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

[LeotheLateBloomer]

And with that, we're not gonna get that Batman vs Deathstroke fight.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

And with that, we're not gonna get that Batman vs Deathstroke fight.

Keep reminding me, I don't have anywhere near enough scars on my wrists, thanks.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

A high-intellect, narcissistic psychopath that fancies riddles and challenges Batman is faithful enough for me. That is how I'd describe the riddler and that's what we are looking at.

What I am looking at is a some cheap rip-off of zodiac killer or generic serial killer.

[Leo656]

But... but the question mark on his jacket! CLEARLY that's the Riddler, man!

I'm not sure why this guy who's clearly wearing a Question Mark while looking and acting nothing at all like any Riddler we've ever seen is throwing you off so much. Must be a You Problem.

Orrrrrrrrrr the other option is that this movie is taking its creative choices from mediocre video games that nobody bought, because it's quick and it's lazy and everything in the Now Times is about "subverting expectations", i.e. "It's GOOD that it's not what it's supposed to be! Because it's DIFFERENT, and different and good are 100% synonymous... right now."

Yknow, whichever!

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

WB: "These Apes movies are doing great. Affleck is getting burned out and doesn't really like our notes for his The Batman movie. Hey Matt Reeves, whaddya say? Do you want to do your own The Batman movie? State your terms."

Reeves: "Well I really want to like, double down on the whole Nola --"

WB: "Whatever! You're hired. It's fine."

... is kind of how it seems this all went down.

Though let's not forget that when pressed, early on, Reeves said that Affleck was "still my guy" in reference to who Batman would be. So at one point Reeves was absolutely developing a Snyderverse Batman movie.

Nah, Reeves was lying through his teeth. That's how the business works. See: Andrew Garfield, Tom Holland, Ben Affleck himself, etc

Reeves also said that "of course" his film took place in the DCEU. It never did.

He set these guidelines when he agreed to make the movie. And I know you were joking but WB did not roll over like your joke scenario, they actually debated hotly, Matt Reeves stormed out of the meeting , before they brought him back in and agreed to his terms.
Reeves has even confirmed this in interviews, after it was leaked.

So it's safe to assume he's making the movie with the batman he wants at the age he wants him. He set out with a vision and didn't agree to the movie until WB approved or his vision.

Reeves just said what he had to. Affleck was gone long before anyone was ready to accept it. I still remember the heat I got here for claiming Affleck was gone, while Reeves was saying this stuff.

The issue was all the reliable scoopers had let the cat out of the bag and it was just obvious. But Reeves and Affleck - or maybe just WB - weren't ready to admit it. Probably because they wanted to cast the new actor before revealing they didn't even have a Batman cast at all.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

But... but the question mark on his jacket! CLEARLY that's the Riddler, man!

I'm not sure why this guy who's clearly wearing a Question Mark while looking and acting nothing at all like any Riddler we've ever seen is throwing you off so much. Must be a You Problem.

Orrrrrrrrrr the other option is that this movie is taking its creative choices from mediocre video games that nobody bought, because it's quick and it's lazy and everything in the Now Times is about "subverting expectations", i.e. "It's GOOD that it's not what it's supposed to be! Because it's DIFFERENT, and different and good are 100% synonymous... right now."

Yknow, whichever!

I wish I could have watched you guys read Dark Knight Returns upon release and then write a letter to Miller about how DC hired the Daredevil guy to turn Bruce Wayne into an unrecognizable mean old guy, and crucify him for creating a female Robin.
Or maybe to see you guys tear into Mike Zeck for drawing Spider-Man in a black costume.

I guess you can still laugh at those jokers, for their inability to accept change, recognize a cool creative choice, or even comprehend that this is the way comics have always thrived, in the classic letter columns. but it's not the same.

Man, if you guys had actual power, comics would be the most boring medium around and we'd never have The Dark Knight movies :p

WB hires one of the best actors of the generation in Paul Dano, to play the character, and a passionate, respected director, with a strong vision. But some of you are upset because Riddler isn't wearing a bunch of question marks.
This is where they get material for the Simpsons' "comic book guy". And with that realization in mind... please continue.

[Leo656]

Lord knows your movie studio is on solid creative ground when you're bending over for The Felicity Guy and letting him tell you "So HERE'S how it's gonna be, fellas..."

Eh, "Cloverfield" was alright, I guess.
-----------------

Man, I'm noticing just now how WB sure loves giving the people who direct their DC movies free reign despite them not doing anything substantial to earn it.

- Snyder does a few movies that earn back many times their (reasonably small) budgets, like 300 and whatnot. Never makes a single movie that grosses even half a billion dollars. Never makes a very expensive movie, either, until "Watchmen", which only does okay. Without all the DVD money, it might not've made profit.

WB: "Let's give this guy complete freedom and $300 million dollars! I mean if he turned a movie with a $30 million budget into $300 million, if we give him $300 million to start with then that movie's gotta make us, like... a LOT of millions, right? Billions? That's how it works, right?!"

- Patty Jenkins makes ONE (1) movie, a long-ass time ago, that does okay business but doesn't set the world on fire and everyone forgets about it. People mostly watch it only because they're hoping to see Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci have sex. Jenkins then spends over a decade making TV shows nobody saw and various other shades of F*ck-All Nothing Of Note.

WB: "This woman said she liked the Chris Reeve 'Superman' movie! Y'know, the one everyone on Twitter said we should've just remade note-for-note instead of making 'Man of Steel'! Her finger's on the pulse, guys! I know she's got no experience at this but GIVE HER $300 MILLION AND LET HER DO WHATEVER SHE F*CKING WANTS!"

- Matt Reeves has an okay career making "okay" things. He has a hand in a pretty bad TV show people nonetheless enjoyed because Keri Russell was "hot" back then by TV standards. And he does a halfway decent Godzilla ripoff as long as you can hold your lunch down long enough to even watch the f*cking thing. Then he gets a ton of buzz because his monkey movies are shockingly not balls-out awful like the originals were, so of course that makes him a genius. Clearly nobody but a true visionary could ever clear the IMPOSSIBLY low bar set by the original "Apes" movies. Clearly. He's a genius, guys.

WB: "...Anyone but Snyder or Whedon. Who's available that Disney doesn't already have locked in a basement? The monkey guy? Alright, fine. He's not Zack, so no matter WHAT he makes, people will love it just because of that. Good enough, let's roll, we're only... THREE YEARS behind schedule!"

Next thing you know WB is gonna hand the New Gods movie over to Uwe Boll because he once wiped his ass on a postcard that had a picture of Darkseid on it.
-----------------------

Aqua: At least I'm not the kinda guy who thinks a f*cking hot dog is a cupcake because someone called it that and put sprinkles on it. They used to have a word for people like that, and NO, it wasn't "open-minded".

[AquaParade]

There's actually some truth to that. I think it's a great thing actually. A studio actually giving directors power to execute their vision? Neat!

Sure, it turns out some duds, but you wouldn't have your precious Man of Steel movie if they didn't do that.

The Nolan trilogy wouldn't exist, Joker wouldn't exist.

I mean, you're right. WB has been known as the "director's studio", because that's sort of what they do - put faith in the artist. We saw what happened with JL trilogy, but before and after, that's typically how it's been.

__

Leo, I like the hot dog analogy, but I'd say it's more like a kid refusing to eat dinner, because it didn't come in the Happy Meal box. Mommy and daddy picked him up some actual delicious grown up food, but he's not opening his mouth until he sees a little red and yellow box. Thing is with kids: they don't think they like anything until they try it. Very resistant little buggers. They'll even claim they "hate ketchup" when they've never tried it.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

The closer we get to this film, the more I find the realistic approach refreshing.

Mate, were you in a hibernation for the last 2 decades?

Outside of Snyderverse, which didn't have solo Batman movies, previous solo Batman movies, were superhyperrealistic. I am not sure, how it can be refreshing, if it's exactly the same thing as was a decade before.

I'd argue even Battfleck by himself was closer to realistic take-on a Batman, outside of Justice League stuff.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I wish I could have watched you guys read Dark Knight Returns upon release and then write a letter to Miller about how DC hired the Daredevil guy to turn Bruce Wayne into an unrecognizable mean old guy, and crucify him for creating a female Robin.

Is Dark Knight Returns was supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing?

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Mate, were you in a hibernation for the last 2 decades?

Outside of Snyderverse, which didn't have solo Batman movies, previous solo Batman movies, were superhyperrealistic. I am not sure, how it can be refreshing, if it's exactly the same thing as was a decade before.

I'd argue even Battfleck by himself was closer to realistic take-on a Batman, outside of Justice League stuff.


Is Dark Knight Returns was supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing?

Mate, with all due respect, did you lose your glasses in the middle of reading my post?

Right below the cutoff of my post you quoted, I go on to explain that it is refreshing in the sense that every other major comic adaption is leaning hard into the fantasy element.
This is practically the only comic adaption that isn't. Thus it is refreshing, in that sense.

Snyder's take on Batman's world was far from realistic. Far from it. There are aliens and gods falling from the sky. Amazonian women.
Snyder is gritty...he's not realistic. Same with Frank Miller Batman, which is another common misconception, and the version Snyder's Batman is more or less based upon.

So even in the world of Batman, no, things haven't been realistic in the movies since 2012.

But, like my original post stated, it's refreshing in the context of Hollywood comic book cinema. Not necessarily as refreshing in the world of Batman movies (though a little bit of this as well).

Originally Posted by Sumac

Is Dark Knight Returns was supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing?

Is Matt Reeves supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing? No. It's just another Batman movie. And even by movie universe standards, it takes place in it's own little corner.

And even if it didn't, you are the one giving it the power of being the "main canon thing". No one said that. It's just another interpretation of the character. There are thousands.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

There's actually some truth to that. I think it's a great thing actually. A studio actually giving directors power to execute their vision? Neat!

Sure, it turns out some duds, but you wouldn't have your precious Man of Steel movie if they didn't do that.

The Nolan trilogy wouldn't exist, Joker wouldn't exist.

I mean, you're right. WB has been known as the "director's studio", because that's sort of what they do - put faith in the artist. We saw what happened with JL trilogy, but before and after, that's typically how it's been.

Oh, all snark aside, I agree! I love that WB takes those kinds of "risks". I even like these peoples' work, even though I'm cracking on them. You know I love Zack.

It's just... they are VERY questionable decisions on paper, is all. WB, as a rule, makes "questionable" decisions. Constantly.

And that's great when it works. Kinda painful when something does not.

Like I've often said in defense of Zack, and his unfair handling by WB. "His DC movies didn't make a billion dollars like we wanted!" NONE OF HIS MOVIES EVER DID WHY DID YOU EXPECT THAT OMFG if you want "safe" crowd-pleasing movies you DO NOT HIRE THE "300" GUY JESUS F*CKING CHRIST, WB!!!

((Deep Breaths))

So yeah. Love the guy, love his work, wouldn't change a thing myself BUT if I were trying to hit a billion-dollar gross I might not hire him for that task, just based on his track record up to that point, including "Watchmen". He is, admittedly, a very good example of WB basically picking their DC directors by throwing darts or picking names out of a tumbler.

I just hadn't noticed until Just Now that it's a recurring theme over there. Are we SHOCKED that sometimes it hasn't worked very well? "Yeah, let's keep hiring people who don't make super-hero blockbusters to make super-hero blockbusters. Worked with Nolan, it'll work Always." That's what they think, over there! It'd be funny if it weren't tragic.

But no, that post was mostly just a humorous observation of something that's become a WB/DC trend. I even liked "Monster" just fine. Could'a used more girl/girl.
-------------

I'm kind of with Sumac in that, when I look at this, I see a re-do of what Nolan already did, with a cast I hate (outside of Farrell, who's generally okay most of the time). That doesn't excite me at all.

If I want the "real-world" Batman, stripped of all fantasy and whimsy... I'll just watch "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" again, and that itch is well-scratched (and I'll watch "Dark Knight Rises" if I want plot holes, gigantic "coincidences" masquerading as plot, and terrible editing ). Love the style AND the cast, it all works for what they tried to do with it, and at the time it was the best possible thing they could've done with the character after "Batman & Robin" took things way too far into "cartoon-land".

But I am sooooo over it. And plus, all I ever wanted was "the comic book Batman" onscreen, and then we FINALLY get that and he doesn't even get his own solo movie because of stupid bullsh*t. I've tried to not be bitter. I can't, so I'm done trying, I'm staying f*cking bitter, tough.

Doesn't mean this movie will be "bad". But it's 0% what I want to see right now.

Like, I like McDonalds fine. But I prefer Wendy's. If you tell me "Hey, man, we're going to Wendy's!", and then we go there, and then it's closed, and you tell me "No big deal, man, we'll just go to McDonalds"... I can choke it down. I'll survive. But I'm STILL gonna be pissed I'm eating a soggy sh*tburger and not the f*cking thick-ass Spicy Chicken Sandwich I had my heart set on.

WB promised me a thick-ass Spicy Chicken (Affleck), and they gave me a soggy sh*tburger (RPatz). Nah, I'm not gonna NOT pout. F*cking c*ckteasers.

[AquaParade]

I do agree, Leo. Sometimes it makes them look pretty stupid. I sort of just look at WB as a constant roll of the dice. You can't trust them, but you may just roll a "6".

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Is Matt Reeves supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing? No. It's just another Batman movie. And even by movie universe standards, it takes place in it's own little corner.

And even if it didn't, you are the one giving it the power of being the "main canon thing". No one said that. It's just another interpretation of the character. There are thousands.

With respect, that's nonsense and you know it.

Whenever a movie comes out, that becomes the "main" iteration of that character in the public's eye for the next decade. You KNOW this. They can say over and over, "It's NOT our 'main canon Batman', it's just some Multiversal thing!" Bullsh*t. BULL. SH*T. Not when they're signing everyone involved to multi-picture deals and doing a spin-off TV series and all this other sh*t.

This IS the "main canon" Batman universe we have for the next decade as far as movies goes. There's no way it ISN'T. They're calling it a "Multiverse spin-off set in an alternate universe" because Warner Media - NOT WB - still wants to do an Affleck Batman project "eventually" if they can talk him into it. They won't, but they're not ready to shut the door completely yet.

But if it were just up to WB, and Warner Media wasn't a factor, forget it, they wouldn't even be pretending this wasn't the new "canon Batman".

WB is NOT going to be producing two or three disparate Batman movie franchises all running concurrently. No f*cking WAY. This one is the one we have. It's the new "hard canon" as far as the DC Batman movies are concerned.

Knowing that, I totally understand why some people want something a little less about "reinvention" and "subverting expectations", and would gladly just settle for "recognizable". Knowing it'll be at least another eight years or so before we get anything close to more comics-faithful approach is... disheartening, if you really want that kind of thing.

[AquaParade]

No, I don't see it that way.

I mean, I get where you are coming from, in the idea that the big popular movie version does insert itself into pop-culture. That may be true.

It doesn't mean you have to look at the movie version as a replacement for the thing you love. Gosh, I guess if you look at things that way, some of the vitriol almost makes sense to me. The thing is, no one is taking anything away from you.
This is Reeves interpretation. If it works, people will use it as inspiration in the future, if it doesn't, then it will be forgotten.

Reeves doesn't decide what is canon. The audience and future creators do. That's how it has always been.

Anointing Reeves version as the ultimate canon version isn't necessary. It's just another reason to upset yourself. It's just the current flavor and the one general audiences will gravitate to for now.

Hell, I'd even maintain it's no big deal even if the Comic gods came down and deemed anything in the movies as somehow of more important than what's in the comics. Who cares? It's all being reinterpreted all the time, despite the medium it takes place in.

[Leo656]

Since we're hellbent on being optimistic, maybe the next Batman will at least see the inside of a gym at least once, even if it's just to use the water fountain. That'd be nice.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Since we're hellbent on being optimistic, maybe the next Batman will at least see the inside of a gym at least once, even if it's just to use the water fountain. That'd be nice.

Yeah, maybe. He looks fine to me, but some bulking up probably wouldn't hurt. He's sort of got an agile Mazuchelli or Neal Adams type figure as of now.

Batman isn't always all bruce force, all the time. You realize that a certain amount of bulk takes away from your ability to be agile, so you don't want to overdo it.

I get where you're coming from - we need to believe this guy can defend himself. At the same time, Batman pummeling like twelve dudes has always been a stretch, no matter how big his muscles are. His gadgets and his intellect have always been part of his strength as well. As long as he is physically intimidating to some extent, they can also lean heavily on his other forms of power.

But more importantly, let's see how the movie portrays his physique. A lot can be done with movie magic, even if I agree that he looks a pinch too slim.

[Leo656]

I... do not see RPatz when I read a Neal Adams Batman comic. That type of Batman STILL looks way more like Affleck, to me. Especially the face; Affleck kinda has a Neal Adams-style Batman face. With that giant f*cking chin and everything.

It's less to me that he's "not huge", and more the fact that 1. The actor himself is a scrawny prick, and 2. WB asked/tried to force him to hit the gym and by all accounts he told them to f*ck off.

SO FIRE HIM. Who the hell is the boss of things, WB? You're gonna let a guy you hired put your billion-dollar movie (you hope) at any kind of risk whatsoever, because he's a lazy, drunken, needle-shooting slacker? F*CK that guy, get someone else if he's gonna be like that. You're already pretty much skirting with "Yeah, we can just get anybody to do this part" once you deign to hire Pattinson in the FIRST f*cking place, cuz he ain't sh*t. Sparkles The Creepy Jailbait-F*cking Vampire ain't SH*T, pal. And if he's gonna pout about going to the gym, you f*cking fire him. It ain't hard.

His entire casting HAD to be a complete f*cking joke that went too far. HAD to be. "Hurr durrr, he was a vampire and they turn into bats so HAHA NOW HE'S BATMAN, GET IT?!" F*king BARF. Either that or WB figured the reason BvS didn't crack a billion was because no "Twilight" fans went to see it and they think THAT's the missing piece. I can totally believe that THEY believe that, for sure.

Anyway, no, I don't see "Neal Adams Batman" when I see RPatz in the suit. I see a guy who looks like someone yanked a needle out of his arm, stuck him in a slightly higher-end Batman Halloween costume, propped him up and yelled "Action!"

"Attaboy, Rob! Don't forget to say 'I'm VENGEANCE!' with the exact same tone and demeanor as if someone asked you what time it is and you were slightly annoyed by their intrusion! Attaboy, COMMIT!"

Lewis f*cking Wilson was a more intimidating Batman than this f*cking clown. I'm sayin' it.

[AquaParade]

I do think Reeves intended him to be bigger, because the statues and figures that have been released show a bulkier version of Bruce wearing the Reeves batsuit. It's actually a bit shocking to see.
I mean, this leads me to believe that Reeves intended for a bulkier Batman, but at the same time he seems to be leaning into a grungey, Kurt Cobain-like Batman, so maybe a skinny version is an aesthetic choice related to that? There are some possibilities.

But like you said, word is that they asked him to bulk up more, and he claimed it wasn't that important, which I agree made him sound like an ass, given the context and granted the idea that the director asked him to.

But again, movie magic may alleviate that a bit.

Either way, I'm excited to see him play Bruce, based on his acting chops. Have you seen him outside of Twilight? He's really good at bringing a character to life.

[Leo656]

It's just funny to me how they've got balls to treat This Guy or That Guy like crap if they want to, but they can't find any bass in their voice for the f*cking Twilight kid.

....Are they aware he's not really a vampire? It's okay, WB, you can fire him for being an asshole and screwing up your plans, he's not actually gonna bite you.
---------

I'm not inclined to watch him in anything, period. Forget "outside of Twilight". I want to see him perform "Outside of a submarine as it sinks," or "Outside of a rocketship that's rapidly hurtling towards the sun." Something like that would be fun to watch.

I don't like him. Some people, I just can't abide. He's like Shia, to me. Same reflex; I see him, and I immediately want to vomit into his open mouth. It's not even voluntary, it's a reflex.

My capacity for hate is FAR greater than most peoples' capacity for things like love. When I hate someone, it's deep, and it's violent, and it's forever.

And I just cant f*cking STAND that guy in anything.

I will, however, say that his lack of Jew-fro makes him marginally LESS distasteful to me than Shia. People with curly hair make my skin crawl. FIX THAT SH*T, BUY A COMB, JESUS.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Mate, with all due respect, did you lose your glasses in the middle of reading my post?

Right below the cutoff of my post you quoted, I go on to explain that it is refreshing in the sense that every other major comic adaption is leaning hard into the fantasy element.
This is practically the only comic adaption that isn't. Thus it is refreshing, in that sense.

I don't really care what other movies are doing. I see each movie as its own thing.
When it comes to a Batman he was kept "realistic" for far too long. So for me it would be refreshing, if they've embraced more "comic book-ish" elements of his universe.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Snyder's take on Batman's world was far from realistic. Far from it. There are aliens and gods falling from the sky. Amazonian women.
Snyder is gritty...he's not realistic. Same with Frank Miller Batman, which is another common misconception, and the version Snyder's Batman is more or less based upon.

So even in the world of Batman, no, things haven't been realistic in the movies since 2012.

I specifically said, that Batfleck was a rather realistic and dark take on Batman, outside of Justice League stuff. Yeah, when Batman fights Superman it is bound to be "not-realistic" and, yeah, we never got a solo Batfleck, so it is hard to say how exactly his own world would've been portrayed in the movie. But from what can be surmised from BVS and JL - it would have been dark and gritty and probably closer to realism, than I'd prefer.

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Is Matt Reeves supposed to be the MAIN CANON thing? No. It's just another Batman movie. And even by movie universe standards, it takes place in it's own little corner.

Since most people are not comic book readers, they will see current movie version a canon thing, regardless of whether or not it is close to comic book canon or not. Even if its based on weird spin-offs.

Thus it will influence canon comic book stories, so, yes, it is important how characters are presented in the movies, because, in the audience mindshare those portrayals are the current canon.

So making Riddler, jigsaw serial killer will, most likely, result in him becoming serial killer in the comic books. Because, that's how character will be remembered / known by most people.