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

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

As for favorite Batman film I say Mask of the Phantasm, don't get me wrong The Dark Knight is a great film and I'm not going to torn my nose up at it but I don't really care for the "realistic" give me Gotham City with a goth vibe or go home.

Exactly. And your statement here is closer to the real meaning behind the call for something more akin to Batman TAS. Batman TAS was certainly born from the success of the '89 Batman movie - but all it used was the music, and a rough version of the Batmobile, and maybe a grappling gun more prominently than a batarang. But however many examples you'd generate, the show was more spiritually like the comic books. Even citing it's influences from the old Superman cartoons is the same as a citation for the comic books. LOL! Simply put, both things are true - the show was initiated because of the success of Batman '89, but it's also true that the show was more akin to the comics. The show had a comic book feel to the villains. The show had a Batman that could move and fight dynamically. The show had a Gotham City which skewed towards a fantasy construct which made sense as an environment that could catalyze the extreme lunacy of a Batman mythos.

We need a movie that resembles Batman TAS and therefore more closely resembles the comics. This as opposed to distilling this point down to a call for "adapting Batman TAS for film", which was not what I was driving at in the first place.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Exactly. The real meaning behind the call for something more akin to Batman TAS. Batman TAS was born from the success of the '89 Batman movie - but all it used was the music, and a rough version of the Batmobile. But that was it. Even citing it's influences from the old Superman cartoons is the same as a citation for the comic books. Simply put, both things are true - the show was initiated because of the success of Batman '89, but it's also true that the show was more akin to the comics. The show had a comic book feel to the villains. The show had a Batman that could move and fight dynamically. The show had a Gotham City which skewed towards a fantasy construct which made sense as an environment that could catalyze the extreme lunacy of a Batman mythos.

We need a movie that resembles Batman TAS and therefore more closely resembles the comics. This as opposed to distilling this point down to a call for "adapting Batman TAS for film", which was not what I was driving at in the first place.

Well, it's more than just those three* things actually. For one example, the animated series even took Jack Napier, as a name for the Joker, from the 89 film. That's just one more example to throw on the pile.

The whole mood and tone was inspired by the 89 film as well, which ushered in Batman as a serious character to the mainstream.
I would never call B:TAS an adaption of the 89 film, but we can't underplay it's influence on the show. And you can't underplay the power that the music from 89 Batman and the visual language of the Fleischer Superman cartoons have on the "tone" of the show. Music and visuals are a large part of tone.

So there are lots of disparate elements from Batman lore, and outside influence, such as the Fleischer Superman cartoon being the biggest, that make-up B:TAS.

Your comment about the Fleischer influence being the same as citing the comics as an influence is confusing.
The Fleischer cartoons are an influence because of the way they moved, looked, and sounded. You can see the timeless deco influence all over B:TAS.
The comics also influence B:TAS. Yes, both things are true, but these are two completely different things that influenced the show in different, but equal ways.

Certainly the comics play a large part in the tone of B:TAS as well, as we even see the show adapt famous comic book storylines. I really feel that it is its own beast, different from the comics, at the end of the day.

I'm getting hung up on a minor point though, when the fact is, I think I understand what you are saying, if you want something in the vein of B:TAS on the big screen. I could go for that too. It's sort of the tone I expected from Reeves before he started revealing more about the film. I thought that because of his experience with visual effects and his apparent appreciation for the Adam West show, that he would end up somewhere around the serious tone of B:TAS with someone like Clayface as the enemy. Obviously not the case now.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Well, it's more than just those three* things actually. For one example, the animated series even took Jack Napier, as a name for the Joker, from the 89 film. That's just one more example to throw on the pile.

The whole mood and tone was inspired by the 89 film as well, which ushered in Batman as a serious character to the mainstream.
I would never call B:TAS an adaption of the 89 film, but we can't underplay it's influence on the show. And you can't underplay the power that the music from 89 Batman and the visual language of the Fleischer Superman cartoons have on the "tone" of the show. Music and visuals are a large part of tone.

So there are lots of disparate elements from Batman lore, and outside influence, such as the Fleischer Superman cartoon being the biggest, that make-up B:TAS.

Your comment about the Fleischer influence being the same as citing the comics as an influence is confusing.
The Fleischer cartoons are an influence because of the way they moved, looked, and sounded. You can see the timeless deco influence all over B:TAS.
The comics also influence B:TAS. Yes, both things are true, but these are two completely different things that influenced the show in different, but equal ways.

Certainly the comics play a large part in the tone of B:TAS as well, as we even see the show adapt famous comic book storylines. I really feel that it is its own beast, different from the comics, at the end of the day.

I'm getting hung up on a minor point though, when the fact is, I think I understand what you are saying, if you want something in the vein of B:TAS on the big screen. I could go for that too. It's sort of the tone I expected from Reeves before he started revealing more about the film. I thought that because of his experience with visual effects and his apparent appreciation for the Adam West show, that he would end up somewhere around the serious tone of B:TAS with someone like Clayface as the enemy. Obviously not the case now.

There's so much to pull apart with how great Batman TAS was.... even down to being drawn against black paper, capturing some of that darker Batman '89 tonality you mentioned.

I remember first seeing those Fleischer cartoons when they were released on DVD as well. How fluid the animation was and the whimsical nature of the stories - a hero stops an overt menace with a dastardly plan, true to comics of that era but created with such care. And then you have the interactions punctuated with the sensibilities of that time - any time Lois interacts with Superman, it's a ridiculous riot! And also as you mentioned - that art deco style that was brought from this into Batman TAS felt so organic and correct for the world as well.

I think if I have the time this week I'll find a few minutes to watch some of those Superman shorts, Batman Dead End and maybe an ep or two of Batman TAS for kicks.

[Leo656]

Batman Begins is still my favorite solo Batman film. Dark Knight is probably a better movie overall, but they took some huge sideways steps away from the comics in service of the story they wanted to tell, and I strongly disagree with some of those choices (like giving us a perfect Two-Face only to kill him off five minutes later, etc.).

As someone who prefers things to be as close to the comics as possible, "Begins" does a great job of staying extremely faithful with only a few things changed or streamlined. It fits in great with the comics if you squint a little bit. And I appreciate that.

I also prefer the costume much more than the ones in the next two films. And the "horror movie" vibe as he stalks the bad guys, and most of the action being kept in shadow since Nolan isn't that great at fight scenes.

Dark Knight is probably a better "movie" movie but Begins is a much better Batman movie, in my opinion. He was really kind of pushed into the background a lot in the second one. And that's understandable but it's a point in favor of Begins.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Batman Begins is still my favorite solo Batman film.

Oh, by far. It's such a journey and we'd never seen Batman fighting a villain like Ra's and the League on the big screen before.

Also, Katie Holmes > Maggie Gyllenhaal. That recasting really threw me off.

[Leo656]

Oh lord, yeah.

Like, I know a lot of people just hate the character of Rachel entirely, and she is ultimately pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things (Studio-mandated love interest? Blech!), but at least in the first one she's hot and you can see her nipples a lot.

When I showed up for the sequel it looked like Rachel Dawes had melted in the sun. Maggie Gyllenhaal (or however you spell it) has a face like a half-used candle. How do you go from Katie Holmes to HER? That was tragic.

I know this is a minority opinion but I don't care.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Oh lord, yeah.

Like, I know a lot of people just hate the character of Rachel entirely, and she is ultimately pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things (Studio-mandated love interest? Blech!), but at least in the first one she's hot and you can see her nipples a lot.

When I showed up for the sequel it looked like Rachel Dawes had melted in the sun. Maggie Gyllenhaal (or however you spell it) has a face like a half-used candle. How do you go from Katie Holmes to HER? That was tragic.

It's not fair, but yeah. I really liked Rachel in Batman Begins but she goes from a pretty woman who really cares about Bruce and it seeming like they're about to be a couple... to suddenly in movie #2, she's dating other dudes AND looking like the half-used candle you mention. Now I'm supposed to care when she goes blooie in the warehouse? It's too much.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Batman Begins is still my favorite solo Batman film. Dark Knight is probably a better movie overall, but they took some huge sideways steps away from the comics in service of the story they wanted to tell, and I strongly disagree with some of those choices (like giving us a perfect Two-Face only to kill him off five minutes later, etc.).

As someone who prefers things to be as close to the comics as possible, "Begins" does a great job of staying extremely faithful with only a few things changed or streamlined. It fits in great with the comics if you squint a little bit. And I appreciate that.

I also prefer the costume much more than the ones in the next two films. And the "horror movie" vibe as he stalks the bad guys, and most of the action being kept in shadow since Nolan isn't that great at fight scenes.

Dark Knight is probably a better "movie" movie but Begins is a much better Batman movie, in my opinion. He was really kind of pushed into the background a lot in the second one. And that's understandable but it's a point in favor of Begins.

This was basically a perfectly accurate post in every observation.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Also, Katie Holmes > Maggie Gyllenhaal. That recasting really threw me off.

Yes. And I don't really have any fan love nor disdain for either actress. But. Yes.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by IMJ

There's so much to pull apart with how great Batman TAS was.... even down to being drawn against black paper, capturing some of that darker Batman '89 tonality you mentioned.

I remember first seeing those Fleischer cartoons when they were released on DVD as well. How fluid the animation was and the whimsical nature of the stories - a hero stops an overt menace with a dastardly plan, true to comics of that era but created with such care. And then you have the interactions punctuated with the sensibilities of that time - any time Lois interacts with Superman, it's a ridiculous riot! And also as you mentioned - that art deco style that was brought from this into Batman TAS felt so organic and correct for the world as well.

I think if I have the time this week I'll find a few minutes to watch some of those Superman shorts, Batman Dead End and maybe an ep or two of Batman TAS for kicks.

I rewatched some last year and they were unbelievably great. They still look gorgeous and sound gorgeous, even if a bit blurry/muffled.

As for Katie Homes vs Maggie Gyllenhall, I prefer Maggie's performance. Her character just felt more "alive" to me, for lack of better word.

Batman Begins is awesome though. I literally just bought the 4k. Given how often I watch TDK, I'm actually sort of questioning why I don't watch this one more often. I think, if I'm being honest, I find the "training segment" to be a bit long in the tooth, but that's just a personal thing. This movie was a revelation for me when it came out, so I'm anxious to dive back in and remember what I love about it. I remember not really looking forward to it, because I still had the taste of B&R left in my mouth. Pretty sure I didn't even see it opening night, which is crazy to me now, but that's where I was at with Batman at that particular time it seems. Anyway. it blew me away for sure and I picked up the dvd the first night possible.

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Oh lord, yeah.

Like, I know a lot of people just hate the character of Rachel entirely, and she is ultimately pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things (Studio-mandated love interest? Blech!), but at least in the first one she's hot and you can see her nipples a lot.

When I showed up for the sequel it looked like Rachel Dawes had melted in the sun. Maggie Gyllenhaal (or however you spell it) has a face like a half-used candle. How do you go from Katie Holmes to HER? That was tragic.

I know this is a minority opinion but I don't care.

She was too busy chasing that mad money the wrong way! My main concern would be Mrs. Roxx knowing you like one movie over another because you find one actress more attractive than another.

Even if the actress was not consistent at least he had the same flame for more than one film. The made for movie love triangle was forced too. Harvey has not got the chance to show a dynamic with Glida in other media.

[Leo656]

She knows I have an eye for the ladies. Sometimes she cares more than others but it's no secret. And like me, she'd rather look at Really Hot people instead of Less Hot people whenever possible. We have that in common.

Man, I remember when Begins came out, nearly two weeks into its run I was still trying to convince people to go see it. Believe it or not, a LOT of people had no idea there was even a new Batman movie coming out; not everyone was on the internet 24/7 back then and the marketing was kind of subdued. It's hard to believe given the total media saturation we experience nowadays, but that one flew under a lot of people's radar.

It also had an uphill battle because of the Schumacher films; I kept telling people how awesome Begins was, and they were like "Naaaaah, they don't know how to make Batman movies anymore; didn't you see the last couple? They were awful!" I tried to explain that literally every one and every thing was totally different but people weren't buying it. Some of those people jumped in with Dark Knight despite never even seeing Begins, and I know at least a couple of them who then saw Rises but STILL never watched Begins! This makes no sense to me because Rises makes absolutely zero sense without the first one (Common "complaint" people gave me about Rises: "I liked it, but why was Liam Neeson in it for that two minutes? What did that have to do with anything?" Idiots).

It's a real shame that financially, Begins was a distant third place to the others. But it didn't get anywhere near the same marketing blitz and people were really feeling burned after the previous two films (even I wasn't really very excited until like the day before I saw it). Dark Knight is a great film, but I've always wondered if it would have become the phenomenon it did if Ledger hadn't died. Part of me thinks no; I spoke to many people at the time who really had little to no interest in Batman, some of whom either hated or never cared to watch a comic book movie before, and for them it was just about seeing Heath Ledger's final completed performance and nothing else. And lest we forget, people HATED the casting while he was still alive and the popular opinion didn't REALLY shift fully towards "Let's give him a chance!" until AFTER he'd died; when he was alive all anyone said was "It's impossible to top Nicholson and they shouldn't waste their time trying." The movie obviously impressed those people enough to come back for Round 3, but one has to wonder if they'd have gotten into the theater for DK in the first place if things had gone differently. I personally think it would have gone well, and probably out-grossed Begins by a bit, but not made a billion. The gross for Begins and DK are miles apart, after all, while DK and Rises are much closer (with Rises benefiting greatly from the curiosity as to how they'd follow up Heath); frankly, in the current climate it's questionable whether or not Begins would have even gotten a sequel at all, given what it earned. It was considered "Okay" at the time but definitely didn't set the world on fire, and nowadays anything less than a billion is "failure". So we're all lucky they kept it going, really.

The third movie, obviously, would have been very, very different if Heath hadn't died, and probably better. But we'll never know.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The third movie, obviously, would have been very, very different if Heath hadn't died, and probably better. But we'll never know.

I don't know if it would've been drastically different. Maybe we would have gotten Joker presiding over that kangaroo court instead of Scarecrow, but maybe that's about it.

[Leo656]

Given how they totally made the third one up in a panic as they went along, I think it would have been a LOT different. The studio would have demanded that Heath be given a more prominent role than just that, and I think fans would have expected that as well.

It's impossible to say for sure but I highly doubt anyone would have settled for a glorified cameo. Even after he died, I talked to many people who insisted they'd just recast the role because the character was so important to the story. "You can't leave Joker out after all THAT, that would be stupid." Logic be damned, that was how a lot of people were thinking. Just like how a lot of people think Phoenix will be retrofitted into this new movie; "He just won an Oscar, they'd be stupid not to put him in! That's what people want!"

I mean, we'll never know, but my gut tells me that if Heath had lived, DK might have ended with both Joker and Dent surviving, and DKR would have seen Batman fighting a two-pronged war while Joker and Two-Face also were at odds with each other. Definitely no 8-year time jump at the very least; that was just to muddy the waters so nobody would ask about Joker and why he wasn't involved ("Maybe he died offscreen, I'unno, let's move on"). I'm sure the entire movie would have been different, not just one scene.

[AquaParade]

Christopher Nolan isn't all that interested in discussing the matter but I'm thinking Heath would have had an important, if slightly smaller role in the third film.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Definitely no 8-year time jump at the very least; that was just to muddy the waters so nobody would ask about Joker and why he wasn't involved ("Maybe he died offscreen, I'unno, let's move on").

Mmm... I'm not so sure. There was an 8 year time jump because Nolan only wanted to do 3 movies and Goyer talked him into making "The Dark Knight Returns" part of its DNA. Bruce "returning" and all.

[Sumac]

I remember, that some people were convinced that Batman Begins was a prequel to the Batman'89.

[Leo656]

They would have had to have watched neither of those movies for that to make any sense at all.

[MikeandRaph87]

I remember rumors that Joker would scar Harvey Dent in the court room in the beginning of chapter 3 and then in later drafts he would have lead the prison riot. Don't know how much of it is true. One thing that we can be sure of is Heath would have returned to the franchise if he had lived. I also agree with Leo in the fact Heath Ledger died the movie became what it did.

One thing that I did not like about The Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises was we had seen the villains in previous films. I was glad Catwoman got a redo, best portrayal since Newmar,but Bane was still a lackey. It is a curse that he cannot break from, but Harley who is/was a lackey can.

[Leo656]

Well, in a sense they're kinda stuck because to sell tickets you have to lean at least a little bit on what people know and expect. And while Batman has a large rogues gallery, the average ticket-buyer only knows a very small number of them.

That's another thing that worked against Batman Begins, in my experience. Some people told me that they were going to skip it because "I'll go see it when they do one with Joker in it, that's what I wanna see." Scarecrow and Ra's were both portrayed excellently - they definitely won me over and I was one of the ones saying they couldn't sell a movie - but they were both very odd choices to be the lead villains of a brand-new Batman film series. And one has to wonder how much money they'd have made if they'd used Joker right out of the gate instead. I'm fine with how it all worked out but again, who knows?

For me, the fact that we still haven't seen most of these villains done PROPERLY makes me not care if some of them are repeated. Yeah, it's nice to get some new faces in there, but we still haven't seen Bane done right for example, so if someone wants to use him again that's fine with me, hopefully they'll do it right this time, although I won't hold my breath. Black Mask and Zsasz COULD have been great but they screwed that up because of course they did. And some of the lower-tier villains just wouldn't work in a movie format. Like I know you're a huge Riddler guy, and I have some nostalgic affection for the character myself, but I'm legit afraid of seeing how Hollywood would mess that up. Even in the video games and animated adaptations nowadays, all anyone can think of to do is turn him into Jigsaw, which is SO wrong I don't even know where to start with it. And if that's all they're gonna do then I don't wanna see it, no matter how much I like the character. NO MORE "In Name Only" adaptations, dammit!

So yeah, between there only being a few characters anyone knows/cares about, and even fewer that Hollywood has any interest in adapting PROPERLY, it's an unfortunately shallow well of villains to draw from. We're likely to see some variation of the Joker/Catwoman/Bane/Penguin revolving door for quite some time. Especially since they're hellbent on killing the other villains off in SPIN-OFF MOVIES before they even get their feet under them.

it is what it is.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

but Bane was still a lackey.

True... but he was a stealth lackey. We didn't realize he was the lackey until the end, before which he was only doing badassery leader things.