Ben Affleck is Batman

[dask]

George Lazenby would have made a good Bruce Wayne, probably would have made a great Batman, too.

 

[hopewrites]

every time I try to picture him as batman, I see a 12 boy dressed up for Halloween and asking for an extra piece of candy.


not a clue why.

 

[steve12553]

I've always thought that Michael Keaton's Batman/ Bruce Wayne nailed it best. Bruce Wayne was moody and brooding while still functioning and Batman was tough but human. The sequel, of course was weak and the last two went back to the Adam West era (Let's make a live action cartoon). As far as the most recent reboot, I didn't see the character from my childhood anywhere I the first two films. I did feel Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was interesting in a bizarre, sociopathic way. I never got around to the third movie for some reason (probably the promise of too many special effects in the promo's. I think it boils down to " Can Ben Affleck act and will the film require him to?". I think he can look the part. Of course I looked him up on IMDB and the title of the new film makes me think it's a moot point.

 

[StormSeeker]

I must admit like everyone else I had a bit of a " what the fuuuu? " kind of reaction, but I wasnt a fan of the most recent trilogy as it was. ( Not due to Christian Bale, I like him ) so I wonder if I may even enjoy this new adventure more than the past one!

 

[Jonathan C]

I liked the last three but had problems with them; but I'm not too thrilled about the direction this series is going either (partly because MoS was a bit too much like those three, in style and tone, which probably isn't surprising considering they have the same producers and writers).

 

[Zahhak]

I'm going to (partly) repeat myself here from an earlier comment I made, but this is something I wrote on FB that seems highly relevant:

I wasn't a fan of Dare Devil, but he did well in Dogma, yeah? And Argo? I think Affleck is kind of like a mirror: he only reflects what he's given. He had a great director in Dogma and Argo, and he did well in both (Christ, he was nominated for 6 awards for Argo, including the SAG award for outstanding performance), and he had a terrible director for Dare Devil. Do you know what Mark Steven Johnson has done since Dare Devil? Ghost Rider and When in Rome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Affleck is a great actor, or that he's going to make (or break) the movie. Personally, I think they should have gone with someone who already has a martial arts background, but I think we should reserve judgement on his role in the film /atleast/ until we're getting previews. And if nothing else, he did go from being nominated for 2 golden raspberries for Jersey Girls in 2004 to winning 3 awards and 4 more nominations for Hollywoodland in 2006 (where he was again working with a great director).

As an additional commentary (kind of meta about discussions revolving around Batman movies in general), it's cool and all if you don't like the 'darker, grittier' batman from the Nolan's series, but you need to understand something: Bob Kane (who made batman) was not a fan of 60s/70s era batman. That would the kind of batman we see in Batman: The Animated Series/The New Batman Adventures, and the Tim Burton films. In them Batman is good because he's Batman, the villains are evil because they're evil, they all have hilarious themes and no back stories, personalities, or real motivations. Batman never has any moral problems to deal with, we never have any reason to pity the villain, and there is never any reason to think that Batman may be three steps away from becoming just another Batman villain.

In the original run of Batman by Bob Kane, Batman carried a gun. And he killed people. A lot of people. It wasn't until the mid-60s with the Comic Code Authority that he started to become this unambiguously good guy who stands for American, Mom, and Apple Pie. Before that, we were pretty often left with the feeling that Batman was not that different from his villains. By the early 80s writers started getting back to that with books like Batman: Year One, where we're led to believe he tortures a dude to get him to confess to the cops and Batman: Killing Joke. I'll give you the cliff notes version of that book: The Joker shots Barbara Gordon in the spine permanently crippling her, tortures Gordon, and then gets beaten half to death by Batman until Gordon stops him. Let me repeat that: Batman is fully intent on killing the Joker, until Gordon stops him.

And if you don't like the characterization of the Joker in the movie: interesting fact, his outlook on life and the way he acts, lifted almost entirely from Killing Joke, which was one of the most demanded Batman books of all time.

The Dark Knight isn't the greatest movie trilogy of all time, I'll grant you, but it is definitely the most faithful to Batman as he was originally written by Kane in the 40s, and how he has been written for the last 30 years.

tl;dr: The people who aren't fans of the DK series are not fans of the Batman comics

 

[jastius]

i actually have some reprints of the early batman comics. from his appearances in detective magazine. these stories were based upon the same themes as radio programs of the time, with their serialized mystery stories. Now, my father read batman when it was issued back in the forties and he went over the comics with me and he said about batman having a gun? every detective had a gun in the forties. and most men were familiar with the use of firearms due to the fact there was a war on... military training etcetera. to say that batman was excessively dark would be relying upon the depiction in the contemporary graphic novel, not upon the depiction of the scientific studies of forensic technologies that the nineteen forties batman actually did in his crime lab. the original batman was depicted as a cross between phillip marlow, and what we would consider CSI, along with some gadgetry a la james bond. Dad said that when they had the scene of batman thinking sitting behind his lab console, that was when you knew he was just about to crack the case. It was all done in a mini mystery style.
And as for depicting the dark and troubled times? give me a break. After the stock market crash there were tough times but it wasn't the dark ages. There wasn't a sudden license to whole-scale murder on the streets. Most people didn't lock their doors. Ever.

The depiction of batman in the 'killing joke' was a reinvention of batman FOR that graphic novel. it was not based upon the forties series at all. this was gone over in great detail when 'the killing joke' came out. when the comics company defended their novel by saying it was a re-depiction of the nineteen forties batman, the avid collectors came out again and said oh, no... its not. and the company had to retract their statement.

 

[DarkFiBiro]

...but I wasnt a fan of the most recent trilogy as it was. ( Not due to Christian Bale, I like him ) so I wonder if I may even enjoy this new adventure more than the past one!

I'm the opposite I think lol. I have never been particularly into Batman. The recent trilogy is what got me interested, but I fear with Affleck taking the helm now, my interest will wane once more. I dont think he can be dark enough, to be honest, but I do like Ben, he is a good actor.

 

[Jonathan C]

I'm going to (partly) repeat myself here from an earlier comment I made, but this is something I wrote on FB that seems highly relevant:


As an additional commentary (kind of meta about discussions revolving around Batman movies in general), it's cool and all if you don't like the 'darker, grittier' batman from the Nolan's series, but you need to understand something: Bob Kane (who made batman) was not a fan of 60s/70s era batman. That would the kind of batman we see in Batman: The Animated Series/The New Batman Adventures, and the Tim Burton films. In them Batman is good because he's Batman, the villains are evil because they're evil, they all have hilarious themes and no back stories, personalities, or real motivations. Batman never has any moral problems to deal with, we never have any reason to pity the villain, and there is never any reason to think that Batman may be three steps away from becoming just another Batman villain.


In the original run of Batman by Bob Kane, Batman carried a gun. And he killed people. A lot of people. It wasn't until the mid-60s with the Comic Code Authority that he started to become this unambiguously good guy who stands for American, Mom, and Apple Pie. Before that, we were pretty often left with the feeling that Batman was not that different from his villains. By the early 80s writers started getting back to that with books like Batman: Year One, where we're led to believe he tortures a dude to get him to confess to the cops and Batman: Killing Joke. I'll give you the cliff notes version of that book: The Joker shots Barbara Gordon in the spine permanently crippling her, tortures Gordon, and then gets beaten half to death by Batman until Gordon stops him. Let me repeat that: Batman is fully intent on killing the Joker, until Gordon stops him.

And if you don't like the characterization of the Joker in the movie: interesting fact, his outlook on life and the way he acts, lifted almost entirely from Killing Joke, which was one of the most demanded Batman books of all time.

The Dark Knight isn't the greatest movie trilogy of all time, I'll grant you, but it is definitely the most faithful to Batman as he was originally written by Kane in the 40s, and how he has been written for the last 30 years.

tl;dr: The people who aren't fans of the DK series are not fans of the Batman comics

I think you watched a different cartoon if you think those things are true of B:TAS / TNBA. Plenty of villains in those had sympathetic and tragic backstories (case in point- Mister Freeze), Batman frequently came up against moral dilemmas (often, having to stop the villain from killing a truly rotten person) and the issue of whether he is as unstable as the villains he fights is definitely brought up. Several episodes were dark and gritty.

And the comic code had nothing to do with anything- Batman stopped killing by late 1941, a little over two years after he was introduced. Prior to that, whenever he killed someone (which was indeed a lot) it wasn't portrayed as a bad thing, or a sign that he was himself a hop and skip away from the monsters he fights (an idea that did not come up until...the 80's, I think); no, whenever Batman killed someone, the tone was pretty clear- they had it coming. No moral dilemmas, no sympathy for the villains- Batman killing people was unambiguously portrayed as a good, or at least perfectly acceptable thing. In some of the later Batman-kills stories, he'll regret killing but say "but I have no choice" and that's pretty much meant to be the end of the matter. The change was instigated by the new editor Whitney Ellsworth, who found the original Batman and the Monster Men story too disturbing for a comic aimed at children (Batman machine guns one monster man to death and beats another one by hanging him- both were brainwashed, monsterized asylum patients) and forbade Batman (and Robin) from killing anymore- it stuck.

In short, Batman killed a lot for about two years- and then stopped killing. Period. (with one or two highly controversial exceptions by one or two writers, usually things like Batman using some thug as a human shield). And Bob Kane didn't hate the cartoons or the Tim Burton / Schumacher movies- or if he did, it didn't stop him consulting on three of them.

I think you are confusing them with the old 60's TV series and the cartoons from that era, which were outright camp and parody; though otherwise, very faithful to the comics of that time. Batman had slowly started to turn campy since the 40's (when WW2 broke out, they decided to make the stories lighter and brighter to keep everyone's spirits up- it wasn't until the late 60's / early 70's that Batman started going dark again). The only difference between the show and the comics at the time is that the show was aware of how silly it was. The Tim Burton Batman movie was if anything a return to the darker roots, as the comics had done a few years earlier.

And it was Frank Miller and Alan Moore- both in the 80's- who brought up the idea that Batman might be as crazy as the villains he fights (Joker wasn't even considered to be mentally ill until the 70's; it was brought up in an earlier 40's story when he was on trial and pled insanity, but Batman categorically told the court that he wasn't- he was just a remorseless murderer, and the Joker was executed (only to be resuscitated by his gang). And when Alan Moore brought it up in The Killing Joke, the story ends pretty firmly on the side of "no, Batman isn't that crazy- the Joker is wrong and needed help before he even became the Joker". The Dark Knight movie trilogy was influenced by these comics, but so were the cartoons and, yes, the Burton movies.

And no- not being a fan of the TK series does not mean you are not a fan of the Batman comics. I like the DK series, but I've got a lot of issues with it and it takes more liberties with the comics than you seem to realize. Lots of people who absolutely love the comics don't like the Nolan movies, for any number of reasons.

 

[Zahhak]

The depiction of batman in the 'killing joke' was a reinvention of batman FOR that graphic novel.

Reinvention for that graphic novel, and based much more on the original run then the 60s/70s Batman.

I think you watched a different cartoon if you think those things are true of B:TAS / TNBA. Plenty of villains in those had sympathetic and tragic backstories (case in point- Mister Freeze)

The following is a list of recurring antagonists on the list of recurring antagonists from the wiki article on BTAS:
The Joker (no backstory, personality, no motivation)
Harley (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
The Penguin (no backstory, no personality, no motivation)
Catwoman (no backstory, no personality, no motivation)
Two Face (has a backstory, personality, but no motivation)
The Riddler (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
Mr. Freeze (holy ****, an exception)
Poison Ivy (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
Bane (no backstory, no personality, no motivation)
Ra's al Ghul (kind of has a backstory, has no personality other than 'mysogny and straw environmentalist', and his motivation is 'insanity')
Scarecrow (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
Killer Croc (no backstory, no personality, no motivation)
Clayface (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
Mad Hatter (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
Man-Bat (no backstory, no personality, half-assed motivation)
The Ventriloquist (no backstory, no personality, no motivation)

One. One character has a clearly defined backstory, personality and motivation. The rest (if they're lucky) have one or two, and most have some terrible bullcrap motivation like "I was fired from my job, so I'm going to go on a murder spree using super science"

Batman frequently came up against moral dilemmas (often, having to stop the villain from killing a truly rotten person) and the issue of whether he is as unstable as the villains he fights is definitely brought up. Several episodes were dark and gritty.

The only time we're given the feeling that the Batman might be something other than a shinny beacon for the whole world to follow is when he kicks a dude into a pit of crocodiles, he's put on trial by super villains, and the episode explaining why Night Wing is a thing.

they had it coming

According to a person that isn't responsible to anyone. That's the moral ambiguity

In short, Batman killed a lot for about two years- and then stopped killing. Period.

I never said he was killing people up until the CCA, but that it changed the tone dramatically to the shinny beacon of good of the 60s/70s.

The Tim Burton Batman movie was if anything a return to the darker roots, as the comics had done a few years earlier.

Going from Batman running around with a bomb and having afternoon tea with Gordon to the Tim Burton movies is darker, but no where near as dark as "Barbara getting shot in the spine" or "Batman machine gunning a mental patient to death"

And it was Frank Miller and Alan Moore- both in the 80's- who brought up the idea that Batman might be as crazy as the villains he fights

IIRC, Batman was wanted by the cops during the early run because of the whole "masked nutbag running around killing people" thing, which definitely implies a degree of nutbaggery.

And no- not being a fan of the TK series does not mean you are not a fan of the Batman comics. I like the DK series, but I've got a lot of issues with it and it takes more liberties with the comics than you seem to realize. Lots of people who absolutely love the comics don't like the Nolan movies, for any number of reasons.

Nolan pretty clearly said he was going to change things and make a new version of Batman. Getting upset that he changed something he specifically said he was going to change makes as much sense as getting upset about Batman Beyond because "holy crap, Terry McGuiness is not Batman".

But, rereading my post I realized I came off more hostile then I intended. Most of the people I have talked to that hated the DK series are people that (apparently) are completely unaware of the original tone of the Batman series, or the tone for the last 30 years and seem to be completely unaware of anything in the Batmanverse outside of the Tim Burton movies and what they remember from the Batman cartoons from the 90s. I have another, much more rude, remark I enjoy making, but it seems inappropriate since I'm talking to people who are actually aware that the Batman comics exist.

 

[Null_Zone]

Afflick was good in The Town, he escaped the clean cut image, and as mentioned Argo so I'll give it ago. It can't be worse than the last film...maybe.