It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Like many of the portraits the show sketched, these villains Batman has are largely very tragic characters, which is all the more reason for others to be used beyond Joker, though he has a tragic start as well. Freeze isn't truly evil, just motivated to help his frozen wife to bring her back to him (his arc in the animated series is gut-wrenching). Bane comes from a rough background and later goes on to be poisoned by the very Venom he depends on. Harvey Dent, the great arbiter of truth and justice, loses faith in the system he served and leaves all his decisions up to chance. Harley Quinn is a sad image of obsession and what happens when women stay with men who abuse him, thinking they'll change. And on and on and on.
Telltale could really milk these characters for some amazing choice based actions on Batman's side when he faces the villains. Does he try to reach, say, Bane, and attempt to wean him off of Venom before he kills himself? Does Bruce fund research to help Nora Fries and her condition, putting him in support of Mr. Freeze, or leave the woman to her cryogenic state so that she doesn't have to live with the guilt of what her condition made her husband turn into after her return? Does Batman turn Selina Kyle in to Gordon for her rampant crimes, making it necessary for the Commissioner to question Bruce Wayne in person as her publicized lover, or leave her to petty robbery as she unsettles the city's crime families?
I want to play the game to see if this is kind of where they went with Bruce's/Batman's choices, where what he does has true consequence. From all the experience of Telltale's games I've seen, you can make little choices here and there, but ultimately the story leads to a similar conclusion for everyone.
Funny thing, seeing the Animated Series I had gotten really scared of Two-Face. Then we got TL Jones and that was quite the whiplash. But Freeze was even worse. "Heart Of Ice", one of the very best episodes in the Animated Series, featured a "heartwarming" yet tragic case of Freeze. Arnold then took us back to the television series from the 60s and I wanted to vomit at first.
Regarding Joker, yes, problem. Joker is the greatest, no denying that. IMO, not a single comic book villain, either from Marvel or DC, can beat the Joker. BUT... Leto's Joker felt too soon. Think about it. Joker is still ever present in comics, he was featured in most of the Arkham games, he was in that Lego thing, we had barely processed the brilliance of Nicholson and then got the uber-brilliance of Ledger. Meanwhile we got the animated excellence of Hamill; and in recent times, the animated films have brought several Jokers to the game, voiced by the likes of Michael Emerson, John DiMaggio, Kevin Michael Richardson and so on. Another Batman game doesn't necessarily need the Joker, I fully agree. Maybe let the Clown Prince of Crime rest for a while, allow us to build anticipation again and don't make it a default aspect of every next Batman product they put out with, perhaps, the exception of the Batman '66 tributes.
After that movie came out people were cosplaying as the new Harley and Joker like they were the greatest couple in film history. I could vomit. Paul Dini even came out and said he loved how the characters were used in the movie, pleasantly surprised that they actually loved one another, almost as if he forgot the very character he created to be the opposite of what the film presented! I hope he hasn't lost his mind as Bruce Timm seems to have.
1. I enjoyed Season 1 (especially getting to seduce and sleep with Catwoman that was lots of fun)
2. I too am annoyed the Joker is back I hope He will be a brief cameo in season 2 much like season 1 and that Riddler is the main villain.
3. I hope much like Season 1 we get the chance to seduce and sleep with a batman girl don't care if its poison Ivy Barbra Gorodon or Wonder Woman I am DEFFINITLY going to sleep with them :D (what I enjoy getting action in an rpg don't judge me)
I am hoping for a batman arkham game though there were rumors of Batman Arkham Insurgancy with the Court of Owls being the main villain hopefully those rumors are true...
With Reeves restarting The Batman I am hoping we get any villain besides The Joker yes I would rather see the Condiment King Crazy Quilt and Bane from Batman and Robin over the Joker and I am dead serious.
I too consider SS a complete let down. And how could they burn that one? It sounds like the easiest job in the world, and they blew it.
Mad Love, one of the finer works in the Batman comics, is a delicately sweet story, one which may look from afar like it was written for children, but really underlines the twisted power of Harley and Joker as a duo once you start reading it. SS handled that story like it needed an MTV upgrade or something, which it didn't.
Paul Dini probably gave the film thumbs up as a polite gesture. And Timm? Well, I still love Timm for giving us the Animated Series. Nowadays, he does seem rather into sexualising Batman though. ;-) And I thought it rather awkward that he picked The Killing Joke as his experimentation lab.
The ending just made me feel that one day we'd get
I don't know what Rocksteady are up to now, but I'd love to. I figure it's another WB project, maybe even another Superman game. There's rumors of it that keep flying around, but who knows at this point.
I'm very much looking forward to it. It's a pleasant surprise that it comes out next month! The Tell Tale games are so underrated it's not even funny.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/batman/50874/batman-ben-afflecks-days-may-be-nearly-over
It seems like he's wanted out of the role, if rumors are to be believed, since almost the beginning... I think during the writing process of THE BATMAN, there were reports that he was ready to call it quits...
And now this.
Personally, I thought he, and WW, were the best things in the mess that is known as BVS. It would be a shame to lose him at this point, since he gave Bruce a nice jaded edge.
What are WB planning with THE BATMAN if they re-cast? Another origin story? I think this whole universe has been incredibly rushed and shoved down our throats.
They should look at the plusses (Bat-fleck and WW), and develop from there (cutting out all the green screen, ADD, frenetic filmmaking and OTT SFX ).
If Ben did leave, I wouldn't even be able to blame him. Outside of Wonder Woman the DCEU is a sinking ship that is going to have to really prove itself in November to keep afloat. Ben loves Batman and I'm sure he expected a much different result from his part in bringing a new version of the character alive. But the writing has been horrible and instead of letting the guy play a conflicted and human Batman, they just give him endless action scenes to kill people and barely give any service in the story to Batman changing and what that means symbolically. Ben would've played that changed Batman well, but they've yet to give him a chance to do much anything with it. And even despite this, he was one of the few things that wasn't a slog in BvS.
It's obvious from the press tour of BvS, on top of it being a trivial and never-ending press tour, that Ben was upset with how the movie was received because he really believed in it. It also came out at a time where his marriage fell apart, addiction got the best of him and his passion project movie that he directed and wrote tanked and hurt his economy at Warner. So can we blame the guy for maybe not being as enthusiastic anymore?
He'll certainly get no umbrage from me; he's got enough on his plate and it's just a damn movie.
Your son's a smart, quick learner!
Indeed. That first trailer for JL was all I needed to endure.
It had better hope so, now that they've chucked another $25 million atop what was likely already a massive budget.
This looks more of the same: loud and non sensical CG.
WW is an outlier: tighter budget, direction and imagery that didn't make it look like something that fell out of a laptop. Plus Gal Gadot.
To be fair they're mass marketed blockbusters aiming to gross a billion dollars plus. People shouldn't have to swot up on the comics to understand them. Having said that the only one of these films I've seen is Man Of Steel and I understood it despite knowing nothing about the character before, I just didn't think it was very good.
Anyway, quick question for you all which I know is probably hard to answer because it's a few years off: how linked to this cinematic universe will the next Batman film be? I'm excited because I enjoyed the Nolan films and the first couple of Arkham games, I like the character, and I loved the Planet Of The Apes films Matt Reeves made. But I've got no interest in watching BvS, Justice League, etc. I'm assuming it'll be more spinoff than sequel and I'll be able to understand it fine without? I don't mind missing a few nods/references as long as I can keep up with the plot.
@thelivingroyale, then Marvel have failed in that department. All their movies require a knowledge of the comics to know a lot of what is going on, why a character is important, etc, but audiences don't care. It's all in the presentation. If you make people care about the characters they'll be more forgiving when they are lost as to what an infinity stone is or why Homecoming's ending is a big deal for old comics fans; many just like to go out of the house to see action and fun, and don't look for a better understanding of the content.
Warner have so far failed outside of Wonder Woman for making me care about the characters, as I love Gal and only want this ship to keep afloat to see more of her. I also live in the hope that they'll throw poor Cavill a damn bone and give him a chance to be the Superman he could be. JL has a lot to prove, but its biggest hurdle will be making me feel something more than indifference as to what is going on, which won't be easy. Aquaman seems okay, Flash annoys me to all hell, Cyborg seems dull as dishwater and I detest and want to kill this Batman. So maybe a bad start for them...
On the topic of the Batman solo film, who knows anymore. All the old plans that Ben and Geoff Johns had are now out the window and they are starting from scratch. I think Reeves talked about wanting to feature a lot of Batman's villains (possibly to introduce them all at Arkham or something), and he also said he wants the tone of the film to be a detective noir, which excited me. We'll just have to wait to see what else is released as the movie develops, because it's all back to the drawing board. There was a rumor that originally the movie would have Batman trapped in Arkham like in the first Rocksteady game, but I hope that doesn't come to be as we've seen that story already and I want something new.
@SharkBait, well for a comics accurate Batman they're off to a rubbish start, unless you count the earlier Batman who was as a raving murderous dick with little value for human life. In that case, this one is Batman all right!
I really don't have much interest in seeing this Batman in any films, as I already don't believe in him or want him around. I wish BvS would've been better written and we actually got context for how Bruce had changed beyond a few random lines from Alfred where he says, "You changed" to make me feel sympathy for him. But most of Snyder's focus was just showing him kill because it looked cool (to him I guess, but never me), instead of using the violence to dramatically and powerfully show us how a once good man had lost his way. Even as the movie ends I wonder what this guy learned about anything, because he just felt like such an ill-conceived/written character.
I've said this once and I'll say it again: I would've been okay (or would have accepted) a Batman that goes on massive killing sprees if the script really labored on that choice and devoted a lot of powerful screen time to exploring a Bruce who had lost his will to follow his old rules. We don't get that and so the idea really just feels like an excuse to show Batman going to town brutalizing people with knives and guns to satisfy the masses who like wild action and little else. It's really depressing and screwed up to me that people call Affleck's Batman and how he acts a "badass," as there is nothing cool about him, nor should there be. This is a guy who is mowing people down, vaporizing them and doing so with no remorse for their lives or anything of the sort. Even more delusional are those who think this is how the Batman from the comics is at his most realized, which is again a crock.
I don't want this to turn into another tired discussion where someone cites a random issue from fifty years ago where Batman kills a guy or it's implied that he kills a guy, as that well is dry. I just mean to say that if they were going to give us this kind of Batman, they really needed to give him to us and have a little depth to how that story was told instead of botching it so horridly. Snyder thinks he adapted The Dark Knight Returns, when in reality he just robbed a few panels and kept none of the meaning or context or any of it from the original source, showing that he really knows so little of who the character is.
If you read that comic you don't meet a Bruce/Batman who wants to kill people for his failures of the past (in fact he quits being Batman before he has to feel the temptation), or a man who doesn't care about human life. His worst enemy, Joker, is still one he can't bring himself to kill at the end even for all he's done, and throughout the book there's an overwhelming feeling of dismay and cynicism as Bruce despises the kind of men who act like Snyder's Batman, more in tune with the terroristic vengeance of the Mutants who kill to further their own selfish and horrific goals as they prey on those who could be saved. My Batman would kick Affleck Batman's ass, then have the decency to toss him in a cell for the rest of his life.
Oh, Batman was pretty merciless in Arkham Knight. But that was because he had jesters in the attick instead of bats.
I don't want him murderous in the Batman. I think the folks at wb intended, that by the end of BvS he had regained his old sense of justice and wont continue in the way he did in that movie. Martha brought him back to his senses
:p
He broke bones in Arkham Knight but you never saw him using his guns to shoot people with holes, or explode people, or stab sword enemies with their own blades, or strangle people...well, you get my point. Batman can't really serve his role as an outside the law source of justice if he becomes a rampant executioner.
Never the end of BvS I guess it's intended that Superman and Martha teach Bruce about humanity again, but what does he do after he spares Superman and realizes the humanity in him and in himself and blah, blah, blah? He goes to a warehouse and murders about twice the people he did for the first two hours the movie, and that's saying something. I don't believe he changed at all, as much as BvS defenders say so, and that's all down to execution. They wrote a horrible Batman and saw the bad reaction it got, so now they're going to walk it back and pretend it never happened instead of dealing with it in a smart and interesting way. But they really should've been smart enough to know that people wouldn't care to see such a distorted interpretation of a man who is supposed to be a hero, especially after how badly they reacted to Cavill's Superman (who is a ray of sunshine in MoS compared to BvS).
All said, zi still want Batfleck in The Batman.
Still, I thought the warehouse fight was petty badass. It was lije those fights from the arkham series.
He's a comic book character, ok-- but if we want to toy with the notion of 'realism', it's silly to assume this guy goes out every night and beats people with his brass knuckled gloves and breaks bones, and nobody ever dies from it. And Ben isn't exactly the first movie Batman to blatantly kill bad guys.
"Remember me?"
I was debating with my friend the other day-- he said Batman is just like the Punisher now. I argued that the difference was Frank Castle intentionally goes out every night TO kill. If you fight Batman you run the risk of getting your ass killed, but it's not a certainty like with Punisher.
Here's how I look at it: if you were a bad guy in Gotham which would you fear more?
An urban legend of the night who acts outside the law and has been known to kill, or a costumed hero who'll give you a *sock* in the jaw and tie you up for the police?
In my opinion the whole 'no kill rule' only came about to appeal to kids. I have no problem with that either! I just love Batman!
But @SharkBait I agree, that warehouse fight was the coolest.
'When the bones snap just right...'
*Edit: if there's one flaw with my logic it's this: if I'm ok with Batman killing occasionally, I really have no excuse as to why he doesn't kill the Joker, or others like him. Well, aside from the fact that he's just too damn popular, lol