C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
Other then the entire returning cast? I don't know, been a while since I've seen the movie but I'm not gonna go watch B and R to see if they referenced more directly previous events.
And no, of course 00-Craig is not the same as 00-Bronson. They clearly took us back to the beginning of his career. They carried over one cast member because they like Judi Dench.
Snyder and company are the ones indicating that this will be an older, more experienced Batman. The general audience, seeing a 40ish Bruce Wayne with some battle scars and experience as Batman are going to assume its the same character they watched just a couple years ago throughout three movies.
I don't hate Ben, but I'd rather it have either been Bale, since everyone is going to assume its carried over from the Nolan films anyway, or I'd rather they use an lesser known actor who is more interesting.
I think we'd all be wrong to assume Afflec will be starring in any solo Batman movies as well.
Know what? It's too soon. I'm just not going to get concerned over Afflec playing Batman until the movie comes out. I'll let the actual performance be the deciding factor. Then, if there's a reason to, I'll get upset. Until then, it's just speculation and not worth my getting all worked up about.
Until then, I'm just going to worry about Rocket Raccoon.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
Other then the entire returning cast? I don't know, been a while since I've seen the movie but I'm not gonna go watch B and R to see if they referenced more directly previous events.
And no, of course 00-Craig is not the same as 00-Bronson. They clearly took us back to the beginning of his career. They carried over one cast member because they like Judi Dench.
Snyder and company are the ones indicating that this will be an older, more experienced Batman. The general audience, seeing a 40ish Bruce Wayne with some battle scars and experience as Batman are going to assume its the same character they watched just a couple years ago throughout three movies.
I don't hate Ben, but I'd rather it have either been Bale, since everyone is going to assume its carried over from the Nolan films anyway, or I'd rather they use an lesser known actor who is more interesting.
I think we'd all be wrong to assume Afflec will be starring in any solo Batman movies as well.
I believe there was another character or 2 carried over between the 2 Bond series besides M. The car, the Omega watch (brought in by Brosnan), gun. Its not too much of a leap to say Craig's Bond fits into the same universe.
Again, I can still see B&R as a stand alone, despite the surrounding cast.
I think because WE know its a different Batman we're assuming others will be confused...or care. You give a little bit of different information, have a different look, and it'd be easy to distinguish between the 2 Batmen (which returning Bale wouldn't do.)
Did we assume The Hulk & The Incredible Hulk were the same movie universe? They had a different cast, different origin sequence, & different look to both Hulk & movie. They used many nods to show this Hulk was the same that appeared in the Avengers.
If you don't make any nods, references, or connection with Nolan's movies, Affleck Batman won't be confusing.
Bale will always symbolize what Batman should be in the movies, but returning to the well will only hinder that.
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
Also, they named it BATMAN BEGINS... an not-too-subtle hint they were starting over.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
And no, of course 00-Craig is not the same as 00-Bronson. They clearly took us back to the beginning of his career. They carried over one cast member because they like Judi Dench.
In Skyfall, 00-Craig pulls out of retirement the Astin-Martin auto he was given in Goldfinger, and made reference to how he used it early in his career.
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
In filmmaking, continuity refers to in-story consistency. Things like, if a character is left-handed, making sure the character uses his left hand to fire a gun; making sure the actors’ wardrobes and props are consistent throughout each scene; making sure the sun is in the right position when shooting a scene; etc. Sometimes subtle things you may not even notice consciously will bug you if they’re “wrong.” In that respect, yes, I think the general audience notices—consciously and/or subconsciously—continuity.
Things like: Batman’s parents were killed during a mugging when he was a child. Batman has a secret identity, which is Bruce Wayne. Batman has a butler/assistant named Alfred. Batman uses high-tech gadgets to fight crime. Batman doesn’t use a gun, and he doesn’t murder bad guys in cold blood. That kind of stuff matters. That stuff lets you know, this is Batman. If they break this type of continuity, yes, it will take the audience out of the story.
But I really don’t think most people are going to care all that much if this story fits together with the Nolan trilogy or not. If the Batman/Superman movie opens with Superman flying over the city at night, and in the background we catch a glimpse of a caped figure moving from one rooftop to another, people aren’t going to be thinking, “That was Batman! I wonder if it’s the Bruce Wayne Batman or the guy who took his place at the end of the last Batman movie.” No, they’re going to be thinking, “Holy crap! That was Batman! Why is he in Metropolis? Is he going to be friends with Superman, or are they going to fight? Ooh, I hope they fight!” The audience will be moving forward, not backward.
When I was a kid, just starting to read comics, I had no problem coming to terms with Adam West’s Batman on TV versus Bob Haney and Jim Aparo’s Batman in Brave and the Bold versus the Super Friends Batman on Saturday morning versus the Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman in Batman and Detective. It didn’t matter to me that they all felt different from each other. Each of those versions of Batman had their own internal continuity, their own sense of logic, and I had no problem that those continuities often conflicted with one another in small ways.
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
Also, they named it BATMAN BEGINS... an not-too-subtle hint they were starting over.
There have been plenty of sequels which were actually prequels. I don't think because "Begins" was in the title automatically means its a whole new series of movies. Especially with the elements of the movie being closer in tone to the 1989 movie.
I am still in the mode of mourning that Bale's Batman is gone. HOWEVER, if I could have picked one dude to take up the cowl it would Affleck. The man is amazing and I think he is gonna kill it as Bats. He is also gonna make Cavil look like he is acting in a middle school play.
am still in the mode of mourning that Bale's Batman is gone. HOWEVER, if I could have picked one dude to take up the cowl it would Affleck. The man is amazing and I think he is gonna kill it as Bats. He is also gonna make Cavil look like he is acting in a middle school play.
It's not that the average audience doesn't or won't understand these multiple actors playing the same part. They just don't care that much. I talked to my wife and friends about this Affleck casting. They all asked if he was taking over for Nolan. I said that this is separate from those movies. They all had the same response "oh. Ok."
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
I think we are actually on the same page more than you are realizing, but probably because I wasn't being as clear as I could have been--
I am not saying that general audiences don't see continuity, or want a continuous piece of action (which, let's be fair, is what Fred Rodgers is talking about- he was talking about continuous action, not continuity between episodes) with the little-"c". Yes. They understand the idea of something being serial, or continuing.
What the general audience doesn't have that we as comic readers tend towards is Continuity. With the big "C". Continuity problems. Energy put into looking into why this doesn't fit with that. Or why, if this happens here, the the one three movies ago doesn't make sense. To me, that feels more like a thing we do as comic fans. And less a concern of the general audience.
I agree with you that unless they are told it is a new start, they won't think of it as a new start. But I also think that a change of actors over time, as in the Bond series, is a new enough start that, unless some screen time is taken up in Batman Vs. Superman explicitly saying that this IS the same Batman as was in the Nolan trilogy, that the general audience will not care whether it is or not. They will not go looking for the big-C Continuity and its problems the way we do. They will be busy seeing a movie with a Batman in it, that will clearly pick up after that Man of Steel they saw a few years before, and that will be information enough. You know what I mean?
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
That is not what I was saying. I, too, believe the movie audience understands the differences between IP spread over various media. I am saying that you have TWO huge movie franchises in the past 10 years... Marvel's universe, and the Nolan Batman trilogy. Marvel's method has been to get a character started in his own films, and then combine them in one film.
Now we have Superman and Batman appearing in one movie... "Superman obviously is the one from Man of Steel, and Batman is obviously the one I and about a billion people just saw and loved in the the Nolan Batman films, and now he's teaming up with Superman". I don't see how that is not the de facto conclusion someone would draw, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think audiences won't care.... i think they won't understand, and it will come across as haphazard. (sigh)
But, honestly, I don't really care. I don't care about Ben Affleck. I don't really have that much faith, after Man of Steel, that Snyder can really direct a good Batman, much less a good Superman. I think this whole thing is a premature ejaculation of a movie, because they can't wait to pull off an Avengers, and this is their quick fix. Besides... the whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman will probably sort of break down when he's in a world where ALIENS exist. Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. I usually am.
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
That is not what I was saying. I, too, believe the movie audience understands the differences between IP spread over various media. I am saying that you have TWO huge movie franchises in the past 10 years... Marvel's universe, and the Nolan Batman trilogy. Marvel's method has been to get a character started in his own films, and then combine them in one film.
Now we have Superman and Batman appearing in one movie... "Superman obviously is the one from Man of Steel, and Batman is obviously the one I and about a billion people just saw and loved in the the Nolan Batman films, and now he's teaming up with Superman". I don't see how that is not the de facto conclusion someone would draw, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think audiences won't care.... i think they won't understand, and it will come across as haphazard. (sigh)
But, honestly, I don't really care. I don't care about Ben Affleck. I don't really have that much faith, after Man of Steel, that Snyder can really direct a good Batman, much less a good Superman. I think this whole thing is a premature ejaculation of a movie, because they can't wait to pull off an Avengers, and this is their quick fix. Besides... the whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman will probably sort of break down when he's in a world where ALIENS exist. Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. I usually am.
Well said. I really like your last paragraph. It sums up my feelings on the casting of Affleck and Snyder's handling of Superman.
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
That is not what I was saying. I, too, believe the movie audience understands the differences between IP spread over various media. I am saying that you have TWO huge movie franchises in the past 10 years... Marvel's universe, and the Nolan Batman trilogy. Marvel's method has been to get a character started in his own films, and then combine them in one film.
Now we have Superman and Batman appearing in one movie... "Superman obviously is the one from Man of Steel, and Batman is obviously the one I and about a billion people just saw and loved in the the Nolan Batman films, and now he's teaming up with Superman". I don't see how that is not the de facto conclusion someone would draw, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think audiences won't care.... i think they won't understand, and it will come across as haphazard. (sigh)
But, honestly, I don't really care. I don't care about Ben Affleck. I don't really have that much faith, after Man of Steel, that Snyder can really direct a good Batman, much less a good Superman. I think this whole thing is a premature ejaculation of a movie, because they can't wait to pull off an Avengers, and this is their quick fix. Besides... the whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman will probably sort of break down when he's in a world where ALIENS exist. Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. I usually am.
Actually. this is one of my concerns. They want to rush to get to the JLA movie, and can lead to a shitty movie. I feel the worst for Cavill in this whole debacle. Since Batman=$ billion and Superman=less than a $ billion, they have to crowbar Bats into "his" sequel. I think this will also set the trend for future character solo movies. That cheapens every other hero. I'm a Batman fan and I don't want to see him in each of the JLA solo movies!
Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Well, clearly we are done here. I'll get the lights.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
That is not what I was saying. I, too, believe the movie audience understands the differences between IP spread over various media. I am saying that you have TWO huge movie franchises in the past 10 years... Marvel's universe, and the Nolan Batman trilogy. Marvel's method has been to get a character started in his own films, and then combine them in one film.
Now we have Superman and Batman appearing in one movie... "Superman obviously is the one from Man of Steel, and Batman is obviously the one I and about a billion people just saw and loved in the the Nolan Batman films, and now he's teaming up with Superman". I don't see how that is not the de facto conclusion someone would draw, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think audiences won't care.... i think they won't understand, and it will come across as haphazard. (sigh)
But, honestly, I don't really care. I don't care about Ben Affleck. I don't really have that much faith, after Man of Steel, that Snyder can really direct a good Batman, much less a good Superman. I think this whole thing is a premature ejaculation of a movie, because they can't wait to pull off an Avengers, and this is their quick fix. Besides... the whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman will probably sort of break down when he's in a world where ALIENS exist. Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. I usually am.
I just don’t think most viewers will be carrying a lot of that baggage into the film. From what I’ve seen, most of them still don’t stay for the end credits of the Marvel movies, even though it’s widely known there are extra scenes. On the whole, they don’t seem to be all that invested in the details, so I really don’t think there’s going to be any widespread confusion. It will be like @JDick said: “Oh, okay.” Batman will be behaving in the same manner they’ve come to expect, and their suspension of disbelief will handle the rest.
Unless the movie totally blows. Then thoughts will turn to, “Why isn’t this as good as those Batman movies they did?”
I'm more concerned about the reports that Affleck is now getting death threats from people. He's got a wife and kids, assholes. I know "fan" is short for "fanatic" but cut this shit out and just don't go see the goddamn movie if it has you that upset. People sicken me sometimes...
I am actively supporting this casting. I want to want it the same way I wanted Nic Cage to play Superman. I'm not there yet, but I will fake it 'til I make it!
The whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman is a bit overplayed isn't it?
Personally, I'm more than ready for a series of Batman films closer in style to the Bond films. Something looser and less heavy, allowing them to come back as often as they want without digging themselves into a narrative hole that demands that things eventually end. We had that with Nolan, so it's a little pointless to do that again so soon.
The whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman is a bit overplayed isn't it?
I wouldn't say overplayed because it that's part of what I like about Batman. Nolan's trilogy did a great job with this and helped emphasized that the idea of Batman is not really THAT farfetched. Having said that, I think in the next movie interpretation he shouldn't be THAT rooted in realism. For one, he'll be encountering an alien (with more to come), with an alien ring, speedster, merman, and clay lady coming down the pike. I'd like to see some level of "could only occur in comics" aspect to this version. It would definitely help separate it from Nolan's version.<img src="null"
From what I’ve seen, most of them still don’t stay for the end credits of the Marvel movies, even though it’s widely known there are extra scenes
When I saw The World's End* this weekend, half the audience stayed through the credits.**
Marvel's got us pretty well trained. (Although Ferris Bueller started it, i think.)
*FANTASTIC! Don't watch the trailer, just go!
**Nothing there.
Nope, the Muppets beat Ferris to the punch (with the same joke even) by five years.
Comedies have typically been the bastion for end-credit additional footage. The Muppet Movie, Airplane!, Ferris Bueller, all got the ball rolling on that. And long before that comedies would often play bloopers and out-takes during the credit roll—the Cannonball Run credits were usually more entertaining than the actual films. And in more recent years, Pixar was the king of the end credits.
The Jackie Chan kung-fu flicks usually show out-takes from the stunt scenes that went wrong. Those are some credits to stay for!
But I liked Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, so I’ll watch World’s End when it comes out for home viewing.
Comments
And no, of course 00-Craig is not the same as 00-Bronson. They clearly took us back to the beginning of his career. They carried over one cast member because they like Judi Dench.
Snyder and company are the ones indicating that this will be an older, more experienced Batman. The general audience, seeing a 40ish Bruce Wayne with some battle scars and experience as Batman are going to assume its the same character they watched just a couple years ago throughout three movies.
I don't hate Ben, but I'd rather it have either been Bale, since everyone is going to assume its carried over from the Nolan films anyway, or I'd rather they use an lesser known actor who is more interesting.
I think we'd all be wrong to assume Afflec will be starring in any solo Batman movies as well.
Until then, I'm just going to worry about Rocket Raccoon.
Again, I can still see B&R as a stand alone, despite the surrounding cast.
I think because WE know its a different Batman we're assuming others will be confused...or care. You give a little bit of different information, have a different look, and it'd be easy to distinguish between the 2 Batmen (which returning Bale wouldn't do.)
Did we assume The Hulk & The Incredible Hulk were the same movie universe? They had a different cast, different origin sequence, & different look to both Hulk & movie. They used many nods to show this Hulk was the same that appeared in the Avengers.
If you don't make any nods, references, or connection with Nolan's movies, Affleck Batman won't be confusing.
Bale will always symbolize what Batman should be in the movies, but returning to the well will only hinder that.
M
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-ben-affleck-said-yes-613658
http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/boycott_casino_royale.html
This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.
Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
Seriously, did you think Kilmer and Clooney were new versions of the character? No. The movie going audience is trained, by 25 James Bond movies, over a dozen Tarzan movies, etc. to understand that the character, just like the one on a soap opera, can be replaced, but it can be the same character. Brandon Routh was Superman, the same as the Chris Reeve Superman, with no connecting carry-overs from the Donner movies, save the occasional John Williams musical cues. People expected him to be the same, because no one told them he wasn't.
Only if explicitly told, would they be expected to think this was a new beginning, as in Batman Begins, Man of Steel, and ASM. Otherwise, they, by default, see continuity. It is not something unique to comics readers, it is part of the human experience.
Mr Rogers used almost no camera cuts or edits in his show, because he felt very young children had an innate need for continuity, and wanted to feed that part of their psyche.
Remember..."continuity" is a term borrow by the comics fans from movie lingo. "Continuity: the maintenance of continuous action and self-consistent detail in the various scenes of a movie or broadcast."
Things like: Batman’s parents were killed during a mugging when he was a child. Batman has a secret identity, which is Bruce Wayne. Batman has a butler/assistant named Alfred. Batman uses high-tech gadgets to fight crime. Batman doesn’t use a gun, and he doesn’t murder bad guys in cold blood. That kind of stuff matters. That stuff lets you know, this is Batman. If they break this type of continuity, yes, it will take the audience out of the story.
But I really don’t think most people are going to care all that much if this story fits together with the Nolan trilogy or not. If the Batman/Superman movie opens with Superman flying over the city at night, and in the background we catch a glimpse of a caped figure moving from one rooftop to another, people aren’t going to be thinking, “That was Batman! I wonder if it’s the Bruce Wayne Batman or the guy who took his place at the end of the last Batman movie.” No, they’re going to be thinking, “Holy crap! That was Batman! Why is he in Metropolis? Is he going to be friends with Superman, or are they going to fight? Ooh, I hope they fight!” The audience will be moving forward, not backward.
When I was a kid, just starting to read comics, I had no problem coming to terms with Adam West’s Batman on TV versus Bob Haney and Jim Aparo’s Batman in Brave and the Bold versus the Super Friends Batman on Saturday morning versus the Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman in Batman and Detective. It didn’t matter to me that they all felt different from each other. Each of those versions of Batman had their own internal continuity, their own sense of logic, and I had no problem that those continuities often conflicted with one another in small ways.
And I don’t think the general audience will have any trouble separating the Batman/Superman version of Batman from the Nolan trilogy version of Batman. There’s no need for another origin, or extraneous dialogue that lets us know this is a “new” Batman. All they need to do is have Batman act like Batman. The audience will follow.
M
I talked to my wife and friends about this Affleck casting. They all asked if he was taking over for Nolan. I said that this is separate from those movies.
They all had the same response "oh. Ok."
I am not saying that general audiences don't see continuity, or want a continuous piece of action (which, let's be fair, is what Fred Rodgers is talking about- he was talking about continuous action, not continuity between episodes) with the little-"c". Yes. They understand the idea of something being serial, or continuing.
What the general audience doesn't have that we as comic readers tend towards is Continuity. With the big "C". Continuity problems. Energy put into looking into why this doesn't fit with that. Or why, if this happens here, the the one three movies ago doesn't make sense. To me, that feels more like a thing we do as comic fans. And less a concern of the general audience.
I agree with you that unless they are told it is a new start, they won't think of it as a new start. But I also think that a change of actors over time, as in the Bond series, is a new enough start that, unless some screen time is taken up in Batman Vs. Superman explicitly saying that this IS the same Batman as was in the Nolan trilogy, that the general audience will not care whether it is or not. They will not go looking for the big-C Continuity and its problems the way we do. They will be busy seeing a movie with a Batman in it, that will clearly pick up after that Man of Steel they saw a few years before, and that will be information enough. You know what I mean?
Now we have Superman and Batman appearing in one movie... "Superman obviously is the one from Man of Steel, and Batman is obviously the one I and about a billion people just saw and loved in the the Nolan Batman films, and now he's teaming up with Superman". I don't see how that is not the de facto conclusion someone would draw, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don't think audiences won't care.... i think they won't understand, and it will come across as haphazard. (sigh)
But, honestly, I don't really care. I don't care about Ben Affleck. I don't really have that much faith, after Man of Steel, that Snyder can really direct a good Batman, much less a good Superman. I think this whole thing is a premature ejaculation of a movie, because they can't wait to pull off an Avengers, and this is their quick fix. Besides... the whole "rooted in realism" aspect of Batman will probably sort of break down when he's in a world where ALIENS exist. Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. I usually am.
I really like your last paragraph. It sums up my feelings on the casting of Affleck and Snyder's handling of Superman.
M
Unless the movie totally blows. Then thoughts will turn to, “Why isn’t this as good as those Batman movies they did?”
Marvel's got us pretty well trained. (Although Ferris Bueller started it, i think.)
*FANTASTIC! Don't watch the trailer, just go!
**Nothing there.
I'm all for Batfleck!
M
Comedies have typically been the bastion for end-credit additional footage. The Muppet Movie, Airplane!, Ferris Bueller, all got the ball rolling on that. And long before that comedies would often play bloopers and out-takes during the credit roll—the Cannonball Run credits were usually more entertaining than the actual films. And in more recent years, Pixar was the king of the end credits.
The Jackie Chan kung-fu flicks usually show out-takes from the stunt scenes that went wrong. Those are some credits to stay for!
But I liked Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, so I’ll watch World’s End when it comes out for home viewing.