There were the ones in the 1960s or so (the ones that showed the word “BOOM!” after a punch)
There were the Michael Keaton ones. Val Kilmer. George Clooney. The Bale trilogy. The Affleck ones.
Now there’s another one. The Nolan films were excellent and still recent, so more Batman films feel unnecessary.
It's not about necessary or not. It's about money. Batman sells tix.
Naw, there are tons of stories to be told. Look at Bond, look at Mission Impossible. There are decades of history to explore and different takes on the character.
I was really looking forward to seeing Battfleck's backstory and more of that character. Bummed they moved on.
I was thinking the same, look at how many villains have never been featured in a movie.
shareWhat different takes? Each interpretation of Batman in movies is the fcking same. He’s a brooding antihero who dwells in a mansion.
shareNo. It's no different from Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan or Dracula. There's room for plenty of variations of the character now and in the future.
shareAffleck never did his own batman movies tho.
shareYes! Give it a f'ing rest!
shareMeh if these next ones turn out to be awesome I’ll bet you won’t feel the same way.
shareSuperhero movies make big money, plain and simple. They have to keep making what sells. Look at it this way: For every successful blockbuster they have, it helps keep them making all the other movies out there.
Whether or not there are too many Batman movies, I think yes. But that's just because I like Batman but I'm not a huge fan of Batman, and I'm happy for the Nolan ones to be the end of them for some time.
There was only one Batman movie in the 60's. There was a TV series back then, though. That might be where you're getting confused.
Affleck never had a Batman movie of his own.