Robert also revealed that he has already seen a rough cut of the film ahead of his interview with the publication, explaining he's finally began to grasp director Matt's idea for the classic Batman story.
He continued: 'The first shot is so jarring from any other Batman movie that it's just kind of a totally different pace.
'It was what Matt was saying from the first meeting I had with him: ''I want to do a '70s noir detective story, like The Conversation.''
'And I kind of assumed that meant the mood board or something, the look of it. But from the first shot, it's, Oh, this actually is a detective story.'
Well, at least we get an idea where the story and direction is being taken. I hope there will be cool detective work and gadgets to go along with it.
she isn't. and its not as if its some modern change
-her first tv appearance in the 60s she was played by both white and mixed actresses
-throughout the years in both comics and tv shows she's been both white and mixed
cat woman has a long history of being either white or mixed race starting in the 60s and continuing to this day. this isnt some modern woke black washing
I get all that. I accept everything you said as facts.
The thing I can't wrap my mind around is that a single character, like Selina Kyle here, can be either white or black or mixed. Unless she has some supernatural power to change her genome... and I don't recall her having that.
Or is it that at some point, some illustrator decided, after too many drinks, to change Selina's ethnic background... just because? That would not be a valid point, for me personally.
Or maybe it comes from a new storyline like a reboot or an alternate reality multiverse thing where everything can be different ? That I could understand. I just don't know if that's how it went.
"The thing I can't wrap my mind around is that a single character, like Selina Kyle here, can be either white or black or mixed. Unless she has some supernatural power to change her genome... and I don't recall her having that."
She's not a real person, or historical figure. not about her genome changing.... its about the artist writing her or decisions of who would portray her being extremely varied over the years
"Or is it that at some point, some illustrator decided, after too many drinks, to change Selina's ethnic background... just because? That would not be a valid point, for me personally."
I dont think inventing that scenario in your own head is valid for anyone....
and again you'd have a point if her history was significant to her character. like she was say always portrayed from around her first appearance in 1940. as her origin story being her coming from a poor polish immigrants who came after ww2 and hence became a cat burglar to support her poor family. The character origin would be constantly reinforced, and attached to a certain race/ ethnicity for decades and decades and decades. changing this would certainly be jarring and pointless.
But that isnt the case and race has played no role in Selenas character arc. other than her character being shown as not strictly white through her various appearances.
its not about a reboot, a multiverse, an alternative timeline ect. For whatever reason, possibly due to a black actress, Eartha Kitt portraying her fairly early on in her creation, that there wasn't such a firm racial background established with her compared to say Bruce Wayne. and artists felt they didnt have to stick as closely to a single look.
I understand your answer. I'm not convinced. I still think she should be how she was originally intended to be. But I got the sense of what you're saying.
the problem is race aside, characters often become completely different, changed, added on to and unrecognizable from what they were "originally intended to be"
especially given many of our favourite heroes and villains came about in the 40s-60s.
i'm not sharing "cool so make batman a wheel chair bound asian and black panther an American".
But I think Catwoman has a unique history, and researching it more to provide arguments to you people said many of the artists who later portrayed her as black (year one) or mixed race were doing homages/ throw backs to when Eartha Kitt portrayed her. because to them that was part of the character
There's no point in repeating the whole exchange I had with Leodicaprio, just above ours. You are more than welcome to read it and come back here telling me how stupid and close minded my points are.
I don't see anyone saying you're stupid or close-minded. My opinion is that when a work of art is translated from the printed page to a film, things don't have to be copied note for note. It's usually a good idea to keep a character's defining traits intact-- Batman being portrayed as a homeless alcoholic would be difficult to make work, for example-- but the unimportant aspects of the story or the character are fair game.
The history of cinema is chock full of examples of this, and I don't understand why any of it bothers you. Catwoman's defining traits are that she's a beautiful woman who is athletic and stealthy, and that she loves cats, and has many as pets. It doesn't seem to affect anything at all if she's blonde or brunette, has blue eyes or brown, or traces her ancestry to Russia or Ghana.
Can you explain why you are bothered by her being of African ancestry?
"Can you explain why you are bothered by her being of African ancestry?"
It's not that in itself that bothers me. In general I really dislike when too much liberties are taken when a work is adapted for the screen. I guess you could call me a purist, maybe. I dislike just as much how Riddler is portrayed. Like... wtf is that ?? Anyway.
I want my Catwoman to be white because that's how I've always seen her in comics when I was young. In my eyes, that's how she should be. Going away from that is not being faithful to the original work. Believe it or not, at the time it bothered me that Michelle Pfeiffer was blonde. Just to give you an idea.
I guess they've remade/rebooted/prequeled/pre-prequeled Batman so many times that they need to modify the characters to give the public an impression of novelty. I have to accept that. But I don't have to like it.
You do not have to like it, but in the end that is how cinematic portrayals work. If you are that big of a purist you should simply stick to the comic books.
After watching Spider-Man: Homecoming, I did exactly that. What the hell was that crap about being taken under Iron-Man's wing... with the high-tech Stark suit and all? I did not watch "Far From Home" and won't watch the new one. I haven't finished The Avengers series either (but that's because I got tired of it).
It looks like they've done too much comic book adaptations now. They just redo everything and reinvent the wheel. So yes, I might very well continue ignoring them. Including The Batman. But that'll be tough for me because Batman was one of my favorite superheroes. And since it'll be the first of the "Pattinson franchise" curiosity may get the best of me.
Something to keep in mind for both Catwoman and Spider-Man is that those film adaptations are true to the comics.
For a time in the Spider-Man comic, Peter Parker worked for Iron Man, and lived with Aunt May and Mary Jane in Iron Man's complex. Stark created a Spider-Man suit for Peter that was based on Iron Man tech, and in general acted as his mentor.
Catwoman was played by a black actress in the 1960s, and drawn as a black woman in the Batman comics I read in the 1980s.
Comic books like Spider-Man and Batman have stories that have unfolded over decades. The first Batman comic came out about 83 years ago, and Spider-Man has been around for 60 years.
Filmmakers can't show all of those stories, so they pick one or two moments from the comics to adapt for the big screen. Do you think they should only choose stories from the earliest era? I think it's completely reasonable for them to choose any story from a character's long history.
"Do you think they should only choose stories from the earliest era?"
Only if the movie takes place in the early stage of the character's history.
"I think it's completely reasonable for them to choose any story from a character's long history.
If it's put in a reasonably similar timeline than the original artwork... sure.
If it's not done that way it annoys me. And sometimes I'll flat out dislike it.
I'm not aware of the Iron-Man/Spider-Man partnership in comics. When was that? I'd be surprised if it happened this early in his superhero career. I understand that shortcuts are needed in such adaptations but this one seemed to have been greatly exaggerated. I remember the first Spider-Man movie in 2002. I was annoyed the spiderwebs came out straight of his body but the general setup and context was respected. With Tom Holland's Spider-Man, too much of it is not consistent. If they absolutely needed a new actor, then take Holland.. no problem with that. But don't restart a new timeline and reshape the whole history again... Just continue it. It would have probably worked to have used the Iron-Man angle then. (I'm thinking out loud since I don't know when it was published and in what stage of Spider-Man's life it happened)
This should give you an idea of how I view adaptations. I know it's a little idealistic. I also know we, fans of the original artworks (comics or books, video games, etc), are not that important to movie companies. They aim at large for maximum profits. Makes them take decisions that steer further away from the original. Like I said before, I understand it. But I don't have to like it.
It may not be your typical gumshoe detective story, but The Conversation is something of a mystery/detective/espionage/thriller hybrid. I haven't seen it in decades, but I recall loving it when I did see it, and am interested to see a Batman film created in a similar vein.
Its a good film, no doubt, but I think his analogy is poor and for a filmmaker with a specific vision thats odd. I like Matt Reeves and a lot of his work but I would expect he would know The Conversation is not noir or a detective story. It makes me think Pattinsons remembrance and or his quote is inaccurate. Either way I get what the spirit of the film is its just the inaccurate description of The Conversation that bothers me.