70s comics. Batman walking around crime scenes freely was ridiculous, yet the film sold it. The Penguin was dangerous, but also laughable. Etc. Etc.
I couldn’t agree more in terms of it feels comic and surreal, yet grounded. I loved it for that (though I’d argue riddler was the least camp, which I think is a missed opportunity compared to his roots)
@@empatheticrambo4890 Matt Reeves has seemed to have missed the point of the Riddler entirely. Edward Nygma is a nerd, yes, but he's far from the derogatory incarnation of that stereotype we've seen in popular media in recent decades (the "incel," the school shooter, etc.). Traditionally nerds have been either heroes or comic relief, not villains; and while the Riddler IS a villain, I've always thought of him as playful rather than misanthropic and vicious. Nygma is supposed to be fueled by his brilliance and by a desire to match wits with others; he's not just another thug. So, yes, put him in a shamrock-green business suit and a matching derby, because that's how a sophisticated, elitist intellectual who was a little crazy would dress in real life. I don't want to see some sort of paramilitary S&M fetishist.
I really like the way you put things. Throughout my life so far, I've noted time and again that things that seem on the surface to be completely absurd actually contain a great deal of depth. I've heard even fans of the character complain that Batman looks ridiculous because "all he ever seems to do is fight clowns." People still make fun of the Joker and Harley Quinn and long for characters like Ra's al-Ghul and Bane to be Batman's foes more regularly. Such people are obviously not aware that the clown is, in fact, one of the most mysterious and potent archetypes in all of human folklore; and that when the Joker imagines himself as supernatural or even a god, he's standing on a very firm Jungian foundation. Clowns represent chaos - the force that created the very universe itself, if you believe the ancient mythology. Harley, too, is someone I believe deserves to be taken more seriously. Too often she gets dismissed as either an update of the blonde, ditzy, Prohibition-era gun moll from black-and-white movies or some kind of giggly Millennial hipster girl in punk fashions and weird makeup. Well, that's what you see if you only look at the surface, which after all is there mostly for humor and sex appeal. If you look INSIDE Harley, you see one of the most tragic figures in fiction. In fact, if I were to compare Harley to any other figure in our centuries-long legacy of Western fiction, it would be Francesca, the adulteress in Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy." It's a bit of a stretch, since Harley is not a sexual sinner but a violent criminal, but I argue that both characters have brought the same fate upon themselves, having caused themselves to be condemned (Francesca being literally in Hell, while Harley is stuck in an earthly version of it) by succumbing to their - to quote Harley creator Paul Dini - "mad love" (or "gentle heart," as Dante puts it). Both Harley and Francesca insist they are innocent because they have good intentions, believing that if you're full of (what you consider) love, you can't possibly be evil. Harley Quinn strikes me as a reminder that the "innocent" psychopaths tend to be the most dangerous, and this is precisely because, by definition, they lack any self-awareness to even try to stop what they are doing. So yes, I have no problem with Batman fighting clowns. I insist that all but the most hackneyed members of Batman's rogues gallery have their place. I even defend the Red Triangle Circus Gang from BATMAN RETURNS, arguing that the movie subtly hints at their tragic past and includes them in the narrative in order to emphasize the theme of lost childhood that has run throughout both the Batman comics and the films of Tim Burton from the very beginning.
@@SeasideDetective2 Honestly, I do agree with you. I thought it was an interesting and fairly humanized take on the villain / internet extremist type character, but I don't particularly want that to be the Riddler. I'm very glad they did such a good job with clues and mystery, because otherwise it wouldn't have felt like the Riddler in any way
I think in films, the image of dark gritty Batman has been so entrenched that it’s harder for studios to get away from that image for fear of upsetting fans. The Gotham tv series always caught a lot of flack for being weird and whacky but to be honest, that’s the tone of what I like my Batman stories to be. It’s one of the reasons I love the Gotham show because it was whacky and goofy and could be serious in one moment and totally bonkers the next. That show never let itself be held back and thrived on being strange and weird. I wish more Batman stories would have that tone. And as for Robin, given Marvel is clearly gearing up for young Avengers and Spider Man has had multiple films portraying him as a high schooler, there’s really no reason to not be able to do Robin even in a realistic and grounded way. Not to mention having Robin allows Batman actual growth of character.
Trouble is, the live-action Gotham series had nowhere near the same level of intelligent script writing as the 90s animated series. The more ridiculous or fantastical elements of the 90s series worked because most of the writing was serious and thoughtful, with little bits of humour here and there. The live-action Gotham series was over-the-top or mean-spirited/"edgy" almost constantly, so it doesn't matter if it even adapts the more fantastical elements. And unlike the 90s animated series, the Gotham series was all about "hey, fans, spot the reference". Something the animated series didn't have to do, since it could actually rely on the stories being Batman-driven, rather than everything being centered on being a prequel. A desperate prequel at that, since they still couldn't resist focusing on the premature emergence of many future villains. There was a point to the animated series' storytelling, or the storytelling in Burton's or Nolan's live-action adaptations. I didn't really see any point to the storytelling in Gotham.
Gotham stinks,and was borderline campy imo. I think the Iron Man comparison was spot on,and i would say that should be the perfect middle ground. Just have Batman be as obsessed about criminals as Tony was about technology. And you see how Tony was tortured but didn't feel the need to wear it on his sleeve? Please bring that back,as I think that makes for a better Bruce.The new Batman feels the need to beat us over the head with the fact he is tormented. A Batman who hides it,but lets it slip through his actions is a more tragic portrayl imo.
I will say, I think the best batman stories are the more "gritty" ones, like Redhood and Year one, and I wouldn't want that element to go away. (I still think Christopher Nolan's Batman is the best movie-wise)But I like how the 90's Batman TAS managed to keep that dark element, while also being fun and even a little bit campy or silly at times while still keeping it's mature tone. I think something more like that would be great.
His run on Batman IMO is the best Batman run of all time. I think "best" storylines are subjective and I'm kind of biased in this case since Scott Snyder's Batman books are literally what got me into comic books again. Without Dark Nights Metal and Death Metal being so good, I would not be reading modern day comics just because most of them cater towards shock value and changing things just to change things.
Afflecks solo Batman movie was going to be about Deathstroke coming after the Bat family ( Teased at the end of ZSJL ) so it’s a shame it was cancelled
Which is why we never got live action takes on say: mr. freeze (if you count the Batman and Robin movie), Clayface, Man-Bat, The Ventriloquist, Solomon Grundy
Was disappointed that we didn't get to see more of the DCEU Batman was looking forward to seeing a live action Batman interacting with the more fantastical elements of the DC universe. Would have definitely bought something new to movie version of the character. Also Batman The Animated Series is awesome quite possibly my favourite version (that or Keaton but it's close)
I think its possible we get that with Matt Reeves Batman in the future. Because if you ask me I don't think Matt is dumb enough to just simply follow what came before and re-tread the old trilogy. If you want to get people invested in Battinson and this new universe you need to do something way different from like TDK trilogy.
@@PhiberOptik23 You mean the fact they made it an entirely different movie? Yeah if you asked me 5 years ago if I was hyped about The Batman in the current DCEU at that time I would have said that I genuinely don't know. The DCEU hasn't really gotten good until recently with movies like The Suicide Squad and The Snyder Cut coming out. Like yeah they've had some hits like Wonder Woman, Shazam, and Aquaman but those movies were mostly just to pass the time. I've never had the craving to just go back and watch Aquaman or Wonder Woman it's usually just when I'm in the mood.
I would say go for the B:TAS vibe with the new actor. Like you said, he needs his rogue's gallery. Then you can do the older Afleck-man version in the justice league setting. A few flash-backs to The Batman character would tie the two together and allow them both to move forward. And I really think that Christian Bale would make for a great older Batman now.
I completely agree with you. The obsession with realistic Batman gets on my nerves, it’s why Keaton is my personal favorite. Having said that I like Robert Pattinson’s Batman a lot, I personally take more issue with the Bale movies, I like the way Pattinson’s movie does the whole “grounded” thing way more. I also appreciate that they utilized the Mafia families, as they get sidelined all the time, which is silly, especially because they are easily the most realistic Batman villains. The sequel for “The Batman” is gonna have Robin, which makes me hopeful.
The quality of writing in these essays is really very good indeed. I feel that the subject matter can distract one from the very obvious inference I’ve gradually drawn, that Rowan can really write. It’s fantastic stuff and deserving of a much wider audience. Thank you.
3:13 not correct. There were literally a handful of comic adaptations for the 66 series and that’s it. Very few, and it’s well known which ones were adaptations. Trivia : Mr Freeze was called Mr Zero in the comics. Batman 66 renamed him.
I’ve been wanting a Bat-Family movie for the last ten years. I think a really good story could be told about that dynamic between Batman and his protégés. Thank you for adequately explaining why I didn’t love The Batman. I left the theater just empty. Technical aspects were good but the story left a hole. This is why, thank you
I feel the way about Batman the way I feel about James Bond. If you go to grounded it's not fun. But if you go to fantastical, I can't feel any stakes. Honestly it's a hard balance to strike but I've seen it done. (Although I do love a full silly Batman when done right)
I disagree, I think the movie recalled the Sixties TV series in a number of scenes. The sight of an ultra serious Batman solving clues while standing among police offers was quite absurd. Adam West also played Batman straight, with dead seriousness if ultimately comical effect. The scene with Batman is hanging off a cable in the new movie seemed a nod to the infamous shark scene in the Sixties movie. But...bring back Bat-Mite!
I feel like the arkham games pretty much nailed the level of realism. It's reletively grounded but it's still uncanny and out there when it wants to be. Idk, it might still be a bit too 'realistic' compared to what your trying to say in this vid, but personally I think it's great
Funny, I felt like this was much closer to Adventure Batman than the boring and dry Nolan Batman. The depiction of Bruce as an emo virgin pretty boy is so fantastical. I love it. I can definitely see this version going campier.
Yeah. Before I clicked on this video, the title of it had me thinking Rowan would be singing The Batman's praises for how unrealistic Pattinson's/Reeves' take on the Caped Crusader is.
I don’t like talking about Batman because I start making fun of people. But they like him because it’s easy to do dark and moody stuff. And you can do that but also have fun. I would love to see a Batman horror movie, with Clayface, Solomon Grundy or Man-Bat. Or a sci-fi tale with Mr. Freeze.
*Im glad someone else said it* we’ve seen realistic grounded Batman already with Nolan’s trilogy - I’d rather we’d have gotten a dark, fantastical movie like Glass or Split where there’s some wacky shit happening but the drama around that wacky shit makes you take it seriously.
A medieval Batman where he is a Scottish knight trained by Ras'al'Ghul while on the First Crusade only to return and find his king's castle has been overthrown by the court jester would be nice.
I couldn't agree more with what you say. The once refreshing take on the character is decades old now. And I have to add - I wasn't that excited about the "realistic" approach in the first place (whilst I really didn't like the late 90s Batman either).
Another great video, thanks Rowan. Myself of all the batman films I've seen to date, and that isn't all of them, Batman (1989) is the one I enjoyed the most. Something I'd like to see live action is Batman of the Future. The realism comes from the characters and depth and the sci fi fantasy of the near future.
AMEN. I am tired of "realistic" Batman. If I wanted a crime drama, I have no shortage of Law & Order, Adam-12, Dragnet, In the Heat of the Night, so many shows I can watch. Even Affleck, himself, has directed and starred in a few gritty, realistic movies. Batman is friends with an alien. He's carried on a flirtation with a mystical woman, born of clay and blessed by the Greek gods. I would love to see a Batman, on the big screen, fighting a towering Man-Bat, or Clayface, a Bane who is not only jacked up on venom, but also cerebral and skilled. Batman has led the JLA into battle against aliens, builds the most fantastic weapons, while still being a suave and benevolent boss of a multi billion dollar company. Realism went out of the window, from the word go. I'm not saying he has to be the 1950s Batman, but be open to the fantastic elements.
Count me among those who loved “The Batman”, and realism wasn’t my main hope. I primarily go for how well the “scrap” gets handled, and I’m OK if Batman takes his lumps, since that is an aspect of reality that I can appreciate. I can go for some sci-fi villains to the degree of Man-Bat, since that can loosely be based on science. ClayFace? PLEASE, NO!! In that realm it’s inescapable for me to watch that not think about how one’s inner workings can be maintained amid all that, and also that with those abilities, it feels like ClayFace holds back from growing more pointed offshoots than Batman can defend against. I’m not utterly hinged on realism. I just wish to avoid aspects that push my suspension of disbelief too far.
1. I love your take. You takes always make me think. 2. This is my favorite Batman movie. But not for any aesthetic or thematic reason. This was the first movie where Batman was shown as a detective. Being a long time comic fan, I enjoy the arcs where Batman is primarily a detective first and a super hero second. While the cartoons are fun, Batman Beyond was my favorite precisely b/c we got to see Terry be "coached" into becoming a detective; whereas, in the animated series, you might get an episode or two per season of detective-ness, but it really was focused on the tricked out ninja element of Batman. Beyond made Bruce Wayne a character. 3. In terms of your take, from an aesthetic and thematic point of view, I completely agree. But in terms of character, what sets this Batman apart is his brain and wealth (and all the limits to a detective that wealth brings in terms of knowledge and imagination). I read this Batman more as a one man police shop - a detective, a undercover cop, a political/economic enforcement agent, over funded soldier etc. - all of which individually is an extremely mentally taxing set of jobs, but rolled into one person, would definitely make you crazy. And that shows in this film. It was great for the plot! 4. Which is why I would propose what you really want is a Zoe Kravitz Catwoman film. I absolutely adore her performance in this film. But whereas the character is sometimes depicted as cowardly, depending on the writer, this version of Catwoman is very nuanced. She knows her limits and understands systemic problems and the scale systemic problems reproduce themselves on in a very logical, rational way. She understands her limits (which include wealth - you can never escape capitalism right?) in relation to those systemic issues. Which is why I loved the ending scene when Batman and her split, going in opposite directions. I think she understands mental health and how capitalism is taxing in so many ways to someone's health, mental or otherwise. And there is a lot of space for fun there b/c capitalism is fraught with irony. I'd love to see how that film plays with gender, politics, and economics in terms of a films meta commentary using witty jokes like Iron Man. And after the Halley Berry Catwoman, the film version of the character needs some help.
I can understant your point but I can see why creators always go with the dark brooding tone on Batman movies. Being a character with a long history in comics, with many types pf stories, some campy others dark, the movie creators have to choose which one will be the tone for the film and it's franchise. In the case of Batman, most of his best stories are dark noir detective drama, so creators try to adapt this type of stories and figure out to make some comic book elements to fit with the tone. Even Batman TAS went through, with creators having to make some changes, like having Robin already a teenager rather than a kid. In the case of Reeves Batman I think he has better balance between the realism of Nolan and the gothic style of Burton movies and I can see Batman dealing with more weird villains in the sequels without feeling inconsistent with the franchise's tone.
Honestly, The Batman was refreshing in that it was a super hero movie that was more grounded after years of movies that dived into the unreality of super hero universe. I agree with your take at the end. The movie wasn't so realistic as to completely negate the more fantastical elements of the canon like Nolan's did. I do think sequels have the potential to take the material seriously without completely excising the fantastical. It could end up in a space similar to the Burton films just without the gothic flair.
I’ve always been a fan of variety. Is wrong to want multiple Batman series. With a dark and gritty one, a fun romp with a semi serious Batman, and crazy Lego Batman like series.
Robin does very well in animation, especially on the various incarnations of the Teen Titans. Christian Bale's dark gritty Batman movies were already done before DC and Warner Brothers decided to create a larger universe similar to that of the Marvel franchise. Ben Affleck's Batman should have been in several movies as part of the larger DC universe, and probably would have spun off other Batman related characters. But Justice League's problems are already historical now. I doubt the new Batman will fit in the current DC universe.
I thought it was not a Batman film he might as well just been a detective, to much talk with no action. It was a pointless film not interesting and a waist of time.
I respectfully disagree. The way I see it, so long as it's a good and compelling film in its own right, I really couldn't care less if it's realistic or more exaggerated. Good storytelling is good storytelling, regardless of the tone.
So you craft a story where the Robin character, whichever one you want, just keeps trying to emulate Batman no matter how many times Bruce tells him not, no matter how many times the kid gets his arse kicked. So Batman is kinda forced to train him as a means of protecting him.
They should adapt the O'Neil/Adams Batman of the early 70s. Stripped down and gritty but not overly gritty. Batman uses his detective skills and wants to save people. He's broody but not borderline psychotic. It was a refreshing change from the 60s TV show (which I also love).
The thing I really want is more of the Rogue's Gallery. I liked being able to see the Riddler and Penguin in The Batman, but can I just say how tired I am of seeing the Joker? I'd love to see Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, or Clay Face get a proper live action appearance in a good film. But with the Joker, how many times have we seen him since The Dark Knight? We keep getting interpretations, and I'm honestly just tired of seeing him. I want other villains to get a shot in the spotlight.
Plus The Wizard, The Mad Hatter, King Tut, would be awesome to see these as modern updates too! Like you, getting tired of modern batman keep doing the Joker, Riddler cat woman and penguin all the time.
Yes finally someone else says joker is overused like that clown has been used 2 times in a row in two big Batman live action movie franchises it’s time to give someone else a spotlight
I totally agree, the new Batman movie is boring as hell. I went with my boy to the Cinema, and after 30min I thought...OMG how long is that movie going to be. My boy and his friend found the movie ok, but a few days later he told me that pretty much everyone in school that the same, boring and not even close to Chris Nolans version.
The batman film is a generic garbage film it has put me off, this film made the character useless if he wasn't in the film nothing would change because the director doesn't get the concept of good guy stopping the badguys evil plans and saves people then catching the badguy, it wasn't accurate to Batman what so ever! this film Is so stupid and idiots online call it a masterpiece when it's trash.
I completely agree, Nolan’s take on Batman has grown extremely stale over time and I’m sick of film makers copying him ad nauseam. The Anthology, Animated Series, BVS and Arkham Games balance all of the elements perfectly in my view, stylish yet narratively strong, fantastical yet enjoyable. Though I really love Batman Begins, Nolan’s films slowly grew more generic with each film.
I don't mind gritty or dark stories but what I do want a less realistic Batman. I'd love to see all facets of Batman, his skill, tech, detective mind, fantastical villains. Imagine an Arkham games Batman live action? Incredible
I hate that they've consistently moved away from the kinds of depictions that make batman more urban myth than man, Batman should never appear to the criminals as just some dude in a costume if he'd started that fight in the train station from the shadows by dragging one of the thugs into the darkness it would have been far more impactful than just walking in and having a straight up fist fight. In "The Batman" everyone just treats him as just a vigilante when nobody really he's at his most effective when nobody really knows if he's even real or not.
You can be dark and fun and believable without veering off into the /wrist territory. Basically, don't grimdark, just for the love of everything, DON'T! Not many people can pull it off. And that's exactly what Batman should be. Fun "dark fantasy" hero. Nolan pulled it off, but those movies were different, they were more akin to 24(Bourne? You get the idea) than to a true superhero movie. Robin's design is silly, but I love the character. Batman really needed him.
You have a point. However, I think Matt Reeves can put the fantastical elements of the batman mythos, just like you point out with characters like Iron Man, but he has to put it well and gradually so that it wouldn't end up like Batman and Robin
LOL! I have to say, you hit the nail on the head why the movie sat a little wrong with me the entire time. I enjoyed it, as you said, and I couldn’t find fault, but I thought we would CONTINUE after the Justice League instead of trampling on everything that’s been done before -- AGAIN! I really don’t get it. Did they decide they will never be able to do it like Marvel and just give up? I really didn’t need another beginning. I wanted to move FORward. On with the established characters and building on it, as you said, refining them and/or their tech or abilities. I give up. I love DC as well, but Star Wars and Marvel will always be a little more important ;) Thanks for all your commentaries, hope you continue in some fashion! Love it! My best
I think the new Batman movie will lead into a more comic book fantastical elements later. I can see Robin, Mr Freeze, Batwoman, etc. I’m still excited how this new world will be.
Obviously it is a grounded movie but I still felt like it took much more from a comic book element than something like the dark knight I personally felt like I was reading the comics again especially the year one comic and playing the Arkham games. It’s not a surprise to me that the movie was as “realistic” as it is given that both antagonists in the penguin and riddler aren’t really fantastical to begin with , but I do think that the next movie should begin to introduce more mystic elements. Characters like Solomon Grundy and Man-Bat would really suit the creepier and gothic aesthetic of Reeve’s batverse, perhaps he could build them as some sort of urban legends or myths Batman has to confront
3:00 note Robin’s cape was originally green. He was based on Robin Hood, not a bird robin. He’s totally wearing a Robin Hood inspired outfit. People seem to have forgotten this over the years.
Makes sense as to why Christopher Nolan went a more realistic route as people would have said he’s copying Tim Burton if it looked and felt like Burton’s films in anyway and if it looked and felt like Joel Schumacher’s films people wouldn’t have been happy due to those not being enjoyed as much. But even then, Nolan didn’t make it completely 100% realistic, there’s still suspension of disbelief and some stuff obviously probably wouldn’t happen in real life when you look at those film. I don’t mind the realistic version of Batman, but if one is going to make a Batman film or show with a realistic tone, make sure there’s some sort of lightness to it. In The Dark Knight Trilogy, Bruce’s interactions with Alfred and Fox are pretty humorous a good amount of the time. It balances out the darkness with some humor that fits the tone and doesn’t pull you out of the film. The Batman is a good film, a fine film, but there wasn’t much humor that sort of gave the film a bit of a light moment here or there. Hopefully, we’ll see some moments that are light enough that it balances out and fits the dark tone of the next film.
We might see Nightwing and Red Hood, but we'll never see Robin again in a film. Maybe just a quick flashback to show the transition into a new character. I'd love to see Robin and I'd love to see a blue onscreen Batsuit. Something based off the Denny O'neil/Neal Adams run could be great. Those stories were dark and mature WITH the blue suit
Remember a few years ago when parkour seemed to be in every other movie? Seems bizarre that Robin didn't feature in any movie around then considering "gymnast who fights on the street" seems like an almost tailor made concept to take advantage of that craze!
honestly yah i think the overly gritty realistic batman has dun its thing and now we need a fresh take not something as flamboyant as Adam West but definitely something more willing to embrace the more fantastical elements in line with the animates series (to be specific i mean the original animated series and the 2004 animated "The Batman") and arkham games . though the real problem is overcoming the mindset that jest because a story has fun fantastical elements its some how cant be serios and have mature story beats.
Well, first of all, it's ironic to hear the words "Gothic" and "fun" in the same sentence without a "but." Gothic literature includes Edgar Allan Poe and Lord Byron - two authors who, with a few exceptions (such as "The Gold Bug" and "Don Juan," respectively), are NOT "fun" to read. But yes, I understand that in our more poppy and lighthearted 20th and 21st centuries, "Gothic" is more about Halloween and monster movies than angst and alienation (even though those two realms can certainly be combined, as in Dante's "Inferno"). What we once called "Gothic" we now call "existentialist," which sounds a lot more boring and indeed seems to describe the post-2000 Batman films fairly well. But, yes, you're right. What has always drawn readers and viewers to Batman comics and media is their "chiaroscuro" - the mixture of dark and light. I will always think that Tim Burton's 1989 film achieved the perfect balance of realism and escapism for a PG-13 picture. In fact, when he was interviewed about his character, Jack Nicholson remarked that he knew millions of children would ask their parents to take them to see the film, and he had wanted to make the Joker menacing, but at the same time not so terrifying that kids wouldn't be able to laugh at him. That's a point that too often is forgotten: even the most vicious villain needs a lighthearted element in order to appeal to the audience. Even better, I think, was the 1990s animated series, which is still one of the greatest cartoons ever. That version of Batman could make me laugh, make me cry, AND terrify me, which was good; the best entertainment engages multiple human emotions. In fact, that series remains such a gold standard that it baffles me why neither Christopher Nolan nor Matt Reeves have been willing to draw more than a handful of elements from it. There still exists a reluctance, for example, to put Harley Quinn in a movie unless she's supposed to be the focus of it, and then the movie has to become a comedy. I think it's been proven time and again in other media that Quinn can be just as emotionally complex a character - if not more so - than the Joker. As I've suggested in the above paragraphs, the villains are key. The beauty of characters like the Joker, the Mad Hatter, the Ventriloquist, and Poison Ivy is that they're so outlandish that you can't make them "realistic" without distorting them beyond recognition. Who wants to see a Hatter who literally suffers from mercury poisoning, or a Ventriloquist who uses a tape recorder rather than a wooden doll to express his alter ego? I'm fine with these villains being irredeemably evil and slaughtering human beings by the hundreds, but there's no reason they can't be funny and imaginative too. I'd rather have them than Ra's al-Ghul; despite being a compelling villain in his own right, he can all too easily be reduced to just another terrorist.
I always find it funny how sections of the Batman fandom will call the very early version of character (ie. the incarnation that killed people and didn't have a Robin) the "true Batman" without realizing that this "true Batman" was a rip-off of The Shadow.
James Rolfe pointed out a kinda funny similarity between The Batman and Batman The movie. Both feature The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Joker.
I think this is year two its gonna be dark but the more time they give this franchise than Battinson will become more hopeful & maybe get the iconic grey & blue suit
I pretty much entirely agree with everything you've said here (except for saying Batman Forever isn't a great movie). The Batman became my favorite Batman movie precisely because of all of this, though. I don't think it shut itself off from some of the more fantastical elements anymore than Casino Royale prevented Spectre from happening (maybe a bad example since people inexplicably hate that movie). I very much want a Robin in this universe, and if Reeves thinks he can make a Mr. Freeze happen in this universe, then I think anything is possible. Plus, the way this ended, with Batman realizing he has to be more than anger and vengeance, that he has to be a symbol of hope, that's my Batman. That's the most character progression we've seen for Batman since Batman Forever.
They need to take a chance and do movie saga with robin, second movie his death and third movie have red hood First movie going against mayb killer croc as a new enemy in the movies area, second movie obviously joker since robin dies and third movie with red hood, killing somone close to batman
Before 2005, a grounded Batman had only been done a handful of times in the comics. Now, it's ironically become the standard due to the success of "Batman Begins", but mainly "The Dark Knight". This of course, ignores all other facets of what the character can be. I hope that mainstream audiences will accept different takes on the character.
Just watched it. Was looking forward to this, and it’s simply a snooze. Drawn out dialogue, ridiculous runtime that isn’t justified by a slow pace story, and an abandonment from necessary character development (batman is on screen for almost the entire film). I’m not saying we need the same old song and dance for an origin story, but Batman’s in a fist fight within 5 minutes of the film. I felt like I was thrown in the middle of the film, and we never really returned to the beginning. The film wanted to be “real”, but then felt almost like a comic or video game. I just found this to be conflicting at times. I think diving into a heavier detective angle for the film was a fascinating take, and something fans have been hungry for.. unfortunately for me, it falls flat and I lost interest numerous times throughout…
Just got HBO Max and this was on it. I only made it 40 minutes and got so bored I turned it off. To each their own but this was dull and lifeless to me.
I'm really suprised by this review. I was mostly blown away by it. Not as great as Bale's, but in close second. Of course it depends in part with what expectations one goes in. Yes, it was gritty, but different enough from Nolan's & Bale's interpretation. The true litmus test will be how it fairs on second and third viewing. I suspect, that in parts it will strech and feel slow. As for the rest. I would agree that calling Robin the Jarjar Binks of Batman is way harsh. But then Jarjar didn't irritate me. :-D A more funner version of Batman without going camp is indeed possible. I mean see the new Spiderman movies or the Marvel movies. My suggestion for a more fun Batman entry would be the Batman/TMNT crossover! The comics are great and the animated movie isn't bad either. I mean even a more serious interpretation would be fun. I also fully agree regarding bringing in all the other Bats, women, girls etc.
The gripe I have with this movie is there's "hypreal" aspect of the movie for example, the black make up under the cowl, but then you get a scene where a bomb blows up in his face & he's totally fine. I'd like to see Batman movies take more notes from the Arkham series with more fantastical & supernatural elements to really challenge Batman
THANK YOU!!! I loved The Batman, and I feel the "realistic" take worked this time. Unlike Nolan's movies, this doesn't change stuff for the sake of realism. It focuses on the more down to earth elements like a detective driven plot or having his more realistic villains, so it respected the character in that regard. However, I don't want this to be the bar for the entire franchise this movie's setting up. If you're setting up a world of Batman characters, embrace all the elements!! Look at Batman:The Animated Series, some episodes are about Batman stopping some gangsters, while in others he fights a guy with a freeze gun and an actor who's a giant hunk of clay. It doesn't have to be "artsy and complex" to be taken seriously, just have strong writing and a story that thrills audiences. I hope Matt Reeves has considered this, after all, he directed movies where humans and monkeys battle each other
Oh, and for pity's sake, if The Batman gets a sequel, can we have a villain other than the umpteenth take on the Joker? I know he was teased in the movie and the deleted scene that was released is admittedly nice and creepy but Batman does have an extensive rogues gallery with characters that are at least as interesting as Joker, if not more so. I think the animated series's take on Mr. Freeze was actually a fairly realistic and tragic version that would make a nice template for a live action version that escapes the campiness of Arnold Schwartzenegger's lame puns while still bringing some elements of the fantastical to a future movie.
If past superhero hero movie franchises taught us anything is that they're going to bring in the arch nemesis at some point. And Joker is Batman's arch nemesis. Heck all three live action Spider-Men have fought the Green Goblin (arch nemesis) in their respective franchises.
Never been a huge Batman fan (Marvel more my thing) but read quite a lot of issues. I think DC movies are just a bit embarrassed by their characters and don’t really understand superheroes comics. I do also think that Marvel were quite clever because all of the MCU movies from Iron Man on were starring heroes that, let’s face it , the general public hand little to no previous knowledge of, so they could form the movies around the actors and they cast the actors extremely well in every case.
@@johnberry5296 No. Time Warner/AT&T/Whatever it is now owns DC Comics. And WB is a film studio that is owned by the same conglomerate. DC Comics itself does not really have a lot to say about the movies. Marvel Studios on the other hand IS Marvel. Marvel did a big gamble, and created their own film studio.
SUBSCRIBE TO SIDEQUEST HERE: th-cam.com/channels/4AQjWVhQBOoHlOrKn_SJqA.html
Batman has a picked pool of source Material Problem in the same way Star Trek Movies have a problem with remaking The Wrath of Khan.
I'd personally like a 1970's Batman on screen... that was an interesting period for Bruce Wayne especially.
@@90lancaster that would be interesting, a Batman set in a deferent time period in live action.
Except Robin is lame.
@@tomcruisenukedmyaccount5388
He's still better than Damien Wayne.
@@90lancaster Damien is a whack character.
Finally, someone who shares my gripe. I've had enough with the "grounded, realistic" Batman. They keep milking Batman's ip more than other DC heroes but they keep going to the more realistic, more, More.!!! I want to see a Batman from the comics, who do absurd things, with an over-the-top and bat-like Batmobile and ridiculous gadgets. Batman who can punch walls, kick someone flying to the other side of the rooms. He's a comic book character, a "superhero". Let's go crazy!!!!
So true man😭
Agreed. People want to see the stuff from the cartoons including the Justice League stuff.
@The Batman crazy to say but you’re absolutely right. It’s like they’re scared to let Batman be Batman lol
Dark knight was great. Quit trying to remake it.
@The Batman the third movie in the matt reeves triolgy will be like this
I agree with this. We’ve already seen gritty realistic Batman. I don’t understand why that makes it better? It limits what you can do in the long run because a lot of Batman’s enemies are totally unrealistic.
Facts they can’t use villains like killer croc and poison ivy because they’re unrealistic.
Exactly this is what I’ve been saying to people who always use the excuse batman is realistic that’s why he’s so good how can he be realistic when his enemy’s aren’t
@@doger6531 He’s good at everything humanly possible and he knows everything, and he has all the money in the world. How is that in any way realistic. The guy is the living breathing definition of a mary sue, or a gary stu
Joker, Two Face, Penguin, and Riddler are realistic
@@youtubeistryingtocensorme at least he trained for his power rey from Star Wars is the perfect example of a Mary Sue she got everything without training in the slightest
What’s funny to me is when the studios say they’re making a realistic Batman again the fans always get amnesia like this is the first “realistic” take on the character ☠️
There is no such thing as a realistic take on Batman - the premise is ridiculous.
All you have is versions with differing degrees of humor. None are actually realistic.
@@igit_7296 “realistic” Batman - every criminal case Batman ever gets involved with is thrown out of court because of his interference.
@@UnleashthePhury realistic Batman is where your butler Alfred taught you how to be an expert at hand to hand combat.
Goofy movie. Chris Nolan’s version was miles better than this slog of a movie.
It's Film-Noir Batman. I don't think there are enough people that kind of get that so saying it is a bit pointless and instead go with "realistic"
@@adam346 no dude, film-noir is way more interesting than "the batman". They made a very boring movie, and an even more boring "film-noir" movie. The Animated series did film-noir properly: it didnt suffer from the plainness of this movie.
I think folks that don't like Robin have this image in their head that hasn't changed since Adam West and Robot Chicken after that. Him being a ridiculous character is a meme from those, but Robin in DC lore is a very deep and interesting character. Watching how the various Robin's grow up with their relationship to Batman has produced some of the best Batman and Robin stories. It's a little sad they don't know what a complex and interesting character the Robins can be.
Batman & Robin sadly did a lot of damage to the public perception of Robin. It seems like in recent times this has softened considerably thanks to a growing awareness of how deep and interesting the character can be (Ex. Teen Titans).
I too am hoping that Robin will FINALLY be brought back into the live-action film canon with this Reeve's series.
Also Teen Titans GO!
Tell a good Robin story and nobody will care about the hokey silver age stories.
he stuck out klike a sore thumb...the actor
I think the animated films got robin right. Not so much the animated series though. I also feel like Robin in the Schumacher films was pretty close to accurate, even though the films aren’t great.
The Arkham game series does a pretty good job of melding the two takes imo
well its game off course it will be unrealistic
It actually reminded me of the games. Visually at the very least.
Where I think a lot of people get wrong when making “realistic” batman stories is that they miss that the world of Batman is steeped in Gothic Fantasy, not edgy realism. The Tim Burton films lean into this a bit, but not enough, and the Schumacher films squander it. It’s a missed opportunity that has never been forfilled.
Good point. Batman is part of and created from an abnormal city. Otherwise in real life more orphans would be batman.
to me it reads like Batman as Film-Noir... and I kind of love it for it.
What's a series or movie that gets it the closest? The 2004 series? Beyond? Animated series?
True I found those movies entertaining just cause of the style they had. 😊
Iv always said Tim Burton but a tiny bit more fantasy, enough for a proper clay face because if we get a clay face in the New movie's he will just be a Man with scars and a bit of makeup.. they are holding themselves back
I can see your point.
It needs a balance between realistic Batman and justice league animated Batman.
Yeah, we are just asking the directors to let pattinson speak more than 3 lines in 2 hours and a half, that’s all
Plus a better Catwoman that doesn’t play fast and loose with continuity.
Replace her with Huntress and my complaint is null and void.
If we're going to have a Dark Batman again, I want it to be a Gothic, Melodramatic one. Something with a Tone like Gargoyles.
That would actually be fucking awesome.
Isn't that what we just got?
@@Carabas72 lmao just what I was thinking too. Weird take
@@Carabas72 I feel the one we got feels more industrial and gritty.
When I think of Gargoyles, it's Gothic, Melodramatic but also Fantastical.
This movie has all of that
I think what most people forget about The Dark Knight Returns is that the story isn't just dark and gritty but also deliberately over-the-top and operatic. For instance, the image of Batman and Robin riding into Gotham on HORSES after the EMP has taken out the city's power is as absurd as anything Adam West and Burt Ward did in 'the 66 Batman series. And as youtuber Patrick WIllems pointed out in his own video essay on Batman, without Robin, Batman has no opportunity for growth as a character, he remains a brooding weirdo dressed up as a bat to fight crime out of some overdeveloped need for vengeance. With Robin and the other members of the Bat family, he grows past a simple need for vengeance and becomes a mentor guiding the next generation of costumed heroes so that they're more than just brooding walking tragedies. To paraphrase Patrick WIllems, because of Batman's mentoring, Dick Grayson as Nightwing is essentially a better adjusted Batman.
That's something I've noticed too. Frank Miller's work is not just dark, but also grotesque; you can definitely see the seeds of Tim Burton's freak-show version of Gotham City sown throughout. Whether it's the cyberpunk "Mutants," the bug-eyed guy on the street holding up a sign saying "WE ARE ALL DOOMED," or Batman disguising himself as an impossibly ugly old woman as he chases down a half-naked neo-Nazi girl, Miller manages to treat us to a setting that is unforgettably surreal without being goofy. Nothing like that had ever been seen in the Batman comics before; the elements had been either only slightly stylized or made so campy they became trite, without ever hitting that intriguing twilight zone between them. I even appreciate the cameo appearances by Ronald Reagan and (a fictionalized) David Letterman, even though those appearances now date the comic; they give the illusion that Gotham exists in our own world, but without ever sacrificing the fantasy elements.
there was more camp or original batman corny ish in that 60s show than just batman n robin ridin horses
The DKnR is metal.
The “best” of Batman is when he is shown in his ‘Caped Crusader’ aspect...when he is just as much a symbol of Hope and Justice as Superman, but ‘darker’, not because he’s all grim and moody, but because he literally strikes fear into the hearts of criminals by being the toughest, smartest, most relentless guy in Gotham... he doesn’t have to be a jerk to everyone to be seen as a serious threat... to criminals...
What Patrick Willems video are you quoting?
I think you are right that what made TAS so good was that Batman had heart and empathy as well as rage, and so did the villains. They also recognized the difference between funny and campy. Episodes like “Almost Got Him” show off Batman’s detective skills while slyly poking fun at some of the more outrageous aspects of his rogues gallery. It would be a refreshing change to see sympathetic villains Baby Doll or a Poison Ivy/Harley Quinn team up that still had the “buddy comedy” vibe of their team ups in TAS.
I think “The Batman” animated series from the 2000’s properly paces tone that makes you ready for the Bat Family after two seasons.
For what it’s worth (and if anyone cares), I really lament that we never got a solo Batfleck movie. I thought he was great, and his moments in BvS were the standout cinematic Batman for me.
He was wasted. And clearly was disinterested by the mess of the batman films he was in.
Nah he really looked like a parody of Batman everytime he showed up he was goofy asl excluding that one scene where he swung a box at that guy
Such 🧢, Batfleck is the 🐐 and y’all know this, stay mad that he has the best onscreen Batman fight scene in history
🎤 **drops**
100% agreed. For me, when Batman stories are truly at their best is not just when everything's all dark and gritty and hopeless - it's when there's CONTRAST. That's the key - contrast between darkness and tragedy and realism on the one hand, and colorful, eccentric zaniness on the other. They should be fun, but with darkness and depth - and far too many fans decry the former and over-praise the latter.
I think Batman The Animated Series tows the line between realistic and fantasy. There are episodes where Batman gripples with his fears and he also punches a werewolf. The best episode to many is Heart of Ice which tells the story of a husband who would do anything to avenge his fallen wife but he is also in a space suit and shoots ice beams from a gun.
That werewolf episode creeped me out as a kid, but I love Heart of Ice.
This feels like a third entry into the “Robin should be introduced in the next Batman movie” trilogy by you, Steve Shives, and Patrick H. Willems. And I honestly can’t agree more with that sentiment, now, this is only coming from a guy who hasn’t read the comics, but I feel like while it could be hard to pull off (at least with the red, yellow, and green costume) Robin in the sequel, the end of The Batman felt like the perfect set-up for Bruce mentoring Robin, especially considering how The Batman is pretty much about the consequences a dark, edgy vigilante like “realistic” Batmen have on Gotham. I also think that considering Matt Reeves has admitted to loving the campier side of Batman, up to taking inspiration from the 1966 Batmobile, that I would be much more surprised if they DIDN’T include Robin.
To be fair they can still introduce Richard Grayson in a different way & let him become Nightwing if they want to avoid the Robin phase. It's still possible within a grittier Darker story. Instead of circus he could be a young gymnast whose parents gets killed.
But still studios are afraid to introduce Richard. Most likely not wanting Batman to grow old. Maintaining the status quo.
Robin custome in the current comics isn't that bright colored suit anymore.
Robin is lame though, especially Grayson. If they do Robin, they need to go with Tim Drake who was independent from Batman. I much prefer Casdandra Cain as Batgirl or Black Bat.
The Funny thing is, mist of those comics that serve as inspiration for the more "realistic" are what you wished for.
Sure Year one had a realistic touch when Batman showed up and Gotham was about Mobsters and corrupt cops.
But in The long Halloween after Batman was established, the freaks took over and the style was more eerie and fantastic.
The dark Knight returns had Mutants and Superman. And a Robin was a central part of that story.
I agree with your point. I think that's why a good amount of people want Freeze as the next villain and even introduce Robin
I started out the same, but what changed things for me is everything after the Riddler thug throws the word "vengence" back at him: that's the turning point of the story where it looks like he's sufficiently rattled by it that he knows he can't continue to be the "gritty, dark" Batman he's been up until then, and has to be a symbol of hope.
Me too I think the movie is about him realising he can be so much more than just a vigilante he can be a hero as similar hope and at the end of the movie I think he realises that cannot wait for the sequel
Batman is dark and gritty even when he’s a old mad you can still scare criminals and be a symbol for people
I think this Batman would be great if they leaned into absurdity that is inherent to the Batman rogues gallery. For example the next movie with a series of crimes that seem humanly impossible but it turns out to be clayface. The humor can from a relatively normal human dealing with a monster.
Also I do hope they keep Batman as a symbol of hope like he was becoming at the end of the movie. Since being the candle in the dark is much more interesting than I am vengeance and darkness.
If it weren't for potential issues with a certain marvel character, I'd 100% be for pairing Dr. Hugo Strange with Clayface. Clayface is potentially a very tragic character, and him being manipulated by Strange dangling a cure over his head like a carrot on a stick would be good motivation. Strange also offers something Clayface doesn't: an intellectual equal to batman. This gives us an opportunity in clayface for batman to have an opponent that the bat can't beat, instead that he has to win over with his humanity... essentially, by embracing the "Man". Admittedly, this would probably deny us the ever so popular third act punch-up, the big dramatic action sequence to end it all on, but I think it would be a better story... and clayface has been known to work with batman from time to time in the comics.
@@kevingriffith6011 that would actually work really well as most poeple think batman is just some dark and serious guy when he has a heart.
The heart of the Batman character and the Batman story is the story of a traumatized 8-year-old boy who nobody rescued from his trauma, so he made himself into someone who could rescue others. And the beauty of that simple story is that it can be done with any number of tones and trappings. It can be silly, it can be fun, it can be campy, it can be serious, it can be tragic, or it can be multiple of those at once.
And a Batman who is forever alone misses another core part of the character: Batman is a person who lost his family and creates a new one, with Alfred as his father figure, sometimes Leslie thompkins or someone else as a symbolic mother, and with his sidekicks as symbolic children. I think a version of Batman without that is a version of Batman that only tells part of the story.
Empathy. What makes Animated Series Batman great is his empathy. He watches the video of Victor Fries being turned into Mr. Freeze and he’s horrified one human being could do that to another. He even gets *why* Freeze is doing what he’s doing, but Batman can’t let Freeze hurt innocent people in the name of revenge (and not just to protect the innocent; he knows becoming a murderer will be bad for Fries). That’s one of the things Nolan Batman gets right, and what Snyder missed about Batman. Batman may not always express it in a healthy way, but he *cares* about people being hurt (even his villains).
This this and more this
And then we’ll get to see more of Batman’s empathy in the second The Batman movie
And I thought I was losing my mind with all the Batman reviews lol totally agree with your take. I'd love to see a swash buckling batman sword fight Ra's Al Ghul in a castle 🤣
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” - CS Leiws
"Realistic Batman" is overdone, and your analysis of the early comics that Bill Finger created with Bob Kane taking all the credit, is correct. They were for children, but it was a time when children's media was much more diverse in tone and less policed by adults trying to control what kids were reading. It's dark, like The Shadow pulps were dark.
But silly is OK, too. I love watching the 60s show, and it was evocative of the Batman of the time. The 50s were a time of being desperate to NOT be controversial, in any way, after Doctor Wertham, the Kefauver juvenile delinquency hearings, and the comics code.
I also think a new version of Robin would be incredibly welcome.
Now...I also think the "My favorite Batman is the Kevin Conroy/Bruce Timm/Paul Dini animated version" is about as cliché at this point as the grimdark thing. I say that as a MASSIVE fan of that show, too, but it's legacy is just as stultifying as the "realistic" thing.
As for THE BATMAN - I think it was "realistic," while still feeling "comic book-esque." My best comparison would be the 70's comics the O'Neal/Adams or Englehart/Rogers stuff. It felt dark, Batman felt scary, while still embracing a silliness. The "mystery" was fine, and good to have, while not really being all that great...like a lot of those 70s comics. Batman walking around crime scenes freely was ridiculous, yet the film sold it. The Penguin was dangerous, but also laughable. Etc. Etc.
I couldn’t agree more in terms of it feels comic and surreal, yet grounded. I loved it for that (though I’d argue riddler was the least camp, which I think is a missed opportunity compared to his roots)
@@empatheticrambo4890 Matt Reeves has seemed to have missed the point of the Riddler entirely. Edward Nygma is a nerd, yes, but he's far from the derogatory incarnation of that stereotype we've seen in popular media in recent decades (the "incel," the school shooter, etc.). Traditionally nerds have been either heroes or comic relief, not villains; and while the Riddler IS a villain, I've always thought of him as playful rather than misanthropic and vicious. Nygma is supposed to be fueled by his brilliance and by a desire to match wits with others; he's not just another thug. So, yes, put him in a shamrock-green business suit and a matching derby, because that's how a sophisticated, elitist intellectual who was a little crazy would dress in real life. I don't want to see some sort of paramilitary S&M fetishist.
I really like the way you put things. Throughout my life so far, I've noted time and again that things that seem on the surface to be completely absurd actually contain a great deal of depth.
I've heard even fans of the character complain that Batman looks ridiculous because "all he ever seems to do is fight clowns." People still make fun of the Joker and Harley Quinn and long for characters like Ra's al-Ghul and Bane to be Batman's foes more regularly. Such people are obviously not aware that the clown is, in fact, one of the most mysterious and potent archetypes in all of human folklore; and that when the Joker imagines himself as supernatural or even a god, he's standing on a very firm Jungian foundation. Clowns represent chaos - the force that created the very universe itself, if you believe the ancient mythology.
Harley, too, is someone I believe deserves to be taken more seriously. Too often she gets dismissed as either an update of the blonde, ditzy, Prohibition-era gun moll from black-and-white movies or some kind of giggly Millennial hipster girl in punk fashions and weird makeup. Well, that's what you see if you only look at the surface, which after all is there mostly for humor and sex appeal. If you look INSIDE Harley, you see one of the most tragic figures in fiction. In fact, if I were to compare Harley to any other figure in our centuries-long legacy of Western fiction, it would be Francesca, the adulteress in Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy." It's a bit of a stretch, since Harley is not a sexual sinner but a violent criminal, but I argue that both characters have brought the same fate upon themselves, having caused themselves to be condemned (Francesca being literally in Hell, while Harley is stuck in an earthly version of it) by succumbing to their - to quote Harley creator Paul Dini - "mad love" (or "gentle heart," as Dante puts it). Both Harley and Francesca insist they are innocent because they have good intentions, believing that if you're full of (what you consider) love, you can't possibly be evil. Harley Quinn strikes me as a reminder that the "innocent" psychopaths tend to be the most dangerous, and this is precisely because, by definition, they lack any self-awareness to even try to stop what they are doing.
So yes, I have no problem with Batman fighting clowns. I insist that all but the most hackneyed members of Batman's rogues gallery have their place. I even defend the Red Triangle Circus Gang from BATMAN RETURNS, arguing that the movie subtly hints at their tragic past and includes them in the narrative in order to emphasize the theme of lost childhood that has run throughout both the Batman comics and the films of Tim Burton from the very beginning.
@@SeasideDetective2 Honestly, I do agree with you. I thought it was an interesting and fairly humanized take on the villain / internet extremist type character, but I don't particularly want that to be the Riddler.
I'm very glad they did such a good job with clues and mystery, because otherwise it wouldn't have felt like the Riddler in any way
@@empatheticrambo4890 Definitely needed work, plus the design was flipping garbage. The writing also drags it down with the modern narcissist BS
I think in films, the image of dark gritty Batman has been so entrenched that it’s harder for studios to get away from that image for fear of upsetting fans. The Gotham tv series always caught a lot of flack for being weird and whacky but to be honest, that’s the tone of what I like my Batman stories to be. It’s one of the reasons I love the Gotham show because it was whacky and goofy and could be serious in one moment and totally bonkers the next. That show never let itself be held back and thrived on being strange and weird. I wish more Batman stories would have that tone.
And as for Robin, given Marvel is clearly gearing up for young Avengers and Spider Man has had multiple films portraying him as a high schooler, there’s really no reason to not be able to do Robin even in a realistic and grounded way. Not to mention having Robin allows Batman actual growth of character.
Trouble is, the live-action Gotham series had nowhere near the same level of intelligent script writing as the 90s animated series. The more ridiculous or fantastical elements of the 90s series worked because most of the writing was serious and thoughtful, with little bits of humour here and there. The live-action Gotham series was over-the-top or mean-spirited/"edgy" almost constantly, so it doesn't matter if it even adapts the more fantastical elements. And unlike the 90s animated series, the Gotham series was all about "hey, fans, spot the reference". Something the animated series didn't have to do, since it could actually rely on the stories being Batman-driven, rather than everything being centered on being a prequel. A desperate prequel at that, since they still couldn't resist focusing on the premature emergence of many future villains. There was a point to the animated series' storytelling, or the storytelling in Burton's or Nolan's live-action adaptations. I didn't really see any point to the storytelling in Gotham.
Gotham stinks,and was borderline campy imo. I think the Iron Man comparison was spot on,and i would say that should be the perfect middle ground. Just have Batman be as obsessed about criminals as Tony was about technology. And you see how Tony was tortured but didn't feel the need to wear it on his sleeve? Please bring that back,as I think that makes for a better Bruce.The new Batman feels the need to beat us over the head with the fact he is tormented. A Batman who hides it,but lets it slip through his actions is a more tragic portrayl imo.
No one cares about the tone the gritty Batman are just higher quality products the whack Gotham show was ass
I will say, I think the best batman stories are the more "gritty" ones, like Redhood and Year one, and I wouldn't want that element to go away. (I still think Christopher Nolan's Batman is the best movie-wise)But I like how the 90's Batman TAS managed to keep that dark element, while also being fun and even a little bit campy or silly at times while still keeping it's mature tone. I think something more like that would be great.
Batman TAS is the pinnacle of Batman in my opinion. I respect that guy.
The day we get an adaptation of Dark Nights Metal or any of Scott Snyder's work will be the day I can finally collapse and die as a DC movie fanboy.
His run on Batman IMO is the best Batman run of all time. I think "best" storylines are subjective and I'm kind of biased in this case since Scott Snyder's Batman books are literally what got me into comic books again.
Without Dark Nights Metal and Death Metal being so good, I would not be reading modern day comics just because most of them cater towards shock value and changing things just to change things.
Afflecks solo Batman movie was going to be about Deathstroke coming after the Bat family ( Teased at the end of ZSJL ) so it’s a shame it was cancelled
Which is why we never got live action takes on say: mr. freeze (if you count the Batman and Robin movie), Clayface, Man-Bat, The Ventriloquist, Solomon Grundy
Was disappointed that we didn't get to see more of the DCEU Batman was looking forward to seeing a live action Batman interacting with the more fantastical elements of the DC universe. Would have definitely bought something new to movie version of the character. Also Batman The Animated Series is awesome quite possibly my favourite version (that or Keaton but it's close)
I think its possible we get that with Matt Reeves Batman in the future. Because if you ask me I don't think Matt is dumb enough to just simply follow what came before and re-tread the old trilogy. If you want to get people invested in Battinson and this new universe you need to do something way different from like TDK trilogy.
I’m actually quite happy the removed references to the DCEU in The Batman. It would have weighed it down with all the references.
@@PhiberOptik23 You mean the fact they made it an entirely different movie? Yeah if you asked me 5 years ago if I was hyped about The Batman in the current DCEU at that time I would have said that I genuinely don't know. The DCEU hasn't really gotten good until recently with movies like The Suicide Squad and The Snyder Cut coming out. Like yeah they've had some hits like Wonder Woman, Shazam, and Aquaman but those movies were mostly just to pass the time. I've never had the craving to just go back and watch Aquaman or Wonder Woman it's usually just when I'm in the mood.
@@albertokorogu1258 but he just did
@@AllThingsKen Wdym
I would say go for the B:TAS vibe with the new actor. Like you said, he needs his rogue's gallery. Then you can do the older Afleck-man version in the justice league setting. A few flash-backs to The Batman character would tie the two together and allow them both to move forward. And I really think that Christian Bale would make for a great older Batman now.
I completely agree with you. The obsession with realistic Batman gets on my nerves, it’s why Keaton is my personal favorite. Having said that I like Robert Pattinson’s Batman a lot, I personally take more issue with the Bale movies, I like the way Pattinson’s movie does the whole “grounded” thing way more. I also appreciate that they utilized the Mafia families, as they get sidelined all the time, which is silly, especially because they are easily the most realistic Batman villains. The sequel for “The Batman” is gonna have Robin, which makes me hopeful.
Part of what makes movies great is seeing things we cant see in reality.
The quality of writing in these essays is really very good indeed. I feel that the subject matter can distract one from the very obvious inference I’ve gradually drawn, that Rowan can really write. It’s fantastic stuff and deserving of a much wider audience. Thank you.
3:13 not correct. There were literally a handful of comic adaptations for the 66 series and that’s it. Very few, and it’s well known which ones were adaptations. Trivia : Mr Freeze was called Mr Zero in the comics. Batman 66 renamed him.
I’ve been wanting a Bat-Family movie for the last ten years. I think a really good story could be told about that dynamic between Batman and his protégés.
Thank you for adequately explaining why I didn’t love The Batman. I left the theater just empty. Technical aspects were good but the story left a hole. This is why, thank you
I feel the way about Batman the way I feel about James Bond. If you go to grounded it's not fun. But if you go to fantastical, I can't feel any stakes. Honestly it's a hard balance to strike but I've seen it done. (Although I do love a full silly Batman when done right)
I disagree, I think the movie recalled the Sixties TV series in a number of scenes. The sight of an ultra serious Batman solving clues while standing among police offers was quite absurd. Adam West also played Batman straight, with dead seriousness if ultimately comical effect. The scene with Batman is hanging off a cable in the new movie seemed a nod to the infamous shark scene in the Sixties movie. But...bring back Bat-Mite!
Not to mention the raised nose-guard on Battinson’s cowl was a very deliberate homage to West’s cowl.
I feel like the arkham games pretty much nailed the level of realism. It's reletively grounded but it's still uncanny and out there when it wants to be.
Idk, it might still be a bit too 'realistic' compared to what your trying to say in this vid, but personally I think it's great
The Arkham games are a perfect blend of "realistic batman" and Animated series batman.
Ya love how unrealistic they are sometimes my type of Batman
Funny, I felt like this was much closer to Adventure Batman than the boring and dry Nolan Batman. The depiction of Bruce as an emo virgin pretty boy is so fantastical. I love it. I can definitely see this version going campier.
Yeah. Before I clicked on this video, the title of it had me thinking Rowan would be singing The Batman's praises for how unrealistic Pattinson's/Reeves' take on the Caped Crusader is.
Imagine calling nolan bruce dry when you have pattinson acting like an angsty 14 year old.
I don’t like talking about Batman because I start making fun of people. But they like him because it’s easy to do dark and moody stuff. And you can do that but also have fun. I would love to see a Batman horror movie, with Clayface, Solomon Grundy or Man-Bat. Or a sci-fi tale with Mr. Freeze.
*Im glad someone else said it* we’ve seen realistic grounded Batman already with Nolan’s trilogy - I’d rather we’d have gotten a dark, fantastical movie like Glass or Split where there’s some wacky shit happening but the drama around that wacky shit makes you take it seriously.
A medieval Batman where he is a Scottish knight trained by Ras'al'Ghul while on the First Crusade only to return and find his king's castle has been overthrown by the court jester would be nice.
I couldn't agree more with what you say. The once refreshing take on the character is decades old now. And I have to add - I wasn't that excited about the "realistic" approach in the first place (whilst I really didn't like the late 90s Batman either).
Another great video, thanks Rowan. Myself of all the batman films I've seen to date, and that isn't all of them, Batman (1989) is the one I enjoyed the most. Something I'd like to see live action is Batman of the Future. The realism comes from the characters and depth and the sci fi fantasy of the near future.
People who still think Robin is embarrassing clearly haven't watched Teen Titans or Young Justice.
Always such a great take, you've convinced me.
AMEN. I am tired of "realistic" Batman. If I wanted a crime drama, I have no shortage of Law & Order, Adam-12, Dragnet, In the Heat of the Night, so many shows I can watch. Even Affleck, himself, has directed and starred in a few gritty, realistic movies.
Batman is friends with an alien. He's carried on a flirtation with a mystical woman, born of clay and blessed by the Greek gods. I would love to see a Batman, on the big screen, fighting a towering Man-Bat, or Clayface, a Bane who is not only jacked up on venom, but also cerebral and skilled. Batman has led the JLA into battle against aliens, builds the most fantastic weapons, while still being a suave and benevolent boss of a multi billion dollar company. Realism went out of the window, from the word go.
I'm not saying he has to be the 1950s Batman, but be open to the fantastic elements.
Count me among those who loved “The Batman”, and realism wasn’t my main hope. I primarily go for how well the “scrap” gets handled, and I’m OK if Batman takes his lumps, since that is an aspect of reality that I can appreciate. I can go for some sci-fi villains to the degree of Man-Bat, since that can loosely be based on science. ClayFace? PLEASE, NO!! In that realm it’s inescapable for me to watch that not think about how one’s inner workings can be maintained amid all that, and also that with those abilities, it feels like ClayFace holds back from growing more pointed offshoots than Batman can defend against. I’m not utterly hinged on realism. I just wish to avoid aspects that push my suspension of disbelief too far.
1. I love your take. You takes always make me think. 2. This is my favorite Batman movie. But not for any aesthetic or thematic reason. This was the first movie where Batman was shown as a detective. Being a long time comic fan, I enjoy the arcs where Batman is primarily a detective first and a super hero second. While the cartoons are fun, Batman Beyond was my favorite precisely b/c we got to see Terry be "coached" into becoming a detective; whereas, in the animated series, you might get an episode or two per season of detective-ness, but it really was focused on the tricked out ninja element of Batman. Beyond made Bruce Wayne a character. 3. In terms of your take, from an aesthetic and thematic point of view, I completely agree. But in terms of character, what sets this Batman apart is his brain and wealth (and all the limits to a detective that wealth brings in terms of knowledge and imagination). I read this Batman more as a one man police shop - a detective, a undercover cop, a political/economic enforcement agent, over funded soldier etc. - all of which individually is an extremely mentally taxing set of jobs, but rolled into one person, would definitely make you crazy. And that shows in this film. It was great for the plot! 4. Which is why I would propose what you really want is a Zoe Kravitz Catwoman film. I absolutely adore her performance in this film. But whereas the character is sometimes depicted as cowardly, depending on the writer, this version of Catwoman is very nuanced. She knows her limits and understands systemic problems and the scale systemic problems reproduce themselves on in a very logical, rational way. She understands her limits (which include wealth - you can never escape capitalism right?) in relation to those systemic issues. Which is why I loved the ending scene when Batman and her split, going in opposite directions. I think she understands mental health and how capitalism is taxing in so many ways to someone's health, mental or otherwise. And there is a lot of space for fun there b/c capitalism is fraught with irony. I'd love to see how that film plays with gender, politics, and economics in terms of a films meta commentary using witty jokes like Iron Man. And after the Halley Berry Catwoman, the film version of the character needs some help.
30 minutes into the movie and I was bored out of my skull. Honestly. I like the look of Batman. But something felt of in his character.
I can understant your point but I can see why creators always go with the dark brooding tone on Batman movies. Being a character with a long history in comics, with many types pf stories, some campy others dark, the movie creators have to choose which one will be the tone for the film and it's franchise. In the case of Batman, most of his best stories are dark noir detective drama, so creators try to adapt this type of stories and figure out to make some comic book elements to fit with the tone. Even Batman TAS went through, with creators having to make some changes, like having Robin already a teenager rather than a kid.
In the case of Reeves Batman I think he has better balance between the realism of Nolan and the gothic style of Burton movies and I can see Batman dealing with more weird villains in the sequels without feeling inconsistent with the franchise's tone.
Honestly, The Batman was refreshing in that it was a super hero movie that was more grounded after years of movies that dived into the unreality of super hero universe. I agree with your take at the end. The movie wasn't so realistic as to completely negate the more fantastical elements of the canon like Nolan's did. I do think sequels have the potential to take the material seriously without completely excising the fantastical. It could end up in a space similar to the Burton films just without the gothic flair.
That clip from Amanda Waller in JLU is one I think of often as something that people seem to overlook about Batman
I’ve always been a fan of variety. Is wrong to want multiple Batman series. With a dark and gritty one, a fun romp with a semi serious Batman, and crazy Lego Batman like series.
Robin does very well in animation, especially on the various incarnations of the Teen Titans. Christian Bale's dark gritty Batman movies were already done before DC and Warner Brothers decided to create a larger universe similar to that of the Marvel franchise. Ben Affleck's Batman should have been in several movies as part of the larger DC universe, and probably would have spun off other Batman related characters. But Justice League's problems are already historical now. I doubt the new Batman will fit in the current DC universe.
I thought it was not a Batman film he might as well just been a detective, to much talk with no action. It was a pointless film not interesting and a waist of time.
I respectfully disagree. The way I see it, so long as it's a good and compelling film in its own right, I really couldn't care less if it's realistic or more exaggerated. Good storytelling is good storytelling, regardless of the tone.
The issue with Robin is that he’s a kid. Why would Batman train a child to fight crime? It’s questionable. It’s child endangerment.
So you craft a story where the Robin character, whichever one you want, just keeps trying to emulate Batman no matter how many times Bruce tells him not, no matter how many times the kid gets his arse kicked. So Batman is kinda forced to train him as a means of protecting him.
I can't say anything about the batman. I've tried 4 times and I keep falling asleep on it.
They should adapt the O'Neil/Adams Batman of the early 70s. Stripped down and gritty but not overly gritty. Batman uses his detective skills and wants to save people. He's broody but not borderline psychotic. It was a refreshing change from the 60s TV show (which I also love).
The thing I really want is more of the Rogue's Gallery. I liked being able to see the Riddler and Penguin in The Batman, but can I just say how tired I am of seeing the Joker? I'd love to see Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, or Clay Face get a proper live action appearance in a good film. But with the Joker, how many times have we seen him since The Dark Knight? We keep getting interpretations, and I'm honestly just tired of seeing him. I want other villains to get a shot in the spotlight.
Plus The Wizard, The Mad Hatter, King Tut, would be awesome to see these as modern updates too! Like you, getting tired of modern batman keep doing the Joker, Riddler cat woman and penguin all the time.
Yes finally someone else says joker is overused like that clown has been used 2 times in a row in two big Batman live action movie franchises it’s time to give someone else a spotlight
I totally agree, the new Batman movie is boring as hell. I went with my boy to the Cinema, and after 30min I thought...OMG how long is that movie going to be. My boy and his friend found the movie ok, but a few days later he told me that pretty much everyone in school that the same, boring and not even close to Chris Nolans version.
The batman film is a generic garbage film it has put me off, this film made the character useless if he wasn't in the film nothing would change because the director doesn't get the concept of good guy stopping the badguys evil plans and saves people then catching the badguy, it wasn't accurate to Batman what so ever! this film Is so stupid and idiots online call it a masterpiece when it's trash.
I completely agree, Nolan’s take on Batman has grown extremely stale over time and I’m sick of film makers copying him ad nauseam. The Anthology, Animated Series, BVS and Arkham Games balance all of the elements perfectly in my view, stylish yet narratively strong, fantastical yet enjoyable. Though I really love Batman Begins, Nolan’s films slowly grew more generic with each film.
make "relistic" batman - he gets shot 50 times and doesn't react to it
can't solve google search riddles
not enough batman in batman
I don't mind gritty or dark stories but what I do want a less realistic Batman.
I'd love to see all facets of Batman, his skill, tech, detective mind, fantastical villains. Imagine an Arkham games Batman live action? Incredible
I hate that they've consistently moved away from the kinds of depictions that make batman more urban myth than man, Batman should never appear to the criminals as just some dude in a costume if he'd started that fight in the train station from the shadows by dragging one of the thugs into the darkness it would have been far more impactful than just walking in and having a straight up fist fight.
In "The Batman" everyone just treats him as just a vigilante when nobody really he's at his most effective when nobody really knows if he's even real or not.
You can be dark and fun and believable without veering off into the /wrist territory. Basically, don't grimdark, just for the love of everything, DON'T! Not many people can pull it off. And that's exactly what Batman should be. Fun "dark fantasy" hero. Nolan pulled it off, but those movies were different, they were more akin to 24(Bourne? You get the idea) than to a true superhero movie.
Robin's design is silly, but I love the character. Batman really needed him.
You have a point. However, I think Matt Reeves can put the fantastical elements of the batman mythos, just like you point out with characters like Iron Man, but he has to put it well and gradually so that it wouldn't end up like Batman and Robin
I fear we'll never get a proper comic book adaptation that would tow more in line with the old animated series. Bring out Clayface for a movie!
LOL! I have to say, you hit the nail on the head why the movie sat a little wrong with me the entire time. I enjoyed it, as you said, and I couldn’t find fault, but I thought we would CONTINUE after the Justice League instead of trampling on everything that’s been done before -- AGAIN! I really don’t get it. Did they decide they will never be able to do it like Marvel and just give up? I really didn’t need another beginning. I wanted to move FORward. On with the established characters and building on it, as you said, refining them and/or their tech or abilities. I give up. I love DC as well, but Star Wars and Marvel will always be a little more important ;) Thanks for all your commentaries, hope you continue in some fashion! Love it! My best
I think the new Batman movie will lead into a more comic book fantastical elements later. I can see Robin, Mr Freeze, Batwoman, etc. I’m still excited how this new world will be.
I want Clayface in all his mud monster with shape shifting powers glory and I want it in THE very next Batman movie
Obviously it is a grounded movie but I still felt like it took much more from a comic book element than something like the dark knight I personally felt like I was reading the comics again especially the year one comic and playing the Arkham games. It’s not a surprise to me that the movie was as “realistic” as it is given that both antagonists in the penguin and riddler aren’t really fantastical to begin with , but I do think that the next movie should begin to introduce more mystic elements. Characters like Solomon Grundy and Man-Bat would really suit the creepier and gothic aesthetic of Reeve’s batverse, perhaps he could build them as some sort of urban legends or myths Batman has to confront
3:00 note Robin’s cape was originally green. He was based on Robin Hood, not a bird robin. He’s totally wearing a Robin Hood inspired outfit. People seem to have forgotten this over the years.
Makes sense as to why Christopher Nolan went a more realistic route as people would have said he’s copying Tim Burton if it looked and felt like Burton’s films in anyway and if it looked and felt like Joel Schumacher’s films people wouldn’t have been happy due to those not being enjoyed as much. But even then, Nolan didn’t make it completely 100% realistic, there’s still suspension of disbelief and some stuff obviously probably wouldn’t happen in real life when you look at those film. I don’t mind the realistic version of Batman, but if one is going to make a Batman film or show with a realistic tone, make sure there’s some sort of lightness to it. In The Dark Knight Trilogy, Bruce’s interactions with Alfred and Fox are pretty humorous a good amount of the time. It balances out the darkness with some humor that fits the tone and doesn’t pull you out of the film. The Batman is a good film, a fine film, but there wasn’t much humor that sort of gave the film a bit of a light moment here or there. Hopefully, we’ll see some moments that are light enough that it balances out and fits the dark tone of the next film.
If fantastical shit doesn't happen in the next film I'm fucking done with this world and Matt Reeves. Period.
The funniest thing is that it’s supposedly “realistic” yet Batman snaps his neck on a bridge but gets up like nothing happened
We might see Nightwing and Red Hood, but we'll never see Robin again in a film. Maybe just a quick flashback to show the transition into a new character. I'd love to see Robin and I'd love to see a blue onscreen Batsuit. Something based off the Denny O'neil/Neal Adams run could be great. Those stories were dark and mature WITH the blue suit
Remember a few years ago when parkour seemed to be in every other movie? Seems bizarre that Robin didn't feature in any movie around then considering "gymnast who fights on the street" seems like an almost tailor made concept to take advantage of that craze!
honestly yah i think the overly gritty realistic batman has dun its thing and now we need a fresh take not something as flamboyant as Adam West but definitely something more willing to embrace the more fantastical elements in line with the animates series (to be specific i mean the original animated series and the 2004 animated "The Batman") and arkham games . though the real problem is overcoming the mindset that jest because a story has fun fantastical elements its some how cant be serios and have mature story beats.
Well, first of all, it's ironic to hear the words "Gothic" and "fun" in the same sentence without a "but." Gothic literature includes Edgar Allan Poe and Lord Byron - two authors who, with a few exceptions (such as "The Gold Bug" and "Don Juan," respectively), are NOT "fun" to read. But yes, I understand that in our more poppy and lighthearted 20th and 21st centuries, "Gothic" is more about Halloween and monster movies than angst and alienation (even though those two realms can certainly be combined, as in Dante's "Inferno"). What we once called "Gothic" we now call "existentialist," which sounds a lot more boring and indeed seems to describe the post-2000 Batman films fairly well.
But, yes, you're right. What has always drawn readers and viewers to Batman comics and media is their "chiaroscuro" - the mixture of dark and light. I will always think that Tim Burton's 1989 film achieved the perfect balance of realism and escapism for a PG-13 picture. In fact, when he was interviewed about his character, Jack Nicholson remarked that he knew millions of children would ask their parents to take them to see the film, and he had wanted to make the Joker menacing, but at the same time not so terrifying that kids wouldn't be able to laugh at him. That's a point that too often is forgotten: even the most vicious villain needs a lighthearted element in order to appeal to the audience.
Even better, I think, was the 1990s animated series, which is still one of the greatest cartoons ever. That version of Batman could make me laugh, make me cry, AND terrify me, which was good; the best entertainment engages multiple human emotions. In fact, that series remains such a gold standard that it baffles me why neither Christopher Nolan nor Matt Reeves have been willing to draw more than a handful of elements from it. There still exists a reluctance, for example, to put Harley Quinn in a movie unless she's supposed to be the focus of it, and then the movie has to become a comedy. I think it's been proven time and again in other media that Quinn can be just as emotionally complex a character - if not more so - than the Joker.
As I've suggested in the above paragraphs, the villains are key. The beauty of characters like the Joker, the Mad Hatter, the Ventriloquist, and Poison Ivy is that they're so outlandish that you can't make them "realistic" without distorting them beyond recognition. Who wants to see a Hatter who literally suffers from mercury poisoning, or a Ventriloquist who uses a tape recorder rather than a wooden doll to express his alter ego? I'm fine with these villains being irredeemably evil and slaughtering human beings by the hundreds, but there's no reason they can't be funny and imaginative too. I'd rather have them than Ra's al-Ghul; despite being a compelling villain in his own right, he can all too easily be reduced to just another terrorist.
I always find it funny how sections of the Batman fandom will call the very early version of character (ie. the incarnation that killed people and didn't have a Robin) the "true Batman" without realizing that this "true Batman" was a rip-off of The Shadow.
James Rolfe pointed out a kinda funny similarity between The Batman and Batman The movie.
Both feature The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Joker.
I think this is year two its gonna be dark but the more time they give this franchise than Battinson will become more hopeful & maybe get the iconic grey & blue suit
I pretty much entirely agree with everything you've said here (except for saying Batman Forever isn't a great movie). The Batman became my favorite Batman movie precisely because of all of this, though. I don't think it shut itself off from some of the more fantastical elements anymore than Casino Royale prevented Spectre from happening (maybe a bad example since people inexplicably hate that movie). I very much want a Robin in this universe, and if Reeves thinks he can make a Mr. Freeze happen in this universe, then I think anything is possible.
Plus, the way this ended, with Batman realizing he has to be more than anger and vengeance, that he has to be a symbol of hope, that's my Batman. That's the most character progression we've seen for Batman since Batman Forever.
They need to take a chance and do movie saga with robin, second movie his death and third movie have red hood
First movie going against mayb killer croc as a new enemy in the movies area, second movie obviously joker since robin dies and third movie with red hood, killing somone close to batman
Realistic Batman would just be a dude in clothes that actually work as camouflage and real body armor, not a Bat costume.
Just like how The Riddler is just dressed as someone who is hiding his identity online.
A truly realistic Batman movie was made in the early 1970's, under the title "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson.
@@stevenscott2136 I'll look it up! Thanks!
@FN-1701AgentGodzillaRangerPrime Ω The cape is a liability
Before 2005, a grounded Batman had only been done a handful of times in the comics. Now, it's ironically become the standard due to the success of "Batman Begins", but mainly "The Dark Knight". This of course, ignores all other facets of what the character can be. I hope that mainstream audiences will accept different takes on the character.
Just watched it. Was looking forward to this, and it’s simply a snooze. Drawn out dialogue, ridiculous runtime that isn’t justified by a slow pace story, and an abandonment from necessary character development (batman is on screen for almost the entire film). I’m not saying we need the same old song and dance for an origin story, but Batman’s in a fist fight within 5 minutes of the film. I felt like I was thrown in the middle of the film, and we never really returned to the beginning.
The film wanted to be “real”, but then felt almost like a comic or video game. I just found this to be conflicting at times.
I think diving into a heavier detective angle for the film was a fascinating take, and something fans have been hungry for.. unfortunately for me, it falls flat and I lost interest numerous times throughout…
i dont know why you saw the movie as slow i never felt that and i watched it in the cinema
Just got HBO Max and this was on it. I only made it 40 minutes and got so bored I turned it off. To each their own but this was dull and lifeless to me.
I'm really suprised by this review. I was mostly blown away by it. Not as great as Bale's, but in close second. Of course it depends in part with what expectations one goes in. Yes, it was gritty, but different enough from Nolan's & Bale's interpretation. The true litmus test will be how it fairs on second and third viewing. I suspect, that in parts it will strech and feel slow.
As for the rest. I would agree that calling Robin the Jarjar Binks of Batman is way harsh. But then Jarjar didn't irritate me. :-D A more funner version of Batman without going camp is indeed possible. I mean see the new Spiderman movies or the Marvel movies. My suggestion for a more fun Batman entry would be the Batman/TMNT crossover! The comics are great and the animated movie isn't bad either. I mean even a more serious interpretation would be fun. I also fully agree regarding bringing in all the other Bats, women, girls etc.
The gripe I have with this movie is there's "hypreal" aspect of the movie for example, the black make up under the cowl, but then you get a scene where a bomb blows up in his face & he's totally fine. I'd like to see Batman movies take more notes from the Arkham series with more fantastical & supernatural elements to really challenge Batman
Im glad someone said it. This basically one to one has been my thoughts on The Batman since I saw the second trailer
THANK YOU!!! I loved The Batman, and I feel the "realistic" take worked this time. Unlike Nolan's movies, this doesn't change stuff for the sake of realism. It focuses on the more down to earth elements like a detective driven plot or having his more realistic villains, so it respected the character in that regard. However, I don't want this to be the bar for the entire franchise this movie's setting up. If you're setting up a world of Batman characters, embrace all the elements!! Look at Batman:The Animated Series, some episodes are about Batman stopping some gangsters, while in others he fights a guy with a freeze gun and an actor who's a giant hunk of clay. It doesn't have to be "artsy and complex" to be taken seriously, just have strong writing and a story that thrills audiences. I hope Matt Reeves has considered this, after all, he directed movies where humans and monkeys battle each other
Oh, and for pity's sake, if The Batman gets a sequel, can we have a villain other than the umpteenth take on the Joker? I know he was teased in the movie and the deleted scene that was released is admittedly nice and creepy but Batman does have an extensive rogues gallery with characters that are at least as interesting as Joker, if not more so. I think the animated series's take on Mr. Freeze was actually a fairly realistic and tragic version that would make a nice template for a live action version that escapes the campiness of Arnold Schwartzenegger's lame puns while still bringing some elements of the fantastical to a future movie.
If past superhero hero movie franchises taught us anything is that they're going to bring in the arch nemesis at some point. And Joker is Batman's arch nemesis. Heck all three live action Spider-Men have fought the Green Goblin (arch nemesis) in their respective franchises.
Yes please god. No more Joker. I’m so sick and tired of seeing the Joker.
Honestly, I think Reeves will restrict him to a background character.
Tbh I feel like The Batman is a gritty hardass becoming a hopeful heroic figure
*agreed, the Nolan era of Batman is over, let’s see something fresh*
#MakeTheBatfleck
*and no I’m not a snyder cultist*
Never gonna happen
Never been a huge Batman fan (Marvel more my thing) but read quite a lot of issues. I think DC movies are just a bit embarrassed by their characters and don’t really understand superheroes comics. I do also think that Marvel were quite clever because all of the MCU movies from Iron Man on were starring heroes that, let’s face it , the general public hand little to no previous knowledge of, so they could form the movies around the actors and they cast the actors extremely well in every case.
I think it's more that Marvel movies are being made by Marvel, and DC movies are being made by Warner Bross.
@@Carabas72 Warner Brothers own DC Comics
@@johnberry5296
No. Time Warner/AT&T/Whatever it is now owns DC Comics. And WB is a film studio that is owned by the same conglomerate. DC Comics itself does not really have a lot to say about the movies.
Marvel Studios on the other hand IS Marvel. Marvel did a big gamble, and created their own film studio.