But with filming being delayed that means he could do it even more gradually and routinely without having to risk doing too much too quickly...

 

I guess one new question to ask an actor to be a superhero is will you bulk up for the role and will you sign an agreement to do so.
Even Christopher Reeve bulked up when back in 1970s it wasn't the norm.
Bale and Affleck set the precedent for what Batman should look like.

 

This is so mind-bogglingly naive and simplistic, I don't even know where to start. In a perfect world, creative people would be free to make whatever they want, without any concern for funding or profit. But that has never been what the motion picture industry is for major studios, and never will be. Not in Hollywood, anyway.

Also, your analogies don't fit at all. A creative difference on set is part of the process of any movie, and is not what we are talking about here at all. And the idea you want to accuse anyone of "worshiping the machine" is childish.

 

Depends on the Batman you want. I'm tired of tank Batman, ready for lean detective Batman.

 

Why are we acting like we can't have both, you know like in the comic books. Just because someone in good shape does not mean they are some stupid meathead. Frank Zane who is one of the greatest bodybuilders ever has multiple higher education degrees. So on top of being a great athlete in his sport he is very well educated. It seems you guys are just assuming Batman can't be in a big in shape guy and intelligent even though he is that in pretty much every single incarnation besides his older live action versions.

 

Oh I'm sorry, please point me to a live action Batman where the actual focus is on detective work, and not beating up bad guys. TDK had like 15 minutes of that maybe at most? And my point is, you acting like Pattinson is out of shape and couldn't possibly be a convincing Batman because he isn't working out right now, which is dumb. Dude will be fine. Let it go.

 

No it's 100% a fact. Money people cut checks, which then pay the creatives to actually make the things. Production companies are middlemen with the deep lines of credit and the influence to get people to cut checks and bring creatives together, but even then, most of the actual work all that entails falls on the individual producers. The studios themselves are only particularly useful when it comes to their distribution network.

And again, in 99 out of 100 cases, those money people aren't taking points off the backend, they have a vig that has to be met. They're so divorced from the process, they might not ever even see the thing, they certainly don't give a shit about how it comes out or if anyone sees it, the studio will have to pay off what they owe either way. And all the studio is concerned about is driving up revenue (not even profits), which increases their market price, and allows them to extend their lines of credit even further.

I think a lot of the time, people are confused about what a studio actually does. They're not taking the revenue from one movie and and using it to bankroll the next three or four (as if it would be enough). Maybe Pre-IPO companies like A24 run that way, but not major studios.

If those facts feel naive because they don't make the massive corporations look good or even particularly important to the process, then I'm sorry, but I assure you that that's the reality in all this.

It used to be better. Talent had more leeway to do what they needed to do. If that first Pirates movie was being made today, Johnny Depp would have been publicly fired in the middle of filming, they'd've reshot the entire thing, and the final result would be nigh unwatchable and written off as a huge loss. And what's crazy is, people online would blame Johnny Depp for the whole thing!

So the question is, "How do you know your talent are making the right choices?", and the answer is, you don't, but you hired them to make those choices in the first place. Taking them off and reshooting, rewriting and reworking the whole thing on the fly is inevitably going to be more expensive and less coherent on the other side. It doesn't make financial sense, but they keep doing it, and the internet at large keeps taking their side about it.

I'm just saying that WB asking Robert Pattinson to get shredded is misunderstanding what Robert Pattinson's whole appeal is in the first place, and a bunch of people on the internet going "IF BATMAN'S NOT RIPPED, I WON'T BE ABLE TO ENJOY IT!" because daddy studio said so, is emblematic of the larger issue.

And yet that's just what the internet does, or maybe just geek culture specifically. And I feel, at least partly, it's because they don't actually understand what the machine does in the first place.

 

Again where do you see me saying I do not want focus on detective work. I am saying I want a complete Batman. Why is this such an awful thing to ask for? I want a Batman with brains and brawn because that is who the character is probably 95% percent of the time and what I find appealing about him. Yes, Batman detective skills have not been used as much in previous films as you, myself, and others would have liked. So yes let us play that part of the character up in the next movie but does that mean other qualities of the character need to suffer. It is like talking to a brick wall with some of you because no matter what I say the response comes back to "Batman no need be in shape. He need brain only". At what point did I come into this conversation saying Batman's intellect is not important but I am saying he needs both factors to be effective.

Also it is not just that Pattinson is not working out right now it is the smug attitude he gave about it acting like he is on some moral high ground for not listening to his personal trainer and acting like he taking some grand stand for not being "part of the problem".

This movie is called "The Batman" so I want to see "The Batman". Marvel has brought their characters to definitive forms on the big screen where Ironman, Captain America, Thor, and so on are ripped as close as possible out of the comics where Batman is always missing something here or there.

Keaton had the scientific brain and detective skills as seen with solving the Joker's poison gas but lacked the physicality of Batman.

Kilmer version had a personality more like Bruce Wayne with the mental trauma that got mostly cut from the movie and had the more stubborn attitude the character is known for. This is seen how he is with Dick Grayson early on not wanting him involved with the "It is always my way mindset" But lacked the physicality of Batman again and his detective work solving the Riddles was at an elementary school level.

Clooney could have played up the rich party face of Wayne and that is about it. I have not been able to sit through all of Batman and Robin since 2011 so it has been awhile but I don't recall any genius moments and again lacked the physicality of Batman.

Bale is of course my favorite and to me the most well rounded Batman. He is a detective and does some detective work in the movies mostly in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, is good with technology using the sonar in The Dark Knight, and looks like someone who can actually go out and fight crime at night. The only thing missing from Bale is he did not understand Lucias talking about the fear toxin too much so that where his version loses and where someone like Keaton does have an advantage.

Affleck is basically Batman EXTREME where he does have most of the Batman qualities needed but is in some pretty crappy movies so it makes it hard to enjoy.

What I am saying we never had a complete Batman in live action in good movies that can be looked at as high in regard as Batman in TAS is as being the definitive version of the character outside comics.

 

What's a fact is that studio movies are 100% made to make money. Any creative merit is a complete side product. Without the promise of a return on their investment, there are no investors. So if you think they don't care if a movie makes money or that people don't see it, that's where your naivete comes in. If it really didn't matter, they wouldn't cancel sequels when a movie underperforms. You're confusing a studio's ability to play with the numbers to minimize their loss with a lack of caring if a movie succeeds in the first place.

On a side note, I love that the Pirates series is what you use as an example of a creative project.

 

tbf he’s not entirely wrong, as many of your prestige studios will sacrifice box office for awards season success if they think a movie will get anyway. Where his point falls flat is comparing to blockbuster films where the only purpose is money.

 

I'm aware that businesses exist to generate revenue. I'm also aware that massively retooling an already $200 million dollar investment at the last minute over some former Wall Street analyst's creative foibles is a bad financial decision that studios keep making and people keep supporting. Even movies like Justice League or Fant4stic, which were almost certainly terrible before the meddling ramped up, you can't tell me the original cuts of those movies weren't at least more coherent.

2.5xproduction to account for marketing and interest, 10% goes toward a distributor, 40% towards theaters domestically, and more like 50-60% overseas. These are the figures that'll tell you if a movie made it's money back in it's theatrical run. Most of these giant movies are failures by that metric, and the few smaller movies that become theatrical hits every year are much more profitable on that specific front.

The real revenue is generated in merchandizing, licensing, streaming deals, maintaining old and gaining new subscribers if they own one of those streaming services. With Disney, shit, it's in parks, cruises, just about everywhere except at the theatre.

Not that any of that is particularly relevant, I only bring up any of these facts and figures to say that studios aren't infallible, they're not making decisions based off of pure, unbridled marketing logic, and if someone is in a conflict (of any sort) with the company they work for, it doesn't automatically make the company right. We don't have to side with them or show out with brand solidarity on message boards and social media.

It's a great example, because it's a huge corporate product where the smallest amount of creative leeway went a long way with audiences.

Again, I'm just commenting on trends I'm seeing in the reaction to these big movie's news cycles, not specifically on the fact that Robert Pattinson doesn't want to work out because this movie won't be filming for a while.

But I'm not talking about why don't studios fund expensive art films here. Make a Spider-Man movie, I love a good Spider-Man movie! But give the people you hired to make it the room to make it. Spending $100 million more to "fix' what you already have will always be a bad call, but if you stay out of the way, who knows? You're betting with borrowed money anyway.

I promise you, big swings like The Dark Knight Trilogy or Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies are way more profitable, long term, than Ant-Man and the Wasp or Solo will ever be. And even the ones that make you wonder "Why did they let this happen?", aren't doing worse than Fant4stic or Justice League

 

Colin Farrell Admits The Penguin Doesn't Have A Huge Role In THE BATMAN, But Does Have "Some Tasty Scenes"

"I watched the Adam West TV show growing up actually as well. So Batman as a kid, yes very much, not in comic book form but the TV show I watched ardently when I was a child. And then in my teens I saw Burton’s version and loved it. And then obviously I was a huge fan of what Chris Nolan did with that world and how he brought it back to life and gave it an immediacy and a contemporary significance. So just to be part of that folklore, that mythology, is again really cool."

"I haven’t got that much to do. I have a certain amount in the film. I am not all over it by any means. But there are a couple of some tasty scenes I have in it and my creation and I can’t wait to get back. Yeah, I totally feel like it is something that I have not had the opportunity to explore before. It feels original and fun."

 

Robert Pattinson has a history of trolling with people like specifically he told an interviewer that he saw a clown die when it didn’t happen and recently he told an interviewer that he didn’t know the plot for his new movie tenet and the interviewer asked Christopher Nolan if Pattinson is trolling and he said that he is it’s amazing how many people he’s trolled he’s going to amazing

 

Yeah, it seems like a lot of British dry humor falls flat with people. Pattinson wasn't being serious when he was talking about having to work out for the Batman roll, and I even believe there's been floating around recently where he has been getting in shape for the film.

 

Good, good!
For some reason I'd completely forgotten he was British. This explains a lot then. Good on him for messing with people  

 

Lol Pattinson’s been laughing his ass off the whole time!

 

THE BATMAN: Riddler Actor Paul Dano Teases Matt Reeves' "Potentially Really Powerful" Screenplay

During a recent interview with The Playlist, Paul Dano talked in general terms about what to expect from the movie, and praised the screenplay co-written by director Matt Reeves.

"I think Matt Reeves is the real deal. I was really surprised by his script, which I think is, is potentially really powerful," the actor said before joking that he couldn't "even legally can’t say anything about" his role as The Riddler. He did, however, tease that "there’s something fun there in my character and in all the characters."

"It’s the kind of movie that we’re just desperate to share on the big screen in a big way," he continued. "It’s going to be really cool."

 

Could he have spoken in more generic, meaningless terms?

 

2016 Ghostbusters cast "Paul Feig is a God, this movie is the most awesomest awesome movie with heart and action and funnies"
Any fucker getting paid can say good shit about a movie they are in.

 

THE BATMAN Concept Models Provide A More Detailed Look At The New Batmobile