Who is bosslogic? And who in the comments is saying it's official? (too many to read through)

Ha, yeah, super weird, but ok!

I hope Hoult pursues playing a character in the MCU after being Beast in Fox's X-Men movies.

Assuming this is within the DCEU, wouldn't this HAVE to take place in the 90's?

Haven't we discussed this before? I swear I've posted thoughts on this in this thread, but maybe it was the DCEU thread. Either way, there's been zero indication that this is the same Batman as Affleck's Batman. Personally, I don't think it's DCEU, and I'd be willing to bet a large amount that it takes place in its own, contained universe.

Yeah, hence my question. You are pretty adamant that it's not 90s but all signs seem to point to the contrary.

What signs? Legit asking.

Several reports, one of which I posted. The age also lines up.

What signs have you seen this is a new universe?

That "report" from that site no one's ever heard of? I wouldn't give that any credence to that whatsoever. I haven't heard anything concrete either way, which is kind of my point. I've mainly just been arguing the logic of it. Let me see if I can find that old post that explains my basic thinking. It's in the DCEU thread (I just checked this one)...

Finally found it. It was in the Joker thread, Ha, and it was of course in response to you on this very topic...

My basic point, summarized from the quoted text below, is that a *new* Batman movie set in the '90s would most likely cause too much confusion for both the Joker movie AND the DCEU. A Batman in his 30s - in the 1990s - wouldn't line up with either the Joker universe or the DCEU. It would ALMOST line up, but not quite.

Under this '90s scenario, if Batman were 33 (Pattinson's age) in 1999, the last possible year it could take place...

- Bruce Wayne would be 51 in Justice League. But Affleck was mid-40s in that movie.

- Bruce Wayne would be 15 in Joker. But the kid playing Bruce Wayne in Joker barely looks 10.

So, seeing as the ages don't quite line up, why would WB set a new Batman movie in literally the most confusing era they could set it? Especially when we've already had THREE Batman movies set in the '90s. Based on that logic alone, it doesn't seem likely. I'm not saying it won't happen, and sure, they could fudge the years a bit, but instead they're being very specific about the years, at least with the Joker movie. In other words, given how little we know right now, the logic just doesn't check out...

Quote:

---

Actually, I screwed up the math in my post yesterday. I forgot that this movie is set in 1981, where a "young Bruce Wayne" looks to be 8-10 years old. For some reason I was thinking it was later than that. Either way, if Reeve's Batman does indeed take place in the '90s, and does indeed connect to this movie, Bruce Wayne/Batman could be anywhere from age 17 to 29 depending on what year in the '90s Reeve's movie is hypothetically set. But since we know Reeves' Batman isn't an origin story, given this scenario, it would have to be at some point in the late '90s, when Bruce is a bit older (even though 29 is still pretty damn young). So, the timelines technically line up, and Phoenix's Joker could technically show up in the sequel to Reeves' first Batman movie, as long as they aged Phoenix by 20 years or so.

But my point is, if Joker ISN'T connected to Reeves' Batman (and by all accounts it's not), but Reeves' Batman IS set in the '90s, that seems like a scenario ripe for confusion. Casual audience members would likely be expecting Phoenix's Joker to show up, since the timelines would be so relatively close together. It just seems really weird and random to me that WB would allow a Joker movie set in the '80s, and then a Batman movie set in the '90s, but NOT have them connect. I'm all for these one-offs and separate universes and all that, but even that seems like a stretch so early in this experiment.

It would make WAY more sense if Reeve's Batman is set in present day (or an alternate version of our present day), in a separate universe from Joker, and that's clear from the get-go. Look, maybe Reeve's Batman has some concrete reason it HAS to be set in the '90s. Maybe his detective story only works without cell phones or something. But if not - if his take isn't time period specific - I would imagine WB would be nudging him to set it way after Phoenix's Joker, just so there aren't any misguided expectations. That, and three of the first four "modern" Batman movies were already set in the '90s (Returns, Forever, and Batman & Robin). Even though it would obviously be a completely different timeline/universe, why would WB/Reeves want to revisit that time period again? It just seems so random and arbitrary.

---

I like Hoult as an actor a lot, but I'm not sure he would be right for this role. I'm interested to see what Efron does next, I'd like to see him keep taking serious roles for a bit, see what he can do. I think Pattinson might knock this out of the park.

Well you're basing your numbers on Affleck's age, and he was intended to be playing older, wasn't he? He had the grey in his hair added.

But my main question is, do we know for sure this is a one-off movie in a separate universe like Joker?

Because if it is, it would pretty much signal the end of the DCEU to most people. And it seems like they want to keep it going.

jake is in his 30s

I feel like they'll just be like, here's Batman. He's different, but the same. I know the age thing is weird, but to me it's no different than the Burton and Schumacher movies changing actors.

They did say that while it's all the same universe, it'll only be loosely connected moving forward.

Let's say we ignore the Joker movie completely (as it most likely is just a one-off), and say Pattinson's Batman IS a prequel to Affleck's Batman. If so, Affleck was 44 in 2016, when they shot Justice League. Pattinson is currently 33. So, going by their real ages, Pattinson's Batman would still only take place in 2005 - which is literally the year Batman Begins came out / took place. So that's out of the question. Still, yeah, they could say Affleck was playing 50 or so in Justice League, thus, indeed, setting Pattinson's 33-year-old Batman in the '90s. Based on the casting, though, I still don't buy it. I simply don't see Affleck as an older Pattison. There's not only a massive size difference, but they really don't look all that similar, save for having the same color hair.

As for the DCEU angle, yeah, WB is *essentially* keeping that going, but it's becoming pretty splintered. That, and we know they're open to one-offs, or they wouldn't be making the Joker movie.

Overall, I'm just saying, we don't know for sure either way. It seems just as silly to keep insisting that it's set in the '90s as it is for me to keep insisting that it's not. I'm simply trying to convey why I don't think the logic adds up. That, and most importantly, like I said way back when, I would assume that Reeves wants - if not demanded - a clean slate. To me, that trumps everything. I assume he wants to create his own world/characters and not be bound, even tangentially, to two movies no one really liked all that much. Especially once Affleck bowed out, I can't imagine WB insisting that Reeves stick to that world, when they're not even making Todd freaking Phillips stick to that world with Joker. Matt Reeves is about as elite as they come in terms of blockbuster filmmaking. Can you imagine WB telling the director of The Hangover movies, "Yeah, do whatever you want - it can be a completely different Joker from Jared Leto's Joker" - but then telling Matt Reeves, "No! You, sir, must stick to the Batfleck iteration and set the movie in the past, preferably in '90s, when our ****tiest Batman movies were being released." I just can't see that happening in a million years.

TCTTS said:

---

Who is bosslogic? And who in the comments is saying it's official? (too many to read through)

---

He's an artist that's blown up (over a million followers) and now does movie posters and other work for Marvel, Lionsgate, and other.

Not an official source but a pretty connected one, it was his mention in the comments but could still just be an opinion.

He had a Pattinson edit a few months ago, and some sites ran with it as rumors that he'd been cast.

Cedric Diggory is Batman!?

Joseph Parrish said:

---

So Batman is gonna sparkle now?...

---

m

Why wouldn't he?

**** you miss daisy

Collider reporting that Hollywood Reporter is claiming Catwoman and Penguin will be villains in The Batman

https://link.hollywoodreporter.com/view/518d53f9191b2a646dbcdf4da2tef.1ie/de42d27e

http://collider.com/the-batman-villains-penguin-catwoman/?utm_campaign=collidersocial&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

Also..

Quote:

---

IS ROBERT PATTINSON the new Batman? That's THE question on the geek mind Friday. The answer is complicated.

Depending on who you talk to Pattinson is just the frontrunner on a very very short list. Others will tell you the part is his. Or even that a deal is done.

One insider tells Heat Vision it's still on ongoing process. And that there's a whole vetting system that is underway. While mum on details, that "process" means, in part, screen tests, costume tests, readings, and meetings. But, yes, deep conversations are being had.

Batman is, for Warner Bros., THE most important brand, IP, character, whatever you want to call him, in its portfolio. He is the most popular superhero character in the world, even bigger than anything Marvel has. In fact, Batman has only risen in importance since Christian Bale headlined the Christopher Nolan trilogy in the aughts.

So Warners exec are, of course, being extremely meticulous, perhaps to a fault, in handling what is supposed to be a new trilogy. They don't want a repeat of the Ben Affleck debacle where they had a divisive Batman and saw a potential solo franchise collapse in public.

(And regarding the importance of costume tests, you may recall that how an actor looked in a mask was a key factor for Warners choosingRyan Reynolds over Bradley Cooper when casting Green Lantern... not that the final product seemed to have mattered.)

Matt Reeves is still tweaking his script, which is rumored to have at least two villains, the Penguin being one of them, according to sources (one person is telling us there will be around half-a-dozen villains!). We're hearing of another purrfect character making an appearance in the script as well.

---

Love the bolded part

If WB was willing to give him the truckload of cash, then hell yes.