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

[sdp]

I remember all the drama when heath's Joker was revealed everyone said they had ruined him. I was indifferent, I didn't like it but I didn't hate it to the extent most people did. The opinion on heath's joker didn't change at all until he died after that it was all praise but before it was all hate. He definitely doesn't feel very Joker but he was still a good joker. I also remember people saying the character should be retired after the movie came out.

Riddler still looks ridiculous to me and I don't think he'll be great, I'll wait and see to judge perhaps he's not like that the whole movie and his take is incredible. I still feel they're misusing the Joker but yeah it could be a surprise like Ledger's Joker. The movie overall still feels a bit more of the same Batman we've already gotten, not too different from Nolan so I'm not too excited, I'm sure the movie will be decent just not WOW like say Batman Begins and The Dark Knight felt.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by sdp

I remember all the drama when heath's Joker was revealed everyone said they had ruined him. I was indifferent, I didn't like it but I didn't hate it to the extent most people did. The opinion on heath's joker didn't change at all until he died after that it was all praise but before it was all hate. He definitely doesn't feel very Joker but he was still a good joker. I also remember people saying the character should be retired after the movie came out.

Riddler still looks ridiculous to me and I don't think he'll be great, I'll wait and see to judge perhaps he's not like that the whole movie and his take is incredible. I still feel they're misusing the Joker but yeah it could be a surprise like Ledger's Joker. The movie overall still feels a bit more of the same Batman we've already gotten, not too different from Nolan so I'm not too excited, I'm sure the movie will be decent just not WOW like say Batman Begins and The Dark Knight felt.

But Heath looked like the joker though. Green hair, the make up, the purple suit. He didn't just put on random clown make up (like bozo the clown) and a gimp suit and call it a day.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by sdp

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...ceee949a88a725

That's when the announcement was made, just to show you how reactionar the internet has always been. People definitely argued that he didn't feel like the Joker, why did he have scars, and why did he have crazy make up, none of this is joker, he didn't feel like joker. It all changed after he died and people decided to give the character a chance and also because of his death it became a defacto iconic choice for how the Joker should be. Had Ledger not died I'm sure there would've been more criticism when the movie came out, since there was still some criticisms from Joker purists but they were drowned out by the praise the performance had gotten.

I mean I agree with the critics he doesn't particularly feel like the joker, but it's still a great take. I'm not trying to defend the riddler's costume, he looks awful and i'm bummed out. I'm just saying the joker analogy is not too far off.

That's classic, man. Great find. Just goes to show.

I think at the end of the day, Heath definitely "feels" like the Joker, in a true sense of the word, but mileage will always vary.

[Leo656]

Kinda glad I had no internet at that time. My only input on comics and movies was Wizard, at that point. I completely missed all of those conversations, like I wish I could go back and miss out on this one.

In my anecdotal experience, which was comprised 100% of "real life" conversations and absolutely no internet conversations, it was literally This: They announced Heath as Joker, and everyone said, "The gay cowboy guy? Feh. Nah. Too pretty, too likeable. Not a bad actor but this isn't in his range." Everyone was crying about how it should've been Willem DaFoe, but that he was probably off-limits since he'd already played a Marvel villain and back then that disqualified you from doing other comic characters, if you'd already played one.

Then Wizard released that one picture of him in the makeup, the extreme closeup shot with the darkened eyes and everything, and I and everyone else went "Oh. Well, that looks good, then. Alright, let's see what they do!" Simple as that. Maybe it was different on the internet but that's how people in Real Life were talking about it.
--------------------

I definitely agree that if nothing else, the response to Ledger's Joker (and that entire movie) was magnified a thousand-fold after he died, and you can see that by comparing the box office take of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", as well as pre-release chatter. Until he died, that movie wasn't on as many peoples' radars as it ended up being. If Ledger didn't die, no way he gets an Oscar - only his death was enough to overcome the snobbery of Academy voters, who would otherwise never, at that time in history, deign to give a mere "comic book movie" such acclaim; it was a pity award, basically, even though it was justified - and no way that movie makes a billion dollars.

Millions of people who skipped the previous Batman movie, and even people who didn't care about Batman or comic book movies at all, still went to see TDK because they were swept up in the hysteria about needing to see "Heath Ledger's final performance", and that's what drew the crowd, at least initially. The newspapers were also doing their usual hysterical reporting, some of them flat-out saying that "Playing the Joker put Heath into such a dark place in his mind that he killed himself, either accidentally or on purpose", which was ridiculous BUT it definitely made a lot of people who read such things go "WOW, I gotta see this movie! Didn't you hear, the role was so intense that it KILLED the guy!"

They even used Jack Nicholson to help spin that narrative, cornering him someplace and telling him Heath had died, figuring since they were both Jokers that they'd get a juicy quote. The next day, all the headlines were "Nicholson Says 'I Warned Him': Stress Of Joker Role Kills Heath Ledger". When what Nicholson had ACTUALLY "warned" Heath about was his growing drug and opiate addictions. But that wasn't as juicy of a headline for the rubes, many of whom ONLY read the headline and in turn assumed the Joker role was "cursed" or some nonsense.

Of course, NOW we know that it wasn't "the stress of playing Joker" that killed him, but rather the fact that he licked an Olsen Twin. But AT THE TIME the news was saying that playing Joker was what killed him, and that made a LOT of people go see the movie out of morbid curiosity.

I imagine many of those people did go back and see it again, and probably each brought a friend or two, because the movie was very good. But when it was JUST "the next Batman movie", there was nowhere near as much excitement for it. As morbid as it sounds, Heath's dying was the best commercial for that movie that it ever could have gotten.

Great movie, but if Ledger had lived, I'm sure there would've been no Oscars and the gross would've topped out at about $650 million, maybe 700.

[AquaParade]

Of course you wish you missed this convo - you’re on the same side of history as the Ledger haters, if/when Paul Dano crushes this role.


But seriously, good memory in terms of Heath’s death, media reaction, etc.
One part I contend is that, yeah plenty of people were still talking crap when the Heath image was revealed. My memory is that it won over some people but created an all new controversy in the scars and makeup angle. The implications that had on his origin and everything. It was a big deal. That definitely created backlash in the community whether that was in real life or the internet. Depends where you go.

Secondly, while Heath would have never gotten the Oscar without dying, and the movie did do better because of it, I think you chalk too much of that success up to his death. There was a ton of hype going into this movie, before he died. I remember because it was one of the first movies I truly, actively
Followed online. The hype was insane and Heath dying only amped it up.

Batman Begins making less in the box office is not the evidence for your argument that you suggest. Batman Begins made less because A. It was coming off a history of crappy Batman movies which tarnished the character, and 2. Sequels to successful movies tend do better at the box office, which leads to a natural higher income for TDK. So I think it would have broken records without Heath dying. It was an electric movie that captured imaginations at the perfect time. But we’ll never know on that particular topic.

Anyways, good write-up. The media really acted like idiots on that one. Guess that’s a pattern with them and The Joker. Such a juicy character, the media always has to get in on the fiction.

[AquaParade]

I'm watching The Dark Knight again and the movie is perfection to me. Even if you dislike the direction they took, you can likely recognize it's bursting with quality from the soundtrack to the acting. You can feel Nolan's attention focused on every aspect. There is a rare polish to this comic adaption.

I know some people critique the action, and some shots do look choppy, but there's a ton of great action too, by way of awesome IMAX shots and exciting vehicle sequences.

My last complaint is the movie tends to drag a bit for me as we get through the boat & construction tower scene in the third act. Common issue for me with these movies, but this is one of the rare ones that roars back to life in the final few scenes of the film, so even there, it's not all bad.

I just had to get that out of the way, because when I watch this movie, I'm reminded that it oozes with quality. They do not make them like this anymore. They rarely ever did.
I mean, I love the MCU. Despite all of it's faults, it's got a lot going for it. But man, this makes even those films look mediocre. And I only pick on the MCU because they are the king of the pack, but WB and Sony, as of late, fare no better in comparison to TDK. This is the good stuff.

So I really just wanted to say that I think Reeves and WB have a lot to live up to, if they want to take down The Dark Knight. I know one of the producers said that's their goal - and good for them, because it should be everyone's goal, but good luck. Batman does tend to bring out the best work in people though, so I'm rooting for them to top it. What a treat that would be.

Giacciano has an uphill battle as well, because Hans Zimmer absolutely killed it on The Dark Knight. Giacciano could bring some more gothic or fantasy vibes though and win me over that way. However the soundtrack turns out, that could be one element sets the tone of this film apart from Nolan's.

I'll also say that Reeves' Batman can steal Nolan's style all day, if it intends on stealing the level of quality as well, or even getting close. I do think Reeve's unique style will reveal itself once we see the entire film, but even so.

[sdp]

I love the dark knight, I just think it's a bad sequel to Begins. Begins introduced a very grounded for the most part movie and things get a little too hollywood in the second one. I mean it makes for a good movie but I wanted a grittier batman world like we saw in begins. That's why I liked the first season of Arrow so much, every episode that season felt like batman begins.

[AquaParade]

Batman Begins is of superb quality as well. It really comes down to the auteur-nature of it. Christopher Nolan given the time and freedom he needs.

That's what made Joker special in it's own way too, and that's why I'm looking forward to The Batman. WB shines when they go outside the universe and let directors craft a singular experience. Though, to be fair, Nolan is an exception in his own right, so it's not always that simple.

Put simply, I'll be shocked if The Batman is as good as TDK, but I think it will be great, and there's always a chance.

[Leo656]

Long post, just to jump around and discuss a few various things. Have to split it.

Aqua: I don't doubt that there was a lot of conversation going on that I wasn't aware of, in the build-up to TDK. However, in your post you specifically cited internet chatter, which *I* specifically mentioned I had less than zero knowledge of at that time, therefore could not and can not speak to.

I trust you, I just wasn't "there" to witness it so there wasn't and isn't much I can say about it. I can only echo what my friends, family and co-workers said when they heard the news and/or saw the picture of Heath in the makeup. Most of whom ALSO were not on the internet very much, if at all, during that time.

As I've pointed out many times, there is a distinct and marked difference, quite often, between the typical "online chatter" surrounding a movie and what people in "real life" - i.e., people who aren't part of "online fandom" and don't do a lot of debate or discussion about movies or TV shows online, they mostly just watch them and move on - and since a lot of people I know are pretty far removed from All This, I like to share some of their perspective when I can because I feel it in turn adds some perspective to the larger conversation, that's all. I can't claim that those peoples' opinions are how most people think (or thought), or anything. Just to clarify.

Like, let's be honest, so many people here spend a lot of time engaged in the "online chatter" about stuff, to the point that it can be easy to forget that not only can our own opinions be influenced by the things we see/read/hear, but that people who DON'T engage in online fandoms have a way of seeing things vastly different that we do.

I just exist in this weird circle, I think, where aside from my wrestling circle most of my friends and family are not "internet people"- they use it but not at all like we do, probably because they skew a little older and were not into "geek culture" at all before it became hip to be - and so the things they think and Why can really jump out at you sometimes, just because it's often SO different from the perspectives you'll see on message boards and social media. Like, shockingly different, at times.

It's why many people have heard me say over the years, "The Internet is not Real Life." Yes, sometimes I say it as a condescending statement when it serves that purpose, but even aside from that it's merely an observation of something I can't help but notice for a very long time now.

At the end of the day, though, it's all just data and all data has relevance when analyzing the Big Picture. So when you say the online chatter about TDK ran contrary to what a lot of people in Real Life were saying, all I can say is "I believe you, I just wasn't there."
------------------------

Also, just to be clear I'm not saying TDK would've flopped or anything if Ledger didn't die, just that his death gave the movie a huge boost in attention it probably wouldn't have had otherwise. And that said boost came from a TON of people who skipped the prior film for various reasons.

Once again anecdotally, I still know WAY too many people in "real life" who never watched "Batman Begins" OR "The Dark Knight Rises", but loved "The Dark Knight" (yes, I scream at these people ). And they're pretty open that they initially only saw the movie because of the whole thing with Heath. "I was just curious because of all the hype, but yeah, wow, that was a good movie!" And it's not like they hate Batman or anything but they don't automatically watch super-hero movies, is the thing.

It's a sizeable number of people, believe it or not. SO, recognizing that I don't live in a bubble, or a vacuum, in my head I take this anecdotal evidence and figure that we can probably multiply that group exponentially (although just how much, I couldn't say). And then THAT group would add up to a rather large group of people globally. Like, if I know, I dunno, 100 people who never watched the other two Nolan Batman flicks (just picking a random round number), and they say they initially only watched TDK because of the Ledger thing, it's all guesswork how many people worldwide share that same experience but you have to figure it's more than a small exponential increase, globally. The world's a big place, so I can easily believe that if 100 people in my circle were like that, maybe a million people worldwide had the same experience.

I don't claim it's an "exact science" or anything. I mean, that's what pollsters and census-takers are for. Basically, I just take What I Know and based on that there's "Things You Can Figure". See what I mean?
------------------

TDK is a really great movie and most likely a better movie AS "just a movie" than "Batman Begins". Selfishly, though, Begins is still my favorite solo Batman movie; that hasn't changed upon multiple rewatchings of both. It's just a lot of things that add up; it's more "Batman-centric" than the sequels, there's less clunky fighting scenes because they staged more of the action in shadow, the scenes where Batman stalks his prey are like something out of a slasher movie, AND if you squint you can rather easily slide that origin story into almost any Batman canon and it works incredibly well without breaking anything or needing too many edges files down. As a comics-first purist who obviously gets pissy when things rub too hard against the grain, the first movie of the trilogy was by far the most personally satisfying because among other things, they only made very minor changes from the comics and none of it was very controversial, except maybe Rachel being stuck in there.

They took a much different approach to the sequels, and that's their prerogative and it worked out pretty well overall. It's just that they made a ton of "controversial" choices in the second and third film which, regardless of whether I liked the execution or not (I mostly did), annoyed me at least a little bit because while I can easily pretend that "Begins" takes place in the "regular" Batman comic book universe as a canon origin tale, I simply can't do that with the sequels and their many deviations great and small.

Personal mileage and all that. Just explaining, I recognize that TDK is probably a better movie and I love it, on any given day I'm actually more apt to watch Begins. It just gives me more of what I want from a Batman experience in general.
-------------------

[Leo656]

The biggest problem ALL Batman movies fall into is that the villains tend to sell the movie(s), in which case Batman himself often gets lost in the shuffle as the films increasingly focus on the bad guys. Nolan's trilogy fell into that trap pretty hard as well, which is unfortunate even though they're still good movies. They did try to keep a good amount of focus on Bruce, no question, but who he is and what's motivating him starts getting a but muddled as things go on and you're now more focused on watching these super-dynamic villains like Joker and Bane wreck shop. But again, this is an issue they've had since 1989 and there's no really great solution for it.

For me, I think the biggest thing that "hurt" Nolan's trilogy, was 1. The insistence that there HAD to be a love interest, because 2. It completely skewed Bruce Wayne's entire motivations throughout the entire trilogy, and not always in a good way. EVERYTHING that happens in the trilogy, ultimately, is affected in some way by Bruce's obsession with this made-up rando who doesn't exist in any other media. A "fake" Batman character is now the most important person in that trilogy's entire universe, basically, and it kinda bugs me. Huge chunks of the story don't work without using Rachel to twist this version of Bruce into a guy who, let's face it, Bruce just generally is not. "I'm quitting because Rachel died. I'm gonna fire Alfred and literally never speak to him again because he didn't tell me Rachel was gonna marry Harvey". And so on.

And of course, the infamous ways in which Bruce falls in love with Selina at first sight in TDKR and then later gets played for a total fool by Talia/Miranda, someone he literally doesn't even know well at all, because he wants to get in her pants.

Nolan's Bruce Wayne was essentially motivated more by chasing pussy than pursuing "justice", if you actually watch those movies, and it's... not good. I mean, yeah, that's Hollywood and everything, I'm just saying. Those movies suffered greatly - in my opinion - by the choice to portray Bruce as some kind of hopeless romantic where everything he does is to try and impress some chick(s), because it rings VERY false to me based on my own understanding of the character. I totally get their choice, I just don't especially like it.

Still great movies, though. Like, there's two-and-a-half great movies in the Nolan trilogy, for sure, questionable choices and all. Half of TDKR is f*cking nonsense BUT, as usual, I mostly blame WB. They famously held a metaphorical gun to Nolan's head to get the movie done by a certain time and that led to a ton of script, filming, and editing problems that simply did not exist in the first two movies, and that's unfortunate. If anyone read my embarrassingly-gushing review of TDKR when I saw it opening night, obviously those things didn't bother me so much upon a first viewing, but by this point there's a ton of stuff in the third one I just can't un-see, now, and it's like, "Jesus, none of this was an issue, the last two times. The f*ck?"

You can't see the scotch tape and chicken wire on the first two Nolan movies, but it's all very visible in the third one, basically, and that's a shame. Absolutely not Nolan's fault, though. WB shouldn't have leaned on him so hard. I have a feeling that aside from the villains and some of the broad-strokes plot, TDKR would've likely been a fairly different movie had he been left to complete it more at his leisure, as before. You make mistakes and questionable choices when you're forced to rush, that's just true of everything.

[AquaParade]

Leo, none of my friends in real life follow this stuff either. At least to this extent. That's probably why I enjoy talking about it online so much. I can relate there.
And I agree there is a huge difference in internet consensus and real world consensus. And real world consensus makes a much bigger difference in terms of Hlywood.

That said, regarding The Dark Knight trilogy, I never really considered how big of an impact Rachel, the love interest, has on the story. I mean, obviously I know the plot points, but I haven't thought deeply on that. Pretty interesting. May give me some new feelings about that trilogy, positive or negative. I mean, she definitely plays a large part in Bruce's decisions in the first two films, but I feel like her influence faded by TDKR.

[Leo656]

Nah man, her influence was still all over DKR. Bruce was so mopey about her death he quit being Batman for eight years. He was so angry at Alfred for not telling him the truth about Rachel - that had she lived, she would have picked Harvey over him - that he fired him and as far as we know never even spoke to Alfred - his surrogate father, I'll remind - ever again. Over THAT.

That's just off the top of my head. Haven't watched it in a while but there very well could be more. Taken as a whole, Rachel Dawes is the single most important character in the Dark Knight Trilogy, given how many different things happen directly because of her, specifically. Watch the movies again when actually looking for it, once you notice it you can't ignore it. Bruce SHOULD be the most important character, but so much of what he does is because of her that whether she's alive or dead, she's still steering the entire plot. It's pretty wild.

It's not a deal-breaker or anything. I'm not even sure if it was intentional or just worked out that way by accident. But they did ultimately make her a little too important in the grand scheme of things.

Nolan's Batman was a little bit too motivated by the idea of getting his dick wet. Also, very pouty whenever a chick did him dirty. It's a way to go but to me that's not who Bruce Wayne is.

Still good movies though. Just not perfect.

[AquaParade]

Bruce stopped being Batman because he had to basically go into hiding after taking the blame for Dent. Not because of Rachel's death.

Either way, I agree with the assessment that the latter two films aren't hyper-focused on Batman, as much as they are on Gotham in general, but I sort of love that about them. Definitely makes sense why people prefer Batman Begins for this reason though. I guess the approach they took for TDK and TDKR just clicked with me. I loved seeing all the different angles on Gotham.
And they still found an awesome way to give new meaning to the term "Dark Knight", so it's not like he got lost in the shuffle.

Although, again, I think that's another element that will separate the Nolan trilogy from the Reeves' film. This new one seems to be diving in deep to Bruce's psyche in a way we likely haven't seen since Batman Begins, and it may even go deeper than BB did.

Of course, it may not be a version of Bruce everyone is comfortable with. They've been saying he's not at the most "heroic" point in his time as Batman. Guy is going to have issues.

[Leo656]

I honestly think Bruce's exile was "A little bit A, a little bit B." Partly not wanting to be hunted like a dog, partly to go pout about his dead not-girlfriend.

Along with a little bit of C, that being "Suddenly, a bunch of people went to jail and now I suddenly trust that the system works, for some reason. Cops are competent, politicians are no longer corrupt, and therefore there's no need for Batman anymore. I can safely go pout with a clear conscience knowing all is and will remain well without me."

This is 100% contrary to the reasons why Bruce became Batman in the first place in the first movie - "Your system is broken" - but as stated, the third movie's script was written in a panic and such blatant inconsistencies are therefore disappointing but not altogether surprising. But yeah, if Bruce truly believed that everything would stay "safe" just because a few gangsters got locked up and his good buddy was in charge of the cops, he was suddenly a lot dumber than he was in the first movie. I know plot needs to happen but it was just bad writing.

I think my least favorite thing of all was the implication that, in this universe, pre-retirement he was only Batman for a couple months, at most. I liked how the first and second movies both ended with the idea that in-between Batman could be off having all these other adventures, and then the third one has to go and ruin it by explicitly stating, "Yeah, this guy's barely even been Batman, and by the time the credits were finished rolling on Dark Knight Bruce was already home locking up his costume, ostensibly forever." Disappointing! Took a lot of the magic away.

They did try to sell it like he "had" to quit by hyping up that bum knee of his, but then they cure it in two seconds with a magic knee brace and it never comes up again. I'unno man, like I keep saying that movie's script is a damn mess.

[AquaParade]

Yeah, I'm not defending DKR's script, but I don't feel Rachel's character was driving any plot points at that point. Whereas in Batman Begins and TDK, she does play an integral role in the plot, and even Bruce's identity as Batman.

____________

For me, while outdoing TDK is probably out of the question, I can see “The Batman” being better than Batman Begins. I like BB, but the script has some real weak spots.
Plenty of corny jokes, and many coming from Batman himself, like “excuse me” when he busts through a prison cell, for one. Then there are the awkward interactions between Bruce and Rachel, like “Rachel, I am….more than all of this.” Pretty unnatural scene. Just a lot of iffy moments throughout the script. There’s a little bit of that early 2000 comic book movie DNA still lingering. Just a little less confidence in the material. The script thinks it needs to squeeze in a bunch of cheesy ****. Like they still don’t know how seriously they are allowed to take the material.

And for my money, it’s got the worst action of the three. I rewatched it recently and the camera shots are even choppier than what we see in The Dark Knight, when it comes to melee action. There aren’t any awesome vehicle sequences to help assuage that either. At least, Batman is presented in a spooky manner, within those action scenes.

Anyways, awesome film and still one of the better comic book adaptions overall, in my mind. But those are my nitpicks and the places where I think The Batman can improve upon it most.

[AquaParade]

Here ya go, Andrew:


https://www.moviemaker.com/the-batma...ctive-story/3/

What Pattinson didn’t know was that Reeves had begun writing The Batman with him in mind.

Confirmation that Affleck was never Reeve's Batman.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Here ya go, Andrew:


https://www.moviemaker.com/the-batma...ctive-story/3/



Confirmation that Affleck was never Reeve's Batman.

Interesting. Although... given the huge amount of downtime there (around Ben still being attached to "we're moving forward with Pattinson"), can we be certain this isn't in reference to a re-writing? Because it certainly can't be that Affleck was never attached. Why wait around like a year stringing him and everybody along, for no reason? Why not rip the band-aid off right away?

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Interesting. Although... given the huge amount of downtime there (around Ben still being attached to "we're moving forward with Pattinson"), can we be certain this isn't in reference to a re-writing? Because it certainly can't be that Affleck was never attached. Why wait around like a year stringing him and everybody along, for no reason? Why not rip the band-aid off right away?

Well, WB certainly didn't need anymore bad press at the time. Justice League had stunk up the whole company, and now they were going to lose their Batman, without having the new one lined up? Not a headline you want.
They also could have been trying to find a new place for Ben's Batman but didn't have a plan yet, so it was easier to just keep a lid on it.

There could just as easily be a ton of communication issues at WB. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I do believe it's possible that Ben didn't know Matt's intentions right off the bat, and was interested in playing Batman for him.

I still think the greater question is "why would Matt Reeves want to work within the confines of the Snyder-Verse, when making the film of his career, especially when it is being utterly demolished in the public eye?"

[Autbot_Benz]

#TheBatman movie will run two hours and 55 minutes, the longest of any solo #Batman film: http://thr.cm/eMy857h

https://twitter.com/THR/status/1484257478309199880

[Sumac]

Eh, hopefully it is not all dark and gloom and edge and the like.
Otherwise it would be as fun as watching Man of Steel or any other Snyder DC movie.
Which means it won't be fun at all.