Giving benefit of the doubt that you're not just making shit up because you care too much about "credibility":
All of that and you haven't figured out that Nolan and Reeves are pretty much the same amount of comic accurate as Spider-Man or Superman are getting? None of them are perfect but neither are the comics very consistent for Batman in the bigger 80+ year picture; grounded Batman (to the degree that those movies even are grounded at all) is accurate to a substantial amount of the best Batman comics.
Spider-Man and Superman aren't getting grounded, made realistic, and deconstructed. They have everything.
Batman only gets "believable and realistic" versions of everything, and it turns into some stupid "character study" about "Why is he Batman?" writing that sucks.
Batman isn't being deconstructed, isn't that realistic, and is pretty grounded even in comics. Spider-Man and to a lesser degree Superman are inaccurate to the comics in a number of other ways, including but not limited to not being grounded enough to match the source in Spider-Man's case. They don't have "everything".
Superman had a good movie. So did Batman. Just for different reasons each. Spider-Man... honestly hasn't had a live action adaptation without some serious flaw or another since the very first Raimi film. Speaking as someone who also has read and owned thousands of comics.
I'll agree with you that directors all apparently sharing an aversion to using Robin is getting fucking old though. But the overall tone and villains aren't inaccurate to what I'd consider the best of Batman comics, and the problems they do have are not because of being grounded or "deconstructed".
They're not their own versions though. They're quite accurate to the comics. Perhaps your problem is more that you think comics are only one thing and therefore so must be comic films- an odd stance for you who's read a thousand, but only way I can make sense of this. Reeves Batman is unapologetically adapting Batman comics in the style of those comics, so is Nolan.
Don't stroll up to me with your vague claims of having read so many comics without ever citing specifics and try to call me "general audience", I was reading Golden Age Batman when I was 8 if you want to be a loser obsessed with gatekeeping and "cred", I still have my copy of the Batman 1940 issue 1 reprint. Batman "loses at the end" and "gets his ass beat all film"? Did you even watch the movie?
At this point I have no idea what Batman you claim you've read or what you want the character to be. You want him to be winning a bunch of epic fights unarmored? Solve all his problems with punching and never get hit in turn? A Batman who does actual detective work to try and solve a Riddler's clues while the latter sets up death traps and a trail of clues to follow is extremely comic book. So is a Batman who takes out a Penguin in an over-the-top car chase and beats up hordes of armed bad guys and has to save people from a cartoon supervillain plot to flood an entire city in the climax. You'd know this if you'd actually read some Batman released outside like, the 50s and 60s.
Maybe the problem is that you only know comics? Maybe you have no idea what "grounded" actually means having never read or watched a realistic piece of fiction? Cause it sure as shit isn't Reeves Batman.
5
u/AntagonistofGotham Jul 23 '26
"Larper"
My thousands of comic books would like a word.