Pattinson/Reeves Batman Movie (Formerly Affleck Stand-Alone Film)

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The Bob Kane and Bill Finger work was all the way til the 70s, right? Now that you mentioned it, people seem to talk about Batman comics from the 70s to present but never talk about the earlier stuff (other then Batman killing) to the 60s.

Because everyone who read those comics are either dead or too old to be talking about them on the internet.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Turo602

You didn't debunk anything though. All terrible choices. Being good actors doesn't make someone right for a role. We already had great actors in non-comic accurate Batman films, except they weren't pandering with their casting choices. We want a better Batman movie, not a hipster vision of Batman.

You're alright, You.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

You didn't debunk anything though. All terrible choices. Being good actors doesn't make someone right for a role. We already had great actors in non-comic accurate Batman films, except they weren't pandering with their casting choices. We want a better Batman movie, not a hipster vision of Batman.

Hey! looks like you missed my point entirely. Did you read my whole post or just skim it?? It wasn’t about them being good choices, or even right for the role (Even if I think they are). You’re fine not wanting a, uh, hipster Batman. I’m not discussing that point.

I was pointing out the Lunacy in accusing this film of stunt casting in order to shock fans with how different the actors look from their characters (angry fan conjecture). Read my first paragraph.

I think Leo missed my point too. Not sure why (btw Leo, what does Mad Max have to do with Matt Reeves directing Batman?). Clearly stated this at the start of my post:

Regarding Reeves attempting to surprise people by casting actors that don’t look like their characters:

So, that’s clearly what I was debunking - and I did a damn fine job -but whether the actors are good choices, is always up for debate.

I swear some of you guys need to slow down and read the full post sometimes, but no harm done.

So you’re saying, in opposition to me, that all those actors were cast because they are so shockingly different looking from their comic book character's look, or you’ve misunderstood my point.

I’ve got to assume you misread or misunderstood, because based on your post history, I’ve got to think you understand that the studio and director would attempt to hire people who can act well, and yes people who can sell a movie and give some diversity, as well. That’s the type of compromise they are going to make. They want a few different shades of skin and powerful acting talent. Maybe a name that will bring in some viewers. That’s all.
It’s not about trolling fans by picking out actors who do not resemble their counterparts (I chuckle every time I clarify that).

it’s not “hey guys, know what would be great for our movie... if we hired actors that look nothing like their characters! Ha, think of all the clickbait and enraged fans! We will get so much attention! That's a great way to treat what will be the biggest film of my career!”
That is so ridiculous, I can’t believe I have to argue it. Pretty sure that’s not what you really think, but some here have stated they do. Obviously, I disagree with that idea and my post was clarifying that most of the actors being cast actually do resemble the characters they are playing! Not that it makes them better choices by any means...

And, of course just being a good actor doesn’t make you right for a role, but being a good actor makes you a much better candidate for a role than looking like the comic book character in real life does, any day of the week. That’s why I clarified in my original post that I was glad they were casting award-winning actors, whether or not they resemble the comic characters.

Btw, now that we are clear on the debunking issue, what the hell is “Hipster Batman” supposed to imply?

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by Turo602

Because everyone who read those comics are either dead or too old to be talking about them on the internet.

You are so wrong here. I like the Bronze Age above anything else and I was born when Batman Year One was published. If things are given more exposure to then they are more receptive to it. Batman: TAS was inspired by the Bronze Age Bat above anything else.

Also, Bob Kane retired in 1967 and he used mostly ghost artists such as Sheldon Moldoff. It was about the time that Bill Finger contributed his last Batman piece which was the Clock King two parter in Batman (1966) show. I believe 1964 in the comics.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

You are so wrong here. I like the Bronze Age above anything else and I was born when Batman Year One was published. If things are given more exposure to then they are more receptive to it. Batman: TAS was inspired by the Bronze Age Bat above anything else.

Also, Bob Kane retired in 1967 and he used mostly ghost artists such as Sheldon Moldoff. It was about the time that Bill Finger contributed his last Batman piece which was the Clock King two parter in Batman (1966) show. I believe 1964 in the comics.

Agreed. There’s plenty of love for many elements that come from that age of Batman. It’s just that new creators aren’t stifled by it. They take the elements from the period and play with them.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

You are so wrong here. I like the Bronze Age above anything else and I was born when Batman Year One was published. If things are given more exposure to then they are more receptive to it. Batman: TAS was inspired by the Bronze Age Bat above anything else.

The Bronze Age was before the 70s, right? I'm sure he was responding to what I was saying about the comics before that time period.

Also, who was it that came up with the idea of Bruce traveling across the globe? Was that from the 70s?

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

The Bronze Age was before the 70s, right? I'm sure he was responding to what I was saying about the comics before that time period.

Also, who was it that came up with the idea of Bruce traveling across the globe? Was that from the 70s?

The Bronze Age like any age has no definitive beginnings or endings only signals that its a new era such as Hal and Ollie discovering America, the move to the JLA satellite, Adams and O'Neil team up on Batman with Dick going off to Hudson and the death of Gwen Stacy. It could end with Secret Wars and COIE, with Dick and Wally giving up their sidekick roles and Spider-Man's black costume symbiote or clothe. The beginnings happened between 1969 to 1973 while the endings happened between 1984 to 1986. I typically think of 1970-1985 as the Bronze Age. I have a few complete runs from this period.

Bruce being a globe trotter is something that has happened on and off since the golden age.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

The Bronze Age like any age has no definitive beginnings or endings only signals that its a new era such as Hal and Ollie discovering America, the move to the JLA satellite, Adams and O'Neil team up on Batman with Dick going off to Hudson and the death of Gwen Stacy. It could end with Secret Wars and COIE, with Dick and Wally giving up their sidekick roles and Spider-Man's black costume symbiote or clothe. The beginnings happened between 1969 to 1973 while the endings happened between 1984 to 1986. I typically think of 1970-1985 as the Bronze Age. I have a few complete runs from this period.

Bruce being a globe trotter is something that has happened on and off since the golden age.

Good stuff.

And a great example of why people who whine about everything being 100% faithful are being silly. Bruce being a globetrotter is such an ingrained and well-liked part of his origin at this point, but years ago we'd have these same people decrying it as being untrue to the character. Typically, these are just people who are afraid of change. Holding up the comics as your evidence of why things need to stay the same as they've always been is a hilarious fallacy.

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Good stuff.

And a great example of why people who whine about everything being 100% faithful are being silly. Bruce being a globetrotter is such an ingrained and well-liked part of his origin at this point, but years ago we'd have these same people decrying it as being untrue to the character. Typically, these are just people who are afraid of change. Holding up the comics as your evidence of why things need to stay the same as they've always been is a hilarious fallacy.

While I believe he was always a globetrotter in his origin we don't learn any specifics of his time training away from Gotham until Year One when we get specifics of those who he trained under like Henri Ducard. The main change is he was not raised by his uncle between the time of his parents death and his going off to train. instead his butler legally raising him was only official with Year One through today. Lew Moxton is no longer a factor either. Globetrotter Batman happened as early as the 1940s where he would solve cases in other countries not just when Ra's first appeared.

[Leo656]

Post amended. I plead sleep deprivation and dog-related stress.

The guy makes a good monkey movie, I'll concede that.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Hey! looks like you missed my point entirely. Did you read my whole post or just skim it?? It wasn’t about them being good choices, or even right for the role (Even if I think they are). You’re fine not wanting a, uh, hipster Batman. I’m not discussing that point.

You didn't debunk anything by saying "ignore people who think this," "they tried to cast a fat guy as Penguin," and "so what if these characters are black now." You're not Matt Reeves, you don't know his vision, you don't know WB's involvement, you don't know the reason for the casting. It's all speculation and you're foolish to think you've debunked speculation with speculation. I honestly don't care whether or not it was stunt casting. Though it says a lot considering the guy always wanted a black Gordon.

What I do know, is that it's garbage casting and your defense for it is a weak one since you keep insinuating that comic accuracy is a joke, that "great actors" are somehow the best possible choices for comic book characters that were done a thousand times better on children's TV shows and video games. You don't need to win awards to play these characters nor does it make it better to have award winning actors. If they said they were doing a Dark Knight Returns story and cast Tom Hanks as Batman, you'd be right here saying he's a great actor and that ignore everyone who says he doesn't have a strong jaw. It's a ridiculous defense.

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

I'm sure he was responding to what I was saying about the comics before that time period.

Bingo. And I was also half joking, though I think it's still pretty damn true unless you're a diehard Batman fan who goes out of your way to pick up ancient material and then bitch about it on the internet, which I have yet to see.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

You didn't debunk anything by saying "ignore people who think this," "they tried to cast a fat guy as Penguin," and "so what if these characters are black now." You're not Matt Reeves, you don't know his vision, you don't know WB's involvement, you don't know the reason for the casting. It's all speculation and you're foolish to think you've debunked speculation with speculation. I honestly don't care whether or not it was stunt casting. Though it says a lot considering the guy always wanted a black Gordon.

What I do know, is that it's garbage casting and your defense for it is a weak one since you keep insinuating that comic accuracy is a joke, that "great actors" are somehow the best possible choices for comic book characters that were done a thousand times better on children's TV shows and video games. You don't need to win awards to play these characters nor does it make it better to have award winning actors. If they said they were doing a Dark Knight Returns story and cast Tom Hanks as Batman, you'd be right here saying he's a great actor and that ignore everyone who says he doesn't have a strong jaw. It's a ridiculous defense.



Bingo. And I was also half joking, though I think it's still pretty damn true unless you're a diehard Batman fan who goes out of your way to pick up ancient material and then bitch about it on the internet, which I have yet to see.

You're still completely missing my point. I'll see if I can find a better way to articulate it....

WB is not purposefully casting actors who do not look like the comic book counterparts. The evidence is the fact that most of them do look like the counterparts.

I don't need to see inside WB or Matt Reeve's head to make this assessment. It's a personal judgement call. Paul Dano looks like Riddler, Robert looks like Bruce, they attempted to cast the classic body type (Jonah Hill) for Penguin.
This is all relative of course. The comic book characters would never translate perfect to the screen, visually, for obvious reasons, but these actors resemble their characters in a fair way. Thus I debunk the idea that Matt Reeves has an agenda to cast actors who do not look like their comic book counterparts.


There. Not pretty, but hopefully that gets my point across. You're obviously free to disagree, but I really feel like you haven't understood what I'm attempting to say so far.

If Tom Hanks was Batman, would I be praising the casting?

Hmm I don't know. I haven't really seen him in a role that would require such intensity, but if he was chasing the role and had a vision, alongside the director, I might go for it, yeah. So what?
Is that supposed to be a bad thing in your eyes? You're right that I would defend a great actor for not having a strong jawline. Michael Keaton did a great job and was not the physical type you'd expect. Not to mention he sounded just as crazy a choice back then, as Hanks would now.

Not sure what you're getting at, but if it's the fact that I'll take a good actor over an actor who looks like a character, you're 100% correct.

Yeah, I do think great actors are the best choices lmao. Is this a joke?
I'm not even saying you have to be well known or win awards, but if you did and are a proven actor, uh, yeah, that's a good thing in my book!

[Turo602]

Without real evidence, you didn't debunk anything. Nobody cares if you think they look like their characters, that's not evidence. You also don't have to keep explaining yourself. I already said I don't care about your stunt casting debate. I'm taking issue with your lame evidence which consists of you writing off characteristics but still saying they look like their characters but don't have to if they're good actors, which is complete bullsh*t, and you know it.

It would be bad if you were out here claiming Hanks looked like a Bruce Wayne and using that as evidence to debunk someone for saying it's stunt casting. You can like the casting all you want, just don't bullsh*t us and act like it's better than something more comic accurate because of "vision" and "good acting." Plenty of directors had a terrible vision, plenty of bad actors have been in good roles, and plenty of good actors have been in terrible roles. Getting wet over "great" acting over anything else in a Batman movie is the real joke.

Also, Keaton was a terrible Batman that only got a pass because the only other Batman to compare him to was Adam West. The Tim Burton films in general are very overrated and nothing special. The guy only worked because the suit was menacing, but as Bruce Wayne, he was laughable. It's also quite laughable that you think Tom Hanks with the right intensity could be Batman. You're starting to make this thread feel like the Sonic movie thread at this point.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Turo602

Also, Keaton was a terrible Batman that only got a pass because the only other Batman to compare him to was Adam West. The Tim Burton films in general are very overrated and nothing special. The guy only worked because the suit was menacing, but as Bruce Wayne, he was laughable.

That, my dear, is just your opinion. A lot of people out there still love Keaton as Batman and think Burton's Batman is the best version.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by frank_one

That, my dear, is just your opinion. A lot of people out there still love Keaton as Batman and think Burton's Batman is the best version.

A lot of people love Grant Gustin as the The Flash and think he's the best version too. They're wrong, but they're allowed to like it. Same here.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

Also, Keaton was a terrible Batman that only got a pass because the only other Batman to compare him to was Adam West. The Tim Burton films in general are very overrated and nothing special. The guy only worked because the suit was menacing, but as Bruce Wayne, he was laughable. It's also quite laughable that you think Tom Hanks with the right intensity could be Batman. You're starting to make this thread feel like the Sonic movie thread at this point.

The edge is strong with this one.
Better wear protection or you might cut yourself.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

Without real evidence, you didn't debunk anything. Nobody cares if you think they look like their characters, that's not evidence. You also don't have to keep explaining yourself. I already said I don't care about your stunt casting debate. I'm taking issue with your lame evidence which consists of you writing off characteristics but still saying they look like their characters but don't have to if they're good actors, which is complete bullsh*t, and you know it.

It would be bad if you were out here claiming Hanks looked like a Bruce Wayne and using that as evidence to debunk someone for saying it's stunt casting. You can like the casting all you want, just don't bullsh*t us and act like it's better than something more comic accurate because of "vision" and "good acting." Plenty of directors had a terrible vision, plenty of bad actors have been in good roles, and plenty of good actors have been in terrible roles. Getting wet over "great" acting over anything else in a Batman movie is the real joke.

Also, Keaton was a terrible Batman that only got a pass because the only other Batman to compare him to was Adam West. The Tim Burton films in general are very overrated and nothing special. The guy only worked because the suit was menacing, but as Bruce Wayne, he was laughable. It's also quite laughable that you think Tom Hanks with the right intensity could be Batman. You're starting to make this thread feel like the Sonic movie thread at this point.

You dont get it, man. Slow down and go back a page or two if you can't follow the discussion.

You say you don't care about the stunt casting debate then proceed to tell me "you didn't debunk anything!" Well then you clearly have comprehension issues, because it was the stunt casting and the act of hiring actors who purposefully don't resemble their characters that I was claiming to debunk.

You are lost.

I dont need evidence that the characters look like the comic. I have my own two eyes.

Nah, my argument isn't ******** at all. I don't think they need the exact physical characteristics and I defend good acting. Yup. Moving on.

I don't think Tom Hanks really looks like Batman, but okay whatever. Sure, close enough. Still dont feel bad for potentially accepting him as DKR Batman. He's a good actor. Big deal. Your Tom Hanks point is just messy and weird.
And it's not a good sign if you have to keep telling me what I would hypothetically defend or not. Stick to the subject at hand and don't put words in my mouth. Appreciate it.

Stop with this "nobody cares" bs. Makes you sound very upset. I converse with many people here and they do care. If you dont like it, then sit down, be quiet and don't reply. Don't throw a tantrum. End of problem.

Originally Posted by frank_one

That, my dear, is just your opinion. A lot of people out there still love Keaton as Batman and think Burton's Batman is the best version.

Totally. He is revered and respected as Batman by many fans. We won't all agree 100% of the time, but my point with Keaton stands.

Originally Posted by Sumac

The edge is strong with this one.
Better wear protection or you might cut yourself.

Seriously. Think I just got a little prick from that "nobody cares" line he threw at me.

[AquaParade]

Dp

-------

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

You dont get it, man. Slow down and go back a page or two if you can't follow the discussion.

You're the only one having trouble keeping up. I have stated quite clearly that your evidence is what I have a problem with because it's a load a sh*t. I'm not defending either side of this argument, therefore I don't need it reiterated to me a thousand times because you refuse to get MY point. Your evidence is trash. It's that simple, deal with it. Just because you say a lot bullsh*t doesn't make you look like you know what you're talking about. You didn't debunk a thing with your self-proclaimed "evidence" based on you having eyes. Everytime you say "you don't get the point," you just come off like a f*cking tool. The only way you're gonna shut me up is by blocking me, so don't give me that garbage ass sit down and be quiet line just because you want to stay in your own little delusion.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

You're the only one having trouble keeping up. I have stated quite clearly that your evidence is what I have a problem with because it's a load a sh*t. I'm not defending either side of this argument, therefore I don't need it reiterated to me a thousand times because you refuse to get MY point. Your evidence is trash. It's that simple, deal with it. Just because you say a lot bullsh*t doesn't make you look like you know what you're talking about. You didn't debunk a thing with your self-proclaimed "evidence" based on you having eyes. Everytime you say "you don't get the point," you just come off like a f*cking tool. The only way you're gonna shut me up is by blocking me, so don't give me that garbage ass sit down and be quiet line just because you want to stay in your own little delusion.

You don't get it.

And you should learn to break your words into paragraphs. This is an eyesore to read.

So you believe that Matt Reeves is casting actors that don't look like the characters they are playing, in order to mess with fans and get attention. Conspiracy theory time. I can't prove otherwise. I have no evidence.
Fine. Whatever.

Clearly that's what I am led to believe by you flying off the handle saying I have no evidence and didnt debunk anything - because that is the topic I was claiming to debunk.

It's clear to me that you are mixing up topic

A. "Is Matt Reeves stunt casting to piss off fans and get attention?"

And

B. "How important is an actors appearance, proven ability, etc?"

Both were discussed in my original post, but your lack of clarity and ability to be concise has honestly made a mess of the discussion.

You keep saying I didnt debunk anything and then claim you aren't even referring to the topic (A) which is what I was attempting to debunk!

Be clear.