TWICE！
Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: https://go.nebula.tv/nandovmovies
Watch my next video where I fancast Superman: https://nebula.tv/videos/nandovmovies-fancasting-superman-in-the-new-dcu
The Batman might be the best Batman movie ever made and yet, it takes a turn near the end that, I believe, ruins the film’s villain.
The Nando v Movies Merch Store – https://store.nebula.app/collections/nando-v-movies
MOSTLY NITPICKING PODCAST
iTunes I https://apple.co/2lMcoVv
Google I https://tinyurl.com/y6nnxte5
Stitcher I https://bit.ly/2NbZFZ4
Spotify I https://spoti.fi/2Oc5Qg4
OTHER STUFF
Patreon I https://www.patreon.com/nandovmovies
Discord I https://discord.gg/6M7MUM4
Reddit I https://www.reddit.com/r/nandovmovies
Twitter I https://www.twitter.com/nandovmovies
Facebook I https://www.facebook.com/nandovmovies
Instagram I https://www.instagram.com/nandovmovies/
Music by Epidemic Sound
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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”
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 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.
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
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
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.