Robert Pattinson to Play ‘The Batman’ for Matt Reeves and Warner Bros.
42 replies, posted
How long until he’s referred to as The Vampire Bat(man)?
https://twitter.com/drhastings/status/1129384429812686848
The Absolute best way this can turn out. Still excited because Pattinson is actually a pretty good actor, though I feel like Batfleck deserved a solo movie with a solid director but w/e.
Honestly, I am totally cool with this. I am all for them trying something really different, they've literally got NOTHING to lose at this point. And despite all the Twilight hate, I think Pattinson is a fantastic actor and actually a really cool dude. I'm very curious to see his take on the role and what they can come up with. After so much disappointment in the past from DC, I have no bitterness left, just careless optimism.
Could DC actually be getting their act together?
Wonder Woman made more money (domestically, not worldwide!! though it wasn't THAT far off either) than Batman v Superman, which you'd expect to make a billion from name recognition alone. Aquaman DID make a billion globally. Sadly I'm pretty sure Shazam is considered a big flop.
So long as they take some lessons from WW, which was so removed from the rest of the DCCU it was literally set a hundred years earlier, you might get some decent entertainment going forward
What happened is that Marvel's Kevin Feige (unintentionally sounding like a movie title) was a different layer of creative control. If the directors are the ground troops, Feige is more like a general. DC made the mistake of not only betting on Snyder to direct a good movie, but also giving him the reigns on everything else. I love my man Jon Favreau, but I doubt the MCU would've made it very far if he, like Snyder, was also hired to be Feige as soon as he signed on to direct Iron Man
Shazam was a flop despite critical acclaim and making 3 times its budget?
idk all the inner workings but I do know there's undisclosed costs for things like marketing, so 100 million isn't the full number. Also consider that you can make a movie like "It" (also Warner Bros) for 35 million and get a 700 million box office worldwide. Shazam looks like a poor investment in comparison. Admittedly, I was going by word of mouth, while looking at a comparison between all the DC films (where Shazam sits at the bottom), so "big flop" may have been overselling it
lol ok. Best DC movie in a long time and making back well over it's production budget. It's far from a flop
I'm not saying it's a bad movie lol. I'm saying that, from a financial perspective, there are better projects than a 100 million (with the undisclosed budget possibly doubling that) Superhero flick that makes less than half what all the other DCCU films did
Shazam also has a smaller budget and less notoriety than the characters of those films, ontop of being after a long line of stinkers and very close to Endgame and the last Marvel connecting it. They'd be fools to not recognize how well the film landed with the people that did see it to repeat making garbage ass movies that make money on "maybe this time will be different" because its not sustainable
With BvS people could tell it was gonna be shit and word of mouth that they were right spread soooo quick. Didn't the infamous interview with Affleck's face of shame happen the same weekend it came out? Whereas Wonder Woman was being hyped like it was a cultural movement and "finally a good one" despite the messy third act. I felt like people wanted Aquaman to be as good as it looked as well. Pretty much was.
I don't think anyone considers Shazam a flop though, maybe not a smash. I haven't heard about WB being upset with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
