Robert Pattinson to take over for Ben Affleck as Batman

[Grimbold21]

Seems the aura behind this movie, or this Batman, is rage.

[Crillam]

Sigh...I just want the only good Batman...Say it with me Christian Bale

A Twilight and harry potter actor? Im sorry but...

Maybe you should go and watch like any movie he's done the last 10 years and not just make your opinion on 4 YA movies

[DarkAmbient]

Very good actor but I'm not sold on him as Batman just yet.

[Djuntas]

Christian Bale was a bad Batman, for me. Never could take that ridiculous voice seriously. Could have swapped him out for almost anyone.

Robert Pattinson is also a very decent actor. Even he hates the Twilight movies lol

Movie looks good.

Ok good to hear. I dont mean any offense to the actor, I just dont follow him clearly. For me Christian Bale is fucking epic...American Psycho etc.

[s_bushido]

The Twilight thing is an obvious knee-jerk reaction, but it's about as dumb as judging everyone who was in the Star Wars prequels based on the terrible dialogue and terrible direction they had to work with in those movies.

[Logwyn]

Imho ben affleck was by far the worst batman, nothing positive to say about him.

Robert might actually do better... well he certainly can't do worse than affleck.

Affleck is not worst than George Clooney.

[Th3Scourge]

Look at how they massacred my boy

Christopher Nolan would be spinning in his grave

[Egomaniac]

Look at how they massacred my boy

Christopher Nolan would be spinning in his grave

A) Christopher Nolan is very much alive
B) He gave Pattinson advice on how to play Batman when they were working on Tenet together.

[Athorha]

He'd have made an interesting dent or dare I say a optimal Robin to a less batman centric dc series run

The strong black voice casting of James Gordon i hope doesn't make the movie feel too 'cop drama' / it isn't a tell the movie is going to be stretched with too many primary perspectives

[Clone]

Sigh...I just want the only good Batman...Say it with me Christian Bale

A Twilight and harry potter actor? Im sorry but...

People said the same shit about Heath Ledger as Joker, being a fan of the Nolan Batman you should know better to make this commentt.

[Th3Scourge]

A) Christopher Nolan is very much alive
B) He gave Pattinson advice on how to play Batman when they were working on Tenet together.

A. No shit
B. Maybe if he spent less time giving him batman advice and more time reconsidering his decisions, Tenet might not have been as bad as it was.

[Egomaniac]

People said the same shit about Heath Ledger as Joker, being a fan of the Nolan Batman you should know better to make this commentt.

People have complained about every single actor announced as Batman since Michael Keaton. It's a tradition at this point.

[Endus]

Christian Bale was a bad Batman, for me. Never could take that ridiculous voice seriously. Could have swapped him out for almost anyone.

Seriously, I borderline can't watch the Bale trilogy because every time he does his Batman voice, it's so forced and silly I end up giggling. I can't take him seriously. It's exactly the voice you'd make if you were mocking some overly gruff guy. Bale's just . . . present. I don't see that he really brought anything to the table; he was a void for the villains to play against. That's why everyone raves about Ledger's Joker, and why Hardy's Bane was so talked-about. But even Hardy's Bane voice is less goddamn silly than Bale's Batman growl.

The Bale trilogy are okay films. They stood out among at-the-time generally-terrible comic book films, but not really from action films in general. Nolan is only an okay director. That's my hot take for the day. I simply do not get the fanboyism. He's okay. He's not Michael-Bay bad, but if you put him up against someone like, say, Alex Garland (about as close in style and material as I think I can get), I'm all-in for Garland and it isn't even a close contest.

[Jacques]

(snip)..The Bale trilogy are okay films. They stood out among at-the-time generally-terrible comic book films, but not really from action films in general. Nolan is only an okay director. That's my hot take for the day. I simply do not get the fanboyism. He's okay. He's not Michael-Bay bad, but if you put him up against someone like, say, Alex Garland (about as close in style and material as I think I can get), I'm all-in for Garland and it isn't even a close contest.

That actually is a hot take. Which movies were directed by Garland, except for Ex-Machina and Annihilation?
Can you pinpoint what exactly you like about his style? This is a genuine question btw.

[Endus]

That actually is a hot take. Which movies were directed by Garland, except for Ex-Machina and Annihilation?
Can you pinpoint what exactly you like about his style? This is a genuine question btw.

Those two stand out, and while I know Annihilation is a pretty strange film, I think he pulled it off really well (the books it's based on are much, much more strange; there's a strange sense of disquiet you get reading them that isn't quite horror, and it's an experience I haven't had with other stuff). I wasn't specifically and solely talking about direction alone, though; most of Garland's work is in writing. And that's also where the comparison comes in with Nolan, who also gets writing credits for a lot of his work.

Garland also wrote and directed Devs, a TV miniseries, that I really enjoyed a lot. Might not be to everyone's tastes, though.

If we just go back to writing for a moment, Garland also wrote some pretty highly-acclaimed films like Sunshine, 28 Days Later, and Dredd (the "good one" with Karl Urban in the title role). I'd argue Garland's at the start of his directing career; his first credit for that was Ex Machina in 2014, and while it took a couple years for someone else to take a shot on him with direction with Annihilation, he segued into Devs and he's got another film ("Men") in post-production now. Give Garland another 15 years and run the comparison again (Nolan's arguable first big film being Memento, that came out in 2000, so that'd give us a more-even comparison in terms of length of career).

As for his style, he shares a somewhat minimalist and "quiet" approach that is pretty similar to a lot of Nolan's films, aesthetically. There's a very strong deliberateness in his pacing; a worse director would have that come off as a lack of direction but I don't think that can be said of Garland's work.

Doesn't mean I always like films like that. Another favorite is Del Toro, and his scenes are so packed with detail and a richness that really brings life to his stories. So I'm not arguing that Garland's aesthetic is what's "right"; just that I haven't seen any real mis-steps and it's an aesthetic I enjoy.

By comparison, take Nolan's work on Interstellar, as a director and writer. The filming is okay; some of the scenes are fantastic and deserved special-effects awards they received, particularly the black hole visualizations. But the story is trite and corny as fuuuuuck. "Love is magic and transcends spacetime" is a fucking stupid deus ex machina to pull out in an otherwise-hard-sci-fi film. Less of that film makes sense the more you try and think about what it was saying.

To be clear; I'm not saying Nolan is bad. He's not Michael Bay. He's perfectly serviceable as a director. What I don't understand is the fervent adoration he gets from some fans. His films are fine. Just . . . fine.

[uuuhname]

I never really take much stock in who is playing Batman (except Michael Keaton and George Clooney's nips), to me the best version of Bruce Wayne has always been in the animated series from the 90's. mostly because Bruce came off as a real human being, which really can't be said for ANY of the movie versions.

so putting that aside I'm fine with Pattinson in the role, what I care about the most this time around is a real dark, grim, noir detective story. which, seems to be what we're getting? treating the Riddler like he's John Doe from Se7en and the overall dingy look of the movie helps with that a lot. buuut IDK something in the back of my mind tells me this is going to be more bombastic than creepy or disturbing.

[Lord Pebbleton]

Not feeling the hype. There have just been too many Batman movies, with the latest iteration being laughable in Justice League.

Also if Joker shows up in the movie, I will probably skip it altogether. Such an abrasive villain. It's either always him or someone else that is constantly shadowed by him.

[s_bushido]

buuut IDK something in the back of my mind tells me this is going to be more bombastic than creepy or disturbing.

End of the day, it is a superhero movie. Probably not something you should go into expecting it to be a pure psychological thriller, or w/e.

Personally, I hope it's not a just rehash of Nolan's "let's strip all the fantastical/supernatural stuff out of the character and the setting because superheroes are dumb" nonsense. From what we've seen in the trailers, it looks like it's leaning in that direction. Which is going to be pretty disappointing, even if the story and performances are interesting.

[Biomega]

Yikes, this looks tedious. Do we really need yet another version of the Batman? What's the deal here? Oh no he is vengeance, gosh, that comes as a shocker. Next you'll tell me fear is a theme, too... Oh wait, it is? GEEZ, that's original. I sure hope they show us the backstory of how he became Batman, I think I've forgotten the last fifty times.

I mean, I know that superheroes tend to be about their gimmick persona but dear gods can we not have something original involved in Batman FOR ONCE. And if we can't, why do they keep rebooting it over and over and over?

[Ihavewaffles]

Because he's batman!!!