The Batman trailer is here
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
I mean what continuity will you be in? Are you ignoring the Flashpoint while being in the Phoenix's Joker's Universe, or the new VampBat universe, or are you still in the Christian Bale universe, or did you go all the way back to the Animated Series? If Im going to watch you ignore a universe, I need to know which ones and which universe you're from.
I've just been assuming that you're joking, but then I realized that maybe you weren't. Now I don't know anymore and that makes me a little sad.
Luckily, just like with comic books (good ones anyway), continuity should only matter when it does, when it's made an element of the story, and if it's a well-told story, we'll be given enough info to understand it. If not, it's just bad and no one is going to care about it anyway.
I don't care.
I'm gonna assume the movie happens within whichever universe the writers want it to be set, and conveniently ignore all the other.
Anything referencing DC properties outside usual Batman roster will be treated as easter eggs, unless made significant in the terms of the story impact.
But this goes back to my earlier point - they've already established a joined universe. One-shot movies become ignorable because there are no stakes anymore, as soon as the credits roll we can forget everything 'cause we'll never be going back.
And movies in the joined universe need to then state why the other heroes aren't in them, like in MCU's Spiderman 2 where Peter is all "What about Thor or Captain Marvel?" etc...
They even bring this up IN UNIVERSE in the Justice League movie when Batman is upset Wonder Woman has been around the entire time and never bothered to help, a point that was so valid they had to make an entire movie, Wonder Woman 2, just to offset it. A movie that in and of itself is set to all be a wish/dream that will be undone by the end of it if the plot leaks are to be believed.
Its the DC movie universe. Everything is sad.
I'm sure they're working on the voice
One poster said that surely this guy is as good a Batman as say, comic actor Michael Keaton. So far, I can't agree but am hopeful. I though casting Ledger as Joker would be a disaster so, what do I know?
Did you seriously just say that movies don't have tension unless they have a shared continuity and the promise of a franchise?
I'm saying movies that are designed to be a one-shot, not related to a larger franchise, are ignore-able when mapping out that franchise.
Who is going to play the Joker in the new batman movie? Doesn't matter, because its a one-shot that doesn't have the Joker. Vampire Batman could literally die in the first 10minutes of the new movie, and its effects on the DCEU would be...nothing.
Well if it doesn't have the Joker in it, then of course it doesn't matter, one-shot or franchise.....he's not in the freaking movie. That's like asking who is playing Ben-Hur in Chicago? He's not in it, so who cares?
And you seem to forget that this stuff is literally a flashpoint away from not having any effect on the DCEU anyway. You know, that thing they are already trying to do, because they pushed the desire for a franchise so freaking hard, that they forgot to make movies people wanted to see first?
So I don't really care, if it's actually good, and does well, you can be sure they will find a way to work it in. And if not, well so what? You still had a good film, and they might just make it an alternate universe story. I mean comics have been doing that shit for decades. Like 6 different Spiderman titles, each with their own continuity, all being published simultaneously. I see no reason why the films need to be any different.
Also do you REALLY want to see this Pattinson Batman in the same DC setting as Aquaman and Wonder Woman? I'm sorry but it's just NEVER going to work. Batman is a joke as it is, but sticking a grim dark version like that with the few DC films that seem to resonate well with audiences, will just make it painfully obvious how out of place it is.
Let Batman be all dark and broody in his little grim dark detective noir setting, and let everyone else do crazy shit. Because frankly the different titles are actively damaged from trying to mash all their disparate tones and power levels into a single thing. Rich dude with really complicated fanny pack, does NOT put him on par with beings like WW and Supes. And I don't care how much fans THINK he can hold his own, if we're trying to be "real" about this shit (which is what so many fans seem to want), Bats would get his ass handed to him, in less than a second, by the beings who can actually move faster than human reaction.
So I'm fine with him just having a solo film, or a franchise of his own, that doesn't touch on the other DCEU, unless they toned Batman to be more comical, he just sticks out like being the one guy that shows up to a party dressed in a dark halloween costume, and everyone else is Sexy Insert Thing versions. It just makes everything awkward.
Stop worrying and enjoy things as they come sometimes. I'm excited for all of the properties the DC's got coming out next year on film.
Well there goes that movie. 3 days after production restarted. Restarting isn't cheap. Getting the staff, equipment, renting locations, keeping the actors in filming shape, etc...it takes a great deal of time and money to ramp up production and now they'll have to shut down until he gets better, and then ramp up again and hope no one else gets sick.
Probably not the best time to be filming tbh
Last edited:
Can somebody let Hollywood know that we don't mind waiting a little longer for the movies to come out if it means not losing more talented cast and crew to this planet-scarring plague?
Its mostly to do with the massive loans production companies take out to keep growing. Hollywood is run almost entirely on debt; who owes whom how much. And being out of work doesn't mean the loans aren't due.
It looks better than most of what DC has put out lately. They should give it an R since we’ll all probably still be watching at home anyways.
Shame Robert Pattinson doesn't have the same attitude for Batman. The character NEEDS to be muscular.
"I think if you're working out all the time, you're part of the problem," he said in an interview with GQ. "You set a precedent. No one was doing this in the '70s. Even James Dean - he wasn't exactly ripped." Pattinson was given a Bosu ball and some weights to use, but, in his words, is "barely doing anything."
Batman just needs to be in shape not a beefcake. Muscle also means slower and not necessarily stronger, that is mostly height and bone density. Batman that isn't all indestructible grunting macho but a bit more vulnerable would also make for a much more interesting movie.
Shame Robert Pattinson doesn't have the same attitude for Batman. The character NEEDS to be muscular.
"I think if you're working out all the time, you're part of the problem," he said in an interview with GQ. "You set a precedent. No one was doing this in the '70s. Even James Dean - he wasn't exactly ripped." Pattinson was given a Bosu ball and some weights to use, but, in his words, is "barely doing anything."