The upcoming Batman film will be released in 2021 wtih a new younger actor.

And yet another thread is snipped away in the ongoing drive to completely sever DC movies from the original failed Snyderverse vision.

Does anyone think that funny, popcorn action focused "Shazam!" can even be considered the same franchise as dark, brooding, "the whole world sucks" focused "BvS"?

I think there was a thread on this subject somewhere, but what do you hope and/or would you like in it? While the only Batman-related thing I’d definitely like to see at the moment is this upcoming animated adaptation of The Long Halloween, a noir- and detective-influenced Batman movie seems very intriguing.

The detective/mystery side of it immediately makes me think of the Riddler as a good villain, especially because he’s the biggest name villain left out of the Nolan trilogy. Or should they go for a character who’s never been in the movies before? politicidal recommended Black Mask, who I think would fit it like a glove (or a mask).

Plot? If it’s mystery-influenced, I hope there will actually be some intelligent plotting—e.g., tricks, clues, alibis—in it, not just a series of murders and a random culprit. The Long Halloween and Dark Victory are both good Batman stories and good mysteries in their own rights (inspired, too, by Ellery Queen), with surprising but inevitable solutions well-supported by clues and a train of reasoning. Despite the apparent tension between the hardboiled school and the Agatha Christie school of crime fiction, there’s no reason why a hardboiled, noir-esque mystery can’t have clues. Even Chandler often clued his stories (the prime example being The Lady in the Lake).

Robin or no Robin? While I think including him in at some point would be a good idea (despite my aversion to the character), I don’t know that the mood they’re going for works with him—though Dark Victory had a dark mood and used the character well, so what do I know?

What say you?

Oh, OK, then. Thanks. I still think he’d fit a noir style—no? (I admit I don’t know that much about him, but just reading the Wikipedia article makes me think so.) I seem to remember your recommending that.

I should probably read Hush; I think the library’s got it. I glanced through it once, though, and was turned off by the art style.

I’m pretty sure Matt Reeves is going to make a great film but I’m super disappointed it won’t be with Affleck. I feel like he deserved a good Bat trilogy. Oh well.

I hope it’s canon though.. like it’s one of Batfleck’s past adventures. That way ‘The Joker’ will be the only outlier film.

So, politicidal (et al.), I found Hush at the library and have now read it; I’m really fast with reading comic books. And there’s a lot of stuff I liked, but I’m not entirely sold on the whole thing. As you say, the mystery is unbelievably obvious, an obviousness only compounded by the fact that the “least-likely suspect” is really the only suspect. Now, I’ve found this problem with other Batman mysteries as well, in particular Gotham by Gaslight (the movie), which I otherwise loved, but it’s too bad here because Jeph Loeb, the writer, actually knows how to construct a mystery plot.

A bit more plot stuff: like The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, we’re provided with dual (and duelling) solutions in the end, an old Ellery Queen trick. (As I’ve mentioned before, Loeb has to be inspired by Queen; the similarities in their styles are too close for it to be coincidence.) While there are some nice little clues (what cut the rope, for example) for the first solution, though, I don’t think there was a single clue for the second, making it both obvious and unfair.

Also in the Queen tradition, that first, false solution comes near the end of the book, so we think it’s the real one, and then the second, actual solution comes in the very last pages. Somewhat breaking from Queen, though, this time there’s no organizing gimmick, as there had been one with holidays for TLH and DV. As in The Long Halloween, Loeb for some reason wants to create uncertainty (an element that worked better there than here):

I was genuinely confused by all the double- and triple-crosses at the end, and not in a good way.

On the other hand, some of the characterization was well-done, and Loeb is always good at using Batman as a narrator. Some of the costumes are as absurd as ever, and I have a deep-rooted prejudice against superheroes calling superheroes by their superheroic names (“Talk to me, Catwoman!”).

The Superman stuff was pure padding (the book was far too long), but it was fun, and it was amusing to see Bruce Wayne flirt with Lois Lane. Also interesting: how Loeb implies that Gordon knows that Bruce is Batman and that Perry White knows that Clark is Superman. I also liked how Harvey Dent, by far one of the most interesting characters in the Batman mythos, is finally redeemed and how Loeb must have told the artist to throw in references to his and Tim Sale’s earlier work (in a flashback, Mrs. Wayne is in the background holding Alice in Wonderland [again, an Ellery Queen favorite], in a reference to Batman: Haunted Knight).

Unfortunately, I wasn’t a fan of the art, which was all too bright and shiny and goofy-looking.

As for a film, there are definitely elements that could be mined from this, including possibly the very premise, but I don’t think adapting the whole story would work. It’s too fragmented with all the villain (and ally) cameos, which don’t feel as well-integrated as they did in TLH or DV. And the ending is a definite disappointment. If I were adapting it, I probably would throw out many of the cameos, unfortunately (including Superman), and I’d probably change the villain. But the premise would probably work for a movie.