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

[TMNTFanatic4Life]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with all of this except I have Danny Devito as the Best Penguin character. And it’s funny but this is probably the only DC Show that is non animated that I can watch start to finish without any cringe. Arrow and Flash has their great moments …pretty much the first 2 seasons of each…but a big part of them is full of cringe.

And I really like Ben’s Jim Gordon; he’s a riot!

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, ****, I'm glad you enjoyed it so much. I just may check it out, even if I think that Riddler costume looks awful. I hear that version of Riddler is actually pretty brutal too, speaking of.

If they have a take on Clayface, Azrael, or The Court of Owls, I'm even more interested. Though, I know those are tricky characters for a television show like Gotham.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

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.

Whether or not Reeves wanted anything to do with Affleck is irrelevant. Affleck was his Batman and Reeves publicly confirmed that. Then Affleck exited. Now years later Affleck is saying Damon talked him into leaving. So basically Affleck, Damon, and Reeves are all lying to us? For what purpose?

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.

From all of this we can surmise that while Reeves probably was told that, it would still be Affleck in the cowl playing a kind of... de-Snyderversed Batman. Until it wasn't and Affleck walked.

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.

Where was this said? I vaguely remember something about this, but also that this is very misleading.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Whether or not Reeves wanted anything to do with Affleck is irrelevant.

Dude, It's Reeves' movie.

You're saying it's irrelevant whether Reeves wanted to work with Affleck? After all the reports how hard WB fought to get Reeves on board? He even stormed out and called it all off, when WB weren't giving Reeves what he wanted.
It is very much relevant who Reeves wants as Batman in his film.
Snap out of it.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Affleck was his Batman and Reeves publicly confirmed that.
Then Affleck exited. Now years later Affleck is saying Damon talked him into leaving. So basically Affleck, Damon, and Reeves are all lying to us? For what purpose?

Actors and directors lie when the studio asks them to. WB did not want to announce the departure of a Batman, until they had a new one. They could not afford any more bad press.

As for Damon convincing Affleck to exit, where is it indicated that he convinced him to exit from Reeves film? We've already seen Ben Affleck in Snyder and Ayer films, and now The Flash. Just because Affleck may have stuck around post- Reeves, doesn't at all prove that he was going to be in a Reeves film.

From all of this we can surmise that while Reeves probably was told that, it would still be Affleck in the cowl playing a kind of... de-Snyderversed Batman. Until it wasn't and Affleck walked.

No, we really can't, after how hard WB had to fight to get Reeves on-board. I'm wondering whether you saw these reports or not, because they really go against this argument. WB wasn't giving the orders on this one. That's why it takes place in it's own universe, with it's own Batman, with no cross-overs, etc.

Where was this said? I vaguely remember something about this, but also that this is very misleading.

Let me see if I can dig it up for you...

Edit: Okay, I'm a little off, but this is what he said:

“I’m looking forward to it. They’ve got a great director. They’re doing a kind of, I don’t want to give away anything because they get…but they’re doing a young version, a more starting-out version with a younger guy… I’m sure it will be great.”

He doesn't confirm that it wasn't his choice, but given all the context, it's rather clear. At the end of the day, Reeves isn't being jerked around by WB, and if you follow the trades, this is obvious.

Also consider the fact that Ben Affleck doesn't want to come out with "Well, Matt Reeves didn't want me for his film - he's choosing to do his own thing, and the DCEU is trash, so I'm out." It doesn't sound good on Ben and it makes Matt Reeves a target to one of the most heated fan-bases ever.

[Leo656]

Aqua: Sigh.

I have to go to the gym so I don't have time to do a fully-segmented Qute/Reply thing, so I'll just do bullet points.

- First of all, a lot of people may not know this, but I haven't even seen all of Snyder's work. I've never seen his zombie movies, since that genre isn't interesting to me, and believe it or not, I've only seen snippets of 300 (I own it, but keep forgetting to actually watch it). Just because his DC movies are my favorite super-hero movies of all time doesn't make me a stanboy. It's just that I like those specific films for multiple reasons and a LOT of the criticisms towards them have frankly been total nonsense, and the few that hold water tend to be completely overblown and I don't like that.

- Secondly, a lot of the things I've spoken at-length to defend in those films - stuff like Superman killing Zod, or why Superman is a lot more introspective and conflicted and not a happy-go-lucky Reeves clone, for example, are quite frankly a LOT easier to defend, citing various canon sources, than that frankly terrible, awful, bad, and just plain no-good Riddler redesign.

I mean, let's put aside everything else about whether or not Riddler-As-Jigsaw is a valid reinterpretation or not, and focus solely on what started this entire back-and-forth in the first place: the costume itself. This entire conversation started because of that costume, and that costume is STUPID. If you like it, fine. Most here don't. We've all said Why. The rest of it came from there.

But it's bad, bruh. He's wearing Clark Kent glasses over top of a gimp mask. It's laughable. The more you go out of your way to insist it's not, the more I can't help but think that YOU'RE the one with the overwhelming bias, and that you simply try and paint ME as such by means of deflecting. So let's not deflect, let's focus on the matter at hand, alright? That being, even if the movie completely manages to put over some sort of serial-killer Riddler in a satisfying way, the costume is still gonna be the sh*t drizzles. Just like how even though "The Dark Knight" is a great movie, and Bale a great Batman, his actual costume sucks my butt. It is what it is.

- No, I'm not saying "Superman can kill but Riddler can't." Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that when it comes to killing ZOD, specifically, in a movie, and people whining about it being "wrong" for that character, the way they did and still are, you can find canon examples of that scenario very easily to justify it, whereas with Riddler being some kind of Jigsaw-type you have to work harder to do so.

In either case, killing could be considered "out of character" for either. The point I was trying to make in bringing up all the other "canon" examples of Superman killing someone (besides Zod), is that whether it's Superman OR Riddler, you can come up with 100 examples to show "See? They kill people, sometimes," and you will ALWAYS get a strong and vocal majority of people pushing back against it saying "I don't care, it's wrong for that character, I don't want to hear it."

I know that my posts are so long that it can be tough for a lot of people here to grasp the nuance in the points I make, but said nuance is sort of integral to the entire thing. I'm not just typing a lot of words to take up space, it's because these are very textured points that need to be parsed carefully in order to be fully understood. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.

In any case, sure, you can find a few examples of Riddler trying to kill someone, but to most people they're anathema to the character. Just like to most people, Superman killing Zod was blasphemous, even though he consistently kills Zod and that movie was just One More Example.

If I have to put up with people telling me "No, you're f*cking wrong and stupid" for using canon to justify what some people refuse to accept because their own internal barometer says "That's Wrong", then I'm sorry, you have to deal with it, too. It's only fair.

[sdp]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

If they have a take on Clayface, Azrael, or The Court of Owls, I'm even more interested. Though, I know those are tricky characters for a television show like Gotham.

Court of Owls had a half season story arc. Clayface and Azrael also had a few episodes, nothing too special with them but they were alright.

[AquaParade]

Leo, when your argument is “Man of Steel had to deal with this unjust criticism, so The Batman does too”, it’s time to pack it up. You’re half arguing your point and half throwing in the towel with “well, it doesn’t make sense, but Man of Steel had to deal with it, so…”

What is that? Lmao

I mean, this argument that it’s okay for Superman to kill, because you’ve seen it in the comics, yet not okay for Riddler, even though it’s in the comics (and even the origin) is silly and disingenuous.

As for the costume, I like it. I like when things make sense within the world they take place, and changing the Riddler’s costume isn’t sacrilege to me. It’s already been done plenty of times. I’ll take a creepy zodiac-inspired outfit over a foofy green suit, or a spandex onesie either way.

And can someone remind me why we are relegating Riddler to “jigsaw”? Since when did the Riddler not devise death-traps, in which you solve riddles to escape?
If anything, Jigsaw clearly took a page from Riddler and turned it up to “11”.
Come to think of it, Jigsaw and Riddler have never been that different. The guy would fit right in with Gotham.

[Andrew NDB]

I really don't have a problem with the new Riddler. Well, kind of when I Googled who Paul Dano is I had a little one. Like... gah! The weasel from "There Will be Blood"? Good actor but... eh, I'm not so sure about this. I'd expected some kind of a Guy Pierce type.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I really don't have a problem with the new Riddler. Well, kind of when I Googled who Paul Dano is I had a little one. Like... gah! The weasel from "There Will be Blood"? Good actor but... eh, I'm not so sure about this. I'd expected some kind of a Guy Pierce type.

Check out Prisoners. He is pretty weasel-esque in that movie too, but it’s effective. The guy is creepy.

[Leo656]

Again, as I've been forced to swallow for several years now whenever I try and defend something: "It can make sense for the world the movie created but still be stupid otherwise." Once more, many people have tried to "correct" me by stating Exactly This, but oftentimes a lot nastier. Well, now it's coming back around. I'm not trying to get your goat, I'm just making my opinion clear, but I'll also be damned if I'm going to take every single ounce of "Your Opinion Is Wrong" around here. No chance.

It's a dumb-looking suit, in a vacuum. I'm not saying it doesn't fit what they're going for. It's stupid-looking and I don't like it. I never said anything about whether or not it "makes sense within the movie's universe". I don't really have an opinion on that, I just think it's a stupid-looking outfit in and of itself. That's all I've said about the costume and that's what I'll continue to say at my leisure because it's true (in my own opinion).

If you have to project and put words in peoples' mouths to try and further YOUR point, perhaps it is you who needs to "pack it in." We've already established that reading comprehension is not your friend.

At the very least, though, you don't have to worry about me calling you "a retard" or telling you to "go f*ck your Batman body pillow" just because I find your taste and opinions questionable. Unlike most people here, I try and stay above such things. I might think your take on this Riddler (and the movie in general) are comparable to the crack-smoke ramblings of a madman, but I'm not going to actually insult you over it. Therefore, you don't need to work so hard to try and convince me of your position, one I can assure you I'm not going to adopt. I'm not gonna like the costume, pal. Your insistence that it's somehow awesome are just gonna annoy me. So you can kindly stop trying to tell me why my opinion on it is wrong or doesn't count.

I'm not doing that to you, after all. I'm just explaining why I think it's ass, and furthermore, why other people here have said the same thing. I'm not trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong or that you have no right to it.

Again: Reading comprehension, historically, seems to be something you (and others) struggle greatly with here. Thus, my need to forever over-explain things that ought to be Perfectly F*cking Clear.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

- No, I'm not saying "Superman can kill but Riddler can't." Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that when it comes to killing ZOD, specifically, in a movie, and people whining about it being "wrong" for that character, the way they did and still are, you can find canon examples of that scenario very easily to justify it, whereas with Riddler being some kind of Jigsaw-type you have to work harder to do so.

Trying to justify something by saying: "But you know, 10 years ago there was a comic book #43 from 2000, where exactly same situation had happened" is not particularly a good argument, since than, it is possible that this comic book not only non-canon, but aside from a few obsessed fans no-one remembers it.

[Turo602]

I never understood why some people find Riddler so sacred. That costume is complete ass, don't get me wrong, but the whole Jigsaw take on him that blew up with Arkham City was the kind of reinvention the character desperately needed to be seen as a worthy alternative to Joker who was oh so cool in The Dark Knight and not just some campy goof ass with a riddle gimmick. I mean sure, comic fans might hate that interpretation of Riddler, but the casuals definitely aren't going to be moaning about seeing a bloodthirsty Riddler on screen.

[Leo656]

I actually do agree. That sort of take is the only way to make Riddler useful in the 21st Century. He's a relic of a bygone era and doesn't work anymore unless you do throw everything out and start over. Much as I like him for nostalgia's sake, he's basically worthless as a villainous character in a post-TDKR world, where your typical Batman foe might "just" be a serial killer but might also be a cannibal who eats babies. The modern style of Batman villain tends to fall into one of two flavors: Super-Evil or SUPER-DUPER EVIL. No room for a guy who fights Batman by sending him bad puns. It's a dumb character, objectively. They should have stopped using him completely in the 90s, or else made that short-lived "babyface turn" where he became a detective a permanent thing.

But as I've said - repeatedly - there are about 80 other Batman villains who can fit the exact role they're trying to squeeze him into nowadays WITHOUT being "reinvented" thusly. And I find "throw away everything but the name"- style reimaginings dumb, as stated. Isn't it more work than just using one of the multiple characters who already fit your template?

OH, but they don't have a familiar name, and Riddler does. That's really all it comes down to. They "can't" just either 1. Use an existing character that fits their mold, or 2. Make up a brand-new character, because "D00D look how they made Riddler badass!" gets shock value points and online chatter.

I get it. I get ALL of it. It's not that I don't get it. It's just dumb, to me. It does not take any sort of "creative genius" to take a pre-existing character, essentially do the opposite of everything they're known for, and call it a "bold new take." Any child can do it. For me, it's not specifically about Riddler, so much as I just pain am not a fan of those kinds of "reinventions" as a general rule. SOMETIMES it works, in very rare cases, but on the whole I'd rather they not bother.

Matter of fact, that's basically what the entire New 52 did, in a nutshell (with everyone except Batman). And that's why people hated it. Superman, Wonder Woman, and multiple other characters got "bold new reinventions" that were essentially just "What if these characters you love were huge jerks who acted nothing like themselves? Wouldn't that be WILD? You'd love it, right?"

Most people did not, in fact, love it.

Anyway yeah, Riddler sucks but I'd frankly just retire the character rather than keep trying to turn a squirrel into a dog just because dogs are cooler than squirrels. Just get a dog, it's not hard.

[AquaParade]

Leo, I still can’t get over that half your post from yesterday was “I have to eat this ****, so you do too.” Throwing an argument at me, that you have defended yourself, in regards to Superman. C’mon, Not only is it a hollow argument, but it’s lame.

Reading comprehension - that's your issue. When you get cornered, you blame my comprehension, without specifically explaining why. That's not cool, considering I take time to digest your filibuster posts and reply point by point.

Because, as you can see above, I already “agreed to disagree” regarding your feelings about the Riddler costume. That's fine if you think it’s ugly. You can say it all day, just like I can justify what I like about it all day.

Originally Posted by Leo656 View Post
- No, I'm not saying "Superman can kill but Riddler can't." Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that when it comes to killing ZOD, specifically, in a movie, and people whining about it being "wrong" for that character, the way they did and still are, you can find canon examples of that scenario very easily to justify it, whereas with Riddler being some kind of Jigsaw-type you have to work harder to do so.

Yes, you are saying that. There’s nothing obtuse about my response. You literally justify Superman killing in his movie (based on comics) and disparage The Riddler doing it (based on comics).

And the second part is just wrong. I could find plenty more instances of Riddler laying death traps than Superman snapping necks. I mean, there is evidence for both, but no, this is what Riddler does in like every appearance, other then a brief stint when Batman comics were becoming super fluffy and nice and not even Joker killed. Not the case for Superman.

You talk about general consensus mattering more than comic's canon, when we discuss Riddler attempting murder. Yet, for you, the opposite is true when it comes to Superman - general consensus be damned, you saw Superman kill in the comics. That's the definition of a double standard. Sorry, it is.

And I’m still waiting to hear why this Riddler is relegated to “jigsaw” when the Riddler was basically Jigsaw before Jigsaw existed. I mean, that’s just funny.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

I never understood why some people find Riddler so sacred. That costume is complete ass, don't get me wrong, but the whole Jigsaw take on him that blew up with Arkham City was the kind of reinvention the character desperately needed to be seen as a worthy alternative to Joker who was oh so cool in The Dark Knight and not just some campy goof ass with a riddle gimmick. I mean sure, comic fans might hate that interpretation of Riddler, but the casuals definitely aren't going to be moaning about seeing a bloodthirsty Riddler on screen.

Same here. I mean, first off, not even Batman is sacred in the comics. They all evolve. Anyone pretending they don’t, doesn’t actually understand the material or is sadly just full of it.

Secondly, I agree that Riddler has never been the most precious character anyway. The intellect, the traps, and desire to match wits with Batman have always had potential, but why not let the character evolve, the same way the other lesser villains have.
I mean, does anyone want the pre-Batman animated series “Mr Freeze” back? Not really. If these people who hate change were in charge, we quite literally wouldn’t have Batman anymore. It would have died instead of evolving a long time ago.

I’m over the pseudo-purist act that comes from people who don’t actually understand the material they are pretending to defend. It gets even weirder when the arguement is “not only am I a purist, but I don’t even like this character. Still, don’t change him at all, or I'll complain.”

Sometimes, being on the internet, if you’re not careful, you’ll almost be convinced that evolution and creativity are a bad thing.

And yet, despite all that, I do think this is a recognizable interpretation of The Riddler. People are trying to be clever by giving him serial killer nicknames, but he’s doing the same thing he’s always done - hound Batman & Gotham with Riddles and death traps. It’s just a little more hardcore than we often see. People are mostly just melting down over the outfit and getting carried away from there.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

I never understood why some people find Riddler so sacred. That costume is complete ass, don't get me wrong, but the whole Jigsaw take on him that blew up with Arkham City was the kind of reinvention the character desperately needed to be seen as a worthy alternative to Joker who was oh so cool in The Dark Knight and not just some campy goof ass with a riddle gimmick. I mean sure, comic fans might hate that interpretation of Riddler, but the casuals definitely aren't going to be moaning about seeing a bloodthirsty Riddler on screen.

I don't find him sacred, as with any character.

But any given character is more than just a name. It everything: their costume, their name, their gimmick, their race and sex. If you start to change character into something else you might end up with something completely different, which at this point should be called something entirely different.

Its like making Batman wear a Cat-costume, instead of Bat, call him Peter Kent and make him living in igloo in the South Pole. And, if someone says: "But this is not Batman! It has nothing to do with Batman!" you can always answer: "You just a dumb nerd who keeps character sacred for no reason, so STFU and like our new and totally COOL and ORIGINAL take on a character!"

This what happens with Riddler, IMO.

Just a make an original character already or stop ****ing around with established characters and their lore.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't find him sacred, as with any character.

But any given character is more than just a name. It everything: their costume, their name, their gimmick, their race and sex. If you start to change character into something else you might end up with something completely different, which at this point should be called something entirely different.

Its like making Batman wear a Cat-costume, instead of Bat, call him Peter Kent and make him living in igloo in the South Pole. And, if someone says: "But this is not Batman! It has nothing to do with Batman!" you can always answer: "You just a dumb nerd who keeps character sacred for no reason, so STFU and like our new and totally COOL and ORIGINAL take on a character!"

This what happens with Riddler, IMO.

Just a make an original character already or stop ****ing around with established characters and their lore.

I see where you are coming from but you're only dealing in extremes. We know the truth is somewhere in the middle. The characters can change and evolve but it's a balance. Fair enough, if you think they've gone too far here but to me, it captures the essence of The Riddler.

The thing is neither of us are correct. It's up to interpretation. I would ask how you feel about Mr Feeeze ore-aninated series or Superman before he could fly.

[Leo656]

It's whatever, guys, he's right because he said so. The rest of us are just pissy jerks. Jesus.

When every rebuttal to a valid point is either "No, YOU" or "That's irrelevant", you're talking to a fanatic. Just let him love the stupid thing, we don't get opinions. He's just gonna "Actually..." us to death no matter what.

I, personally, have already invested way too much time into a conversation about a movie I'll never even see.

Just goes to show you how much I hate that f*cking costume. At well, it's all been said.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't find him sacred, as with any character.

But any given character is more than just a name. It everything: their costume, their name, their gimmick, their race and sex. If you start to change character into something else you might end up with something completely different, which at this point should be called something entirely different.

Its like making Batman wear a Cat-costume, instead of Bat, call him Peter Kent and make him living in igloo in the South Pole. And, if someone says: "But this is not Batman! It has nothing to do with Batman!" you can always answer: "You just a dumb nerd who keeps character sacred for no reason, so STFU and like our new and totally COOL and ORIGINAL take on a character!"

This what happens with Riddler, IMO.

Just a make an original character already or stop ****ing around with established characters and their lore.

Not what I was insinuating at all. My point is that The Riddler is in need of reinvention, therefore he isn't as sacred as other more popular and established characters. You change Batman, people will react negatively, you change Riddler, are people really gonna care? The public perception of Riddler is probably still Jim Carrey's Riddler or something close to it. Gotham arguably had the best live action Riddler but that show was niche and the Arkham games reinvented him but in the grand scheme, those games are also niche. People have been waiting to see Riddler on screen ever since Heath Ledger's Joker because the modern audience is ready for a more "grown up" take on the character.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's whatever, guys, he's right because he said so. The rest of us are just pissy jerks. Jesus.

Well, when you're dealing in double standards, yeah.