₦airaland Forum

AnfieldFan:
Jota can play centrally too...Elliot is a winger, If we get a midfielder in the summer, I feel Klopp will move him upfront again...

The reason is cause of Salah not cause we lack midfielders. He wanted to give him game time and experience after he built a good season in the championship. Buying a midfielder isn't a guarantee Klopp will move him. It all depends on how well he is performing. If the guy starts performing real well, Salah may leave after next season.
From the looks of it, Salah won't sign a new contract.

Silentgroper:
Heard keita wants to leave because of lack of playing time..

Very ironic, as he has been the one spending more time in the hospital than on the pitch..

Fake news. His contract is expiring.

AnfieldFan:
Naa, he's been a right winger right from his U-19 Liverpool appearances and through his Blackburn loan...But I agree with you on his creativity. Klopp will surely improve his goalscoring if he moves to the right wing..
Klopp played him in midfield because competing with Salah is impossible(and we were a bit short of midfield bodies when the season began), he's the best player in the world and he's never injured... Elliot wouldn't get game time with him in the team..But with the outgoings, I think he might get a chance there...

Bros, his conversion rate is poor. I don't want him in the right wing any time soon. Unless we switch tactics. Salah and Mane have showed us wingers too need to contribute as much as strikers. Eliot can't give you 16 goals in the EPL. Unless his game improves drastically.

AnfieldFan:
He's competition for Mane,if we get a midfielder in the summer, I think we gon see Elliot move up to Right wing..

Eliot is better in Midfield. That guy is not a prolific goal scorer. He is not clinical, but he is a playmaker.

AnfieldFan:
Yea, Milner's going by season's end...One of Keita, Mina and Ox will be moved on...
Depends on who fetches the best financially...
Meanwhile, to register Luis in the Champions league, one foreign player has to be dropped so I feel Adrian's out...

Adrian too has tried. We should give him one game as send off. Maybe FA cup.

AnfieldFan:
17 million is a lot of money..We bought him for 7.5... And what's all the fuss about Klopp not using him correctly... Klopp uses 4 3 3 which is the standard in this era...Any body that can't adapt to this setup isn't going to be a good offensive player...Takumi isn't strong enough for the PL but he presses well which Klopp loves..

We could sell him for a lot more when he is given more game time.

AnfieldFan:
Yea..Wonder what happens to Minamino..We rejected a bid from Leeds for him...Maybe he leaves in the summer...We need an addition in Midfield and I hope Gomez doesn't leave in the summer to NewCastle..
Tag the Liverpool fans you know to this thread..Let's see if we can get here active..

We don't need to sell takumi . The guy is versatile and I don't think Klopp is playing him how he fits. Besides, he isn't that bad. Look at Sancho. Diaz coming doesn't affect Minamino as the guy also plays Midfield.

VerifiedStalin:

There was no internet under Lincoln. How then could he mention the internet? But I get the irony.

VerifiedStalin:
Sauce?

Obviously WB doing DC (damage control)

BankyGee:
This is still one of my best lines from DC's Legends of Tomorrow

Lol... that show sucks but for some reason, I find it entertaining.

VerifiedStalin:
The three-hour runtime, in my opinion, aggravates the situation significantly. Imagine sitting in a theater for three hours without an intermission, watching a Batman film, and not just any Batman film, but one in which he's stylized as a full-fledged detective tracking down a psychopath. I'm not sure about you, but I reckon it'd be a fate worse than death. I might as well stay home and watch the paint dry.

Calm down, bros. People sit or stand doing tougher things than that. If the story is good, it will be worth it.

VerifiedStalin:
Box office revenue is not a metric for success. If you're not interested in pandering to a wider audience or not too hanged up on political correct shenanigans, or cushy revenue, rated R is the way to go. It opens a lot of possibilities, one of which is a creative freedom to shape the script whichever way you want. Ergo it's important to note that the unprecedented financial success of Joker as a rated R movie is an outlier, not the norm. It'd be a mistake to expect a rated R movie to make a PG-13 movie kind of money.

The orphaned child with a chip on their shoulder is an overdone trope, and unless The Batman brings something unique to the table, this flick is going to get boring really fast.

Wait till it's out. I have same views as you though. Basing from the trailers, it isn't showing us anything new or unique other films Batman films specifically haven't done. But them going for 3 hours, then it shows they have something different. Although I am skeptical but I won't judge yet.

VerifiedStalin:
Joker isn't a comic book movie, chief. It thematically touched on a very sensitive topic that is prevalent in the society but often ignored, and for this reason, it resonated with a large number of people.

Furthermore, the Joaquin Phoenix factor cannot be overstated. This is a man who has struggled with mental illness his entire life and had the courage to step up and play a character who is very similar to himself in the worst of ways.

Taking all of this into consideration, it's not surprising that Joker did so well financially; I mean, it's a very grounded journey into the murky waters of mental illness and the apathetic society at large, and frighteningly realistic in the way it portrayed Joker's gradual descent into madness.

It's also rated R, which is always a plus.

One more thing... the runtime is 2 hours, watching it doesn't feel like a chore.

Actually, it being R rated isn't a plus. R rated films aren't a guaranteed success. And, the Batman can be all you have said. I mean, it delves into the mind of an orphan, orphans actually, living in a corrupt city that took their childhood from them. It reflects society and alot of things like you are claiming. Like I said, you, we don't know the story yet. So the criticism is unfair.
I can barely sit through an episode of the batwoman series, but I can watch episodes of legend of the seeker non stop for 3 hours. Let it come out before you decide. You may not be interested in the film like I am, but it's strange to criticize it before you even see the first 30 mins of it.

Nickshrapnel:
I really hope all these other characters appearance are cameos

Substantial. I found it out on the IMDB page with Harry Lennix having a stunt double. Gal Gadot also shot scenes which she unwittingly revealed on Instagram.

Martian manhumter and Tom Curry are in The Flash.

AnfieldFan:
I doubt Verifiedstalin has an alt, no regular poster on the Movies section writes like him..

You won't know. He doesn't have to have a singular pattern. Not that I am saying he does. Just keep your mind open. I recall there was a time they thought I was you just cause of the Anfield moniker. The funny thing was, if I really wanted to mask my moniker, I would do it in a way they wouldn't expect. But I find it exhausting. Pretending to be different persons.

VerifiedStalin:
Hate to be that guy, but I don't like the way it looks. It's too noir, too bleak, too depressing... it exudes a boring vibe. I'm not looking forward to this flick at all.

WB are bad with PR and marketing.

VerifiedStalin:
Chief, I'm as open-minded as they come. It's simply that I'm a dedicated servant of history, and if history is any guide, WB will find a variety of ways to botch the film, disappointing naive fans while vindicating skeptical fans like myself.

WB will also be WB. That's a given fact but keeping an open mind means waiting for the film to come out first then you judge. Slating it off like that is just plain supervillainy lol. Don't expect much from it that's my advice. But don't put it down months before seeing it either.

VerifiedStalin:
Interstellar didn't need to be funny; it had a solid premise. It's relatable, and the theme and characters are relevant. Interstellar is a completely immersive experience.

Unless The Batman follows the MCU formula, I truly believe it will be a more complex, more expensive, darker, and far less amusing version of Knives Out.

This reminds of religious fanatics who condemn people of other faiths different to theirs to hell without even getting to know them. There are films with 1 hour run time that feel too long, there are also films with 3hrs run time that feel short.
Am not telling you to go watch it, heck I am not going to see it myself cause I don't like the character of Batman as a whole. But the point is, the movie and the characters have potential to tell an Oscar worthy story if done the right way. Quit condemning something without even giving it a chance. There's one thing to be wary cause of track record but there's another thing to have an open mindset. In life, nothing is one way. Nothing is as it seems.

VerifiedStalin:
Great! 3 hours of dark lighting. Just what we need. /s

If the story is worth it.

VerifiedStalin:
The writing is plainly visible on the walls. The average casual moviegoer has a relatively limited attention span, and unless the film is action-packed/humorous, they are unlikely to be interested in seeing sulky Bruce prance around Gotham, in a noir dim lighting. There's a reason why WB executives want to trim it. They've seen it, and they know the length won't go down well with the casuals.

You basing it off the trailers. Besides, interstellar didn't have the kinda humor you claim. It just needs a story that engages, great acting, characters and pace. Scenes shouldn't be dragged.

VerifiedStalin:
To compare The Batman to a thought-provoking film like Interstellar is absurd. For one thing, Interstellar is a hard science fiction film that provides a unique viewing experience. It has a phenomenal soundtrack, amazing visuals, a sympathetic theme, a great cast, a well-written script, a brilliant director, a well-paced story, and a premise that is firmly anchored in well-researched science. It's difficult not to fall in love with a film that emotes so sincerely and truly.

The Batman, on the other hand, is a full-fedged detective noir story. It's a given that there will be a lot of jawing and brooding and a lot less action and humour. Any intrigue in it will be lost in the muck of the muddled drivel. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and I say this as a DC fan.

Don't believe everything you see from the trailers son.
The Batman may actually have a story that you may not know. It could have everything that keeps audience glued, a mystery, humor, interesting characters, suspense, action and puzzle pieces. What makes a movie entertaining is if it doesn't just tell a story but has audience involved in every way, it has you thinking, smiling, laughing, puzzled, scared and not a drag. That was interstellar. The Batman can also be this. It's just on the film makers and the studio.

PurpLChi:
Lmaooo, the biggest Marvel/MCU apologist on NL is "saying this as a DC fan"

I would like to see how you'll backtrack when the movie makes big bucks in the BO.

That's how it starts, the fever, the rage the feeling of powerlessness that turns good DC fans into marvel trolls.

VerifiedStalin:
Faith? WB's track record in this area doesn't offer much room for optimism, chief.

For the amount of money spent on creating this film, one would think there'd be enough ingenuity to fit in a tale under 2 hours, but hey, what do I know, I'm just some pleb who's too focused on not getting bored to death watching a Batman movie play out for 3 hours like some Ph.D. Dissertation presentation.

I don't mean faith in the studio, faith in the audience to sit through a good film with a long run time.

SMUAG:
I think people manning WB DCEU unit are finally coming to their senses... If it did well, don't be surprised to see a 3hrs for The Flash movie.
Movies with prominent or notable characters need better screen times...
Definitely. Positive words of mouth and long legs will definitely cover any movie with a long run time if the movie is compelling.

My point exactly. I don't recall interstellar or Inception being flops. I wouldn't say they're coming to their senses, WB have directors they trust more or perhaps it was in the contract they signed with Reeves regarding any external interference as to the shape or nature of the movie prior to him agreeing to sign up. I don't know but I wouldn't keep my hopes up.

TheKingIsHere:
@Abduleez1 your source is right as it is now confirmed. The batman runtime will be 2hrs 55mins.

I'm all in for it but i am afraid of the current viewers we have as many people tend to want only 2 hrs movie. I hope this runtime won't affect its legs in the BO?

If the film is good, people won't care about the run time. Your fears are the reason studios like WB ruin directors work. Have faith. It ain't all about the money, but creativity and entertainment. Endgame did well, didn't it?
Show the audience some confidence. Have faith.
Although I ain't going to see it. Will be here waiting to hear from you guys.

PurpLChi:
it wouldn't have come out that badass tbh... remember when he said I'm not the hero the city needs but the one it deserves, I felt something was missing.

Like seriously. Imagine Affleck saying Bales lines as Batman.

PurpLChi:
When you're talking about Batman the fights are the most important part...you can't downplay it for any reason whatsoever... And that's one of the reasons why Affleck is superior

Goodnight

Aside that, Affleck was able to portray the Playboy Wayne with ease. Of course bale could, but he didn't do it the way Affleck sold it. "I love those shoessss..." the way he sold the act.

PurpLChi:
it's not our fault that the director wasn't able to portray Batman in all his viscousness...Before Affleck we were satisfied with Bale's portrayal but a better one came along and that's just it bro.
Batffleck is just too cool

Imagine Bale saying "tell me...do you bleed?" Or
"You are not a god, you are not even a man" in the cancer voice.

Nickshrapnel:
Had WB allowed the Affleck Bat movie, I’m sure we’d have an even better scene than the warehouse own against Deathstroke.

Obviously he forgets batfleck took on parademons, survived doomsday. He also forgot bale struggled against thugs and dogs, couldn't figure out a way to beat a powerless bane.
There's no argument. Affleck was able to do alot even with Batman having limited screen time and no solo of his. I still get angry at a failed opportunity with batfleck.

TheKingIsHere:
Ah! He's definitely green arrow

When actors start talking like this without official announcement, the role isn't that big.