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

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by sdp

Looks like the Live Action Gotham TV show still has the best version of Batman Rogues. Which includes the Riddler. Hugely underrated, it mixed realism with fantasy really well, it had most rogues and in their full wacky comic versions. We also got two different Jokers and both were great.

https://pm1.narvii.com/7755/d110ac93...7-368v2_00.jpg

That image of Riddler looks awful to me. Would take the Reeves design over that any day. This is why changes are made. The Gotham one is better for a costume party though, I'll give it that.

Comic visuals don't always translate to the screen, with the same effect in tact. Their special like that.

[Leo656]

Gotham was a weird f*cking show.

I went into it wanting to like it, and we had a bunch on the DVR so we watched the first few in a row when it was a few episodes into Season One. I really like Donal Logue so his Bullock was cool with me. But it had this weird blend of the Nolan aesthetic with the Schumacher sense of humor, and it didn't really gel, for me. Haaaated Gordon's psycho girlfriend from the jump, she was irritating. Some of the reinterpreted villains had potential but as Andrew alluded to, there were a lot of the same problems Smallville had. By a few episodes in, I was like "Oh, so it really is like Smallville, but for Batman. Nah." I f*cking HATE Smallville. Gotham seemed a little bit better, but equally irritating. In the end the tonal whiplash really got to me. By the one where they had a bad guy zipping people away with balloons, I said to my wife "I think I've seen about enough." We might have watched like two more, I don't remember, but that one had me pretty much tapping out.

After that I'd see bits of it on TV at the gym pretty often, but never a full episode. I'm allowing for the fact that there was no context, but everything I saw was pretty stupid. I remember seeing a picture of the Batman costume they were gonna use in the final episode and it was like the most dime-store thing I'd ever seen. I was so glad I'd stopped watching during Season One. I can see why some people might like it but I was not impressed at all with that show. I liked the premise but hated the execution... Just like Smallville.

I will say that I'm in the camp that visually, at least, their take on Riddler was pretty good. I mean, that's it, that's what that character looks like, essentially. I can't speak to the performance because I never saw one of his episodes with the sound on. But it looked like Riddler more than anyone I can remember since Frank Gorshin.

The dude in the movie looks like he's the one going to a costume party. Dressed up in a homemade version of the containment suit Doomsday wore in the comics when he first popped out of the ground. That's what he's dressed like! Like a third-grader going as Containment Suit Doomsday for Halloween, that's what I see.

[AquaParade]

It’s got no sense of style - It doesn’t adapt to the world it is in. It sticks out like a sore thumb. They just took a design and plopped it into their world. That’s why it looks like a Halloween party costume.

But a certain segment of fans love that stuff, so there ya go.
It kinda reminds me of when a kid wants pizza with no toppings on it. They don’t want to try something new and exciting, they want “plain”. And if you try to put a topping on that they’ve never tried, they will scream and kick. It’s not the “pizza” they wanted if it has more than just cheese. You’ll have to wait for them to accidentally swallow some and then it’s “…can I have some more??

[Leo656]

Y e e a a h I kinda really think you're overthinking this one.

I'm pretty sure that even if the performance is good, there will still be a ton of people who think it's a sh*tty design despite liking the portrayal itself. It's a guy in a raincoat with a gimp mask on his head. Dumb. That... Is dumb. That's not even a costume. I'm sure that somehow or other it took a ton of time and effort to come up with that... But it LOOKS like someone threw it together in five minutes, is the thing.

And I don't care if "that's what they're going for" or "it fits the world the movie takes place in." It looks. Like. Ass.

But hey, maybe the performance will let people ignore that and enjoy it anyway. I really don't like the Batman costumes Bale had in the second and third movies - looks like someone had him roll around in scrap metal and broken glass, then stuck bat ears on a helmet and called it a day - but I can kind of ignore his sh*tty Batman costume thanks to how well he played the part.

So yeah, that's a thing that happens, might happen again. Still a dumb "Riddler" costume, though.

I actually get more mad at it the longer I look at it.

[AquaParade]

If I have to choose between a stupid costume that makes sense and a stupid costume that doesn't make sense, I'll take the former.

That said, I like the Reeves outfit. Doesn't look dumb to me at all. It's just simple. Simple but effective. It's creepy, it conceals his identity, and it fits the world, which is important if you care about having a good movie. Mileage may vary on that, apparently.

[Leo656]

I hope in the next movie we get a Mr. Freeze who wears a garbage bag painted blue and rides a bicycle around Gotham City throwing snowballs at people while screaming about Climate Change.

Y'know, because nothing matters anyway.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I hope in the next movie we get a Mr. Freeze who wears a garbage bag painted blue and rides a bicycle around Gotham City throwing snowballs at people while screaming about Climate Change.

Y'know, because nothing matters anyway.

That's actually the point you might be missing and the part you just said you don't care about - whether or not the costume or concept fits the the world you are creating.

See, that wouldn't fit at all. From my perspective, things do matter, which is why you don't just plop in a dude with a green hat and pretend it's threatening, or have a mr freeze in a garbage bag (as oddly entertaining as that sounds).

But as you said, you don't care whether or not the outfit fits the tone of the world, so this would be more up your alley than mine.

[Leo656]

Since when is Riddler "threatening"? Since when is he even supposed to be? He's probably the least-threatening Batman villain aside from Polka-Dot Man.

...Which means he probably shouldn't be a main villain in a movie when there are dozens of characters better-suited for it (pun not intended, but appropriate all the same). But then I didn't book it.

Anyway, I see a guy in a beat-up army jacket and a gimp mask, with some granny glasses over top of it (what? ), I definitely don't think "threatening". I don't think "criminal mastermind". I think "Here's a homeless Iraq War veteran who probably has an entire Scrabble set lodged in his asshole."

[AquaParade]

if you don’t want Riddler to be threatening then I think the Adam West show might be more up your alley.

Most of us want Riddler to be threatening. It doesn’t mean he’s going to kick your ass in a fist fight, it just means he brings along a sense of danger. Whether that’s through his traps, his riddles, his level of intellect, or his demeanor.

Going down the route of “why should the antagonist be threatening??” Is laughable. This is Gotham City, not My Little Pony.
And for choice of a threatening antagonist, Riddler is a fine choice to feature in a gritty, crime movie that takes place in Gotham.
Keeping the essence of a man obsessed with Batman, who wants to outsmart him, and creates death-traps. It’s perfectly in-line.

[Leo656]

I can't wait for the Superman movie where Z-list gag villain The Prankster gets a "gritty, realistic" reinvention so he can be "scary" and not goofy. Maybe instead of hitting people with pies he can throw circular saw blades that are DECORATED like pies. And his plaid-textured pants could be made out of stitched-together patches of human skin. Just for funsies.

...Orrrrrrr that's totally stupid and just maybe Prankster isn't the villain you want for a "dark, gritty" type of Superman movie. Just like how Riddler probably isn't a good villain to use for a "dark, gritty" Batman movie. On account of how everything about the character is neither "dark" nor "gritty". He's a dumb, goofy character that belongs in dumb, goofy stories.

Once more, if the one and only way to make a character "fit" into what your project is, is to basically just make up a whole new character altogether... Said character probably isn't the right fit for your project.

If you're adapting Frankenstein's monster for your "bold new take", but said bold new take requires him to drink blood and turn into a bat and sleep in coffins... You're actually not doing Frankenstein, so just go ahead and call him Dracula OR do something else entirely.

Pretty sure "most of us" would agree with that logic.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Most of us want Riddler to be threatening

You'll find most of us want Riddler to be Jim Carrey

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

You'll find most of us want Riddler to be Jim Carrey

Lol! Apparently so.

And Leo, coming up with terrible movie ideas doesn’t make The Batman 2022 worse. I don’t know where you got the idea that the Riddler is on the level of the Condiment King and is not to be taken seriously. Bullocks. He’s been a threat since his first appearance. A man with the intellect to possibly outwit Batman has always been an intimidating proposition.

You’re out here pretending the character is straight from Sesame Street. There’s one villain in Gotham possibly smart enough to outwit Batman and you think he should be treated as a joke? Sounds like a total waste.

Still don’t know where you got the idea that Riddler killing people is sacrilege because you never replied when I pointed out he’s been attempting murder since his first appearance.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Still don’t know where you got the idea that Riddler killing people is sacrilege because you never replied when I pointed out he’s been attempting murder since his first appearance.

Ah, look, one of the people who thinks a Batman villain is only threatening when they go around killing people. If you had your way, we'd get Rob Zombie's Batman, and other edgelord garbage, and nothing else. It's 'mature', after all.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by superstaff

Ah, look, one of the people who thinks a Batman villain is only threatening when they go around killing people. If you had your way, we'd get Rob Zombie's Batman, and other edgelord garbage, and nothing else. It's 'mature', after all.

Slow down there, buddy. I didn't say he was "only threatening if he kills people".

I said he is supposed to be threatening in one way or another. I mentioned above that can come from his intellect or general demeanor. The FACT of the matter is that he does kill people. It's in his origin. That's the point of my quote that you posted.

If you had your way, we'd all be ignorantly replying to posts without comprehending them

Hush about me only liking edge lord Batman stuff though, because that just ain't true, and you're speaking out of ignorance.

But honestly, in a gritty Batman movie, you do want the villain to attempt murder in one way or another. When was the last time a Batman villain wasn't trying to kill people? What do you suggest Batman save people from, a rash?

[Coola Yagami]

Riddler was never about death traps though. He was about committing complicated crimes and leaving complicated riddles behind hoping that Batman will be left scratching his head thinking 'how did he do it????'

Riddler wants to match wits with Batman, he wants to prove he's the smarted of the two. He doesn't want to kill him.

Batman solving one of Riddler's crimes should be the starting plot before the actual villain arrives. Hell, we have never seen Batman actually solving crimes in almost all of his movies. It's just tracking down and stopping murderers. But he's never solving mysteries of missing people, stopping a huge jewel heist or anything.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Riddler was never about death traps though. He was about committing complicated crimes and leaving complicated riddles behind hoping that Batman will be left scratching his head thinking 'how did he do it????'

Riddler wants to match wits with Batman, he wants to prove he's the smarted of the two. He doesn't want to kill him.

Batman solving one of Riddler's crimes should be the starting plot before the actual villain arrives. Hell, we have never seen Batman actually solving crimes in almost all of his movies. It's just tracking down and stopping murderers. But he's never solving mysteries of missing people, stopping a huge jewel heist or anything.

Riddler tried to kill Batman and Robin in his very first appearance. In a death trap.
So when you say he was "never about" killing people, or death traps, you are incorrect.

Where are you guys getting this stuff? Lol

[Leo656]

I forgot about Condiment King!

And pretty much every character's first appearance gets filed under "Early-Installment Weirdness" by default. You act like examples of Riddler being bloodthirsty are constant rather than incredibly rare in the grand scheme of his entire history.

Superman's killed a couple of times too. Canonically. Especially in his first couple of issues. If we leave out video games, and if stuff from a character's first couple of stories count towards the tally, Superman very likely has a higher "body count" than Riddler does. He used to toss bad guys in front on their own bullets for laughs.

And yet, in spite of ALL those stories in which Superman has killed someone - again, I'm not talking Elseworlds stuff or video games, I'm talking about stories that were "canon" at the time they were printed - if you ask just about anyone, "Is killing people part of Superman's general gimmick?", they'd say "No, of course not, are you some kind of glue-sniffing loon?"

And even when you show them ALL those "canon" examples of Superman killing someone, or even JUST Zod, the character who he's killed the most often, they still say "Nah, don't care, that's not who that character is. Show me a hundred examples of it happening, still doesn't count, it's bad representation of the character."

Same thing. So there's been a couple times Riddler has been bloodthirsty. Those are vastly exceptions, nowhere near the rule. You're aware of this, you're just doing that thing you do where you remain willfully obtuse and obstinate in an attempt to justify an opinion.

You're allowed to have that opinion. It's just kinda weird how you fight SO hard about some of this kind of stuff, to the point where if you hadn't been here for a hundred years I'd half expect Andrew to start whipping "plant" memes at you.

You like the new gimmick, and it just so happens that in this "room" most people seem to not like it. Okay. Can we all now collectively agree to disagree on this new Riddler take, or are there still more straws you'd like to grasp at in order to "prove" that the rest of us are just being whiny, change-fearing pissbabies and you're so much more incredibly enlightened and open-minded? Getting kind of tiresome.

We can't BOTH go around talking down to people just because they don't agree with us. I got here first. Get your own gimmick!

I mean, I am QUITE sure that most people are gonna like the movie just fine, FAKE Riddler or no. Like even the people saying they hate it, probably don't care about it as much as you do. They're just saying what they think about it. But you...you act like you've got money on this one. Relax, man. Everyone's "con" opinion is just as valid as your "pro" one.

Batman stuff makes you act weird, pal.

[Andrew NDB]

So this is a little illuminating:

https://www.ign.com/articles/ben-aff...ed-quit-batman

This all but confirms that Reeves wasn't lying early on and Affleck WAS set to be the Batman in The Batman. That Affleck really did walk and Reeves was left to reimagine the part with Pattinson in it.

[sdp]

Gotham is awesome and a great mix of realism and comic fantasy. I thought it would suck when we found out it had Bruce as a kid, but it's more of a Bruce as teen but I was pleasantly surprised by how he was handled, sometimes he comes off as cringe, other times he actually works really well in a batman year one training sort of way, other times he isn't good or bad but in general he is not an annoyance. Gordon's Exwife Barbara, now she is indeed annoying almost always.

Their take on villains is almost all hits and they do most of the rogues gallery as well and it works perfectly, far better than Smallville. It makes more sense in this world, and while they're mostly realistic takes they aren't afraid of the more zanier villains either. The show has the best interpretation of Carmine Falcone and The Penguin, same with Riddler. Great interpretations all around. It had great original characters and we got to see three different versions of the Joker (played by the same actor) and they were all great, Jack Nicholson, leatherface comic Joker and classic joker. I mean props to having it work so well all three times.

I'm not going to say every episode or arc is a winner but overall I'd say it's had a great run and my favorite DC live action show.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

So this is a little illuminating:

https://www.ign.com/articles/ben-aff...ed-quit-batman

This all but confirms that Reeves wasn't lying early on and Affleck WAS set to be the Batman in The Batman. That Affleck really did walk and Reeves was left to reimagine the part with Pattinson in it.

I don't think it proves Reeves ever wanted anything to do with Affleck. He just could have continued on with WB in other ways. The same way he is closing out his contract now with The Flash.

Again, Reeves has wanted his own side universe from the beginning and wants nothing to do with the DCEU. Reeves said from the start that he only wanted to do this project if he could do "his Batman." Stands to reason that "his Batman" would never be one with as much baggage as the Snyder universe. There is hardly any room to tell his own story there, right? If Reeves has such a vision, how does he squeeze it in between all the DCEU continuity, Robin both existing and dying, a future or past already decided for Bruce. It just doesn't add up, ya know?

Affleck has even made it clear in the past that for Reeves project "they wanted to go with someone younger." Those are Affleck's words.
The dude got stonewalled by Reeves, basically and decided he didn't want to go on with more DCEU crud.

________

Leo, I was hoping you would point out that Riddler's origins may differ from the general consensus on the character now, in regards to whether he kills or not.

Now you've figured it out - these characters bend and change with the times. It all circles back around to my original point. Once the riddler killed, then he didn't, now he does again. Bada-bing, bada-boom.

But even still, I don't buy that most people ever thought of Riddler as squeamish when it comes to death. I can point out as many stories that he attempts murder in as you can in which he decries murder, if you're up for it.
Might be an interesting experiment, if anyone is interested?

Honestly, If you're going to accuse me of knowingly acting ignorant (harsh accusation, ngl) to the fact that Riddler has never been one for death, then put your money where your mouth is.

What I really find interesting is your Superman example, because you have constantly defended Man of Steel featuring a Superman that kills, and decried people who had an issue with it, whether that is because his origins feature killing, or whether it's because people are afraid of change.
Now with Riddler, you sing a different tune.

Superman can kill but Riddler can't. Classic.

Someone here pointed out once that you have double-standard when it comes to Snyder, which is starting to seem legit. You've admitted yourself that you have a preconceived anger at this movie, for replacing the Affleck film, so I don't even know why I'm trying to deal in logic here. If you want to hate it for that, go ahead.

But either way, you've proven my point that these characters are in a constant form of change. The cherry on top is you trying to imply the original intention of the character doesn't have merit in an adaptation. Can't make this stuff up.

________

I'll just leave this convenient list of the "15 Most Sadistic Things the Riddler has Ever Done", in case anyone out there is scratching their head wondering whether or not this is a bloodthirsty dude:

https://www.cbr.com/most-sadistic-ri...ngs-ever-done/

This list is compiled from all sort of different mediums, writers, and eras, so it'd generally be considered as part of the consensus. If the dude ain't killing someone, he sure is trying to.

Spoiler: The list ends with Riddler killing his own daughter.

Sorry to ram it up your ass, man. It's hard for me not to get invested in the debate, once it starts going down these rabbit holes that appear to be factually incorrect.