Have We Seen Affleck's Batman Before?

Over the Christmas holiday I was lucky enough to have some old friends over to my house.  Inevitably we delved into discussions about comic book based movies.  Now whether you love it or hate it, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” did in fact happen and it was a game changer.

One of the things it did was offer us introductions to characters that did not cover their origins stories.  Obviously Henry Cavill’s Superman got his introduction in the previous film “Man of Steel”, however we meet both Batman and Wonder Woman without the usual tacked on exposition about how they got their superhero starts.  During the opening sequence we are treated to a flash back of Batman’s basic origins, the death of his parents, but that wasn’t so much to explain his origin, but rather set up a character arch later in the film.  What it left out was the years of training he did to become the Dark Knight.  For that matter, the film left out the greater majority of his superhero/vigilante career.  Dialog in the film indicates that this is twenty years after Bruce dawned the iconic cape and cowl.  Twenty years.  That’s a heck of a place to jump off from.

Admittedly we have more than enough film, and a television series, to cover Batman’s formative years, but as we were discussing the topic we started speculating that maybe we’d seen this version of Batman before.  Maybe, just maybe, we did get to see his origins.

My friend Will (see the shameless plug below) postulated that this was the very same Batman we were introduced to in 1989’s “Batman”.  He cited that the psychologies, methodologies, and in some cases the weapons he used were very similar.  The Michael Keaton Batman, for instance, did not shy away from killing henchmen, and certainly didn’t shed any tears over the death of supervillains.  For that matter, his vehicles are dripping with machine guns, another strong similarity between the two.

But there is a major problem, and that is how old Bruce Wayne looks in the film.  Granted they did try to “age up” Ben Affleck, but he still looks very much the 44 years old he actually is.  If anything they made him a believable 44 years old.  That would have made him 17 during the events of 1989’s “Batman”.  Michael Keaton, while a great actor, does not look 17.

A second hiccup is how the public perceives Bruce Wayne.  In the Burton Era films, “Batman” and “Batman Returns” Bruce is not a public figure.  In the first film Alexander Knox, a seasoned reporter who apparently has lived most of his life in Gotham doesn’t recognize him at his own fund raiser, in his own mansion.  The “file” on Bruce Wayne at the Gotham Gazette, apparently the premier newspaper for the city, is barely a few pages deep.  There isn’t any indication that this has changed much by the time “Batman Returns” rolls around.  He’s still a mover and shaker in Gotham, but nobody is surprised when he doesn’t show up for major events.

The third and final nail in the coffin is that the first film firmly roots itself in 1989.  I'll be honest, I wanted this theory to be true, I really did, but I kept coming back to the Joker blasting the musical stylings of Prince through the museum as he and his henchmen destroy priceless pieces of art.  Again, that would make Ben/Bruce 17 during the events of the film.

However I did notice something very important, and that is that the follow up films “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin” do a complete tonal shift.  They are almost the exact opposite, thematically speaking, than those of the two previous films, almost as if they took place in a separate universe.

I’d long held that had it not been for the performances of Pat Hingle’s Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough’s Alfred, there would be nothing to connect the series at all.  But even there, we can see a deviation.  In “Batman” and “Batman Returns” Commissioner Gordon is a competent policeman.  He knows what he’s doing and is good at his job.  Suddenly in “Batman Forever” he’s more bumbling, less sure of himself, and this gets worse in “Batman and Robin”.  Again, almost like it’s not the same character.

My theory is that “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin” take place in a universe apart from the Tim Burton films.  Call it the Schumacher universe, and the Schumacher universe began approximately twenty years ago prior to the events of “Batman v Superman”.

This places Ben/Bruce being in his early twenties when he becomes Batman, which is far more reasonable.  Further, the Schumacher universe Bruce attends public functions and is well known to the populace of Gotham, just like our current Bruce Wayne.  Now let’s look at some facts surrounding this universe:

Batman in “B v S” and “Suicide Squad” has knowledge, if not direct interaction with meta-humans like Killer Croc.  This was established in “Batman and Robin” where the first proper meta-humans, people with actual powers, first appear in the form of Poison Ivy, Bane, and to an extent Mr. Freeze.

More importantly there is a Robin established by both sets of films.  Chris O’Donnell plays Robin in both “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin”, and we see a heavily, if not fatally damaged Robin suit in a glass case in the Batcave in “B v S”. 

 

The suits look remarkably similar, as if one is the more advanced version of the other.  But this isn’t Chris O’Donnell’s Robin.

 

This is.  By the time “Batman and Robin” rolls around we see Dick moving closer to his Nightwing identity, adopting a costume more closely suited to that role.  That leaves his old costume open for a new Robin to take, a new Robin like…Jason Todd.

We’re never told in “B v S” which Robin wore that damaged suit, but we are pretty clearly told that it was damaged by the Joker himself.  I mean, look at it.  However if we follow that this is the Schumacher version of Batman then it’s probably not Dick’s suit, as he wasn’t last seen wearing anything like that.

But that brings up another good question: Who is the Joker in “Suicide Squad”?  If we follow that this is the Schumacher universe, and that Tim Burton’s films took place along a different timeline, then it’s safe to assume that this universe just has a different Joker.  One thing that was pretty good about Schumacher’s films is that, with the exception of Bane, his origin stories for his villains were pretty comic book accurate.  Like, scarily accurate.  He had Two Face actually scarred during a trial with acid, Riddler being an insane lunatic with an OCD, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze the victims of accidents…all ripped from the pages of the comics.  So for this universe to have a Joker changed by a vat of chemicals, as alluded to in “Suicide Squad” it makes perfect sense.

There are a few hiccups in this theory.  For one there is the ages and performance styles of Alfred and Commissioner Gordon.  Played beautifully by Jeremy Irons, Alfred is very young compared to his Schumacher Universe counterpart, and J.K. Simmons who is set to take over the Gordon role in the upcoming Justice League film couldn’t play Gordon as incompetent if he tried, and he shouldn’t because it would deviate too far from the theme of the film.  But these are side characters and can afford to be reinterpreted from film to film to film.

The real hiccup is one single line from “Batman and Robin.”

 

You thought I was going to say “bat credit card” didn’t you.  Admit it, you did.  That’s fine.  I could imagine 23 year old Ben Affleck Batman whipping out a Bat Credit Card.  It works.

No, this line comes after a dust up between the titular characters of the film and Batman is lamenting for his solo days.  It’s a problem since “Superman” would have been 14 when this line was spoken, certainly not running around in a cape and tights.

However he was probably running around.  We establish in “Man of Steel” that Clark goes on a soul searching quest, one to find his place in the world.  Its implied that he starts this journey as a grown man, after the death of John Kent, but this is Superman we are talking about.  As a teenager he could have wandered the United States as easily as the average 14 year old could walk down the block to his friend’s house.  Further, its established that he has saved people as a kid.  He wouldn’t be doing this with a side kick in tow, and he’d probably be doing his good deeds as far from Smallville as he could reasonably get to avoid people connecting him to the Kent farm.  He’s superfast, roughly the size of a man, and never sticks around for thanks when he does something good.  The legend of a “Superman” would certainly crop up and become part of modern folk lore, like Bigfoot.  “…Superman works alone.”

This could be hinted at during Lois’ conversation with the in-custody Superman.  At this point she’s already figured out who he is and what he did around the world incognito, and now she’s face to face with him with a big “s” on his chest.  It would finally click with her that he’s this modern mythical figure, and why out of the blue the word “Superman” escapes her lips.  That would be how Batman knows the name “Superman” but then reacts badly to the presence of an actual “Superman”, because it’s solidified in his jaded, 20 year crime fighting veteran that people aren’t doing good things and disappearing into the shadows, that they are so self-serving that they had to be rescued by an alien.

At least that’s my theory and like every film theory it relies on circumstantial evidence and some mental gymnastics, but that's part of the fun of film theories.  They are intended to get you thinking deeper about the films you watch, and hopefully this one does that job as well.

 

Thanks for reading.  Please check out Will's book at:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Dead-Lakehaven-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00JLPG8HE#nav-subnav