-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Batman begins streaming on HBO Max April 18th
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
He's 2 years in to being Batman. According to his monologue (2 years of nights, 2 years and robberies, homicides, corruption etc all up in Gotham) and he questions if he is making any difference. Definitely still wet behind the bat ears and trying to figure things out and building out his arsenal and tools.
I watched the opening 20 minutes a couple of times dialing in the brightness on my TV for my repeat viewing Friday night. Fuck, this movie just oozes styyyyyyyyle and mood. The little making of featurette with the huge LED array they used was really cool. I didn't know that was something that they were using, that shit looks really $$$
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I feel this way about the internet at large. The word woke is beginning to lose all meaning to me.
MastaKiiLA
Member
Good movie, but didn't hit like either of the Dark Knight films, nor the original Burton film. But it was still enjoyable. I bet upon further rewatches, it'll sneak its way ahead of DKR or Batman1.
I find Pattison's Bruce Wayne to be rather lackluster. Maybe because this is the first film adaptation of an emo Bruce. Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Affleck, and Bale all played Bruce Wayne in various stages of yuppie fatigue, but I think this is the most brooding we've seen the character. I can't say I like it, but I appreciated the attempt. Plus, as the character becomes more experienced and grizzled, I expect Pattison to show that.
On the other hand, this might be my favorite portrayal of Batman the hero. No forced gravel in the voice or vocoder. Not a lot of quips and fussing about. We actually see him doing real detective work, which I thought was really awesome. The clues were too simple, but I understand why. I thought he was physically-imposing enough. The silhouetted bat signal scenes made him look like a fashion model sometimes, but when he was in amongst the other characters, I thought they did a great job of making him look bigger than everyone else.
I haven't read reactions, but I wonder if people are as offended by this Batman's wanton killing, as they were with Batfleck in BvS. I know the director made sure to show us Batman stopping others from killing, but there are multiple skirmishes during the film where people clearly would've died. I'm fine with it, but I thought this was always an unfair criticism of Batfleck.
This movie is long. I can't say too long, because I think the runtime let the director cover a ton of ground, and build out this Gotham City properly for future films. I just don't get WB's logic where they give this film 3hrs of dark grit, but butchered others for runtime and jokes. Maybe WB has turned over a new leaf, and won't fuck with future projects?
I find Pattison's Bruce Wayne to be rather lackluster. Maybe because this is the first film adaptation of an emo Bruce. Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Affleck, and Bale all played Bruce Wayne in various stages of yuppie fatigue, but I think this is the most brooding we've seen the character. I can't say I like it, but I appreciated the attempt. Plus, as the character becomes more experienced and grizzled, I expect Pattison to show that.
On the other hand, this might be my favorite portrayal of Batman the hero. No forced gravel in the voice or vocoder. Not a lot of quips and fussing about. We actually see him doing real detective work, which I thought was really awesome. The clues were too simple, but I understand why. I thought he was physically-imposing enough. The silhouetted bat signal scenes made him look like a fashion model sometimes, but when he was in amongst the other characters, I thought they did a great job of making him look bigger than everyone else.
I haven't read reactions, but I wonder if people are as offended by this Batman's wanton killing, as they were with Batfleck in BvS. I know the director made sure to show us Batman stopping others from killing, but there are multiple skirmishes during the film where people clearly would've died. I'm fine with it, but I thought this was always an unfair criticism of Batfleck.
This movie is long. I can't say too long, because I think the runtime let the director cover a ton of ground, and build out this Gotham City properly for future films. I just don't get WB's logic where they give this film 3hrs of dark grit, but butchered others for runtime and jokes. Maybe WB has turned over a new leaf, and won't fuck with future projects?
SafeOrAlone
Banned
Lol, this isn't even accurate. Look at the scene of them on the train and there is clearly another black man in the gang. Reaaaach.Wow I heard it had a lot of WOKE undertones but its not undertones at all and I am not talking about the bunch of black sctors in throw away roles. its the whole premise is cops bad, rich white people bad, white government currupt/bad, guns bad, non white people are helpless little lambs being pressured into being bad by bad white people.
Just take a look at the gang in the start of the movie. All these bad white guys are pressuring this scared black kid to be bad. Now go somewhere like NYC and tell me what the reality is.. it's another propaganda movie and not even a good one.
Unfortunately , it doesn't seem like much of reach to me since I didn't see the other black guy in my viewing as well.
SafeOrAlone
Banned
The fact that he is in the scene, makes it more than a reach, actually - It's just plain wrong.
Whether you, yourself, missed it, is irrelevant.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
how would that make a difference in anyway when the whole scene is the white guys forcing the scared black kid to do bad. it would not change the scene in anyway if they had a 30 black guys with the white face paint int he background. it surely doesn't change any of the many other scenes that I and others have pointed out.
I welcome any real counter points but just claiming because there maybe one other black guy somewhere in the backgorund negates everything else is just silly.
SafeOrAlone
Banned
How would it make a difference? Well it completely dismantles the angle that the movie is portraying a scene in which "all these bad white guys are pressuring this scared black kid to be bad."
Some of them are white - so what? Some of them are also black.
I bet some are hispanic too. You can't even tell through the makeup, on most of them.
I don't know how you can ask "how does that make a difference?" It makes all the difference. You said it's a gang of white dudes pressuring a black dude, which is factually incorrect. It's a multicultural gang of dudes, yes - pressuring a black guy.
Last edited:
thefool
Member
There is no reach. Art (namely, cinema) has always been an expression of the zeitgeist, especially big american cinema as an exporter of culture and ideals. That people are uncomfortable over such blatant messaging, that's an whole other subject.
Beyond the heavy-handed imagery, in one of the film pivotal scenes where the, white hero, expresses disdain over a character life-choices, Selina argues, initially, that his stance is merely a privileged one (even tho she doesn't actually know who he really is beyond his skin color).
As the scene progresses, she shows sympathy over the actions of the Riddler as he is punishing "white, privileged assholes". It is she who baits the audience to the race-issue as the systemic problem of the city, and one where violence is actually welcomed. It's not that they are corrupt, vile, wicked or immoral,. It's that people only care about them because they are....white.
Obviously this is an infantile take that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but its what the film tries to display several times.
Beyond the heavy-handed imagery, in one of the film pivotal scenes where the, white hero, expresses disdain over a character life-choices, Selina argues, initially, that his stance is merely a privileged one (even tho she doesn't actually know who he really is beyond his skin color).
As the scene progresses, she shows sympathy over the actions of the Riddler as he is punishing "white, privileged assholes". It is she who baits the audience to the race-issue as the systemic problem of the city, and one where violence is actually welcomed. It's not that they are corrupt, vile, wicked or immoral,. It's that people only care about them because they are....white.
Obviously this is an infantile take that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but its what the film tries to display several times.
MastaKiiLA
Member
The whole wokeness bullshit has largely become a tell for white people who feel insecure about being white. To the point that any portrayal of a woman or person of color in a role outside of the arbitrary boxes they perceive as norms suddenly becomes an attempt to force a narrative on you. Frankly, I've taken to immediately labeling anyone who uses the term "woke" as a negative as being racist or racist-adjacent. I've never had a conversation with someone who complained about "woke culture" that didn't make that person come off as racist. Anecdotal and whatnot, but it is what it is.
Darth_Ghandi
Banned
Same here.
As a poster above has said the whole terms is reduced to “anyone who’s doesn’t agree with me is woke”.
I have no idea what woke us anymore tbh.
Was it MR potatoheads balls or about fucking a green candy? I can’t remember.
thefool
Member
Let's also look at the train scene.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
Last edited:
Darth_Ghandi
Banned
Let's also look at the train scene.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
Aaayyoooo! Check the black dude in your first screenshot.
Vestal
Junior Member
You informed of this in the first 10min of the film. You get a glimpse at his Diary and the cover says "Year Two"
RoboFu
One of the green rats
So basically it’s “ if don’t agree with me you are a racist “.
Same ole song and dance.
Last edited:
SafeOrAlone
Banned
"the group is mostly white."Let's also look at the train scene.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
That's what you're hinging your argument on - "mostly white"?
This is extremely sensitive.
If they were all white, I might entertain the idea.
I won't even get into the idea that painting a black guy's face half-white, stands out more than painting a white guy's face half-white, so it makes sense to me that they would want this visual cue, to the fact that he is being initiated, to stand out.
Also, they could have just not had another black guy in the gang, if they were trying to deliver some type of message.
But these are just the minor arguments I would use, if I actually did entertain the idea.
I'm not saying narratives like this don't exist in media, but to start making a fit about the slightest hint of anything is ridiculous.
thefool
Member
I haven't made an argument, I posted the scene. How you interpret it (and the movie) is up to you.
Making a fit is the name calling and ad-hominem posts i've seen a couple of times in this thread.
Last edited:
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Let's also look at the train scene.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
I think it's weird you even noticed their races that much and got hung up on them, but I figured the kid only being half-painted was to reflect that he hadn't yet made his bones yet, so to speak, so was still a recruit. That's why they tried to get him to knock the innocent man out, so he'd become a full member of the gang and have his entire face painted.
Classicrockfan
Banned
Wow you do live up to your name.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Man, that was better than I was expecting. Not quite Dark Knight level but better than any MCU movie to me. My only real complaint is that he was a bad Bruce Wayne but he spent so little time as Bruce that it didn’t really hurt it. Also would’ve been cool if they got Joaquin Phoenix back as Joker at the end but I understand why they didn’t.
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
Been rewatching this movie a ton of times on HBOMax. Way better than 99% of DC films that have been released. It takes over Batman Begins as my favorite origin story
FunkMiller
Member
Let's also look at the train scene.
The group is mostly white with only one character half painted. To be better recognized by the audience or perhaps to signal his difference over the rest.
There is one character (which is white) that three times pushes the black kid to commit a crime over an asian character.
This is what the film presents.
Congrats. You're now the same as the guys on Era posting endless pictures of women with dicks from Cyberpunk.
Last edited:
plushyp
Member
He isn't a bad Bruce Wayne but a sad Bruce Wayne.
I'm just going to have to disagree.
strange headache
Banned
While some people may go a bit overboard or are a oversensitive, there is no denying that wokeness has become part of Hollywood's new cultish clique. You have seminal directors like Quentin Tarantino lamenting the stifling effect of wokeness on Hollywood's creative output:
To simply pretend wokeness is not a social phenomenon or an invention of racist people or the mere result of white fragility, is just plain wrong.
Without Catwoman's stupid line about the corrupt white people, I would not have cared about any of that. The audience at my local cinema moaned out loud at the expression of that line. Maybe these comments rub audiences here the wrong way, because Europe isn't as inundated with woke vernacular yet... I don't know, but what I do know is that such expressions are in general not well received.
Anyway, that comment got me thinking about all this crap. Not because I wanted to, but because Catwoman shoved it in my face. Am I to somehow understand that black people are somehow less prone to corruption due to the mere pigmentation of their skin? Did Selena never encounter any black people at her nightclub? Not even a sleazy black dude trying to get into her panties?
Then you come to notice the quite deliberate demographic casting of that movie. There are indeed no corrupt black people. In fact, the only incorruptible ones are James Gordon and Bella Reàl, who later on is lifted out of Gotham's rubbles by Batman's helping hand through heavily emblematic imagery. Then of course there his the Riddler and his radicalized far-right incel 4chan troupe...
Turning a blind eye to the heavy symbolry in that movie can only imply that you either don't care, don't want to hear about or are in full support of this hollywoodian trend. I certainly can understand why people are annoyed by it, because it has permeated so much of American entertainment these days (from Netflix to comedy), it's hard not to notice anymore.
It is certainly a reason why Hollywood entertainment is losing much of its international appeal nowadays, from Oscars to ticket sales. There are reasons why Korean shows and Japanese anime have garnered so much appeal nowadays. The Batman might have been a box office hit, but that is mostly due to brand recognition, not because the story was any good. It's what happens when you put more thought into your casting demographics, than trying to actually write a decent story.
Darth_Ghandi
Banned
I don’t agree. You have tons of online talking heads who make their bread and butter by railing against Hollywood.
This online culture war is just as much a thing generated by those people imo.
Catwoman is just saying a fact. They are in fact white. Getting hysterical over that they reflect reality (both irl and in the movie) is just weird.
I mean people are saying POC are shoehorn led into roles (like Gordon) and a few breaths later scream about how POC aren’t represented among the baddies. You just can’t win with some I guess.
Also we see a black dude in the whiteface group.
strange headache
Banned
Considering your ideological zealotry from that other thread, I am not surprised.
Darth_Ghandi
Banned
you call it zealotry, I call it knowledge.
But pls tell me again how environmental circumstances aren’t intersectional….
FunkMiller
Member
The line kinda rolled completely off me because in fact, I think everyone might find, that the world is actually run by rich old white men. Quite why so many people seem to take such exception at this being pointed out is beyond me.
And it’s just one line in an entire movie. Even if it is a bit woke-ish, does it really fucking matter?
Also, just to reiterate this, and it really can’t be said enough:
You wokey brokey types are all complaining about a movie being woke and anti white people, when the main character is a heroic, rich white dude.
Come back to me when they arbitrarily change Bruce Wayne into a black bloke and we’ll talk.
Last edited:
Badlucktroll
Member
My local theater serves Coca-Cola
scoobidoo112
Member
The same way that one side of the culture war sees racism and sexism in literally everything, the other side now sees 'wokeness' in literally everything. I feel like people on both sides have become somewhat paranoid in this constant back and forth.
There are cases where someone or something is obviously sexist or racist, just like there are cases where something or someone is obviously trying to be 'woke', or casting judgement on groups of people in the name of 'progress'. In all other cases people need to calm the fuck down, and think for a moment if this is really what they think it is.
As other have pointed out, this clearly isn't it. A women, talking to the white dude she's into, whilst searching for her white female friend, saying 'rich white dudes run the city', is not worth all this outrage.
Amazon's LOTR is clearly trying to be woke, and so are a ton of Netflix adaptations and a few recent Marvel projects. The Batman is not.
FunkMiller
Member
Exactly. It’s two ends of the same horseshoe, and it’s hilarious how none of them can see it.
Last edited:
SafeOrAlone
Banned
Disagree with what?
The character is in the scene. It’s not opinion-based, unfortunately.
pesaddict
Banned
Bitch we aint a pack of crayons !
scoobidoo112
Member
You know that's not the issue so let's not even go there...
strange headache
Banned
At the extremes certainly, that's what the horseshoe principle implies, but there is a lot of room for necessary debate and healthy criticism in between.
Conflating overzealous criticism with valid complaints in order to downplay the real issues at hand is not very helpful.
Outrage no, annoyance and criticism yes. It's a dumb and borderline racist line that has no place in a movie like this. It adds nothing of value, except for the vilification of people based on the color of their skin. If you don't find that worthy of critique, then the issue lies with you, not the people who are annoyed by such borderline racist expressions.
Last edited:
Mossybrew
Banned
Yep. The line is on point, especially coming from Selina's point of view. Another thing I would have never noticed until some insecure online snowflakes get butthurt and cry. And oh here's a convenient example LOL ...
Last edited:
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Well if it was JUST that one line.. or JUST the one gang scene. But its not. its constant dialog and visual respresentations of propaganda idealology over and over and its an incorrect narative. Even the statement you agreed with is incorrect. "RICH WHITE MEN RUN THE WOLRD" I guess if your broad generalization includes middle eastern, asian, and Indians as "WHITE" then I guess you can say that.
SafeOrAlone
Banned
Why are we putting the line from Catwoman on a pedestal? Why does her one line of dialogue seem to dictate the message of the film to you guys?
She literally tries to murder someone not long after. She isn’t someone you’re supposed to look up to or necessarily agree with.
She literally tries to murder someone not long after. She isn’t someone you’re supposed to look up to or necessarily agree with.
Burning Blade
Member
Can’t say I really loved the movie, but Zoe Kravitz was fucking really good as Catwoman. She’s got some acting chops for sure. Usually it takes me out of the movie when a 85lb gal is clobbering giant baddies but the choreography was quick and concise, and that helped. Colin Ferrell was fucking great too! I was entertained but didn’t love it.
Last edited:
strange headache
Banned
I'd say the butthurt snowflakes in this thread are those who feel the need to throw around personal insults due to their inability to offer any real counterarguments.
You are clearly meant to sympathize with her, otherwise they wouldn't portray her struggles like that and make her Batman's little love affair. Even if she's an anti-hero, I somehow doubt the producers intended to turn her into a racist persona.
Last edited:
SafeOrAlone
Banned
You can sympathize with people while disagreeing with them. Again, we aren't condoning her kicking a man off of a building, just because she was Batman's love interest.
strange headache
Banned
Eh, I don't tend to sympathize very much with racists. Sorry.
Also comparing justifiable vigilantism to racism is pretty dumb, especially in a movie that is all about righteous vengeance and vigilantism.
It's also possible to still enjoy a movie while taking issue with certain aspects of it. You want to criticize others for lack of nuance, but are pretty black & white yourself in that regard.
Last edited: