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

[AquaParade]

Yeah, that got way too far away from what I was saying, but more power to you.

There’s not a connection between people wanting original stories and people wanting to be surprised. They are different things. I don’t want an original story because it’s “surprising”. I just don’t want to see movies that are straight up 100% adaptions of comic books like you suggested this Batman film should be. I think that’s creatively bankrupt. I like my comics for being comics. I don't need them to be acted out on a screen.

I want original stories featuring these characters. I do like The Dark Knight trilogy. Not talking about surprises. That’s all.

[Coola Yagami]

I do agree a lot of these movie guys drop big bucks to score the rights to certain properties, just say 'they've been doing it wrong all along, my way is better!'.

I'd say follow the movie route where as long as you don't actually call the movie Batman The Long Halloween or whatever, you have some freedoms here and there, but if you do ahead and name it as such, then it better ****ing be The Long Halloween and not some 'my way is better' version of it. That's why I give Nolan leeway, he never meant to adapt a particular story.

As for Batman's origins, skip em. If Spider-Man only had his movie origin retold twice and the MCU pretty much left things up to assumption the movie goer would know, then I'm sure after Keaton, Kilmer, Bale, BVS and that one Joker scene, we can leave it up to the moviegoer assumption and just move on.

Like by now after all these movies that attracted general audiences and non-comic book fans and everything, you kinda have no real business pretending to know who Batman is if you don't know about the guy killing Bruce's parents. It's like saying you don't know Anakin is Vader in 2019.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

I do agree a lot of these movie guys drop big bucks to score the rights to certain properties, just say 'they've been doing it wrong all along, my way is better!'.

I wonder if the debate is becoming muddled, because it was about "telling original stories vs adapting comic book 1:1 for the big screen".

Telling original stories shouldn't be seen as some arrogant gesture to spite the original work. Of course, there are examples of changes being made to big-studio comic book films out of arrogance or spite for the source material - no doubt about it, you are correct - but that's not the same as just telling original stories with these characters on the big screen.

The last, at least 30, comic book films I can think of are all original stories, not straight comic book adaptions. If some of y'all can't find anything to love within that entire lot and insist that these fools making the movies should just be adapting a comic book - a completely different medium with different strength's and weaknesses, mind you - to the big screen, instead of telling the original stories they are telling in Logan, The Dark Knight, MCU, Deadpool, Spider-Man, etc then you've lost me.

And comic books are one of my very favorite artistic mediums - It's not about disparaging those stories.
I'm not here to call out anyone's taste - I know these movies aren't perfect. I just would never claim that the filmmakers are arrogant for telling their own stories and we'd all be better off if they just translated comic books to live-action, page-for-page. Man, if all comic book films were just page-for-page adaptions, I'd be bored to death.
I'll just read the book if that's what I want. Where I can actually see the dynamism of Jim Lee's Batman or the abstract panel layout's in Moore's Swamp Thing, rather then reduce the film to a being an imitation.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Obviously not anything can ever be 1:1 with it's source material, but the farther away you get, the less of a point there is even adapting something. Like "Hush"; that was NOT "Hush", it bore no resemblance at all outside of two brief scenes. It was SO different that calling it "Hush" was not only an insult, it was blatant false advertising. NOW, is it an acceptable animated feature in and of itself? Yeah, sure... If you call it something else and don't try to steal from fans by advertising your own New And Different Thing as a thing that a lot of people already love and have waited almost twenty years to see adapted PROPERLY.

You say Watchmen was boring; I say, the show is a piece of sh*t that has no reason to exist and the film was exactly what it was supposed to be, otherwise the name "Watchmen" had no business being on the marquee.

"Batman Begins" did well by taking huge bits of Year One and other stories, but didn't market itself as "Year One", that would have been lying. "Dark Knight Rises" wasn't called "KnightFall". "Logan" wasn't called "Old Man Logan". You raise certain expectations when you attach a familiar title to an original piece of work, and if you aren't going to play it "straight", simply don't promote something as something it's not.

I agree with this. Like "Return to New York" (INFURIATING for me to watch) and "City at War" in the 4Kids cartoon, or even "City at War" at IDW now.

Just... don't.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I agree with this. Like "Return to New York" (INFURIATING for me to watch) and "City at War" in the 4Kids cartoon, or even "City at War" at IDW now.

Just... don't.

That's sort of my main point, as well. Trying to adapt the material too closely usually just leads to disappointment and unmet expectations.

I feel like the debate got extremely muddled, so I'll step back. Pretty sure I made my point clear, but hopefully it wasn't conflated with other topics that were somehow melded into mine.

All I want to say is I hope movie studios don't start trying to adapt comics 1:1 to the big screen. That idea terrifies me. It'd be awesome to see out of curiosity, but there are so many new stories to be told that take advantage of the medium they exist in. The proof is in the pudding - We've had plenty of awesome, original stories in comic book movies. I'll take Nolan's Dark Knight over Nolan trying to copy the story of Batman Hush, but without the awesome Jim Lee art and paneling.

The DC animation films are, to me, an example of trying to adapt something 1:1 gone wrong. It's just the same story told, with less dynamism. Sure, the added music is cool, but these direct adaptions just don't live up to the source material. They'd be better off carving their own path, like Batman:TAS did, and like most comic book films do.

Just my opinion, of course. If you DO want to see upcoming Batman films just be attempted 1:1 adaptions of our favorite comics - I disagree, but I respect it.

And there are always exceptions to the rule: Like I've said before, if someone told me they were adapting Morrison's Batman to the screen, I'd sing Happy Birthday to myself.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

The DC animation films are, to me, an example of trying to adapt something 1:1 gone wrong. It's just the same story told, with less dynamism. Sure, the added music is cool, but these direct adaptions just don't live up to the source material. They'd be better off carving their own path, like Batman:TAS did, and like most comic book films do.

They haven't even attempted to do a faithful retelling in like ten years. "Death of Superman" was pretty close, but not really. Better than most, anyway, but still lost some points. "Reign of the Supermen" was almost as bad as "Hush". Which sucks, because the Death/Reign story is one of my favorite Superman stories. It should have been SO EASY. But again, every single thing they did to "carve their own path" (or force it to try and fit in their animated version of the New 52-verse) actively made the story much, much worse.

Again, if a change isn't an improvement, then it's simply "different for different's sake", and that's nonsense. When it HURTS the story, like in "Reign" or "Hush", then that's an even bigger problem. And that's where most of the DC animated films are right now, which is why they're terrible (in addition to the art style itself being complete ass, but it looks like they're married to it now). "We're giving you Judas Contract! ...Except it's not at all the same. But HERE, try Killing Joke, with a bunch of stuff nobody ever asked for! BETTER now, right? Cuz it's DIFFERENT!"

Eeeeeexcept those things definitely, unquestionably would have been better if they'd just told the story from the comics without trying to get cute about it. They took some incredibly simple sh*t, made it complicated, and sh*t the bed. I can't speak for everyone, but with regard to Superman fans, a LOT of people were looking forward to "Death/Reign" (especially after the crappy animated film from 15 years ago or whatever), just for example, and based on the feedback I've seen, most people were INCREDIBLY disappointed (and it didn't sell like they were hoping). Consensus is: "They should have left it alone instead of trying to rewrite the entire damn thing." Should've been another "Dark Knight Returns" animated film. Could've been. They blew it. And it's not likely that they'll ever take a third swing at it. It is what it is, but Jesus... these things aren't even worth watching anymore. They don't improve on the books one single bit, they actively make a lot of things worse... basically, they only serve to whet the appetites of the functionally-illiterate, and who honestly cares about those people?

Obviously, we're just not gonna agree on this. For me, "New Frontier", "Batman: Year One", "Public Enemies", "Dark Knight Returns"... even "Superman vs. The Elite" and "Unbound" was what they should always have stayed true to. Streamline if you must, but don't actively change it into a completely different thing just because "Eh, one or two people might not wanna see the same thing they already read." Most people want EXACTLY the story they read, or at least the bulk of it. And there's simply no reason to disillusion those fans for the benefit of people who wouldn't really notice or care, anyway.

Y'know how many people I can't get to read "Killing Joke" now because of that sh*tty animated adaptation? Or "Judas Contract" or "Hush"? It's infuriating! "But look, man, THIS is the real deal, a much better version of that story! They just screwed it up for the cartoon, but look! Please?" "Nah, man, I'm good. I seen it, if it's anything at all the same as the cartoon I'm pretty sure it sucks." "But it's nooooooot the saaaaaaaaame!" And it kills me. KILLS ME.

Just do it properly or don't bother. That's my stance, it ain't ever changing. "New and different" is almost never "better". It's just "newer." If I ask for a steak, don't give me a pancake and tell me to be grateful because "steaks are boring and predictable." It's silly.

[AquaParade]

Leo, the thing is, you are talking about the downside of adapting a known comic book storyline and then making a bunch of changes to it, whereas I am talking about completely original storylines.

If they'd simply adapt "The Last Arkham" as-is, with no deviation and simply use those four issues as a storyboard, they'd have an easy slam dunk and they'd take home well over a billion dollars.

-- This is what I was replying to. I'm saying, "no, I'd prefer an original story, not a straight adaption of a comic story" You are responding with "no, whenever they make changes to the story they are adapting, the story is ruined." (On a separate note, there is no way that just adapting your favorite storyline means the film is going to make well over a billion dollars, all other factors involved be damned)

I'm not saying that they should adapt a well known story at all - Tell something new, play to the medium's strength's. I'm not saying they should adapt a well known story and then make a bunch of changes to be "new and different!". You keep replying to me as if I am saying that and I'm not. Not sure why that isn't clear, when I am up the Wah-Zoo citing examples such as The Dark Knight ( a film that clearly isn't a direct comic adaption that has been tinkered with to death in an effort to be "surprising and new".)

The conversation is a mess because the two are being conflated.

[Leo656]

I'm sure that two conversations have never happened parallel to each other, and never will again. Surely.

Also, you're wrong, sorry. No "new and original idea" could possibly outshine "The Last Arkham" as a film, especially if they're trying to do a similar thing. Absolutely impossible. Also, most people haven't read it, so to them it would be "new" anyway. It's not like it's "Killing Joke" or "DKR", it's rather niche. But it's fantastic, and deserves an adaptation.

If I had $150 million, that's the move I would make, and it would be a world-beater. I wouldn't need to spend a ton of money or time trying to reinvent the wheel, I'd just re-tell a great story in a satisfying manner for the benefit of both those people who liked the comic version, and those who haven't seen it. BUT, nobody asked me.

People fail because they try too hard to make simple sh*t complicated. And when someone offers Good Advice, they get prickly because they didn't think of it. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean they should ignore the person giving them the advice.

"Wonder Woman 1984" is going balls-deep on "new and original ideas", and it promises to be awful. Your method is flawed. Like what you like, but it's absolutely stupid to insist that "new and original" is the better way to go when 1. It usually sucks in execution, and 2. There are tons of great pre-existing stories that would be incredibly simple to adapt. Streamline, don't Change. "Keep it Simple, Stupid".

Also: Originally me and MikeandRaph were having a brief dialogue, which you then jumped into with your conflicting opinion. It was a very simple back-and-forth before that moment. It only got "muddied up" after you integrated yourself into it when neither he nor I was addressing you. It's not illegal to add one's two cents, but if you're not happy with how things go afterwards, well... that's ultimately on you.

But I will gladly be done with this conversation, because like all of them around here, it's circular and pointless. "I disagree" should be more than enough. It never is, but it should be.

Perhaps you and I simply shouldn't converse? Because this happens a lot. When it becomes incredibly clear that a person and I have absolutely zero in common, that's when I usually tell them that we have nothing left to talk about. Feel free to let me know.

Tapping out on this thread, because this movie promises to be terrible and the people supporting it have very bad opinions, and I don't want to encourage them further. If you feel compelled to reply, please do it on my "wall" because otherwise I won't see it. Thanks and God Bless.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm sure that two conversations have never happened parallel to each other, and never will again. Surely.

Also, you're wrong, sorry. No "new and original idea" could possibly outshine "The Last Arkham" as a film, especially if they're trying to do a similar thing. Absolutely impossible. Also, most people haven't read it, so to them it would be "new" anyway. It's not like it's "Killing Joke" or "DKR", it's rather niche. But it's fantastic, and deserves an adaptation.

If I had $150 million, that's the move I would make, and it would be a world-beater. I wouldn't need to spend a ton of money or time trying to reinvent the wheel, I'd just re-tell a great story in a satisfying manner for the benefit of both those people who liked the comic version, and those who haven't seen it. BUT, nobody asked me.

People fail because they try too hard to make simple sh*t complicated. And when someone offers Good Advice, they get prickly because they didn't think of it. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean they should ignore the person giving them the advice.

"Wonder Woman 1984" is going balls-deep on "new and original ideas", and it promises to be awful. Your method is flawed. Like what you like, but it's absolutely stupid to insist that "new and original" is the better way to go when 1. It usually sucks in execution, and 2. There are tons of great pre-existing stories that would be incredibly simple to adapt. Streamline, don't Change. "Keep it Simple, Stupid".

Also: Originally me and MikeandRaph were having a brief dialogue, which you then jumped into with your conflicting opinion. It was a very simple back-and-forth before that moment. It only got "muddied up" after you integrated yourself into it when neither he nor I was addressing you. It's not illegal to add one's two cents, but if you're not happy with how things go afterwards, well... that's ultimately on you.

But I will gladly be done with this conversation, because like all of them around here, it's circular and pointless. "I disagree" should be more than enough. It never is, but it should be.

Perhaps you and I simply shouldn't converse? Because this happens a lot. When it becomes incredibly clear that a person and I have absolutely zero in common, that's when I usually tell them that we have nothing left to talk about. Feel free to let me know.

Tapping out on this thread, because this movie promises to be terrible and the people supporting it have very bad opinions, and I don't want to encourage them further. If you feel compelled to reply, please do it on my "wall" because otherwise I won't see it. Thanks and God Bless.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Hmm I think the point that was in lost in communication between you two isn't so much about taking adaptations and changing stuff around for the sake of 'bigger, badder, better', but creating all-new stories instead. The Keaton films were in essence all-new stories, I don't recall cues from any particular Batman story besides the origin of course.

Leo's main issue, which I agree with, is mostly the animated ones where they promise one thing with the title but almost give you something else entirely. Sadly as long as these new movies continue to do this bizzare 'connected New 52-ish animated movie continuity' newer movies, no matter what story they're trying to adapt will be ruined because they're trying to fit them into this continuity.

[ProphetofGanja]

The same sh!t on a different day here in the Technodrome

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Hmm I think the point that was in lost in communication between you two isn't so much about taking adaptations and changing stuff around for the sake of 'bigger, badder, better', but creating all-new stories instead. The Keaton films were in essence all-new stories, I don't recall cues from any particular Batman story besides the origin of course.

Leo's main issue, which I agree with, is mostly the animated ones where they promise one thing with the title but almost give you something else entirely. Sadly as long as these new movies continue to do this bizzare 'connected New 52-ish animated movie continuity' newer movies, no matter what story they're trying to adapt will be ruined because they're trying to fit them into this continuity.

Can we still call them New 52-ish? The recent Superman and Wonder Woman movies have been transitioning them to their Rebirth costumes and status quos. Batman's most recent movie adapted a story from 2003.

[sdp]

I'm a batman fan, but I just have no interest in this movie, movie is only being done for a quick buck, the gordon's are now black because reasons, pattison could make a good batman but still bitter about affleck, this will be soft rebooting the dceu and make their own batman cinematic universe, i have some "insider" info and warnermedia wants to go all in on dc, they haven't learned anything from their mistakes and just want to continue to pull through with more dc films, they're happy that their most profitable movies are all dc related (joker/tdk/tdkr/aquaman) so they want to continue even if they don't understand why the dceu failed.

I'll catch it when it's on streaming and not necessarily theirs, which HBO max seems to be heading to be a failure but they really do think it'll outdo Disney+ and Netflix for some reason, I see subscriber number be slightly higher than their current HBO subs.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Can we still call them New 52-ish? The recent Superman and Wonder Woman movies have been transitioning them to their Rebirth costumes and status quos. Batman's most recent movie adapted a story from 2003.

They have? I've seen some clips of Wonder Woman's movie and she seems to be wearing the same outfit she did since Justice League. Same for Superman in Hush.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Hmm I think the point that was in lost in communication between you two isn't so much about taking adaptations and changing stuff around for the sake of 'bigger, badder, better', but creating all-new stories instead. The Keaton films were in essence all-new stories, I don't recall cues from any particular Batman story besides the origin of course.

Leo's main issue, which I agree with, is mostly the animated ones where they promise one thing with the title but almost give you something else entirely. Sadly as long as these new movies continue to do this bizzare 'connected New 52-ish animated movie continuity' newer movies, no matter what story they're trying to adapt will be ruined because they're trying to fit them into this continuity.

Exactly. Thank you for confirming that I was getting my point across. Leo was conflating my point with another and replying with “oh the conversations have never happened side by side before, surely” as if that sarcastic remark explained why he was completely warping the point I was trying to make. Bizarre.

(Not even touching when he goes on to claim that his Leo-led $150 million Alan Grant adaption would be a better bet than what anyone else has been churning out. Sorry, I just can’t with a straight face.)

Especially because I agree when it comes to these “loose” story adaptions, such as the DC animated features. Pretty much for the reasons you say.

Leo656:Also: Originally me and MikeandRaph were having a brief dialogue, which you then jumped into with your conflicting opinion. It was a very simple back-and-forth before that moment. It only got "muddied up" after you integrated yourself into it when neither he nor I was addressing you. It's not illegal to add one's two cents, but if you're not happy with how things go afterwards, well... that's ultimately on you.

The conversation was muddled up because you chose to merge my point With another. Even though it’s clear that others were able to comprehend what I was saying. Has nothing to do with me... entering the conversation.

Secondly, I’m fine with how “things go afterward”. This is a statement that needs to be 100% directed back at yourself - the person who is telling me they don’t want to converse if we can not agree. You made a post and I called it out in good-natured disagreement. You like to make strong statements - nothing wrong with that....but you don’t like them to be challenged. That’s on you.

If you don’t want your opinions challenged, the block button is a click away. I, for one, enjoy a discussion that challenges my thoughts and beliefs.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

They have? I've seen some clips of Wonder Woman's movie and she seems to be wearing the same outfit she did since Justice League. Same for Superman in Hush.

Supes switched to his Rebirth outfit at the end of Reign of the Supermen, and Diana has her rebirth outfit in the movie as well as her N52 outfit. I haven't seen the film but I'm certain she switches at some point.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

They have? I've seen some clips of Wonder Woman's movie and she seems to be wearing the same outfit she did since Justice League. Same for Superman in Hush.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

https://i.ibb.co/PwVpHXq/5d6e542e25d...b69e-large.jpg

I thought he was talking about the recent animated Wonder Woman movie "Bloodlines", which has her in both her N52 outfit and her Rebirth/live-action movie outfit.

[ZariusTwo]

Peter Sarsgaard cast in an unknown role, he is speculated to be a corrupt cop called Wasserman, or a district attorney

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...sgaard-1260321

[Andrew NDB]

Filming now.

https://twitter.com/100Jordanlee/sta...for-filming%2F

Got to admit, those are some 1990s looking cop cars there. Maybe those rumors are true?

* edit: Nevermind. It says "Gotham News HD" on the side of that van. "HD" was definitely not a thing in the 90s.

[AquaParade]

kinda glad to see there is more to speculate over but for now, I'm not looking at anything. We will see how long I hold out, but I love the idea of walking into the theater to see this knowing as little as I do at this moment. Sounds like a fascinating couple of hours.