*** THE BATMAN ***
240,065 Views |
2118 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Jim01
Just watched lost city of Z with hunnam and Pattinson. Good movie
after watching a few of pattinsons movies i would much rather prefer him than hoult
Also...
Quote:
This film will in no way carry on the work that Ben Affleck did as the older Batman in Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League.
Does that mean it's confirmed to not be in the DCEU?
I wish they would just say concretely.
I wish they would just say concretely.
I took it to mean the exact opposite.
How so?
I'm confused as to how you're confused. They're saying this iteration won't "carry on" Affleck's iteration, i.e. it won't be a sequel to or continuation of the Batman established in the past two DCEU movies, and the only other thing that could mean is that it's not a prequel either. Either way, given the fact that they're not confirming it's a prequel in the very next sentence tells me it's completely unrelated. In other words, this would be a really odd way of saying it's a prequel to Affleck's Batman.
Why do you seemingly so desperately want this to be a prequel? Why would you want this to be constrained by all the crap that's come before?
Why do you seemingly so desperately want this to be a prequel? Why would you want this to be constrained by all the crap that's come before?
Desperate how? I literally just want confirmation either way.
And you misread my statement, btw. I asked if it was confirmation it WASN'T a DCEU movie.
And you misread my statement, btw. I asked if it was confirmation it WASN'T a DCEU movie.
You're right, my bad. I missed the "not" in your first sentence. Apologies.
In the past, though, you've just seemed like you REALLY want this to be a prequel for some reason, so I think I already had that pre-programmed in my head when reading you're post.
In the past, though, you've just seemed like you REALLY want this to be a prequel for some reason, so I think I already had that pre-programmed in my head when reading you're post.
Two reasons.
1. I wish they would just stick to the DCEU already. Either get rid of it, or stick to it. I don't like having multiple separate universes going on simultaneously.
2. I dig the idea of the 90s a setting, in a more nostalgic form, as opposed to Burton's movies which were more of a throwback to the 60's/70's in tone.
1. I wish they would just stick to the DCEU already. Either get rid of it, or stick to it. I don't like having multiple separate universes going on simultaneously.
2. I dig the idea of the 90s a setting, in a more nostalgic form, as opposed to Burton's movies which were more of a throwback to the 60's/70's in tone.
With Joker, I think we can officially kiss having *only* the DCEU goodbye. And it seems weird to me that WB would stop there. That, and with Marvel already doing a shared universe so perfectly, why not allow DC to mix it up and try this multi-"universe" approach? IMO, it's always going to feel like a cheap imitation of the MCU otherwise.
I guess a "proper" '90s setting/tone could be cool, I just don't see the larger point. It would feel inherently constrained in so many ways. Not only limited in tech and style, but we'd already know where that Batman is ultimately headed. Personally, I'd much rather have a clean slate and an unknowable future.
I guess a "proper" '90s setting/tone could be cool, I just don't see the larger point. It would feel inherently constrained in so many ways. Not only limited in tech and style, but we'd already know where that Batman is ultimately headed. Personally, I'd much rather have a clean slate and an unknowable future.
I'm with Spilner on wishing they'd just say whether or not it's in the same universe, or if they're just undoing the DCEU altogether. I don't care if this is a prequel or not, but I like the idea of Pattinson growing into his own Batman apart from anything Affleck's character had established. I would rather it be DCEU because I want to see Batman interacting with the Justice League in a more meaningful way than Affleck. Almost like a prequel to the new Batman, with the second movie being present day.
I'm also thinking maybe Wonder Woman 1984 might provide some sort of timeline shift for Pattinson's Batman to make sense.
I'm also thinking maybe Wonder Woman 1984 might provide some sort of timeline shift for Pattinson's Batman to make sense.
I would honestly trade both this and Joker for a Man of Steel sequel.
Alas.
Alas.
these might be really good, but I agree that I liked man of steel and would love to see a sequel that pretends like BvS never happened.Brian Earl Spilner said:
I would honestly trade both this and Joker for a Man of Steel sequel.
Alas.
looking forward to him as batman
supposedly its a 3 film deal as well
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I would honestly trade both this and Joker for a Man of Steel sequel.
Alas.
Count me in the group that liked Man of Steel, I think he is a great Superman too. But I'm also really interested to see this movie, and Pattinson has done some great work since the Vampire movies
azulAg said:
supposedly its a 3 film deal as well
Three films that are not connected in any way, are each in their own confined universe and will each have different directors who will recast every character except Pattinson.
Here's more from this Hughes guy at Forbes...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/05/31/robert-pattinson-to-star-in-matt-reeves-the-batman/#261b61911555
Quote:
With multiple villains appearing in The Batman -- I was told months ago that Penguin, Riddler, and possibly Catwoman are expected to appear, as well as other rogues and mobsters -- and additional characters including Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, and potentially Robin, we should be hearing additional casting information soon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/05/31/robert-pattinson-to-star-in-matt-reeves-the-batman/#261b61911555
Mentions Supergirl starting next year as well..
That looks pretty sharp. Better fan fiction than 50 shades...
That's such a gd cluster****.
It's almost like the success of Wonder Woman was bad for them in the long run.
It's almost like the success of Wonder Woman was bad for them in the long run.
Hmmm. I don't know if I buy that. Multiple WB execs are on record as saying their movies don't necessarily need to be connected going forward. I just can't see them starting a whole new DCEU on top of the one they already have and then rebooting those characters again. That's an incredibly dumb strategy, even for WB.
That, and in my opinion, Batman being part of a larger DCEU goes against his character. We tried that. It was weird and it was lame. He's a different breed of comic book character, and the crown jewel of WB's DC properties. Keep him in his own universe.
That, and in my opinion, Batman being part of a larger DCEU goes against his character. We tried that. It was weird and it was lame. He's a different breed of comic book character, and the crown jewel of WB's DC properties. Keep him in his own universe.
I don't think they know where they want to go with the larger DC universe. Just leaving the door open to either connect movies that do well or cut loose those that don't.
TCTTS said:
Hmmm. I don't know if I buy that. Multiple WB execs are on record as saying their movies don't necessarily need to be connected going forward. I just can't see them starting a whole new DCEU on top of the one they already have and then rebooting those characters again. That's an incredibly dumb strategy, even for WB.
That, and in my opinion, Batman being part of a larger DCEU goes against his character. We tried that. It was weird and it was lame. He's a different breed of comic book character, and the crown jewel of WB's DC properties. Keep him in his own universe.
That's pretty closed-minded of you. Movies are empathy machines, and as long as they have relatable characters and appeal to emotion, having diverse tones and characters within the movie doesn't matter.
I simply prefer the noir/detective/relatively-grounded Batman, one who exists in a pseudo-realistic world, even if (and sometimes especially when) that world is ultra-stylized from time to time. But more than that, I like how simultaneously stoic, driven, and screwed up he his as a human being, and I love how his rogues gallery is made up of distorted reflections of the things he fears. The villains Batman faces are always so specific to HIS character, HIS psyche. In that sense, It's not just about overcoming them physically, but mentally as well. So when he faces/defeats one it feels like he's facing/defeating a dark, twisted reflection of himself, more so than any other comic book character I can think of. When you start tossing in aliens and villains who are synonymous with other superheroes, it just ends up feeling a little off and kind of waters him down and makes him feel out of place. Not to mention, powers-wise, he never quit fits when part of a team of *literal* superheroes either. I just think he's one of the few superheroes who belongs in his own world, if for no other reason than that world is tailor-made to serve as a funhouse mirror of himself. Gotham is Bruce Wayne's id, his ego, and his super-ego. Character and environment gel together in this awesome, twisted, but relatively closed-off world. Throw Superman or Wonder Woman or whoever else into the mix, or take Batman out of Gotham for an extended period of time, and it almost feels like you're literally messing with Bruce Wayne's identity, plight, etc. I'm not saying either of those things can't be done effectively, but I'd argue that he still needs to be the centerpiece in either scenario (as opposed to just a "teammate"), and Superman or whoever would need to serve as just another reflection, if that makes sense.
Anyway, if all of that makes me "closed-minded," so be it.
Anyway, if all of that makes me "closed-minded," so be it.
I agree with this. I would rather see Batman team up with the Bat-family or create his own team, the Outsiders, where he is more useful as a detective and with hand to hand combat.
If he is in another Justice League movie, I want to see him more as the tactician and leader/general than some dude who just stands to the side because he's more vulnerable than everyone else.
If he is in another Justice League movie, I want to see him more as the tactician and leader/general than some dude who just stands to the side because he's more vulnerable than everyone else.
I think you're letting Snyder's incompetence shape your opinion of the character too much. And you're placing too much emphasis on his wacky villains-of-the-week and Gotham. Batman in Justice League and Justice League Unlimited worked just fine without either of those things. And many would say (including me) that those two shows had the best incarnation of the character in any media.
I don't want Batman to "work just fine." I don't want some passable, good-enough version for the sake of seeing him team up with other superheroes for some forced reason (Snyder or no Snyder, there's no iteration where it doesn't ultimately feel forced on some level). Why does everything have to be a "universe" now? Again, DC is never going to be able to compete with how flawlessly the MCU is pulling off a shared universe. Why do we so desperately need DC to do the same thing? Why can't some of these characters just stand on their own?
At this point I'm mainly arguing MY preference, though, so need to continue arguing it. You're not going to change my mind.
Also, Affleck's iteration was decent enough, and definitely cool at times, but IMO, he felt short changed for all the reasons I listed in my previous post. And I'd take Bale's iteration over him in a heartbeat. Maybe even Keaton's as well, if only because he existed in a fully fleshed out Gotham/Bat-verse.
At this point I'm mainly arguing MY preference, though, so need to continue arguing it. You're not going to change my mind.
Also, Affleck's iteration was decent enough, and definitely cool at times, but IMO, he felt short changed for all the reasons I listed in my previous post. And I'd take Bale's iteration over him in a heartbeat. Maybe even Keaton's as well, if only because he existed in a fully fleshed out Gotham/Bat-verse.
Featured Stories
See All
19:50
22h ago
5.0k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
5 Thoughts: No. 23 Texas A&M 78, No. 21 Ohio State 64
by Luke Evangelist
A&M's approach remains the same with NMSU coming to Aggieland
by Olin Buchanan
116:42
2h ago
722
27:22
12h ago
4.0k