I don't particularly disagree with anything you said. I will develop one point a little bit though.

You mentioned the definition of an internet gun nut. I think that's perfectly fine. But two things to remember, and they are related.

First is that it's very difficult not to feel like you're being personally attacked when someone attacks the most flawed exemplars of people who resemble you in some way. We can probably all think of a time when someone felt compelled to defend themselves from an attack that was really aimed at Alec Baldwin or whomever.

The second thing is that anti-hollywood people (in this example) will intentionally conflate everyone in Hollywood, California, or even the American political left with Roman Polanski in an effort to score political points or even because they believe it. Of course, this makes us hyper sensitive and much more likely to do the first thing I mentioned above.

I've been trying to train myself to stop and think if people are really talking about me (to not get caught by the first point) and to be very thoughtful with my phrasing (to avoid committing the second). I'm not perfect by any means, but it really helps me talk about emotional topics without getting emotional or forcing other people to get emotional.

I also think the Batmobile looked really cool this time around.

Fair, and appreciated.

I think you hit the bigger point, some people are always looking to be upset about something in Hollywood and will find parallels to do so.

As films go I think this one is pretty politically benign relative to the current landscape, but if someone wants to be offended they're going to be offended.

And yes, the Batmobile was badass.

The Batcycle was also really cool though we didn't get quite the same views of it in the film.

Time to discuss the Batcycle design process for @TheBatman
-
MORE - https://t.co/3noUah1dxt pic.twitter.com/QCbt1ZPTFF

— Ash Thorp (@ashthorp1) March 11, 2022

AgfromHOU said:

---

Re: Joker

Reeves has said that the Joker scene wasn't meant to be a tease for him to be a villain in the next movie. Joker was actually supposed to be in a scene earlier in the movie, but it was removed (you can watch it in the extras in the deleted scenes). It was there to show that Batman has already faced Joker and to serve as a world building moment. Reeves also said he hasn't decided who the villain would be in the sequel.

---

I really hope they stay away from the Joker for a long time. Batman has such a great group of villains and I feel most of them get left out because there is such a focus on The Joker. I'm glad The Riddler finally got a great portrayal. I think there's a lot of potential for The Penguin as the new crime boss, too. I'd like to see them give Mr. Freeze another shot. Get away from all the campy one liners, and I think there's a ton of potential for a sympathetic villain. Basically, a guy who will do anything to keep his wife alive. I think doing some sort of spin off with Catwoman and Poison Ivy could be interesting, too, but that might be better served in Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn's universe.

Majority of people in political power are white men. Most politicians are corrupt (my opinion). Therefore, Gotham is filled with a lot of corrupt white men. I don't understand how that is controversial or why it triggers people.

Also, the internet followers were in no way "gun nuts". They were online extremists who were following the Riddler and literally had to ask each other what to use and where to get it. A true "gun nut" does not have to ask others about these things.

Let's also forget that I'm sure the elected officials in this city, like every other city in America, are probably predominately left leaning. So, if anything, I would think liberals would be more triggered than right-wingers. I think the problem is everyone has been so conditioned by the media, to think in terms of race. The lefties look at it through the lens of victimhood or guilt, and the right-wingers have become conditioned to immediately become defensive, because it's used to much.

I actually think the best "racial" takeway from this movie, and others with similar settings, is they don't really cast enough black actors. As I've held to in other threads where I'm attacked, I like things to make sense. The same opinions I hold about adding all these black actors to the Rings of Power show not making sense, I also hold for movies like this. We are in one of the largest cities in America, as far as DC is concerned. Why are there so few black people? I would expect at least half of the police officers to be black, and many in the crowds to be black; it only makes sense.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

I also think it's funny to say the movie's message is that all the rich white people are evil, when we have the protagonist we have.

---

you mean the protagonist who violates almost every law, including breaking and entering, assault, theft of evidence, vehicle endangerment/wreckless driving, etc.

BTW, I'm pretty certain I bashed Zoe Kravitz in the very beginning of this thread when the movie was announced because I simply didn't think she fit the part.

I was way wrong on that. She was fantastic as Catwoman. Arguably the best one we've seen IMO.

Finally saw this. Holy emo-man. Terrible.

I don't even care about the woke crap. It was boring as F and my wife and I couldn't stop mocking batman with Emo Goose imitations. The setting looked pretty good, but is making Gotham dark really some sort of feat?

In no way is this movie "terrible." I totally get it not being everyone's cup of tea, but to call it "boring as F" and mock it like this says more about you than it does the movie.

I ruffled emo goose's feathers. "Someone didn't like the movie I did so now I'm gonna take personal shots." LOL

May have set a record for filming blank stares. You could cut 20 minutes off this thing just by editing out blank stares

The love story is hilariously forced

Batman was closer to Terminator than Batman. Which movie am I watching again?

The Riddler's plan, which may have had something going for it for awhile, completely falls apart into nonsense. Are we in New Orleans? The highest part in the city is below sea level? And who let all these QAnon dork's with rifles in?

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Lol... you cannot take posters like him seriously. Do you really think you will have anywhere close to the same taste as someone who posts so much on the Politics board and Golf board, and hardly ever posts on the ET board?

---

Ah yes, only those that regularly post on the prestigious and exclusive entertainment board have a chance at having an opinion that is worth reading. Must get tiring having to scroll past all the dumb plebe's thoughts.

(for the record I liked the movie)

If you want to boil it down, you can't spend a grinding 2.5 hours building to a climax and then have that climax be nonsense. You may not consider that terrible. Fine. Good for you. That meets terrible in my book

The masked nobodies sniping innocent people at a political rally as the city floods and countless other innocents are killed is entirely unaligned from the Riddler's MO of exposing and killing corrupt leaders who are greedy.

It makes no sense for the Riddler, whose whole thing seems to be holding a grudge against the rich and powerful because of his experiences in a neglected orphanage, to have his plan climax with a murderous rampage against other common people.

If we learned that the Riddler owns a flooring and drywall company, then we might start getting to motivation that makes sense

Imagine if Thanos, after snapping in Infinity Wars, snapped a second time to melt the polar ice caps and everyone had to spend another 20 minutes saving people from a flood while Thanos wannabe's from the internet took pot shots at them.

The Riddler's climax made that much sense.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

The masked nobodies sniping innocent people at a political rally as the city floods and countless other innocents are killed is entirely unaligned from the Riddler's MO of exposing and killing corrupt leaders who are greedy.

It makes no sense for the Riddler, whose whole thing seems to be holding a grudge against the rich and powerful because of his experiences in a neglected orphanage, to have his plan climax with a murderous rampage against other common people.

---

agreed. that whole part just did not logically flow from his motivations and only served the purpose of extending the movie another 20 minutes.

would have been a better ending if it ended int the cafe, with him stating the Bruce Wayne thing, leaving the audience to wander if he knew the identity or was talking about his failed target.

You guys realize you're getting upset with fellow Ags about whether or not a movie about a crime fighter dressed as a bat was good or not.

Teacher_Ag said:

---

Who are you to contradict me?

---

I am vengeance.

- It's all about the Gotham Renewal Fund, which the Riddler rightfully exposed as corrupt. The fund was originally supposed to "renew" him from his tragic orphan existence, but of course didn't, once Thomas Wayne's death irrevocably changed the Riddler's life (or rather didn't change his life), and the trajectory of Gotham as a whole.

- The Riddler believed that the corruption that flourished in the wake of Thomas Wayne's death spread through all levels of Gotham, from the highest officials to the lowest scum, to the point where he eventually came to believe that Gotham, and all of its people, were beyond saving.

- The seawall itself was built using the money from Renewal, as noted in the newspaper clippings we saw throughout the movie. So the breaking of the wall, and the ensuing flood it causes, is meant by the Riddler be a "cleansing" of sorts, washing away the sins of Gotham, its corruption, and much like the end of Fight Club, bringing everyone down to the same level, resetting the status quo, etc. No more false promises, like the kind the Riddler believes Bella Real to be peddling. Via the flood, the Riddler intends to deliver REAL change.

- That, and the Riddler knew all the elite/bigwigs would either already be at Gotham Square Garden on election night, or would be sent there (it's mentioned as being used as a shelter from hurricanes). Thus, it would literally be like shooting fish in a barrel. The Riddler's goons would pick them off from above, and any they miss would be swept up by the flood.

- It is then *because* of the flood that Batman eventually becomes a literal beacon of hope, via rescue flare, leading the new mayor, the deceased mayor's son, and all the others out of the flood, to safety on the roof of GSG. Up until that moment, the Batman, *just* like the Riddler, was leading a life of vengeance. The Batman wanted retribution for the death of his parents, the Riddler wanted retribution for the failure of Renewal and the subsequent corruption it caused. Two orphans, on the same path, with the same mission, but it's the Riddler's goons, and the "baptism" of the flood, that ultimately wake Batman up to who Gotham needs him to be.

All of the above is intricately laid out by Reeves. It all connects and checks out. And none of it is rocket science either. Every bit of this is right there, on the screen, via dialogue and context clues. I thought it was smart as hell, and a natural extension/build-up of everything before.

Again, I don't begrudge anyone for simply not liking this movie, or any other movie. What rubs me the wrong way is when people arrogantly sh*t all over stuff like this because THEY fail to understand the plot, intentions, theme, and symbolism.