Performance art

I literally LOLed at this.

This conversation has led me to amend one of my earlier beefs, but it hasn't changed my opinion on the film as a whole. Some of the pieces still aren't quite adding up for me. Maybe y'all can help.

If we think of this as a revenge experiment, that (somewhat) resolves my complaint about Batman taking the mystery vial to beat that final criminal to a pulp, but then stop before crossing the line. Then he realizes that people need saving, and he needs to be more than vengeance, and he becomes the symbol of hope that we are accustomed to seeing.

But that still doesn't really sit well with me. He finds out that Falcone had his parents killed, but (as far as I remember) he doesn't really move to get vengeance on him - he just stops Catwoman from killing him, I think. Then when Falcone dies, he's not mad at Riddler for stealing his chance at revenge. (He also lets the Penguin go, which is a little weird because he's totally going back to a life of crime.) And even if he beat that final criminal to death, was he going to let all those people die or something? I think he would have saved them anyway - it cost him nothing, after all. That fall didn't seem that deadly.

Maybe that's what's felt off about that finale. It's not really like he repents and does a 180, or something dramatic and effective like that. It feels like he just amends his ways just slightly. It's not like he's been after Falcone (or the Riddler, or whoever) this whole time and decides he's going to make them face justice for their crimes, rather than revenge and a quick death. He just decides not to beat a guy as badly as he would normally beat a guy, and then help some folks who were pretty clearly innocent bystanders to this whole thing.

Surely I missed something though, so I look forward to the feedback.

Is it just "Year 2" because he has only recently had the idea of being Batman or is it because he's come of age / into the fortune? I mean clearly Cedric Diggory is into his 30s at this point. In the modern Batman mythos, what is he doing in his teen years and his early 20s?

I probably shouldn't say this because I'm in the midst of tying one on. It's probably fine, my lucid thoughts aren't great either.

My perception at this moment is that Batman himself is almost lost in the symbolism and performance. That goes for Bruce Wayne for sure, but maybe also the screenwriters. We're ten levels deep, which is fun but gets slippery.

How did I react to Keaton. How did I react to Bale. What's the zeitgeist. How does this inteprprestiation feed off of previous interpretations. What do you perceive on the first viewing vs the third when you're taking notes. What is the standard plotting. How is it being twisted. Am I too far into my own head. What hints were left. What are the character emotions. How does mental health play into this. There's a lot going on, and I think the experience if you're flipping on a superhero movie vs Analyzing a Film can be different without either necessarily being invalidated.

Quote:

---

inteprprestiation

---

rhutton125 said:

---

This conversation has led me to amend one of my earlier beefs, but it hasn't changed my opinion on the film as a whole. Some of the pieces still aren't quite adding up for me. Maybe y'all can help.

If we think of this as a revenge experiment, that (somewhat) resolves my complaint about Batman taking the mystery vial to beat that final criminal to a pulp, but then stop before crossing the line. Then he realizes that people need saving, and he needs to be more than vengeance, and he becomes the symbol of hope that we are accustomed to seeing.

But that still doesn't really sit well with me. He finds out that Falcone had his parents killed, but (as far as I remember) he doesn't really move to get vengeance on him - he just stops Catwoman from killing him, I think. Then when Falcone dies, he's not mad at Riddler for stealing his chance at revenge.

At the outset of the movie, Bruce's/Batman's goal is basically a general aim to clean up the streets/enact vengeance; just a vague "scare/beat criminals to a pulp" mandate of sorts. He's not actively looking for whoever killed his parents, given their murders occurred 20 years ago. He's merely taking his anger/depression out on anyone he deems a criminal. So, when he finds out it's Falcone who did it, I think his hesitance, if you want to call it that, is two fold: 1) he was never looking for his parents' killer, so like a dog chasing a car, he's doesn't know what to do when finally faced with the source of all his pain, and 2) the revelation that his parents weren't the perfect angels he'd always thought, only adds to that hesitance/disillusionment. That, and more importantly, his no guns/no kills rule is already fully in effect. So what else did you expect him to do with Falcone other than hand him over to the cops? I'm having trouble understand your confusion/complaint.

(He also lets the Penguin go, which is a little weird because he's totally going back to a life of crime.)

The Penguin is almost certainly arrested, and then likely gets off on bail. Regardless, again, what was Batman supposed to do with him otherwise?

And even if he beat that final criminal to death, was he going to let all those people die or something? I think he would have saved them anyway - it cost him nothing, after all. That fall didn't seem that deadly.

It's not so much the what as the WHY. He's saving them FOR THE RIGHT REASON NOW. Not to sooth his own soul/conquer his own demons, but because Gotham needs a hero.

Maybe that's what's felt off about that finale. It's not really like he repents and does a 180, or something dramatic and effective like that. It feels like he just amends his ways just slightly. It's not like he's been after Falcone (or the Riddler, or whoever) this whole time and decides he's going to make them face justice for their crimes, rather than revenge and a quick death. He just decides not to beat a guy as badly as he would normally beat a guy, and then help some folks who were pretty clearly innocent bystanders to this whole thing.

The *realization* is ALL that matters. It's more about his inner journey/psyche than anything else. That, and any "bigger" change would mean that he would have had to start from a much worse, much more "assh*le" mindset before that final realization. The "slight amendment" is the key from the previous version of Batman, throughout the duration of the movie, who, for movie reasons, still needed to be doing the right thing. He still needed to be fighting crime. He was just fighting crime for the wrong reasons. Now? He can be an inspiration to people like the girl on the roof of GSG rather than the scary guy in a batsuit to the guy in the beginning, getting beat up by the gang in the subway.

Surely I missed something though, so I look forward to the feedback.

---

helloimustbegoing said:

---

Is it just "Year 2" because he has only recently had the idea of being Batman or is it because he's come of age / into the fortune? I mean clearly Cedric Diggory is into his 30s at this point. In the modern Batman mythos, what is he doing in his teen years and his early 20s?

---

Year two of the "Gotham Project" - as noted on the cover of his journal - aka being Batman/actively fighting crime on the streets of Gotham. As for what he was doing prior, I would guess training with Alfred for a decent amount of time before then. But before that, who knows. Probably just sulking.

helloimustbegoing said:

---

Is it just "Year 2" because he has only recently had the idea of being Batman or is it because he's come of age / into the fortune? I mean clearly Cedric Diggory is into his 30s at this point. In the modern Batman mythos, what is he doing in his teen years and his early 20s?

---

I'd assume something similar to how it was covered in Batman Begins, off training in various disciplines. There's a variety of stories that have covered this in the comics, the Zero Year run is an intriguing take on Bruce's very first time back in Gotham and other stories have flashbacks to some of the people he trained with (who sometimes show up again in later stories).

Canon has him coming back to Gotham somewhere in his mid to late 20s.

The Batman has the same villains as Batman '66



Plus, Reeves warned us

https://t.co/upEei0MUyF pic.twitter.com/cSN9HrGAvu

— Matt Reeves (@mattreevesLA) July 21, 2019

pic.twitter.com/KLNQaybsHB

— Matt Reeves (@mattreevesLA) September 9, 2018

Thanks for the reply. If his no-kill rule is in effect, then the final mystery adrenaline moment is back to being weird to me. Were we meant to think he'd kill this guy when he hadn't killed anyone else? Or was that a "oh this looks bad, I get that I need to be a symbol now" thing?

That makes sense about the "why" changing. I'm not sure if I find that very interesting or not. I'll have to ponder it some more.

Somewhat surprised a sequel hasn't already been officially announced. That could change here in the next couple hours, though. Also, the Discovery merger/takeover was finally made official just two weeks ago, and I'm assuming that's been part of the holdup as well. Likely no "new business" until that was taken care of…

The big WB presentation at #CinemaCon is later today. #TheBatman director Matt Reeves is here at the convention, perhaps w/ news of a sequel? The next 4 DC movies have posters up everywhere. Stay tuned, DC fans. The party starts at 4pmPT. pic.twitter.com/CuJ0HCSTGG

— Erik Davis (@ErikDavis) April 26, 2022

So.... question. The Batman was specifically stylized and took inspiration from movies like Se7en and Zodiac, which fit with the serial killer villain.

In the sequels, do they keep leaning into the neo-noir stylization, even if there is no serial killer? I really hope they do, and I hope they lean even harder into it. I wouldn't mind hearing more narration from Pattinson.

My guess is that vibe will remain the "core" of the franchise, but that the sequel will kind of add a level of inspiration on top of that, if that makes sense. For instance, The Dark Knight was heavily influenced by Heat, which the Nolan brothers spoke about many times. So I think the sequel will obviously be another detective story a la Seven or Zodiac, but with another reference added to those. Potentially something a bit more action-oriented? Another example is from Reeves himself, as he's acknowledged multiple times that he was basically doing his version of The Great Escape with War for the Planet of the Apes. So he'll likely pick another movie or two to pull from/use as inspiration, in similar fashion, while keeping the vibe of the first movie intact.

I wonder if Reeves plans a Joker Riddler team up in the next movie, based on their prison conversation, or if he views a massive villain team up as the culmination of multiple movies.

I'd love to see a Batman movie set largely in Arkham, and I think they've set up well for that in the sequel by giving this Bruce extra family connections there. Maybe have Hugo Strange running the place, a ton of villain inmates, perhaps a more grounded version of the Batman: Arkham Asylum plot. Such a film would work great with the kind of gritty storytelling and depiction we think he's going to stick with, allow him to get really intimate with Batman / Bruce and family mysteries in Arkham, and end with a number of villains escaping to set up a climactic third movie back in the city.

No Joker please.

Gotham loves a comeback was pretty telling. I would imagine/hope we get some more Joker and other inmate teases next film with an Arkham breakout style finale

Reeves has said multiple times the Joker cameo wasn't a setup for the sequel. It was to show a history there and that Joker/Batman have already been there done that.

I know, and have even echoed that. Maybe it was a poor choice of words.

I didn't mean anything for Joker being the villain next movie, or even ever the main one in another movie. I was saying I would like the Joker to be teased (maybe shown would be a better word), along with other inmates, and have Batman have to face off against all/most of the inmates in a third movie.

Ah, gotcha.

Joker as a villain by himself isn't really interesting to me anymore, but him teaming up with Riddler, Penguin, Freeze, etc would be really cool/interesting if done well.

Joker is actually probably one of my least favorite Batman villains.

Super curious to see what Reeves ends up calling the sequel. "The Batman 2" is almost assuredly a no-go, and anything "Dark Knight" is obviously taken as well. So I really have no idea where he goes with it. Maybe "The Batman: [Whatever]"?

The Caped Crusader

Bruce Wayne

Damn, that's pretty good actually.