Ben Affleck has two Oscars; now he’s getting a cape. Hot off a Best Picture win for his period thriller Argo, Affleck is stepping back in front of the camera to play Batman in the untitled sequel to Man Of Steel, which will bring the crimefighter together with Superman in a feature for the first time. The casting further solidifies Affleck’s relationship with Warner Bros, which released Argo and is behind his next directorial effort Live By Night, which he also stars in and is continuing to prep. He next stars in the thriller Runner Runner and is set to topline David Fincher’s Gone Girl.
Man Of Steel director Zack Snyder is expected to reimagine the Batman character, whose pairing with Superman he announced at Comic-Con last month. Snyder said he won’t be drawing from the Dark Knight series. “I’ve pored through the DC universe for a way to tell this thing,” he said. Affleck will star opposite Henry Cavill, who will reprise the role of Superman/Clark Kent. The film will also reunite Man Of Steel stars Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane. David S. Goyer will pen the script. Warner Bros has set the film to open worldwide on July 17, 2015.“Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry’s Superman,” Snyder said in a statement. “He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne. I can’t wait to work with him.” It won’t be Affleck’s first time playing a superhero: He played the blind crimefighter in Daredevil a decade ago.
Put him in Kandahar wearing body armor for 6 months before Top Gun 2. He sweat it off. Though I've no idea how they would shoe horn his arse in the cockpit of a F/A18
Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Thought I would have greatly preferred Peter Dinklage.
Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Thought I would have greatly preferred Peter Dinklage.
Keaton is a dark dark man. That's why he was a perfect Bruce Wayne.
Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Thought I would have greatly preferred Peter Dinklage.
I liked Christian Bale the most I really felt emotionally attached to him in the 3rd one.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Lets not forget that when Heath Ledger was announced people also threw fits as well, then we saw the performance and...
Ouze wrote: Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Lets not forget that when Heath Ledger was announced people also threw fits as well, then we saw the performance and...
That's because Heath Ledger had built a career as a pretty boy, people didn't know to expect anything else from him. Affleck on the other hand has tried is hand at many differant roles, and he's a universal failure at playing anything other then an extreme prick.
Cheesecat wrote: He seems to only do well if he's directing the movies though.
Yeah, this is my thought as well. I was a huge fan of Afflek's debut as a director, Gone Baby Gone, and it's been great to see him follow up on that with two more really well made movies, and for him to get recognition for his good work.
But Gone Baby Gone is, I think, still the best thing he's done, and it's the one where he stayed behind the camera.
What's more, Afflek's run as a leading man in big commercial movies was pretty awful. Forget about Gigli, Pearl Harbour was awful, and he was very awful in it. When he directs there's a bit of edge to his work, but when he works in bigger studio stuff the films seem to end up really bland, with him being the blandest thing in there.
Maybe it is, like Ahtman said, that the guy was maturing over a period of time. Or maybe he's got a bit of Warren Beatty in him, and he's much better off making films than starring in them. I reckon after this turn as Batman we'll know
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: That's because Heath Ledger had built a career as a pretty boy, people didn't know to expect anything else from him.
Sort of. The problem was that people didn't know gak about Ledger's career, but thought they did because of one movie they saw one time.
Breotan wrote: This is about as stupid a casting choice as putting Reynolds in as Green Lantern. Not than any other actor could have saved GL, but still.
Huh... intriguing. I would NEVER have foreseen this, but thinking about it, it's possible he could pull it off. He might not do as well as Bale, but if he doesn't affect a silly "rooawwrgrr" voice then he may actually do better as the Bat himself... highly unlikely as Wayne, though.
As with Heath Ledger, I'm going to wait and reserve judgement until I've actually seen it - but I do trust in Zack Snyder to do it justice.
Breotan wrote: This is about as stupid a casting choice as putting Reynolds in as Green Lantern. Not than any other actor could have saved GL, but still.
That's hardly any fault of Ryan's, the guy's had really bad luck with superhero films. He does really well with cocky but lovable characters, so he should have done really well as Hal Jordan *and* Deadpool (and he did do a really good Wade Wilson for all of 5 minutes), but in both cases the character direction let him down.
Super Ready wrote: Huh... intriguing. I would NEVER have foreseen this, but thinking about it, it's possible he could pull it off. He might not do as well as Bale, but if he doesn't affect a silly "rooawwrgrr" voice then he may actually do better as the Bat himself... highly unlikely as Wayne, though.
As with Heath Ledger, I'm going to wait and reserve judgement until I've actually seen it - but I do trust in Zack Snyder to do it justice.
Breotan wrote: This is about as stupid a casting choice as putting Reynolds in as Green Lantern. Not than any other actor could have saved GL, but still.
That's hardly any fault of Ryan's, the guy's had really bad luck with superhero films. He does really well with cocky but lovable characters, so he should have done really well as Hal Jordan *and* Deadpool (and he did do a really good Wade Wilson for all of 5 minutes), but in both cases the character direction let him down.
I thought he was good in Blade Trinity.
I think Affleck could be a good batman. I may be surprised - after all I like 'The Matrix' even though Keanu's more wooden than...I actually can't think of something *that* wooden.
Overall - I've not rated Ben Affleck in a film really.
Thats what I thought - I decided to check on google anyway and I was surprised to find that he was mooted for the first one - but then Michael Keaton got it.
While this would obviously be a disaster for everyone involved - the director, producers, costars, theaters, and mostly the ticket-purchasing audience - I also doubt my ability to not watch such a thing, especially if Nic Cage is giving free reign with his "acting".
While this would obviously be a disaster for everyone involved - the director, producers, costars, theaters, and mostly the ticket-purchasing audience - I also doubt my ability to not watch such a thing, especially if Nic Cage is giving free reign with his "acting".
Wasn't he actually considered for one of the Batman's at some point? For some reason I thought that this was a contributing factor in his portrayal of "not-Batman" in Kick-Ass.
Anyway, you know who one of the best Batmans was ever? Mister Freaking Mom. Michael Keaton. So you really can't predict who can pull it off and who can't, you just have to let them take a chance and see how it goes.
Thought I would have greatly preferred Peter Dinklage.
Now that would be interesting. The actual crazy batman, coming out of retirement to kick alien ass, er help Superman.
I think they should've kept Christian Bale on this one. Superhero movies in general have moved away from atraight up good guys in the recent remakes. Batman has anger and hate and guilt and rage, generally darker personality that the old Clooney and Val Kilmer films. Superman
Spoiler:
has to kill in the latest film
which takes him away from the straight up good guy image. Iron Man is presented as bad by the new films. Bad as in, sleeps around, drink, drug, gambles bad. Arrogant. Thor is arrogant at the start of that film he is in too. Hulk/Banner admits he's not trying to reign in the Hulk, tat he is always angry.
I think this is good for the genre but in general I think any Superman crossover is bad. No matter how fmgood the other hero is, Superman is just better by virtue of near invincibility.
I think my problem with this film is I don't like Superman.
I liked Christian Bale as Batman - in fact I really liked all 3 films. I haven't liked Ben Affleck in many films I'm fairly sure I'll judge the whole film on 'was it better than batman' if I see it.
Because of Supermans presence, I may be prejudiced from the start. And our cinema is £10 a go.
Breotan wrote: This is about as stupid a casting choice as putting Reynolds in as Green Lantern. Not than any other actor could have saved GL, but still.
I thought he did well as the Green Lantern/Hal Jordan, I just thought the movie as a whole sucked, and he was really good as Wade Wilson. It's not his fault that they made him into a freaky mutant Baraka.
Ugh I cannot stress this enough. Action stars are not made, they are born. Stop putting non action guys in my action movies. That includes my super hero movies.
You can't just grab a chick flick actor and stuff him in a suite and call him action hero. That's not how it works. It's not believable.
Now thay its said I whole heartedly agree. Action stars are born. You couldn't have just anyone play Rambo, or Terminator, or anything with Chuck Norris.
wowsmash wrote: Ugh I cannot stress this enough. Action stars are not made, they are born. Stop putting non action guys in my action movies. That includes my super hero movies.
You can't just grab a chick flick actor and stuff him in a suite and call him action hero. That's not how it works. It's not believable.
I like Ben but hes not action guy material.
Well, lots of non-action actors ended up being pretty decent action guys.
I didn't really think of Robert Downey Jr. being superhero material, but look at his Iron Man.
Matt Damon was just another pretty-face actor, until he kicked butt as Jason Bourne.
Heath Ledger is a great example of getting your mind blown despite everybody saying that it was a horrible casting.
I'm not saying that he will be great as Batman. I'm just saying that there is no reason why he should automatically be bad.
For what its worth - I think Christian Bale worked better for me as batman as everytime I saw Bruce Wayne, I was put in mind of Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
If Ben Affleck can bring the same unhealthily crazy edge to Batman as keaton (and in my head, Christian Bale) I'll be a lot more receptive to this film.
Deadshot wrote: I think they should've kept Christian Bale on this one. Superhero movies in general have moved away from atraight up good guys in the recent remakes. Batman has anger and hate and guilt and rage, generally darker personality that the old Clooney and Val Kilmer films.
Well, Bale didn't want to do it even for a crapton of money, that was the point. Bale's Batman was all rage and sharp edges as you said; a tortured counter-terrorist Batman. But after thinking about it, they might need the character to take at least a half-step toward a less tortured but still intense superheroic Batman. Remember that this isn't just about Supes and Bats, it's about an eventual JL movie. And I'm not sure how well Nolan's Batman would fit into that concept. It's hard to imagine the Nolan Batman having an actual Robin, let alone working with a team of peers.
Bale would have made it work regardless, but my point here is that Affleck doesn't need to mimic Bale's Batman, and maybe he shouldn't. I don't think Affleck is a great actor, but I have a gut feeling he'll do a good job with this if the material is good. Remember that by most accounts he felt very burned by his Daredevil experience and didn't want to go near another comic book movie. The dude has become a big-time director, so he's got plenty of opportunities and things to do with his time. So the script and pitch must have sold him. I'm not going to dump on this choice.
Breotan wrote: This is about as stupid a casting choice as putting Reynolds in as Green Lantern. Not than any other actor could have saved GL, but still.
I thought he did well as the Green Lantern/Hal Jordan, I just thought the movie as a whole sucked, and he was really good as Wade Wilson. It's not his fault that they made him into a freaky mutant Baraka.
I actually agree with this. Probably no one will agree with my next point, but I think that less separates the GL movie from the Iron Man movie than people think. Iron Man was obviously the better film, but both had very formulaic stories, lead actors that are capable of being funny and charming, and good casting overall (GL's obvious miss was with Carol Ferris). Sure, RDJ carried his film far better than Reynolds did (the Iron Man franchise might be the all-time great example of a lead actor carrying films), but with a better, tighter screenplay and script GL could have been a good film.
They got a lot of the little things right with GL, they just missed with the Parallax story. I know they were trying to go the Batman Begins route and save Sinestro for the sequel. And I know it was going to be hard balancing the Earth-bound stuff with the cosmic stuff. But what the plot needed most was a better/clearer/relatable villain. They *wasted* Peter Saarsgard in a bad-guy-but-not-the-big-bad-guy role and then made the big bad guy a talking cloud.
The 1st Hulk film was ruined by making the villain a talking cloud.
Fantastic Four:Rise of the silver surfer was ruined by making the villain a cloud.
The first Blade's alternate ending was - talking cloud. I'm so pleased that they had a sword fight instead.
Why do film type people think 'Whats better than a villain?...I know most people don't like bad weather, so therefore I will make EVIL WEATHER!'
I loved the first Hulk movie. It was both epically deeper then your average 4th grade level superhero movie, and artistly involved more comic book elements. Plus it showed Hulk as essentially an unstoppable force of nature. Tick him off enough, and he could faceplant superman.
The second one was your average plain jane super hero movie. Meh.
Frazzled wrote: I loved the first Hulk movie. It was both epically deeper then your average 4th grade level superhero movie, and artistly involved more comic book elements. Plus it showed Hulk as essentially an unstoppable force of nature. Tick him off enough, and he could faceplant superman.
The second one was your average plain jane super hero movie. Meh.
The second one had the first superhero/supervillain fight that was decent in years. The first fantastic 4 film is a good example of my dislikes in films - you spend the entire film watching them develop, then at the end they meet Doom and immediately win with almost no apparent effort.. Job Done. The first Hulk was good until the very end for me. Evil weather doesn't make a good villain.
I liked the Ang Lee Hulk much better than the more recent version. I get the criticism that it was too little HULK SMASH and too cerebral, but at least it tried to be about something more than HULK SMASH. Meanwhile, the more recent film is just kinda simple and dumb to me. But yes, that last act in the Lee film was a big mess. Lee was right to try to give Banner's rage an actual source and the father angle was interesting. But Nolte becoming the Absorbing Man, and later a gamma cloud or whatever just made for a jumbled, odd ending. The father plotline needed to be cleaner and without the Absorbing Man angle.
gorgon wrote: I liked the Ang Lee Hulk much better than the more recent version. I get the criticism that it was too little HULK SMASH and too cerebral, but at least it tried to be about something more than HULK SMASH. Meanwhile, the more recent film is just kinda simple and dumb to me. But yes, that last act in the Lee film was a big mess. Lee was right to try to give Banner's rage an actual source and the father angle was interesting. But Nolte becoming the Absorbing Man, and later a gamma cloud or whatever just made for a jumbled, odd ending. The father plotline needed to be cleaner and without the Absorbing Man angle.
I agree on all points.
I'll also note the banter, and hulk in Avengers was one of the few bits I actually liked about that movie.
My first response was After reading many of the better written and considered posts here I'm still still not sold on the idea of him as Batman. Every picture of him I've seen just doesn't scream "Dark Knight" to me. Christian Bale did when he was announced.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My first response was After reading many of the better written and considered posts here I'm still still not sold on the idea of him as Batman. Every picture of him I've seen just doesn't scream "Dark Knight" to me. Christian Bale did when he was announced.
Argo gives me some hope. He can do drama and action, and I think it supports the "detective/problem solver" aspect of Batman. I'm not saying that I'm not worried, but I'm not panicking just yet.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My first response was After reading many of the better written and considered posts here I'm still still not sold on the idea of him as Batman. Every picture of him I've seen just doesn't scream "Dark Knight" to me. Christian Bale did when he was announced.
Argo gives me some hope. He can do drama and action, and I think it supports the "detective/problem solver" aspect of Batman. I'm not saying that I'm not worried, but I'm not panicking just yet.
Yeah... after Argo, Ben can do whatever he wants and I'll watch.
Frazzled wrote: I loved the first Hulk movie. It was both epically deeper then your average 4th grade level superhero movie, and artistly involved more comic book elements. Plus it showed Hulk as essentially an unstoppable force of nature. Tick him off enough, and he could faceplant superman.
The second one was your average plain jane super hero movie. Meh.
I agree, although the first one lost me pretty bad when it crapped the bed at the end, with the fighting the electrified cloud and all. That's one of those scenes where it's like, how the hell did this happen?
I also loved the comic panel intercuts, and all the scenes of the gamma irradiated town were terrific in both tone and cinematography.
I'm kinda biased towards liking it, though because I have a real soft spot for Jennifer Connelly. Also Liv Tyler, so I didn't exactly hate the second one, though it was a much weaker film.
d-usa wrote: Argo gives me some hope. He can do drama and action, and I think it supports the "detective/problem solver" aspect of Batman. I'm not saying that I'm not worried, but I'm not panicking just yet.
I'm not panicking over it, but I can't see me rushing out to watch this either.
I think if the first Hulk film was redone to.include the bossfight from Hulk 2 it would be unbeatably epic.
I loved Christian Bale's Batman because he showed that Batman isn't perfect, far from it. I think Baleman would be excellent in a mashup film to show Batman not being perfect "Yeah let's save gak!"
Batman has a very specific way of doing things which doesn't gel well with other heroes. Scare the living gak out of them but NO KILLING.
So, some news sites are reporting that there are petitions opposing Affleck. There is even a petition on the White House's web site asking Obama to condemn the choice.
As I kinda alluded to earlier, if the Snyder Batman shows more detective skills and brains than the Nolan version, then it's easier to see him fitting into a Justice League. The Nolan Batman is more of a rage tank, but then he can't really be that alongside Superman, Wonder Woman, etc.
Breotan wrote: So, some news sites are reporting that there are petitions opposing Affleck. There is even a petition on the White House's web site asking Obama to condemn the choice.
To be fair, there is a petition for or against EVERYTHING at the White House website...
The virtual rage would have been higher in the late '80s when they announced that Beetlejuice was going to be Batman. It was just pre-Web, pre-Twitter, etc. so the bitch and moan platforms were far more limited. Those were better days in many ways.
I'm really not looking forward to him being cast as the new Batman. When you look at him you don't see millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne...you see Ben Affleck in a suit . At this point it looks like they're trying to throw some big names in the pot to grab more attention and publicity.
Heck at this point we may as well call him Ben Assfleck and give him the role of Buttman instead.
That and we know that if they throw Affleck of all people into this we can expect these riveting actor(s) in the inevitable Justice League movies:
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm just not really seeing Affleck as Batman...
The Daredevil director did. Ever listen to the commentary? It's like every scene he's saying "I thought, If I was doing a Batman move, I'd do this...".
Seriously, the guy wanted to do Batman and they gave him a blind Marvel character instead. And it wasn't even the Batman Expy!
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm just not really seeing Affleck as Batman...
The Daredevil director did. Ever listen to the commentary? It's like every scene he's saying "I thought, If I was doing a Batman move, I'd do this...".
Seriously, the guy wanted to do Batman and they gave him a blind Marvel character instead. And it wasn't even the Batman Expy!
Of course Daredevil turned out so well didn't it...
Frazzled wrote: You can't be that pretty, and be a vigilante.
You obviously don't read Batman. Not only is he a pretty boy, his sidekicks MUST be miniature versions of himself(he even made Jason Todd dye his hair black and wear blue contacts).
I think Affleck can totally pull of that level of vanity and self-idolization.
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm just not really seeing Affleck as Batman...
The Daredevil director did. Ever listen to the commentary? It's like every scene he's saying "I thought, If I was doing a Batman move, I'd do this...".
Seriously, the guy wanted to do Batman and they gave him a blind Marvel character instead. And it wasn't even the Batman Expy!
Of course Daredevil turned out so well didn't it...
Kinda my point. It's what happens when you give a director something he doesn't want to do and tries to make it into what he wants instead. Interestingly, the cut out side plot with Coolio is more entertaining than the movie that DID make it to the big screen.
Frazzled wrote: You can't be that pretty, and be a vigilante.
You obviously don't read Batman. Not only is he a pretty boy, his sidekicks MUST be miniature versions of himself(he even made Jason Todd dye his hair black and wear blue contacts).
Frazzled wrote: You can't be that pretty, and be a vigilante.
You obviously don't read Batman. Not only is he a pretty boy, his sidekicks MUST be miniature versions of himself(he even made Jason Todd dye his hair black and wear blue contacts).
You're right. I'm what you call an adult.
Yet you're still discussing super heroes on the internet.
Basis for arguement? I never thought he was. Ever. Even in te edgy DKR trilogy it was shown he was only cold and nasty out of nessecity.
Really out of all the superheros the only ones that cpme across dickish are Downey Jr's Iron Man and Wolverine. Iron Man in that he's very arrogant and knows it, Wolvy because it makes him most human, and his greatest character trait.
So he was a dick because it was necessary? I wouldn't even consider Wolverine a dick honestly, he's just really rude. Batman can be pretty arrogant and high and mighty at times, so if you're talking about an actor who has a talent at playing an 'extreme prick' I don't really see that stopping the actor from being Batman. It would certainly not be Christian Bale's Batman, but Bales Batman edged to the more self-righteous side of the character than the darker side. The movie Batman's always have. I'd imagine that to contrast to Superman's idealism, the Batman in the coming film would be more like the Animated version of Batman, especially in Justice League, who was most definitely a dick (but like Gregory House, he's awesome so we forgave him for it ). Batman has always kind of been the dick of the DC universe when it comes to interacting with other major heroes.
Mind you I'm not an Affleck fan, I just find that argument odd. Bruze Wayne can be quite dickish.
The character acts like a dick so he doesn't matter potentially dangerous connections should his identity be revealed. He is cold, nasty and "evil" to.play on fears, the inspiration for his mission, and if you go by the Batman Begins story, was what Räs ah Ghül taught him. He needed to do what he needed to do to save.
The line in Dark Knight sums.it up best. "He's the hero Gotham needs, but not the one it wants."
Deadshot wrote: The character acts like a dick so he doesn't matter potentially dangerous connections should his identity be revealed. He is cold, nasty and "evil" to.play on fears, the inspiration for his mission, and if you go by the Batman Begins story, was what Räs ah Ghül taught him. He needed to do what he needed to do to save.
The line in Dark Knight sums.it up best. "He's the hero Gotham needs, but not the one it wants."
Why someone acts like a dick doesn't change the fact that they act like a dick If Ben Affleck can play an "extreme prick" it doesn't seem unusual that he would be case in the role of someone who acts like an extreme prick. Of course, if you've only seen the movies you might not notice that Batman is at times, a real dick. Sure he means well but he's still a dick. See Cruel to be Kind. A dick is still a dick even if they are a dick with good reasons.
Frazzled wrote: I know its heresy but I didn't that Bale was epically great either.
I think it's more or less that he got up-staged by better actors playing the villains:
a. Liam Neeson. 'nuff said!
b. Heath Ledger stole the whole movie, while even Aaron Ekheart was more forceful as the good-guy-idealist turned crazy-psycho wanting to vent his pain and suffering on everyone who he perceived as being the real problems.
With Ben Aflleck playing the role he will now be officially the biggest Batman to date at 6'3.5", finally beating Adam West, who held the record all these years.
I'm going to have to go on the side of, "it's not Batman, it's Ben Affleck in a suit."
They should have gone with someone 'relatively' unknown. - EG, I'd only ever really seen Henry Cavill in Immortals and that's about it.
Ben Affleck is just well, Ben Affleck.
I wouldn't have said that Christian Bale was that great a Batman either, to be honest. Almost everything about the Dark Knight trilogy I remember is because of OTHER people in the scenes, not because of Bale.
Compel wrote: I'm going to have to go on the side of, "it's not Batman, it's Ben Affleck in a suit."
They should have gone with someone 'relatively' unknown. - EG, I'd only ever really seen Henry Cavill in Immortals and that's about it.
Ben Affleck is just well, Ben Affleck.
I wouldn't have said that Christian Bale was that great a Batman either, to be honest. Almost everything about the Dark Knight trilogy I remember is because of OTHER people in the scenes, not because of Bale.
Something to keep in mind is that people said much of the same about Robert Downey Junior as Iron Man.
"It would just be RDJ in an Iron Man suit".
Yet look how successful the Marvel universe has been with RDJ's performance as Iron man being a major draw. How many people do you think would have seen "The Avengers" if Iron Man had been some unknown?
Henry Cavill as Superman was fantastic. But a character like Batman, one who is prominent in media aside from these films, is best done by a big name actor rather than some unknown.
Breotan wrote: So, some news sites are reporting that there are petitions opposing Affleck. There is even a petition on the White House's web site asking Obama to condemn the choice.
In unrelated news, Mitch McConnell introduced a US Senate resolution stating "The United States of America, Her Territorialities, holdings, and all other lands... do solemnly swear that Benjamin Géza Affleck-Boldt, commonly known as Ben Affleck, is the One True Batman"
Voting was split along party lines, with 46 Republicans voting "Aye" and 52 Democrats and 2 Independents voting "Nay". Rush Limbaugh was in the news, asking why the US media wasn't talking about the fact that Christian Bale is a well known Welshman, who has taken an American job. Alex Jones also released a quote that it's well known Ben Affleck had no alibi on 9/11, but was seen beforehand in a Home Depot. Was he buying fertilizer, he asked?
gorgon wrote: As I kinda alluded to earlier, if the Snyder Batman shows more detective skills and brains than the Nolan version, then it's easier to see him fitting into a Justice League.
On the one hand, here is the problem with a Justice League movie:
Spoiler:
On the other hand, if they did show Batman as being more of a detectice than a guy who punches stuff, Ben Affleck is well suited for the role, as he already has a good grasp of both danger and science:
Something to keep in mind is that people said much of the same about Robert Downey Junior as Iron Man.
Hubbawha? I never heard anything against RDJ being cast as Stark. Hell, everything I heard was apt: Who better to cast as an eccentric, rich ex-alchoholic than an eccentric, rich ex-alchoholic?
Didn't like Affleck as a hero before (DD), didn't like a single Sneider movie yet, gonna call this a fail. Batman died after TDKR.
Affleck+Sneider=fail, same as 2+2=4. I'm not gonna hold out hope that it becomes something different. As far as the Ledger=Joker comparison, we hasn't seen HL try his hand at a psycho before. We HAVE seen BA try his hand at being a vigilante. It sucked.
A bit off-topic, but I'm more interested in seeing how the physical action would even play out in this movie, given the incredible gulf between what the characters are capable of, physically.
I could see them focusing more on Batman's infiltration and detective skills than the kind of intimidating beatstick we saw in the Nolan trilogy or the acrobat-with-explosive-batarangs we typically see in the DCAU, but given the Dragonball Z -level combat in Man of Steel I'm not sure even that would be enough.
timetowaste85 wrote: Didn't like Affleck as a hero before (DD), didn't like a single Sneider movie yet, gonna call this a fail. Batman died after TDKR.
Affleck+Sneider=fail, same as 2+2=4. I'm not gonna hold out hope that it becomes something different. As far as the Ledger=Joker comparison, we hasn't seen HL try his hand at a psycho before. We HAVE seen BA try his hand at being a vigilante. It sucked.
Well, 300 wasn't bad my any means, but I feel that had more to do with Gerard Butler simply being epic rather than a case of outstanding work from the director's chair...
I think I have enjoyed all of Snyder's films, except Sucker Punch. 300 was a treat in the theater, and while Watchmen had some issues, was also quite a thing to see on the big screen. Dawn of the Dead was a hell of a horror movie, and one of the few really good remakes out there.
I also think Daredevil not working out was at least as much the fualt of the Director and Screenwriter as was Affleck's. We shouldn't be holding him responsible for a bad movie.
Whenever I see/hear someone call fights in Man of Steel 'Dragonball Z' like it is akin to hearing someone say that 40k ripped off Starcraft. Superman was doing those kinds of fights 40 years before Dragonball Z hit the airwaves.
I liked 300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead, Daredevil in terms of having Electra, but Sucker Punch was insulting.
Regarding Superman's latest DBZ fight, I think je meant just in terms of how over the top it was. It just took too long and every time there should have been a conclusion the was ANOTHER, even HIGHER POWER LEVELS of superness. I distinctly remember because I had had 2 large Coca-Colas but didn't want to miss anything. It took like 40 mins.
Whenever I see/hear someone call fights in Man of Steel 'Dragonball Z' like it is akin to hearing someone say that 40k ripped off Starcraft. Superman was doing those kinds of fights 40 years before Dragonball Z hit the airwaves.
I have no idea how you arrived at that as a response. The point is obviously to draw a parallel between two depictions of flying superbeings pummeling each other.
My buddy got up to take a piss in the middle of the film. Asked if he missed anything, but nothing important had happened. I think Amy Adams found Superman's costume that his dad left for him thousands of years before Jor El was even born. Plot fail was all he missed. Probably improved the film for him slightly. I still suffered through that.
Whenever I see/hear someone call fights in Man of Steel 'Dragonball Z' like it is akin to hearing someone say that 40k ripped off Starcraft. Superman was doing those kinds of fights 40 years before Dragonball Z hit the airwaves.
I have no idea how you arrived at that as a response. The point is obviously to draw a parallel between two depictions of flying superbeings pummeling each other.
Because I have repeatedly seen people write (or say) that Man of Steel "went all DBZ" with the fight scenes and the context of the use isn't in drawing a parallel, but in saying that MoS stole a certain style from DBZ, which is a pretty silly thing to say if more then two seconds are taken to think about it. One might as well say that The Seven Samurai ripped off The Magnificent Seven.
Whenever I see/hear someone call fights in Man of Steel 'Dragonball Z' like it is akin to hearing someone say that 40k ripped off Starcraft. Superman was doing those kinds of fights 40 years before Dragonball Z hit the airwaves.
I have no idea how you arrived at that as a response. The point is obviously to draw a parallel between two depictions of flying superbeings pummeling each other.
Because I have repeatedly seen people write (or say) that Man of Steel "went all DBZ" with the fight scenes and the context of the use isn't in drawing a parallel, but in saying that MoS stole a certain style from DBZ, which is a pretty silly thing to say if more then two seconds are taken to think about it. One might as well say that The Seven Samurai ripped off The Magnificent Seven.
Except I never said anything about the movie ripping off DBZ. It's a just an example of a work that has plenty of epic battles between fast, tough, strong, flying opponents. For those who grew up watching it, it holds a particular place in memory.
I love the guy who quotes Lucius Fox from the DKR trilogy.
Lucius Fox wrote: So you think this man is a vigilante who dresses up like a bat and beats up criminals with his bare hands, and your plan is to threaten this person? Good luck!
I know he was campaigning for the part so I wouldn't be surprised if he got it, but I will wait for an official announcement before I get to excited. They had considered Mark Strong but he was(is?) Sinestro so no go.
Sorry to drag this from page 4 in a small thread-o-mancy, but I just heard there is a possibility of Justin Bieber being cast as Robin. Source is a family member who watches waaaaaayyyy too much day time television, so I want to see if anybody can confirm that this is an actual rumor, and not just coming from my family member.
timetowaste85 wrote: Sorry to drag this from page 4 in a small thread-o-mancy, but I just heard there is a possibility of Justin Bieber being cast as Robin. Source is a family member who watches waaaaaayyyy too much day time television, so I want to see if anybody can confirm that this is an actual rumor, and not just coming from my family member.
He "Instagrammed" (I don't think that's actually a word) a photo of a script with his name watermarked on it. Shortly after he said he was gonna take part in a Funny or Die sketch, so I would assume that the script was from that.
timetowaste85 wrote: Sorry to drag this from page 4 in a small thread-o-mancy, but I just heard there is a possibility of Justin Bieber being cast as Robin. Source is a family member who watches waaaaaayyyy too much day time television, so I want to see if anybody can confirm that this is an actual rumor, and not just coming from my family member.
There was a picture going around of the Biebs holding up a 'script' of the film with his name in big stamped letters across the front of it
It is. If you've ever read an official script you'd recognize elements there that would, especially credit to Frank Miller. If they put that on the paper they would have to pay him and give him some screenwriting credit, which I doubt is going to happen.
I'm more convinced than ever that Affleck is going to be more than just the actor playing Batman. There were reports earlier this year, I believe, that they had offered the JL director's chair to Affleck and he turned it down. And I believe I've read recently that WB has been courting him for a while.
So maybe the deal got sweetened with the Batman role, and we're not seeing the back end part since the JL movie hasn't been made official. He also likes to act in his own movies, right? Even if he's not directing, you kinda have to think that he's going to have major story input going forward. He's an Oscar-winning director now...he gets to pick the stuff he wants to do. And I think that gives me more optimism about the whole DC movie universe. Affleck gets comic books and he gets good filmmaking.
I hated Christian Bale's performance, and Ledger's and most others. But I can't bring myself to care. I missed the last 2 movies and am not bothered. When I step back and look at what Batman really is, and the tone the films have taken most recently....well it's like trying to 'Grimdark' Lego or the Care Bears. Bruce Wayne is a mentally-ill, fully grown man cosplaying an anthropomorphic bat while violently flaunting the law. The Keaton era still had a modicum of whimsy left in the franchise which kept it reasonably enjoyable for me. It didn't seem like a secret parody.
I hated Christian Bale's performance, and Ledger's and most others. But I can't bring myself to care. I missed the last 2 movies and am not bothered. When I step back and look at what Batman really is, and the tone the films have taken most recently....well it's like trying to 'Grimdark' Lego or the Care Bears. Bruce Wayne is a mentally-ill, fully grown man cosplaying an anthropomorphic bat while violently flaunting the law. The Keaton era still had a modicum of whimsy left in the franchise which kept it reasonably enjoyable for me. It didn't seem like a secret parody.
You missed the last two movies, but you hated Heath Ledgers performance? How would you know since you haven't seen it?
I hated Christian Bale's performance, and Ledger's and most others. But I can't bring myself to care. I missed the last 2 movies and am not bothered. When I step back and look at what Batman really is, and the tone the films have taken most recently....well it's like trying to 'Grimdark' Lego or the Care Bears. Bruce Wayne is a mentally-ill, fully grown man cosplaying an anthropomorphic bat while violently flaunting the law. The Keaton era still had a modicum of whimsy left in the franchise which kept it reasonably enjoyable for me. It didn't seem like a secret parody.
You're trolling us, right? Batman has always been fairly violent with the exception of the Adam West era. He is not a carebear, nor is he a Lego. Well, actually, I guess he is a Lego now. But batman is one of those characters that can be made as dark or child friendly as you want. Superman, by contrast, sucks at being dark and edgy. Wonder Woman can also be any range, from friendly and inviting to chopping your head off, stuffing her sword down your throat, and ripping you apart like a wishbone.
TLDR: batman is usually badass, but can be kiddied up, and how do you not like Ledger's performance?!
I didn't like Ledger as the joker either. The joker is meant to be downright insane. The kind of insane where he hits you with oversized novelty hammers and squirts you in the face with acid from his lepal flower while cackling like a loony or blows out your spine with a large caliber revolver because you didn't bring him the right style of coffee, but at the same time is equally capable of semi-rational and quite logical thinking. (Remembering of course that he is insane and that rational thinking for him would probably appear quite mad to anyone else)
The reason i didn't enjoy the way Ledger played the joker was becuase he played him as a grim and serious character with a darker kind of insanity that i felt didn't really suit the MO of the joker. This in itself is all very well and good but it's just not how i feel the joker should be portrayed. There was just none of the mirror smashing, gallery defiling, giant barreled shoot-a-multimillion-dollar-batplane-down pistol style shinannigans that one would expect from the joker.
Maybe because the whole DKR trilogy was designed to be a more psychological and grimdark set? HL's Joker was in my opinion, the perfect representation of the Joker. Sure he seems rational, but really, look at him. What are his goals and intentions. To have a good laugh fighting the Batman and kill some people while doing it.
The reason i didn't enjoy the way Ledger played the joker was becuase he played him as a grim and serious character with a darker kind of insanity that i felt didn't really suit the MO of the joker. This in itself is all very well and good but it's just not how i feel the joker should be portrayed. There was just none of the mirror smashing, gallery defiling, giant barreled shoot-a-multimillion-dollar-batplane-down pistol style shinannigans that one would expect from the joker.
That kind of Joker would have been horrendously out of place in Nolan's Batman universe, though.
No I'm not trolling. I'm aware of the Batman's history as a violent vigilante. And while I enjoy him generally, along with other super-types, I'm not overly fond of the tone of recent entries into the franchise. I'm disenchanted in general with the OTT "gritty realism" of everything nowadays. I enjoyed Avengers because it wasn't an emo-drag marathon.
BTW I saw the Ledger one but thought there were 2 more after that. I can't keep track of all the ones I haven't seen.
Snrub wrote: I didn't like Ledger as the joker either. The joker is meant to be downright insane. The kind of insane where he hits you with oversized novelty hammers and squirts you in the face with acid from his lepal flower while cackling like a loony or blows out your spine with a large caliber revolver because you didn't bring him the right style of coffee, but at the same time is equally capable of semi-rational and quite logical thinking. (Remembering of course that he is insane and that rational thinking for him would probably appear quite mad to anyone else)
The reason i didn't enjoy the way Ledger played the joker was becuase he played him as a grim and serious character with a darker kind of insanity that i felt didn't really suit the MO of the joker. This in itself is all very well and good but it's just not how i feel the joker should be portrayed. There was just none of the mirror smashing, gallery defiling, giant barreled shoot-a-multimillion-dollar-batplane-down pistol style shinannigans that one would expect from the joker.
I really really liked the Ledger Joker. Ledger didn't play him as the Joker. Ledger played him as Charles Manson.
I also really liked the Jack Nicholson Joker. He played it like..the Joker.
I was once asked by an ex who I liked better as Joker: Ledger or Nicholson. The answer I gave was that they were both awesome, they just portrayed different angles of the Joker Nicholson went for a more extravagant Joker (the art-ruining scene nailed it for me), while Ledger went for the dark, evil Joker, who just wants to watch the world burn. Heath also did a better job of showing how truly brilliant the Joker actually was, despite the claim to not having a plan. Also, he dressed in a drag-nurse costume. That's also fairly normal of the Joker. In his mind, anyway.
rubiksnoob wrote:That kind of Joker would have been horrendously out of place in Nolan's Batman universe, though.
That's very true. It would have been out of place in the setting.
Frazzled wrote:I really really liked the Ledger Joker. Ledger didn't play him as the Joker. Ledger played him as Charles Manson.
I also really liked the Jack Nicholson Joker. He played it like..the Joker.
If i had known nothing about the DC universe when i had seen Dark Knight then i would have thought Ledger was a standout joker. As it is, i'm probably pretty biased due to having played the Keaton/Nicholson Batman movie ad-nauseum when i was a kid.
timetowaste85 wrote:Also, he dressed in a drag-nurse costume.
That would have to be my favourite scene from the DK.
The Ledger Joker was the best bad guy form any movie, including Hopkins lector in Silence of the Lambs and Bill Murry's Camp Counselor role from Meatballs.
The Joker has been even more all over the place in his comic book characterizations than the Batman. Grant Morrison explained this to be some kind of 'supersanity' in which the Joker is constantly adapting to a changing environment.
There are almost certainly going to be more Batman movies starring Affleck on the way (barring B vs. S being a box office disaster, which seems impossible). And like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Affleck ends up directing himself in those. But Ledger's performance was a generational thing, made even more iconic by his death...I don't know how another actor can touch that role again for another decade at least. It's radioactive, even if it's a different kind of Joker for a different kind of Batman (I expect that we'll see a little more of the Dark Knight DETECTIVE in the new films).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: The Ledger Joker was the best bad guy form any movie, including Hopkins lector in Silence of the Lambs and Bill Murry's Camp Counselor role from Meatballs.
Anyone that says different probably loved camp.
There are plenty that do. We've talked about Superman Returns rating like 15 points higher than Man of Steel on Metacritic here before, but note that Superman Returns also ranks 2 points higher than Batman Begins. I don't get it. Not. One. Bit. (to use Ledger's Joker's words) But clearly there are both fans and critics who like lighter fare in their superhero films.
It does need to be said that Nolan's Batman is a fairly extreme version of the character, pretty much stripped down to rage, anguish and violence. The whole trilogy is extremely "post-9/11" and I think I've referred to that Batman as the counter-terrorist rage tank Batman here before. So I do get that some people might want something different...not necessarily campy, but a better representation of the character's detective roots.
I liked Man of Steel a lot. Considering I thought most tentpole films in 2013 were craptacular balls of poo, it was a refreshing difference. Others' mileage may differ but they're cat lovers and first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Frazzled wrote: I liked Man of Steel a lot. Considering I thought most tentpole films in 2013 were craptacular balls of poo, it was a refreshing difference. Others' mileage may differ but they're cat lovers and first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Whoah, I'm a cat lover and I thought Man of Steel was a solid film. Let's not be too hasty with who gets sent up a wall...
kronk wrote: The Ledger Joker was the best bad guy form any movie, including Hopkins lector in Silence of the Lambs and Bill Murry's Camp Counselor role from Meatballs.
Anyone that says different probably loved camp.
IMO he is not the best Joker, never mind the best "bad guy" - look at real movie bad guys like Anton Chigurh. Ledgers Joker was one of the few good things in that particular film but he was not awesome or even especially scary - he hardly killed anyone other than other criminals and had a plot shield that would have stopped nukes.
Jack's Joker was insane, dangerous and a real psycho killer - lets face he wiped out a museum full of people just to get a date with Vicky - in contrast the Ledger version just about managed to blow up an empty hospital - wow so scary
Frazzled wrote: I liked Man of Steel a lot. Considering I thought most tentpole films in 2013 were craptacular balls of poo, it was a refreshing difference. Others' mileage may differ but they're cat lovers and first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Whoah, I'm a cat lover and I thought Man of Steel was a solid film. Let's not be too hasty with who gets sent up a wall...
Well, while we can slot you in for a later place, unless you swear allegiance to our Wiener Dog overlords or their allies (Cthulu, Iguanas, and otters but come on they're really just wiener dogs in the ocean) its not going to go well. Sorry I don't make the rules.
Best villain? Sorry but Darth Vader and Lord Olivier kicks him right in the babymaker.
I think they're different characterizations of the Joker, and as such it becomes a matter of personal taste.
Now, I personally think the better *performance* of the role the actors were given was unquestionably Ledger's. Ledger absolutely disappears into his character, while you're painfully aware at every step that the Joker is Jack Nicholson. Jack really just kinda plays crazy Jack, which we've seen before without all the purple.
Snrub wrote: The joker is meant to be downright insane.
It is ok not to like it, but the idea that there is a singular idea of what the Joker is, or ought to be, ignores the history of the character and the comics. Just as Batman changes, so do his rogues; there is no singular correct version of any Batman villain.
I think people kind of fail to remember that the Joker has been the goofy villain that we've seen in the Batman cartoons, several of the comics, Caesar Romero's Joker, Jack's Joker, Heath's Joker, etc... Let's also not forget that the Joker at one point has killed Robin (Batman Beyond movie), raped Batgirl, and in the New 52 version, the Joker has literally had his face removed, stapled back on, and was/is trying to kill all of Batman's 'family' starting with Alfred and the Commissioner and working his way through the others...
Alfndrate wrote: I think people kind of fail to remember that the Joker has been the goofy villain that we've seen in the Batman cartoons, several of the comics, Caesar Romero's Joker, Jack's Joker, Heath's Joker, etc... Let's also not forget that the Joker at one point has killed Robin (Batman Beyond movie), raped Batgirl, and in the New 52 version, the Joker has literally had his face removed, stapled back on, and was/is trying to kill all of Batman's 'family' starting with Alfred and the Commissioner and working his way through the others...
Joker killed Robin in Under the Red Hood, Alf. In the BB movie he gave Robin a good old brainwashing and pretty much destroyed him. And yeah, what he did to Batgirl was arguably the worst. Joker is pretty much evil incarnate: I love Star Wars, but Vader has nothing on Joker as a villain. Vader was redeemable at the end. There is no redemption for Joker. Vader killed a roomful of children? Joker has done that too, along with the children's families. Ok, sure, Vader nuked a whole planet. I'll give him that. From 10,000 miles away, unable to see the faces of anyone. Joker watches his victims die; while laughing!
I think it was left out of the animated movie, but in the graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns the Joker handed out poison cotton candy to the kids at the Gotham State Fair.
After reading many of the better written and considered posts here I'm still still not sold on the idea of him as Batman. Every picture of him I've seen just doesn't scream "Dark Knight" to me. Christian Bale did when he was announced.
. At this point it looks like they're trying to throw some big names in the pot to grab more attention and publicity.
If Ben Affleck can play an "extreme prick" it doesn't seem unusual that he would be case in the role of someone who acts like an extreme prick. Of course, if you've only seen the movies you might not notice that Batman is at times, a real dick. Sure he means well but he's still a dick. 
