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

flasher0030

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

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





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.

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.

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.

I only saw him in Calm with Horses. And I would definately agree with you from that film anyway. But he must have something. I had a quick look on wikipedia. He has been in a few high-profile enough movies.

Psychiatric Patrick

flasher0030 wrote: »

I only saw him in Calm with Horses. And I would definately agree with you from that film anyway. But he must have something. I had a quick look on wikipedia. He has been in a few high-profile enough movies.

A very enthusiastic agent.

p to the e

I saw Barry in a short film recently (here if anyone wants to check it out) and he's a fantastic actor. But like every profession there are a million other talented people out there. Having a bit of luck and an original look pays dividends.

Either way I'm glad to see someone that isn't from a privileged background or was gifted roles through nepotism have a strong career. He should be admired really.

MJohnston

I'm really looking forward to David Lowery's The Green Knight, which Keoghan is in (and which was filmed in Wicklow).

An enthusiastic or well-connected agent might get you a role in a Marvel movie, but the likes of Chris Nolan, Yorgos Lanthimos, and Matt Reeves are going to be very careful about casting, so he's in their films on merit.

Psychiatric Patrick

p to the e wrote: »

I saw Barry in a short film recently (here if anyone wants to check it out) and he's a fantastic actor. But like every profession there are a million other talented people out there. Having a bit of luck and an original look pays dividends.

Either way I'm glad to see someone that isn't from a privileged background or was gifted roles through nepotism have a strong career. He should be admired really.

I cannot go as far as admire, but I do say fair play.

The "privileged background" and "nepotism". Are you referring to other Irish actors or Irish people in general?

p to the e

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I cannot go as far as admire, but I do say fair play.

The "privileged background" and "nepotism". Are you referring to other Irish actors or Irish people in general?

Just the acting industry in general. This isn't really the thread to discuss but in the acting world, particularly in the UK, a lot of acting talent comes from wealth as those not blessed with it can't afford to slog it out for too long. I'm not an actor but let's just say I've seen it.

Psychiatric Patrick

p to the e wrote: »

Just the acting industry in general. This isn't really the thread to discuss but in the acting world, particularly in the UK, a lot of acting talent comes from wealth as those not blessed with it can't afford to slog it out for too long. I'm not an actor but let's just say I've seen it.

I wouldn't know enough about any actor/actress working today (beyond trivia of my favourites) to even hazard a guess at who came from what background.

All I ask is that be entertained.

As to The Batman it is just occurring to me that I don't think I've eve seen a Robet Pattinson movie before. Good Time (?) isn in my iTunes library though.

Acting illicits emotions in us so it's hugely subjective. I've often watched a performance that gives me that grating feeling one of you describe. For me it's Emma Watson in everything. A kind of "I just don't buy it" feeling. For someone else though they will absolutely love her.

Films are the same. We look at them through a lens of emotion I think. Well I certainly do which is why I would make a dreadful critic. I was having a chat with someone last night about a film from my childhood, The Wolves of Willoughby Chase. I loved it then and love it now.

I do agree with Jared Leto trying to hard. There's something a bit off about his acting. The last thing I saw him in was The Outsider. I thought it was a great film and he was grand in it, as he tends to be. But. I'd take a guess that he is an intense person who thinks very hard about almost everything and that includes his work.

B.A._Baracus

From January...

http://www.appocalypse.co/entertainment/the-batman-set-photos-robert-pattinson-colin-farrell/



Farrell looking a far cry from the person we saw in the trailer. Could this version of the Penguin have some sort of way to change his face?
Does Batman cause some sort of an accident to him? (Sounds too close to joker 1989 that)

Something strange could be up. As that's Farrell, on set, in costume with an umbrella but looking his usual self.

Goodshape

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

As to The Batman it is just occurring to me that I don't think I've eve seen a Robet Pattinson movie before. Good Time (?) isn in my iTunes library though.

Good Time is definitely worth a look. An intense thriller, I'd say most people will enjoy that.

High Life, Cosmopolis, and The Lighthouse are also great - in my opinion - but are each a bit (or more than a bit) "strange". Might turn some people off.

Sad Professor

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

From January...

http://www.appocalypse.co/entertainment/the-batman-set-photos-robert-pattinson-colin-farrell/



Farrell looking a far cry from the person we saw in the trailer. Could this version of the Penguin have some sort of way to change his face?
Does Batman cause some sort of an accident to him? (Sounds too close to joker 1989 that)

Something strange could be up. As that's Farrell, on set, in costume with an umbrella but looking his usual self.

That doesn’t look like Farrell to me. Probably just some extra with an umbrella.

MOR316

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

From January...

http://www.appocalypse.co/entertainment/the-batman-set-photos-robert-pattinson-colin-farrell/



Farrell looking a far cry from the person we saw in the trailer. Could this version of the Penguin have some sort of way to change his face?
Does Batman cause some sort of an accident to him? (Sounds too close to joker 1989 that)

Something strange could be up. As that's Farrell, on set, in costume with an umbrella but looking his usual self.

That looks nothing like CF

Goodshape

MOR316 wrote: »

That looks nothing like CF

Well it looks more like him than he does in this film

Psychiatric Patrick

Goodshape wrote: »

Good Time is definitely worth a look. An intense thriller, I'd say most people will enjoy that.

High Life, Cosmopolis, and The Lighthouse are also great - in my opinion - but are each a bit (or more than a bit) "strange". Might turn some people off.

I like "strange".

Those other three are my list - Lighthouse because of The Witch, Cosmopolis because of Cronenberg and High Life because it is outer space :pac: (I keep thinking Claire Danes is the director :rolleyes:)

I knew of High Life by hearing Marc Maron rave about it

Psychiatric Patrick

Is this movie set in the present day? Or is set in the 1980s/1990s?

I have a recollection of reading that but maybe I was confusing it with Joker

pixelburp

One of the painted goons in the trailer is holding a smart phone as a camera, so presumably it has an approximately modern setting. Sidebar on that scene cos yowsers: devoid of context, the way batman continued pummelling the dude, even after he fell from the first attack (complete with grisly wet thuds), was, uh. A bit too far TBH. Like, is this batman going to be a bit of a psycho, still trying to channel his rage?

Psychiatric Patrick

pixelburp wrote: »

One of the painted goons in the trailer is holding a smart phone as a camera, so presumably it has an approximately modern setting. Sidebar on that scene cos yowsers: devoid of context, the way batman continued pummelling the dude, even after he fell from the first attack (complete with grisly wet thuds), was, uh. A bit too far TBH. Like, is this batman going to be a bit of a psycho, still trying to channel his rage?

Batman is a psycho though, isn't he?

Will Serkis be the youngest Alfred so far?

FunLover18

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Will Serkis be the youngest Alfred so far?

There's only 22 years between Serkis and Pattinson in age, I wonder will they age Alfred up.

Psychiatric Patrick

FunLover18 wrote: »

There's only 22 years between Serkis and Pattinson in age, I wonder will they age Alfred up.

Then would they not have just cast older?

There is no reason why Alfred needs to be an "old dude".

He can still have had all the same life experiences before going to work for the Wayne's.

The reason I was asking about the time period and Alfred's age (nonsense drama being started my siblings interrupting my train of thought) is what kind of real world events would Allred's military services be involved in? He was SAS, right? How many stories are that tell how old Bruce when they meet? I know of one story that say he was eight.

FunLover18

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Then would they not have just cast older?

There is no reason why Alfred needs to be an "old dude".

He can still have had all the same life experiences before going to work for the Wayne's.

The reason I was asking about the time period and Alfred's age (nonsense drama being started my siblings interrupting my train of thought) is what kind of real world events would Allred's military services be involved in? He was SAS, right? How many stories are that tell how old Bruce when they meet? I know of one story that say he was eight.

Oh yeh he definitely doesn't have to be older but I'm interested to see what they'll do with it. If Bruce is 10 when his parents die, that makes Alfred 32, it's very young and you'd wonder how long he's even have been in the Wayne service at that stage. Isn't the military history a very new angle though, they don't have to go down that route at all.

Psychiatric Patrick

FunLover18 wrote: »

Oh yeh he definitely doesn't have to be older but I'm interested to see what they'll do with it. If Bruce is 10 when his parents die, that makes Alfred 32, it's very young and you'd wonder how long he's even have been in the Wayne service at that stage. Isn't the military history a very new angle though, they don't have to go down that route at all.

If I know my Batman mythology (I don't really but...) in the original comic Bruce and Alfred were the same age and he was already Batma when they first meet.

I think the military background first appeared in the animated series but it has never been explored in the comic except for hints and anecdotes.

For Caine's (and I think Pertwee's) Alfred it was big deal.

No they don't have to go down that route - I just default to thinking he has to an ex-soldier because he is in the animated show - but with him being younger (and with Serkis being a "do his own stunts" man) I think they surely have some action scenes for Alfred.

As I type I also remember that Alfred was supposedly a stage actor with made him skilled at disguises. Sounds right up Serkis' street.

Psychiatric Patrick

FunLover18 wrote: »

If Bruce is 10 when his parents die, that makes Alfred 32, it's very young and you'd wonder how long he's even have been in the Wayne service at that stage.

A friend of the family perhaps and not their butler at the time but is named in the will as the gaurdian?

32 in is not too young though. By that age he could been through the army, joined the SAS, done a stint in MI-5.

I you were a millionaire in Gotham City that wold be the type of lad you'd watching over your family and teaching your kid how to look after himself.

FunLover18

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

A friend of the family perhaps and not their butler at the time but is named in the will as the gaurdian?

32 in is not too young though. By that age he could been through the army, joined the SAS, done a stint in MI-5.

I you were a millionaire in Gotham City that wold be the type of lad you'd watching over your family and teaching your kid how to look after himself.

I think I may be coming across more sceptical than I actually am. I don't think it's too young, Serkis is a great actor and I think he'll bring something new to the role but I do think it will be dynamic we haven't seen before, maybe more older brother than fatherly.

The White Wolf

pixelburp wrote: »

One of the painted goons in the trailer is holding a smart phone as a camera, so presumably it has an approximately modern setting. Sidebar on that scene cos yowsers: devoid of context, the way batman continued pummelling the dude, even after he fell from the first attack (complete with grisly wet thuds), was, uh. A bit too far TBH. Like, is this batman going to be a bit of a psycho, still trying to channel his rage?

Given how intense Pattinson looks out of costume it's probably fair to say this will be the most disturbed Bruce we see yet.

I find it intruiging anyway, previous films always paid lip service to Batman stepping over the line so it was easy to still route for him. Gordon struggling to handle him while keeping the rest of the force happy is something we've never seen on the big screen, I'm excited to see it here.

CastorTroy

Alfred's father worked for the Waynes as well, if I remember the comics. Though maybe that was a non canon comic.
If it's year 2, Bruce may be younger than Pattinson, and Serkis is the type of actor who can portray older without much makeup. Considering the likes of Colin Farrell, it seems they've no problem with putting prosthetics on actors in this.

MJohnston

The White Wolf wrote: »

Given how intense Pattinson looks out of costume it's probably fair to say this will be the most disturbed Bruce we see yet.

I find it intruiging anyway, previous films always paid lip service to Batman stepping over the line so it was easy to still route for him. Gordon struggling to handle him while keeping the rest of the force happy is something we've never seen on the big screen, I'm excited to see it here.

I do hope that if we get a truly unhinged Batman that we also see some better exploration of why and how that's psychopathic.

It's obviously impossible to depict violence without glorifying it a little bit, but the big thing that DC characters have over Marvel ones is a grander sense of morality, and we haven't seen a whole lot of that since Nolan's Batman.

IMO The Batman needs to touch on Batman's morality without any kind of rote "he's learned his lesson not to be violent in the future" stuff. I also hope that it doesn't shy away from addressing the current situation of heavily militarised police forces that aren't working to protect people.

pixelburp

Given there is only 25% of this in the can, it's hard to be certain on anything of course - especially as shooting never runs parallel to the film's internal chronology. The psychopathic beatdown could be from the start, middle or end of the final film; it's hard to know for sure. Could simply be a "lowest ebb" moment where Bruce takes out his frustration on the goon and not remotely reflective of this particular version.

And while yes, exploring Bruce's simmering rage and psychopathy might be a good idea, I'd not immediately think a blockbuster film is the space to do it justice. Comics & TV definitely: the nature of 2 hour films and Hollywood blockbusters demand certain structures & tonal truths; the script could get in an awful mudddle trying to thread the needle between "our power fantasy hero, Batman" and "Batman in reality would be a raging nutcase". You can't have your cake and beat it to a pulp too; Batman has to be one or the other in that author's particular story, cos they're both opposite ends of the thematic spectrum IMO. And extrapolating from one throwaway scene, I'm not immediately down for watching 2 hours of angst Batman beating the shít out of people, but feeling terribly sorry-not-sorry for doing it.

That's not to say I'm not intrigued and excited; while I previously lamented the continuation of "realistic" and moody Batman, it still looks like it'll be a handsome, hopefully adult take on the subject. Though if the big 3rd act twist was the killer turning out to be Clayface - now that'd be rather fantastic. Would be a good choice for a "horror" Batman film

MJohnston

pixelburp wrote: »

Given there is only 25% of this in the can, it's hard to be certain on anything of course - especially as shooting never runs parallel to the film's internal chronology. The psychopathic beatdown could be from the start, middle or end of the final film; it's hard to know for sure. Could simply be a "lowest ebb" moment where Bruce takes out his frustration on the goon and not remotely reflective of this particular version.

And while yes, exploring Bruce's simmering rage and psychopathy might be a good idea, I'd not immediately think a blockbuster film is the space to do it justice. Comics & TV definitely: the nature of 2 hour films and Hollywood blockbusters demand certain structures & tonal truths; the script could get in an awful mudddle trying to thread the needle between "our power fantasy hero, Batman" and "Batman in reality would be a raging nutcase". You can't have your cake and beat it to a pulp too; Batman has to be one or the other in that author's particular story, cos they're both opposite ends of the thematic spectrum IMO. And extrapolating from one throwaway scene, I'm not immediately down for watching 2 hours of angst Batman beating the shít out of people, but feeling terribly sorry-not-sorry for doing it.

That's not to say I'm not intrigued and excited; while I previously lamented the continuation of "realistic" and moody Batman, it still looks like it'll be a handsome, hopefully adult take on the subject. Though if the big 3rd act twist was the killer turning out to be Clayface - now that'd be rather fantastic. Would be a good choice for a "horror" Batman film

Yes, I think you put it well here, what I don't want is another "power fantasy hero". I think the MCU essentially owns that space, which is part of the reason I find those films so unappealing.

I think Matt Reeves will take the right approach though—his prior art is enough to convince me that he's not into power fantasies (although he could be a real Batman fanboy I suppose!), particularly the themes in his two Apes movies.

Psychiatric Patrick

CastorTroy wrote: »

Alfred's father worked for the Waynes as well, if I remember the comics. Though maybe that was a non canon comic.
If it's year 2, Bruce may be younger than Pattinson, and Serkis is the type of actor who can portray older without much makeup. Considering the likes of Colin Farrell, it seems they've no problem with putting prosthetics on actors in this.

Way back at beginning of the comics Alfred took his father's job but Bruce was already Batman. I knew this much but apparently just din't know much else.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/07/batman-butler-alfred-evolution.html

I stopped reading at the resurrection. I would rather learn all this from a. book of the mythology than an online article.

I wouldn't be an expert on judging ages but if asked I wold have thought that Pattinson was only late 20s.

Maybe they delve into the character's acting background and Serkis's Alfred will make use of prosthetics in the film?

The White Wolf

It's been awhile but I don't think Alfred was that old in the Year One comic.

Either way Serkis can do it, as someone said already he has a face that can be moulded with minimum prosthetics.