Ben Affleck or Christian Bale?

[titansupes]

Its absolutely irrelevant to his character as the trilogy was basically over at that point.
Oh Bruce finally did something smart without Lucius' help for once too bad he's not batman anymore -_-

That... doesn't even come close to making sense. Things characters do toward the end of their stories don't count?

Also yeah I think Bale was a great Bruce Wayne he had the dumb billionaire character down pat but as a complete amalgamation of all aspects of Batman Affleck is it he's the pinnacle. He actually carries himself like someone straight out of the comics while Bale is hampered by the grounded tone of those movies.

Nope.

 

[shauner111]

Its absolutely irrelevant to his character as the trilogy was basically over at that point.
Oh Bruce finally did something smart without Lucius' help for once too bad he's not batman anymore -_-

Dumbest thing i've heard in a while. What a desperate way to defend your argument.

 

[DACrowe]

Actually, it is very realistic. Ever heard the phrase "Giuliani Time?" The mayor that "revitalized NYC" did it with methods that still seem fairly unconstitutional or at least questionable. And the Dent Act was that on steroids by way of the PATRIOT Act.

I didn't say his methods were unrealistic. I said the idea that all crime could be eradicated was.



Batman doesn't fight "most crime".

Yes Nolans Batman goes about it intelligently, as does the comics Batman. Comics fans have seen that scenario for decades now.

My point was thay the comics Batman has been depicted as not stopping until crime is not an issue. His war is unwinnable, but he keeps fighting. It's key to his character there.

He is on a crusade to stop all crime, which is yes unwinnable. So the Nolan movies make it about saving a city that has fallen into despair and corruption. Even that is a monumental task, but it can happen, and the Nolan movies showed it happening.

So in this version of the story, Batman won. That is actually a nice change of pace and is different from the comics only because they can never let him win or the story would be potentially over.

 

[DACrowe]

Comparing Bale and Affleck as detectives is funny because to me I remember a big knock on Nolan's Batman was that Bale barely did any detective work throughout the trilogy whereas Batfleck is this awesome mix between James Bond and Rorschach in this movie.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what detective work did Affleck's Batman do?

I recall the Bale Batman untangling Falcone's web before ever putting on his mask and being able to blackmail a corrupt judge through spying. I also recall him tracing the Joker's location via taking ballistics off a shattered bullet after he also was marking bills to trace mob money, forcing them to desperately take it out of banks in The Dark Knight. He also was able to name cops at a glance while driving in that film. And in Rises, he was able to trace down Selina Kyle and figure out her whole identity even though she used fake fingerprints while trying to steal his own.

In BvS, which I have only seen once, he.... stole Lex Luthor's kryptonite after turning Metropolis into a war zone littered with dead bodies? Twice.

Oh he also had complete lack of follow through on the fact that someone was sending him letters that clearly implied they knew he was Batman, but instead of immediately investigating this existential threat, he chose to spend his time making up conspiracy theories in his head about Superman while oblivious that Lex Luthor was manipulating him like a puppet. Real detective, that guy.

 

[shauner111]

If Burton had the freedom to do as many movies as he wanted, i guarantee he would've had an ending to his story with Keaton. Same here with Snyder (unless he wants to be a comic purist). The problem with the comics is that they can't end a story unless it's elseworlds and even then they have a difficult time letting go because there's a tradition in that medium. Film can tell a full story. What is a story without a conclusion? Not much of a story at all. If he continues being Batman, then that's not an ending. You can do more sequels. It never ends.

Pick on the characterization, sure, but don't pick on a film series because it ended a story where you don't need a sequel with Bruce in the cowl again. This is not the comics where it needs to carry on forever to keep the issues and money flowing.

 

[Doc Samson]

Still put Keaton's Batman right there with Affleck. And Ben's Bruce, while different, is right there with Bale. I think I need to see a proper solo-Batfleck film before truly deciding. But it's a damn close race.

 

[Manolito Mystiq]

Bale acted his part as much as he could (though I really don't like his Batvoice), but to me he just wasn't either Batman or Bruce Wayne. In many ways he seemed a perfect choice for Bruce Wayne considering his role as Patrick Bateman. I was just never convinced that he was Bruce Wayne (or Batman for that matter).

Affleck is a great Wayne and Batman. I just really have to get used to the killing.

 

[DeGenerate10]

Bale acted his part as much as he could (though I really don't like his Batvoice), but to me he just wasn't either Batman or Bruce Wayne. In many ways he seemed a perfect choice for Bruce Wayne considering his role as Patrick Bateman. I was just never convinced that he was Bruce Wayne (or Batman for that matter).

Affleck is a great Wayne and Batman. I just really have to get used to the killing.

I mean we've had almost 30 years to get used to Batman killing on the big screen.

 

[Marvel Knight]

Kevin Smith agrees with me that Batfleck was disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uUDSlWS8WY

He likes his friend Ben's performance but he says the characterization for Batman is way off.

For Smith to say that (someone close to WB and Ben), is something.

Once fanboys are done 'Phantom Menacing' BVS, they'll see it.

 

[TheScarecrow]

We can only judge Batfleck on his performance though.

However, I agree. If he were in a better movie, he'd have been perfect.

Unfortunately he's going to have to slog it out to get that title by being in a few more (better) movies.

 

[morningmimosa]

Once fanboys are done 'Phantom Menacing' BVS, they'll see it.

smh

 

[DoomRulz]

Still put Keaton's Batman right there with Affleck. And Ben's Bruce, while different, is right there with Bale. I think I need to see a proper solo-Batfleck film before truly deciding. But it's a damn close race.

Same. Affleck was great but at the same time, he was great relative to the other actors in the film. I need to see him in a solo film as well.

 

[hildenburg]

Kevin Smith agrees with me that Batfleck was disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uUDSlWS8WY

He likes his friend Ben's performance but he says the characterization for Batman is way off.

For Smith to say that (someone close to WB and Ben), is something.

Once fanboys are done 'Phantom Menacing' BVS, they'll see it.

I still have a hard time understanding why people think this version of Batman is "way off". I don't know, maybe it was easier for me to let go of my preconceptions about the character than it was for others, but this Batman made sense within the context of this particular movie.

Is it because he's branding criminals? Is it because he's killing them? The comics might traditionally portray Batman as someone who's at the edge of the line, but never really crosses it. He kind of always remains that way, but I think that's a bit unrealistic. Here's why:

We, as human beings, never stay the same. Our ideas, or notions of how some things are or should be change over time. You often hear people say "Oh, I was a different person back then", and, in my opinion, that's the point. I would have been pissed off if this Batman was 2-3 three years into his thing, but you can't expect a guy who's been doing what he does for 20 years to be as idealistic and optimistic as he was when he started. This Bruce Wayne is as broken and angry and frustrated as he was when his parents where killed. This arc might not be as obvious in the movie, but it's there. We get little hints all the time. "20 years in Gotham, Alfred, we've seen what promises are worth", "We've always been criminals". Bruce has become a hunter. Reckless. That doesn't mean he always was. In fact, by the end of the movie, we see him redescovering his faith in humanity, and embracing those ideals he had when he started being Batman.

Isn't that the point of this character? To remind us that no matter how deep we fall and how bad we break, we can always stand up and rise again?

Anyway, this is just me.

 

[OutOfBoose]

He likes his friend Ben's performance but he says the characterization for Batman is way off.

I fail to understand how people don't see that it was an intention. Batman lost it, he's not that idealistic crusader of the past. And his whole arc of the film is realization of that, coming back to senses, restoring faith in men. Returning to preserving JUSTICE (Dawn of Justice, remember?). Justice prevailed in the end. Hence he doesn't brand Luthor.

 

[The Joker]

Kevin Smith agrees with me that Batfleck was disappointing.

He likes his friend Ben's performance but he says the characterization for Batman is way off.

For Smith to say that (someone close to WB and Ben), is something.

Once fanboys are done 'Phantom Menacing' BVS, they'll see it.

Good to hear

I still have a hard time understanding why people think this version of Batman is "way off". I don't know, maybe it was easier for me to let go of my preconceptions about the character than it was for others, but this Batman made sense within the context of this particular movie.

Is it because he's branding criminals? Is it because he's killing them? The comics might traditionally portray Batman as someone who's at the edge of the line, but never really crosses it. He kind of always remains that way, but I think that's a bit unrealistic. Here's why:

We, as human beings, never stay the same. Our ideas, or notions of how some things are or should be change over time. You often hear people say "Oh, I was a different person back then", and, in my opinion, that's the point. I would have been pissed of if this Batman was 2-3 three years into his thing, but you can't expect a guy who's been doing what he does for 20 years to be as idealistic and optimistic as he was when he started. This Bruce Wayne is as broken and angry and frustrated as he was when his parents where killed. This arc might not be as obvious in the movie, but it's there. We get little hints all the time. "20 years in Gotham, Alfred, we've seen what promises are worth", "We've always been criminals". Bruce has become a hunter. Reckless. That doesn't mean he always was. In fact, by the end of the movie, we see him redescovering his faith in humanity, and embracing those ideals he had when he started being Batman.

Isn't that the point of this character? To remind us that no matter how deep we fall and how bad we break, we can always stand up and rise again?

Anyway, this is just me.

You can make any bastardized version of a character make sense within the context of a movie you write for that version. That's the whole point, you write a story for your version of a character. But making sense, and being a good and true representation of said character they're based on are two different things.

Batfleck was killing criminals needlessly, also branding them and supposedly having them set up to be killed in jail by doing that. That's not Batman. No matter how low he gets, no matter what losses he's suffered, he would never let himself go that far because he knows if he does he'll never come back.

That's why his characterization is way off.

 

[OutOfBoose]

So this is a Bible of sorts? We choose one specific take on the character, and hold for it, not allowing anything else?

 

[The Joker]

So this is a Bible of sorts? We choose one specific take on the character, and hold for it, not allowing anything else?

In my opinion yes.

If you prefer something else over a 70+ year characterization of the character that has defined one of his key moral values as a person and in how he fights crime, then good for you. Not for me. And clearly not for most fans. Keaton's Batman got the same complaints back in the day, too.

It's clearly not a change fans in general find acceptable because it's such an important core value of the character.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Glad that it's resolved in polite and respectful manner. Anything on Bale's killing in the trilogy?

 

[The Joker]

Glad that it's resolved in polite and respectful manner. Anything on Bale's killing in the trilogy?

Not a thing.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

Ben was a great Batman AND Bruce Wayne. His acting was more than solid. Being somewhat murderous doesn't take away from his acting performance.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Not a thing.

Weird.

 

[The Joker]

Being somewhat murderous doesn't take away from his acting performance.

Of course not. Writing and acting are two different things.

That's why Smith liked the performance but hated the characterization.

 

[Knight-Tale]

Its funny how there's a distinction between the Batman kill code back then to now
Nowadays Batman will let people die in the comics similar to how he does in Batman Begins

Spoiler

Now you have the movies that have inspired these kill count vids on youtube where you see Batman's actions actually leading to death.
Fans accept that its a different world for the most part
BvS introduces Jimmy Olsen to kill him off immediately in the most downer way possible
Batman now brands criminals child predators and rapists and we later learn that the brand is a death sentence in prison.

 

[DACrowe]

I still have a hard time understanding why people think this version of Batman is "way off". I don't know, maybe it was easier for me to let go of my preconceptions about the character than it was for others, but this Batman made sense within the context of this particular movie.

Is it because he's branding criminals? Is it because he's killing them? The comics might traditionally portray Batman as someone who's at the edge of the line, but never really crosses it. He kind of always remains that way, but I think that's a bit unrealistic. Here's why:

We, as human beings, never stay the same. Our ideas, or notions of how some things are or should be change over time. You often hear people say "Oh, I was a different person back then", and, in my opinion, that's the point. I would have been pissed off if this Batman was 2-3 three years into his thing, but you can't expect a guy who's been doing what he does for 20 years to be as idealistic and optimistic as he was when he started. This Bruce Wayne is as broken and angry and frustrated as he was when his parents where killed. This arc might not be as obvious in the movie, but it's there. We get little hints all the time. "20 years in Gotham, Alfred, we've seen what promises are worth", "We've always been criminals". Bruce has become a hunter. Reckless. That doesn't mean he always was. In fact, by the end of the movie, we see him redescovering his faith in humanity, and embracing those ideals he had when he started being Batman.

Isn't that the point of this character? To remind us that no matter how deep we fall and how bad we break, we can always stand up and rise again?

Anyway, this is just me.

Realism has little to do with the choice. If you want grounding, Nolan did a trilogy of movies for you. If this one is so fantastic that he can beat up a demigod and build all of the tech himself, then changing this has little to do with evolving the character. It is a result of Snyder thinking it would "so cool, bro" if Batman just killed people. He fetishizes violence to a degree that is detrimental to his films. It hurt Watchmen, it ruined the second half of Man of Steel, and it turned this into a train wreck.

Let us not try to rationalize this is about finding a deeper truth for the character. Besides the whole point of being a superhero is that he is supposed to make the harder choice that most people will not. Never mind that it makes it bizarre he still has a gallery of rogues when he will murder Lex Luthor security personnel for no reason.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

No matter how you feel about MurderBat, can we all agree Ben Affleck carried the entire movie? His acting far exceeded even my expectations. Hope he eventually gets the credit he deserves once this all dies down.