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
"Brubaker is running the writers room along with [Bruce] Timm and is acting as Timm’s right hand. He is also earning an exec producer credit on the show, which The Hollywood Reporter has learned will have a 10-episode first season. Brubaker will be the head writer on the series."
Brubaker describes the show as "a slightly more pulpy take on the character, and a new way of looking at the world of Gotham, set in the past but viewed through a modern lens."
The Timm-drawn Batman included in the article is described as "early development art":
Seeing how big a Brubaker fan I am, this is like music to my ears.
The costumes are getting lazier and a bit lame in my opinion.
I was just thinking. Every time a new actor has been announced to play Batman, and I go back to the ‘60s, I was originally against the choice. The one exception being George Clooney. I remember thinking, oh he’ll be pretty good.
Adam West and Micheal Keaton will probably always be my favorite live action interpretations of The Batman. After that I’d probably go Affleck. I liked those Nolan Batman films okay, but Bale never felt like Batman to me, and he never felt like Bruce Wayne. It was a different character.
I thought that the kid on GOTHAM was a great Bruce Wayne for the first season. He had several of the components that had been missing in the recent cinematic versions; he was already a detective, and he ultimately cared about saving people more than anything else, more than any personal issues, or personal drama. Of course as the seasons went on they utterly ruined him.
TDK, TDKR and BvS were very lengthy too. I guess DC is gunning for capital-E 'epic'. ;-)
Endgame was 180 mins and the biggest single release movie ever, BvS Ultimate Edition was 182 mins and it was regarded as a far better film than the 156 mins WB cut…
Point is: it all depends on the story and pace.
Yes! Absolutely!!
I'm not interested in that. I still remember how much my bum hurt sitting through Dark Knight (and mentally editing out the parts of the movie that didn't need to be in it to make it so long - wasn't there a cul-de-sac plot with a Wayne employee finding out Bruce is Bats that was just there to give Morgan Freeman something to do?). I can enjoy Batman but I have my limits.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, @mtm. That very minor subplot addresses the implausibility of the company siphoning huge financial recourses to the Batman operation without anyone noticing. In the real world, or at least as real as Nolan was trying to make his Batman universe, someone would, sooner or later, begin to figure a few things out. It is subsequently far from unlikely that said someone would try to squeeze good money out of the situation. Fox's response then offers us a few giggles and laughs. But, when tensions rise in Gotham, the employee feels compelled to go public with Batman's identity, allowing a new, perfect twist in Joker's social experiment. As he issues a kill-order on the man, Batman (or rather, Bruce Wayne) must intervene, bringing things full circle. The employee now knows that Batman will save him, even if he poses a clear PR threat. This moment reinforces our trust in Batman's intentions. He's not a vindictive prick who turns on you just like that. He will sooner damage himself than allow any harm to come to you, even if your attitude towards him was anything but appropriate. I actually think this subplot, no matter how small, has every reason to be here.
It just made the film drag on even longer.
This is coming from someone who enjoyed the Nolan films quite a bit.
There's also a point of contrast between the implications that the public will indeed attempt to kill this guy and Joker's later play on the ferries. If they're potentially willing to take out a whistleblower (who is by definition an innocent man despite his blackmail attempts), then why wouldn't they blow up a boat full of convicts? It was there to bring the tension up a couple of notches and it's all part of the social commentary that underpins Nolan's Batman films.
I would probably agree that the last third of the film does drag in comparison with the first two thirds, though. That's a fair criticism.
Yes I’m not really feeling what this version is adding that the other films didn’t do, but it seems to have lots of people excited so fair enough, it must be what people want.
I wish they’d make one kids -who love Batman- can see though.
Batman & robin 1997 your kids wil love it
as for me is 3 hours too long yes but i am excited to see a new dark batman film
I think what they’re trying to do is tell the definitive Batman story on film, which really hasn’t been done before when you think about it. The Burton-Schumacher films focused more on the villains than Batman himself, while the DCEU version never got to thrive in his own, solo film. The closest we got was the Nolan trilogy, but it was so grounded in reality that it (IMO) tended to cripple some of the things they could’ve done with that universe.
With the new film, it looks as if they’re going a mix between the Gothic Nightmare found in Burton’s films, and the grounded realism of the Nolan Trilogy, with a bit of The Animated Series sprinkled in there.
Although I agree with your stance on wanting a Batman movie for the entire family to enjoy; one of the biggest things about the films that has annoyed me since the release of Begins in 05, is the fact that we never really had a great version of “The Bat-Family” on screen. I’d love to see how Robin would be handled now, alongside Batgirl and Nightwing. I don’t think that’s the end goal of the Pattinson/Reeves Trilogy they’re planning, but one can dream.
I agree with you, the same could be said for Superman (who further behind than almost all other superheroes). It’s one of the reasons that I write my own screenplay treatments for them.
Do you think? It looks just as 'realistic' as the Nolans to me. Have you seen the Riddler?
Affleck was a bit more of a fantastical version of the character (which I prefer, because I don't really think you can do Batman realistically and for him not to seem like he should be locked up), but he never really seemed to get a fair crack of the whip, and he was in films which were still too dark and scary for kids.
I'm not talking about an Adam West cartoon, but the first Burton film feels more kiddie-friendly than what we've had for the last twenty years.
The footage where Batman is walking into a barrage of machine gun fire with armor that doesn’t look like it’s suited to withstand that kind of power, and yet somehow taking them all down is what confirms to me that this is a bit more fantastical than Nolan’s, not that Nolan’s didn’t have its fantastical elements. The Riddler design is one thing, but any notion of realism is thrown out the window when you have a shot like that, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. It captures just how much of a force of nature Batman is, and should be. Ben Affleck’s Batman is another great example of that, and for that reason remains probably my favorite on screen version as well. But it’s more than that, it’s how Gotham looks in the film, it’s not just Chicago put on film, it looks like the cesspool of a city that it should be. Batman Begins captured this perfectly as well, especially with the Narrows, but Gotham just felt more and more like Chicago as the Nolan films went on.
As far as the Burton films go, the 89 Film does appear to be much lighter than today’s fare in retrospect, but at the time, it was considered very dark and edgy as well, despite the Prince music. It was the first time somebody attempted to do a dark, and serious take on Batman, and will always be remembered for bringing the original concept of the dark, brooding figure of the night to life, despite some of its stylistic and design choices haven’t aged that well. Batman Returns on the other hand? I can’t say that I think that should be a film for young kids to watch, maybe somewhere between 11-13 year olds, but not like 7-8 year olds, especially when you consider the Penguin ends up trying to kidnap every first born child in Gotham, and then murder them in the sewers. Scenes like Catwoman playing tic-tac-toe on a thugs face, Batman murdering goons left right and center, and Penguin having green gooze pouring out his mouth when dying are other examples of this, as well as the huge backlash from parents and critics as well. But with this new film, I’m getting a huge Animated Series vibe from it, and that’s what excites me.
EDIT - Also I want to put out there that Batman Returns is perhaps my all time favorite Batman film. I love that film.
I love it. Good job, Giacchino.
Okay, I don't recall that shot but maybe, I guess we'll have to see the film to find out. I don't get that vibe from it but perhaps I'm wrong.
One of the few wise things he ever said.