Going over how Skydance should approach the DC movieverse going forward is an article unto itself and I do want to consider what I think would be a good strategy. All I have right now is bring in actual experts not to take over the writing but to help setup the new DC universe or take the current movie continuity in a better direction. I’ll put some more thought into that.
This article was inspired by another article, from Fansided’s Bam! Smack! Pow! site. In “3 Ways The New Movie Batman Can Stand Out“, contributor John Campbell laid out a few ideas on how he thinks a post Matt Reeves Batman should go. I know it’s popular, but I won’t miss that version. I don’t like how they altered the Riddler, I’m sick of “grounded Batman”, and while I don’t think Robert Patterson was a bad idea some of the things they had him do just doesn’t interest me enough to watch the full movie. Maybe I should charge to review stuff like that, but would anyone pay me? With my luck they’d try to make me watch Lanterns, which unlike the Reeves movie doesn’t even look good. Being good doesn’t mean it’s accurate to the source material. Remember, the only Christopher Nolan movie I liked was the first one, Batman Begins.
So I want to go over Campbell’s ideas and inject a few of my own. His article goes over things we really haven’t seen from the live-action Batman, at least since the 1960s or 1980s, and it’s long overdue.
With the shocking news that James Gunn and Peter Sagan are stepping down as co-chairmen of DC Studios, a lot of the plans for the future of the DCU are left up in the air.
Presumably DC’s most popular character, Batman will play a large role in that future. It got me thinking that if they do introduce a new Caped Crusader (assuming Robert Pattinson isn’t folded into the main timeline), what could set this new take apart from the character’s previous big-screen adventures?
I don’t know anybody who’s all that shocked. People were calling it while Skydance was still being challenged on their attempt to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. I don’t know about building a new DC around the Matt Reeves version. It might be a good crime story but the reason I haven’t watched it is that it doesn’t really look like a Batman movie. It could be a generic nighttime crimefighter, Dark Bat or Shadow Knight or something. Did they really turn the gun that killed the Waynes into part of Bruce’s outfit? That’s the dumbest part. It and The Penguin just wouldn’t work in anything built off of the Gunnverse and they’re too grounded away from the traditional superhero stylings of the DC universe to have anyone with powers.
From there, let’s get into Campbell’s suggestions, starting with Gotham City architecture:
Batman’s hometown is as much as character in his story than any of his allies or enemies. Gotham City is called that for a reason; it’s always been conceived as an old, East Coast urban center filled with dark gothic architecture and gargoyles. However, in the recent big-screen outings, the setting has been considerably more real-world.
You don’t have to go full Burton. Just give it some gothic character.
Which happens when you try to make a comic book movie separate from the world they inhabit. He suggests Tim Burton’s Gotham, or the Batman: The Animated Series take on Gotham, and that’s really good to go with. The B:TAS version was inspired by the Burton movies (sadly so was their Penguin design, one of the changes in the Kids WB move I actually liked) but Gotham in the comics was already leaning into that. Nolan and Reeves both made them look like normal cities, which is kind of boring. Everyone says that Gotham City is a character on its own, and I happen to agree. Make Gotham look interesting. Maybe not as grimdark as Burton’s Gotham, because you can be a lighter Batman without being the Schumacher or Brave & The Bold (the TV series, not the probably canceled Gunnverse project) takes. What’s missing for me is the fun, and serious can be fun. Bronze Age Batman was.
We haven’t seen a truly foreboding and gothic playground since Tim Burton’s films from the late 80s/early 90s. The new DCU Batman should look to the fan-favorite Batman: The Animated Series as inspiration. Presenting a mix of art deco design with retro futurism tech, the Gotham of that show exploded from the pages of a comic and gave us a setting where the costumed heroes and villains felt right at home.
To that end I want to see the villains of Gotham look closer to that show. The takes on classic and new villains, whether normal mobsters (which would work in a Batman series but as a movie would feel dull without some supervillain involved) or the usual rogues, or even show original characters like Baby Doll (good luck making her a movie villain) are a bit more dynamic. Nolan made the Joker some nut in make-up. Matt Reeves outright stated he didn’t want to use the more paranormal villains, and just from the trailers Clayface isn’t holding up to even that other The Batman from Kids WB, nevermind the DCAU version. Actually, use that cartoon for inspiration as well. It had great action and great atmosphere.
So what’s next on his list? The gadgets. Batman has some really cool gadgets, but have we seen then in live action since the 1960s?
Perhaps the most notable thing about Batman is his lack of superpowers. As a member of the Justice League, he spends his time in the company of individuals with godlike powers, yet he is just a mortal man (okay, yes, a genius billionaire, which certainly helps). This forces Batman to rely not only on his smarts and masterful knowledge of hand-to-hand combat but also on technology. Batman is never without his trademark utility belt that the comics have filled with a menagerie of advanced crimefighting tools and weapons.
Recent films do feature the belt, though they rarely show gadgets beyond the classic Bat-a-Rang and grappling hook gun. A lot of the fun of the comics is the constant surprise of what impressive new gadget Batman will pull from the pouches of his belt. From tasers to night vision goggles, laser cutting tools, smoke bombs, breathing masks, and even shark repellent (fans of the 60s Adam West TV series will remember that famous one). Batman always has an ace up his sleeve, or more specifically, a gadget in his belt.
Then again, THIS Batman treats them like bullets.
About the Batarang: it’s a bat-themed boomerang. Bruce is a businessman. He gets theming. Ever since the Nolan movies, where I don’t even think they’re called Batarangs, people treat them more like ninja throwing stars than boomerangs. They’re blunt objects designed to curve when thrown to surprise the target. They have a pointy tip by nature of the batlike design, but they’re supposed to be boomerangs. This has become a pet peeve of mine. Even Gaijin Goombah, when doing his Which Ninja episode on Batman, seemed to make that mistake.
I like seeing the various bat gadgets. He also has various detective tools in his belt, not just weapons. One thing the Reeves version claimed to do, but from reviews nobody brings it up so that I wonder if he actually did it, was focus a bit more on Bruce’s detective skills. That includes comic tech visors, sprays, computer links to the Batcave so he can look up a fingerprint faster than Gotham’s current budget will give them the technology to pull off, and stuff like that. The cartoons do it, but not the live-action stuff. Again, since the 1960s, which was like a cartoon as it was a parody that just happened to fit in with late Silver Age Batman. You know what else he needs? Robin!
Aside from, perhaps too old, Chris O’Donnell as Robin in the Joel Schumacher films of the 90s, Batman has waged a lone war on crime in the films. Despite the fact that his family of sidekicks has grown exponentially during the same time in the comics. Batman only spent one year of his comic book history without Robin, The Boy Wonder at his side; yet live-action cinema seems to be actively scared of the character. Both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan laughed off the idea of their dark hero joining forces with a green and red costumed acrobat.
There seems to be pushback over the past few decades about introducing kid or even teen sidekicks or heroes. Marvel Comics outright made teen heroes illegal, which is just lame. The kid sidekick was where the kids could see themselves realistically alongside the heroes. Going without their own costume would be weak sauce; that’s why Wendy and Marvin in the first season of Superfriends never worked but Zan and Jana survived until Super Powers Team. The funless crowd instead complains about “endangering kids” and stuff. In the real world, sure. There’s always the idea of trainees, or older teens and college age heroes. Meanwhile Disney Junior is so into kid heroes they’ve deaged most of Marvel’s heroes into kids and introduced the PJ Masks, the kid version of the Rocketeer we discussed recently, youngling Padawans in Star Wars, and even the animal heroes are puppies and kittens. Burt Ward showed us Robins could be cool and treated “of age” to be a sidekick who is a worthy ally of Batman.
Maybe he DOES collect them.
The question is which Robin do you go with. Dick Grayson has been Nightwing so long that unless you’re going early years again it seems a shame. Jason Todd is kind of rough but has potential if we’re along in the career. Until the Knightfall adaptations we haven’t see much of Tim Drake, the young detective so good and smart that DC can’t figure out how to use him except to explore his sexuality for some reason. I’d love to see a good Tim Drake. The DCAU version basically made him a less stupid Jason and he’s never had a live-action portrayal that I’m aware of. James Gunn, and he’ll pop up again shortly, wanted to use Damien, and there’s a case for it if Bruce has been Batman long enough, but considering the only Talia non comic readers or cartoon watchers know is from Nolan’s questionable take, I don’t see that working for the average moviegoer.
I would eventually like to see the whole Bat-Family come together in a series of movies. Start the first one with Batman taking Dick Grayson on. Heck, adapt Batman Chronicles: The Gauntlet, one of the best Robin stories, and follow Dick’s “final exam” to becoming Robin. I know I said earlier that the mobsters wouldn’t be as interesting for the movies, but for an introduction to a new Batman world, that story has plenty of potential. The next movie takes place some years after and ends with Dick becoming Nightwing. Or start with Dick’s origin and save The Gauntlet for the second movie and Nightwing for the third, though by then you know people would be asking for the rogues. So maybe not.
Whatever you do, don’t start with the Joker. That’s a build-up villain given what he’s become in Bat-lore. The Penguin would be too soon if we’re moving away from the Reeves version, as well as the Riddler, which he make a lame “expose the truth” killer. We’re not starting with Polka Dot Man, that’s for sure. We’ve already had two Two-Faces and it would bother him to have a third. (Heh.) Which rogue should come first in the first or second movie? Could be time to fix Mr. Freeze. Zzazz is allegedly in the second Reeves movies he had to step away from. I’m not sure offhand, honestly.
My final thought was inspired by a different article, one of the Geeks & Gamers articles dropping a lot of new information about James Gunn’s and Peter Safran’s sweetheart deal with Warner Brothers Discovery. Apparently he was hoping to take over Batman, and while a bunch of his comments and proposed ideas showing the trial balloon was a lead balloon, there was this notation:
“There’s a religious aspect to so much of this stuff that’s very uncomfortable,” Gunn said.
He specifically referenced debates about Batman’s white eyes, utility belt, and traditional yellow chest emblem.
“And none of those things are important to me. What matters is the character, the story,” he explained.
For fans who consider Batman’s recognizable visual identity an essential part of the character, those comments were hardly reassuring.
How do you lose the utility belt? That’s one of the most important parts of his gear. It’s like taking out the Batmobile, the Bat Cave under Wayne Manor, or replacing the Batarangs with throwing blades. (Yes, I’m still on that.) The yellow chest emblem…that’s a debate right now. I’ve seen good and bad designs without the yellow oval, and while a case can be made visually and out of nostalgia I can’t think of a huge narrative reason. I grew up with the yellow oval, and the best connection you can make is the Bat Signal. The oval bat itself is a personal preference and I can accept the outline, but I’ve seen images of the Golden Age inspired bat designs of recent and some of them were okay. For kids? Definitely use the ovals because it looks good on the toy packaging and gets their attention. I’m not married to it, but I’ve seen it done wrong and right as well.
One thing I will push back on is the white eyes. No live-action Batman has had them as far back as the serials and there’s a reason. One of the issues with the cowl designs until The Dark Knight was the ability for the actor to turn his head to look around him, which for a martial artist stealth fighter like Batman should be a priority. It would be too hard for the actor and stuntman to see with those. Spider-Man has the size of his mask eyes to his advantage plus the MCU gave him Stark technology, while comics Spidey had that Iron Spider armor for a while that didn’t impress me. In animation, video games, and of course comics I totally want the white eyes. They look cool and save the artists some time, but for live-action Batman cowls I don’t feel it necessary unless they have the smart glasses features Bruce has been using before they had smart glasses, like in the Arkham games.
One costume feature I will insist on but they won’t do is the color scheme: blue and grey all the way, baby! Make the cowl, cape, gloves, and boots (assuming we’re not giving him the shorts as current designs are less inspired by acrobatics and more on stealth and body armor–understandably so, and it’s not as important to me as Superman keeping the trunks) a dark blue. The inside of the cape can be black for when he’s leaping on a perp, but Batman is supposed to scare the bad guys, not the people he’s trying to save. Especially kids. Changing the suit to not scare children is always nice to see. The tie-in comic to the aforementioned The Brave & The Bold did it, as did Justice League: The New Frontier, and that’s totally correct.
What about the rest of you? What do you want to see in a new Batman?
