Yes. Too much sepia tone.

I've grown to dislike when movies have a "devoted" or limited color pallet: sepia tone or blue/grey or just washed-out color replaced by glare (ala Man of Steel) seem the most popular. Hopefully, they'll break it up a bit.

(I miss Technicolor!) ;)

I don't want a return of the skittleverse of the Schumacher era, but I'm not sure I see much of an original vision in this trailer.

Great cast! I hope the movie is better than the trailer.

I think this is one reason I liked the original Superman & first Spider-Man so much - they weren't skittleverse nor did they rely on neon; just regular looking sunny day colors. In other words, somewhat realistic - these devoted color schemes add mood, but they don't look realistic (except for maybe some night shots).

What, you didn't think the version of Catwoman in Batman Returns was good?

Re: The Batman
 

Re: The Batman
 

Re: The Batman
 

Looks quite similar to Nolan's trilogy.

Re: The Batman
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwcinb2OxUo
Shocker, Michael Giacchino is really good at good noise making.

Re: The Batman
 

Coolest bit is probably from 4:00 until the end, by the way.

Re: The Batman
 

Hmm, I still think it sounds like the Imperial March :(

Re: The Batman
 

i dont know why they didnt cast christian bale as batman again? he did amazing job on other batman movies espcially dark knight and dark knight rises

Re: The Batman
 

A new filmmaker/story means a new Batman, pretty much always. Even if they wanted him I doubt he'd be interested in returning to the character, particularly without Nolan.

Re: The Batman
 

Wondering if this film is paying homage to the first Batman "movie" of 1966 since the villains featured were the Riddler, the Penguin, Catwoman and the Joker.

The Batman (2022) appears to be sans the Joker (most likely because he's appeared in every Batman franchise - whether movie series, TV, animated or live-action) and is thus overdone... but the other three villains are the same as in the 1966 movie.

The big question is: 56 years later, are there days when you can just get rid of a bomb?

In RPatz I trust.

https://youtu.be/hbnx6DJQ3xU


Check out the comment thread on this trailer. It all reads like it was drafted by a marketing team.

Re: The Batman
 

I dunno, seems like they said to themselves:
"How do we make Gotham look different than the other 700 incarnations?"
"Constantly pissing down"
"Perfect"

Also, along with the music released before sounding exactly like the Imperial March, the music on that vid sounds exactly like the MCU.

Not holding out much hope on this one.
DC has screwed every movie they've made for the past 15 years.

Maybe they relocated Gotham to the Pacific Northwest?

Re: The Batman
 

What people don't realize yet... after the end credits we see a figure reading a newspaper with headlines about Gotham's new defender: the Batman... the paper goes down (with the tune of a somber cello in the background) and we see Joaquin Phoenix take on an eerie smile as he says, "Wait'll they get a load of me!" ;)

Re: The Batman
 

I think my comic book movie enthusiasm has come to an end. I can even mark the dates. 2005 with Batman Begins until 2019 Endgame. They have shot their load, it's done. Unless you grew up reading comics which I didn't I think the audiences for these retreads and reboots are going to start dwindling until it's just die hard comic fans going, which to be fair are alot these days. The only thing that might get me to check this out eventually is the Riddler was always my favorite Batman villain. Joker is cool I just think the Riddler has so much untapped things they could do with him...I was really bummed Nolan didn't decide to use him in TDKR. The psychologic mind games he could have came up with would have been fun...oh well

Hmmm... the Riddler in TDKR? Instead of the Joker, I'm assuming.
The Riddler... and Two-Face... together in TCKR?

"Does anyone else feel like a fried egg?"

March can't get here soon enough...

Re: The Batman
 

I think I may have talked myself into seeing this now

not a DC fan but my support worker wanted me to go and see batman with him on friday so i be wearing my MARVEL shirt lol i like zoe kravitz on hunger games. and one of the guys on the movie is from MARVEL also

That will show 'em!

yep!

well at the moment on imdb it has a good review 9.0/10 and 72 metascore cause its already released here in australia

at the moment on imdb it has a good review 9.0/10 and 72 metascore . i couldnt do few quotes to few u guys cause im on my phone ugh

goodluck let me know if it good. im seeing it tomoroww

I just got back from seeing this, and...



Final Score: 8.5

What was your opinion of the Bat suit? (And is there more than one in the film?)

It looked cool (and no, there wasn't; not much Schumacher-style "toyetic" shenanigans here, I'm afraid :D ).

Keoghan was only in it for about one minute, though...

i didnt like it at all but loved the cast tho. christian bale is always the better batman

I like your thinking lol. I went to a Star Trek convention once and decided to rock the boat by wearing a Star Wars T-Shirt. I did get a few disapproving glances all day haha.

LOL! I wasn't thinking so much along those lines, but more like an evolving suit - I'd seen so many different previews that it began to look like the suit started out rough and made improvements.

I didn't notice any updates or evolutions within the movie's timeline. The suit was pretty badass though, IMO, and was something closer to the armored suit from the BvS Snyder film. Not as bulky (but it did add some size to Pattinson underneath) and without the voice modulator, this suit showed solid plate layers that you could tell had mass just from the sounds of his footsteps. I felt the cowl was a little too revealing of the actor's jawline, but that's subjective. It was a good suit.

yes it was funny they were staring at me then when i came out of the movie i was walking towards to the door the lady who wore batman shirt was giving me a evil death stare and im like respect respect and she like yes respect lol walked past each other lol. gosh really lol i had that too inside the cinema and outside the cinema lol

Don't get me wrong, I think Barry made an impression with what little screentime he had, but certainly not enough to completely overshadow The Riddler, especially not after that interrogation scene in Arkham, you know?

Also, one thing I didn't care for was the way that it hinted at yet ANOTHER version of The...

was he the joker in the asylum prison right?

thought so cause he was my favorite on eternals

i know they doing penguin tv series spin off

i can see little bit of the joker on the scene it reminds me of arkham knight joker version
https://sm-ign-com.cdn.ampproject.or..._9hy3.2048.jpg

that is really true

I fully expect him to show up at least one per continuity, and I'm fine with that, but we've had SO much Joker lately, that I can't help but feel burned out on the character right now.

hopefully he will be on new joker movie with margot robbie

How about a post-Joker un-boot movie where Batman comes to grips with of a world without the Joker? Maybe Gotham turns out to be worse? Perhaps the only thing terrifying the crime element as Batman was his rival? Perhaps Batman starts crossing the line or going a little nuts?

Re: The Batman
 

Maybe I wasn't in the mood for it or what, but I didn't really care for this. Won't object to giving it another shot at some point, but for now....ehh.

@doubledenim
I'm teasing here, but who in costume design didn't see this comparison coming?

The Batman
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Xn...MY-1200-80.jpg

Release Date: 2022
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 2:56
Director: Matt Reeves
IMDB
yn's wtf?

I liked the movie well enough. It's more a detective mystery than an action packed blockbuster, so that was refreshing. I thought that after the first five minutes, I didn't care what happened next or how poor the movie might be as the first two scenes were pretty great. This felt like Batman in Fincher's Se7en darkness, which was a nice change and made sense to move the "grit" bar forward, while pulling away from Nolan's work.

There was more detective mode in this that relied on the human mind over gadgetry sci-fi to solve clues, but the gadgets used were nice and unique. While I can appreciate the effort to separate this movie from the action expectations of nearly all of its predecessors, the writing did cannibalize itself two or three times, building tension, peaking, then undermining that buildup to quickly move on to the next plot point.

Though it has a PG-13 rating, the violence was good and appropriate. My guess for the rating is that I don't remember seeing blood. That's fine. I enjoyed the action when it appeared and only questioned the kid gloves once in a scene in which some character was shot but only fell to the ground with an injury rather than a death. That felt obvious. The movie's climax made up for it, IMO.

The soundtrack was interesting with a minimal mix going back and forth with a motif of "Ave Maria" and Nirvana's acoustic hidden track, "Something In The Way." Both seemed to appear in the same key, blending back and forth from long scenes to another, my guess to help define some dichotomy of character but to what, specifically, I could not pick up on. That, for me, highlights the main problem that I had with the movie. I felt like there was intent that fell short of a goal. Pieces, individually, we're all very well done, but in context of the whole, no one piece seemed to matter more than another. I couldn't find focus as there were probably too many mysteries. There were too many endings. There were, arguably, too many characters spreading my interest too thin. All of this combined felt too convoluted and without a clear direction even in hindsight. The music is the most obvious representation of that lack of focus to point to. Both "Ave Maria" and "Something In the Way" were quite powerful in contrast to the imagery provided on screen when introduced. Just, for whatever their importance was, it never developed thematically for me. And that was the overall vibe I got from the movie.

Casting could be a minor snag with me and some viewers. I see so many having a difficult time breaking Pattinson from his teen heart(less?)throb role in the Twilight saga. To be honest, I thought he did great in this. His suit offered a lot to compensate for his physical size, and his Batman was larger than life in both stature and violent nature. I had no problem accepting this actor in the role. I will say that Jeffrey Wright seemed to be caught in his Bernard Lowe loop, still lost somewhere on the set of Westworld. And I despise all things Paul Dano since he appears incapable to offer anything different from his Eli Sunday overacting in There Will Be Blood. And I'm grateful that Barry Keoghan only had a bit part here being another actor I have no interest in. Andy Serkis also seemed a rather odd choice to me.

So as is, the cast alone might have dropped my rating by half a point maybe. I've only seen it once and was happy to take my Thursday afternoon off for it. Having just left the vet for some ugly business with my cat, it seemed right that I go worship in the cathedral of cinema. I owe this movie a second run, but just shy of three hours, I'm not sure I will be rushing to do so any time soon. Perhaps with a 20-minute trim, it would have scored higher. Shame, because I think this movie deserves a lot of attention in spite of its flaws.



with slight room to grow upon a second viewing.

Ha! Another spot on comparison!

at the moment batman dominantes north america boxoffice 248.5 million dollars on the weekend dunno if it true :/

Was listening to NPR this morning and they were interviewing someone about the film - this person was asked about Batman being a rich white guy who terrorizes people living poverty for kicks. The answer given was that the film confronts this, by reminding Batman that he is rich and that this film is closer to the ground because this Batman is "not a fan of the cops." These were weak answers to moral/political questions, questions which are increasingly a first filter of aesthetic evaluation (does it send the right message?) of popular artworks. It turns out Even so, this does not so much rebut the criticism as lean into it - the critique gets more purchase, so I am not sure how I am supposed to feel about Batman on the terms on the text. Am I supposed to realize that he is a bit of a baddie?

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of "Batman" in 2022. Everyone has a cell phone with a camera and half of his face is exposed by the mask. We have hackers tracking where all of Elon Musk's private jets are at any given time. We have satellites and drones and helicopters which would watch the Batmobile drive home. We have microphones which triangulate gunshots and CCTVs on every stoplight. In practical terms, I just don't see it happening. Batman belongs to time when a person could still disappear into the middle of the night and where sightings of Batman were only mythological stories. Superman can do whatever he pleases, because try and stop him, but Bruce needs his bank card.



https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Re: The Batman
 

The only thing that makes Batman a "baddie" is he's a vigilante (...and he's quite violent, so even if he was some sort of legitimate law enforcement, he'd be facing constant charges of brutality).

In his first movie serial they overcame this problem by making him and Robin government agents (G-men) to combat what was then the "yellow peril"! (*snicker!*)

In his first TV series they overcame the vigilantism by having Commissioner Gordon "deputize" the dynamic duo. (I'm still not sure how that works in modern urban cities - can police commissioners just deputize anyone they want? Including people dressed up for a costume party?)

another new batman movie or is it the tv series?
is robert pattisom gonna be on next batman movie?

It's a joke, based on The Babadook.

This is like Hannibal Lector saying that the only thing that makes him a baddie is that he like to eat people. Yes, Batman uses extra-judicial violence to solve problems. He breaks bones. He dangles people of roofs. He threatens with theatrics. He drives 140 MPH on city streets, because they are his streets, apparently. Pedestrians be damned.

He is an insanely rich man who terrorizes the people of Gotham to make Gotham better. Funny thing, Gotham never gets better. If anything, these movies argue that Batman catalyzes the appearance of villains. "Rich white male keeps the poors in line by dressing like a bat and beating up street people" has bad optics today.

Here we have this billionaire, the richest guy in Gotham. He spends his money synthesizing Kryptonite, making illegal jet fighters, and tanks, and surveillance networks for all his computer screens. Sure, he has charities and endowments, but his passions, his focus, and most of his wealth is tied up in his Batman project. Imagine finding out that Bill Gates tried to solve the crime problems of Detroit by hiring an illegal police force to terrorize street criminals. Just imagine it.

Now imagine if Batman tried to actually get the most bang for his bat-buck. Imagine that he spent all that time effort and money on scholarships, housing, clean water, passive security measures to improve community policing etc. Imagine if "the world's greatest detective" put all that brain power on solutions for poverty and crime in his city.

Re: The Batman
 

If the Batman were real, how many of us would be secretly rooting for him right now, while publicly saying there is no place in our society for vigilantes?

Note, I said right now - in the midst of a nationwide crime wave. I have to admit I've played with the thought lately that: since police aren't being allowed to do their jobs in many cases - they've been demoralized and had their ranks degraded - and we've got prosecutors refusing to prosecute criminals, I keep thinking the only thing that might make criminals begin to think twice is if they start meeting up with extreme force at the hands of those willing to use it to defend themselves and society.

oooh okay its all good . got me shocked at first lol

If you just mean that they keep making Batman movies and shows, well sure, but that's just because it's a franchise. They're not all connected, and when they are (like in comic books) it's the business interest of making more stuff essentially overriding narrative cohesion (also common to comic books).

In Nolan's trilogy, which doesn't have this problem, it actually addresses this issue head on from every direction. At the end of Batman Begins Gordon gives a little mini-speech about escalation, foreshadowing what's coming in the next two films. Bale's Batman specifically says he wants to "inspire people," and makes it clear from the outset the goal is simply to get Gotham's citizens and police to take their city back. And (spoilers, but it's been awhile) that's essentially what happens in the third film, too.

So yeah, I agree that the nature of Batman is either: a) temporary or b) dystopian. Either Batman is a temporary citizen-martial-law solution when the government has failed to protect its citizens designed to snap them out of their stupor, or else he presages anarchy.

Also part of Nolan's trilogy! Both in Thomas Wayne's philanthropy and public transportation project and in the energy solution he's been working on between the second and third films.

Quite a few, yeah. And I think, without getting specifically political, this mirrors a lot of facets of our criminal justice system, in that there's a noticeable gulf between ideals and practice and we're not really grappling with what those ideals (like reasonable doubt) would actually look in practice, consistently. There's a degree to which our ideals about liberty are shielded from their true cost, but with deniability. Batman, perhaps, is almost like a repressed recognition of this, swooping in to fill that dissonant vacuum.

I don't. Nolan's Batman Begins (as you note in your own reply), for example, discusses how Bruce has caused costumed villains to appear.
The conversation ends with the Joker card being shown. Batman calls on chaotic forces which wreak havoc on Gotham. At best, Batman is the storm before the calm (i.e., the "temporary solution).

The sequels in the same continuity are connected. The comic books are. And we've spent decades in the comics. We've even seen Batman get old (DKR). The one constant is that Gotham starts bad and doesn't get better. We never see Batman greening Gotham.

This is an extra-textual explanation of why things can never get better in Gotham. The point, however, remains. Things never get better under Batman. They cannot. Batman cannot exist in a civilized society, and as of now, we have at least three explanations as to why.

1. The story requires it, formally.

2. Batman's existence in this world is escalatory.

3. In the real world (film as thought experiment), masked vigilantes would not make things better.

What we don't have just yet is an explanation which would lead us to believe that billionaires engaging in masked street justice is a good idea.
The best case for Batman as temporary can be found here. But even here Joseph Gordon-Levitt is left in a position where he's being groomed for the mantle of Batman (assuming that Bale's Batman is really quits) or Robin in such case that he has to return (his name is "Robin" Blake). The undoing of this presumed peace lies in this thread that is conspicuously left dangling. Gotham is always going to need a vigilante hero. Gotham is a failed polis.

Ra’s al Ghul is the temporary option. For better or worse, he is the serious change agent. Batman pulls up short. He doesn't kill, but he doesn't heal either. As an extra-legal force (which is already a proposition so dubious that it strains credulity that we still cheer for wealth-based fascism) Batman is not a solution, but an enabler. Batman plays with his toys, but carefully puts them back in their toy box (Arkham Asylum). Batman is a parasitic option that feeds on a festering wound. He needs a sick city and the sick city needs him. Batman curing crime would be like drug companies curing cancer. His fig leaf for his ineffectiveness is his moral code.

Batman fails as an instrumental violence option (because Batman is not willing to go the distance to really fundamentally change anything), and also a failure as being direct force for good (because Wayne's philanthropy is perpetually on the back burner -- never the main focus of all that power). He is a failure on both counts.
I think the evidence points directly at the latter. Over all the stories in all the continuities, Gotham is doomed. The best case we have for falsification is the end of the last Nolan film, but the introduction of Robin Blake is the ambiguous thread that signals the return of chaos.
I guess it's OK to live in the Warrens in abject poverty so long as you get a light rail project? Again, the vast majority of Bruce's time, effort, and money is centered on his midnight escapades. Fox get tasked with making him new toys and covering his tracks.

Gotham is a dangerous city, even within the DCU. Gotham has regular bombings, gas attacks, and other acts of terror, in addition to occasionally being attacked by cosmic and mystical beings. And this is over and above the everyday robbery, assault, rape, and murder that is happening to everyday citizens by everyday thugs. The cops are notoriously corrupt and the city is flagrantly controlled by mob bosses of various stripes. Gordon is one of the few clean cops that be trusted. The most dangerous criminals are not put away in SuperMax prisons, but rather a single asylum that is (apparently) easier to escape than a pair of toy handcuffs.



Gotham is a dark mirror reflecting our world. It is bad enough that people accept vigilante justice meted out by people in costumes. It turns up the volume on our problems a bit to dramatize them and create a space where a Batman makes sense.

Re: The Batman
 

One small correction - from the comics - (or at least from the comics of my day, anyway)...

The only criminals sent to Arkham were those deemed by the courts as insane. At times, Arkham was also a hospital for those with mental illness who were not necessarily criminals, but in the modern age, the asylum focuses on the criminally insane.

For criminals without an insanity clause there was Blackgate prison which is located on a small island in Gotham Bay.

Now, a criminal such as the Penguin has never been locked up in Arkham because he's not insane, just bad. However, he has served time at Blackgate.

The point about Arkham being easy to escape is valid, and the same could probably be said of Blackgate. Story wise, Batman needs a steady flow of villains, and since fans love reappearances of villains from former stories, these places (apparently sorely lacking in security) help supply them.

Re: The Batman
 

Top 3 Batman for me.

Sure, but these just so happen to be the most dangerous criminals.

Maybe Wayne own Arkham and lets his pets out every now and then to do battle?

Re: The Batman
 

Mystery Men is one of my favorite comic-based movies! :D

Re: The Batman
 

I also saw this opening weekend and really didn't like it, which was quite disappointing, since Batman has always been the comic book hero that I have most appreciated and enjoyed historically. For me, both the Tim Burton Batman movies and all of the Nolan films were far superior, but "The Batman" does have a very high rating on IMDB (8.4/10, I think), as well as strong reviews from critics, which has me kind of questioning my own judgment on this. I just don't understand why people like this movie so much. Can those of you who liked it go into some more depth on your thoughts on it?

For me, I found it to be much too long. I found the story to be highly convoluted and at times difficult to follow. The tone of the film felt far too dark and gloomy, and even visually, I found the cinematography, which a lot are loving, to also be far too dark. Yoda is right that some scenes were well done, such as the scene where the screen was illuminated largely by the bullets flashing. However, at times, it was actually difficult to see what was happening on the screen for me, and most of the scenes were set during the evening, or when it was raining, etc. I do have an OLED TV though, so that could help explain why I felt this way, as I find watching movies in theaters generally don't have the color vibrancy and contrast between color and the deep black levels that I am used to from watching my TV.

For a Batman film, I also found the pacing to be uneven, with at times a much too slow moving plot, with much less action than I would have expected when compared to the other films in the series. In terms of the performances, I felt several of the actors were miscast, including Jeffrey Wright, who acted much the same as he did in "Westworld," which I felt to be an odd depiction for the character, as well as Zoe Kravitz, who played Catwoman. I also didn't much like Paul Dano's performance as the Riddler, and also felt like Andy Serkis was miscast as Alfred.

Regarding Robert Pattinson's performance as Batman, which a lot of people were concerned about when he was cast, I actually felt that he was mostly fine, but I did find that there was very little of Bruce Wayne in this film, and that Robert Pattinson really acted much the same portraying both Batman and Bruce Wayne, which I found to be quite odd and a flaw in his acting, given that the duality of the character has always been a large part of the portrayal in other films. Casting is a very subjective determination though, so many may like the casting better than I did. I also felt that since the film focused largely on Batman, with many of the other characters being more in the periphery, that most of the other actors had much less character development, which I didn't like, so I may have liked these performances better if the writing and character development to support those performances was, in my opinion, stronger.

I also found that due to the dark and gloomy tone and slow pace, much less action, and relative absence of Bruce Wayne, that the film kind of lacked the fun factor and broader action set pieces that made a lot of the other movies in the series entertaining. This film felt more insular, more confined in scope, and the action felt more interior, which I didn't really like, since that made it feel less like epic and less like a Batman film to me when compared to both Burton and Nolan's films.

As for what I did like, the corruption theme, and the fact that fighting corruption in Gotham and exposing its hypocrisy was front and center in the film. I also liked that Reeves seemed to be trying to make a film that was different than the other films in the series, and offer something we hadn't seen before, even if I didn't like the execution of it. If I were to rate it, I think I'd give it a C. "Batman v. Superman" and "Batman and Robin" were definitely worse, and I do think that the director was successful in achieving the aesthetic that he was obviously going for, so the film was technically proficiently made, but I just didn't find the movie to be entertaining to watch.

Hope those of you that are looking forward to seeing this like it better than I did! For those that disagree with this review, I'm totally fine with that, as I like to hear different points of view. What did you appreciate that I'm missing here?

I'm surprised to say this, but I'm kinda wanting to see this again.

Multiple choice question for you, ynwtf...

A.) Because you liked it so much that you can't wait to relive the thrill.
B.) Because it was long & intricate, so you want to see if there were things you missed.
C.) Because of the controversy (that some really don't like it), you want to view it with a more objective perspective.
D.) All of the above.
E.) None of the above.

Re: The Batman
 

You left off
F.) Absolutely terrible memory, can't even remember what it was about
:D

It is indeed.



Did you like Wandavision?

thought so
and yes ofcourse i love it , its my top #1 fav tv series

There's a lot of B here. I think, too, that I got something very different than what I went in expecting, so I'm not sure I was prepared to take it all in. Not to draw comparisons or anything here, but I had a similar reaction to both The Green Knight and The Last Duel. With both of those viewings, I got something different than what I expected. I may have assumed The Last Duel was just that, a historical set piece of some conflict leading to a fight to the death. The presentation of three very different points of view was more involved and demanding of the audience than say Braveheart, which is probably closer to what I thought it might be. With The Green Knight, I knew there would be liberties taken to spread the poem enough to cover a featured film length of time, but I'm not sure I expected what was offered. Both encounters required a second viewing for me, and both views confirmed my enjoyment of each movie, even if my first view was taken off guard, so to speak. I mostly enjoyed The Batman and, now that I've had a few weeks away from it, I'm curious if my second viewing will confirm the positives and soften the negatives now that I won't be surprised by anything.

I liked it too. I didn't think I would, but it was quite clever and deft in handling the play of running through TV genres. The

well i been told some people think few episodes were boring i always tell them to watch it it will get intense goood episodes . it is im glad it got some awards and hoping it will win in kids choice awards i know i love loki tv series also but wanted wandavision to win :)
loved agatha harkness im glad she got her own tv series :)

I've heard the same criticism of Season 1 of Breaking Bad. I don't buy it in either case. You have to do stage-setting and introduce the players. Wandavision was solid all the way through, IMO. It's too bad that there are some who have to be encouraged to be patient for the bard.

i use to watch breaking bad only season 1 then stopped watching it :/. thats would be true. i know right especially when ur marvel fan u would know the comic also. i know right i loved it alot im hoping for season 2

Re: The Batman
 

This wasn't too shabby. Looks good. Nice to see some better choregraphed Batman fighting / action that doesn't make one cringe. Didn't really dig the Paul Dano / Riddler until I thought they were going a certain way that I didn't expect, but they aborted that idea. Kind of a chore to sit through in spots but they placed the action parts in good spots.

loved barry as joker. loved him on eternals