Eddie Dean
Jokerfied
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 17,380
- Reaction score
- 11,891
- Points
- 103
I actually wouldn't mind seeing what Gyllenhaal could do in the role, but that picture cracked me up.
I was interested in debating the merits of these qualifications for the next Batman successor, but I cannot take this position seriously after I had realized this is your pick:Gosling is completely wrong for the role. He's got that nasal-pitched whiny voice and the wrong looks. It's the equivalent of casting Nick Cage as Superman.
Captain Irony could not have offered a more fitting suggestion than this. Perhaps your are him?
Social Network is what proved to me he's talentless, which honestly pissed me off. He had a shot at two roles in the movie and he couldn't even do one justice.
Captain Irony could not have offered a more fitting suggestion than this. Perhaps your are him?![]()
I'm not doubting his acting prowess or ability to exude dark qualities. It is my disbelief that he can bulk up to a satisfactory physical presence (I'm aware of Hollywood trainers), as well as sufficiently even facially resembling what Bruce/Batman could or should look like. Those are 2 very big strikes against him.I'm going by acting ability relevant to this role, and he can certainly play dark, twisted characters. He has a dark presense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/12/sam-riley-star-brighton-rock
He's a rising British star. Definitely has the potential to follow Bale, Cilian Murphy and Tom Hardy.
I'm not doubting his acting prowess or ability to exude dark qualities. It is my disbelief that he can bulk up to a satisfactory physical presence (I'm aware of Hollywood trainers), as well as sufficiently even facially resembling what Bruce/Batman could or should look like. Those are 2 very big strikes against him.
This is coming from someone who still heavily favors Keaton as their favorite Batman, so close adherence to the conventional comic book look isn't the issue here.
I see him more of a Scarecrow type. Lanky and creepy. Certainly looks the part more than Cillian did (as fine as he was). He can fit any number of the villains that aren't physically imposing, who can be meek and weak. Riddler is another one.
It just surprises me you'd be so dismissive over someone like Gosling, who arguably is the better actor and who most definitely is the closer physical representation of the character.
I have to agree with you on a more animalistic, creature of the night Batman. Nolan abandoned that aspect of the character too soon in his series. That's what bothered me most about TDK (and Bale's voice . . . and the suit) That's what I really liked about Bale when reading his take on the character while they were filming Batman Begins. He saw Batman as a beast. Something almost supernatural. He did a great job in Batman Begins. he didn't get to do that in TDK and it showed in his performance..
I'm not stuck on the physical training aspect for this role. None of the actors that came before Bale needed it to a major degree. They wore the Batman armor. I loved Keaton's look for the role.
![]()
Bale was very much a modern military-inspired Batman. My personal preference for the next Batman is an animalistic Noir-inspired creature of the night, drawing strong inspiration from the Golden Age Batman. The lankiness and creepiness would actually help the effectiveness of it.
![]()
![]()
I don't think there will be a sequel to First Class so Fassbender should be free by the time they reboot Batman.Gosling is completely wrong for the role. He's got that nasal-pitched whiny voice and the wrong looks. It's the equivalent of casting Nick Cage as Superman.
Fassbender definitely isn't an option. Matthew Vaughn is planning sequels to his X-Men film.
WB/DC had Fassbender in their grip, but Marvel won him in the end.
I don't think there will be a sequel to First Class so Fassbender should be free by the time they reboot Batman.
I just can't believe Keaton's Wayne as someone who studied and mastered 7 different styles of martial arts. He didn't play a good business man. He wasn't suave and debonair like Bruce Wayne should be. Bruce Wayne is not bumbling Clark Kent. That's how Keaton's Bruce Wayne came off in both movies.
I really wouldn't mind a 40+ actor for Batman at some point. The movies have left the older Batman somewhat unexplored.I could see Moyer, Gosling, Hamm, Hammer, or Michael Fassbender as Batman
Such loose interpretations is what led to Batman and Robin. I'm tired of the general audience being led astray with the misconception that Batman is just armor and gadgets. There is so much more to his character than that. Which is why I'm so let down by what Nolan has done so far. He took Batman a step further than anyone else and yet didn't have the balls to utilize Batman's detective skills and supernatural ruse to their full potential.There's so much room for interpretation with Bruce Wayne's characterization. The suave aspect is a rehearsed facade that Bruce uses to throw people off that he's Batman.
Keaton didn't use it, but he did use similar tactics to downplay himself. No one would have ever suspected he was Batman. It worked. He was subtle, which I liked.
I don't recall it stating he mastered seven types of martial arts. Keaton's Batman seemed to rely more on his gadgets, armor, and intellect. I liked how introspective and cerebral he seemed. I could believe his Bruce was a man with layers to his personality.
No, they haven't. Not any more than Marvel (or DC) has "lost" Ryan Reynolds. They hold exclusive rights to characters, not actors.WB/DC lost Fassbender.