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

[MikeandRaph87]

Maybe I am just silly, but I want to see the characters like they are shown in iconic form, almost a comic page turned live-action. The Riddler, someone I view as a non-killer, who doesn't belong in Arkham being the Zodiac Killer and another Catwoman going for diversity? Not crazy about those changes as its not what I see them as. Penguin allowed to be portrayed as he is in iconic form?That is something. If it could just be Batman: TAS 3 seasons in a live action movie and Catwoman have black hair.

[AquaParade]

That doesn’t make you silly. It’s not what I want, but it’s not silly.

I tend to enjoy reinterpretation.
I think that is actually the essence of why I love comics - the many different styles and perspectives/reinterpretations of characters. It’s always a challenge of maintaining the spirit & integrity of the characters while evolving, but that’s where the fun is at.

So when it comes to the films, I don’t see the creative liberties any differently than I do when Frank Miller turns Bruce Wayne 60 years old or when Jim Lee draws Killer Croc like an actual mutated crocodile. Ironically, expecting everything to stay the same as it was in the comics, goes against the very spirit of comics themselves, imo.

[Leo656]

I mean, there's a few things about the Riddler character that have ALWAYS been fundamental, and when they're ALWAYS fundamental I don't think it's fair game to just dismiss them out of hand and say "Yeah, well, new version, new rules."

For one thing, Edward Nigma/Nashton has ALWAYS been outspoken about not wanting to see anyone get hurt. He's often spoken with disdain towards other villains for "going to far". He's not an especially "bad guy", his main negative trait is simply narcissism. He feels that he's smarter than everyone else, and is compelled to "prove" it because he wants to be acknowledged for it by the larger world. Every single bad thing he does is rooted in a desire for simple acknowledgement. Like all narcissists, there's a bit of sociopathy at work as well, but not to the point where he actively goes out of his way to hurt anyone, let alone kill anyone.

For another thing, he's only truly compelled time and again to challenge Batman because he sees him as the only one even close to being on his level intellectually. It's a game, to him. He's not trying to KILL him; their entire dance is still rooted in Nashton's compulsion to be recognized by those he considers his peers, and he considers Batman a peer. His continued taunting and vexing of Batman is as much a sign of respect as anything else; he wouldn't waste his time sending his riddles to stupid people. It's Batman because Batman is the only person who "gets" Edward. On some level, it's almost kinda sweet.

But yeah, Riddler is generally pretty pissed off and/or horrified whenever people get killed. That's not who he is. It's so, SO not who he is. It's one thing to change or streamline This Thing or That Thing when you adapt a character... but when you go so far as to make a character the complete OPPOSITE of who that character is, by my criteria you've officially gone way too far.

"Hush" f*cked it up, the Telltale game f*cked it up, and now this movie is f*cking it up. Not one of them has come close to presenting the Riddler character properly, and further, they've all presented him as very much the opposite of who he is as a person, keeping only the name and the superficial trappings of the riddle gimmick. As to who he is in his head, what his values and motivations are... totally unrecognizable person. And what's even more silly is, they all independently had the same approach to "fixing" the character: "Just Make Him Jigsaw". How "creative" can that idea possibly be when it's the very first thing every single hack thinks of when presented the challenge of, "How do we 'fix' the Riddler character?" It's like "What if there were FIVE Ninja Turtles?" If it's the first thing you think of while scratching your balls, it's probably not that great of an idea.

I mean, Zsasz would work. Zsasz is also a near-genius and he's already a serial killer. Just use Zsasz. Nah, no shock value there, I guess. "Lookit how they made Riddler 'cool'! He kills people, now! BADASS!" That's the stuff the rubes eat up with a spoon. Taking something that was "dumb" and making it "cool" by smearing blood all over it. "Creative"!

Ah well.

[AquaParade]

Actually, no, it’s quite common for the riddler to create death traps and such. I wouldn’t say he’s against killing. He did try to kill Batman and Robin in his very first appearance, by blowing them up in a building.

The element of him wanting to compete with Batman is key though, yes. He’s narcissistic. He wants to prove he’s the best. He wants a challenge. There is no indication that this version of Riddler has lost this trait.

[Andrew NDB]

I even remember the Riddler taking venom pills and becoming super jacked and beating up Batman in the comics. He sometimes goes "off-type."

[Shark_Blade]

The new Riddler outfit looks stupid kinda like a KKK getup but eh, he’s always a weirdo anyway.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I even remember the Riddler taking venom pills and becoming super jacked and beating up Batman in the comics. He sometimes goes "off-type."

Exactly.

That’s the whole fallacy though: people acting like whichever era of comics they know and love is the definitive one. Thus the endless debate over whether or not Batman kills. In the original comics? Yes. In most recognized versions and modern interpretations, even within the comics? No.

Which one is more valid is up to each individual.

People like to hold up their favorite interpretations as some kind of “get out of jail free” card when it comes to critiquing or gatekeeping. “You’re free to like Batman killing as long as you know it’s dumb and it’s wrong and it’s not like the comics.”
That’d *almost* work if the comics were actually ever consistent in the first place. But even then, it’d still make you sound like a rube.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Exactly.

That’s the whole fallacy though: people acting like whichever era of comics they know and love is the definitive one. Thus the endless debate over whether or not Batman kills. In the original comics? Yes. In most recognized versions and modern interpretations, even within the comics? No.

Which one is more valid is up to each individual.

People like to hold up their favorite interpretations as some kind of “get out of jail free” card when it comes to critiquing ****. “You’re free to like this as long as ylu know it’s dumb and it’s wrong and it’s not like the comics.” That’d *almost* work if the comics were actually ever consistent in the first place. But even then, it’d still make you sound like a rube.

Yeah, but like... Batman killing was super early on in his comic book career. If they want to acknowledge that because 'that's how it was in the comics', then Superman better be just taking big leaps in the next movie cause originally he did that before they got the idea to actually make him fly.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Yeah, but like... Batman killing was super early on in his comic book career. If they want to acknowledge that because 'that's how it was in the comics', then Superman better be just taking big leaps in the next movie cause originally he did that before they got the idea to actually make him fly.

That’s my point entirely. There is no use pretending that these characters don’t change and evolve even in the comics themselves. There is no definitive version. If there were, Superman would still be jumping, like you said. Good example.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I even remember the Riddler taking venom pills and becoming super jacked and beating up Batman in the comics. He sometimes goes "off-type."

The entire point of that story was every character in-story being aghast because "That isn't who this guy is!"

He was also briefly possessed by some demon, or something, and was subsequently bloodthirsty and murderous as a result. That doesn't mean "That's who the guy is, now." C'mon.

I already said, I get it. "Riddler's a dumb character, we can't use him in a movie unless we change Every Single Thing and make him a psychopath." Okay. Makes sense, it IS a dumb character if you try and translate it to live-action. You can NOT use Riddler, then, and that's actually probably better. BUT, it doesn't get the same "Ohmigod DOOD so badass now!" Pavlovian response from internet edgelords when they see something that was relatively "innocent" get turned into some crack'd mirror version.

Internet Nerds When Superman Kills ONE Person in "Man of Steel", A Character He's Killed Multiple Times in Various Canonical Tales: "THAT AIN'T RIGHT! I'm gonna scream about this for the next EIGHT YEARS, that is how not-right it is! How DARE they get it so wrong!"

.....Despite the fact that no, it isn't "wrong", it's actually very correct and faithful to its own source material.

Those Same Internet Nerds When The Riddler, A Character Who MAAAYBE Has Tried To Kill Two Or Three People In His Entire Canonical History, Is Suddenly A Twisted Serial Killer: "DUDE that is SO BADASS! It should ALWAYS be like this!"

...Despite the fact that it's pretty far and away a blatant twisting of the core character into something practically unrecognizable as itself.

People are f*cking silly. Either Nothing Matters and you can change whatever you want, or else it actually matters. Nobody can ever decide which side of the fence they're on, and it's silly and exhausting.

[AquaParade]

Idk, man. I’m an internet nerd and I’m not saying Superman can’t kill, but I am saying Riddler can. And you’re an internet nerd and you’re saying Superman can but Riddler can’t. So neither of us even match your proposed scenario.

And again, Riddler tried to kill in his very first appearance. I’m pretty sure the only time he was ever upset about killing was a brief period in time following the comics being pretty neutered. There’s a panel of Riddler lamenting that “even Joker is killing now” as if it’s a big deal. Riddler isn’t defined by being against killing if he did it in his first appearance.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

If they want to acknowledge that because 'that's how it was in the comics', then Superman better be just taking big leaps in the next movie cause originally he did that before they got the idea to actually make him fly.

MoS actually made it a point to do exactly that. At first he could only leap, he had to "force" himself to fly, and it took a few tries. Remember when he crashed through the side of the mountain? That was awesome.

No, it wasn't drawn out, but it was a deliberate homage to the fact that in the original comics he couldn't fly.

So yeah, nice joke but they did it already, on-purpose. He apparently learned to fly faster in the movies than in the comics, but they still acknowledged the roots. Which was nice. Those movies are full of stuff like that, that's part of why I love them so much. They're just dripping with canon stuff and deep-cut bits of lore and trivia.
-------

Side rant, but it would actually be cool if more people DID know more about the Superman of 1938-1940, people might "get" a lot more of who the version of the character in those more recent movies was. They spent so much time crying that he wasn't Chris Reeve redux that they failed to recognize that Cavill's version had a lot more in common with the way the character had originally appeared and been presented, up to and including being a reckless, cocky and headstrong sort of guy. So many cries of "That's not who Superman is!" from ignorant people who don't really know better, when yeah, actually, that IS who he's been, a lot of the time. MOST of the time, even. Just not in those Reeve movies. Which aren't canon to anything but themselves.

I kept waiting for Cavill to toss a bad guy up in the air and pretend he wasn't gonna catch him. That was, like, a Superman trademark for a long-ass time. He's kind of a dick sometimes! And it's nothing those movies invented, he's always been that way. Some people don't like it, because that's not how Reeve chose to play it, but... tough.

[sdp]

The dream is dead

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

And you’re an internet nerd

Whaaaaaat. I have no internet presence outside of this sh*thole, I have the most boring and least-updated social media on the entire internet, and I am absolutely not any type of nerd. Let's not start saying sh*t we can't take back, pal. Fun is fun but this can get all kinds of heated in a hurry, and I'd rather it not.

Since at LEAST 1996, I've been the guy who shoves people into lockers, not the one shoved into lockers. Let's just be clear about that and mark it down for future reference.

Me and... all'a You People? Not the same, not even close. Don't get me wrong, there's a few people here I'd have a beer with, but... yeah, we ain't kin. I don't claim y'all, kindly don't claim Me. Thanks!

[AquaParade]

I am sorry, but if critiquing Batman movies on an forum didn't seal it, then reviewing toys on the internet did.

It matters not whether you are as hot, cool, and sociable outside of this place as I am. Though it is noted.

[AquaParade]

The closer we get to this film, the more I find the realistic approach refreshing. Don't get me wrong, I love fantasy and supernatural elements in Batman.

The thing is, every other comic book movie is leaning hard into the fantastical right now. The MCU was already operating in a world of gods and aliens, and now we have the multiverse. Snyder's films and the DCEU are as grand as they come, also dealing with gods, Atlantis, etc.
So it's refreshing to get back to this style of comic book film. Taking these elements and grounding them in the real world. It's not always the right approach but it's something the film medium excels at and it's something we haven't seen a lot lately.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

The closer we get to this film, the more I find the realistic approach refreshing. Don't get me wrong, I love fantasy and supernatural elements in Batman.

Beyond the wackier stuff going on in the Schumacher movies, we haven't ever gotten a Batman movie series with larger-than-life stuff. I'd say "Batman Returns" is as close as we've come, in a Batman movie that actually resembles a Batman movie. A mutant Penguin and some legit supernatural stuff with Catwoman resurrections... though, sadly, neither of those things even belonged in the movie to begin with.

So fast forward 30 years, what have we gotten? The Nolan trilogy, which made it a point to only include tech that is either already available then or would be within 5 years. We get a very stripped down universe, a Ra's with no Lazarus Pits, a Bane with no venom, and a Catwoman who isn't even called Catwoman. The Snyder material, sure, which doesn't even include an actual Batman movie. I suspect if WB had actually made a Snyderverse Batman movie we'd have finally gotten some larger than life stuff. And my needs are small. I just want a Clayface that can... you know, Clayface, a beastly Killer Croc, and a Bane that can use venom and get bigger. Maybe other things in the periphery... like Firefly flying around torching stuff. And it not being a weird thing if Superman shows up or is mentioned, or WW or something.

And now, today? We have Reeves, who is publicly telling Christopher Nolan that his goal is to out-Christopher Nolan him with The Batman. Eh. That's not a good thing. Can we just get something that's at least in between the Nolan stuff and maybe the Snyder stuff, or the Burton stuff? A middle ground?

So yeah. I can't fathom how a doubling down on a "down to Earth Batman" is refreshing. It'd be like running a marathon 15 years in a row and every time, someone offers you the same brand of Gatorade at the end, but on the 16th they offer you... the same one again. Where is the refreshment, exactly?

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I am sorry, but if critiquing Batman movies on an forum didn't seal it, then reviewing toys on the internet did.

That one f*cking hurt, my son.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Sumac

The Riddler.
Most retarded design one can give to this character.

I don't hate it but what are they trying to go for with the mask? This is a little too Jigsaw but whatever.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

The closer we get to this film, the more I find the realistic approach refreshing. Don't get me wrong, I love fantasy and supernatural elements in Batman.

The thing is, every other comic book movie is leaning hard into the fantastical right now. The MCU was already operating in a world of gods and aliens, and now we have the multiverse. Snyder's films and the DCEU are as grand as they come, also dealing with gods, Atlantis, etc.
So it's refreshing to get back to this style of comic book film. Taking these elements and grounding them in the real world. It's not always the right approach but it's something the film medium excels at and it's something we haven't seen a lot lately.

I can understand Reeves' wanting to do his own self-contained universe but I don't find yet another realistic approach refreshing when we already have Nolan's films. It doesn't have to be super fantastical but I would rather not have another Batman movie lean towards the more realistic world. It is what it is but I can't help but feel a bit concern that each new Batman reboot film series will turn into just another generic Hollywood action film series.

[Andrew NDB]

WB: "These Apes movies are doing great. Affleck is getting burned out and doesn't really like our notes for his The Batman movie. Hey Matt Reeves, whaddya say? Do you want to do your own The Batman movie? State your terms."

Reeves: "Well I really want to like, double down on the whole Nola --"

WB: "Whatever! You're hired. It's fine."

... is kind of how it seems this all went down.

Though let's not forget that when pressed, early on, Reeves said that Affleck was "still my guy" in reference to who Batman would be. So at one point Reeves was absolutely developing a Snyderverse Batman movie.