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

[Riv86672]

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

^^^Good news if true.

[Agent Z]

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

Again, your whole opening premise is weird.

Have you seen the other comments in this thread?

[Agent Z]

This.

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

It can't be that many considering how many superhero movies have been made.

It makes sense considering Pattinson is famous even in Hollywood circles for being extremely pretentious and insufferable to be around.

According to who?

[Riv86672]

Have you seen the other comments in this thread?

^^^I have, which is why I haven’t been responding.
It’s just not worth bothering when there’s no chance of an actual back and forth.

Regardless, I’d love to see some of Batman’s more fantastical rogues, and Robin onscreen.

Hell, throw in the dinosaur and giant penny while we’re at it.

[bat39]

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.

Robin could have worked in the Nolanverse...and John Blake was pretty much Nolan's take on the concept. Of course Nolan simply didn't want to use Robin in his movies which is fair enough.

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.

This is a really bad take, not least because it seriously undermines the work done by the aforementioned 'serious' filmmakers, actors and films in setting the stage for something like the MCU, in all its comic-bookish glory, to exist.

Without the likes of Tim Burton or Bryan Singer, the superhero genre on cinema wouldn't have persisted to the point where Kevin Feige could do his magic. Its because Chris Nolan saved the Batman franchise on cinema that we even have a chance to get something potentially more comic-booky with BatB.

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.

The Dark Knight trilogy drew massively from the comics, as did Reeves' Batman. The notion that they somehow 'hated' the comics is patently absurd!

[phonogram12]

^^^Good news if true.

Personally, I think some of the more horror-oriented villains could really work well, like the aforementioned Clayface or even Poison Ivy. But IDK, as much as I love Mr. Freeze, I have a hard time seeing a decent adaptation of him on film (other than the superlative performances of the various actors from the '66 show, that is). I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

[Garlador]

Batman has always been a strange character to adapt because so many insist they want to take him seriously, and that means forgoing his comic roots and fantastical aspects. I don't agree with that, but some fans really want to chase the clout of getting a dark, gritty gangster film - but with Batman. Despite my misgivings, the formula does continue to prove successful at the box office.

[godisawesome]

I tend to think that the short nature of films (relative to TV shows, comics, video games, and cartoons) puts a greater emphasis on “maximizing” your writing - which can be more difficult with *some* types of overly fantastic writing either requiring greater effort and time to sell them, or more tempting to use in “short cut” manners.

Now, in my opinion, the Marvel movies figured out how to use the “short cut” fantastical elements competently - you “compensate” for the “loss” of serious elements where the fantastical characters, powers and settings are by hitting other types of drama far harder than expected. Gunn basically made his name by doing such a good job at that with the Guardians of the Galaxy movies that they could be both the most bonkers yet dramatic films in the MCU.

That idea though, is not alien to Batman - Mr. Freeze’s reinvention in the 90’s is a perfect example of that formula working *damn* well - but it hasn’t quite been done in the movies, especially since the Schumacher films gave in to the more shallow storytelling temptations.

On the other hand, the Nolan movies were actually pretty damn fantastical in their own way, so a lot of it can come down to just how well you execute your ideas, whatever they are.

[marhawkman]

Batman has always been a strange character to adapt because so many insist they want to take him seriously, and that means forgoing his comic roots and fantastical aspects. I don't agree with that, but some fans really want to chase the clout of getting a dark, gritty gangster film - but with Batman. Despite my misgivings, the formula does continue to prove successful at the box office.

The fun part is when you question just how "serious" Batman should be. Certain aspects are very serious... even in the Adam West Batman. There are real stakes, sure as viewers we know Batman has plot armor, but the villains have goals that involve killing Batman and stuff like that. And you can't even say they're "fake" ways to kill people. they LOOK silly because of how the props and sets are built. But if it was real, you'd be dead.

[The Overlord]

I'm a huge fan of both Nolan movies and Reeves' Batman. Doesn't change the fact, that there are elements from comics I want to see in the movies. I want to see comicbook accurate Freeze, Clayface, Ra's, Man-Bat and Court of Owls, I want to see Bat-Family: Dick, Damian, Cass, Barbara and the rest. I want to see more gothic, supernatural take on Gotham.

What adaptations? Caped Crusader is also set to be more grounded take, Arkham games are over and don't get me started at Suicide Squad and Gotham Knights. Animated movies, unfortunately, haven't been really impressive for a long time.
It's the reason why I'm rooting for TBATB movie - because it's our only chance to actually see more comicbook accurate take. If it fails, we're stuck with takes, that made by people, who are ashamed by source material.

The problem is, unless you are doing the Golden Age Clayface, the studios would have to spend a ton of money to make Clayface work on the Silver Screen and Clayface is a B-list villain. It would be hard to justify upping the budget just for him, especially after a bunch of high-profile comic book movie flops have resulted in a desire to reduce budgets that have been seen as getting out of control and there are a dozen more budget-friendly villains they could use over Clayface.

[exile001]

The problem is, unless you are doing the Golden Age Clayface, the studios would have to spend a ton of money to make Clayface work on the Silver Screen and Clayface is a B-list villain.

Assuming it's Clayface II, the Clayface most think of, they'd spend 90% of the film in human form anyway, occasionally transforming a body part or becoming a different actor.

They'd likely only be a full on mud monster for the origin and finale. Like Sandman in Spidey 3.

[godisawesome]

With Clayface, the only real issue is the dearth of great stories for him as a complementary villain to Batman - BTAS's version has the best story for Clayface, in the old Burton/Schumacher "the hero is the hero, but the villain is the featured character" style, and his best comic stories tend to still make him more of a monster threat than a psychological one, albeit with a personality.

The instinctual role for him in a more psychological story is as a supporting villain hiding in plain sight, like in the Arkham games, with a greater emphasis on his unearthly ability to disguise himself as someone else, while allowing someone else to be a mastermind.

[TheRay]

My guess is that people are tired of having to start over with the Batman lore and want movies with him already involved in the Gotham underworld.

[marhawkman]

My guess is that people are tired of having to start over with the Batman lore and want movies with him already involved in the Gotham underworld.

Yeah this, they saw the origin already, honestly... you can throw in a few minutes of flashback if you really feel the need, and not SHOW the whole thing.

[The True Detective]

I've always wondered why Batman is the one character who people want in more than one tone. Superman fans hated the Snyder movies for trying to make him gritty. Spider-Man and Wonder Woman fans don't seem to be clamoring for darker movies with them. MCU fans aren't clamoring for darker movies. Why is Batman the only character who has to stray from the tone he's traditionally had the most success in? Do those of you who want more fantastical Batman movies also want traditionally lighter fantastical characters in grounded and gritty movies? If not why is it a one way street? You can't complain Batman having nothing but grounded movies is old but then get mad when Superman is given a different tone.