Sine poena nulla lex.

TCTTS said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

If this totally rules and Phoenix wins an Oscar and the thing does well commercially:

1. Will DC make this the launching point for the new Batman, and
2. Why WOULDN'T they do that?

I know they just got over the whole shared universe thing, but a Batman who comes into being in reaction to a Joker like this (instead of the opposite as is usually shown) seems like a strong foundation to me.

The new Reeves Batman isn't even in production yet, right?

---

Echoing C@LAg, Reeve's Batman isn't in production yet, but by October it will likely be cast, deep into pre-production, and relatively close to filming. WB isn't going to change course at that point. They're soon reaching the point of no return. Besides, this Joker movie has been in the works for a few years now, and they've had Reeve's under contract for a while now as well, so they would have already figured all this out by now and wouldn't be waiting to see how successful Joker is.

While not even remotely substantiated, there ARE rumors that Reeve's Batman MIGHT take place in the '90s, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. However, if, for some reason, that ends up being the time period, I guess Phoenix could technically play his iteration of the Joker in a sequel to the new Batman. They'd have to age him a few years, of course, but I guess it could work.

That said, again, all indications are pointing toward this new Batman being set in present day - or at least a version of our present day - and being in a completely different universe from anything we've seen yet. Also, I just don't see Phoenix coming back to the role either. I imagine part of his commitment to this movie was likely due in part to not having to commit to any sequels.

---

I take this back. I forgot that "Young Bruce Wayne" is actually in this movie, played by a kid who doesn't look like he could be any older than 8-10 or so. I doubt it's anything more than a cameo, but even if Reeves' Batman movie takes place in 1999, and was part of the same Joker continuity, this iteration of the Bruce Wayne character would be somewhere around 20 years old, or likely even younger, in 1999. And Reeve's Batman isn't an origin story, so even that doesn't line up.

Sine poena nulla lex.

I'm just intrigued by the idea that Batman comes off age when the Joker is an established thing and Bruce is influenced by Joker's use of theatrics. It's almost always vice versa.

TCTTS said:

---

Oh, sh*t. I just realized... THIS is Bruce Wayne...

---

Told ya, dude, it's just a Cape Fear ripoff.

I feel like I have no idea what I just watched or what to even really expect from the movie...but that makes me want to see it.

Quote:

---

While not even remotely substantiated, there ARE rumors that Reeve's Batman MIGHT take place in the '90s, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

---

Why not?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

While not even remotely substantiated, there ARE rumors that Reeve's Batman MIGHT take place in the '90s, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

---

Why not?

---

Actually, I screwed up the math in my post yesterday. I forgot that this movie is set in 1981, where a "young Bruce Wayne" looks to be 8-10 years old. For some reason I was thinking it was later than that. Either way, if Reeve's Batman does indeed take place in the '90s, and does indeed connect to this movie, Bruce Wayne/Batman could be anywhere from age 17 to 29 depending on what year in the '90s Reeve's movie is hypothetically set. But since we know Reeves' Batman isn't an origin story, given this scenario, it would have to be at some point in the late '90s, when Bruce is a bit older (even though 29 is still pretty damn young). So, the timelines technically line up, and Phoenix's Joker could technically show up in the sequel to Reeves' first Batman movie, as long as they aged Phoenix by 20 years or so.

But my point is, if Joker ISN'T connected to Reeves' Batman (and by all accounts it's not), but Reeves' Batman IS set in the '90s, that seems like a scenario ripe for confusion. Casual audience members would likely be expecting Phoenix's Joker to show up, since the timelines would be so relatively close together. It just seems really weird and random to me that WB would allow a Joker movie set in the '80s, and then a Batman movie set in the '90s, but NOT have them connect. I'm all for these one-offs and separate universes and all that, but even that seems like a stretch so early in this experiment.

It would make WAY more sense if Reeve's Batman is set in present day (or an alternate version of our present day), in a separate universe from Joker, and that's clear from the get-go. Look, maybe Reeve's Batman has some concrete reason it HAS to be set in the '90s. Maybe his detective story only works without cell phones or something. But if not - if his take isn't time period specific - I would imagine WB would be nudging him to set it way after Phoenix's Joker, just so there aren't any misguided expectations. That, and three of the first four "modern" Batman movies were already set in the '90s (Returns, Forever, and Batman & Robin). Even though it would obviously be a completely different timeline/universe, why would WB/Reeves want to revisit that time period again? It just seems so random and arbitrary.

I would actually be there for that.

The Mr Sunday movies video on this was insightful but for some reason I found him more annoying than normal.

This is freaking awesome. I'm with all of you stating that DC needs to do DC and let Marvel worry about Marvel. I can appreciate a DC universe where the movies don't have to tie to each other, follow fanboy/fangirl cannons, and can continue to be dark. There is absolutely nothing bright or pretty about the Batman world where there is a very thin line between heroes and villains.

The "dark" is what made MoS so great, and even BvS was good. It was only until JL that it totally went off the rails, when they tried to inject the lighter tone.

That tone works for things like Aquaman and Shazam, but I'm glad they're not afraid to keep these dark.

So i watched the trailer yesterday without knowing anything about the casting or movie. And my initial response was "Why would they cast the dad from Modern Family as the joker?!??! Are they having a laugh? Is this a Funny or Die video?"

Has to imdb to learn it was Joaquin

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The "dark" is what made MoS so great, and even BvS was good. It was only until JL that it totally went off the rails, when they tried to inject the lighter tone.

That tone works for things like Aquaman and Shazam, but I'm glad they're not afraid to keep these dark.

---

I like MOS more every time I watch it, and the first half of B v S is really strong too. I really wish they'd give Cavil another solo piece or even better, a Krypton-based prequel with Russell Crowe as the main character. That was the most I've enjoyed his work since Gladiator.

My Current DC Ranks
1. MoS
2. Wonder Woman
3. The first half of BvS
4. This space reserved for Shazam when I see it on HBO next year.
5. Falling asleep during "The Trench" part of Aquaman
6. My 7-year-old daughter saying "Whats' wrong with Superman's face?" when we were watching Justice League on cable when she was sick, although she had no prior knowledge of the CGI moustache debacle
7. What's her face from Wolf of Wall Street as Harley Quinn
8. Aquaman's confusing array of abilities in Justice League.
9. All the people clamoring for the Brett Ratner cut of Justice League only to realize it didn't exist.
10. The octopus playing the drums in Aquaman, and yes I know it's something from some comic book. It's still a giant octopus playing the drums.

C@LAg said:

---

The short of it is, it is the equivalent of a Venom movie with no Spider-Man in it.

It is great you have a movie to look forward to. I hope it is good and that you enjoy it.

For my part, I have no interest in seeing it. That said, I do have interest in its development and discussion about it up to the point of its release.

---

I mean... sure, I guess in theory that's kind of what it is. But if you couldn't tell that Venom was going to be absolute dog**** from the very first trailer, and can't tell that this movie has potential to be really good from the first trailer, it seems like you're just hating on the idea for no reason.

You're missing out by not watching Shazam before that. It's legitimately a really good movie. Easily the best DC movie and better than almost every Marvel movie. Yeah, I said it.

Sine poena nulla lex.

Have you even seen it?

Sine poena nulla lex.

FancyKetchup14 said:

---

"Nihilists! ..F*** me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

---

He could be a fascist anarchist for all I care, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car!

Understood, but you can't say I'm wrong, even as an opinion, without having seen it.

Captain Marvel's trailers sucked terribly but I actually really liked it and have it as one of my top 6 or 7 Marvel movies. You can't judge if this movie is better or worse than other movies just off of trailers and short scenes.

You can say you aren't interested based on trailers and short scenes, but how good the movie is isn't shown in that.

In Shazam's case, the best parts of the movie aren't even in the trailers.

Excellent.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Leto a punk? More like a wannabe, emo wigger gansgter.

---

If the Joker had been a punk that would have been better, sadly.

Count me in the category of the trailer doing absolutely nothing for me.

I'd like to see Keaton come back.

Sine poena nulla lex.