Whytewulf said:
elvor0 said:
Abomination said:
Since when was Batman an interesting character? He's a cardboard cutout that punches things and grumbles at people.
Batman has ALWAYS been about the villains.
I think Ben Affleck is perfect for the role. He's got the build, the chin and the voice.
And again... stupid people are passing judgement before it's even out.
Be that as it may, we've already seen him do Daredevil, and he seriously phoned it in on that. If people don't like him, and have seen movies with him in, is that not enough to at least garner a pre emptive opinion on the matter? Even if Batman can come across as a little one dimensional at times, he still needs to give a certain presence. But then I don't think Bale had that presence either, if he couldn't pull it off with Daredevil, how can we be sure he'll pull it off with Batman?
I trust Snyder to deliver a good film, but I still have my doubts about Afleck.
First I thought DareDevil was a decent movie(exlusive of the playground scene), but even if many others didn't, I don't judge an actor by one move or even two. Affleck was pretty good in The Town, Dogma and even Boiler Room and Dazed and Confused. But besides I think he has changed from his early roles. I think that he will make a great Bruce Wayne.. Not sure about Batman.. Needless to say I more concerned with the movie direction. Doesn't matter the actor if the movie doesn't open a role for them to play. I have seen many great actors in awful roles.
I think the funny part is how there is so much nerd rage on the internet. A petition to have the studio change it? LOL, people need to focus on more important things. Like petitioning for a time machine!
ehhh, I watched it again not so long ago and I found it pretty iffy. Which is weird, considering I remember really enjoying it when it came out, and I had been reading Daredevil for quite a while before it did, but then I was only 12 at the time. Colin Farell was fun in it though, I mean it certainly isn't awful, just quite cringe worthy in places.
But no, you're right judging an actor on one movie is a bad idea and truth to told he can be a good actor, I'm just not feeling him for this. Who knows could be pleasantly surprised, I too am also wondering where they're going for Superman vs Batman, it could be entirely possible it could be going for some elements of Dark Knight Returns at this point, considering they announced it with a quote from DKR, and they're getting Frank Miller in for collaboration.
If that's the case, I'd prefer something based on his older stuff, as well...he's a little insane these days. 300 is actually about the war on terror, with the Spartans representing America and Xerxes representing Al'quieda. Cos that's a totally fair metaphor. Nevermind the canned/retooled story Batman vs Al'quieda.
Casual Shinji said:
Michael Keaton is still the live-action Batman to me. And that's precisely because as Batman he could sound threatening without having to gargle glass, and he gave him a sly creepiness. And as Bruce Wayne you would never expect him to be a masked vigilante, because... he's Michael Keaton.
I'd say it was a toss up between Keaton and Kilmer, in fact rewatching Batman Forever again recently, I'd say had Kilmer been in the Burton films, it could've been even better. Kilmers Batman still has that gothic/moody element to the scenes without the villians, I dunno, Kilmers Bruce Wayne felt more believable as the good looking, charming playboy, whereas Keatons Wayne felt a bit...frumpy. Wooly Jumpers and spectacles don't exactly scream playboy millionaire
Still love Batman 89 and Returns to bits though.
