If he’s not a part of a larger universe, I think 1:15 it makes sense for Batman not to have those fantastical types of villains in live-action. If he does, they’ve got to be incredibly deliberately crafted and presented. When he’s part of a larger universe with room for Superman, it’s got to have room for powered Bat-villains. I think each is a valid representation of Batman, though.
@ it all looks like Legends is Tomorrow episodes. I’ve seen nothing to inspire confidence. I love that Mr Terrific is present and comics accurate. But the broad daylight setting that seemed to appeal to one or both of you isn’t doing the costume designs any favors. They didn’t even seem to understand the obvious and predictable reaction to their pro original still of Superman calmly dressing when a comic threat is just outside the window.
I've had enough of the real-worldization of Batman. Batman, doesn't fit in the real world. No matter how good he is at what he does, he's still a nut who dresses up like a bat it will always be treated as such. I'm excited see Batman in a world where costumed crimefighters are common place. Where supervillains dress like supervillains and not like the Unabomber.
But we have that. 1960s Batman and Schumacher's two Batman movies went full on fantasy. Burton went fantasy, but he was criticized for being "too dark" in Batman Returns. Hence, Schumacher's nonsense. If James Gunn pulls off Batman in his DCU, it will be because he somehow managed to present the fantastical and the "real-worldization" to a perfect balance. But if he does that, he has to do it with all DC characters. Seems impossible to me, though I think he pulled it off well enough with his Suicide Squad. But I can't see the Batman character joking it up in that movie. Fans always talk about comic book accuracy. But the Batman title is serious. The titles are not comedies.
@MSgt_0699 No one said anything about comedies. I want a live action version of Batman: The Animated Series. So far, it's the only perfect adaptation of the comics.
@@richardb6260 Yeah, but that's all Gunn does. Guardians was great. A comedy. Suicide Squad was great. A comedy. Peacemaker was great. A comedy. But Gunn's Batman will be different? And he is putting him next to a teenage *Boy* Wonder? What makes anybody think that Gunn isn't going to give Batman the comedic treatment...in a DCU where all the other characters are also going to be given this? But doing Batman right, also means that he just won't fit. Something has to give. And the Animated Series is dark because Batman is a dark character. It is also a more serious cartoon. But over-the-top fantasy makes for great cartoons no matter what. It appears easy enough to translate comic pages to a cartoon. But you can't live-action that.
@MSgt_0699 Gunn's Super was pretty dark. So was Slither. Nothing wrong with humor in a superhero movie. Humor was something that was sadly lacking in the Snyderverse films. Not that it didn't exist, but they lacked any real sense of fun. Humor is fine as long as it doesn't devolve into camp. With camp, there's no chance to have any believable drama or emotion. Yet the Guardians films managed both with GotG3 easily being one of the most emotional of the MCU films. As far as it being difficult to translate the comic page to film, I don't think Sin City or 300 had any problem with that. Superman '78 perfectly captured the feel if the Superman comics from the 60s and 70s. Batman '89 perfectly captured the Steve Engelhart/Marshall Rogers run in the 70s for the Batman comics. In fact, Silver St. Cloud, who was created during that run, was in the early drafts of the script for the '89 film until she was replaced by Vicky Vale. What I'm hoping Gunn brings is heart. That was something that the Guardians films had in abundance.
@@richardb6260 I don't know if I ever realized that Gunn did Super. Another good one. But it is also considered a comedy. Gunn can't get away from it. I just don't see how Batman fits into his world. Humor, but not at the expense of the character. I don't need humor with Batman. Not a lot of humor in 300.
I think people should temper their expectations. Even Marvel tamed their characters for the MCU. They did not go full blown comic book. But Marvel's characters are easier to portray on film. There's practicality built in and they play well enough on screen. DC characters lack that practicality. They are running around with children as sidekicks. And the reason past directors have presented Batman with darkened color palettes/aesthetics, is that in broad bright daylight he would look stupid. And Gunn is seemingly wanting to go comic book. Works fine as cartoons, where Batman appears in sunshiny day along side bright cheery Superman. But fans who have always wanted the fantastical on the silver screen, might find themselves discovering why nobody has ever wanted to do it.
@@prodigioussaps Gunn's? I liked it. I also liked the other one. I tend to like most of these movies. But Batman in one of Gunn's less-than serious comedies? And next to his ninth grader sidekick at 0200? I don't know. It dives too deep into the nonsense. Not only must we suspend belief about costumes, but now we are asked to shove aside all sense of adult responsibility and such in these characters. But, who knows. Maybe a cartoon transfer will work. But any break into practicality will expose the nonsense and distract. Besides, as a kid I always hated ensemble titles. I really hated Robin. Solo Batman titles were my favorite. Last year, at age 51, I decided to give a JLA Omnibus another try, based on recommendation. Nope. I just can't bring myself to seeing Batman fitting next to another character. I hope Gunn pulls it all off. I'd like a packaged DC story like the Infinity Saga. It would be good for fans like you. But, in the end, I really only like Batman anyway. This is why I want Matt Reeve's Batman to stay away.
All I'm gonna say is... Gunn gave us Starro The Conqueror, and it frickin' worked. I will never doubt the man again. I hear your concerns, though. I really do believe he's going to pull this off. I could be wrong, but that's where my heart is right now.
@@prodigioussaps Oh, I don't think there is much Gunn can't put on screen and not suck the audience in. Like you said....Starro?! And there's Groot. The Raccoon. Ego. But all were surrounded with tongue-in-cheek quips and comedy. I don't see Batman working well in those universes. But I really do hope you are right. I'm just saying that we should temper our expectations and expect what Gunn has already done. All it's going to take is a joke about Robin's youth, and how he should be in bed, to break that sense of "normal" in this DCU. Poking fun at itself will put people off.
If he’s not a part of a larger universe, I think 1:15 it makes sense for Batman not to have those fantastical types of villains in live-action.
If he does, they’ve got to be incredibly deliberately crafted and presented.
When he’s part of a larger universe with room for Superman, it’s got to have room for powered Bat-villains.
I think each is a valid representation of Batman, though.
Bat nail on the bat head, sir.
Justice League... that is going to be fun.
Yeah! Something unlike anything we've seen so far, I reckon.
@@kathleenhensley5951 I do not share your optimism, ma’am.
But at least we can agree on hoping you’re right and I’m wrong. 👍🏾
@westmcgee9320 What about the JL in the DCU worries you?
@ it all looks like Legends is Tomorrow episodes.
I’ve seen nothing to inspire confidence.
I love that Mr Terrific is present and comics accurate. But the broad daylight setting that seemed to appeal to one or both of you isn’t doing the costume designs any favors.
They didn’t even seem to understand the obvious and predictable reaction to their pro original still of Superman calmly dressing when a comic threat is just outside the window.
I've had enough of the real-worldization of Batman. Batman, doesn't fit in the real world. No matter how good he is at what he does, he's still a nut who dresses up like a bat it will always be treated as such. I'm excited see Batman in a world where costumed crimefighters are common place. Where supervillains dress like supervillains and not like the Unabomber.
But we have that. 1960s Batman and Schumacher's two Batman movies went full on fantasy. Burton went fantasy, but he was criticized for being "too dark" in Batman Returns. Hence, Schumacher's nonsense.
If James Gunn pulls off Batman in his DCU, it will be because he somehow managed to present the fantastical and the "real-worldization" to a perfect balance. But if he does that, he has to do it with all DC characters. Seems impossible to me, though I think he pulled it off well enough with his Suicide Squad. But I can't see the Batman character joking it up in that movie.
Fans always talk about comic book accuracy. But the Batman title is serious. The titles are not comedies.
@MSgt_0699 No one said anything about comedies. I want a live action version of Batman: The Animated Series. So far, it's the only perfect adaptation of the comics.
@@richardb6260 Yeah, but that's all Gunn does. Guardians was great. A comedy. Suicide Squad was great. A comedy. Peacemaker was great. A comedy. But Gunn's Batman will be different? And he is putting him next to a teenage *Boy* Wonder? What makes anybody think that Gunn isn't going to give Batman the comedic treatment...in a DCU where all the other characters are also going to be given this? But doing Batman right, also means that he just won't fit. Something has to give.
And the Animated Series is dark because Batman is a dark character. It is also a more serious cartoon. But over-the-top fantasy makes for great cartoons no matter what. It appears easy enough to translate comic pages to a cartoon. But you can't live-action that.
@MSgt_0699 Gunn's Super was pretty dark. So was Slither. Nothing wrong with humor in a superhero movie. Humor was something that was sadly lacking in the Snyderverse films. Not that it didn't exist, but they lacked any real sense of fun. Humor is fine as long as it doesn't devolve into camp. With camp, there's no chance to have any believable drama or emotion. Yet the Guardians films managed both with GotG3 easily being one of the most emotional of the MCU films. As far as it being difficult to translate the comic page to film, I don't think Sin City or 300 had any problem with that. Superman '78 perfectly captured the feel if the Superman comics from the 60s and 70s. Batman '89 perfectly captured the Steve Engelhart/Marshall Rogers run in the 70s for the Batman comics. In fact, Silver St. Cloud, who was created during that run, was in the early drafts of the script for the '89 film until she was replaced by Vicky Vale. What I'm hoping Gunn brings is heart. That was something that the Guardians films had in abundance.
@@richardb6260 I don't know if I ever realized that Gunn did Super. Another good one. But it is also considered a comedy. Gunn can't get away from it. I just don't see how Batman fits into his world.
Humor, but not at the expense of the character. I don't need humor with Batman.
Not a lot of humor in 300.
I think people should temper their expectations. Even Marvel tamed their characters for the MCU. They did not go full blown comic book. But Marvel's characters are easier to portray on film. There's practicality built in and they play well enough on screen. DC characters lack that practicality. They are running around with children as sidekicks. And the reason past directors have presented Batman with darkened color palettes/aesthetics, is that in broad bright daylight he would look stupid. And Gunn is seemingly wanting to go comic book. Works fine as cartoons, where Batman appears in sunshiny day along side bright cheery Superman. But fans who have always wanted the fantastical on the silver screen, might find themselves discovering why nobody has ever wanted to do it.
Did you see The Suicide Squad?
@@prodigioussaps Gunn's? I liked it. I also liked the other one. I tend to like most of these movies. But Batman in one of Gunn's less-than serious comedies? And next to his ninth grader sidekick at 0200? I don't know. It dives too deep into the nonsense. Not only must we suspend belief about costumes, but now we are asked to shove aside all sense of adult responsibility and such in these characters. But, who knows. Maybe a cartoon transfer will work. But any break into practicality will expose the nonsense and distract.
Besides, as a kid I always hated ensemble titles. I really hated Robin. Solo Batman titles were my favorite. Last year, at age 51, I decided to give a JLA Omnibus another try, based on recommendation. Nope. I just can't bring myself to seeing Batman fitting next to another character.
I hope Gunn pulls it all off. I'd like a packaged DC story like the Infinity Saga. It would be good for fans like you. But, in the end, I really only like Batman anyway. This is why I want Matt Reeve's Batman to stay away.
All I'm gonna say is... Gunn gave us Starro The Conqueror, and it frickin' worked. I will never doubt the man again.
I hear your concerns, though. I really do believe he's going to pull this off. I could be wrong, but that's where my heart is right now.
@@prodigioussaps Oh, I don't think there is much Gunn can't put on screen and not suck the audience in. Like you said....Starro?! And there's Groot. The Raccoon. Ego.
But all were surrounded with tongue-in-cheek quips and comedy. I don't see Batman working well in those universes. But I really do hope you are right. I'm just saying that we should temper our expectations and expect what Gunn has already done. All it's going to take is a joke about Robin's youth, and how he should be in bed, to break that sense of "normal" in this DCU. Poking fun at itself will put people off.