The Batman (Matt Reeves) ***spoilers from post 1030***

Zero-Cool

I knew he looked familiar, he was bloody brilliant in Chernobyl on hbo.

https://twitter.com/Ashlea33818564/status/1297582148296355841?s=19

Zero-Cool

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I knew he looked familiar, he was bloody brilliant in Chernobyl on hbo.

https://twitter.com/Ashlea33818564/status/1297582148296355841?s=19

No ****ing way!!!!!!!

I'm ****ing boycotting this. I still haven't forgiven that **** for the way he treated Little Mo

I actually thought this was Russell Crowe

FortuneChip

Thought it was Ciaran Hinds trying to shake off Steppenwolf

Sonic the Shaghog

You know looking at the trailer Pattinson would have been a great Dick Grayson as Nightwing

MOR316

Not sure what to think of it.

Convinced Hush is in this, along with The Riddler and Penguin.
Fighting style looks great, voice is spot on, I'm just not sure of the look as Bruce Wayne.

Hope it's great

p to the e

Just saw Paul Dano plays the riddler. That's a great choice. And I can't believe that's Farrell looking so weird. I thought it was Anthony LaPaglia. Speaking of looking weird it's great to see Barry Keoghan getting a role.

fluke

A decent trailer which I hope doesn't signal this is just a Long Halloween/Hush adaptation alone.

Also, Pattinson seems fine here but I kinda wish he seemed a bit more playful like his character in Tenet.

The White Wolf

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I knew he looked familiar, he was bloody brilliant in Chernobyl on hbo.

https://twitter.com/Ashlea33818564/status/1297582148296355841?s=19

I was wondering who that was, scene stealing facial expressions. :P

Frank Bullitt

I am trying to stay cautiously optimistic about this...na, **** it, I CAN'T WAIT!

Hego Damask

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I knew he looked familiar, he was bloody brilliant in Chernobyl on hbo.

https://twitter.com/Ashlea33818564/status/1297582148296355841?s=19

ah Trevor from Eastenders!!!

I am extremely very excited. Batman is the only superhero character I like and that's because of his complexity. There was a cartoon years ago that had a bit of an edge to it, adult feeling. I loved it. It was streets ahead of the Saturday morning "crash bang wallop" version.

It will be interesting to see how this one goes. I had a look at the trailer and the cast. All looks great and I'm a big fan of Robert Pattinson. Barry Keoghan though I'm sure he is a lovely lad but I find him to be really really annoying.
I couldn't finish A Killing of A Sacred Deer and I blame him.

I really like when filmmakers take a known story and do something very different with it, like The Joker for example, so I'm hoping this will be just as good.

Psychiatric Patrick

Looking forward to this but really wish WB would bring dome other heroes to life for us.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Barry Keoghan though I'm sure he is a lovely lad but I find him to be really really annoying.
I couldn't finish A Killing of A Sacred Deer and I blame him. .

This is the reason I’m on the thread.

Fair play to the kid for getting along in the business but I honestly don’t get the praise he receives.

I haven’t seen Sacred Deer yet, but he is is same in every roles he plays and he has the same look on his face all the time

I’m putting it down to a little bit luck getting into one movie and having a really gung-ho agent because there are certainly better actors in the country,

All that praise has lead to a lot of speculation online that he must be someone more significant in the Batman mythology than Officer Merkel. If he was more of a household name that might be however he is still an “up and comer”.

Has it been said whether this is intended to be a once off story or if it is the start of a series?

Zero-Cool

I'm a big fan of Barry, was raging he dropped out of Y: The Last Man but happy he'll be in this, whatever the size of the role.

Psychiatric Patrick

p to the e wrote: »

Speaking of looking weird it's great to see Barry Keoghan getting a role.

Very harsh

Psychiatric Patrick

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I'm a big fan of Barry, was raging he dropped out of Y: The Last Man but happy he'll be in this, whatever the size of the role.

A lot of people drop out of Y the Last Man

johnny_ultimate

Barry Keoghan is a superb young actor, most impressive in Sacred Deer and Mammal so far. He’s a young lad still in the very early stages of his career, and we’ve yet to see some of the more high-profile performances he’s offered up over the last few years (The Green Knight, Eternals etc...). An immensely talented chap based on what we’ve seen so far though, and wonderful to see such a young Irish actor making such waves.

Psychiatric Patrick

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Barry Keoghan is a superb young actor, most impressive in Sacred Deer and Mammal so far. He’s a young lad still in the very early stages of his career, and we’ve yet to see some of the more high-profile performances he’s offered up over the last few years (The Green Knight, Eternals etc...). An immensely talented chap based on what we’ve seen so far though, and wonderful to see such a young Irish actor making such waves.

I have yet to see him act.

I didn’t like Mammal and he was no different in that his other roles.

Ireland has a lot of great actors and actresses. I don’t understand how Keoghan is is getting roles other than he must gave a very ambitious agent.

However as I said fair play to him. There are plenty of Yanks doing well in Hollywood that can’t act either.

I hope the young fella has a lot of cop on though and doesn’t fall for the BS side of fame. If his family is sensible they’ll have someone with him - I don’t know what age he is but I think it is “not old enough”. I saw part of an interview for Sacred Deer and Kidman and Farrell seemed genuinely fond of him. I would think no better possible guide in that life than Farrell.

MJohnston

He's 27 ffs

MJohnston

I honestly don't get this line of criticism of actors that "they're the same in every role"—yeah, so what? Is that supposed to matter when many people consider him to be excellent in that particular mode?

It's also pretty obvious that his acclaim is why he's getting roles—you'd have to be pretty egocentric to believe that just because you don't like an actor means that nobody else does.

Psychiatric Patrick

MJohnston wrote: »

He's 27 ffs

Okay. So he looks much younger. Seems much younger in interviews to.

I didn't know because I don't stalk the internet for peoples personal details.

Why are you so upset that I don't his age?

Psychiatric Patrick

MJohnston wrote: »

I honestly don't get this line of criticism of actors that "they're the same in every role"—yeah, so what? Is that supposed to matter when many people consider him to be excellent in that particular mode?

It's also pretty obvious that his acclaim is why he's getting roles—you'd have to be pretty egocentric to believe that just because you don't like an actor means that nobody else does.

Because if they are the same in every role then they are not actors.

I've seen much praise and claim for him as an actor. It isn't praise for the "mode".
I don't see how the claim is deserved.

I never said I didn't like him or that because that because I don't see the talent that nobody else should or that he shouldn't get the work.

I brought it up in regards to the belief on line that the his role must be something more significant in the Batman mythology than Officer Merkel.

You need to wind your neck in a bit, lad. I was not attacking the young fella - in fact I was doing the opposite.

pixelburp

Regards to being "the same" each role - having precisely one speed never stopped Sean Connery from a successful, lauded career. While acting the chameleon isn't a guarantee of results either: Jared Leto dives into each character but is a good example of a Try Hard actor. His eagerness to disappear into a role sticks out and makes his performance feel incredibly staged. I like naturalistic actors, even if it means they bring the same range to the table each time.

I've only seen Keoghan here and there; my main exposure to his acting was "American Animals" and thought he showed great promise. A natural less showy performance, maybe tipping the hat that he's not the kind of acting scholar you get Stateside. He'll never be a leading man, not least because he doesn't conform to anything close to Hollywood ideals of beauty, but that's fine. I daresay he'll do well for himself as Character Actor of Note.

The White Wolf

I like Barry from what I've seen, but the one speed as an actor is a very subjective and redundant claim. Either an actor is quality or he isn't. Actors don't have to try a range of roles to prove anything.

What I mean is take the people who try to take away from Christian Bale's talent just because he won't do some dumb comedy. Go away like. :P

MJohnston

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Because if they are the same in every role then they are not actors.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. There are tonnes of actors who are very successful bringing the exact same to every single role. That doesn't mean they're not acting!

I've seen much praise and claim for him as an actor. It isn't praise for the "mode".
I don't see how the claim is deserved.

That's fine, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean that other people can't. Appreciating acting is very subjective stuff because of how much emotion and empathy is a part of how we connect with actors. So when someone says "I don't like Actor X" without any particular reason why, it's fairly impossible to rebut that in any useful way. Try to be more objective in your criticism if you want to have a discussion, rather than just a thread full of people telling you that you're wrong.

I'll give you a recent example of more objective criticism from Little Women, a film I loved. I thought Emma Watson was pretty poor in it, because you could see the artifice and calculation behind her performance. In some other films, that would work perfectly fine, and she's given good performances elsewhere in films that match that mode. But in Little Women, it grated up against the deeply naturalistic performances that the rest of the cast were giving.

I never said I didn't like him or that because that because I don't see the talent that nobody else should or that he shouldn't get the work.

I brought it up in regards to the belief on line that the his role must be something more significant in the Batman mythology than Officer Merkel.

I'm only replying to what your posts are saying!

You need to wind your neck in a bit, lad. I was not attacking the young fella - in fact I was doing the opposite.

I sense a bit of projection here, in terms of who needs to be doing the neck winding

I don't really see how "I honestly don’t get the praise he receives" is the opposite of "attacking the young fella", but sure!

Psychiatric Patrick

pixelburp wrote: »

Regards to being "the same" each role - having precisely one speed never stopped Sean Connery from a successful, lauded career. While acting the chameleon isn't a guarantee of results either: Jared Leto dives into each character but is a good example of a Try Hard actor. His eagerness to disappear into a role sticks out and makes his performance feel incredibly staged. I like naturalistic actors, even if it means they bring the same range to the table each time.

I've only seen Keoghan here and there; my main exposure to his acting was "American Animals" and thought he showed great promise. A natural less showy performance, maybe tipping the hat that he's not the kind of acting scholar you get Stateside. He'll never be a leading man, not least because he doesn't conform to anything close to Hollywood ideals of beauty, but that's fine. I daresay he'll do well for himself as Character Actor of Note.

Yes there are many who can't or don't act. Or don't have a great range.

I was not putting the lad down. Simply saying that I don't see what it is that he is getting the acclaim for and that this acclaim has lead to the belief on some movie forums that his role in The Batman must be something of greater significance to the the mythology than announced.

People always think that about the casting in franchise movies, but often an actor that you know very well has only a small role.

I don't understand what you mean about Leto and being "staged". Can you explain that? Not very familiar with his work and just curious what you mean.

Psychiatric Patrick

The White Wolf wrote: »

I like Barry from what I've seen, but the one speed as an actor is a very subjective and redundant claim. Either an actor is quality or he isn't. Actors don't have to try a range of roles to prove anything.

What I mean is take the people who try to take away from Christian Bale's talent just because he won't do some dumb comedy. Go away like. :P

Of course it is subjective. Nearly everything is. What do mean by redundant though?

An actor is someone who can play a variety of different characters, emotions, ec. - my head knows what I mean but I cannot explain it better. If I could I would be hammering out my next award winning screen play not talking to you lot.

Based on what I've seen Keoghan, Tommy Lee Jones, etc. just pretty much behave like themselves.

Never said he or anyone had to prove anything,

Bale should do a Carry On... movie :eek:

pixelburp

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Yes there are many who can't or don't act. Or don't have a great range.

I was not putting the lad down. Simply saying that I don't see what it is that he is getting the acclaim for and that this acclaim has lead to the belief on some movie forums that his role in The Batman must be something of greater significance to the the mythology than announced.

People always think that about the casting in franchise movies, but often an actor that you know very well has only a small role.

I don't understand what you mean about Leto and being "staged". Can you explain that? Not very familiar with his work and just curious what you mean.

I don't necessarily have the vocabulary to express what amounts to a prickling under my thumbs, but: I can never adjust into the acceptance of Leto playing whatever character is on-screen. Instead, all I see is "Jared Leto putting on a performance as X" as he goes for these big, almost theatrical versions of the character that ultimately just calls attention to his effort. The method approach of "inhabiting" a character, ala Daniel Day-Lewis; but I find Day-Lewis finds the measure a little better.

Leto's efforts always remind of Lawrence Olivier's infamous snark to (method actor) Dustin Hoffman on-set of "Marathon Man": when Hoffman commented that he avoided sleeping to mimic insomnia, Olivier replied "Why don't you just try acting?". Not a huge fan of the Method Approach at the best of times and I find Leto an overenthusiastic, if not successful adherent to the style (as an example, he mailed used condoms, bullets and (IIRC) dead rats to colleagues when filming Suicide Squad - all so he could "inhabit" the character of Joker).

Psychiatric Patrick

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. There are tonnes of actors who are very successful bringing the exact same to every single role. That doesn't mean they're not acting!

It does mean that. Difference between an actor and a star.

MJohnston wrote: »

That's fine, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean that other people can't. Appreciating acting is very subjective stuff because of how much emotion and empathy is a part of how we connect with actors. So when someone says "I don't like Actor X" without any particular reason why, it's fairly impossible to rebut that in any useful way. Try to be more objective in your criticism if you want to have a discussion, rather than just a thread full of people telling you that you're wrong.

I'll give you a recent example of more objective criticism from Little Women, a film I loved. I thought Emma Watson was pretty poor in it, because you could see the artifice and calculation behind her performance. In some other films, that would work perfectly fine, and she's given good performances elsewhere in films that match that mode. But in Little Women, it grated up against the deeply naturalistic performances that the rest of the cast were giving.

You suggest I need need to be more "objective" or get told by a lot of people not being objective that I'm wrong?

The nonsense is coming from you, lad.

I never said I didn't like Keoghan - this is not the first time you've said this. Are you actually reading what I'm posting? Or are you just wanting to argue with someone?

I said he can't act. And I that I hope he does okay in to all. Try to follow.

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm only replying to what your posts are saying!

No you are not.

I did not say I didn't Keoghan. You are saying I did say that - what you are saying is not true.

MJohnston wrote: »

sense a bit of projection here, in terms of who needs to be doing the neck winding

I don't really see how "I honestly don’t get the praise he receives" is the opposite of "attacking the young fella", but sure!

Projecting what? I think you need to look up the meaning of that.

Because I didn't attack him. Was I here posting with profanity that he "he sucks" and he "shouldn't be in movies".

No, I said the kid cannot act but fair play to him for getting along in the business. Then I moved onto talking about the movie.

For some strange reason that is your own business you completely over reacted. Probably nothing even to do with Keoghan. I'd say you were going to argue with anything that was posted at the time.

Go take a walk outside or find another way to let the tension out.

Psychiatric Patrick

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't necessarily have the vocabulary to express what amounts to a prickling under my thumbs, but: I can never adjust into the acceptance of Leto playing whatever character is on-screen. Instead, all I see is "Jared Leto putting on a performance as X" as he goes for these big, almost theatrical versions of the character that ultimately just calls attention to his effort. The method approach of "inhabiting" a character, ala Daniel Day-Lewis; but I find Day-Lewis finds the measure a little better.

Leto's efforts always remind of Lawrence Olivier's infamous snark to (method actor) Dustin Hoffman on-set of "Marathon Man": when Hoffman commented that he avoided sleeping to mimic insomnia, Olivier replied "Why don't you just try acting?". Not a huge fan of the Method Approach at the best of times and I find Leto an overenthusiastic, if not successful adherent to the style (as an example, he mailed used condoms, bullets and (IIRC) dead rats to colleagues when filming Suicide Squad - all so he could "inhabit" the character of Joker).

I get understanding the feeling but not having the words. That is me all over.

You've explained it well though and I understand.

I did not know that Leto did that for Suicide Squad. That goes beyond finding a character - it is sick. Here I Day-Lewis was mad for wanting a broken nose so that he would know what a broken nose was like. Well I wouldn't be working with Leto in that business anyway.

I remembering reading about that comment from Olivier. A classic. There is also a funny story about such a thing with McQueen on the set of Papillion - I cannot remember it exactly and cannot find it to on Google.

MJohnston

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't necessarily have the vocabulary to express what amounts to a prickling under my thumbs, but: I can never adjust into the acceptance of Leto playing whatever character is on-screen. Instead, all I see is "Jared Leto putting on a performance as X" as he goes for these big, almost theatrical versions of the character that ultimately just calls attention to his effort. The method approach of "inhabiting" a character, ala Daniel Day-Lewis; but I find Day-Lewis finds the measure a little better.

Leto's efforts always remind of Lawrence Olivier's infamous snark to (method actor) Dustin Hoffman on-set of "Marathon Man": when Hoffman commented that he avoided sleeping to mimic insomnia, Olivier replied "Why don't you just try acting?". Not a huge fan of the Method Approach at the best of times and I find Leto an overenthusiastic, if not successful adherent to the style (as an example, he mailed used condoms, bullets and (IIRC) dead rats to colleagues when filming Suicide Squad - all so he could "inhabit" the character of Joker).

I think it’s the same thing as what I mentioned about Watson in Little Women - with certain performances the artifice of the acting becomes too glaring. You can see them act.

Sometimes the artifice is part of the movie too, when an actor is the right kind of hammy for a particular film. Stick a naturalistic performance in Aquaman and it’d seem utterly wrong, for example.

As an aside, I think this is why Saoirse Ronan is such an incredible actor for someone so young. I’ve never seen her have a false moment onscreen, you never see the gears turning in her head.

That Ang Lee film Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk was a fascinating example of how acting works. There were lots of excellent actors in it, doing objectively the same quality of acting as any other movie they’ve been in. But the high-frame rate changed how the exact same performance came across, and broke the normal rules for acting. You could see that a little bit in Gemini Man too, there’s a hammy Russian character in it, and although that’s the kind of performance you’d ignore in a regular film, at 60fps it was so jarring and weird.

Acting is a weird thing! It’s even weirder all the different ways we can perceive acting too. I’ve been thrown from so many American movies simply because a character is randomly Irish, even though they can doing excellent acting work.