Ben Affleck as Batman?

[Neonurotic]

Holy casting news!.

Uhm, no. I don't want Batman to be Gigli-zed.

 

[slyc_willie]

Holy casting news!.

Uhm, no. I don't want Batman to be Gigli-zed.

I suppose he's regained some measure of credibility after Argo, but . . . I dunno. Daredevil was terrible, but it could not be attributed entirely to Affleck. Neither of his supporting actors did too well, either. Personally, Affleck is kind of like Ryan Reynolds to me. Borderline acting talent, with a few inspired performances here and there, but otherwise just a pretty boy.

 

[BonBon1976]

I agree with the talent comments. I have to add though, that he is one fine man and I will no doubt enjoy the vision of him in tights ... eye candy if you will. Besides Christian had run his course and the new pretty boy actors that are out there don't have the stature to play a super hero

 

[Darkniciad]

I haven't even seen any of the Bale ones, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt39TNCpRTg

LOL I love that Spoony clip.

Here's to hoping they backpedal in response to the near universal outrage.

 

[cf23430]

i think that this is a big mistake.....

 

[peterlychen]

Unless there is a plot to ruin the Batman franchise so they can boost the Superman one.

 

[drunkenphilosophy]

When it was announced that Heath Ledger would play the Joker, everyone couldn't stop yapping about 10 Things I Hate About You, and how it spelt certain doom for TDK. I'd like to think that part of an actor's required skill set is to be versatile.

And honestly, I'm more concerned about a Batman-Superman mash up than I am about Affleck's performance. Just....why? Baffling.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's true that Daredevil sucked but Ben Affleck was actually good.

My concern with him playing Batman however is, that his face is too well known - I fear I'll see "Ben Affleck" rather than "Bruce Wayne." And as opposed to Argo, he can't hide behind a beard.

I wish they'd find an unknown for the role. It's not like Hollywood lacks square-jawed young studs with acting aspirations...

 

[GorgeousGeekGirl]

When it was announced that Heath Ledger would play the Joker, everyone couldn't stop yapping about 10 Things I Hate About You, and how it spelt certain doom for TDK. I'd like to think that part of an actor's required skill set is to be versatile.

And honestly, I'm more concerned about a Batman-Superman mash up than I am about Affleck's performance. Just....why? Baffling.

I'm not crazy about Ben being cast as Batman, but then back in the day I was thinking "they got WHO to play Batman?! Which dipshit thought that Mr Mom/Johnny Dangerously was a good choice to play one of the darkest characters in DC Comics?" Yet months later I was delighted to eat my words when Michael Keaton pulled it off beautifully.

Kilmer and Clooney: not so much. To be fair though, their scripts were truly freaking awful.

My main objection at this point is that Batman is being redone to death. Same for Superman. Wish Hollyweird would pick another character. There's the entire Justice League to choose from. I really think that Aquaman has far more potential than most give credit for; when you consider 70% of the planet is covered by water, being King of the Seas is a big deal.

Well, lets see if ole Benny boy can pull it off!

 

[StrangeLife]

Yet months later I was delighted to eat my words when Michael Keaton pulled it off beautifully.

Wasn't too keen on him either. I think his success was because of the movie itself - the first "real" Batman movie - rather than Keaton's performance in it. He did his best, but he was never menacing and scary the way a semi-psychotic manically driven character like Batman is supposed to be. The man simply exudes "nice guy."

He was better than Clooney and Kilmer though...

 

[drunkenphilosophy]

I'm not crazy about Ben being cast as Batman, but then back in the day I was thinking "they got WHO to play Batman?! Which dipshit thought that Mr Mom/Johnny Dangerously was a good choice to play one of the darkest characters in DC Comics?" Yet months later I was delighted to eat my words when Michael Keaton pulled it off beautifully.

Kilmer and Clooney: not so much. To be fair though, their scripts were truly freaking awful.

My main objection at this point is that Batman is being redone to death. Same for Superman. Wish Hollyweird would pick another character. There's the entire Justice League to choose from. I really think that Aquaman has far more potential than most give credit for; when you consider 70% of the planet is covered by water, being King of the Seas is a big deal.

Well, lets see if ole Benny boy can pull it off!

Yeah, I'm really hoping that Ben has the gravitas to pull this one off. I've heard some people say that he's the worst thing to happen to Batman since Clooney and the BatNipple suit. I'll admit, I laughed at that. So funny.

Batman is being redone to death. They closed the Nolan trilogy with a decent finish, and that should have been a great chance to hang up the cape and just say, job well done.

On the other hand, Man of Steel was a very divisive movie that had critics and audiences squabbling like school children. It was a love / hate thing, and I don't know why they decided that the solution to this would be to shuck Superman and Batman together and have them kick ass side by side.

As for the rest of the Justice League...oh, that would make my day. Aquaman is a good pick (fighting kaijus, eh Hollywood? haha), but I'm more keen on Wonder Woman.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Christ on roller-skates!

People only remember one James Bond, so anyone can play Batman at this point. Ditto Superman.

 

[drunkenphilosophy]

My concern with him playing Batman however is, that his face is too well known - I fear I'll see "Ben Affleck" rather than "Bruce Wayne." And as opposed to Argo, he can't hide behind a beard.

To be fair, the only Ben in Batman would be his mouth and eyes. Or maybe there's a plot twist: a bearded Batman!

 

[Bramblethorn]

My issue is less "boo Ben Affleck" and more "do we really need ANOTHER Batman movie?"

There are already ten live-action movies out there, seven made in the last 30 years. It's going to be hard to find a new angle on it; if AvP and Freddie vs Jason are anything to go by, the old "let's mix it up with another equally-overworked franchise" strategy isn't a good sign.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I just wonder why Hollywood thinks we need another batman movie?

Just watched Ironman 3, I hope they don't make another.

Also watched Star Trek Into the Darkness, I guess they think they can get away with anything now that the time line has been fucked up, even rehashing some of the old episodes...Kaaaaahhhhhhhn!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Affleck would make a better Flash than Batman.

I gave Ledger a chance. I liked Knights Tale and 10 Things (I thought the makeup test I saw early on sucked, but that was it).

I was surprised by Keaton's casting, but I was young, he was a fresh face at the time, and his potential was still hidden. We didn't know he could play so dark. If he had made some more serious movies first, we wouldn't have been so down on him. Affleck has been in serious movies, and I think we cane safely say by now if he fits the part or not. He doesn't. It's his chin and voice. They aren't right for the part. As Batman he would be nonthreatening, and as Wayne he would be "Ben Affleck". He wouldn't disappear into the rile the way he should.

Clooney made a great Bruce Wayne, and an average Batman. The movie just sucked balls!

I like Val Kilmer, but he wasn't right for either part of the role. He was a nonthreatening Batman and a weak Bruce Wayne.

Christian Bale was great as Batman (I listen to death metal, I was fine with his gravelly voice), and an ok Bruce Wayne (he didn't seem distinguished enough for me, but that's just me I suppose).

I don't understand why they are doing Batman VERSUS Superman (or whichever way they order it) instead of Superman AND Batman.

 

[PennLady]

I just wonder why Hollywood thinks we need another batman movie?

Just watched Ironman 3, I hope they don't make another.

Also watched Star Trek Into the Darkness, I guess they think they can get away with anything now that the time line has been fucked up, even rehashing some of the old episodes...Kaaaaahhhhhhhn!

If you read about the industry of making movies (which I do, to a point) one thing is hammered over and over -- studios at this point in time are fixated on making movies that are pre-sold. That is, they are about properties that have a high recognition factor (I forget the industry terms for all of this).

The Hunger Games got made because it had a built-in audience that had read the books. Same with Harry Potter. It doesn't always work -- witness Percy Jackson, even though a sequel is out -- but that is the mindset. I remember reading an article that quoted Christopher McQuarrie, who wrote The Usual Suspects, which came out in 1995. He said that today he'd never even pitch it, because basically it's too "original."

Spiderman, Batman, etc., are all known properties that have a high recognition factor, which leads studios to think that people will come to see them no matter what. This has become more important than even who's in the movies, which I think Man of Steel shows. Henry Cavill was not a known property (anyone recognize him as Albert in The Count of Monte Cristo?), but Superman was.

I suppose a studio may hope for a trifecta of sort -- known director, actor, property -- and they got that with Nolan's Batman trilogy. Do we need another Batman series? I'd say no. But I can imagine the explanations that might be given -- Nolan's movies are dark, these may be lighter; there is an audience that was too young for Nolan's movies, which is of age now, and knows Batman from cartoons, comics, etc.

So it's not that Hollywood thinks we, the audience, need another Batman movie. It's that they think if they make one, people will come see it and they will make a profit. And whatever else you think about the movie business, it is a business.

 

[jomar]

Superman and Batman facing off? If Superman doesn't kick Batman's ass in about a second the movie is by definition off the rails.

As far as Affleck playing Batman, who cares...like JBJ said, it's a revolving door role.

 

[StrangeLife]

Clooney made a great Bruce Wayne, and an average Batman. The movie just sucked balls!

I thought the same thing - Clooney was the perfect Bruce Wayne. The guy has a panache like he was born in a tux and raised on a diet of cocktails and Beluga caviar. And Bruce Wayne is the hard part since all you need for playing Batman is a trained body, a square chin and lots of attitude. Clooney had that in spades in Dusk Till Dawn.

So I had high hopes before the movie came out. Unfortunately it turned out to be the biggest pile of dung I've seen outside my uncles ranch...

I don't understand why they are doing Batman VERSUS Superman (or whichever way they order it) instead of Superman AND Batman.

They've had a love/hate bromance most of the time. Batman believes in justice and doesn't really care about the law. If he can save an innocent by sacrificing a badguy he doesn't hesitate. Superman is unfailingly law abiding and highly critical of Batman's methods. He would never beat a confession out of a weaker person or torture him.

No, I think it has to be a "versus" in order to function in a movie. But either way it should be interesting.

 

[PennLady]

Years ago a guy I knew who was big into comics pointed out that Superman and Batman are opposites. Superman is all about the light -- he gets his power from the sun, even. He is for fairness, and following the law.

Batman is about the dark. Bats are nocturnal. His HQ is a cave. He wears black and as someone above noted, Batman is about justice and not always particular about how he gets there.

So Batman versus Superman, as a conflict, has potential. Two people working to a common goal but differing about how to get there.

 

[StrangeLife]

Superman and Batman facing off? If Superman doesn't kick Batman's ass in about a second the movie is by definition off the rails.

One word: "Anti-Superman-Bat-Spray."

 

[sr71plt]

For years I was hoping they'd cast Don Knotts in the role--but then he died.

And I'd love to write the script for a serious Batman and Robin go at it in the porn industry.

 

[CDWilder]

And I'd love to write the script for a serious Batman and Robin go at it in the porn industry.

I thought James Deen, Tori Black, and Lexi Belle did a descent job in the first one.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, my script would be much more literally correct than that.

 

[3113]

Light/Dark Metaphor has a serious weakness....

So Batman versus Superman, as a conflict, has potential. Two people working to a common goal but differing about how to get there.

There's only one problem and if you've seen Man of Steel you know it. When my husband saw that movie, in fact, the first thing he said to me was, "There's a man in Gotham city who just saw Superman fighting the Kryptonians on tv. He's hung up his cape and is muttering, 'what's the point?'" I laughed for hours. In Man of Steel, he heat-visions a tunnel through a glacier, takes off the tops of mountains, throws around trains and flies to the other side of the world in 60 seconds. I don't care how cool your Bat toys, if Superman wants to take you out he doesn't have to come down and go mano-a-mano with you. He can heat-vision you into flames from a mile away or drop a train on you, or just zip around you at Superspeed punching--and that's lightly as his punches can send you into orbit.

What does this all mean? Well, kinda the usual. Either (1) Batman finds a way to bring Superman down to his level (kryptonite did this in days of old, but they didn't have that magic rock in the latest Superman)--magic can do this, a mind-controlling telepath can do this, or (2) Batman find some other super-powered person to stand in for him, or (3) um....wait. I don't think there is a #3

Anyway, it comes down not to Batman being super smart, but Superman being super dumb. That's always the problem with Batman/Superman fight stories; they may do a song-and-dance about how smarty-smart Batman is, but if you really examine them, all they're doing is dumbing down Superman, because if they didn't, they'd have to explain why Superman doesn't take out Batman no matter how smart a plan he's come up with.

So, yes, they're opposites thematically, but not equal in what they can do, hence there's a big problem creating a convincing physical battle (i.e. the "manifesting the metaphor"!). The writers have to be ultra-clever--alas, they're usually not and so we end up with a dumbed down Superman. Which kinda messes up the whole "light/dark fight."

For a great laugh, check out these two excellent cartoons; they aptly show how Superman is dumbed down for story's sake. SPOILER WARNING on the second one if you've seen Man of Steel:

Superman (Christopher Reeves Movie) How it should have ended
Man of Steel: how it should have ended