Ben Affleck Batman

Triem23Triem23 Moderator
edited August 2013 in Everything Else
SOMEONE is gonna start this thread, so why not me? Before the hate flows, remember the hate Heath Ledger's casting as Joker generated? Now many people consider him "definitive."
«1

Comments

  • Ugh.
    Goodbye gritty sociopath Batman, hello pretty boy Batman.
  • Not a fan of Man of Steel. Don't really care where they go with this reboot. I know Ledger surpassed his pretty-boy persona in TDK, but even so this seems stupid as a follow up to Bale-man. I would have gone with Karl Urban. He is even better than Bale in many ways. His Dredd-vioce is way better than Bale-man's vioce for one. 
  • edited August 2013
    I'm gonna wait and see. Affleck's a good actor, I think he can bring an interesting twist to it. I think he's an intriguing choice.
  • It's a shame in some ways, because his recent work has been great - Argo and The Town for example. We were discussing it around the kettle earlier, it's perhaps because he also directed - somehow that ups his game as an actor. As a film fan I'd rather he stuck to making those more interesting films, which he seems to have a talent for.
    Instead he's joining what could well be a superflop, which may well bring out all of his blandness  :dry: 
  • edited August 2013
    I liked Affleck in Argo. His performance was better than I had anticipated. I'm not a follower of his
    so I don't have a wide frame of reference that I can discern as I always get Adam Baldwin and Affleck mixed up......they really look similar for not being family. But it shouldn't surprise anyone why Ben got picked. He's been advertising the heck out of himself as evidenced here:
    http://youtu.be/r245vidjoh0

    Wait..........................what was the topic?
    ;) 
  • edited August 2013
    Affleck is a serviceable actor on occasion.  I haven't seen The Town, but he was pretty good in Argo, which I thought was extremely overrated, but good.  I'm not that worried about this casting choice, however, because the whole idea of a Batman/Superman film seems like a really bad plan in general.
    I can't wait to hear what Andrew thinks about this...  (and before someone thinks I'm being sarcastic, I legitimately want to hear his opinion about it)
  • Roles which are designed for him are fine... Also, please no comparisons to this and Heath Ledger as the joker.  The joker has a lot of room for variation... Batman not so much. 
  • The joker has a lot of room for variation... Batman not so much. 

    What?  Every screen version of Batman has been very different from the last.  There's plenty of room for variation.

  • edited August 2013
    Not sure if you can compare Ben and Heath. Heath hasn't done a comic before he became The Joker has he? Ben on the other hand, he left an impression by playing the blind guy (forgot the name), and I guess it wasn't a really good one. At least not for me.
    I do have trust in Snyder and considering Ben was his first choice, I am sure he has something sweet and awesome written for Ben, and besides, large chunk of the movie Ben is wearing a mask anyway so you wouldn;t have to "face" him anyway  :)
  • Very different? 
    Batman - Adam West
    Batman - Michael Keaton
    Batman Returns - Michael Keaton
    Batman Forever - Val Kilmer
    Batman and Robin - George Clooney

    The Batman Begins trilogy - Christian Bale
    Lets look at the differences outside of the actors. 
    The Batman TV show was campy and very indicative of the time.  It was lighter and full of humor due to being on tv and meant for kids.  This version of batman has appeared else where most noticeably the brave and the bold. Not really the most popular incarnation of Batman and for a 100% fact not going to be the batman in the man of steel sequel... keeping in mind that in man of steel they leveled an entire city and was far from light.
    The 4 Batman Movies from 89-97.  Extensions of each other.  The first 2 were a little darker and you can tell by the color palate was more into black.  The last 2 had more color and shifted the tone slightly but they weren't ever considered reboots. They all had a unrealistic world and tone.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2XVBmzR2s
    The Batman Begins trilogy was set in a realistic world where you could buy into all of this happening.  They did better to establish the story and give you a reason to like the character and empathize with him.

    Now all the differences in the movies have been talked about but lets talk about the character of batman.  The 2 groups of movies were vastly different but was the acting of the batman character different?  Dropping the script... because all action movies in the 80's and 90's had one liners every other scene... was the acting so different?  Heath Ledgers joker gave you a completely different version of the character that took your mind away from the Iconic Jack Nicholson version.  There's an entirely different take on the character which was brilliant.  The character of batman does not have nearly the same range of how you create the character.  Does this version the batman have to fight back the tears of the memories of his murdered parents every time he is out on patrol?  Can he be demented and give off a psycho version of the character where you think hes a murder or off?  Nope.  The joker and many other characters can be played white or black or any color of the rainbow.    Batman is shades of gray in the portrayal. 
    The movies are different, the tone is different, the action is different but to play batman you are more on a leash in terms of what you can do since they are not reinventing the character.  As an actor when I come up with the personality and the tone of a character I do that the script doesn't matter.  I come up with the characters back story if its not already set and then I think of that impacts me as the character.  Is everything a joke to my character?  Is most things a joke to my character? Are more things serious to my character?  How does he feel when he is committing his actions.  The quality of the acting can be different but Batman is NOT the joker.  The reimagined version may be like the animated tv show in terms of action and abilities but he does not get to have the same full gamut of emotions that most other characters get to have if you are trying to keep anything from the original character story intact.  Christian Bale gave us the batman gravel voice and the bruce wayne that stares off more.
    Another way to put this... Johnny Deep can freestyle the Jack Sparrow character without a script... because he created the character and breathed life into it.  So no matter what the script calls for Johnny Deep will be Jack Sparrow the character... even if he is just sitting in a room by himself he can channel jack sparrow.  Without the costume and the movie going on behind him what is Christian Bale's freestyle of Batman while in an empty room?  An actor exercise is to say the same line in different characters and intonations.  If Johnny Deep had to say " I would like to order a pepperoni pizza" over the phone to you as Jack Sparrow... would you instantly recognize the character?  If Christian Bale had to say the same thing to you over the phone as batman... what that sound like?  Is your mind going to just gravel voice? or is there how you "know" batman would say it?  How about a less out there example?  How would Denzel Washington (as no character) order the pizza?  There are certain choices in everything that really make certain characters stand out and other characters be replaceable.  Without a script and a movie I could freestyle Denzel Washington and if you are familiar with more then 3 of his movies you'll probably guess Denzel.  If I freestyled Batman... without shouting "swear to me" or other elements which someone else created... would you know im being batman?
  • Examples of a guy making a characterization of actors where you could place the impersonation  even if you weren't watching all the physical gestures.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqZGGqO6Eu0
    Here is a joke of batman coming up with voices... they cycle through so many voices where you instantly know who that character of an actor is even completely out of context.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOg3ZE3hNQc
    So the point is theres not much of a character to create as batman.  The point is you can create a different style movie, with different wording, different action and everything completely different but where you go with the Batman character as an actor is VERY limited.
  • I think people are so hung up on daredevil (a film which I actually enjoyed, especially the directors cut) that everyone's looking past his other roles. Beside, Affleck is a huge comic book nerd, who better to understand batman?
  • @Daniel its not just daredevil... Chris Evans did The Human torch in 2 bad fantastic 4 movies.  By the same fan logic... we should make Nick Cage Superman because hes such a comic nerd he named his kid Kal El.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    But were the problems with Dardevil and Fantastic Four with the actors, or with terrible scripts and direction? My worries with the new Batman/Superman movie all stem from Nolan, Goyer and Snyder. Nolan and Goyer really don't understand these characters. Snyder drags action and rushes emotional moments. Cavill and Affleck will be fine, as long as they aren't handed a bad script. Unfortunately, the Comic-Con tease was all about the quote from Dark Knight Returns: "... I want you to remember my hand at your throat [and] the one man who beat you." The power of that line lies in Bruce and Clark having decades of experience with each other and with crime fighting. It absolutely does not work for a first meeting. Especially when Kal-El is still new to being Superman. (And is an illustration of my thesis that Nolan, Goyer and Snyder don't understand these characters.)
  • THe problem with man of steel is they went too sci fi film versus comic book sci fi.  See audiences aren't super big on sci fi.  I know lots of women who won't see a movie because its sci fi but the Avengers were the exception.  Superman was really a sci fi film.  They very much deleted the comic book aspect to that movie  They made it so real when really the character is not meant to be real.  The batman begins trilogy is pushing DC movies to try to be super realistic... 

    @Triem23 I think the power that comes from that line has nothing to do with  their relationship and the decades of experiences they have together... Its the fact simple fact that superman walks around(flies) like a god and a regular man does what really no one has done.  Doomsday died when he killed superman.  Batman was just making a point... he could have beat him... but he just wanted him to know that batman is the best.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU94I6SjVow
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited August 2013
    See, I disagree with MoS being "too sci-fi," since Superman, when created, was a Science Fiction Character. His original power set was enhanced strength, enhanced durability and the ability to leap a half-mile. All of the abilities came directly from Krypton being a high-density, high-gravity planet. (or, if you're a little cynical, Superman's original power set came from his creators enjoying Edgar Rice Burroughs' "John Carter" stories. Ahem.)
    The flying came soley from the Max Feischer cartoons, because Max decided flying looked better than jumping.
    The yellow sun thing came from the radio series (along with the x-ray vision, and almost everything else in the power set.), and THAT is when Superman transformed from a science-fiction character into a magic character (because gaining your powers from exposure to flourescing Hydrogen, but losing them from being exposed to flourescing Helium makes no sense at all, whatsoever....)
    So I was all for MoS returning Superman to his sci-fi roots a bit. I particularly enjoyed noting that Earth's atmosphere was more nourishing than Krypton's and using that as a weakness. It returns Superman to a semi-level of plausibility and limits his power set a bit (since we know Superman needs to breathe, we're not going to see him pushing entire planets in between solar systems like some of the sillier 1950's comics.)
    Comic books of the last decade or two have ALL been about "returning realism" to these characters. Hence, various Rogues are no longer wacky guys in silly costumes--they're mass murders. Dr. Light isn't just a bumbling fool who makes holograms, he's a serial rapist who will target the family of a hero to cause pain. Magneto finally realises that Wolverine is completely at his mercy. The whole "Bane breaks Batman's back" thing in the comics was a direct reflection on comic fans asking for more realism and questioning a Batman who wouldn't kill--so we got Jean-Paul Valley, and we hated him. I forget which two villains did this in Marvel, but Tigra was subdued, RAPED (on video) and the video posted online to humiliate her. The list goes on. Nolan's trilogy and MoS merely reflect this trend in the comics towards "gritty," "dark," and "realism."
    Michael--since Clark hadn't really been flying in MoS until he puts on the suit, and the world HASN'T seen him flying like a God, and since the only fight he's had was against other Kryptonians, I stand by my assertion that the "remember my hand at your throat...remember the one man who beat you" line doesn't work without the context of a long career and association.
    In Dark Knight Rises, Batman is able to take advantage of his full knowledge of Clark's powers and personality to break him down. He KNOWS Clark won't just smear him across all of Crime Alley. He KNOWS he can hit Clark with the entire Gotham Power grid and thermite and ultrasonics and all it will do is get Clark focused on him so Clark doesn't notice Green Arrow getting into place with the Kryptonite. Heck, Bruce knows about Kryptonite! He synthesized something which "took years,and fortune. Fortunately, I had both." Bruce taking down Clark in Dark Knight Returns IS a result of his decades of experience and association.
    In the new Batman/Superman movie--well. Bruce and Clark have yet to meet. Now Bruce has to figure out who Clark is, analyze his power set, deduce the existence of Kryptonite, figure out how to get some, blah, yadda, all to get to "remember the one man who beat you."
    I don't think it's going to work. I think to get to that point will require the audience to have previous knowledge and assumptions. Fortunately for the film makers, the audience has both.
    But Peter Weller was a good choice to voice Bruce. He's no Kevin Conroy, but quite good.
    Oh, yes, one final note. Michael, I have debated with you across multiple threads, and we often have different viewpoints, but I DO wish to acknowledge my appreciation of your ability to express your viewpoints, and how you remain courteous to everyone here--never dropping into insult. Being on the Internet, you know that's rare.
    Heck, I'll extend that appreciation to everyone on this forum. Overall, the Hitfilm forum is one of the most pleasant I frequent. Kudos to you all.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    Side note: Poll has been updated. Added the "Let's wait and judge the movie when it comes out" answer, and allowed voters to give multiple answers.
  • edited August 2013
    If you want a truly wide scope on different Batman types, you should also include the 1943 serial movies (from Columbia Pictures) to not only see how Batman really began but see the characteristics of how he was originally portrayed by actor Lewis Wilson- with Douglas Croft as Robin. Each serial had narration like the 60s tv show....and did you know Batman was 4F in the Army? Originally he was very patriotic and mentions receiving orders from Uncle Sam to Robin. Wilson is COMPLETELY different from the actors in recent years and surprisingly, the stories are just as dark as the newer movies. Bruce Wayne liked to play a good joke too so he wasn't all dark and foreboding.
    Batman also used to stamp a Bat silhouette on the foreheads of the criminals he caught and there was no Commissioner Gordon or Chief O'Hara but Batman did keep the police informed through phone calls.
    Then there's the Batman and Robin movie serials from 1949 with Robert Lowery as the Caped Crusader and John Duncan as Robin. (also from Columbia Pictures). Bruce Wayne's love interest Vicki Vale (Jane Adams) tries to uncover who the Dynamic Duo really are which created tension between cliffhangers. There was a Commissioner Gordon at that time played by Lyle Talbot- more notable for Plan 9 From Outer Space.
    You talk about different- these are original portrayals as the characters were originally intended. The Adam West series was done more for the kids of the 60s rather than to be taken seriously; however, West played the role closer to the original as far as characteristics of Bruce Wayne/Batman. I didn't like the Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney versions enough to watch all of them but I did enjoy the Bale versions. I disliked the 'super sets' making up Gotham in the Kilmer version and I have no idea why it was decided to present it that way. The early serials portrayed Gotham more like a large U.S. city i.e. New York. The Bale versions were closer to the original Batman than the other movie series or tv show.....including bats IN the Bat Cave. The first scene in the 1943 version shows Batman sitting at a desk in the Bat Cave with bats flying all around. (Okay- they were toy bats on strings but they were at least included)
    I remember seeing the serials when I was a kid and recently watched them again when a friend loaned me his DVDs. The movies between the 60s show and the Bale version didn't make me more of a Batman fan but the Nolan versions, closer to the original story, certainly have. I haven't checked out MoS yet, waiting for it to get to pay-per-view, but I have faith that Nolan did the same for Superman as he did for Batman; to breathe new life into the original portrayals of the characters.
    Note: I was never a comic geek so I have no idea what the comics have done over the years and by talking with some friends that have, I'm glad I didn't follow along with all the bizarre changes I've heard about some characters.
    All that being said, there is a limited range to how the character can be played so I've changed my vote above from I don't care to the newly added category wait to see it before just writing Affleck off. I mean, I certainly wouldn't call for Obama to remove Affleck from the project as some weirdoes did on the White House website yesterday. These people really need to get lives.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/23/batman-fans-obama-affleck
  • On the Ben Affleck note, I think he did a fine job as Daredevil. Personally I rather enjoyed the movie, and it was one of the best comic book movies of it's time. Far better than any Batman movie that had been made up to that point. Looking back on it now, Daredevil won't hold up, but for the time, it was one of the better comic book movies. Also I think Ben did a great job in the Town and Argo.
    On a different topic, I just want to put out there that I don't think they will use the line from The Dark Knight Returns in this movie. I think that between Synder and Goyer they know it is a bad idea to use it this early in the relationship of Clark and Bruce. I think that was purely a way of revealing the existence of Batman in the universe.
    As far as a "different" Batman. I hope we get a different Batman! Looking back at the comics, from the golden age, to now, there are many different "versions" of his character that make drastic changes. For instance, the original Batman not only carried a gun but shot people. That lasted for a very short run before he became non-lethal but it was still a thing for a time. I've been trying to read up on my Batman comics, and I will say the Batman from the first couple comic books has a very different personality than the Batman during the "Death in the family" story arch. Not to mention the "Hush" story arch which shows a different Batman again. Then with the New 52's "Court of Owls" we see a different side of Batman (that to me was very close to Hush, but still far from his beginnings.) To say Batman's character isn't flexible, is to ignore the VAST difference between Adam West and Christian Bale. I'm not saying that the two characters are entirely different, just like I wouldn't say that Heath Ledger's joker is entirely different from the Jack Nicholson Joker.
    At the end of the day, I don't care what they do with Batman in this movie, I trust them to make a great movie. I still haven't understood peoples dislike for MoS. I thought it was a really solid movie. But eh, to each their own.
  • edited August 2013
    @Triem23
    Flying came about because it was easier to animate.
    I am hoping for a different batman similar to the animated series style.  The acting I just don't see it going too different from the quiet and moody batman.  The brave and the bold presented a lighter batman but I don't want to dwell in all the incarnations because they will not be drawing from all of them. 
    Go back and look into Ben Afleck films.... was it amazing acting on his part?  In The Town he was playing a guy from boston whose kind of a dick...  IS it really acting to play something so baseline to who you are?  Its the same reason why people think Robert Downey Jr is Iron Man because a alcoholic playboy is what we think of Robert Downey JR. 

    There are fantastic actors who create new characters or really inhabit the spirit of that character.  Then there are actors who are terrific actors but they aren't really coming up with a character.  Daniel Day Lewis is the actor who inhabits the character and tries to the character. Ben Afleck is more of the actor who takes his own personal experiences and feelings and uses that as the base for the character.  So when I watch Ben Afleck I do not lose my sense of him being in the story.  Daniel Day Lewis you'll have to remind yourself that how he portrayed Lincoln is not 100% accurate because he is so believable. 
    So I worry about sitting there and watching batman vs superman and thinking Ben Afleck instead of Bruce Wayne or Batman... The it becomes ___________ as batman versus Ben Afleck is Batman...
    @Daniel Morgan
    The Joker analogy is a bad analogy.  See The joker they could do differently by simply doing a different take.  Most of the major on screen jokers have been the kind of lunatic trying to get a laugh joker... The dark knight had a guy dressed as a clown who was sociopathic... he cared for nothing but chaos.  he dropped the making people laugh shtick and went deranged.  So you have a lot to work with if you are trying to go real world gritty and move away from the old personification of the joker. 
    Batman does not have that same range... and even less so on what a studio will allow on the big screen.  When it comes to live action movie batman you have way more say in the costume(if its going to have bat nipples) and the gadgets employed then if Batman is going to be anything different then quiet, vanishing on people when they are talking and considered a vigilante.
  • My problem with Man of Steel was that it had some really great moments and some major problems with the plot and characterization.
    First of all, Jonathan Kent tells his son that he should just let innocent people die in order to keep his secret?
    Clark can't think of any way to save Jonathan during the tornado that isn't showboating so he gives up and just lets him die?
    And then the way he finishes Zod? 
    Those things completely go against character. 
    And as for the plot ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw
    So the casting of Affleck as Batman concerns me less than the story because of the way that Goyer handled Man of Steel.
  • edited August 2013
    Batman does not have that same range... and even less so on what a studio will allow on the big screen.  When it comes to live action movie batman you have way more say in the costume(if its going to have bat nipples) and the gadgets employed then if Batman is going to be anything different then quiet, vanishing on people when they are talking and considered a vigilante.

    This is only true because of convention; because it's what's always been done with the character.  There is absolutely no reason that Bruce Wayne couldn't have earned his money via snowboarding championships and be portrayed as a stoner dickhead.  The only reason he isn't is because that's not how people think of Bruce Wayne.  But this isn't a historical figure we're talking about, it's a fictional character that someone made up decades ago.  
    As far as I'm concerned, all that actually matters about Bruce Wayne/Batman's character is that he is wealthy, his parents died, and he dons a costume to fight crime.  Everything else is open to interpretation.  Now I'm not saying that anyone is going to successfully make a film where Batman is a woman with dissociative identity disorder who only THINKS she's a billionaire playboy, I'm just saying that if someone had the creativity and the gall to make that work, it could work.  Batman as a pop-culture icon will probably never change that much, but it's a little silly to assume that it's impossible that he could.


  • @Aculag I freely admit that its because its convention.  They could pull a Ninja Turtles on us a completely drop key aspects of the story.  WIth bruce Wayne's murdered parents that gives him a drive that would not exist for most characters... Batman is badass because of this drive paired with his intellect.  He can't be flexible... he can't be lighter(in this version)... he needs to be the batman that is the most dangerous person on the justice league..   Creativity is not what people want... we can say it for days but theres a reason why Cloud Atlas tanked... we don't want original.  The internet damn near broke with even rumors of the human torch being black.  Just deal with that the people who have money do not want anything different.  They didn't have to redo batman... We could be on Green Arrow or any number of DC characters. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE5RXhPwlKc
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Staff
    edited August 2013
    we should make Nick Cage Superman because hes such a comic nerd he named his kid Kal El.


    Nic Cage Superman should be made because it's Nic Cage, and that would be freakin' hilarious. THE BEES.
    I certainly wouldn't call for Obama to remove Affleck from the project as some weirdoes did on the White House website yesterday. These people really need to get lives.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/23/batman-fans-obama-affleck


    Indeed, those signing and circulating petitions/sending hate mail are both way out of line and delusional. It's one thing to debate how the film will turn out, and mention people you'd personally prefer, but quite another to attack those involved.
    Edit:
    Actually, a positive thing from Affleck being cast in this film is that we see http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/08/14/ben_affleck_and_matt_damon_cursed_since_good_will_hunting_curse_they_never.html something great from Matt Damon come out at the same time!
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited August 2013
    The dislike of Ledger being cast as the Joker was based on nothing at all, really. I remember being perplexed by the casting, but the very first image of him in make-up got me hugely excited.
    The dislike of Affleck as Batman comes primarily from the awful Daredevil, I think. Most big, tentpole films that he's been involved with have been dire - perhaps not his fault, but the association is there nonetheless.
    Hopefully it'll turn out well - I've not seen Man of Steel yet, so don't really have a frame of reference for Snyder's style with the franchise. As others have pointed out, though, the Batman-Superman conflict as depicted in the comics only really makes sense if it has a foundation of their friendship and mutual respect. I rather doubt they'll be doing that, if for no other reason as it'd derail the potential of a JLA team-up.
    Edit: Incidentally, if the new film was actually renamed Ben Affleck Batman, as with this topic, I'd probably go see it.
  • After Gigli and Daredevil I'm sure Affleck would see Argo and Batman as steps up in his career. I doubt he would want to, in BSG terms, frack up his chances at a blockbuster.
    Besides, there's more to a movie than just who stars as the hero. If the writer/director/producer/actors don't share the same vision you'll get rubbish but from what I've seen as of late, I don't know why that would be expected automatically BEFORE the movie goes into production. Plus, I didn't think Affleck was bad in Argo and think it was a step in the right direction to further his career. If he's smart, he'll look at this as an opportunity to grow and not just the "giddy teenager" living out his boyhood dream to become Batman. 
  • @Simon
    The dislike of Ledger prior to The Dark Knight was because the large volume of his work being terrible... Who would of guessed that he came up with a stunning and original version of a character we all know.
    The dislike of Ben Affleck has little to do with Daredevil.  We cite that in this argument because its a glaring example of him as a super hero.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xy5C-0P0zs

    @StormyKnight
    An actor may not want to frack up his chances(most don't) but it happens all the time.  What in The Town really made Ben great?  The story was good, so was the editing and the acting supported the film... and as someone who liked that movie but whose an actor Im looking at this and you just see muted acting... and lots of look aways and sighs.  Its a step up from overacting... but being muted isn't spectacular acting.  If you have a movie where it works then that's great... Argo and the Town muted.  That's why he is an Academy award winning Writer/Director and not actor.
  • Can't we just wait and see how he does before we judge him..
  • edited August 2013
    Ah yes, a clip from Family Guy is sure to win most every argument. ;)

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment