WARNING:
***This thread will contain plot-centric spoilers. If you have not seen the movie as yet, please scroll at your own risk.***
We kindly asked that people kept their hot-takes on The Batman spoiler-free until people who were interested had a chance to see the movie in theatres, thanks for obliging!
So now nearly four weeks have elapsed, this thread (with its all caps "SPOILER" warning in the title) is the place we can continue our discussions/reviews.
Thanks for your patience, now have at it citizens!
SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
Moderators: Scott Sebring, Ben Bentley
-
Ben Bentley
- Moderator
- Posts: 1549
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:31 pm
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
I thought it was great that they actually had a storyline in this one that went the mystery route, but the mystery itself was solved four minutes into the film when the Mayor is clearly depicted as a bad guy with his bottle of scotch and his "we have to stop this" attitude towards his opponent and we see quickly his connection to Thomas Wayne so when he's revealed as the true villain of the piece its lazy. Imagine if we had gotten to the end of the story and true villain was the cardboard can't do wrong female mayoral candidate? That would have been a shocker and created the sense that Gotham has no hope at all-- and then in swoops Batman as it's "knight". Instead she depicted as righteous from the start and to the finish, and the same goes for Catwoman, there is zero growth for the character-- her attitude in her first scene remains completely unchanged throughout the entire film. There is no heroes journey for her and she comes across as another cardboard character.
Those are my initial thoughts now that we're digging into spoilers, it was a good try, but if you want to watch a movie with twists and an actual mystery give SEVEN, THE MALTESE FALCON or THE USUAL SUSPECTS a shot. It's a shame they just can't make good movies anymore. When a character path is totally flat it creates a boring character. I also sorely missed the humor of a Morgan Freeman like character in the other Batman films.
Those are my initial thoughts now that we're digging into spoilers, it was a good try, but if you want to watch a movie with twists and an actual mystery give SEVEN, THE MALTESE FALCON or THE USUAL SUSPECTS a shot. It's a shame they just can't make good movies anymore. When a character path is totally flat it creates a boring character. I also sorely missed the humor of a Morgan Freeman like character in the other Batman films.
Artist-Writer
http://WWW.ANDYTFISH.COM
http://WWW.ANDYTFISH.COM
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
1966 Call Backs
1) Bat climb (Batman running down a wall on a Bat rope
2 Shakespeare Bust in the Study
3) multi line phone similar to BatPhone
4) Joker to Riddler: “Riddle me this”
Gotham by Gaslight
The Batman Cowl and collar are similar to that in Gaslight, particularly the handmade stitching and nose flap
Batman Returns
Cat woman theme repurposed around Selina Kyle Appearances
1) Bat climb (Batman running down a wall on a Bat rope
2 Shakespeare Bust in the Study
3) multi line phone similar to BatPhone
4) Joker to Riddler: “Riddle me this”
Gotham by Gaslight
The Batman Cowl and collar are similar to that in Gaslight, particularly the handmade stitching and nose flap
Batman Returns
Cat woman theme repurposed around Selina Kyle Appearances
Some days you just can't get rid of a ... SHARK!
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
It is nice that a Batman movie is an event and that it was worth watching. I liked the movie very much.
Pattinson was an excellent Batman. My only gripe was that the Batmobile did not look like a Batmobile but a generic car. But it seems in the Red grill lights you can see Batman silhouettes of his eyes.
Was that venom that Batman injected himself with? He seemed hurt then after he injects himself he's ready to fight. In the wingsuit scene where he lands rough and is limping I wonder if he injected himself again.
I really like the Batman popcorn helmet that was at the first showing. It reminded me of the Ideal Batman helmet. It's extremely detailed showing the stitching. I highly recommend getting one.
The Hot Toys Deluxe The Batman looks pretty good with a lot of accessories.
Pattinson was an excellent Batman. My only gripe was that the Batmobile did not look like a Batmobile but a generic car. But it seems in the Red grill lights you can see Batman silhouettes of his eyes.
Was that venom that Batman injected himself with? He seemed hurt then after he injects himself he's ready to fight. In the wingsuit scene where he lands rough and is limping I wonder if he injected himself again.
I really like the Batman popcorn helmet that was at the first showing. It reminded me of the Ideal Batman helmet. It's extremely detailed showing the stitching. I highly recommend getting one.
The Hot Toys Deluxe The Batman looks pretty good with a lot of accessories.
- Attachments
-
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
This is my review as I posted it on a nerd board I moderate, so it mentions a few points that are givens around here.
————
You may or may not be aware, but Ive been a Batman uber-nerd since grade school. To say the least, I’m a tough audience. For me, it’s always been 1966 and 1989 only film-wise as well as a lot of the comic books through the years.
No second Keaton/Burton (it was terrible). The Schumacher films were insultingly bad. Nolan/Bale was too much of everything and to me they haven’t aged well at all. Ledger should have gotten an Oscar for scene chewing. 1 or 2 viewings and I said goodbye. They look like cosplay at a comic book convention. Worst cowl ever with the small mouth cut-out and the inward-curving ears.
I skipped all of the Affleck films. No interest. DC lost me years ago with their inability to understand their own characters. Wonder Woman 2017 is the lone exception. That film was perfect. But I digress. The mess of everything else, including non-comic book costumes - don’t get me started.
Which brings me to this new film;
Pattinson nails this darker version. Loved the old style film noir narration too. Plus - it’s Batman as a detective and the villain isnt the focus of the film, Batman is the focus. What a novel idea. Oh, and FINALLY, we don’t have to watch Bruce’s parents being murdered. No slow motion shot of the pearls falling to the street.
Zoë Kravitz Is the best Catwoman since Lee Meriwether. She is also a perfect live action version of Catwoman as she’s been drawn and portrayed in the comic books for the past ten or fifteen years. Several of the Batman/Catwoman scenes looked like they used the current comic books as storyboards. Really well done.
I like that the film doesn’t try to be anything it isn’t. It tells a story of Batman and does it unapologetically and without pretense. That’s something I didn’t care for with the Nolan films. There was this sort of smug air about them that they were the true and authentic Batman. There isn’t one definitive Batman. After 80 years of the character and all the changes in the Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Modern ages of the comic books, there’s a valid & canonical Batman for everyone.
My other favorites, ‘66 and ‘89, were authentic versions of specific periods in the comics. The TV show was an exact representation of what the comic books were in the 60s. A few episodes were direct lifts from specific issues.
Burton89 had Frank Miller’s fingerprints all over it. However, after Burton each new take seemed to be insinuating that it was a correction to the previous mistake - whether either side of that argument was true or not. I can’t speak to the Batfleck films, so I won’t.
I very much appreciate that this new film is its own story and take. I like that, as a lifelong fan, I can sit and watch Batman without it having any franchise or fan base subtext.
It feels clean, as an entity. The way ‘66 and ‘89 felt clean when they were new. It speaks to my outlook on the world at this point in my journey. After a few days of pondering it, as well as having these emotional reactions as the story progressed in the theater, this is a very welcome addition to my personal canon and it was a VERY long time coming.
In short, I really liked it. I’ll see it repeatedly and buy it. Will elaborate if the discussion warrants it. Also, I’ve been listening to the soundtrack all day while I worked. It took a lot to add to my ‘66 and ‘89 personal canon, but this has done it. My Batworld is now ‘66, ‘89, and ‘22.
Third viewing in a few days and then waiting for the home release.
————
You may or may not be aware, but Ive been a Batman uber-nerd since grade school. To say the least, I’m a tough audience. For me, it’s always been 1966 and 1989 only film-wise as well as a lot of the comic books through the years.
No second Keaton/Burton (it was terrible). The Schumacher films were insultingly bad. Nolan/Bale was too much of everything and to me they haven’t aged well at all. Ledger should have gotten an Oscar for scene chewing. 1 or 2 viewings and I said goodbye. They look like cosplay at a comic book convention. Worst cowl ever with the small mouth cut-out and the inward-curving ears.
I skipped all of the Affleck films. No interest. DC lost me years ago with their inability to understand their own characters. Wonder Woman 2017 is the lone exception. That film was perfect. But I digress. The mess of everything else, including non-comic book costumes - don’t get me started.
Which brings me to this new film;
Pattinson nails this darker version. Loved the old style film noir narration too. Plus - it’s Batman as a detective and the villain isnt the focus of the film, Batman is the focus. What a novel idea. Oh, and FINALLY, we don’t have to watch Bruce’s parents being murdered. No slow motion shot of the pearls falling to the street.
Zoë Kravitz Is the best Catwoman since Lee Meriwether. She is also a perfect live action version of Catwoman as she’s been drawn and portrayed in the comic books for the past ten or fifteen years. Several of the Batman/Catwoman scenes looked like they used the current comic books as storyboards. Really well done.
I like that the film doesn’t try to be anything it isn’t. It tells a story of Batman and does it unapologetically and without pretense. That’s something I didn’t care for with the Nolan films. There was this sort of smug air about them that they were the true and authentic Batman. There isn’t one definitive Batman. After 80 years of the character and all the changes in the Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Modern ages of the comic books, there’s a valid & canonical Batman for everyone.
My other favorites, ‘66 and ‘89, were authentic versions of specific periods in the comics. The TV show was an exact representation of what the comic books were in the 60s. A few episodes were direct lifts from specific issues.
Burton89 had Frank Miller’s fingerprints all over it. However, after Burton each new take seemed to be insinuating that it was a correction to the previous mistake - whether either side of that argument was true or not. I can’t speak to the Batfleck films, so I won’t.
I very much appreciate that this new film is its own story and take. I like that, as a lifelong fan, I can sit and watch Batman without it having any franchise or fan base subtext.
It feels clean, as an entity. The way ‘66 and ‘89 felt clean when they were new. It speaks to my outlook on the world at this point in my journey. After a few days of pondering it, as well as having these emotional reactions as the story progressed in the theater, this is a very welcome addition to my personal canon and it was a VERY long time coming.
In short, I really liked it. I’ll see it repeatedly and buy it. Will elaborate if the discussion warrants it. Also, I’ve been listening to the soundtrack all day while I worked. It took a lot to add to my ‘66 and ‘89 personal canon, but this has done it. My Batworld is now ‘66, ‘89, and ‘22.
Third viewing in a few days and then waiting for the home release.
“What's important is that the world know that all visitors to these teeming shores are safe, be they peasant or king.”
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
This is another thing that really stood out and that really made me happy. I alluded to it in my review. Batman is the main focus of this film. After decades of watching Batman films and waiting for Batman/Bruce Wayne to actually show up in a scene, we finally have a second film where he is the major character.
Here are the breakdowns per film of the number of minutes Batman is on screen. I sourced these from three sites: IMDB, SuperheroHype, and Screen Time Data. Some rounded down, some included the minutes/seconds. Still, an interesting look at how Batman has been handled as a character in his own films. Not since Batman in 1966, have we had a film where our hero is even close to being a major part of the film.
The Batman; 129/175 min = 73%
———————————————————————————
Batman ’66; 48/104 min = 46%
Batman '89; 27:31/126 min = 22%
Batman Returns; 24:37/126 min = 19%
Batman Forever; 25:36/122 min= 21%
Batman and Robin; 20:18/125 min = 16%
Batman Begins; 24:14/140 min = 17%
The Dark Knight; 27:36/152 min = 18%
The Dark Knight Rises; 21:13/164 min = 13%
This is the Screen Time Data graph of the minutes per all the characters. Also nice is how much time Commissioner Gordon and Catwoman get on screen. Batman’s story with both of them is also integral to this film. Again, this isn’t a film about villains.
Here are the breakdowns per film of the number of minutes Batman is on screen. I sourced these from three sites: IMDB, SuperheroHype, and Screen Time Data. Some rounded down, some included the minutes/seconds. Still, an interesting look at how Batman has been handled as a character in his own films. Not since Batman in 1966, have we had a film where our hero is even close to being a major part of the film.
The Batman; 129/175 min = 73%
———————————————————————————
Batman ’66; 48/104 min = 46%
Batman '89; 27:31/126 min = 22%
Batman Returns; 24:37/126 min = 19%
Batman Forever; 25:36/122 min= 21%
Batman and Robin; 20:18/125 min = 16%
Batman Begins; 24:14/140 min = 17%
The Dark Knight; 27:36/152 min = 18%
The Dark Knight Rises; 21:13/164 min = 13%
This is the Screen Time Data graph of the minutes per all the characters. Also nice is how much time Commissioner Gordon and Catwoman get on screen. Batman’s story with both of them is also integral to this film. Again, this isn’t a film about villains.
“What's important is that the world know that all visitors to these teeming shores are safe, be they peasant or king.”
Re: SPOILERS: "The Batman" - Your Reviews
I watched The Batman for the first time just after it became available for streaming, and between the dark, dreary visuals and what I found to be hard-to-hear dialogue, I missed a bunch of it. Like others here, I found it hard to get through. I recently watched the (pretty good, but dark) Penguin miniseries and decided to re-watch The Batman last night.
I still don't love it but it made more sense on the second viewing, and I caught what I think is an obscure 1966 callback. The Gotham police commissioner at the start of the movie, who becomes Riddler's second murder victim, is named Pete Savage. That's got to be a nod to the millionaire descendant of Gotham's founder whom Egghead kidnaps, along with Bruce Wayne and Tim Tyler, in "An Egg Grows In Gotham."
I still don't love it but it made more sense on the second viewing, and I caught what I think is an obscure 1966 callback. The Gotham police commissioner at the start of the movie, who becomes Riddler's second murder victim, is named Pete Savage. That's got to be a nod to the millionaire descendant of Gotham's founder whom Egghead kidnaps, along with Bruce Wayne and Tim Tyler, in "An Egg Grows In Gotham."