Robert Pattinson to take over for Ben Affleck as Batman

[Witchblade77]

You may be onto something here. It is true that Zoe Kravitz channels or could channel Eartha Kitt. So I wonder: will it be the usual dark and moody Batman we've been used to in the last 30 years or so, will it be more light-hearted like 1960's TV-show and movie? I remember the movie. It had the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler and Catwoman (not Eartha Kitt's though). Of course, it doesn't need to be as campy as that show.

Take the Penguin. There are two ways to portray the character: as the bird-mutant à la Dany DeVito or as the excentric tycoon/mobster with an unusually long nose à la Burgess Meredith.



I could see Colin Farrell play that kind of Penguin, assembling the villains in his speakeasy, the Iceberg Lounge.

honestly, i just generally dislike Colin Farell and feel like he is highly overrated as an actor, (yes, I've seen him in different things), but who knows...

[MrLachyG]

Twilight did nothing for Patttinson's career. His recent movie The Lighthouse is much much better. I am interested to see what he will do with the role

[Polyxo]

Affleck was one of the worst Batmans i have ever seen, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were the best.



Yeah he is a good actor but he doesn't have the manly, dirty, brutal Batman aura.

You seem to have missed pretty much all of the previous iterations of Batman.

[sam86]

I don't know how you've construed that to mean he doesn't like them, or that he's uninterested. Saying "Batman's not a hero" because he's a disturbed rich guy who spends his night beating the shit out of people doesn't seem like it should be that controversial a take...

that's exactly what i don't like btw, not sure why u think i meant something else (probably my english not that good ?)
for me batman is #2 hero after superman, and while i like superman miles ahead of batman (tbh i like the joker even more than batman), but i still view Batman as the 2nd example of superheroes

[sam86]

This could well lead to a more human and interesting take on Batman though for the big screen. A more deep, focused version where he doesn't look at Superman and think "I can take him!",. but instead "Holy...f**k...".
To me, a lot of writers have recently been focusing on the kickass side of Batman, how he is a one man army etc, when some of the best comics have focused more on the detective side, and less on the physical aspects. His take might actually show and emphasize this more, and we might get a more nuanced performance.
Will be interesting to see, and with fairness to Pattinson, he *does* have the acting chops to pull it off.

I respect ur opinion, u are almost exact opposite of mine
I love badass Batman, u don't, neither of us is wrong, u are right to like him for ur reason and i'm right to hate him for exact reason
who knows how it will end

[OokOok]

Someone else brought up the heath ledger situation, and it's because of that i'm going into this with an open mind. Before he became Joker, i didn't think highly of heath ledger, the only movie he was in I thought was good was The Patriot and he was a moronic whiney idiot in that movie so that's not saying much, so when they announced he was Joker I laughed....I laughed in the end at how wrong I really was about the guys acting potential.
Twilight is garbage, and all of Roberts movies are garbage. But maybe....

[Shadowferal]

I liked Keaton, I liked Bale, I liked Affleck.
* shrugs*
I didn't think Keaton could pull it off because I saw hom as a comedian.
All about the script and the director

[Egomaniac]

The main issue is though, the movie of Daredevil people saw was the theatrical cut, with more emphasis on th godawful romance, and less character acting. Watch the Directors cut with 30mins extra, and you actually see Afflecks performance as DD wasn't as bad as many make out. It wasn't incredible, but for a proto-superhero movie compared to what we have now, it was pretty good.

I've seen the extended version...and the movie as a whole is better...but it's still not a great super-hero movie and Affleck is still the same. And it wasn't really a "proto-superhero movie". We already had Spider-Man and X-Men movies out at that point...all of far higher quality than what we were given with Daredevil. Daredevil is only "pretty good" as a super-hero movie if you compare it to something abysmal like Batman & Robin.

Affleck is by no means the worst actor in the world...but he's far better behind the camera than he is in front of one.

[Volatilis]

Saying batman isnt a superhero is beyond stupid.

You dont need to have super strength to be a superhero. Batman has his intelligence which makes him one of the strongest superheroes.

Just like Lex Luthor only has his mind and is one of the most dangerous villains. Same for Joker actually.

[Volatilis]

By definition a superhero has superhuman abilities. Batman's intelligence isn't superhuman. Words have meaning.

His intelligence is superhuman though thats why he has better than current technology.

And can learn every martial art better than any expert in a few years. Maybe think for once.

[Volatilis]

With fairness, depends on the iteration of Batman the writer is doing. Justice League Batman is nearly always "Gotta hang with the big boys!" level genius, but some solo issues have him being outsmarted quite a bit.

I do think the definition of "Superhero" being used though is rather limited. It is like saying Lex Luthor isn't a supervillain, because he has no powers as well, despite being literally one of Superman's most dangerous foes.

I literally said a page over that it was the same as comparing it to Lex Luthor, so thanks I guess?

Also "worlds greatest detective" means nothing i guess? And apart from the campy versions like Adam West the only time Batman is getting out smarted is by other super genius's like Joker/Lex/Riddler/Hugo Strange.

[Volatilis]

Woah, woah, I am agreeing with you, lol.

I literaly have said from the start I think with this movie they are aiming for a more human version of Batman with an emphasis n the detective side of things, something most of the movies have forgotten about.
I also do think Batman, whilst not having actual Superpowers, doesn't not make him a *Super* hero, but depends on what definition is being used, claiming because of a one dimensional way of black and white answers is kind of asinine to my mind. By the same logic, anyone who is a Green Lantern also isn't a "Super"hero, because they themselves don't have superpowers, they are given by an external source.

But, 'tis the internet, where opinion becomes fact, and then immutable law.

Well I agree with your sentiment also.

I thought things like this were more obvious by the fact todd philips just used the character of Joker to make a film about mental illness would have cleared it up you can use these characters to make any kind of movie you like.

And the detective side of batman has been underused in the films so im personally interested in that take and dont mind a more realistic approach. It worked very well with Nolans movies

[Ealyssa]

That's weird af but I kinda like Batman&Robin suits lol

https://i0.wp.com/www.superpouvoir.c...0%2C1080&ssl=1

Alicia Silverstone in that suit was pure win. Young me was all "wow THAT'S how girls can look like ???"

On topic. I hated the cast annoucement of Pattinson. But I also hated when they told Affleck got the role and he ended being maybe the best Batman and Bruce.
So I gonna wait and see. But I don't have huge DC comics movies expectations outside the next WW, especially with that recent Bird of prey disaster.

[iosdeveloper]

i like me some lightweight and agile batman, but imagining the "memespace" around pattinson batman makes me sick

[PrimiOne]

By definition a superhero has superhuman abilities. Batman's intelligence isn't superhuman. Words have meaning.

Words have meaning,that's true:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superhero

su·​per·​hero | \ ˈsü-pər-ˌhir-(ˌ)ō , -ˌhē-(ˌ)rō \
Definition of superhero
: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers
also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person

You don't need to break the barrier from human to superhuman to be a superhero. There's so many examples I could be the whole afternoon writting them:

Capitan America
Black Widow
Punisher
Elektra
Mockingbird
Hawkeye
Shang-Chi
...

Theres's retcons ( Black Widow and his meta-enhancements),there's alternate versions ( Ultimate Universe Steve Rogers has superstrength) and
there's aspects of some heroes that can be (or not) classified as superpowers ( Steve not aging) but in the end the superhero in comics is defined by extraordinary skills than can be achieved by just mere training.

This is the key. No fucking person in the planet can shot an arrow without looking while falling off a cliff and hit a moving flying target....but Hawkeye does.
No one can enter a building with 50 guys shooting at him and kill them all....but Frank Castle does.

Extraordinary skills are skills that are impossible feats (in practice) for a human but don't break the rules of nature and therefore are not classified as superpowers.

Even if we don't use that definition (that is the more exact) Batman has used many gadgets through history that are completely ahead of real technologies so , again , he would be a technological superhero like Iron Man ( every superhero can be classified on his origin: skill,science,technology,magic,natural and mutant)

Batman is a superhero. There can be no dicussion at all about it.

[PrimiOne]

Captain America has superpowers thanks to the super soldier serum, Mockingbird as well down the line. BW, Hawkeye, and Punisher aren't superheros. Elektra has superpowers. Shang-Chi has superpowers.

Are we gonna go that way? Ok....

Capitan America in E616 is ,by definition, peak human. That's the very concept of the character: oppose the "just human" concept to the Nietzche, borrowed by the Nazis ,concept of superhuman. As fast as a human can be, as strong as a human can be... a perfect human ( and just that) with perfect genetics and perfect training.That's the essence of the character.

Mockingbird regained powers as I already stated: there's rectcons. She was an Avenger and Superhero before that.

Black Widow, Hawkeye and Punisher are not heros....we will come back at this later.

Elektra has superpowers ( low order telepathy) after being resurrected by The Hand ( again a retcon).

So...in the end what you are telling me is a personal perspective,right? I mean:

1. The definition of superheo is clear.
2. Everyone considers Black Widow or Hawkeye a superhero.

Because if that's it "I don't consider Hawkeye a superhero because he does not have powers" I'm fine with it but it's important to understand the rest of the world and the dictionary disagrees wich is not a bad thing: I consider The Scarlet Pimpernel the first superhero ever ( 1905) and there's people who agree and people who disagree.

[Valkrysa]

Why didn't they just hire Kevin Conroy? Dye his hair black and let him at it.

[Gallahadd]

Just going to say... Pretty sure Batman is considered a Metahuman in Rebirth DC. So technically, he IS a super hero.

[Rotted]

People whinged about Heath Ledger being cast as the Joker, so I am staying neutral until I see him in action (despite having an original hate for Pattinson).
Could be great, could be average, could be shit.

Who knows?



(From a costume perspective, to me, he seems to lack some of the *bulk* of Batman. Seems to look to me like Tim or Dick as Batman, rather than Bruce, but just personal observation)

There are some actors that appear born for a role,
There are some actors you wouldn't expect to be right for a role, but surprisingly are.

Robert fucking Patterson as Batman is neither of those

[Gallahadd]

Robert fucking Patterson as Batman is neither of those

What was the last role you saw him in, just wondering.