The crucial part of the fourth act is Batman leading the people of Gotham out of the flood. He went from being someone that everyone feared (including civilians) to being a beacon of light in the darkness, and a symbol of hope.
This! That is the reason the last act is important, it’s not about teaching Batman about justice over vengeance but hope over despair. He’d already learned his lesson about vengeance but he hadn’t grown past his trauma which is what that scene is doing.
I think the “i’m vengeance” bit actually works really well despite Riddler technically also being inspired by Batman, because Riddler is a villain. He’s a genius with a mirrored backstory to Bruce’s. The “I’m vengeance” guy is just a goon with a gun. He’s an ordinary npc, but with Batman’s catchphrase in his mouth he becomes a rogue agent. It sells the idea that Batman is negatively influencing the populace even more.
Well in that case, it would definitely be better if Riddler didn’t organize the whole thing. If the point is Riddler and Batman are foils who identify similar problems with Gotham and use methods that run opposite each other, it would make sense for both of their arcs to conclude the same way.
@@Orang_Himbleton Exactly what I thinking. If it was a bunch disaffected civilians unaffiliated with Riddler but inspired by his example, then the OP's point would make more sense. Its not just one competent, vengeful man anymore but anyone who's sick of the injustice & chooses to resort to violence. It could've even been interesting (tho I'm not saying they should've went that way) if they made the finale a point of reflection for Riddler too. Or perhaps, caught up in his anger & ego, is still ecstatic over the city getting what he sees it deserves & people following in his footsteps after his idol rejected him.
Much like Black Panther’s Killmonger, Riddler is a character with decent points to make, but those points are almost all pretense for someone whose true motivation is lashing out in anger at being personally hurt by the world.
@The Ponderer Great another tragic villain whose right and we are left to ponder if they are and answer is either they are right or are mostly incompetent and “going the wrong way” either for revenge or to “better humanity”. Whatever happened to pure evil and threatening villains that were never provoked to begin with and sadistically caused mayhem. Scale isn’t balance anymore and every villain is “cOmpex” and “tragic” and “has a point” and “nucaned”
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 what’s your point? Villains should only be evil and have no nuance or character? Criminals are just evil and have no reason to be criminals? Villains that have a point exist because of the way the real world works.
@@feltmelon lol that’s dumbest statement I heard. People like you are the reason humanity is degrading in competence. I never said I wanted every villain to be the same. What’s wrong with having a mix of various types of evils? Some who have a reason and some who don’t? It’s not balanced anymore, and some people hurt others not cause they are “saving the world” but because they either enjoy picking on others or hold a unreasonable grudge Also whatever happened to complex characters not having some alterior anti hero motive but both sides holding grudges against each other? You must have never been bullied in school. Otherwise you wouldn’t make that generalization and be dismissive.
@That Movie Nitpicker I never said I wanted every villain to be the same. What’s wrong with having a mix of various types of evils? Some who have a reason and some who don’t? It’s not balanced anymore, and some people hurt others not cause they are “saving the world” but because they either enjoy picking on others or hold a unreasonable grudge Also whatever happened to complex characters not having some alterior anti hero motive but both sides holding grudges against each other? You must have never been bullied in school. Otherwise you wouldn’t make that generalization and be dismissive.
While I understand why you feel this way, I think you are a bit too hung up on keeping the film short. The difference between the third act "save Selena from vengeance" and the fourth act "give up vengeance" is that with the former is "the alcoholic stops a young kid from taking their first drink" versus the latter "the alcoholic makes the active choice to throw the bottle away". The through line - the thematic heart of the film - is Bruce letting go of the selfish need for vengeance under the facade of being the only person who can help and actually do the work of helping the city. The corruption wasn't just crooked officials and criminals - it's the apathy of those that have the ability to make change and don't.
I also think he was wrong to label Batman arresting Falcone as a direct tie to resolving "who killed his parents" as Alfred explained that he doesn't know for sure if he did. I feel like the stuff with Bruce's parents ends after the scene with Alfred. It's all settled and cleared up. And even if it is, that's the end of Bruce's arc. Not Batman's.
I don't necessarily agree with the second I am Vengeance scene being redundant. Yeah him taking Falcone in is him choosing justice, but it's an easy choice. He's still beating up bad guys and going after them. The second scene shows him that he needs to be more then the guy who beats up bad guys.
Interestingly, apparently, Warner studio execs actually fought Reeves to cut the "fourth act" scene with the Riddler goons at the Mayor rally after January 6th happened for fear of it being too similar but Reeves deemed it too important to the story to cut. ALSO note- the final season of Gotham did a No Man's Land too (and is my personal fav adaptation outside of the INCREDIBLE novelization)
Too similar? Come on, a targeted terrorist attack at a political rally and a bunch of idiots parading around a landmark and achieving absolutely nothing aren't really all that comparable. Anyone that actually thought of Jan 6th whilst watching that scene needs to get out more.
Was going to comment about Gotham as well, as soon as he discussed No Man's Land. That's my favorite adaptation of Batman, too. The show's Riddler, Penguin, and Joker(s) are my definitive versions in live action, only contested by Heath Ledger.
Another defense for the 4th act, I personally feel like that scene where Batman saves the people in the water and helps rescue teams in the rubble is one or the best of the movie. It showcases Batman actually *being* better. If the movie ended with Bruce debating his effect or even fully deciding to do better without actually showing, it would feel hollow. Of course, there's that scene with Selina, but I feel like there would need to be something more. Batman helping people at the end concludes his arc from vengeance fueled vigilante to hope of Gotham
You're absolutely right. To quote another comment I read on here: "The difference between the third act "save Selena from vengeance" and the fourth act "give up vengeance" is that with the former is "the alcoholic stops a young kid from taking their first drink" versus the latter "the alcoholic makes the active choice to throw the bottle away""
The thing about The Riddler is that his “revolutionary” motivations weren’t motivated so much out of trying make the city “better” in his own skewed way, they were based on his desire for revenge towards the city. Seeing Bruce Wayne as a child getting attention for the death of his parents while he was suffering in the orphans home incited his personal vendetta towards not just the corrupt Gotham elite, it was EVERYONE. He may have had some points but it was not as based on trying to make a better society out of the city as it was an elaborate act of vengeance under the facade of justice. P.S. The scenes of him looking like a far-right terrorist live-streaming on the dark web also kinda allude to this, at least to me lol
@@MilkyWayGrump That is exactly how the film failed Riddler as a character. The plot makes Riddler commit the final massacre just so Batman is justified in beating him. There is nothing in the story earlier that indicates Riddler doesn't care about the people of Gatham. That's what makes the second Third Act feels like purposeful character assassination.
There’s a difference between Batman discouraging Catwoman from following vengeance and Batman understanding that he himself is following vengeance and overcoming it, so I would argue that the third and fourth acts as you’ve dubbed them are thematically distinct
All Batman was doing was discouraging death not vengeance. In this moment he was also very selfish thinking about how killing falcons will effect her and not how killing falcone will effect Gotham. This is why I like the goon saying I’m vengeance. That goon IS Gotham and he was finally face to face with how his decisions are effecting others and not just himself
Why do we need to get to know Batman?? Everyone knows the dynamic. Question: If the problem is the Tom Wayne founded fund. Why is it Bruce Wayne didn't freeze the fund?? Couldn't Bruce Wayne order an IRS audit the fund??
@@ryanlesner0000ninja why do we need to get to know batman? Just because we already know the dynamic and generally how batman works doesn’t mean we should get to know the intricacies of THIS VERSION of him. Each version is extremely different, and if we just treated them as as perfect copies of the same character then he would be much less interesting.
@@willcooper8028 They have remade batman so many times that everyone knows his back story. Dead Parents. Fights crime. Dresses as a bat. No one cares that this batman hates Alfred.
@@ryanlesner0000ninja he doesn’t hate Alfred, but he does have a much more rebellious teen type relationship with Alfred than we’ve seen before, which is interesting. There are also many other details of his character that make him unique. We’ve never seen a Batman as reclusive and hopeless as him. We’ve never really seen a Batman spend so much time stuck on exacting vengeance. We’ve never seen a Bruce Wayne who is so quiet. Even if we already know the batman origin, we don’t already know how THIS SPECIFIC Batman has been affected by that origin. Finding that out is a big part of what makes each take on the character feel unique. If Keaton and Conroy and Bale and Pattinson all played the character exactly the same, I would be much less interested in their movies/shows.
I think the extra ending is more about Batman confronting his relationship with the city and its people and figthing to change the image he has built and the effect he has had on the people
I generally agree with most of your points but I heavily disagree with the whole "Batman already learned to not be violent with falcone" thing, the point of the moment with the riddler goon isn't Bruce learning violence is bad and the system is important. It's Bruce learning that he needs to be a dumbbell l symbol of hope instead of a symbol of fear which he didn't learn before the fourth act
What I took from the movie was that it was an actual origin story. It showed how Bruce became batman, and not just a child lashing out. It showed how he finally realized that him just being the monster in the dark was making everything worse.
I think of it was more of as jumping immediately to the second film where the hero has come into their own but is still yet to face some uncomfortable realities about what they do and what it means to be a certain symbol. This Batman's first year would've been presumably similar in Batman: Year One where he learned to adopt a persona & inspire fear but not how to actually help the city.
While I agree, I do think it would have been better served in a sequel. Then we could spend the movie with Bruce grappling with what The Batman means to him and the world before deciding that he needs it to symbolize hope...
The fourth act was my favorite part of the movie. It has some of the most accurate Batman scenes any Movie has ever had. Batman helping people and inspiring hope in the innocent. The way Batman interacts with the victims of crime, matters more to me than the way he interacts with criminals.
@@legojedimasterplokoon2173 he was using the Blake Snyder three act structure. In this the third act contains the finale. He also says fourth act like the story was written in four acts when it wasn’t.
The 4th act gives Batman a chance to demonstrate everything he learned throughout the movie. Batman has several Japanese references, like his ninja esthetic being the most obvious. All Japanese stories have 4 to 5 acts. An introduction, 2-3 acts of conflict & conclusion.
The fourth act is the finale which is why it culminates the ideas presented in the film. That’s why I think it’s not a fourth act it’s a finale. The Riddler is an anarchist which is what Batman would be if he didn’t have any virtue..The Riddler has always been an anarchist. Why people like anarchist sometimes is because they start as ‘revolutioners’ but their true goal has always been full destruction of society
@@mayacollins3447 The Riddler isn't an anarchist. He's a deeply damaged and highly skilled person lashing out at the world because he didn't get the support he needed. Also, the way you use "anarchism" here is factually not what anarchists actually advocate for. It's not about revolution, it's about disempowering the state and reducing harm, which it's pretty obvious the Riddler doesn't really care about.
@@demetergrasseater revolution literally advocate for 'disempowering the state' or changing the state. In Gotham the state being not the government but just the 'general people in charge'. The Riddler is the rejection of the authority and causes a disturbance which can cause anarchy. This anarchy can also be framed as a revolution because revolution is also about disturbance and change. Revolution is usually coded positive but revolution at the end of the day is neutral. What The Riddler is doing is anarchy in the sense of the general term which is to create disturbance, not in the sense of the political belief of anarchy.
Am I crazy or was Riddler from the beginning set on blowing up Gotham? This isn’t a Flagsmashers situation where the plot suddenly went left turn he was from the beginning set on destroying Gotham.
@@sotonamispams I mean I just assumed that because there’s never a moment in the movie where the implication was that he WASN’T going to blow the waterline up. You also have this shot when he’s putting the bomb on the DA where it zooms out and you seen how high the water is on the wall, which I thought was foreshadowing that he was going to blow it up.
@@yash_kapoor Hm... it's been pretty much a year since I've seen it so I think I'm due for a rewatch. Thank you! I'll keep my eyes open for foreshadowing and clues that help the viewer figure out Riddler's plan.
Falcon shows Bruce justice, the film’s finale shows Batman needs to be hope instead of just vigilante. Could it be tighter? Sure. Ironically this ending was the thing I liked the most about this Batman movie.
I completely agree. Yeah, hope is generally Superman's thing, but in a DC where Superman had to be too cool for that, I'm glad someone got to bear that standard. And honestly I love the idea of Batman realizing he needs to inspire hope in Gotham. It feels like the kind of thing the DCAU Batman might have thought during the Justice League and JLU runs.
Totally agree, I loved the 4th act because it's the moment that defines the character : even if he a man in the shadow, his job *has to be* being a light to guide the city.
while you’ve made some great points, i don’t agree. i believe riddler is hungry for vengeance, not just change. he doesn’t want to clean out the corruption, he’s more childish than that, he’s looking to take out his anger on those that pretend to help only to gain, he sees bella as just another one. his goal is only to take his anger out, not to “fix gotham”
yep, he is hungry for "vengeance" just like batman in the beggining of the movie until he sees the effect that this mentality has on people and the influence that he is having and moves on from that ,focusing more on helping people and trying to change the city. i mean its almost like this is batmans whole arc or something
@@asura7915 yeah, i feel like batman said those words to selena about paying, but he still didn’t understand how similar him and riddler were… we see that on the arkham scene, he hadn’t learned anything yet, the words he said to selena meant something to him, but it wasn’t the message he was giving to the city
what supports the riddler being an agent of vengeance? what about his motives were childish in any way? seems like youre projecting your desires onto the film because you want to like it instead of judging based on its actual merits.
Get where you're coming from, but disagree. Riddler is clearly established as vengeance seeking as well, the fourth act is the one that PROPERLY teaches Batman about not being vengeance (sure he didn't want vengeance against Falcone but that was more about stopping Selina. He doesn't learn to stop himself from that). Plus, that last scene where he ACTUALLY saves people is far more important than saving Falcone.
And him arresting Falcone is less about vengeance and more about saving Selina from becoming - who he thinks defines the ultimate criminal - a murderer. When Riddler tells him he's inspired by him, it's the first time Batman hears something like that. So he denies it and refuses to believe it. Then, when the goon LITERALLY spits back what he spews out, he can't run from it anymore. Much like as Bruce, he couldn't run from the idea of his father being perfect and Alfred not being a loved one. Same with his views on crime. It all goes together neatly depending on how you view it.
lol no the riddler is in no way established as a bringer of vengeance. n bruce already learned the lesson. saying "no now he REALLY learned it" is embarrassingly bad writing/justification of bad writing on your part.
@@crushedscouter9522 "In no way established as a bringer of vengeance." Yeah. He is. On two different levels. In his public videos and his private videos. The public videos contain constant references to him exposing and shining a light on the corrupt elite as payback for crime and suffering. The private videos contain his true plan: destroying the city and everyone in it, regardless of their wealth or status merely because of the hardships he and his followers endured. Both are vengeance. Rebelling against the established order for the purpose of punishing and ruining those who wronged you with past misdeeds is nearly the exact definition of vengeance.
The other thing worth noting in the argument of Batman being “bad” for Bruce and Gotham is that at the beginning of the movie, Alfred tells him off for ditching a meeting with the accountants. Bruce has been neglecting the Wayne assets and could have detected the corruption earlier if he had just actually been Bruce Wayne instead of Batman
Perfect "neo noir," sure... But the last half of the film has Batman coming to terms with his ideology. Not that we need to harmonize the themes of Gotham's systemic injustices and conclude his character arc by having him break the cycle in order to save, not just people, but the city itself--you know, the scene where you said he was baptized. That act of self-sacrifice was triggered when he heard the Riddler crew echo his catchphrase. THAT'S basically the point of the whole film. Wait...why does it have to be "the perfect neo noir" again? And if you don't like a hopeful batman, go back to the Animated series and watch Batman save a telekinetic girl by sitting on a swing set. That show ruled because it understood why Batman worked, because he brought hope...to a neo-noir city. I think Matt Reeves gets it.
I think you make some interesting points, but I do think the Riddler never intended on fixing Gotham. He wanted vengeance. And as far as he was concerned, all of Gotham had wronged him. I think that was the idea. I think that the idea of some extremists gathering together to pull off an elaborate and horrific plan was my favorite part of the movie. It shows the dangers of influence, both through the internet and through public figures.
From the Riddler's POV fixing Gotham and getting Vengeance are one in the same. That's what Batman believed until his realization at the end. Also Riddler went through all the trouble of identifying and tracking down the exact people causing Gotham's problems. Even the flood was meant to trap one target in particular. If he just wanted to hurt random people, he could have done that at any time. If anything, the random people he did hurt were just in the way.
I loved the 4th act for this reason. Acts 1, 2, 3: Batman is a harmful presence. Act 4: Unless you are in a comic book world with Supervillains. It’s crystal clear.
There is no act four he just described the finale. The moment which he describes as the dark night of the soul is the all is lost moment him talking to the riddler can be the dark night of the soul because directly after that he learns the new information which goes neatly into the third act. At least according to Blake Snyder Save the Cat
I loved the finale when that shark was about to eat the little girl with the balloon, and then the Batman, in his 'the batspeedboat' with his 'the batsharkrepellantspray' saved the day while jumping over said shark and listening to 'the batnirvana' It really sold that whole David Fincher grimey realism vibe they were going for. I may have misremembered some of the sentient details of the climx there...but this is definitely what the finale FELT like
I think your proposed Act 4 rewrite makes a lot of sense. By making the Act 4 incident an unintended consequence of Riddler being used as a symbol, you can also explore what the unintended consequences of Batman being used as a symbol means, and therefore emphasize the importance of Batman being a beacon of Justice rather than an avatar of Fear and Vengeance through the same lens. If the rioters are a byproduct of Riddler, and Riddler is a byproduct of Batman, then the riot indiscriminately putting innocents in harm's way indirectly becomes a failing of Batman as "Fear and Vengeance" that he needs to address. This in turn encourages Batman to do better and be better on a path towards being an incorruptible symbol.
The biggest issue I had was with the joker scene at the end. I believe they should have either added the cut joker scene earlier in the movie or kept them both out. the one just doesn't work on its own.
Thank you. The deleted scene would have worked great in this movie. The plan should have been for Batman to visit The Joker at Arkham - a la Clarice and Hannibal - in every movie, trying to gain perspective on each story's main villain. He'll never be the main villain in Reeves' trilogy - sadly, I doubt we're getting more than two of these movies at this point - but, he'll still be a big part of this Batman's world. Matter of fact, I just now realized the conversation could have been really cool if they played it like Dr. House and Dr. Wilson from *House MD*. House always figured out the solution through conversation with Wilson (or Cuddy). He even says its because their processes are basically opposite, which, according to *The Dark Knight*, works for Batman and Joker. Nando's idea to have the attack at the Garden be only Riddler (and Batman)-influenced and not Riddler's plan would have been so much better, considering the negative effect Batman is having on the public. That would have been perfect. But, yeah. Cut all that mess with Riddler and Joker at Arkham from the end. Reeves did amazing work, but, those are two decisions I wish he flip-flopped on.
I will say, I think you're wrong about where the midpoint takes place in the movie. Colson dying doesn't change much - powerful people are still getting killed, Batman is still looking for answers, nothing has changed in the stakes or Batman's motivations. It's a very 'promise of the premise' scene, and does nothing to set up the ending. The true midpoint is when Riddler leaks the info about Thomas and Martha Wayne. Because that's when the stakes raise as it becomes more personal to Batman, and acts as turning point for his arc, sowing the seeds for Batman re-evaluating what he needs to be for the city. This is important because a midpoint should act as a false victory or false defeat in the story, a mirror to the eventual true victory or defeat that comes at the end of the movie. And the end of Act 2 is the inverse of that, a major defeat for the protagonist (if they're building towards a happy ending), or a major victory for the protagonist (if they're building towards a sad ending). So if you look at the movie through a lens where Riddler's leaked info is the midpoint, Batman stopping Selina from killing Falcone and subsequently arresting him as a major victory, and the city collapsing as the sad ending, I think it's still very much a three act structure.
They for sure blew it with the Riddler. They had set him up so perfectly to make the audience question Batman's vigilantism by the Riddler also fighting crime exposing and punishing Gotham's corruption to an extreme degree thus blurring the lines between the 2, then they throw it all away and make the Riddler a nonsense character that plans to be imprisoned and other nonsense. This Riddler could have been a great villain to Batman that destroys the public perception to Batman.
I think he's missing the forest for the trees here. I always read this as elevating itself above the neo-noir setting by having his perception and resolved strengthened by the events of the fourth act. It acts mostly as a final test that's checking whether or not he's just a detective who punches or a hero for the people. We don't see that last bit in the main 3 act as he's rarely saving people who are innocent
I suspect that the No Man’s Land arc will be what the penguin show explores, especially since Batman is also supposedly in it, even if for only a few minutes
And yeah I agree with what you were talking about with the flagsmashers, I've noticed a huge trend with villains who's motivation seems to be a pursuit of an anarchical society, and instead of challenging the actual beliefs, the writers just make them insanely violent for no reason other than to make them the bad guys.
I don't think Bruce learned his lesson at 9:55 through Selene. He was basically saying it's not on YOU, to be the person who sacrifices their normal life/morals/whatever for vengence. But he still thinks it's on HIM to act like that, to go out and fistfight his way to justice. He hasn't thought about changing his own actions from a warrior to someone who rescues, helps.
The only thing the fourth act did for me, that the other three didn't, was that it had very heroic moments for Batman. He rescued the people in danger for drowning, he then stuck around to help people on the roof. Very small but very heroic. Seemed very Superman of him. The electrocution/cable thing -- I didn't grasp what was going on, (which I think is a me problem), but also I didn't buy the stakes of it. I knew Batman was going to be fine. I was kinda annoyed that he didn't do anything smarter to neutralize the cable/transformer thing.
they already did "maybe the main character is a bad idea" with BVS and Man of Steel and fans hated it and didn't have the patience to do deconstruct/reconstruct over a multi-part series. a 4th act allowed them to eat their cake and have it too, appeasing fans who might have found a "Chinatown" ending too depressing to be excited about a sequel.
“The best written villains are always the ones that no matter how twisted they’re motives seem, no matter how much you want to hate them, they essentially are right!”
i think you just missunderstood He may have had some points but Riddler is not about revolution or betterment of society he is about anger and revenge towards the city that hurt him,ignored him or put him down . also the ridles and games are because he wants atention and to be seen to be "popular" for the first time
@@crushedscouter9522 I think the scene where he is talking about Bruce Wayne actually supports this his angry that he is forgotten while another child who is going through the same thing he is, has all the attention. Showing how messed up the world is and how he has carried that feeling with him.
I feel like while the film wants to be a neo noir film, it does at the end of the day acknowledge itself as a superhero film at the end of the day. So the fourth act kinda moreso serves as an epilogue and fanservice for fans who just want to see more of the superhero stuff. That's why it's filled with so much more action, higher risk and a very heroic end with Batman leading the people.
One thing I really wanted from the fourth act was for riddler to be unaware of the scheme to destroy the seawall. Like he's sitting in arkham thinking "mission accomplished," batman goes to talk to him, and when Bruce realizes that he's indirectly responsible for the riddlers actions by inspiring his more violent brand of vigilitanism, riddler watches *his* followers cross the gap from violent vigilantism to domestic terrorism.
While that could've worked in another movie that paints the Riddler as a tragic anti-hero radicalist that was trying to show the world what was wrong. He wasn't doing what he did to open the world's eyes it was to justify his personal vendetta and rally people that would help him achieve it.
@@Mario-us5xm no the ending I'm envisioning still has riddler as a pretty firm villain. He still killed those people in vengeance, not a warped sense of righteousness or a desire to fix gotham. The terrorists at the end of the movie would just go farther than he imagined with methods and targets he doesn't condone
@@NotAFakeName1 The thing is he does condone it, in his eyes the city is the illness the same way Bruce was at the beginning where he considered the city sick and how he was curing it, not as something he could get rid of and save Gotham from. Like, as long as people are lashing out to those they consider have wrong them Riddler will probably agree with it.
@@Mario-us5xm theyre not lashing out at people they think wronged them at the end Theyre just killing indiscriminately to lash out at society and/or get attention It's school shooter mentality Riddler attacks with surgical precision in the movie, which is why the ending as written doesnt fully work for me.
Maybe that kind of was the case. The Riddler - out of self pity finds comfort in validating his following. The most vulnerable we see him is pathetically thanking his internet followers.
I will say, my favorite part of the batman's 4th act is that bruce can't punch criminals out of this. The conclusion where batman for the first time in the movie saves innocents rather than punishing criminals is an aspect of batman that's nearly never given the spotlight it should. If your batman cant try to comfort a crying child you've misunderstood batman. He does what he does to make sure nobody has to suffer the way he did and the way the batman's bruce realizes that during that fourth act is something no other live action batman movie ever managed to capture. Sure its messy on the riddler's end but i'd still argue the movie is better for it.
I've said this a million times but I think The Batman and Spider-Man Homecoming have SO many things in common and Batman not throwing a batarang is an important part of that, just like Spider-Man not swinging around in Manhattan and even being afraid of heights
The thing is, even if Bruce talking Selena down was the same as him choosing to be a symbol of hope instead of vengeance (it isn't, but fine), there's still a massive problem. The people of Gotham are still terrified of him. You can't be a symbol of hope if the victims you save are more afraid of you than they are of the criminals. The scene where Batman carried that woman to the evac helicopter and then just stood there with her for a moment was probably the most Batman thing that a live-action Batman has ever done. THAT is why it was necessary.
Also I was sooo interested in that hypothetical ending with the whole Riddler didn’t cause the fourth act as part of his plan. Would have been better. Because for me that fourth act just turned the Riddler into a cardboard cutout of a villain focused on maximum mayhem.
the idea that the finale is sparked by riddler-imitators is really so inspired. it really hones in on those themes and makes the whole crisis into an example of what the "i am vengeance" line demonstrates, ties it in splendidly
I love it. This totally fixes the Riddler's inconsistent motivations. It could even be the man from the funeral, the one who talks to Bruce, who places the vans.
19:48 "Riddler's attack on Bruce Wayne is supposed to act as a proxy for an attack on Thomas Wayne, since Riddler believes Bruce has inherited Thomas's sins; which is pretty flawed reasoning but I see what he's going for." I'm sorry what? The fact that you quickly gloss over this part explains your misunderstanding of Riddler's motivations and, as a result, everything he does in the fourth act.
As a lot of people in the comments are pointing out, Riddler is a selfish individual. Both Riddler and Batman were doing their work out of selfishness, the reason why Riddler's was more effective was beause he knew what was behind the corruption and also couldn't face them head on because of his lack of strength, which he tells Batman. The thing is Bruce realizes how to fight for other people. You could say he does that metaphorically in the 3rd act with Selina, but he truly does that at the 4th act. Giving him a great character arc and a natural reason as to why he is better than riddler, he learns to not be selfish
I really like that the final clue was something that Batman missed because of his wealth privilege--it would never occur to him to think of a tool for carpeting because he's so rich, which kind of reinforces Riddler's point about Bruce Wayne.
The Batman is about young Batman. Before he knows who he really is. Right now he is just vengeance. He then turns into a symbol of hope and light in the darkness. I would argue that the 'second ending' is actually a continuation of the scene with Catwoman.
Ah yes, then he gives a voice over speech looking at the camera and the music builds, now a symbol of hope and it cuts..... to another ending with catwoman
Not to correct you, (although I guess I'm about to,) but the direct comic inspiration behind the fourth act was Zero Year from the New 52 Batman, not No Man's Land. Still an indirect adaptation because it didn't have the villain Doctor Death (the coolass Bat-Zeppelin) and to me the thematic buildup and execution that made that issue where the city was flooded worth it. So it still wasn't exactly a great idea to adapt the flood here. However, I love that scene with Batman saving people and literally being touched by a civilian, so that alone made it worth it to me. (Also, I believe Reeve's creative process for coming up with the story for The Batman was making a pastiche of all the popular origin stories. You can see evidence of Year One, The Long Halloween, Earth One, and Zero Year. I believe he took elements from all these stories when cobbling his own.)
I feel like you keep using "fourth act" in a derogatory way here, but you do know that there is a five act structure for organizing a plot and that three acts is not the only lens to view a script, right?
I don't think the 4th act is about him learning about vengeance. I think it's a turning point where Batman stops just simply fighting crime and starts saving Gotham citizens. He jumps to the cable and chooses to sacrifice his safety to save the people from electrocution. In the beginning, he beats up the clown thugs and the citizen is afraid of Batman. By the end, the citizens take his hand and hold on tight. Also, the entire movie is quite literally coming out of the shadows. By this final scene, he sparks a flare, and he becomes the only source of light in the darkness, leading the people to safety.
While I think your suggested change would work, I disagree that it's necessary because I think it's motivated by misreading the Riddler's motivations - you're taking what he says at face value when (to me), it always read as talking points to rile up people and outwardly justify what was simply a little boy sad and angry that he was forgotten and neglected. His attack on a broader Gotham is him lashing out at who he really believes is at fault: the city itself, the people who live in it, not just the corrupt system that was the mechanism for what happened. His rhetoric's just there to get others on his side. Of course, that reading's probably motivated by real world parallels, of people using somewhat comprehensible, reasonable, even appealing rhetoric to stoke anger, hatred, and more.
Gonna be honest, i hate this movie. Not only does to end twice, the characters are boring and uninteresting, the plot is boring, and it was WAY to long
It was nice to see the Riddler, who is actually one of the hardest villians for Batman to defeat each time and probably up there with the Joker in being dangerous, finally get to be effective and actually kinda cool. But it of course was squandered with the ending just like how I was hoping if they do give this movie sequels I wanted to see them finally do the "people turn against Batman" story where they think Batman is either causing his villians or working with them in some way.
The movie was released 14-months after the Jan6th Insurrection and the zeitgeist is that you can't make Riddler altruistic/empathetic as it will condone their actions. You have to make clear lines now, unlike in the past, because of how susceptible some people can be too messaging.
So glad that somebody did a video on this and I found it. At one point I almost started RUclips channel myself to talk about this. When I first watched the movie in the theatre, I actually googled "The Batman 3 act structure" right after its ending and found nothing. All the bits after killing Falcone (including Riddler being captured on purpose, which in my opinion did not accomplish anything of importance for his plan) do seem like a bonus content. The only point of difference between our viewpoints is that I believe there are actually 5 acts, but the first two are both really short. 1. The first part is everything before Riddler shows up - the character of Batman and his place in Gotham's life. 2. Riddler's first crime and challenge thrown at Batman. The 4th act (3rd in the video) is the resolution for 2nd act. The 5th act (4th in the video) is the resolution of 1st - Batman finally finds his place, being a symbol of hope instead of fear. But this is really not communicated well throughout the movie, I just think this way from the point of someone who really dove deep into this on multiple re-watchs, audience does not feel that the first act is actually 2 separate acts. The outcome is that final act does feel like the bonus content of "The lost world: Jurassic Park" in San Diego.
I remember first watching in theatres, I literally forgot about the riddler because of how much I got invested into the Catwoman and falcone story, when it pulled back to the riddler I was shocked
The riddler basicly won. He proved himself to smarter. Batman failed to stop the flooding. All those people died at the end. This was a poor remake of seven. But batman does learn a listen of day, and now he doesn't need to be batman to help the city. When everyone the film is a better detective then batman.
I strongly disagree with you, Nando, that "I am vengeance" ending was redundant and you're misinterpreting what the scene was trying to convey. The scene when he tells Selina that "she doesn't have to pay with" Falcone is just one of several scenes that supports what we as the audience already know, as well as Batman believing of himself, that our protagonist is morally superior than both the criminals and the cops. He even tells Gordon, "no guns" in the moment at the orphanage. The "vengeance" ending is meant to expose to the audience, and Batman himself, that the sanctimonious perception we had of Batman (and that Batman held of himself) is complete bullcrap. The "vengeance" moment is when he realizes there wasn't much difference between him and Riddler, and that encourages him to find a better way, to seek justice instead of vengeance.
I agree with everything you said in this video but I thinking another reason they did this is to establish the main villain of the movie as the Riddler who has general public name recognition as opposed to Falcone. It’s hard to market a movie where two two most recognizable villains, Penguin and Riddler, are B plots to Falcone who most people don’t know.
I thought the same thing when watching it felt like the 4th part could have been the opening to a second movie in my opinion like his not fully done with riddler who teams with joker inside the asylum while Batman faces off against someone else who gets put in Arkham then they start running the asylum in a 3rd movie and Batman has to stop then would have been cool
Everyone arguing against Nando should watch Marvel's Defenders of the Status Quo. Really expands on the idea of villains needing to be unsympathetic. People are conflating Killmonger or Riddler's starting ideological beliefs with the beliefs the movie imposes to make them unsympathetic.
I feel like you have framed this wrong in certain points. Riddlers objective was never to just take out the corrupt officials that were part of the renewal project. That was Batman’s mistake and you have made it here. Riddler never believed that the city would change.He thought Real would end up corrupt as everyone else.
I love the Batman but my only gripe is basically the same thing most people complain about it. It has two endings like you pointed. I think it fell into the comic book movie trope of having a big CGI fight scene at the end (Which I think shouldn't be for every CBM). The Batman's meeting with the Riddler at Arkham could've been a perfect wrap for the movie. I have an idea regarding how I would've done it but I'll let this one pass.
Maybe I'm just too patient, since we can expect a sequel anyway, but in my opinion the 4th act was not needed at all. It felt tagged on, because superhero movies have to have big action set pieces. Whatever Batman got to display in that act, it could have been done in a sequel instead.
what you're missing about the riddler here is that he'd been completely untouched and his plans went largely without error; the first 3 acts aren't just successful for him, they're his rollout. the thing is, in a corrupt society it's easy for people to find heroes in madmen that are courageous/insane enough to enact change.
So the thing I think that the 4th act gives us better than anything in the first three is the transformation of Batman from just being Vengeance (or Justice) to being someone who is also there to help lead people. This is also where he starts being a symbol to call back to a Dark Knight trilogy line. I also believe this is where he realises fully the part that Bruce Wayne has to play in his activities. He can't just fix things as Batman, he also needs to as Bruce Wayne. Isn't the retaining wall basically a symbol for "Renewal" and destroying it brings the city itself back to its knees. Gotham itself is one of the guilty parties.
One thing that makes the 4th act escalation make more sense is the riddler says himself that he can't do everything he wants because he doesn't have the capacity. He talks about "targetted violence" as a tool. Now we never get the explicit answer to what he was really hoping to accomplish with this terrorism. If we map it onto real world examples the destruction can be the aim. The Riddler doesn't want to fix Gotham he wants to destroy it. His act of vengeance isn't just against those who created the city that hurt him but the city itself. Its like a comic book Unabomber.
Sound analysis; I agree with all of it. The repercussions to Riddler's actions are a disaffected group of extremists hunting all politicians (for which no disguises would be required) and civilian power structures. Escalation that breaks the focussed, determined path he'd been on. That would have a much stronger narrative.
The Riddler’s goal isn’t to help people, it’s to enact vengeance. The Gotham sea wall was built using blood money, so in his eyes, Gotham did not deserve to have it.
Exactly! As is the case with other nuanced villains with valid points. Killmonger; Vulture; the Flagsmashers (or as I like to call them, the cheap Killmonger knockoffs); Gorr, etc. Superheroes aren’t defenders of the status quo or whatever. They typically agree with what those sorts of villains are saying; they’re just obligated to put a stop to them because those villains use murderous and destructive methods that often make them as bad as those who wronged them.
@@q94141 A lot of portrayals of superheroes really do defend the status quo but in this movie's case, I think it goes out of its way to avoid that. Not just for the contrast between vengeance and helping people present in the Riddler, but also how Batman gets criticized for prioritizing personal vengeance, and for avoiding funding broader social change as Bruce Wayne. So I actually think this is kind of an exception among superhero films.
I agree. Felt like WB demanded a big climactic action scene. The Riddler goons came out of nowhere. If they showed that uprising happening gradually throughout the movie, it would have helped
You're looking at a hard pivot when it's really a slow build. Riddler targets corruption through the renewal project and the finally, the actual third act, he FORCES that renewal, which he tried to do the whole time. Not just through the corruption in the system but through the city itself. The movie is full of the shell of renewal through the city in the background. Even the place where Gordon and Batman meet is a shell of a building that was never finished. That final act was needed to finish Batman's journey. Sure he learned vengeance was wrong and he needed to be more than Batman to help the city, but he needed to crystalize what it means to be Batman, and what roll he needs to fill for Gotham.
I really didn’t like this movie. If someone does, that’s fine. I’m not saying you have bad taste. But I totally agree that this ending made no sense at all to me. And for me it was when the vans blow up and the levee breaks. I recall watching this in theaters and immediately asking myself when did Gotham ever have a levee?? And it’s fine if they have one. But the movie never set it up. The misunderstood what a McGuffin is and why/how you use it. If you’re going to use it in the third act, you have to announce it in the first. And if they ever did have it in the first act, I missed it by a lot. And that’s not how you use it effectively. It shouldn’t be something you miss. Something you don’t think about? Sure. But when it’s used in the third act, you should say Oh yeah! And my biggest gripe of this movie is that it’s them taking the bones of the Hush story by Loeb and Lee and telling it wrong. They tell you Hush is the Riddler from the first minute. So when they do the third act reveal that this faceless guy targeting Bruce Wayne through his secrets is this Edward Nygma guy, we all are like Yeah no duh! I think if you know very little about Batman, this can be a very entertaining movie. But if you’ve seen other Batman films, cartoons, comics, media etc. this just isn’t worth watching. And for all the people who say they finally get the mood right, just lower the brilliance on your TV when you watch any other Batman content. Then it’s just as dark as this movie. But at least then it doesn’t feel like it’s out to insult your knowledge of Batman. Because to me, this feels like a movie made to be the antithesis of movies made for nerds. Instead of nostalgia treats, you get nostalgia attacks. But the acting in this by everyone is top notch. Can’t knock anyone’s performance. So the movie gets points
You are missing something very important. This is not JUST a neo noir movie, it's also a super hero movie, more than that, a batman movie. The first third act ended in a very intense and emotionally heavy way, but it still lacked that cathardic moment, that gutpunch and first breath feeling when everything seems lost, then batman comes up with a clever solution and shows why he is so awesome. And I think the true ending delivers that beautifuly, and the scene with Selina and Falcone is very VERY diferent from that one goon scene; in the first batman is simply doing what he does, being a boring hyper-moralist, in the second he is forced to stare at himself through a criminal, see what vengeance can do, it's not about killing or not, it's about what you represent as a symbol. The way this movie shifts the boring old three act structure for me is one of it's strengths.
Your alternate Act 4 would make a great origin for this movie's version of Cluemaster, someone who shares Riddler's M.O. and having him be one of Riddler's Dark Web followers who set up his own scheme in the middle of Riddler's would feel... Fitting.
Man you named your podcast right. You can plug it so easily and naturally in every episode without even rocking the flow of a sentence with an aside interjected.
Imagine calling Patrick "its a movie about space wizards intended for kids" Willlems as "your favorite creators" and "youtube friends." Then again you coped all over She-Hulk calling it "great" as it literally insults you, so I shouldnt be surprised.
Act 3 is about Batman deciding not to embody vengeance, Act 4 is him realizing that he also can't save Gotham through fear. He becomes a symbol of hope to the people of Gotham, which is payoff to the guy he rescues at the beginning of the move being terrified of him. I'm not really sure where you get that having anything to do with vengeance.
The crucial part of the fourth act is Batman leading the people of Gotham out of the flood. He went from being someone that everyone feared (including civilians) to being a beacon of light in the darkness, and a symbol of hope.
This! That is the reason the last act is important, it’s not about teaching Batman about justice over vengeance but hope over despair. He’d already learned his lesson about vengeance but he hadn’t grown past his trauma which is what that scene is doing.
You can’t believably do this in just one act, and they didn’t.
@@АскарКульчанов Agreed. I like the message, but this should have been what the second movie was about
Do that in the second film then
@@supergrover1746 then the film does not work if batman is known at the end as a villian. it was absolutely necessary to end like this.
I think the “i’m vengeance” bit actually works really well despite Riddler technically also being inspired by Batman, because Riddler is a villain. He’s a genius with a mirrored backstory to Bruce’s. The “I’m vengeance” guy is just a goon with a gun. He’s an ordinary npc, but with Batman’s catchphrase in his mouth he becomes a rogue agent. It sells the idea that Batman is negatively influencing the populace even more.
Well in that case, it would definitely be better if Riddler didn’t organize the whole thing. If the point is Riddler and Batman are foils who identify similar problems with Gotham and use methods that run opposite each other, it would make sense for both of their arcs to conclude the same way.
@@Orang_Himbleton Exactly what I thinking. If it was a bunch disaffected civilians unaffiliated with Riddler but inspired by his example, then the OP's point would make more sense. Its not just one competent, vengeful man anymore but anyone who's sick of the injustice & chooses to resort to violence.
It could've even been interesting (tho I'm not saying they should've went that way) if they made the finale a point of reflection for Riddler too. Or perhaps, caught up in his anger & ego, is still ecstatic over the city getting what he sees it deserves & people following in his footsteps after his idol rejected him.
Much like Black Panther’s Killmonger, Riddler is a character with decent points to make, but those points are almost all pretense for someone whose true motivation is lashing out in anger at being personally hurt by the world.
Exactly, perfect way of putting it
@The Ponderer Great another tragic villain whose right and we are left to ponder if they are and answer is either they are right or are mostly incompetent and “going the wrong way” either for revenge or to “better humanity”. Whatever happened to pure evil and threatening villains that were never provoked to begin with and sadistically caused mayhem. Scale isn’t balance anymore and every villain is “cOmpex” and “tragic” and “has a point” and “nucaned”
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 what’s your point? Villains should only be evil and have no nuance or character? Criminals are just evil and have no reason to be criminals? Villains that have a point exist because of the way the real world works.
@@feltmelon lol that’s dumbest statement I heard. People like you are the reason humanity is degrading in competence. I never said I wanted every villain to be the same. What’s wrong with having a mix of various types of evils? Some who have a reason and some who don’t? It’s not balanced anymore, and some people hurt others not cause they are “saving the world” but because they either enjoy picking on others or hold a unreasonable grudge Also whatever happened to complex characters not having some alterior anti hero motive but both sides holding grudges against each other? You must have never been bullied in school. Otherwise you wouldn’t make that generalization and be dismissive.
@That Movie Nitpicker I never said I wanted every villain to be the same. What’s wrong with having a mix of various types of evils? Some who have a reason and some who don’t? It’s not balanced anymore, and some people hurt others not cause they are “saving the world” but because they either enjoy picking on others or hold a unreasonable grudge Also whatever happened to complex characters not having some alterior anti hero motive but both sides holding grudges against each other? You must have never been bullied in school. Otherwise you wouldn’t make that generalization and be dismissive.
While I understand why you feel this way, I think you are a bit too hung up on keeping the film short. The difference between the third act "save Selena from vengeance" and the fourth act "give up vengeance" is that with the former is "the alcoholic stops a young kid from taking their first drink" versus the latter "the alcoholic makes the active choice to throw the bottle away". The through line - the thematic heart of the film - is Bruce letting go of the selfish need for vengeance under the facade of being the only person who can help and actually do the work of helping the city. The corruption wasn't just crooked officials and criminals - it's the apathy of those that have the ability to make change and don't.
The alcoholic thing was a great analogy
Great way to explain it
I was gonna say the same thing, but this analogy summed it up perfectly
I also think he was wrong to label Batman arresting Falcone as a direct tie to resolving "who killed his parents" as Alfred explained that he doesn't know for sure if he did.
I feel like the stuff with Bruce's parents ends after the scene with Alfred. It's all settled and cleared up.
And even if it is, that's the end of Bruce's arc. Not Batman's.
Loved the film. Make it longer!
I don't necessarily agree with the second I am Vengeance scene being redundant. Yeah him taking Falcone in is him choosing justice, but it's an easy choice. He's still beating up bad guys and going after them.
The second scene shows him that he needs to be more then the guy who beats up bad guys.
Interestingly, apparently, Warner studio execs actually fought Reeves to cut the "fourth act" scene with the Riddler goons at the Mayor rally after January 6th happened for fear of it being too similar but Reeves deemed it too important to the story to cut.
ALSO note- the final season of Gotham did a No Man's Land too (and is my personal fav adaptation outside of the INCREDIBLE novelization)
Was going to mention the Gotham TV version of No Man's Land, it was done better than The Dark Knight Rises in my opinion.
Too similar? Come on, a targeted terrorist attack at a political rally and a bunch of idiots parading around a landmark and achieving absolutely nothing aren't really all that comparable. Anyone that actually thought of Jan 6th whilst watching that scene needs to get out more.
Greg Rucka wrote an incredible book. My only gripe is it wasn't a trilogy like LotR.
Was going to comment about Gotham as well, as soon as he discussed No Man's Land. That's my favorite adaptation of Batman, too. The show's Riddler, Penguin, and Joker(s) are my definitive versions in live action, only contested by Heath Ledger.
Another defense for the 4th act, I personally feel like that scene where Batman saves the people in the water and helps rescue teams in the rubble is one or the best of the movie. It showcases Batman actually *being* better. If the movie ended with Bruce debating his effect or even fully deciding to do better without actually showing, it would feel hollow. Of course, there's that scene with Selina, but I feel like there would need to be something more. Batman helping people at the end concludes his arc from vengeance fueled vigilante to hope of Gotham
I loved the whole movie. Wasn't bored for a second. My favourite ever Batman movie.
You're absolutely right. To quote another comment I read on here: "The difference between the third act "save Selena from vengeance" and the fourth act "give up vengeance" is that with the former is "the alcoholic stops a young kid from taking their first drink" versus the latter "the alcoholic makes the active choice to throw the bottle away""
The thing about The Riddler is that his “revolutionary” motivations weren’t motivated so much out of trying make the city “better” in his own skewed way, they were based on his desire for revenge towards the city. Seeing Bruce Wayne as a child getting attention for the death of his parents while he was suffering in the orphans home incited his personal vendetta towards not just the corrupt Gotham elite, it was EVERYONE.
He may have had some points but it was not as based on trying to make a better society out of the city as it was an elaborate act of vengeance under the facade of justice.
P.S. The scenes of him looking like a far-right terrorist live-streaming on the dark web also kinda allude to this, at least to me lol
This is how I put it:
Riddler doesn't care in the slightest that the Gotham Elite are (still) hurting people.
He cares that they hurt HIM.
@@MilkyWayGrump exactly
i agree
Thank you I was about to type something exactly like this
@@MilkyWayGrump That is exactly how the film failed Riddler as a character. The plot makes Riddler commit the final massacre just so Batman is justified in beating him. There is nothing in the story earlier that indicates Riddler doesn't care about the people of Gatham. That's what makes the second Third Act feels like purposeful character assassination.
There’s a difference between Batman discouraging Catwoman from following vengeance and Batman understanding that he himself is following vengeance and overcoming it, so I would argue that the third and fourth acts as you’ve dubbed them are thematically distinct
All Batman was doing was discouraging death not vengeance. In this moment he was also very selfish thinking about how killing falcons will effect her and not how killing falcone will effect Gotham.
This is why I like the goon saying I’m vengeance. That goon IS Gotham and he was finally face to face with how his decisions are effecting others and not just himself
Why do we need to get to know Batman??
Everyone knows the dynamic.
Question: If the problem is the Tom Wayne founded fund.
Why is it Bruce Wayne didn't freeze the fund??
Couldn't Bruce Wayne order an IRS audit the fund??
@@ryanlesner0000ninja why do we need to get to know batman? Just because we already know the dynamic and generally how batman works doesn’t mean we should get to know the intricacies of THIS VERSION of him. Each version is extremely different, and if we just treated them as as perfect copies of the same character then he would be much less interesting.
@@willcooper8028 They have remade batman so many times that everyone knows his back story. Dead Parents. Fights crime. Dresses as a bat. No one cares that this batman hates Alfred.
@@ryanlesner0000ninja he doesn’t hate Alfred, but he does have a much more rebellious teen type relationship with Alfred than we’ve seen before, which is interesting.
There are also many other details of his character that make him unique. We’ve never seen a Batman as reclusive and hopeless as him. We’ve never really seen a Batman spend so much time stuck on exacting vengeance. We’ve never seen a Bruce Wayne who is so quiet.
Even if we already know the batman origin, we don’t already know how THIS SPECIFIC Batman has been affected by that origin. Finding that out is a big part of what makes each take on the character feel unique. If Keaton and Conroy and Bale and Pattinson all played the character exactly the same, I would be much less interested in their movies/shows.
I think the extra ending is more about Batman confronting his relationship with the city and its people and figthing to change the image he has built and the effect he has had on the people
I generally agree with most of your points but I heavily disagree with the whole "Batman already learned to not be violent with falcone" thing, the point of the moment with the riddler goon isn't Bruce learning violence is bad and the system is important. It's Bruce learning that he needs to be a dumbbell l symbol of hope instead of a symbol of fear which he didn't learn before the fourth act
What I took from the movie was that it was an actual origin story. It showed how Bruce became batman, and not just a child lashing out.
It showed how he finally realized that him just being the monster in the dark was making everything worse.
I think of it was more of as jumping immediately to the second film where the hero has come into their own but is still yet to face some uncomfortable realities about what they do and what it means to be a certain symbol.
This Batman's first year would've been presumably similar in Batman: Year One where he learned to adopt a persona & inspire fear but not how to actually help the city.
I think the 4th act redeems Batman, from being in the dark (“I am the shadow”) to him being a light-bearer & leading/saving those around him
While I agree, I do think it would have been better served in a sequel. Then we could spend the movie with Bruce grappling with what The Batman means to him and the world before deciding that he needs it to symbolize hope...
The fourth act was my favorite part of the movie. It has some of the most accurate Batman scenes any Movie has ever had. Batman helping people and inspiring hope in the innocent. The way Batman interacts with the victims of crime, matters more to me than the way he interacts with criminals.
It’s your favorite part because it is not the fourth act it’s the finale
@@mayacollins3447 those are not mutually exclusive. It is the fourth and final act
@@legojedimasterplokoon2173 he was using the Blake Snyder three act structure. In this the third act contains the finale. He also says fourth act like the story was written in four acts when it wasn’t.
That’s why the deleted joker scene informs the theme so much.
“You think they deserved it”
Make since joker cut 30 hours
I disagree, because this was already the point of the movie. Joker having to spell it out belittles the audience.
@@JazukaiX I wasn’t saying to leave it in, I was saying it informed the theme
@@JazukaiX do we have some evidence that shows Batman thinks they deserved it?
The 4th act gives Batman a chance to demonstrate everything he learned throughout the movie. Batman has several Japanese references, like his ninja esthetic being the most obvious. All Japanese stories have 4 to 5 acts. An introduction, 2-3 acts of conflict & conclusion.
The fourth act is the finale which is why it culminates the ideas presented in the film. That’s why I think it’s not a fourth act it’s a finale.
The Riddler is an anarchist which is what Batman would be if he didn’t have any virtue..The Riddler has always been an anarchist. Why people like anarchist sometimes is because they start as ‘revolutioners’ but their true goal has always been full destruction of society
Work for story characters development 4 Work
@@mayacollins3447 The Riddler isn't an anarchist. He's a deeply damaged and highly skilled person lashing out at the world because he didn't get the support he needed.
Also, the way you use "anarchism" here is factually not what anarchists actually advocate for. It's not about revolution, it's about disempowering the state and reducing harm, which it's pretty obvious the Riddler doesn't really care about.
@@demetergrasseater revolution literally advocate for 'disempowering the state' or changing the state. In Gotham the state being not the government but just the 'general people in charge'.
The Riddler is the rejection of the authority and causes a disturbance which can cause anarchy. This anarchy can also be framed as a revolution because revolution is also about disturbance and change. Revolution is usually coded positive but revolution at the end of the day is neutral.
What The Riddler is doing is anarchy in the sense of the general term which is to create disturbance, not in the sense of the political belief of anarchy.
Am I crazy or was Riddler from the beginning set on blowing up Gotham? This isn’t a Flagsmashers situation where the plot suddenly went left turn he was from the beginning set on destroying Gotham.
How was his plan to flood the city set up from the beginning? I'm not disagreeing, it's just been a while since I've seen The Batman
@@sotonamispams I mean I just assumed that because there’s never a moment in the movie where the implication was that he WASN’T going to blow the waterline up. You also have this shot when he’s putting the bomb on the DA where it zooms out and you seen how high the water is on the wall, which I thought was foreshadowing that he was going to blow it up.
@@yash_kapoor Hm... it's been pretty much a year since I've seen it so I think I'm due for a rewatch. Thank you! I'll keep my eyes open for foreshadowing and clues that help the viewer figure out Riddler's plan.
@@sotonamispams they establish the water wall in the very first scene
@Yash Kapoor it's definitely established from the first moment that Riddler is willing to do anything to punish Gotham for his childhood
Falcon shows Bruce justice, the film’s finale shows Batman needs to be hope instead of just vigilante. Could it be tighter? Sure. Ironically this ending was the thing I liked the most about this Batman movie.
I completely agree. Yeah, hope is generally Superman's thing, but in a DC where Superman had to be too cool for that, I'm glad someone got to bear that standard. And honestly I love the idea of Batman realizing he needs to inspire hope in Gotham. It feels like the kind of thing the DCAU Batman might have thought during the Justice League and JLU runs.
@@dive107 Batman has always been about hope for civilians he’s fear for criminals know the difference
Falcon?
Totally agree, I loved the 4th act because it's the moment that defines the character : even if he a man in the shadow, his job *has to be* being a light to guide the city.
@@handsomesquidward5160 Falcone got autocorrected on my phone, but you get the point
while you’ve made some great points, i don’t agree. i believe riddler is hungry for vengeance, not just change. he doesn’t want to clean out the corruption, he’s more childish than that, he’s looking to take out his anger on those that pretend to help only to gain, he sees bella as just another one. his goal is only to take his anger out, not to “fix gotham”
yep, he is hungry for "vengeance" just like batman in the beggining of the movie until he sees the effect that this mentality has on people and the influence that he is having and moves on from that ,focusing more on helping people and trying to change the city. i mean its almost like this is batmans whole arc or something
@@asura7915 yeah, i feel like batman said those words to selena about paying, but he still didn’t understand how similar him and riddler were… we see that on the arkham scene, he hadn’t learned anything yet, the words he said to selena meant something to him, but it wasn’t the message he was giving to the city
@@maxchambers7902 yep .he still didnt realise the influence he had on other people
what supports the riddler being an agent of vengeance? what about his motives were childish in any way? seems like youre projecting your desires onto the film because you want to like it instead of judging based on its actual merits.
@@crushedscouter9522 oh i mean i can answer or would you rather just decide for yourself i guess?
Get where you're coming from, but disagree. Riddler is clearly established as vengeance seeking as well, the fourth act is the one that PROPERLY teaches Batman about not being vengeance (sure he didn't want vengeance against Falcone but that was more about stopping Selina. He doesn't learn to stop himself from that). Plus, that last scene where he ACTUALLY saves people is far more important than saving Falcone.
4 act works character development
And him arresting Falcone is less about vengeance and more about saving Selina from becoming - who he thinks defines the ultimate criminal - a murderer.
When Riddler tells him he's inspired by him, it's the first time Batman hears something like that. So he denies it and refuses to believe it.
Then, when the goon LITERALLY spits back what he spews out, he can't run from it anymore.
Much like as Bruce, he couldn't run from the idea of his father being perfect and Alfred not being a loved one.
Same with his views on crime.
It all goes together neatly depending on how you view it.
lol no the riddler is in no way established as a bringer of vengeance. n bruce already learned the lesson. saying "no now he REALLY learned it" is embarrassingly bad writing/justification of bad writing on your part.
@@crushedscouter9522 "In no way established as a bringer of vengeance."
Yeah. He is. On two different levels.
In his public videos and his private videos.
The public videos contain constant references to him exposing and shining a light on the corrupt elite as payback for crime and suffering.
The private videos contain his true plan: destroying the city and everyone in it, regardless of their wealth or status merely because of the hardships he and his followers endured.
Both are vengeance.
Rebelling against the established order for the purpose of punishing and ruining those who wronged you with past misdeeds is nearly the exact definition of vengeance.
The other thing worth noting in the argument of Batman being “bad” for Bruce and Gotham is that at the beginning of the movie, Alfred tells him off for ditching a meeting with the accountants. Bruce has been neglecting the Wayne assets and could have detected the corruption earlier if he had just actually been Bruce Wayne instead of Batman
Perfect "neo noir," sure... But the last half of the film has Batman coming to terms with his ideology. Not that we need to harmonize the themes of Gotham's systemic injustices and conclude his character arc by having him break the cycle in order to save, not just people, but the city itself--you know, the scene where you said he was baptized. That act of self-sacrifice was triggered when he heard the Riddler crew echo his catchphrase. THAT'S basically the point of the whole film. Wait...why does it have to be "the perfect neo noir" again? And if you don't like a hopeful batman, go back to the Animated series and watch Batman save a telekinetic girl by sitting on a swing set. That show ruled because it understood why Batman worked, because he brought hope...to a neo-noir city. I think Matt Reeves gets it.
He didn't save her, he comforted her in her final moments
@@Scroteydada In a sense he saved her by giving her peace of mind in her last moments.
I think you make some interesting points, but I do think the Riddler never intended on fixing Gotham. He wanted vengeance. And as far as he was concerned, all of Gotham had wronged him. I think that was the idea.
I think that the idea of some extremists gathering together to pull off an elaborate and horrific plan was my favorite part of the movie. It shows the dangers of influence, both through the internet and through public figures.
what in the movie backs up this idea?
From the Riddler's POV fixing Gotham and getting Vengeance are one in the same. That's what Batman believed until his realization at the end. Also Riddler went through all the trouble of identifying and tracking down the exact people causing Gotham's problems. Even the flood was meant to trap one target in particular. If he just wanted to hurt random people, he could have done that at any time. If anything, the random people he did hurt were just in the way.
I loved the 4th act for this reason. Acts 1, 2, 3: Batman is a harmful presence. Act 4: Unless you are in a comic book world with Supervillains. It’s crystal clear.
There is no act four he just described the finale. The moment which he describes as the dark night of the soul is the all is lost moment him talking to the riddler can be the dark night of the soul because directly after that he learns the new information which goes neatly into the third act. At least according to Blake Snyder Save the Cat
I loved the finale when that shark was about to eat the little girl with the balloon, and then the Batman, in his 'the batspeedboat' with his 'the batsharkrepellantspray' saved the day while jumping over said shark and listening to 'the batnirvana'
It really sold that whole David Fincher grimey realism vibe they were going for.
I may have misremembered some of the sentient details of the climx there...but this is definitely what the finale FELT like
I think your proposed Act 4 rewrite makes a lot of sense. By making the Act 4 incident an unintended consequence of Riddler being used as a symbol, you can also explore what the unintended consequences of Batman being used as a symbol means, and therefore emphasize the importance of Batman being a beacon of Justice rather than an avatar of Fear and Vengeance through the same lens. If the rioters are a byproduct of Riddler, and Riddler is a byproduct of Batman, then the riot indiscriminately putting innocents in harm's way indirectly becomes a failing of Batman as "Fear and Vengeance" that he needs to address. This in turn encourages Batman to do better and be better on a path towards being an incorruptible symbol.
The biggest issue I had was with the joker scene at the end. I believe they should have either added the cut joker scene earlier in the movie or kept them both out. the one just doesn't work on its own.
Thank you.
The deleted scene would have worked great in this movie.
The plan should have been for Batman to visit The Joker at Arkham - a la Clarice and Hannibal - in every movie, trying to gain perspective on each story's main villain.
He'll never be the main villain in Reeves' trilogy - sadly, I doubt we're getting more than two of these movies at this point - but, he'll still be a big part of this Batman's world.
Matter of fact, I just now realized the conversation could have been really cool if they played it like Dr. House and Dr. Wilson from *House MD*.
House always figured out the solution through conversation with Wilson (or Cuddy).
He even says its because their processes are basically opposite, which, according to *The Dark Knight*, works for Batman and Joker.
Nando's idea to have the attack at the Garden be only Riddler (and Batman)-influenced and not Riddler's plan would have been so much better, considering the negative effect Batman is having on the public.
That would have been perfect.
But, yeah.
Cut all that mess with Riddler and Joker at Arkham from the end.
Reeves did amazing work, but, those are two decisions I wish he flip-flopped on.
I will say, I think you're wrong about where the midpoint takes place in the movie. Colson dying doesn't change much - powerful people are still getting killed, Batman is still looking for answers, nothing has changed in the stakes or Batman's motivations. It's a very 'promise of the premise' scene, and does nothing to set up the ending.
The true midpoint is when Riddler leaks the info about Thomas and Martha Wayne. Because that's when the stakes raise as it becomes more personal to Batman, and acts as turning point for his arc, sowing the seeds for Batman re-evaluating what he needs to be for the city.
This is important because a midpoint should act as a false victory or false defeat in the story, a mirror to the eventual true victory or defeat that comes at the end of the movie. And the end of Act 2 is the inverse of that, a major defeat for the protagonist (if they're building towards a happy ending), or a major victory for the protagonist (if they're building towards a sad ending).
So if you look at the movie through a lens where Riddler's leaked info is the midpoint, Batman stopping Selina from killing Falcone and subsequently arresting him as a major victory, and the city collapsing as the sad ending, I think it's still very much a three act structure.
They for sure blew it with the Riddler. They had set him up so perfectly to make the audience question Batman's vigilantism by the Riddler also fighting crime exposing and punishing Gotham's corruption to an extreme degree thus blurring the lines between the 2, then they throw it all away and make the Riddler a nonsense character that plans to be imprisoned and other nonsense. This Riddler could have been a great villain to Batman that destroys the public perception to Batman.
The 4th act felt like a well deserved encore to me
I think he's missing the forest for the trees here. I always read this as elevating itself above the neo-noir setting by having his perception and resolved strengthened by the events of the fourth act. It acts mostly as a final test that's checking whether or not he's just a detective who punches or a hero for the people. We don't see that last bit in the main 3 act as he's rarely saving people who are innocent
I suspect that the No Man’s Land arc will be what the penguin show explores, especially since Batman is also supposedly in it, even if for only a few minutes
And yeah I agree with what you were talking about with the flagsmashers, I've noticed a huge trend with villains who's motivation seems to be a pursuit of an anarchical society, and instead of challenging the actual beliefs, the writers just make them insanely violent for no reason other than to make them the bad guys.
I don't think Bruce learned his lesson at 9:55 through Selene. He was basically saying it's not on YOU, to be the person who sacrifices their normal life/morals/whatever for vengence. But he still thinks it's on HIM to act like that, to go out and fistfight his way to justice. He hasn't thought about changing his own actions from a warrior to someone who rescues, helps.
The only thing the fourth act did for me, that the other three didn't, was that it had very heroic moments for Batman. He rescued the people in danger for drowning, he then stuck around to help people on the roof. Very small but very heroic. Seemed very Superman of him.
The electrocution/cable thing -- I didn't grasp what was going on, (which I think is a me problem), but also I didn't buy the stakes of it. I knew Batman was going to be fine. I was kinda annoyed that he didn't do anything smarter to neutralize the cable/transformer thing.
they already did "maybe the main character is a bad idea" with BVS and Man of Steel and fans hated it and didn't have the patience to do deconstruct/reconstruct over a multi-part series. a 4th act allowed them to eat their cake and have it too, appeasing fans who might have found a "Chinatown" ending too depressing to be excited about a sequel.
a movie wanting to have a complete character arc is not having it's cake and eating it too
Personally I don’t even know what the movie is about cuz I’m always asleep before the end of the first hour
“The best written villains are always the ones that no matter how twisted they’re motives seem, no matter how much you want to hate them, they essentially are right!”
i think you just missunderstood He may have had some points but Riddler is not about revolution or betterment of society he is about anger and revenge towards the city that hurt him,ignored him or put him down . also the ridles and games are because he wants atention and to be seen to be "popular" for the first time
Ridder Killed both parties I drive me crazy I don't know
what in the movie supports this?
@@crushedscouter9522 I think the scene where he is talking about Bruce Wayne actually supports this his angry that he is forgotten while another child who is going through the same thing he is, has all the attention. Showing how messed up the world is and how he has carried that feeling with him.
I feel like while the film wants to be a neo noir film, it does at the end of the day acknowledge itself as a superhero film at the end of the day. So the fourth act kinda moreso serves as an epilogue and fanservice for fans who just want to see more of the superhero stuff. That's why it's filled with so much more action, higher risk and a very heroic end with Batman leading the people.
One thing I really wanted from the fourth act was for riddler to be unaware of the scheme to destroy the seawall.
Like he's sitting in arkham thinking "mission accomplished," batman goes to talk to him, and when Bruce realizes that he's indirectly responsible for the riddlers actions by inspiring his more violent brand of vigilitanism, riddler watches *his* followers cross the gap from violent vigilantism to domestic terrorism.
While that could've worked in another movie that paints the Riddler as a tragic anti-hero radicalist that was trying to show the world what was wrong.
He wasn't doing what he did to open the world's eyes it was to justify his personal vendetta and rally people that would help him achieve it.
@@Mario-us5xm no the ending I'm envisioning still has riddler as a pretty firm villain. He still killed those people in vengeance, not a warped sense of righteousness or a desire to fix gotham. The terrorists at the end of the movie would just go farther than he imagined with methods and targets he doesn't condone
@@NotAFakeName1 The thing is he does condone it, in his eyes the city is the illness the same way Bruce was at the beginning where he considered the city sick and how he was curing it, not as something he could get rid of and save Gotham from.
Like, as long as people are lashing out to those they consider have wrong them Riddler will probably agree with it.
@@Mario-us5xm theyre not lashing out at people they think wronged them at the end
Theyre just killing indiscriminately to lash out at society and/or get attention
It's school shooter mentality
Riddler attacks with surgical precision in the movie, which is why the ending as written doesnt fully work for me.
Maybe that kind of was the case. The Riddler - out of self pity finds comfort in validating his following. The most vulnerable we see him is pathetically thanking his internet followers.
FYI the last season of the TV show Gotham was No Man’s Land. It’s hard to find Bat media without a NML arc
I will say, my favorite part of the batman's 4th act is that bruce can't punch criminals out of this. The conclusion where batman for the first time in the movie saves innocents rather than punishing criminals is an aspect of batman that's nearly never given the spotlight it should. If your batman cant try to comfort a crying child you've misunderstood batman. He does what he does to make sure nobody has to suffer the way he did and the way the batman's bruce realizes that during that fourth act is something no other live action batman movie ever managed to capture. Sure its messy on the riddler's end but i'd still argue the movie is better for it.
I've said this a million times but I think The Batman and Spider-Man Homecoming have SO many things in common and Batman not throwing a batarang is an important part of that, just like Spider-Man not swinging around in Manhattan and even being afraid of heights
Aunque the batman nos mostró como se puede hacer un reebot de una exitosa trilogía de superhéroes cosa que homecoming fallo
The thing is, even if Bruce talking Selena down was the same as him choosing to be a symbol of hope instead of vengeance (it isn't, but fine), there's still a massive problem. The people of Gotham are still terrified of him. You can't be a symbol of hope if the victims you save are more afraid of you than they are of the criminals. The scene where Batman carried that woman to the evac helicopter and then just stood there with her for a moment was probably the most Batman thing that a live-action Batman has ever done. THAT is why it was necessary.
Also I was sooo interested in that hypothetical ending with the whole Riddler didn’t cause the fourth act as part of his plan. Would have been better. Because for me that fourth act just turned the Riddler into a cardboard cutout of a villain focused on maximum mayhem.
the idea that the finale is sparked by riddler-imitators is really so inspired. it really hones in on those themes and makes the whole crisis into an example of what the "i am vengeance" line demonstrates, ties it in splendidly
I love it. This totally fixes the Riddler's inconsistent motivations. It could even be the man from the funeral, the one who talks to Bruce, who places the vans.
19:48 "Riddler's attack on Bruce Wayne is supposed to act as a proxy for an attack on Thomas Wayne, since Riddler believes Bruce has inherited Thomas's sins; which is pretty flawed reasoning but I see what he's going for."
I'm sorry what? The fact that you quickly gloss over this part explains your misunderstanding of Riddler's motivations and, as a result, everything he does in the fourth act.
4 act no character development get rid if no evidence
That is kinda funny actually
As a lot of people in the comments are pointing out, Riddler is a selfish individual. Both Riddler and Batman were doing their work out of selfishness, the reason why Riddler's was more effective was beause he knew what was behind the corruption and also couldn't face them head on because of his lack of strength, which he tells Batman. The thing is Bruce realizes how to fight for other people. You could say he does that metaphorically in the 3rd act with Selina, but he truly does that at the 4th act. Giving him a great character arc and a natural reason as to why he is better than riddler, he learns to not be selfish
The real problem is that Batman *is* about both getting justice *and* vengeance.
I really like that the final clue was something that Batman missed because of his wealth privilege--it would never occur to him to think of a tool for carpeting because he's so rich, which kind of reinforces Riddler's point about Bruce Wayne.
The Batman is about young Batman. Before he knows who he really is. Right now he is just vengeance. He then turns into a symbol of hope and light in the darkness. I would argue that the 'second ending' is actually a continuation of the scene with Catwoman.
Ah yes, then he gives a voice over speech looking at the camera and the music builds, now a symbol of hope and it cuts..... to another ending with catwoman
Not to correct you, (although I guess I'm about to,) but the direct comic inspiration behind the fourth act was Zero Year from the New 52 Batman, not No Man's Land. Still an indirect adaptation because it didn't have the villain Doctor Death (the coolass Bat-Zeppelin) and to me the thematic buildup and execution that made that issue where the city was flooded worth it. So it still wasn't exactly a great idea to adapt the flood here. However, I love that scene with Batman saving people and literally being touched by a civilian, so that alone made it worth it to me.
(Also, I believe Reeve's creative process for coming up with the story for The Batman was making a pastiche of all the popular origin stories. You can see evidence of Year One, The Long Halloween, Earth One, and Zero Year. I believe he took elements from all these stories when cobbling his own.)
I feel like you keep using "fourth act" in a derogatory way here, but you do know that there is a five act structure for organizing a plot and that three acts is not the only lens to view a script, right?
I don't think the 4th act is about him learning about vengeance. I think it's a turning point where Batman stops just simply fighting crime and starts saving Gotham citizens. He jumps to the cable and chooses to sacrifice his safety to save the people from electrocution.
In the beginning, he beats up the clown thugs and the citizen is afraid of Batman. By the end, the citizens take his hand and hold on tight. Also, the entire movie is quite literally coming out of the shadows. By this final scene, he sparks a flare, and he becomes the only source of light in the darkness, leading the people to safety.
Even when I don’t agree or if I’m not convinced by your videos they always bring up great points that tingle my brain
While I think your suggested change would work, I disagree that it's necessary because I think it's motivated by misreading the Riddler's motivations - you're taking what he says at face value when (to me), it always read as talking points to rile up people and outwardly justify what was simply a little boy sad and angry that he was forgotten and neglected. His attack on a broader Gotham is him lashing out at who he really believes is at fault: the city itself, the people who live in it, not just the corrupt system that was the mechanism for what happened. His rhetoric's just there to get others on his side.
Of course, that reading's probably motivated by real world parallels, of people using somewhat comprehensible, reasonable, even appealing rhetoric to stoke anger, hatred, and more.
perfectly articulating why i felt kind of weird about the end of the movie
Im surprised Zero Year doesn''t get a mention as a inspiration of this film
I know
Gonna be honest, i hate this movie. Not only does to end twice, the characters are boring and uninteresting, the plot is boring, and it was WAY to long
It was nice to see the Riddler, who is actually one of the hardest villians for Batman to defeat each time and probably up there with the Joker in being dangerous, finally get to be effective and actually kinda cool. But it of course was squandered with the ending just like how I was hoping if they do give this movie sequels I wanted to see them finally do the "people turn against Batman" story where they think Batman is either causing his villians or working with them in some way.
The movie was released 14-months after the Jan6th Insurrection and the zeitgeist is that you can't make Riddler altruistic/empathetic as it will condone their actions. You have to make clear lines now, unlike in the past, because of how susceptible some people can be too messaging.
What insurrection? I ain't afraid of no zeitgeist, which I assume is a German ghost.
So glad that somebody did a video on this and I found it. At one point I almost started RUclips channel myself to talk about this. When I first watched the movie in the theatre, I actually googled "The Batman 3 act structure" right after its ending and found nothing.
All the bits after killing Falcone (including Riddler being captured on purpose, which in my opinion did not accomplish anything of importance for his plan) do seem like a bonus content.
The only point of difference between our viewpoints is that I believe there are actually 5 acts, but the first two are both really short.
1. The first part is everything before Riddler shows up - the character of Batman and his place in Gotham's life.
2. Riddler's first crime and challenge thrown at Batman.
The 4th act (3rd in the video) is the resolution for 2nd act.
The 5th act (4th in the video) is the resolution of 1st - Batman finally finds his place, being a symbol of hope instead of fear.
But this is really not communicated well throughout the movie, I just think this way from the point of someone who really dove deep into this on multiple re-watchs, audience does not feel that the first act is actually 2 separate acts.
The outcome is that final act does feel like the bonus content of "The lost world: Jurassic Park" in San Diego.
I remember first watching in theatres, I literally forgot about the riddler because of how much I got invested into the Catwoman and falcone story, when it pulled back to the riddler I was shocked
The riddler basicly won. He proved himself to smarter. Batman failed to stop the flooding. All those people died at the end. This was a poor remake of seven. But batman does learn a listen of day, and now he doesn't need to be batman to help the city.
When everyone the film is a better detective then batman.
Wow that one small change you made with act 4 in the end of the video is perfect
I strongly disagree with you, Nando, that "I am vengeance" ending was redundant and you're misinterpreting what the scene was trying to convey. The scene when he tells Selina that "she doesn't have to pay with" Falcone is just one of several scenes that supports what we as the audience already know, as well as Batman believing of himself, that our protagonist is morally superior than both the criminals and the cops. He even tells Gordon, "no guns" in the moment at the orphanage. The "vengeance" ending is meant to expose to the audience, and Batman himself, that the sanctimonious perception we had of Batman (and that Batman held of himself) is complete bullcrap. The "vengeance" moment is when he realizes there wasn't much difference between him and Riddler, and that encourages him to find a better way, to seek justice instead of vengeance.
This is actually facts.
I agree with everything you said in this video but I thinking another reason they did this is to establish the main villain of the movie as the Riddler who has general public name recognition as opposed to Falcone. It’s hard to market a movie where two two most recognizable villains, Penguin and Riddler, are B plots to Falcone who most people don’t know.
I thought the same thing when watching it felt like the 4th part could have been the opening to a second movie in my opinion like his not fully done with riddler who teams with joker inside the asylum while Batman faces off against someone else who gets put in Arkham then they start running the asylum in a 3rd movie and Batman has to stop then would have been cool
Everyone arguing against Nando should watch Marvel's Defenders of the Status Quo. Really expands on the idea of villains needing to be unsympathetic. People are conflating Killmonger or Riddler's starting ideological beliefs with the beliefs the movie imposes to make them unsympathetic.
The "green" he injects himself with is literally just an adrenaline shot so he can get up after taking a shotgun blast to the chest and save Selina.
Literally everything you mentioned in this video are my main problems with the movie/Riddler too. Glad someone articulated it properly.
I feel like you have framed this wrong in certain points. Riddlers objective was never to just take out the corrupt officials that were part of the renewal project. That was Batman’s mistake and you have made it here. Riddler never believed that the city would change.He thought Real would end up corrupt as everyone else.
Making sense story
I love the Batman but my only gripe is basically the same thing most people complain about it. It has two endings like you pointed. I think it fell into the comic book movie trope of having a big CGI fight scene at the end (Which I think shouldn't be for every CBM). The Batman's meeting with the Riddler at Arkham could've been a perfect wrap for the movie. I have an idea regarding how I would've done it but I'll let this one pass.
Thank you for pinpointing exactly what it was that bothered me about this movie. I like your idea much better!
Maybe I'm just too patient, since we can expect a sequel anyway, but in my opinion the 4th act was not needed at all. It felt tagged on, because superhero movies have to have big action set pieces. Whatever Batman got to display in that act, it could have been done in a sequel instead.
what you're missing about the riddler here is that he'd been completely untouched and his plans went largely without error; the first 3 acts aren't just successful for him, they're his rollout. the thing is, in a corrupt society it's easy for people to find heroes in madmen that are courageous/insane enough to enact change.
So the thing I think that the 4th act gives us better than anything in the first three is the transformation of Batman from just being Vengeance (or Justice) to being someone who is also there to help lead people. This is also where he starts being a symbol to call back to a Dark Knight trilogy line. I also believe this is where he realises fully the part that Bruce Wayne has to play in his activities. He can't just fix things as Batman, he also needs to as Bruce Wayne.
Isn't the retaining wall basically a symbol for "Renewal" and destroying it brings the city itself back to its knees. Gotham itself is one of the guilty parties.
One thing that makes the 4th act escalation make more sense is the riddler says himself that he can't do everything he wants because he doesn't have the capacity. He talks about "targetted violence" as a tool.
Now we never get the explicit answer to what he was really hoping to accomplish with this terrorism. If we map it onto real world examples the destruction can be the aim. The Riddler doesn't want to fix Gotham he wants to destroy it.
His act of vengeance isn't just against those who created the city that hurt him but the city itself. Its like a comic book Unabomber.
I love that new ending that keeps the Riddler away from the bombs. BTW, they also did a cool No Man's Land in Gotham
Sound analysis; I agree with all of it. The repercussions to Riddler's actions are a disaffected group of extremists hunting all politicians (for which no disguises would be required) and civilian power structures. Escalation that breaks the focussed, determined path he'd been on. That would have a much stronger narrative.
The Riddler’s goal isn’t to help people, it’s to enact vengeance. The Gotham sea wall was built using blood money, so in his eyes, Gotham did not deserve to have it.
Exactly! As is the case with other nuanced villains with valid points. Killmonger; Vulture; the Flagsmashers (or as I like to call them, the cheap Killmonger knockoffs); Gorr, etc. Superheroes aren’t defenders of the status quo or whatever. They typically agree with what those sorts of villains are saying; they’re just obligated to put a stop to them because those villains use murderous and destructive methods that often make them as bad as those who wronged them.
@@q94141 A lot of portrayals of superheroes really do defend the status quo but in this movie's case, I think it goes out of its way to avoid that. Not just for the contrast between vengeance and helping people present in the Riddler, but also how Batman gets criticized for prioritizing personal vengeance, and for avoiding funding broader social change as Bruce Wayne. So I actually think this is kind of an exception among superhero films.
I agree. Felt like WB demanded a big climactic action scene. The Riddler goons came out of nowhere. If they showed that uprising happening gradually throughout the movie, it would have helped
The 4th gives a conclusion to Gotham and it’s citizens and their perception of Batman
“Do Better” is such an easy way to just end an important conversation without realizing the flaws within your own beliefs.
You’re alternate ending where the riddler unintentionally starts a rebellion group was actually so sick
You're looking at a hard pivot when it's really a slow build. Riddler targets corruption through the renewal project and the finally, the actual third act, he FORCES that renewal, which he tried to do the whole time. Not just through the corruption in the system but through the city itself. The movie is full of the shell of renewal through the city in the background. Even the place where Gordon and Batman meet is a shell of a building that was never finished. That final act was needed to finish Batman's journey. Sure he learned vengeance was wrong and he needed to be more than Batman to help the city, but he needed to crystalize what it means to be Batman, and what roll he needs to fill for Gotham.
Ummm Batman’s signature weapon is “Bat-Shark Repellent” geeez
I really didn’t like this movie. If someone does, that’s fine. I’m not saying you have bad taste. But I totally agree that this ending made no sense at all to me. And for me it was when the vans blow up and the levee breaks. I recall watching this in theaters and immediately asking myself when did Gotham ever have a levee?? And it’s fine if they have one. But the movie never set it up. The misunderstood what a McGuffin is and why/how you use it. If you’re going to use it in the third act, you have to announce it in the first. And if they ever did have it in the first act, I missed it by a lot. And that’s not how you use it effectively. It shouldn’t be something you miss. Something you don’t think about? Sure. But when it’s used in the third act, you should say Oh yeah! And my biggest gripe of this movie is that it’s them taking the bones of the Hush story by Loeb and Lee and telling it wrong. They tell you Hush is the Riddler from the first minute. So when they do the third act reveal that this faceless guy targeting Bruce Wayne through his secrets is this Edward Nygma guy, we all are like Yeah no duh! I think if you know very little about Batman, this can be a very entertaining movie. But if you’ve seen other Batman films, cartoons, comics, media etc. this just isn’t worth watching. And for all the people who say they finally get the mood right, just lower the brilliance on your TV when you watch any other Batman content. Then it’s just as dark as this movie. But at least then it doesn’t feel like it’s out to insult your knowledge of Batman. Because to me, this feels like a movie made to be the antithesis of movies made for nerds. Instead of nostalgia treats, you get nostalgia attacks. But the acting in this by everyone is top notch. Can’t knock anyone’s performance. So the movie gets points
You are missing something very important. This is not JUST a neo noir movie, it's also a super hero movie, more than that, a batman movie. The first third act ended in a very intense and emotionally heavy way, but it still lacked that cathardic moment, that gutpunch and first breath feeling when everything seems lost, then batman comes up with a clever solution and shows why he is so awesome. And I think the true ending delivers that beautifuly, and the scene with Selina and Falcone is very VERY diferent from that one goon scene; in the first batman is simply doing what he does, being a boring hyper-moralist, in the second he is forced to stare at himself through a criminal, see what vengeance can do, it's not about killing or not, it's about what you represent as a symbol. The way this movie shifts the boring old three act structure for me is one of it's strengths.
Your alternate Act 4 would make a great origin for this movie's version of Cluemaster, someone who shares Riddler's M.O. and having him be one of Riddler's Dark Web followers who set up his own scheme in the middle of Riddler's would feel... Fitting.
Man you named your podcast right. You can plug it so easily and naturally in every episode without even rocking the flow of a sentence with an aside interjected.
7:43 aged very well
Like fine wine
I like the idea of the Riddler being confused… at the flooding and all that has come after him.
Does he know?
Imagine calling Patrick "its a movie about space wizards intended for kids" Willlems as "your favorite creators" and "youtube friends."
Then again you coped all over She-Hulk calling it "great" as it literally insults you, so I shouldnt be surprised.
“Campaign events are chill w big guns.” Crazily predictive
Act 3 is about Batman deciding not to embody vengeance, Act 4 is him realizing that he also can't save Gotham through fear. He becomes a symbol of hope to the people of Gotham, which is payoff to the guy he rescues at the beginning of the move being terrified of him. I'm not really sure where you get that having anything to do with vengeance.