THE BATMAN spoilers thread
2 2

257 posts in this topic

To those who watched it, how did you feel about how this Batman is just out an about in the open. Sure, he uses shadow to his aid, but he just goes tank mode at times and that bit when he just walks into the club through the front door as Batman was very jarring to me. It looked silly at first but then I got a sense of the world he was in which we had not been privy to in the two years he was around already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 9:56 AM, William-James88 said:

To those who watched it, how did you feel about how this Batman is just out an about in the open. Sure, he uses shadow to his aid, but he just goes tank mode at times and that bit when he just walks into the club through the front door as Batman was very jarring to me. It looked silly at first but then I got a sense of the world he was in which we had not been privy to in the two years he was around already. 

The walking into the club through the front didn't bother me - it's been done in the comics, and I felt like it was in line with a Year Two Batman - brash, hasn't got it all figured out, etc. In the books, it probably would have been a "Matches Malone" moment, but I don't know how well that translates to the screen, and it would have been way out of place in this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 9:56 AM, William-James88 said:

To those who watched it, how did you feel about how this Batman is just out an about in the open. Sure, he uses shadow to his aid, but he just goes tank mode at times and that bit when he just walks into the club through the front door as Batman was very jarring to me. It looked silly at first but then I got a sense of the world he was in which we had not been privy to in the two years he was around already. 

Honestly, Batman out in the open didn't bug me, except when he came out of the shadows. I get they were going for a Michael Myers unstoppable monster, but it came across to me as silly.

Maybe it's because I didn't see the anger in Robert Pattinson's performance that would make Batman scary. Yes, some of the beat downs were brutal, but most of the time he seemed bored and whiny.

Bale, Affleck and Keaton all had varying degrees of that uncontrollable anger that was always about to bubble over that would make Batman terrifying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:19 AM, Jesse-Lee said:

The walking into the club through the front didn't bother me - it's been done in the comics, and I felt like it was in line with a Year Two Batman - brash, hasn't got it all figured out, etc. In the books, it probably would have been a "Matches Malone" moment, but I don't know how well that translates to the screen, and it would have been way out of place in this movie.

I agree.  I felt like this Batman is still figuring things out (How to handle his emotions, his relationship with Alfred, etc.) Really looking forward to the character development for any future films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:23 AM, D84 said:

Bale, Affleck and Keaton all had varying degrees of that uncontrollable anger that was always about to bubble over that would make Batman terrifying. 

 

I felt like we saw a little bit of this near the end when he was attacking one of the "Riddler" shooters and Gordon had to stop him.  However, he injected what I assume was adrenaline into his body, so it wasn't a natural reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:30 AM, The Commissioner said:

I felt like we saw a little bit of this near the end when he was attacking one of the "Riddler" shooters and Gordon had to stop him.  However, he injected what I assume was adrenaline into his body, so it wasn't a natural reaction.

That's an interesting point. Maybe they made the actor take it for real so he'd stop staring blankly?

Edited by D84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:32 AM, D84 said:

That's an interesting point. Maybe they made the actor take it for real so he'd stop staring blankly?

"We're going to make you commit 100% to the role, so take these actual drugs and we'll film what happens."

Edited by The Commissioner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're in the spoilers thread, I can talk freely about what I liked and didn't:

Likes:

  • The city - one of the better representations of Gotham in my opinion
  • Ferrel's Penguin - it was a caricature at times, but it felt very comic book to me - I thought he gave a lot of good comic relief too, but in a believable way that fit the story
  • Kravitz's Catwoman - I got major "Year One" vibes, as well as a bit of the look of Brubaker's Catwoman. I thought she did a great job and was a cool take.
  • Turturro was great as Falcone I thought - but I love him in pretty much anything.
  • Some of the different story styles - the Catwoman in the club while Batman watches and directs her felt like a video game to me, and I loved it.
  • Dano is amazing. I loved him in There Will Be Blood because I hated his character so much. He just does weird really well. There were a couple of moments with Riddler where it hit the border of scenery-chewing overacting to me, but he brought it back in a way where you felt it was the character, not the actor.

Dislikes:

  • Pattinson's Bruce Wayne. I liked him as Batman, thought he did a good job. But Bruce Wayne was like an emo take, it was weird and threw me off.
  • We didn't get enough Alfred.
  • Gordon - love Jeffrey Wright, but for many of his scenes, I was like, "why is he talking like that?" He was hushed and mumbly almost or something - both him and Batman when talking to each other - it almost felt like they were going for a 40s noir thing that didn't work. I kept expecting one of them to be like, "We're gonna go rub out Falcone, see? Yeah, that's the ticket; there ain't room enough in this city for the both of us, see?" There were a couple of really great scenes with him though too.
  • That Joker scene was rough - that hurts as a Joker fan, but it's true.
  • Batman's walk was weird - like a weird, chest-out, wrestler-walking-to-the-ring thing. I feel like Batman stalks and moves with purpose, and this was just odd to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:30 AM, The Commissioner said:

he injected what I assume was adrenaline into his body

My first thought is that it was venom he injected - like Bane venom - which could mean Bane exists in this movie's world. Also, a take on the Venom storyline from LotDK would be great. That's one I could see Pattinson pulling off really well actually.

Edited by Jesse-Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 11:42 AM, Jesse-Lee said:

Dislikes:

  • Pattinson's Bruce Wayne. I liked him as Batman, thought he did a good job. But Bruce Wayne was like an emo take, it was weird and threw me off.

I think that was the point of this being a Year Two Batman: he was not Bruce Wayne at this point as he had lost himself in the costume.

So his realization at the end Batman as 'Vengeance' had encouraged so much hate and violence was bringing him back to humanity and the realization he had to be so much more than just Batman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 11:00 AM, Bosco685 said:

I think that was the point of this being a Year Two Batman: he was not Bruce Wayne at this point as he had lost himself in the costume.

So his realization at the end Batman as 'Vengeance' had encouraged so much hate and violence was bringing him back to humanity and the realization he had to be so much more than just Batman.

That's a good point, @William-James88 said something similar in another post about how we could argue we didn't really see "Bruce Wayne," and I like that take. I wonder how much this and other aspects of it being "Year Two" will resonate with broader audiences, who probably won't have that context or won't draw the parallels; audiences who aren't as into the larger Batman stories and just want to see the latest movie. Reviews so far are pretty positive, but I could also see this movie turning off the causal fan who is just coming off of the new Spider-man for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 12:05 PM, Jesse-Lee said:

That's a good point, @William-James88 said something similar in another post about how we could argue we didn't really see "Bruce Wayne," and I like that take. I wonder how much this and other aspects of it being "Year Two" will resonate with broader audiences, who probably won't have that context or won't draw the parallels; audiences who aren't as into the larger Batman stories and just want to see the latest movie. Reviews so far are pretty positive, but I could also see this movie turning off the causal fan who is just coming off of the new Spider-man for example.

It definitely isn't bombastic. Anything bombastic in this three hour film is in the trailer, leaving the rest to be slow and methodical. But there are lots of people who like noir films, like 7 and Joker, so I think it will appeal to a different kind of general audience. 

Another thing I want to talk about, did any one else find it jarring that Riddler's plan dealt with exposing the truth only to then kill a bunch of innocent people? How are they being "vengeance" by doing that? Technically, Bruce Wayne was innocent too and still had Riddler's wrath but it just seemed almost like a 180 or simply "fack it, kill everyone now" type of thing. Unless I missed something.

Edited by William-James88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 11:31 AM, William-James88 said:

It definitely isn't bombastic. Anything bombastic in this three hour film is in the trailer, leaving the rest to be slow and methodical. But there are lots of people who like noir films, like 7 and Joker, so I think it will appeal to a different kind of general audience. 

Another thing I want to talk about, did any one else find it jarring that Riddler's plan dealt with exposing the truth only to then kill a bunch of innocent people? How are they being "vengeance" by doing that? Technically, Bruce Wayne was innocent too and still had Riddler's wrath but it just seemed almost like a 180 or simply "fack it, kill everyone now" type of thing. Unless I missed something.

It could have been, "I'm going to expose the truth to how corrupt the city is, and then wipe everything clean."  Then maybe people would be less likely to be corrupt in Gotham because they would see the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I wan to add, I feel this is the most interactive batman film we've ever had. Of course, there being riddles helps but what I mean is that there are a lot of scenes where we see Bruce's point of view and we think what he thinks. So that moment when he is talking to Riddler and the Riddler just keeps saying "Bruce Wayne", we feel the exact same thing he feels. I felt a collective sigh at the movie theatre when we see that he/we were wrong followed by this crazy anxiety that he/we totally missed the game of cat and mouse we were seeing. 

That brings me to my point in the other thread when I said I can't compare Dano's Riddler to Ledger's Joker or anything of the sort because he does not play it as Batman's antagonist but as a fan/friend. While there are lots of reveals in the film, this was the biggest twist to me, that Batman and we had been misinterpreting everything so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 11:31 AM, William-James88 said:

Another thing I want to talk about, did any one else find it jarring that Riddler's plan dealt with exposing the truth only to then kill a bunch of innocent people? How are they being "vengeance" by doing that? Technically, Bruce Wayne was innocent too and still had Riddler's wrath but it just seemed almost like a 180 or simply "fack it, kill everyone now" type of thing. Unless I missed something.

I took it as Riddler feels like everyone who participates in Gotham society is part of the "renewal" - that they can't know what it was like to be him, to be an orphan with the rats chewing at your fingers and babies dying every year in the cold. They just go about their business of society, supplied by the corrupt - from the mayor to the police to the mob to the high society. They're complicit in the system that abandoned him, and so the city needed a cleansing (hence the flooding waters "washing away" the current city).

On 3/4/2022 at 2:34 PM, William-James88 said:

Another thing I wan to add, I feel this is the most interactive batman film we've ever had. Of course, there being riddles helps but what I mean is that there are a lot of scenes where we see Bruce's point of view and we think what he thinks. So that moment when he is talking to Riddler and the Riddler just keeps saying "Bruce Wayne", we feel the exact same thing he feels. I felt a collective sigh at the movie theatre when we see that he/we were wrong followed by this crazy anxiety that he/we totally missed the game of cat and mouse we were seeing. 

That brings me to my point in the other thread when I said I can't compare Dano's Riddler to Ledger's Joker or anything of the sort because he does not play it as Batman's antagonist but as a fan/friend. While there are lots of reveals in the film, this was the biggest twist to me, that Batman and we had been misinterpreting everything so far.

I absolutely loved this aspect of it - and it's why I love a lot of the Riddler stories in the comics too, to a lesser extent than what we saw in the movie - as an aside, I actually wrote a paper in college about the use of riddles in literature and pop culture, from the Hobbit to Stephen King's Dark Tower series and beyond; I just love the layering that riddles can add to a story, the verbal and mental sparring.

I thought that moment was outstanding; it's almost not a twist per se, it's like they let you off the hook because you fully expect that Riddler knows Bruce is Batman but you don't want to believe it, and then you have that sigh of relief when he leaves the door open to the idea that he doesn't know. But it also felt just ambiguous enough to me where you're second guessing, like "does he really not know? Or is it still part of his game?" Great moment of the movie, and Dano (and Pattinson actually, credit where it's due) plays it perfectly.

Edited by Jesse-Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 9:20 AM, Bosco685 said:

It was interesting that the Riddler didn't think through how the term could accidentally be tied back to either Penguin or even Batman.

Perhaps I'm out of the norm in being a lifelong animal and wildlife lover, but all ll I kept wondering was how the heck are these two guys thinking a "winged rat" could ever be a stool pigeon or a penguin.  Pigeons don't look anything like rats, and most penguin species are WAAY bigger than rats, and even the smaller penguins are at best still a bit bigger than the larger rats.  I've heard bats referred to multiple times as "winged rats," however, because both bats and rats are notorious disease carriers, a fact we're all particularly well aware of now since that's the best guess for the origin of SARS and SARS-CoV-2.

Rip the wings off of any penguin species and you've got a bowling pin waddling around on two legs.  Rip the wings off a bat and it looks just like a creepy rat or mouse running around on all fours.  Where does anyone get the idea that rats and penguins are at all similar?  ???

Edited by fantastic_four
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how to feel about the film yet other than I definitely don't need to search for any new vocabulary for awesomeness like I did after seeing The Dark Knight.  I'm seeing it again next weekend and kind of want to not think about it in comparison to other Batmans for a while, because my gut for now is that it's well above the majority of them but significantly below all three Nolan films.  Yet I clearly see it's above those in certain aspects, just not in ways I find as compelling as I did the Nolan films.

What I can absolutely say that I can't imagine I'll flip on is that both the writing for Riddler as well as Dano's performance as him isn't half as compelling as Goyer's writing on Joker or Ledger's performance as him.  He was good, but FAR from great.  I thought Tom Hardy as Bane was pretty good but not terribly memorable, and I much prefer Hardy's Bane to Dano's Riddler.  I could see myself prefering Dano to Hardy after more reflection, but not after one viewing.

Part of me dreads seeing this again because it should NOT have been three hours and I'm not sure it'll hold my attention for another three.  And I could have done without the Joker scene.  Apparently there was originally two Joker scenes--one early on that was more significant, and then the one we got.  Reeves pulled both out in an earlier cut, but then re-added the last one.  He should have yanked it and substituted something else showing Riddler reacting to his plan getting foiled because I didn't find him all that compelling and he was severely distracting from watching Riddler's reaction.

Edited by fantastic_four
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 9:44 PM, fantastic_four said:

Part of me dreads seeing this again because it should NOT have been three hours and I'm not sure it'll hold my attention for another three.

It could have easily been cut 2-2 1/4 hours without losing any of the story.

Mostly just cut shots of Batman staring blankly at things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 10:13 PM, D84 said:

It could have easily been cut 2-2 1/4 hours without losing any of the story.

Mostly just cut shots of Batman staring blankly at things.

 

The part where Batman reaches into the cage with the bat to grab the card seemed to last about 20 minutes on its own... xD I was like, "dude, you're wearing gloves, just reach in and grab it, you'll be fine..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2