Next time I see The Flash I want to see if there are any hints about when Batman could have retired. Gotham is "the safest city in the world", so Batman was no longer needed.
Alfred is gone, and I am assuming he stopped around the same time, given that the talk of Alfred helps convince Batman to Return
The Batcomputer has been updated and features widescreen modern-ish monitors and the Batcomputer sports a mouse now (maybe thats a key).
The movie takes place around 2013 and in real life Michael Gough died in 2011. If Alfred died around that time and Batman retired around then, then he was inactive for 2-ish years wich I think could work well within the story.
If that is the case, that means he was Batman for about 23 years. Thats pretty respecatable.
Based on nothing, I assume he was active until the late 2000's. The city was cleaned up and Alfred was on his last legs. I like the idea of Bruce settling into a quiet retirement after the mission has been accomplished.
Plus, it's reasonable to infer that he's maintained his withdrawn/hermit ways.
We do know for certain it was a couple of years based on the length of his hair :D haha actually I suppose there's no way to tell for sure, but based on the amount of dust and cobwebs in the Batcave I imagined it was a decade or more.
Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Wed, 21 Jun 2023, 20:54We do know for certain it was a couple of years based on the length of his hair :D haha actually I suppose there's no way to tell for sure, but based on the amount of dust and cobwebs in the Batcave I imagined it was a decade or more.
It's been a long time and ten years is a reasonable guess. TDK Rises went with eight. Unless Bruce had been working out and keeping in shape I'm unsure how he maintained his speed. At least in Rises we had an element in the story that spoke about body deterioration and a Batman who needed assistance to go back outside and fight crime. The dominant action from Keaton is good to see, but I do occasionally appreciate some real world details other than 'he's Batman'.
Yeah now that I think about it... if Bruce Wayne was 40 in Batman Returns, let's assume he retired at 45 (that would line up with the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman). So that means he would've hung up the cape in 1997... 25-26 years ago. A long time.
But, even if he retired at 55, that's still 15 years ago. Is there any indication as to Batman's age in The Flash? I don't think he said how old he was, I was just assuming he was meant to be 65-ish or Keaton's actual age of 70.
I don't think he's meant to reflect Keaton's true age. I suspect in the film he's younger than that. And consider the fact the Keaton content takes place in an alternate 2013 given the Zod invasion playing out again.
^haha, yes all good points. I'm probably overthinking it. If we stick with a roundabout age of 60, then I reckon you subtract 20 years (since Man of Steel and Batman Returns) and that'd be about right.
Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Thu, 22 Jun 2023, 02:23But, even if he retired at 55, that's still 15 years ago. Is there any indication as to Batman's age in The Flash? I don't think he said how old he was, I was just assuming he was meant to be 65-ish or Keaton's actual age of 70.
Keaton was 37 when he shot Batman '89, but according to the original script Bruce is meant to be 35 in that movie. 2013 was 24 years later, which would make Bruce 59. So the 60 age, give or take a year, is roughly accurate for the Flashpoint Batman. Then he would've been around 70 in the deleted ending where he returns in the present, as well as in his subsequent appearances in Aquaman II and Batgirl.
The Dark Knight Returns Bruce is 55 when he comes out of retirement. The in-universe age of the Keaton Bruce is only about four or five years older than that when he returns in The Flash.
I like to think Bruce continued fighting crime for about another decade after Batman Returns, until he was about 50, then retired in the early 2000s. That would give him 14 or 15 years of continuous crime fighting to clean up Gotham, followed by ten years of retirement, then another ten years of active crime fighting following his return to duty (assuming his death during the Kryptonian invasion was averted).
Of course in the main timeline, the one seen in the original ending where Keaton replaced Affleck, he might never have retired at all.
I'm sure Keaton's Batman had a long career. In my imaginings over the years I never had the impression he quit shortly after Returns. I'd like to think just before Alfred died he got to see Gotham cleaned up and Bruce making the decision to quit. That would've given happiness and closure to both of them at the end of their long relationship together.
When Keaton suits up again (in the messed up timeline) it's due to factors outside of his control. Zod and these characters didn't exist in his world. His death was not his fault and would never have happened otherwise. On his watch crime by costumed mortal villains was cleaned up.
IMO he is sent back as the Big LebowKeat, in retirement once more. Which could leave it open for a Beyond film if this loose continuity was adhered to. Which would be fine. I quite like the narrative choices they made. Keaton looks so good in The Flash that a Beyond movie is probably possible any time over the next decade or longer.
BatKeats retiring somewhere around the mid-late 2000's, is something I can roll with. I don't really like to think he's been retired, and alone, for 20 years (or more) by the point of the timelines convergence in "The Flash", but I guess 15 years or shorter would be more of the sweet spot that I can flow with.
At least it shortens the hermit lifestyle with Chicago's "25 Or 6 To 4" a little bit.
My guess, based on the theatrical presentation, is that Batman didn't just stop on a dime. He slowly faded away.
He was likely instrumental in bringing about his own obsolescence through Wayne Enterprises, something he starts up in the mid 1990s. WE changes everything, but causes trouble on the way up.
This is a film universe where big baddies don't show up every five minutes, so maybe Batman has a couple more big outings with the likes of say, Victor Fries, a doctor cut off by WE in 1996 after his experimental treatments for Macgregor's syndrome cause harmful side effects. In 1998, Pamela Isley is next, who loses a contract with Wayne Pharmaceuticals for her own dangerous experimentation, and then finally in 2001 comes the big test. He faces Edward Nygma, a true 21st century villain. Ed is a programmer and security expert fired by WE for his increasingly concerning delusions of grandeur and his para-social fixation on Bruce Wayne. His obsession becomes megalomania and as the Ridder he uses his security systems to take over the city as Gotham now uses WE broadly in all aspects of infrastructure. When he is killed while trying to transfer his conscientiousness into these systems, WE uses his work to upgrade the city, effectively going all Delta City. Bruce Wayne is forced out by the company when it is purchased by Lexcorp and Batman slowly becomes a nuisance showing up to crime scenes hoping to stop upstart villains who never get a chance to be a big deal because they get shot down by the privatized military of Lexcorp. And there's Batman who mostly stands around while hazmat cleans up Jervis Tetch's entrails.
Batman isn't seen after 2005. He keeps tabs on Lexcorp for a few years and then finally just kind of fades away.
A small part of me hoped they'd use some of this audio in a Keaton "flashback" given that it's not in the final cut. I feel like his Alfred was overall consitant thru the films and this would of worked well with Keaton thinking about Alfred when Flash noticed the pen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxFMEtLjtg
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 22 Jun 2023, 16:14My guess, based on the theatrical presentation, is that Batman didn't just stop on a dime. He slowly faded away.
I can go along with this. He disappears as mysteriously as he appeared. There isn't one last big battle, and people don't notice his absence straight away. For all they knew he was still out there patrolling the streets when in actuality Bruce was eating spaghetti in Wayne Manor.
Came back from a second screening and noticed Young Barrys friends refer to Batman in the present tense, so it seems not everyone (if anyone) knows that Batman retired. That maybe what helps keep Gotham safe because people think Batman is still in the shadows (ala The Batman)
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sat, 24 Jun 2023, 01:52Came back from a second screening and noticed Young Barrys friends refer to Batman in the present tense, so it seems not everyone (if anyone) knows that Batman retired. That maybe what helps keep Gotham safe because people think Batman is still in the shadows (ala The Batman)
I think so. The city knew Batman very well because he was a prominent figure. In B89 there was a public batsignal unveiling and from that point on he was a household name. The younger Barry said he used to see the Batmobile on the news when he was a kid. That's a good clue as to when sightings of Batman in the wild ceased.
Batman has been retired for 25 years (whenever that is) 2:47
https://youtu.be/Y9RfhbH0GEQ
He's talking about catching up with Batman after 30 years. So then it seems he was Batman till around 1997/8ish wich is rougly when the film series ended.
He quits because he kills a bad guy infront of kid and that causes him to shut away his Batman side. Wich is exactly what I thought the Dark Knight Returns reference was with the alcohol. I do think this isnt 100% the definitive reason given whats explained in the film.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch the entire featurette, here's the most interesting quote from Muschietti:
Quote"If Bruce Wayne, as the story tells, has been retired for twenty-five years, what happened to him? I always said something should have happened to Bruce Wayne to [make him] want to stop being Batman. And my idea was he did something that goes against his code: he killed a criminal in front of his [the criminal's] child. Unknowingly, but he still did it. Which is an exact mirroring situation of what happened to him when his parents were killed in front of the Monarch Theatre, and that created that 'monster' that Batman is. So he just couldn't cope with it, and that's why he decided to shut off his other side, Batman, and he hasn't been able to forgive himself. And now the way we find him is a bit of, like, the evolution of that journey. You know, he's a tragic figure. He's basically a character that is in search of redemption, but eventually finds a way to do it by helping Barry."
I don't recall any of this being referenced in the finished film. I hope there's at least one deleted scene where this is all explained, because it sounds like Bruce was meant to have a much deeper character arc. If so, The Flash really is Batman Forever all over again – in both movies Bruce Wayne was meant to have a more dramatic storyline in which he's wrestling with unresolved guilt issues that directly concern his present motives, and in both movies the scenes explaining this were cut.
If WB has any respect for the fans (ha!) they'll release the deleted scenes and let us assemble a decent Batman movie out of all this.
As to the backstory Muschietti came up with, it's actually quite interesting and could've worked. It reminds me of the Batman Beyond Bruce quitting after he broke his code by using a gun. We know the Burton Batman is willing to kill and use guns, so neither of those things alone would have driven him into retirement. But killing a criminal in front of that criminal's child? That's a different story. We saw how strongly Bruce reacted to Oswald's parental loss ("His parents... I hope he finds them"), so just imagine how he'd react to knowing that he himself was the cause of such loss. That he was the one who orphaned an innocent kid. I could see the guilt of that pushing him over the edge.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 19:00For anyone who doesn't want to watch the entire featurette, here's the most interesting quote from Muschietti:
Quote"If Bruce Wayne, as the story tells, has been retired for twenty-five years, what happened to him? I always said something should have happened to Bruce Wayne to [make him] want to stop being Batman. And my idea was he did something that goes against his code: he killed a criminal in front of his [the criminal's] child. Unknowingly, but he still did it. Which is an exact mirroring situation of what happened to him when his parents were killed in front of the Monarch Theatre, and that created that 'monster' that Batman is. So he just couldn't cope with it, and that's why he decided to shut off his other side, Batman, and he hasn't been able to forgive himself. And now the way we find him is a bit of, like, the evolution of that journey. You know, he's a tragic figure. He's basically a character that is in search of redemption, but eventually finds a way to do it by helping Barry."
I don't recall any of this being referenced in the finished film. I hope there's at least one deleted scene where this is all explained, because it sounds like Bruce was meant to have a much deeper character arc. If so, The Flash really is Batman Forever all over again – in both movies Bruce Wayne was meant to have a more dramatic storyline in which he's wrestling with unresolved guilt issues that directly concern his present motives, and in both movies the scenes explaining this were cut.
If WB has any respect for the fans (ha!) they'll release the deleted scenes and let us assemble a decent Batman movie out of all this.
As to the backstory Muschietti came up with, it's actually quite interesting and could've worked. It reminds me of the Batman Beyond Bruce quitting after he broke his code by using a gun. We know the Burton Batman is willing to kill and use guns, so neither of those things alone would have driven him into retirement. But killing a criminal in front of that criminal's child? That's a different story. We saw how strongly Bruce reacted to Oswald's parental loss ("His parents... I hope he finds them"), so just imagine how he'd react to knowing that he himself was the cause of such loss. That he was the one who orphaned an innocent kid. I could see the guilt of that pushing him over the edge.
I just wonder how he killed him unknowingly. Like kicked him too hard or dropped him off a roof ala Nolan and he died later? Given the character development he got in Returns, I assume it wasnt on purpose in the same way he killed in 89/Returns.
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 20:37I just wonder how he killed him unknowingly. Like kicked him too hard or dropped him off a roof ala Nolan and he died later? Given the character development he got in Returns, I assume it wasnt on purpose in the same way he killed in 89/Returns.
Good question. Rather than it being a major villain death, I imagine the criminal he killed was some small-time nobody he failed to pull his punches on. It could've been a situation like in the following clip, where he just whaled on the guy without realising the kid was present. Only in Batman's case he accidentally killed him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30td5TUu1Cw
Or it could've been a Rorschach situation where the criminal did something so bad that it caused Bruce to lose his cool. Like if Batman caught some lowlife molesting a kid and went ballistic on him, momentarily losing control and pummelling the guy to death in front of his child.
One of those two scenarios seems plausible.
My mood on all this has soured. Keaton's Batman retired for 25 years? That doesn't wash with me, especially as someone who preferred a longer career for him. A 25 year retirement makes his sprightly return in the movie all the more absurd. Not really buying his reason for retiring in Andy's mind either. Is Batman, particularly this Batman, so mushy? We were told Batman's retirement was because he wasn't needed anymore. Gotham was safe. So which is it, Andy? I'd prefer the latter, but here he is twisting things in knots.
Our childhood Batman's lore is suddenly at the whim of a guy who popped up in recent years to direct The Flash? The B89 comic just didn't hit the mark in terms of providing a thematic or narrative continuation, and The Flash is no better really. It doesn't feel authentic because we know it's not from the original creative minds from back in the day. It's all well after the fact.
The Burton Batman universe is so specific in aesthetic and atmosphere that any attempt to continue it can't get close. Burton's two films had backstory but it was subtle, and let your mind wander to fill in your own blanks. Such as the trophy room being from Bruce's early travels. The whole thing should have just been left to F'ing be.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 22:37My mood on all this has soured. Keaton's Batman retired for 25 years? That doesn't wash with me, especially as someone who preferred a longer career for him. A 25 year retirement makes his sprightly return in the movie all the more absurd. Not really buying his reason for retiring in Andy's mind either. Is Batman, particularly this Batman, so mushy? We were told Batman's retirement was because he wasn't needed anymore. Gotham was safe. So which is it, Andy? I'd prefer the latter, but here he is twisting things in knots.
Our childhood Batman's lore is suddenly at the whim of a guy who popped up in recent years to direct The Flash? The B89 comic just didn't hit the mark in terms of providing a thematic or narrative continuation, and The Flash is no better really. It doesn't feel authentic because we know it's not from the original creative minds from back in the day. It's all well after the fact.
The Burton Batman universe is so specific in aesthetic and atmosphere that any attempt to continue it can't get close. Burton's two films had backstory but it was subtle, and let your mind wander to fill in your own blanks. Such as the trophy room being from Bruce's early travels. The whole thing should have just been left to F'ing be.
There is a deleted scene that does mention this story (young Barry reading it somewhere). But I think there is still an argument to be made that this is 100% the Burton Batman (and the theatrical edit offers and excuse for the Shumacher films to be cannon)
Edit: I rewatched the deleted scene and it's hinted that Keaton knows alot about time travel because he's looked into it to try and prevent himself from killing that guy.
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 00:03There is a deleted scene that does mention this story (young Barry reading it somewhere). But I think there is still an argument to be made that this is 100% the Burton Batman (and the theatrical edit offers and excuse for the Shumacher films to be cannon)
Edit: I rewatched the deleted scene and it's hinted that Keaton knows alot about time travel because he's looked into it to try and prevent himself from killing that guy.
The father chose to be a criminal, and if he remained alive he's a poor role model for his child. He's better off without him and I think a hard nosed Batman could also take that view. Especially when he's still near the prime of his career. We're not talking about an old guy struggling to perform and having to pick up guns to stay alive. He should still be tough enough to mentally endure even if he's troubled by what happened, as was the case during the Venom storyline.
Muschietti must be mistaken about the twenty-five year retirement. The Flashpoint scenes take place in 2013, right? Well twenty-five years before 2013 would've been 1988. That means Keaton's Bruce retired as Batman one year before he started as Batman.
The only explanation for this would be if Muschietti misspoke and meant that Keaton's Batman had retired twenty-five years before 2023, which would mean he'd actually been retired for fifteen years prior to 2013. Or if Bruce started being Batman earlier in the Flashpoint universe and the events of B89 and BR took place prior to 1988.
It would make more sense if he'd retired for fifteen years beginning in 1998 or ten years starting in 2003. A twenty-five year retirement beginning in 1988 erases his entire career.
A possibility is that Bruce lied about Gotham now being one of the safest cities to hide his shame about the real reason for retiring. But I'm also wondering if the cleaned up Gotham comment is meant to be legit in the Theatrical cut because the dead criminal backstory was deleted.
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 18:33Batman has been retired for 25 years (whenever that is) 2:47
https://youtu.be/Y9RfhbH0GEQ
He's talking about catching up with Batman after 30 years. So then it seems he was Batman till around 1997/8ish wich is rougly when the film series ended.
He quits because he kills a bad guy infront of kid and that causes him to shut away his Batman side. Wich is exactly what I thought the Dark Knight Returns reference was with the alcohol. I do think this isnt 100% the definitive reason given whats explained in the film.
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 00:03There is a deleted scene that does mention this story (young Barry reading it somewhere). But I think there is still an argument to be made that this is 100% the Burton Batman (and the theatrical edit offers and excuse for the Shumacher films to be cannon)
Edit: I rewatched the deleted scene and it's hinted that Keaton knows alot about time travel because he's looked into it to try and prevent himself from killing that guy.
This must be the deleted scene you're talking about:
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1682851290542403584
For anybody who can't see the video, this how it goes: Batman, Barry and the Flash are taking a trip to Siberia in the Batwing. Flash tells the other Barry about the rumour of Batman killing the criminal in front of his kid and that might be the real reason why he quit. Flash also suspected Batman already had experience with time travel, and that would explain how he understood the concept so perfectly. The other Barry realises this and says Batman might be trying to fix the timeline, like he tried to fix his own. Flash urged Barry to ask Batman, but Barry refuses, just as Batman announces they have arrived at the Russian secret facility.
I can understand why it got deleted: it takes the spotlight away from Barry, and it undermines Bruce's reason over Gotham City becoming one of the safest places in the world as an excuse to retire. Keeping that scene in the final cut would make Bruce a liar, particularly if there was no real thought into expanding the idea of him fixing his own timeline.
As I said before, I don't ever plan to watch the whole film, and from what I've already seen online, there was no way of saving The Flash anyway. Even putting the studio fiasco aside, the whole plot was nearly identical to the Reddit leaks I didn't like, and the tone and CGI was completely off-putting.
The first time we see Keaton attacking both Barrys in the kitchen and the way he used spaghetti to explain how the multiverse works is very goofy stuff. The best scene I've watched so far was Batman single-handedly beating up all of the Russian guards, which is admittedly the greatest fight scene that Keaton's Batman ever filmed...and yet, it still gets blemished by the shot of Barry vomiting after he was saved by Flash's super-speed. Stupid, gross attempt at humour.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 23 Jul 2023, 06:38Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 18:33Batman has been retired for 25 years (whenever that is) 2:47
https://youtu.be/Y9RfhbH0GEQ
He's talking about catching up with Batman after 30 years. So then it seems he was Batman till around 1997/8ish wich is rougly when the film series ended.
He quits because he kills a bad guy infront of kid and that causes him to shut away his Batman side. Wich is exactly what I thought the Dark Knight Returns reference was with the alcohol. I do think this isnt 100% the definitive reason given whats explained in the film.
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 00:03There is a deleted scene that does mention this story (young Barry reading it somewhere). But I think there is still an argument to be made that this is 100% the Burton Batman (and the theatrical edit offers and excuse for the Shumacher films to be cannon)
Edit: I rewatched the deleted scene and it's hinted that Keaton knows alot about time travel because he's looked into it to try and prevent himself from killing that guy.
This must be the deleted scene you're talking about:
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1682851290542403584
For anybody who can't see the video, this how it goes: Batman, Barry and the Flash are taking a trip to Siberia in the Batwing. Flash tells the other Barry about the rumour of Batman killing the criminal in front of his kid and that might be the real reason why he quit. Flash also suspected Batman already had experience with time travel, and that would explain how he understood the concept so perfectly. The other Barry realises this and says Batman might be trying to fix the timeline, like he tried to fix his own. Flash urged Barry to ask Batman, but Barry refuses, just as Batman announces they have arrived at the Russian secret facility.
I can understand why it got deleted: it takes the spotlight away from Barry, and it undermines Bruce's reason over Gotham City becoming one of the safest places in the world as an excuse to retire. Keeping that scene in the final cut would make Bruce a liar, particularly if there was no real thought into expanding the idea of him fixing his own timeline.
As I said before, I don't ever plan to watch the whole film, and from what I've already seen online, there was no way of saving The Flash anyway. Even putting the studio fiasco aside, the whole plot was nearly identical to the Reddit leaks I didn't like, and the tone and CGI was completely off-putting.
The first time we see Keaton attacking both Barrys in the kitchen and the way he used spaghetti to explain how the multiverse works is very goofy stuff. The best scene I've watched so far was Batman single-handedly beating up all of the Russian guards, which is admittedly the greatest fight scene that Keaton's Batman ever filmed...and yet, it still gets blemished by the shot of Barry vomiting after he was saved by Flash's super-speed. Stupid, gross attempt at humour.
I will say, the film mostly works and humor mostly works. I sat in theatres and was not only embarrassed for the film but had spiderman 3 levels of "this feels off" during the opening baby shower scene but the film has a lot of heart and reason to exist. Plus it makes ZSJL cannon.
Overall, it's probly the best DC film since Aquaman (if we're not counting ZSJL/
Even if I ignore Zack once saying his Snyderverse trilogy is a separate universe from everything WB has been doing ever since Josstice L, it's hard to take the Flash's connection with his universe seriously when the characters behave out-of-character compared to what we saw before.
You only have to look at when Batfleck, Wonder Woman and Flash share the screen together and the cheap laugh involving the Lasso of Truth, because apparently, the studio thought the scene with Aquaman in Josstice L was oh so funny. Batfleck saying his ego is too big to say thanks...really? What about the time when he thanked Alfred for unleashing the Nightcrawler to fight the Parademons in ZSJL? If his ego is that big, he would never have told Alfred he didn't deserve him in BvS: Ultimate Edition or acknowledged how he failed Clark at the end of the film. There was some sexual tension between Batfleck and Diana in BvS and ZSJL, but from what I saw in that Flash scene, they came across as teenagers flirting with each other. It's shoddy stuff, and Affleck in that scene delivered the worst performance I've seen him play as Batman. The voice modulator didn't even sound like it was working when he spoke.
As for Flash and that virgin joke, it's groanworthy. Muschietti can try to make references to Snyderverse and Burtonverse all he wants, but it's all in vain when doesn't capture the spirit of the characters. Besides, this film was always intended to sideline the Snyderverse, whether it's completely erasing it or simply abandoning it, so the claims of making the film canon are even more moot.
I mean, hate it or leave it. Ben Affleck had a lot of involvement in his scenes and we know for a face he enjoyed working on it and finally "understood the character". I personally think he got it in BVS. But I don't see this as the slap in the face that theatrical JL was.
Sounds like they dropped the voice modulator and that's something I don't entirely hate cause I don't mind his natural Batman voice (could also be a metaphor for being more human).
I'm not opposed to his backstory, but it's very telling that they took everything out and the film has no indication that a subplot was missing. The dialogue in the Batwing was just that, telling and not showing. Plus, the moral dilemmas of vigilantism go out the window when you're one of humanity's last hopes against an apocalyptic event.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 22:37My mood on all this has soured. Keaton's Batman retired for 25 years? That doesn't wash with me, especially as someone who preferred a longer career for him. A 25 year retirement makes his sprightly return in the movie all the more absurd. Not really buying his reason for retiring in Andy's mind either. Is Batman, particularly this Batman, so mushy? We were told Batman's retirement was because he wasn't needed anymore. Gotham was safe. So which is it, Andy? I'd prefer the latter, but here he is twisting things in knots.
Our childhood Batman's lore is suddenly at the whim of a guy who popped up in recent years to direct The Flash? The B89 comic just didn't hit the mark in terms of providing a thematic or narrative continuation, and The Flash is no better really. It doesn't feel authentic because we know it's not from the original creative minds from back in the day. It's all well after the fact.
For better or worse, there's no stakes for this alternate-reality Batman. I might have been outraged had they killed THE Batman, but this Batman is simply a creation of time meddling.
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 26 Jul 2023, 00:14For better or worse, there's no stakes for this alternate-reality Batman. I might have been outraged had they killed THE Batman, but this Batman is simply a creation of time meddling.
I agree. The same guy placed in a new doomed world that get erased makes everything that happens a free hit. That last scene with Nam-Ek isn't his true end in my book. It's just one of many deaths he suffered in that loop Barry #2 kept repeating. Whether or not I end up agreeing with the reason for Bruce retiring, I'm pretty sure he's back chilling in the Burtonverse Wayne Manor ordering pizzas and painting.