Should other superheroes co-exist with Pattison's Batman on the DCEU Earth 2?

[bat39]

I seem to remember Christian Bale saying something similar. Frankly, it's kind of pretentious, don't you think? Not that Pattinson and Bale aren't each a great actor, 'cause they are.

I think today there are broadly two interpretations of Batman (there are probably more, but anyway) - the crime-fighter/vigilante who protects Gotham City, and the superhero who fights alongside the Justice League (and who also protects Gotham more...superheroically).

Bale and Pattison are both playing the crime-fighter/vigilante Batman (Bale's Batman may have started to lean a bit towards the superhero side, albeit Gotham based, by TDKR). So naturally that's their perspective on the character. Affleck played the superhero Batman (or rather, BvS was about the transition from the vigilante to superhero).

Now the question is, will Pattison be willing to play a supehero Batman, fighting White Martians and Parademons alongside Superman, Flash and the rest? Will Reeves be open to letting his version of Gotham exist in a world with Gods and monsters?

[Vakanai]

I think its a way for people, especially those who didn't care for Snyder's DCEU, to move on from that continuity completely. They're assuming that this is the DCEU reboot earth basically, and that once WB is done with Gadot, Momoa and Miller, focus will shift to this new universe.

Giving it a label like ''Earth 2'', even if it only ends up being an internal designation, doesn't help either since it leads people to assume this is going to be a full-blown universe with multiple DC characters and not just a self-contained universe for Reeves' Batman.

Ultimately, who knows? My instincts tell me this is going to be a Batman-exclusive earth. But easter eggs and props from the set photos themselves tease the existence of a shared universe. And let's not forget that had Nolan not been vehemently against it, WB would have loved the Nolanverse to serve as the launchpad for the DCEU (its been rumored that Christian Bale was offered an insane amount of money to return for what eventually became BvS). So Reeves' grounded vision or not, you can imagine them pushing for it to be the start of a new shared universe.

That feels like letting their desire for a do-over blinding them to repeating the same mistake. The DCEU largely failed because WB trusted a man who let his vision for a story distort what was needed for a strong foundation to support a shared universe. The Batman looks like a much better film than the Snyderverse films I've seen (yet to watch the Cut), but just as ill fitting a foundation for a share universe. I hope the people who just want to move on from the DCEU to a new universe realize that the answer is actually planning out a stronger foundation and making a universe from the ground up that's intended to be shared.

And WB may have loved it, but Nolan and Bale were right not to have the Nolanverse form the basis of the DCEU. If WB decides they want to use The Batman to be their reboot-verse, it'll mean they learned nothing in a decade.

Besides, Flashpoint is probably going to reboot the problematic "Snydery" elements from the DCEU. The question is if it'll be rebooted into something better...

I seriously doubt Pattinson would be on board with introducing a shared DC universe with his Batman. He’s made statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t think too highly of superheroes in general.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...hy/2591148001/

"Batman is not a superhero," Pattinson told host Willie Geist. "It’s weird, I always balk at it. It doesn’t count. You need to have, like, magical powers or something."

While I disagree with Pattinson's (and Bale's) opinion that Batman isn't a superhero, it is somewhat encouraging in that it helps improve the chances of this film being standalone. Plus I love the grittier, grounded noir Batman stuff.

[Vakanai]

Other heroes, for me.

Yeah, Battinson starts off with just Alfred. But by end of movie or beginning of the sequel, we see him take in a young Dick Grayson, and tries to give Dick a "normal" life, while trying to keep his secret of being Batman from him. Dick obviously finds out, throws himself into a bad situation, but Battinson bails him out. From there, Battinson realizes Dick will keep doing this, and makes a deal; Dick trains for an amount of time, and when Battinson decides he's ready, suits him up, but under his supervision (and by 16 or so). From there, we can expand into the wide DC universe. First with Batgirl and other Gotham heroes, and then the Teen Titans when Dick heads out alone.

Elsewhere, establish a better Superman than what Snyder made, and have a crossover NOT with them fighting as the big promo, but as more of "testing out the other guy" kind of thing, but team up to save the day. The team up, of course, would come after Superman's first film at the least. And go from there, with a bit of unseen help by a certain Amazon Princess.

I only want Robin if Matt Reeves and Pattinson want Robin. If they have no plan or desire to include him, then anything they make with the character won't be good. I'm not as anti-Robin as I was over a decade ago when some fans were calling for it in the Nolan movies, but if I have to have Robin in a movie it has to be because that's the director's choice to have him there and they have a vision and story for him.

[bat39]

I only want Robin if Matt Reeves and Pattinson want Robin. If they have no plan or desire to include him, then anything they make with the character won't be good. I'm not as anti-Robin as I was over a decade ago when some fans were calling for it in the Nolan movies, but if I have to have Robin in a movie it has to be because that's the director's choice to have him there and they have a vision and story for him.

I agree. We've seen that nothing good comes off forcing a director/writer to include a character that they aren't otherwise interested in using. Sam Raimi being forced to use Venom in Spider-Man 3 is a case in point...

The pressure is considerably less on Reeves to include Robin than it would have been on Nolan. Back then, Batman and Robin were still inextricably linked together in popular consciousness, and the last Batman movies prior to Nolan's had Robin in them.

Today, thanks in large part to the Nolanverse, Batman is loved by mass audiences as a solo character - with Joker being considered perhaps a far more important and iconic character than Robin. So Reeves isn't under any obligation to include Robin, or work towards including him. That said, if he genuienly wants to, and has a great idea for how to make Robin work in his grounded vision of Gotham, I'd love to see it! It'd honestly be a breath of fresh air to have a live-action project with Batman and Robin.

I actually feel that CW's Arrow gave us a good template for how you can do Robin in live-action, with their take on Roy Harper. Maybe present Dick as more of a ''younger brother'' to Bruce than an ''adopted son''. If Pattison's Bruce is, say, in his late twenties or around 30, then have Dick be around 18-19 (definitely not under 18). Play up the mentor-protegee aspect of the relationship...have Bruce be someone Dick can look up to, not as a father but as a mentor and ''big brother''. Maybe Dick initially joins the Wayne household ostensibly as some kind of 'employee' or 'personal assistant' (hell, given Dick's circus background, Bruce can hire him as a live-in 'personal trainer' ).

If they must go the adoption/ward route, then have Dick be taken in at around the age of 15, and he spends the next few years training until he joins Bruce in the field.

[SiegePerilous02]

I seem to remember Christian Bale saying something similar. Frankly, it's kind of pretentious, don't you think? Not that Pattinson and Bale aren't each a great actor, 'cause they are.

Yeah it definitely comes off as if he feels he’s above the superhero genre and he has to convince himself that Batman isn’t a lowlife superhero.

Yes, I like Pattinson and am looking forward to him in the role. And they just aren't comic book fanboys, and that's fine.

But it is always aggravating to see the "Batman isn't a superhero" narrative continued. Even if the end result is a good movie (which this looks to be), it's like, get over the fact that you're playing a comic book character designed to be a superhero for children to read about.

[bat39]

Yes, I like Pattinson and am looking forward to him in the role. And they just aren't comic book fanboys, and that's fine.

But it is always aggravating to see the "Batman isn't a superhero" narrative continued. Even if the end result is a good movie (which this looks to be), it's like, get over the fact that you're playing a comic book character designed to be a superhero for children to read about.

On the flipside, I think Schumacher was well aware that he was making a ''toy commercial'' for kids (or was told to do that by WB) while filming Batman & Robin, and we all know how that turned out

So yeah, its probably a good idea for people working on these movies to forget that Batman is a ''superhero for kids to read about''.

And as I've mentioned, considering that Bale and Pattison are playing darker more ''grounded'' and noir-inspired versions of the character, it does make sense that they'd shy away from the ''superhero'' comparisions. Affleck can't shy away from that because his Batman literally stars in a superhero team-up movie!

[CosmiComic]

Yes, I like Pattinson and am looking forward to him in the role. And they just aren't comic book fanboys, and that's fine.

But it is always aggravating to see the "Batman isn't a superhero" narrative continued. Even if the end result is a good movie (which this looks to be), it's like, get over the fact that you're playing a comic book character designed to be a superhero for children to read about.

I think reducing it to "being for kids" can be what makes the actors insecure in the first place.

[BatmanJones]

I only want Robin if Matt Reeves and Pattinson want Robin. If they have no plan or desire to include him, then anything they make with the character won't be good. I'm not as anti-Robin as I was over a decade ago when some fans were calling for it in the Nolan movies, but if I have to have Robin in a movie it has to be because that's the director's choice to have him there and they have a vision and story for him.

As badly as I want to see Robin on the big screen, you've reminded me of best practices in art making of any sort, which is that it should be personal to the creator rather than foisted upon them by people according to their preferences. Here's a brief manifesto from the late great playwright Maria Irene Fornes, who was also incidentally my mentor at NYU's playwriting program:

If I were granted one and only one wish for the theater, it would be that artistic directors, managing directors, theater boards, funding organizations, critics, all those who have the power to choose, would choose from their heart's dictates and stop trying to outsmart themselves and outsmart audiences. It would be that they stop pretending they are doing something relevant, because they are not. You can't do something relevant unless you do it from your heart. And audiences would do the same: they would stop pretending that they understand what they are seeing, and that what they are seeing is relevant.

If everyone chose from their heart's dictates, theater would flourish and everyone would love it. There would not be writers writing plays by formula. Nor would audiences think that they know the ropes and look for signposts to help them pretend they understand something that is only a signpost. This pretending gives but a shallow satisfaction and ultimately creates a distaste for the theater.

If theater is to be successful it must be loved like one loves an animal that one wonders at. Not like one loves a formula. If people would love the theater like they love an animal, they would enjoy the theater and they would want to go to the theater. And if you asked them, "What is utopia?" they would say, "Theater is utopia."

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/First_Wave_Vol_1

There's always the pulp heroes.

[Vakanai]

I agree. We've seen that nothing good comes off forcing a director/writer to include a character that they aren't otherwise interested in using. Sam Raimi being forced to use Venom in Spider-Man 3 is a case in point...

Exactly the movie I was thinking of. Venom was and/or still is a wildly popular Spider-Man rogue, normally you'd think the two fighting up on screen would be movie magic - but because Raimi didn't care for the character and had no story or vision he wanted to tell with the character we got a misfire. Sure, passion's not always a guarantee of a good movie, but it helps.

Of course we don't know how Matt Reeves and Pattinson feel about Robin - or being a part of a shared universe. If they start talking about either in a good light and how they want either of those things, and it doesn't feel like they're spewing lines forced on them from AT&T/WB on high, that'd be different. I mean, personally would I feel enthused about it? No. But I would be much more comfortable about it and willing to give it a shot. But right now we're kind of left to interpret their feelings, and while they've not said much on the subjects, much less anything negative about them, the super grounded and gritty tone and the "Batman's not a superhero" talk leads me to suspect they're not in favor of it. So unless that changes, I'm not in favor of including them either. Because if they're not on board, then any Robin or new shared universe we're going to get is going to be hobbled from the start, and I don't want to go through that for DC again.

The pressure is considerably less on Reeves to include Robin than it would have been on Nolan. Back then, Batman and Robin were still inextricably linked together in popular consciousness, and the last Batman movies prior to Nolan's had Robin in them.

Today, thanks in large part to the Nolanverse, Batman is loved by mass audiences as a solo character - with Joker being considered perhaps a far more important and iconic character than Robin. So Reeves isn't under any obligation to include Robin, or work towards including him. That said, if he genuienly wants to, and has a great idea for how to make Robin work in his grounded vision of Gotham, I'd love to see it! It'd honestly be a breath of fresh air to have a live-action project with Batman and Robin.

True, the amount of time we've gone without a real Robin on screen and all the Robin-less films (a guy who might become Batman's replacement who's first name is revealed to be Robin in the last five minutes of the last film, and a suit showing that Robin is very much dead in BvS) does make it easier to go on without him should a filmmaker not want to use him. Meanwhile, the Teen Titans franchises (Titans, GO, etc) and animated Batman stuff keeps him in the public eye, so he can still be returned to film without too much difficulty.

I'm not going to lie, I've never been a big Robin fan, and his inclusion will never be a big plus or breath of fresh air for me - but I'm over the minor grimlord stage of my teen years and early 20s that I no longer view him as some colorful campy blight that sucks up all seriousness and quality like a black hole. I'm mostly indifferent to him as a whole and can actually enjoy some interpretations of him now. So if that's where they want to go, I'd only let out a minor groan and be interested to see how they'll introduce and use him.

I actually feel that CW's Arrow gave us a good template for how you can do Robin in live-action, with their take on Roy Harper. Maybe present Dick as more of a ''younger brother'' to Bruce than an ''adopted son''. If Pattison's Bruce is, say, in his late twenties or around 30, then have Dick be around 18-19 (definitely not under 18). Play up the mentor-protegee aspect of the relationship...have Bruce be someone Dick can look up to, not as a father but as a mentor and ''big brother''. Maybe Dick initially joins the Wayne household ostensibly as some kind of 'employee' or 'personal assistant' (hell, given Dick's circus background, Bruce can hire him as a live-in 'personal trainer' ).

If they must go the adoption/ward route, then have Dick be taken in at around the age of 15, and he spends the next few years training until he joins Bruce in the field.

This. The more "friend who's like a brother" thing they did with Bucky for the MCU thing works better than the adopted child angle. At least for live action.

Yes, I like Pattinson and am looking forward to him in the role. And they just aren't comic book fanboys, and that's fine.

But it is always aggravating to see the "Batman isn't a superhero" narrative continued. Even if the end result is a good movie (which this looks to be), it's like, get over the fact that you're playing a comic book character designed to be a superhero for children to read about.

Eh, I don't care what they think of Batman as long as the end result is great. We went through this same thing with Nolan, and while you'll find a few Nolanverse haters here, most of us loved those films. If I get anything as good as Begins or Dark Knight they could think Batman's three little people in a suit for all I care (as long as they don't show it).

As badly as I want to see Robin on the big screen, you've reminded me of best practices in art making of any sort, which is that it should be personal to the creator rather than foisted upon them by people according to their preferences. Here's a brief manifesto from the late great playwright Maria Irene Fornes, who was also incidentally my mentor at NYU's playwriting program:

If I were granted one and only one wish for the theater, it would be that artistic directors, managing directors, theater boards, funding organizations, critics, all those who have the power to choose, would choose from their heart's dictates and stop trying to outsmart themselves and outsmart audiences. It would be that they stop pretending they are doing something relevant, because they are not. You can't do something relevant unless you do it from your heart. And audiences would do the same: they would stop pretending that they understand what they are seeing, and that what they are seeing is relevant.

If everyone chose from their heart's dictates, theater would flourish and everyone would love it. There would not be writers writing plays by formula. Nor would audiences think that they know the ropes and look for signposts to help them pretend they understand something that is only a signpost. This pretending gives but a shallow satisfaction and ultimately creates a distaste for the theater.

If theater is to be successful it must be loved like one loves an animal that one wonders at. Not like one loves a formula. If people would love the theater like they love an animal, they would enjoy the theater and they would want to go to the theater. And if you asked them, "What is utopia?" they would say, "Theater is utopia."

Smart playwright and mentor. If Robin, or a shared universe, is to work at all or be any good, Reeves and Pattinson have to be for it.
I know Reeves is including some Superman Easter eggs, so he might be for it, and I think then maybe that could work. But there's also a difference between letting something exist in the same world, and wanting that thing to have a separate film series. If they ever make a Superman on this new Earth 2, I want it to come from Reeves, and not just have say JJ Abrams insert it in. Earth 2 feels like it might should be Reeves' baby. At least my opinion.

And frankly seeing his teaser trailer for the Batman, I'd let him do whichever superhero movie he wants.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/First_Wave_Vol_1

There's always the pulp heroes.

Was First Wave's Batman story any good?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

No idea, I haven't read them yet Vakanai. I just knew it was a crossover between Batman and Pulp Heroes.

[CosmiComic]

How much older than Dick is Bruce supposed to be?

[bat39]

How much older than Dick is Bruce supposed to be?

Depends on the continuity, as with most things in comics

Dick is usually depicted as being around 10-12 years old when he becomes Robin (sometimes apparently as young as eight, but I've actually never seen any real evidence in favor of that), while Bruce is usually in his mid-twenties around that time. So the age gap is around 15 years, give or take. That's how it was in the Golden Age, and how its usually been even going into the Post-COIE era.

The New 52's compressed timeline had Dick becoming Robin at 16, with Bruce being around 26 at the time...so this reduces the age gap to just a decade.

For what its worth, Chris O'Donnell, who played Robin in the Schumacher films, is 11 years younger than Val Kilmer and 9 years younger than George Clooney. So that age gap averages to about a decade. Adam West and Burt Ward on the other hand were 17 years apart.

To sum it up, the age gap is usually somewhere around 10-15 years whichever way you look at it. IMO, its never really been enough to be a ''father-son'' relationship, whereas it makes a lot more sense for it to be a ''mentor-protegee'' or ''big brother-little brother'' kind of relationship. Assuming Pattison's going to be in his late thirties by the time they have a sequel with Robin in it, they'll likely cast an actor who's in his early twenties - with Pattison playing Bruce in his early thirties, and the actor playing Dick maybe in his late teens. I think that makes sense.

[CosmiComic]

Depends on the continuity, as with most things in comics

Dick is usually depicted as being around 10-12 years old when he becomes Robin (sometimes apparently as young as eight, but I've actually never seen any real evidence in favor of that), while Bruce is usually in his mid-twenties around that time. So the age gap is around 15 years, give or take. That's how it was in the Golden Age, and how its usually been even going into the Post-COIE era.

The New 52's compressed timeline had Dick becoming Robin at 16, with Bruce being around 26 at the time...so this reduces the age gap to just a decade.

For what its worth, Chris O'Donnell, who played Robin in the Schumacher films, is 11 years younger than Val Kilmer and 9 years younger than George Clooney. So that age gap averages to about a decade. Adam West and Burt Ward on the other hand were 17 years apart.

To sum it up, the age gap is usually somewhere around 10-15 years whichever way you look at it. IMO, its never really been enough to be a ''father-son'' relationship, whereas it makes a lot more sense for it to be a ''mentor-protegee'' or ''big brother-little brother'' kind of relationship. Assuming Pattison's going to be in his late thirties by the time they have a sequel with Robin in it, they'll likely cast an actor who's in his early twenties - with Pattison playing Bruce in his early thirties, and the actor playing Dick maybe in his late teens. I think that makes sense.

This is what I always thought, yet many media, including the Snyder cut, make it out to be father-son, which makes no sense to me

[bat39]

This is what I always thought, yet many media, including the Snyder cut, make it out to be father-son, which makes no sense to me

Probably because there's a perception that Robin is Batman's surrogate 'son' that many people have...so saying ''adopted son'' is basically shorthand for Robin in that scene.

To be fair to Snyder, we don't know what the age gap is in his version. Its entirely possible that Dick was young enough to be Bruce's son in the Snyderverse.

On that note, I just looked this up - Brenton Thwaites, the guy who plays Dick in Titans is around 28 years younger than Iain Glen, the guy who plays Bruce Wayne on that show. So it'd make sense for it to be a father-son relationship there (I haven't watched the show beyond the first few episodes so I don't know how they present it).

But in general, I just don't see it as being a father-son relationship, going by the comics. Bruce has always been more mentor than father - maybe at most akin to a ''big brother'' who raises the younger sibling in the absence of their parents. But not literally Dick's father in any sense. Its also why I'm not a fan of the idea of Bruce legally adopting Dick, which I think was in continuity at some point. Him becoming a guardian to Dick can somewhat make sense (especially given his wealth and influence) but I have a hard time believing any court in the country would allow a 20-something billionaire playboy to adopt a 12 year old kid!