The Batman trailer is here

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,013
776
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
That is mostly true, but even test audiences can screw things up. They ain't perfect either. The original ending to I Am Legend (Will Smith) comes to mind.
Mmm...The original ending to I Am Legend gets a lot of artificial propping up from people who got the cliff-notes version of the book and assume that the original ending is truer to the text and therefore better as a matter of definition.

In the book, the premise is that there's a subset of infected that are superficially similar to the feral type, but retained their minds (short version: The ferals are reanimated corpses, the non-ferals were alive when infected) and are trying to rebuild society. Because of that superficial similarity and the fact that both the feral and non-ferals alike practically go into stasis in daytime hours, this meant that Robert ended up killing a lot of the generally non-violent non-ferals...who view him as a monster for it. The story ends with him being imprisoned and sentenced to execution by the non-ferals, and - upon seeing the fear and hate in their eyes when they look at him - Robert realizes that their reaction is understandable. After all, he had become to the non-ferals what the ferals were to him.

The film does not go this route. There is no subset of infected that is still functionally human. Instead, it operates off the premise that Robert had slightly underestimated their intelligence and social structure, assuming that the infected were simply deranged when in fact they were more...well, feral, displaying an intelligence and pack structure somewhere between wolves and gorillas, maybe on par with Jurassic Park's raptors. The book's ending doesn't really work, as there's no society to turn him into a legendary monster because of a misunderstanding, just ferals who will forget him within a generation. Moreover, the original ending is predicated on the contrivance of the infected - with whom he'd had no rapport (unlike Robert connecting with Ruth in the book) or appreciable interaction with outside of fighting - suddenly jumping from hunting him as a matter of course and then sucidally rushing him after their apparent alpha's mate was taken...to understanding the concept of contrition and ceasefire in the span of about 5 seconds. This was simply not an ending that the movie had earned.
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,331
7,350
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Mmm...The original ending to I Am Legend gets a lot of artificial propping up from people who got the cliff-notes version of the book and assume that the original ending is truer to the text and therefore better as a matter of definition.

In the book, the premise is that there's a subset of infected that are superficially similar to the feral type, but retained their minds (short version: The ferals are reanimated corpses, the non-ferals were alive when infected) and are trying to rebuild society. Because of that superficial similarity and the fact that both the feral and non-ferals alike practically go into stasis in daytime hours, this meant that Robert ended up killing a lot of the generally non-violent non-ferals...who view him as a monster for it. The story ends with him being imprisoned and sentenced to execution by the non-ferals, and - upon seeing the fear and hate in their eyes when they look at him - Robert realizes that their reaction is understandable. After all, he had become to the non-ferals what the ferals were to him.

The film does not go this route. There is no subset of infected that is still functionally human. Instead, it operates off the premise that Robert had slightly underestimated their intelligence and social structure, assuming that the infected were simply deranged when in fact they were more...well, feral, displaying an intelligence and pack structure somewhere between wolves and gorillas, maybe on par with Jurassic Park's raptors. The book's ending doesn't really work, as there's no society to turn him into a legendary monster because of a misunderstanding, just ferals who will forget him within a generation. Moreover, the original ending is predicated on the contrivance of the infected - with whom he'd had no rapport (unlike Robert connecting with Ruth in the book) or appreciable interaction with outside of fighting - suddenly jumping from hunting him as a matter of course and then sucidally rushing him after their apparent alpha's mate was taken...to understanding the concept of contrition and ceasefire in the span of about 5 seconds. This was simply not an ending that the movie had earned.
With all that said, I don't exactly love nor hate the theatrical ending. It feels a little too bog standard for me. Not the original ending was perfect either, but I'm just pointing out how certain people felt. At the end of the day, the best adaption of I Am Legend will be the Vincent Price version, The Last Man On Earth.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Asita

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
16,203
1,762
118
At the end of the day, the best adaption of I Am Legend will be the Vincent Price version, The Last Man On Earth.
The one with Vincent Price in it has Vincent Price in it, which is generally a good thing. The Charlton Heston one was more forgettable (IIRC, not trying to be funny but I don't remember), except if you count the Apes franchise which was apparently based on the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,080
980
118
Country
United States
I was sorta watching this in the background last night I think one of the factors of pulling jokers scene is that its a round peg without any kind of foreshadowing.

The initial scene with the cops is the most appropriate. There's a sense among the cops that Batman is a bad omen. When the cop goes to stop him I could sort of imagine that's where Matt reeves would have had a kind of dialog reference like "youd let him in here, after what happened!?" referencing some big city wide incident involving joker. I think they threw some ideas around, but couldn't come up with any foreshadowing that doesn't pull the viewer away from the current story. Instead Batman is refered to as a creepy menace and its kept vague if it was one big thing or just his presence in the city that is problematic.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,331
7,350
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
The Charlton Heston one was more forgettable (IIRC, not trying to be funny but I don't remember), except if you count the Apes franchise which was apparently based on the same.
The Omega Man is the worst adaption of the novel, and is a product of its time in the worst way possible. You have a black female character that's a stereotypical jive turkey.

Instead Batman is refered to as a creepy menace and its kept vague if it was one big thing or just his presence in the city that is problematic.
I like this element and it actually works in the audience's and the story's favor it would make sense that most citizens would find Batman creepy, and that the police would not trust him so early on. It's only his second year. This is a case of surprisingly realistic outcome. How would you react to a guy in a bat costume beating up criminals, constantly shouting "I am vengeance!", and being creepy? That's the entire point of the movie. Bruce has to be more than vengeance. Raw anger alone and revenge won't help Gotham.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,456
1,789
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I finally got around to watching it.

I was struck by how little Batman actually accomplishes as the main character.

He doesn't catch Riddler, Riddler turns himself in.

He doesn't stop Riddler's plan. Riddler still destroys the sea wall and explodes the bombs.

He doesn't stop the mayor from getting shot. She survives, but it's questionable as to how much he actually helped with that.

He doesn't stop Falcone from getting killed.

He doesn't stop any of the corrupt cops.

He doesn't stop the district attorney from being blown up.

He isn't necessary to solve Riddler's riddles because Alfred solves the first one and the police are right behind him in all the others.

He doesn't even save the kid from being hit by the car (the car swerves anyway and doesn't drive over the spot the kid was standing in).

What did Batman do this whole 3 hour movie other than punch some low level criminals and cause a massive pile-up on a highway that probably killed a dozen people?
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,331
7,350
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
I finally got around to watching it.

I was struck by how little Batman actually accomplishes as the main character.

What did Batman do this whole 3 hour movie other than punch some low level criminals and cause a massive pile-up on a highway that probably killed a dozen people?
I got your answers right here.
He doesn't catch Riddler, Riddler turns himself in.
True, but that is because Riddler had the delusion that him and Batman were "partners".

He doesn't stop Riddler's plan. Riddler still destroys the sea wall and explodes the bombs.
The Riddler still did not get what he completely wanted and fell in to brief despair. Plus, he's stuck in Arkham (for now). The dude is a screaming man child in an insane asylum.

He doesn't stop the mayor from getting shot. She survives, but it's questionable as to how much he actually helped with that.
Batman can't be blamed for that one. While I commend Real's bravery, Gordon warned and tried to stop her. Even when Batman got there a little late, he did more than his best to prevent things from getting even worse. Taking out all of Riddler's goons helped big time, and without him, everyone would be fish in a barrel.

He doesn't stop Falcone from getting killed.
True, but that was the point. Everyone underestimated The Riddler. Plus, this is Batman at Year 2. He's going to make mistakes.

He doesn't stop any of the corrupt cops.
Yes and no. A lot of them probably fear for their lives, and have to their job or risk getting caught by B-man or people in power that care. The sequel will probably iron that detail out.

He doesn't stop the district attorney from being blown up.
And nothing of value was lost.

He isn't necessary to solve Riddler's riddles because Alfred solves the first one and the police are right behind him in all the others.
Once again, Batman is still green and it's only his second year. You're not wrong, but he still has to figure things out when Alfred is out of commission. When I last checked, the police weren't that close compared to Batman and Gordon.

He doesn't even save the kid from being hit by the car (the car swerves anyway and doesn't drive over the spot the kid was standing in).
It's the thought and action that counts. He is the first to save the kid at the stadium, and the kid is the first to take his hand after the attack is over. Many times all you need is a helping and caring hand. That's the entire point of those scenes. It's to show Batman has to be more than "I AM VENGANCE!".
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,080
980
118
Country
United States
I finally got around to watching it.

I was struck by how little Batman actually accomplishes as the main character.

He doesn't catch Riddler, Riddler turns himself in.

He doesn't stop Riddler's plan. Riddler still destroys the sea wall and explodes the bombs.

He doesn't stop the mayor from getting shot. She survives, but it's questionable as to how much he actually helped with that.

He doesn't stop Falcone from getting killed.

He doesn't stop any of the corrupt cops.

He doesn't stop the district attorney from being blown up.

He isn't necessary to solve Riddler's riddles because Alfred solves the first one and the police are right behind him in all the others.

He doesn't even save the kid from being hit by the car (the car swerves anyway and doesn't drive over the spot the kid was standing in).

What did Batman do this whole 3 hour movie other than punch some low level criminals and cause a massive pile-up on a highway that probably killed a dozen people?
I think to some extent that was the movies message. It ends with Batman contemplating the fact that just going around and beating people up doesn't solve anything. That he needed to focus more on being a symbol for hope. Hey at least hes not like Superman who killed like 10k people in Man Of Steel. Surprised no ones done a parody voice over at the end "Whelp at least I didn't blow up metropolis".

Its interesting what different people look for in these movies. It didn't bother me in the least that he was a fuck up in this movie because thats the not what the movie was about. Its like watching Goodfellas and complaining about the gangsters being idiots.

I think that mentality would be more reserved for more light hearted fair like aquaman.

To be honest in most modern Batman comics he fucks up near constantly and rarely saves the day or even himself. Thinking on it, the visual of Batman being awesome is more often gleaned from Justice League where hes the one that ends up fixing things.

07609052c42fd6acba7c9316c1e90ac4.jpg
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,564
620
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I finally got around to watching it.

I was struck by how little Batman actually accomplishes as the main character.

He doesn't catch Riddler, Riddler turns himself in.

He doesn't stop Riddler's plan. Riddler still destroys the sea wall and explodes the bombs.

He doesn't stop the mayor from getting shot. She survives, but it's questionable as to how much he actually helped with that.

He doesn't stop Falcone from getting killed.

He doesn't stop any of the corrupt cops.

He doesn't stop the district attorney from being blown up.

He isn't necessary to solve Riddler's riddles because Alfred solves the first one and the police are right behind him in all the others.

He doesn't even save the kid from being hit by the car (the car swerves anyway and doesn't drive over the spot the kid was standing in).

What did Batman do this whole 3 hour movie other than punch some low level criminals and cause a massive pile-up on a highway that probably killed a dozen people?
Yeah, Batman is like de-leveled constantly throughout the movie. Not that you can't do a solid movie like that as Logan is the perfect example of a movie that gets off on disappointing the viewer at every point, but The Batman is no Logan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
1,459
339
88
Country
Nigeria
I think to some extent that was the movies message. It ends with Batman contemplating the fact that just going around and beating people up doesn't solve anything. That he needed to focus more on being a symbol for hope. Hey at least hes not like Superman who killed like 10k people in Man Of Steel. Surprised no ones done a parody voice over at the end "Whelp at least I didn't blow up metropolis".

Its interesting what different people look for in these movies. It didn't bother me in the least that he was a fuck up in this movie because thats the not what the movie was about. Its like watching Goodfellas and complaining about the gangsters being idiots.

I think that mentality would be more reserved for more light hearted fair like aquaman.

To be honest in most modern Batman comics he fucks up near constantly and rarely saves the day or even himself. Thinking on it, the visual of Batman being awesome is more often gleaned from Justice League where hes the one that ends up fixing things.

View attachment 6250
Think you spelled Zod wrong.