Justice League Ben Affleck IS Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 6

[MbJ]

Yeah well keep disrespecting what your fans want and see how long they stick around.

Sometimes what the fans want and what the general audience want are not the same thing. Case in point: within a certain bubble of DCEU fandom you will find people who insist Batman v. Superman is the best comic book movie of all time, while the entire reason the studio is in the situation it's in to begin with is a bunch of people thinking it was hot garbage.

Let's look at it like this: do you honestly think someone else playing Batman is going to be a big problem for anyone other than hardcore Zack Snyder fans? Because we went through several other Batman actors prior to that, and people had no problem accepting new iterations.

 

[idiot09]

We are seeing it with Star Wars.

Honestly, I think it takes a delicate hand to find a balance to please the current fans of the DCEU (not counting Justice Abomination) and those you want to bring in. Wonder Woman was a good balance.

Yeah, and I dont think its a particularly hard balance either. Its like you can literally recast any character, so many iconic characters have, and people will accept that, that's not the point. Like at all. Build on what you have, rather than throwing it all out. Also find it pretty hilarious that being a fan of Ben Affleck's Batman, and wanting to see more of that makes ya a hardcore ZS fan. Alrighty then.

 

[MbJ]

Also find it pretty hilarious that being a fan of Ben Affleck's Batman, and wanting to see more of that makes ya a hardcore ZS fan. Alrighty then.

Not what I said. What I said is those people are gonna be the only ones who take real issue with it. Do you think people who aren't extremely invested in BVS are gonna seriously boycott the next Batman movie because it's starring a different actor? Probably not. If it is a genuinely well received film, do you think most people are still not gonna see it or be pissed off and upset that it stars a new actor? Almost certainly not. Which is why in this case, "You shouldn't go against what the fans want!" is not a particularly compelling argument.

 

[2kt09]

I'm actually always surprised by the number of Batfleck fans I find who simply gush about his performance.

 

[idiot09]

I'm actually always surprised by the number of Batfleck fans I find who simply gush about his performance.

You a fan?

 

[2kt09]

You a fan?

Absolutely. Just thinking back to when a classmate of mine randomly noted how attracted she was to Batfleck and the multitude of times I come across folks who hate BvS yet were sold on his Batman to the extent of being THE Batman even if the "killing" thing bugged them.

 

[idiot09]

Absolutely. Just thinking back to when a classmate of mine randomly noted how attracted she was to Batfleck and the multitude of times I come across folks who hate BvS yet were sold on his Batman to the extent of being THE Batman even if the "killing" thing bugged them.

Yeah. Nearly all my friends watch DC movies(all CBMs), but are not big DCEU/cb fans like me. All of them love Ben as Batman, even that one dude who loved Bale and said Affleck would suck.

Would a new actor work? Ofc he would, even the most iconic of actors/roles have been recast before. Doesnt mean it needs to happen tho, I say make it work. Dont sacrifice quality for potential longevity. We know Affleck is a terrific Batman. We dont know how well the new actor may or may not do. Build on what you have, is a sure and safe bet for me.

 

[flickchick85]

Dont sacrifice quality for potential longevity. We know Affleck is a terrific Batman. We dont know how well the new actor may or may not do. Build on what you have, is a sure and safe bet for me.

On the flipside of that coin, why limit your new acclaimed writer/director with an old Batman whose career is behind him and a whole lot of not-so-great baggage, when he could start fresh with his own vision? This isn't Henry we're talking about: Affleck is a decade older, doesn't take great care of himself, and hasn't seemed particularly enthused about the role. Why sacrifice quality/creative freedom and potential longevity for the safe and easy option?

As I've said before, I don't care what happens. Affleck is acceptable to me but also replaceable. I'm fine with whatever Reeves decides to do. But sticking with Affleck just because he's "safe" wouldn't be the most appealing option to me if I were Matt Reeves.

 

[FatRobin]

It seems like the man himself doesn't have enough passion to continue though, which is the biggest problem and the reason that he needs to go imo, despite how much I loved and rooted for his portrayal.

 

[idiot09]

It seems like the man himself doesn't have enough passion to continue though, which is the biggest problem and the reason that he needs to go imo, despite how much I loved and rooted for his portrayal.

If Reeves wants so do a younger Batman in his 20s though, it effectively rules out what Affleck wants, which seems to be the case here though.

On the flipside of that coin, why limit your new acclaimed writer/director with an old Batman whose career is behind him and a whole lot of not-so-great baggage, when he could start fresh with his own vision? This isn't Henry we're talking about: Affleck is a decade older, doesn't take great care of himself, and hasn't seemed particularly enthused about the role. Why sacrifice quality/creative freedom and potential longevity for the safe and easy option?

As I've said before, I don't care what happens. Affleck is acceptable to me but also replaceable. I'm fine with whatever Reeves decides to do. But sticking with Affleck just because he's "safe" wouldn't be the most appealing option to me if I were Matt Reeves.

-I dont think saying Affleck's career is behind him is fair. RDJ was 47 was The Avengers came out. He has since then appeared in 4 MCU movies in major roles. He'll do it again next year. And its not like he is in peak human condition either. He doesnt have to, most work is done by stunt men these days, he is there to do his job, be in good shape and act. Paul Rudd is 49. Mark Ruffalo is 50. Tom Cruise is 55! Affleck seems to be in good shape now.
And whenever he has talked of Batman, he has expressed his love for the character. He even said he would play an ape for Matt Reeves, so its not as if he doesnt seem enthusiastic for the role.

-I dont think you have to sacrifice quality with Affleck, and the only creative freedom you sacrifice is you have a more experience Batman rather than a younger Batman. And since we already have had so many young Batman movies, its a fresh change. Its not like its a huge creative burden or something, rather it opens new doors.

-Its not only the safe and easy option. Fans are already behind Affleck, so they dont have to sell us on a new Batman. There's already a built in audience, they just have to focus on a kick ass movie.

Honestly I get your point. Reeves might want his OWN guy(I remember Patty saying she felt the same about Gal, and inheriting her from Zack, but then Gal won her over) and someone who can guarantee 10 years of his life for him. Affleck might not be that guy for him. He might want to tell his own offbeat take that doesnt fit with what Affleck was doing. That's cool. But if that's the case, I think the best thing to do is make Reeves movie elseworld like the Joker movie under the DC Black label. He gets all the freedom he wants, and none of the baggage. Both parties win. Get a director who can build on the past, and create a exciting future with the BATMAN we have. That's my suggestion.

 

[Sawyer]

Christ Almighty, was there this much blowback over Andrew Garfield getting his walking papers?

Because make no mistake. Affleck is Batman's Andrew Garfield.

 

[flickchick85]

-I dont think saying Affleck's career is behind him is fair. RDJ was 47 was The Avengers came out. He has since then appeared in 4 MCU movies in major roles. He'll do it again next year. And its not like he is in peak human condition either. He doesnt have to, most work is done by stunt men these days, he is there to do his job, be in good shape and act. Paul Rudd is 49. Mark Ruffalo is 50. Tom Cruise is 55! Affleck seems to be in good shape now.
And whenever he has talked of Batman, he has expressed his love for the character. He even said he would play an ape for Matt Reeves, so its not as if he doesnt seem enthusiastic for the role.

-I dont think you have to sacrifice quality with Affleck, and the only creative freedom you sacrifice is you have a more experience Batman rather than a younger Batman. And since we already have had so many young Batman movies, its a fresh change. Its not like its a huge creative burden or something, rather it opens new doors.

-Its not only the safe and easy option. Fans are already behind Affleck, so they dont have to sell us on a new Batman. There's already a built in audience, they just have to focus on a kick ass movie.

Honestly I get your point. Reeves might want his OWN guy(I remember Patty saying she felt the same about Gal, and inheriting her from Zack, but then Gal won her over) and someone who can guarantee 10 years of his life for him. Affleck might not be that guy for him. He might want to tell his own offbeat take that doesnt fit with what Affleck was doing. That's cool. But if that's the case, I think the best thing to do is make Reeves movie elseworld like the Joker movie under the DC Black label. He gets all the freedom he wants, and none of the baggage. Both parties win. Get a director who can build on the past, and create a exciting future with the BATMAN we have. That's my suggestion.

For the record, I was not saying Affleck's career is behind him, I was saying his Batman's career was. This is a Batman who's had (and lost) a Batfamily and faced his most famous villains already. That's what I was talking about there. I'm sure Affleck's got many years ahead of him in his career. But his age is certainly showing, imo, even when he's in good shape, so I think his superhero days are numbered. RDJ has been a health nut pretty much ever since he's been sober, which helps his case, and his CGI character also has no stunt factor for him, but even he's admitted he's getting a bit too long in the tooth for this as well. And we all know Tom Cruise has Xenu.

Frankly, I see a lot of indifference toward Affleck's Batman, and so when you say "the fans are behind him," I'd say the fans will get behind anybody who does a good job, because at the end of the day, it's really Batman they're behind. Most fans just want a good Batman, and they'll support whomever as long as they get that. Affleck himself is evidence of that, since there was a lot of outrage when he was first cast, but they came around, for the most part. And Matt Reeves has given us absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't find someone who would do a good job if he decides to recast. A good Batman is easier to find than a good Superman.

I don't like the Elseworld idea for Reeves because A.) it enforces this failed iteration of the DCEU as the "main" one, and that's just terrible for the brand at this juncture, imo. People need to feel like they're getting a fresh start with these characters, regardless of who's playing them. But either keep Affleck or start over, because B.) I don't need two live-action Batmans with running franchises. There are plenty of other DC heroes who deserve to get movies over Batman having THREE (w/ Lego Batman) simultaneous franchises. It's just too much Bats.

 

[idiot09]

For the record, I was not saying Affleck's career is behind him, I was saying his Batman's career was. This is a Batman who's had (and lost) a Batfamily and faced his most famous villains already. That's what I was talking about there. I'm sure Affleck's got many years ahead of him in his career. But his age is certainly showing, imo, even when he's in good shape.

Frankly, I see a lot of indifference toward Affleck's Batman, and so when you say "the fans are behind him," I'd say the fans will get behind anybody who does a good job, because at the end of the day, it's really Batman they're behind. Most fans just want a good Batman, and they'll support whomever as long as they get that. Affleck himself is evidence of that, since there was a lot of outrage when he was first cast, but they came around, for the most part. And Matt Reeves has given us absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't find someone who would do a good job if he decides to recast. A good Batman is easier to find than a good Superman.

I don't like the Elseworld idea for Reeves because A.) it enforces this failed iteration of the DCEU as the "main" one, and that's just terrible for the brand at this juncture, imo. Either keep Affleck or start over, because B.) I don't need two live-action Batmans with running franchises. There are plenty of other DC heroes who deserve to get movies over Batman having THREE (w/ Lego Batman) simultaneous franchises.

-Sorry, I misinterpreted that. As far as it being a Batman who has faced all his villains, that doesnt necessarily has to be the case. They can easily say, he has faced x and y, but not z, who he faces now. Or just keep it vague. And I think the only batfamily member who has been killed so far is a Robin. In fact having a established Batman, gives you an established batfamily which is always a +

-Thats true that people will try to get behind a new actor. Just saying its better to not go through a risky recast in a major role, the middle of a cinematic universe, if you can avoid it. More so, if the actor is already accepted and liked by the fans.

-I dont necessarily see DC Black as something borne out of a failed DCEU, rather just like in the comics(like the new DC Black Label) a method to tell offbeat stories. That helps them tell stories that dont have to be confined by a cinematic universe, and they can go as extreme as they want. Reeves is an extremely talented filmmaker, and I think he deserves that freedom. But imo, not in the cost of the upheaval of the established CU. So its a win-win for me.

Just for the record, I dont want a new Batman trilogy. I already think Batman is getting too many movies, and that comes from a guy with a Batman avatar. But apparently Reeves wants to do a trilogy, so I guess so. If I were in the controlling power, I would just get a solid filmmaker and make one badass Batman flick(with supporting characters like Nightwing, Oracle etc) and have him go against Joker. Like an iconic classic Batman movie. And then just cameos in the other CU roles like say in SS2, or Nightwing/Batgirl etc. And ofc JL2 if that ever comes to pass.

Give Reeves complete freedom, a solid budget, and let him make the Batman movies he wants to make with no restrictions. We already have two Jokers, two Superman, two Flashes, two Cyborgs and Nightwings soon. So its not like unprecedented.

At the end of the day I hope they make a decision that satisfies all fans.

 

[flickchick85]

-Sorry, I misinterpreted that. As far as it being a Batman who has faced all his villains, that doesnt necessarily has to be the case. They can easily say, he has faced x and y, but not z, who he faces now. Or just keep it vague. And I think the only batfamily member who has been killed so far is a Robin. In fact having a established Batman, gives you an established batfamily which is always a +

-Thats true that people will try to get behind a new actor. Just saying its better to not go through a risky recast in a major role, the middle of a cinematic universe, if you can avoid it. More so, if the actor is already accepted and liked by the fans.

-I dont necessarily see DC Black as something borne out of a failed DCEU, rather just like in the comics(like the new DC Black Label) a method to tell offbeat stories. That helps them tell stories that dont have to be confined by a cinematic universe, and they can go as extreme as they want. Reeves is an extremely talented filmmaker, and I think he deserves that freedom. But imo, not in the cost of the upheaval of the established CU. So its a win-win for me.

Just for the record, I dont want a new Batman trilogy. I already think Batman is getting too many movies, and that comes from a guy with a Batman avatar. But apparently Reeves wants to do a trilogy, so I guess so. If I were in the controlling power, I would just get a solid filmmaker and make one badass Batman flick(with supporting characters like Nightwing, Oracle etc) and have him go against Joker. Like an iconic classic Batman movie. And then just cameos in the other CU roles like say in SS2, or Nightwing/Batgirl etc. And ofc JL2 if that ever comes to pass.

Give Reeves complete freedom, a solid budget, and let him make the Batman movies he wants to make with no restrictions. We already have two Jokers, two Superman, two Flashes, two Cyborgs and Nightwings soon. So its not like unprecedented.

At the end of the day I hope they make a decision that satisfies all fans.

The difference between having "two Superman, two Flashes," etc, is that those are in different mediums. And as you can see from the reactions to the Letoker news, the idea of two Joker movies is beyond stupid and I doubt we'll actually see both of them come to pass.

Unfortunately, a decision that satisfies all fans is impossible. There are people who love Batfleck, there are people like myself who are indifferent to him, and there are also people who don't like him. At least one of those parties is going to be disappointed with their decision, and as we live in the age of the internet and instant gratification, we will hear the outcries, because the knee-jerk reactions are the loudest. All they can do to sway the detractors is to make a great goddamn Batman movie, regardless of who's starring in it.

And for the record, I agree with your preference for one great movie with an established Batman and just let him be done for a while. I'd be all for that, as I admit I am a bit sick of Batman in general. But alas, it's 2018 and studios speak in trilogies, so that was never in the cards.

 

[Marvel united]

On TV, though. Having two movie Batmans would be very confusing for anybody who doesn't follow CBM news like us

 

[idiot09]

On TV, though. Having two movie Batmans would be very confusing for anybody who doesn't follow CBM news like us

I dont think its that confusing tho. Its just different actors playing same roles in different stories. Just like Jungle Book. Different adaptation. But I have no idea if it would work though, as it hasnt been done like this on this scale before. I'm saying its the best idea from a creative pov.

 

[idiot09]

I know I'm opposed to the idea but if they have to go that route, the only way I'm getting behind it is they get a REALLY REALLY talented actor/fave. Oscar Isaac would be an interesting choice. He can pull off charming and dark equally well.

Regardless mentally I would be treating the Reeves film as elseworld anyway if they recast.

 

[Marvel united]

 

[Aurakles]

I've never really bought this idea that Affleck is constantly flip flopping on whether he wants to be Batman.
Every time he's spoken about it he's been very clear about loving the character and wanting to play him.
The only time he's seemed unenthusiastic around DC films was during the JL press events, and that could simply be due to how the film and his character were butchered.
There've been plenty of anonymous reports of he wants out / WB want him out / Reeves wants him out etc going back to BVS, but Affleck continues to refute them.
I was sure that the I'd be an ape for Matt Reeves bit at SDCC would put an end to these rumours, but they keep going.

A few websites publish a series of articles; he's going/ he's got one more appearance / he's staying/ he's going, with nothing to back up any of the claims.

Affleck hasn't been flip flopping, he's always been saying he wants to play Batman. It's the news sites that have been flip flopping.

 

[GothamBat]

What I'd absolitely hate: Ben is replaced and The Batman is part of DCEU canon. I'd absolutely lose interest in the DCEU as a whole.

I'd still hate this: Ben stays as Batman in the DCEU but doesn't get his own trilogy because Reeves wants full creative leeway and these Batman movies end up under that separate DC banner of unconnected movies (essentially making it like DC movies were pre-MOS). I honestly doubt I'd even go see these movies in theaters. I'm invested in the DCEU. If I wanted Batman movies not set in the universe I'd rewatch the Burton or the Nolan movies.

I'd be ok with this: The "young Batman" thing is handled how MOS handled a young Clark. Simply by having another actor for the scenes where he's supposed to be a younger version of that same character. Movie is a prequel and part of the DCEU. I wouldn't be too thrilled because it would then open the door for them to replace Affleck (Days of future past style) and bloggers would do our heads in with constant articles about if/how/when/why Ben is getting replaced.

I'd be happy with this outcome: They simply do the opposite of what they did in BVS and age Affleck down to play a younger Bruce Wayne/Batman. They have the technology to do that now. That and I don't think you'd even need extensive CGI de-aging for Ben. Just make-up would do. This trilogy would be a prequel and still part of the DCEU, like Wonder Woman was. The references to Batman’s past in the DCEU so far have been vague enough to leave a lot of room for Reeves to put his own spin on things. He can basically do whatever he wants up until the events of the Kryptonian invasion except kill off Batman, Gordon or Alfred.

 

[THE WOLF]

Y’all are in denial. Ben is not playing Batman anymore. He doesn’t want to. Let that man move on with his life

 

[THE WOLF]

I think Finn Whittrock would be a good choice for what they're going for:

Hopefully Reeves Batman will just replace Affleck. No need for convoluted explanation with Affleck being present-day and Reeve being past. Soft reboot. It worked for Batman in the past just fine

Nah he should be Grayson

 

[Marvel united]

The De-aging Affleck route would be an interesting one to take

 

[Alonsovich]

At this point I'm not even sure Reeves is committed. One act submitted in like almost 18 months is a horribly slow pace. Films in pre-production usually already have a 2nd or 3rd draft in that time frame.

 

[GreenKToo]

I have no idea, but if I had to bet, i'd bet Ben is gone.