Personally I think cinematic universes are limiting. They found the most success with Joker and Batman standalones, and that's what they should model everything from: standalones allow for satisfying, complete films without needing to "fit the brand" or "move the arc forward". Interconnected films are an exciting hook at the start that eventually hinders enjoyment when you start to lose track of what's happening or miss a film.
Also, I don't understand how Ben Affleck went from being a bright spot in a shitty series to "the best Batman". He did fine, and the sea of shit he was in made him look better, but he's not unreplaceable.
Personally I think George Clooney is the perfect Bruce Wayne. He just didn't have a fucking clue how to be Batman. The point of Bruce Wayne is that he seems like a douchy, fun loving indulgent billionaire. He's not suppose to have depth, or be brooding like Batman. It's a thick mask so no one should ever suspect his real identity. The contrast is what makes it interesting. Nobody knows how to do charming, vacuous, and playboy better than Danny Ocean. He comes off as natural in that aspect as you could get. Keaton works great as well because his Bruce is so subdued, a bookish, quiet guy with a bit of charm you would never suspect is a man of violence yet not entirely surprised when he is. Christian Bale is a good balance, but his Bruce Wayne is so obviously flamboyant, so showy anyone could sense he was off, or compensating for/hiding something. They all work for their respective movie tones.
I enjoyed Matt Reeves and Pattinson's take, it works well because it's fresh and we've never seen a Batman like this, so damaged he's basically Batman all the time, a freak in and out of costume, but something was lost in the trade off.
Pattinson was great but you can’t make it retroactively fit, what with his version of Gordon, Alfred.
It’d have to be some type of multiverse or reality bending that allows him to take the place of Affleck.
Unless they take their toys over to the Reeves universe and build off of that.
Why do you think the big shakeup is happening? Whatever happens next the tone of the whole DCU is gonna be completely different from from the Snyderverse. Pattinson isn't "retroactively fitting" into that world, a brand new one might be built around the one he's in. It's no surprise Gunn is a big fan of the new Batman movie, underdog misfits and weirdos are his mojo and Pattinson's Batman is embodies those things.
Following reports of cancelations and a potential refocusing of the entire DC Universe, fans are asking James Gunn to build the DCU off of The Batman.
www.cbr.com
I don't know why I just thought of it, but it's a shame Paul Verhoven is a million years old. I'd love to see him do a Batman film. Or any comic film for that matter. Especially something like a Dred sequel.
That man would have made the
perfect Dark Knight Returns adaptation, Robocop is basically 75% DKR anyway. Too bad Snyder has already taken so much from it and put it in his shit movies, and there's two blandly animated films based off it that have none of the stylish flair of the graphic novel.
variety.com
