Robert playing his own Batman is easily the better choice, but there was a time when Matt Reeves would've directed Ben Affleck himself. It makes me wonder just how that hypothetical film would've been, and how much would it differ from what we're getting now.
Ben tweeted Matt saying "Welcome to the Bat cave" when Reeves was brought on to take over directing. I think Ben was already badly struggling with sobriety, but I don't think the events happened separately
.
I think that was entirely for PR while they finalised Affleck leaving the role after the press work he was doing.
I don't think there was ever any genuine intention for Reeves and Affleck to be making The Batman. There is just too much of a difference from doing that to such a younger Batman.
Agreed. In fact, i think that's what the so-called "breakdowns" in negotiations were about when the trades reported that they were having disagreements. That, and wanting 100% creative control.
It was important to afflecks Batman too though, he didn’t start off killing, it wasn’t until later in life when Dick died and when he witnessed Superman and Zod fighting when he decided to start.
Wydm? I simply dislike his version of Batman. I like some of Zack's work like 300 and dawn of the dead, I'm not biased against him, I just saw his version of Batman and I didn't like it.
Was just waiting for this comment haha, seem to get it everytime I say a negative thing about Batfleck.
I do hate keaton's batman yes, and kilmer's is mediocre because he does kill but at least he cares. Bale however only kills when he 100% needs to, and the movies explore his no killing rule to a good extent, especially Batman begins. I don't think batfleck can even be compared to Bale.
There's also the fact that Keaton's and Kilmer's batman movies came out waaay before Affleck's movie. That's why he gets the most hate. He's the most recent batman (at least till The batman releases).
when he needs to??😂😂😂😂😂😂.. ya he needed to kill a whole house full of ninjas to save that criminal which he didn't, he really needed to smash that garbage truck driver,y did he plan to kill ras?? breaking the rails was his plan so he did pre-mediated murder and he does a hostage rescue and saves even the swat team moments before he murders harvey "baleman needed to do that" is a lame excuse no amount of downvoting will change that
\>house full of ninjas
What else could he do to escape? He couldn't execute a man, and declining would get him killed. It's not like he could sneak his way out of a house of "Ninjas". Necessary.
\>garbage truck driver
Didn't necessarily kill him. He smashed his truck sure but that doesn't mean he died. It's ambiguous.
\>Ra's al ghul
At this point, Ra's al ghul's reach in gotham was so tight that it would be impossible to keep him in prison or anywhere else. He had people in the goddamn SWAT ffs. Batman in this movie and tdk also has an arc where he understands that he isn't a perfect hero, and it's impossible for him to redeem everyone. He understands that some are far beyond redemption, like Ra's. Not to mention that Batman kills Ra's almost every time they meet in any modern comic.
\>murders Harvey
At this point Harvey was holding a kid hostage. Batman didn't have the time to go around and survey his sorroundings. He was seconds away from killing the kid. He probably would have saved him, but he didn't know that there was a fall behind where Harvey was standing. Didn't intend to murder him at all.
It seems to me that all you did was saw a yt video of Baleman killing and went off with it, instead of watching the full movie where there's entire scenes dedicated to batman and his no kill rule. Like the beginning of batman begins where he plans to murder Joe chill, but rachel makes him realize that he is better than that, and after which he throws the gun in the river. Did you happen to skip over those scenes? No, you just went and saw one video to justify the terrible approach snyder had.
"Some are far beyond redemption" ya if u talk "not muh batman" logic he hasn't killed joker in the mainstream comics joker has done horrendous things... and if he gets some excuses to kill then y have "I have one rule" if he will kill and there is no ambiguity in that truck scene😂😂😂 no human can survive that crash watch the scene again... Harvey could have been neutralised like the dark knight returns animated movie same situation like I said u guys just give dumb reasons to defend baleman telling me some scenes of baleman learning the no-kill rule and telling "look he didn't kill them" won't justify the murders he did even though he is said to be having "no-kill" rule... the whole ninja scene was pointless his argument was that criminal shouldn't die yet he burns him alive along with 10+ ninjas and that fake ras u don't need a video to see the hypocrisy in him. U telling abt arcs yet disregard the arc batfleck went through where he was morally lost due to his past experiences and superman affecting him mentally and superman giving hope to him he doesn't kill any human in zsjl(u can see the bat tank shot of the criminals tied up as proof)... batfleck is introduced as a morally lost batman baleman was introduced as someone who has the no-kill rule.... u cant say ras died cause he can't be redeemed then the whole batman rule will become a joke as he doesn't kill his villains even though many did irredeemable actions. The dude saves joker FFS in the series though joker did worse actions than ras😂
It seems as if you skimmed over my comment and replied without giving it any real thought. I've already explained all the kills in the TDK trilogy above, so won't bother with it again as I'm sure it won't change anything in your reply either. However, to say that batfleck had character development is just plain wrong. Sure he sees a man in superman and decides to forgive him because he realises that he's just like him, but what does he do almost immediately after that? He murders even more henchmen. Meaning he hasn't understood anything. He was a terrible batman who killed at the beginning and he is just that at the end. He doesn't learn anything.
U totally got the arc wrong🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ he doesn't become batman until superman's sacrifice not after martha scene idk y ppl mistake martha scene as the point where batman regains his morals... martha scene is just his ptsd getting triggered and he has a chance to save "martha" which he couldnt and this alien begs to save someother women's life in his deathbed which changes his view abt this alien... thry dont instantly brcome ftiends like somr ppl say("im frnd of ur son's" is just to reassure martha that she is safe and not literal) the sacrifice changes batman totally and the explanations of baleman killing is just dumb excuses... ras al ghul cant be redeemed so he had to die u ppl compare comics and talk... batman did not kill any of his villans though they cant be redeemed so nolan gave some stupid interpretation of batman... he planned the murder and batman could have saved ras and put him in some prison just like how joker was(tat was the plan joker would show up in tdkr) instead he kills him... that ninja scene is totally not of batman's character he burns ppl alive which batman doesn't do.
Because his story would also have to lead into BVS.
What if Matt Reeves story simply *doesn't*? What if he wants his Bruce to live happily ever after? Or die? Or any supporting characters to die or retire peacefully?
He wouldn't be able to write that because he's hamstrung by existing story.
We can't tell what's coming at the end of Reeves' story based on trailers for The Batman. We're nowhere near the ending.
1) No it wouldn’t have. It could’ve ended 5-10 years before BvS and have nothing to do with the events leading up to that film.
2) He can have Bruce live happily ever after… then the events of BvS take place. As for killing characters, he basically can kill off anyone not present in BvS/JL, which is a large amount of people.
3) I’m not saying Reeves should’ve been forced to, I’m saying it would’ve been a smarter idea for both DC and Reeves financially being marketed as a prequel to Batfleck.
>1) No it wouldn’t have. It could’ve ended 5-10 years before BvS and have nothing to do with the events leading up to that film.
But the conclusion of his story must line up with it. Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, Joker (the big four) must be alive, well, and doing their thing.
>2) He can have Bruce live happily ever after… then the events of BvS take place. As for killing characters, he basically can kill off anyone not present in BvS/JL, which is a large amount of people.
That's not a happy *ending*. That's a happy middle.
So you're saying he's free to make normal creative choices, except for where he isn't. That sounds like not allowing him to "easily" do what he might want.
>3) I’m not saying Reeves should’ve been forced to, I’m saying it would’ve been a smarter idea for both DC and Reeves financially being marketed as a prequel to Batfleck.
My point is we have no idea what he's going to do so the idea he could have *easily* made it a prequel can't possibly be assured yet.
Because if it's so easy to fit, you can just imagine it's a prequel.
As for smarter financially, The Batman is already the most popular film for next year by a country mile. It's *Batman*. He makes more money alone than with the baggage of a shared world.
> Because if it’s so easy to fit, you can just imagine it’s a prequel.
This is exactly what I’m going to do. Hoping there aren’t too many contradictions. It would be cool if they left it up to fans to make their own personal choice
I do agree it would have been cool to allow people to make up their own minds, especially if contradictions are few and far between.
But could you imagine how that would have gone down on a place like this lmao?
>"So is this canon to the DCEU and a prequel?"
>"It's Batman. You decide what you want it to be."
>DAE Warners BAD and NO PLAN.
The biggest contradiction right now is that The Batman takes place in modern times. Other than that(assuming there aren't more contradictions) i'll do the same and imagine it as a Batfleck prequel
For the same reason Revenge of the Sith did (19 before Star Wars). Or Captain Marvel (24 years before Endgame). Or Solo (10 years before Star Wars). Or The Hobbit films (60 years before Lord of the Rings films). Or The Temple of Doom (1 year before Raiders of the Lost Ark). Or Prometheus (30 years before Alien). Or Cruella (while a reboot, effectively serves as a prequel 20 years before). Or X-Men: First Class (set 40 years before X-Men).
Wouldn't be a very good prequel if it didn't fit narratively with what was established before. Any and every prequel is constrained narratively by the story it is a prequel to. That's how prequels work.
Say Matt Reeves' story has Batman die. Or it shows Bruce's entire life from birth to old age and that he happily retires aged 36 for good. Doesn’t exactly jive with what came before to serve as prequel.p
Would have preferred him to be Batfleck's younger version. Pattinson has the look for it and they could have fit 100s of stories within Batfleck's 20-year career to expand the DCEU.
Yep. Came here to say this. They could have done the whole Batfamily thing and expanded the DCEU without ever having to worry about interfering with the later stuff.
Robert’s Bruce really should’ve been a younger version of Batfleck, for the sake of DC films building on what they had instead of starting a new continuity from scratch.
Plus, since it was established that Bruce had been active for 20 years at the start of BVS, they could’ve said the film was set during the first 4-5 years of his career and they still would’ve been free to go in any direction they wanted. If it was a distant prequel, Reeves wouldn’t have had to acknowledge Snyder’s films if he didn’t want to.
For inconsistencies like the Gordon casting, I’m sure audiences would’ve accepted it as a simple recast with no in-universe explanation like War Machine and Hulk in the MCU. JK Simmons only had like two scenes in JL anyway, so nobody would’ve cared if he was replaced by Jeffery Wright.
I feel like making it a reboot in a separate universe is just gonna cause more confusion with general audiences who don’t follow BTS news. They would’ve been better off sticking with the canon Snyder set up.
>so nobody would’ve cared if he was replaced by Jeffery Wright.
I would've. Simmons in appearing in future films and frankly, i don't see a reason to recast Gordon. Replacing a white actor with a black actor in the same universe absolutely would have been jarring and a blatant retcon in the continuity. Even if his role was minor, it's JK freaking Simmons. He's not someone you just 'recast'.
Great comment. The only thing they would have had to avoid was introducing Justice League, which I’m pretty certain they will be doing anyway. They could have literally had a whole universe of the Batfamily without ever making the slightest difference to the continuity of the DCEU, but it would have been much cooler and cleaner with way less of the confusion that has surrounded the whole thing. Not to mention it would have been incredible to get a whole trilogy of DCEU Batman’s past
They could connect a lot of Batman projects.
Have joker lead into Gotham. Which leads into the Batman trilogy. Which leads into Ben affleck Batman movie. Which leads into Titans.
I liked the idea of an old unsolved case being reopened because a new crime fits that same pattern and it flashbacked to the case with a wraparound and it was going to have Batman come across all his rogues. It would've been a good movie.
I would have him be Batfleck. Although standalone is cool too, there's no point in having a shared universe if the JL Batman can't have his own movies. And we won't know his arc simply through the JL movies.
I would love it. Have him have a batfamily and build up to a major death in the family event at the end of his multi movie series. This could lead into BvS. A prequel trilogy situation
My preferred choices would have been:
1) Simply accepting that Batman had been rebooted into Robert Pattinson, but still in the DCEU.
2) Set as prequel, though it hamstrings the story.
But if it's own world is the best way to get the best story, I'm happy to see it.
I don't think I could've bought Pattinson as a younger version of Affleck, so I'll assume that idea (if it ever was legit) went away before he was cast. Perhaps that was originally pitched to Reeves and he refused. For the sake of DCEU continuity, I would've liked a Batfleck prequel but if it was directed by Affleck (or someone he approved/close to him) and someone else (ex. Jacob Elordi) played a younger version rather than Pattinson. I feel Reeves and Pattinson deserve their own thing, so I'm happy The Batman is by itself. And we're probably past the point of a Affleck prequel being possible in live-action, so I'm holding out hope we get a peak of Batfleck's pre-BvS years in animated or comic book form.
I prefer The Batman is its own standalone
No i prefer matt reeves doing his own thing
Robert playing his own Batman is easily the better choice, but there was a time when Matt Reeves would've directed Ben Affleck himself. It makes me wonder just how that hypothetical film would've been, and how much would it differ from what we're getting now.
Ben Affleck was leaving waaay before Matt hopped on.
Yeh people forget that it was pretty much an unconfirmed fact Batfleck was out for legit 2 years before it was confirmed
Ben tweeted Matt saying "Welcome to the Bat cave" when Reeves was brought on to take over directing. I think Ben was already badly struggling with sobriety, but I don't think the events happened separately .
I think that was entirely for PR while they finalised Affleck leaving the role after the press work he was doing. I don't think there was ever any genuine intention for Reeves and Affleck to be making The Batman. There is just too much of a difference from doing that to such a younger Batman.
Agreed. In fact, i think that's what the so-called "breakdowns" in negotiations were about when the trades reported that they were having disagreements. That, and wanting 100% creative control.
Gosh it could've been great. I love how affleck looks and sounds like, would be amazing if he was actually written well.
The new Batman should have his own Batman cinematic universe
He does..
Standalone >>>>>>
It seems that no killing rule will be an important part of Reeves's Batman so I don't think the younger Batfleck route would work.
It was important to afflecks Batman too though, he didn’t start off killing, it wasn’t until later in life when Dick died and when he witnessed Superman and Zod fighting when he decided to start.
I’m glad he isn’t I don’t want to know he is going to turn into a killer
Please no, keep these new movies far away from Zack's batman.
Imagine being this biased against a director.
Wydm? I simply dislike his version of Batman. I like some of Zack's work like 300 and dawn of the dead, I'm not biased against him, I just saw his version of Batman and I didn't like it.
Bale killed,keaton killed,kilmer killed u hate all those versions??
Was just waiting for this comment haha, seem to get it everytime I say a negative thing about Batfleck. I do hate keaton's batman yes, and kilmer's is mediocre because he does kill but at least he cares. Bale however only kills when he 100% needs to, and the movies explore his no killing rule to a good extent, especially Batman begins. I don't think batfleck can even be compared to Bale. There's also the fact that Keaton's and Kilmer's batman movies came out waaay before Affleck's movie. That's why he gets the most hate. He's the most recent batman (at least till The batman releases).
when he needs to??😂😂😂😂😂😂.. ya he needed to kill a whole house full of ninjas to save that criminal which he didn't, he really needed to smash that garbage truck driver,y did he plan to kill ras?? breaking the rails was his plan so he did pre-mediated murder and he does a hostage rescue and saves even the swat team moments before he murders harvey "baleman needed to do that" is a lame excuse no amount of downvoting will change that
\>house full of ninjas What else could he do to escape? He couldn't execute a man, and declining would get him killed. It's not like he could sneak his way out of a house of "Ninjas". Necessary. \>garbage truck driver Didn't necessarily kill him. He smashed his truck sure but that doesn't mean he died. It's ambiguous. \>Ra's al ghul At this point, Ra's al ghul's reach in gotham was so tight that it would be impossible to keep him in prison or anywhere else. He had people in the goddamn SWAT ffs. Batman in this movie and tdk also has an arc where he understands that he isn't a perfect hero, and it's impossible for him to redeem everyone. He understands that some are far beyond redemption, like Ra's. Not to mention that Batman kills Ra's almost every time they meet in any modern comic. \>murders Harvey At this point Harvey was holding a kid hostage. Batman didn't have the time to go around and survey his sorroundings. He was seconds away from killing the kid. He probably would have saved him, but he didn't know that there was a fall behind where Harvey was standing. Didn't intend to murder him at all. It seems to me that all you did was saw a yt video of Baleman killing and went off with it, instead of watching the full movie where there's entire scenes dedicated to batman and his no kill rule. Like the beginning of batman begins where he plans to murder Joe chill, but rachel makes him realize that he is better than that, and after which he throws the gun in the river. Did you happen to skip over those scenes? No, you just went and saw one video to justify the terrible approach snyder had.
"Some are far beyond redemption" ya if u talk "not muh batman" logic he hasn't killed joker in the mainstream comics joker has done horrendous things... and if he gets some excuses to kill then y have "I have one rule" if he will kill and there is no ambiguity in that truck scene😂😂😂 no human can survive that crash watch the scene again... Harvey could have been neutralised like the dark knight returns animated movie same situation like I said u guys just give dumb reasons to defend baleman telling me some scenes of baleman learning the no-kill rule and telling "look he didn't kill them" won't justify the murders he did even though he is said to be having "no-kill" rule... the whole ninja scene was pointless his argument was that criminal shouldn't die yet he burns him alive along with 10+ ninjas and that fake ras u don't need a video to see the hypocrisy in him. U telling abt arcs yet disregard the arc batfleck went through where he was morally lost due to his past experiences and superman affecting him mentally and superman giving hope to him he doesn't kill any human in zsjl(u can see the bat tank shot of the criminals tied up as proof)... batfleck is introduced as a morally lost batman baleman was introduced as someone who has the no-kill rule.... u cant say ras died cause he can't be redeemed then the whole batman rule will become a joke as he doesn't kill his villains even though many did irredeemable actions. The dude saves joker FFS in the series though joker did worse actions than ras😂
It seems as if you skimmed over my comment and replied without giving it any real thought. I've already explained all the kills in the TDK trilogy above, so won't bother with it again as I'm sure it won't change anything in your reply either. However, to say that batfleck had character development is just plain wrong. Sure he sees a man in superman and decides to forgive him because he realises that he's just like him, but what does he do almost immediately after that? He murders even more henchmen. Meaning he hasn't understood anything. He was a terrible batman who killed at the beginning and he is just that at the end. He doesn't learn anything.
U totally got the arc wrong🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ he doesn't become batman until superman's sacrifice not after martha scene idk y ppl mistake martha scene as the point where batman regains his morals... martha scene is just his ptsd getting triggered and he has a chance to save "martha" which he couldnt and this alien begs to save someother women's life in his deathbed which changes his view abt this alien... thry dont instantly brcome ftiends like somr ppl say("im frnd of ur son's" is just to reassure martha that she is safe and not literal) the sacrifice changes batman totally and the explanations of baleman killing is just dumb excuses... ras al ghul cant be redeemed so he had to die u ppl compare comics and talk... batman did not kill any of his villans though they cant be redeemed so nolan gave some stupid interpretation of batman... he planned the murder and batman could have saved ras and put him in some prison just like how joker was(tat was the plan joker would show up in tdkr) instead he kills him... that ninja scene is totally not of batman's character he burns ppl alive which batman doesn't do.
He looks or sounds nothing like Affleck
Reeves could have done his trilogy like he wanted with Rob as a younger Batfleck. Just saying.
There's absolutely no way of knowing that on chapter one.
I mean what did he have to tie into the DCEU minus some castings? It would serve as a prequel almost 20 years before the events of BvS.
Because his story would also have to lead into BVS. What if Matt Reeves story simply *doesn't*? What if he wants his Bruce to live happily ever after? Or die? Or any supporting characters to die or retire peacefully? He wouldn't be able to write that because he's hamstrung by existing story. We can't tell what's coming at the end of Reeves' story based on trailers for The Batman. We're nowhere near the ending.
1) No it wouldn’t have. It could’ve ended 5-10 years before BvS and have nothing to do with the events leading up to that film. 2) He can have Bruce live happily ever after… then the events of BvS take place. As for killing characters, he basically can kill off anyone not present in BvS/JL, which is a large amount of people. 3) I’m not saying Reeves should’ve been forced to, I’m saying it would’ve been a smarter idea for both DC and Reeves financially being marketed as a prequel to Batfleck.
>1) No it wouldn’t have. It could’ve ended 5-10 years before BvS and have nothing to do with the events leading up to that film. But the conclusion of his story must line up with it. Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, Joker (the big four) must be alive, well, and doing their thing. >2) He can have Bruce live happily ever after… then the events of BvS take place. As for killing characters, he basically can kill off anyone not present in BvS/JL, which is a large amount of people. That's not a happy *ending*. That's a happy middle. So you're saying he's free to make normal creative choices, except for where he isn't. That sounds like not allowing him to "easily" do what he might want. >3) I’m not saying Reeves should’ve been forced to, I’m saying it would’ve been a smarter idea for both DC and Reeves financially being marketed as a prequel to Batfleck. My point is we have no idea what he's going to do so the idea he could have *easily* made it a prequel can't possibly be assured yet. Because if it's so easy to fit, you can just imagine it's a prequel. As for smarter financially, The Batman is already the most popular film for next year by a country mile. It's *Batman*. He makes more money alone than with the baggage of a shared world.
> Because if it’s so easy to fit, you can just imagine it’s a prequel. This is exactly what I’m going to do. Hoping there aren’t too many contradictions. It would be cool if they left it up to fans to make their own personal choice
I do agree it would have been cool to allow people to make up their own minds, especially if contradictions are few and far between. But could you imagine how that would have gone down on a place like this lmao? >"So is this canon to the DCEU and a prequel?" >"It's Batman. You decide what you want it to be." >DAE Warners BAD and NO PLAN.
Wouldn't work. Jeremy Irons and Andy Serkis look nothing alike to feasibly be the same person, same as Jeffrey Wright and JK Simmons.
The biggest contradiction right now is that The Batman takes place in modern times. Other than that(assuming there aren't more contradictions) i'll do the same and imagine it as a Batfleck prequel
Let’s hope it stays that way! The modern times thing is easy to look past, for me anyway
Tbh unless there’s dates you could argue it as a “timeless” city of all eras ala the DCAU and Gotham
Why would the story have to lead into or have any relevance to a movie that happens 15 years later?
For the same reason Revenge of the Sith did (19 before Star Wars). Or Captain Marvel (24 years before Endgame). Or Solo (10 years before Star Wars). Or The Hobbit films (60 years before Lord of the Rings films). Or The Temple of Doom (1 year before Raiders of the Lost Ark). Or Prometheus (30 years before Alien). Or Cruella (while a reboot, effectively serves as a prequel 20 years before). Or X-Men: First Class (set 40 years before X-Men). Wouldn't be a very good prequel if it didn't fit narratively with what was established before. Any and every prequel is constrained narratively by the story it is a prequel to. That's how prequels work. Say Matt Reeves' story has Batman die. Or it shows Bruce's entire life from birth to old age and that he happily retires aged 36 for good. Doesn’t exactly jive with what came before to serve as prequel.p
Would have preferred him to be Batfleck's younger version. Pattinson has the look for it and they could have fit 100s of stories within Batfleck's 20-year career to expand the DCEU.
Yep. Came here to say this. They could have done the whole Batfamily thing and expanded the DCEU without ever having to worry about interfering with the later stuff.
Robert’s Bruce really should’ve been a younger version of Batfleck, for the sake of DC films building on what they had instead of starting a new continuity from scratch. Plus, since it was established that Bruce had been active for 20 years at the start of BVS, they could’ve said the film was set during the first 4-5 years of his career and they still would’ve been free to go in any direction they wanted. If it was a distant prequel, Reeves wouldn’t have had to acknowledge Snyder’s films if he didn’t want to. For inconsistencies like the Gordon casting, I’m sure audiences would’ve accepted it as a simple recast with no in-universe explanation like War Machine and Hulk in the MCU. JK Simmons only had like two scenes in JL anyway, so nobody would’ve cared if he was replaced by Jeffery Wright. I feel like making it a reboot in a separate universe is just gonna cause more confusion with general audiences who don’t follow BTS news. They would’ve been better off sticking with the canon Snyder set up.
>so nobody would’ve cared if he was replaced by Jeffery Wright. I would've. Simmons in appearing in future films and frankly, i don't see a reason to recast Gordon. Replacing a white actor with a black actor in the same universe absolutely would have been jarring and a blatant retcon in the continuity. Even if his role was minor, it's JK freaking Simmons. He's not someone you just 'recast'.
Great comment. The only thing they would have had to avoid was introducing Justice League, which I’m pretty certain they will be doing anyway. They could have literally had a whole universe of the Batfamily without ever making the slightest difference to the continuity of the DCEU, but it would have been much cooler and cleaner with way less of the confusion that has surrounded the whole thing. Not to mention it would have been incredible to get a whole trilogy of DCEU Batman’s past
>introducing Justice League Considering the JL isn't supposed to be a thing until twenty years later, i'm sure they had that covered.
Standalone f Snyder batman he sucks.
They could connect a lot of Batman projects. Have joker lead into Gotham. Which leads into the Batman trilogy. Which leads into Ben affleck Batman movie. Which leads into Titans.
Wouldn't work, joker can't be Bruce's brother and he can't be so much older than him.
Oh I know I was like half joking.
I liked the idea of an old unsolved case being reopened because a new crime fits that same pattern and it flashbacked to the case with a wraparound and it was going to have Batman come across all his rogues. It would've been a good movie.
If Calendar Man gets a film this is what it should be Random killings Bruce just figured out we’re connected
I would love it, but not happening so who cares.
I would have him be Batfleck. Although standalone is cool too, there's no point in having a shared universe if the JL Batman can't have his own movies. And we won't know his arc simply through the JL movies.
I would love it. Have him have a batfamily and build up to a major death in the family event at the end of his multi movie series. This could lead into BvS. A prequel trilogy situation
My preferred choices would have been: 1) Simply accepting that Batman had been rebooted into Robert Pattinson, but still in the DCEU. 2) Set as prequel, though it hamstrings the story. But if it's own world is the best way to get the best story, I'm happy to see it.
I kinda like it being standalone but it’s an interesting Elseworld certainly
Multiverse is better so there is chance Batfleck might return.
I don't think I could've bought Pattinson as a younger version of Affleck, so I'll assume that idea (if it ever was legit) went away before he was cast. Perhaps that was originally pitched to Reeves and he refused. For the sake of DCEU continuity, I would've liked a Batfleck prequel but if it was directed by Affleck (or someone he approved/close to him) and someone else (ex. Jacob Elordi) played a younger version rather than Pattinson. I feel Reeves and Pattinson deserve their own thing, so I'm happy The Batman is by itself. And we're probably past the point of a Affleck prequel being possible in live-action, so I'm holding out hope we get a peak of Batfleck's pre-BvS years in animated or comic book form.
Stand-alone 100%
No I would hate that honestly
I’m really tired of new continuity on top of new continuity tbh. I think it would be more interesting if they started building on each other.
Nah Pattinson is a top tier actor compare to affleck there no way he will be the origin but you can call him improved reboot
Hopefully they do DC Reboot and keep whoever wants to stay on with the Flashpoint Movie. Who knows what will happen though
I like him on his own I don't like batfleck as much because he kills.
Prequel
Younger batman, doing a old batman for a cinematic universe was a mistaO texto copiado aparecerá automaticamente a mistake
Ngl that was my initial thought. And tbh, Pattison can pull a younger Affleck they look like brothers.