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

[Autbot_Benz]

[AquaParade]

I just love the look of this film. Geeking the hell out on Batman's boots.

[Andrew NDB]

* Definitely seeing "down to earth" being the M.O.. Like, moreso than even Nolan.

* Zoe's Catwoman isn't very intimidating. And her mask is a ski mask?

* Batman is seeming like he may be less ninja-like and more... thuggish?

[Turo602]

It looks like a fan film.

[ranger_scout]

That teaser looked interesting. I'm still not crazy about Pattinson playing this character though.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Gotham sucked.

I agree. The first season of that show felt like a Shondaland series set in the world of Batman. In the seasons that followed, there was no hope for the city and its people until Bruce became Batman.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Turo602

It looks like a fan film.

You're crazy.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Turo602

It looks like a fan film.

I kinda see that.

Not specifically the production values, which are mostly fine (That "Catwoman", though... ).

What makes me see that, is the fact that every character is so completely miscast and nobody looks like who they're supposed to. It does feel kinda like something someone put together with people they knew from work or whatever. "Like, I don't know anyone who looks like 'Commissioner Gordon'... but I DO know a guy with a mustache!" That kinda thing. Not the production values or the costumes. Although again... "Catwoman"? Oof!

Meh. Hate the suit, hate the whole cast. As in I don't even like them in other things, generally speaking. I've said this before, the absolute best I could ever give this movie would be, "I wish they'd re-do it with an entirely different cast of people, and a less-ugly Batman costume." And that's assuming I like everything else about it.

I might see it one day but I just don't really care about it. It looks fine for what it's trying to be, but what it's trying to be isn't really hooking me.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Man oh man, I'm fvcking HYPED.

Looks so good. Looks angsty. Like Nolan's Batman, but with 200% more grunge.

Riddler is doing the Saw thing here, which isn't very true to his character BUT is probably the only way to make him interesting in a big movie. So I'm okay with it.

Fvck yeah, man.

EDITED TO ADD: If we're racebending Gordon, Jeffrey Wright is a damn good actor. Still not sold on Zoe as Catwoman, and as other people are pointing out, the costome leaves a lot to be desired. But it is "Year Two", so I'll live with it and see where it goes.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I kinda see that.

Not specifically the production values, which are mostly fine (That "Catwoman", though... ).

What makes me see that, is the fact that every character is so completely miscast and nobody looks like who they're supposed to. It does feel kinda like something someone put together with people they knew from work or whatever. "Like, I don't know anyone who looks like 'Commissioner Gordon'... but I DO know a guy with a mustache!" That kinda thing. Not the production values or the costumes. Although again... "Catwoman"? Oof!

Meh. Hate the suit, hate the whole cast. As in I don't even like them in other things, generally speaking. I've said this before, the absolute best I could ever give this movie would be, "I wish they'd re-do it with an entirely different cast of people, and a less-ugly Batman costume." And that's assuming I like everything else about it.

I might see it one day but I just don't really care about it. It looks fine for what it's trying to be, but what it's trying to be isn't really hooking me.

Man, I'd think it'd be impossible to defend Justice League as passable right before tearing into this movie, but thus is the beauty of subjectivity.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Man oh man, I'm fvcking HYPED.

Looks so good. Looks angsty. Like Nolan's Batman, but with 200% more grunge.

Riddler is doing the Saw thing here, which isn't very true to his character BUT is probably the only way to make him interesting in a big movie. So I'm okay with it.

Fvck yeah, man.

EDITED TO ADD: If we're racebending Gordon, Jeffrey Wright is a damn good actor. Still not sold on Zoe as Catwoman, and as other people are pointing out, the costome leaves a lot to be desired. But it is "Year Two", so I'll live with it and see where it goes.

Man, I love the grunge/goth aesthetic they've gone with. Has a bit of that 90's "The Crow" flavor.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Riddler is doing the Saw thing here, which isn't very true to his character BUT is probably the only way to make him interesting in a big movie. So I'm okay with it.

Yeah, I'm totally down for more "In Name Only" villains. Whooooo.

Starting to think we need to just retire Riddler permanently. As you said, his character as it truly and properly is just can't sell a movie. And if you can't sell a movie you're worthless as a character in the Here and Now.

If the only way they can "sell" Riddler, or ANY character, is to twist them into something they totally are not, then y'know, I don't need to see their "Hot New Take" on so-and-so that badly. Let 'em pull someone else from the list that actually fits what they're trying to accomplish.

I generally like Riddler. But I am not at ALL a fan of the "But now he's Jigsaw though!" sh*t that's become standard in recent years. Soooooo he's just The Joker with less visual flair. "Neat."

They could've just as easily done the same story with Zsasz, if they hadn't, OOPS, already killed him off in another movie in his "debut" not even a year ago. But anyway, he would've fit their story way better than Riddler. See, they don't think, they just pull a popular name out of a hat and retrofit things. And that's the problem. A lot more matters than just a name. But good luck convincing anyone with the pen of that.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Man, I'd think it'd be impossible to defend Justice League as passable right before tearing into this movie, but thus is the beauty of subjectivity.

Nobody looks like who they're supposed to be playing, that's all I said and it's totally not my fault. They chose to stunt-cast, all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. I haven't seen the movie, but it looks like some dude cast the thing with a bunch of his bar buddies. Again, NOT my fault. That's all I'm thus far qualified to comment on. That, and that horrible costume. He looks like he's gonna go play football right after this! C'mon! I thought Bale's suit was clunky. Woof.

Anyway, that's all I said. Don't try and twist my words around or make a bigger deal out of it than is warranted.

[AquaParade]

Riddler looks awesome. Let's not pretend there has ever been that much to the character anyway. He's a whiny, arrogant douche who likes to play mind games. They've gotten the incredible Paul Dano to play him, so I'll take it. Don't need a superficial green suit or a question mark on his face. No thanks.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Man, I'd think it'd be impossible to defend Justice League as passable right before tearing into this movie, but thus is the beauty of subjectivity.

Mother FVCKER, I am gonna have to work double-time to keep this thread on track. Thanks heaps.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Man, I love the grunge/goth aesthetic they've gone with. Has a bit of that 90's "The Crow" flavor.

I like that it is grunge/goth without simply going over the top. The red is an intriguing visual, given that we usually don't see that associated with Batman.

And I think grunge/goth is a really necessary part of early Batman stories. Batman doesn't arise from a megalopolis or bright and shiny skyscrapers; Batman is born out of cramped, dirty, grungy streets of crime, graft, and desperation.

By recent comparison, Batman Begins absolutely nailed the Narrows, but The Dark Knight took place in a city that didn't feel like it was even on the same island. For as much as I love that movie, it doesn't feel anywhere near as much like a true Gotham City.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Mother FVCKER, I am gonna have to work double-time to keep this thread on track. Thanks heaps.



I like that it is grunge/goth without simply going over the top. The red is an intriguing visual, given that we usually don't see that associated with Batman.

And I think grunge/goth is a really necessary part of early Batman stories. Batman doesn't arise from a megalopolis or bright and shiny skyscrapers; Batman is born out of cramped, dirty, grungy streets of crime, graft, and desperation.

By recent comparison, Batman Begins absolutely nailed the Narrows, but The Dark Knight took place in a city that didn't feel like it was even on the same island. For as much as I love that movie, it doesn't feel anywhere near as much like a true Gotham City.

Cut me SOME slack. This is Joss Whedon's JL I'm talking about.

And yeah, the more I've watched the dark knight over the years, the more the lack of a true Gotham has stood out to me. Luckily that film is good enough to get away with it, but it's great that we are getting a take that is again realistic, but with a more Gothic vibe.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

By recent comparison, Batman Begins absolutely nailed the Narrows, but The Dark Knight took place in a city that didn't feel like it was even on the same island. For as much as I love that movie, it doesn't feel anywhere near as much like a true Gotham City.

They really did start making an entirely different series of Batman films about halfway through the second one. All the inconsistencies really start to add up. By the end of DKR it's all just like, "Eh. Alright."

I really liked Batman Begins, too. Ah well. "Dark Knight" is still really good, it's just, they kinda flipped to having different priorities partway through and it really shows in certain things. Bruce Wayne in particular is like a totally different guy all of a sudden. It's weird!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, I'm totally down for more "In Name Only" villains. Whooooo.

Starting to think we need to just retire Riddler permanently. As you said, his character as it truly and properly is just can't sell a movie. And if you can't sell a movie you're worthless as a character in the Here and Now.

If the only way they can "sell" Riddler, or ANY character, is to twist them into something they totally are not, then y'know, I don't need to see their "Hot New Take" on so-and-so that badly. Let 'em pull someone else from the list that actually fits what they're trying to accomplish.

I generally like Riddler. But I am not at ALL a fan of the "But now he's Jigsaw though!" sh*t that's become standard in recent years. Soooooo he's just The Joker with less visual flair. "Neat."

I've been more concerned with getting a Riddler who feels like a threat than the Jim Carrey or ... whoever the fvck played Riddler in Gotham.

This, to me, feels like the Riddler version of Nolan's Bane. It's progress.

Now, if I start b!tching after the movie comes out or a year after, feel free to remind me that you told me so.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Riddler looks awesome. Let's not pretend there has ever been that much to the character anyway. He's a whiny, arrogant douche who likes to play mind games. They've gotten the incredible Paul Dano to play him, so I'll take it. Don't need a superficial green suit or a question mark on his face. No thanks.

I'm STILL not seeing Riddler. Isn't the guy in the mask with eyeshadow Pattison? You gotta have eyeshadow under the cowl, to hide the skin.

$hit, if that is Riddler, I'm already a little letdown. Gimme the fvcking green suit and bowler hat!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Cut me SOME slack. This is Joss Whedon's JL I'm talking about.

And yeah, the more I've watched the dark knight over the years, the more the lack of a true Gotham has stood out to me. Luckily that film is good enough to get away with it, but it's great that we are getting a take that is again realistic, but with a more Gothic vibe.

The "mother fvcker" is an expression of exasperation, akin to gawddammit. Not calling you out.

Just in case there was confusion.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I've been more concerned with getting a Riddler who feels like a threat than the Jim Carrey or ... whoever the fvck played Riddler in Gotham.

This, to me, feels like the Riddler version of Nolan's Bane. It's progress.

Now, if I start b!tching after the movie comes out or a year after, feel free to remind me that you told me so.



I'm STILL not seeing Riddler. Isn't the guy in the mask with eyeshadow Pattison? You gotta have eyeshadow under the cowl, to hide the skin.

$hit, if that is Riddler, I'm already a little letdown. Gimme the fvcking green suit and bowler hat!

It's the guy with goggles and a mask over his face. I think he's in at least two shots. I'm 90% sure that's our guy, but I could be misinterpreting. I love the way he sounds too. Perfect voice and reminiscent of the chatacter we know.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

The "mother fvcker" is an expression of exasperation, akin to gawddammit. Not calling you out.

Just in case there was confusion.

Understood, good sir.

[CyberCubed]

I don't think Riddler was shown in the trailer, we know the actor who plays him.

Batman looks great. Jim Gordon is black, so we'll have a black Batgirl if we ever get that far. And black Catwoman, so now half the cast is black by default.

[AquaParade]

I was assuming riddler was the dude with duct tape and goggles/glasses over a mask.

About a minute and a half into the trailer after batman is hit by the explosion.

[Leo656]

I kinda assumed the same but an assumption was all it was. Could be someone else, I just sort of figured.