Pattinson/Reeves Batman Movie (Formerly Affleck Stand-Alone Film)

[ZariusTwo]

[ZariusTwo]

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Oh dear...

And jeeze, did he just admit that Geoff Johns came in and mucked up the screenplay?

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Oh dear...

And jeeze, did he just admit that Geoff Johns came in and mucked up the screenplay?

Took the bullet.

It's so hard in Hollywood to say "he couldn't crack it" because to throw shade at the behind-the-scenes team would provoke an affiliation like another associated production company or a sponsor to have zero faith in the studio behind these decisions.

Wink, wink, the public, from casual to informed, know what goes on, but it's just a formality for the celebrity to take him or herself to task to save the face of the studio

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Took the bullet.

It's so hard in Hollywood to say "he couldn't crack it" because to throw shade at the behind-the-scenes team would provoke an affiliation like another associated production company or a sponsor to have zero faith in the studio behind these decisions.

Wink, wink, the public, from casual to informed, know what goes on, but it's just a formality for the celebrity to take him or herself to task to save the face of the studio

It's total B.S., he's not giving us even close to the whole story. Even after he "couldn't crack it," meaning the script, and Matt Reeves took over, he still publicly said he'd love to be Batman still... if he liked the script. Similarly, Matt Reeves said Ben was his guy for Batman. Why aren't we getting that part of the story? What changed?

[AquaParade]

Man, seeing that video has me bummed about it all over again!

I'm totally optimistic about the future of Batman, but I'll always wish Ben could have had his shot at directing that film.

Andrew, I don't think we'll ever get the full truth behind what went down. At least not for a while. I imagine a lot of it comes down to creative difference and personal health issues. I don't think we can trust that Matt Reeve's ever intended for Ben to be his Batman. I believe Matt Reeves will say what he has to, in order to keep everyone off his back, so he can make the best movie possible. WB probably ordered him to just play along with the marketing plan/lies, and in return he'll get the creative freedom he needs. You were right about Ben's contract - looks like he is 100% officially not coming back, even with the extra film in his contract. I would have bet on this, but I wasn't completely sure until now.

I also believe Ben likely had a Batman script he was happy with and wanted to move forward on. WB probably wanted something different. They kept going back and forth, brought in Geoff John's to be middle-man, still couldn't work it out. Ben said "screw it. BvS is a mess, JL is a mess. I can't get my script approved. I'm over it".


Everyone involved is just going to say whatever is the most PR-friendly, at that moment in time.

[Leo656]

What's especially confusing is, the old rumors about Ben's script were, The Penguin as the main villain, but several of the Batman rogues would be featured prominently. That's the script that apparently wasn't good enough anymore when they switched directors.

Now the latest rumors say that the new script... features Penguin as the villain and features several of the other villains prominently.

I don't buy the "script issues" story, since it appears that they're at least using the same basic outline. I mean, ultimately, it doesn't matter. But Andrew's right that the full story is much bigger than what we know.

Ah well.

[raph27]

I'm not surprised but still disappointed at how this is falling apart. It seemed like one of the few good projects the DCEU (or is it Worlds of DC now?) had going.

[Voltron]

One thing that gets me about DC is how much successful lore they have to draw on and they just. . . don't. Every so often, they seem to be really close to grounding the live action films in some of the stories in the comics or the DCAU, but they fall short of doing that.

For example, the Suicide Squad film drew heavily from the Assault on Arkham film. AoA is a film that, personally, I liked. I was disappointed that they deviated from it so hard.

Contrast this with the Nolanverse Batman films where a lot of the scenes and even some plot points from the comics were put into the films. The little details here and there were a nice little nod to the fans.

Oh, well. A Batman movie will still put me in the seat.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Every so often, they seem to be really close to grounding the live action films in some of the stories in the comics or the DCAU, but they fall short of doing that.

Well, as I've noticed and pointed out for many, many years, a lot of the "problem" in parsing out the "correct" approach for any adaptation has to do with which medium a fan was exposed to first, and kind of trickles out from there. Because despite many superficial differences, the DC comic books and the animated stuff, the movies, and the TV stuff are all extremely different. It's absolutely possible to appreciate and be a fan of all of it, but they're so dissimilar fundamentally that it creates an entirely different idea of what is "sacrosanct" in each fan/viewer's mind.

Speaking very broadly, most people who were comic book fans first, have a much wider idea of what's "acceptable" or "proper" for this or that character, because even in the comics alone you might see one character handled in dramatically different ways depending on who's writing the book from one year to the next. So when things are adapted to other media, and in turn become streamlined, or sanitized, or at the very least condensed, it doesn't feel like as big a deal because you're already used to that kind of thing. A fan of the Frank Miller Batman comics can be, and often will be, a fan not only of Batman: TAS, but "Brave and the Bold" as well, realizing in both cases that while these other interpretations are "watered down", they're still validly representing other angles of the same material. They're not "getting it wrong", just shining light on different angles.

What I notice about fans who approach the characters primarily through a film, TV show, or an animated series, rather than first through the comics themselves, is that they are generally very wedded to "their" version of the story or character, and very resistant to things that go against their specific preference. They have a harder time adjusting to things that go against their expectations, or what they're familiar with. If the first Superman you ever saw was Chris Reeve, or the first Batman you ever saw was Michael Keaton, in that person's mind, 99 times out of 100, they'll insist that "their" version is the perfected, crystallized, distilled essence, and that everything else either falls short or "gets it wrong", completely. And it generally only works in one direction; comic book fans will still easily be able to enjoy movies and cartoons based on these stories, even if they take several liberties, because they expect that to some degree. But that's in contrast to the many, many people who dismissed any Justice League movie that didn't have John Stewart and Hawkgirl in it, because in their minds, based on what they've been exposed to, that's what's "proper". These types of fans generally don't read comic books at all, with the explanation being "It's too different from what they're familiar with." They tend to mostly stick with the one or two versions of a character that they know well and enjoy, versus the type of fan who reads the comics first, then branches out into all the other media without any real discrimination because they're simply a fan of _____.

Put simply, there's a lot of great material based on DC comics across all media. but depending on which media a fan is first exposed to, and thus personally identify with, they're going to base a lot of their opinions about what's Good or Bad on that. There's some crossover between the audience, obviously, but generally speaking, comic book fans will still watch cartoons and movies, but movie and cartoon fans won't read comic books. And that skews a lot of the data, and makes it extremely hard to present any product that will entertain "everyone" sufficiently.

I mean, to someone raised mostly on the Justice League cartoons, they're perfect, the best possible representation of the DCU, and everything else should just copy that, and it's easy, right? Except that to anyone who's a hardcore comic fan, they're just Really Good Cartoons but all the other opinion stuff is laughable. They're absolutely not the best interpretation of the DCU or its characters, they just happen to be Very Good Cartoons that an entire generation of kids grew up on. BUT, if you don't read comics, how would you know any better? You can't, you can only speak from experience, so to that fan, they are "perfect".

The fact that a good chunk of people who would identify as DC fans have rather myopic opinions about what's proper definitely makes it hard to program cross-media content like movies and TV shows, because the audience just doesn't have much in common aside from very broad things, like, "I like Batman". The fact that the comic books themselves are PG-13 to Hard R, while most people who identify as fans were raised on much lighter fare, causes its own huge disconnect because of the inherent questions about things like storytelling and tone.

DC has the greatest characters and stories in all of fiction, or at least super-hero fiction, but they also have a serious "broken base" issue that's almost 50 years old. It's really not at all dissimilar to the affliction plaguing the TMNT franchise, just on a much larger scale. But the ultimate point remains in either case: You have the Source Material, you have other stuff that is NOT at all like the Source Material but many more people are familiar with it... WHO do you aim for when it's Your Turn to do an adaptation? What is your approach? Fidelity or Populism? It's not an easy thing to figure out.

I'd want nothing to do with that job. I could write the story, I'm more than familiar enough with the material, but I'd never want to deal with the fans, and their overwhelming insistence that only their singular preferred interpretation of Character X is "correct". It would be easier if people were a bit more open-minded in general, but again, we see the same thing amongst TMNT fans, and the eternal back-and-forth about what a "proper" adaptation is and why. There's no right answer, and far too many intangibles, and thus, there's no easy way to make a "good" movie that will satisfy everyone or even most people.

Ultimately, DC comic book fans and DC multimedia fans are like Mirage TMNT fans and Fred Wolf TMNT fans. They both like ______, other than that they have nothing in common. Trying to please "everybody" is a Lose/Lose situation when your audience is that level of Bipolar.

[Voltron]

I hear you loud and clear. I never thought of it that way.

My friends and I spent a lot of time with our noses in comics as kids, and we tended to swap fantasy and sci-fi novels as well, so if we weren't familiar with a character being portrayed on screen, we at least tried to keep an open mind about the presentation.

One thing that I always use to justify the different interpretations is that these are modern day legends, tall-tales, and folklore. The same stories get retold again and again, but they take on different aspects with each retelling. Personally, I felt that was one of the biggest strengths OF comics. . . that the same story could be refreshed time and again.

I never thought about the rosters, though. I could definitely see fans of Jon Stewart Green Lantern being turned off by his absence.

There were two things that killed the JL movie for me:

1. Lack of backstories for the characters.

We didn't know anything about the characters. And this worked against the audience regardless of how savvy they are. For fans in-the-know, we're aware that each incarnation of a character has a different beginning. And for as bored as people claim to be with origin stories, they're necessary to clearly lay out a character.

We got almost zero of that.

2. There wasn't much chemistry going on.

Nobody seemed to really click on screen. Everyone was just standoffish and pissy all the time, save for Flash. When Batman is more lighthearted comic relief than the rest of the team, someone's missing the point of the characters.


As for characterization, again, I try to keep an open mind. Sometimes, I find the changes they make to be better than the comic/cartoon interpretations. For example, Chris Hemsworth's Thor is my favorite incarnation. He's funny and relatable but still keeps the spirit of the character.

Though, again, I totally agree that different people have different expectations and that can really make or break the experience.

[Leo656]

Expectations indeed play a crucial role in anyone's enjoyment of A Thing. They can define the entire experience, sometimes.

With all the things Justice League could have done better, I wasn't affected by everyone only having a bare-bones backstory for a few reasons. One being, I don't always expect that in "ensemble" movies to begin with. I often defer to the Lord of the Rings movies, and everyone's scant ten seconds of backstory, if that. You still come to appreciate them very quickly despite not having gotten to know them better previously. And that's okay. Furthermore, I already know these characters; while that obviously isn't true for everyone watching, and they're welcome to take a point off for it if they so choose, I wasn't in a mind to do so. In ensemble pictures, especially action films, everyone is really just there in service to the larger story, to move the plot along, and if they get an arc, that's great but it's generally pretty tough to do for everyone.

That goes into the larger reason why I wasn't put off by this choice, and it goes back to "expectations". Having followed the films' development closely for several years, I was told, repeatedly, "Only the broad strokes of each character will be touched on here, because the plan is to allow each individual film to go into more detail about This Character and That Character later on." It's not the conventional approach, or "The Marvel Method", but it can be an effective shorthand way of introducing several characters quickly. Books do it, TV shows do it, and plenty of movies do it, too, so it's not like they had some insane, unprecedented idea to do things in this order. The switching of directors mid-stream caused such chaos, however, that several characters story arcs were either completely removed or totally botched, leaving everyone's role in the final film feeling half-fulfilled. But even then, I didn't feel let down because I wasn't expecting to get a ton of backstory on Aquaman or Flash. If people went into the film expecting that, then obviously that's unfortunate, but on some level you have to judge things based on what they are versus what they aren't. In that respect, I knew what I was getting and tempered certain expectations accordingly.

And for all it's worth, if they'd done anything any differently, Aquaman wouldn't have made a billion dollars. Nobody at all cared about an Aquaman solo film in 2013, and if they'd released one before Justice League, it's hard to say what may have happened but it's easy to imagine that the movie itself would have been completely different, and probably wouldn't have been as successful. With that character, as well as Wonder Woman in BvS, the "grand plan" of "Give viewers a little bit of something in one movie, and then hope they want to come back and see a lot more later on" paid huge dividends. It ultimately proves that it wasn't necessarily the approach that was flawed - not everyone NEEDS a solo film before the team-up picture, you CAN do it in reverse - but the uneven execution and lack of commitment to any long-term strategy took a lot of steam out of things.

As it was, Cyborg was scheduled to have a great deal of his origin explored in Justice League, and they even filmed a ton of it, but it was removed for being too "depressing" when Whedon took over, so Cyborg went from being the film's emotional centerpiece to just "The guy who talks to the Mother Box", which was okay but it's sad they didn't have faith in the audience to accept the material - although I can hardly blame them, by that point. Wonder Woman also had an entirely different arc originally, as she was scripted to FAIL in stopping the terrorist attack at the film's beginning, and her role in the film was about struggling with that as well as her "worthiness" of being a leader to other people, but again, anything deemed "too heavy" was excised. Batman also had a bit more stuff as far as his "Survivor's guilt" driving him to bring Superman back, etc., but once again, it was almost entirely trimmed.

At the bare minimum, everyone in the movie originally had a bunch more stuff to DO, at least, and even the ones who didn't get a full backstory were scripted to have their own little arc or lesson within the larger narrative of "coming together". But due to time reasons on the surface end, as well as genuine fear that the audience would rebel if the movie had anything resembling actual emotion in it, they clipped the whole thing down to a merely serviceable team-up story.

I had my own ups and downs with that movie, based on my own expectations, which were quite different from some people's, I expect. My greatest disappointment was, I was "sold" a movie based on those narrative things described above, gleaned both from all the behind-the-scenes stuff as well as every single one of the trailers, and the final movie was completely different than what was promised. I don't think it's bad, but it was definitely made in a panic, and the Scotch tape is visible everywhere. They were so worried about displeasing anyone at all that they set a new bar for "Meh". The trailers were so much better than the movie. Real shame.

Every time I watch it, it turns out being better than I remember. But it's telling that my memory keeps telling me it's not that great. I guess so I'll always be pleasantly surprised by it.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Expectations indeed play a crucial role in anyone's enjoyment of A Thing. They can define the entire experience, sometimes.

I often defer to the Lord of the Rings movies, and everyone's scant ten seconds of backstory, if that.

My only point against using LOTR is that we were introduced to them all there. And we learned a lot about them over the course of the books. Their abilities, motivations, and personalities all had their moments to come through. I never felt as though something was missing from the characters. Everything was explained pretty well.

That goes into the larger reason why I wasn't put off by this choice, and it goes back to "expectations". Having followed the films' development closely for several years, I was told, repeatedly, "Only the broad strokes of each character will be touched on here, because the plan is to allow each individual film to go into more detail about This Character and That Character later on."

Which I don't mind, but I don't feel as though they event did that. Outside of "Cyborg is a cyborg, and not happy about it."

Plus, while some of these characters are pretty well known, guys like Aquaman and Cyborg don't get a lot of play. Cyborg, especially, needs SOME backstory. Justice League should have been Cyborg's introduction film. It should've centered around him.

The switching of directors mid-stream caused such chaos, however, that several characters story arcs were either completely removed or totally botched, leaving everyone's role in the final film feeling half-fulfilled.

Which I feel was a HUGE mistake. Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman didn't need any introduction. Flash and Cyborg should've had some backstory.

In that respect, I knew what I was getting and tempered certain expectations accordingly.

I want to be more forgiving, but I feel as though they totally sh*t the bed on this one.

And for all it's worth, if they'd done anything any differently, Aquaman wouldn't have made a billion dollars. Nobody at all cared about an Aquaman solo film in 2013, and if they'd released one before Justice League, it's hard to say what may have happened but it's easy to imagine that the movie itself would have been completely different, and probably wouldn't have been as successful.

Still, had they played it smarter they could've had a couple hits on their hands instead of what they have now. Now they have resounding successes in two films, and two train wrecks in Batman and Superman.

With that character, as well as Wonder Woman in BvS, the "grand plan" of "Give viewers a little bit of something in one movie, and then hope they want to come back and see a lot more later on" paid huge dividends. It ultimately proves that it wasn't necessarily the approach that was flawed - not everyone NEEDS a solo film before the team-up picture, you CAN do it in reverse - but the uneven execution and lack of commitment to any long-term strategy took a lot of steam out of things.

As it was, Cyborg was scheduled to have a great deal of his origin explored in Justice League

And that's where, I feel, this all fell apart.

Again, most of DC's characters are well known to the point that they don't NEED introductions. We know who the Trinity are. Aquaman talks to fish and Flash runs fast.

But we're living in the PC, Woke Age and DC was sitting on a black super hero and they failed to run with it. That could've been the Black Panther of DC.

And it's not like Black Panther's initial arc wasn't tragic or depressing. His dad dies and he spends the entire time trying to kill Captain America's best friend.

Every time I watch it, it turns out being better than I remember. But it's telling that my memory keeps telling me it's not that great. I guess so I'll always be pleasantly surprised by it.

Honestly, I'm the same way. Even when they aren't bringing their A game, I still watch superhero movies and love every second of it.

[Leo656]

We definitely agree more than we disagree in the big scheme of things, with regard to that film. I strongly feel that once they'd decided to toss a Hail Mary to Whedon, the whole thing was shot. Whatever good intentions they had were undone by the fact that the guy 1. Wasn't the right fit to start with, but also 2.Jumped into someone else's project after it had almost entirely been completed, and was told to basically pull almost half of a new script out of his hat on the fly.

It just wasn't gonna work,with that approach. But whatever, it is what it is, now. Books will be written about that whole debacle, for years and years to come. Sad, but it is what it is.

[Andrew NDB]

It's really pretty staggering how much Whedon reshot. And you can spot everything. About the only things mostly left untouched was most parts of the final battle, Aquaman's visit with Mera, and most of Batman meeting Aquaman and meeting Flash. Everything else was brand new.

[Leo656]

I think most of the flashback to the original Steppenwolf invasion was Zack's as well, but it was definitely chopped up a bit in editing. That whole segment was the original opening scene, like a pre-credits Prologue; some early descriptions of it that mostly matched the final product were being talked about around two years before the movie came out.

The biggest change aside from its placement was that Darkseid himself was set to appear just before the end of the battle, foreshadowing his second appearance at the end of the movie where he would have executed Steppenwolf for his failure against the League. When WB decided we didn't need to see Darkseid at all - despite everything since MoS being built around his eventual reveal and invasion - they clipped out anything showing or referencing him, but I think that most of the flashback scene was still Zack's, and it was just trimmed down.

The many behind-the scenes stories I've read from the actors are fascinating, but also sad. Everyone had a great time making the movie, and they go into these long, long spiels about their characters' motivations and backstories, and you can tell that they were all super-engaged and immersed in the material... and then ALL of it gets cut from the film. Ciaran Hinds, in particular, seemed to have a much greater understanding of Steppenwolf than Whedon did. The way he describes the character and how he played him is not evident in the final cut at all, which is a shame because he brought great enthusiasm to the part. At least, in the version we'll never see.

If nothing else, the entire project solidified my general opinion that I'm not much of a Whedon fan. Some of his movies I like alright, but he just wasn't the right guy to do a last-minute patch job on this one. It was like Ronald McDonald doing a fill-in for Wolfgang Puck; both styles are uniquely palatable but mixing them together just makes mush. I mean, the fact that anyone can easily pick out which scenes, or even frames, were shot by which director is very damning. I understand that, in their panic, they figured "Let's just get the Avengers guy", but I think that and replacing the original score with Elfman's - which like everything else was just "Good enough, I guess" - really hurt the final product.

Ah well.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It just wasn't gonna work,with that approach. But whatever, it is what it is, now. Books will be written about that whole debacle, for years and years to come. Sad, but it is what it is.

Don't worry - it wouldn't work anyway.
Instead of a confused mess it would have been a gloomy mess, Snyder style, like MOS or BVS.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Don't worry - it wouldn't work anyway.
Instead of a confused mess it would have been a gloomy mess, Snyder style, like MOS or BVS.

I halfway agree. It would have been what you say, but it would have felt like an an actual movie. The final JL movie didn't feel like that. It felt like a Frankenstein of a "movie," with horrible Superman lip stuff that ripped me out of every scene he was in. I'd gladly take Snyder's actual movie over what we got. What Snyder was doing and the direction he was going definitely wasn't compatible with what WB wanted, though, so I get it... which just goes back to TPTB at WB being retarded for not at least attempting to right the ship a lot earlier. Like, before JL even started filming. Say what you will about it, "Man of Steel" was a solid Iron Man 1-equivalent foundation for a DCEU, after which they could have course corrected any which way... but they didn't. They doubled-down, and then they fumbled everything. I say the point where things reached the point of no return was whenever "Man of Steel 2" became WB forcing Snyder to do "Batman vs. Superman," which they'd been trying to do since forever. I like about 65% of BvS but man, that was a bad move. It'd be fine if they were just trying to do this self-contained trilogy event thing, but not for a true, growing DCEU. You can't honestly watch BvS and go, "Wow! What a great springboard for 10+ years of DC movies!" You can watch it and reconcile it as part 2 of a 3 or 4 part mini-series of movies.

It's really unfortunate for everyone involved in JL. That was the biggest thing I felt when it was over. Like, "Wow. These guys really shot this movie twice and gave it their all, and this is the end result. Wow. Just wow."

Even now I'm torn about the whole thing. I like Cavill as Superman. I like Affleck as Batman. I don't like Momoa as Aquaman but I'm willing to accept him as Aquaman. I'm not willing to accept that Barry Allen or that Cyborg needs to be on the team, and I'm damned sure not willing to accept a start-up JL that has no GL, just because WBs are cowards about GL because of their Geoff Johns movie. That is flawed fundamentally. Whether Whedon or Snyder, a JL movie was coming out that nobody that knows what the JL is could possibly be excited about.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

You can't honestly watch BvS and go, "Wow! What a great springboard for 10+ years of DC movies!"

It's actually not that difficult. It's pretty easy for me to see how just about any character or storyline from the comics could have been modified to fit within the world they'd built. If people assume that every single DCU movie that came after BvS was supposed to look and sound exactly like that film, though, that was never the plan. The general idea was just to establish the Trinity as the nexus point of the DCU and gradually introduce everyone else from there. It was designed as a "springboard" in that sense, but if you mean everything that came after it was supposed to feel like that movie did tonally, then no, that wasn't the idea.

What they're doing with Wonder Woman and Aquaman and Shazam, with each movie being its own thing but they're all still connected because of the events of other films, was generally what the plan was, they're just not making the movies they planned to make 4 years ago, like the Flash and Cyborg movies and such. The specifics have changed and they've pivoted to focus on different characters than they'd intended, but they're still very broadly doing what they always said they were going to do.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

- I'd gladly take Snyder's actual movie over what we got.

- I'm damned sure not willing to accept a start-up JL that has no GL, just because WBs are cowards about GL because of their Geoff Johns movie. That is flawed fundamentally.

- Absolutely. At least it wouldn't have felt like two half-finished movies stapled together in odd places. I like the movie more than most people but it's barely cohesive.

- Absolutely. Their chickensh*t response to the GL movie's tepid reaction is, was, and remains ridiculous. Green Lantern is one of the best things they have going for them, and they're afraid of it. The GL movie wasn't even that terrible, it was just kind of cheap and had some misplaced humor. It's been openly discussed that they shot that movie without a script; actually sit down and write one, and you solve at least half of that movie's problems. They had the basic fundamentals down already, they just needed to make it tighter. Green Lantern is something they absolutely need to make more of a commitment to.

Again, part of why they held it back was because since MoS treated Superman's arrival as a "first contact" story, and the subsequent films' stories were mostly about the world reacting to these new extraterrestrial "invaders" and events, they wanted to take a measured-release approach and only "unleash" Green Lantern when the time was right. That made sense, but certainly they could have gotten a lot farther along with it than they have by now. The fact that we still don't know what the status of the actual GL film or whether or not he'll be in future Justice League projects is ridiculous. We can assume things, but we still don't know things. And those things should have at least been firmly in the planning stages before Justice League actually opened the lens for shooting, even if he wasn't supposed to show up until after that or in the sequel. Now, Justice League has come and gone, and STILL no progress on Green Lantern.

Very, very frustrating. And I strongly feel it has less to do with the general state of their movie "universe", and more to do with the fact that they're terrified of "screwing up" Green Lantern twice in a row. The material is there and writes itself, practically begging to be put on the screen. They're just gun-shy. You'd think ten years would be long enough for them to get over it. Everyone else seems to have.

[The Deadman]

THE BATMAN: New Details Revealed About The Age And Type Of Caped Crusader Matt Reeves Is Looking For
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/batma...ng-for-a166676