Ben Affleck To Team With DC’s Geoff Johns On Standalone ‘Batman’ Film - Part 4

[Jekecy]

I'm beginning to believe that there's a reason why Hammer and Manganiello have been hanging around lately and teasing the fans. Hammer could have been playing the young Batman all along, but now they'll phase out Affleck's role if he wants out.

That's been in the back of my head since day one. Tricky how to approach it though. While they could conceivably de-age Batman (using any variety of comic book twistedness), how would that affect the rest of his supporting cast?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

No. I mean what is there to be excited about at this point?

Since it's directed by someone who hasn't directed a Batman before, a brand new rendition of the Martha and Thomas Wayne murder. It looks like that's the standard scene for ever first time Batman director

 

[fancyarcher]

Would it be wrong to say I'm not excited for The Batman anymore?

Not at all, and at this point the only live-action DC film I'm still interested in would be Aquaman, just because of Wan's involvement. Otherwise, I have very low-expectations for the rest.

 

[misslane38]

So...about Batman. I was thinking the other day about Justice League, and wondering if Jim Gordon, played by JK Simmons, will bring up Batman's brutal transgressive period. I am curious if he noticed, and if he has a reaction to it.

 

[The Fact]

Considering Snyder's track record of not comprehending how to handle criticism I imagine they either won't bring it up at all or it'll be shoe horned in there in a token awkward attempt to please his critics. Sort of like all the collateral damage talk in BvS was motivated by the criticisms of MoS but it felt really weird, like Zack didn't even want to bring it up but he knew people were gonna complain so he begrudgingly did it anyway.

 

[2kt09]

So...about Batman. I was thinking the other day about Justice League, and wondering if Jim Gordon, played by JK Simmons, will bring up Batman's brutal transgressive period. I am curious if he noticed, and if he has a reaction to it.

They resolved much of the arc in BvS. At that point, he'd be making a smarmy remark reflecting on the mess he made. I don't expect him to suddenly be Hobbs from the Fast movies to hunt him down or General Ross to have him sign papers making sure he will now be marked a fugitive with the next slip-up.

 

[writer0327]

There are plenty of metaphors and symbolism that not everyone gets in a lot of films. There are layers to films. There is obvious stuff and there is less obvious stuff that is conveyed visually, with sound, with a combination of sound, music and visuals or throughout several sequences.

The fact that not everyone reads film the same way or gets a particular attempt at conveying meaning does not make a director wrong for including it or indicate an inability to effectively direct on their part.

In other words, art is subjective. And to that I think we'd all agree.

 

[Frodo]

Considering Snyder's track record of not comprehending how to handle criticism I imagine they either won't bring it up at all or it'll be shoe horned in there in a token awkward attempt to please his critics. Sort of like all the collateral damage talk in BvS was motivated by the criticisms of MoS but it felt really weird, like Zack didn't even want to bring it up but he knew people were gonna complain so he begrudgingly did it anyway.

In hindsight, I wish they had avoided the whole collateral damage thing as a plot element given that it was mainly, though not entirely, fanboys complaining about it from MOS anyway.

Regardless of how fans felt about it, you still had Superman saving the planet from Zod, so it was gonna be hard to justify to general audiences , how he saved the planet in MOS was so wrong and why they should care about it as a plot point for BvS given all of the new plot points and characters the audience has to focus on.

The best way to rectify the that complaint that fans had imo, was not to repeat that kind of carnage in the next film, and start fresh on a new story as opposed to getting bogging down in the baggage from the first film.

 

[misslane38]

Regardless of how fans felt about it, you still had Superman saving the planet from Zod, so it was gonna be hard to justify to general audiences , how he saved the planet in MOS was so wrong and why they should care about it as a plot point for BvS given all of the new plot points and characters the audience has to focus on.

Most of the public did view Superman's efforts in MoS as heroic and worthy of praise. They erected a monument in his honor. Perry White spoke of the world's "love affair" with Superman, and Bruce talked about the Planet writing puff pieces about Superman every time he did something heroic. The collateral damage issue got blown up because a few people were projecting their feelings of powerlessness and trauma onto Superman. They needed a scapegoat for their pain, and the new godlike alien seemed like the ideal object for those feelings. And that's exactly how collateral damage works when you're dealing with superheroes like Superman.

 

[The Guard]

Begrudgingly did it? The whole film is structured around Bruce Wayne's revenge tragedy that began as a reaction to the collateral damage in MoS. Wallace Keefe defaces a memorial and monument with the words "False God" because he is a living embodiment of that collateral damage. Lex uses Keefe's damage to create more damage. The events in Nairomi are made into a national debate because of the collateral damage it caused. If Snyder was reluctant to explore collateral damage or interrogate it properly, I doubt he would have made an entire film about it!

Yes. The idea that WB and Snyder ignored the events of MOS or peoples complaints about the collateral damage is just ridiculous.

How did we get on this topic in this thread?

 

[jokesonm3]

You know one wish i that i want this film to have is a lockdown on Batman's rogues gallery, Don't need multiple villains in a single movie ala Spiderman 3, WB give us one good villain with an ingenious plot and ill be happy.

 

[Timebomb]

So...about Batman. I was thinking the other day about Justice League, and wondering if Jim Gordon, played by JK Simmons, will bring up Batman's brutal transgressive period. I am curious if he noticed, and if he has a reaction to it.

His reaction should be that of Commissioner Gordon and not be an ally of this Batman but should be actively trying to bring him in for crossing the line. Gordon always said that if Bruce crossed that line he would do everything in his power to bring him to justice.

The DCEU Gordon will probably buy him a beer and throw a toga party.

 

[Slade W]

Comic book Jim Gordon would be strongly against Batman killing and would view a Batman who kills as no different than the Joker. He would try to arrest Batman if he became a killer.

 

[titansupes]

Comic book Jim Gordon would be strongly against Batman killing and would view a Batman who kills as no different than the Joker. He would try to arrest Batman if he became a killer.

 

[The Fact]

Begrudgingly did it? The whole film is structured around Bruce Wayne's revenge tragedy that began as a reaction to the collateral damage in MoS. Wallace Keefe defaces a memorial and monument with the words "False God" because he is a living embodiment of that collateral damage. Lex uses Keefe's damage to create more damage. The events in Nairomi are made into a national debate because of the collateral damage it caused. If Snyder was reluctant to explore collateral damage or interrogate it properly, I doubt he would have made an entire film about it!

People make movies they don't really want to all the time, this isn't a new concept. Sometimes they do it because they want to prop up their own career or because of monetary gain but it happens pretty frequently. Hell, I'd argue that this wouldn't even be the first time Snyder has done this since he pretty much had to take the Man of Steel gig in an attempt to salvage his career after three critical and box office bombs (Watchmen, Sucker Punch and the owl movie) and then when MoS gets crapped on he tries to salvage that mess with another one. Gee, it's almost like Snyder can't really learn from his own mistakes and just repeats them over and over again.

And yeah I'd say the collateral damage aspect of the film was pretty begrudgingly handled considering they repeated that no civilians were around at the climax ad nauseam. At one point Batfleck literally looks at the camera and says "There's no one on the harbor, it's abandoned". I'd say that's pretty blatant, heavy handed, and yes, begrudging.

 

[BH/HHH]

People make movies they don't really want to all the time, this isn't a new concept. Sometimes they do it because they want to prop up their own career or because of monetary gain but it happens pretty frequently. Hell, I'd argue that this wouldn't even be the first time Snyder has done this since he pretty much had to take the Man of Steel gig in an attempt to salvage his career after three critical and box office bombs (Watchmen, Sucker Punch and the owl movie) and then when MoS gets crapped on he tries to salvage that mess with another one. Gee, it's almost like Snyder can't really learn from his own mistakes and just repeats them over and over again.

And yeah I'd say the collateral damage aspect of the film was pretty begrudgingly handled considering they repeated that no civilians were around at the climax ad nauseam. At one point Batfleck literally looks at the camera and says "There's no one on the harbor, it's abandoned". I'd say that's pretty blatant, heavy handed, and yes, begrudging.

Snyder already had the Man of Steel gig before the Owl Movie and Sucker Punch even came out. Also he'd had success with Dawn of the Dead and 300 prior so your point is completely wrong.

 

[idiot09]

If MOS and Watchmen are mistakes, god I love mistakes man.

 

[FunkMiller]

Comic book Jim Gordon would be strongly against Batman killing and would view a Batman who kills as no different than the Joker. He would try to arrest Batman if he became a killer.

Yup. But this won't be addressed at all by Snyder in JL. I guarantee it. Yet another reason why making Batman a stone cold murderer was a stupid idea. Snyder just doesn't think when he does these things. It's like killing Jimmy. It's fine for your movie, but you're setting up a cinematic universe. Every character decision you make has ramifications for future movies and film makers. Making Batman old just because you love TDKR has ramifications. Making him a willing and repeated killer has ramifications.

 

[BH/HHH]

If MOS and Watchmen are mistakes, god I love mistakes man.

 

[shauner111]

I'm sure J.K will just make a joke about it in this universe. Another character butchered. Would NOT surprise me.

 

[Timebomb]

Yup. But this won't be addressed at all by Snyder in JL. I guarantee it. Yet another reason why making Batman a stone cold murderer was a stupid idea. Snyder just doesn't think when he does these things. It's like killing Jimmy. It's fine for your movie, but you're setting up a cinematic universe. Every character decision you make has ramifications for future movies and film makers. Making Batman old just because you love TDKR has ramifications. Making him a willing and repeated killer has ramifications.

Exactly. We have already seen the shot of Gordon on that rooftop with the JL so I agree they will either not address it at all or joke about with a throw away line. I'd put money on it that we are right.

 

[The Joker]

Comic book Jim Gordon would be strongly against Batman killing and would view a Batman who kills as no different than the Joker. He would try to arrest Batman if he became a killer.

Correct. Alfred wouldn't support him either.

 

[Frodo]

Most of the public did view Superman's efforts in MoS as heroic and worthy of praise. They erected a monument in his honor. Perry White spoke of the world's "love affair" with Superman, and Bruce talked about the Planet writing puff pieces about Superman every time he did something heroic. The collateral damage issue got blown up because a few people were projecting their feelings of powerlessness and trauma onto Superman. They needed a scapegoat for their pain, and the new godlike alien seemed like the ideal object for those feelings. And that's exactly how collateral damage works when you're dealing with superheroes like Superman.

I would agree with your statement, though my statement was about the general filmgoers viewing the film really caring that much about the collateral damage storyline from MOS as opposed to the public represented in the film.

Ultimately, I don't think the collateral damage in MOS was as massive an issue with the GA as fanboys and critics of the film felt it was.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Exactly. We have already seen the shot of Gordon on that rooftop with the JL so I agree they will either not address it at all or joke about with a throw away line. I'd put money on it that we are right.

I'd rather they forget it like it never happened...

But since they're building his arc as redemption, I don't see why they won't address it in future films.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Yup. But this won't be addressed at all by Snyder in JL. I guarantee it. Yet another reason why making Batman a stone cold murderer was a stupid idea. Snyder just doesn't think when he does these things. It's like killing Jimmy. It's fine for your movie, but you're setting up a cinematic universe. Every character decision you make has ramifications for future movies and film makers. Making Batman old just because you love TDKR has ramifications. Making him a willing and repeated killer has ramifications.

Remember that according to Snyder, he was "killing by proxy" just like Superman was toppling buildings by proxy