I like both. Whether people like it or not the Ben Affleck Batman was fantastically. So its not like we’ve been completely devoid of fantastical Batman stories. Or stories involving Batman.
A period detective noir filmed in black would be pretty awesome. A good script, acting and directing is all that is needed for a good movie. Whether its batcrap insane or grounded like a bunker.
Didn't I see in a documentary that 1931 Dracula was based on the long running Broadway hit play Dracula staring Bela Lugosi? The wanted Lon Chaney Sr to play Dracula in the movie but his prevented it so they used Lugosi as the replacement? After seeing that I assumed that is why the film is as it is, I mean large parts look like it could be performed on stage with set changes. As far as The Batman. One thing I appreciated was the remembered Bruce is the worlds greatest detective. Batman 89 and Val Kilmer Batman did a good job in that also. Batflack did a bit of sleuthing. Balebat didn't do much sleuthing or inventing and Clooneybat didn't bother to do anything more than smile and nod. Arguably my favorite parts in The Batman were the investigation and crime scenes.
Most of these points can just be chucked up to “movie logic or inconsistency”. Every iteration of Batman has them. Many “realistic” films have them. Its nothing new. Thats not to say that completely excuses it. Films that are trying to be more grounded or realistic should be more considerate and careful of those details. But its not really new or exclusive to The Batman. As for the name changes it could be Matt Reeves simply thinking they’re too goofy rather than it being too unrealistic. (Yes I know we have a guy literally called Batman yada yada). Just trying to give Reeves the benefit of the doubt.
To this could be added every time Batman wades into absolute gunfire with his chin. The armor being good enough to stop close-range assault-rifle bullets is practically sci-fi, but let that slide: he could be wearing adamantium armor, but unless it's also generating a force-field more powerful than a nuke's electromagnetic pulse, that chin should be blown off. A few bullets missing, that's good luck. If he protects his chin, that's tactical. His bright glowing chin being a target in a dark room strobing with fire-flashes? That's magic. Cinema magic, sure, but magic. (Though I'll note again that Nashton comes AT LEAST from the Arkhamverse, before Matt Reeves' film, and maybe prior to that.)
God it would b nice if someone tried to make a Batman movie that focuses on Man Bat someone who is more beast then man n that his formula is based on a vampire bat which would compel him to attack n feed on people throughout Gotham n when Batman tracks him down he’s legitimately surprised to c a respectable scientist transforms into a giant mutant bat thing right b4 his eyes something we haven’t seen in a live action Batman movie (as of yet)
2 words for Batman not getting busted up when he collided with the bridge, bus and street: Plot Armor. Is it an excuse for not being consistent with realism? Not really but, it’s definitely plot armor
I wouldnt mind the whole realistic batman thing if other people didnt demand that be the status quo. And even then they'll give a pass to things like the falling feat or the dark night trilogy. Nolan batman defeated bane who could break stone pillars with his fist. He even dodges bullets in the canon gotham knight. yes it IS canon. Despite what bs articles will tell you. And that universe tried to be as realistic as possible Hell, Arkham and animated batman are my favorites because they are unapologetically superhuman in a fantastical universe akin to the comics. And nobody bats an eye at those versions of the characters.(No pun intended) Because theres nothing wrong with suspending your disbelief as long as its well made.
Here we go again with this whole realism debate, which was especially prevalent during the MonsterVerse’s release of GKotM, GvK, and kinda GxK, but this one concerns Batman, in light of Matt Reeves’ iteration of the character. I wouldn’t say realism has to necessarily be better or be the standard, nor should fantasy either, because at the end of the day, both realism and fantasy (either in DC comics, Kaiju, or whatever genre and medium) can be done correctly or incorrectly, consistently or inconsistently. It’s more of a matter of if it suits for the story being told rather than if it is inherently better than one or the other. I’m gonna be honest, I’m not gonna always be a fan of realistic Batman or Godzilla, nor am I going to fall for completely fantastical stories either. I prefer a good balance of the two, but also acknowledge that Batman has roots in being both a serious and silly character from the comic books, early movies and shows, and different movies, comics, animated series, or shows simply emphasize different aspects of realism, comic booky logic, or a blend of the two.
I 100% agreeing with you. This whole hatred towards realism is just getting ridiculous at this point. And 2024's "GODZILLA KONG: THE NEW DUMPSTER-FIRE" factually proves that in any way!!!
@@davidostapenko2578 Respectfully how is it getting out of hand when we have had this for 20 years? All of his live-action films in the 21st century have been stripped of the fantastical.
Oh yeah when I said consistency I wasn’t saying we currently have great consistency within our multiple universes we like. I think Invincible is the best example of not breaking their own rules. For example Invincible isn’t realistic but it still doesn’t have Mark beating Nolan just for the sake of the protagonist winning. Mark learns valuable lessons and can’t just power scale jump to Omni man’s level. I like how you bring up Batman just eating complete shit on his escaped crusader jump and is fine. Great point and great video man!
Season 2 was such a boring slog. And then the last scene 10 minutes of the season has me waiting for season 3. The Boys was kind of the same way. I wish we had gotten more season of Amazon's The Tick. Maybe a crossover, being ni near indestructible and so damn strong It would be comedy gold watching him try to lecture his way threw the boys verse.
Mind if someone that's been playing superheroic RPG systems since the late 1980's chimes in with a fun morsel? If Batman is converted into those systems as generally depicted, he almost always end up with clearly superhuman statistics. In one of the early attempts to make a DC RPG (it MIGHT be the first one, I'm not certain), making Batman in the system actually cost more points than Superman - although in fairness, that's because of a math bug in Supermans write-up, but the point stands. And that's without getting to the levels of BatGod we saw toward the end of the Crisis Era of DC, when Batman is casting magical spells against Circe (Amazons Attack, no I'm not making this up), hypnotizing a Green Lanter, creating nanites to turn an alien's skin into magnesium (JLA Tower of Babel storyline, and those are just the worst offenders)... and also without invoking sarcastic elements like his clear Null Intelligence field that causes characters with college degrees to suddenly lose thirty or forty IQ points whenever Batman is in panel (poor Superman and Kyle Raynor GL were often the hardest hit). A different superheroic RPG system (Aberrant, from White Wolf) had a sidebar article in one of its final products making an abridged argument that Batman actually *IS* superpowered, it's just that his powers aren't as obvious physically. And in fairness, his insane recovery powers are a staple of genre fiction anyway so it's not like he's the worst offender. Bottom Line? You don't even need that bridge scene. Batman is an inherently fantastic character who would have been been lucky to have survived his third or fourth encounter in a "realistic" world. Trying to kid yourself otherwise is like pretending The Boys is more realistic than the Avengers - it isn't, it just choses different things to be fantastic about (and don't forget, The Boys was a clear parody comic that opened with the line, "I hate superheroes").
Hey Omni viewer! This question might be unrelated and I hope you don’t mind, I’m curious of what are your thoughts on Matt Reaves doing both Cloverfield and Batman, what do you think of him?
Clayface was originally a typical serial killer as opposed to the modern shapeshifting mud monster. I can see the Reeves films going with that variant of the character.
Superheroes movies do better in the fantastical because of the imagination (like with Tim Burton's Batman 1989 film). Grounded and realistic movies have their limits and are boring (like with the Dark Knight trilogy).
All the live action versions of Batman have been boring cobblers that strayed too far from the comics. The only good screen versions have been Batman The Animated Series and the two part animated adaptation of The Long Halloween. Live action never get The Joker right and never uses some of the creepy and wonderful lesser known villains like The Mad Hatter.
I disagree. We have a multiverse for crying out loud. Not every live action version of The Batman has to be exactly like the comics. And just because it takes liberties from the source material doesn’t mean its bad. So long as what they choose to do is well executed. Otherwise why are films like The Dark Knight so highly regarded by both casuals and die hard fans?
I think for fantastical or grounded Batman it relly depend on the execution ,peaple love the Batman because the execution grounded Batman is relly good ,the problem is we have grounded Batman in dark knight trilogy and peaple start to become boring for Grounded batman and they cannot use all batman vilain like Bane,Deathstrouk,mr Freeze ,undead talon army of quart of Owl,poison ivy,solomon grundy,mr bloom and Manbat .As for Ben Affleck Batman ,peaple don't hate the fantastical aspek of his Batman but more towart the potrail of his Batman that has no problem killing and Gundown peaple.
I watched The Batman again in the pictures last night, and yeah, he'd have been 400% dead after that scene, It stood out like a sore thumb. It's really not that great of a movie on a second watch. Gordons performance is ridiculous as are many others, Riddler is just the incel Joker, the best thing about it was Colin Farrel.
@@FriendlyBatDoom yeah can't fault how it's shot. There's just lots of things that are meant to be serious that are over done to the point of being camp. .
Strap in - unorganized stream of conscious ramblings incoming. On film twitter (urgh) a few weeks ago when this discourse dropped there a lot of holier-than-thou types writing screeds about how fickle and shallow fans are and how they don't have any respect for the artists vision and how they just want their glup shitto cameos and yadda yadda. Now, for the record I agree to a point (and I stress to a point) with this. Fandom, especially for comic book films, often seems to only obsess over and care about shallow fan service. They often don't care to discuss or even learn about filmmaking in any real sense - they just have a mentality of "make it how I want it!" and that's it. And often these same people who cry about Batman films being stuck "grounded and realistic" mode don't even seem to appreciate (or even know how to identify) the formal aspects of past comic book films that DID embrace the formal aesthetic of comic books - like the Burton Batman films, Schumacher Batman Forever, Donner Superman, etc. BUT at the same time, as somehow who both really likes the Reeves-verse so far AND finds the wishy-washy "not too fantastical" mantra to be highly annoying...these people who just love to shit on fans miss the finer points. We're not all shallow nerds who just want to stroke off to fan service. We can overall really liked something and still find issues with it without calling for its failure, y'know? Yes. I AM annoyed the Reeves-verse makes these arbitrary "grounded" decisions by changing names and getting rid of defining characteristics. That doesn't mean I'm like, calling for the Reeves-verse to be cancelled. Not all criticism is fanboy entitlement. I'm simply tired of the trend Nolan started with this stuff. Why can't it be that simple? A repeated talking point is that these filmmakers like Reeves and Nolan have a certain degree of shame and embarrassment of the source material - hence why they "ground it in reality" to make it palatable as "real serious movies." The people who push back against this point say, again, that those claim embarrassment from the filmmakers don't respect the artistic vision and process and adaptation. And why would these filmmakers waste years of their lives making films about something they have contempt or dislike for. Well, I think there nuance here. I don't think Matt Reeves dislikes Batman or the comics. I don't think he's embarrassed of the source material so much as fearful of it. Like Nolan and Burton and even Schumacher before him, Reeves is sincerely invested in the psychology and humanity of the characters in this world. He just doesn't have it in him to let loose. He can easily tell a honest, psychological, serious Batman story that features Mr. Freeze with a big freezy gun and shit. Something being on the pure fantasy side of storytelling does not mean it can't be taken seriously. Our oldest stories are sheer fantasy for crying out loud. Goddamn it, people. Stop being afraid of unreality. I do think Reeves can genuinely feel passion for this stuff while also feeling cold feet about embracing its more overtly fantastical sensibilities. So while I find his approach wishy-washy, I can't ever in good faith say he doesn't care about or doesn't like the comics. He does. All it takes to know this is a deeper understanding of them below the very surface. Two things can be true at once. I think there is an self-conscious streak to these filmmakers in that they are afraid of critics and audiences laughing at them if they dare just earnestly embrace and showcase the sheer fantasy of comic books. Case in point, the MCU. Those filmmakers on the MCU side lampshade the hell out of everything with layers of meta humor and irony. It takes REAL filmmaking balls to tell a compelling story in a fantastical world without feeling the need to undercut it with jokes and meta humor and irony poisoned bullshit.
Not to even mention the stupidity of the "Contact Lense Cameras" and how dumb those were in regards to the "Realism. Yeah. Not a Fan of the NuBatman Movies.
LOL! Batman is Wily Coyote and George of the Jungle!! He should have gotten wings like the Falcon's, unobtainium, full-face, metal armor like Iron Man's and the Black Panther's, with a force field, like the cast of Dune's. The Penguin would win gang wars more easily with trick umbrellas, which exist in real life! KGB agents assassinated their Cold War political opponents with umbrellas that injected them with poison pellets in crowds. Spy shops today sell a bulletproof Kevlar umbrella with steel bones you can stand on! Steampunk and Elegant Gothic Lords also exist in reality, which plausibly explains a man in a tuxedo and top hat! "Cobblepot" sounds like an aristocratic or preppy English name, which is also plausible. Lots of celebrities have funny stage names, such as Gaal (Gorgoroth's lead singer), Prince Poppycock (Rococcopunk glam rock singer), Lady Gaga, or Madonna (Ciccione). Mythbusters and RUclips videos often build and demonstrate real-life sci-fi tech such as Iron Man's armor, Captain America's shield, Spider-Man's web shooters, Star Wars' lightsabers, and even Mjolnir, Thor's hammer! Even Mr. Fries could be plausibly explained as Dr. Victor DeFries, a "polar bear" (ice-water swimmer/bather), turned into a cold-resistant man, like extremophile bacteria in a top-secret military biology experiment. Truth is stranger than fiction! Fantastical supervillains such as Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, Clayface, or even the Joker can be logically explained by science fiction. The Gentleman Ghost, Zatanna, and the Demon, Etrigan can be plausibly explained by horror movie magic, like Freddy Krueger, Pinhead, or Jason Voorhees. 🤓
The realism never seems to apply as much to action in movies like this. What they really mean by realism is not being silly or having magic and such.
I'm glad we're finally getting the fantastical batman from the comics. Making batman grounded and realistic is just tiring and boring
My thoughts exactly.
I like both. Whether people like it or not the Ben Affleck Batman was fantastically. So its not like we’ve been completely devoid of fantastical Batman stories. Or stories involving Batman.
@@mr.l5783 even that version was trying to stay grounded to a certain extent
@@mr.l5783I agree with you.
A period detective noir filmed in black would be pretty awesome. A good script, acting and directing is all that is needed for a good movie. Whether its batcrap insane or grounded like a bunker.
Actually as of episode 2 of The Penguin Oswald Cobb has been called "The Penguin" by a fellow gangster.
Didn't I see in a documentary that 1931 Dracula was based on the long running Broadway hit play Dracula staring Bela Lugosi? The wanted Lon Chaney Sr to play Dracula in the movie but his prevented it so they used Lugosi as the replacement? After seeing that I assumed that is why the film is as it is, I mean large parts look like it could be performed on stage with set changes.
As far as The Batman. One thing I appreciated was the remembered Bruce is the worlds greatest detective. Batman 89 and Val Kilmer Batman did a good job in that also. Batflack did a bit of sleuthing. Balebat didn't do much sleuthing or inventing and Clooneybat didn't bother to do anything more than smile and nod. Arguably my favorite parts in The Batman were the investigation and crime scenes.
Most of these points can just be chucked up to “movie logic or inconsistency”. Every iteration of Batman has them. Many “realistic” films have them. Its nothing new.
Thats not to say that completely excuses it. Films that are trying to be more grounded or realistic should be more considerate and careful of those details. But its not really new or exclusive to The Batman.
As for the name changes it could be Matt Reeves simply thinking they’re too goofy rather than it being too unrealistic.
(Yes I know we have a guy literally called Batman yada yada). Just trying to give Reeves the benefit of the doubt.
I had headaches, sore throat, & flu that hit me harder than this virus.
To this could be added every time Batman wades into absolute gunfire with his chin. The armor being good enough to stop close-range assault-rifle bullets is practically sci-fi, but let that slide: he could be wearing adamantium armor, but unless it's also generating a force-field more powerful than a nuke's electromagnetic pulse, that chin should be blown off. A few bullets missing, that's good luck. If he protects his chin, that's tactical. His bright glowing chin being a target in a dark room strobing with fire-flashes? That's magic. Cinema magic, sure, but magic.
(Though I'll note again that Nashton comes AT LEAST from the Arkhamverse, before Matt Reeves' film, and maybe prior to that.)
God it would b nice if someone tried to make a Batman movie that focuses on Man Bat someone who is more beast then man n that his formula is based on a vampire bat which would compel him to attack n feed on people throughout Gotham n when Batman tracks him down he’s legitimately surprised to c a respectable scientist transforms into a giant mutant bat thing right b4 his eyes something we haven’t seen in a live action Batman movie (as of yet)
2 words for Batman not getting busted up when he collided with the bridge, bus and street: Plot Armor. Is it an excuse for not being consistent with realism? Not really but, it’s definitely plot armor
Even the most realistic versions of Batman have plot armor from time to time.
I wouldnt mind the whole realistic batman thing if other people didnt demand that be the status quo.
And even then they'll give a pass to things like the falling feat or the dark night trilogy.
Nolan batman defeated bane who could break stone pillars with his fist.
He even dodges bullets in the canon gotham knight. yes it IS canon. Despite what bs articles will tell you.
And that universe tried to be as realistic as possible
Hell, Arkham and animated batman are my favorites because they are unapologetically superhuman in a fantastical universe akin to the comics. And nobody bats an eye at those versions of the characters.(No pun intended) Because theres nothing wrong with suspending your disbelief as long as its well made.
Here we go again with this whole realism debate, which was especially prevalent during the MonsterVerse’s release of GKotM, GvK, and kinda GxK, but this one concerns Batman, in light of Matt Reeves’ iteration of the character.
I wouldn’t say realism has to necessarily be better or be the standard, nor should fantasy either, because at the end of the day, both realism and fantasy (either in DC comics, Kaiju, or whatever genre and medium) can be done correctly or incorrectly, consistently or inconsistently. It’s more of a matter of if it suits for the story being told rather than if it is inherently better than one or the other. I’m gonna be honest, I’m not gonna always be a fan of realistic Batman or Godzilla, nor am I going to fall for completely fantastical stories either. I prefer a good balance of the two, but also acknowledge that Batman has roots in being both a serious and silly character from the comic books, early movies and shows, and different movies, comics, animated series, or shows simply emphasize different aspects of realism, comic booky logic, or a blend of the two.
On Point
I 100% agreeing with you. This whole hatred towards realism is just getting ridiculous at this point. And 2024's "GODZILLA KONG: THE NEW DUMPSTER-FIRE" factually proves that in any way!!!
@@davidostapenko2578 Respectfully how is it getting out of hand when we have had this for 20 years? All of his live-action films in the 21st century have been stripped of the fantastical.
Oh yeah when I said consistency I wasn’t saying we currently have great consistency within our multiple universes we like. I think Invincible is the best example of not breaking their own rules. For example Invincible isn’t realistic but it still doesn’t have Mark beating Nolan just for the sake of the protagonist winning. Mark learns valuable lessons and can’t just power scale jump to Omni man’s level. I like how you bring up Batman just eating complete shit on his escaped crusader jump and is fine. Great point and great video man!
Season 2 was such a boring slog. And then the last scene 10 minutes of the season has me waiting for season 3. The Boys was kind of the same way. I wish we had gotten more season of Amazon's The Tick. Maybe a crossover, being ni near indestructible and so damn strong It would be comedy gold watching him try to lecture his way threw the boys verse.
@@gitss7367 yeah the boys is all over the place in terms of the writing quality for sure.
Get well soon Omni!
the way he shifts his suit into a glider always confused me
Mind if someone that's been playing superheroic RPG systems since the late 1980's chimes in with a fun morsel? If Batman is converted into those systems as generally depicted, he almost always end up with clearly superhuman statistics. In one of the early attempts to make a DC RPG (it MIGHT be the first one, I'm not certain), making Batman in the system actually cost more points than Superman - although in fairness, that's because of a math bug in Supermans write-up, but the point stands.
And that's without getting to the levels of BatGod we saw toward the end of the Crisis Era of DC, when Batman is casting magical spells against Circe (Amazons Attack, no I'm not making this up), hypnotizing a Green Lanter, creating nanites to turn an alien's skin into magnesium (JLA Tower of Babel storyline, and those are just the worst offenders)... and also without invoking sarcastic elements like his clear Null Intelligence field that causes characters with college degrees to suddenly lose thirty or forty IQ points whenever Batman is in panel (poor Superman and Kyle Raynor GL were often the hardest hit).
A different superheroic RPG system (Aberrant, from White Wolf) had a sidebar article in one of its final products making an abridged argument that Batman actually *IS* superpowered, it's just that his powers aren't as obvious physically. And in fairness, his insane recovery powers are a staple of genre fiction anyway so it's not like he's the worst offender.
Bottom Line? You don't even need that bridge scene. Batman is an inherently fantastic character who would have been been lucky to have survived his third or fourth encounter in a "realistic" world. Trying to kid yourself otherwise is like pretending The Boys is more realistic than the Avengers - it isn't, it just choses different things to be fantastic about (and don't forget, The Boys was a clear parody comic that opened with the line, "I hate superheroes").
It was so cool when the wings folded out like giant stiletto-knives in Batman returns. And what the heck is unrealistic with the name Cobblepot ?
Hey Omni viewer! This question might be unrelated and I hope you don’t mind, I’m curious of what are your thoughts on Matt Reaves doing both Cloverfield and Batman, what do you think of him?
3:58 Or a winged lizard.
Clayface was originally a typical serial killer as opposed to the modern shapeshifting mud monster. I can see the Reeves films going with that variant of the character.
💙🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏💙,👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍. Take Care and get well soon Omni Viewer, great analytical video essay by the way!!!!!!!!!!
Superheroes movies do better in the fantastical because of the imagination (like with Tim Burton's Batman 1989 film). Grounded and realistic movies have their limits and are boring (like with the Dark Knight trilogy).
All the live action versions of Batman have been boring cobblers that strayed too far from the comics. The only good screen versions have been Batman The Animated Series and the two part animated adaptation of The Long Halloween. Live action never get The Joker right and never uses some of the creepy and wonderful lesser known villains like The Mad Hatter.
I disagree. We have a multiverse for crying out loud. Not every live action version of The Batman has to be exactly like the comics.
And just because it takes liberties from the source material doesn’t mean its bad. So long as what they choose to do is well executed.
Otherwise why are films like The Dark Knight so highly regarded by both casuals and die hard fans?
I think for fantastical or grounded Batman it relly depend on the execution ,peaple love the Batman because the execution grounded Batman is relly good ,the problem is we have grounded Batman in dark knight trilogy and peaple start to become boring for Grounded batman and they cannot use all batman vilain like Bane,Deathstrouk,mr Freeze ,undead talon army of quart of Owl,poison ivy,solomon grundy,mr bloom and Manbat .As for Ben Affleck Batman ,peaple don't hate the fantastical aspek of his Batman but more towart the potrail of his Batman that has no problem killing and Gundown peaple.
I watched The Batman again in the pictures last night, and yeah, he'd have been 400% dead after that scene, It stood out like a sore thumb. It's really not that great of a movie on a second watch. Gordons performance is ridiculous as are many others, Riddler is just the incel Joker, the best thing about it was Colin Farrel.
Both Penguin and the cinematography were by far the best aspects of The Batman 2022 film in my opinion.
@@FriendlyBatDoom yeah can't fault how it's shot. There's just lots of things that are meant to be serious that are over done to the point of being camp. .
Strap in - unorganized stream of conscious ramblings incoming.
On film twitter (urgh) a few weeks ago when this discourse dropped there a lot of holier-than-thou types writing screeds about how fickle and shallow fans are and how they don't have any respect for the artists vision and how they just want their glup shitto cameos and yadda yadda.
Now, for the record I agree to a point (and I stress to a point) with this. Fandom, especially for comic book films, often seems to only obsess over and care about shallow fan service. They often don't care to discuss or even learn about filmmaking in any real sense - they just have a mentality of "make it how I want it!" and that's it. And often these same people who cry about Batman films being stuck "grounded and realistic" mode don't even seem to appreciate (or even know how to identify) the formal aspects of past comic book films that DID embrace the formal aesthetic of comic books - like the Burton Batman films, Schumacher Batman Forever, Donner Superman, etc.
BUT at the same time, as somehow who both really likes the Reeves-verse so far AND finds the wishy-washy "not too fantastical" mantra to be highly annoying...these people who just love to shit on fans miss the finer points.
We're not all shallow nerds who just want to stroke off to fan service. We can overall really liked something and still find issues with it without calling for its failure, y'know? Yes. I AM annoyed the Reeves-verse makes these arbitrary "grounded" decisions by changing names and getting rid of defining characteristics. That doesn't mean I'm like, calling for the Reeves-verse to be cancelled. Not all criticism is fanboy entitlement. I'm simply tired of the trend Nolan started with this stuff. Why can't it be that simple?
A repeated talking point is that these filmmakers like Reeves and Nolan have a certain degree of shame and embarrassment of the source material - hence why they "ground it in reality" to make it palatable as "real serious movies."
The people who push back against this point say, again, that those claim embarrassment from the filmmakers don't respect the artistic vision and process and adaptation. And why would these filmmakers waste years of their lives making films about something they have contempt or dislike for.
Well, I think there nuance here. I don't think Matt Reeves dislikes Batman or the comics. I don't think he's embarrassed of the source material so much as fearful of it. Like Nolan and Burton and even Schumacher before him, Reeves is sincerely invested in the psychology and humanity of the characters in this world. He just doesn't have it in him to let loose.
He can easily tell a honest, psychological, serious Batman story that features Mr. Freeze with a big freezy gun and shit. Something being on the pure fantasy side of storytelling does not mean it can't be taken seriously.
Our oldest stories are sheer fantasy for crying out loud. Goddamn it, people. Stop being afraid of unreality.
I do think Reeves can genuinely feel passion for this stuff while also feeling cold feet about embracing its more overtly fantastical sensibilities. So while I find his approach wishy-washy, I can't ever in good faith say he doesn't care about or doesn't like the comics. He does. All it takes to know this is a deeper understanding of them below the very surface.
Two things can be true at once.
I think there is an self-conscious streak to these filmmakers in that they are afraid of critics and audiences laughing at them if they dare just earnestly embrace and showcase the sheer fantasy of comic books. Case in point, the MCU. Those filmmakers on the MCU side lampshade the hell out of everything with layers of meta humor and irony. It takes REAL filmmaking balls to tell a compelling story in a fantastical world without feeling the need to undercut it with jokes and meta humor and irony poisoned bullshit.
Not to even mention the stupidity of the "Contact Lense Cameras" and how dumb those were in regards to the "Realism. Yeah. Not a Fan of the NuBatman Movies.
LOL! Batman is Wily Coyote and George of the Jungle!! He should have gotten wings like the Falcon's, unobtainium, full-face, metal armor like Iron Man's and the Black Panther's, with a force field, like the cast of Dune's. The Penguin would win gang wars more easily with trick umbrellas, which exist in real life! KGB agents assassinated their Cold War political opponents with umbrellas that injected them with poison pellets in crowds. Spy shops today sell a bulletproof Kevlar umbrella with steel bones you can stand on! Steampunk and Elegant Gothic Lords also exist in reality, which plausibly explains a man in a tuxedo and top hat! "Cobblepot" sounds like an aristocratic or preppy English name, which is also plausible. Lots of celebrities have funny stage names, such as Gaal (Gorgoroth's lead singer), Prince Poppycock (Rococcopunk glam rock singer), Lady Gaga, or Madonna (Ciccione). Mythbusters and RUclips videos often build and demonstrate real-life sci-fi tech such as Iron Man's armor, Captain America's shield, Spider-Man's web shooters, Star Wars' lightsabers, and even Mjolnir, Thor's hammer! Even Mr. Fries could be plausibly explained as Dr. Victor DeFries, a "polar bear" (ice-water swimmer/bather), turned into a cold-resistant man, like extremophile bacteria in a top-secret military biology experiment. Truth is stranger than fiction! Fantastical supervillains such as Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, Clayface, or even the Joker can be logically explained by science fiction. The Gentleman Ghost, Zatanna, and the Demon, Etrigan can be plausibly explained by horror movie magic, like Freddy Krueger, Pinhead, or Jason Voorhees. 🤓
Silly Omni! "Realism" in movies only applies to random, nonsensical aspects of a movie! Never the action setpieces!