Why do some fans insist on every Batman adaptation being fantastical?

[Badou]

That's my point. If you want a serious and dark Batman with fantastic and sci-fi elements, you're already spoiled for choice. A live-action movie with these concepts wouldn't be anything new because they've been done before.

It would be new because live action movies are treated as something a tier above cartoons or video games. People that wouldn't play a video game, watch a cartoon, or even pick up a comic would go watch a live action movie based on Batman. A modern Batman movie that is comic accurate that uses fanciful elements of his mythos is something that hasn't been done before. So it is unexplored territory I think.

[Agent Z]

Yeah, we should be thankful for cartoons and video games. But movies? No, those are just for the grounded and realistic Batman fans.
We've had two decades of Nolan and Matt Reeves, but can't have something a little different. "Stay in your lane, here's a cartoon for you."

The problem is, this realistic take on Batman (and Joker in case with Phillips) is an attempt to cater people, who hates the entire genre. It's this mentality, that if you want to make a superhero movie, which the pretentious public will treat as ''true cinema'', you have to get rid of lots of things that actually are vital part of the entire Batman mythology. You want Martin Scorsese to not call your movie ''not cinema''? So make it like it has nothing to do with comics. No sci fi elements, no mystical/magical elements.

This seems like an awful lot of projection on you guys' part.

[thwhtGuardian]

This seems like an awful lot of projection on you guys' part.

It seems like your whole opening salvo is projection to me.

I mean, it's cool to enjoy a more grounded take on the character films and desire more of that...but by the same token it's equally understandable that there are folks who enjoy the more fantastical elements like Clayface or Manbat and would love to see that on the big screen. Neither is more valid than the other and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

[Drako]

This seems like an awful lot of projection on you guys' part.

It's not hard to grasp that some people might want a different approach to the movies instead of the same formula we've been getting since 2005. We've had five movies (including Joker) grounded in reality to a point that some characters barely resemble the source material.

I like these movies too, but at what point do we stop pretending that Batman is somehow close to reality? Matt Reeves's Batman falls from a building and glides head first into a wall. He takes 100 bullets to the chest without even flinching. But a teenager fighting alongside him is too unrealistic for the sequel?

[Felipe Silveira]

I'll only watch a Batman movie again if it has him teaching a 12-year-old Robin how to handle firearms
Nightwing (1996-2009) 033-001.jpgNightwing (1996-2009) 033-002.jpg

[marhawkman]

If you go all the way back to Adam West Batman... that era was less fantastical. It wasn't the super-martial artist era, Batman was a good fighter, but not able to use the power of martial arts to beat people 100 times as strong as he is. He had a bunch of gadgets to save him in a pinch, but it wasn't that he always had everything, he canonically had more than he was able to lug around at once. Instead, he had to load up on things he thought he'd need in a mission. So stuff like the Bat-Shark repellant... he only brings along if he's gonna be at the beach. But this means sometimes the bad guys surprise him! Maybe the Penguin will go "Hey Bats you know what Penguins fear most? It's not bats!" then drops Batman into a shark tank oops... didn't see that one coming!

Just an example, I don't remember enough eps to know if Penguin actually did that.

I actually saw the Adam West Batman BEFORE Batman: TAS. So I judged TAS based on how the Adam West Batman played out. And in many ways... Adam West was a better Batman.

[Agent Z]

It seems like your whole opening salvo is projection to me.

I mean, it's cool to enjoy a more grounded take on the character films and desire more of that...but by the same token it's equally understandable that there are folks who enjoy the more fantastical elements like Clayface or Manbat and would love to see that on the big screen. Neither is more valid than the other and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

I am not the one who accused people of hating the source material because of their preferences. Nor am I claiming that one version of Batman is more valid than the other.

My stance has been that Batman fans who prefer a certain iteration have plenty of adaptations to choose from. Just because the movies have taken less fantastic approach doesn't mean they are the only adaptations out there.

I would be fine if a live-action movie took a different tone from what we've gotten in recent years but I'm not going to pretend that adaptations from other mediums are worthless just because they aren't live action. This demand for the movies to do "something new" (that was done less than 30 years ago) comes across as another case of putting live-action film on a pedestal above other mediums, which ironically is something fans who "hate fun" are also accused of doing.

[Drako]

Nobody said the other adaptations were worthless, it's just that the idea of that we shouldn't ask for something we want in the movies just cause we have cartoon and video games is weird.

[bat39]

This has been a major source of discourse since the second Nolan Batman film and has only become more prominent since the Matt Reeves movie, with fans taking particular offense at the idea that Robin may not be featured and none of the villains will have superpowers.

What I don't understand is why fans act like these movies are the only Batman adaptations we're getting. The various video games, animated series and films contain the colorful elements from the comics they prefer. Why is it an issue that a handful of live action films take a more grounded approach?

The fact is that movies are the God-tier of superhero adaptations, the very peak of comic-book franchises. They shape the popular perception of franchises for years, if not decades, to come. People who may never pick up a comic-book or watch an animated series will be watching the movies. So fans feel that the movies need to do justice to hitherto overlooked aspects of the franchise, both for their own satisfaction and also for casual audiences to get a greater appreciation of the full scope of the franchise.

Its the reason why so many Superman fans (myself included) are outraged that Brainiac (or most Superman villains, really, outside of Luthor and Zod) hasn't made it to a live-action film. Yes, there have been cartoons with Brainiac, even TV shows. But a movie, with its massive budget and reach, is perceived to be what will truly do justice to the character and the franchise at large.

At the same time, I disagree with hating on the grounded take of Nolan and Reeves, or hating on the fans who want more of that. I feel there's room for both, which is why I'm super-happy with the prospect of BatB.

Why do some fans only want Batman movies to have a grounded realistic take on Batman? Even though the entire idea is about a man running around in a bat costume which itself is already ridiculous.

It's been nearly 30 years since the last Batman movie where it had more fantasy elements in Batman and Robin. So it seems perfectly reasonable to want a more comic accurate Batman movie adaptation after so long especially given how much better effects are now. I feel like when you ask for that people immediately start foaming at the mouth screaming about how bad Batman and Robin was. No one is asking for a remake of Batman and Robin and want some campy Batman. You can still have a serious and dark Batman movie while having horror, sci-fi, or fantasy elements in it. The Batman the Animated Series showed that for a kids show decades ago.

Agreed.

In fact, despite its many many flaws, the DCEU did a pretty good job portraying a 'serious' Batman in a fantastical world.

There's a whole spectrum between Adam West campiness and the Nolanverse.

[Mistah K88]

I remember back when the Nolan movies were running people were trying their hardest to overexplain characters like Mr. Freeze and Killer Croc to justify their existence in that "realistic" world, but thought Penguin with a trick umbrella (which is the equivalent of a concealed knife if we want "realism") was too out there. Penguin specifically being one of the most plausible Batman villains (his umbrellas being in the realm of Batman's gadgets), always needs to have the fun sucked out of him where he's interchangeable with Sal Maroni, Carmine Falcone, etc. Or on the flipside because he fits in so well in a "realistic" world, he can be considered too boring and they need to make him more outlandish like Batman Returns. There definitely is a balance that could be had...

[thwhtGuardian]

I am not the one who accused people of hating the source material because of their preferences. Nor am I claiming that one version of Batman is more valid than the other.

My stance has been that Batman fans who prefer a certain iteration have plenty of adaptations to choose from. Just because the movies have taken less fantastic approach doesn't mean they are the only adaptations out there.

I would be fine if a live-action movie took a different tone from what we've gotten in recent years but I'm not going to pretend that adaptations from other mediums are worthless just because they aren't live action. This demand for the movies to do "something new" (that was done less than 30 years ago) comes across as another case of putting live-action film on a pedestal above other mediums, which ironically is something fans who "hate fun" are also accused of doing.

Literally no one said other adaptations are worthless...this is a really weird take.

Again, your whole opening premise is weird.

[James Cameron]

I remember back when the Nolan movies were running people were trying their hardest to overexplain characters like Mr. Freeze and Killer Croc to justify their existence in that "realistic" world, but thought Penguin with a trick umbrella (which is the equivalent of a concealed knife if we want "realism") was too out there. Penguin specifically being one of the most plausible Batman villains (his umbrellas being in the realm of Batman's gadgets), always needs to have the fun sucked out of him where he's interchangeable with Sal Maroni, Carmine Falcone, etc. Or on the flipside because he fits in so well in a "realistic" world, he can be considered too boring and they need to make him more outlandish like Batman Returns. There definitely is a balance that could be had...

Any Batman villain or supporting character can work with any tone. You can tell a grounded story without everything being "realistic" or "gritty." There are so many ways to tell a story. It can be done and it has been done. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply isn't creative. I swear, the next time I see "Killer Croc can't work in the Reeves-verse" or "Mr Freeze or Robin could never have worked in the Nolan movies" I'm gonna personally purchase these people a DC unlimited subscription so they can see for themselves how unbelievably incorrect they are.

[Laser_Man]

The problem is, this realistic take on Batman (and Joker in case with Phillips) is an attempt to cater people, who hates the entire genre. It's this mentality, that if you want to make a superhero movie, which the pretentious public will treat as ''true cinema'', you have to get rid of lots of things that actually are vital part of the entire Batman mythology. You want Martin Scorsese to not call your movie ''not cinema''? So make it like it has nothing to do with comics. No sci fi elements, no mystical/magical elements. You can't have a proper Mr. Freeze story in this kind of setting, even though, I'm sure, Reeves would do a fantastic job with him. The same goes for Scarecrow. Or Clayface. Or Ra's. Or Court of Owls. Terrific things can be done with them in the movies. Or Bat-Family - James Gunn is the first director in almost thirty years who actually believes in these characters potential, because, why not? Gotham is an incredible setting with a huge potential, and nothing is done with that.
Instead Joker and Riddler are just serial killers (and in his own movie Joker is just another take on Taxi Driver), Penguin is just a mob straight from Scorsese movies, and lots of characters can't be even used properly.


I've watched all of it, I don't care. I want something new.

This.

People don't realize how many people involved in making superhero movies absolutely detest comic books.

Tim Burton didn't like any Batman comic except for Killing Joke.

Nolan tried his hardest to get rid of every comic book elements because he wanted to keep his image as a "serious filmmaker".

Pattinson kept saying Batman is not a superhero, because he wanted to come across as a serious actor and not someone who does superhero movies. It makes sense considering Pattinson is famous even in Hollywood circles for being extremely pretentious and insufferable to be around. He is desperate to show he is above movies like Twilight even though those movies made him a star.

Even Matt Reeves movie felt more like fanfiction of Nolan's Batman than having anything to do with comic book Batman, its as if Reeves was embarrassed to be making a Batman movie and made everything extra gritty because of that.

[James Cameron]

Laser, you are capping. Nolan had his brother Jonathan who was an admitted comic book fan working on the Dark Knight trilogy beside him. Some of the most valuable contributions to those movies were from Jonathan Nolan.

And Reeves' Batman is the most comic accurate live action Batman movie to date.

[phonogram12]

I'm pretty sure Pattinson (and maybe Reeves?) wants an age accurate Robin in a future movie. Maybe Clayface, too.