Twilight Star Robert Pattinson Apparently Heading To Gotham As The New Batman

[JayC]

According to Variety, Twilight star Robert Pattinson is at the top of Warner Bros. list to play the next Batman on the big screen for the Matt Reeves directed film. The movie will focus on a younger Batman and is slated for release in June 25, 2021.

[JayC]

Seriously all I can do is just shake my head. This might be the first Batman movie I wait for home release before watching.

[FigureKingdom]

Were these people smoking the devil's lettuce while making this decision?? 

[mako]

If I made a list of 100 guys who should play Batman, I think Pattinson would be at the top of the list . . . on the piece of paper UNDER that list with the heading "Are You Friggin' Insane!?!"

[Jedibyknight]

Y’all some whiners

[FASVB]

8 hours ago, JayC said:

According to Variety, Twilight star Robert Pattinson is at the top of Warner Bros. list to play the next Batman on the big screen for the Matt Reeves directed film. The movie will focus on a younger Batman and is slated for release in June 25, 2021.

Hell no!

Thousand times no. Some people might day that he's actually a good actor and had improved a lot since his debut, but to me will always be the Twilight guy. 

We deserve better.

[Jedibyknight]

Cry me a river hahahahaha 

[memocromatico]

I remember a time when we said "what? Ben Affleck? Ugh... no!" and when we saw the first picture big and brooding some still didn't like it. In the end we got something... pretty great from him, if not the movies he was in. 

I say we give this kid a chance, "I don't judge people by their mistakes". Everyone that wants to can be redeemed. 

[mako]

32 minutes ago, memocromatico said:

I remember a time when we said "what? Ben Affleck? Ugh... no!" and when we saw the first picture big and brooding some still didn't like it. In the end we got something... pretty great from him, if not the movies he was in. 

I say we give this kid a chance, "I don't judge people by their mistakes". Everyone that wants to can be redeemed. 

See, at the end of the day, what people thought of Ben Affleck didn't matter as he was an accomplished actor, writer, producer, and director: in short, an extremely creative and talented individual. Being as generous as I possibly can under the circumstances, Bob Pattinson . . . played a sparkly vampire.

[Satam]

1. Let's not totally lose our #&;% until he's officially confirmed.

2. Pattinson is actually a very good actor. 

3. He does, however, have has a lumpy face and sad eyes. 

4. I think one British actor being cast to play Batman is plenty.  Pattinson isn't such a good actor that he would have an American accent as flawless as an American actor, and whenever I hear some Brit's/Aussie's accent slip in a movie or tv show, it pulls me right out of it.  Also, since he's not an American, I doubt he's a SAG/AFTRA member, which is another major problem in my eyes. 

5. Lumpy face and sad eyes.

[Belmont13]

Eh, nothing against the guy I just don't see him as Batman not even a younger version. I read that it's not a done deal and they have Nicholas Hoult(who I don't picture as Batman either) as backup in the event Robert Pattinson doesn't agree to a multi picture deal. At this point, I'm more bothered by the fact that we are getting yet another Batman project than I am at this casting choice.

[Hillel]

He-man, Batman? Geez!

[abnuggler]

Im  of the idea that we shouldnt judge too much till we see something clear (like a trailer or even more), after all I really didnt thing Ledger could pull off being the joker and he nailed it, still as ok as an actor Pattinson is I just dont see him as batman, and he is known to not be very intrested (and thus not put as much effort into his performances) when it comes to big franchises or big boxoffice movies (he's more of an indy movie actor), I guess we'll have to see and I dont want to put too much shade to him but still I believe there are a bunch of better actors out there to choose from. One thing I dont like is how wb seems to like to go the controversial route when choosing it's actors that usually dont pay off (Ezra Miller as Flash, Jared Leto as Joker, and so on, now Pattinson) The capacity of the actor plays a big role in how well the movie does but as of late the popularity and how the fans accept him will also plays a big role in how the movie does in the box office, and that is where this decision scares me the most.

[Satam]

1 hour ago, abnuggler said:

Im  of the idea that we shouldnt judge too much till we see something clear (like a trailer or even more), after all I really didnt thing Ledger could pull off being the joker and he nailed it, still as ok as an actor Pattinson is I just dont see him as batman, and he is known to not be very intrested (and thus not put as much effort into his performances) when it comes to big franchises or big boxoffice movies (he's more of an indy movie actor), I guess we'll have to see and I dont want to put too much shade to him but still I believe there are a bunch of better actors out there to choose from. One thing I dont like is how wb seems to like to go the controversial route when choosing it's actors that usually dont pay off (Ezra Miller as Flash, Jared Leto as Joker, the whole female Ghost Busters debacle, and so on, now Pattinson) The capacity of the actor plays a big role in how well the movie does but as of late the popularity and how the fans accept him will also plays a big role in how the movie does in the box office, and that is where this decision scares me the most.

The crappy Ghostbusters movie was Sony.

[SpiderS]

I don't love it, I really liked Affleck, both his casting and  how he handled role, could be the best Bruce/Batman for me,  But I will give Pattinson a chance. It raises few new questions, since he's far younger, does it mean they wont even show Batman in modern times? What will they do when next possible justice league/team up movie hits? CGI-aging? Affleck coming back? New actor for older Bruce? Just Pattinson with no explanation? He could be Dick Grayson becoming Batman for all we know. 

[abnuggler]

1 hour ago, Satam said:

The crappy Ghostbusters movie was Sony.

You are absolutely right, I dont know why it came to mind when I was thinking of weird casting choises from wb still my point was that wb hasnt had the best track record with casting as of late, add that to crappy sometimes predictable and others just sensless story telling its been a rough road for WB movies as of late (specially on the dc side of things)

[abnuggler]

42 minutes ago, SpiderS said:

I don't love it, I really liked Affleck, both his casting and  how he handled role, could be the best Bruce/Batman for me,  But I will give Pattinson a chance. It raises few new questions, since he's far younger, does it mean they wont even show Batman in modern times? What will they do when next possible justice league/team up movie hits? CGI-aging? Affleck coming back? New actor for older Bruce? Just Pattinson with no explanation? He could be Dick Grayson becoming Batman for all we know. 

As far as I know DC is scrapping their shared connected universe now and is just doing standalone character films, one character might make a cameo here and there on other movies but from what Ive read they are not intrested in doing the whole marvel phase thing that all the movies connect to a JL movie in the end any more, and if they do they just might retcon everything before with the new movies and just act like they just recast the actors for the roles but "somehow" they are suposed to be the same, as for this movie its suposed to be bruce not dick since the script is said to be based on a young bruce starting his career as batman (sort of like batman begins type of deal), so far it is said to bear no connection to JL or BvS, their plan could be to make this as sort of a prequel or soft reboot, (same could go for the rest of the JL characters some of which might get recast like superman and flash) and from now on just scrap the previous JL movie and just have him be the new batman from now on and only if this "frachise" does well and each character's solo movies do well too, then will they try to connect them and have a JL movie further down the road. If this is the case then its what they should have done from the start since I think they rushed the JL movie just to try to catch up to marvel somehow without putting the work to actually making everything fit in well and make sense.

[Outsiders]

Deadline is reporting that right now it's a toss up between Pattinson and Nicholas Hoult, who stars in Tolkien and is about to open in the X-Men: First Class film Dark Phoenix.

[Satam]

I'm more okay with that, but not much.  And I like Nicholas Hoult.

[batdan_11692]

If he's not bruce Wayne, then I'm actually intrigued. If he's like, Dick grayson as batman, or if he's terry mcguiness and Michael Keaton is Bruce Wayne, then I'm definitely on board.

[Satam]

10 hours ago, batdan_11692 said:

If he's not bruce Wayne, then I'm actually intrigued. If he's like, Dick grayson as batman, or if he's terry mcguiness and Michael Keaton is Bruce Wayne, then I'm definitely on board.

Very interesting and cool ideas that will definitely not happen.

[TheGrimeyGhost]

Not my first choice either, but I'm okay with him.  I really didn't want them to cast somebody in their twenties like some of the rumors swirling around for a while, because Batman has to have some age on him.  Thirties is okay if I can't have an old grouchy Bats.  What's most important though, is what will he look like as a Batman figure?

[memocromatico]

On 5/17/2019 at 10:01 AM, mako said:

See, at the end of the day, what people thought of Ben Affleck didn't matter as he was an accomplished actor, writer, producer, and director: in short, an extremely creative and talented individual. Being as generous as I possibly can under the circumstances, Bob Pattinson . . . played a sparkly vampire.

That's the one we remember him from, but he's done his fair share of other things, away from mainstream. He's not half bad. I think this has potential.

[mako]

39 minutes ago, memocromatico said:

That's the one we remember him from, but he's done his fair share of other things, away from mainstream. He's not half bad. I think this has potential.

You just made my point for me. "That's the ONE we remember him from." "He's NOT HALF BAD." ". . . AWAY FROM MAINSTREAM." Not exactly glowing accolades for an actor.

Bottom line, he's got just enough name recognition to put a few butts in seats and spark a few write-ups, but not enough that they'd have to pay NAME money. 

[Satam]

They wouldn't pay name money, anyway.  Most of the reason American studios hire a British actor or an Australian actor to play an American character in their movie is because they can pay that actor less.  With a few exceptions, because they live outside the US, they are not SAG-AFTRA members, and hiring a non-member actor from overseas is a loophole that can get them around having to pay agreed upon minimum salaries.