Ben Affleck or Christian Bale?

[bbasher]

Real unfair to compare motives between Bale's Batman and Affleck's in regard to experience. 20 years of being Batman trumps 3, period.

 

[Marvel Knight]

Gotta say, after rewatching the film... As a Batman and Superman fan, I'm really not feeling Affleck's Batman.
The acting was there, but the material was crap. Batman is portrayed as an unhinged psychopath. He was ready to straight up murder Superman till the "Martha" incident.

He showed no remorse too, his last words to Superman before he was about to murder him was "you were never a god, you were never even a man..." Ouch.

That's terrible characterization for Batman. He's a beloved character with a moral core, who knows his limits.

This version lacked that and came off like an unlikable borderline villain. Made me miss the nobility and heroism of Nolan and Bale's Batman. The Snyder Batman is just unsettling. He never was like this in DKR. Felt like Snyder was just pushing Batman in this direction for cheap thrills.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Gotta say, after rewatching the film... As a Batman and Superman fan, I'm really not feeling Affleck's Batman.
The acting was there, but the material was crap. Batman is portrayed as an unhinged psychopath. He was ready to straight up murder Superman till the "Martha" incident.

He showed no remorse too, his last words to Superman before he was about to murder him was "you were never a god, you were never even a man..." Ouch.

That's terrible characterization for Batman. He's a beloved character with a moral core, who knows his limits.

This version lacked that and came off like an unlikable borderline villain. Made me miss the nobility and heroism of Nolan and Bale's Batman. The Snyder Batman is just unsettling. He never was like this in DKR. Felt like Snyder was just pushing Batman in this direction for cheap thrills.

Agreed.

Real unfair to compare motives between Bale's Batman and Affleck's in regard to experience. 20 years of being Batman trumps 3, period.

lol but it ok to compare Batman only in one movie to one who have 3 movies.

 

[cryptic name]

Give Bale's Bruce/Batman Affleck's suit, voice modulator, and fight choreography and you have close to a perfect Batman.

 

[bbasher]

Agreed.



lol but it ok to compare Batman only in one movie to one who have 3 movies.

Well when one was Batman for around 3 years and the other for 20, it doesn't seem comparable.

 

[Marvel Knight]

Give Bale's Bruce/Batman Affleck's suit, voice modulator, and fight choreography and you have close to a perfect Batman.

That's all surface. The perfect Batman is more than visuals. They made some major fundamental errors with his character and the way he was written. It's upsetting.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Well when one was Batman for around 3 years and the other for 20, it doesn't seem comparable.

If that not comparable then same rule apply that it not comparable for Batman in one movie against one who have 3 movies. It like comparing half hour tv episode to 2 hour movie.

 

[matt47]

I prefer Bale's ethics but everything else Batfleck takes the cake.

 

[OcStat]

This version lacked that and came off like an unlikable borderline villain. Made me miss the nobility and heroism of Nolan and Bale's Batman. The Snyder Batman is just unsettling. He never was like this in DKR. Felt like Snyder was just pushing Batman in this direction for cheap thrills.

I think what's more strange is that it seems there's a sizable portion of fans that embrace an iteration that totally doesn't embody that. Even more so for Superman. Let Deadpool be that, the Punisher, that's who they are. Not these guys.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Both very good. I need to see BvS more than one time to make this decision.

 

[The Endless]

I get what they were going for with Batleck. That he was pushed past the tipping point. That he was angrier and more cruel.

But i think they went a bit too far. His Batman was straight up murdering people. He was literally going to stab Superman in the heart. HE USED ****ING GUNS in a lethal way.

They could've shown a more angry and brutal Batman by having him cripple bad guys... really go to town on them. Hell even keep the "Bat brand" which i thought was a really interesting concept.

This Batman kills no name thugs and LexCorp security guards... but he hasn't killed The Joker? What the hell?

That said i thought Affleck was great and this Batman was absolutely spot on in terms of the visual and his physical ability. I loved that he actually used gadgets here.

I also like that this Batman is still around, that he is still obsessed with his "crusade". Nolan's Batman was always looking for a way out. That isn't Batman to me.

 

[matt47]

I'm watching DKReturns movie right now and even he doesn't kill! At least not as obviously reckless as Batfleck.

 

[Robin91939]

Gotta say, after rewatching the film... As a Batman and Superman fan, I'm really not feeling Affleck's Batman.
The acting was there, but the material was crap. Batman is portrayed as an unhinged psychopath. He was ready to straight up murder Superman till the "Martha" incident.

He showed no remorse too, his last words to Superman before he was about to murder him was "you were never a god, you were never even a man..." Ouch.

That's terrible characterization for Batman. He's a beloved character with a moral core, who knows his limits.

This version lacked that and came off like an unlikable borderline villain. Made me miss the nobility and heroism of Nolan and Bale's Batman. The Snyder Batman is just unsettling. He never was like this in DKR. Felt like Snyder was just pushing Batman in this direction for cheap thrills.

You mean the part when he shoots the mutant thug in the head with a gun to save a baby that was taken hostage?

Yeah. You're right -- Batman in the comics, let alone The Dark Knight Returns.

This scene, by the way, is played out almost exactly when Batman rescued Martha. Except Martha stands in for the baby and KGBeast takes the place of the mutant thug. Except Snyder's Batman shoots the tank of the flamethrower that KGBeast is holding -- not his head.

KGBeast could have survived that blast and show up in a future film, scarred and with a mask. Martha and Batman survived the blast and they were close to it.

Bottom line, Batman has done things more savage in the comics. He has one things that have led to people's death in the comics. And even Nolan's Batman (perhaps my favorite) has done things that either COULD have killed people or DEFINITELY did kill people.

- The ninjas at Ra's al Ghul's headquarters.
- The cops that he plowed over in the Tumbler.
- The Joker thug driving the garbage truck that he demolished.
- The parked cars he blows up with the Batpod.
- The driver of the truck that Talia is in.
- Talia (he shoots her truck and kills the driver with missiles and bullets.
- Bane's thugs in the Tumblers. He fires ROCKETS at them with the Bat.

And several more.

This is nothing new.

-R

 

[Batmannerism]

I really enjoyed both portrayals, but I think that comparing them is a bit tricky because the character of Batman is written so completely differently between the Nolanverse and B v S.

In terms of acting....

Bale did a complete arc of Batman, from beginning to end.

Affleck did a grumpy, older Batman who had succumbed to his demons.

However, I think there was much more at work than the performances, it was really the writers/director behind them that drove the two versions of Batman.

In terms of acting, I'll call a slight advantage Bale for having to pull off playboy Bruce, behind-the-scenes Bruce, and Batman for 3 movies. A complex portratyal with a well-written script and generally good lines.
A bit hammy in bits, but I liked his depiction of Batman's rage.

However, if Affleck can carry 3 Bat-films (let's include B v S, because it really was a Bat-film, I mean, **** after that movie give him the right weapons and he'll be taking down Darkseid and the gods !) ..well then I think we can say he can take Bale's crown.

So Bale, by a bat-wingtip.

 

[Robin91939]

I'm watching DKReturns movie right now and even he doesn't kill! At least not as obviously reckless as Batfleck.

In the movie they change the scene where Batman confronts the hostage taker with the baby boy. The "I believe you" scene:

In the animated film he shoots the hostage taker in the hand.

In the comic he shoots the hostage taker in the head.


Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice is inspired by the comic. Not the animated film.

-R

 

[InJustice]

I would argue that extrapolation is misdirected. Robin's suit provides context to Batman's long history and loss. I don't think it has anything to do with him starting to care less about incidental murder. There's zero reference to Robin apart from the one shot. If it were recent, it would only make sense either of them would give it recognition. This leads me to believe the death was years back, and thus, has no bearing on his current actions now.

Again this goes back to the newspaper. Alfred questioning him indicates something has changed in Batman's follow-through. The newscast later on states that is the 2nd time Batman has done it. By all measures, branding is severely less of a punishment than murder. It's safe to say if Alfred starts questioning about branding, then manslaughter is still out of the equation. There's a blatant foreshadowing when Alfred says, "the feeling of powerlessness turns good men cruel". There's emphasis on that last part and clear disdain as he walks away.

The pier chase scene is our first glance at the kills. We know Bruce is after the Kryptonite. We know Bruce considers Superman a world-level threat and absolutely means to end him. Thus, that chase is for all intents and purposes a world-saving mission for Bruce. Enough cause for justifying some collateral death? In his head, I'd say so.

This is all set-up for Superman to shift Batman one way, and then shift him back (by the end). What are Bruce's last words? "There are still good men left" (callback to the newspaper Alfred scene). What is Batman's last action? Not branding Lex Luthor.

Moving forward, I've great confidence Batman will be the modern one we know. No-kills is potentially back on the table.

I don't think it's a misdirection at all, it makes a lot of sense considering Robin is pretty much an extended family for Bruce. Once he loses that, he regains the sense of powerlessness and has an understandable reason to lose all faith in his code and fight against criminals the dirty way. But like I said before, the movie never shows you the reasoning behind Bruce's change, so Bruce's development arc has been hindered from what could have been its fullest potential.

It shouldn't matter that we know a change has occurred, what should matter is the pathway getting there, so it's unproductive to focus on Alfred's dialogue. Bat branding might as well be equivalent to death. Batman does this knowing that it leads to death, so the only difference is the acteus reus (which one can argue very strongly that it can apply simply because of the consequences that follow), but the mens rea is still there. The problem still persists, why is he branding criminals? There's nothing to explain that. It relies on the viewer taking information at face value because reasons.

There's a fundamental difference in the idea of world-saving missions. The only way what Batman did in BvS is a "world-saving mission" is because in Bruce's eyes, he needs to stop Superman or his vision will come true. All of this hinges on a vision that no one knows would be true or not, and for the most part, serves only to fuel the paranoia that we already know that Bruce has of Clark, so it's redundant. Compare this to something like TDKR, where Batman has a set amount of time to get the atom bomb out of Gotham, in time before detonation occurs. At least collateral damage makes sense in that it's basically a war to try and stop the bomb from detonating. Simple, but effective and to the point.

It's poorly written set-up that serves only to lazily connect the dots to give a superficial reason as to why Superman "changes" Bruce's methodology. Beyond the superficial is where things fall apart. Batman's only reason for changing is because Clark had the luck to yell out Martha during a fight where both people were recklessly bashing each other to death. It's neither believable nor logical.

 

[The Joker]

You mean the part when he shoots the mutant thug in the head with a gun to save a baby that was taken hostage?

Yeah. You're right -- Batman in the comics, let alone The Dark Knight Returns.

That was to save someone's life. The mutant had a baby with a gun to it's head. Even a Cop would have shot him. He wasn't just haphazardly gunning down crooks unnecessarily like Batfleck did.

DKR Batman armed his Bat tank with rubber bullets against a whole army of mutants for goodness sake. He cared about preserving life. If this had been Batfleck he'd have just shot them all with real bullets.

This scene, by the way, is played out almost exactly when Batman rescued Martha. Except Martha stands in for the baby and KGBeast takes the place of the mutant thug. Except Snyder's Batman shoots the tank of the flamethrower that KGBeast is holding -- not his head.

I agree. That's about the only kill he did that I had no real issue with. The guy was about to roast Martha alive. He acted to save her.

Bottom line, Batman has done things more savage in the comics. He has one things that have led to people's death in the comics.

Unless you're talking about instances where he was trying to save innocent lives, or some elseworlds story, he was never like this.

And even Nolan's Batman (perhaps my favorite) has done things that either COULD have killed people or DEFINITELY did kill people.

- The ninjas at Ra's al Ghul's headquarters.
- The cops that he plowed over in the Tumbler.
- The Joker thug driving the garbage truck that he demolished.
- The parked cars he blows up with the Batpod.
- The driver of the truck that Talia is in.
- Talia (he shoots her truck and kills the driver with missiles and bullets.
- Bane's thugs in the Tumblers. He fires ROCKETS at them with the Bat.

- He didn't kill those ninjas. He never tried to kill anyone there. They all had ample chance to haul ass and escape. It wasn't an inescapable death trap, otherwise he'd have been dooming himself, too. He created a distraction to scare them off. He saved the only person who was incapable of saving himself - Ducard/Ra's. All the others chose to stay and try and fight him in spite of the impending danger. Sealed their own fate.

- He didn't kill anyone in the Police chase, that was verbally stated in the movie. But more importantly the movie made a point to paint his reckless behavior in that chase as bad. They had Alfred chew him out over it afterward, even though he had been rushing back to the cave because Rachel was dying. Nowhere in BvS does anyone frown on his murderous antics. Least of all Alfred, which was a disgrace.

- Who says that thug was killed? People have walked away from car crashes worse than that.

- You mean the vacant cars parked in the parking spaces by the dumpsters; http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/The-Dark-Knight/pages/The-Dark-Knight-1688.htm

- The kills in the Talia chase were totally necessary and unavoidable. He had minutes to stop a bomb that was going to nuke the city. What other options did he have that did not include lethal force to get to that truck and stop it? Ask Talia to pull her truck over and tell her tumblers to back off so he could take the bomb?

 

[Jekecy]

I don't think it's a misdirection at all, it makes a lot of sense considering Robin is pretty much an extended family for Bruce. Once he loses that, he regains the sense of powerlessness and has an understandable reason to lose all faith in his code and fight against criminals the dirty way.

It makes sense if we're to factor our collective knowledge of the lore. Speaking explicitly on the events and dialog outlined in the film itself, the arrival of Superman is a more backed-up precursor to Batman's altered actions.

It shouldn't matter that we know a change has occurred, what should matter is the pathway getting there, so it's unproductive to focus on Alfred's dialogue.

Why is it unproductive if the whole point of the dialog is exposition and foreshadowing?

Bat branding might as well be equivalent to death. Batman does this knowing that it leads to death, so the only difference is the acteus reus (which one can argue very strongly that it can apply simply because of the consequences that follow), but the mens rea is still there. The problem still persists, why is he branding criminals? There's nothing to explain that. It relies on the viewer taking information at face value because reasons.

Personally I don't need any more reason than he's a lot more pissed off and unforgiving. Leaving a bat-symbol (typically in the form of a batarang) has been his call sign for years. The branding is taking that a step further (and contextually is also a reference to his childhood hero, Zorro) into a permanent reminder.

There's a fundamental difference in the idea of world-saving missions. The only way what Batman did in BvS is a "world-saving mission" is because in Bruce's eyes, he needs to stop Superman or his vision will come true. All of this hinges on a vision that no one knows would be true or not, and for the most part, serves only to fuel the paranoia that we already know that Bruce has of Clark, so it's redundant. Compare this to something like TDKR, where Batman has a set amount of time to get the atom bomb out of Gotham, in time before detonation occurs. At least collateral damage makes sense in that it's basically a war to try and stop the bomb from detonating. Simple, but effective and to the point.

This seems to be an argument on Batman's threshold before making a preemptive strike. When the primary paranoia is millions potentially dying as a result of Superman's presence, I have to believe the Wayne Tower incident compounded with the recent Capitol explosion is reasonable grounds for taking action. I'm sure there will be disagreement there, but I'm just trying to see things from Bruce's perspective. He's already a bit unhinged and primed for snapping, so it doesn't strike me as surprising that it was one more public massacre which got him fully riled.

It's poorly written set-up that serves only to lazily connect the dots to give a superficial reason as to why Superman "changes" Bruce's methodology. Beyond the superficial is where things fall apart. Batman's only reason for changing is because Clark had the luck to yell out Martha during a fight where both people were recklessly bashing each other to death. It's neither believable nor logical.

Eh, this is getting close to subjective territory so I'll try not to interject too much here. What you saw as luck and illogical, I saw as cinematic rhyme. Make what people will of its execution, but I personally found it beautifully ballsy (I reserve that band name) to resolve such a gargantuan physical clash of titans with a simple reminder of lost loved ones and its rippling effect on one's ideologies and perspective.

 

[Zantera]

Affleck easily.

 

[FunkMiller]

You mean the part when he shoots the mutant thug in the head with a gun to save a baby that was taken hostage?

-R

Oh good God, some of you people need to go back and read that frickin' book, instead of just parroting what you've seen someone else say on these forums, or what Hack Snyder says.

HE DOES NOT SHOOT THE MUTANT THUG IN THE HEAD.

 

[cryptic name]

That's all surface. The perfect Batman is more than visuals. They made some major fundamental errors with his character and the way he was written. It's upsetting.

Yes, that's why I'd like those surface things brought to Bale's Batman, like I clearly wrote.

 

[DoomRulz]

I'm not sure who I prefer as Bats/Bruce because I think they're both quite good. I can't decided between the two until Batfleck gets a solo movie. I need to see him do his own thing, independent of the other characters.

 

[schereZada]

I'm not sure who I prefer as Bats/Bruce because I think they're both quite good. I can't decided between the two until Batfleck gets a solo movie. I need to see him do his own thing, independent of the other characters.

As any other character, Batman does his own thing in connection with other characters. It's almost impossible to have a character totally disconnected from others. Even Tom Hanks in Cast Away had to create a character (volleyball) to interact with.

 

[DACrowe]

Gotta say, after rewatching the film... As a Batman and Superman fan, I'm really not feeling Affleck's Batman.
The acting was there, but the material was crap. Batman is portrayed as an unhinged psychopath. He was ready to straight up murder Superman till the "Martha" incident.

He showed no remorse too, his last words to Superman before he was about to murder him was "you were never a god, you were never even a man..." Ouch.

That's terrible characterization for Batman. He's a beloved character with a moral core, who knows his limits.

This version lacked that and came off like an unlikable borderline villain. Made me miss the nobility and heroism of Nolan and Bale's Batman. The Snyder Batman is just unsettling. He never was like this in DKR. Felt like Snyder was just pushing Batman in this direction for cheap thrills.

Well said.

 

[Marvel Knight]

- He didn't kill those ninjas. He never tried to kill anyone there. They all had ample chance to haul ass and escape. It wasn't an inescapable death trap, otherwise he'd have been dooming himself, too. He created a distraction to scare them off. He saved the only person who was incapable of saving himself - Ducard/Ra's. All the others chose to stay and try and fight him in spite of the impending danger. Sealed their own fate.

- He didn't kill anyone in the Police chase, that was verbally stated in the movie. But more importantly the movie made a point to paint his reckless behavior in that chase as bad. They had Alfred chew him out over it afterward, even though he had been rushing back to the cave because Rachel was dying. Nowhere in BvS does anyone frown on his murderous antics. Least of all Alfred, which was a disgrace.

- Who says that thug was killed? People have walked away from car crashes worse than that.

- You mean the vacant cars parked in the parking spaces by the dumpsters; http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/The-Dark-Knight/pages/The-Dark-Knight-1688.htm

- The kills in the Talia chase were totally necessary and unavoidable. He had minutes to stop a bomb that was going to nuke the city. What other options did he have that did not include lethal force to get to that truck and stop it? Ask Talia to pull her truck over and tell her tumblers to back off so he could take the bomb?

Exactly.


And I'll add this. It's all in the execution (no pun intended). The Bale Batman's collateral damage was handled in such a subtle way that most audiences wouldn't notice or care.

Snyder lacks subtlety. His overtly unhinged and murderous Batman was ready to execute Superman in the most remorseless and heartless way possible, even saying:

"You aren't a god, you aren't even a man.." as his final words before about to stab him.

If not for the awkward and shoehorned "Martha" incident, Batfleck would have done it. And even that was handled so poorly that it made Affleck Batman look like more of an irrational, unhinged psychopath.