There are "Parallels" between Ben Affleck's Batman AND George Lazenby's James Bond!

[BatmanBegins05]

And that parallel is, if both of them had stuck with their "respective characters" they might have been "great" but now, we'll never know.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I'd take Affleck's Batman over Lazenby's Bond any day!

 

[David H.]

If chins could talk...

 

[FunkMiller]

What’s the parallel you’re exactly trying to make? Their physical appearance? Because they don’t really have anything in common in terms of their respective outings as the two characters.

Lazenby got all moody after the brilliant OHMSS and quit the role. His attitude famously annoyed the hell out of people like Diana Rigg and Cubby. Affleck didn’t do anything like that. He was just in two bad movies, and has naturally been moved on, so the company can reboot.

 

[Rorschach2012]

George Lazenby=Andrew Garfield=Ben Affleck

I think Affleck, Kilmer, and Clooney can all be sort of lumped into the same category.

The truly iconic Batmen are West, Keaton, Conroy, and Bale, and they're all iconic for very different reasons. Affleck's Batman just couldn't break through to audiences. I think time will be kind to his tenure as Batman, but ultimately he will be one of the least important Batmen in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Mandon Knight]

….In that they were 'secretly' the best in the role and in the best films of the series but no one ever wants to admit to it....

 

[metaphysician]

I don't really think they are that similar. Lazenby was faced with the unenviable, probably impossible, task of being The Next Bond when the idea of a "next" Bond was still not a thing. He was a solid actor in a solid movie, and this didn't change the fundamental cultural dynamic. I'm dubious that any actor could have done better. To allow for the ever-changing Bond, the audience really needed someone to fall on their sword and establish the precedent, followed by a return of Connery to demonstrate that the refrain of "bring back Connery" wasn't actually a good idea.

By contrast, Affleck's turn as Batman was legitimately anticipated. It just didn't work, because the movies he starred in sucked. Could things have turned out differently for him? Sure, I think so, he just needed to be in better-written, better-directed movies. If his movies had been. . . oh, "The Batman" directed by Wes Anderson*, and "World's Finest" directed by Brad Bird? We'd probably be arguing over whether Affleck or Conroy is the definitive Batman.

*No, I'm not kidding. I think that Wes Anderson would actually be an inspired pick for director, if he were somehow impossibly convinced to do so. He leans to surrealist character pieces with deeply stylized imagery, which is exactly what you need for Batman and Gotham City. You could scarcely do better for, say, a murder mystery set inside Arkham Asylum.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Affleck was in too many movies to be Lazenby! He's Dalton!

 

[BatmanBegins05]

Affleck was in too many movies to be Lazenby! He's Dalton!

For some reason, I feel like Timothy Dalton had garnered more respect from people as James Bond, than Ben Affleck did as Batman.

 

[The Joker]

For some reason, I feel like Timothy Dalton had garnered more respect from people as James Bond, than Ben Affleck did as Batman.

To say the least. Dalton was actually really well liked and many Bond fans likened him to Fleming's version of Bond. Time has been kind to his performances and his movies. License to Kill in particular is seen as one of the darker more intense Bond movies. I don't see people growing an appreciation for any of Batfleck's performances in years to come. In fact I'd say he'll be looked back on less and less favorably.

I don't think Batfleck is comparable to any of the Bonds.

 

[MbJ]

If anything I'm reminded of Moore. Good actor, could be great with the right scripts, but had the misfortune of getting saddled with several movies considered to be low points in the franchise.

And alas, Ben never got his Spy Who Loved me to really shine.

 

[metaphysician]

Affleck was in too many movies to be Lazenby! He's Dalton!

Can't be, Dalton's Bond movies were actually good.

 

[metaphysician]

To say the least. Dalton was actually really well liked and many Bond fans likened him to Fleming's version of Bond. Time has been kind to his performances and his movies. License to Kill in particular is seen as one of the darker more intense Bond movies. I don't see people growing an appreciation for any of Batfleck's performances in years to come. In fact I'd say he'll be looked back on less and less favorably.

I don't think Batfleck is comparable to any of the Bonds.

I am one of those people who really like him. Dalton is my favorite Bond. . . but actually not for the reasons you say. In my eye, he is separated from some other Bond version by that he *isn't* a completely amoral sociopath. He's. . . a monster with a conscience, is my best way to summarize it: cold, murderous ruthlessness bound up with an strong sense of ethics independent of his self-interest. Note that both of his movies involve him rebelling against authority in the name of doing what he believes is right. Its not a *perfect* sense of ethics, mind ( see: License to Kill ), but even where he goes astray, it is not due to venality.

On consideration? Timothy Dalton could have played a really awesome Batman.

 

[BatmanBegins05]

I think you could compare the reaction to the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman to the reaction of the casting of Daniel Craig as James Bond. Except with Daniel Craig, we have gotten two great Bond films. Casino Royale and Skyfall. BvS and Justice League are not anywhere near the level of quality, of a Casino Royale and/or a Skyfall.

 

[metaphysician]

I think you could compare the reaction to the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman to the reaction of the casting of Daniel Craig as James Bond. Except with Daniel Craig, we have gotten two great Bond films. Casino Royale and Skyfall. BvS and Justice League are not anywhere near the level of quality, of a Casino Royale and/or a Skyfall.

Craig is more like, heh, Chris Reeves. He's a great performance of the character in some great movies. . . who also played the character in some less-great movies.

 

[BatmanBegins05]

Craig is more like, heh, Chris Reeves. He's a great performance of the character in some great movies. . . who also played the character in some less-great movies.

I am talking about the way people were behaving when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond. The only reactions that were THAT negative were when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman, AND when Ben Affleck was cast as Batman.

 

[Babillygunn]

I don’t see this comparison at all. I feel as though OHMSS is only remembered as good because of Dianna Rigg, the shocking ending and it’s own self awareness. Truth be told Lazenby was not good in the role. Plus by all accounts he’s a jackwagon. Affleck is a good actor in a lousy movie that didn’t understand the character. Lazenby was a lousy actor in a decent movie.

And I guess I am seeing the Dalton movies differently from everyone else. While I understand that they were trying to recreate Fleming’s Bond, I have to admit that while I enjoy the books, they really aren’t suitable for direct adaptations.

 

[metaphysician]

I don’t see this comparison at all. I feel as though OHMSS is only remembered as good because of Dianna Rigg, the shocking ending and it’s own self awareness. Truth be told Lazenby was not good in the role. Plus by all accounts he’s a jackwagon. Affleck is a good actor in a lousy movie that didn’t understand the character. Lazenby was a lousy actor in a decent movie.

And I guess I am seeing the Dalton movies differently from everyone else. While I understand that they were trying to recreate Fleming’s Bond, I have to admit that while I enjoy the books, they really aren’t suitable for direct adaptations.

I disagree, Archer proves that you can do a direct adaptation. . . as long as you are willing to have it taken as sociopathic farce comedy.

But yes, I don't see the Dalton movies as being especially "direct from the novels". That's just a surface level reading based on them being darker and more serious than the Moore period beforehand.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't see the comparison. The Lazenby Era ultimately came to an abrupt end mostly due to behind the scenes issues. He didn't get along with the cast and crew and ultimately was convinced that Bond was a dying, outdated franchise and jumped ship. Otherwise, he would have been in the follow up.

I do think Dalton is the better (albeit certainly far from perfect) comparison. Both were darker takes on the character that audiences found somewhat jarring resulting in a lower box office take and then both decided to move on when the franchise was stuck in turmoil. But there were still differences. Despite not having the greatest box office success (especially for LTK), Dalton was still far more highly regarded at the time than Affleck is now and a lot of people think the biggest problem with LTK was that it came out in the middle of the summer of 1989, one of the biggest seasons ever for blockbusters with tons of competition (including the massive Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). Also, DC was at a crossroads about how to handle the character/franchise going forward. The writing was on the wall after Matt Reeves was hired and there is a good chance Affleck was going to be gone even if he didn't want to be. EON, meanwhile, fully intended to do a third Dalton film and the only thing that stopped them was being tied up in legal issues beyond their control. By the time things got settled five years later, Dalton had moved on.

Anyways, I wouldn't count on some sort of massive re-evaluation of Affleck's portrayal in the years to come. He probably ends up closer to George Clooney's Batman than any of the Bonds.