Batman-Online.com

Warner Bros has announced a new animated movie based on Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee's classic Hush storyline. It's one of four DC animated movies scheduled for release in 2019, the other three being:

•   Reign of the Supermen
•   Justice League vs. The Fatal Five
•   Wonder Woman: Bloodlines

A part of me would prefer an adaption of The Long Halloween over Hush. But considering how badly the animators failed to capture Mike Mignola's beautiful art style in the Gotham by Gaslight movie, I don't really trust them to get Tim Sale's signature style right either. Still, let's hope these new films show some improvement over DC's other recent animated offerings.

You're quite right. Hush's appeal is strongly attached to the art, which is stunning. It elevates the book into something special. But I do find the story itself enjoyable because of the wide spread of characters used, and the scenarios we find them in.

It's a story that is a celebration of the Batman universe - reflecting on the past and moving into the future.

Batman himself is depicted as vulnerable (falling from a snapped line, emotionally falling for Selina and his identity deduced by Riddler). But he's also someone who survives Superman, throttles Joker, knocks out Harley and eventually pushes away Catwoman due to his suspicions. It's a good mix. But I need to see a trailer to be convinced WB are doing the project justice.

This might be a tough nut to crack. Hush is a kind of episodic storyline. The through-line of it is Batman ultimately making his way to the showdown with Hush. But there are a LOT of detours along the way... and most of them don't really relate very much.

There's also a lot of baloney going on with Gordon's retirement, the theft of Jason's body and other stuff that don't really bear directly on the immediate story either.

If it sounds like I'm criticizing this idea, perish the thought. On the contrary, there's a lot of chaff in those comics... and separating it from the wheat should be pretty easy to do. It'll give the movie a narrative focus without losing much connective tissue.

This could be an incredible animated movie.

This announcement also goes a long way toward making sense of the news reports about Batman going back to his Hush-era outfit in the comics.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 00:34
This announcement also goes a long way toward making sense of the news reports about Batman going back to his Hush-era outfit in the comics.

That was my favourite piece of news from what otherwise proved to be a very disappointing Comic-Con.


The only other news that interested me was that Marvel is reviving their Marvel Knights imprint for its 20th anniversary.

A Hush movie could work if they can streamline the plot without compromising its scale too badly. But right now, I don't have a whole lot of faith in DC's animated output. It's not that their recent films have been terrible... just disappointing. That's especially true of adaptations like The Killing Joke and Gotham by Gaslight. Maybe Hush will be the one that rights the ship – the first animated film in a while to do justice to the source material – but I won't hold my breath.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 24 Jul  2018, 11:54
But right now, I don't have a whole lot of faith in DC's animated output. It's not that their recent films have been terrible... just disappointing. That's especially true of adaptations like The Killing Joke and Gotham by Gaslight. Maybe Hush will be the one that rights the ship – the first animated film in a while to do justice to the source material – but I won't hold my breath.

Couldn't agree more.

Batman wise, I'm hoping for a third season of Teltale more than anything.
Affleck starring in The Batman would excite me on that front, but I won't hold my breath.

I'm not sure I consider Hush a classic per se, but it's damn enjoyable. The Batman/Catwoman relationship is the heart of the story, so if they want to streamline something, it should be outside of that. At least they didn't screw up TDK Returns.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Jul  2018, 05:37The Batman/Catwoman relationship is the heart of the story

I... didn't think of that. But it's true. And it ties in rather nicely with where Batman comics are right now, in fact. Can't believe that wasn't mentioned sooner, actually.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Jul  2018, 05:37At least they didn't screw up TDK Returns.

True. Minor quibbles aside, that's the best animated adaptation of any Batman story I've ever seen.

I'm not the biggest hush fan, but it's an ok story. Granted, I haven't read it in over 12-13 years, so it's been awhile. I do need to re-read it before the animated movie comes out. I'm interested in how they do this, as I always found hush to be a pretty convoluted story, and if it'll hold up outside of Jim Lee's art. I still can't get over how bad TKJ movie was.

As for Gotham by Gaslight, I still haven't watched it. Did they change anything from the book? That's another book that I thought was just ok. After the Ripper plotline finished up, I felt the book dragged.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 26 Jul  2018, 22:26
I still can't get over how bad TKJ movie was.

They screwed up the unscrewable. Why diverge from an acclaimed story so much? Adding on that unnecessary and embarrassingly tacky prologue? What the f*** were they thinking?

"Boss, we gotta balloon out the story because it's too short otherwise, so let's have Batman bump uglies with Batgirl! It'll make her crippling more intense man!"

The art was cheap and pathetic. Joker's crude language was forced and not even from the book.

The filmmakers of TDK Returns understood the book was loved for being WHAT IS WAS. They merely presented the content in animated form. It shouldn't be that hard. Fools complicate the simple.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 26 Jul  2018, 22:26
As for Gotham by Gaslight, I still haven't watched it. Did they change anything from the book?

They changed a lot. They basically took the premise of a Victorian Batman fighting Jack the Ripper and made an original story out of it. There are one or two images and plot beats lifted from the comic – such as the part where Bruce is falsely arrested for the Ripper's crimes, or the fight on the dirigible – but overall it's a very different interpretation. They even changed the Ripper's true identity. Lots of characters who weren't in the book appear in the film, and a number of key characters that were important to the comic – including the main villain – do not appear in the movie. The film has a more pronounced steampunk atmosphere that runs counter to the comic's gritty deconstructionist sensibility. And the animation, while nowhere near as bad as TKJ, does not reflect the stylised aesthetic of Mignola's artwork.

Having said all this, it's actually not a bad film. It's just a poor adaption of the graphic novel. But if you don't like the comic to begin with, then you might enjoy the movie. It's certainly better than The Killing Joke.

For anyone interested in a more in-depth analysis, we have our site review here:
https://www.batman-online.com/features/2018/2/9/review-batman-gotham-by-gaslight-2018

But be warned, it contains spoilers.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 27 Jul  2018, 01:57The art was cheap and pathetic.

The animation in The Killing Joke was shockingly bad.


How It Should Have Ended has better animation than this. I read somewhere that the reason for the poor production values was that the film was rushed to cash in on Mark Hamill's renewed popularity following The Force Awakens. I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is it would explain a lot.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fyre.co%2FEkIsz4P4RW6OYshPgzua_giphy.gif&hash=e4f86bde6fed9088706759e7260ae8ca53d70406)

I'm trying to figure out wtf is happening to the O'Hara who opens that cell door. He just sort of vanishes.

Let's be real. TKJ could've had amazing animation and stuck to the original faithfully... and I still wouldn't have liked it. I'm not a TKJ fan. I daresay it's everything a comic book shouldn't be. "Mature" storytelling is one thing but that sucker borders on being torture-porn.

GBG... it breaks my heart. I refuse to even watch the movie because that's not GBG. No idea why some of those changes were made but that's not the story I've cherished all these years.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Jul  2018, 01:43
I'm trying to figure out wtf is happening to the O'Hara who opens that cell door. He just sort of vanishes.

Maybe the security at Arkham wanted the Joker to feel he was being watched at all times, so they glued a two-dimensional image of a guard's face onto the outside of his cell door.

And to think, the filmmakers were so proud of this shot they included it in the trailer...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Jul  2018, 01:43Let's be real. TKJ could've had amazing animation and stuck to the original faithfully... and I still wouldn't have liked it. I'm not a TKJ fan. I daresay it's everything a comic book shouldn't be. "Mature" storytelling is one thing but that sucker borders on being torture-porn.

I'm sure we're in the minority on this, but I've never cared for The Killing Joke either. In fact I think it's probably the single most overrated Batman comic ever published. Even Moore himself has admitted it isn't very good. The most interesting aspect of TKJ is its emphasis on the moral, ideological and psychological complementarity between Batman and the Joker, but there are plenty of other comics that have explored those same themes in greater depth.

I also never bought into the whole 'one bad day' angle. I can accept the premise that someone could be driven insane by one bad day, or even that they could be driven to kill. But the idea that a timid, morally-upright human being could be transformed into an invincible, ingenious and thoroughly evil criminal mastermind overnight... I just don't buy it. I prefer versions of the Joker's origin where he was already a tough, experienced criminal before he got bleached (e.g. the Red Hood and Jack Napier origins). A character that irredeemably evil requires a foundation of wickedness to begin with.

In general I don't like attempts to make the Joker sympathetic. To misquote The Simpsons, supervillains are a lot like elephants. Some of them act badly because they've had a hard life or have been mistreated.  But, like elephants, some of them are just jerks. The Joker is a jerk. He doesn't need a sympathetic back story, any more than Professor Zoom or Bullseye do.

The origins for Napier in B89 do make more sense. His mobster past gave credibility to his career as the Joker. He was a guy who was already intimidating people and engaging in criminal activity.  TKJ is a good FOUNDATION for the character though. I like what it spawned in terms of the Red Hood and the acid vat. I think the Batman universe would be much poorer without these general concepts. I enjoy the carnival setting, which is one of the best possible locations for a Joker/Batman showdown. I like what the book says about the Joker/Batman relationship, which the Telltale series pushes even harder in a fresh new way. So I have goodwill towards the book's spirit.

Well, TKJ didn't introduce the Red Hood origin. That was already in the comics before that book. Although, I guess you can say ti was fleshed out more in TKJ.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnerdreactor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FJOKER_origin_05211_zps68cdd8d3.jpg&hash=614948feb3a42c890e86e27fc1e4a9a25e65b7c7)

I prefer the Red Hood story from Detective Comics Vol 1 # 168 (February 1951). In the Golden Age version, he'd already pursued a moderately successful criminal career as the Red Hood prior to becoming the Joker. In Moore's revisionist take, he was never actually the Red Hood but was merely tricked into donning the hood and cape during the robbery at Ace Chemicals. In the original version of the story the Red Hood had already faced Batman prior to having his skin bleached. During this encounter, he demonstrated qualities of theatricality, brazenness and ingenuity, all of which would later be evidenced in his career as the Joker.


By contrast, the failed stand-up in Moore's story displays none of these traits. He just spontaneously acquires them after getting his skin bleached. The Golden Age comics portrayed the Joker's earlier self as a daring criminal, a skilled marksman and a knowledgeable chemist. His earlier self in Moore's story is a timid, nonviolent civilian. The only thing he has in common with the Golden Age Red Hood is that they'd both worked in a chemical factory. I have no trouble believing that the Golden Age Red Hood could evolve into the Joker. He already had the skills, the intellect and the daring – he just needed that extra push to shove him over the edge. I find it much harder to accept that the character in Moore's tale could turn into the world's greatest supervillain overnight.

Comic historians have often contrasted Alan Moore's take on the Joker with Frank Miller's, as they each exemplify two very different attitudes towards the character's psychosis. Moore wants us to pity the Joker and understand that he is not in control of his own actions; that he is a victim of his mental illness, and therefore not entirely responsible for his crimes. This is similar to Dr Wolper's take in The Dark Knight Returns.


Miller's take on the Joker is essentially the same as his interpretation of Bullseye during his earlier Daredevil run: namely that both antagonists are inhuman, unsympathetic mad dogs; creatures of pure evil, with no redeeming qualities. And both must eventually be put down by the hero. As a matter of personal preference, I like Miller's interpretation in The Dark Knight Returns more than Moore's take in The Killing Joke. Here's an interesting quote from Miller on the subject:

QuoteAlan Moore and I once had about a six-hour argument about the Joker, back when he did comic books — because he believed that the Batman and Joker were almost parallels that were separated at birth. Alan had a much more, a sort of attitude of moral relativism about what was good and what was evil. I took a much more arched view, because I believe that the Joker is not so much insane as satanic. He's evil incarnate, and he's so malicious that it goes beyond anything we could understand. That's what's so terrifying about him, is that he simply wants to do as much harm and damage as he possibly can.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/08/when-frank-miller-and-alan-moore-argued-about-the-joker/

I agree with Miller on this point. Which is why I think the character should be depicted as an evil criminal before he becomes the Joker, rather than as an innocent victim of misfortune.

But to clarify, I don't think The Killing Joke is a bad book. Not at all. Bolland's art work is excellent, I enjoy the showdown in the fun house, and I like the way Moore attempts to dig beneath the surface of the Batman/Joker dynamic. It's a perfectly fine comic. I just don't agree that it's the classic most other fans hold it up to be. I think too much of the plot is preoccupied with sadism for the sake of shock value, I don't like the way the story ignores Barbara's perspective in the aftermath of her attack, and I think everything that's good about the story has been done better in other comics. For me, it's a decent, average Batman comic which I believe gets overrated due to Moore's involvement. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not for one second suggesting anyone who likes the book is wrong to do so.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 29 Jul  2018, 16:14
Well, TKJ didn't introduce the Red Hood origin. That was already in the comics before that book. Although, I guess you can say ti was fleshed out more in TKJ.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnerdreactor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FJOKER_origin_05211_zps68cdd8d3.jpg&hash=614948feb3a42c890e86e27fc1e4a9a25e65b7c7)

That's all true, of course. However the FEELING I have, is after such a long gap between those original panels and TKJ, it really was like TKJ instigated these concepts because it made them more mainstream, seeping into other aspects of Batman media. In many respects it does serve as the foundation. Without TKJ, would the red hood concept be as strong as it is now? TKJ brought this origin back to the forefront and expanded upon things - then and now. The spawn of TKJ reintroducing these concepts is the Red Hood/Jason Todd character, who I think has enriched the Batman universe.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 29 Jul  2018, 18:36
Miller's take on the Joker is essentially the same as his interpretation of Bullseye during his earlier Daredevil run: namely that both antagonists are inhuman, unsympathetic mad dogs; creatures of pure evil, with no redeeming qualities. And both must eventually be put down by the hero. As a matter of personal preference, I like Miller's interpretation in The Dark Knight Returns more than Moore's take in The Killing Joke.

I do as well. However I do like the general concepts of red hood and the acid. I'm happy to consider that canon, and I like that foundation. The backstory of who Joker was (comedian, gangster, etc) is open to debate for me.

As said, I prefer the gangster route.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 29 Jul  2018, 18:36
But to clarify, I don't think The Killing Joke is a bad book. Not at all. Bolland's art work is excellent, I enjoy the showdown in the fun house, and I like the way Moore attempts to dig beneath the surface of the Batman/Joker dynamic. It's a perfectly fine comic.

It's a simple story at the core, and while I respect the reputation, I don't think it compares to something like TDK Returns. 

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 30 Jul  2018, 02:43
Without TKJ, would the red hood concept be as strong as it is now? TKJ brought this origin back to the forefront and expanded upon things - then and now. The spawn of TKJ reintroducing these concepts is the Red Hood/Jason Todd character, who I think has enriched the Batman universe.

That's a good point. The Killing Joke origins was widely considered canon in the late eighties/early nineties and there are a number of stories from that era which made direct reference to it. We've already gone over those in another thread, so I won't list them again now. But the point is that The Killing Joke was the first story to reference the Red Hood aspect of the Joker's origins in the Post-Crisis canon. You could argue it legitimised the Red Hood for the Modern Age, much like how Grant Morrison's Batman R.I.P. legitimised the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh.

Getting back to Hush, what does everyone think about the fight scene with Jason Todd? Should they adapt it, or is that one of the sequences they should leave out? I ask because they've already covered that ground in the Under the Red Hood film. As far as I know, Loeb didn't intend for Todd's resurrection to be real when he first wrote Hush. It was only retconned as the real Jason when Judd Winick wrote Under the Hood. It was one of my favourite scenes in Hush the first time I read it, but in light of what came afterwards it might be better to exclude that sequence from the animated movie.

Jason's rise from the dead has always been a touchy issue for me. He needs to stay dead (as was Loeb's intention) or else the scene needs to be skipped completely.

Speaking of Robin, it does raise the question of which Robin we'll see in the movie. Tim was Robin in Hush. But in the minds of the public, these days Damian is Robin... for better or worse. I say worse but I'm an old fart. I want Tim to be Robin. He's the people's Robin and is a far better successor to Dick and implicitly Tim is the guy who will someday take Bruce's place as Batman. Tim is a company man. This is the job he REALLY wanted and I like the idea that someday (in stories we'll never see) he'll pick up more or less wherever Bruce leaves off.

So of course I'm expecting it to be Damian in the animated movie because of course it will be.

PROVE ME WRONG, WB.

Whether or not they include Jason in the film, my stance on Jason coming back from the dead is pretty simple.

Is it REALISTIC? No.
But is it emotionally POWERFUL? Yes.

Making that leap in believability opens up the narrative potential. I like the idea of literally having to face your past, a past you thought was dead and buried, even though you still carried those memories for years. Those memories you thought were forever fixed in time and exclusive to yourself are now active again. The corpse you mourned and eulogized now hates your guts. And to make things more complicated, you still wouldn't do a thing differently despite the outcome of the past.

A really messed up and fascinating concept that wouldn't exist if pure realism was in force.   

I'm cautiously optimistic for this thing.

According to IMDB, Kevin Conroy and some of the voice actors from the Arkham videos games will reprise their roles in this adaptation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8752440/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Wally Wingert played an excellent Riddler in the Rocksteady games, I always got a kick out of his mental breakdown every time Batman solved his riddles. I can't wait to hear him and Conroy voice one of the last scenes of the comic, where Batman confronts Riddler in jail. Judging by the inclusion of Poison Ivy, Lois Lane and Clayface, it appears we will get those scenes where Batman "rescues" Superman from Ivy's control and Batman fighting Clayface disguising as Jason Todd.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 12 Dec  2018, 12:28
According to IMDB, Kevin Conroy and some of the voice actors from the Arkham videos games will reprise their roles in this adaptation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8752440/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Wally Wingert played an excellent Riddler in the Rocksteady games, I always got a kick out of his mental breakdown every time Batman solved his riddles. I can't wait to hear him and Conroy voice one of the last scenes of the comic, where Batman confronts Riddler in jail. Judging by the inclusion of Poison Ivy, Lois Lane and Clayface, it appears we will get those scenes where Batman "rescues" Superman from Ivy's control and Batman fighting Clayface disguising as Jason Todd.

Well, that news turned out to be clickbait bullsh*t. f*** IMDB, and apologies to everybody else.  >:(

The stupid website has updated its full casting page for the movie - nobody from the Arkham games is reprising their role. Jason O'Mara will return to voice Batman yet again, as this adaptation looks set to continue in the DC Animated Movie Universe. Which quite frankly, I'm getting very tired of. Jerry O'Connell returns as Superman too.

By the way, the video below compiles a montage of leaked screenshots from the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPs1BVtVFyY

If this adaptation of the iconic romantic scene is anything to go by, I'll keep my expectations low.

(https://i.redd.it/x1b740b739p21.jpg)

I wonder if Hush will be revealed to be Gordon. That would be a pretty interesting way to "subvert expectations", since we all know how important that is. We wouldn't want people who have read the comic to find the story predictable, now would we?

While we're at it, Catwoman can be revealed to be Gordon too. Same thing with the other guy in bandages; rather than Harvey, make it Gordon. Don't even bother explaining how "Dent" has those scenes with Gordon. Nobody worries about stuff like that.

In fact, just let Gordon play every other role in the story aside from Batman. Gotta challenge those audience expectations, after all...

This looks disappointing. The animation style speaks for itself, especially when you consider the vibrancy and detail of the comic. The drop in quality happened very quickly and the rot has set in. I'm hoping a new Batman game is announced at E3, because I'm not feeling anything else right now.

The line style is probably the biggest disappointment. I don't need Conroy voicing the character. But for everything that Hush as a storyline was and wasn't, at a minimum Jim Lee filled the pages with tons of detail and the coloring really set the art off powerfully.

This animated movie looks like the same muddy, cruddy pap that can be found in any zillion of other Batman movies.

I reserve the right to be wrong. The animated TDKR film totally caught me off-guard. A pleasant surprise. Hush could turn out the exact same way.

But I'm getting a worse and worse feeling all the time.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 14 May  2019, 23:21
The line style is probably the biggest disappointment. I don't need Conroy voicing the character. But for everything that Hush as a storyline was and wasn't, at a minimum Jim Lee filled the pages with tons of detail and the coloring really set the art off powerfully.

This animated movie looks like the same muddy, cruddy pap that can be found in any zillion of other Batman movies.

I reserve the right to be wrong. The animated TDKR film totally caught me off-guard. A pleasant surprise. Hush could turn out the exact same way.

But I'm getting a worse and worse feeling all the time.

Nowadays, DC's animation line reminds me of the current MCU: mass produced but lacking much identity. Animation is of mediocre quality, and it's certainly nothing to compare to Dark Knight Returns, Under the Red Hood or even Assault on Arkham. And in terms of entertainment value, they are not getting better, despite a lot of them are based on good comics. I watched Reign of the Supermen a few weeks ago, and I was disappointed by how dull it was with the cheap animation and trying modernise the story, which made it completely devoid of heart and tension, such as skipping Steel's arc and the destruction of Coast City. Of course, you might be right to say you can't fit everything from a comic under an hour and a half movie. But because I found the movie so lackluster, it left me wanting those aspects to be adapted.

The only other animated movies in the last eighteen months I saw were Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay, The Death of Superman (both were was just okay but nothing exceptional), and Justice League vs Teen Titans, which I thought was crap apart from Damian Wayne's arc. I was counting on the animation department to give me something to look forward now that I've lost interest in the live-action department, but if they don't start putting their comics they're adapting to best use, I think I'll give it up too. I guess you could compare the DCAMU to how MCU detractors describe that franchise. Most of them are watchable, but they're utterly forgettable.

So yeah, once again, I don't expect much from Hush.

Whoever is voicing Gordon is terrible. Not a good choice, at all.

I found this choppy little trailer online.

https://youtu.be/K5nPiGL03Y8

Yeah, the voice actor playing Gordon is wrong for the part. He sounds so out of place.

I noticed they ditched Batman's New 52 costume he normally wears throughout the DCAMU, he's wearing the blue cowl and underpants instead. Like he does in the comic.

The animation still doesn't do much for me, but I do like the Joker's appearance. It's good to see a more traditional looking Joker smile again. (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/batmanonlinecom_default/images/post/thumbup.gif)

Looks like I called it a few pages back. Robin will be Damian rather than Tim.

A few years ago, a big fan theory swept the Internet saying that DC and WB both were trying to undo everything that happened in the 90's. Looks like Tim Drake is the latest addition to the "We'll just pretend that never happened" list.

The characterization of Tim as well as Batman's relationship with Tim wasn't a major point of the Hush storyline but those things did play heavily into the Clayface chapter in Batman's internal monologue.

Apparently the directors and artists are willing to put Batman back into his Hush-era outfit. But using Tim as Robin, no way, can't do that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 May  2019, 19:54
Apparently the directors and artists are willing to put Batman back into his Hush-era outfit. But using Tim as Robin, no way, can't do that.

Considering that Batman's relationship with his son Damian is the most distinctive thing about these DCAMU animated movies, is it really that surprising?

That being said, the Batsuit change is a surprise. Even more surprising they still haven't fully adopted the classic Superman costume. I don't understand the inconsistency there.

I wish Bruce Greenwood came back to do this instead. That way, it could've been a prequel to Under the Red Hood, as the Hush comic was for Under the Hood.

Two new clips have been released online.

Here is one of Batman fighting Bane...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfm9LznQyk

...and here he is chasing after Catwoman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wbPLtEgwoc

My eyes could be playing tricks on me, but the animation looks even worse than what I saw in Reign of the Supermen. The sight of Catwoman's legs as she jumps off the edge of the rooftop look strangely rubbery, and this gradient-looking effect to highlight the dark-clothed characters looks very poor. The voice actor playing Bane doesn't sound very good either.

Jason Fabok tweeted his dissatisfaction over what he saw. I reckon he's spot on.

Quote
After the Batman: Hush clip, I gotta say...and It wont be popular...but DC Animation really needs to step up the art and design and make each movie look original, or closer to the comics.  Everything has looked so "blah", style wise, for the past few movies.  Dark and generic.

https://twitter.com/JasonFabok/status/1150837087681372161

The whole art style DC Animation has persisted since Justice League: War is getting tiresome. I don't have the urge to watch any of these types of movies anymore, and that includes Hush. Hopefully things at Warner across the board changes. Sadly, I doubt it.

I caught up on some of the recent Batman animated films last month, including this and The Brave & the Bold Scooby-Doo crossover.

I thought Hush was very poor. The script is weak and completely lacks the tension and intrigue that was integral to the original comic. The relationship between Bruce and Tommy is underdeveloped, the animation is underwhelming and marred by the same bland New 52 designs as the other recent DCAU films, and they needlessly changed the identity of the title villain. So it gets a thumbs down from me. Avoid.