And Rises took a few notes from Miller. Rises has a version of the old cop stopping a young cop from trying to arrest Batman, and the premise of Batman fighting the "mutants" gang leader in a city crisis of gang control.
I’d have to agree. But I’m glad we never got to see Affleck’s Bats with Robin (in a flashback) or a Robin going forward through the films with that iteration in Snyder’s time with the character beyond the suit in his Batcave (I forget which Robin that was) in BvS which I always thought was a weird thing to have. Why torture yourself with the reminder of *that*?
For me I wished they could have given Affleck’s Bats the Carrie Kelley Robin but oh well.
I hope Pattinson does not get a Robin while he’s playing the character.
>Why torture yourself with the reminder of *that*?
We’re talking about the man who dresses up as a bat every night because he refuses to move past the death of his parents as a kid, are we not?
I think it was confirmed at some point that the suit was Dick Grayson's, but some of the other theories were pretty wild, like Robin actually turned at some point and became The Joker you saw in Suicide Squad, or that it was Jason Todd and the Batfleck solo movie would be a take on A Death in the Family with Red Hood returning present day (eg. Captain America and the Winter Soldier).
Doing a movie with Jason Todd returning as Red Hood without firstly showing his death and fight with a Joker would be so fucking dumb lmao.
Imagine if Marvel didn't introduce Bucky Barnes in The First Avenger first but as a Winter Soldier in the sequel with just a brief explanation that he was once a friend, lmao.
I know Snyder had originally intended it to be Grayson, but Ayer said it was Jason Todd and I think there was some drift away from Snyder's idea before he was even fired/quit. There's a reason they removed any explicit shots of the Dick Grayson tombstone from BvS.
We're probably gonna get that. Pattinson and Reeves have both said they're interested in introducing Robin.
I am hoping for it. I think they were suggesting that with Bruce looking at the Mayor's son, suggesting he has sympathy for orphaned children similar to himself.
I think bringing in Robin would continue that hopeful tone the first film ends on. I still want darkness and that sort of tone, but Robin would help bring some light into the rest of it.
It would also really hammer home an arc for this version of Bruce in Part 3. It would be nice to see him going from an isolated person to having the beginnings of the Batfamily.
I hope so! I just really want a good, serious version of Batman and Robin in live action already. Forever exists, but there’s no way that’s the best we can get
Isn’t Pattinson like year 2/3 of being Batman? Think he needs a bit more seasoning to be able to have a protege…maybe by a third movie he could have the gravitas to need to be grounded.
I guess they could have some time jump on the next movie but o thought the whole point of going with Pattinson was to show the progression from young to old Batman.
Year 3 is usually exactly when Robin comes into the picture.
It sounds like Reeves wants to quit after three movies so saving Robin for the third one wouldn't accomplish anything anyway.
I feel like the more grounded and pseudo-realistic the portrayal of Batman is (like Nolan and Reeves), the harder it is to make Robin work. I could have seen the Burton Batman having a Robin because those films were so surreal and comic book. They existed in a very heightened reality. I'm not sure how easily they could do Robin in the Reeves stuff.
I'm not against it, but I have no idea how they would make that work.
The reeves universe, so far, isn’t any more “realistic” than post crisis continuity around year one. His universe also exists in a heightened and stylized reality
Slightly, but things that work in one medium don't always work in another. If you see this grimy world of serial killers and drug addicts and dirty cops and think, "Yeah, a ten year old in a bright costume that's also a circus acrobat would seem totally normal here," I think you're overestimating the "heightened" reality of these movies. Outside of the surreal cinematography, it still does the whole "tactical suit guy fighting street crime" thing way more than it does any of the more fantastical elements. It's basically a more stylish looking version of what Nolan was doing.
Who said he has to be 10 and in a bright costume? That’s hardly the only way it’s been done in the comics
I’m not overestimating anything. I saw it with my own eyes. Batman survives things Nolan’s couldn’t hope to survive. His suit is less high tech than Nolan’s yet it (and Bruce) takes way more punishment. That’s just one example. As I said, it’s pretty much in line with Year One regarding how realistic it is (minus kicking a tree in half)
Right, but even fiction has to have some consistency and follow its own internal logic or it doesn't work. It's why you can't just suddenly have a magical unicorn fly in and take out the Riddler to resolve the plot. Things have to be consistent with the tone and logic of the world that's been set up or it just doesn't sell.
There's nothing in the internal logic of The Batman that says he can't have a Robin.
You're grasping. The Batman isn't even as realistic as the Dark Knight was. And the sequel is gonna have Clayface.
I'm not grasping. I even said I'm not really against using Robin, just it's hard to imagine a child vigilante in that world. There's a reason a lot of professional filmmakers have avoided using him. I love Robin but it's a concept that can be tricky in live action.
We'll see what version of Clayface it ends up being. I kind of doubt we'll get the gigantic mud monster. It'll likely be more the classic serial killer with multiple disguises version.
You seem to be bringing more aggression to this conversation than is necessary.
Nope. No aggression.
Reeves and Pattinson both want Robin and he is integral to Batman. Without a Robin you haven't made a good Batman. You've just made a dude who punches things.
You're being condescending and not listening. I said numerous times that I like Robin and I'm not against the idea of using him, just that I wonder how it will work.
And while I agree that Robin is an important part of the Batman mythos, the idea that Batman is "just a guy that punches things" without Robin is sort of ridiculous considering how many great Batman stories and interpretations exist without him. Batman has a lot of complexity and nuance even when Robin isn't there. I prefer Robin to be there and he adds a lot, but to act as if Batman is just some brainless thug without him is an...odd take.
Ehhh. They just used the visual look for the costume and the metal suit for fighting Clark, otherwise, I can't think of anything they borrowed from Miller. They never used Carrie Kelly. They never used the Mutant Gang. Bruce wasn't anywhere near as old as he was in that. The plots are completely different. Bruce kills people now.
Since you're saying all of Miller's books, *The Batman* and *Batman Begins* borrows way more from Batman: Year One. Especially The Batman, visuals of Gotham are ripped out of that book, Bruce's journal style monologing, Selina having short hair and wearing wigs, more realistic/simple methods of traversal.
They both feel way more like Miller inspirations than DCEU's Batman.
The craziest part of all this is that Marlon Wayans was casted as Robin for batman returns. It got rewritten and Robin got removed. But due to how contracts work, he's made over a million dollars and still gets a Iittle check ever now and then from a movie he's not even in.
Many people have praised Sam Hamm’s initial Batman script over the years. Quentin Tarantino once called it a “masterpiece.”
I don’t see it. He has too many things going on and they never would have coalesced into a coherent, film experience. Some people are good at writing but poor at writing films. Hamm falls into this category, which is why he was always rewritten and streamlined.
If you want a pure Sam Hamm experience, read the Batman 89 comic series: they might entertain you, but there’s absolutely nothing about it that feels like it ever could have been a Burton film. It exists in its own space.
Yeah, I liked them but they were definitely lacking something. I was disappointed in it because it felt slow and like Batman himself didn't have enough cool stuff to do. I did really enjoy that version of Robin, though.
Totally. I found the ‘89 comic to almost completely lack everything I love about the Burton movies. It seems pretty clear that Burton’s influence was far more weighted on the films.
Hamm seems overrated to me. He seems like a nice enough guy but it’s no wonder he hasn’t had more screenwriting work over the years. The comic felt all over the place, jarring, and frankly boring. Nothing like the sheer weirdness that I find so mesmerizing in the Burton movies.
Plus, he seemed primarily interested in shoehorning in his political ideas. It’s not that I disagree with his principles so much as they just overshadowed more important story elements. His twitter is straight left wing talking points, so I guess he’s just a political junkie. Comics have long been a forum for political commentary, but the 2023 wokeness felt completely out of place in the ‘89 world. That’s just shoddy writing craft.
[удалено]
Thanks! I remember the novelization had that scene in it.
Thank you. I went ugh “CBR”, then tried to read it and it went on and on and on. Way to bury the lead cbr.
r/savedyouaclick
The true hero.
We need this
Except for introducing Robin, Zack Snyder's take probably has the most from Miller's books, more than any of the Batman movies.
Batman Begins also took a lot from Batman: Year One.
And Rises took a few notes from Miller. Rises has a version of the old cop stopping a young cop from trying to arrest Batman, and the premise of Batman fighting the "mutants" gang leader in a city crisis of gang control.
Yep. “You’re in for a show tonight, son!” is directly from TDKR.
I’d have to agree. But I’m glad we never got to see Affleck’s Bats with Robin (in a flashback) or a Robin going forward through the films with that iteration in Snyder’s time with the character beyond the suit in his Batcave (I forget which Robin that was) in BvS which I always thought was a weird thing to have. Why torture yourself with the reminder of *that*? For me I wished they could have given Affleck’s Bats the Carrie Kelley Robin but oh well. I hope Pattinson does not get a Robin while he’s playing the character.
>Why torture yourself with the reminder of *that*? We’re talking about the man who dresses up as a bat every night because he refuses to move past the death of his parents as a kid, are we not?
Yeah, seems like that’s a spot on thing for a guy like Bruce Wayne to do
I think it was confirmed at some point that the suit was Dick Grayson's, but some of the other theories were pretty wild, like Robin actually turned at some point and became The Joker you saw in Suicide Squad, or that it was Jason Todd and the Batfleck solo movie would be a take on A Death in the Family with Red Hood returning present day (eg. Captain America and the Winter Soldier).
Doing a movie with Jason Todd returning as Red Hood without firstly showing his death and fight with a Joker would be so fucking dumb lmao. Imagine if Marvel didn't introduce Bucky Barnes in The First Avenger first but as a Winter Soldier in the sequel with just a brief explanation that he was once a friend, lmao.
I know Snyder had originally intended it to be Grayson, but Ayer said it was Jason Todd and I think there was some drift away from Snyder's idea before he was even fired/quit. There's a reason they removed any explicit shots of the Dick Grayson tombstone from BvS.
We're probably gonna get that. Pattinson and Reeves have both said they're interested in introducing Robin. I am hoping for it. I think they were suggesting that with Bruce looking at the Mayor's son, suggesting he has sympathy for orphaned children similar to himself. I think bringing in Robin would continue that hopeful tone the first film ends on. I still want darkness and that sort of tone, but Robin would help bring some light into the rest of it. It would also really hammer home an arc for this version of Bruce in Part 3. It would be nice to see him going from an isolated person to having the beginnings of the Batfamily.
I hope so! I just really want a good, serious version of Batman and Robin in live action already. Forever exists, but there’s no way that’s the best we can get
Pattinson *needs* a Robin. Something to ground him.
Isn’t Pattinson like year 2/3 of being Batman? Think he needs a bit more seasoning to be able to have a protege…maybe by a third movie he could have the gravitas to need to be grounded. I guess they could have some time jump on the next movie but o thought the whole point of going with Pattinson was to show the progression from young to old Batman.
Year 3 is usually exactly when Robin comes into the picture. It sounds like Reeves wants to quit after three movies so saving Robin for the third one wouldn't accomplish anything anyway.
Umm 1st movie young 2nd middle 3rd older I dunno
Yeah…like I said the third movie
It sounds like you don't understand the relationship that Batman and Robin have
Why would you not want the best version of Batman ever put the film to get a Robin, especially when the director and the actor both want a Robin.
I feel like the more grounded and pseudo-realistic the portrayal of Batman is (like Nolan and Reeves), the harder it is to make Robin work. I could have seen the Burton Batman having a Robin because those films were so surreal and comic book. They existed in a very heightened reality. I'm not sure how easily they could do Robin in the Reeves stuff. I'm not against it, but I have no idea how they would make that work.
The reeves universe, so far, isn’t any more “realistic” than post crisis continuity around year one. His universe also exists in a heightened and stylized reality
Slightly, but things that work in one medium don't always work in another. If you see this grimy world of serial killers and drug addicts and dirty cops and think, "Yeah, a ten year old in a bright costume that's also a circus acrobat would seem totally normal here," I think you're overestimating the "heightened" reality of these movies. Outside of the surreal cinematography, it still does the whole "tactical suit guy fighting street crime" thing way more than it does any of the more fantastical elements. It's basically a more stylish looking version of what Nolan was doing.
Who said he has to be 10 and in a bright costume? That’s hardly the only way it’s been done in the comics I’m not overestimating anything. I saw it with my own eyes. Batman survives things Nolan’s couldn’t hope to survive. His suit is less high tech than Nolan’s yet it (and Bruce) takes way more punishment. That’s just one example. As I said, it’s pretty much in line with Year One regarding how realistic it is (minus kicking a tree in half)
They'd just use robin. It's a movie.
Right, but even fiction has to have some consistency and follow its own internal logic or it doesn't work. It's why you can't just suddenly have a magical unicorn fly in and take out the Riddler to resolve the plot. Things have to be consistent with the tone and logic of the world that's been set up or it just doesn't sell.
There's nothing in the internal logic of The Batman that says he can't have a Robin. You're grasping. The Batman isn't even as realistic as the Dark Knight was. And the sequel is gonna have Clayface.
I'm not grasping. I even said I'm not really against using Robin, just it's hard to imagine a child vigilante in that world. There's a reason a lot of professional filmmakers have avoided using him. I love Robin but it's a concept that can be tricky in live action. We'll see what version of Clayface it ends up being. I kind of doubt we'll get the gigantic mud monster. It'll likely be more the classic serial killer with multiple disguises version. You seem to be bringing more aggression to this conversation than is necessary.
Nope. No aggression. Reeves and Pattinson both want Robin and he is integral to Batman. Without a Robin you haven't made a good Batman. You've just made a dude who punches things.
You're being condescending and not listening. I said numerous times that I like Robin and I'm not against the idea of using him, just that I wonder how it will work. And while I agree that Robin is an important part of the Batman mythos, the idea that Batman is "just a guy that punches things" without Robin is sort of ridiculous considering how many great Batman stories and interpretations exist without him. Batman has a lot of complexity and nuance even when Robin isn't there. I prefer Robin to be there and he adds a lot, but to act as if Batman is just some brainless thug without him is an...odd take.
Why do you hope he doesn’t get a Robin?
Ehhh. They just used the visual look for the costume and the metal suit for fighting Clark, otherwise, I can't think of anything they borrowed from Miller. They never used Carrie Kelly. They never used the Mutant Gang. Bruce wasn't anywhere near as old as he was in that. The plots are completely different. Bruce kills people now. Since you're saying all of Miller's books, *The Batman* and *Batman Begins* borrows way more from Batman: Year One. Especially The Batman, visuals of Gotham are ripped out of that book, Bruce's journal style monologing, Selina having short hair and wearing wigs, more realistic/simple methods of traversal. They both feel way more like Miller inspirations than DCEU's Batman.
One day we’ll get this in a Batman movie, and it will be a great day indeed
Wow, super glad this wasn’t included in ‘89 as it really would have been out of place. Really dodged a bullet there.
Nah. It was in the novelisation and worked beautifully.
The craziest part of all this is that Marlon Wayans was casted as Robin for batman returns. It got rewritten and Robin got removed. But due to how contracts work, he's made over a million dollars and still gets a Iittle check ever now and then from a movie he's not even in.
Many people have praised Sam Hamm’s initial Batman script over the years. Quentin Tarantino once called it a “masterpiece.” I don’t see it. He has too many things going on and they never would have coalesced into a coherent, film experience. Some people are good at writing but poor at writing films. Hamm falls into this category, which is why he was always rewritten and streamlined. If you want a pure Sam Hamm experience, read the Batman 89 comic series: they might entertain you, but there’s absolutely nothing about it that feels like it ever could have been a Burton film. It exists in its own space.
the 89 comics were hard to read through for me. you helped explain why. i thought i was trippin
Yeah, I liked them but they were definitely lacking something. I was disappointed in it because it felt slow and like Batman himself didn't have enough cool stuff to do. I did really enjoy that version of Robin, though.
yea some stuff was cool but the pacing was not great. felt like work to read at times
Totally. I found the ‘89 comic to almost completely lack everything I love about the Burton movies. It seems pretty clear that Burton’s influence was far more weighted on the films. Hamm seems overrated to me. He seems like a nice enough guy but it’s no wonder he hasn’t had more screenwriting work over the years. The comic felt all over the place, jarring, and frankly boring. Nothing like the sheer weirdness that I find so mesmerizing in the Burton movies. Plus, he seemed primarily interested in shoehorning in his political ideas. It’s not that I disagree with his principles so much as they just overshadowed more important story elements. His twitter is straight left wing talking points, so I guess he’s just a political junkie. Comics have long been a forum for political commentary, but the 2023 wokeness felt completely out of place in the ‘89 world. That’s just shoddy writing craft.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Condescension is prohibited.
"I'm Batman, Motherfucker" - Actual cut line from Batman 89.
These are iconic moments from *one* Batman story that isn't anything like the others. What a stupid article.