- Welcome to Batman-Online.com.
Recent posts
#51
The Batman (2022) / Re: The Penguin (2024)
Last post by Travesty - Thu, 24 Oct 2024, 20:48So, does anyone else think that Victor will become the new Robin in this universe?
#52
Movies / Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing...
Last post by Silver Nemesis - Thu, 24 Oct 2024, 19:40A remaster of The Thing sequel game from 2002 is coming out later this year.
Here's a gameplay trailer showcasing the improved graphics.
The PS2 version was insanely difficult. I'd rank it alongside the original NES Ninja Gaiden as one of the toughest games I ever managed to complete. I dusted off my copy about a year ago, and it definitely has dated. The fear/trust mechanics are still effective, but the combat doesn't hold up so well. Hopefully this remaster will improve the targeting system and maybe add a few extra health items and save points to the later levels. If so, it might be worth getting.
It's scheduled for release on every platform later this year.
Here's a gameplay trailer showcasing the improved graphics.
The PS2 version was insanely difficult. I'd rank it alongside the original NES Ninja Gaiden as one of the toughest games I ever managed to complete. I dusted off my copy about a year ago, and it definitely has dated. The fear/trust mechanics are still effective, but the combat doesn't hold up so well. Hopefully this remaster will improve the targeting system and maybe add a few extra health items and save points to the later levels. If so, it might be worth getting.
It's scheduled for release on every platform later this year.
#53
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by Gotham Knight - Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 15:14Another huge spoiler I think will be a big topic of discussion: The Batman '89 comic is definitely canon, which is a tad odd considering that Miller went out of his way to say that it wasn't necessarily canon, but that Resurrection wouldn't step on its toes. Batman'89 is absolutely canon, as Drake Winston of Royal Auto has a cameo. Also, it should be noted that something the current run of the '89 comic has been hinting at now makes sense. '89: Echoes has referenced Hugo Strange several times as Crane's former mentor and Bruce keeps mentioning that Hugo worked for him in the past. This now makes sense and also explains why the comic has been delayed several times: These two stories overlap. Hugo did in fact work for Wayne...in Resurrection under the alias of Hugh Auslander and is the principle villain of the novel. So, yeah, these stories literally cross over with each other. I expect the final issues will lay this out.
Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"
Anyway it will be interesting to hear what people thing about that.
Also Hugo is supposed to be the guy Joker talks to during the scene at Axis where Joker shouts "Have you shipped a million of those things!" Hugo is the scientist to shouts back "Yes, sir!"
Anyway it will be interesting to hear what people thing about that.
#54
The Batman (2022) / Re: The Penguin (2024)
Last post by The Dark Knight - Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 10:15Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 00:02True! Penguin ascending to the throne as the Kingpin of Gotham is the hook, and what I previously thought would be the most interesting thing about the show by a mile (including Colin Farrell's performance), but again, Cristin Milioti as Sofia made this show more gripping, and it's better for it. We'll have to enjoy the time we get.Without a doubt. The victory of The Penguin is the extended form of storytelling. The Falcone/Maroni/Penguin turf war hasn't been explored to this extent in live action and it's being done justice. It makes me think the next spinoff should focus on Harvey Dent and his descent into Two-Face. I think TDK did okay with that, but it couldn't compete with an in-depth miniseries. I think this model (film - television series - film - television series, rinse repeat) is excellent and would be wise to continue going forward even beyond the Reevesverse. Especially if we have great actors who deserve more time in their roles.
#55
Joker 2: Folie à Deux / Re: Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
Last post by The Joker - Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 00:43Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 04:18I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.
I like that juxtaposition, and I believe it's a very adept observation with how Phillips and Phoenix approached the notion of a sequel. Where the comic book Joker could be perfectly sane but is just simply pleading insane, while playing the "role" of the Joker as a smokescreen of sorts. Leaving people to assume that he is, in fact, insane. Thus, in the grand scheme, making a absolute mockery of the justice system ("Case Study" by Paul Dini and Alex Ross ... highly recommended for anyone unfamiliar with this story).
I know, not particularly difficult to do these days.
Arthur on the other hand, as depicted in Joker 1 and 2, clearly falls under the umbrella of someone who suffers from mental illness and does need help, but is not afforded that same luxury. Nope. He's tried in court, and is harshly sentenced to the electric chair. He attempts to try the Joker persona as a smokescreen for his followers who want a show, but ultimately Arthur gets tapped out having to perform by several factors (the testimony from his former colleague Gary Puddles being a major one), and he's reduced to being a 'disappointment' by those that revered him just as it played out between Arthur and Murray Franklin.
There's a symmetry in the storytelling of Joker 1 and 2 that goes beyond the click bait narrative of, "It was made to just own the chudsz! Dur-Hur-Hur!!1!".
But, it is what it is.
#56
The Batman (2022) / Re: The Penguin (2024)
Last post by The Joker - Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 00:02Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 10:05Very much enjoying her performance. You can definitely see things from her perspective. The end of the last episode was one of the most satisfying things I've seen in a while and gets the viewer supporting her vendetta. Which is great from the perspective Oz is a villain who we shouldn't really be liking all that much despite his unique charisma. He'd be the best Survivor player in existence if he went on the show, managing to talk his way out of anything. He's going to have to make some ugly choices to become the kingpin, and Farrell said a lot of people will probably hate him by the end of it all.
Yeah, Cristin Milioti has taken, what I previously considered, a so-so character and made Sofia truly compelling. For me, it's one of those (oftentimes rare) examples where the cinematic adaptation unequivocally improves upon what was depicted from the source material.
QuoteAs Joker said in '89, "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."
True! Penguin ascending to the throne as the Kingpin of Gotham is the hook, and what I previously thought would be the most interesting thing about the show by a mile (including Colin Farrell's performance), but again, Cristin Milioti as Sofia made this show more gripping, and it's better for it. We'll have to enjoy the time we get.
#57
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by The Dark Knight - Mon, 21 Oct 2024, 05:47Thanks for the overview, Doc. I've accepted that nothing will feel like a legitimate continuation of the Burton duology and we don't need connective tissue in between the films anyway. The questions Resurrections seeks to answer never perplexed me and we can already answer them ourselves. Bruce simply being reclusive and not spending enough time with Vicki is enough reason why they separated. Also, Joker saying "I mean, I say "I made you" you gotta say "you made me." I mean, how childish can you get?" can be taken at face value if we want. I'll still read the book (it's on the way anyway) but my expectations have been tempered.
#58
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by DocLathropBrown - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 14:37I'm a little over halfway through the book, and I would generally say it's a very good Batman story, but for a Burton Batman follow up, it does have some hiccups. Even as someone who is perfectly happy for Keaton's Wayne to become more like the comics version, for me it needs to be post-Returns to make the most sense.
(spoilers) His verbosity is less-than correct, while in a written format, you're going to be inside his head so I expected to "hear" more from Wayne (so to speak), I do feel he talks too openly to people. Also, he's a bit too-known around town, nor do I care for him having a relationship with someone else. Keaton's Wayne didn't feel like a playboy at all and more of a hermit. Miller pays lip-service at one point to Bruce having been more of a background character, but that falls off as we go on. I wouldn't have minded a small appearance from Julie Madison as someone trying to catch Bruce's attention (because comics easter egg and that's fun), but to me, if his relationship with Vicki is on-the-rocks, he should be a bit more reclusive in all aspects--not dating someone like he's comics Wayne.
I don't mind the daylight scene, as if I recall it takes place at dusk, and the idea of an alternate suit that's easier to conceal/put on being a different color is fine. The more niggling aspects that I don't like are the two moments where Miller feels the need to try to fill "gaps" in the film's logic, drawing direct attention to things that are sometimes whined about by certain fanboys. We don't need to bother drawing attention to where the goons in the cathedral came from, nor whether Napier knew Batman's identity when he said he "was a kid when [he] killed" the Waynes. That feels like pedantic fanboyism, the same that's all over Peter David's novelization of Batman Forever and it's tacky. (end spoilers)
As I said, I'm only a little over halfway and overall I'm pleased enough, but I'm also firmly of a personal mindset that the perfect follow-up to Burton's movies are Schumacher's, so things that feel like they want to further separate the two film eras or re-contextualize what the Schumacher films said for the continuity will always be kept at-arm's-length for me, so things in this that don't mesh perfectly with our understanding of this universe don't really offend me all that much. I just look at it as another branched timeline, like in The Flash. While I was hoping for a product that I'd be able to reconcile with the existing four film chronology, but if it doesn't, oh well.
I have to wonder if making Keaton's Wayne seem more like the standard Batman might be some kind of DC Comics mandate. I dunno if anyone on-high would really care if one particular Batman was portrayed as a bit more bloodthirsty and vicious (since variants like that still come up in Elseworlds comics), but with the weird washover Sam Hamm did on Keaton's Batman in his '89 comics ("I'm not a killer, Selina" -_-), it's making me wonder. Not that I think Keaton's Wayne sets out to kill primarily (like some fanboys want to pretend), but like the Golden Age version, sometimes he just don't give a damn.
Smaller observations aside, the portrayal of the villain so far is great, as I was worried they were going to go grounded with him, and his P.O.V. and tragic nature feels right at home in a Tim Burton-adjacent product. Tim would have definitely played with the same angle, I feel.
My expectations for the back-half of the book: (spoilers) I'm hoping that Bruce's emotional state starts to trend darker, and considering that we may be looking at Napier being alive (which better not turn out to be true since I think that's silly), that might make sense. Considering that a sequel novel was announced, that's further potential for Bruce to turn into the lonely, vicious wretch we saw in Returns, and for me to be overall satisfied with Jackson's work, it's going to have to get-us to a point that feels like it leads into the second film perfectly, otherwise, what was the point? Bruce being more verbose, trying to become more of a public figure and other questionable aspects of this novel will be forgiven by me if we end in the correct place.
The idea that Keaton's Wayne was superficially more like the comics version for a time before trending darker is acceptable to me, allowing for his redemption in Forever to really signify a shift in his overall character, like I personally read-into the final moments of Returns. Let's face it, aside from being very silent and a hermit, he isn't too off-model from the comics in '89 until he discovers who killed his parents--THAT's when he starts killing in the film, so I've always accepted that the sudden opportunity for vengeance warped him and his moral fiber.
(spoilers) His verbosity is less-than correct, while in a written format, you're going to be inside his head so I expected to "hear" more from Wayne (so to speak), I do feel he talks too openly to people. Also, he's a bit too-known around town, nor do I care for him having a relationship with someone else. Keaton's Wayne didn't feel like a playboy at all and more of a hermit. Miller pays lip-service at one point to Bruce having been more of a background character, but that falls off as we go on. I wouldn't have minded a small appearance from Julie Madison as someone trying to catch Bruce's attention (because comics easter egg and that's fun), but to me, if his relationship with Vicki is on-the-rocks, he should be a bit more reclusive in all aspects--not dating someone like he's comics Wayne.
I don't mind the daylight scene, as if I recall it takes place at dusk, and the idea of an alternate suit that's easier to conceal/put on being a different color is fine. The more niggling aspects that I don't like are the two moments where Miller feels the need to try to fill "gaps" in the film's logic, drawing direct attention to things that are sometimes whined about by certain fanboys. We don't need to bother drawing attention to where the goons in the cathedral came from, nor whether Napier knew Batman's identity when he said he "was a kid when [he] killed" the Waynes. That feels like pedantic fanboyism, the same that's all over Peter David's novelization of Batman Forever and it's tacky. (end spoilers)
As I said, I'm only a little over halfway and overall I'm pleased enough, but I'm also firmly of a personal mindset that the perfect follow-up to Burton's movies are Schumacher's, so things that feel like they want to further separate the two film eras or re-contextualize what the Schumacher films said for the continuity will always be kept at-arm's-length for me, so things in this that don't mesh perfectly with our understanding of this universe don't really offend me all that much. I just look at it as another branched timeline, like in The Flash. While I was hoping for a product that I'd be able to reconcile with the existing four film chronology, but if it doesn't, oh well.
I have to wonder if making Keaton's Wayne seem more like the standard Batman might be some kind of DC Comics mandate. I dunno if anyone on-high would really care if one particular Batman was portrayed as a bit more bloodthirsty and vicious (since variants like that still come up in Elseworlds comics), but with the weird washover Sam Hamm did on Keaton's Batman in his '89 comics ("I'm not a killer, Selina" -_-), it's making me wonder. Not that I think Keaton's Wayne sets out to kill primarily (like some fanboys want to pretend), but like the Golden Age version, sometimes he just don't give a damn.
Smaller observations aside, the portrayal of the villain so far is great, as I was worried they were going to go grounded with him, and his P.O.V. and tragic nature feels right at home in a Tim Burton-adjacent product. Tim would have definitely played with the same angle, I feel.
My expectations for the back-half of the book: (spoilers) I'm hoping that Bruce's emotional state starts to trend darker, and considering that we may be looking at Napier being alive (which better not turn out to be true since I think that's silly), that might make sense. Considering that a sequel novel was announced, that's further potential for Bruce to turn into the lonely, vicious wretch we saw in Returns, and for me to be overall satisfied with Jackson's work, it's going to have to get-us to a point that feels like it leads into the second film perfectly, otherwise, what was the point? Bruce being more verbose, trying to become more of a public figure and other questionable aspects of this novel will be forgiven by me if we end in the correct place.
The idea that Keaton's Wayne was superficially more like the comics version for a time before trending darker is acceptable to me, allowing for his redemption in Forever to really signify a shift in his overall character, like I personally read-into the final moments of Returns. Let's face it, aside from being very silent and a hermit, he isn't too off-model from the comics in '89 until he discovers who killed his parents--THAT's when he starts killing in the film, so I've always accepted that the sudden opportunity for vengeance warped him and his moral fiber.
#59
Comic Film & TV / Re: JRR Tolkien Discussion
Last post by Silver Nemesis - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 11:20Here are some impressive AI-generated trailers for movies based on Tolkien's First Age books.
I like to imagine these films exist in an alternate reality. Sadly in this reality we're stuck with The Rings of Power. Oh well. We've still got the books.
The Silmarillion
Beren and Lúthien
The Children of Húrin
The Fall of Gondolin
Beren and Lúthien
The Children of Húrin
The Fall of Gondolin
I like to imagine these films exist in an alternate reality. Sadly in this reality we're stuck with The Rings of Power. Oh well. We've still got the books.
#60
The Batman (2022) / Re: The Penguin (2024)
Last post by The Dark Knight - Sun, 20 Oct 2024, 10:05Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 16 Oct 2024, 02:02Very much enjoying her performance. You can definitely see things from her perspective. The end of the last episode was one of the most satisfying things I've seen in a while and gets the viewer supporting her vendetta. Which is great from the perspective Oz is a villain who we shouldn't really be liking all that much despite his unique charisma. He'd be the best Survivor player in existence if he went on the show, managing to talk his way out of anything. He's going to have to make some ugly choices to become the kingpin, and Farrell said a lot of people will probably hate him by the end of it all. As Joker said in '89, "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."
Sofia Falcone, you have never done a thing wrong in your life.
