I like emo Battinson but I don't like his movie very much. Maybe it could have done without Catwoman or handled their relationship better. Batman Begins is still my favorite Batman movie.
kilmer is unironically one of the best batmans even if his movie was a bit campy
bale's can't fight but is the most "realistic" of them all. he did play a good bruce even if his version had bruce as the person and batman as the mask unlike affleck who had batman as the character and bruce as the mask
Affleck has the best suit and fight scenes and batman brood. batfleck easily hands all the other batmen their asses while fighting them simultaneously
Batman from the Arkham Knight CGI trailers is his best film portrayal yet
[...]
City Bruce looked better
The Arkham Origins Deathstroke trailer fight is so goddamn kino its unbelievable. The CGI still looks really fricking good 9 years later
Just finished Arkham Knight yesterday, that was unbelievablely great aswell
I just watched it because of this post. Naw, it's not as good as you're implying. It's okay but there's no weight. The physics don't make sense. Feels very lifeless.
This. Capeshit should never get more "real" than video games. Shit just doesn't work IRL unless you make tons of compromises e.g. less cartoony costumes, more realistic monster designs etc. and that just ruins the whole purpose of Superheroes (besides israeli propaganda).
If these 4 fought, Bale would be the first eliminated because he can't take a stab without acting like it killed him. He has a shitty fighting stance too.
Pattinson is the next out because he can't fight without getting knocked around.
Affleck dominates Keaton, and probably would have in the Batgirl movie as well.
Affleck > Keaton > Kilmer (Really really fricking good since his film is so meh) > Pattinson > West > Bale > Bale >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clooney
1. Christian Bale
2. Michael Keaton
3. Val Kilmer
4. George Clooney
5. Robert Pattinson
6. Ben Affleck
I didn't include Adam West because I'm not a boomer
Pattinson is my favorite.
He's just such a powerhouse detective and fighter, I fricking love it.
Keaton is my second. If I have to choose a Batman who kills, I'd rather choose one who moves like Batman.
Then Bale, then Affleck.
The rest don't matter.
But in a fight between the four it'd really come down to Pattinson and Affleck. Keaton and Bale can't fight for shit.
pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role
affleck, bale,kilmer,clooney, and west just stumbled around
they didn't sleuth, or move like a shadow
even with his loud ass walking pattinson was fricking stoic and moved like batman
>pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role >affleck, bale,kilmer,clooney, and west just stumbled around >they didn't sleuth, or move like a shadow
Pattinson literally knocked on the front door of the Penguin's club and begged to be let in. Three times. In the same movie. What fricking stealth did he do? homie moved like an old lady. If not for his magical armor he'd be dead ten times over because he can't dodge for shit.
>Knocked first time as Batman
Because he didn't want to sneak in. He wanted to make a statement and kick the shit out of people >Knocked a second time as Bruce Wayne
Why would he stealth himself inside as Bruce Wayne? What good would that do him? >Knocks third time as The Drifter before stealthily distracting the doorman enough to slip inside, locking the doorman out
That's stealth moron. He moved quickly throughout the movie. I compiled a list of all instances of stealth in the movie, and it's bigger than Bale's in Begins.
Oh and Bale and Affleck could? Affleck got his cape tugged on just like Pattinson, and Bale got hit a shit ton of times throughout his three movies.
Bale got hit by Maroni's homosexuals in the club just like Pattinson got hit by Cobblepot's thugs.
Frick off acting like Batman hasn't always been hit or shot in the past.
>He wanted to make a statement and kick the shit out of people
Him intentionally not being stealthy doesn't change the fact he isn't in fact not using stealth. > I compiled a list of all instances of stealth in the movie, and it's bigger than Bale's in Begins.
Lel. Do you know how I can tell you crawled out of Cinemaphilembler?
He didn't use stealth in that scene. But you said he never did, and I proved you wrong. And all you can do is what? Try to make me look stupid for proving you wrong?
You know how I can tell you didn't graduate high school?
>He didn't use stealth in that scene. But you said he never did, and I proved you wrong.
I'm not that anon. My point is he isn't stealthy. Whether he is not stealthy intentionally nor unintentionally doesn't matter.
>Affleck got his cape tugged on just like Pattinson
Trained mercs stabbed on his cape to slow him down during combat. Pats got his cape and ear pulled by a bunch of incels and cops.
2 years ago
Anonymous
are you homies really comparing a year one batman to a year 20 batman
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, no, Affleck got pulled down by it.
He got his ear pulled by one cop, but it was barely a threat. Batman brushed him off quickly with his cape.
>He wanted to make a statement and kick the shit out of people
Him intentionally not being stealthy doesn't change the fact he isn't in fact not using stealth. > I compiled a list of all instances of stealth in the movie, and it's bigger than Bale's in Begins.
Lel. Do you know how I can tell you crawled out of Cinemaphilembler?
>pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role
Lmao, Pattinson moved as he looked. An unathletic twig with no intensity. Sound effects and CGI enhancing his movements didn't help.
No CG enhanced his movements. Stop coping with made up bullshit.
Pattinson slunk around like a ghost. He was unnatural, weird, like Keaton was. Affleck and Bale burst in, did the same moves over and over, and in Affleck's case, lumbered side to side like a massive snowman.
If you can't see why Pattinson moved like Batman, you're not a fan of the character.
>Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
That can be seen by everyone, is mocked because everyone can see his slow ass moving like an old lady, is shot even by blind henchmen because again he is a slow as a turtle, and can be punched because he can't move like shit.
Bale can be seen by everyone. So can Affleck. He's mocked once in the film, by the street gang that soon eats their words and is terrified of him.
Whenever the twins talk back to him, he makes them eat shit, and they never talk bad to him again.
Even when he does get hit, he turns right around and kicks ass.
What was your complaint again?
He revealed his presence to enemies with footsteps once. In the beginning. That's the only time that his footsteps would be a cause for alarm, but he made it so it was badass.
The rest of the time the footsteps cannot be heard by enemies, or are heard by cops.
Try again, you've been proven wrong.
>but he made it so it was badass.
They all laughed and mocked his cringy ass. It was pathetic. I felt bad for Batman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They laughed, but one was afraid, and rightfully so.
Because when the mocking stopped, Batman kicked the shit out of that guy, and there was no more laughing.
Rewatch the film. You'll see.
And the next time the cops and the D.A. see hear the steps, they're scared. You see it in the cathedral.
Everything you all criticize the film for isn't true.
I've seen every complaint this site has to offer for this film, and each night I come here and debunk it, and have to watch the same uneducated shills scramble to find a hole in my argument.
It's lovely.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They laughed, but one was afraid
Oh, great. The pussy of the group was afraid. What a badass Batman. He got one scared.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He got them all scared. Rewatch the movie.
>No CG enhanced his movements. Stop coping with made up bullshit.
You can literally see that during his fights. Do tell, can people slide across the floor like in gif? >Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
He was a weak dude whose movements neither had grace nor intensity. > He was unnatural, weird, like Keaton was. Affleck and Bale burst in,
Pats did this in almost every single fight. You cab frick off with your "fan of the character" bullshit. You're legit low IQ.
Watch the behind the scenes footage. They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time. >Weak dude whose movements neither had grace nor intensity
Untrue. You just said he slid across the floor, and since that wasn't CG, he was graceful. Kek, you proved yourself wrong in your own post! >Pattinson bursted in too!
Ah yes, but like Batman, he used different techniques. Bursting in with bombs, bursting in solo, bursting in through stealth, etc.
>He didn't use stealth in that scene. But you said he never did, and I proved you wrong.
I'm not that anon. My point is he isn't stealthy. Whether he is not stealthy intentionally nor unintentionally doesn't matter.
But he is. Would you like me to post the list transcribed from the film itself?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Watch the behind the scenes footage. They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
You're dumb. First you need understand that BTS footage used for marketing purposes might not have even made the movie. Multiple footages could be spliced together. Second, I said movements were enhanced using CGI, not that the fights were entirely CGI. You need to open your eyes. >You just said he slid across the floor, and since that wasn't CG, he was graceful.
You need to stick to Cinemaphile. If you can't notice obvious CGI touch ups why are you even here? Goofy CGI movements aren't graceful, moron. > Ah yes, but like Batman, he used different techniques. Bursting in with bombs.
They do that in addition to being stealthy. That's the point, moron.
You're not "owning" anybody here. You're just exposing your low IQ.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, you need to open your eyes. I've seen the exact take that they use being filmed in a behind the scenes video. If you were a true Batman fan, you'd have seen it too and you wouldn't've made an incorrect statement. >Goofy CG touchups
You have no proof it was CG, whereas the filming of the footage lies within a behind the scenes video >They do that in addition to being stealthy
So does Pattinson. Like I said, you want the list?
I'm "owning" you, and I don't even believe in slavery.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I've seen the exact take that they use being filmed in a behind the scenes video.
I've seen it, kek. He doesn't literally slide across the scene floor kek. >You have no proof it was CG, whereas the filming of the footage.
The proof being normal can't move like that. Just because you're moron who has a poor understanding of how films are made doesn't mean I'm wrong. What's next? You're gonna tell me that Pats defies the laws of physics? >I'm "owning" you.
You're not owning anybody Cinemaphilemblrina. Knowing your kind, I doubt you own anything beyond funk pops.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
Are you legit moronic? Humans don't move like that dumbfrick. Both the "smoke" and the stunts have undergone heavy CG touch ups. Unless, of course, you think a person moving through smoke doesn't displace any smoke.
>No CG enhanced his movements. Stop coping with made up bullshit.
You can literally see that during his fights. Do tell, can people slide across the floor like in gif? >Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
He was a weak dude whose movements neither had grace nor intensity. > He was unnatural, weird, like Keaton was. Affleck and Bale burst in,
Pats did this in almost every single fight. You cab frick off with your "fan of the character" bullshit. You're legit low IQ.
Nolan are the best movies, but Bale is just a shit Batman
I love Battinson the most I think, liked Affleck as batman too, but shit movies
Never liked Keaton as batman, but I have huge nostalgia for those movies
pattison>keaton> bale>affleck but they are all pretty solid and each do a single aspect of the character really well.
I think pattison will be seen as the best by the end. Bale could've been the best if not for nolan not telling him to knock off the stupid voice. Affleck looked like him the best, and keaton is unironically the most realistic take on batman and has the best "im thinking" face.
Keaton was the best bruce Wayne by far. I think Keaton is the best actor out of them all because he doesn't look like what you'd imagine bruce Wayne to be, but when you see him on the screen in action it's perfect.
Ben Affleck looks like the character from the comics, acts like the character from the comics, fights like the character from the comics, plan and leads like the character from the comics, and has one of the best character arcs a live action Batman ever had.
Christian Bale comes in second, Michael Keaton in third, and Robert Pattinson was a shitty take by a hack director that wanted to shit on everything the character stood for.
>They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
Are you legit moronic? Humans don't move like that dumbfrick. Both the "smoke" and the stunts have undergone heavy CG touch ups. Unless, of course, you think a person moving through smoke doesn't displace any smoke.
The smoke is clearly in front of him, and then he passes through it in the end of the shot. Use your vision. There's no CGI in that sequence and until you can prove otherwise, you're objectively incorrect because the BTS footage exists.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The smoke is clearly in front of him, and then he passes through it in the end of the shot
The smoke is all around him. Did you watch the scene? Kek. That entire sequence happens in the midst of the smoke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, but in that shot they clearly put smoke solely in front of the camera.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but in that shot they clearly put smoke solely in front of the camera.
What? In shot, they're supposed to be "surrounded" by smoke. Your movements should displace the smoke all around them. Since, you claim to have watched the BTS footage, tell me does the fog fill the whole room in the BTS footage? Where do you think the rest of the fog comes from if not CGI?
Here's some actual believable movements within a fog.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
The shot is taken from the side, where it's clearly visible as him moving with no fog.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
>uses photo where lower half of body is clearly turning to move away
Kek, nice try
>I've seen the exact take that they use being filmed in a behind the scenes video.
I've seen it, kek. He doesn't literally slide across the scene floor kek. >You have no proof it was CG, whereas the filming of the footage.
The proof being normal can't move like that. Just because you're moron who has a poor understanding of how films are made doesn't mean I'm wrong. What's next? You're gonna tell me that Pats defies the laws of physics? >I'm "owning" you.
You're not owning anybody Cinemaphilemblrina. Knowing your kind, I doubt you own anything beyond funk pops.
Of course he doesn't slide. But he moves gracefully. >ThE PrOoF BeInG It'S AbNorMal!
Then how come he did it without CG, and the BTS proves my side while you have no proof? Answer that. >You own Funko
I own a car I bought with my own money from working.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Of course he doesn't slide
But in the shot? Why do you think there's a disparity? >Then how come he did it without CG,
He didn't. Go ahead, post the BTS. Let us compare the movements. >I own a car I bought with my own money from working.
Even if I were to believe you, that's it? No house? No land? And you're talking about wealth here?
Tee hee
How bizarre!
They've stooped oh so far!
No arguments left
For my logic to mar!
They've just given up
They retreat in defeat
Because in this world
I just can't be beat!
>Batman always was a closed homosexual
that isn't the issue, there plenty of masculine homosexuals
the point is Batman isn't supposed to look like a twink sidekick
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
I don't see any in the middle layer
>reevesverse
more like reverse from the cinema
That joke doesn't work because obviously Snyder is the worst. You accidentally modeled the joke on the best Batman movie
>I don't see any in the middle layer
The smog is obviously filling quite a distance in the background as well. Linking the scene so that everyone can see how the smog fills the entire section.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nice, I love that scene but here's the problem: cuts exist
One shot may not look like another shot.
And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
It has. It's CGI fog which is why it looks fake.
2 years ago
Anonymous
not even the anon you're arguing with, but let's think of this logically >the shot requires batman to move forward while hitting people with a gun
why would they use CG on the movement? I can buy them adding CG smoke, but there's no reason in hell they would waste money on CG movement in that scene.
you guys saying Pattinson isn't really moving there do not understand how movies work. even if Pattinson couldn't move that way, which I highly doubt, they'd use a stuntman.
there's no way in hell that production would waste money CGI'ng a worthless two second shot of Batman moving forward.
use ya' noggins'
2 years ago
Anonymous
>based anon dismantles argument with facts and logic
2 years ago
Anonymous
>why would they use CG on the movement? I can buy them adding CG smoke, but there's no reason in hell they would waste money on CG movement in that scene.
There's a thing called speed and intensity to make the scenes seem impactful. Do you think people move like rubber dolls when hit?
>based anon dismantles argument with facts and logic
>Gets BTFO in a single sentence
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nope. But no one in that gif does either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>worthless two second shot of Batman moving forward.
First. You need to stop same gayging. Two, yes CGI for minor stuff happens like this all the time. Fincher uses CGI for a couple seconds of cold breath. Batcringe keks need to stop coping here because they get constantly BTFO.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i already said im not the same anon, but whatever
nice strawman >here's one example of something happening briefly in CG!
yes, but Fincher needed that or continuity would be broken. Reeves didn't need to waste money on CG for batman to move forward for continuity >constantly BTFO
I don't even give that much of a shit about batman. i give a shit about fimmaking, but you guys bring up the same shite arguments every time i see one of these threads
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Reeves didn't need to waste money on CG for batman to move forward for continuity
Reeves needs it more because action requires impact. People notice that than missing cold breath.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except, not since Reeves didn't use CG to make impact, so there's natural impact.
Plus Fincher used CG so people wouldn't notice a lack of it. So he never got to run it without CG.
Your arguments are losing traction.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>not since Reeves didn't use CG to make impact,
He used the CGI to make Patts movement seem faster(which ended up looking like he's sliding). As I said, go ahead, watch the BTS footage of the shot. His movements are slower and he doesn't actually slide.
2 years ago
Anonymous
WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS?
You can say it happened all you want, but if there isn't proof, then it's coming out of your asses
2 years ago
Anonymous
they dont have proof because there isnt any
they believe what they want do just like you do
let it go
2 years ago
Anonymous
>WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS?
Proof of what? Use your eyes or is "proof" in your mind them literally admitting to using CGI in the scene?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Proof is when a statement needs to be validated.
Simply saying, "It looks like CG!" doesn't make it CG.
I can say the moon landing looks fake, but until I can prove it, it's a meaningless theory.
You're doing the same. I have proof with my BTS footage.
You have nothing except your own eyesight, which for all we know is fricked beyond belief.
>I don't see any in the middle layer
What middle layer moron?The smoke
>I don't see any in the middle layer
The smog is obviously filling quite a distance in the background as well. Linking the scene so that everyone can see how the smog fills the entire section.
fills the entire platform they're standing on. It's in front of them, behind them, and above them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Here
Nice, I love that scene but here's the problem: cuts exist
One shot may not look like another shot.
And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
Already proved that fog continuity is impossible
>And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
It has. It's CGI fog which is why it looks fake.
No, it's no fog, which is why it looks fake. Because there isn't anything there.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that fog continuity is impossible
You didn't. The movie shows us multiple shots from the mooks behind and parellel. The fog is shown everywhere. Again, which middle layer? I can see you're bluffing but want to see how far you take. Go ahead, draw a red circle on this image to tell us which part doesn't have the fog
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I did. You're telling me every shot has the same amount of fog in the exact same spots for clear continuity? No. That's just common sense.
And I can't. Because Reeves and his team were smart enough to position fog in front of Batman and behind Batman to make it look like fog was in the middle, but in the BTS footage, you can see him moving without traversing through any fog.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You're telling me every shot has the same amount of fog in the exact same spots for clear continuity? No
The shots are couple of seconds apart, yes. When you can literally see the fog yes. Again tell me where in the shot there's no fog? >but in the BTS footage, you can see him moving without traversing through any fog.
Exactly and they CGI'd it in the movie.
Again which middle layer in this shot that's been posted in the scene? Point it out. Be specific.
2 years ago
Anonymous
As I said, it's impossible, since the fog they produced in the front clouds the middle, and since they produced fog in the back, it makes it look full.
But in the BTS footage, you can see a spot with no fog. Which they don't cover up with CG, but rather with perspective.
Which is something you don't have, as I've explained this many times by now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>since the fog they produced in the front clouds the middle,
And the fog in the movie fills the entire scene. >Perspective.
Tney use CGI dumbfrick. You can't even point out with specificity what you even mean by "middle layer". This pic
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
shows the smoke is most definitely all over his "left" side. You can see in this pic that the smoke in the movie fills it in the front, the back and their right. The movie is clear on what's happening. You're a literal dumbfrick trying to argue against the obvious.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The shot a couple of seconds later. Showing the mooks behind, almost completely disappear as it fills the section.
2 years ago
Anonymous
All facts and no buts
There is such a thing as cuts
When the shot is enough
The camera will shut
The location will move
And the background gets mucked
If you can't see this
Your brain is just fricked
2 years ago
Anonymous
Have to say. You're one of the dumbest npc shills I've seen. The smoke thing doesn't even need this much elaboration but you doubled down because you're either a shill or a living embodiment of a dumb comicbook manchild. It's baffling to see you throw around words like perspective and shots with zero understanding of what it means(hint: the first wide shot has enough depth to see the smog is filling the background). Embarrassing but the BTFO was funny.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Kek, there's still more. Batman tackling the mook later on to show the fog is still there.
2 years ago
Anonymous
here
All facts and no buts
There is such a thing as cuts
When the shot is enough
The camera will shut
The location will move
And the background gets mucked
If you can't see this
Your brain is just fricked
you might just be moronic
i hate to break it to you
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can stop now moron.
And the final BTFO. A few seconds after this [...] shot, the camera actually pushes in and is literally on the platform with them, showing as again that the smog is still all around them. It's not just in "front" of them.
Truth be told you can actually see that the smog is in the middle section in my very first pic(look at the railing behind them) but still we need to be thorough in putting down pests like you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You didnt prove anything pleb.
How does it feel? To be fooled by simple perspective? To be duped by a filming technique coined when people still died of polio?
Those photos have simply proved my point more. There is no smoke in the middle layer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How does it feel? To be fooled by simple perspective?
Kek, I showed you literal push in shot proving that it isn't a perspective "trick". Unless, of course, you think we are not seeing the "middle section" in this shot
And the final BTFO. A few seconds after this [...] shot, the camera actually pushes in and is literally on the platform with them, showing as again that the smog is still all around them. It's not just in "front" of them.
. Which happens after the part where you claim the fog disappeared from the "middle layer". You realize that right? Kek. My estimation of your IQ is 80.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There was never any fog in the middle layer during that continuity and the push in occurs at a diagonal angle, so it isn't pushing through anything.
You can only assume it's 80 because that's as far as you can count.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There was never any fog in the middle layer during that continuity
Your moronic argument is basically that the fog disappeared from platform for 3 seconds and reappeared. >the push in occurs at a diagonal angle.
moron, at the end of the push in, the camera is on the middle section, literally on front of them. If there's no smog as you claim in the middle section, the shot shouldn't show any. But it does. What's happening in front of it is literally the middle section. I doubt you even can count at this point kek. You're the dumbest motherfricker I've seen.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I worked on set as a grip. They used CG bro. Im sorry you are losing your mind over this. You can see for yourself in the credits the company they used. Specifically, Fusion and Houdini have a lot of easy techniques in "action packs" that track a designated actor. When the rifle goes below then hits the goon, all of that is CGI. All of catwoman's fight scenes were enhanced with cgi. 500 a day for grabbing coffee, holding a pole and sleeping, easy gig.
Rest now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now I know that's bs because none of Catwoman's scenes were CG!
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're responding to the guy who's agreeing with you that they used CGI.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I worked on set as a grip
threadly reminder that this is what an actual shill looks like
not some strawman about pajeet or asiatic clickfarms
just one of the many peons involved in modern production
this time it was a first hand peon rather than his friends or family
posting in a thread about a movie he worked on and doing it for free
2 years ago
Anonymous
any more stories?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, the smog was never there.
Pattinson moves towards the camera, and enters the fog in what used to be the front section.
>the push in occurs at a diagonal angl
And can you tell the class where it's stops in the screenshot that anon posted? 🙂
Sure. It stops when Pattinson is in front of the camera, so basically every scene during the fight there is no fog in the middle.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes, the smog was never there >Never
You're literally wrong. These shots show
The shot a couple of seconds later. Showing the mooks behind, almost completely disappear as it fills the section.
>since the fog they produced in the front clouds the middle,
And the fog in the movie fills the entire scene. >Perspective.
Tney use CGI dumbfrick. You can't even point out with specificity what you even mean by "middle layer". This pic[...] shows the smoke is most definitely all over his "left" side. You can see in this pic that the smoke in the movie fills it in the front, the back and their right. The movie is clear on what's happening. You're a literal dumbfrick trying to argue against the obvious.
it was undeniably there during the beginning and this shot shows it was
And the final BTFO. A few seconds after this [...] shot, the camera actually pushes in and is literally on the platform with them, showing as again that the smog is still all around them. It's not just in "front" of them.
definitely there towards the end.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the fricker you're arguing with goes in every Batman thread and trolls
stop fricking arguing with that schizoid
2 years ago
Anonymous
These schizos only get encouraged when you let them have their way. It's good to put them down every once in a while.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It stops when Pattinson is in front of the camera
Read again. > where it's stops in the screenshot that anon posted.
So it stops in front of Pats even by your own admission which means the camera in the middle layer and since it's still shows the smog, it proves that it indeed had smog.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the push in occurs at a diagonal angl
And can you tell the class where it's stops in the screenshot that anon posted? 🙂
2 years ago
Anonymous
Have to say. You're one of the dumbest NPC shills I've seen. The smoke thing doesn't even need this much elaboration but you doubled down because you're either a shill or a living embodiment of a dumb comicbook manchild. It's baffling to see you throw around words like perspective and shots with zero understanding of what it means(hint: the first wide shot has enough depth to see the smog is filling the background). Embarrassing but the BTFO was funny.
Uh oh. Maybe a samegayger...maybe not...
2 years ago
Anonymous
Kek, that's not me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And the final BTFO. A few seconds after this
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
shot, the camera actually pushes in and is literally on the platform with them, showing as again that the smog is still all around them. It's not just in "front" of them.
So DC is trying to get Cavil and Affleck back right? But Affleck is just going to be sticking to cameos. Can you imagine that? A DC cinematic universe where fricking Batman only does cameos. What a sick joke! That said, I'm still excited to potentially see him again. I liked Pattinson but seeing Affleck's Batman go from bitter to hopeful was a great arc
Affleck is the best since he’s the only one that doesn’t operate with hypocrisy and delusions of grandeur. He’s 6’4 200+lbs and he WILL kill you, out of all the Batmans he’s the last one you want to run into on the street. And then his Bruce is basically a raging alcoholic that can’t manage to put away the suit, or the pain. He’s perfect.
Keaton was an OK Batman in a good movie. Bale was a good Batman who had 2/3 good movies. Batfleck was the best looking live action Batman we've ever got, who was unfortunately in shit movies. Pattinson looks OK and was in an OK movie. In a perfect world we'd get Batfleck back but someone would lobotomize Snyder in order to sumhow minimize his autism.
Aesthetics: Batfleck
Story and world: Battinson by far
Even that proposed Batfleck vs Deathstroke movie plot sounds pretty weak as compared to having only 1 or 2 highlighted rogues in a single movie. Batman's rogues gallery (Battinson) >>>>>>>> Batman's enemies in the greater DC universe (Batfleck).
Which is why I hope that if Batfleck goes full time again, his villains will be the rogues that Reeves will inevitably not use.
Give Sneederverse white eyes that glow dimly in dark areas and a thinner bat symbol and it's perfect. Also with long ears during surveillance operations.
West essentially has "Toon Force" and would be able to beat all the other Batmen through comedic scenes and timing
As long as it's done in an extremely silly manner, he could defeat them through random made up tools from his belt despite the fact all the other bats are stronger than him
I agree. I want Pattinson to get bigger arms in the sequels, but so far he's the best.
Bale's mouth was just silly and Affleck went a bit too far with the big-ness
The Batman isn't clumsy. He's a good fighter. He takes hits like Affleck and Bale did, and isn't OP.
He's a skilled detective who makes mistakes just like Batman always does.
You guys just can't handle that Batman isn't perfect. He's not the idolized version of your father's. He's human, he fricks up, and Pattinson's Batman is the best reflection of what Batman should be.
He wasn't moronic.
He was a good detective. Did you get mad at Affleck when he was moronic? When Bale was moronic? Affleck, the "world's greatest detective", got duped by a kid with ADHD for an entire three hour runtime. Bale constantly gets tech from his foundation stolen, and it's used against Gotham to destroy it. That's his fricking company's creations!
But because, "Oh, Pattinson has to be reminded that something is mistranslated!" that makes him moronic?
No. You just got mad at this because, "ohhh, everyone likes it and I just wanna be different!"
>He was a good detective
My local beat cop is a bettet detective, kek. > got duped by a kid.
Should you be saying this when Pats got beaten by moronic accountant without 1/10th of the resources? Kek.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your local beat cop could decode ciphers, solve riddles, walk around crime scenes taking note of crucial observations that will aid the case further on, gain the aid of outside parties to further his own investigation, and uncover an underbelly of corruption?
I don't think so. >Beaten by a moronic accountant!
An accountant who had access to documents that Pattinson's Batman wouldn't even know to uncover?
An accountant who had amassed an online following of killers ready to do his bidding?
An accountant who had spent his entire adult life mapping out a plan of revenge?
An accountant, who ultimately, loses, because his final bit of his plan is thwarted by The Batman?
Yeah. I should be talking about it. Because Luthor had a moronic plan that Batman should've known about, and Edward didn't. Why would The Batman know to target Edward? Fatfleck should've known that Lex was conning him right from the start.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Your local beat cop could decode ciphers, solve riddles, walk around crime scenes
Literal teenagers in the audience solved those riddles before Batman did. Lmao. Oh man you know those "ciphers" are literal competitive exam aptitude test tier, right? >An accountant who had access to documents.
You know it's funny. Supposedly an accountant is a credible threat to Batman because he access to documents and a gang of incels but a billionaire tech genius with access to even classified information, trained mercenaries, etc...shouldn't be?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Erm...teens solved them in my audience!
Good rebuttal >Batman is a billionaire with access to everything!
You wanna know something cool? The movie explains this, but you didn't pay attention. You see, in the scene where Pattinson is shirtless and looking at the map on the floor, he goes and pulls out a bunch of files. And as he starts to look through the papers, the same papers Edward has, he's distracted by Selina, who calls on him through the camera lenses. Those papers were hidden in musty cabinets. Hidden things are hard to trace down. And only his investigation into the hidden parts of Gotham leads him to those files.
That's why Edward is a credible threat. He burrows. His community burrowed. His information was burrowed deep into Gotham. And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing. It builds suspense, and you can look back and say, "Oh shit! That's well done! Batman was so close!"
But you homosexuals can't understand anything. So I have to come on here, and explain things to you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Good rebuttal
Yes. Do you think any of those riddles and ciphers were hard?
is a billionaire with access to everything! >You wanna know something cool? The movie explains this, but you didn't pay attention.
You want to know something better? When I said a tech billionaire with access to any and all information and mercenaries at his disposal, I'm referring to Lex. Do you have reading comprehension issue? Do you need me to simplify things for you? Here: Lex is smarter than The Riddler, has more resources and connections. Your argument is moronic.
But your essay about how Riddler has an upper hand because Batman isn't diligent with his work is funny though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing
Pffft. Hahahahaha. Look at this moron and laugh people. Did Batman forget to check the remaining papers because he was temporarily distracted by selina? That's lazy writing you maggot. It makes Batman look like a child because he forgets to his homework after playing video games.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's why Edward is a credible threat. He burrows. His community burrowed. His information was burrowed deep into Gotham. And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing. It builds suspense, and you can look back and say, "Oh shit! That's well done! Batman was so close!"
This is how mentally ill people talk when trying to convince everyone around them they're right t. borderline personality disorder
Keaton, hands down. Because he never acted like someone who could be Batman. Everyone else was clearly hiding something, Keaton never let the mask slip, he's on par with Reeves' Clark Kent.
>Westverse
Funnyly bad batman some of his bruce scenes were decent >Burtonverse
Good batman and Bruce and the post film content is improved a little. The villain outshine him. >Schumaherverse
Forgotten >Nolanverse
Overshined by the villain like Keaton but worse >Reevesverse
Ironically the only adaptation were the actor outshined the villain. Is a great bruce but I think as Batman is worse than Keaton.
The rank would be >Keaton > Battison > Bale > Ben > West > Kilmer >Cloney
And for cartoon >DCAU Batman > Batman Brave and the bold > Young Justice Batman >DCAMU Batman > The Batman Cartoon
All good in their own way >Batdance
Soulful and iconic as frick >Bateman
Peak Modern Batman >Batfleck
Chad Action Batman from 1986 >Battinson
Blackpilled Gothkino
Depends on how old you are.
I like emo Battinson but I don't like his movie very much. Maybe it could have done without Catwoman or handled their relationship better. Batman Begins is still my favorite Batman movie.
Kilmerverse
kilmer is unironically one of the best batmans even if his movie was a bit campy
bale's can't fight but is the most "realistic" of them all. he did play a good bruce even if his version had bruce as the person and batman as the mask unlike affleck who had batman as the character and bruce as the mask
Affleck has the best suit and fight scenes and batman brood. batfleck easily hands all the other batmen their asses while fighting them simultaneously
if you could combine Keaton's bruce Wayne + Battfleck fighting + Val Kilmer's face/ coolness that would be the ultimate batman
The only right answer
Pic rel mogs them all
He looks Mexican.
Perfect for the average american to feel identified with.
City Bruce looked better
The Arkham Origins Deathstroke trailer fight is so goddamn kino its unbelievable. The CGI still looks really fricking good 9 years later
Just finished Arkham Knight yesterday, that was unbelievablely great aswell
AA > AC > AK
But they're still solid 10/10
>part-time
I just watched it because of this post. Naw, it's not as good as you're implying. It's okay but there's no weight. The physics don't make sense. Feels very lifeless.
kek
He just radiates big dick energy. They really nailed Bruce's appearance in Knight. Pity we didn't get any daytime scenes.
Too thuggish looking
tpbp
This. Capeshit should never get more "real" than video games. Shit just doesn't work IRL unless you make tons of compromises e.g. less cartoony costumes, more realistic monster designs etc. and that just ruins the whole purpose of Superheroes (besides israeli propaganda).
Disregarding every thing besides their performances Batfleck hands down.
If these 4 fought, Bale would be the first eliminated because he can't take a stab without acting like it killed him. He has a shitty fighting stance too.
Pattinson is the next out because he can't fight without getting knocked around.
Affleck dominates Keaton, and probably would have in the Batgirl movie as well.
Batman from the Arkham Knight CGI trailers is his best film portrayal yet
West > Bale > Pattinson > Keaton > Kilmer > Clooney
>inb4 mention of voice actors for children's cartoons
Every live action adaptation of Batman is awful. Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne was decent, but the films he's in suck.
Affleck > Keaton > Kilmer (Really really fricking good since his film is so meh) > Pattinson > West > Bale > Bale >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clooney
>and your other Bale
1. Christian Bale
2. Michael Keaton
3. Val Kilmer
4. George Clooney
5. Robert Pattinson
6. Ben Affleck
I didn't include Adam West because I'm not a boomer
diniverse
Pattinson.
i like the new batman suit
i absolute fricking HATE the helmet
you can see the actor face on it, the helmet is SHAPED LIKE HIS FACE.
Pattinson is my favorite.
He's just such a powerhouse detective and fighter, I fricking love it.
Keaton is my second. If I have to choose a Batman who kills, I'd rather choose one who moves like Batman.
Then Bale, then Affleck.
The rest don't matter.
But in a fight between the four it'd really come down to Pattinson and Affleck. Keaton and Bale can't fight for shit.
Batfleck is the only proper choice. Any other choice is for homosexuals.
>buys the exact same quality suit at Party City
pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role
affleck, bale,kilmer,clooney, and west just stumbled around
they didn't sleuth, or move like a shadow
even with his loud ass walking pattinson was fricking stoic and moved like batman
>pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role
>affleck, bale,kilmer,clooney, and west just stumbled around
>they didn't sleuth, or move like a shadow
Pattinson literally knocked on the front door of the Penguin's club and begged to be let in. Three times. In the same movie. What fricking stealth did he do? homie moved like an old lady. If not for his magical armor he'd be dead ten times over because he can't dodge for shit.
>Knocked first time as Batman
Because he didn't want to sneak in. He wanted to make a statement and kick the shit out of people
>Knocked a second time as Bruce Wayne
Why would he stealth himself inside as Bruce Wayne? What good would that do him?
>Knocks third time as The Drifter before stealthily distracting the doorman enough to slip inside, locking the doorman out
That's stealth moron. He moved quickly throughout the movie. I compiled a list of all instances of stealth in the movie, and it's bigger than Bale's in Begins.
>He moved quickly throughout the movie.
He moved like a turtle while eating shots. He couldn't even dodge punches. He walked like Robocop.
Oh and Bale and Affleck could? Affleck got his cape tugged on just like Pattinson, and Bale got hit a shit ton of times throughout his three movies.
Bale got hit by Maroni's homosexuals in the club just like Pattinson got hit by Cobblepot's thugs.
Frick off acting like Batman hasn't always been hit or shot in the past.
He didn't use stealth in that scene. But you said he never did, and I proved you wrong. And all you can do is what? Try to make me look stupid for proving you wrong?
You know how I can tell you didn't graduate high school?
>He didn't use stealth in that scene. But you said he never did, and I proved you wrong.
I'm not that anon. My point is he isn't stealthy. Whether he is not stealthy intentionally nor unintentionally doesn't matter.
>Affleck got his cape tugged on just like Pattinson
Trained mercs stabbed on his cape to slow him down during combat. Pats got his cape and ear pulled by a bunch of incels and cops.
are you homies really comparing a year one batman to a year 20 batman
No, no, Affleck got pulled down by it.
He got his ear pulled by one cop, but it was barely a threat. Batman brushed him off quickly with his cape.
>He wanted to make a statement and kick the shit out of people
Him intentionally not being stealthy doesn't change the fact he isn't in fact not using stealth.
> I compiled a list of all instances of stealth in the movie, and it's bigger than Bale's in Begins.
Lel. Do you know how I can tell you crawled out of Cinemaphilembler?
>pattinson and keaton actually had a physicality in the role
Lmao, Pattinson moved as he looked. An unathletic twig with no intensity. Sound effects and CGI enhancing his movements didn't help.
No CG enhanced his movements. Stop coping with made up bullshit.
Pattinson slunk around like a ghost. He was unnatural, weird, like Keaton was. Affleck and Bale burst in, did the same moves over and over, and in Affleck's case, lumbered side to side like a massive snowman.
If you can't see why Pattinson moved like Batman, you're not a fan of the character.
>Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
That can be seen by everyone, is mocked because everyone can see his slow ass moving like an old lady, is shot even by blind henchmen because again he is a slow as a turtle, and can be punched because he can't move like shit.
}What a ghost.
Bale can be seen by everyone. So can Affleck. He's mocked once in the film, by the street gang that soon eats their words and is terrified of him.
Whenever the twins talk back to him, he makes them eat shit, and they never talk bad to him again.
Even when he does get hit, he turns right around and kicks ass.
What was your complaint again?
>Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
He was stomping around in rave bawd boots the whole time.
He revealed his presence to enemies with footsteps once. In the beginning. That's the only time that his footsteps would be a cause for alarm, but he made it so it was badass.
The rest of the time the footsteps cannot be heard by enemies, or are heard by cops.
Try again, you've been proven wrong.
>but he made it so it was badass.
They all laughed and mocked his cringy ass. It was pathetic. I felt bad for Batman.
They laughed, but one was afraid, and rightfully so.
Because when the mocking stopped, Batman kicked the shit out of that guy, and there was no more laughing.
Rewatch the film. You'll see.
And the next time the cops and the D.A. see hear the steps, they're scared. You see it in the cathedral.
Everything you all criticize the film for isn't true.
I've seen every complaint this site has to offer for this film, and each night I come here and debunk it, and have to watch the same uneducated shills scramble to find a hole in my argument.
It's lovely.
>They laughed, but one was afraid
Oh, great. The pussy of the group was afraid. What a badass Batman. He got one scared.
He got them all scared. Rewatch the movie.
Watch the behind the scenes footage. They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
>Weak dude whose movements neither had grace nor intensity
Untrue. You just said he slid across the floor, and since that wasn't CG, he was graceful. Kek, you proved yourself wrong in your own post!
>Pattinson bursted in too!
Ah yes, but like Batman, he used different techniques. Bursting in with bombs, bursting in solo, bursting in through stealth, etc.
But he is. Would you like me to post the list transcribed from the film itself?
>Watch the behind the scenes footage. They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
You're dumb. First you need understand that BTS footage used for marketing purposes might not have even made the movie. Multiple footages could be spliced together. Second, I said movements were enhanced using CGI, not that the fights were entirely CGI. You need to open your eyes.
>You just said he slid across the floor, and since that wasn't CG, he was graceful.
You need to stick to Cinemaphile. If you can't notice obvious CGI touch ups why are you even here? Goofy CGI movements aren't graceful, moron.
> Ah yes, but like Batman, he used different techniques. Bursting in with bombs.
They do that in addition to being stealthy. That's the point, moron.
You're not "owning" anybody here. You're just exposing your low IQ.
No, you need to open your eyes. I've seen the exact take that they use being filmed in a behind the scenes video. If you were a true Batman fan, you'd have seen it too and you wouldn't've made an incorrect statement.
>Goofy CG touchups
You have no proof it was CG, whereas the filming of the footage lies within a behind the scenes video
>They do that in addition to being stealthy
So does Pattinson. Like I said, you want the list?
I'm "owning" you, and I don't even believe in slavery.
>I've seen the exact take that they use being filmed in a behind the scenes video.
I've seen it, kek. He doesn't literally slide across the scene floor kek.
>You have no proof it was CG, whereas the filming of the footage.
The proof being normal can't move like that. Just because you're moron who has a poor understanding of how films are made doesn't mean I'm wrong. What's next? You're gonna tell me that Pats defies the laws of physics?
>I'm "owning" you.
You're not owning anybody Cinemaphilemblrina. Knowing your kind, I doubt you own anything beyond funk pops.
>They show Pattinson doing that entire scene in real time.
Are you legit moronic? Humans don't move like that dumbfrick. Both the "smoke" and the stunts have undergone heavy CG touch ups. Unless, of course, you think a person moving through smoke doesn't displace any smoke.
>No CG enhanced his movements. Stop coping with made up bullshit.
You can literally see that during his fights. Do tell, can people slide across the floor like in gif?
>Pattinson slunk around like a ghost.
He was a weak dude whose movements neither had grace nor intensity.
> He was unnatural, weird, like Keaton was. Affleck and Bale burst in,
Pats did this in almost every single fight. You cab frick off with your "fan of the character" bullshit. You're legit low IQ.
What's the point of doing practical stunts if you're going to make it look fake as frick anyway?
I likePattinson's take and the Reevesverse overall, but as a longtime Batman fan, Snyderverse is my favorite and the best.
Who gives a shit capeshit thread hidden eat my ass homosexual
here’s your (You), idiot
Nolan are the best movies, but Bale is just a shit Batman
I love Battinson the most I think, liked Affleck as batman too, but shit movies
Never liked Keaton as batman, but I have huge nostalgia for those movies
pattison>keaton> bale>affleck but they are all pretty solid and each do a single aspect of the character really well.
I think pattison will be seen as the best by the end. Bale could've been the best if not for nolan not telling him to knock off the stupid voice. Affleck looked like him the best, and keaton is unironically the most realistic take on batman and has the best "im thinking" face.
TRUTH BROTHA
>keaton is unironically the most realistic take on batman and has the best "im thinking" face.
Keaton was the best bruce Wayne by far. I think Keaton is the best actor out of them all because he doesn't look like what you'd imagine bruce Wayne to be, but when you see him on the screen in action it's perfect.
YA WANNA GET NUTS?!?
keaton's batman is the only one i could believe that could maintain a secret identity
Ben Affleck looks like the character from the comics, acts like the character from the comics, fights like the character from the comics, plan and leads like the character from the comics, and has one of the best character arcs a live action Batman ever had.
Christian Bale comes in second, Michael Keaton in third, and Robert Pattinson was a shitty take by a hack director that wanted to shit on everything the character stood for.
keaton is over rated
baleman is cringy
battinson is under rated
batfleck is the goat
TRUTH, except for Batfleck
Shut up, homosexual. Batfleck is the GOAT.
you can see his double chin in that pic
Gorges
On
Any
Thing
I'll gorge on your mother's pussy.
My mother is dead necro
The smoke is clearly in front of him, and then he passes through it in the end of the shot. Use your vision. There's no CGI in that sequence and until you can prove otherwise, you're objectively incorrect because the BTS footage exists.
>The smoke is clearly in front of him, and then he passes through it in the end of the shot
The smoke is all around him. Did you watch the scene? Kek. That entire sequence happens in the midst of the smoke.
Yes, but in that shot they clearly put smoke solely in front of the camera.
>but in that shot they clearly put smoke solely in front of the camera.
What? In shot, they're supposed to be "surrounded" by smoke. Your movements should displace the smoke all around them. Since, you claim to have watched the BTS footage, tell me does the fog fill the whole room in the BTS footage? Where do you think the rest of the fog comes from if not CGI?
Here's some actual believable movements within a fog.
In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
The shot is taken from the side, where it's clearly visible as him moving with no fog.
>In the BTS footage there is fog in front of him and a bit behind him.
In shot the fog fills the entire room. Screeenshot so that you can stop pretending to be blind. In the BTS footage, the smoke doesn't fill the room no matter which angle you look at it from. They filled in with the rest of the shot with CGI smoke.
batflecks aesthetics/ presence/ physicality were beyond anything thats come before
Too fat, suit was shit, and he moved like a fat man, not like a Batman
>Too fat, suit was shit
He wasn't talking about Pattinson, bro.
>uses photo where lower half of body is clearly turning to move away
Kek, nice try
Of course he doesn't slide. But he moves gracefully.
>ThE PrOoF BeInG It'S AbNorMal!
Then how come he did it without CG, and the BTS proves my side while you have no proof? Answer that.
>You own Funko
I own a car I bought with my own money from working.
>Of course he doesn't slide
But in the shot? Why do you think there's a disparity?
>Then how come he did it without CG,
He didn't. Go ahead, post the BTS. Let us compare the movements.
>I own a car I bought with my own money from working.
Even if I were to believe you, that's it? No house? No land? And you're talking about wealth here?
This looks like a children's toy.
They all do.
they're all shit. batman died in the late 80s
Todd Phillips Batman
Burton > Reeves > Snyder > Nolan
Ben Affleck is the only good batman
Batman is always the wort part of the Batman movies. It's the villians who steal the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvFLANMs1Q0&t=40s
>Bruce
Bale = Pattison > Affleck >Keaton
>Batman
Affleck > Pattison = Bale > Keaton
What a gay gif. I knew you were a homosexual.
Tee hee
How bizarre!
They've stooped oh so far!
No arguments left
For my logic to mar!
They've just given up
They retreat in defeat
Because in this world
I just can't be beat!
>someone used my batchad meme
Based as frick, thanks
I use that meme all the time man. I'm glad I got to meet who made it, it's one of my favorites.
No problem man, glad people enjoy it
everything is better compared to the latest one
latest one seems like a twink Nightwing larping as Batman
>previous one was a obese drunk larping as Batman
is there even enough testosterone left in this generation to get a legitimate Batman?
zoomers are a bunch of lanky twinks
at least he looked like a Man
You're right, at least Pattinson looks like a man!
>posts pic of skeezoid with large breasts hanging out
C'mon man. That isn't even Affleck.
Batman always was a closed homosexual
>Batman always was a closed homosexual
that isn't the issue, there plenty of masculine homosexuals
the point is Batman isn't supposed to look like a twink sidekick
Yeah Bale should have never been Batman
I don't see any in the middle layer
That joke doesn't work because obviously Snyder is the worst. You accidentally modeled the joke on the best Batman movie
>Yeah Bale should have never been Batman
he's still more masculine than the twink from twilight
>I don't see any in the middle layer
The smog is obviously filling quite a distance in the background as well. Linking the scene so that everyone can see how the smog fills the entire section.
Nice, I love that scene but here's the problem: cuts exist
One shot may not look like another shot.
And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
>And the shot that composes that gif has no fog in the middle layer
It has. It's CGI fog which is why it looks fake.
not even the anon you're arguing with, but let's think of this logically
>the shot requires batman to move forward while hitting people with a gun
why would they use CG on the movement? I can buy them adding CG smoke, but there's no reason in hell they would waste money on CG movement in that scene.
you guys saying Pattinson isn't really moving there do not understand how movies work. even if Pattinson couldn't move that way, which I highly doubt, they'd use a stuntman.
there's no way in hell that production would waste money CGI'ng a worthless two second shot of Batman moving forward.
use ya' noggins'
>based anon dismantles argument with facts and logic
>why would they use CG on the movement? I can buy them adding CG smoke, but there's no reason in hell they would waste money on CG movement in that scene.
There's a thing called speed and intensity to make the scenes seem impactful. Do you think people move like rubber dolls when hit?
>Gets BTFO in a single sentence
Nope. But no one in that gif does either.
>worthless two second shot of Batman moving forward.
First. You need to stop same gayging. Two, yes CGI for minor stuff happens like this all the time. Fincher uses CGI for a couple seconds of cold breath. Batcringe keks need to stop coping here because they get constantly BTFO.
i already said im not the same anon, but whatever
nice strawman
>here's one example of something happening briefly in CG!
yes, but Fincher needed that or continuity would be broken. Reeves didn't need to waste money on CG for batman to move forward for continuity
>constantly BTFO
I don't even give that much of a shit about batman. i give a shit about fimmaking, but you guys bring up the same shite arguments every time i see one of these threads
>Reeves didn't need to waste money on CG for batman to move forward for continuity
Reeves needs it more because action requires impact. People notice that than missing cold breath.
Except, not since Reeves didn't use CG to make impact, so there's natural impact.
Plus Fincher used CG so people wouldn't notice a lack of it. So he never got to run it without CG.
Your arguments are losing traction.
>not since Reeves didn't use CG to make impact,
He used the CGI to make Patts movement seem faster(which ended up looking like he's sliding). As I said, go ahead, watch the BTS footage of the shot. His movements are slower and he doesn't actually slide.
WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS?
You can say it happened all you want, but if there isn't proof, then it's coming out of your asses
they dont have proof because there isnt any
they believe what they want do just like you do
let it go
>WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS?
Proof of what? Use your eyes or is "proof" in your mind them literally admitting to using CGI in the scene?
Proof is when a statement needs to be validated.
Simply saying, "It looks like CG!" doesn't make it CG.
I can say the moon landing looks fake, but until I can prove it, it's a meaningless theory.
You're doing the same. I have proof with my BTS footage.
You have nothing except your own eyesight, which for all we know is fricked beyond belief.
>I don't see any in the middle layer
What middle layer moron?The smoke
fills the entire platform they're standing on. It's in front of them, behind them, and above them.
Here
Already proved that fog continuity is impossible
No, it's no fog, which is why it looks fake. Because there isn't anything there.
>that fog continuity is impossible
You didn't. The movie shows us multiple shots from the mooks behind and parellel. The fog is shown everywhere. Again, which middle layer? I can see you're bluffing but want to see how far you take. Go ahead, draw a red circle on this image to tell us which part doesn't have the fog
I did. You're telling me every shot has the same amount of fog in the exact same spots for clear continuity? No. That's just common sense.
And I can't. Because Reeves and his team were smart enough to position fog in front of Batman and behind Batman to make it look like fog was in the middle, but in the BTS footage, you can see him moving without traversing through any fog.
>You're telling me every shot has the same amount of fog in the exact same spots for clear continuity? No
The shots are couple of seconds apart, yes. When you can literally see the fog yes. Again tell me where in the shot there's no fog?
>but in the BTS footage, you can see him moving without traversing through any fog.
Exactly and they CGI'd it in the movie.
Again which middle layer in this shot that's been posted in the scene? Point it out. Be specific.
As I said, it's impossible, since the fog they produced in the front clouds the middle, and since they produced fog in the back, it makes it look full.
But in the BTS footage, you can see a spot with no fog. Which they don't cover up with CG, but rather with perspective.
Which is something you don't have, as I've explained this many times by now.
>since the fog they produced in the front clouds the middle,
And the fog in the movie fills the entire scene.
>Perspective.
Tney use CGI dumbfrick. You can't even point out with specificity what you even mean by "middle layer". This pic
shows the smoke is most definitely all over his "left" side. You can see in this pic that the smoke in the movie fills it in the front, the back and their right. The movie is clear on what's happening. You're a literal dumbfrick trying to argue against the obvious.
The shot a couple of seconds later. Showing the mooks behind, almost completely disappear as it fills the section.
All facts and no buts
There is such a thing as cuts
When the shot is enough
The camera will shut
The location will move
And the background gets mucked
If you can't see this
Your brain is just fricked
Have to say. You're one of the dumbest npc shills I've seen. The smoke thing doesn't even need this much elaboration but you doubled down because you're either a shill or a living embodiment of a dumb comicbook manchild. It's baffling to see you throw around words like perspective and shots with zero understanding of what it means(hint: the first wide shot has enough depth to see the smog is filling the background). Embarrassing but the BTFO was funny.
Kek, there's still more. Batman tackling the mook later on to show the fog is still there.
here
you might just be moronic
i hate to break it to you
You can stop now moron.
Truth be told you can actually see that the smog is in the middle section in my very first pic(look at the railing behind them) but still we need to be thorough in putting down pests like you.
You didnt prove anything pleb.
How does it feel? To be fooled by simple perspective? To be duped by a filming technique coined when people still died of polio?
Those photos have simply proved my point more. There is no smoke in the middle layer.
>How does it feel? To be fooled by simple perspective?
Kek, I showed you literal push in shot proving that it isn't a perspective "trick". Unless, of course, you think we are not seeing the "middle section" in this shot
. Which happens after the part where you claim the fog disappeared from the "middle layer". You realize that right? Kek. My estimation of your IQ is 80.
There was never any fog in the middle layer during that continuity and the push in occurs at a diagonal angle, so it isn't pushing through anything.
You can only assume it's 80 because that's as far as you can count.
>There was never any fog in the middle layer during that continuity
Your moronic argument is basically that the fog disappeared from platform for 3 seconds and reappeared.
>the push in occurs at a diagonal angle.
moron, at the end of the push in, the camera is on the middle section, literally on front of them. If there's no smog as you claim in the middle section, the shot shouldn't show any. But it does. What's happening in front of it is literally the middle section. I doubt you even can count at this point kek. You're the dumbest motherfricker I've seen.
I worked on set as a grip. They used CG bro. Im sorry you are losing your mind over this. You can see for yourself in the credits the company they used. Specifically, Fusion and Houdini have a lot of easy techniques in "action packs" that track a designated actor. When the rifle goes below then hits the goon, all of that is CGI. All of catwoman's fight scenes were enhanced with cgi. 500 a day for grabbing coffee, holding a pole and sleeping, easy gig.
Rest now.
Now I know that's bs because none of Catwoman's scenes were CG!
You're responding to the guy who's agreeing with you that they used CGI.
>I worked on set as a grip
threadly reminder that this is what an actual shill looks like
not some strawman about pajeet or asiatic clickfarms
just one of the many peons involved in modern production
this time it was a first hand peon rather than his friends or family
posting in a thread about a movie he worked on and doing it for free
any more stories?
Yes, the smog was never there.
Pattinson moves towards the camera, and enters the fog in what used to be the front section.
Sure. It stops when Pattinson is in front of the camera, so basically every scene during the fight there is no fog in the middle.
>Yes, the smog was never there
>Never
You're literally wrong. These shots show
it was undeniably there during the beginning and this shot shows it was
definitely there towards the end.
the fricker you're arguing with goes in every Batman thread and trolls
stop fricking arguing with that schizoid
These schizos only get encouraged when you let them have their way. It's good to put them down every once in a while.
>It stops when Pattinson is in front of the camera
Read again.
> where it's stops in the screenshot that anon posted.
So it stops in front of Pats even by your own admission which means the camera in the middle layer and since it's still shows the smog, it proves that it indeed had smog.
>the push in occurs at a diagonal angl
And can you tell the class where it's stops in the screenshot that anon posted? 🙂
Uh oh. Maybe a samegayger...maybe not...
Kek, that's not me.
And the final BTFO. A few seconds after this
shot, the camera actually pushes in and is literally on the platform with them, showing as again that the smog is still all around them. It's not just in "front" of them.
Obviously Snyder. But I wish he could have gotten Reeves' story. Opening to Battinson was peak Batman kino.
>tfw snyder had planned a batman movie and a mos 2 movie before the WB israelites pushed him into making bvs
only low test degenerates fear batflecks girth
the westverse
>reevesverse
more like reverse from the cinema
Pattinson>Bale>West>Keaton>Affleck>Kilmer>Clooney
Truth truth truth truth
I love how fricking massive Batfleck is. His punches have so much force behind them
So DC is trying to get Cavil and Affleck back right? But Affleck is just going to be sticking to cameos. Can you imagine that? A DC cinematic universe where fricking Batman only does cameos. What a sick joke! That said, I'm still excited to potentially see him again. I liked Pattinson but seeing Affleck's Batman go from bitter to hopeful was a great arc
Affleck is the best since he’s the only one that doesn’t operate with hypocrisy and delusions of grandeur. He’s 6’4 200+lbs and he WILL kill you, out of all the Batmans he’s the last one you want to run into on the street. And then his Bruce is basically a raging alcoholic that can’t manage to put away the suit, or the pain. He’s perfect.
I agree, his Batman was really frightening. It's unfortunate we never got any more fight scenes like the warehouse scene
Take that fat homosexual affleck out and the you have the order in place.
TRUTH BROTHER
patman>bateman>fatman
TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH
go to bed rob
Not Pattinson
Where's Clooney and the bloated man?
Keaton was an OK Batman in a good movie. Bale was a good Batman who had 2/3 good movies. Batfleck was the best looking live action Batman we've ever got, who was unfortunately in shit movies. Pattinson looks OK and was in an OK movie. In a perfect world we'd get Batfleck back but someone would lobotomize Snyder in order to sumhow minimize his autism.
I love Zack Sneeder and the Sneederverse
Every generation gets their version of Batman and I’m happy with Pattinson.
Batfleck.
Aesthetics: Batfleck
Story and world: Battinson by far
Even that proposed Batfleck vs Deathstroke movie plot sounds pretty weak as compared to having only 1 or 2 highlighted rogues in a single movie. Batman's rogues gallery (Battinson) >>>>>>>> Batman's enemies in the greater DC universe (Batfleck).
Which is why I hope that if Batfleck goes full time again, his villains will be the rogues that Reeves will inevitably not use.
Snyder isn’t really a cerebral director his DC movies are to be expected but Batfleck was entertaining
Hannah-Barberaverse
reading top to bottom, left to right
>I'm first b***hes
>I'm the best, b***hes
>I'M SHITTING MY BRITCHES
>I'm leaving.
Give Sneederverse white eyes that glow dimly in dark areas and a thinner bat symbol and it's perfect. Also with long ears during surveillance operations.
West essentially has "Toon Force" and would be able to beat all the other Batmen through comedic scenes and timing
As long as it's done in an extremely silly manner, he could defeat them through random made up tools from his belt despite the fact all the other bats are stronger than him
Battinson is objectively the fully realized version of all previous batmen. They walked so he could run.
Worst one is bale, clearly. Nolan made 2.5 good films but hamstrung his films by casting that mushmouth goober.
I agree. I want Pattinson to get bigger arms in the sequels, but so far he's the best.
Bale's mouth was just silly and Affleck went a bit too far with the big-ness
>Battinson is objectively the fully realized version of all previous batmen
Is the fully realised version supposed to be a clumsy moron?
The Batman isn't clumsy. He's a good fighter. He takes hits like Affleck and Bale did, and isn't OP.
He's a skilled detective who makes mistakes just like Batman always does.
You guys just can't handle that Batman isn't perfect. He's not the idolized version of your father's. He's human, he fricks up, and Pattinson's Batman is the best reflection of what Batman should be.
>Batman isn't perfect
But didn't need to be moronic as well.
He wasn't moronic.
He was a good detective. Did you get mad at Affleck when he was moronic? When Bale was moronic? Affleck, the "world's greatest detective", got duped by a kid with ADHD for an entire three hour runtime. Bale constantly gets tech from his foundation stolen, and it's used against Gotham to destroy it. That's his fricking company's creations!
But because, "Oh, Pattinson has to be reminded that something is mistranslated!" that makes him moronic?
No. You just got mad at this because, "ohhh, everyone likes it and I just wanna be different!"
>He was a good detective
My local beat cop is a bettet detective, kek.
> got duped by a kid.
Should you be saying this when Pats got beaten by moronic accountant without 1/10th of the resources? Kek.
Your local beat cop could decode ciphers, solve riddles, walk around crime scenes taking note of crucial observations that will aid the case further on, gain the aid of outside parties to further his own investigation, and uncover an underbelly of corruption?
I don't think so.
>Beaten by a moronic accountant!
An accountant who had access to documents that Pattinson's Batman wouldn't even know to uncover?
An accountant who had amassed an online following of killers ready to do his bidding?
An accountant who had spent his entire adult life mapping out a plan of revenge?
An accountant, who ultimately, loses, because his final bit of his plan is thwarted by The Batman?
Yeah. I should be talking about it. Because Luthor had a moronic plan that Batman should've known about, and Edward didn't. Why would The Batman know to target Edward? Fatfleck should've known that Lex was conning him right from the start.
>Your local beat cop could decode ciphers, solve riddles, walk around crime scenes
Literal teenagers in the audience solved those riddles before Batman did. Lmao. Oh man you know those "ciphers" are literal competitive exam aptitude test tier, right?
>An accountant who had access to documents.
You know it's funny. Supposedly an accountant is a credible threat to Batman because he access to documents and a gang of incels but a billionaire tech genius with access to even classified information, trained mercenaries, etc...shouldn't be?
>Erm...teens solved them in my audience!
Good rebuttal
>Batman is a billionaire with access to everything!
You wanna know something cool? The movie explains this, but you didn't pay attention. You see, in the scene where Pattinson is shirtless and looking at the map on the floor, he goes and pulls out a bunch of files. And as he starts to look through the papers, the same papers Edward has, he's distracted by Selina, who calls on him through the camera lenses. Those papers were hidden in musty cabinets. Hidden things are hard to trace down. And only his investigation into the hidden parts of Gotham leads him to those files.
That's why Edward is a credible threat. He burrows. His community burrowed. His information was burrowed deep into Gotham. And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing. It builds suspense, and you can look back and say, "Oh shit! That's well done! Batman was so close!"
But you homosexuals can't understand anything. So I have to come on here, and explain things to you.
>Good rebuttal
Yes. Do you think any of those riddles and ciphers were hard?
is a billionaire with access to everything!
>You wanna know something cool? The movie explains this, but you didn't pay attention.
You want to know something better? When I said a tech billionaire with access to any and all information and mercenaries at his disposal, I'm referring to Lex. Do you have reading comprehension issue? Do you need me to simplify things for you? Here: Lex is smarter than The Riddler, has more resources and connections. Your argument is moronic.
But your essay about how Riddler has an upper hand because Batman isn't diligent with his work is funny though.
>And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing
Pffft. Hahahahaha. Look at this moron and laugh people. Did Batman forget to check the remaining papers because he was temporarily distracted by selina? That's lazy writing you maggot. It makes Batman look like a child because he forgets to his homework after playing video games.
>That's why Edward is a credible threat. He burrows. His community burrowed. His information was burrowed deep into Gotham. And every time Batman gets close, something distracts him. Because that's good writing. It builds suspense, and you can look back and say, "Oh shit! That's well done! Batman was so close!"
This is how mentally ill people talk when trying to convince everyone around them they're right
t. borderline personality disorder
Affleck
Keaton
Bale
West
Kilmer
Clooney
Pattinson
Pattinson is the best Batman, maybe Bale. Anyone who disagrees does not have the correct number of chromosomes.
there are a lot of people itt that seem to agree with you anon
Only homosexuals and trannies prefer Shittinson. He was by far the gayest Batman.
There's only one.
>I'm Batman!
>*shoots gas tank in you're path causing an explosion that kills you and you're friends*
>no adam west
Now that the dust settled, how was it?
Keaton, hands down. Because he never acted like someone who could be Batman. Everyone else was clearly hiding something, Keaton never let the mask slip, he's on par with Reeves' Clark Kent.
Kilmer
>Westverse
Funnyly bad batman some of his bruce scenes were decent
>Burtonverse
Good batman and Bruce and the post film content is improved a little. The villain outshine him.
>Schumaherverse
Forgotten
>Nolanverse
Overshined by the villain like Keaton but worse
>Reevesverse
Ironically the only adaptation were the actor outshined the villain. Is a great bruce but I think as Batman is worse than Keaton.
The rank would be
>Keaton > Battison > Bale > Ben > West > Kilmer >Cloney
And for cartoon
>DCAU Batman > Batman Brave and the bold > Young Justice Batman >DCAMU Batman > The Batman Cartoon
All good in their own way
>Batdance
Soulful and iconic as frick
>Bateman
Peak Modern Batman
>Batfleck
Chad Action Batman from 1986
>Battinson
Blackpilled Gothkino