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

[CyberCubed]

Hopefully this is the start of a promising new trilogy. Let it be what the Nolan one was for the 2020’s decade. Only this time don’t screw up the third movie and don’t keep it hyper realistic. And it’s ok to introduce Robin, the real Robin, not Joseph Gordon Levitt.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

If Clooney's Bat suit was mixed with The Dark Knight trilogy then this suit would be it.
https://batman.fandom.com/wiki/Batsu...tman_%26_Robin)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32993892844.html

I get the touch of Nolan suit, but I don't see any Clooney suit there at all.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

That looks like an alternate to the helmet in the screen test though. It has to be, because of the eyes, so I'm thinking this is sort of a B:TAS style 'Bat-Helmet".

It's definitely a helmet just for the bike.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and no cape, obviously.

Which means they'll either CGI it in later on or the cape can "deploy" from somewhere in the back.

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Hopefully this is the start of a promising new trilogy. Let it be what the Nolan one was for the 2020’s decade. Only this time don’t screw up the third movie and don’t keep it hyper realistic. And it’s ok to introduce Robin, the real Robin, not Joseph Gordon Levitt.

Well, Timothee Chalamet IS rumored to be Dick Grayson in this movie:

https://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za...es-the-batman/

Other angles:





I think I kind of see what they're going for now, in these pics. And looks like grey material underneath. We'll have to wait and see it with him standing and the cape in play, but I think it could be an interesting take.

[myconius]

even underneath the armor, this stuntman looks to have a pretty muscular build. it's going to be weird seeing Batman shift between looking like this guy, then back to thin-framed Pattinson.

i'm not a fan of this overly armored design. looks way too clunky!
doesn't look like it's built for stealth at all.

[Andrew NDB]

Might be based on "Zero Year" biker Batman:

[Leo656]

I am so incredibly shocked that it looks like piss. What a mess.

[IMJ]

This is an opportunistic joke for those who get it - yet it's a joke because.... well it's true.

It looks like he's wearin' hockey pads.

[AquaParade]

Thing is, we could post a ton of movie costumes looking like trash on set that we know turned out to be pretty cool in the film itself.

[Leo656]

It is incredibly frustrating that they have more capability than ever before to get things Right. They CHOOSE to do things Wrong and call it "being creative and unique".

No nickels from me.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Thing is, we could post a ton of movie costumes looking like trash on set that we know turned out to be pretty cool in the film itself.

I agree, but I still couldn't help my mind pulling me here:

That awkward moment where you realize a cosplayer did your character better than your movie studio did.

[Andrew NDB]

So... billionaire, rich white male. Maybe they're inclined to do so and maybe they're not... but is anyone worried at all that this might be deemed a little problematic by people at WB in 2020 and will be "addressed" in some way?

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It is incredibly frustrating that they have more capability than ever before to get things Right. They CHOOSE to do things Wrong and call it "being creative and unique".

No nickels from me.

I can understand being frustrated that you aren't getting what you want. I guess it's another film that won't be for everyone.
I wouldn't direct anger at them for doing it "wrong" though. Creative people like to be creative and unique. I think that's a good trait.
And they know Batman can take it, and in fact, even thrives on it, otherwise we wouldn't have all the wonderful interpretations that we do.

My thought is: what if Frank Miller was afraid of doing it "wrong" ?
What if Nolan was afraid of doing it "wrong" ?
What if Morrison was afraid of doing it "wrong"?
What if Burton was afraid of doing it "wrong" ?
What if Dini and Timm were afraid of reinventing Freeze?

Well, I guess you would have gotten faithful adaptions of, likely, Neil Adams and Bob Finger Batman, to some arguable extent - and I can understand wanting that instead. I'm happy as hell with all the character has gone through over the last four or five decades, personally.

No disrespect to your personal tastes. I'm just sharing that I'm also a huge fan of the "right" way to do Batman, and I love my Batman comics as much as anyone. (In fact, my bookshelf has probably prevented me from "sealing the deal" more than once, but I can take it.)
Yet at the same time, I'm all for seeing the character through the lens of another creative person.
I emphasize that to combat the somewhat common sentiment that "the only people who like this don't read the comics!" or "aren't actual fans" or any of that crab **** that you sometimes see from big babies on the internet.

Just another attempt to explain my perspective, piggybacking off your quite opposite perspective. No judgement here.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

So... billionaire, rich white male. Maybe they're inclined to do so and maybe they're not... but is anyone worried at all that this might be deemed a little problematic by people at WB in 2020 and will be "addressed" in some way?

I'm way past caring about the whims of a goofy vocal minority. If an article like this comes up, the last thing I'm going to do is give it a click and pass it around to all my friends, tbh.

[myconius]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Might be based on "Zero Year" biker Batman:

Spoiler:

the problem with that theory is Zero Year Batman was wearing a cloth suit that form fitted a muscular physique.
this here movie design suit looks more like Cryax or Sektor from Mortal Kombat 3.

[myconius]

Originally Posted by Leo656

No nickels from me.

yeah. i feel the exact same way.
from what i'm seeing, i just have no desire to see this nor pay money for it.

[Leo656]

"Different" and "Better" aren't the same. Different is simply different and it's usually worse. So okay, like three guys' "new ideas" for reinvention weren't terrible. That's not a good record.

And everybody brings up Mr. Freeze like that character even matters. He's always been a Z-Lister, it's just that after TAS he's a Z-Lister with a slightly more tragic backstory. WOW. They really "fixed" him up, huh? SO many awesome Freeze stories came after that, which were incredibly affecting and impactful, like....... well, I mean, there was the one where he.... well, at least there was the time he....... Huh. I guess that having ONE good episode of a cartoon show didn't really do much to elevate his status very much after all!

I'm kinda teasing to make a point, but it's still true that having a "fresh new vision" for where the guy came from did very little to make the character himself any less of a loser. And that one or two "new ideas" that work still don't excuse the hundreds of others that don't.

And frankly, all those guys you named DID do a LOT more wrong than right with the character (in my own opinion), so I'm not impressed by them much, either. "What if Burton got it wrong"? Jesus, what that guy got wrong would fill a novel. Those are great "Tim Burton" movies but they're terrible Batman movies. Nolan, same thing; he made one-and-a-half good Batman movies but he was really making Nolan Movies and stapling Batman into them. NOT the same thing.

Regardless of whatever anyone else has or hasn't done, or might do, Here's the biggest hangup for me: We could have had an awesome Affleck solo movie and we're not getting it because a few keyboard tough guys pitched a fit over nonsense. That's not something I think I'm ever gonna get over, frankly. We were SO CLOSE to a comics-accurate Batman solo movie, FINALLY, after decades of excuses and bullsh*t and nonsense about why it "just wasn't possible", except we saw that it IS possible, they just didn't wanna do the work until Zack actually came and DID the work. But ohhhhh noooooo, he had guns on the Batmobile so we gotta scrap the whole damn thing and go back to doing sh*tty "Not-Actually-Much-Like-Batman" Batman movies.

I don't want "different" when they haven't even really "gotten it right" ONE TIME yet out of almost a dozen movie attempts. Tired of "reimaginings" and "reinventions'. Do it. Like. The Books.

These movies are not better than the comics. There hasn't been a single comic book movie, Batman or otherwise, that's "better" than the work that inspired it, not even close.

The people writing them are not smarter than the people who wrote the comics. They're just arrogant. "I went to film school, of COURSE my ideas are better than some guy who writes funnybooks for kids." And then their ideas are all terrible.

They make bad decisions for nebulous reasons and I'm sick of seeing them get a pat on the ass instead of a slap in the head. Back in the day, I could buy the excuses. Not anymore.

No more "in name only" adaptations that don't honor the source. Superficial trappings and "wink-wink" sh*t like "Robin Blake" needs to be put to bed. I can't believe we're in 2020 and they're still so ASHAMED of the stuff they're "adapting" that they keep trying to fix what simply isn't broken.

I'll never apologize for being a purist, because the books are simply better than anything that any cartoon or movie has ever given us. I can't change the fact that these jagoffs THINK they're smarter than the material, that they can "improve" it, and that they insist on wasting tons of money trying. And if people wanna like it, that's their business too. But I am DONE rewarding these people for their arrogance and ineptitude.

"I'm doing MY version of Batman." NO. Stop it. Just do f*cking Batman and save the cutesy sh*t.

This is not a topic we'll ever agree on, frankly. Because to me, if a person loves the books, they don't want to see them bastardized and "reimagined" by a much less talented hand. I will never, ever understand that logic no matter how anyone tries to explain it to me. "I love the books, but I love it when someone takes the thing I love and turns it into something I hardly recognize." Nah, I don't get it, never will get it, frankly, don't even WANNA get it. Maybe because I don't see these people as especially "creative", just "opportunistic".

Like what you like, it's whatever. To me, the fact we were thisclose to a comics-accurate Batman movie, which is ALL I ever wanted - and now we'll likely NEVER get that, ever - is more than I can stomach. So it's fine. I'll save the money and spend it on back issues or whatever.

It's not the end of the world. They're just movies. It's just VERY f*cking annoying.

[Coola Yagami]

Honestly I'll have to agree. There's been so many 'here's my take and vision on Batman' that making a movie actually based on the comics would be a fresh new take.

If you want creative visions and whatnot you got like 9 movies to choose from. Time to give 'faithful to the books' a try.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

"Different" and "Better" aren't the same. Different is simply different and it's usually worse. So okay, like three guys' "new ideas" for reinvention weren't terrible. That's not a good record.

To be fair, no one is saying "different" and "better" are the same. Right? At least I don't see anyone implying that different is always better. I'd say "different is wrong" is what is actually being implied, and by you.

And maybe you don't think "different is always wrong" but your post was closer to implying that than mine was "different is always better". What I said was that I enjoy seeing different interpretations. Not that they are always better. I don't want to be misinterpreted so I think these are worth going over.

"Three guys' new ideas" - Those are three great examples that changed the course and perception of Batman forever, yes, but I wouldn't use those few examples to chart a graph or maintain a "record" for "new ideas that turned out to be fine", because hundreds of those exist.
This way my way of highlighting what we would have missed out on with the mindset that "new is wrong".

And everybody brings up Mr. Freeze like that character even matters. He's always been a Z-Lister, it's just that after TAS he's a Z-Lister with a slightly more tragic backstory. WOW. They really "fixed" him up, huh? SO many awesome Freeze stories came after that, which were incredibly affecting and impactful, like....... well, I mean, there was the one where he.... well, at least there was the time he....... Huh. I guess that having ONE good episode of a cartoon show didn't really do much to elevate his status very much after all!

I'm kinda teasing to make a point, but it's still true that having a "fresh new vision" for where the guy came from did very little to make the character himself any less of a loser. And that one or two "new ideas" that work still don't excuse the hundreds of others that don't.

I think it's a great example of creative minds taking chances and having a pay-off. *Shrugs*.

And frankly, all those guys you named DID do a LOT more wrong than right with the character (in my own opinion), so I'm not impressed by them much, either. "What if Burton got it wrong"? Jesus, what that guy got wrong would fill a novel. Those are great "Tim Burton" movies but they're terrible Batman movies.

I hear ya (although, I didn't ask "what if Burton got it wrong?". I know he got a lot "wrong").

Burton's films & Nolan's films both take heavy liberties when being compared to the source material. Miller and Morrison as well, for sure. It won't work for everyone. I can't argue that.
I feel that not only did these creators do great work with the characters, but in some ways they also helped elevate them. That's not a slight on the original stories, which are the holy grail, but each medium and interpretation does things the others can't.

Nolan, same thing; he made one-and-a-half good Batman movies but he was really making Nolan Movies and stapling Batman into them. NOT the same thing.

I take a different route here. They're still Batman movies to me, regardless of the creative liberties they take. I think it's hyperbolic to go that far.
Bruce Wayne, parents murdered, inspired by this tragic event to take the symbol of a bat and put fear into the hearts and minds of criminal, protecting those they would prey upon in Gotham city. It's definitely Batman.

Regardless of whatever anyone else has or hasn't done, or might do, Here's the biggest hangup for me: We could have had an awesome Affleck solo movie and we're not getting it because a few keyboard tough guys pitched a fit over nonsense. That's not something I think I'm ever gonna get over, frankly. We were SO CLOSE to a comics-accurate Batman solo movie, FINALLY, after decades of excuses and bullsh*t and nonsense about why it "just wasn't possible", except we saw that it IS possible, they just didn't wanna do the work until Zack actually came and DID the work. But ohhhhh noooooo, he had guns on the Batmobile so we gotta scrap the whole damn thing and go back to doing sh*tty "Not-Actually-Much-Like-Batman" Batman movies.

a few thoughts on this:

1. I sympathize. I also wanted that "Batfleck" movie. Bad. It was my most anticipated film for a long time. I still want it.

2. I can't help but interpret your post as taking out anger on this movie for not being Ben Affleck's movie. Blaming it for the death of the Ben Affleck film. That would, in theory, color your opinion on this, instead of letting you judge it for what it is.
I won't put words in your mouth and I'm not trying to play Doctor, but it's not hard to interpret that from your post. At the end of the day, creatively, this film has nothing to do with Affleck's.

3. We didn't lose that film because people on the internet pitched a fit. We literally just read an article a few days ago with Ben saying he was totally done with that franchise.

I don't want "different" when they haven't even really "gotten it right" ONE TIME yet out of almost a dozen movie attempts. Tired of "reimaginings" and "reinventions'. Do it. Like. The Books.

Which books do you mean? I read many of them and they are wildly different in their interpretations of Batman. In terms of personality, ability, costume.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm also familiar with the books and I don't actually see these interpretations as all being exactly alike.

These movies are not better than the comics. There hasn't been a single comic book movie, Batman or otherwise, that's "better" than the work that inspired it, not even close.

The people writing them are not smarter than the people who wrote the comics. They're just arrogant. "I went to film school, of COURSE my ideas are better than some guy who writes funnybooks for kids." And then their ideas are all terrible.

The comics are the best thing ever. I would suck the Batman comics' dick if they altogether shared one. You won't find me ever argue against comics - I love them.

But to generalize that one medium's stories are all better than the others is lunacy.
Some Batman comics are better than the movies and some movies are better than the comics. Simple as that.
It's laughable to pretend that TDK isn't a better told story than a good percentage of Batman comics. Just like it's laughable to pretend that the Schumacher films are better than practically any Batman comic.

At the same time, the best Batman stories are, generally, in the comics. And, uh, going by just consensus, are written by many of the writers who did things "wrong", interestingly enough. Hell, Morrison's Batman is the best thing to ever see the light of day and it's as much of a radical reinvention as it is faithful to the source material. It really is both.

[AquaParade]

No more "in name only" adaptations that don't honor the source. Superficial trappings and "wink-wink" sh*t like "Robin Blake" needs to be put to bed.

That Robin Blake **** was so bizarre. I really don't think Nolan made that film for himself. He prob thought that would please fans but it was just empty.

I can't believe we're in 2020 and they're still so ASHAMED of the stuff they're "adapting" that they keep trying to fix what simply isn't broken.

I don't think the choices Matt Reeves is making are driven by "shame" for the source material. By that metric, any change made to the source material was born of shame. I mean, all we are going off of is a few vague quotes and set-pics of the costume.

I'll never apologize for being a purist, because the books are simply better than anything that any cartoon or movie has ever given us. I can't change the fact that these jagoffs THINK they're smarter than the material, that they can "improve" it, and that they insist on wasting tons of money trying. And if people wanna like it, that's their business too. But I am DONE rewarding these people for their arrogance and ineptitude.

No one should apologize for their preferences. You like what you like. I respect it.

"I'm doing MY version of Batman." NO. Stop it. Just do f*cking Batman and save the cutesy sh*t.

Any time an artist or creative person takes a character on, there is going to be a bit of their DNA in there. It's still Batman to me.

This is not a topic we'll ever agree on, frankly. Because to me, if a person loves the books, they don't want to see them bastardized and "reimagined" by a much less talented hand. I will never, ever understand that logic no matter how anyone tries to explain it to me. "I love the books, but I love it when someone takes the thing I love and turns it into something I hardly recognize." Nah, I don't get it, never will get it, frankly, don't even WANNA get it. Maybe because I don't see these people as especially "creative", just "opportunistic".

I don't know what to tell you, man. I love the books. My Batman comics are probably my favorite physical possessions, straight up, aside from sentimental stuff and maybe my car or guitar.

There is a lot of hyperbole or misunderstanding here though - I've bolded it.
See, I don't actually feel that The Dark Knight is a "bastardization" of Batman, as opposed to a fantastic re-interpretation of the character - you may not, that's fine - but therefor, it's easy for me to love it alongside my love of the comics. I don't think it's hard to understand.
Also, I totally recognize Burton/Nolan's Batman films as Batman. Or Frank Miller's Batman as Batman - same principle.
I get your point, but you're trying to understand my shared love of both the comics and the movies through your own interpretation that the movies are all crap.

But hey man, at the end of the day, you don't have to get it. I love the comics as much, if not more, than anyone, and I love the movies. That's just the way it is.

It's not the end of the world. They're just movies. It's just VERY f*cking annoying.

Yeah, just movies. Good for some debates on the drome, if nothing else.

[AquaParade]

Previous costumes before post-production:

[Coola Yagami]

Most people don't know the comics and only know what they think they know from the movies and whatnot. Honestly a done-right faithful Batman would be a bold and fresh new take.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Most people don't know the comics and only know what they think they know from the movies and whatnot. Honestly a done-right faithful Batman would be a bold and fresh new take.

True enough.

The only issue here is...you still have to pin down what a "done-right, faithful to the comics" Batman movie is.

Some people here aren't even down with the elements Frank Miller brings to the table, but those are also some of the most popular aspects of the character to comic fans at this point. Same with Scott Snyder or hundreds of others. Morrison's Batman is batshit crazy and can dig himself out of a grave, but Scott Snyder's Batman gets the crap kicked out of him by Joker. There is constantly a "crisis" or event within the comics themselves that morph both the characters and their respective canon. Bob Kane's Batman wears purple gloves! It's all loosey-goosey!

My theory is this: You gather five Batman comic "purists" in a room to decide the fate of the next film, and by the end of the day, even they can't agree on what is a 'faithful" Batman film is.