Why is it trendy to not like this Batman?
>best movies BY FAR
>best villains BY FAR
>most well thought out batmobile
>cool tactical suit with great screen presence
>cool voice
Why is it trendy to not like this Batman? >best movies BY FAR. >best villains BY FAR
>best movies BY FAR
Only one of them is good, and that's mainly thanks to Heath Ledger. Rises in particular was one of the worst films I've seen at the theater. Batman himself sucks too. He sounds like his mouth is full of gravel. Between his stiff movement and terrible fight choreography not only does he sound like a moron but he looks like one too.
Begins > Knight > Rises
Heath Ledger wasn't in Batman Begins, though
They're pretentious
I'm glad Nolan era it's over and that those movies are aging badly, never liked them
New movie is better than that pompous smug batman frick him
Frick all you zoomers who try to be le edgy by not liking a thing that is objectively good. Go watch marvel on Disney+ while sitting on your bad dragon
>objectively good
>superhero slop
Pick one and only one.
how is tdk objectively good you stupid Black person? it's objectively bad
>nonsensical story
>logical errors handwaved because it's capeshit
>terrible camera work
>awful sound mixing
everything about tdk is incredibly trash. i can't say one good thing about it. to this day i still haven't seen the entire film because it constantly offended all of my senses
This is a contrarian take. I saw it on opening night and everyone there thought it was great.
It being successful with critics and audiences is exactly why it became popular to suggest it's bad.
>contrarian
reddit buzzword used by redditors because they are incapable of defending their position
he then throws in an argumentum ad populum for good measure. have a nice day, redditor
>oh no, the bad website is here!
Awful bait, follow your own advice but for real
you're a homosexual, kid. you are the cancer. you are the problem
I'm likely older than you, frick off boomer
Pretentious is just a word people use to describe things that went over their heads
>Pretentious is just a word people use to describe things that went over their heads
Now see you are actually pretentious kek.
>he thinks a batman movie is going over anybody's head
literally brain damaged by postmodern media
New movie only had riddler going for it. Pattinson was ass, and so was nu catwoman
It had a solid Riddler, an amazing Penguin, a good Batman, and a Batman that actually acts like a detective.
That pretty much makes it de facto the best batman
>and a Batman that actually acts like a detective.
He couldn't''t solve shit and was literally handed all the clues and answers by others.
That’s better than the ones who don’t do any detective work at all
But Batman does detective work in pretty much every movie.
The Batman, though, was sold almost entirely on being a thriller where Batman FINALLY gets to be a detective first and foremost and instead delivered a movie where Batman is a fricking moron that doesn't find or solve anything and just lucks out on stumbling on things or people that point the fricking obvious to him, or as the corrupt cop/bouncer just tells him the entire plot of the movie.
thats because its about batman's first year. you morons don't understand its an origin story, where batman is learning how to do shit. he fails a lot and at the end learns where to apply his specialties
It is better in your metrics but it had no substance, so it won't be remembered in film history unlike nolan's ones unfortunately.
The batmans which will that have him as a detective are the original ones, which had substance, obviously. The Dark Knight was a different take which it did very well in its own right. Batman in that is not a detective he's a counterterrorist, cos the film was doing a post 9/11 thing.
It's not trendy, snydergays just think putting fatfleck in a shitty costume is good
89 is the best Batman movie and nothing else comes close.
>89
That Batman is the absolute worst. Nicholson is great but Keaton is woefully miscast. Typical Burton homosexualry.
Keaton is great as Batman, but a bit off as Bruce. He's still the second best actor in the role, after Affleck.
His recluse Bruce Wayne was the best. Only bullshit with Batman ‘89 is that Knox didn’t know about Bruce’s parents being killed from the start
Fatfleck sucks
Best rendition of bats and bruce, only overshadowed by Kevin Conroy. Also, Nicholson is better than ledger, and only overshadowed by Mark Hamill. Bvs had the best batsuit though.
>Keaton is woefully miscast
1988 called, they want their meme back
Batman 89 is restrained Burton. Returns is where he was allowed to do whatever he wanted.
Boomers weren't beaten enough as children
How is it "trendy" to not like this Batman? Dark Knight is one of the most universally beloved movies ever made. His voice is just dumb.
No it wasn’t, it was based and made sense
You're a moronic idiot.
>MUH MASKED VOICE
He can mask his voice without sounding fricking stupid. Or mask it minimally, it's a fricking movie. It would take two minutes for anyone with half a brain to deduce that the guy rolling around with billions of dollars worth of sophisticated experimental military tech was the billionaire who owned the experimental military arms manufacturing outfit in Gotham City whether or not he did a goofy throat cancer voice. Suspension of disbelief
It was fine in Begins. No idea what the frick they were thinking with it post begins.
I appreciate Nolan's take on Batman, I just don't enjoy the combination of really serious heavy mood and a boring realistic-looking Gotham with ridiculous comic book plots. It feels off to me.
read the killing joke or the dark knight returns dweeb
What's the point of even calling him Batman if his black logo is invisible on his black suit
Because he is still a man dressed like a giant (albeit heavily stylized) bat?
Returns is the best one, followed by 89
Finally, a man with common sense
Burtonespecially and Schumacher's run is still the best.
/thread
they’re big movies
for you
Superhero movies in general have grown out of style. It's what, been 15 years since Iron Man came out?
It's the best one and I'm tired of pretending it's not
i hate capeshit so i went into the trilogy with no bias and i thought the first movie was the best and the last was straight garbage
>cool tactical suit
this. Begins bros... why did the series fall?
they excepted a series in the wreckage. brother
You're a moron. He's the meme batman. Too many memes. moronic voice. The only thing that made that trilogy was the Joker.
Snyder's Batman unironically ruined the Nolan movies for me. Could never go back to Baleman's shitty elbow throwing fighting style after this.
this is goofy
Not nearly as goofy as any of Bale's fight scenes.
No, this is goofy. Looks like straight out of the 60s show. The way he turns to the camera at the end. Kek!
I’ve always thought that suit just looked like shit especially the cowl, the BB and TDK suits look so meticulously designed idk maybe it’s just me
its supposed to look rough. batman is in year two and is still kit-bashing his shit instead of having it all done custom.
It's moronic and cope. He's a billionaire, so he would realistically have access to top of the line gear. Why would he not prepare for his life threatening war on crime by getting the best possible gear? Nolan had it right.
I never understood people who didn’t like how bale’s Batman fought but praised this, it’s the same kind of fighting style
>be Pattinson
>no one really cares about your Batman even though you're the latest one
Can someone explain this? Recency bias should prop him up, but nope.
pattison is permanently stained as "that gay vampire from twilight"
You're fricking moronic
hello sirs
Yeah it's a pretty cool fight. Too bad it's in such a fricking terrible movie.
>we will never get more Batfleck
It's not fair, bros...
Since when? As far as I know these are still widely considered top shelf among capeshit.
The action here is very turn your brain off good. It’s good to see Batman tear ass like it’s the Arkham games but then it dawns on you that he’s actually killing half the guys during this fight scene. By this movie’s own admission he has no qualms about killing random goons but can’t stand even the possibility that Superman might one day do the same. And then there’s the Snyder cut, where according to that he can kill random goons any day of the week but is too pussy to strangle the Joker even in his dreams.
>The action here is very turn your brain off good. It’s good to see Batman tear ass like it’s the Arkham games but then it dawns on you that he’s actually killing half the guys during this fight scene. By this movie’s own admission he has no qualms about killing random goons but can’t stand even the possibility that Superman might one day do the same. And then there’s the Snyder cut, where according to that he can kill random goons any day of the week but is too pussy to strangle the Joker even in his dreams.
You got filtered.
>It’s good to see Batman tear ass like it’s the Arkham games but then it dawns on you that he’s actually killing half the guys during this fight scene.
Who cares? The "no kill rule" is gay childish shit that doesn't work in any sort of real world context as demonstrated in the Nolan movies where he's constantly going on about not killing people but then proceeds to kill people when it's absolutely necessary.
>The "no kill rule" is gay childish shit that doesn't work in any sort of real world context
You have to be 18+ to post here.
He is not wrong, though.
Even if Batman was intent on always pulling his punches, just by the rules of averages there'd be several nights where he ends up causing the death of a henchmen just because that guy landed in a weird way or Batman punched by chance in a bad spot. You can't do violence night in and night out without a fricking things up one day. It is impossible.
It doesn't have to follow the law of averages, it's a story. You'll understand this when you get a little older / overcome your autism.
We all understand that. We're talking about Nolan's Batman here, which was trying to be somewhat grounded.
Hell, there is an interview where Christopher Nolan himself called Batman's no kill-rule bullshit from a story stand-point saying that action movies as a genre demand that bad guys get theirs, otherwise audiences won't care about the third act climax. And that he'd often leave Goyer to figure out the bullshit way in which the bad guys would die without dirtying Batman's hands because he himself couldn't give much fricks about it.
This is why Ra's al Ghul, Harvey Dent, Bane, and Talia al Ghul all die at the end of his movies. He wanted those frickers dead just so he wouldn't leave movie goers dissatisfied. Goyer was the one always coming up with explanations for why Batman isn't in the wrong or the one pulling the trigger on them.
>I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you, either
If this was Goyer's way around it then Goyer doesn't understand Batman.
It was Goyer, yes, but to be fair Goyer had constantly tardwrangle Nolan about every little aspect inherit to Batman.
Batman Begins DVD specials were hilarious because of this. They were nothing but episodes of Nolan being an autistic butthole and complaining about every little detail regarding Batman's character and world and forcing Goyer and DC comic writers to come up with sensible solutions capable of satisfying his stisms.
For example Batman's gloves. Nolan went absolute psycho about them. Why Batman needs gloves? Why are there spikes on said gloves? Why do you need them to be black? Why does Batman wear a cape? Why do they need to look like bat wigs? And so on.
>We all understand that. We're talking about Nolan's Batman here, which was trying to be somewhat grounded.
Everyone lets Nolan's aesthetic realism lead them to ignore the fact that they're still absolutely unrealistic comic book movies
>Hell, there is an interview where Christopher Nolan himself called Batman's no kill-rule bullshit from a story stand-point saying that action movies as a genre demand that bad guys get theirs, otherwise audiences won't care about the third act climax.
1. He's wrong, everyone loved Dark Knight even though Joker lived at the end and killing Harvey Dent was the least interesting thing about the movie
2. That's still no justification for Batman murdering random goons
>You have to be 18+ to post here.
Says the homosexual that wants his superheros to be depicted as two dimensional cartoon characters in live action.
Oh and here's what Bob Kane had to say about Batman's no kill rule
>Batman co-creator Bob Kane remembered the creation of Batman’s no-kill code with bitterness. In his autobiography Batman and Me, he stated, “The whole moral climate changed in the 1940-1941 period. You couldn’t kill or shoot villains anymore. DC prepared its own comics code which every artist and writer had to follow. He wasn’t the Dark Knight anymore with all the censorship.
Literally the entire reason that nonsense rule was created was to sell more comics to children. Time to grow up and accept that you can't be a violent vigilante without breaking some skulls. Burton and Snyder understood this.
>Says the homosexual that wants his superheros to be depicted as two dimensional cartoon characters in live action.
Says the homosexual who cares about superhero "cinema"
If you don't care then why are you here arguing about it you deranged gay?
I just like to argue. It's kind of a mental illness
>Oh and here's what Bob Kane had to say about Batman
~~*Bob Kane*~~ is a known fraud who contributed almost nothing to Batman apart from his name. If Bob Kane said this of the "no kill" rule I have more respect for it, not less.
Doesn't change the fact that it was the comics code that mandated that rule in order to sell more comics to kids.
That looks horrible and you have shit taste. Elbow strikes are way better than Fatman’s dance moves.
Nah he's right. The fight choreography in Nolan's movies was original but not well thought out or befitting.
The Batman games are literally filled with elbow strikes. No moronic double punches though.
Yeah, but the style they went with was specifically centered around defense. It's a really bizarre style that has some practical use IRL but looks underwhelming on the screen.
Kung Fu for example isn't very practical as a martial art but it looks good in action.
Well I’ll have to agree to disagree because the only parts of the batfleck choreography I like is the kicks
The problem with the Nolan's Batman movies when it came to the stunt work was that Nolan got super hyped up about the keysi method, which is a fake fighting style meant to be used on clubs and such where you pretty much use your elbows, knees, head, and whatever else you can find around you like glasses or ashtrays to beat people up. Not that it actually does work. It is just a meme fighting style some wannabe Jiu Jitsu guy came up with.
who unironically cares about fight scenes in movies (other than oldboy)? Teenagers?
>who cares about fight scenes in action movies?
You're seriously asking this? Half the appeal of superheros, and Batman in particular, is watching someone in peak physical condition beat the frick out of bad guys with expert precision.
that's moronic, it's all choreographed. Also it's only men hitting each other
Tbqh I honestly only liked batman for the dark tone and the philosophical things, like having to let the girl die in the first movie. Pretty chic. Don't bully.
>Tbqh I honestly only liked batman for the dark tone and the philosophical things
Well ya that's the other half of the appeal but I also like watching a dude built like a brick shithouse completely dismantle a room full of mooks
All batman movies are amazing and incredibly entertaining except for the two goofy ones from the mid '90s.
seconded
PENIS POOP
How isn't it trendy, TDK was the biggest film of the year, and stayed the biggest film of the year for a few years
1986 year old bomber here, I cannot emphasize enough how much I HATE Nolan's Batman. There are absolute TRASH
Batman 89 > Returns > Forever > The Batman
That is peak live action Batman so far.
You're just one idiot with a stupid opinion then.
Nolan’s Batman as a protagonist is boring and has no development past the first film.
The second and third movies were only made because the first one was successful, the second was hard carried by Ledger, the third was a shitshow, 2/3 of the movie was just exposition waiting for Batman to show up and kill the bad guy at the very end.
Nolan signed a contract to make 3 films.
Why do buttholes like you make up your own stories?
The only good thing about Nolan's batman movies was that Heath Ledger played into the badly written dialogue and somehow made it work. The way Nolan writes his movies is just insane. Hundred million dollar movies and the script is just this rough draft he wrote in an hour consisting of this ''clever'' dialogue where every character blurts out what Nolan thinks is a deep line. The characters just wait for their que to read out a line that they are going to say no matter what the other character says.
They are like NPCs. Say the line. Wait. Other character says their line. Wait. Nolan will write a line that cuts off and the character will speak their line that cut midw- and then there's a pause and the other character speaks their line. There is no real interruption, the character just stopped their line and waited for the other character to ''interrupt'' a line that doesn't exist. Often it's like two characters have completely different monologues that don't relate to eachother. The script is more of a rough draft that gets the gist of what is happening but then there is no revision to make the dialogue flow more naturally and make sense.
This worked really well for Heath Ledger, like he is just off in his own world and only fricking with people with pre-written lines he prepared when meeting with people.
>Does it depress you commissioner, to know, just how few tangerines you really have?
You're right, this line never made sense
You have autism
For me it's Val Kilmer
Rare and strange take
The fight scenes aren't high on my priorities when judging a batman movie. They probably add up to less than 5 minutes of screen time in each one, and it's more about style. Nolan chose to have the fighting mostly obscured and quickly edited in Begins to put the viewer in the mind of the thugs being attacked; we don't know where he is or where he's coming from. They discussed it in the DVD. The movies are so much more than the few fight scenes that you may fail to appreciate for the right reasons.
>The fight scenes aren't high on my priorities when judging a batman movie
Literally half of the appeal of Batman is that he's an expertly trained martial artist/ninja. You're missing out on a huge aspect of the character if you fail to portray that in live action.
i don't think it's any deeper than that this is one of a half dozen superhero movies that's actually decent and the resulting enthusiasm results in contrarian/snob backlash. you can see the same thing happening with those new spider-verse movies
>you can see the same thing happening with those new spider-verse movies
I wanted to like the first one, but it's a bland story with a boring as shit protagonist carried entirely by the art style. that what's up danger song sucks balls too
I rewatched TDKR a week ago and the movie is genuinely just awful in every way apart from the cinematography and soundtrack.
The bad dialogue is not just the classic Bane memes, it's every single line every character says. The movie is full of baffling editing and fight choreography. The pumping bombastic music only serves to make the movie's downfalls intentionally goofy
Cinemaphile is contrarian by nature. If it's supposedly smart, they call it "pseud", if critics enjoy them, they're "pretentious". These same people will defend Michael Bay and shit on Spielberg. Their opinions are based on politics, trying to be anti-everything, and a really narrow and obscure taste of whatever niche "kino" is ignored by everyone. They're post-post-ironic and half of them are just posting bait on purpose. Nolan's batmans were just about objectively the best there have been and likely ever will be. It was a rare treat to have a dude like him dabbling in hero shit, and it's mostly what's responsible for the glut of comic movies we have everywhere now, for better or worse. Just look at the aggregated reviews and scores for them vs. the other batmen of varying quality. These are fricking idiots here and your thread is playing into their hands.
Best Batman
Worse than Batman & Robin. One was meant to be a comedy, the other was unintentionally hilarious.
>Worse than Batman & Robin
not by a long shot
I was a bit disappointed with it. Actually went even more realism than Bale which i thought was impossible. It wasn't really Batman, more like a raggedy renegade. Also in my mind, Batman should never be at sunlight helping people to get into a rescue helicopters.
I want more gothic fantasy Batman where you barely see what he is
I completely agree. Seeing him spew on about "hope" seemed like something Superman would do
Decent movie, terrible Batman. He comes across more like edgelord Nightwing than anything else. He has absolutely no presence at all and I don't believe for a second that he'd strike fear into the hearts of Gotham's criminals.
I enjoyed watching it but it would have been far greater without Catwoman.
100 posts into this thread and the enigma of the Batnipples remains unsolved.
I liked it but The Crow is the superior goth kino. And Matt Reeves didn't do anything that Nolan didn't already do.
>And Matt Reeves didn't do anything that Nolan didn't already do.
Nolan made an anti-Batman movie. Nolan's movies are what you get when you don't really want to make a Batman movie but you have to do it anyway. The whole thing is a response to Batman & Robin. WB had this IP but they already fricked it up and needed to reboot it in a way that people wouldn't draw comparisons. This resulted in a Batman movie that did everything it could possibly do to not be a Batman movie, because WB is the world's dumbest company and the board of directors is made up of seven talking gerbils.
I'm not trying to shit on Nolan here, I think he actually does really like Batman in some strange British way, but it's pretty miraculous that one out of the three movies happened to be really good in spite of the studio mandate. Batman Begins is an alright movie, too. Rises is a giant dumpster fire with some fun moments.
As far as the comparison between Reeves and Nolan, their movies are night and day. The Pattinson flick feels like an actual year 2 Batman movie. I really don't understand what people mean when they say that it's the same thing as the Nolan movies. My hunch is that those people don't really read Batman, because this movie is pretty in line with everything the comics have been for the last 40ish years. I think his biggest mistake was in using all the "realistic" villains in one movie. They should have gone with a more fantastical villain, but for better or worse, Riddler, Catwoman, Joker and Penguin are the rogues that everyone knows so that's what he went with. But I could easily see Manbat or Mad Hatter living in this world.
>Mad Hatter
This would be an excellent villain for the Reeves-verse. It's such a creepy character and they've never really attempted it in live action. At least not in the movies, I didn't watch Gotham so he might have turned up there. But they should do a loose adaptation of Robin Year 1 with Tetch as a child trafficker.
>Nolan made an anti-Batman movie.
What do you think Reeves' The Batman is, you fricking idiot?
A Batman movie, you fricking idiot.
That hates the character and is terrible to boot.
>That hates the character
I'm pretty sure I've been seeing you post this sentiment for like a month now. Either that or you and all the other people that shit talk this movie on Cinemaphile are a hivemind. But it doesn't hate Batman, you just don't know what Batman is. You think Batman is the Punisher. He ain't
Everyone with a brain recognizes The Batman as the disingenuous anti white propaganda that it is. The fact that you're willing to so vehemently defend it says a lot about you.
>Everyone with a brain recognizes The Batman as the disingenuous anti white propaganda that it is.
Good. I hope da evil juice finally finish off the white race once and for all so I can stop hearing you pussy homosexuals cry over every goddamn thing.
>mask off moment
But once the whites are gone who are you going to leech off of and blame all your problems on Pablo?
We'll have to wait and see, won't we? I hope it's the Chinese. have a nice day, btw. Literally hang your pussy ass in a closet, b***h
Lol stay mad subhuman brownoid. And btw the chinks will be a lot less merciful to your kind than whites have been. Careful what you wish for.
I got a feeling your throwing stones from a glass house
moron, understand this: you can't like the character yet proclaim to hate that he beats up criminals as a vigilante. Half the fun of Batman is the fact he goes out every night to stop criminals and other low-lifes from hurting honest people.
The only ones that have an issue with the fact that Batman acts as a vigilante thug are lefties that feel uncomfortable with capeshit heroes because most of the stories feature them beating up common criminals. Specially when said superheroes are white and somewhat rich. We're talking about the ones that blame criminality on social economic factors and question if capeshit comics are fascist.
The Batman was tailor made for this type of crowd. It turns an aspect of Batman into a huge issue when it isn't meant to be one while coming up with another more palatable aspect of the character as some sort of solution, probably because this is a blockbuster after all and you can't go full hog with the idea of the character being problematic by having as a solution the character just giving up the cowl and donating all his money to the poor. If the director had any guts that's what he would have done it.
>moron, understand this: you can't like the character yet proclaim to hate that he beats up criminals as a vigilante
The movie does not REMOTELY criticize him for beating up criminals. He beats up every single criminal at the end of the goddamn movie, you dunce! The lesson he learns is to balance his persona such that he is not simply the embodiment of vengeance, but is also a symbol for hope. Answer me this question BRUTALLY honestly. Do you think that in the sequel to this movie, Batman is not going to beat up bad guys? Do you truly think that in your heart of hearts? Do you think it is likely that they are going to make Batman some kind of EMT from now on in these movies?
>The movie does not REMOTELY criticize him for beating up criminals. He beats up every single criminal at the end of the goddamn movie, you dunce!
We seen wailing on a criminal that is meant to be another stand-in for toxic angry white guys and what do we get as a climax? The PG13 version of a bloody white face spitting out that he is VENGEANCE! Uh oh, it is super effective! Batman is shaken to his core. Finally the rich and white angry male realize that he is exactly like the other rich white males that Catwoman talked about and decides to change. Time to atone for his white privilege like the perfect black politician that just got shot for being black and awesome told him to. Now Batman will stop being angry and will use his privilege to save people. Cue in that boring ass music cue taken from Darth Vader theme.
You've scripted a fictional movie in your own head. If you think that the riddler's goons are a stand-in for every white person, you're more brain-broken than I initially thought (which is wild, because I thought you were pretty goddamn brainbroken). The reason you hate the movie is not because it criticizes all white people, it's because it criticize you specifically. It hurted your feelings. Shit, I like this movie even more now than I did ten minutes ago. If the rest of the trilogy is just Pattinson sitting on the Batcomputer and calling polcels moronic homosexuals for three hours at a stretch, I might just fricking cum. It should win every Oscar for the rest of time.
>If you think that the riddler's goons are a stand-in for every white person, you're more brain-broken than I initially thought
You're media illiterate if you can't pick up on what the movie is trying to do.
It criticized people who think like you. And your assblasted reaction to the movie tells me it did it's job well.
I don't care about the movie other than thinking that it is a terrible and pozed Batman movie.
If that's the case you wouldn't be wasting your time in this thread, anon. U mad. U so fricking mad u can't see straight. Y u so mad, bro?
You're definitely a homosexual, if you like this movie it must be a movie for homosexuals.
>I'm not a bad white, I'm One Of The Good Ones
>Please Black folk, accept me!
have a nice day.
Do you think there are no bad whites? Not even one? Not even the whites that hate you for your chudly spergings?
ESL poster spotted
>Do you think that in the sequel to this movie, Batman is not going to beat up bad guys? Do you truly think that in your heart of hearts? Do you think it is likely that they are going to make Batman some kind of EMT from now on in these movies?
See, the reason why The Batman sucks so much is that despite its attempts to deconstruct Batman as a less problematic figure they can't stop milking the character. If the director had any real talent or guts he'd have shown Batman in the end putting down his cowl, taking up a suit, and show himself announcing that he will help fund the rebuild efforts as well funding the black woman as a mayor candidate. Thus atoning himself for the sin of being white, rich, and toxic.
But they can't do that because WB needs another Batman franchise so they half ass the end and will milk the IP for all its worth with dumb TV shows tie-in and other nonsense.
Why would he need to "put down the cowl"? Batman generally helps Gotham as both Bruce Wayne the philanthropist and Batman the Caped Crusader. He can do both. The problem with Batman in this movie is he was completely selfishly motivated and his efforts weren't actually helping the city. He's so focused on his own pain and need for vengeance that he's a c**t to everyone, including the people he's supposed to be helping. This is something that the Batman character frequently experiences throughout his life. The day to day comics are often about him going too far and having to pull it back.
This dynamic is usually explored using the various Robins, but Hollywood is still to chickenshit to put Robin in the goddamn movies. Honestly, in my opinion, there is no Batman without Robin. Without him the movies have to scramble to come up with new reasons for Batman to realize when he goes too far and it rarely works. Bruce is a flawed individual and he is often his own worst enemy. But when Robin is there he can see what he's doing wrong, because Robin will usually mirror his actions because kids are like sponges who model themselves after the people they look up to. Tim Drake literally says this out loud, more or less, and steps in after Jason died and says directly that Batman needs a Robin.
>This is something that the Batman character frequently experiences throughout his life. The day to day comics are often about him going too far and having to pull it back.
>This dynamic is usually explored using the various Robins, but Hollywood is still to chickenshit to put Robin in the goddamn movies.
You just pointed out what have made Batman comics so consistently shitty in the last decades. This tired old trope is used by hack editors and writers whenever they are trying to push a new character. Be it a new Robin, a new Batgirl, a new Batwoman, or a new rogue turned hero like Harley Quinn. They always shit on Batman as a character and turn him into the antagonist of the story that the new cool character have to push back against and point the error of his ways. It is shit and it has been killing Batman as a brand.
Here they used the same old tired ass trope but to push their woke message.
Honestly, I have no idea what you want, bruh. Batman going to dark and being brought back to reason by Robin has been happening since...The 40s. I think the actual problem is you don't really like Batman. You want him to be what the Riddler was in this movie, but that isn't who he is and it never has been.
I think it's a veiled Snyderpajeet. He claims to like the Nolan flicks, but what he really wants is for Batman to be BvS Batman. Just going around murdering people and defending the white race or something. I don't fricking know.
Idiot, Zack Snyder was explicitly set out to deconstruct both Superman and Batman. What the frick are you talking about?
Riddler was also "woke" though because he hated rich people. Specifically rich white people. Did you see him kill a single nog? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The movie is racist. I am being oppressed
>whole movie makes Black folk out to be saints
>no Black person bad guys
>this is okay because pol incels incels pol incels
There are two and a half black people in this movie and one of them is a criminal prostitute. I guess maybe it was the white half of her that was the bad part though. Either way, that's only two saintly Black folk. Hardly enough to convince me of their superiority.
In this movie Catwoman was pretty much being forced to steal shit so she could get closer to the truth.
She was a prostitute. An absolute bawd of a prostitute. I've not even a modicum of respect for her. And Anne Hathaway was hotter. And Michelle Phifer was even hotter than both of them. And Julie Newmar was also hotter than Hathaway and Kravitz, but not hotter than Pfeifer
Stop generalizing shit.
There is a difference between Robin or Batgirl forcing Batman to be more conscious of his actions and making him take more fatherly role and the comics that exist to just turn Batman into a huge butthole so the new character can shine and teach Batman what an butthole he has been.
One is cool and wholesome, and knows how to balance shit so no character comes out looking badly. The latter is just the writer trying to sell his new cool character by dunking on the more popular one that made the branding what it is.
If you can't see that i don't know what is wrong with you. This has been a consistent problem with Batman comics since Chuck Dixon who tried to sell Nightwing by rewriting all the past comics to change the dynamic between Bruce and Dick, just so he could write Bruce as a major dick.
>bruh
frick off broccoli head
>The movie does not REMOTELY criticize him for beating up criminals. He beats up every single criminal at the end of the goddamn movie, you dunce!
Yes he gloriously beats up the angry incels at the end who actually have legitimate issues with the corrupt establishment kek. Then Batman realizes he’s been doing everything wrong and that going after low life criminals and corrupt politicians actually made Gotham WORSE. The only thing he does that the film shows in a positive light is him putting down people who actually threaten the status quo.
>Batman needs to be a symbol of hope
No, he’s not Superman. Batman in his inception and most other runs and portrayals is supposed to be a symbol that strikes fear in victimizers first and foremost, silver age aside which is a whole other beast. He does save people this way and obviously that’s why he’s doing it but he doesn’t care if people love him for it or not. This modern liberal view of Batman is a recent invention.
>Yes he gloriously beats up the angry incels at the end who actually have legitimate issues with the corrupt establishment kek
Okay, so you indirectly answered my question. Finally. You think the Riddler was the hero. You want Batman to kill more israelites or something.
>No, he’s not Superman. Batman in his inception and most other runs and portrayals is supposed to be a symbol that strikes fear in victimizers first and foremost, silver age aside which is a whole other beast
Batman "in his inception" lasted for a few years, if that. Whether or not you want to blame the comics code for making him more heroic is a valid enough discussion, but it's simply who the character is now. They can make him a ruthless vigilante if they want, but people usually hate that. Batman is not the sort of character who would beat up a bunch of thugs and retreat into the shadows while their victim is crying in fear thinking he'd turn around and start wailing on him next. Batman is a symbol of fear in the eyes of criminals, but the citizens of Gotham City should not be looking up at the Bat signal and shitting themselves like Batman and the Joker are the same guy.
>Batman is not the sort of character who would beat up a bunch of thugs and retreat into the shadows while their victim is crying in fear thinking he'd turn around and start wailing on him next.
You're arguing against an argument nobody made.
Nobody is asking Batman to be the Punisher or saying that Robert Pattinson's Batman should remain how he was at the beginning of the movie. If anything, we are shitting on that initial portrayal of the character because the movie made that shit so over-the-top and cringe basically turning Batman into a strawman version of a toxic and angry white male just so they could later reverse that shit with a half-brained change and cringe ass monologue.
Nobody is saying that we don't want the Batman that rescue women and kids from danger or that smile whenever he is with his family or friends. If anything, we're saying that this shouldn't chose between Batman beating up common criminals and rescuing innocents precisely because we don't see an issue with him beating up common criminals. That is essentially 80% of his comics and 99% of superhero comics in general.
The only ones problematizing the fact that Batman beat up criminals is this fricking movie because the makers see that as a problematic aspect of the character due to the uncomfortable optics of him being a white and rich.
Do you understand now you fricking spazz?
Batman Begins showed a young Batman being an angry guy who was pretty ruthless against criminals but at no point was that shown as a problematic thing. If anything, BB followed the example of O'Neil and Miller's comics where Bruce finding the bats beneath his ancestral home is almost like as a young and lost guy finally finding their true calling like some sort of priesthood. It is a good thing that Bruce finally know where to redirect his anger in a healthy way.
That's the main difference between the older comics from the 70's and the modern comics from the 2000s onward. Back then Bruce Wayne becoming Batman WAS him dealing with his trauma and anger in a healthy and constructive way. Nowadays Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is portrayed as nothing but some sort of unhealthy coping that is damaging his psych and creating all sorts of problems to society at large.
>Nobody is asking Batman to be the Punisher or saying that Robert Pattinson's Batman should remain how he was at the beginning of the movie.
No, you say this all the fricking time, you evidently just don't realize it. Your big critique throughout this entire discussion has been that the movie criticizes Batman for being "a vigilante". It does not. It critiques Batman for being the character he is at the beginning of this movie.
>If anything, we're saying that this shouldn't chose between Batman beating up common criminals and rescuing innocents precisely because we don't see an issue with him beating up common criminals.
This is a borderline incoherent sentence, but I'll try my best. The movie doesn't criticize him for beating up common criminals. It's simply not a thing that happens. You are pretending the movie is saying this because you have to do that, lest your argument simply become "I don't like it because woke". Which is a fine argument. Just make that argument and be honest about it.
At the beginning of this movie, Batman is self absorbed and using his war on crime as a way to numb his own pain. He has completely abandoned Bruce Wayne and does not see any point in being that person. He also has no appreciation for Alfred or anyone else in his life. He is a version of Batman that is going too hard. He then realizes that this version of Batman is not doing what he's aiming to do, which is to make Gotham safer, and is inspiring extremist whackos to go around killing people. By the end of the movie, he's learned that he needs to expand his focus and also be a hero instead of just someone who goes around trying to stop crime with his fists alone.
At no point does it criticize Batman, because for two thirds of this movie Batman effectively doesn't exist yet.
>The movie doesn't criticize him for beating up common criminals.
I am just going to ignore your entire post because i read this part and you're completely wrong. The movie is definitely shitting on the character for beating up common criminals. If you can't realize that you're a fricking midtwit and deserve to like this shitty ass movie.
Fine, shit-for-brains. Pretend I'm wrong because you can't fricking read more than seven words at a time.
>At no point does it criticize Batman, because for two thirds of this movie Batman effectively doesn't exist yet.
The intro literally show Batman hunting and scaring criminals in cool ways before Pattinson start monologuing like a cringe ass moron and tells us that despite being active for two years the crime rates have gone up and he is being not only ineffectual but a detriment. It is basically a bait and switch trying to shame the audience for liking that aspect of the character.
If you can't see that you're a moron.
Yes, you think Batman only exists to beat up criminals and scare people. You're wrong about who and what Batman is, but you're not going to stop being wrong, so what's the point of this discussion?
BATMAN SCARING AND BEATING UP CRIMINALS IS COOL AND HALF THE APPEAL OF BATMAN.
GET THIS, gayGGOT: BATMAN DOESN'T STOP BEING A HERO BECAUSE HE IS SCARY AND MEAN TO BAD PEOPLE, IF ANYTHING HE IS A HERO BECAUSE OF THAT. HIM SCARING AND HURTING CRIMINALS DOESN'T STOP HIM FROM SAVING LITTLE CHILDREN OR TRYING TO REFORM VILLAINS THAT WANT TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS.
YOU SHOULDN'T CHOOSE ONE ASPECT IN DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER. THE MOVIE TRYING TO SHAME AUDIENCES FOR LIKING THE "MORE PROBLEMATIC" ASPECTS OF THE CHARACTER IS FRICKING BULLSHIT.
And this is why Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan's movies will forever remain as classics. Because they show all aspects of the character as cool and heroic, including the fact that he is scary and mean to criminals. Frick criminals.
>BATMAN SCARING AND BEATING UP CRIMINALS IS COOL AND HALF THE APPEAL OF BATMAN.
Yes. Half the appeal. Not all of it. You are PRETENDING that this is a movie where Batman learns not to do that. It isn't. This is a movie wherein Batman learns he NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN ONLY THAT, YOU LITERAL GODDAMN DOWNIE! IT IS NOT SUBTRACTING THAT FROM HIS CHARACTER, IT IS ADDING THE REST OF HIS CHARACTER! HE STILL BEATS UP CRIMINALS AND SCARES PEOPLE! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGOT
GODDAMN
NO, THIS IS A SHIT MOVIE WHERE THE DIRECTOR HATES THE CHARACTER AND TRY TO PROBLEMATICIZE AN INHERIT ASPECT OF THE CHARACTER BECAUSE SIDE ASPECT IS TOO PROBLEMATIC FOR MODERN SENSIBILITIES. THEY TURN THE CHARACTER INTO A STRAWMAN OF THAT ASPECT AND HAVE EVERY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE POINT THAT OUT OVER, AND OVER AGAIN IN REALLY HEAVYHANDED WAYS AND THE MOVIE ENDS WITH ANOTHER CRINGE-ASS MONOLGUING OUTRIGHT STATING THIS DUMB SHIT TAKE.
EVERYTHING IN THIS MOVIE IS DESIGN TO CALL OUT THE TOXICITY OF WHITE AND ANGRY DUDES BECAUSE THAT'S A MODERN TALKING POINT BETWEEN LEFITIES THAT CIRCLEJERK ONE ANOTHER ON TWITTER.
You'd have to be a legit braindead moron to not pick up on any of that horseshit.
The knock-out game being carried by white thugs that are egging an innocent black youth into carrying out;
Riddler being some awkward incel shooter that browses not Cinemaphile and livestream his shootout attempts;
The black mayoral candidate being shown as righteous and symbol of hope whereas every other city official is shown as being white and corrupt;
Said black mayoral candidate calling out Bruce on his white privilege and not donating enough;
Catwoman also being black and calling every rich and white male for why the city sucks so much;
Batman's father this time around being shown as being complicit in way the city sucks so much either because he is corrupt - the movie backed out of this because the director is a pussy - or coward just looking out for his own family;
Batman himself being portrayed as an uncaring incel who just wants to vent his anger and doesn't solve shit because he is so privileged and out of touch with the common man.
THIS MOVIE FRICKING SUCKS GODDAMN BALLS.
We actually should se Batman beat criminals to the point of unconscious and make it seem like he enjoys it. That's the only reason I like Batman.
Based. Batman is a mentally ill sadist who's over compensating for his childhood trauma and all the best adaptations of the character understand this. He's not supposed to be a clear cut hero.
See, i hate this modern interpretation of the character. It misses something not fundamental but really cool about the somewhat older comics. It is because of this shit interpretation that his recent comics suck so much and you've people like Matt Reeves and Tom King completely raping the character be it in movies or comic books.
The Bat should always be Bruce Wayne's salvation. Without the Batman persona Bruce Wayne would be lost and fricked, but by becoming Batman he managed to channelize his trauma and anger into something constructive that ends up influencing his home city in a positive way. the Bat should be a sign of a higher calling. Something almost religious. It should never be portrayed as something unhealthy or sick.
Nolan somewhat understood this.
This right here is my Jam.
Straight from Dennis O'Neil's The Man Who Falls.
The only other director to understand this was Joel Schumacher. Goddamn, that scene in Batman Forever was fricking wonderful. I fricking love Forever outside of Two Face being way too goofy.
He fricked that bat. It's in a deleted scene.
Sure I understand that interpretation and think it's a valid one but to me, Nolan's Batman for instance always seemed too in control and self assured of what he was doing. I always thought Batman was the result of Bruce's subconscious rage and guilt bubbling over and creating this beast known as Batman that he doesn't totally have control over. I don't see how you can justify someone dressing up like a Bat to scare the shit out of criminals before proceeding to beat the living shit out of them without at least acknowledging that person is a bit unhinged.
I also don't like the idea of him fighting crime for purely altruistic reasons either because as I said, he clearly derives some sort of personal enjoyment or satisfaction from it.
The answer to that before was always that Gotham is a corrupt city that you simple can't beat by working within the system or by the books, because everything has been coopted or corrupted by the mob. In the older comics you had Bruce trying to become a cop or become a fed and learning that he'd pretty be tied by bureaucracy and corruption. Thus vigilante justice was the only recourse.
Batman was modelled after Zorro, after all.
>Finally. You think the Riddler was the hero. You want Batman to kill more israelites or something.
Fricking mongrel doesn’t know how to read kek. No Riddler is not the hero, but even in the films own framing he’s literally right about how corrupt Gotham is and his grievances are legitimate. Now between the criminals/corrupt Gotham elite and riddler, which of these does the film portray as quasi victims and the other as irredeemable villains that deserve to get their shit kicked in? That tells you everything you need to know about the movie.
> Batman "in his inception" lasted for a few years
Even if I gave you this point, which you’re wrong, how does that mean anything? I shouldn’t look at a character’s origins to get a good sense of them? And besides the noir hardened vigilante portrayal has been shown many times across all mediums, not just those few years, including the 80s thanks to DKR, a comic that was all about bringing Batman to his roots, which I’m sure makes you seethe.
> They can make him a ruthless vigilante if they want, but people usually hate that.
Only effeminate r*dditors like yourself hate that, most others, fans and casuals alike, dig that Batman. Sorry.
>No Riddler is not the hero, but even in the films own framing he’s literally right about how corrupt Gotham is and his grievances are legitimate.
No one said they weren't. It's their methods that present a problem.
>Only effeminate r*dditors like yourself hate that, most others, fans and casuals alike, dig that Batman. Sorry.
They tried that with BvS and that movie failed.
That movie ironically made more than The Batman despite the ticket prices costing less.
People hated that film because it was messy as all hell and Batman being a straight up murderer turned off modern audiences. People loved the Nolan films and Keaton movies and they both embrace the “Batman is a scary and violent vigilante” angle. Of course Keaton killed as well but audiences back then obviously didn’t care.
I really have no idea how to explain this any other way. I feel like I'm stuck in the Patrick driver's license meme. This movie was not criticizing Batman for beating up criminals. It's criticizing Batman for ONLY beating up criminals. That is an aspect of who Batman is. It is not the ONLY aspect of what Batman is.
The subway gang sequence is the thesis for the entire goddamn movie. If you do not see what the problem was, I honestly don't know what to say. This is the sequence of events
>A bunch of gang bangers attack a subway rider
>Batman appears and dispatches the attackers
>The terrified victim fearfully looks up at Batman and says "p-please don't h-hurt me"
>Batman glares and goes away
Do you see the problem here? Do you understand what this version of Batman did wrong? Do you think Nolan's Batman would have just gone away without helping the guy or doing frick all to let him know he's there to help?
THAT is the lesson he learns at the end of the movie. That is the ONLY lesson he learns at the end of the movie. He does not learn to stop being goddamn Batman, homosexuals.
>It's criticizing Batman for ONLY beating up criminals. That is an aspect of who Batman is. It is not the ONLY aspect of what Batman is.
Because the director wants to turn that aspect into a problem that needs correcting. C'mon, my man. How can you not see that shit?
It'd be like if a Spider-Man movie was made that constantly tried to make the fact that Peter wears a full-on mask into a huge issue and that was the main aspect of the character portrayal. It would be jarring and weird. Why turn that into an issue?
>Because the director wants to turn that aspect into a problem that needs correcting. C'mon, my man. How can you not see that shit?
Because you're seeing what you want to see and not taking any other possibilities into consideration. The problem with your theory is that in order to actually hold up, Batman would have to stop beating up bad guys in the next movie. So you know what, anon. I will do you a solid here. If on the day that the inevitable sequel is released, we get a movie where Batman is a pacifist who does not punch a single bad guy, I will retract everything I have said here today and issue you a full apology. Screenshot this post and tripcode.
But if that doesn't happen, which it won't, then I'm going to go ahead and keep calling your theory dumb. You can say "B-BUT THE MOVIE CLEARLY WANTS YOU TO THINK THIS AND THAT BECAUSE I SAID IT DOES", but I will continue to disagree. I do not think this movie is criticizing Batman for putting on a cape and beating up bad guys. I understand your reasons for thinking that, but I disagree.
Black person homosexual
>Even if I gave you this point, which you’re wrong, how does that mean anything? I shouldn’t look at a character’s origins to get a good sense of them?
If you like that version of Batman, that's fine, but it's not what Batman has been for the majority of his existence. Your argument would then go from being "this movie doesn't understand Batman", which is stupid, to "I don't like this version of Batman" which is fine.
I don't want to call you a casual, but you certainly fricking are.
David S. Goyer is a huge comics nerd and you can see that in Batman Begins. That movie lifted so much from the comics it is insane. There was definitely a huge love for everything Batman in that trilogy. It is just that both Nolan and Goyer understood that if you want to depict Batman semi-realistically there should be an end-point to Bruce being Batman. Superhero comics by nature of the business need to be ever-lasting. Villains can't deny and should aways return in some form or another. The hero is in an constant and eternal struggle to save the city without an ending in sight. Status quo is God. But that shit doesn't apply when making a movie and if the movie is trying to be somewhat grounded Bruce can't keep on being Batman forever. Even then throughout the three movies you can see a definitive love for all things Batman in it from how they portray the character and his importance.
Meanwhile Matt Reeves made The Batman for all the Reddit and Twitter homosexuals that find Batman problematic for being white, rich, and a vigilante. You can see that in every fricking obnoxious and badly written line in that movie. Even when the movie is trying to depict Batman as cool because this is a blockbuster after all there some little snippet about how much the character is wrong and ineffectual.
If anyone hates Batman it is definitely Reeves.,
Reeves liks batman, he does a good job. the nolan movies also do a good job. reeves movie is a better early batman than begins, because he learns what batman means in the end of the movie.
comic fans who hate reeve's batman seem to not understand that its still an origin story, its where he learned that justice isn't about revenge. the next movie will take that theme and he'll be full batman, but the first movie he's basically half batman and still learning. which is good and fine. stop being so black and white
>reeves movie is a better early batman than begins
No, it isn't.
Batman Begins was cheesy but that's its worst sin. The Batman is a horribly anti-white film which glorifies Black folk and israelites, and excuses their endemic corruption as being the fault of white racists. White Italian mobsters rig the city, white youths terrorize poor helpless Asians at the metro, white terrorists attack the city. And of course the film lines up with the narrative that was going around at the time where whites were to blame for Black folk jumping Asians in public. What a gargantuan homosexual and loser you are.
Don't forget that the movie tries to make Batman to be stupid and wrong for being another privileged white male and thus toxic, who just target multiracial youths from low income families because again he is white and angry, which is wrong and stupid because beating up poor black people robbing a convenience store doesn't help to deter crime. You need to actually donate to social programs which is an angle that the movie tries to push throughout its runtime. Bruce acting as Batman beating up poor brown boys in fact made crime rise despite his two whole years of activity.
Goddamn, i hate The Batman so fricking much and specially fake comic fans that hype up this absolute shit as some proper Batman adaptation. Frick this shitty movie and these stupid fricks.
this is entirely in your mind. the batman's main point is that batman needs to save people more than just beat people up. which is entirely within all interpretations of batman, if you don't like that, you just don't like the character
homie, SUPERHEROES BY DEFINITION CAN'T BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN VIGILANTES. THEY SAVE PEOPLE BY BEATING UP BAD GUYS TRYING TO DO HARM.
Do you think that all the "white people bad" rhetoric is there by mistake? That the Riddler was turned into the hacker known as Cinemaphile by coincidence? Wake the frick up.
it wasn't 'white people' it was 'rich white entitled people' which that was said by a fricking burglar from a person batman has always disagreed with and has always had this view in society. it never said 'white people bad' thats an invention of your poisoned brain. the riddler wasn't on Cinemaphile. if anything it resembled a discord group. thats another invention of your propaganda riddled mind.
If Catwoman said that line in complete isolation it would be one thing, but she isn't the only one to point out how much of a ignorant, sexist, and uncaring peace of shit Batman is. You've Alfred, you've the perfect and black mayoral candidate, you've the Riddler's goon, and so on. Even Batman itself in the end realize what a toxic snob he has been.
>thats because its about batman's first year.
That can't serve as an excuse for a terrible race-baiting movie.
this isn't unique to the movies, batman is always criticized for his methods, because they are indeed flawed. maybe you should stick with the adam west era, since this is too nuanced for you to grasp. the only way to view the batman as an anti white movie is to be a /misc/ poisoned shut-in. you seriously need to stop going to that board. its ruining your ability to grasp messages. you've become a hammer seeing nails
>this isn't unique to the movies
Yeah, it been plaguing modern Batman comics as well. That doesn't mean the movie isn't a terrible woke-fest type of movie made by someone that hates the character.
its not a woke fest at all. i mean what contemporary movie isn't a woke fest to you?
Do you want me to list all the dumb shit in this terrible movie?
i want you to answer my question. i already know your assessment is skewed because your brain is filled with bullshit
The movie is a woke fest and recent movies also being filled with dumb woke shit doesn't excuse this terrible movie of doing the same type of dumb shit. That's a real dumb argument in defense of this movie. "Other movies suck as well, so why can't this one suck too?"
i asked you to tell me a contemporary movie that wasn't a woke fest that you liked. you can't do that for some reason. why do you think that is? you frame it as a defense, when its merely a question.
what did alfred say that is anti white?
It's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. Which was the 14 words. He didn't say them once. Pretty sus
i mean if your brain is poisoned by /misc/ your criticisms are pretty meaningless. Its using characters from the comics, you'd be mad if the falcones were suddenly black as well.. youd be mad if the penguin was black. it doesn't mention israelites in any regard so thats just schizo ramblings. but there's no real way for you to analyze art in any sense because of your obsessions.
The Batman is pretty heavy-handed in its poor attempt at subversion. You'd have to be an absolute moron to not see the obvious.
>David S. Goyer is a huge comics nerd and you can see that in Batman Begins. That movie lifted so much from the comics it is insane.
No it didn't.
>B-But muh Henry Ducard easter egg!
suck my dick.
>It is just that both Nolan and Goyer understood that if you want to depict Batman semi-realistically there should be an end-point to Bruce being Batman
David S. Goyer does not understand any of the properties he adapts. It's fricking ludicrous. People like to blame Nolan and Zack Snyder for fricking up Superman, but Goyer is almost certainly to blame. He doesn't understand Superman, he doesn't understand Constantine, and he sure as shit doesn't understand Batman. The fact that you would bring up Goyer as the reason any superhero movie is "authentic" is just stunning. Remarkably bizarre.
Having an endpoint for Batman as antithetical to who Batman is. It's one thing you absolutely cannot change without breaking the character. As long as there are children who feel the pain that Bruce felt, he will NEVER stop. Not even for Maggie Gyllenhaal.
>Meanwhile Matt Reeves made The Batman for all the Reddit and Twitter homosexuals that find Batman problematic for being white, rich, and a vigilante
Of course you think this. You are completely brain-broken by your meme ideology. If a bi-racial character whose father ignored her her says "white, privileged males", the movie is automatically written off in your mind. Doesn't matter that the character would absolutely think that way, you can't do it. It's a literal NPC tier take. You're probably ass mad that the movie kind of sorta looks like it made fun of Cinemaphile if you squint at it.
And at no point does the movie even remotely criticize Bruce for being affluent. Riddler does that. Do you think Riddler is the good guy? As far as "being a vigilante", the movie doesn't criticize him for that either. It criticizes who he was at the start of the film. But you don't understand that because you don't understand Batman.
David S. Goyer not only understand the DC characters but he actually wrote DC comic books. Hell, Geoff Johns claim to fame, which was the JSA book is almost entirely thanks to Goyer who co-wrote the JSA book and made that book half as good. Johns then went on to fumble the ball with his awful as shit Young Justice/Teen Titans run that completely ruined the characters for decades to come.
Batman Begins, for example, completely lift passages from Dennis O'Neil's run. For example a big one is The Man Who Falls.
>B-But muh Henry Ducard easter egg!
>suck my dick.
I already know i am talking with a fricking casual with terrible taste.
>Having an endpoint for Batman as antithetical to who Batman is.
Yeah, you're a midwit alright.
>but he actually wrote DC comic books.
So have a lot of fricking hacks. That's really not something that boosts his credibility, to be honest. Kevin Smith also wrote DC comics. But you're not even bothering to make arguments that justify anything you're saying, you're just going NUH-UH! So I'm just going to go ahead and accept your concession.
No. His Bruce Wayne sucked. Frick emo batman.
muh realism
Because they're bad. I get that you were 12 when BB came out, but it was garbage. They all were. The crappy 90s Batman stuff was better.
Everyone likes it tho.
It's unanimously considered THE capeshit kino and one of the greatest blockbusters ever.
>cool tactical suit with great screen presence
>cool voice
agree with everything but those two
Dark Knight is really good. Could be great if it wasn't so fricking long.
The other two are boring and bad.
because Cinemaphile is a bunch of contrarians that have to keep distance from the mainstream opinion to preserve their 'sophisticated taste' as something exquisite
Best films are the Burton ones, I always hated this pseudo-realistic boring action movie shit. They did the same to James Bond around that time.
They were amazing movies.
What has really aged is batman himself when in costume, looks and sounds ridiculous compared to batfleck or even bat twink Pattinson.
Rises is good as well apart from some unfortunate choreographies
plane scene>burtons batman>rest of nolans batman
all good btw
get this through your heads you israelite motherfricker yous
>anything by Hack Snyder
>S tier
Stop watching films entirely
Batfleck is the best Batman performance by far, but he didn't get a solo movie, so I don't rank his films with the others.
Doesn't matter how good the performance is if he's written like an idiot, dude was such a dumbass he couldn't even figure out Lex Luthor was obviously manipulating him
To me it matters a lot that Affleck gave by far the most human and impassioned performance as Batman. He really tried, and he was deservedly seen as the highlight of that movie. I have no doubt that his solo movie would have easily been the best Batman film of all time.
He looked cool in the suit. That's it.
His version had a believevable anger, a grief over not just his parents but also Robin, and a rough edged approach to crime fighting. He wasn't a moralizing saint like Bale. And simply from an acting standpoint he showed a greater range than any of the previous actors.
Are you being ironic with that gif? Literally a prime example of laughable """serious""" acting, the exact opposite of "believable anger"
He showed no range at all. He displays only one emotion for the entire three hour film and yes, that emotion was anger. Batman is supposed to be confident, collected and intelligent. Not an unstable dimwitted hothead who flies off the handle every five seconds.
The problem with Batfleck is WB screwed up the DCEU too much so his rogues gallery wasn’t being done right even with the few characters we got
I mean the voice didn’t always work but sometimes I really feel it adds to the intensity of the scene it’s like he has become Batman he’s channeling this growl from within
By "passionate" you mean he was a bloodthirsty homicidal maniac and by "human" you mean he was dumb as a bag of hammers.
>you mean he was a bloodthirsty homicidal maniac
you sound like someone's mom on facebook, tard
You got filtered by the movie.
S-tier stands for Shit-tier, right?
How is Batman Forever above Returns? You dishonest stupid frick
As a big Zack Snyder's fanboy i just don't get homies that prefer ZSJL over BvS. I just fricking don't. You're all very bizarre for me.
Based. Real Snyderchads know BvS is the peak of capekino
You are far too impressed by lens flares and silhouettes
Cope. Larry Fong and Zack Snyder's work on Watchmen and BvS are two of the best looking superhero movies ever made. They actually look like graphic novels come to life.
I can't take no-killing Batman seriously.
I'm a Punisher guy now.
TDKR is terrible but it gave the world Baneposting so I'm a bit kinder towards it
awful list. How does one place Batman ASSault on Arkham above BvS? I get trying to be funny and silly by including The Lego Batman movie and the TMNT crossover cause le comics but come on
Goddamn it. Explain this shit. Why is ZSJL above BvS? What's this shit, Bizarro World? The frick.
TDK literally changed the entire damn industry. Heath Ledger had unironically one of the best performances of the 2000s in general, to this day you can't find a single shred of Heath Ledger in that performance and I'm not talking about the make up.
There are some things that didn't age that well, but these two facts cement the film as a forever classic without a doubt
The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises are the only Batman movies that count as real movies. TDK is a crime drama and TDKR is a Shakespearean epic in the tradition of David Lean and Akira Kurosawa. The rest is just capeshit.
Batman Returns is an operatic tragedy that calls back to German expressionist cinema.
They're not Batman movies.
They're philosophy 101 lectures.
only the film with heath ledger is legitimately good, and only because of his performance is fun to watch
the rest are just like amateur james bond films where they spend too much on trying to make the mechanics of the plot seem more interesting than they are and using such silly contrivances as blocking a tunnel this means the city is sealed off or something.
>>cool tactical suit with great screen presence
>>cool voice
Both of these were recieved as meh at best when The Dark Knight came out and outright ridiculed at worst.
Upon recent rewatch though, yeah I don't think The Dark Knight is very good. Pulls itself into too many directions leaving multiple ideas undercooked in the 3rd act. Aspect ratio changes frequently and distractingly for no reason. Bruce Wayne's character's own conflicts and concerns are just kind of dropped from the movie after Rachael dies. Gothcago, etc. Many of it's set pieces are still 10/10 in execution though, and I think that's what made it resonate with audiences more at the time than more substantive cinematic qualities.
Begins is a better Batman movie but the patrician's choice is still Phantasm.
The voice was shit but the rest of the movie was red hot from day 1 and no amount of contrarianism will change that.
No Nolan movie holds up on rewatch.
Memento is still pretty good
this film annoyed me relentlessly. Insomnia is the superior early Nolan movie
Memento is his most overrated flick
t. nolan fan
He's English so he makes Americans seethe like nothing on earth.
Same with Pattinson Batman, Cavil Superman and Holland/Garfield Spider-Man.
Sad fact is that they can't find white Americans to play those roles anymore.
Batman is the only superhero that has the popularity to match up with Spiderman. How is it trendy to hate Batman?
Because it's the cycle of normalhomosexuals opinion on things. Just wait a few years it will become popular to like it again
its not normal gays who say this shit, its you guys, on this very website. normalgays understand its good and no one questions it. Cinemaphile is about being a contrarian 90% of the time to feel smart
lmao why do you even care what Cinemaphile's opinion on things is, the dead forum for trannies and tiktok kids
i don't i'm just pointing it out.
dark knight sucked here until the new movie came out, then it was good because people liked the new movie. if everyone likes the sequel to The Batman, then everyone will say the original is what they really liked. never fails
Because is not batman, its a guy wearing a ridiculous suit fighting against a magician. The Joker is The Mule, he can influence in people without explanation.
>BUT BUT LE REALISMO
It's a pretentious movie where the main character is useless and the antagonist is too powerful.
>The Joker is The Mule, he can influence in people without explanation.
I feel like people don't point this out enough. If this movie was ACTUALLY as realistic as people claim, those goons would have shot Joker in the fricking head and took that giant pile of money he was about to burn. And who would stop them? Would the other goons be like, "no, Joker is our fearless leader. He fights for a cause we believe in". That shit ain't real. You can't realistically have an agent of pure chaos in the real world unless he's some smelly homeless person who kills for fun. He could never be the head of a criminal enterprise because at the end of the day, a criminal enterprise is still an enterprise. They exist for a very clear reason, and that is to make money.
Zoomers are obsessed with the woke The Batman with Emo Patterson (they think it is based for some reason). And as such they want to kill the past (like they always do)
You are an ideologue and your ideology has poisoned your brain. You are the exact kind of person you're describing, only on the opposite end of the coin.
Begins and dark knight are fantastic movies and liked by everybody that likes movies, but 3 is terrible
Taking an inherently silly, childish concept like superheroes and trying to make it all edgy, "mature" and "realistic" is just really fricking cringe in hindsight
It makes for better entertainment than consciously childish attempts. That's also why it's more highly rated. It's not critics being bought off or woke themes. It's just plain better.
No it doesn't. It comes across as dumb low brow movie trying really hard to look like an complex, serious one.
Which is preferable to a low brow movie having no ambitions whatsoever.
The simple fact of the matter is, the cape movies that try to punch above their weight are much better than quip shit on D+. This applies even to the comics if you look at the stories that are held in higher esteem critically and commercially.
the action is very poorly directed
Super hero movies should be as stylized and campy as possible because it's too silly to exist irl. All the "serious" attempts make it even more moronic. Can't stand Nolanshit for that reason.
No idea. Even though we meme the plane scene pretty hard it was still an excellent stunt thatb followed and none of the newer movies come even close to it.
I like the this trilogie and if someone else doesnt, I DONT GIVE A FRICK.
>>best movies BY FAR
Nah. No one cared about Batman Begins and TDK coasted off Ledger. TDKR is liked only cause it's a giant meme of a movie.
>>best villains BY FAR
Nah.
>>most well thought out batmobile
Literally the worst Batmobile.
>>cool tactical suit with great screen presence
It looks like plastic.
>>cool voice
Surely you aren't that moronic. People made fun of that stupid throat cancer voice as far back as 2008.
It's the best Batman, the only one to seriously try to engage with contemporary social and political issues, and to this day trannies screech and moan about how bad it is, because of that. In reality the most interesting aspect of Batman's character is his relationship to society vis a vis class and law. The new Batman features a multiracial white supremacist gang, and the "villains" are just normal Americans fed up with the system. None of this even matters to the film, it should have ended an hour earlier, but the writers wanted to show off their Black person politician and prove how wrong people are to distrust authority. Meanwhile the entire message of the Nolan trilogy is that authorities are universally corrupt and the ONLY thing that can truly fight crime is a conspiracy of the powerful (TDK) or mass revolution (Rises). Obviously israelites don't like this message, especially in the original context of the trilogy which came out amidst OWS.
All this to say, white men love Nolan Batman - loxist heebs, cross dressing pedophiles, and shitskins HATE it.
trannies aren't screeching about this, thats in your head.
>t.ranny
Try using capitalization some time, you try hard little freak.
ahh, you just think everyone is a troony. tryhard is one word gay
I don’t dislike it, I acknowledge that it is overrated. People act like the movies are way better than they are and it’s purely because of Heath Ledger's performance
i dont care for these movies or any capeshit, but i still done get why the whole plane scene with bane became such a meme. its just such a generic movie scene that is no different from any other capeshit scene. im convinced people were just so ass deep in "lolz Cinemaphile maymays xd" and hadnt had anything for a while so they just decided to force something from the latest capeshit. no coincidence its at the start of the movie
Because of the dialogue. Nolan dialogue is memeable in general.
not any different from any other scene in that movie, that movie series, or capeshit in general. its not good but its not like its funny or stand out good/bad in anyway. it is completely unremarkable in any way
For you.
Because of the super complex filming where they fricked up an airplane and the dialogue. Nolan also released the first 10-20 min of the movie ahead of its release where he gassed up this intro.
Because the other batards are just jealous their Batman isn’t as loved also marvel fans dunking on it because it’s a dc movie.
Because Cinemaphile has a higher percentage of trans users than /k/.
Nolan is an absolute soulless, autistic husk of a person. Nothing he makes can ever really be considered art, because he's barely human to begin with. His films just structurally make no sense, like some kind of skinwalker is trying to tell a story and the actors are standing around with their dicks in their hands the whole time. I have no idea how this guy became popular; probably because normies have been tricked into thinking his shit films are in any way cerebral.
because I'm not wearing hockey pads
The Schumacher Batmans may not be the best, but they have the most replay value...
so maybe they are the best?
Batman is dumb. They should stop making Batman movies. They should make more Blue Beetles movies tho