>2024
>completely forgotten
Zero cultural staying power. It came and went like a fart in the wind. Why is that? Every Batman movie prior for better or worse people remembered and talked about them. It's like this one never even happened.
>2024. >completely forgotten
>completely forgotten
>came and went
>no one remembers or talks about it
>it's like it never happened
>...
>he says in a thread talking about The Batman
that's not how it works.
You're talking to a board that thinks Avatar has cultural relevancy just because some autist keeps spamming the same threads over and over.
Avatar’s cultural relevancy is like a cicada life cycle:
>Avatar comes out in 2009 and it’s a huge cultural phenomenon
>Everyone forgets that it even existed for ten years
Avatar 2 comes out in 2022, it’s a huge cultural phenomenon again
>Everyone forgets it existed for the next ten years until Avatar 3
The "X days until Avatar 3" guy remembers. He carries the burden for all of us
>Another thread discussing how nobody is discussing The Batman years later
>It's already been two years since nu Batman came out...
Batman's first appearance
?si=qrHfj0fBQeGx4YS0&t=191
Batman films are only remembered for the villains performance.
Only 2 of the three nolan villains had staying power in pop culture, and in banes case it was only as a meme. As for batman/superman in the DCU the only thing its remembered for is "martha". People forget lex and doomsday were even in the film they were so forgettable.
Going back further only jack nicholsons performance and latex catwoman had lasting cultural recognition from the older films. Batman forever, and batman/robin are just bad memories.
>Uma Poison Ivy
>Arnold Mr. Freeze
>Jim Carrey Riddler
>Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face
Whatever your problem is with the Schumaker Batmen, it can't be the villains.
All of those are better than incel Riddler. They are entertaining and memorable. Only thing Riddler has is a spergy outburst.
I remember Dano's Riddler more than any of those.
>Batman films are only remembered for the villains performance.
Except for the Tim Burton movies. They mog the rest of the Bat-films into oblivion to the point they are still the main source of inspiration for comics, animated series and videogames. And not only they are good as Batman movies, they are also good movies on their own.
Best atmosphere. Best OST. Best plot. Best everything. And most importantly, best Batman. Keaton is still remembered as the one and only to the point of returning 30 years later. And people are still screaming for Burton's take on Batman Beyond and Superman Lives.
Based and Batpilled
>me when I see I got a (You)
Very much this. We had the best Batman, all the rest are pale shadows.
The greatest
Everyone remembers Bale's performance as batman.
We just don't make memes about it
Everyone remembers Bale's performance as batman.
cancer voice
>Only 2 of the three nolan villains had staying power in pop culture, and in banes case it was only as a meme
That's because the only way you experience "culture" is through "memes". Batman Begins is one of the most influential movies of the past 20 years. Just take a look at how many filmmakers cite it as an influence when rebooting a franchise. Nobody gives a frick about Bane posting irl. People just like the character and voice so much so that they prefer it to traditional latino Bane that comics want to push.
I still think the best Bane is the one from the episode "Over the Edge"
It's whack.
>Cinemaphile once again thinks talking about and remembering a movie on here is not actually people talking about a movie because...computers...
It's not because normies don't talk about it.
then frick off to normies you fricking normie
Collider literally released an article a day ago talking about the sequel.
I can't think of a more normie publication.
I have normie friends who brought it up as the best batman movie last time I saw them. Regardless threads like these are moronic. How do you measure cultural impact and why should it even matter in terms of how good a movie is? You could at least critique something about the movie instead of using the same lazy template which isn't specific to batman at all.
stop forcing this moronic meme eat shit reddit homosexual
>woke shit
>"muh just one line"
>batman_was_the_true_villain.mov
who would watch this wokeslop? i tried 3 times and couldnt make it through the mountain of sludge
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE MMMMMMMAAAAARRRRIIIIIIIEEEEEE
BOOOOOOM
Nothing about it was really all that bad, but it just wasn't particularly memorable, either. The Nolan movies already did the "realistic" tone, the orange tint, the paragliding and le heckin' crazy villain with the somewhat implausible master pan. It's not campy fun like the Burton / Schumacher ones and its not the full-on Arkham freeflow combat like the Affleck version. It was released while another version of Batman was still in the DCEU, exists awkwardly between the Snyderverse and the Gunnverse and we're not even sure if they'll ever make a sequel. And if they do it'll also be competing with ANOTHER version of Batman. Its just very redundant.
The most memorable thing about it was probably Colin Farrell being unrecognizable as a fat Italian but as fun as that character was he didn't even need to be there. That could have been any random character and the plot is still the same. They just made him the Penguin to have another recognizable name in the movie. And now they're still talking a spin-off show...why? If you're not even sure if you're making another film with the main character why are you spinning off side characters? This whole thing just feels like wasted time and effort
There's threads about The Batman nearly everyday
i'm waiting for the autist obsessed with the Riddler's interrogation scene to post the screencap
I got you.
Third best Batman movie after '89 & Returns. Nolan is a hack and his fans are midwits
Every batman film fan defines their identity around Nolan one way or the other. Case in point
How can you hate the Nolan movies but love this one? It's literally just Nolan lite
It's Nolan if Nolan actually adapted the comics.
>comics Riddler was a Joker-esque psycho in a gimp mask
>comics Penguin was a guido from brooklyn
>comics Batman was a longhaired emo kid who didn't even bother with the Bruce Wayne half of his persona
what fricking Batman comics were you reading man
I liked this version of riddler until the last act and Batman was cool assuming he turns into pattinson from tenet in the second one
Earth One and Zero Year, among others.
Earth One fricking sucked and Zero Year had Bruce Wayne taking reins of his company. So you're wrong.
>when did that happen in comics?!
Oh well it happened here -
>well that comic sucks!
Oh, well, it also happened here -
>yeah but it eventually changes at some point in the story!
Holy moron Batman...
Earth One was a shitty ass novel written by Geoff Johns, a guy that is very outspoken about his hatred of Batman and wrote said explicitly to shit on the character supposedly plot-armor. He purposely made Batman stupid in those novels and thought he was being a trail blazer.
The fact that Matt Reeves decided to use that shitty ass comic as an inspiration is hilarious.
>w-well I don't like that comic so...so ha!
I guess you hate these comic authors/artists and their work as well?
homie, even Snyder thanked Geoff Johns despite hating the dude. They just throw random names in those things for PR.
If anything, they should be thanking David Fincher and Christopher Nolan.
Oh cool.
I have no doubt you'd say this without proof of it, so please.
I'd love to see it.
>comics Riddler was a Joker-esque psycho in a gimp mask
>comics Penguin was a guido from brooklyn
This is what bothers you the most?
>Gordon is black
>Alfred is a fat hobbit
>Every villain is white, blacks are always good and virtuous
>The whole Riddler arc seems like it was written by boomers afraid of the internet.
The movie is a fricking mess.
>comics Batman was a longhaired emo kid
This is probably the only accurate aspect of the movie.
>This is probably the only accurate aspect of the movie.
I hate this argument that the shills use to do the whole "comic accuracy" excuse.
Bruce Wayne iconic look is this one. First made by Bill Finger, one of the character's co-creator and then perfect by the artist Dick Sprang.
It's basically Bruce having a comical big chin and this exact 'Jason Bateman' style combover.
This is the iconic style. Every other artist try to re-create this look one way or another. Even Bruce Timm tried to recreate it in many ways.
Live action as well use it as a springboard. From Tim Burton, to Joel Schumacher, to Christopher Nolan, to Zack Snyder.
Yes, there are variations where Bruce will have a big unkept hair or even a shaved head (see Scott Snyder's Zero Year), but those are deviations. Specially when trying to portray Bruce first few years.
Then you've the older take on the original Batman, which also takes inspiration of the Dick Sprang's design. The only difference are the graying temples. Frank Miller re-used this one for The Dark Knight Returns, adding only a mustache. Bruce Timm re-used for Batman Beyond, adding only the bald spot. Even Zack Snyder re-used wholesale in BvS.
So yeah, Bruce Wayne having a big emo hair is pure deviation. Be it in comics or movies.
Ben affleck , jon hamm
Yeah. Those are the kind of actors perfect for the role. Even Christian Bale was good despite his somewhat small chin.
You want a white tall guy with big wide jaw and a combover hair style. The blocky body frame too, but that isn't that much of must.
John Hamm, Josh Brolin, and so on are perfect fit.
>John Hamm, Josh Brolin, and so on are perfect fit.
Not really. There is something about those actors that doesn't really fit with Batman. They just don't have "it".
>You want a white tall guy with big wide jaw and a combover hair style
Not exactly. Sure, the actor needs to have strong features. But that's not enough. To portray Bruce Wayne, the actor needs to have some sort of dark aura. Keaton is the perfect example. He's not very tall. He doesn't have a big jaw. He's not even bulky at all. But he does have that unique dark look. No other actor has been able to surpass him.
The only thing Michael Keaton had going for him, and why he was cast at all other than being friends with the director, is his eyes and lips, which make it look good when they put on the cowl.
Other than that he doesn't really fit the character.
>It's basically Bruce having a comical big chin and this exact 'Jason Bateman' style combover.
Only until the mid 1960s. By the early 1970s, it was normal for men to let their hair flow free. Bruce Wayne wasn't the exception. You don't want people to think America's richest playboy is a square, right? No, he kept a more sophisticated look.
>Even Bruce Timm
Because his animated series is set in a "Deco-punk" alternate timeline where the 1940s fashion trends never ended.
>From Tim Burton, to Joel Schumacher, to Christopher Nolan, to Zack Snyder.
Keaton's hair was too short for a proper combover. Kilmer's hair was only combed in formal settings. He looks like Leon Kennedy in the rest of the scenes. Clooney had a buzzcut. Bale's hairstyle was just a shorter version of Kilmer. Affleck was the only one who went full Alex Ross. But it was the 2010s so that hairstyle was already back in style.
>those are deviations
I agree a shaved head would be a deviation. But in this case, the hair still has a similar length. He's just not combing it. Because nowadays it isn't a strict fashion requirement. You sound like an old fart from the 60s worried about kids wearing jeans instead of the abolition of Jim Crow laws. Thanks, grandpa.
>older take on the original Batman
In this case it actually makes sense for him to mantain that slicked back hairstyle because that was the style of his youth. At least in those story-lines.
Lee Bermejo's Bruce Wayne is also a deviation anon.
The entire effort of Bermejo was to deliver a new take on Bruce Wayne and Batman that could be more modern and "realistic", to complement Brian Azzarello's ideas for the comics they were producing, which was essentially to copy Christopher Nolan and bring what Nolan did with the movies to their comics.
Bruce Wayne with an unkept long hair IS a deviation.
I don't make the rules, it just is what it is.
Same with other DC characters. Superman? The iconic look is the one that Joe Shuster set forward and Curt Swan perfected, same as what happened with Batman in regards to Dick Sprang. Swan was the guy DC editors made everyone fricking copy whenever drawing Superman for publication. Even Jack Kirby, the legend, when he went to work on Superman comics for DC the editors at the time had other artist draw over his pages to make Kirby's Superman have the face Swan gave the character.
Every other artist drawing Superman for DC either try to do their take on this style or make some sort of deviation which can or not be well received. But whenever talking about the classical and iconic look? Shuster and Swan.
>unkept
Not using grease doesn't mean your hair is unkept.
>long
It has an appropiate length to replicate the classic slicked back hairstyle if pomade is applied. So we can assume that it wouldn't be out of character for Bruce Wayne in the 1940s or anyone who used to sport a combover in the 1940s to have ended up with a hair length similar to today's Robert Pattinson without realizing it. Now picture Bruce Wayne in the 1970s onwards. Would he still use pomade? Of course not. It's not that trendy anymore. So that's why I think it is not that much of a deviation but more of an expected consequence of Bruce Wayne living in the current world.
Begins was quite a decent Year One adaption
The second act is pretty much the adaptation of Year One, and I agree, it's the best part of the entire film.
You clearly know nothing. Nolan's movies were based on a myriad of comics stories, and he clearly understood the way Batman operates much better than Reeves.
Agree but disagree. Mask of the phantasm is number 1, the dark knight 2, the Batman 3.
The Batman’s third act just has no sauce. It devolves into a twitch con meet-up and riddler isn’t that scary or interesting once he starts live streaming.
It should have ended with some huge riddle that expanses all of Gotham like a huge maze or some shit out of the city. Instead, all the tension goes out the window when it becomes a Reddit meet-up. Also riddler needed to kill way more, and his whole elaborate riddle needed to continue into the third act.
Other than that though, the movie has hella sauce. The acting and writing is good, score is great, Gotham is awesome, fight and action are good. The first 20 min are excellent. The dark knight clears though because the tension continues up until the last minute and the joker’s plan actually expanses all of the city with multiple situations. Creates a tense feeling
>The acting and writing is good, score is great
You're fricking kidding me, right? Those are easily the worst aspects of the movie.
I like nearly every Batman film.
Same
SOMETHING IN THE WAY (yeah)
should have been only 2 hours long
I greatly am looking forward to the second and third one once they come out.
Hopefully DC isn’t burned by then or sold to some Disney goyslop.
dude, what the frick do you want me to talk about it. I fell asleep after 1h. Iirc Bruce was a teenage emo or something on the waaaaay. Hmmmmhmmm...
the movie just isn't that good, simple as
Batman Begins is better
Penguin is shit
Catwomyn is shit
Pattinson did ok, Riddler did okay - until that scene, and then it completely craps the bed at the ending, where it becomes a lesser version of Batman Begins's finale
SOMETHING IN MY ASS
It couldn't compare to the greatness that preceded it.
>completely forgotten
aren't they making a penguin tv series based on this movie and also making a sequel?
We're living in and age of unprecedented hyperstimulation and division of attention. There are occasional things that rise above and get everyone talking about them, but it's far more difficult and rare that ever, by an order of magnitude. The days of a pretty good movie making a cultural impact are gone. Movies only do this now if there's an associated scandal, tie in to some larger scale issue, or when they're just so audacious they command attention. 90% of the great classic films we all love and which were topics of conversation in their day would fare similarly. We're just living in the age of brainrot.
Everyone hates the end fight scene with all those Riddler Goons but I think it's one of Batman's best on film. The way it's shot, the fight choreography, the music with hints of the original 60's Batman theme in it, how Batman just tanks a bunch of shots until the point blank double barrel, halfway through Gordon and Catwoman looking up at his crusade and realizing they can help. Ending with Batman realizing he needs to be more than a rich murder hobo to save Gotham? I liked it a lot. Movie has it's issues but I never had any with that part.
It's a really good movie. It also realistically portrays Bruce as a chad autist who would LARP as Batman. He's arrogant enough to try to be a genuine hero. The villain is just incredibly down to earth, so doesn't capture the popular imagination quite as much, but it's still the best authentic Batman we've ever seen.
>It also realistically portrays Bruce as a chad autist who would LARP as Batman.
You mean the guy that stalks a crack addict looking Catwoman as if he never saw a woman before, can't interact well with females, and is talked down by every black woman he meets? What's chad about any of that?
Even Bale's Batman, who was canonically a virgin into his 30s could fact being a chad more than Pattinson's Batman, who acts more like a weirdo virgin boy.
>Ending with Batman realizing he needs to be more than a rich murder hobo to save Gotham?
That was the gayest part. I wish they had doubled down on Batman's mental illness and made him unable to understand that what he's doing is moronic. So instead of the same old marvel-quips about hope, he would just accept his never ending crusade as his own personal hell. This way he can become more violent and unstable in the sequel. Sigh... one thing I miss about Batfleck was him unapologetically murdering criminals. You could tell how tired he was of this shit. And who isn't, tbqh. The prison system doesn't work.
In other words, Batman works better when he's the Punisher.
Not when he is the Punisher, but when he is shamelessly a violent vigilante using his trauma as an excuse to lash out. None of that mea culpa bullshit good boy points excuse me poor criminals i as a rich white man didn't know any better homosexual ending for Reddit/Twitter homosexuals that hates the character and try to portray Batman being a rich guy and vigilante as something problematic. Frick you.
Hey I agree with you. Batman fundamentally doesn't make sense because nonlethal vigilantes who lost faith in the justice system fundamentally don't make sense. His no-kill rule is a vestige of the comics code authority preventing superhero kills. Before the CCA Batman would kill as needed.
It is not even about Batman killing or not. You can have a Batman that doesn't kill since that is the fantastical part of the character, but Batman NEEDS to be a damaged guy with survivor's guilt and a twisted sense of civic duty who uses his trauma as a fuel to beat the living crap out of criminals without feeling remorseful or shamed. Yes, he saves people. Yes, he helps criminals that want to reform. But he also takes a personal gratification on physically punishing criminals and evil doers.
It shouldn't matter that he is white or rich and that criminals often are mutts and poor, and that this is something problematic. Batman is a fricking vigilante. Him being somewhat of a prick with a vengeful and uncompromising nature who likes to hurt criminals is a big part of the character. He can feel bad one time or two when the criminal is too pathetic or poor, but you can't entirely do away with that aspect of the character.
To do that is to try and court stupid opinions coming straight from social justice warriors that never liked the character in the first place.
>To do that is to try and court stupid opinions coming straight from social justice warriors that never liked the character in the first place.
You just described the cancer that has effectively killed the entire entertainment industry.
The no kill rule works best when it's presented as a hindrance rather than a strength. Part of his really fragile and somewhat inconsistent psyche. The idea that it's some moralistic bastion that needs to be upheld at all times is so stupid and tbh limits storytelling options. I liked Snyder's version because it was showing how much a code like that would erode after 20+ years of crime fighting, with no visible improvement in society.
Nerds are resistant to change though. They really do just want the same thing over and over again. It was wild to me that after 50 years of cinematic Batman incarnations, 6 actors, 8 films, and countless TV shows people still didn't want to see anything different.
I find it hilarious because the necessity of the no-kill rule is constantly flipping in the comics.
Before it was something entirely artificial imposed by the publisher on the writers where the heroes couldn't be shown killing or sporting a gun, and certain villains couldn't even appear anymore.
Then the rule was lifted around the late 60s and writers stopped to think about with Batman essentially "accidentally" murdering henchmen but never the important villains, outside of monsters like Dracula or Ra's al Ghul since they were monsters or could bullshit a surprising return down the line.
Then in the late 90's it became a hard rule again because of fanboy complaints and treated as a moralistic bastion being essentially what defined him as a hero despite his violent nature though writers would often play with the idea that Batman is losing his shit and might possible maybe who knows kill a villain though that never happened.
Then once again because of yet again more fanboy complaints tired of Batman always letting Joker get away with murders writers started to portray the no-kill rule as a hindrance that actually makes Batman somewhat unhinged. Specially when said writers started to introduce adjacent characters and trying to make them popular. For example Red Hood. Most of Red Hood stories are about how cool the character is because he is willing to kill henchmen (never important villains) and be fine with his choices which is so unlike Batman that is constantly coddling the Joker and letting innocent people die to preserve his code of ethics.
Though recently writers once again to let Batman murder certain villains in extreme circumstances because Batman can't be seen as a lame character. One good example is Scott Snyder having Batman finally kill the Joker before dying himself (both of them got better thanks to the Lazarus Pit) or Tom King having Batman snap KGBeast neck after KGBeast tried to assassinate Nightwing (they also got better).
>The no kill rule works best when it's presented as a hindrance rather than a strength
Couldn't agree more.
>how much a code like that would erode after 20+ years of crime fighting, with no visible improvement in society.
I wish we could have a standalone movie exploring this version of Batman. Or at least a movie that leads to that version. I want to see Batman as a legit mentally ill person who refuses to kill at first but he slowly starts to get more and more jaded until he finally snaps.
Give it some time, batman begins wasn't a massive hit upon release either. It became way more popular after dark knight
I rented BB at Blockbuster when the dvd came out and it already had like 8.4 on imdb which was pretty rare at the time. It was pretty much an instant smash.
>can't even come up with its own poster
Fricking garbage movie lmao
The Batman bombed because RLM refused to review it.
The Batman bombed because it was a piece of lame shit that tried to be stylish and smart and didn't know how to accomplish either.
I remember one thing about it. never watched the movie because it looked gay but the pizza was kino.
Every scene with Affleck in Batman v Superman is better than The Batman.
This is not a Batman movie. It's a crime noir and just uses the names from the Batman universe.
i agree
the reeves fanboys will believe otherwise
A lot of people may disagree with me for saying this but I think The Flash was way better.
Flash was so ugly looking.
>Flash was so ugly looking.
I wouldn't call it ugly but the visual aesthetics are definitely more cheap and artifical compared to The Batman which is a movie that really stands out for its atmosphere and aesthetics.
However, aesthetics isn't everything. And watching The Batman feels like a chore. The plot is all over the place. A lot of scenes feel forced and preachy. The Flash clearly isn't a masterpiece but for me it was more enjoyable and fun.
Matt Reeves is a homosexual
It feels so amateurish. It's like ideas I would have in high-school.