Who's watching it on HBOMax while it's on? Who saw it in theaters?

I'm loving it. I have about an hour to go.

Thoughts?

I just saw it at the theatre over the weekend. i am not much of a comic book movie person, but I really thought it was well done. I was surprised it held my interest for all 3 hours.

So, this is supposed to be year three of the Batman, if i correctly followed.

That said, i really liked the presentation of the early bat-suit and -gadgets.

Also, the batmobile and batbike were very cool as forerunners for what's to evolve.

Zoe was badass as the cat, and you can totally see that she got her walk from her real life dad

Other than that, no spoilers from me!!!

I haven't seen it but I have heard people complaining about the actor choice for Batman.

Didn't know it was 3 hours...

nayroo2002 said:

So, this is supposed to be year three of the Batman, if i correctly followed.

That said, i really liked the presentation of the early bat-suit and -gadgets.

Also, the batmobile and batbike were very cool as forerunners for what's to evolve.

Zoe was badass as the cat, and you can totally see that she got her walk from her real life dad

Other than that, no spoilers from me!!!

No spoilers from me here. But I'd agree with your take. I like that it's sort of intermediate Batman. "Batman" is only uttered a couple of times. He seems to call himself Vengeance much more. It's sorta him still figuring out how he's going to accomplish the things he wants to do as Batman, which includes more crude versions of the batmobile and batcycle.

I watched a couple of the extras on HBOMax (The LED one is amazing). They talked about how they approached it as a detective movie, more than a super hero movie. It totally clicked. It was a detective movie. The Batman felt inconsequential to that.

It also seems Paul Dano got judged for his Riddler portrayal. But this movie felt way more "early on," as noted, and cerebral. He wasn't bouncing off the walls. It actually showed him to be incredibly smart and clever. He had an end goal.

Zoë is just amazing. She's so beautiful. And she nailed the part.

Colin Farrell as Oz was just bonkers. I never once knew it was him, and I looked hard for him in there somewhere. Goddamn, the voice, the accent, the makeup - amazing. I barely knew it was Turturro as Falcone.

I thought her talk with the Bat in the construction area was really good. So was Riddler and Batman in Arkham (apparently there are deleted scenes in the extras; I've not looked at that one yet).

When a riddle was on the screen somewhere, I got most of them. Not because they were overly easy but because of the story. The story made sense so that when the riddles popped up, it felt inherent to figure it out. That's good writing.

I'll say this: There are a lot of revelations in the movie, and a lot of interconnectivity that I quite enjoyed. It didn't quite feel like three hours, because it was engaging. You felt yourself sorta leaning forward to see what came next.

[Edited 4/19/22 16:22pm]

S2DG said:

I haven't seen it but I have heard people complaining about the actor choice for Batman.

and they were all wrong

nayroo2002 said:

So, this is supposed to be year three of the Batman, if i correctly followed.

That said, i really liked the presentation of the early bat-suit and -gadgets.

Also, the batmobile and batbike were very cool as forerunners for what's to evolve.

Zoe was badass as the cat, and you can totally see that she got her walk from her real life dad

Other than that, no spoilers from me!!!

It's Batman: Year two, sprinkeld with a little bit of Batman: Hush, The Long Halloween and Zero Year. So he's not yet the hardened, skilled detective he's going to become yet and his Rogues gallery is still bing formed (watch the deleted scenes)

onlyforaminute said:

I loved it even though I missed a good portion since I had to go to the restroom, a long 3 hrs in the theater. I definitely will see it again.

Wait, so the movie is almost 3 hours long, and you missed a "good portion" being in the bathroom? What the fuck were you doing in there?!?! Dare I ask.

TrivialPursuit said:

PJMcGee said:

It didn't look as effects heavy as a Marvel movie, but the credits had a comparable number of fx people, it seemed.

That part where he didn't stick the landing was very c.g.i.-ish.

onlyforaminute said:

I loved it even though I missed a good portion since I had to go to the restroom, a long 3 hrs in the theater. I definitely will see it again.

You only missed the scene where Batman was at home washing his tights.

PJMcGee said:

PJMcGee said:

It didn't look as effects heavy as a Marvel movie, but the credits had a comparable number of fx people, it seemed.

But see - that's the genius of it. They used LED screens for background, which many productions are doing now, instead of green or blue screen. The light is natural on the actor's faces, and they have something to actually see and react towards in a scene. I suppose it's also a plus that they don't have to rush to catch a sunset or move locations. They can have a sunset as long as they want, and it look live and real.

That LED technology, and the sculpting behind it takes a big ol' team of folks. I forget what show I first heard about using that (maybe Star Trek Discovery?) but I thought it was just genius. Maybe Star Wars I-III would've been better without the blue screen. It's so fucking flat and boring as is stands.

I also suppose "special effects" covers a lot of ground, from LED, to makeup, to an explosion, to a car mounted in a jib, to whatever. I expect the list to be long.

They did a great job. It felt less... surreal? Less of a heightened reality. Even The Dark Knight had a heightened level of "this couldn't happen in real life" to it, as great as it was; but The Batman felt a little more genuine (?). One wasn't less than the other, just different.

I greatly underestimated Pattinson in this, but fuck - he's good.

TrivialPursuit said:

PJMcGee said:

It didn't look as effects heavy as a Marvel movie, but the credits had a comparable number of fx people, it seemed.

But see - that's the genius of it. They used LED screens for background, which many productions are doing now, instead of green or blue screen. The light is natural on the actor's faces, and they have something to actually see and react towards in a scene. I suppose it's also a plus that they don't have to rush to catch a sunset or move locations. They can have a sunset as long as they want, and it look live and real.

That LED technology, and the sculpting behind it takes a big ol' team of folks. I forget what show I first heard about using that (maybe Star Trek Discovery?) but I thought it was just genius. Maybe Star Wars I-III would've been better without the blue screen. It's so fucking flat and boring as is stands.

I also suppose "special effects" covers a lot of ground, from LED, to makeup, to an explosion, to a car mounted in a jib, to whatever. I expect the list to be long.

They did a great job. It felt less... surreal? Less of a heightened reality. Even The Dark Knight had a heightened level of "this couldn't happen in real life" to it, as great as it was; but The Batman felt a little more genuine (?). One wasn't less than the other, just different.

I greatly underestimated Pattinson in this, but fuck - he's good.

Team Edward or Team Jacob. Chiselled or baby face? Oh fuck it, my jawline's stronger than both.

onlyforaminute said:

PJMcGee said:

It didn't look as effects heavy as a Marvel movie, but the credits had a comparable number of fx people, it seemed.

Well of course it had fx, it's impossible nowadays to have a big budget superhero movie with no fx. But the fx were not the central focus of the movie. They enhanced the movie but they weren't in it to prop it up and keep the audience bedazzled with new shiny stuff.

This is precisely whyI anjoyed it so much. Three hours of special effects would have left me numb, bored, and leaving theatre early.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Team Edward or Team Jacob. Chiselled or baby face? Oh fuck it, my jawline's stronger than both.

I shall not be sucked into this one. haha I only watched the first movie. It was a Young Adult and teen oriented film series, either of which I was at the time. haha

I more enjoy that Robert was in Harry Potter.

I watched it last night on HBO...I really enjoyed it. The storyline and acting was great. Pattison was a great choice for the role. Zoe was fantastic.

PJMcGee said:

I didn't know that they used LEDs. So all those sunset/rise scenes were with LED screens? I thought they were real.

Nope. I mean, they were partially CGI generated, and partial real, depending on the scene.

It's sort of a throwback to using background, but those actors were still never really reacting to an actual scene, nor was the background ever that in sync with the car or what the actors were doing.

So many TV shows seem... flat, I guess is the word, because there is just so much green screen. How these actors find any way of making a show worth watching is beyond me. (Or maybe they aren't worth watching anyway.) The LED at least gives them something worth looking at, with light coming back on their face, they're actually focusing on objects, etc. I love it.

Here's a video about The Mandalorian using LED walls. It may have been the first one I saw about the technology.

No Kpowers?