- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 24,622
- Real Name
- Jake Lipson
Another thought I had: "The Batman" is a title that was sort of given to this film by default when Ben Affleck was talking about directing it because no one had anything else to call it. I think the origin of it was him talking about "The Batman solo movie" rather than Bvs or JL. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Reeves actually comes up with a different and more inventive title by the time the movie is ready to come out. We already have just "Batman." I'm really not a fan of just adding the word "The" to something to distinguish it. (See also "The Suicide Squad.") I hope there is another title to be had that tells us a little more about what distinguishes this film from the rest in Batman's canon.
In regards to Pattinson, I read the first one and a half Twilight books on a friend's recommendation before I couldn't stand it anymore. They're bad. They're badly written with poor character development, cliched plotting and a general lack of imagination. I didn't bother to see the movie, but if Pattinson sucked in it, it was probably the fault of the material. I doubt he could have done very much given the constraints of what he had to work with there.
I haven't seen any of his post-Twilight indies, but the fact that he has chosen to do them is encouraging. The Twilight money could have let him do a lot of things; he doesn't need to be the face of another franchise, especially not one that has already had a storied history with other actors and doesn't need his name to get it greenlit. He could just keep making indies for the rest of his career if he wanted to do that. The pressure and scrutiny around being Batman will be far more significant than what he felt being Edward Cullen and I'm sure he knows that. So if he's choosing to do this, he must really believe in Matt Reeves' vision, and must really be invested in being a part of that. It's not like he needs the money.
Pattinson is absolutely not someone who I would have thought of for this role, but that actually makes it almost more interesting. If Reeves went with a traditional pick who we all would have predicted, there would be the sense of "Oh, we already know what to expect from that performer in that role.' The fact that Reeves saw something in Pattinson (or Hoult)'s audition that we wouldn't expect is exciting, because it's his job to know more about what he wants than we do. If you had told me in 2005 while I was watching Brokeback Mountain that Heath Ledger would be the Joker, I would've thought you were crazy, but that worked out because Nolan found in him something special that no one expected was there. Maybe this is another case like that. I hope so.
Oh, and I know most of the internet is following Variety's lead in declaring Pattinson, but I'm going to hold my breath a little while longer. I remember when many of the trades said that Asa Butterfield had the role of Spider-Man sewn up, and it was definitely him, and then Tom Holland got it at what seemed like the last minute. So....probably Pattinson, but maybe not until WB makes a formal announcement/confirms it to the trades in a press release. I wasn't expecting this news to come until Comic-Con this year at the earliest, although now that these reports are out there I think it would benefit WB to just make the announcement when they know.
In regards to Pattinson, I read the first one and a half Twilight books on a friend's recommendation before I couldn't stand it anymore. They're bad. They're badly written with poor character development, cliched plotting and a general lack of imagination. I didn't bother to see the movie, but if Pattinson sucked in it, it was probably the fault of the material. I doubt he could have done very much given the constraints of what he had to work with there.
I haven't seen any of his post-Twilight indies, but the fact that he has chosen to do them is encouraging. The Twilight money could have let him do a lot of things; he doesn't need to be the face of another franchise, especially not one that has already had a storied history with other actors and doesn't need his name to get it greenlit. He could just keep making indies for the rest of his career if he wanted to do that. The pressure and scrutiny around being Batman will be far more significant than what he felt being Edward Cullen and I'm sure he knows that. So if he's choosing to do this, he must really believe in Matt Reeves' vision, and must really be invested in being a part of that. It's not like he needs the money.
Pattinson is absolutely not someone who I would have thought of for this role, but that actually makes it almost more interesting. If Reeves went with a traditional pick who we all would have predicted, there would be the sense of "Oh, we already know what to expect from that performer in that role.' The fact that Reeves saw something in Pattinson (or Hoult)'s audition that we wouldn't expect is exciting, because it's his job to know more about what he wants than we do. If you had told me in 2005 while I was watching Brokeback Mountain that Heath Ledger would be the Joker, I would've thought you were crazy, but that worked out because Nolan found in him something special that no one expected was there. Maybe this is another case like that. I hope so.
Oh, and I know most of the internet is following Variety's lead in declaring Pattinson, but I'm going to hold my breath a little while longer. I remember when many of the trades said that Asa Butterfield had the role of Spider-Man sewn up, and it was definitely him, and then Tom Holland got it at what seemed like the last minute. So....probably Pattinson, but maybe not until WB makes a formal announcement/confirms it to the trades in a press release. I wasn't expecting this news to come until Comic-Con this year at the earliest, although now that these reports are out there I think it would benefit WB to just make the announcement when they know.
Last edited:
