- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,066
Unlike the chirpy, happy-go-lucky Bats we all know and love.
The Batman (Matt Reeves)
- Thread starter Random Guy Esq.
- Start date
Permabanned
Not a Pattinson fan, yet, but the teaser above actually looks decent. 
Soldato
No way lol.
Unlike the chirpy, happy-go-lucky Bats we all know and love.
I'm with SixTwoSix on this one. Afleck was the best batman and Bale 2nd. Bale possibly might have been a better Bruce maybe. The rest, too campy for me. I never really bought in to the older Batman films. Pattinson's got everything going for him and the trailer looks fantastic. I'm just not onboard with the sulky teenager look. The guy's in his mid 30's
Sombody else said it, HeelVsBabyface on youtube i think, but he looks just like emo Tobey Maguire in Spiderman 3. I can't unsee that now 
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,845
I'm not convinced Affleck was the best Batman, we didn't really see enough of him. Also his Batman was a killer=/= Batman. If this is a kind of early Batman story then making him look younger and moody might be appropriate. Half formed without his final state of confidence and purpose.
Permabanned
Affleck was awful! imo.
Tbf...Batman has killed or allowed villains to die by ommission of action in plenty of batmovies, Batfleck was admittedly, a little too in your face with it.
Even in the terrible Keaton days i'm sure there is a scene where he shoves an explosive down a henchmans pants or something just as silly and tosses him away to his death.
Soldato
Man of Honour
The jury still out on Catwoman
You can't really complain they have filled the role of Gordon with an excellent actor that's the difference. Doesn't seem like a check box tick.
Also depends how hard access media push their views in the run up.
The jury still out on Catwoman
Well hard to get wound up on that one when she's been black/mixed race on and off since the Eartha Kitt days.
Yeah he's a damned good actor, can't fault him in anything he's done. I'm just waiting for the resident Ocuk perpetually offended regulars to have a moan.
To be honest, I'd rather Gordon was kept in line with the literature representation of Gordon. Much as how I wouldnt want a black Gandalf or Will Smith playing Sherlock Holmes. Not because of any SJW/woke reason but because literature (even the "simplest" form of literature) is quite important to me and I believe should be kept as close to the original source as possible. If it were me, I'd keep Jeffery Wright , because he is a superb actor and simply have him play as a new character, Commissioner Davis or something. Could even wrap it into the story, have Gordon be killed early on or offscreen by Penguin or something and the new Commissioner comes in. I'm sure many people will say I am being racist or something, but its not an issue of race to me, its an issue of faith and integrity to the source literature. I know of course that most things arent faithful to their source material but I'm much the same in respect of those things too - for example, if Alfred was suddenly played as an American or Australian character rather than British.
Doesn't come across as racist, you've given a well thought out and reasoned explanation why he shouldn't be playing Gordon. While I have no issue with Wright playing Gordon, I see where you're coming from.
Unfortunately, most people who cry 'SJW/woke' don't have this level of reasoning, they're just knee jerking from zero to fully offended in record time.
Sadly you're right about the knee-jerk from some.
Personally couldn't care unless they have a strong character trait that is based on their race but in this case Gordon doesn't and well it's really irelevant the colour of Gordons skin. The same as if Batman was black, makes no difference to the story at all. I'd have a problem with Will Smith playing Sherlock Holmes as he can't act. Does the books say he's white, or is it our imagination due to the era it was wrote in?
Not white specifically, though he is described as being "very pale". Ok, Will Smith was maybe a bad choice but I would apply it equally to say Morgan Freeman playing Sherlock Holmes. Accuracy to the literary source matters to me because of the extreme import I put on literature. Its something I apply to all sides, for example, I wouldnt want to see Chris Pratt playing as Shaft nor would I want to see Sir Ian Mckellan play as Othello. I do accept though that I put far more importance on the integrity of literature than most do so I am somewhat skewed by that.
To briefly side track a moment, not sure of your interest in the new Dune movie or if you've read the book, if so, do you have strong views on the casting of a black woman as Kynes for that?
DV has openly admitted he wanted more women in the movie as it's heavily male led and it was a role he didn't think would suffer detriment by gender swapping. I believe Kynes is also white in the book.
I'm curious about the new Dune, loved the books, didnt really like the original movie when I watched it when it first came out back in the mid 80s. My views stand the same really, its just one of those things with me. Its my view that if you are going to use someone elses literary creation rather than create your own, then you ought to do everything in your power to remain faithful to the original creation. If you want to significantly alter something, then create something new rather than alter someone elses creation. These things dont stop me watching/reading or enjoying them, I'm sure I will watch and (hopefully) enjoy The Batman, its not such a view that I harp on about it and rant to everyone I meet , trying to make them think the same way that I do, everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint on things and its not my place to try and force them into my line of thought. Or boycott the item, its just something that makes me sigh and wish that the original literature was kept intact and unaltered.