Not excited AT ALL about upcoming film "The Batman"

[Bryan Grantham]

I am not a "get off my lawn" kind of Batman fan. I believe that there is room for many different interpretations of this character and the cast, and indeed enjoy and appreciate creative branch-offs of the mythos.

But there is something irritating about yet another film depicting Batman as a mentally challenged person. It seems like anyone producing a 'new' movie about him seems to think that this approach is somehow edgy, different. That 'grim 'n gritty' is The Path to good storytelling.

"The Batman", just from all the publicity, descriptions from cast members, etc., just seems like more of the "same old" we've been getting in live-action since 1989, in regards to Bruce Wayne's mental health. It would be a pure shock to see a film about Batman where this wasn't brought into the story.

Within the context of Batman, he wears the outfit as a disguise to protect himself and as a psychological weapon against adversaries. This is no harder to understand than a knight of the round table wearing armor.

His trauma from the childhood attack inspired him to train to become someone who could protect others, he pursued a NOBLE path....that is an awesome trait, to rise above tragedy (yes I know this is a fictional character, it's the concepts I am praising). The early writers, especially after Robin was introduced, made Bruce/Batman a caring, intelligent, resourceful person...the World's Greatest Detective, with a healthy outlook on life, who had sympathy for some of the criminals he apprehended.

The "hero" depicted onscreen for so many decades now seems only inspired by the worst that media has to offer...it seems anathema to producers, writers and directors that Batman can be a smart, moral, decent and inspiring character.

It would have been great to see Michael Uslan have more input into the final depictions than he obviously did. Reading his book "The Boy Who Loved Batman", you get the impression that he really understands Batman and the concepts that make him really work as a character.

[AndyFish]

While I agree completely with your overall sentiments, I disagree about Uslan, after a fairly long conversation with him I got the impression he really didn't get what made Batman tick at all and was just adamant about getting a "grown up" version of the character made-- at one point he was so anti-Adam West Batman it verged on obsession. I read his book and it seemed filled with revisionist thought from what he had said in our conversation.

I think with 80 years of story by different creators none of us would probably agree what makes the character "right". It's common among long time characters-- everyone who enjoys them has different right and wrong versions of Sherlock Holmes, Flash Gordon, Tarzan and Superman.

Batman is first and foremost a kids character-- you can't sell pajamas and lunch boxes of a character and then make an R-rated version and not expect some major confusion from your audience. There will be parents that will take their kids to see the new Batman film because it's Batman, and then the kid will either have nightmares or the parents will complain. BATMAN RETURNS was the darkest of the rubber suited Batman films and they tied in with McDonald's for Happy Meals and that led to parents groups being outraged that this movie was made in the first place. They're never going to stop the billion dollar merchandising so if you want to make an R-rated Batman come up with a new character. Writer Andrew Vachss had a detective character he wrote that he eventually admitted WAS Batman, and it was extremely popular.

Personally, my favorite version of Batman is from 1939-1943 - in the comics and up through the Columbia serial. The character as he's first introduced and up through that time has no psychological damage. As far as I'm concerned everything outside of that is not "my" Batman with a few exceptions and that's ok. I saw Batman V Superman long after it had first come out because I heard it was laughably bad, so one afternoon I grabbed my assistant and made him come see it with me, we laughed out loud at the "Martha" scene and it got so bad we couldn't stop laughing. I've not seen a second of any other Batman film since that one.

If you're interested in a more "modern" version of Batman in comics that works with this 1939-1943 era check out the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers run on Detective Comics from #471-476-- they managed to really capture what makes Batman work, explored his relationship with Robin and the major villains, and at least IMO got it right. That was FORTY years ago but still some of the best Batman ever put to page.

For movies, besides the first serial, the Adam West movie is the only Batman movie I ever go back to. The rest are fine but they are not for me. Batman editor Denny O'Neil once told me his favorite Batman movie was Alfred Hitchcock's TO CATCH A THIEF (1955), which, if one used their imagination, could easily be about retired vigilante rather than a cat burglar trying to clear his name and the final scene could easily have been Cary Grant in a Batman suit going after the imposter trying to ruin his name.

They're going to keep on making Batman movies and TV series, I'm looking forward to Bruce Timm's new Batman 1939 cartoon, but the Pattison rubber suit thing doesn't interest me, although a group of guys and I get together quarterly for bad food, in-depth conversations and a trip to the movies-- this quarter the movie they picked is THE BATMAN, so I guess I'll be seeing it, but like most of their choices I usually just take a nap.

[Mike Mulitsch]

A nap

[Kamdan]

This new Batman film is appealing to me because it seems to be doing what we all wanted and expected after The Dark Knight, right down to The Riddler treated as a Zodiac Killer type of villain. The Dark Knight Rises was very underwhelming and ended the series way too soon. The success of Joker with the R-rating made me hoping The Batman would take the same approach. As soon as I saw the toys made for kids, I knew we were gonna be stuck with another PG-13 film, but reports are coming in saying that the film is practically R-rated. No doubt Warners pulled strings so that they wouldn’t be criticized for advertising R-rated films to children.

I too am getting tired of the same dark approach to the character and really love the idea of someone attempting a Dick Sprang Carmine Infantio influenced film. Hopefully that new Batman Caped Crusader animated series coming out won’t just be the early Bob Kane Bill Finger era of the character and will progress the way it did in real life with each season representing a different era of the comics. I’ve found that it’s rather boring to just have Batman be one set interpretation of the character throughout a whole series.

[Larry A.]

I quit watching the movies after the sick and disgusting rendition of the penguin and cat woman in the 2nd Michael Keaton movie. I liked Mr. Keaton's take, but the rest... no way! I loved the first and second, like Andy fish, serials and I enjoyed the 66 AW movie. I did not care for "TDKR" comics. As far as the comics, I prefer 1939-1960.

[AndyFish]

I'm one of the few board members who really loved Frank Miller's first Dark Knight Returns arc-- those four issues worked for me as an imagining of a possible future for Adam West's Batman. It was operatic, and nowhere near as dark as Batman would later become. He didn't come across as a lunatic and it was about character development, if something had happened to Robin how would Batman have evolved and dealt with being 60 years old (I like to think he quit at 50).

[AndyFish]

A nap

And today's overblown boring movies and super comfortable reclining theater seats provide the perfect nap experience. I can even put in my AirPods and they block out the surround sound.

[Yellow Oval]

I'm tired of Warner Bros. still insisting on portraying Batman as Darth Vader with pointy ears . Add to that, Warner Bros. hasn't caught on that their modern concept of Batman has been a total washout. Bale's 007/Vader started to falter by that trilogy's last film, Batfleck didn't sell and neither will Bedward, the sparkling Batman. Lastly, superhero flicks are on the decline (minus the current Spider-Man exception) as people have more important worries in this day and age. To say that Warner Bros. are slow doesn't even begin to describe them. I've avoided Hollywood's Batman films since the end of the Nolan trilogy and I'll continue. No love lost.

[SprangFan]

I'm with Andy on Miller's Dark Knight Returns: as a possible, "alternate future" tale, it was fantastic. The problem came when DC decided to make it not so "alternate" but instead more of a "certain" future. What worked in the context of a 4-part, self-contained mini-series is merely oppressive and soul-crushing as an open-ended "status quo." The reason a sad ending works at the end of a heroic saga, be it Robin Hood or King Arthur or whatever, is because it follows a golden period of adventures filled with optimism, romance (in the classical sense) and glorious victories. If the whole story is as tragic and downbeat as the ending, it's not a heroic saga any more. Unfortunately I think Batman's grip on modern pop culture comes from his ability to embody the jaded modern view of "the hero." For me that basically boils down to "Life is hopeless, but with superior skills and a never-surrender attitude, we can make sure that when we do go down, we'll have taken down as many enemies as possible, first."

I'm skipping the new film, but more out of indifference than any particular grudge. The last Batman movie I saw in a theater was "Batman and Robin," so I'm just grateful I even retained an interest in the character in ANY form.

The good part about DC's total reliance on Batman to sell any comics or make anything close to a hit film is that at any given point, there's about a dozen different versions of the character in production, and sooner or later one will appeal. I'm looking forward to the new Bruce Timm animated show.

[JimmyVale]

These are interesting views. Here are a few tidbits that I believe are somewhat factual:

1. Any comic, movie, TV show, cartoon, or serial depicting Batman from the 1930s to the 1970s was kid friendly. You could stretch out in front of the TV with your kids, grandkids, mom and dad, whatever, and watch Batman together, no problem.

2. 1986 TDKR - that set in motion the trend of today.

3. 1989 Batman movie - you can’t really watch that with the kids. Pretty much all the ones from then on had some inappropriate language and situations making them unsuitable.

The Batman media that’s the most fun is the stuff that you could watch in mixed company. The movie that’s coming out - the little twilight guy beating people up - Bruce Wayne is mentally disturbed, etc. all that has already been done and is tired.

Usually, I see these movies on opening night - probably not this time - not sure it’d even be worth the hassle.

[Larry A.]

I have to say that I agree that TDKR the graphic 4 part is a sequel of sorts to Aw's Batman 66, but I have to give credit to Batman and Robin as a legitimate successor to 66 Batman as well what with the puns and the silly Mr. Freeze nonsense. But like Sprangfan, I do NOT believe that Batman should be mentally deranged. It was amusing imho to see Mr. Keaton sleeping upside down like a bat, but his later films just didn't cut it for me. The Penguin having flipper hands and eating like an animal were just disgusting. It dishonored the character. Cat woman, while weird, and strangely fascinating didn't honor Her predecessors both TV and Comic.
I'll continue to keep Batman30-68 and a couple of movies in my "Head Canon", thank You very much!

[AndyFish]

I had a discussion with Frank at a con and at that time he said he never intended Batman to come across as deranged, just driven. After Dark Knight Returns DC couldn't help but let "lesser" creators mess with the concept and they didn't get it. A few years later Frank WAS writing Batman as deranged so he must have changed his mind, although I suspect he was just trying to see how far he could push editorial. It's funny working in comics, as a fan you think it'd be a dream to work on your favorite character, but you don't realize editorial dictates are going to push and pull you all over the place and can actually make it hard to deliver a quality product. It's why I like working outside the "big two".

[SprangFan]

For every innovative take on a concept, there's always a slew of imitations that just miss the whole point, because they're cranked out by hacks or micro-managed by bean-counters.

I'm not much of a "Star Wars" fan but I can recognize it was fresh and innovative when it began. A lot of producer types saw its success and said, basically, "get me another Star Wars." So we got a glut of movies with pew-pew laser battles and comedy relief robots, because those types can never see beyond the top layer of paint to find the heart of what makes something work.

It's like that with "The Dark Knight Returns." So many creators (to use a kind term) saw that and thought, "Oh I get it, a Batman who's not afraid to break bones and poke out eyes! A dead Robin! That's kewl, I can do that!"

What's really depressing is that it metastisized beyond Batman to infect almost all of DC's roster of heroes, even Superman. Nobody at DC understood why TDKR sold, but it did, so hey, let's make all Batman stories TDKR, and then we'll make all the other heroes into "Batman."

On the other hand, it's nothing new in comics. The only reason we have superhero comics, shows and movies at all is because Action Comics #1 sold like crazy back in '38 and every publisher in town said, "Bring me another Superman." Indeed, that was the directive Bob Kane was operating under when he started kicking around the notion of a "Bat-Man" in the first place. Which thankfully Bill Finger showed up to re-imagine as something that actually worked. So sometimes it works out.

[JimmyVale]

…making Superman a dark character with a “wine red” cape for “Superman Returns”in ‘06….that was stupid. The filmmakers didn’t know what Superman was.

Yeah, you’re right, the “dark” thing started infecting every character. It’s really tired. Like CGI fighting, explosions, etc…very tired.

Batman doesn’t have to be a kids comedy but he also doesn’t have to be a psycho!

[Keith Mayo]

To each his own and all that jazz. Some of y'all ought to read Glen Weldon's book "The Caped Crusade & The Rise Of Nerd Culture.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Th ... 0&gboemv=1