"The Batman" - NO SPOILERS

[Travesty]

I have more of a problem with BOF than I do Collider. I agree, Collider has been pretty bad as far as The Batman goes, but BOF takes it to a whole new level. Jett and his podcast friends are so full of themselves, it's laughable.

[The Dark Knight]

From what I've seen, Batman-News seems fair and without the annoying attitude. I hope they've left BOF behind in the dust, and I hope BOF are bitter and jealous of them. There are more avenues for discussing Batman now, and BOF simply don't have the monopoly anymore. Honestly, I think the way BOF behaved during the Nolan years really divided the fan base. It showed their true colors and I think people have probably moved on. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to be aware of what they report, but do not to take any of it to heart. These people come with a lot of bias and a certain agenda.

[The Laughing Fish]

From what I've seen, Batman-News seems fair and without the annoying attitude.

I don't know about that, somebody on Twitter accused that site for starting the "Affleck leaving" clickbait headline.
https://twitter.com/SuperheroSpot/status/831404985871011842

Who knows whether or not it's true?

As for Jett and BOF? Again, I pity anyone who describes himself a "Chris Nolan butt-kisser" and thinks TDKT is a masterpiece. So them complaining about the DCEU is not that big of a deal because he's a lost cause. But I reckon Collider are much worse at the moment. As I said, they were not nearly as negative about the DCEU as other sites like Birth.Movies.Death and such garbage are, but now it seems they wish Affleck would leave so they can feel good about how they were right to predict it would happen. What sellouts.

Anyway, now that this film is expected to have Batman facing off Deathstroke, we'll have to wait and see if it'll be yet another ensemble cast with multiple villains e.g. assassins competing for a bounty on Batman's head in Arkham Origins, or it'll be Deathstroke as the villain only. I personally prefer it was the latter to be honest. I've had enough of too many villains taking up screen. We haven't had a Batman film focusing on only one villain since 1989.

[The Laughing Fish]

In personal news, Affleck announced that he had finished undergoing alcohol rehab. Good on him for seeking help before it would get worse, addictions can be life-destroying.



http://www.theflitecast.com/posts/2017/3/14/ben-afflecks-personal-situation-puts-our-fanboyism-in-perspective

[The Laughing Fish]

Now that Affleck came out with the rehab news, here is a compilation video of gossip movies news spreading rumours about his involvement in the rest of the DCEU, but then have the nerve to suggest "most people in the industry were aware of the issues he was facing".

Forgive me, but seriously, f*** all of these two-faced attention whores.

[thecolorsblend]

From what I've seen, Batman-News seems fair and without the annoying attitude. I hope they've left BOF behind in the dust, and I hope BOF are bitter and jealous of them. There are more avenues for discussing Batman now, and BOF simply don't have the monopoly anymore. Honestly, I think the way BOF behaved during the Nolan years really divided the fan base. It showed their true colors and I think people have probably moved on. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to be aware of what they report, but do not to take any of it to heart. These people come with a lot of bias and a certain agenda.

Agreed. The part that burns my balls though is when movie studios believe they represent "the fans".

Bill Ramey has never represented me as a fan. He has never spoken for me. His views are rarely (if ever) my views.

But movie studios don't necessarily know that. "Durrr, Jett doesn't like Affleck's Batman so that means nobody does, time to retool!"

Shameful.

[The Dark Knight]

Very true. You get corporations trawling through social media feeds, for example, reading negative posts about their brand and making rash decisions based on what they read. It happens. They make the mistake of thinking sections of the community represent the whole. And it's just false. It depends on where you look and when. Honestly, give me a Batman Returns and a Dawn of Justice over a watered down Suicide Squad any day. They need to hold their nerve.

[The Laughing Fish]

From what I've seen, Batman-News seems fair and without the annoying attitude. I hope they've left BOF behind in the dust, and I hope BOF are bitter and jealous of them. There are more avenues for discussing Batman now, and BOF simply don't have the monopoly anymore. Honestly, I think the way BOF behaved during the Nolan years really divided the fan base. It showed their true colors and I think people have probably moved on. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to be aware of what they report, but do not to take any of it to heart. These people come with a lot of bias and a certain agenda.

Agreed. The part that burns my balls though is when movie studios believe they represent "the fans".

Bill Ramey has never represented me as a fan. He has never spoken for me. His views are rarely (if ever) my views.

But movie studios don't necessarily know that. "Durrr, Jett doesn't like Affleck's Batman so that means nobody does, time to retool!"

Shameful.

Wait a minute...you mean to tell me that self-proclaimed "Chris Nolan butt-kisser" actually HAS an influence in Batman fandom?!

That is a sad reflection on the community. But then again, that would explain how a lot of fans online have a skewed outlook on things.

[thecolorsblend]

I think of organized fandom's relationship with movie studios as Butterfly Effect in nature. Remember George Miller's unproduced Justice League movie? Let's just use that as an example.

Jett was openly against the Miller JLA movie. He went on the record long, loud and often about it. By itself that may not have meant much. After all, Jett was one guy posting one idea on one web page. Right?

But consider: the JLA movie was facing challenges in pre-production. That writers strike was looming. Allegedly Chris Nolan gave WB some kind of ultimatum.

Obviously the George Miller JLA movie never got made. But might it have gotten made in spite of those challenges if a perceived mouthpiece for the fans (eg, Jett) had been more receptive to the a JLA movie? Maybe not. But maybe so.

If WB had believed that the fans were on board with the idea of a JLA flick directed by George Miller, might that have inspired them to soldier on and do the work to get the movie made?

To ask the same question from a different angle, was the opposition to George Miller's JLA movie (real or only perceived by WB) the final nail in the movie's coffin?

I doubt we'll ever know for sure. But I can't help thinking that Jett, in particular, may have contributed in some small way to the Butterfly Effect which killed Miller's JLA movie. I wanted to see the George Miller JLA movie and it bugs the hell out of me that possibly one reason why I never will (or however small and pathetic) is Bill Ramey.

[The Laughing Fish]

I doubt we'll ever know for sure. But I can't help thinking that Jett, in particular, may have contributed in some small way to the Butterfly Effect which killed Miller's JLA movie. I wanted to see the George Miller JLA movie and it bugs the hell out of me that possibly one reason why I never will (or however small and pathetic) is Bill Ramey.

If it's true that he has influence, once again, that's despicable.

But right now, I find it more despicable that clickbait garbage like Collider, Screen Junkies et al are using Affleck's alcohol problems to spin their negativity about the franchise. Especially that sellout John Campea. He had been dickriding on Affleck since the casting was first announced, and called him the best Batman we've had, but now he's gleefully spreading rumours about him leaving the role. I hold that man with utmost contempt right now. Clickbait scum are doing far more damage than fan sites right now, as long as people keep paying attention to them.