Everybody is saying that Matt Reeves’ The Batman doesn’t show the Wayne murders. After countless shots of falling pearls and smoking guns set against the backdrop of a dimly lit alley in Gotham, it would seem to be a refreshing change. The problem is that it’s not true. Robert Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne does see his parents die—it’s just not in the way audiences are expecting.
When the Riddler releases his video on Thomas and Martha Wayne, Bruce’s worldview is completely shattered. In essence, he’s watching a character assassination on his parents. He’s not an eight-year-old boy standing in Crime Alley, but he’s still watching his parents get destroyed before his eyes.
Do you think the way this was handled was a refreshing change from previous Batman movies? Let us know your thoughts in the comments! 
6 Likes
I have a pretty good idea how he handled the death of his parents…
4 Likes
I thought the movie handled it perfectly. Per. Fect. Ly. As you stated (Christ!) how many times do we have to watch a solo-mo gunshot and pearls scattering…?
3 Likes
they were still actually murdered though
In my mind, he doesn’t go on being Batman if he doesn’t believe his parents were great people. We don’t know exactly what his opinion of his parents is at the end of the film. Alfred is the last one to weigh in on the subject, so presumably he is taking Alfred’s word.
I thought skipping the murders was an excellent call. Bat v. Supes was already one too many recreations of that scene
I agree that it doesn’t always need to be shown, maybe just a newspaper clipping alluding to it
1 Like
Out of the major live-action films, it’s only been shown in 4 of 9 of them. Yet, people act like it’s in every film. Basically every director wanted a crack at it, save for Reeves. Just like every director has their vision of the Batmobile. '89 being the first film kinda had to have it. Begins being a reboot/origin film kinda too. BvS was able to use it in tying to the themes of the film and ending. Schumacher is using it for the dreams Bruce keeps having, which is pretty common in many Batman stories lol. Unless he just use stock footage from '89 lol.
I liked how the killer is never confirmed. One hints at Maroni, then Falcone, or maybe just some punk with a gun. I know Joe Chill has been around since 1948 (in name).But I always thought giving the killer a name and face weakens things. I prefer the idea of Batman never knowing or finding out who killed his parents, hence all crime has to pay and endure Batman’s wrath.
What of it? Being the first major movie and wanting to re-establish Batman as NOT a character of camp they needed to include it.
sorry, I don’t think I phrased it well
