• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers The Flash (2023) -Review and Discussion Thread

Rating?

  • A*

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • A

    Votes: 6 11.5%
  • A-

    Votes: 6 11.5%
  • B+

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • B

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • B-

    Votes: 6 11.5%
  • C+

    Votes: 6 11.5%
  • C

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • C-

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • D

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • F

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Total voters
    52
For me I think the Tim Burton + 90s Batman all kinda had similar issues. They usually did a good job casting BRUCE WAYNE, but I didn't really think the actor was as good as Batman. You look at the martial arts training and everything in the comics that Bruce undertakes after leaving Gotham and what he becomes before he returns to be Batman. I don't really think Keaton, or Clooney had believability there. Kilmer prob came closest out of the three IMO.

Good grief, Keaton could barely move in that heavy rubber suit. He couldn't turn his head at all. Literally the first thing he did in his first action scene as Batman was to get shot and fall down. It was kind of pathetic.


Gotta disagree with you there, Adam West was pretty much perfect as the goofy Silver Age era Batman.

What made West's Batman work, though, was that he wasn't goofy. He existed in a goofy world that he reacted to with absolute hyperseriousness. It was the same kind of humor that Airplane! used a decade or so later, casting actors known for their serious dramatic chops and having them play the most absurd dialogue and situations as if it were desperately intense drama. The reason West was so good as a "comedy" Batman was because of his talent as a serious leading man. He made it work by playing it straight, so exaggeratedly straight that it became comical.

Indeed, that's the biggest difference between B66 and the Batman comics of the late '40s and early '50s. In the comics, Batman and Robin were much more playful and traded constant joking banter as they fought crime. Robin was a nonstop wisecracker and punster in the vein of Spider-Man a couple of decades later, whereas the closest Burt Ward's Robin came to that was his incessant "Holy relevant reference, Batman!" schtick -- which Ward usually played hyper-seriously, rather than as a joke.


Ezra always felt more like Wally to me. A bit more goofy persona wise.

You could say much the same about Grant Gustin's Barry. He's different from Miller's, but still closer in personality to Wally than the classic Barry of the comics. Even John Wesley Shipp's 1990 Barry Allen borrowed elements from Wally, like the need for tons of food to fuel his speed and the affiliation with STAR Labs and Tina McGee.

Adapted versions of hero identities that have been shared by multiple people often amalgamate elements from two or more of them. For instance, Batman: The Animated Series's Dick Grayson wore Tim Drake's original costume and had his computer skills, while the sequel series's Tim Drake was closer in backstory to Jason Todd, and Superman: TAS's Kyle Rayner was given Hal Jordan's Green Lantern origin and costume. The MCU Peter Parker borrows elements from Miles Morales, notably his friendship with Ned Leeds paralleling Miles and Ganke Lee.
 
What made West's Batman work, though, was that he wasn't goofy. He existed in a goofy world that he reacted to with absolute hyperseriousness. It was the same kind of humor that Airplane! used a decade or so later, casting actors known for their serious dramatic chops and having them play the most absurd dialogue and situations as if it were desperately intense drama. The reason West was so good as a "comedy" Batman was because of his talent as a serious leading man. He made it work by playing it straight, so exaggeratedly straight that it became comical.

Indeed, that's the biggest difference between B66 and the Batman comics of the late '40s and early '50s. In the comics, Batman and Robin were much more playful and traded constant joking banter as they fought crime. Robin was a nonstop wisecracker and punster in the vein of Spider-Man a couple of decades later, whereas the closest Burt Ward's Robin came to that was his incessant "Holy relevant reference, Batman!" schtick -- which Ward usually played hyper-seriously, rather than as a joke.
Sorry, I think I worded that badly, I meant that the Silver Age was goofy, not his Batman.
 
Sorry, I think I worded that badly, I meant that the Silver Age was goofy, not his Batman.

Oh, yes. Silver Age comics Batman was far goofier than 1966 TV Batman. The show's Batman and Robin never had to deal with Bat-Mite, time travel, alien invasions, bizarre transformations, weird costume variants like Zebra Batman and Rainbow Batman, or ongoing prank wars with Superman. Although there were a couple of third-season episodes that came close, like "The Joker's Flying Saucer."

(I almost said West & Ward never had to deal with Bat-Mite, but they did just that in the 1977 Filmation animated series.)

The show's plots and format were really closer to the comics of the late Golden Age, the mid-'40s to early '50s.
 
Gotta disagree with you there, Adam West was pretty much perfect as the goofy Silver Age era Batman.

One, the Silver Age Batman comic (generally considered anything published between 1956 - 1970) was not one kind of approach or tone. Once Infantino / Schwartz, et al revamped the characters in 1964 (the "New Look" Bat-verse), the 50s garbage which bled over into early Silver Age comics was largely dumped, in favor of bringing the character back to his detective roots.

Next, although the TV series adapted a few comic stories early on, it was its own animal. In fact, the series' trappings / tone temporarily stained Bat-titles (extending a bit beyond the TV series' first-run life on ABC), and one can read letters from their period decrying anything taken from the show, and celebrated issues bearing no similarity to it, as seen in the following samples:

From Batman #195 (September, 1967)--
TFtsMtb.jpg


From Batman #200 (March, 1968)--
hFbYn4y.jpg


From Batman #206 (November, 1968)--
zB0erli.jpg

That's just a very small sample of the undeniable rejection of the influence/ trappings of the TV series, which can also be found in the late Biljo White's landmark Batmania (launched in 1964), one the first comic book fanzines (and the 1st dedicated to Batman), where Bat-comic fan contributors were not shy about voicing their displeasure with the Dozier TV series or its influence on the comics. It was still the Silver Age when Frank Robbins and Irv Novick returned Batman to his dark roots, darker villains (no longer emphasizing the rogue's gallery), and sending Dick Grayson to college. So, your "goofy Silver Age" did not last long, and the Dozier series--especially after Lorenzo Semple's departure--was a reflection of the internally created "do more" excess many TV series suffered from in that period. West's portrayal was more of a Greenway creation than anything from much of the Silver Age comic Batman.


Ezra Miller and Micheal Keaton are perfect examples of characters who aren't exact recreations of the comic book versions, but still retain enough familiar elements to be great takes on them.

Keaton's Batman bears no resemblance to any defining comic book version (a strong, believable Batman), which was Burton's ultimate goal.
 
the best Spider-Man since he was on the Electric company.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Thanks for bringing back to me that groovy theme song!

Burton's own issues poisoned his Batman right out of the production gates, as he purposely cast a short, balding comedic actor because Burton--as revealed in his NBC interview in the week leading up the film's premiere--did not think Batman should be a "square jawed hero", but a "techno-geek". That perception--a rejection of the essence of how Batman can function--was the reason his film was a garish, oddball travesty
I'm not sure of your age, but I was 21 in 1989. We were all scared that Keaton would suck. However, myself and my friends were blown away by the movie and thrilled someone had brought Bats back to a scary figure of the night. It doesn't hold up as well 30+ years later, but at the time, it was practically a revelation. AND it gave us Batman: The Animated Series, which I adore and which changed the way many characters were portrayed (plus giving us Harley Quinn).
 
However, myself and my friends were blown away by the movie and thrilled someone had brought Bats back to a scary figure of the night. It doesn't hold up as well 30+ years later, but at the time, it was practically a revelation.

"Doesn't hold up" indeed. Everyone thought at the time that it was such a dark, serious contrast to the Adam West series, but in retrospect, once you look past the surface grimness and violence, the Burton films are every bit as campy and ludicrous as the West series, even using some of its same beats like the Joker vandalizing an art gallery and the Penguin running for mayor.


AND it gave us Batman: The Animated Series, which I adore and which changed the way many characters were portrayed (plus giving us Harley Quinn).

And Renee Montoya, the Victor Fries version of Mr. Freeze, and Nora Fries. And other characters who've made less of a mark post-series, like Summer Gleeson, Veronica Vreeland, Roland Daggett, Lock-Up, and the Grey Ghost.
 
Burton's Batman films hold up just dandy. And, now as then, they hit just the right tone for the character: dark but playful, without the joyless faux-"realism" so beloved of later cinematic adaptations.
 
Burton's Batman films hold up just dandy. And, now as then, they hit just the right tone for the character: dark but playful, without the joyless faux-"realism" so beloved of later cinematic adaptations.

Don't call something "right" just because it's what you personally prefer. Your tastes are no more objectively correct than anyone else's.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Holy cow. :cardie:

(FYI, This is an officially released scene breakdown by the director. It shows the 'finished' CGI for those of us who have yet to see the movie.)
 
Last edited:
Burton's Batman films hold up just dandy. And, now as then, they hit just the right tone for the character: dark but playful, without the joyless faux-"realism" so beloved of later cinematic adaptations.

though at the time the use of lethal force by Batman didn’t play well in some sections and others were put off by the innuendo between the penguin and catwoman.
 
In the time since my last post, I had a realization.

My main criticism back then was that they didn't use Keaton's Batmobile.

The thing is, when they were filming this movie, the plan was for Keaton to be the Batman of the DCEU going forward, and for example the Batgirl movie was said to have a lot of Keaton's Batman in it. So they thought they'd use the Batmobile in other movies, meaning they didn't feel the pressure/need to write an action scene with it into the movie, especially since Affleck's Batman has a major chase scene at the beginning of the movie.

And with that realization came the further realization that the plans were completely different when they budgeted the movie. When they decided to pay to recreate the Batmobile, the Wayne Manor sets (that kitchen where Bruce explains the timelines is the kitchen where Alfred told Vicky Vale the story of Bruce's riding lesson), to build a completely new Batcave set, they thought they'd get to use all that in way more movies down the line.

So the fact that Keaton's Batman future was scrapped put way more financial pressure on The Flash.
 
On that note, Darren Mooney has written a slightly mischievous but fun article about why WB should’ve released Batgirl instead of The Flash https://www.escapistmagazine.com/warner-bros-chose-the-flash-over-batgirl-this-was-a-mistake/
Very good points being made there. Again, the $ 220 million budget of The Flash included the building of sets and props related to Keaton's Batman that were in part also used on Batgirl, so just using the numbers in the books, the write-off on The Flash would have meant all those sets and props were already paid for and witten off. Now, any sequel to The Flash would not feature Keaton's Batman. But if Batgirl were successful enough, it could have had a sequel (under the Elseworlds banner, to keep it distinct from Gunn's shared universe), and then they'd have gotten to use all those paid for sets and props again.

The big issue, of course, was licencing.
Although, looking at the toys from McFarlane and Spin Masters, they focused very heavily on Keaton's Batman (because Batman is inherently toyetic), so I don't think they'd have been that opposed to switching out the Flash figures against Batgirl and Firefly figures. Especially since Batman Family characters sell way more action figures than any other DC character. That's why they do so many of those.
And Lego, I mean, come on. It's Lego, they wouldn't even have had to do that much new sculpting, they even already have a basic Batgirl figure that looks much like Grace's Batgirl.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Holy cow. :cardie:

(FYI, This is an officially released scene breakdown by the director. It shows the 'finished' CGI for those of us who have yet to see the movie.)
Okay. I have not seen the film yet but that clip I thought was fine. It made me laugh and it was played for laughs so the effects I thought were fine and subtable for the scene.
 
Yeah, I've seen some people morally tut-tutting the "baby shower" sequence, but I thought it was hilarious and clever, the single best setpiece in the film. It's supposed to be a little shocking and outrageous (putting a bunch of infants in over-the-top mortal jeopardy), but it worked for me in the black-humor spirit intended. As for the effects, the fact that they are less than photorealistic works in the scene's favor, since if it were too believable it would become genuinely horrifying instead of cartoonishly excessive.
 
I'm not sure of your age, but I was 21 in 1989. We were all scared that Keaton would suck. However, myself and my friends were blown away by the movie and thrilled someone had brought Bats back to a scary figure of the night.

At the time, there was no avoiding Burton's personal quest to remove the "square jawed hero" from a character who is supposed to be that (among other traits), and is also formidable when out of costume. That was nowhere to be found in Burton's Bat-film. Keaton lived up to the doubt his casting generated and while he was not West, he was a different kind of silly, one that sealed DC movies' fate as an IP that--for the majority of DC adaptations of the 20th century--were not able to capture the essence of its characters until the DCEU and a couple of TV series.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Holy cow. :cardie:

(FYI, This is an officially released scene breakdown by the director. It shows the 'finished' CGI for those of us who have yet to see the movie.)

That was hilarious! The "babies in danger" stuff wasn't shocking or in poor taste, it was the same as in classic cartoons like Popeye's "A Dream Walking" where Popeye was run ragged trying to save baby Swee'Pea at a construction site and fell prey to all the hazards the baby safely and obliviously wandered through (a formula used in multiple classic theatrical cartoons and homaged by Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'s Baby Herman shorts and Animaniacs' Buttons and Mindy). The fact that it's so preposterously exaggerated is what makes it clear it's not meant to be reacted to as a serious danger, except by the panicked hero.

And the scene did a fantastic job at showing how clever Barry is in the use of his speed and his environment, underlining that his power comes from his mind as much as his body. It's a terrific introduction to the character. It sounds like some other parts of the movie might not work as well, but I'm looking forward to seeing it.


Digital release July 18th

Does that mean on Max, or just for sale?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top