News Variety Reports Robert Pattinson is the new Batman

No.

Chris O'Donnell also stated in a joint interview with Clooney - one that wasn't conducted by Barbara Walters - that they both played their characters as flamingly homosexual.

 

Actually, he stated the exact opposite when Clooney's joke was brought up to him, followed by a joke about how anyone could take the movie as gay with nipples and cod pieces. And, in his joke, Clooney said "I played him gay," not "A flaming homosexual" which would be a whole different thing, and so what if he did? There has been accusations of homosexuality against Batman and Robin going back to the 40s. "Playing him gay" would mean the ONLY difference in his behavior would be being attracted to men as opposed to women, which would have no bearing on his crime fighting. But again... He was joking because of the bat-nipples.

 

Even if they did do that, so what?! Why is that so terrible?

And be fully aware that this is LGBT Pride Month.

 

Are you concerned that the homosexual agenda is being thrust down your throat?

 

How does monotonous wooden acting that consists primarily of head bobbing and smiling...

... equate to "offensively flaming homosexual"?

 

It doesn't. It is just offensive as acting.

 

No; I'm concerned about kirk5555 viewing George Clooney's blatantly homosexual potrayal of Batman as being "decent".

Because Clooney and O'Donnell, by their own admission, portrayed the characters as flamingly homosexual men solely for the purpose of mockery.

 

I'm out, I've seen this movie before and it just ends in frustration, warnings, and blood.

 

Moving on from this tangent about why Clooney's portrayal of Batman is an abomination, the thing that I want to know about Reeves' film and Pattinson's role in it is whether or not it's part of the DCEU, because my interest in it hinges on said answer.

 

If I saw this on a Facebook feed I would have assumed it was the Onion.

Choosing Robert Pattinson is Batman feels like something they'd do to troll people who complain about their superhero movies.

 

From the Facebook page of Adam-Troy Castro, author and movie expert, as well as someone who's actually seen Pattinson's work over the past decade:
https://www.facebook.com/adamtroycastro/posts/10219142419333917

 

If that's true, when Robert Pattinson gets his lifetime achievement award he'll smugly be all like "Oh, I don't know how you compare art! Maybe we should all play vampires and compare!"

 

He played the role in 5 movies over 5 years and now it's not-quite seven years later, of course the role will still have a huge impact on people's perceptions of him.

 

George Clooney and Marlon Brando have high profile instances of serious films in which they acted well. Pattison may have some art films he's done a good job in, but as long as all his well known films are silly annoying ones, he's going to take some crap.

 

Which might be one reason for Pattinson to want such a high profile role.

 

That's 5 movies out of 26 to date, 10 of them within the past 7 years, with at least 6 more that will come out between now and The Batman. So you're talking about less than 1/6 of his total body of work. A body of work that, by the time The Batman comes out in 2021, will include more than 3 times as many feature films as Michael Keaton had made before 1989, and nearly 1.5 times as many feature films as Christian Bale had made before 2005.

Michael Keaton took crap for Mr. Mom. People loved him as Batman anyway. How many dozens of times has that been pointed out already in this thread?

 

As long as George Clooney isn't Batman again, there will never be a worse Batman actor.

 

If that's the case maybe at 80 he'll only be remembered as Batman now...

 

That's probably a given, but at least it's a better thing to be remembered for.

Although some actors do manage to transcend such roles. Sean Connery will always be James Bond, but he's also Robin Hood and Henry Jones and Marko Ramius and so on. Harrison Ford will always be Han Solo and Indiana Jones, but he's also Rick Deckard and Jack Ryan. Some actors manage to use their defining roles as the basis for their larger reputation rather than the sum total of their reputation.

 

I never saw the Twilight movies but it was a billion dollar franchise I don't see why he should be ashamed of it. Was he bad in the role?