Ben Affleck IS Batman - Part 10

[Astro13Zombie]

Originally Posted by TheNextNolan22

Michael Shannon was another casting choice that seemed really terrible to me in the beginning but I ended up loving.

I had only seen him in one movie prior to MOS,
It was a movie called Grand theft parsons.

I let myself get too caught up in his previous role as a burned out hippy to expect anything great from him as Zod,but I was proven completely wrong.
He was fantastic.

Originally Posted by roach

hmmm looking at Dr Manhattan makes me think Batman may have white eyes.

I hadn't thought of that!

Dr.Manhattan is all around probably a pretty good example of how far Snyder is willing to go to stick to the source.

[The Shield]

Originally Posted by TheNextNolan22

Yeah, all he really needs to nail down is the voice and he's good to go. And has Snyder ever really had any trouble when it comes to casting?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

You forgot the queen in 300 she was awesome. I have always really really appreciated his cast in all his movies. I'm a huge Zack fan. I wanted him to direct Superman since he made 300 (I still can't believe it happen).

And I've supported his decision to bring in Ben from the beginning as well. I was one of the first. I never would've guessed it in 1 million years but Ive always trust his casting skills and ability to transform that actor. I believe Ben will surprise even himself let alone everyone else.

It's all about dialog and screenplay 100%. It always has been. That's the tilt. Dialog, dialog, dialog, screenplay, screenplay, screenplay. It has to be polished like chrome and cut like a diamond. I can't stress that enough.

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by roach

hmmm looking at Dr Manhattan makes me think Batman may have white eyes.

I don't think so. I mean, the whole reason why Doctor Manhattan got white eyes was to imply a difference between humans and his being and omniscience. SO that's a huge part of his design.

On the other hand, what difference does white eye make for Batman? I feel like that's something trivial and unnecessary to want.

[Rorschach2012]

Originally Posted by InJustice

I don't think so. I mean, the whole reason why Doctor Manhattan got white eyes was to imply a difference between humans and his being and omniscience. SO that's a huge part of his design.

On the other hand, what difference does white eye make for Batman? I feel like that's something trivial and unnecessary to want.

It's a minor visual difference that would look awesome. Batman always has the eyes in comics and animation, how is it trivial and unnecessary to want him to look like the comics? YOU'RE trivial and unnecessary!

[theShape]

I can still vividly remember when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker. I was so shocked and actually very upset, simply because I couldn't see it at all. He was the last person I ever would have imagined would be cast as the ****ing Joker, arguably one of the best villains EVER in all entertainment mediums.

Well, we all know how that turned out. Once the first teasers trickled in, I was already sold and beyond excited. He delivered in every way possible. I had a similar reaction upon hearing Ben's casting (shock and anger), but I quickly calmed down and got behind the idea. There's a definite wait-and-see approach that is necessary here, but as I've said, it reassures me that the filmmakers believe in him enough to make this bold casting choice.

What reassures me even further is that Ben believes in himself enough to accept this daunting role which comes with such baggage and responsibility to legions of fans around the world. Remember, this is the last thing he NEEDED to do. Coming off a Best Picture Oscar win as a director with lots of Hollywood clout, he's signed on to play Batman. If he's confident in himself and thinks he is right for this role, then there's little I can do but be confident in him as well.

I just can't wait to see how this all turns out. I think it's a bit strange how negative some fans have been about the whole thing. It's going to be a real exciting time.

[TheNextNolan22]

Even Ben was initially reluctant to return to the superhero genre after Daredevil, but he's at the point in his career where he's smart enough to not make the same mistake twice.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by InJustice

On the other hand, what difference does white eye make for Batman? I feel like that's something trivial and unnecessary to want.

They make Batman look less human and more like a bat demon, which is the whole idea behind dressing up as Batman.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by theShape

What reassures me even further is that Ben believes in himself enough to accept this daunting role which comes with such baggage and responsibility to legions of fans around the world. Remember, this is the last thing he NEEDED to do. Coming off a Best Picture Oscar win as a director with lots of Hollywood clout, he's signed on to play Batman. If he's confident in himself and thinks he is right for this role, then there's little I can do but be confident in him as well.

That's a good point. He didn't need to do this, and after DD I'm sure he gave it a good long thought before saying yes.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by theShape

I can still vividly remember when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker. I was so shocked and actually very upset, simply because I couldn't see it at all. He was the last person I ever would have imagined would be cast as the ****ing Joker, arguably one of the best villains EVER in all entertainment mediums.

Well, we all know how that turned out. Once the first teasers trickled in, I was already sold and beyond excited. He delivered in every way possible. I had a similar reaction upon hearing Ben's casting (shock and anger), but I quickly calmed down and got behind the idea. There's a definite wait-and-see approach that is necessary here, but as I've said, it reassures me that the filmmakers believe in him enough to make this bold casting choice.

What reassures me even further is that Ben believes in himself enough to accept this daunting role which comes with such baggage and responsibility to legions of fans around the world. Remember, this is the last thing he NEEDED to do. Coming off a Best Picture Oscar win as a director with lots of Hollywood clout, he's signed on to play Batman. If he's confident in himself and thinks he is right for this role, then there's little I can do but be confident in him as well.

I just can't wait to see how this all turns out. I think it's a bit strange how negative some fans have been about the whole thing. It's going to be a real exciting time.

The Heath Ledger analogy is really old, redundant, and overused IMO. It also does not apply here. They're two entirely different cases.

Heath was young, didn't have a long career and was no A-list either. His talent hasn't fully been seen due to that. On the other hand, Affleck is an A-list actor/writer/director in his 40's with an entire long career behind him. We've see his strengths, his weaknesses, the acting range he has, etc. Heath needed a chance - not necessarily a comic book film chance but just a chance in general - to show how great of an actor he was. Affleck has an entire career behind him and has never demonstrated that he is some A-list actor. TJ Kirk put it best when he said "In bad movies, Ben Affleck is bad in them and is great movies, Ben Affleck is ok/pretty good in them".

Plus, most of the problems people had with Heath were Brokeback Mountain-associated. People did not want a "some gay guy" to play the Joker. Take the Brokeback Mountain complaints away and the backlash Heath's casting had is nowhere near Affleck's.

If anything, this is more of a George Clooney situation. Both Affleck and Clooney are A-list actors with a career behind him and everyone thought Clooney would do great because he was A-list and had a solid career and because he had the look, something people say about Affleck as well. We know how that turned out. Now I don't think Affleck will be anywhere as bad as Clooney, but the same idea applies.

[hafizbat]

I'm not sure how much of that mess was actually Clooney's fault though. Who knows, with a capable director who knew how to make a Batman film, he could've been very different. We'll never know.

[theShape]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

The Heath Ledger analogy is really old, redundant, and overused IMO. It also does not apply here. They're two entirely different cases.

Heath was young, didn't have a long career and was no A-list either. His talent hasn't fully been seen due to that. On the other hand, Affleck is an A-list actor/writer/director in his 40's with an entire long career behind him. We've see his strengths, his weaknesses, the acting range he has, etc. Heath needed a chance - not necessarily a comic book film chance but just a chance in general - to show how great of an actor he was. Affleck has an entire career behind him and has never demonstrated that he is some A-list actor. TJ Kirk put it best when he said "In bad movies, Ben Affleck is bad in them and is great movies, Ben Affleck is ok/pretty good in them".

Plus, most of the problems people had with Heath were Brokeback Mountain-associated. People did not want a "some gay guy" to play the Joker. Take the Brokeback Mountain complaints away and the backlash Heath's casting had is nowhere near Affleck's.

If anything, this is more of a George Clooney situation. Both Affleck and Clooney are A-list actors with a career behind him and everyone thought Clooney would do great because he was A-list and had a solid career and because he had the look, something people say about Affleck as well. We know how that turned out. Now I don't think Affleck will be anywhere as bad as Clooney, but the same idea applies.

Uh, I was merely comparing my own reactions to the two castings. But now that you're speaking of the analogy between Heath and Ben, I still think you're off the mark.

In terms of Clooney, he didn't have the career behind him in 1997 that you seem to be referencing. In fact, he was mostly known for his role on ER, not for a long film career that spanned 15 years. Also, he was the second actor to play Batman in a 2 year period and was stepping into a "franchise" that was already 3 films deep. Not really the same as reimagining the role in a new series of films as Heath did and Ben is about to do.

As far as Heath's casting, at the time, he was mostly known for starring roles in 10 Things I Hate About You, A Knight's Tale, and yes, Brokeback. If anything, Brokeback Mountain is the only one of those movies in which he really displayed any acting chops. Sure, there might have been some ignorant fans who didn't want a "gay guy" as the Joker, but that was hardly the reason for his backlash. The backlash came from Heath being the least Joker-ish person who could have been cast. He had never, ever been mentioned as someone fans wanted to be cast and hardly anyone could picture him as the Joker, which is a similar reaction many fans have had towards Ben. Despite his good looks, no one was clamorong for him to be cast as Batman, and after he was cast, we saw there was a ton of people who didn't think he could pull it off.

Either way, despite whether they had similar careers before they were cast in these big roles, Heath and Ben share this similarity -- no one really wanted them to be cast in these roles at all before they were cast, and many people were confused, shocked, and disappointed by the initial announcements. Like Heath, Ben has the opportunity to surprise and impress a LOT of people, or he could fall flat. I certainly know which way you're predicting it will go...

[theShape]

Originally Posted by hafizbat

I'm not sure how much of that mess was actually Clooney's fault though. Who knows, with a capable director who knew how to make a Batman film, he could've been very different. We'll never know.

This is true. We'll never know what could have been.

[TheBat812]

People hugely underestimate the importance of vision/writing/directing. The role of Bruce/batman is not incredibly complex, but it's the writing and direction that define his characterization. Every live action batman so far is a product of the vision of the director and each has played th role accordingly. Ben will be great with snyders vision and direction.

As to people saying he can't do it because he hasn't played a role like this before...

[charl_huntress]

I guess for me Bale brought so much to that role as an actor that I want to continue to see that same nuance from other portrayals.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I guess for me Bale brought so much to that role as an actor that I want to continue to see that same nuance from other portrayals.

I totally agree, but that kind of thing is easily within afflecks range IMO, considering the story will likely not be as personally devastating as say TDK.

[charl_huntress]

I have never seen him exert that range. IMO, he generally plays the same type of guy in nearly every movie he's been in.

[Uroboric Forms]

Originally Posted by Astro13Zombie

Michael Shannon was another casting choice that seemed really terrible to me in the beginning but I ended up loving.

I had only seen him in one movie prior to MOS,
It was a movie called Grand theft parsons.

I let myself get too caught up in his previous role as a burned out hippy to expect anything great from him as Zod,but I was proven completely wrong.
He was fantastic.



I hadn't thought of that!

Dr.Manhattan is all around probably a pretty good example of how far Snyder is willing to go to stick to the source.

Michael Shannon was a casting choice that I thought was pitch perfect, even if his Zod wasn't quite as intense as I had expected from him.

[charl_huntress]

I will admit after seeing MOS, I was surprised by how much I loved the cast. I thought Crowe was great and he was someone I gave the side-eye to when his name was announced. Again, I'm willing to give Synder and Affleck the benefit of the doubt.

[TheNextNolan22]

Shannon was really great in the role, even though he was a bit more subdued than I was expecting.

[Uroboric Forms]

Originally Posted by TheNextNolan22

Shannon was really great in the role, even though he was a bit more subdued than I was expecting.

Yeah, I was expecting him to be on Bane levels of intimidation and intensity.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

The Heath Ledger analogy is really old, redundant, and overused IMO. It also does not apply here. They're two entirely different cases.

Heath was young, didn't have a long career and was no A-list either. His talent hasn't fully been seen due to that. On the other hand, Affleck is an A-list actor/writer/director in his 40's with an entire long career behind him. We've see his strengths, his weaknesses, the acting range he has, etc. Heath needed a chance - not necessarily a comic book film chance but just a chance in general - to show how great of an actor he was. Affleck has an entire career behind him and has never demonstrated that he is some A-list actor. TJ Kirk put it best when he said "In bad movies, Ben Affleck is bad in them and is great movies, Ben Affleck is ok/pretty good in them".

Brokeback Mountain was Heath's chance and he knocked it out of the park.

He was very well known and respected (in the right circles) back in 2006.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by theShape

Uh, I was merely comparing my own reactions to the two castings. But now that you're speaking of the analogy between Heath and Ben, I still think you're off the mark.

In terms of Clooney, he didn't have the career behind him in 1997 that you seem to be referencing. In fact, he was mostly known for his role on ER, not for a long film career that spanned 15 years. Also, he was the second actor to play Batman in a 2 year period and was stepping into a "franchise" that was already 3 films deep. Not really the same as reimagining the role in a new series of films as Heath did and Ben is about to do.

As far as Heath's casting, at the time, he was mostly known for starring roles in 10 Things I Hate About You, A Knight's Tale, and yes, Brokeback. If anything, Brokeback Mountain is the only one of those movies in which he really displayed any acting chops. Sure, there might have been some ignorant fans who didn't want a "gay guy" as the Joker, but that was hardly the reason for his backlash. The backlash came from Heath being the least Joker-ish person who could have been cast. He had never, ever been mentioned as someone fans wanted to be cast and hardly anyone could picture him as the Joker, which is a similar reaction many fans have had towards Ben. Despite his good looks, no one was clamorong for him to be cast as Batman, and after he was cast, we saw there was a ton of people who didn't think he could pull it off.

Either way, despite whether they had similar careers before they were cast in these big roles, Heath and Ben share this similarity -- no one really wanted them to be cast in these roles at all before they were cast, and many people were confused, shocked, and disappointed by the initial announcements. Like Heath, Ben has the opportunity to surprise and impress a LOT of people, or he could fall flat. I certainly know which way you're predicting it will go...

I thought Clooney was well known at the time. I know he started acting in the 1980's and was in his mid-to-late 30's by the time B&R came out. Regardless, my analogy still applies. Heath had a young career and he never a chance to prove him (and I mean prove himself on a scale much bigger than BM, which is what TDK did). Affleck has an entire career behind him. That's why, in my opinion, having a lack of faith in Ben Affleck is more justified than in a case such as Heath's.

A lot of the forums I've been on talked a lot about BW when Heath was cast, from what I remember.

Also, I don't think Affleck will fall flat like Clooney did. I just think he's "meh".

Originally Posted by Pfeiffer-Pfan

Brokeback Mountain was Heath's chance and he knocked it out of the park.

He was very well known and respected (in the right circles) back in 2006.

Many people didn't even know who he was until he was cast as the Joker (including me).

[theShape]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I thought Clooney was well known at the time. I know he started acting in the 1980's and was in his mid-to-late 30's by the time B&R came out. Regardless, my analogy still applies. Heath had a young career and he never a chance to prove him (and I mean prove himself on a scale much bigger than BM, which is what TDK did). Affleck has an entire career behind him. That's why, in my opinion, having a lack of faith in Ben Affleck is more justified than in a case such as Heath's.

A lot of the forums I've been on talked a lot about BW when Heath was cast, from what I remember.

Also, I don't think Affleck will fall flat like Clooney did. I just think he's "meh".



Many people didn't even know who he was until he was cast as the Joker (including me).

Surprisingly, Clooney's film career really took after after B&R and once he left ER in 1999. Before B&R, he had only been in a couple of films, the most recognizable one being From Dusk Til Dawn. Before ER, he was a soap and sitcom actor primarily.


Not sure if you know, but Heath Ledger had been acting in films for at least 10 years before TDK. 10 Things I Hate About You was released in 1999, and he had many roles in big movies over the next decade -- The Patriot, Monster's Ball, The Four Feathers, A Knight's Tale, The Brother's Grimm, Lords of Dogtown, Casanova, Brokeback Mountain, I'm Not There, and others. It's not as if he didn't have enough of a career for people to make a judgement on or base an opinion on his acting abilities.

The main difference is that it wasn't really Heath's acting ability that was in question. Rather, it was that people (myself included) did not feel that he was right for the role of the Joker. Many, many people have expressed the same feelings toward Ben Affleck as Batman.

The biggest criticism towards Ben so far hasn't necessarily been his acting ability, per say, although you do seem to think he has been subpar in most of his roles. Still, the biggest backlash (aside from him him not being right for the role) seems to have been the flops and duds he's had in his career...with Gigli and Daredevil getting a lot of mentions. You gotta admit it's pretty funny how everyone's harped on Ben for that while it's not as if Bale had anything close to a stellar track record before Batman Begins. Aside from American Psycho, The Machinist, and Empire of the Sun (when he was a kid), I can't really think of one of Bale's pre-BB movies that I like.

Anyways, despite their careers, my original comparison was just to the reactions towards Ben's and Heath's casting...and how they were both poised to either surprise/impress or disappoint. There wasn't much confidence when Heath was cast (before info and trailers starting trickling in), and there's not much confidence behind Ben so far either. Hence, a perfectly valid analogy.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I thought Clooney was well known at the time. I know he started acting in the 1980's and was in his mid-to-late 30's by the time B&R came out. Regardless, my analogy still applies. Heath had a young career and he never a chance to prove him (and I mean prove himself on a scale much bigger than BM, which is what TDK did). Affleck has an entire career behind him. That's why, in my opinion, having a lack of faith in Ben Affleck is more justified than in a case such as Heath's.

A lot of the forums I've been on talked a lot about BW when Heath was cast, from what I remember.

Also, I don't think Affleck will fall flat like Clooney did. I just think he's "meh".



Many people didn't even know who he was until he was cast as the Joker (including me).

This is the mistake though. Just because an actor has been around for a long career, doesn't mean they can't grow/evolve at their artform. It doesn't mean they can't still surprise an audience, or themselves for that matter. Art is expression, and a musician, painter, actor, whatever..can change their ways even after decades of being around. You could be right and Affleck could have shown all his tricks, but i wouldnt call him a one trick pony. But yes, he's close. Just look at the last couple of films he's done that he directed himself. His range has grown. He may just be getting started.

Ill use McConaughay as an example. He's older than Affleck (or maybe the same age) and i feel like he's gone through a rebirth. He's starting to show us things we never thought were possible coming from him.

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by Rorschach2012

It's a minor visual difference that would look awesome. Batman always has the eyes in comics and animation, how is it trivial and unnecessary to want him to look like the comics? YOU'RE trivial and unnecessary!

You just said it's minor and could not state a legitimate reason for implementation (see: Shikamaru's post below, he presented intimidation as a possible reason to implement white-eyes). If it's minor, and you recognize it as such, then what's the point of implementing it? Furthermore, just because the comics did it, it doesn't mean that it's always going to work out on film.

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

They make Batman look less human and more like a bat demon, which is the whole idea behind dressing up as Batman.

But the precedent was already set by B1989, Returns, and Batman Begins. Where it showed that one doesn't really need white-eyes to be intimidating/inhuman/demonic. Thus, one can conclude that it's not a central visual difference. Hence, that's why I think it's not necessary (the films I mentioned either played on fear of the unknown, or the demonic imagery through mannerisms/costuming).

I just think it's something that wouldn't translate well to film as opposed to comics.