THE BATMAN starring Robert Pattinson (2022) 13 13

[Batman]

You guys are way off track. As happens so often in these threads, the discussions become about the poster rather than their opinion. Words like "hate", "anger", "disgruntled", "nerds", "fanboys" are presented as genuine arguments as to why someone is wrong rather than rational debate. There is no acceptance that someone has a different opinion. The Pattinson decision gets a facepalm because it's a poor and somewhat naïve choice, not because of "hate". DC/WB has one chance to get this right following the poor start of the DCEU. If they get it wrong, no one will be interested in another Batman movie for years to come. Going with Pattinson was not a good choice; more of a gamble that he'll bring an audience with him.

Pattinson, in my opinion, is not right for the role... Wrong build (too slim), wrong face type (too thin) and despite being 33, too young looking. More importantly, I haven't seen anything that has impressed me in the way of acting. I want to see someone who makes me believe they're Batman and that doesn't mean just putting on a gravelly voice when wearing the suit. They need to exude grit in that suit. DC/WB has a habit of shoehorning just-past-their-best actors into unsuitable roles. Jesse Eisenberg and Amy Adams being prime examples, not to mention some of other the Batmen. What I see here is no different.

A couple of you have touched on why you think Pattinson would be good in the role but haven't really gone into detail. I would be interested to hear why Pattinson would make a good Batman...

[@therealsilvermane]

3 hours ago, Batman said:

You guys are way off track. As happens so often in these threads, the discussions become about the poster rather than their opinion. Words like "hate", "anger", "disgruntled", "nerds", "fanboys" are presented as genuine arguments as to why someone is wrong rather than rational debate. There is no acceptance that someone has a different opinion. The Pattinson decision gets a facepalm because it's a poor and somewhat naïve choice, not because of "hate". DC/WB has one chance to get this right following the poor start of the DCEU. If they get it wrong, no one will be interested in another Batman movie for years to come. Going with Pattinson was not a good choice; more of a gamble that he'll bring an audience with him.

Pattinson, in my opinion, is not right for the role... Wrong build (too slim), wrong face type (too thin) and despite being 33, too young looking. More importantly, I haven't seen anything that has impressed me in the way of acting. I want to see someone who makes me believe they're Batman and that doesn't mean just putting on a gravelly voice when wearing the suit. They need to exude grit in that suit. DC/WB has a habit of shoehorning just-past-their-best actors into unsuitable roles. Jesse Eisenberg and Amy Adams being prime examples, not to mention some of other the Batmen. What I see here is no different.

A couple of you have touched on why you think Pattinson would be good in the role but haven't really gone into detail. I would be interested to hear why Pattinson would make a good Batman...

There have been six actors play the Batman on TV/film and all did a decent enough to good job with it. Arguably, Clooney was the worst because he couldn’t lose the Dr Ross head tilt while he talks thing or maybe didn’t want to lose it. Point is, as long as you’re a white dude with medium good looks and some acting ability, you can pull off Batman. Pattinson though, of all these guys, has the benefit of having played a character that’s a precursor to the Bat, a freaking vampire. Although, one could say Beetlejuice was a precursor for Keaton’s version. 

When Batman has failed cinematically it was because of bad decisions by the writers and directors of the movie. Akiva Goldsman and Joel Schumacher are who failed Batman and Robin. It was Zach Snyder who failed Superman and Batman most recently. Matt Reeves has proved he can tell good stories and shoot a good movie with his Apes Trilogy. For me, signs point to The Batman being off to a good start. Enough with the extended universe , just make a good movie. DC isn’t Marvel. The DNA is different.

Also, gritty Batman isn’t the only way to do the character. Bruce Wayne doesn’t have to be the Frank Miller or Chris Nolan version. The Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams or Englehart/Rogers version played more to the Detective aspect of Batman and is just as valid as the tough guy version of Frank Miller’s world. 

[Bosco685]

5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

There have been six actors play the Batman on TV/film and all did a decent enough to good job with it. Arguably, Clooney was the worst because he couldn’t lose the Dr Ross head tilt while he talks thing or maybe didn’t want to lose it. Point is, as long as you’re a white dude with medium good looks and some acting ability, you can pull off Batman. Pattinson though, of all these guys, has the benefit of having played a character that’s a precursor to the Bat, a freaking vampire. Although, one could say Beetlejuice was a precursor for Keaton’s version. 

When Batman has failed cinematically it was because of bad decisions by the writers and directors of the movie. Akiva Goldsman and Joel Schumacher are who failed Batman and Robin. It was Zach Snyder who failed Superman and Batman most recently. Matt Reeves has proved he can tell good stories and shoot a good movie with his Apes Trilogy. For me, signs point to The Batman being off to a good start. Enough with the extended universe , just make a good movie. DC isn’t Marvel. The DNA is different.

Also, gritty Batman isn’t the only way to do the character. Bruce Wayne doesn’t have to be the Frank Miller or Chris Nolan version. The Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams or Englehart/Rogers version played more to the Detective aspect of Batman and is just as valid as the tough guy version of Frank Miller’s world. 

I realize you are just voicing an opinion. Everyone has a right to it. Just realize when you state something like that, there will be counterpoint to such statements.

Zack Snyder did not fail Batman and Superman. He was telling a story that unfortunately resulted in heavy studio tampering. Including the parallel film Suicide Squad, which was going to have tie-ins to what Snyder was producing. So we will never see the full vision realized to judge if anyone failed at this other than the WB executives that reacted excessively to blogger and critic reactions, along with making financial decisions based on the AT&T merger (saving their pre-merger bonuses).

Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Cut are solid films. Many people enjoy them as much as we have people stating otherwise. And definitely rewatch these films, as Home Theater sales reflect. Unfortunately, Digital is a gap in seeing the full domestic result, along with international Home Theater sales.

Now go back to the Christian Bale interviews where he noted Bruce Wayne/Batman require multiple personalities to convey his psyche (traumatized son, playboy, detective, warrior). Even in the 70's and 80's material I was fanatical over you had all these qualities throughout the stories. So saying all it takes is a dark individual or someone that knows how to play a vampire is ignorant of the Bruce Wayne/Batman lore and character qualities. 

[@therealsilvermane]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I realize you are just voicing an opinion. Everyone has a right to it. Just realize when you state something like that, there will be counterpoint to such statements.

Zack Snyder did not fail Batman and Superman. He was telling a story that unfortunately resulted in heavy studio tampering. Including the parallel film Suicide Squad, which was going to have tie-ins to what Snyder was producing. So we will never see the full vision realized to judge if anyone failed at this other than the WB executives that reacted excessively to blogger and critic reactions, along with making financial decisions based on the AT&T merger (saving their pre-merger bonuses).

Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Cut are solid films. Many people enjoy them as much as we have people stating otherwise. And definitely rewatch these films, as Home Theater sales reflect. Unfortunately, Digital is a gap in seeing the full domestic result, along with international Home Theater sales.

Now go back to the Christian Bale interviews where he noted Bruce Wayne/Batman require multiple personalities to convey his psyche (traumatized son, playboy, detective, warrior). Even in the 70's and 80's material I was fanatical over you had all these qualities throughout the stories. So saying all it takes is a dark individual or someone that knows how to play a vampire is ignorant of the Bruce Wayne/Batman lore and character qualities. 

Zach Snyder proved he was a bad filmmaker to me with Watchmen. He took Alan Moore’s parody/commentary on superheroes, the 80’s, and the comic book format and turned it into a base ‘roided up action movie. When it comes to superhero, the guy does straight visual adaptation but without the intellectualism of the source material and barely anything new. I can’t believe DC gave Alan Moore and practically Frank Miller’s Dark Knight (Batman v Superman) to this guy.  

Man of Steel was the beginning of the end. From the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight tone of the movie to the poorly written characters (Clark Kent makes a toothpick kabob out of a trucker’s $100,000 vehicle just for being a d***bag and Pa Kent commits suicide to teach Clark a lesson? No wonder Clark grows up in the movie to be such a tortured soul), all wrong for Superman and not great storytelling. Zod was okay but undermined by the film’s other bad character and tonal choices.

And Christian Bale is also a looney bird. We’ve all seen the Terminator bts clip of him attacking the AD. While that guy was in the wrong it didn’t deserve that outburst to the point of physical violence. And if Mr Bale wants to go through all that method acting angst  for a superhero character, fine. But it’s not required. This isn’t Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The story of Bruce Wayne’s “tortured soul” can also be told with music, editing, lighting, and directorial choices. Or how about just a good detective action film starring the Batman?

Edited June 2, 2019 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Zach Snyder proved he was a bad filmmaker to me with Watchmen. He took Alan Moore’s parody/commentary on superheroes, the 80’s, and the comic book format and turned it into a base ‘roided up action movie. When it comes to superhero, the guy does straight visual adaptation but without the intellectualism of the source material and barely anything new. I can’t believe DC gave Alan Moore and practically Frank Miller’s Dark Knight (Batman v Superman) to this guy.  

Man of Steel was the beginning of the end. From the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight tone of the movie to the poorly written characters (Clark Kent makes a toothpick kabob out of a trucker’s $100,000 vehicle just for being a d***bag and Pa Kent commits suicide to teach Clark a lesson? No wonder Clark grows up in the movie to be such a tortured soul), all wrong for Superman and not great storytelling. Zod was okay but undermined by the film’s other bad character and tonal choices.

And Christian Bale is also a looney bird. We’ve all seen the Terminator bts clip of him attacking the AD. While that guy was in the wrong it didn’t deserve that outburst to the point of physical violence. And if Mr Bale wants to go through all that method acting angst  for a superhero character, fine. But it’s not required. This isn’t Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The story of Bruce Wayne’s “tortured soul” can also be told with music, editing, lighting, and directorial choices. Or how about just a good detective action film starring the Batman?

I think your depth on these characters is much lower than your Marvel focus. Not that it matters to me.

In Man of Steel, he is more like the John Byrne 'Man of Steel' limited series Clark Kent, in that he doesn't become Superman until later in life as he tries to search for his origins and purpose. Also a little less accepting of being demeaned. And his connection in life is with Earth, his parents and people he knows and much less with his Krypton legacy. Though what Snyder did is still make his Clark Kent excited to know more about his people, going off to research where he came from and who he is.

Again, your assessment on Bruce Wayne/Batman is also very limited and off. But that's okay. People that know the character also recognize the traits associated with both his costumed and civilian personalities. Anyone that comes to the table with one approach is most probably going to fail.

[@therealsilvermane]

35 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I think your depth on these characters is much lower than your Marvel focus. Not that it matters to me.

In Man of Steel, he is more like the John Byrne 'Man of Steel' limited series Clark Kent, in that he doesn't become Superman until later in life as he tries to search for his origins and purpose. Also a little less accepting of being demeaned. And his connection in life is with Earth, his parents and people he knows and much less with his Krypton legacy. Though what Snyder did is still make his Clark Kent excited to know more about his people, going off to research where he came from and who he is.

Again, your assessment on Bruce Wayne/Batman is also very limited and off. But that's okay. People that know the character also recognize the traits associated with both his costumed and civilian personalities. Anyone that comes to the table with one approach is most probably going to fail.

I am familiar with John Byrne's Man of Steel series and I thought it was okay but maybe a little too John Byrney for me. I can see that World of Krypton influence in Zach Snyder's movie but I saw it more as a Christopher Nolan inspired (he was producer after all) remake-mashup of Superman I and II. Did they have to use Zod again? Why not Brainiac or something new? And why did Jor El's flying reptile remind me so much of Avatar? I didn't enjoy Man of Steel at all and neither did a lot of other people. Superman should be bright and colorful and hopeful, not depressing and gloomy. He should be a direct contrast to Batman, not try to be like him. It's Snyder and Nolan, imo, who didn't understand Superman. And that's why THEY failed.

[Bosco685]

12 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I am familiar with John Byrne's Man of Steel series and I thought it was okay but maybe a little too John Byrney for me. I can see that World of Krypton influence in Zach Snyder's movie but I saw it more as a Christopher Nolan inspired (he was producer after all) remake-mashup of Superman I and II. Did they have to use Zod again? Why not Brainiac or something new? And why did Jor El's flying reptile remind me so much of Avatar? I didn't enjoy Man of Steel at all and neither did a lot of other people. Superman should be bright and colorful and hopeful, not depressing and gloomy. He should be a direct contrast to Batman, not try to be like him. It's Snyder and Nolan, imo, who didn't understand Superman. And that's why THEY failed.

$117M in Home Theater sales. Somebody loved Man of Steel enough to make those purchases. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Bosco685

[@therealsilvermane]

6 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

$117M in Home Theater sales. Somebody loved Man of Steel enough to make those purchases. 

I think those numbers should be bigger for the two most popular superheroes in the world.

p.s. And another thing that bothered me about Man of Steel was using Jor El's ghost as a bailout for the heroes in the end. Kal El is the hero here we're supposed to be following, not his dad. But whatever. That version of Superman is dead now and in the past with Batfleck. Maybe they'll get the Big Blue Boy Scout right the next go around in a few years.

[bane]

Man of Steel was awesome and gets better with each viewing.

[Bosco685]

52 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I think those numbers should be bigger for the two most popular superheroes in the world.

p.s. And another thing that bothered me about Man of Steel was using Jor El's ghost as a bailout for the heroes in the end. Kal El is the hero here we're supposed to be following, not his dad. But whatever. That version of Superman is dead now and in the past with Batfleck. Maybe they'll get the Big Blue Boy Scout right the next go around in a few years.

  2013 and beyond is when VUDU, iTunes and later Google Play and Movies Anywhere kicked in. Those numbers aren't even reflected in those totals.

P.S. You miss out. Others will continue to appreciate these movies.

[Batman]

5 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

There have been six actors play the Batman on TV/film and all did a decent enough to good job with it. Arguably, Clooney was the worst because he couldn’t lose the Dr Ross head tilt while he talks thing or maybe didn’t want to lose it. Point is, as long as you’re a white dude with medium good looks and some acting ability, you can pull off Batman. Pattinson though, of all these guys, has the benefit of having played a character that’s a precursor to the Bat, a freaking vampire. Although, one could say Beetlejuice was a precursor for Keaton’s version. 

When Batman has failed cinematically it was because of bad decisions by the writers and directors of the movie. Akiva Goldsman and Joel Schumacher are who failed Batman and Robin. It was Zach Snyder who failed Superman and Batman most recently. Matt Reeves has proved he can tell good stories and shoot a good movie with his Apes Trilogy. For me, signs point to The Batman being off to a good start. Enough with the extended universe , just make a good movie. DC isn’t Marvel. The DNA is different.

Also, gritty Batman isn’t the only way to do the character. Bruce Wayne doesn’t have to be the Frank Miller or Chris Nolan version. The Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams or Englehart/Rogers version played more to the Detective aspect of Batman and is just as valid as the tough guy version of Frank Miller’s world. 

I agree most of the blame should go to the writers/directors, not the actors. However, I don’t think Clooney was entirely faultless, ghosts of ER or not. He wasn’t suited to the role.

I’m not sure Pattinson’s role as a vampire qualifies him to be the next Batman but very good  

We don’t need to have a tough guy incarnation of the character to see some grit. There’s room for all aspects of the role: detective, hero, vigilante, but when it comes to the crunch the character should be tough and intimidating. Kevin Conroy managed all the characteristics as voice actor. I’d like to see that transposed to a live action movie.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Batman

[evilskip]

I remember the $#!tstorm when Keaton was announced to play Batman. I wasn't happy about it until I watched him in CLEAN AND SOBER. Then I knew he had the chops to pull it off. I'm not sure about Pattinson, but if this movie ever gets made, then I'll pass judgment.

And yes, the Batman should be voiced by Conroy.

[ComicConnoisseur]

15 hours ago, Batman said:

I would be interested to hear why Pattinson would make a good Batman...

I think the focus should be on Matt Reeves. His Planet of the Apes trilogy was a masterpiece.

Trust him. The Batman franchise is in good hands now.

[Bosco685]

13 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I think the focus should be on Matt Reeves. His Planet of the Apes trilogy was a masterpiece.

Trust him. The Batman franchise is in good hands now.

I am going to give Good Time a try this week in preparation.

On 6/1/2019 at 8:38 AM, Bosco685 said:

Good Time and Cosmopolis seem to be the two many are pointing to as examples of how he will succeed as Bruce Wayne/Batman. I've never seen these films before.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

8 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I am going to give Good Time a try this week in preparation.

 

He really is a good actor. I think this Twilight stereotype is ruining his rep. I ask all fellow Batman fans to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited June 3, 2019 by ComicConnoisseur

[ComicConnoisseur]

6 hours ago, bane said:

Man of Steel was awesome and gets better with each viewing.

My biggest regret with the DC Universe was they didn't do a Man of Steel 2 before BvS and Justice League. Man of Steel was really good and had me excited and I posted a lot about it. They dropped the ball not doing a Man of Steel 2 to rush and do BvS.

[40sJohn]

18 hours ago, Batman said:

You guys are way off track. As happens so often in these threads, the discussions become about the poster rather than their opinion. Words like "hate", "anger", "disgruntled", "nerds", "fanboys" are presented as genuine arguments as to why someone is wrong rather than rational debate. There is no acceptance that someone has a different opinion. The Pattinson decision gets a facepalm because it's a poor and somewhat naïve choice, not because of "hate". DC/WB has one chance to get this right following the poor start of the DCEU. If they get it wrong, no one will be interested in another Batman movie for years to come. Going with Pattinson was not a good choice; more of a gamble that he'll bring an audience with him.

Pattinson, in my opinion, is not right for the role... Wrong build (too slim), wrong face type (too thin) and despite being 33, too young looking. More importantly, I haven't seen anything that has impressed me in the way of acting. I want to see someone who makes me believe they're Batman and that doesn't mean just putting on a gravelly voice when wearing the suit. They need to exude grit in that suit. DC/WB has a habit of shoehorning just-past-their-best actors into unsuitable roles. Jesse Eisenberg and Amy Adams being prime examples, not to mention some of other the Batmen. What I see here is no different.

A couple of you have touched on why you think Pattinson would be good in the role but haven't really gone into detail. I would be interested to hear why Pattinson would make a good Batman...

Well said for most of this.  I can't go into details as to why Pattinson would be a good Batman other than the fact he can act.  Michael Keaton looks nothing like the Batman I grew up liking in the Bronze comics of the early 70's, but the guy could act.  He did a good enough job that his Batman movies helped give the genre enough credibility to continue with big budgets.  Maybe Pattinson will bulk up some but more importantly can he portray what you call "grit".  I agree he will need to exude it because that's what it will take for the movie to hit a home run.  

[Bosco685]

What timing.

I watched Good Time as a first-ever experience. Quite the performance by Pattinson. He is dark, intense, quick-witted in tough situations and aggressive in his role. Definitely no Edward 'Twilight' Cullen concerns from this film.

But I am seeing more Nightwing than Bruce Wayne/Batman for now. Definitely potential on display, though. 

[jsilverjanet]

Pattison can act. Those who say he can’t reference Twilight yet none of the people saying that have seen that movie either

or have you?????

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 6/1/2019 at 8:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

I want to hope. That's all I can do right now.

Me too, but, a turd covered in fool's gold flakes is still a turd...