The Big Picture: Batfleck

[Teoes]

I remain somewhere between on the fence and cautiously-optimistic. If it works it'll be a riot and if it doesn't then little of value will be lost.

You can tell Bob's making a rant video when he's talking in his Boston accent.

I put it down to talking about a fellow Bostonian as much as anything.

Another Bob thread, another slew of people complaining about the accent. (Not the person I've quoted.. others.)

 

[kinxinks]

Just because you are from Boston does not mean that Affleck is the right actor for every movie. That being said http://youtu.be/0la5DBtOVNI

 

[templar1138a]

Superman can be a lot more interesting, once you open up the DC universe a bit. For one thing, he has no resitance to magic, and the expanded DC universe has tons of magicians running around, not to mention guys like Mongo or Darkseid, who are just so damn strong that they can beat the hell out of him regardless of his powers. You also run into some great moral grey areas that seriously mess with his boy scout personality.

A good series to watch for this sort of thing is Justice League Unlimited. It's technically a sequel series to Justice League, but I haven't watched that one, so I can't recommend it.

The problem here is with the idea of opening up the DC Universe a bit. We're talking about a Superman movie here, not the whole expanse of DC canon, which I'm NOT going to tap into because I don't care enough at the moment. A good DC movie OTHER than Batman might make me care, but the problem THERE is that the movie-going public only knows of a handful of DC heroes, and they've all become uninteresting clichés to the cynical audience, largely because they're mostly aliens or beings with god-level powers that movie writers try to squeeze into a human context.

There's an idea to make a Superman movie interesting: Keep away from Earth and humanity. Don't have them factor into it at all. That'll remove the awkward need to have him relate on our level.

 

[templar1138a]

I put it down to talking about a fellow Bostonian as much as anything.

Another Bob thread, another slew of people complaining about the accent. (Not the person I've quoted.. others.)

Nice of you to clarify. No really, thanks.

But seriously, check his other videos where he's downright ranting (one about South Park is the only specific one I can think of at the moment). He slips into his Boston dialect all too easily.

 

[Bruce]

Here is the problem - Affleck could play a great Superman.

Affleck doesn't play grim all that well, and when you get right down to it the central idea with Batman, that fear can be used to create order? That's not Affleck either.

The risk is that the director ends up taking out the strengths of Affleck in trying to mould his performance towards the strengths of Batman, ending up with neither.

It is not his acting chops really at the heart of it, it is that he doesn't quite fit the role.

 

[2xDouble]

And to the people who bring up Daredevil, yes it was 10 years ago, but let's also remember that Daredevil was not bad BECAUSE of Affleck.

Quite true. Daredevil was watchable thanks to Affleck really trying to sell the character... something the producers of Green Lantern forgot when they effectively took Ryan Reynolds out of the equation. The rest of the movie was pretty bad, but watching it again, you can tell that, even relatively half-assed compared to some of his other roles, Affleck played a decent Daredevil. Maybe that can translate into him being a decent Batman, maybe not. Time till tell.

I personally don't see Ben Affleck as Batman. Bruce Wayne, maybe, but not Batman. (He could make a pretty interesting DC villain, though... and he'd make one hell of a Flash.) I'd much rather he take on a behind-the-scenes role, adding his expertise to the direction and screenwriting. Ideally, this will happen either way. On the other hand, Affleck's style and personality is comparable to that of Michael Keaton. That's not a bad thing.

As an aside... I'd be quite interested to see Bob discuss this topic with Angry Joe [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0QWdnhW9jM] (warning, loud). They're on relatively opposite sides, but with enough common ground and cautious optimism to make it interesting. I find it very interesting that both equate "Superman vs Batman" on the same level as "Iron Man vs Thor", as something that should happen once in one scene and then everybody moves on.

I'm more concerned that Batman has the potential to completely overshadow Superman's movie... very much like the US Army did to the Transformers' movies (F you, Bay!). I just hope the writers and directors remember that this shouldn't be Batman vs Superman, this is Man of Steel 2 with special guest, the Batman. (...and in my opinion, they can tell Frank Miller's versions of these characters to drown themselves in lava.)

 

[franksands]

Bob, If the first news was that Ben Afflect was cast as Batman, I would be ok with that. I think he's a great actor, loved Argo, so no problems there. The problem is that they quoted The Dark Knight Returns and said this Batman will be a "rugged and older" Batman. The way I see it, this would be a perfect part for Mickey Rourke or Bruce Willis. They did brilliantly "rugged and older" characters in Sin City. I would pay good money to see Jonh Hartigan as Batman. As much as I like Afleck, I don't think he has the body or the face to play this part.
And another point, I completely cannot take any more of this "dark and gritty" stuff hollywood thinks all movies must be, but with MoS as the tone, how can it not be dark and gritty?
Also, Snyder's superman kills if he thinks things took long enough, so the fight with Batman should be quick.

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

As much as I like Batman, I can't really work up the energy one way or another to care about Affleck as Batman. He seems like an okay actor, better director. There are worse people to play him. I dunno, I enjoyed the Nolan Batman movies, but I think I'm a bit burned out on Batman movies for the time being.

 

[Falseprophet]

The times are changing; the world has become more dark and painful as even with all the advances in science, our humanity has become more chaotic in war, politics, and isolation.

Also, the comparisons aren't apt. They just aren't. I get bob has his issues with some of the things that snuck into modern DC films but...I mean THATS THE AGE WE LIVE IN. The world is dark and full of terrors, If i may rip someone else's schtick. comics typically represent modern thought and general feelings. If you don't like it, sorry. This is the age we live in. If you want to hide under a 'happy' movie rock, thats okay, but I for one don't want to see a Golden-Silver Age flick.

Did you realize the Golden Age of comics, when these characters were created, happened during and just after the planet was enmeshed in the bloodiest, most destructive, and pretty much most depraved conflict the human race has ever seen?

Did you realize the Silver Age happened during a period of immense civil and international strife, including the civil rights movement, terrorism, the Cuba Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, and the Vietnam War?

I grew up enjoying all the 80s toy related properties Bob likes to wax nostalgic about--while cognizant of the fact that the USSR had nuclear missiles pointed at my hometown that could reduce it to radioactive ash within 15 minutes.

While my sister and I were still toddlers, my parents saw their mortgage rate reach almost 20%. In the last 5 years, mine has almost never been more than 2.5%.

And yet, none of those things prevented our society from creating and enjoying light, comedic, hopeful, and optimistic entertainment. I swear, kids today are the wimpiest bunch of drama queens. No sense of historical perspective whatsoever.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I'm kinda warming to the idea of him being Bats, and the idea that we could get a Dark Knight in the vein of Brave and the Bold or The Animated Series is an appealing one, certainly. A Batman who is competent, cheeky, and has fun with all his super gadgets is much more preferably to the grimdark, raspy, angsty, overly melodramatic Batman we've seen recently, so hopefully that happens.

Come to think of it, Batman was the weakest part of the best of the Dark Knight trilogy, so it's not like he's got a high bar against Bale. Against the (first two) movies, sure, but there's still plenty of ways to let Batman out without causing issue. I imagine the grimdark and angst loving crowd will be displeased, but we could do with collectively moving out of the nineties, anyway.

 

[RJ Dalton]

*stops laughing midway through the video*
Oh, wait you're serious. I'd drum up the Futurama clip about Bender laughing harder, but . . .
You're serious?

Okay, I knew Afleck turned out to be a good writer/director (that blew my mind, I'll admit), but when did he become a good actor?

 

[RaikuFA]

I'd also bringing up how Tom Hanks played some comedies before doing Philadelphia and Forrest Gump.

In related news, does anyone think Hanks would make for a great Gordon?

 

[hexFrank202]

Oh, though I do have one nitpick; I'm not saying that it's illegal to make fun of Mitt Romney or anything, but... why him? Bob also made the exact same genre of statement with Romney as the 'generic rich guy' in an earlier TGO episode. Why? Out of all the well-known rich people in America, he's far from the richest.

He was the wealthiest person to get nominated for president in years... eight years, to be exact. =\

Furthermore, he's a lot poorer than Bruce Wayne would be today adjusted for inflation. People have estimated Wayne's net worth to be somewhere around six billion. Romney hovers around two hundred million.

Also, Mittens gave away his inheritance before starting his own adult career.

 

[TwiZtah]

Fuck yes, finally, someone criticizes Batman!

He's not a hero, he knows the villains will get out of Arkham, therefore he is also indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

He actually openly admits this in The Dark Knight Returns:
<youtube=vhPedOI9hZM>

Well then,if they could just take this mentality to the contemporary Batman and make him kill his enemies, then I'm happy.

 

[jmarquiso]

Heath Ledger was just some pretty boy actor no one saw anything in, and then The Dark Knight happened. Michael Keaton was Mr. Mom.

I do not have a problem with Affleck as Batman.

I'd like it more if he were voiced by Kevin Conroy though

 

[Machine Man 1992]

You just couldn't resist dragging your social justice agenda into this episode could you?

As for Batfleck, I'm neither excited or disappointed: I've never seen a major Afleck movie, so his reputation is second hand to me.

 

[Miroluck]

My main complaint about Affleck being in this movie (and, incidentally, him being in any role) is that his default facial expression looks really dumb to me.
About the fact that he "changed" in 10 years - everyobody's different. Not everyone change at the same rate, some people don't change at all.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Oh, though I do have one nitpick; I'm not saying that it's illegal to make fun of Mitt Romney or anything, but... why him? Bob also made the exact same genre of statement with Romney as the 'generic rich guy' in an earlier TGO episode. Why? Out of all the well-known rich people in America, he's far from the richest.

He was the wealthiest person to get nominated for president in years... eight years, to be exact. =\

Furthermore, he's a lot poorer than Bruce Wayne would be today adjusted for inflation. People have estimated Wayne's net worth to be somewhere around six billion. Romney hovers around two hundred million.

Also, Mittens gave away his inheritance before starting his own adult career.

I did not know that. Makes me a little more sympathetic to the guy. I dislike people who are born into money, but have immense respect for people who can earn that kind of dosh themselves.