The Best Reboot of All Time? Video Essay - Batman Retold Reimagined Rebooted

[wenbilson]

https://youtu.be/9ykZK_ZGgRM?list=PLV0yi90vM8e2rLmilmAgMK0j3FaTbGAzo

I think Burton's and Nolan's Batman film need to be celebrated for being some of the best examples of how to reboot a franchise. I made this video essay a little while ago to highlight my thought on this subject.

The question I'd like to pose to y'all - What would you like to see in a Batman film remake?

[Paul (ral)]

Hi wenbilson, and welcome to the site.

A quick note: please don't post the same links in separate boards - members will see your new posts without having to duplicate them. I have deleted the other posts.

Many thanks,
Paul

[johnnygobbs]

https://youtu.be/9ykZK_ZGgRM?list=PLV0yi90vM8e2rLmilmAgMK0j3FaTbGAzo

I think Burton's and Nolan's Batman film need to be celebrated for being some of the best examples of how to reboot a franchise. I made this video essay a little while ago to highlight my thought on this subject.

The question I'd like to pose to y'all - What would you like to see in a Batman film remake?

Welcome to the site wenbilson!

Good question.  I'll have to give it some thought before I come back to you with an answer though.  Hopefully others here will reply with their thoughts.

[wenbilson]

Hey Paul, cheers pal.

I should have realised, thank you for getting rid of the duplication. Send your thoughts my way on what you'd like to see in a Batman Reboot! xx

johnnygobbs - Can't wait to hear your thoughts! xx

[The Laughing Fish]

Apart from Michael Caine and Gary Oldman, I thought BB was a complete and utter letdown. One of the most disappointing movies I've ever watched. I completely disagree with claims that it's the best reboot ever, but in its defence, at least it's objectively better than the sequels, which were even worse.

What would I like from new solo Batfleck movie? Let's just say I'd appreciate if it doesn't pay lip service to characters saying one thing but then contradict themselves afterwards. I've had enough of movies treating the audience like idiots.

[wenbilson]

What would I like from new solo Batfleck movie? Let's just say I'd appreciate if it doesn't pay lip service to characters saying one thing but then contradict themselves afterwards. I've had enough of movies treating the audience like idiots.

I couldn't agree more on the respect filmmakers need to give to their audience. Have intelligent storytelling and interesting filmmaking.

I disagree with you on BB. I believe is a worthy adaptation of the Batman story, although it certainly isn't my favourite filmic form of Batman. Another couple of questions for you The Laughing Fish; Which is your favourite filmic form of Batman and why? - and - Do you agree or disagree that a reboot should greatly differ from previous incarnations for the sake of originality?

[The Dark Knight]

https://youtu.be/9ykZK_ZGgRM?list=PLV0yi90vM8e2rLmilmAgMK0j3FaTbGAzo

I think Burton's and Nolan's Batman film need to be celebrated for being some of the best examples of how to reboot a franchise. I made this video essay a little while ago to highlight my thought on this subject.

The question I'd like to pose to y'all - What would you like to see in a Batman film remake?

First of all, welcome to the site.

I took the day off school to see Batman Begins in 2005. I walked out of the cinema liking the movie. It helped restore my Batman fandom in the sense he was once again depicted as a dark character to be taken more seriously. I think Begins is Nolan's number one Batman film for a number of reasons.

Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman were perfectly cast. Gotham was still Chicago, but at least they had The Narrows, which remains one of the best Batman sets on film - especially with all that rain. We had more prominent fantastical elements and the film did connect with the character of Bruce Wayne in a big way.

But here's where I switch my focus: it's not something I can readily enjoy. The unnatural and repetitious dialogue is the most prominent in Begins. The humor is probably the most out of place in Begins. And lastly, there's plot deviations that I'm not terribly keen about. All in all....I don't think it's a bad movie, it's just a dull one which could have been even better. I find it lacks the spark of a B89 or BR.

For another reboot, I honestly like the direction B89 took. Having Batman as a young crimefighter already established, with small pieces of backstory littered along the way. Eg. laying the flowers at Crime Alley, having the flashback to his parent's murder and Vicki and Knox researching old newspapers. I don't think they have to devote a huge amount of time on Batman's past anymore. People know the story.

[The Laughing Fish]

Another couple of questions for you The Laughing Fish; Which is your favourite filmic form of Batman and why? - and - Do you agree or disagree that a reboot should greatly differ from previous incarnations for the sake of originality?

I've always been a huge fan of Michael Keaton's portrayal, but I think Ben Affleck has been terrific. I'll go far and say Affleck is objectively the best on-screen portrayal to date, but what I like most about both him and Keaton is they portray Batman as a well-meaning, but deeply troubled individual; arguably as disturbed as the villains they face. I think it makes it a more realistic psychological approach for a man who goes out a nightly basis dressed as an animal because it makes him something primal. To me, if Batman existed in the real world, you'd have a very hard time to honestly rationalise him as sane. Even Nolan and Bale described him as such:

From Christian Bale: "He's a messed-up individual, as well. He's got all sorts of issues. He's just as twisted and messed-up as the villains he's fighting, and that's part of the beauty of the whole story." "You couldn't pull it off unless you became a beast inside that suit." From Christopher Nolan: "Batman is a marvelously complex character-somebody who has absolute charm and then, just like that, can turn it into ice-cold ruthlessness."

Let me clear: this doesn't mean I'm against having an idealistic Batman who does adhere to high standards of morality. The Batman in DCAU became harsh and even a little cold-hearted as time passed by, but he still lived by his own principles, which makes him a great hero. But if you're going to have Batman explicitly say "I don't kill", but does it anyway, yet still expecting me to believe he's too "incorruptible" to kill even more sinister mass-murderer, that's not something I'm willing to accept. If you set up rules but break them, you better explore the ramifications for that character. Otherwise you totally defeat the purpose and make the whole moral conflict pointless. And that's one of the biggest flaws with Nolan's take. For all the fuss about Batman trying to kill Superman in BvS and how that conflict was resolved, at least the whole point was that once Batman saw Superman as somebody else's son, he realised he wasn't saving the world by vanquishing a potential monster in the making - he was becoming just as bad as the scumbag who took his parents away by committing murder. If there is a lesson that Batman learns, he realised that he fell into the same trap as every other human being who doubted Superman, and by doing so, he was losing his sense of morality along the way.

As far as reboots change for the sake of originality? Let's face it, none of these movies based on comic books are 100% accurate to the source material, so changes are inevitable. But I'd appreciate if directors avoid taking cues from scenes in previous movies when it's uncreative or simply unnecessary. I didn't like how BB used the "I'm Batman" line because it was a rehash of Batman's introduction in B89. Same thing can be said about having a train sequence which reminded me of Spider-Man 2, or a gas attack on Gotham which again reminded me a bit of B89. Same thing with the repetitive callbacks, where people repeat each others' quotes they said earlier out of spite. The Burton films had its share, but BB had dozens. It's tiresome and it's nothing new. It's a criticism that some people have for MOS for borrowing story elements from Superman 78 and Superman II, to be fair. TLDR: I'd prefer new film incarnations to differ not for the sake of originality, but to avoid being derivative.

[Silver Nemesis]

Welcome to the site, wenbilson! That's an excellent video – very cineliterate and superbly edited. I agree with pretty much everything you say in it. The strength of the Batman franchise has always been its ability to offer something different with each instalment. And every new Batman film is to some extent a response to its predecessor; emphasising aspects of the previous film that were well received, or remedying aspects that weren't.

I thought Nolan's trilogy was a superb reboot. His films successfully highlighted elements of the mythos that had been overlooked in the previous films (the relationship between Batman and Gordon, Bruce training his body to peak physical condition, Bruce's progression from emotionally damaged orphan to adult crime fighter, etc), while avoiding rehashes of things the earlier films got right. Even when Nolan did depict the same incidents from the source material (e.g. the death of Bruce's parents), he handled them in such a way that felt sufficiently different from Burton and Schumacher's interpretations. Nolan's Batman films aren't perfect, but they did improve on a lot of the shortcomings of the earlier movies. This is especially true if you analyse his trilogy from a narratological perspective, correlating the three act structure against the principles of monomyth and the classical 'hero's journey' as outlined by mythologists like Joseph Campbell. I'm sure someone's already written a much more detailed breakdown of this on another site, but here's a brief overview of some of the major points:

Act 1:
•   Call to adventure (Bruce leaving Gotham, Bruce returning to Gotham)
•   Supernatural aid (training by the League of Shadows)
•   Confronting the threshold guardian (Falcone, Ducard, Ra's decoy and League of Shadows)
•   Crossing the threshold (leaving Gotham, defying the League and returning to Gotham)
•   Meeting a helper (Alfred, Gordon, Rachel)
•   Meeting a mentor (Thomas Wayne, Ducard)
•   Loss of mentor (Thomas Wayne, Ducard)
•   Initial victory that emboldens hero (saving Gotham)

Act 2:
•   Confronting temptation (normal life with Rachel, desire to kill Joker)
•   Overcoming temptation with aid of helper (Alfred)
•   Confronting greatest challenge (the Joker)
•   Hero questions self/confronts inner struggle (lots of examples of this in TDK)
•   Significant failure (Rachel's death, Dent's death)
•   Fall into the abyss/death (the final confrontation with Dent, assuming blame for Dent's crimes, hanging up cape and cowl)
•   Loss of flesh (injuries sustained during final confrontation)

Certain plot points which typically transpire in the middle act instead occur in TDKR:
•   Moment of anagnorisis (learning the truth about Rachel leaving him, realising the folly of the conspiracy to protect Dent, discovering the truth about Talia)

Act 3:
•   Rebirth from the abyss (resuming career as Batman, escaping the Pit)
•   Revelation about the past (Ra's back story discovered)
•   Transformation (regaining/improving strength in the Pit)
•   Overcoming final obstacle/final battle (saving Gotham from Bane)
•   Atonement (self-sacrifice to save Gotham, donating wealth and property to homeless)
•   Catharsis (finally able to retire in good conscience)
•   Return home (establishing a new home in Europe with Selina)
•   Reward of the goddess (a peaceful life with Selina)

I'm not for one instant implying Nolan had the entire trilogy mapped out from the get go, but he did indicate his intention for it to be a trilogy at quite an early stage. As a student of literature, he would have had a good understanding of narrative structure. And that understanding is reflected in the overarching plot points in his trilogy. By contrast, the Burton/Schumacher cycle was conducted on a film-by-film basis, with no overall plan for where the series was going. The closest it got to a classical hero's journey was Robin's storyline in the Schumacher films, but there was never any final act to give that plot closure. Batman himself goes through aspects of the hero's journey in the Burton/Schumacher films, but not to the extent Nolan's Batman does. So this is just one way in which Nolan did something the earlier films hadn't. And of course there are strengths the earlier films had which Nolan failed to recapture. But for me it's not about one interpretation being better than another. As you say, it's about doing something different to justify the reboot. And I believe Nolan did that admirably.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. And thanks again for posting that video. I enjoyed watching it.

[johnnygobbs]

My ideal Batman reboot would basically be a live-action adaptation of the 90s animated TV series, both in terms of characterisation and tone.  I'd keep the art-deco/steam-punk style too, as well as the supporting cast of new characters, including Renee Montoya and Veronica Vreeland (and of course, Harley Quinn), and beefed-up roles for characters, like Bullock, who had previously been relative bit-parters in the comics.

Not every episode was an A+ grade classic, but a significant number of them were, especially those that featured the more prominent members of the rogues' gallery, although a two hour film would nevertheless require a much more ambitious story than a twenty-five minute episode.  Still, I would use the relative simplicity and sharp focus of those animated shows as a template of how to tell a decent comic-book movie story, with a defined beginning, middle, and end.

In terms of building a long-term franchise, I'd probably treat Batman the same way the makers of the 007 films treat their characters.  I'd ensure each film was a self-contained story, albeit part of a consistent universe/narrative, with a different villain/set of villains, and love interest, in each story (although as with James Bond, and M, Moneypenny, and Q, there would still be a regular supporting cast, in this case, Gordon, Alfred, and Lucius Fox), release a new film every three or so years, and not be afraid to recast the lead once they got tired of playing the part (no one seems to treat the various Bonds as if they're part of entirely different continuities).