Robert Pattinson IS The Batman

[Kane52630]

This is the reverse of the Star Wars fandom.

A fandom I'm glad I'm not apart of.

 

[DeadlyWest]

A fandom I'm glad I'm not apart of.

As you should be.

 

[FunkMiller]

We say that every time there's a new shiny thing and we disregard the previous thing as trash. It's an obnoxious fanboy cycle.

Sorry... are you referring to my post above yours? Because I‘m not trashing any previous thing... I’m just being positive about the future. How exactly is that being an obnoxious fanboy?

Isn’t the obnoxious fanboy stuff more when someone trashes another fan just for being excited about a new Batman?

 

[Tg11]

Apparently I read an article about a Justice League reboot and that if it happens Pattinson will end up playing Bruce/Batman in a JL reboot so that being said...if this JL reboot happens I hope JJ Abrams is directing it

 

[Blind Bat]

Apparently I read an article about a Justice League reboot and that if it happens Pattinson will end up playing Bruce/Batman in a JL reboot so that being said...if this JL reboot happens I hope JJ Abrams is directing it

Batman - Robert Pattinson
Superman - Nicholas Hoult
Wonder Woman - Gal Gadot
Aquaman - Jason Mamoa
Green Lantern - Michael B Jordan
Flash - ?

Didn't like Ezra Miller as Barry, tbh, but don't really know who to replace him with. Hoult I think would be an outstanding Superman and Michael B Jordan could be the definitive live action Green Lantern.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Batman - Robert Pattinson
Superman - Nicholas Hoult
Wonder Woman - Gal Gadot
Aquaman - Jason Mamoa
Green Lantern - Michael B Jordan
Flash - ?

Didn't like Ezra Miller as Barry, tbh, but don't really know who to replace him with. Hoult I think would be an outstanding Superman and Michael B Jordan could be the definitive live action Green Lantern.

Honestly the only problem I have with this is replacing Cavill. It still never got confirmed that he was 100% out. There's just been a crapton of rumours regarding it but it's more likely that they just have nothing particularly planned for the character in the DCEU.

Right casting on Flash more just depends on which Flash, more than anything. That and if it'd still be a young Flash like Ezra was meant to be.

 

[elgaz]

Fine with the rest but just can't fathom Hoult as Superman at all.

 

[Travesty]

Peak is relative. In Bale’s short career, TDK was his prime.

He is an established entity in the crime world, the cops tacitly approved his vigilantism, partners outside of Alfred lend their assistance, arsenal for his war on crime is feature-complete, and he had moved beyond handling thugs at the ground level. For all intents and purposes those are the prime years of Bale’s crimefighting. There’s nothing more significant to add onto that resume beyond more of his rogues gallery (or extend the bat-family, which wasn’t gonna happen anyway).

I’d hardly even count BB because half of that film was devoted to Bruce Wayne and the events leading to the creation of Batman. It’s only the third act which covers his adventures under the suit.

If peak-year Batman can only be defined by an established and growing rogues gallery, it’s not much of a difference beyond what we’ve already seen on film, no? I’m curious what particular aspects are unique to this period of his career which is so yearned for and supposedly unseen.

Yeah, "peak" is relative, but that seems like a copout when you're trying to claim that we haven't had enough young Bats when BB and TDK were Batman in his first year. So yeah, when Nolan's Batman only worked in Gotham for a year, I guess you could say 12-14 months is "peak" in a relative sense to Batman only working around a year. There was no "Year Two" Batman in Nolan's universe. It was Year One, retired for 8 years, comes out for a few nights, to retire immediately again.

Point being: Batman was young in both BB and TDK. Those movies were in his first year. The conversation that was being had, was about not wanting to return to Batman's early years. You acknowledged that by initially saying "young Bats", and now you're playing around with the semantics of "peak" to try and backpedal the claims that TDK is somehow not a young Batman in his first year, when it objectively is. What are you trying to claim? So relative to Nolan's universe, a "young Bats" is, what, 6 months into his job and anything after 6 months is "peak Batman"? This is just a screwy way of looking at it when it's clear that our last solo Batman movies were Nolan's, and he had a Batman that only worked a year, and retired when he was young. Either way, the first two movies of the trilogy were centered around a young Batman. It's fine to want more rookie Batman, but to try and claim that Batman in TDK wasn't a young Batman within his first year on the job seems a bit much. He objectively was.

 

[Micromind]

Right now, Justice League brand is not looking good, WB will have to wait for some years. Look at how hard GL tanked, and they are still hesitant to make another GL movie, I think they will wait for some time before they think about a JL movie.

Other thing to consider is that Pattinson's Bat-trilogy might be self contained.

 

[Travesty]

I think they should hold off on JL and Superman for at least 5-6 years....at least.

 

[fan4stic]

Batman - Robert Pattinson
Superman - Nicholas Hoult
Wonder Woman - Gal Gadot
Aquaman - Jason Mamoa
Green Lantern - Michael B Jordan
Flash - ?

Didn't like Ezra Miller as Barry, tbh, but don't really know who to replace him with. Hoult I think would be an outstanding Superman and Michael B Jordan could be the definitive live action Green Lantern.

Aaron Taylor Johnson is who I fancast, but as far as yours goes, I go older for John Stewart and James Wolk for Superman in fancast, for now.

 

[Tg11]

JL

Batman- Pattinson
Superman- Hoult
Wonder Woman- Gadot
Aquaman- Momoa
John Stewart/Green Lantern- Stephan James

Flash- Lucas Till
Green Arrow- Hunnam
Black Canary- Smollett Bell

 

[hafizbat]

Honestly couldn't care less about Justice League. Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I always find it stretched/forced for Batman to be in the JL anyway. I just don't find it a good match, and I'll be perfectly happy if Pattinson stays in his own world.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Right now, I just want WB to focus on making a great Batman film.

 

[DKDetective]

Honestly couldn't care less about Justice League. Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I always find it stretched/forced for Batman to be in the JL anyway. I just don't find it a good match, and I'll be perfectly happy if Pattinson stays in his own world.

I'd rather build a really good Batman/Gotham world around Pattinson rather jump to Justice League. A strong Bat-family, with Dick as Robin/Nightwing, Jason and/or Tim as Robin, Barbara as Batgirl/Oracle, has potential to be its own strong cinematic universe. The only Justice League character I'd love to see Batman interact with is a proper well-written modern Superman. I hate how both Snyder and Whedon dealt with that relationship.

 

[Jekecy]

Yeah, "peak" is relative, but that seems like a copout when you're trying to claim that we haven't had enough young Bats when BB and TDK were Batman in his first year. So yeah, when Nolan's Batman only worked in Gotham for a year, I guess you could say 12-14 months is "peak" in a relative sense to Batman only working around a year. There was no "Year Two" Batman in Nolan's universe. It was Year One, retired for 8 years, comes out for a few nights, to retire immediately again.

Point being: Batman was young in both BB and TDK. Those movies were in his first year. The conversation that was being had, was about not wanting to return to Batman's early years. You acknowledged that by initially saying "young Bats", and now you're playing around with the semantics of "peak" to try and backpedal the claims that TDK is somehow not a young Batman in his first year, when it objectively is. What are you trying to claim? So relative to Nolan's universe, a "young Bats" is, what, 6 months into his job and anything after 6 months is "peak Batman"? This is just a screwy way of looking at it when it's clear that our last solo Batman movies were Nolan's, and he had a Batman that only worked a year, and retired when he was young. Either way, the first two movies of the trilogy were centered around a young Batman. It's fine to want more rookie Batman, but to try and claim that Batman in TDK wasn't a young Batman within his first year on the job seems a bit much. He objectively was.

You're putting too much emphasis on dates rather than the content of the trilogy. We can both agree Bale's career is too short lived, but to Nolan's credit he still emphasized distinct periods of Batman's career with each film. Had TDK been defined as a Year-Five and TDKR a Year-Ten, how Batman was presented would have probably been the same. I've described above why TDK is ostensibly a prime Batman without the timeline coinciding with its comic book counterpart for those same years.

To compare a different series and character; Holland's Spider-Man has been in more films than Maguire's run, yet Holland's Spidey to this day has not left his high school years.

Nolan treated each film as a major stage and progression in the character's career. I would prefer the "Feige" method of slowly transitioning from one period to another.

 

[Invader Joker]

I actually think Pattinson wouldn't be necessarily against in a Morrison-esque Justice League with all the weird stuff the JL can have. Pattinson likes weird stuff.

The problem would be if it fits Reeves vision.

 

[Travesty]

I'm not necessarily putting emphasis on dates, I'm just using them to showcase the objectivity of it all, cause you're getting a bit too subjective with your definitions of "year one" and "peak years". Even with your subjective reasoning, I still don't see Batman in TDK as "peak" Batman. The dude got bested by Joker in just about every regard. Joker killed his girl, turned Harvey into a murderous villain, which forced Batman into early retirement by taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit, etc. Hell, he's constantly looking to Alfred for advice on how to handle him. Even at the beginning of the movie, he was more concerned with the mob than The Joker, and that completely bit him in the ass. That shows a clear lack of understanding on his part. Sure, he did some cool things here and there(as Batman does), but if that's "peak Batman", that's a terrible peak. It seems more like the follies of a rookie Batman who clearly didn't know how to handle The Joker, and was still trying to navigate and understand his presence as Batman. Even his gear was in more prototypical form, as we never saw a fully realized Batmobile or gadgets....it was just "The Tumbler".

When people talk about wanting Batman more in his prime, I don't think they mean they want a Batman who constantly needs to get advice from Alfred on how to deal with The Joker, because he doesn't understand him. That's not exactly "peak" for some. That's more of a Batman that is figuring everything out, cause he's still learning. And that's fine if you want to tell those "year one" type of stories, but I don't see that as peak or Batman in his prime.

 

[David H.]

Then again, The Dark Knight is a movie that’s less concerned with what a traditional-by-comics-standards portrayal of “peak” Batman would be than one that serves it’s own narrative and thematic purposes.

I a world of endless reinterpretations of the character, you can absolutely have your cake and eat too.

 

[DKDetective]

I'm not necessarily putting emphasis on dates, I'm just using them to showcase the objectivity of it all, cause you're getting a bit too subjective with your definitions of "year one" and "peak years". Even with your subjective reasoning, I still don't see Batman in TDK as "peak" Batman. The dude got bested by Joker in just about every regard. Joker killed his girl, turned Harvey into a murderous villain, which forced Batman into early retirement by taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit, etc. Hell, he's constantly looking to Alfred for advice on how to handle him. Even at the beginning of the movie, he was more concerned with the mob than The Joker, and that completely bit him in the ass. That shows a clear lack of understanding on his part. Sure, he did some cool things here and there(as Batman does), but if that's "peak Batman", that's a terrible peak. It seems more like the follies of a rookie Batman who clearly didn't know how to handle The Joker, and was still trying to navigate and understand his presence as Batman. Even his gear was in more prototypical form, as we never saw a fully realized Batmobile or gadgets....it was just "The Tumbler".

When people talk about wanting Batman more in his prime, I don't think they mean they want a Batman who constantly needs to get advice from Alfred on how to deal with The Joker, because he doesn't understand him. That's not exactly "peak" for some. That's more of a Batman that is figuring everything out, cause he's still learning. And that's fine if you want to tell those "year one" type of stories, but I don't see that as peak or Batman in his prime.

Before we saw where they went with TDKR, I honestly interpreted TDK as the end of rookie Batman. I saw it as the story where rookie Batman got bested by the Joker and learned that his dreams of a normal life were an unrealistic fantasy. I saw it as the story that forged naive, rookie Batman into hardened prime Batman.... Until TDKR ruined all of that. Sometimes, I pretend that TDKR does not exist and watch TDK through that lens. It makes the movie vastly superior in my opinion. Oh what could have been...

EDIT: Travesty, using your examples of why TDK Bruce is not prime Batman, I would say that the Batman we see at the very end of TDK is peak Batman. Once we get to the third act, Bruce is keeping his own counsel and not relying heavily on Alfred's advice. Bruce is the one who ultimately figures out what the Joker is after and all about. It is not just about chaos as Alfred thought and the Joker pretended. It was about proving that the Joker was not alone and that others were like him. Only Bruce/Batman could have that insight due to his personal pain and isolation.

 

[Travesty]

EDIT: Travesty, using your examples of why TDK Bruce is not prime Batman, I would say that the Batman we see at the very end of TDK is peak Batman. Once we get to the third act, Bruce is keeping his own counsel and not relying heavily on Alfred's advice. Bruce is the one who ultimately figures out what the Joker is after and all about. It is not just about chaos as Alfred thought and the Joker pretended. It was about proving that the Joker was not alone and that others were like him. Only Bruce/Batman could have that insight due to his personal pain and isolation.

I still don't even see it as "peak". It's a Batman that is learning and is becoming a better hero, but that's still not a "peak Batman". If you're just looking at TDKT in a vacuum, and not looking at all the other mediums, yes, that is "peak" in regards to Nolan's very specific trilogy. But in terms of the history of Batman, that's still a rookie Batman. And when talking about where people want to see Pattinson's Batman, and they say they want a Batman in his prime, they're not just looking at Nolan's trilogy alone, they're talking about Batman as a whole. So these subjective talking points about what is "peak" in regards to Nolan's trilogy is moot, because that's not what the conversation is about. We're talking about Batman in the broad sense.

And if you want to make the claim that Batman in TDK can stack up to a peak Batman in the comics, I'll just disagree with it. I find the notion to be a bit laughable. In other words: peak Batman in TDKT is still very much rookie Batman in most mediums. I don't even see how this is a debate?

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

Batman universe, please.

 

[DKDetective]

I still don't even see it as "peak". It's a Batman that is learning and is becoming a better hero, but that's still not a "peak Batman". If you're just looking at TDKT in a vacuum, and not looking at all the other mediums, yes, that is "peak" in regards to Nolan's very specific trilogy. But in terms of the history of Batman, that's still a rookie Batman. And when talking about where people want to see Pattinson's Batman, and they say they want a Batman in his prime, they're not just looking at Nolan's trilogy alone, they're talking about Batman as a whole. So these subjective talking points about what is "peak" in regards to Nolan's trilogy is moot, because that's not what the conversation is about. We're talking about Batman in the broad sense.

And if you want to make the claim that Batman in TDK can stack up to a peak Batman in the comics, I'll just disagree with it. I find the notion to be a bit laughable. In other words: peak Batman in TDKT is still very much rookie Batman in most mediums. I don't even see how this is a debate?

Yeah, that's not what I meant. As I said, without TDKR, I interpreted the end of TDK as introducing peak Batman. I would have been perfectly content with the next film picking up with a truly peak Batman as I feel like the experiences of TDK were sufficient to create that character. In other words, if Pattinson's Bats was a continuation of Bale and they portrayed the movie as picking up shortly after TDK and the character acted like the peak Batman we all know and love, I wouldn't feel like there would be any dissonance.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Batman Begins and Dark Knight were absolutely early years Batman (Begins was the origin story, Dark Knight was the first encounter Batman has with his arch enemy The Joker). Rises was the outlier because they jump right to the end of Batman's story after starting it. There was never any middle chapter or "prime" for Bale's Batman (because he retired before he could reach his prime). It was beginning and then end. No middle.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Apparently I read an article about a Justice League reboot and that if it happens Pattinson will end up playing Bruce/Batman in a JL reboot so that being said...if this JL reboot happens I hope JJ Abrams is directing it

Tall tales.