The Batman

[Kiltman]

1 hour ago, 43M said:

This Batman just doesn't really feel like its meant for a Robin.   The Bruce Wayne persona hasnt even been fully established yet, and if this is only meant to be a trilogy, introducing Robin could take ALOT away from developing both Bruce and future characters.

I would absolutely love to see a Batman and Bat Family brought to live action...but it needs more than 3 movies to work.   Not that it cant work, but WB has a habit of trying to jam pack too much into these movies.

Yeah you definitely need like 5 movies to give stuff the space to breath.

But I think DG coming in can help him reforge who Bruce is, what that persona is. Perhaps help him reconnect to that part of himself more. Which is what I think the ending of this really set up. 

I do think this Batman is focused on the task and weird enough to not see the problem with bringing a kid into that situation. Which when you really think of it is a crazy thing to do.

4 more movies let’s you get to the point Robin becomes Nightwing and that relationship really breaks down more. Then you can have him force Jason into replacing him too early and do Joker in that movie again…adapt A Death in the Family.

Gives the franchise somewhere to go but you can time jump things 6 or so years, let Pattinson walk if he’s sick of it by then. Start treating it like Bond…keep moving forward.

[MikeT14]

3 hours ago, Kiltman said:

Gives the franchise somewhere to go but you can time jump things 6 or so years, let Pattinson walk if he’s sick of it by then. Start treating it like Bond…keep moving forward.

I like it. Recasting isn't always a bad thing (if necessary). 

[BetterCallSaul]

On 4/26/2022 at 10:39 PM, Deadpulse said:

Introduce **** Grayson

I don’t know if there’s a way yo introduce Robin into the recent iterations of Batman. He’s so….bleh. These movies seem too gritty for him.

I loathe Robin as a character. I know he would be different that the 90’s character, but he is still cheeks. 

[Mox]

14 hours ago, Fresh Prince said:

I never been a fan of robin, so if he isn’t in these movies I’d be fine with it. Also please no more joker’s 

I like Robin but I almost exclusively don't want to see him in live action. Especially in this world. Someone who should be in this world but won't is Scarecrow. It's perfect for him.

[THE DUKE]

I don't get the hangup on Robin.  The character was introduced as a fantasy for the early comic book readers to imagine themselves fighting crime with Batman in a far different age.  Ironically enough, I think Batman and Robin did Robin about as well as you possibly could despite that being a garbage movie.

[Mox]

38 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

I don't get the hangup on Robin.  The character was introduced as a fantasy for the early comic book readers to imagine themselves fighting crime with Batman in a far different age.  Ironically enough, I think Batman and Robin did Robin about as well as you possibly could despite that being a garbage movie.

Imo it works a lot better in comics/animation than live action.

[43M]

2 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

I I think Batman and Robin did Robin about as well as you possibly could despite that being a garbage movie.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that.   

Watch the show Titans.  Its far from perfect, and overall its pretty campy with clashing themes, but it shows how Robin can be portrayed in a gritty Batman story.

Do I think he fits Reeves Batman?   No.

Do I think they should he should be introduced?   No, but mainly because a trilogy doesn't have time for him on top of everything else.

[43M]

4 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

I like it. Recasting isn't always a bad thing (if necessary). 

I would just prefer a big budget Batman HBO show that was ten, hour-long eps per year for 7 or 8 seasons.

70-80 hours vs 7-8 for a cinematic trilogy.

Youd still only scratch the surface of the Batman mythos and rogues gallery...but its better than youll ever do with movies.

[MikeT14]

2 minutes ago, 43M said:

I would just prefer a big budget Batman HBO show that was ten, hour-long eps per year for 7 or 8 seasons.

70-80 hours vs 7-8 for a cinematic trilogy.

Youd still only scratch the surface of the Batman mythos and rogues gallery...but its better than youll ever do with movies.

Honestly? You could get it one day. Streamers are willing to spend the money. Your chances are better than they've ever been. 

[43M]

16 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

Honestly? You could get it one day. Streamers are willing to spend the money. Your chances are better than they've ever been. 

Only thing is, WB has been very stupid about Batman being used outside of movies.

They seem to think viewers are stupid and that we couldnt concurrently watch a Batman TV show and new movies that take place in separate universes without getting confused.   

Edited April 28, 2022 by 43M

[Mox]

19 minutes ago, 43M said:

I would just prefer a big budget Batman HBO show that was ten, hour-long eps per year for 7 or 8 seasons.

70-80 hours vs 7-8 for a cinematic trilogy.

Youd still only scratch the surface of the Batman mythos and rogues gallery...but its better than youll ever do with movies.

I think I've said this before but I did a brief write up of an HBO Batman show. It was easy to get 12-13 seasons done, and that ignored Damian existing.

[MikeT14]

Just now, 43M said:

Only thing is, WB has been very stupid about Batman being used outside of movies.

They seem to think viewers are stupid and that we couldnt concurrently watch a Batman TV show and new movies that take place in separate universes without getting confused.   

Good post, but you were good after there. 

I have this problem with Star Wars now though. Not everything HAS to be connected. 

[THE DUKE]

28 minutes ago, 43M said:

I wholeheartedly disagree with that.   

Watch the show Titans.  Its far from perfect, and overall its pretty campy with clashing themes, but it shows how Robin can be portrayed in a gritty Batman story.

Do I think he fits Reeves Batman?   No.

Do I think they should he should be introduced?   No, but mainly because a trilogy doesn't have time for him on top of everything else.

I guess I should clarify, in a movie setting.  Like was said, with 7-8 hours of total story, it just won't work in a good way for the most part, unless you have a significant time jump between each movie and the progression of Robin is a central tenant of the entire trilogy.

[Kiltman]

1 hour ago, THE DUKE said:

I guess I should clarify, in a movie setting.  Like was said, with 7-8 hours of total story, it just won't work in a good way for the most part, unless you have a significant time jump between each movie and the progression of Robin is a central tenant of the entire trilogy.

Theoretically you can branch it into its own thing too, like intro him in 2, have him be Robin in 3, then you can do a Robin movie where he’s doing some of his own things for the first time and Bruce is in it about as much as Falcone/Penguin were, have their essential breakup be in that or in the next Batman film. Then you can do Nightwing stuff on his own, Reeves producing all of it.
 

I think if they can get to that point it gives Pattinson and Reeves the breaks they probably would want from long shoots and really planning full movies.

 

I can totally see them not doing it and it’d be certainly fine, but man it’d be wild to see them try in this version.

[43M]

3 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

Not everything HAS to be connected. 

While I dont entirely disagree, some underestimate how much a quality connected universe can drive the success of other movies and characters.  

There are alot of movies in the MCU that never wouldve had the same success if they werent connected to that larger universe.

A character like Batman can obviously succeed on his own, and may even be better off without the connected universe given how expansive his mythos and rogues gallery is, but his presence is a larger universe can certainly help develop other characters and movies.