The Batman (June 25, 2021)

[lordnastrond]

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful tool, to the uninitiated.

The Batman’s Batman only even gets to the climax because a side character gives him the hint he needs to unravel the Riddler’s plot after it’s basically too late. He literally never is ahead of the curve at all. He gets there barely in time to save some people but he doesn’t really stop or solve anything in the whole film.

Well this is wrong - he figures out who Riddler's cult are targeting and why, which also informs him where he has to be and then he gets there in time to foil what was, for Riddler, the "crescendo" of the plan - the murder of the entire elite of Gotham. Batman not only takes out the snipers but he also leads the people all to safety - without him they all would have died, from the snipers, from the electrical wires he specifically cuts, from the rising waters. etc.

Joker’s entire point as a character is that he’s Batman’s intellectual equal.

Also wrong - this has never been the point of the Joker. Being Batman's Intellectual equal has always been the Riddler's purpose - the purpose of the Joker is to challenge Batman morally, ethically and spiritually - to push him to his metaphorical edge, to be his antithesis, to be the one who is most likely to pull him into the darkness, the one who knows how to hurt him the most. If the Riddler is a sphinx who frustrates the mind, then the Joker is a demon who poison's and tortures the soul. This is clearly seen in TDK, the Joker isn't trying to outsmart Batman, Dent or Gotham - he is trying to corrupt them - "you'll have to break your rule to save Dent & Rachel", "to save a hospital you have to kill this stranger", "to save yourselves you have to kill everyone else on the other boat" - almost non of these plans are actually intellectual mysteries or even that complex - its the moral complexity that makes them torturous, its trying to find a solution NOT on Joker's terms that is the challenge - the problems themselves actually have very simple solutions, if one is willing to abandon morality.

Riddler often gets embarrassed and frustrated by not being able to foil Batman. It’s a completely unlike comparison based on the source material.

I mean, this basically applies to all of the Batman rogues, Joker included - in most versions of the stories the villain is defeated and is embarrassed and frustrated by being foiled - most of them have at least one story or two where they obtain something of a pyrrhic victory over Batman - this is the norm and shouldn't be used to portray the Riddler as somehow inherently different or unfaithful here.
And.... isn't this also the state Riddler is in by the end of the movie? So why is this unlike the source material?

None of this negates the fact that Batman does outsmart the Joker in the film.
You’re choosing to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your predisposition.

Joker “Wins” in the film but not by defeating Batman. He wins by corrupting Dent as a backup plan. That doesn’t mean Joker wanted to fail with the ferries, Batman still unequivocally stopped Joker’s plan with the ferries and it wouldn’t have been stopped without Batman’s actions. No amount of mental gymnastics can remove that fact from the film just because you didn’t like it for subjective reasons.

No he doesn't - the people on the ferry foil that plan by proving that Gothamites are not as morally bankrupt as Joker assumes. His plan is to prove that all people are "deep down as ugly as you" as Batman puts it, and the people prove him wrong - what Batman DOES prevent is Joker killing everyone on both boats out of revenge - which I see as no different from Pattinson saving all the people in the centre from dying due to Riddler's plan.
Batman did nothing to persuade or influence the decision on the boats - it would have happened anyway, what he does do is spare them from the aftermath of their decision to defy Joker.

My point is that, at the end of The Batman, Batman comes off as almost a patsy for Riddler. All of his actions unintentionally supported the Riddler’s mission and Batman only “solved” things he was meant to solve because Riddler was not hiding anything from Batman, from his perspective he was speaking to him through code as to an accomplice. If Batman wasn’t in The Batman the difference of events would be that Falcone would still be alive and more people would have died at GSG. That make’s Batman seem not that effective IMO. He never has a real victory in the movie.

I mean - I'm not sure how preventing more deaths at the GSG doesn't count as a victory here? Its on par with Bale's victory over Joker - in the 3rd act they prevent the mass slaughter of innocents by the main villain by figuring out where the villain is in time and responding.

In Begins, without Batman Falcone would still be ruling Gotham until Ra’s destroyed it through fear gas. Batman’s actions made a clear impact that saved 90% of the city.

In Rises Batman makes a lot of mistakes early on due to his psychological state but at the end he saves a city that was about to be completely destroyed and he didn’t just show up to fight he enacts a multipart plan to jam the detonator and stop the trigger man.

Well Yes, but maybe lets not try to equate the victories earned by 1 Batman over an entire trilogy with another Batman in his debut film?
We're comparing The Batman to The Dark Knight - and in that comparison there are a lot of similarities between them on this issue.

In The Dark Knight the police wouldn’t have even found Joker in time to stop the ferries without Batman’s help, if they did find Joker they would have killed the hostages and met strong resistance from all the goons they didn’t snipe. Batman saved everyone in that building and the ferries and it wouldn’t have happened without him.

Its true that Batman figures out where Joker is/will be and tells Gordon - but the police themselves make little to no difference in the final confrontation/fate of the ferries and actually slow Batman down as he has to take the time to stop them killing the hostages before he can confront Joker - so he kind of gets in his own way there.
Again - not seeing the difference here between Pattinson and Bale - without Bale then a whole bunch of innocent civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Without Pattinson then a whole bunch of civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Both achieve the same "victories" through the same amount of agency in both films.
I'm not seeing the disparity you seem to be arguing in favor of.

My point is that in each TDK film Batman has a victory and is ahead of the villain at some point and in some way saves the day at the end in away that couldn’t have happened without him. That doesn’t happen once in The Batman, and even though I’m generally positive on the film, I think that aspect is underwhelming.

Batman is literally never, at any point, ahead of Joker in TDK - he doesn't foil his plan with the ferries beyond sparing the citizens from Joker's wrath (which seems very similar to the ending of The Batman in this way), he doesn't foil his plan to get to Lao and indeed Batman's "victories" up to that point were part of the Joker's plan (like Pattinson's capturing Riddler was part of his plan), he doesn't prevent the bomb going off and therefore giving Joker time to corrupt and set Harvey loose and cover his tracks, and Batman doesn't foil Joker's ultimate plan with Harvey Dent to tear Gotham's hero down and thereby destroying the city's hope in its institutions - Batman merely kicks that can down the road so that it bites back in a big way.
Batman imprisons Joker - but Joker left himself with no way out of the situation at the end, no exit, its clear that his intention was to have his point about humanity proven by one of the ferries blowing the other up, Batman would either lose hope and kill him or lock him up so that he can see his "ace in the hole" win the battle for Gotham's soul for him. Joker essentially set himself up to be either killed or imprisoned confident in the knowledge that in any case he would have "won".
I see no difference between this and Riddler's plan in The Batman, save that Riddler by the end felt that he had lost as the final stage of his plan was spoiled, whereas Joker was imprisoned confident in his eventual triumph.
In fact, in The Dark Knight ends on the note of Batman being thought a murderer and is chased by the police and villainized by the public whereas Pattinson at the end of The Batman is a symbol of hope who saved hundreds of lives at the city's darkest hour - objectively Pattinson's Batman ends on a far greater victory than Bale does at the end of TDK

I don't think that was the point they were going for. Lol the Riddler wanted to root out corruption and also kill those involved in it, even people who didn't have anything to do with it intentionally like Thomas Wayne. To him Thomas was corrupt and renewal was a front and lie, not knowing that it was real and Thomas Wayne wanted to help but made the mistake of asking Falcone for help on the issue with the reporter trying to create a scandal around Martha being mentally ill. But to Riddler Thomas only cared about his campaign as mayor and wanted someone silenced and the whole renewal thing was a lie. That's why he also hated Bruce Wayne and wanted to kill him because even though Bruce had nothing to do with anything he hated him for being more important then he was, that's also why he wanted to have his minions kill people and Monica the mayoral candidate at GSG, because he didn't believe in them or trusted they were actually trying to help the city. He had a grudge against everyone, it was good he directed it towards the corrupt but he also directed it to innocent people who didn't have anything to do with his "trauma". If you also watch the deleted scene with the Joker at Arkham, he tells Batman while reading the files when asked if his motives where political, "No No this is very personal to him, he feels like these people have all wronged him" it just shows the Riddler is unhinged and had a grudge with everyone who promises "change".

Completely agree, Riddler and his following thought they were doing good but they were more truthful then they realised when they called themselves "vengeance" at the end, this was about making themselves, not the city, better. It was personal, petty, cruel and evil - hence why he targeted people like Bruce, the people of GSG and indeed the city at large - it was never about justice, it was about him enacting his own power fantasy and enacting revenge.

 

[Luisenigma1]

Well this is wrong - he figures out who Riddler's cult are targeting and why, which also informs him where he has to be and then he gets there in time to foil what was, for Riddler, the "crescendo" of the plan - the murder of the entire elite of Gotham. Batman not only takes out the snipers but he also leads the people all to safety - without him they all would have died, from the snipers, from the electrical wires he specifically cuts, from the rising waters. etc.

Also wrong - this has never been the point of the Joker. Being Batman's Intellectual equal has always been the Riddler's purpose - the purpose of the Joker is to challenge Batman morally, ethically and spiritually - to push him to his metaphorical edge, to be his antithesis, to be the one who is most likely to pull him into the darkness, the one who knows how to hurt him the most. If the Riddler is a sphinx who frustrates the mind, then the Joker is a demon who poison's and tortures the soul. This is clearly seen in TDK, the Joker isn't trying to outsmart Batman, Dent or Gotham - he is trying to corrupt them - "you'll have to break your rule to save Dent & Rachel", "to save a hospital you have to kill this stranger", "to save yourselves you have to kill everyone else on the other boat" - almost non of these plans are actually intellectual mysteries or even that complex - its the moral complexity that makes them torturous, its trying to find a solution NOT on Joker's terms that is the challenge - the problems themselves actually have very simple solutions, if one is willing to abandon morality.

I mean, this basically applies to all of the Batman rogues, Joker included - in most versions of the stories the villain is defeated and is embarrassed and frustrated by being foiled - most of them have at least one story or two where they obtain something of a pyrrhic victory over Batman - this is the norm and shouldn't be used to portray the Riddler as somehow inherently different or unfaithful here.
And.... isn't this also the state Riddler is in by the end of the movie? So why is this unlike the source material?

No he doesn't - the people on the ferry foil that plan by proving that Gothamites are not as morally bankrupt as Joker assumes. His plan is to prove that all people are "deep down as ugly as you" as Batman puts it, and the people prove him wrong - what Batman DOES prevent is Joker killing everyone on both boats out of revenge - which I see as no different from Pattinson saving all the people in the centre from dying due to Riddler's plan.
Batman did nothing to persuade or influence the decision on the boats - it would have happened anyway, what he does do is spare them from the aftermath of their decision to defy Joker.


I mean - I'm not sure how preventing more deaths at the GSG doesn't count as a victory here? Its on par with Bale's victory over Joker - in the 3rd act they prevent the mass slaughter of innocents by the main villain by figuring out where the villain is in time and responding.

Well Yes, but maybe lets not try to equate the victories earned by 1 Batman over an entire trilogy with another Batman in his debut film?
We're comparing The Batman to The Dark Knight - and in that comparison there are a lot of similarities between them on this issue.

Its true that Batman figures out where Joker is/will be and tells Gordon - but the police themselves make little to no difference in the final confrontation/fate of the ferries and actually slow Batman down as he has to take the time to stop them killing the hostages before he can confront Joker - so he kind of gets in his own way there.
Again - not seeing the difference here between Pattinson and Bale - without Bale then a whole bunch of innocent civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Without Pattinson then a whole bunch of civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Both achieve the same "victories" through the same amount of agency in both films.
I'm not seeing the disparity you seem to be arguing in favor of.

Batman is literally never, at any point, ahead of Joker in TDK - he doesn't foil his plan with the ferries beyond sparing the citizens from Joker's wrath (which seems very similar to the ending of The Batman in this way), he doesn't foil his plan to get to Lao and indeed Batman's "victories" up to that point were part of the Joker's plan (like Pattinson's capturing Riddler was part of his plan), he doesn't prevent the bomb going off and therefore giving Joker time to corrupt and set Harvey loose and cover his tracks, and Batman doesn't foil Joker's ultimate plan with Harvey Dent to tear Gotham's hero down and thereby destroying the city's hope in its institutions - Batman merely kicks that can down the road so that it bites back in a big way.
Batman imprisons Joker - but Joker left himself with no way out of the situation at the end, no exit, its clear that his intention was to have his point about humanity proven by one of the ferries blowing the other up, Batman would either lose hope and kill him or lock him up so that he can see his "ace in the hole" win the battle for Gotham's soul for him. Joker essentially set himself up to be either killed or imprisoned confident in the knowledge that in any case he would have "won".
I see no difference between this and Riddler's plan in The Batman, save that Riddler by the end felt that he had lost as the final stage of his plan was spoiled, whereas Joker was imprisoned confident in his eventual triumph.
In fact, in The Dark Knight ends on the note of Batman being thought a murderer and is chased by the police and villainized by the public whereas Pattinson at the end of The Batman is a symbol of hope who saved hundreds of lives at the city's darkest hour - objectively Pattinson's Batman ends on a far greater victory than Bale does at the end of TDK

Completely agree, Riddler and his following thought they were doing good but they were more truthful then they realised when they called themselves "vengeance" at the end, this was about making themselves, not the city, better. It was personal, petty, cruel and evil - hence why he targeted people like Bruce, the people of GSG and indeed the city at large - it was never about justice, it was about him enacting his own power fantasy and enacting revenge.

I agree with all your previous points. Lol and yeah very true about Riddler doing everything out of spite and anger, his followers also felt the same and agreed with him. While everyone is saying Riddler led Batman the whole way, it's true but Batman didn't even know that's what was going on. To Riddler he was a fan of Batman and thought Batman was helping him and would figure out his final plan and agree with him.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Well this is wrong - he figures out who Riddler's cult are targeting and why, which also informs him where he has to be and then he gets there in time to foil what was, for Riddler, the "crescendo" of the plan - the murder of the entire elite of Gotham. Batman not only takes out the snipers but he also leads the people all to safety - without him they all would have died, from the snipers, from the electrical wires he specifically cuts, from the rising waters. etc.

Also wrong - this has never been the point of the Joker. Being Batman's Intellectual equal has always been the Riddler's purpose - the purpose of the Joker is to challenge Batman morally, ethically and spiritually - to push him to his metaphorical edge, to be his antithesis, to be the one who is most likely to pull him into the darkness, the one who knows how to hurt him the most. If the Riddler is a sphinx who frustrates the mind, then the Joker is a demon who poison's and tortures the soul. This is clearly seen in TDK, the Joker isn't trying to outsmart Batman, Dent or Gotham - he is trying to corrupt them - "you'll have to break your rule to save Dent & Rachel", "to save a hospital you have to kill this stranger", "to save yourselves you have to kill everyone else on the other boat" - almost non of these plans are actually intellectual mysteries or even that complex - its the moral complexity that makes them torturous, its trying to find a solution NOT on Joker's terms that is the challenge - the problems themselves actually have very simple solutions, if one is willing to abandon morality.

I mean, this basically applies to all of the Batman rogues, Joker included - in most versions of the stories the villain is defeated and is embarrassed and frustrated by being foiled - most of them have at least one story or two where they obtain something of a pyrrhic victory over Batman - this is the norm and shouldn't be used to portray the Riddler as somehow inherently different or unfaithful here.
And.... isn't this also the state Riddler is in by the end of the movie? So why is this unlike the source material?

No he doesn't - the people on the ferry foil that plan by proving that Gothamites are not as morally bankrupt as Joker assumes. His plan is to prove that all people are "deep down as ugly as you" as Batman puts it, and the people prove him wrong - what Batman DOES prevent is Joker killing everyone on both boats out of revenge - which I see as no different from Pattinson saving all the people in the centre from dying due to Riddler's plan.
Batman did nothing to persuade or influence the decision on the boats - it would have happened anyway, what he does do is spare them from the aftermath of their decision to defy Joker.


I mean - I'm not sure how preventing more deaths at the GSG doesn't count as a victory here? Its on par with Bale's victory over Joker - in the 3rd act they prevent the mass slaughter of innocents by the main villain by figuring out where the villain is in time and responding.

Well Yes, but maybe lets not try to equate the victories earned by 1 Batman over an entire trilogy with another Batman in his debut film?
We're comparing The Batman to The Dark Knight - and in that comparison there are a lot of similarities between them on this issue.

Its true that Batman figures out where Joker is/will be and tells Gordon - but the police themselves make little to no difference in the final confrontation/fate of the ferries and actually slow Batman down as he has to take the time to stop them killing the hostages before he can confront Joker - so he kind of gets in his own way there.
Again - not seeing the difference here between Pattinson and Bale - without Bale then a whole bunch of innocent civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Without Pattinson then a whole bunch of civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Both achieve the same "victories" through the same amount of agency in both films.
I'm not seeing the disparity you seem to be arguing in favor of.

Batman is literally never, at any point, ahead of Joker in TDK - he doesn't foil his plan with the ferries beyond sparing the citizens from Joker's wrath (which seems very similar to the ending of The Batman in this way), he doesn't foil his plan to get to Lao and indeed Batman's "victories" up to that point were part of the Joker's plan (like Pattinson's capturing Riddler was part of his plan), he doesn't prevent the bomb going off and therefore giving Joker time to corrupt and set Harvey loose and cover his tracks, and Batman doesn't foil Joker's ultimate plan with Harvey Dent to tear Gotham's hero down and thereby destroying the city's hope in its institutions - Batman merely kicks that can down the road so that it bites back in a big way.
Batman imprisons Joker - but Joker left himself with no way out of the situation at the end, no exit, its clear that his intention was to have his point about humanity proven by one of the ferries blowing the other up, Batman would either lose hope and kill him or lock him up so that he can see his "ace in the hole" win the battle for Gotham's soul for him. Joker essentially set himself up to be either killed or imprisoned confident in the knowledge that in any case he would have "won".
I see no difference between this and Riddler's plan in The Batman, save that Riddler by the end felt that he had lost as the final stage of his plan was spoiled, whereas Joker was imprisoned confident in his eventual triumph.
In fact, in The Dark Knight ends on the note of Batman being thought a murderer and is chased by the police and villainized by the public whereas Pattinson at the end of The Batman is a symbol of hope who saved hundreds of lives at the city's darkest hour - objectively Pattinson's Batman ends on a far greater victory than Bale does at the end of TDK

Completely agree, Riddler and his following thought they were doing good but they were more truthful then they realised when they called themselves "vengeance" at the end, this was about making themselves, not the city, better. It was personal, petty, cruel and evil - hence why he targeted people like Bruce, the people of GSG and indeed the city at large - it was never about justice, it was about him enacting his own power fantasy and enacting revenge.

Wow, that's really well presented. A long read, but really spot on. Bravo!

 

[lordnastrond]

I do agree that The Batman is led along by the Riddler and is reactive more than proactive much of the time. And I do see how at the end there is a sense on non-accomplishment for The Batman -- I'm not particularly fond of the third act and kind of wish the movie ended with Riddler in jail scene... and then that really would go to your point. I think the tagged on ending is to help give Batman something to fight back on; to save the people of Gotham that Riddler would have drowned. I really didn't understand flooding Gotham besides getting people wet up to their waists. But don't get me started on that 3rd act.

I actually didn't mind the final act and felt it worked with the film - but it needed a little something to better represent a more direct confrontation with Riddler, and personally I always think Riddler wouldn't entrust his endgame to others.
Still have the snipers and have them fight Batman, Catwoman and Gordon - but I think Riddler should also have planted a bomb with a Riddle as the code (Afterall in the comics he would be literally incapable of NOT providing a riddle) asking "who am I?" Batman, after trying answers like "justice" and "vengeance", would have had to piece together Riddler's real identity from the events of the film (he is the orphaned son of the reporter Thomas Wayne "had killed") in order to defuse it. This not only reaffirms that Riddler is not the symbol he is trying to be, but is rather a bitter and vengeful man lashing out against those who he feels are responsible for the misery in his life, it also creates a stronger connection between himself and Bruce and makes Riddler an even better dark reflection of Batman in this iteration.
It also gives Batman even more agency and ties a lot of the movie's threads together.
It would also give Riddler's "you tell me" (who I am) scene in the diner more meaning when they look through his identities - he is foreshadowing the last riddle.

I would then personally have a final scene with Batman and Riddler in the Asylum, not only because I love Dano's performance and wish he had more opportunities to shine in a scene with Pattinson, but also to drive the thematic narrative home.
Bruce talks to Eddie, reveals that he knows who he is and why Riddler thinks they are the same - vengeance. Bruce will explain to Riddler that he WAS like him, though Eddie crossed a line & became a monster, he will also tell Riddler that because of him he has learned to be more than that. Riddler is distraught & enraged, not only by the failure of his plan, the collapse of the kinship he felt to Batman & the obsession he developed, the humiliation of his enemies pity & because Batman by figuring him out has revealed him for what he IS instead of what he WANTS TO BE. Edward/Riddler is no symbol, an everyman who represents the reckoning of Gotham, he is just a broken, mentally ill man lashing out at the world. And he HATES Batman for making him face that.
He screams vows of vengence against Batman, struggling against the guards who go to restrain him as Batman walks away.
Then we cut to the ending scene with Bruce and Selina.

But.... this could all together potentially add another 15 mins to the movie and I know its already long enough as it is for some people...

 

[BigWayne]

But.... this could all together potentially add another 15 mins to the movie and I know its already long enough as it is for some people...

I saw it twice in the theater, and there’s no way my bladder could have made
it another 15 minutes without a break

 

[Luisenigma1]

I actually didn't mind the final act and felt it worked with the film - but it needed a little something to better represent a more direct confrontation with Riddler, and personally I always think Riddler wouldn't entrust his endgame to others.
Still have the snipers and have them fight Batman, Catwoman and Gordon - but I think Riddler should also have planted a bomb with a Riddle as the code (Afterall in the comics he would be literally incapable of NOT providing a riddle) asking "who am I?" Batman, after trying answers like "justice" and "vengeance", would have had to piece together Riddler's real identity from the events of the film (he is the orphaned son of the reporter Thomas Wayne "had killed") in order to defuse it. This not only reaffirms that Riddler is not the symbol he is trying to be, but is rather a bitter and vengeful man lashing out against those who he feels are responsible for the misery in his life, it also creates a stronger connection between himself and Bruce and makes Riddler an even better dark reflection of Batman in this iteration.
It also gives Batman even more agency and ties a lot of the movie's threads together.
It would also give Riddler's "you tell me" (who I am) scene in the diner more meaning when they look through his identities - he is foreshadowing the last riddle.

I would then personally have a final scene with Batman and Riddler in the Asylum, not only because I love Dano's performance and wish he had more opportunities to shine in a scene with Pattinson, but also to drive the thematic narrative home.
Bruce talks to Eddie, reveals that he knows who he is and why Riddler thinks they are the same - vengeance. Bruce will explain to Riddler that he WAS like him, though Eddie crossed a line & became a monster, he will also tell Riddler that because of him he has learned to be more than that. Riddler is distraught & enraged, not only by the failure of his plan, the collapse of the kinship he felt to Batman & the obsession he developed, the humiliation of his enemies pity & because Batman by figuring him out has revealed him for what he IS instead of what he WANTS TO BE. Edward/Riddler is no symbol, an everyman who represents the reckoning of Gotham, he is just a broken, mentally ill man lashing out at the world. And he HATES Batman for making him face that.
He screams vows of vengence against Batman, struggling against the guards who go to restrain him as Batman walks away.
Then we cut to the ending scene with Bruce and Selina.

But.... this could all together potentially add another 15 mins to the movie and I know its already long enough as it is for some people...

I rather that not be thing and I'm glad it's not. Lol the reporter's name was Edward Elliot which I think is related to Thomas Elliot (Hush) at least that is the reference. It's better he was just as many put it "a nobody" it makes Riddler more of an angry bitter person knowing no one cared about him after the renewal thing.

 

[BigWayne]

That Joker scene by the way was one of the most interesting scenes in the film and would have made that small cameo in the end much less forced and sequel baited. Should have kept it in dammit

Agreed.

I have to admit, based on the cameo, I’m more interested in seeing how the joker is portrayed, rather than excited for it. I know it was just a short cameo, but my initial impression wasn’t great. Hopefully, it will turn out to be another original interpretation like we got out of Joaquin Phoenix that stands out on it’s own.

If not, I know I will make comparisons to the heath ledger performance, which is in IMO equal parts awesome and legend, and that’s an impossible standard.

 

[Remy]

All this argument on who is a better Batman...
Guess whose the one who kicked Superman's *** so bad, Superman cried for his mommy?

Case closed.

 

[user 72759]

Well this is wrong - he figures out who Riddler's cult are targeting and why, which also informs him where he has to be and then he gets there in time to foil what was, for Riddler, the "crescendo" of the plan - the murder of the entire elite of Gotham. Batman not only takes out the snipers but he also leads the people all to safety - without him they all would have died, from the snipers, from the electrical wires he specifically cuts, from the rising waters. etc.

Well this is wrong - Riddler tells him who his targets are after a side character gives him the hint he needs to find a pretty obvious password that he was clearly meant to find. So, no, my original statement stands. Batman doesn’t figure out anything, Riddler tells him. You can’t argue with what’s explicitly on screen.

Also wrong - this has never been the point of the Joker. Being Batman's Intellectual equal has always been the Riddler's purpose - the purpose of the Joker is to challenge Batman morally, ethically and spiritually - to push him to his metaphorical edge, to be his antithesis, to be the one who is most likely to pull him into the darkness, the one who knows how to hurt him the most. If the Riddler is a sphinx who frustrates the mind, then the Joker is a demon who poison's and tortures the soul. This is clearly seen in TDK, the Joker isn't trying to outsmart Batman, Dent or Gotham - he is trying to corrupt them - "you'll have to break your rule to save Dent & Rachel", "to save a hospital you have to kill this stranger", "to save yourselves you have to kill everyone else on the other boat" - almost non of these plans are actually intellectual mysteries or even that complex - its the moral complexity that makes them torturous, its trying to find a solution NOT on Joker's terms that is the challenge - the problems themselves actually have very simple solutions, if one is willing to abandon morality.

I think you’re focusing a little too much on my use of the word intellectual. Joker has almost always been portrayed as a character equal to Batman in his ability to enact plans and and traps and think several steps ahead. I didn’t mean to say he challenges Batman intellectually.

And.... isn't this also the state Riddler is in by the end of the movie? So why is this unlike the source material?

My point was that this Batman NEVER outwits or gets ahead of the Riddler in the slightest. His brightest moment in the film is saving some people at GSG after finding a clue HE missed because a side character gave him the information he needed in an offhand comment. I get that the point is a child from privilege wouldn’t know what a carpet tucker is but since Batman doesn’t have any deductive wins anywhere else in the film it’s annoying that the only detecting he does is with the explicit aid of the police or Riddler outright telling him what he needs for the plot to move along.

No he doesn't - the people on the ferry foil that plan by proving that Gothamites are not as morally bankrupt as Joker assumes. His plan is to prove that all people are "deep down as ugly as you" as Batman puts it, and the people prove him wrong - what Batman DOES prevent is Joker killing everyone on both boats out of revenge - which I see as no different from Pattinson saving all the people in the centre from dying due to Riddler's plan.
Batman did nothing to persuade or influence the decision on the boats - it would have happened anyway, what he does do is spare them from the aftermath of their decision to defy Joker.

I don’t know why you’re focusing on the people on the boats’ choice since I didn’t bring it up so I’ll only address what I did bring up.

After their decision not to blow each other up the people on the boats are only alive because of Batman, and Batman alone. There’s no way to argue otherwise. Batman repurposed the sonar device, on his own, Batman used it to locate Joker, Batman then informed the police as well as responded himself so that, if he failed, the police would be there to help to. Batman was the only one able to get to Joker in time to stop the manual detonation. That victory is Batman’s alone. He had comms help from Fox but the whole plan and technology was put in place by Batman for this purpose. He didnt go there because Joker said “Hey imma be up in the Pruitt building come get me Batman!!!”

I mean - I'm not sure how preventing more deaths at the GSG doesn't count as a victory here? Its on par with Bale's victory over Joker - in the 3rd act they prevent the mass slaughter of innocents by the main villain by figuring out where the villain is in time and responding.

The Batman’s Batman didn’t get there on his own and couldn’t have. He, just like the whole plot, relied on Riddler explicitly giving him what he needed.

Well Yes, but maybe lets not try to equate the victories earned by 1 Batman over an entire trilogy with another Batman in his debut film?
We're comparing The Batman to The Dark Knight - and in that comparison there are a lot of similarities between them on this issue.

Batman has three victories over the Joker in TDK. He stops him from blowing up the armored truck with Dent in it, he stops his semi causing him to be captured, and he stops his plot to destroy the ferries while capturing Joker. The fact that Joker had contingencies for those outcomes does not mean he wanted those outcomes.

He clearly wanted to blow up the armored transport and wanted to blow up the ferries. Batman was the only thing that stopped him in both instances.

Joker having a plan for getting out of prison and taking the opportunity to grab Lau doesn’t mean he wanted that outcome, it was just one he was prepared for. It draws a parallel to Batman Begins when Batman goes on the train to stop Ra’s but also has Gordon blow up the supports. He goes to the controls to stop the train but Ra’s destroys them and forces plan B. Batman didn’t want to crash the train, but Ra’s preventing it from stopping was something he planned for. This is what I mean about Joker being an equal to Batman. He thinks steps ahead and has contingencies for areas of expected failure.

In The Batman, there’s no instance where Batman, of his own will and preparation, stops anything Riddler is doing without direct aide from Riddler.

Its true that Batman figures out where Joker is/will be and tells Gordon - but the police themselves make little to no difference in the final confrontation/fate of the ferries and actually slow Batman down as he has to take the time to stop them killing the hostages before he can confront Joker - so he kind of gets in his own way there.
Again - not seeing the difference here between Pattinson and Bale - without Bale then a whole bunch of innocent civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Without Pattinson then a whole bunch of civilians would have died and the goons would have escaped....
Both achieve the same "victories" through the same amount of agency in both films.

Well this is wrong - In The Batman Batman has almost no agency and only responds to things that are put right in front of him. Again, as the movie makes clear, he wouldn’t have even made it to the climax if Riddler didn’t leave clues telling him exactly what was happening.

Batman is literally never, at any point, ahead of Joker in TDK - he doesn't foil his plan with the ferries beyond sparing the citizens from Joker's wrath (which seems very similar to the ending of The Batman in this way),

Well this is wrong - I’ve already shown why above.

he doesn't foil his plan to get to Lao and indeed Batman's "victories" up to that point were part of the Joker's plan (like Pattinson's capturing Riddler was part of his plan), he doesn't prevent the bomb going off and therefore giving Joker time to corrupt and set Harvey loose and cover his tracks, and Batman doesn't foil Joker's ultimate plan with Harvey Dent to tear Gotham's hero down and thereby destroying the city's hope in its institutions - Batman merely kicks that can down the road so that it bites back in a big way.

This isn’t Batman’s failure, it’s Dent’s. Batman’s only failure in TDK was choosing to save Rachel over Dent, choosing love over duty, which was a very human and relatable mistake to make. Joker’s victory was in that deceit.

Batman imprisons Joker - but Joker left himself with no way out of the situation at the end, no exit, its clear that his intention was to have his point about humanity proven by one of the ferries blowing the other up, Batman would either lose hope and kill him or lock him up so that he can see his "ace in the hole" win the battle for Gotham's soul for him. Joker essentially set himself up to be either killed or imprisoned confident in the knowledge that in any case he would have "won".

Well this is wrong - Joker didn’t plan to be found in the Pruitt building, he didn’t leave Batman a convenient little note explaining his location. Batman found him in spite of his hiding. There’s absolutely nothing contained in the film that implies joker planned to be stopped by Batman in the Pruitt building. He was prepared if Batman found him, but there’s no suggestion he intended to be found. You just made that up.

I see no difference between this and Riddler's plan in The Batman, save that Riddler by the end felt that he had lost as the final stage of his plan was spoiled, whereas Joker was imprisoned confident in his eventual triumph.
In fact, in The Dark Knight ends on the note of Batman being thought a murderer and is chased by the police and villainized by the public whereas Pattinson at the end of The Batman is a symbol of hope who saved hundreds of lives at the city's darkest hour - objectively Pattinson's Batman ends on a far greater victory than Bale does at the end of TDK

Batman chose to tarnish his own image because he viewed himself as less important than the memory of his ally and friend before he was corrupted. Tactically Batman wins at the end of TDK, strategically Joker wins but only because he corrupted someone other than Batman. Batman’s victory is in being incorruptible himself and saving everyone he had the opportunity too. You can leave that film seeing that Batman was tactically successful and saved the day even though Joker’s broader plan still plants the seed for the unrest at the beginning of Rises. Batman and Joker are both able to win in a way at the end of the movie.

The difference with The Batman is that Batman didn’t do any of it on his own.

Completely agree, Riddler and his following thought they were doing good but they were more truthful then they realised when they called themselves "vengeance" at the end, this was about making themselves, not the city, better. It was personal, petty, cruel and evil - hence why he targeted people like Bruce, the people of GSG and indeed the city at large - it was never about justice, it was about him enacting his own power fantasy and enacting revenge.

This is probably the only redeeming philosophical aspect of The Batman IMO. It’s a story about a Batman that doesn’t know why he’s Batman until the movie is over. My take was that Batman isn’t offended by the henchmen calling themselves vengeance but that he sees a reflection of himself and realizes that without a purpose he’s not much different.

 

[BrooklynWolf X]

While i liked The Batman...I still prefer TDK trilogy.

Battinson had to use PEDs to win the day haha.

 

[user 72759]

I wouldn't say he outsmarted him. Batman maybe won that one battle in the end but the joker accomplished everything he wanted to do and was able to break dent and push batman to break his rule in the end.

Joker didn’t blow up the armored car with Dent in it or blow up the ferries. Those two things were stopped by Batman directly and without Joker’s help.

Batman didn’t break his rule. His rule was that he wouldn’t become an executioner. Accidentally killing someone in the defense of an innocent isn’t even murder let alone an execution. He did the only thing he could in that situation.

The only way batman was able to "win" really is by taking the blame and building a lie around what happened with gordon. It was a false win. Not really much of a win if you ask me. That is why I love the joker. He has a lasting presence that is felt through every scene in that film even when he is absent and it continues on in the dark knight rises. In the scene when batman is beating up joker you can still hear the joker theme playing because even tho it looks like batman has the upper hand it is really the joker who is in control in the larger picture. That is kind of the general tone in the entire film start to finish. It is the same in the scene with the hostages. Batman saves them and foils that plan but he is still a pawn making moves in jokers game.

I disagree with this take. Joker clearly really wanted to blow up those ferries in anger after the people of Gotham proved him wrong. Batman stopped that.

He also stopped Dent from killing anyone else as soon as he learned of his downfall.

By the same logic you’re applying to Joker we could say Batman ultimately wins by redeeming himself in Rises. Batman’s goal from Begins was to inspire people to do good and TDK is all about how the criminal world responds to the changes he inspires. He saw Dent as a path towards legitimizing the change he was inspiring and when Joker corrupted that he created the noble lie as a compromise to willingly tarnish his own symbol in the hopes of perpetuating his larger goal.

TDK is the low point of a broader arc that starts and ends with the goal of Batman becoming the symbol of hope for Gotham. Despite this the film still gives Batman some solid wins against his toughest adversary.

 

[Hando]

Agreed.

I have to admit, based on the cameo, I’m more interested in seeing how the joker is portrayed, rather than excited for it. I know it was just a short cameo, but my initial impression wasn’t great. Hopefully, it will turn out to be another original interpretation like we got out of Joaquin Phoenix that stands out on it’s own.

If not, I know I will make comparisons to the heath ledger performance, which is in IMO equal parts awesome and legend, and that’s an impossible standard.

They went over board with the design its just too much for this grounded world they are building. He looks like a lump of prosthetics

 

[Batffeck5.0]

Joker didn’t blow up the armored car with Dent in it or blow up the ferries. Those two things were stopped by Batman directly and without Joker’s help.

Batman didn’t break his rule. His rule was that he wouldn’t become an executioner. Accidentally killing someone in the defense of an innocent isn’t even murder let alone an execution. He did the only thing he could in that situation.

I disagree with this take. Joker clearly really wanted to blow up those ferries in anger after the people of Gotham proved him wrong. Batman stopped that.

He also stopped Dent from killing anyone else as soon as he learned of his downfall.

By the same logic you’re applying to Joker we could say Batman ultimately wins by redeeming himself in Rises. Batman’s goal from Begins was to inspire people to do good and TDK is all about how the criminal world responds to the changes he inspires. He saw Dent as a path towards legitimizing the change he was inspiring and when Joker corrupted that he created the noble lie as a compromise to willingly tarnish his own symbol in the hopes of perpetuating his larger goal.

TDK is the low point of a broader arc that starts and ends with the goal of Batman becoming the symbol of hope for Gotham. Despite this the film still gives Batman some solid wins against his toughest adversary.

TDKR Batman lost his money, his house, the initial fight, his back, and his gadgets. Pathetic Batman if you ask me. Which is why I sold my hot toys figure. I loved bvs but justice league, killed Ben Affleck. Overall I prefer The Batman. Amazing suit, built his own gear, and a killer batmobile that is actually intimidating

 

[user 72759]

TDKR Batman lost his money, his house, the initial fight, his back, and his gadgets. Pathetic Batman if you ask me. Which is why I sold my hot toys figure. I loved bvs but justice league, killed Ben Affleck. Overall I prefer The Batman. Amazing suit, built his own gear, and a killer batmobile that is actually intimidating

Woooooooooosh

 

[user 72759]

They went over board with the design its just too much for this grounded world they are building. He looks like a lump of prosthetics

I agree, Joker needs an element of vanity to work. I don’t see how that grotesque design could work for a whole film. Maybe he gets extensive reconstructive surgery between films?

 

[Hando]

Battinson had to use PEDs to win the day haha.

How did the buckshot not kill him. Its another thing that loses me. They want to make a point of this world being grounded even more grounded than nolans! But they cant seem to stick to what they have.

 

[Luisenigma1]

How did the buckshot not kill him. Its another thing that loses me. They want to make a point of this world being grounded even more grounded than nolans! But they cant seem to stick to what they have.

Because he was wearing bullet proof armour. Lol It definitely knocked the wind out of him and damaged his suit a bit

 

[Hando]

Because he was wearing bullet proof armour. Lol It definitely knocked the wind out of him and damaged his suit a bit

Im pretty sure thats not how armor works in real life. A shot like that would have killed him for sure

 

[Luisenigma1]

Im pretty sure thats not how armor works in real life. A shot like that would have killed him for sure

It's Batman he has access to high graded materials the strongest armor ever created..plot armour. jk Also he basically took a dozen of machine gun rounds and an explosion he should have died ten times over. Lol

 

[Hando]

All this talk has gotten me more hyped about the Inart joker