The Batman (June 25, 2021)

[Wor-Gar]

Through the scene, Joker was methodically getting rid of the surrounding vehicles prior to the Tumbler showing up. He shot at the armored car but then got the rpg. Still, he didn't target the armored car where Dent was but shot the one in front of it. Then the Tumbler shows up and rams one of Joker's trucks. Joker says "hmmm." At that point, it's obvious Dent is not Batman and proceeds to aim at the armored car. Dent became disposable at that moment when the Tumbler showed up revealing Dent's lie. Since Joker doesn't really want to kill Batman, I'm thinking if Batman didn't show up, he'd find a way to disable the armored car without killing Dent since Joker still thinks he's Batman.

Very good point. OT_customs is making note of it.

 

[user 72759]

Very good point. OT_customs is making not of it.

I know how much you enjoy when you feel like someone’s outsmarted me but I never argued Joker was trying to kill Batman.

I said he was trying to blow up the armored truck and Batman stopped him. I said this in response to someone who laughably claimed Joker DIDNT want to blow up the truck, even though he clearly shoots a weapon specifically designed to destroy the inside of armored vehicles directly at it…

Bleah’s comment backs up my stance.

I think the major flaw in the logic of people like lordnastrond is that they’re looking at what actually occurs and saying “this was 100% joker’s plan all along” when in reality Joker had probably hundreds of crisscrossing plans designed to let him take advantage of different realities.

This is evident in his behavior throughout the film and I think I’ve already show how this level of planning is what makes him this version of the Batman character’s arch nemesis. In Begins Batman gets more evidence than he needs to make sure Falcone goes away for good, he has backup plans for if he fails on the train, Fox making antidote for the city and Gordon destroying the rails.

Joker does this x10.

Just because his backup plans work it doesn’t mean it was the outcome he wanted all along or wanted most. He clearly was okay with killing dent in that scene and Batman stopped him. Arguing otherwise is a fallacy based on the fact that we, as the audience, know the outcome. Joker didn’t know what the outcome would be when he shot the RPG. Dent’s death was a highly likely one that he had to have been okay with.

Lordnastrond is trying to look at things that happened later to say that Joker wanted Batman to save Dent because his plan relied on Dent being alive. He’s trying to do this to cheapen the victory I pointed out in Batman saving Dent at that point in the film. It’s faulty logic though. Joker has plans to take advantage of what ever the current situation is, Batman created a situation where Dent was still alive so Joker capitalized on it. That doesn’t change the fact that Joker was trying to kill Dent and Batman stopped him.

Edit: Posts like this are what happens when Apple designs and iPad “Pro” that can’t charge and read an SD card at the same time…

 

[Wor-Gar]

I know how much you enjoy when you feel like someone’s outsmarted me but I never argued Joker was trying to kill Batman.

Bleah’s comment backs up my stance.

That was my point actually, his post was in your favor. I get no pleasure from you being outsmarted.

I get pleasure from making you write essays.

 

[user 72759]

That was my point actually, his post was in your favor. I get no pleasure from you being outsmarted.

I get pleasure from making you write essays.

Well my photos are transferred now so I’ll be less long winded

 

[Bleah]

Both sides can be argued for. Joker is adaptable and nothing is simple with him but the goal has always been the same and somewhat similar to Riddler. Destroying Gotham (or its soul metaphorically for the Joker); whether that be showing its citizens are murderers, Batman is a murderer, or their white knight is the murderer. Much like Patman, Baleman didn't see the villain's complete plan. Baleman may have saved the boats from Joker but overall, he didn't win the war. It wasn't a real victory in the end of TDK as it is built on a lie which eventually fell apart during TDKR. While Patman's victory is more complete because the Riddler's grand plan was stopped and Gotham can now hope.

Looking at it, Patman seemed to have just been solving riddles and not the actual case. I think with some changes, Patman can come out as a competent detective. My idea is him seeing Riddler's intent with the last riddle. He realizes Falcone will be killed much like the other victims. So he tips Gordon to sweep the area and when Falcone is brought out to the light, he is wearing some sort of hidden bullet proof vest. Shot is fired, Riddler thinks Falcone is dead, GCPD already aware of the plan and captures the Riddler. The rest of the movie can still play out as the same but maybe have Falcone killed in prison by one of Riddler's followers.

I do think Baleman had a better grasp of what he was dealing with and he could have won completely had he known where Dent was after the events in the hospital. After Alfred's talk, he does realize the Joker cannot be dealt with conventional means and nothing is as simple with him. He was able to save those hostages from the building because of it. Patman was still clueless up until the end. Had Riddler decided to just shut up about having a bigger plan and just stuck with "you're not as smart as I thought you were" and exited with his Ave Maria, Patman wouldn't have been back to the crime scene (still looking clueless BTW) and Riddler would have won.

 

[Hando]

Someone help me out! Is there a significance to this guy at the funeral noticing Bruce Wayne? Do we see him earlier in the film? I mean he looks familiar to me

 

[jye4ever]

Someone help me out! Is there a significance to this guy at the funeral noticing Bruce Wayne? Do we see him earlier in the film? I mean he looks familiar to me View attachment 595864

He’s the final Riddler groupie guy that shoots Batman point blank with a shotgun and Batman takes the adrenaline then beats the crap out of him.

He was used as a device to show that Batman being all about vengeance was no different than Riddler with his vengeance comment towards Batman hence why Riddler thought they would be a team.

Having recently re-watched this I have to say not only does the movie hold up in spectacular fashion I am now firmly confident that I prefer it over TDK.

 

[lordnastrond]

I think the major flaw in the logic of people like lordnastrond......
Lordnastrond is trying to look at things that happened later to say that
He’s trying to do this to cheapen the victory I pointed out

Seriously though man - learn to have a conversation a little more civilly - I have never at any point tried to make my disagreements with your interpretation about YOU

As you yourself say, I use the events of the movie itself to reach my conclusions.
You, again by your own admission, infer and speculate outside of those events strictly in the film in order to reach your conclusions.
Either of us can be right and the movie allows for both of us to support our claims.
Try not to make things like this personal because, quite frankly, its an ugly colour on anyone.
There have been numerous points in our discussion where I could have said less than kind things about the way you present (and at times distort) your arguments in order to further your point.
We are geeks on a website for people who buy very expensive dolls talking about Batman movies - chill out a little man.

 

[user 72759]

View attachment 595867

Seriously though man - learn to have a conversation a little more civilly - I have never at any point tried to make my disagreements with your interpretation about YOU

As you yourself say, I use the events of the movie itself to reach my conclusions.
You, again by your own admission, infer and speculate outside of those events strictly in the film in order to reach your conclusions.
Either of us can be right and the movie allows for both of us to support our claims.
Try not to make things like this personal because, quite frankly, its an ugly colour on anyone.
There have been numerous points in our discussion where I could have said less than kind things about the way you present (and at times distort) your arguments in order to further your point.
We are geeks on a website for people who buy very expensive dolls talking about Batman movies - chill out a little man.

I didn’t attack you I attacked your ideas, which are wrong. Joker shot an RPG at a truck and you want us to believe his plan was to NOT kill the occupants… and I am the one making things up?

 

[jye4ever]

Both sides can be argued for. Joker is adaptable and nothing is simple with him but the goal has always been the same and somewhat similar to Riddler. Destroying Gotham (or its soul metaphorically for the Joker); whether that be showing its citizens are murderers, Batman is a murderer, or their white knight is the murderer. Much like Patman, Baleman didn't see the villain's complete plan. Baleman may have saved the boats from Joker but overall, he didn't win the war. It wasn't a real victory in the end of TDK as it is built on a lie which eventually fell apart during TDKR. While Patman's victory is more complete because the Riddler's grand plan was stopped and Gotham can now hope.

Looking at it, Patman seemed to have just been solving riddles and not the actual case. I think with some changes, Patman can come out as a competent detective. My idea is him seeing Riddler's intent with the last riddle. He realizes Falcone will be killed much like the other victims. So he tips Gordon to sweep the area and when Falcone is brought out to the light, he is wearing some sort of hidden bullet proof vest. Shot is fired, Riddler thinks Falcone is dead, GCPD already aware of the plan and captures the Riddler. The rest of the movie can still play out as the same but maybe have Falcone killed in prison by one of Riddler's followers.

I do think Baleman had a better grasp of what he was dealing with and he could have won completely had he known where Dent was after the events in the hospital. After Alfred's talk, he does realize the Joker cannot be dealt with conventional means and nothing is as simple with him. He was able to save those hostages from the building because of it. Patman was still clueless up until the end. Had Riddler decided to just shut up about having a bigger plan and just stuck with "you're not as smart as I thought you were" and exited with his Ave Maria, Patman wouldn't have been back to the crime scene (still looking clueless BTW) and Riddler would have won.

I thought about this but remembered this being a wet behind the ears year 2 Batman so…

 

[Wor-Gar]

BabyBats

 

[lordnastrond]

I didn’t attack you I attacked your ideas, which are wrong. Joker shot an RPG at a truck and you want us to believe his plan was to NOT kill the occupants… and I am the one making things up?

Jesus man.
Your not attacking me.... just calling me a liar.
Fine - I will speak my mind a little more.

My original point was that you said a major difference between these Batmen is that Pattinson is never ahead of Riddler - I pointed out that Bale is never really ahead of Joker in TDK because most if not all of the "successes" against him are either part of his plan or are used to his advantage. He has plenty of opportunities to kill Dent and he doesn't - instead he uses him to achieve his final victory - so I hardly count that as Batman being ahead of him.
Me using events later in the movie to support my point isn't manipulation - it is common sense.

All I have ever said is that I don't agree with your perspective that Pattinson Batman somehow never achieves a victory in the movie.
Want to talk about someone trying to cheapen a victory? Fine. You CONSTANTLY cheapen the ending of The Batman by saying all Pattinson does is "save some people at GSG" while with the same breathe vaunting the actions of Bale saving the people at the ferries despite them being the EXACT SAME THING. They both save hundreds of lives and defeat the villain's attempt to slaughter innocents

Want another objective fact? The Batman ends with the hero having utterly defeated his villain whereas The Dark Knight ends with an objective victory for the Joker.

I have never had a problem with your perspective - I completely see where you are coming from and I understand how you reached your conclusion.
What I DO have a problem with is that you say that people who disagree with you are WRONG, not subjectively but objectively.
Which is just incorrect.

Now, rather than just say - "I see what you mean, but I see it differently" and we would be able to amicably leave it there, instead you attempt to condescend, gaslight, employ cheap rhetorical tricks and petty jibes in order to assert that your opinion, is somehow, objective reality.

And YES - you do make things up and then try to present them as objective facts " I think the major flaw in the logic of people like lordnastrond is that they’re looking at what actually occurs and saying “this was 100% joker’s plan all along” when in reality Joker had probably hundreds of crisscrossing plans designed to let him take advantage of different realities."
The ENTIRE second half of that sentence is speculative, you have no objective, concrete evidence for what you assert here - it is merely your inference. Whereas you are "attacking my ideas" which are "wrong" because I simply stick to the events of the movie.

For whatever it is worth - you were right about the car chase scene - i was misremembering it and thought Joker only ever used the RPG-7 on the escort vehicles and didn't attempt to use it on the armored vehicle itself. I could try to argue that a single RPG blast might not be the instant-kill assumed considering that the ordinary police car survived 2 direct RPG shots before being veered off course, but then it only took 1 RPG shot to pretty much total 80% of a tank-like vehicle, so the movie is a little inconsistent there on the weapon's yields depending on the plot's needs. Clearly then Joker was at least indifferent to whether Harvey lived or not.
I still assert that Batman was never really ahead of Joker though, because as I said - this all still factors into his plan and final victory.
But that is my opinion, I fully understand how someone can see it differently.

Now - we could have just left it on a much more pleasant note, but once again you felt it necessary to get in your barbs.
So can we agree - here and now - to just LEAVE IT.
We don't agree, we will never agree and apparently, us having a friendly disagreement is also impossible - so lets not engage one another any further.
Sound good to you?

 

[Khev]

He’s the final Riddler groupie guy that shoots Batman point blank with a shotgun and Batman takes the adrenaline then beats the crap out of him.

He was used as a device to show that Batman being all about vengeance was no different than Riddler with his vengeance comment towards Batman hence why Riddler thought they would be a team.

Having recently re-watched this I have to say not only does the movie hold up in spectacular fashion I am now firmly confident that I prefer it over TDK.

I didn't know that, that's awesome!

 

[user 72759]

Jesus man.
Your not attacking me.... just calling me a liar.
Fine - I will speak my mind a little more.

My original point was that you said a major difference between these Batmen is that Pattinson is never ahead of Riddler - I pointed out that Bale is never really ahead of Joker in TDK because most if not all of the "successes" against him are either part of his plan or are used to his advantage. He has plenty of opportunities to kill Dent and he doesn't - instead he uses him to achieve his final victory - so I hardly count that as Batman being ahead of him.
Me using events later in the movie to support my point isn't manipulation - it is common sense.

All I have ever said is that I don't agree with your perspective that Pattinson Batman somehow never achieves a victory in the movie.
Want to talk about someone trying to cheapen a victory? Fine. You CONSTANTLY cheapen the ending of The Batman by saying all Pattinson does is "save some people at GSG" while with the same breathe vaunting the actions of Bale saving the people at the ferries despite them being the EXACT SAME THING. They both save hundreds of lives and defeat the villain's attempt to slaughter innocents

Want another objective fact? The Batman ends with the hero having utterly defeated his villain whereas The Dark Knight ends with an objective victory for the Joker.

I have never had a problem with your perspective - I completely see where you are coming from and I understand how you reached your conclusion.
What I DO have a problem with is that you say that people who disagree with you are WRONG, not subjectively but objectively.
Which is just incorrect.

Now, rather than just say - "I see what you mean, but I see it differently" and we would be able to amicably leave it there, instead you attempt to condescend, gaslight, employ cheap rhetorical tricks and petty jibes in order to assert that your opinion, is somehow, objective reality.
The sheer arrogance is blinding.

And YES - you do make things up and then try to present them as objective facts " I think the major flaw in the logic of people like lordnastrond is that they’re looking at what actually occurs and saying “this was 100% joker’s plan all along” when in reality Joker had probably hundreds of crisscrossing plans designed to let him take advantage of different realities."
The ENTIRE second half of that sentence is speculative, you have no objective, concrete evidence for what you assert here - it is merely your inference. Whereas you are "attacking my ideas" which are "wrong" because I simply stick to the events of the movie.

Now - we could have just left it on a much more pleasant note, but once again you felt it necessary to get in your barbs.
So can we agree - here and now - to just LEAVE IT.
We don't agree, we will never agree and apparently, us having a friendly disagreement is also impossible - so lets not engage one another any further.
Sound good to you?

What we can hopefully agree on is that in The Dark Knight the main antagonist is stopped and put in custody exclusively due to the actions of Batman. No matter what else you pull into the conversation you cannot negate the fact that Batman is crucial in the first arrest of Joker despite strong resistance, Batman directly foils his attempt to kill Dent and everyone on the ferries, and Batman is the only reason Joker is arrested the final time. Those things wouldn’t have happened without Batman. Regardless of the larger strategic victory Joker may have had over Batman by forcing him to corrupt his image, at the end of the movie the prisoners on the ferry remain prisoners, Joker is stopped, and Dent is remembered as a hero. None of jokers larger plan directly harms Gotham beyond what we see in TDK. Batman stops it. Based on the events contained only in TDK Batman is completely victorious even if it’s based on a lie. Batman’s choices at the end of TDK lead to an unprecedented time of peace in Gotham. His lie isn’t the root cause of the unrest in Rises.

The events of Rises really don’t apply here since Bane used his own own paramilitary and stolen equipment to release an entire prison. That is not a victory of the Joker. He opportunistically uses Gordon’s letter to stir unrest but his plan would have been the same without it, release prisoners and wreak havoc until the bomb detonates. None of that has to do with Joker.

In The Batman, Batman never directly interacts face to face with the main antagonist and does nothing to directly stop or apprehend him. Batman never even punches the main villain in a whole Batman movie. Riddler fully realizes his entire plan and is then apprehended by the police at the time and place of his choosing. Batman stops the very final deaths that would have been caused by Riddler’s followers AFTER Riddler gives him exactly what he needs to be there in time.

No matter what other aspects of the film your you pull into the conversation those two summaries were my original point. I don’t like a Batman movie where Batman isn’t involved in stopping the main antagonist. A giant 3rd act AFTER the police have already caught the main bad guy without Batman’s help isn’t very fun.

You can’t accept that I don’t like this aspect of The Batman so you’re trying to move the goal post and in some way make me factually wrong about the events in the film when I am not.

In TDK Batman stops Joker. In The Batman, Batman does not stop the Riddler. You can argue with me until you’re blue in the face about why I should like the latter, but you can’t change it’s reality.

 

[ironwez20]

Someone help me out! Is there a significance to this guy at the funeral noticing Bruce Wayne? Do we see him earlier in the film? I mean he looks familiar to me View attachment 595864

So someone pointed out that when the guy says
“You get what you ******* deserve” Bruce suddenly is stunned by him saying this.

I know joker and Batman are in a separate universe which is stupid btw but if it did Bruce being shocked by the guy saying this line makes sense cause the man who killed his family said this when he shot them in joker.

 

[user 72759]

Someone help me out! Is there a significance to this guy at the funeral noticing Bruce Wayne? Do we see him earlier in the film? I mean he looks familiar to me View attachment 595864

Is that really supposed to be the same guy? Pretty hard to tell with the post adrenaline beating face?

Doesnt look like the same chin with the cleft, eyebrows seem different and the length of sideburns too. If we were supposed to recognize this as the same person I think visually they failed on that. I’d probably only believe it if there’s some confirmation in the credits.

Id say it bugs me slightly that this Batman was about to punch this guy to death if no one stops him but this movie didn’t give me much reason to be invested in Batman’s morality. It kind of seams like Batman in this is about as mentally ready to be Batman as Bruce Wayne when he thinks he wants to kill Joe Chill in Begins.

 

[Wor-Gar]

That fringe guy looks like a beat-up Harrison Ford!

 

[Luisenigma1]

Someone help me out! Is there a significance to this guy at the funeral noticing Bruce Wayne? Do we see him earlier in the film? I mean he looks familiar to me View attachment 595864

Most likely it's joe chill or a nod to him. Cause he recognized Bruce. It makes some sense why he hates the mayor and to him is just another "scum sucker who got what he deserved" only here he mentioned a daughter who was sick or in some forum in need of medical help.

 

[Luisenigma1]

Is that really supposed to be the same guy? Pretty hard to tell with the post adrenaline beating face?

Doesnt look like the same chin with the cleft, eyebrows seem different and the length of sideburns too. If we were supposed to recognize this as the same person I think visually they failed on that. I’d probably only believe it if there’s some confirmation in the credits.

Id say it bugs me slightly that this Batman was about to punch this guy to death if no one stops him but this movie didn’t give me much reason to be invested in Batman’s morality. It kind of seams like Batman in this is about as mentally ready to be Batman as Bruce Wayne when he thinks he wants to kill Joe Chill in Begins.

It's not the faces and voices are very different.

 

[lordnastrond]

What we can hopefully agree on is that in The Dark Knight the main antagonist is stopped and put in custody exclusively due to the actions of Batman. No matter what else you pull into the conversation you cannot negate the fact that Batman is crucial in the first arrest of Joker despite strong resistance, Batman directly foils his attempt to kill Dent and everyone on the ferries, and Batman is the only reason Joker is arrested the final time. Those things wouldn’t have happened without Batman.

I Would argue against exclusively - Batman very clearly had help.
But yes he was instrumental in capturing Joker.
Again, I would say Joker's first arrest is absolutely 100% part of his plan and the movie is very, very, explicit in this with Gordon even saying "The Joker planned to be caught, he wanted me to lock him up in the MCU!" (a direct quote from the movie). So sadly, while on the surface this appears to be a victory at first, the movie is very clear in saying that this was Joker's plan and he was ahead of the heroes the whole time.

Regardless of the larger strategic victory Joker may have had over Batman by forcing him to corrupt his image, at the end of the movie the prisoners on the ferry remain prisoners, Joker is stopped, and Dent is remembered as a hero. None of jokers larger plan directly harms Gotham beyond what we see in TDK. Batman stops it. Based on the events contained only in TDK Batman is completely victorious even if it’s based on a lie.

Okay - and that is your perspective - it is not an objective reality as the movie and its sequel make clear.
Whereas in The Batman - the movie ends with the Riddler, very clearly and explicitly, utterly foiled and Batman utterly triumphant.

Before you try to pull Bane in again to counter this, one that’s not contained in TDK, and two Bane used his own own paramilitary and stolen equipment to release an entire prison. That is not a victory of the Joker. Bane is a parallel to any demagogue in history and his rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. He opportunistically uses Gordon’s letter to stir unrest but his plan would have been the same without it, release prisoners and wreak havoc until the bomb detonates. None of that has to do with Joker. Batman’s choices at the end of TDK lead to an unprecedented time of peace in Gotham. His lie isn’t the root cause of the unrest in Rises.

I'm not going to get into this, because my point was never that Bale's Batman doesn't achieve a victory, even in TDK, merely that Joker subjectively wins to a degree and that when comparing the two it is undeniable that Pattinson's Batman has a more complete victory over Riddler than Bale did over Joker.

In The Batman, Batman never directly interacts face to face with the main antagonist and does nothing to directly stop or apprehend him. Batman never even punches the main villain in a whole Batman movie. Riddler fully realizes his entire plan and is then apprehended by the police at the time and place of his choosing. Batman stops the very final deaths that would have been caused by Riddler’s followers AFTER Riddler gives him exactly what he needs to be there in time.

No Batman never does physically confront Riddler, in the sense of hitting him, you are right there.
But to say that Riddler realizes his entire plan is simply incorrect - Riddler's crescendo, his final victory, was slaughtering the hundreds of Gotham's elite at GSG and Batman prevents this - this isn't a subjective opinion, it is a fact.
I am not sure why this is consistently glossed over in the analysis your presenting.
This is what I mean about the hypocrisy of you saying I'M manipulating the events to discredit Bale's Batman - when you are so blatantly, so obviously trying and FAILING to do EXACTLY that.

No matter what other dishonest BS you try to pull into the conversation

The sheer blinding arrogance of YOU saying that.

those two summaries were my original point. I don’t like a Batman movie where Batman isn’t involved in stopping the main antagonist. A giant 3rd act AFTER the police have already caught the main bad guy without Batman’s help isn’t very fun.

Fair enough and that is all you ever had to say - but instead you have made BS arguments and distorted facts to try and state that anyone who sees differently is objectively wrong as if your opinion isn't subjective.
It's not right, and that is why I have felt the need to keep trying to engage with you positively on this subject, only for you to dig your heels in and get nastier and nastier with your responses.

You can’t accept that I don’t like this aspect of The Batman so you’re trying to move the goal post and in some way make me factually wrong about the events in the film when I am not.

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - a nice tactic but it wont work here.
I fully accept that you have a difference in opinion and have stated as much numerous times, I even said that I LIKE talking to people I disagree with - it is you who seem unnable to accept that your opinion, while valid for your own experience, is not quite the unassilable, logical, objective point you have tried to falsely present it as.
In order to make your argument work you have to consistently belittle and ignore events and achievements by Batman in the movie despite it going against the events that happen. Not an interpretation of events, but the events themselves.
Then you accuse me of saying things I have not in order to set up a strawman argument that is easier for you to defeat.
Another cheap trick that will not work.

In TDK Batman stops Joker. In The Batman, Batman does not stop the Riddler. You can argue with me until you’re blue in the face about why I should like the latter, but you can’t change it’s reality.

No you can't change reality - as you, pretty ironically, state.
BATMAN STOPS THE RIDDLER'S PLAN - HOW are you still choosing to ignore this?!

I am done engaging with you - you will clearly lie if you think it will help your point - feel free to have the last word.
I have had enough of all this, talking about movies should be fun, and adults should be able to disagree without it becoming a mud-slinging match.