DC Studios THREAD - GunnVerse Begins - Chapter ONE: Gods & Monsters

I don't understand this "he has the Twilight stink" argument. Good actors will do bad movies sometimes.

What does his association with Twilight have to do with his hypothetical performance as Batman? Why would or should that color my perception of him if he does a good job on screen?

I'm reading a lot of circular, self-fulfilling takes on here:

"He did Twilight which was trash so he'll be trash. He's a good actor but he did Twilight so people won't accept him."

Also - people claim Aquaman did a billi because women flocked to watch Momoa. What does that say about potential turnout for Pattinson? :nerd:
 
Because it does. Majority see him and see twilight guy. Plus when people think of batman I don’t think many would even consider the guy.
 
You can't help the fact that the general movie goer still sees him at the Twilight guy.

That's not to say he wont be good, but we can't ignore the fact that most DC fans and casual movie goers only know him from Twilight and how that's going to shade his performance.

People have biases. Sometimes they can't see past their bias to see just the performance.

And again, he can be great. I'm sure Matt Reeves doesn't cast him unless he believes he'll do a great job, but you can't ignore that it's always going through the lens of casual movie goers who have biases.
 
Again, why would the "majority" color my or your perception if he does good on screen? Especially since you guys seem to be so hyper aware of these implicit biases.

If you're making a case for biases, fine. But y'all are literally invoking the biases yourselves. Y'all went from "HE WAS IN TWILIGHT HE TRASH" to a nuanced commentary about moviegoer perceptions and how people will perceive him as trash because of Twilight. :lol:

This is a moot point. If we're talking "majority" or the "average moviegoer", women and casuals will flock to theaters in droves to see Pattinson play Batman. Turnout or ticket sales will not be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Because I have those biases I'm referencing, as I'm sure most of the people not excited about the casting do as well.:lol:

I'm excited to see how he does though. Like I said, I like castings that don't seem like the right fit initially, because over time things seem begin to make more sense when you understand the story, tone and you get to see the performance. It's too early to tell, but I'm not overly optimistic.

I was more a fan of Efron, but I'm not sure he's as good an actor or if he'd be able to pull it off in the costume.

With that said, I'm still excited. I love the idea of more of a detective Batman story.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the backlash is as much twilight based as much as him being "tough" enough for batman

the dude from 50 shades was in 50 shades and I would have preferred him over Pattinson

but ill wait and see how he does

Heath wasn't openly accepted as the joker and look how that turned out
 
modelsandpizza said:
Multiple film critics and audiences praised her portrayal of the character. Jenkins had a hand in it too with her direction. Again, she's not Heath level (really, who is?) but WW is one of the few bright spots in DCEU.

What didn't you like about her performance?
Click to expand...
She has 0 range; I'm not invested when I watch her, I just don't buy her. I mean it ain't a scorsese piece, but man is it so painfully obvious you're staring a pretty face reading a script. Something about her delivery; just can't put my finger on it.
It's weird, watch her scenes. Say watch her scenes with Affleck and tell me it don't feel dude be carrying every scene they're in.
In short, her acting is terrible.
I wouldn't board the topic of looks, of what passes for battle hardened amazon, and that accent, because that'd be petty and "body-shaming".
And one last thing; DC standards are so low they'd reward mediocrity.
My opinion.
 
KingdomFlatbush said:
I don't understand this "he has the Twilight stink" argument. Good actors will do bad movies sometimes.

What does his association with Twilight have to do with his hypothetical performance as Batman? Why would or should that color my perception of him if he does a good job on screen?

I'm reading a lot of circular, self-fulfilling takes on here:

"He did Twilight which was trash so he'll be trash. He's a good actor but he did Twilight so people won't accept him."
Click to expand...
Cuz as far as anyone knows, he has done nothing that has gotten more notoriety than that.

When ppl think of Eddie Murphy, there first thought isn't Pluto Nash.

And when it comes to ppl who have seen Pattinson in his other movies, it's not like he killed any roles. Nobody is saying dude is saying wait yall don't know about all of his dope performances like he's Jake Gyllenhaal ir even Leto. Plus you're saying if he does a good job in this role.

When it comes to this stuff you're either looking at the actor's level of movie stardom or if they're actually goo/great@ acting.

Also - people claim Aquaman did a billi because women flocked to watch Momoa. What does that say about potential turnout for Pattinson? :nerd:
Click to expand...
Soooooo another bad DC movie that makes a lot of money? More of the same?

I mean who in here is complaining or being negative because they think this Batman movie wont make money? :lol: :nerd:
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
Soooooo another bad DC movie that makes a lot of money? More of the same?

I mean who in here is complaining or being negative because they think this Batman movie wont make money? :lol: :nerd:
Click to expand...

People keep saying this mysterious "average moviegoer" will be turned off by the "Twilight Stigma", when in fact the so-called "average moviegoer", particularly women who aren't comic fans, will most certainly come out to see this movie BECAUSE it stars Pattinson.

That's not a comment on how good or bad the movie might be.

And I can tell you haven't seen Good Time if you think he hasn't "killed" any roles.
 
Last edited:
The irony is that the reaction from most of the fandom was just that, I’m just referencing it after the fact. I’m not projecting how people will react, I’m talking about the actual conversation that’s taken place here and more broadly on the internet as a whole.

Most people’s reaction to the casting has been surprise because Pattinson seems like an odd choice. It’s just the reality.
 
KingdomFlatbush said:
People keep saying this mysterious "average moviegoer" will be turned off by the "Twilight Stigma", when the so-called "average moviegoer" will most certainly come out to see this movie BECAUSE it stars Pattinson.

That's not a comment on how good or bad the movie might be.

And I can tell you haven't seen Good Time if you claim he hasn't "killed" any roles.
Click to expand...
You're sure theyre saying the average movie goer?

Its more like the main Batman audience, males from 10-65, specifically ages 15-40 probably will be turned off by the fact that the Twilight guy js Batman.

But that'll be offset if all of Pattinson's female fandom flock to see the movie.

Arguing about ppl going or not going to see a Batman movie is ridiculous anyway.

To pretend that some ppl wont be turned off by Pattinson is silly that. That's just as true as some being turned on by him being in the movie.

Oh and your right I was meaning to see Good Time but never got around to it. From what I recall the trailer was good.
 
Another thing; I thought we trusted Matt Reeves as a director? The man hasn't come out with any trash to date.

The Eisenberg comparisons don't work. That's an instance of a questionable and controversial director (Snyder) casting an unusual choice for an iconic character. One sees the angle they were going for with Lex (evil genius silicon valley exec instead of traditional evil genius exec) but the physical appearance and demeanor of the actor didn't fit the nature of the character. It's generally accepted that Eisenberg was a misfire for that and for writing reasons.

Nolan and Reeves aren't questionable or controversial directors, even if you aren't the biggest fan of the DK trilogy.

Let's look at it quantitatively and objectively:

A director known for his polarizing films that are all over the place critically (Snyder) casts an unusual choice for an iconic character (Eisenberg). The actor's physical appearance and mannerisms don't match the character are all.

A director known for his work on quality films (Nolan, Reeves) casts an unusual choice for an iconic character (Ledger, Pattinson). The actor is not known to be a bad or untalented actor. The physical profile and demeanor of the actor are not inconsistent with that of the character (Rob is taller than Bale and Keaton. We presume he will build muscle as Bale did. With Joker it's literally a matter of makeup and hair dye).

And this is in no way comparing Ledger and Pattison's abilities so nobody hit me with that.
 
Last edited:
The irony is that Bruce Wayne is usually the least interesting part of his own movies. He's a brooding rich boy that likes to be alone and be mysterious (much like Pattinsons role in Twilight funnily enough). Im more interested in the villain he's going to play off of. I hope there's a Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Heath Ledger, Tom Hardy-level antagonist.
 
DC’s casting has been 50/50 at best. This was the last casting they should’ve taken a risk on though. No matter how you feel about Pattman as he’s affectionately being referred to now, I think we can all agree that he wasn’t the best choice out there...
 
This next Batman film is going to focus more on his Detective skills right? Interested and probably will watch.

From home.
 
Im actually looking forward to Roberts take on Bats...this all reminds me a lot of the Heath backlash and i really do think he will surprise most people
 
It will be nice if we can finally get a Batman that doesn’t become overshadowed by his rogues gallery. Batman Begins was as close as we have gotten imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom