The Batman

[AlexGreen#20]

52 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

Both 1 & 2 are like part of the main resolution of the film. So don’t know what to say more than that.

as for 3 

  Reveal hidden contents

He’s a crazy person who concocted this crusade to rid Gotham of its worst. He already pushed the domino and is getting off on the next one falling while he’s behind bars. Ed’s defining trait is narcissism in most iterations, such blind faith in his intellect. In this he’s like euphoric  on his plan working  and no one seeing it coming. But in a lot of iterations he’s very lonely and yearns for an equal or someone to get him. He thought Batman would be that, that rejection sent him spiraling until he met his new friend.

Simply he got caught because he wanted to. He wanted to smile and be accepted by Batman and tell him his plan and have Bats agree with him.

 

Disagree on 1 and 2. One of those subplots would have been fine. Having both was self indulgent and led to a film that really dragged in places. There were more direct and logical options to hit those same story beats. 

As for #3, okay, fine. But having a detective/mystery movie where rather than the detective solving the mystery, the criminal just decides "F it, I'm bored, time to let myself get caught," is lame. He could've watched the carnage unfold from anywhere on high ground. He didn't need to go to Arkham. 

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, Bullet Club said:

Without Catwoman

  Hide contents

No Ani lead, no Colson details spill, and no Falcone confession. She also played a big role in softening him up and leading towards from progression his vigilante to hero. If you can't see what she added, and will likely continue to add, you're not paying attention.

Who killed Thomas Wayne 

  Hide contents

This doesn't matter. It was simply about Falcone trying to manipulate Bruce like he's manipulated everyone else. Who did the deed is irrelevant. It's in the past, can't be changed, and those implied are either dead or locked up.

Main Antagonist

  Hide contents

Because he wanted a good, safe view of the carnage. Batman did solve the mystery but he did it too late. Sometimes the good guys don't always win clean.

 

There was no reason Batman couldn't have done any of those things in a handful of ways that weren't going to eat up an hour of the screentime with a romance subplot that had all the chemistry of tap water. I'm going to be honest, I didn't perceive her role in the transition from vigilante to hero.

Spoiler

Maybe I was just a bit startled by the "**** Bruce Wayne, and all of his white privilege" line, but if that was supposedly the moment that had him figuring it out, good grief. 

Spoiler

I know Falcone/Wayne didn't matter. That's my point. It was a 3 hour batman movie that didn't do anything with Bruce Wayne, but we spent half an hour on a mystery subplot that went nowhere to develop a character who is going to die 12 minutes later. 

Spoiler

How the hell is the literal mental institution the ONLY safe place in the city to watch events unfold. That makes no sense. The only thing special about it is that it's supposedly "in the high ground parts of the city." So there's a whole other neighborhood near this thing that serves the same stupid purpose. How the hell did he even know he wasn't going to get locked in a holding cell with no doors or windows? How did he know he wasn't going to spend 24 hours being interviewed by police at the station and then spend the next 4 days in county jail awaiting arraignment before getting sent to Arkham?

Spoiler

How did Batman solve the mystery? "A witness saw a man run down the fire escape" and having Riddler sitting there at the coffee shop, isn't anything Batman did. If you're talking a mystery in which the plan is going to destroy the city, and you figure it out exactly as the bombs go off, you didn't solve the mystery. There was no functional plot difference between Batman going home after Riddler's arrest, boning down with Catwoman and hearing that the bombs exploded on the news, vs. him "figuring out" the mystery of the carpet tool. 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

let's not forget either that he thought Batman was gonna be on his side

Which was another stupid *** point in this whole movie.

He thought Batman, the guy who runs around Gotham all night with a custom built classic muscle car with it's own rocket booster, a bullet proof suit complete with a bunch of gadgets, and a very strict "Thou shalt not kill mantra"* was going to be on the side of the serial killer because . . . his victims were rich and corrupt?

 

*Except for deaths of innocent people in car accidents caused because you were chasing after Penguin and couldn't be bothered to figure out where he would go to hide. 

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, BayRaider said:

This movie was great. At least a 9/10 from me. Probably the best Batman movie of all time behind only The Dark Knight. First time I’ve actually been entertained by a 3 hour movie from start to finish without getting bored once. None of it felt like filler. Soundtrack was amazing. 
 

  Hide contents

I’m glad they kept the dark theme to Batman, you can tell the first few minutes the dark vibe of the movie. I always have a fear they will try to copy Marvel with comedy and feel-good instead of dark. 
 

Great acting throughout. Gordon was a great actor, as he always was on westworld and elsewhere. Catwoman was solid. Riddler was GREAT. Definitely the best Batman Villain performance behind only Heath Ledger’s Joker. Great acting and performance. 
 

Robert Pattinson as Batman was great. I was not a fan of his Bruce Wayne though. A bit of the emo personality he always plays in movies. Bruce is suppose to be charming, charismatic, confident, and witty. Bruce was Pattinson’s usual sad character he loves to play. However, that is literally my only complaint the entire movie. The rest of the movie is just really, really great. 
 

We were entertained from start to finish. The dark batman scenes were dramatic, intense, and super cool, especially the opening. The story was solid and Riddler’s arc was extremely well written and well executed. 
 

Great first movie. Not sure why critics only have it at a 82%. As always, the audience score is always the correct score. 
 

Another thing I loved is it was Batman right from the start. I’m soooo tired of movies wasting the first movie of a trilogy on a origin story or huge introduction, kind of wastes the first movie. We know who Batman is. We know who Spiderman is, etc. This movie was Batman from the start. Of course, very early Batman where Gordon isn’t commissioner, police don’t like Batman yet, and the people haven’t grown to love him yet. It basically starts off at a perfect point, the very very early career part of Batman. 

 

The lack of Bruce Wayne was tough. 

The Nolan version of Bruce Wayne who intentionally went out of his way to be a congenial dumbass to throw people off of his identity was the better way to play it. 

Was nobody else bothered by the fight scenes? It's supposedly this gritty noir piece and yet they pulled away from every shot. I don't think there was a single drop of blood in this entire film. 

[bigbadbuff]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which was another stupid *** point in this whole movie.

He thought Batman, the guy who runs around Gotham all night with a custom built classic muscle car with it's own rocket booster, a bullet proof suit complete with a bunch of gadgets, and a very strict "Thou shalt not kill mantra"* was going to be on the side of the serial killer because . . . his victims were rich and corrupt?

 

*Except for deaths of innocent people in car accidents caused because you were chasing after Penguin and couldn't be bothered to figure out where he would go to hide. 

But this is still early career Batman where people are trying to figure out his agenda. And Riddler is a severe narcissist.

[jetsfan4life51]

Spoiler

I don't think Pattinson was playing his typical emo role for Bruce.  He was fine in Tenet, he can act.  Batman was about vengeance and that bled into Bruce.  He wanted Gotham to be a better place.  Dedicated his whole life to that.  He's an obsessed detective.  Then when he realized the Riddler was vengeance as well, he will now evolve.  Like someone else said earlier, maybe Bruce will realize he has to do his part as well.

 

[AlexGreen#20]

32 minutes ago, bigbadbuff said:

But this is still early career Batman where people are trying to figure out his agenda. And Riddler is a severe narcissist.

He's been around for long enough that criminals are afraid of him, everybody recognizes him, the police are willing to work with him, and they have a ******* bat signal. But somehow, a guy that the film assures me is very smart, doesn't get his agenda.

The only indication that this is early stage Batman is that the film literally writes it down for you. He never gets hurt for longer than 15 seconds, all of his gadgets work perfectly, etc.

Riddler is a severe narcissist, who doesn't show his face or in any way goes out of his way to be praised for his work and instead stays inside all day,

Spoiler

seemingly completely isolated except for his online incel army. 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

35 minutes ago, jetsfan4life51 said:

  Hide contents

I don't think Pattinson was playing his typical emo role for Bruce.  He was fine in Tenet, he can act.  Batman was about vengeance and that bled into Bruce.  He wanted Gotham to be a better place.  Dedicated his whole life to that.  He's an obsessed detective.  Then when he realized the Riddler was vengeance as well, he will now evolve.  Like someone else said earlier, maybe Bruce will realize he has to do his part as well.

 

Probably should get over this, but I'm really struggling with the idea that somebody who is supposedly brilliant doesn't understand how donating money to social causes can help reduce crime. When it's his freaking family legacy. 

That makes him look completely idiotic.

[KManX89]

I'm super lucky, I'm going to see this tonight on my birthday while enjoying 2 straight nights off from work and playing GT7. I'm so pumped, I feel like I'm about to have a brain aneurysm, talk about a perfect storm of awesomeness! 

Edited March 5, 2022 by KManX89

[Kiltman]

37 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Probably should get over this, but I'm really struggling with the idea that somebody who is supposedly brilliant doesn't understand how donating money to social causes can help reduce crime. When it's his freaking family legacy. 

That makes him look completely idiotic.

It’s not a revelation it’s an equation. One that he’s been almost all one sided on til now. He felt the direct effects of the bad of the city and wanted to enact vengeance on it. Bruce Wayne isn’t a complete person at the start of the journey. 

[Kiltman]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Disagree on 1 and 2. One of those subplots would have been fine. Having both was self indulgent and led to a film that really dragged in places. There were more direct and logical options to hit those same story beats. 

As for #3, okay, fine. But having a detective/mystery movie where rather than the detective solving the mystery, the criminal just decides "F it, I'm bored, time to let myself get caught," is lame. He could've watched the carnage unfold from anywhere on high ground. He didn't need to go to Arkham. 

They both were fairly central to how you make a film and the struggles of Bruce though that’s what I mean.

 

Catwoman

Spoiler

She’s an audience POV character, gives Bats a lot of details of the Falcone operation. And as always plays a moral antagonist to his rules. Like he can step over the line with her but he’d lose who he is. The flirtatious relationship is a continual thing they have so it makes sense to start it here, didn’t need to go anywhere film 1.

Thomas Wayne

Spoiler

We got our answer really, Falcone very likely had Thomas and then Martha killed. The whole point of exploring it is it’s the definitive moment that made Bruce into what he is. Questioning that and rattling that cage is I think good for character development. Ultimately he has to choose regardless he was a boy orphaned by the rampant crime in the city. And tying into larger things that there are innocents involved that no matter what he can help protect…he can help give a better future to.

Riddler

Narcissists can’t be narcissists without someone to witness them. I think that’s the simplest way of thinking about it.

Spoiler

He was mainlining that when he was across the glass. He wanted to be praised and accepted for his puzzle and what he did. Batman shutting him down so cruelly shattered him. By doing what he did he got to dictate his terms and speak to the man he idolized. Getting his acceptance was what Ed’s end goal was.

 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Kiltman said:

It’s not a revelation it’s an equation. One that he’s been almost all one sided on til now. He felt the direct effects of the bad of the city and wanted to enact vengeance on it. Bruce Wayne isn’t a complete person at the start of the journey. 

It hasn't been one sided until now. People that don't watch or read Batman and like to **** on things people like because it makes them feel superior say "Dur, Batman is just a damaged egotistical White billionaire who beats up on the mentally ill. What he should be doing to stop crime is donating his fortune to social justice causes." 

That completely ignores the fact that The Wayne Foundation was a billion dollar charitable organization in Gotham. The Wayne's are supposed to be the benevolent version of the Carnegie's or the Rockefellers. Ever been to Pittsburgh, there's not a thing in the city that isn't named after Carnegie. 

We just don't pay attention to The Wayne Foundation because getting into the minutia of charitable contributions isn't anywhere near as exciting as Batman punching Joker. 

It also ignores the fact that blindly pouring money into Gotham is an issue because the various super villains will steal it. If you don't have Batman to protect the Wayne Foundation money, you're just indirectly funding crime.

+++

As far as him trying to take vengeance on the city, he's running around in a batsuit trying to protect it?

I get that he's not a complete person, but there's a difference between not being a complete person and being a moron. Not understanding that using his money to make people's lives better, makes him a moron.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Kiltman said:

They both were fairly central to how you make a film and the struggles of Bruce though that’s what I mean.

 

Catwoman

  Hide contents

She’s an audience POV character, gives Bats a lot of details of the Falcone operation. And as always plays a moral antagonist to his rules. Like he can step over the line with her but he’d lose who he is. The flirtatious relationship is a continual thing they have so it makes sense to start it here, didn’t need to go anywhere film 1.

Thomas Wayne

  Hide contents

We got our answer really, Falcone very likely had Thomas and then Martha killed. The whole point of exploring it is it’s the definitive moment that made Bruce into what he is. Questioning that and rattling that cage is I think good for character development. Ultimately he has to choose regardless he was a boy orphaned by the rampant crime in the city. And tying into larger things that there are innocents involved that no matter what he can help protect…he can help give a better future to.

Riddler

Narcissists can’t be narcissists without someone to witness them. I think that’s the simplest way of thinking about it.

  Hide contents

He was mainlining that when he was across the glass. He wanted to be praised and accepted for his puzzle and what he did. Batman shutting him down so cruelly shattered him. By doing what he did he got to dictate his terms and speak to the man he idolized. Getting his acceptance was what Ed’s end goal was.

 

What the hell are you talking about? She's not an Audience POV character. The entire thing is from Batman's POV? Was there a single scene not from his perspective? 

Most of the information she got was from walking around with the eye piece in. We established later in the movie that Wayne could straight up walk into the club whenever he wanted to. 

I feel like they BARELY touched on the moral antagonist thing, if they did at all. 

+++

As far as Falcone, the best part of this movie was not doing an origin story. Doing a backwards origin story in the middle of the second act is a huge part of why this thing seems so damn bloated. 

+++

Narcissists aren't known for being able to defer gratification. A narcissist being anonymous for a decade and then popping out isn't narcissism.

[Mox]

5 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

There was no reason Batman couldn't have done any of those things in a handful of ways that weren't going to eat up an hour of the screentime with a romance subplot that had all the chemistry of tap water. I'm going to be honest, I didn't perceive her role in the transition from vigilante to hero.

  Hide contents

Maybe I was just a bit startled by the "**** Bruce Wayne, and all of his white privilege" line, but if that was supposedly the moment that had him figuring it out, good grief. 

  Hide contents

I know Falcone/Wayne didn't matter. That's my point. It was a 3 hour batman movie that didn't do anything with Bruce Wayne, but we spent half an hour on a mystery subplot that went nowhere to develop a character who is going to die 12 minutes later. 

  Hide contents

How the hell is the literal mental institution the ONLY safe place in the city to watch events unfold. That makes no sense. The only thing special about it is that it's supposedly "in the high ground parts of the city." So there's a whole other neighborhood near this thing that serves the same stupid purpose. How the hell did he even know he wasn't going to get locked in a holding cell with no doors or windows? How did he know he wasn't going to spend 24 hours being interviewed by police at the station and then spend the next 4 days in county jail awaiting arraignment before getting sent to Arkham?

  Hide contents

How did Batman solve the mystery? "A witness saw a man run down the fire escape" and having Riddler sitting there at the coffee shop, isn't anything Batman did. If you're talking a mystery in which the plan is going to destroy the city, and you figure it out exactly as the bombs go off, you didn't solve the mystery. There was no functional plot difference between Batman going home after Riddler's arrest, boning down with Catwoman and hearing that the bombs exploded on the news, vs. him "figuring out" the mystery of the carpet tool. 

 

These are so nitpicky and off base it's not even worth responding. You've made up your mind. It's a bummer you didn't enjoy the film dude.

The movie blatantly shows at every turn he's new to this, and that he doesn't care/know how to be Bruce Wayne yet because he's so consumed by vengeance. It's literally impossible to miss and it's shown far more than it's told.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Bullet Club

[AlexGreen#20]

20 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

These are so nitpicky and off base it's not even worth responding. You've made up your mind. It's a bummer you didn't enjoy the film dude.

The movie blatantly shows at every turn he's new to this, and that he doesn't care/know how to be Bruce Wayne yet because he's so consumed by vengeance. It's literally impossible to miss and it's shown far more than it's told.

I did enjoy it. I thought it was a really solid film that had some noticeable flaws. 

I just find the idea of a, supposedly, brilliant character being so broken that he doesn't understand the basics of being an person, to be a lame cop out and a bad excuse to lecture an audience about a concept that isn't that complicated.