Jump to content
Eric Madrigal

The Batman | March 4, 2022 | Warner Bros. | New trailer on page 55!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, tonytr87 said:

At some point, when you're in your thirties and you've seen three (four if you count Schumacher as his own) different iterations of Batman come and go, a fourth/fifth continuity feels like too much. Unless they do Beyond at some point. I want that. 

 

Try being in your mid-forties.  😉  I've seen every Batman movie in theaters since 1989, and will probably continue to do so.  And yet I'm no longer an uber-comic book fan; I'm just interested in how the character's translated slightly differently every time.  That's genre.  

 

He's Warner Bros.' James Bond -- he will be around forever.  But yeah, it would be nice to see some different villains...like Clayface...Hush...or a more "serious" Mr. Freeze.

Edited by Macleod
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who say that are the same people who love to watch Bond every two years (they've made movies since the 60s). But Batman is somehow a problem, whose last trilogy ended a decade ago.

They will probably be delighted to see the 8th Spiderman movie as well.

Edited by Lighthouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spidey Freak said:

We need Robin in live action again.

 

This shit don't count

6e9237f2e1653b1d45e8e01833fb2cb590af9fed

The sequel can include him. Makes sense not to have Robin in the first film. 

Edited by WittyUsername
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Solo Batman is so much better. 

In live-action terms, agreed.  I think there's something that's harder to buy into in a relatively "serious" toned-live-action world about this young kid palling around with Wayne.  Plus so many things are "Meta" these days...with the touch of a button, people can look up varying "interpretations" of that relationship, and it can easily become a problem of dramatics.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Solo Batman is so much better. 

 

Put me in the camp that says that having the Bat Family is a good way to differentiate yourself from all of the melodrama that has been following the character for the last 30 years (on the film side).

 

Not that I'm not interested in this film (I am).  But I agree with @No Eternals Spoilers 4 Cap when she says that there is sooooooooo much untapped potential in Bat Family dynamics.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Put me in the camp that says that having the Bat Family is a good way to differentiate yourself from all of the melodrama that has been following the character for the last 30 years (on the film side).

 

Not that I'm not interested in this film (I am).  But I agree with @No Eternals Spoilers 4 Cap when she says that there is sooooooooo much untapped potential in Bat Family dynamics.

 

 

The Bat family makes Batman a deeper and more complicated character, honestly. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Batfleck was that there was potential to bring in an older Batfamily who had been pushed away or walked away from Bruce but eventually came back to each other. There are elements of a really good Mike Flanagan psychological family drama there.

 

However, Snyder's plan was to make Dick Grayson the one to be murdered by the Joker which probably meant he had no plans for the Robins at all beyond dead Dick traumatizing Bruce.

Edited by Spidey Freak
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

The thing about Batfleck was that there was potential to bring in an older Batfamily who had been pushed away or walked away from Bruce but eventually came back to each other. There are elements of a really good Mike Flanagan psychological family drama there.

 

However, Snyder's plan was to make Dick Grayson the one to be murdered by the Joker which probably meant he had no plans for the Robins at all beyond dead Dick traumatizing Bruce.

Snyder’s Batman was supposed to die in JL3 anyway, and if all went according to plan, Affleck most likely would’ve only gotten one solo movie. The idea of introducing people to a Batman who had already gone through two Robins offscreen might have been a tougher sell for general audiences, so Dick Grayson being the dead Robin does make streamline things. Batgirl was apparently supposed to be in Affleck’s Batman movie though, so the Bat Family wasn’t going to be completely neglected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Porthos said:

 

Put me in the camp that says that having the Bat Family is a good way to differentiate yourself from all of the melodrama that has been following the character for the last 30 years (on the film side).

 

Not that I'm not interested in this film (I am).  But I agree with @No Eternals Spoilers 4 Cap when she says that there is sooooooooo much untapped potential in Bat Family dynamics.

 

 

aargh…. 
 

This is literally one of my berserk topics.


I am always here to talk about how Batman literally doesn’t work without Robin, and the insistence of doing Year One/Two Batman for 25 Years is crippling the franchise potential. 
 

Like, really? Is it too much to ask for like a $50 million Batman movie. We are it’s just Bruce went to the circus, he watches Dick lose his family in the exact same way/very similar way that he lost his family, instinctively bonds with the boy, and they spend the rest of the movie figuring out who murdered the Grayson while also being like Shit? Did I just adopt a 12 year old?

 

I would also argue that there is a market for this. Because as the Batman fandom has aged, they are also starting to have kids. And they’re also starting to have the what the fuck did I just get into, now I have to take care of this little thing vibes!

 

And if you don’t want THAT Because we have to appeal to the 12-year-old boys, then just drop a straight in the middle of the story. How did Grayson is Nightwing, Jason Todd is dead/going to return as Red Hood, and Tim is Robin.  That audience would get it. 

It’s just so stupid. It’s been almost 25 years since Batman and Robin. It’s about damn time for Dick Grayson (and his perfect ass) to show up. 
 

I would also note that James Tucker, the creator and show runner of Batman: the brave and the bold was really onto something with that show. He basically said that he worked on the Batman animated series for a decade, and was tired of broody Batman, and said let’s do something fun and campy. And I wish to God that the WB would have that foresight. 
 

Do we really need another Batman movie where he beats up guys alone in the alley? Is that really all you think this character is?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spidey Freak said:

However, Snyder's plan was to make Dick Grayson the one to be murdered by the Joker which probably meant he had no plans for the Robins at all beyond dead Dick traumatizing Bruce.


Well thank God the Snyder universe died. I would’ve literally burned down the movie theater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, No Eternals Spoilers 4 Cap said:


 

Like, really? Is it too much to ask for like a $50 million Batman movie. We are it’s just Bruce went to the circus, he watches Dick lose his family in the exact same way/very similar way that he lost his family, instinctively bonds with the boy, and they spend the rest of the movie figuring out who murdered the Grayson while also being like Shit? Did I just adopt a 12 year old?

Including Robin is one thing (and I fully support including him) but I don't think this particular movie would work. Generally people do want a decent dose of action from superhero movies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, No Eternals Spoilers 4 Cap said:

It’s just so stupid. It’s been almost 25 years since Batman and Robin. It’s about damn time for Dick Grayson (and his perfect ass) to show up. 

 

I have a somewhat similar vibe to this.

 

It's been (nearly) 25 years since the infamous Batman and Robin.  Time to stop being afraid of Robin and get out from under the shadow that film cast.

 

Have more thoughts to type, but for a harmonious forum I'll leave to the side (for now/this thread). 👼

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:

The easiest way to go about including Robin would be to make him an older teen. 

That is what they did in "Batman Forever".

Real problem is that the original run of Spiderman in the early 60s', where Peter Parker was a teenager, sort of made the "teenage Sidekick' obsolete. DC responded by making Dcik Grayson a bit older, 17 or 18, and making him act more grown up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

I have a somewhat similar vibe to this.

 

It's been (nearly) 25 years since the infamous Batman and Robin.  Time to stop being afraid of Robin and get out from under the shadow that film cast.

 

Have more thoughts to type, but for a harmonious forum I'll leave to the side (for now/this thread). 👼

Problem you have is that the solo Dark Knight intepretation of Batman has become so  popular I can't see them moving away from it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

God, the Bat Family, at least in the late 50's and early 60's version, damn near killed the Batman franchise with it's silliness. They dropped the Bat Family in 1964, only retaining Robin .

And i just think Batman taking on a 12 year kid as a partner is just not going to sell wiht today's audiences unless you want to go full tilt Adam West version silly...and that would be pretty risky. They tried that to a degree with "Batman And Robin" and it did not work  out so well.

No way you could do Robin unless he was an older teen.

  • Disbelief 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

God, the Bat Family, at least in the late 50's and early 60's version, damn near killed the Batman franchise with it's silliness. They dropped the Bat Family in 1964, only retaining Robin .

And i just think Batman taking on a 12 year kid as a partner is just not going to sell wiht today's audiences unless you want to go full tilt Adam West version silly...and that would be pretty risky. They tried that to a degree with "Batman And Robin" and it did not work  out so well.

No way you could do Robin unless he was an older teen.

 

An entire generation raised on various Batman animated series that had the Bat Family front and center would disagree with you on how silly or risky it would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.