• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Variety Reports Robert Pattinson is the new Batman

Status
Not open for further replies.
For people that aren't familiar with Pattinson's post-Twilight career, even a cursory glance at his filmography ought to raise eyebrows and give the man some benefit of the doubt.

A selection of entries from his filmography post-Twilight:
  • The Lighthouse, directed by Robert Eggers - as I posted earlier in the thread, this was receiving a lot of Cannes buzz, including Oscar potential for Pattinson and costar Willem Dafoe
  • High Life, directed by Claire Denis
  • The Lost City of Z, directed by James Gray
  • Life, directed by Anton Corbijn
  • Queen of the Desert, directed by Wener Herzog
  • Maps to the Stars, directed by David Cronenberg
If nothing else, this shows that Pattinson is an actor interested in exploring acting experiences and challenging his range by working with directors well-regarded on films typically viewed as art house fare. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I've seen High Life and was very impressed. I've also seen The Lost City of Z, which I'd forgotten about when posting previously; he was good there too. I can't offer an opinion on whether or not he succeeds in other films. It is, however, certainly enough for me to be intrigued and willing to give him a chance - and to encourage others to do so as well.
 
Pattinson has always been shit, so having a 100% track record of being shit, its easy to know what his Batman will be. Reeves' also has a track record of mediocrity, and that mixed with him obviously not understanding Batman and basically just troll casting the character, and I can absolutely say that I'd rather have almost anyone, even Joel Schumacher back in the director's roll. At least Batman's actor wasn't the problem in his movies. Hell, even Snyder cast an ok Batman. Making a worse Batman movie then Snyder is the bad kind of impressive, although I suppose watching Batman sparkle while having a face permanently frozen into one expression is slightly less insulting to the character then having him murder dozens and dozens of people, most of them with guns.
8oGBXCF.jpg
 
So I guess people will inevitably start calling him "Battinson" now. Comes more naturally than "Batfleck," at least.
 
Not that facts matter in this discussion but I found this article interesting, at least:
Believe or not, he hasn’t touched the tweeny romance genre after his stint in The Twilight Saga. In fact, he’s been dipping his toes into everything from post-apocalyptic dramas to biographical pictures to crime films. He’s wisely done his best to distance himself from his previous life as Edward Cullen, expertly avoiding typecasting. In the film The Rover, he plays a shadow of a man. For all intents and purposes, he plays a mentally challenged hillbilly trying to survive the end of civilization.
Source

Yes, I know, random article is random. But, the idea that Pattinson is to be forever typed cast as Edward from Twilight is incredibly superficial, at best. His filmography since then speaks volumes as to his willingness to step in to other genres.

Any chance for optimism?
 
That's different, because Berry was a big enough star that the skilled professionals who knew better weren't able or willing to say "No" to her.

Obviously. But you know that we could all think of various examples where, in our own individual opinions, the skilled professionals made a huge mistake in casting, even without the presence of a star too big to say no to. Professionals aren't infallible. So it's rather pointless to defend any casting with nothing more than 'trust the professionals'. Especially since that argument would apply to literally every aspect of filmmaking, making any discussion or concern about any upcoming film automatically unacceptable.
 
But you know that we could all think of various examples where, in our own individual opinions, the skilled professionals made a huge mistake in casting, even without the presence of a star too big to say no to.

Yeah, but it's valid to form that opinion after you've seen the result. Forming it before you've seen the result is a completely different matter. Direct knowledge is a valid basis, preconceptions are not. Remember, fandom was just as skeptical about Michael Keaton and Christian Bale. Nobody understood why Tim Burton thought that the guy from Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom could work as a brooding vigilante. Then they saw the movie and they found out.

However, I've heard from several people who've followed Pattinson's career that there's abundant evidence that he's a fine actor. This has been pointed out already in this thread. He's more than proved himself, to anyone who actually looks at the evidence. Finding out is better.
 
Overall I think the internet has taken the news rather well. I've seen way more positive comments than negative. It just took way too long to find an article using a picture where his cheekbones hadn't been cranked up to 11. He looks way more like Bruce Wayne now than Twilight would have you think.
 
Yeah, but it's valid to form that opinion after you've seen the result. Forming it before you've seen the result is a completely different matter. Direct knowledge is a valid basis, preconceptions are not. Remember, fandom was just as skeptical about Michael Keaton and Christian Bale. Nobody understood why Tim Burton thought that the guy from Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom could work as a brooding vigilante. Then they saw the movie and they found out.
Another example is Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He went from performing in Oklahoma and song and dance man from Australia to a brooding superhero, among one of the most popular. Now he is the iconic image of that character.
Overall I think the internet has taken the news rather well. I've seen way more positive comments than negative. It just took way too long to find an article using a picture where his cheekbones hadn't been cranked up to 11. He looks way more like Bruce Wayne now than Twilight would have you think.
Yes. It's been nice to read.
 
Well, its kind of comforting to know that WB/DC movies will always be somewhat shit. Even with Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam being great, WB just can't resist being fucking terrible with at least some of its characters.

But, hey, if ruining Batman keeps WB from ruining WW, AM, and Shazam, I'm fine with that. I have good Batman movies/tv shows I can watch, so him being ruined for probably another decade, while unfortunate, isn't as big of a deal.

You know that folks were talking about how Keaton would ruin Batman too, right?
 
:lol:
Have you even seen Pattinson in anything other than Twilight, if even that? By all accounts he's nailed all his other roles. Even Twilight can't be put at his feet given the source material. Neither the character nor the story was particularly deep or profound. The best cast in the world couldn't have made that stuff likable. I will give WB the benefit of the doubt on this until I have something to actually base an opinion on. Also, I remember similar outrage to yours when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman. I also remember people who were convinced that it would be an Adam West-style romp due to the casting. Would you have denied Chris Evans the chance to play Captain America simply because he was in a couple of bad Fantastic Four movies?

MICHAEL KEATON WAS NOT CONSIDERED A BAD ACTOR. HE WAS A POPULAR COMEDIC ACTOR, WHO PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK COULD DO MORE SERIOUS ROLES.

I mean for fucks sake, everyone who uses Keaton as a counterpoint is beyond pathetic. Michael Keaton did many popular movies and people liked him, there was just doubt as to whether he could do serious roles. Robert Pattinson is an absolute shit actor who has never done anything good.

Also, the fucking sorce material isn't responsible for Pattinson's robotic acting. I don't think the Twilight script ever said "Edward stares blankly in every situation, and never, ever emotes". That is all on Pattinson, who is more fucking robotic then an actual robot would be.

If you’ve only see Twilight, you’d think he’s awful. But he’s been in way more films than that, he’s good. He’ll be a great Batman. I’d say give him a chance to prove himself, but we know certain people think their first impression is fact and can’t imagine they could be wrong, which are constantly.

Well, since I'm right about 90% of the time, I'm feeling pretty confident.

Also, he is always shit. He is just a terrible actor. Also, his last actually financially successful movie seems to be the last twilight movie, with all his other ones seeming to make well below their box office (at least among the ones that have their budget reported). So, he's a shit actor that makes exclusively shit movies, he just does different types of shit movies nowadays.

And now I can't take the rest seriously. Afleck was the worst choice for Batman since Clooney. I would rather have Kilmer than either, and I'll take Pattinson over either as well.

If the Batman franchise can survive Clooney as Batman that this new film will not ruin this character. Period.

Clooney was a decent Batman. With a good script he would have been fine. Same with Affleck. Neither were the best choices, but with a good script they would have done at least acceptably inb the role.

For people that aren't familiar with Pattinson's post-Twilight career, even a cursory glance at his filmography ought to raise eyebrows and give the man some benefit of the doubt.

A selection of entries from his filmography post-Twilight:
  • The Lighthouse, directed by Robert Eggers - as I posted earlier in the thread, this was receiving a lot of Cannes buzz, including Oscar potential for Pattinson and costar Willem Dafoe
  • High Life, directed by Claire Denis
  • The Lost City of Z, directed by James Gray
  • Life, directed by Anton Corbijn
  • Queen of the Desert, directed by Wener Herzog
  • Maps to the Stars, directed by David Cronenberg
If nothing else, this shows that Pattinson is an actor interested in exploring acting experiences and challenging his range by working with directors well-regarded on films typically viewed as art house fare. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I've seen High Life and was very impressed. I've also seen The Lost City of Z, which I'd forgotten about when posting previously; he was good there too. I can't offer an opinion on whether or not he succeeds in other films. It is, however, certainly enough for me to be intrigued and willing to give him a chance - and to encourage others to do so as well.

Wow, a bunch of shitty arthouse films. Surely, that qualifies him for the role. Might as well hire David Lynch or Cronenberg to direct the fucking movie while they're at it. At least then it might be an entertaining trainwreck. actually, ignore that last bit. The last time we got a mainstream superhero movie made by an arthouse director, the world was punished with Ang Lee's Hulk.
 
Fixed that for you.

You are about as wrong as it is possible to be about the majority of stuff you post about.

Actually, I'm not. I just don't agree with some people, like you, but I find my predictions are about 90% right for me. I've had a few failed predictions (I obviously ended up loving Wonder woman and really enjoying Shazam, which I didn't expect), but I'm still right in predicting my own opinion much more then I'm wrong.

When the predictions in question are saying that a person who has no ability to act is going to be shit at acting, and saying that a director who has never made a movie I liked and is a terrible casting person is going to make a terrible mvoie, I'm pretty confident in my predictions.
 
Actually, I'm not. I just don't agree with some people, like you, but I find my predictions are about 90% right for me. I've had a few failed predictions (I obviously ended up loving Wonder woman and really enjoying Shazam, which I didn't expect), but I'm still right in predicting my own opinion much more then I'm wrong.

When the predictions in question are saying that a person who has no ability to act is going to be shit at acting, and saying that a director who has never made a movie I liked and is a terrible casting person is going to make a terrible mvoie, I'm pretty confident in my predictions.
Are you for real???
 
Are you for real???

Am I actually able to predict what I'll like and not like? Yes, I am. Most people whore are older then, say, 4 years old should be able to have a good idea of their own likes and dislikes.

Besides, its not like saying that Robert Pattinson is shit is a particularly hard thing to realize. He's always been shit, him being pretty much the worst casting choice for Batman (that is even semi realistic as a casting choice, obviously) is pretty obvious in my opinion.
 
Actually, I'm not. I just don't agree with some people, like you, but I find my predictions are about 90% right for me. I've had a few failed predictions (I obviously ended up loving Wonder woman and really enjoying Shazam, which I didn't expect), but I'm still right in predicting my own opinion much more then I'm wrong.

When the predictions in question are saying that a person who has no ability to act is going to be shit at acting, and saying that a director who has never made a movie I liked and is a terrible casting person is going to make a terrible mvoie, I'm pretty confident in my predictions.

* Sigh *

Just because you think something doesn't make said thing right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top