So let me get this straight...Because an actor played a role that is extremely different from a role he may be cast in, anger and vitriol must ensue?Sorry, but last I checked, the ideal career for most actors is one where you play a wide myriad of characters that are considerable depatures from one another. There is a reason why Gary Oldman is so revered amongst his peers. Just look at the incredible variety of roles he has played in his career.Let' say for example, Matt Reeves cast Robert Pattinson straight after Twilight, I'd understand the anger. I get it, nobody wants their Batman to sparkle. But in truth, if that was the case, it would actually make me more curious.Why would Reeves, who has already come out to say his take on Batman will have the film-noir detective feel, choose the lead actor from Twilight?That is incredibly curious.It's the Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger situation all over again. That curiosity of how the wacky unhinged Beetlejuice could be Batman or the ladies man in a Knight's Tale could somehow transform into a manical clown-faced killer?We all know how well it turned out for both of them.But for those who aren't fans of Twilight (I include myself), feel very strongly about that franchise and having Batman associated in anyway shape or form would of course bring about such a negative reaction.Unless Matt Reeves has a soft spot for Batman and Robin?However, let's look at the reality of the matter, because Pattinson has been doing a bit of a Leonardo Di Caprio on his career.I remember so vividly watching Titanic when I used to live in Geneva, and for the last third I couldn't hear what was being said, because of the three girls who were crying and sniffling away. One of the things that stayed with me in the film was how much I hated Di Caprio's character.His attitude, his look, just everything about him in Titanic really annoyed me and hence I actively avoided all films he was in because of it. Childish I know, but I was really young.Who can fault Di Caprio for his performance? That is what James Cameron wanted, and it helped propel him to superstardom, and made him an A-Lister.But Di Caprio was keen to shed that hearthrob image, and wanted to be taken seriously as an actor. Hence why he partnered with Scorcese and focused on only doing very serious dramatic roles throughout his career, and was rewarded with an Oscar for surviving a bear attack.The last thing he wanted was to be known for, was the dude who fell in love with Rose in Titanic.It's a similar situation with Pattinson, who does not want to be the Twilight guy who has been mocked and ridiculed on social media. He wants to destroy that image and with films like Cosmopolis and Good Time, that is as far as you can get from the aesthetic of Twilight.So the issue isn't Pattinson at all. The man can act, and if put in the right kind of Batman film, can give a very interesting take on the character.The issue is really Matt Reeves. What kind of Batman does he want? And what kind of Batman film does he want to make?If Pattinson gives off a very weak, and emotional Bruce Wayne void of any inner strength, then the blame should be on Reeves and not necessarily Pattinson.However, if Reeves is going for a more darker take, that delves further into the complicated psyche of Bruce Wayne and the mysteriousness of Batman, Pattinson can go there.In both Cosmopolis and Good Time, Pattinson has shown he can hit that dramatical range and maybe give the audience a Batman that Keaton and Burton kept hinting at in their two films. As something that has been missing from the Schumacher and Nolan films is really capturing that darkness of Bruce Wayne based on his past.And that is where the interest comes from. This is such a left-field choice and a departure from when Bale and Affleck were cast, that it should make you wonder what kind of fresh take on this iconic character we could potentially get.I recall Keaton being keen on doing a third film where he hoped they would dive deeper into the deep complexities of Bruce Wayne's mind, and peel a little bit more of Batman's mystery away.It was always his intention to get more into the psychology of Bruce Wayne and I remember reading how in the original film there was a scene where Bruce Wayne would get into a meditative mind-state before donning the cowl.As much as I appreciate the incredible visuals and scenes of Batman Returns, I've always felt it suffered for not further advancing the character of Batman and Bruce Wayne.What I like about the casting and even the negative reaction, is it goes against what people expect Bruce Wayne to look like. This is a far departure from the square-jawed monotone concept we got from Ben Affleck.I don't want a straight comic-book adaptation. This is a wholly different medium. I believe it's about keeping the essence of the character and sprinkling your own artistic dust on it.So can we get a big fat no to a Batman who looks like a bodybuilder?You see, where people see the dude from Twilight and an emo-Batman, I think of the actor doing the rounds on the independent circuit who would only take this role because its keeping in line with the kind of work he wants to do.That's what people seem to be missing. Pattinson does not want to revert back to anything that resembles Twilight. His recent work shows that. Surely his meeting with Reeves and his interest in the project must go in line with this being something that has gravitas and weight to it; similar to the other films he's been doing.And I may take issue with Christopher Nolan's recent projects but one thing I can never fault is his choice of actors. So if Nolan is going to cast Pattinson as one of the leads in his new film, he surely can't be all that bad?It all remains to be seen what the plot will be, who else will be cast and the all-important teaser where we see the world, the tone and of course...how Reeves and Pattinson want to portray their version of Batman. HH