Twilight Star Robert Pattinson Apparently Heading To Gotham As The New Batman

2 hours ago, red_bird08 said:

A lot of people were. From body shaming Gal and not having enough movies under her belt to using Affleck Daredevil background again from a decade ago. Same was with Zachary Levi not being bulky

Sure, but you said "we." I am not included in that. I am, however, in the camp that thinks that an actor with a lumpy face, sad eyes, and an almost constant pout would be wrong for Bruce Wayne, and I have a huge problem with the studio headhunting British actors to play American characters because it gets them around having to pay mutually agreed upon SAG-AFTRA minimums. Good actor or no.

1 hour ago, Satam said:

I was never unsure about Gadot or Affleck. But several of the DCEU scripts have been a problem,yes. Several of the directors have, too.

A lot of people were. From body shaming Gal and not having enough movies under her belt to using Affleck Daredevil background again from a decade ago. Same was with Zachary Levi not being bulky

16 hours ago, red_bird08 said:

I mean we were even unsure about Gadot and Affleck. Both were good. The problem with the DCEU hasn't been actors. It's been the scripts.

I was never unsure about Gadot or Affleck. But several of the DCEU scripts have been a problem,yes. Several of the directors have, too.

My issues with the Pattinson casting have nothing to do with any personal issues against him (I don't have any), or any "Twilight Stigma." I legitimately think he's the wrong guy for the role.

If he proves me wrong, he proves me wrong. I hope he does. I'll be the first to admit it. Keep in mind, I WANT to be wrong. I WANT the next Bat-Film to be awesome. I want it to be DC's Iron Man in that I want it to be so overpoweringly awesome it relaunches the entire DCEU, wiping out the collection of misfires and cluster-!@#$s that have come before.

Given upcoming movies like the Joker and the film I refuse to call Birds of Prey, not to mention Hollyweird's current treatment of superhero movies in general, and I doubt we'll get any of that: but I can still hope.

I mean we were even unsure about Gadot and Affleck. Both were good. The problem with the DCEU hasn't been actors. It's been the scripts.

He's a good actor and I think if you look past the Twilight stigma you'll see he's a good fit for the part. I'll give him a chance. Matt Reeves knows what he's doing and if this is his choice, I'm all for it.

12 hours ago, mako said:

To which I'd point out, one of Keaton's most acclaimed pre-Bat films was Clean and Sober, very much NOT a slap-stick comedy. Show me anything that proves Pattinson has anything close to that kind of range. Until then, it's just Warner/DC desperately attempting some half-@$$ed stunt casting as they flail wildly to save themselves from going under at the box-office.

*eyeroll again*I mean, first of all, that last line is simply patently false. WB is not hurting for money. Just because some people didn't like their last Batman, and have preemptively decided this one is awful, is entirely irrelevant to their finances. People HATED Batman V Superman, and yet still paid to see Justice League, and would have paid to see "The Bat-fleck" regardless.Secondly, sounds like someone either wasn't around for the whole Keaton buzz or completely forgot it. NO ONE watched "Clean and Sober," the movie didn't even make back its paltry $12mil budget. Yes, Jon Peters reportedly made his recommendation based on it, but he was basically the only person who ever saw the movie, and literally everyone else in the room and most people in the industry and fans thought it was a ridiculous choice. WB got 50,000 protest letters (pre-internet here) over the choice. It was near universally decried as cronyism (because Tim Burton had just used him in a film) and pandering to public consciousness (because he had just been in a very popular Tim Burton film), and, of course, "stunt casting."And as forRobert Pattinson's skill as an actor, and needing someone to "show you anything" about his skill and range? The phrase"here, let me Google that for you" comes to mind. While I'll READILY admit I haven't watched a single movie of his, I can look up basic facts and statistics as well as anyone (if theycould be bothered, rather than sitting smugly on their preconceived notions). Know what they tell me?Five of his last six starring roles have massive critical acclaim, in the high 80s or 90s on Rotten Tomatoes, and he's been nominated or won numerous critical, professional, and respected artistic awards for his non-Twilight and post-Twilight work."Clean and Sober?" Is, to this day, considered a dreary and overly dark slog, and has a 56%, and no one cares.In short: the facts don't support any of the quoted assertions; people are basing the whole of their criticismon the simple reality that they don't like the actor solely for one role, and not on the actual skills he has demonstrably proven in works other than the only one they're familiar with;and the entire premise of WB even NEEDING to "stunt cast" is so inaccurate as to be comical.Is he what I would have chosen? No. But should he be given as fair a shake as any other actor? Absolutely.

Ok after thinking about this for awhile maybe this Batman won't be a total disaster. Will keep an open mind about it, would I prefer other actors to portray Bats sure, but this is who they're going with.

4 hours ago, Batman1701 said:

I will point out the same thing I always point out in these situations:Michael Keaton was, primarily and almost exclusively, known as a comedy actor, and often a highly slapstick one at that (biggest roles: "Johnny Dangerously" and "Beetlejuice"). And when he was announced as Batman, people cried bloody murder, because he was the worst idea for a serious Batman film EVER. People were convinced he - along with Tim Burton - was gonna turn it into an absurdist, occult, camp take on the Adam West series from the '60s, and they hated it before they saw it.

To which I'd point out, one of Keaton's most acclaimed pre-Bat films was Clean and Sober, very much NOT a slap-stick comedy. Show me anything that proves Pattinson has anything close to that kind of range. Until then, it's just Warner/DC desperately attempting some half-@$$ed stunt casting as they flail wildly to save themselves from going under at the box-office.

I will wait and see. I haven't watched any of his films so I don't know how he acts besides the fact that he is brooding in every photo which is perfect for Bruce. I really liked Ben Affleck as Batman though.