They could do all kinds of things. They could do anything they want. But, they want to make as much money as possible, and older Batman—what does that mean? 50s? 60s?—is a risk to making all the money. Why would they do that?
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
They could do all kinds of things. They could do anything they want. But, they want to make as much money as possible, and older Batman—what does that mean? 50s? 60s?—is a risk to making all the money. Why would they do that?
I did not enjoy his performance.
I think a Batman in his 40's maybe 50's could be interesting. We saw a little bit in BVS and JL, but is a movie only with an older Batman be a bigger risk then with a younger Batman?
My understanding is that most pro athletes have to retire by their early 40s at latest because of the cumulative strain on their bodies. I've never found it plausible that Batman's career could last much longer than that, given that he's been shot, stabbed, garotted, poisoned, drowned, dangled over vats of acid, and catapulted while tied to giant replica coins rather more often than your typical pro athlete.
It's not that the athletes can't continue, it's that they lose their value when compared to younger athletes because they deteriorate. If Batman is sooooooo much better than the average crook while in his 30s, perhaps he can be in his 60s before he is on their level?
Agreed.
Plus he's a man that dresses as a bat to punch clowns and mud people in the face.
His age is the last thing I worry about when it comes to plausibility. Even the "realistic" Nolan movies were absurdly over the top and unrealistic at times. It goes with the territory and really can't be separated.
I think people missed what Nolan was trying to do when he want for a "realistic" Batman... He didn't actually try to make a Batman realistic, he tried to put Batman into a more realistic world. There is a difference.
Even so, I think that the tendency in recent decades toward perpetual cycles of nostalgia has lost track of the worthwhile idea of a legacy hero. There were some pretty good stories told about sidekicks growing up to inherit their mentors' titles or become independent heroes of their own -- the Teen Titans, Wally West, the various generations of X-Men and New Mutants, etc. Realism or no, it was interesting to see heroes mature and pass the torch rather than being endlessly stuck in the same roles. It proved that it didn't always go with the territory, because there was a time when comics writers were interested in progress and growth, before the fans took over as writers and started restoring the status quo to what it had been when they were kids. I often wish those changes had been permanent and continued to progress over time, rather than getting reset by having all the old heroes resurrected or rejuvenated or whatever and all the progress reversed.
Yeah, it's 'realistic' in the sense that people aren't getting resurrected and there's no magic or superpowers, et cetera...
Dawn's better than War imo. I felt War was decent enough but kind of a letdown.
Last edited:
Maybe one in his twilight years...
His Bruce was very Clark Kentish. So I'd place him as among the worst Waynes. Probably the only part of the film that didn't work for me.
I didn't want to be accused of trolling because the performance was so popular, but.... didn't like him as Wayne either
Right, we saw a little bit of that, and Affleck (mid 40s) is already hanging up the cape. So, there goes that franchise, and here we are... softly rebooting(ish) with a new Batman. There are physical demands being an action hero that a 40 or 50 year old might not want to take on. Not everyone is Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford.
So, you have longevity of an actor in the role for your franchise...
And, yeah, I do think a younger actor, in his early 30s, would not only be more believable as Batman, but, also get more people in the audience. How many people want to watch Batman at the END of his career?
There is Logan, that's a counter example, but, that's more about Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine and saying good bye to a role. And, as popular as Wolverine was in comic book circles, it took Hugh Jackman to put him into the pop culture at large. Batman was already there. Everyone knew Batman even if they had never read a comic or seen a movie. He was ubiquitous. Batman is bigger than the actor. (tee hee, in Wolverine's case, the actor was, indeed, bigger than the character.)
So, yeah, I don't think it makes great business sense to do an older Batman story, unless it's a one off. I would watch it. I would rather see a bunch of different Batman stories, different kinds of Batman stories. But, then, I'm not running a studio.
Maybe one in his twilight years...
Didn't see anyone mention this, its...interesting, if true
https://heroichollywood.com/matt-reeves-batman-catwoman-villains/
Well, we know what role Kristen Stewart will probably be doing in the movie. Now we just have to wait to see who Lautner will be (My guess? Man-Bat).
https://heroichollywood.com/matt-reeves-batman-catwoman-villains/
Well, we know what role Kristen Stewart will probably be doing in the movie. Now we just have to wait to see who Lautner will be (My guess? Man-Bat).
Of course the original Planet of the Apes completely disregarded the original source material, which was not all about blowing ourselves--so that was a shit movie too.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was written in the aftermath of SARS and other viral outbreaks. In fact, viral outbreaks remain one of the most serious possibilities of a global catastrophe. The Ebola crisis a few years ago was on the verge of going global. As for bullet-proof Apes, you know that is not entirely accurate and the apes aren't magically invulnerable.
Last edited:
I didn't want to be accused of trolling because the performance was so popular, but.... didn't like him as Wayne either
I never liked him as Bruce Wayne or Batman. He was a comedic actor and that "Clark Kent" style didn't work. There was no credibility to his few scenes of brooding and the childhood trauma he was supposed to be dealing with. As Batman, he had to have so much armor built into the suit to make up for his slight stature that the character just wasn't Batman to me.
I saw the film in 1989, I was raised on the seventies Batman--the Dark Knight. And I saw none of that in the movie.
"Original?" The first SARS outbreak was in 2003, so I can only assume you're talking about Rise of the Planet of the Apes from 2011, rather than the 1963 novel or its first film adaptation in 1968.
The rest of us already knew that...that's why we didn't comment in the obvious. We just thought it in our heads and moved on