THE BATMAN starring Robert Pattinson (2022) 13 13

[Bosco685]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:42 AM, William-James88 said:

Not sure it's about how good a movie is. Would that mean that Transformers Dark of the Moon is better than this Batman movie?

 

Michael Bay really messed with your mind, didn't he?

[William-James88]

On 3/22/2022 at 1:31 PM, Bosco685 said:

Michael Bay really messed with your mind, didn't he?

Hahaha, all kidding aside, when you realize that Dark of the Moon reached that Billion dollar mark  over 10 years ago, the idea that how much a movie makes is directly correlated to how good it is kinda flies out the door. There are several reasons of aprehension towards this new Batman film that counters the hype. I'm pretty sure it was baked into this film anyway. And while both have the same rating, I took my entire family to watch No Way Home, but for this Batman film it was just me and (in Borat voice) My Wife. 

[Bosco685]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:41 PM, William-James88 said:

And while both have the same rating, I took my entire family to watch No Way Home, but for this Batman film it was just me and (in Borat voice) My Wife. 

[William-James88]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:59 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

 

I think that one of the first things you do when you become a vigilante is develop a clear difference in personalities between your identities.

That's a good point, but it assumes you let many people see that personality. In this film's case, they just got rid of the  Bruce Wayne disguise by having him never see anyone. Not saying it's the right approach or a better approach, I am simply saying that the film does adress why a disguise such as Bale's is not needed at the moment. 

[kimik]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:54 AM, Bosco685 said:

I respect your opinion. But disagree.

How many times did social media and reporting outlets pounce on any pieces Robert Pattinson was the 'Twilight Sparkle Batman' or even when he joked about not working out noting we were getting 'Robin Batman'?

It was worse than the reaction to Batfleck. Like the choice of Pattinson had no logic to it, and was meant to mock Batman lore. 

And with Jaydawg's comparison to Joker, he forgets Joquin Phoenix was the ultimate fancast choice. Once it was revealed he had accepted the role, the excitement was beyond the norm. And no baggage of Twilight or too skinny to play the character assumptions.

Do I think Pattinson is a better Batman than Affleck or Bale? Not at all. He is AN interpretation of Batman. Not the greatest ever. Or even the biggest fancast. But it worked as WOM is strong. Hence with all that was going against it the film has achieved $600M in 3 weeks.

We will disagree re: WOM being strong. My daughter and her friends (high school aged) who have seen every DC movie to date did not go (they saw the first SS movie three times). The reason? The people in their class that saw it the first weekend said it was a bad movie. At the one-day comic show was had this past Sunday it was the same thing. People had seen it and were not impressed or were not going to see it due to bad WOM from their friends.

This movie should have been an easy $1B box office since it is 1) Batman and 2) the first blockbuster type hero film coming out during the widespread Covid reopening. There was pent up demand for people to go to the theatres. The fact it is an average quality film and is too long is killing it.

FWIW, I posted here that Pattinson was a bad choice from the start and the movie's box office is confirming it. They need to recast the lead role if they want to avoid another disappointment with the next film. Batman is not supposed to be a mopey Emo wannabe. That is where Reeves missed the boat and showed no real feel for the character as I posted with my critique/review.

[kimik]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:42 AM, William-James88 said:

Not sure it's about how good a movie is. Would that mean that Transformers Dark of the Moon is better than this Batman movie?

 

From an entertainment perspective, Dark of the Moon is significantly better than The Batman. Neither one is what can be considered high art theatre.

If Reeves had produced a better movie it tops $1B easy. As it stands, BvS, which was considered a huge failure at the box office, posted a final tally that WB would kill for The Batman to hit.

Edited March 23, 2022 by kimik

[William-James88]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:49 PM, kimik said:

As it stands, BvS, which was considered a huge failure at the box office, posted a final tally that WB would kill for The Batman to hit.

I thought BvS was only considered a huge failure as a film, not necessarily at the box office. They still went ahead with Justice League.

[kimik]

FWIW, as a Batman fanboy it pains me to see how far the movies have fallen since the Nolan trilogy. Reeves has taken the franchise to a new low with this film, and WB is really crying out now for a Favreau type to pull the DCU together. 

[kimik]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:55 PM, William-James88 said:

I thought BvS was only considered a huge failure as a film, not necessarily at the box office. They still went ahead with Justice League.

BvS was being touted as a $1B blockbuster, and fell short. Justice League was even worse. Right now the DCU is in shambles, just like their comic publishing arm (outside of the Batman titles, there really is nothing left). They need someone to set a vision and see it through. The Snyder cut for JL is way better than what they churned out - they should have released that and let him finish the story line with Darkseid.

Edited March 23, 2022 by kimik

[Bosco685]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:57 PM, kimik said:

BvS was being touted as a $1B blockbuster, and fell short. Justice League was even worse. Right now the DCU is in shambles, just like their comic publishing arm (outside of the Batman titles, there really is nothing left). They need someone to set a vision and see it through. The Snyder cut for JL is way better than what they churned out - they should have released that and let him finish the story line with Darkseid.

You've been brainwashed through multiple posts stating the same statement over and over.

BVS was never pushed as a billion dollar film. And it walked away with a minimum $105M in estimated profits after all expenses were accounted for. Deadline did the tally in its box office contest, and determined this.

Talk about convincing yourself of a negative narrative.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:45 PM, kimik said:

We will disagree re: WOM being strong. My daughter and her friends (high school aged) who have seen every DC movie to date did not go (they saw the first SS movie three times). The reason? The people in their class that saw it the first weekend said it was a bad movie. At the one-day comic show was had this past Sunday it was the same thing. People had seen it and were not impressed or were not going to see it due to bad WOM from their friends.

This movie should have been an easy $1B box office since it is 1) Batman and 2) the first blockbuster type hero film coming out during the widespread Covid reopening. There was pent up demand for people to go to the theatres. The fact it is an average quality film and is too long is killing it.

FWIW, I posted here that Pattinson was a bad choice from the start and the movie's box office is confirming it. They need to recast the lead role if they want to avoid another disappointment with the next film. Batman is not supposed to be a mopey Emo wannabe. That is where Reeves missed the boat and showed no real feel for the character as I posted with my critique/review.

Reality is calling.

First week moviegoers gave the film an A- CinemaScore. Which is strong WOM.

I get you didn't like the film. I respect that. But now crafting an out-of-your-mind story WOM is negative on a mass level is not factual.

It is well over $600M from a film many repeatedly noted Robert Pattinson was skinny Twilight Sparkle Batman. In no way was this film lined up to clear a $1B box office.

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/22/2022 at 8:18 PM, William-James88 said:

That's a good point, but it assumes you let many people see that personality. In this film's case, they just got rid of the  Bruce Wayne disguise by having him never see anyone. Not saying it's the right approach or a better approach, I am simply saying that the film does adress why a disguise such as Bale's is not needed at the moment. 

Which would raise massive suspicion.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:49 PM, kimik said:

From an entertainment perspective, Dark of the Moon is significantly better than The Batman. Neither one is what can be considered high art theatre.

If Reeves had produced a better movie it tops $1B easy. As it stands, BvS, which was considered a huge failure at the box office, posted a final tally that WB would kill for The Batman to hit.

I have to vehemently disagree that any of the Transformers movies - aside from the first one - are better than The Batman.

Also, WB was delusional to believe that BvS would top $1 billion just because Batman and Superman were in the title. Just like I think it's delusional to believe that The Batman would top $1 billion just because it's Batman. Of course, BvS could have been stronger (maybe the studio should stop interfering with the creative processes), but it was still profitable and setup their franchise's future.

I think that The Batman is an okay movie, and it's clearly making enough money to kick-start a sequel.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/23/2022 at 5:34 AM, Bosco685 said:

You've been brainwashed through multiple posts stating the same statement over and over.

BVS was never pushed as a billion dollar film. And it walked away with a minimum $105M in estimated profits after all expenses were accounted for. Deadline did the tally in its box office contest, and determined this.

Talk about convincing yourself of a negative narrative.

I have read time and again that WB expected $1 billion at the box office just because Batman and Superman were in the title. It makes sense to me that WB would have such a stupid thought.

[Bosco685]

On 3/23/2022 at 7:51 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I have read time and again that WB expected $1 billion at the box office just because Batman and Superman were in the title. It makes sense to me that WB would have such a stupid thought.

I bet you have read it. Because when movie reporting sites and individuals want to make a negative point, all they have to do is repeat it again and again.

Repetition = Reality

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

The movie was very good.  All the characters were very well done (specifically Penguin).  I'm assuming there will be a trilogy and look forward to seeing it all.  Few points...

- I still wouldn't put it above the Ledger movie

- I wasn't a fan of the Riddler costume (although the character overall was great)

- Bruce Wayne and Batman alter ego was too similar (I really liked how Bale differentiated the two)

- I hope the next movie brings in Hush or Azrael (which likely wont' happen but I'd like to see a "new" character)

 

***Overall...80/100

[Axelrod]

The first movie I can remember that hit 100 million (domestic) but was still considered a disappointment was Warren Beatty's Tracy. That was when "big budget" movies still generally cost a lot less, of course.

Then, the first movie I remember hitting 200 million (domestic), and still being considered a failure was Superman Returns (but that apparently was saddled with a decade of pre-production/development costs unrelated to the final film).  

I really never thought that I would see the day a movie would hit 300 million (domestic), however, and yet still have people strenuously arguing what a huge disappointment it was.  Even considering the increase in ticket prices and the increasing importance of global box office vs. strictly domestic. 

This movie is a huge hit.  I have no idea how profitable it will be in the long run, but to argue it isn't a huge hit just seems silly.  

Edited March 23, 2022 by Axelrod
The "censor" won't allow the title of the Warren Beatty movie lol

[kimik]

On 3/23/2022 at 5:51 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I have read time and again that WB expected $1 billion at the box office just because Batman and Superman were in the title. It makes sense to me that WB would have such a stupid thought.

Exaclty. And it should have, to be honest. Combining the top two properties for DC should have been a slam dunk $1B movie.

And you can bet that WB execs were counting on it as well. From a business perspective, it made sense - your two biggest properties going head to head, what could go wrong?

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by kimik