"Joker 2: Madness for Two" announced

I said WITHOUT onions you blue RETARD!

>detective noir
The Batman is Sev7n x Zodiac, anon.

The movie is about finding a killer that leaves clues to solve his identity and at the end gives himself up to reveal an even more hidden secret conspiracy.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing but the story is clearly and homage to Fincher's movies and Chinatown. The same way Long Halloween is basically a ripoff of The Godfather but with added "superhero twist".

>The only thing it clearly has from Seven
No way; that whole squance of them finding his apartment and reading out of his journals is taken almost directly from se7en.

I'm not even arguing that they should be together gay. I'm saying you shat on an actor who performed well in a role and are defending a soulless, garbage movie about a mentally ill man who becomes a killer clown that ripped off more than it could chew and doesn't answer half the "brilliant" questions it raises.
The Batman and Joker are capeshit. They're both capeshit properties. It looked nothing like Nolan or Phillips because Reeves hired people who actually know how to make movies look good. It was ten times more original than Taxi Joker was.
The Batman is a good flick. I saw it eight fucking times in theaters and saw Joker once. The difference is, I know when something has effort behind it, and when something is blatant awards fodder.

Good. Fuck off and think about what you've learned.

The system is broken dumbass, especially when it's run by corrupted people. The Batman answered the questions it raised, which were: Is Batman helping Gotham, and can Gotham be saved?
If you didn't figure out the answers for both of those by the end of the movie, then you're a tard.

Here's the answer from the fucking film. I guess you missed it.
>Is Batman helping Gotham?
Batman, at this point in his career, has been harming Gotham. By letting himself become known as a vigilante who enacts justice on the guilty, he has caused some good by becoming a symbol of fear, but has let his symbol of revenge inspire others who aren't as morally sound as him. He learns to let go of revenge so that he can actually help Gotham in the future by fighting crime in the name of hope and inspiring others instead of causing the innocent to fear him and the unsound to emulate his principles.
>Can Gotham be saved?
Batman doesn't know. He's hoping that the system cleanse which occurred by him and Riddler's hands can start things anew, but he knows that crime will always exist, and that he'll always need to be around. The end of the film is hopeful, but we all know what will eventually happen to Gotham, black mayor or not.
Stop being a constant pol gay and use your head. Nolanshit is basic level.

Riddler has nothing to do with inceldom and the flooding has been his plan all along. It doesn't come from nowhere and fits well with his character.
But myself as well as many others have been explaining this since it came out, but gays just won't listen to common sense.

>He learns to let go of revenge so that he can actually help Gotham in the future
Literally worthless. That's the point of The Dark Knight. A vigilante will never "help" a city. A vigilante will only make things worse. That's the point of "the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now," Vigilantism is not the key for anything, or the solution of anything. That was the point of The Dark Knight which it made clear and defended. The Batman clearly wants to do that but can't do because they have to start another cinematic universe. There's no way a vigilante "Let's go of his rage" because he will still beat the shit out of the people he arrests, retard. That's still violence above the law. That's not something the movie addresses or can address. It just ends in a sunny day of Batman carrying people to safety. That's what happens when you make superheroes "realistic" and fight against threats. And the most hilarious thing is how Reeves got so scared he obviously had to let audience know Riddler was "the bad guy" and be a Cinemaphilener, instead of just, you know, making the audience see for themselves he was evil, or insane.
>Batman doesn't know.
The movie does know. It tries to do Long Halloween, but is too cowardly to go full Long Halloween and end it in an ambiguous storyline. Instead, it gives you a "fake-happy ending" despite the whole city being destroyed, another mayor getting elected after 20 years of mayors being corrupted, and Batman leaving next to go beat the shit out of some people. You can't make a vigilante realistic, condemn his actions, then forget about it at the last minute

>another mayor getting elected after 20 years of mayors being corrupted
It makes me wonder how would Gotham citizens react to the fact every single mayor they had for the last 20 years has been corrupt, then some chick comes around saying they can still do better after the city is destroyed. It makes Riddler's anger have more sense and I wish they didn't turn him into a full incel schizo but made his motivation have a valid point, that the city was so corrupt everyone thought nothing was ever going to change. Instead they turned him into 4chan.

It's not about him letting go of his rage for the criminals sake. It's him letting go of his rage for his sake, and the sake of the citizens of Gotham. A citizen took his tactic of fear and revenge and spun it into his own mission. Batman won't stop fighting crime. The movie isn't anti-vigilante whatsoever. It's anti-irresponsibility. If you choose to be a vigilante, you must be more careful with how you go about it. Batman can't run around inspiring fear in everyone and do it in the name of vengeance because it will inspire others to emulate him. Instead, he must let the people of Gotham, people like Riddler, that he's fighting for them and not for himself. And when crime inevitably comes, he will combat it not out of a need to feel good about himself, but out of a hope for a better Gotham.
TDK took the easy, anti-Batman route. It's fine, but it's basic, and it's destroyed in the next film. Reeves has chosen a direction that is pro-Batman and takes a tougher stance by validating something illegal so it might help others in the future.
The fact that you did not understand this shows a lot more about your choice of preference when it comes to capeshit.

>And when crime inevitably comes, he will combat it not out of a need to feel good about himself, but out of a hope for a better Gotham.
>"Hey, man. I just want you to know that i am beating your face to a pulp not like, to make myself feel better, but, like... to make kids happy? You got that, right? Just needed for you to know" *goes back to beating the guy up*

That's fucking retarded.

kek, more like
>I'm beating you to a pulp in a way that won't inspire other people to take up vigilantism because I'm going to help victims of crime after I finish arresting you so that they will know that I take this position seriously and won't want to emulate me.

to be fair, batman will always potentially inspire others, but it isn't a bad arc for a batman who won't give up being a vigilante to at least decide to help innocent people while he does it, and continue to fight anyone who potentially copies him negatively.

Also they made his parents seem like total complete pieces of shit. (Worse than Joker that actually kept it vague).

That's what I'm arguing for. Being a vigilante will always result in copycats, but if you're dead set on never stopping, which a good Batman is, then you can at least alter why you're doing what you're doing in hopes that some might not copy you.
A good Batman story has two constants: There are rogues and there is Batman. Nolan wanted to end this, and Reeves wants to keep it going.
That's why Reeves is better.

Are you the dude that played Batman? Nice job all around bromaster

The Batman is one of the worst cases of political propaganda in years. The solution of the movie is literally "trust the system lmao" despite showing for 2 fucking hours how the system fails people. It does some pathetic twist about Riddler being "le evil incel" because Reeves is too much of a gay to let people see for themselves if he was a monster or not. It should've ended when he was captured. And that Harris propaganda truly was terrible.

It dictates more worth than some retard posting in Cinemaphile or Twitter, anon. And that's not saying much. But it's still more.