Why do Batman movies always seem to make Batman a secondary character?
The Nolan movies seemed especially embarassed to be doing something with Batman.
Even the recent The Batman seemed to feel the need to cowboy things up with a lot dopey subplots.
And why isn't there a Batman tv series?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Batman doing batman stuff is actually expensive and actors want people to see their faces.
Sylvester Stallone not wearing the Judge Dredd helmet through the whole of the movie was a studio decision, they reasoned that if they were paying fifteen million dollars for Stallone then they were going to get their moneys worth by displaying him in the film
The thing to do is cast a good but cheaper actor that wont mind or doesn't have the clout to complain, like Karl Urban in Dredd
Or Pattison, he was Batman for the majority of the film but there was just a lot unnecessary extenuating fluffing around
Why did Pattinson refuse to workout?
He clearly did work out, but he didn't juice like Bale did.
>juice
>natural physique of a fighter
>not roid monkey super low bf%
Bale went from AIDS skinny to that in a year. Shut up.
West and Keaton didn't need to workout.
gonna get shit on for this but im glad pattinson didn't juice. Hollywood continually gives actors perfectly tailored pre-sanitized steroid cycles and they become jacked, which is fine, i don't have an issue with that.
but then they continually fricking lie and say "its just chicken and broccoli" which leads to impressionable young men to believe that if they just work real hard they'll look like thor. it's unironically damaging to men's confidence, and nobody who isn't more than a couple years into working out has any idea what natty looks like anymore.
not saying we need to do away with jacked actors or anything but stop fricking lying about it. actors pretend like they care about social issues but have no problem causing body dysmorphia and ruining their fans confidence because they don't want to have some integrity.
As someone on juice this is a massive issue and I always tell people I am either blasting or cruising and show them pics of me natty and me juiced. I would say pretty much everyone on social media with a following is juicing. The natty's who don't juice are rare and they look "achievable" to normies despite clearly being dedicated and working out religiously for 12 years.
One good friend is like that. Has been working out since we were 13 and we're in our 30s now. Some girlfriends have had the audacity to call him achievable. I wanted to strangle them. The work this guy puts in and refuses to go on the juice is inspiring and these b***hes think he looks like a normal guy.
On the other hand I also have many "natty" friends who hopped on SARMs and testosterone "supplements" who swear they are natty and tell everyone they are natty but they look literally like bovines.
yeah it's unironically a huge problem. when beauty standard were too high for girls and it was leading to an epidemic of eating disorders and mental health issues, everybody felt bad and it became a huge issue. but nobody cares about men's mental health so when the same shit is happening to us it just gets written off no big deal.
the worst part is that it destroys the dialogue around the topic. you can't even say it's not possible to put on a frickload of muscle in 6 months or to look like the rock natty because people who are ignorant of the reality will just come to their defense and criticize you as a jelly hater not willing to put in the same work that the stars do.
They've established he's an unstoppable plot armor machine but also a normal man. That means superhuman enemies, at least the way hollywood employs them, are out because they have higher power levels -- but ordinary criminals are much weaker than Batman. There's not much sport in seeing him destroy one for the zillionth time. Hollywood can't write detail, like the endless things Batman must do to operate, and they can't write creative action, so we're down to a series of trash mob pulls before the boss.
Where are his super villains like the Mad Monk, Manbat, Killer Croc, etc?
Its always the same handful - Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Riddler - on rotation is all we get
Manbat could be great for a noir-horror story in which Batman is mistakenly accused of murders Manbat has commited
And there is already a perfect title: Shadow of the Bat
The modern batman is too immature, influenced by Raimi's spiderman. If Baleman or Battinson coexisted with superman and spiderman, they would never get into crime fighting because they're not long-term serial vigilantes like comic Batman. They're not sworn to the quest, so to speak. Comic batman would side with Rorshach out of sheer misanthropy, which is why he's able to challenge superhumans without immediately voiding his bowels and booking a flight to cancun. He's a psychopath.
the first Nolan movie felt like an earlier Raimi-inspired draft was given a hasty rewrite when Nolan came onboard
>If Baleman or Battinson coexisted with superman and spiderman, they would never get into crime fighting because they're not long-term serial vigilantes like comic Batman. They're not sworn to the quest, so to speak
Pure gibberish
>Comic batman would side with Rorshach out of sheer misanthropy
Batman would not side with a murderer
You clearly do not read comic Batman
>we cant dilute the product
Batwoman, Pennyworth, Gotham Knights dont dilute the product?
Keaton did it just wasn't put in screen because Burtons a hack
>Batwoman, Pennyworth, Gotham Knights dont dilute the product?
No. Not eve nclose. One, no one gives a good goddamn about those characters ultimately. Yeah, they're fine but they're nothing. Second, they mention Batman, might have some weird vague cameo or suggestion but Bats himself isn't focused on in those at all.
Bale and Pattinson portrayals are too emotionally stable and vulnerable. Their Batman would DM Superman for help if he ever had a killer croc problem, and "thug" is a problematic concept so they only face joker/riddler types.
to put it another way, batman needs a stronger reason to exist in a world of superhumans than he was given by nolan and whats-his-name
>Batman would not side with a murderer
He wasn't murdering anyone at the time. Batman would rigidly make a decision based on the moral circumstances at hand, you're just mad I mixed comic houses you fat frick.
Don’t forget Titans, they had a Batman as well
>Batman would not side with a murderer
I have no idea why they haven't a theatrical animated Batman movie recently. This would solve all typical live action problems. No actor vanity, no limits on the insane action set pieces you could do, and they could do a more ambitious story.
Mask of the Phantasm was theatrical and a box office bomb, but that was 30 years ago and nobody gave a shit back then.
there was that JLA super pets movie a year ago with keanu voicing batman
There are tons of animated Batman movies, or animated movies with Batman in them. I don't think anyone watches them, theatrical or not.
>And why isn't there a Batman tv series?
There never will be. At least in the immediate future. He's just too profitable as a box office DEFCON 1 button for WB. If you give Batman a show, yeah it'll probably do well because everyone loves Batman, but it'll dilute the product. Sure, of course in theory it could work...but this is WB we're talking about here. Even they have to know that at this point.
The animated batman shows of the 90s were what made most of the batman fans under the age of 40 today. WB needs to stop trying to tee off as hard as they can and work on their short game.
That's just it man, to them there is no short game anymore. They keep trying to lob these hail mary's without taking their time and having a coherent plan. They know they're going down the sink
thats why the batgirl film was shelved, a film intended for streaming wasn't 'cinematic' for theatrical release
>but it'll dilute the product.
It's already diluted mate. They have to shuffle out Joker to get them to that billion.
Batman has always been about the villians
I know exactly what you mean. But to be fair he does look pretty stupid and embarrassing.
no he doesn't
its all about the framing and lighting
Burton and Nolan both seemed to treat the films as an exercise to establish themselves so they could do their own preferred things and used the film to pursue their own interests - for Burton it was production design and Nolan it was playing with cameras
I’m talking specifically about Nolan’s batman. It looks silly in the gritty, and ultra realistic take.
bad framing and lighting
no he doesn't the same reason works fine
>It looks silly in the gritty, and ultra realistic take.
Batman will always look silly you child. Its inherently silly. Thats why these grimdark takes are stupid he becomes batman because Gotham is looney tunes crazy. Batman works in the Burton movies and just looks silly and dumb in the grimdark movies.
he should not be brightly lit like that
he should be in shadows
and also the cloak needs come come around the shoulders and envelop him, not hang off the back
And Batmans hunt for the villain is key - remember what Homer Simpson said: Batman's a scientist
Formerly Homer Gimpson.
>cloak
cape, anon
it's called a cape
batman has a cape
its a cloak
it envelops him
Because the Batman films tend to portray Batman in his solitary phase when it's just him and Alfred, sometimes Lucius, as tech support..
In most of the Batman movies he's not having to deal with Dick, the Robins, Barbara in the field.
Anyhow, most superhero comic book story arcs revolve around a villain. The main attraction is always the villain unless the story arc is all about team drama or a team up.
His villains are equally interesting and make him more interesting
because batman (and superman) are bad characters.