Charlie Hunnam would have been a much better pick...
I know the typical Pattinson fangirls will retort to the heading "But Charlie is in his 40s!" well, it would have been in his 30s had they picked him to be The Batman when they first started filming.
In any case, I just watched The Lost City of Z, and it's amazing how much Charlie completely overwhelmed Pattinson when it came to masculinity and alpha-male machismo. He very much came across with the sort of stout resoluteness that Travis Fimmel put on display in the film Danger/Close.
It's this subtle, nuanced, underlying intimidation factor not everyone has, and Pattinson certainly doesn't have it.
Just the way guys like Charlie and Travis talk are completely different from betas like Pattinson.
Hunnam also has a much more fine-tuned Batman voice than Pattinson. When you listen to them speak, Hunnam commands respect with his pitch and intonation. Pattinson does not.
Even as Batman, Pattinson seeds his words through whispers and mutterings of a nature lacking confidence and stride.
I think that's another big difference between the two. Hunnam commands screen presence with confidence, not unlike Christian Bale.
It's funny because Bale was younger than Pattinson when he first donned the Batsuit but acted and SOUNDED ten years older than Pattinson. There's a certain level of masculine maturity there Pattinson lacks, something that guys like Bale, Hunnam and Fimmel exude.
Hunnam basically carried himself very much like a Bruce Wayne in Lost City of Z, and he wouldn't have to "grow" into being Bruce Wayne, he'd already have that confidence (and that's one of Batman's defining traits, which is why he's able to seamlessly blend into and get out of many situations, using his high I.Q., and wit to turn up or down the charisma, something Bale nailed perfectly in the TDK trilogy).
Hunnam definitely would have been able to portray a confident playboy by day and a menacing vigilante by night (he wasn't too far off from this in Sons of Anarchy).
Now I know a lot of Pattinson fangirls will prattle about The Batman being based on Year One, and that's why Pattinson fails to bad at being confident, versatile, and masculine, but to that I say, "So was Batman Begins!"
The difference, however, is that with or without the suit, Bale commanded the screen, came across as a bona fide bada$$, and you would believe he could beat the snot of someone whether dressed as a bat or not. Pattinson? Not so much. Hunnam? Absolutely.
A real missed opportunity here, because Hunnam definitely has the acting chops to portray a complex and layered character while speaking very few words, and when he does speak he can broach the intimidation line very easily and without even hollering. Also, it would send a WHOLE different message hearing someone like that say "I am vengeance".