Ben Affleck's Batman Could be End of the Line for DCEU

[Cli-Fi]

And Marvel Reigns Triumphant until 2050! I kid. I kid. But maybe not.

Forbes recently did a really interesting analysis on the state of the DCEU film properties and how Batman has to save it all.

Do we really have a lot of hope for another Zack Snyder DC property? In Justice League we trust, really?
Aquaman is already having a lot of development issues but seems to be a solid story to get through.
Will the Warner Brothers' executives let Wonder Women strut her stuff untouched? or will the first female super hero movie in modern times get sidetracked by politics? Prophecy: I don't think Gal Gadot measures up well against Robert Downey Jr.

So Let's say that Justice League pulls in similar bucks as B VS S but it doesn't beat it in the box office, because fanboys view it as an Avengers rip-off. We already saw some of this in the Suicide Squad VS Guardians of the Galaxy fights. So is Wonder Woman or Aquaman going to save the DCEU?? Not likely.

That leaves us with A) the highly confusing choice WB made in creating a Flash movie without linking it to the more successful TV Series, this idea will NOT be DC's saving grace. It won't. or B) Ben Affleck's solo Batman gamble.

Ben Affleck is a really solid actor with the director chops to match, however, DC is forgetting about a batman trilogy starring Christian Bale. It just ended in 2012 and that is still fresh in many people's minds, and they are already making a Batman: Lego Movie which will cause even more confusion among people. The question here is do people want more batman? Why is this one different than the Christian Bale one?

If Batman is successful, then it could become a trilogy and the DCEU will become profitable enough to create more films and spin-offs. If not, DC and WB will have to come to the inevitable conclusion, that they don't need the DCEU.

 

[Culhwch]

The question here is do people want more batman? Why is this one different than the Christian Bale one?

Because this one is set in a broader universe, and one that is by far more comic book-y than the Nolan films were.

The Batman of the Nolan films was very much anchored in reality - a grim and gritty take that used villians who, like Batman, were just regular people, quite often the other side of a coin flip of the Dark Knight himself.

This new Batman exists in a world where Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman and other meta-humans exist, not too mention supernatural elements brought in by Enchantress and (eventually) Shazam. This is a world where Batman villains like Killer Croc already exist (although some may argue he was underwhelming) and by extension, other villains such as Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Clayface, Man-Bat, and so on can exist. I think that's the single most important difference between the new Batman and the most recent Batman.

Of course they still need to make the movies, and make them good. I'm not sure I have faith at this point that the latter is going to happen. I'm fairly certain they've already ruined the Joker, and can't see that character being redeemed short of another re-boot.

(Lego Batman is a whole other thing that I don't think has any impact here...)

 

[Cli-Fi]

Because this one is set in a broader universe, and one that is by far more comic book-y than the Nolan films were.

The Batman of the Nolan films was very much anchored in reality - a grim and gritty take that used villians who, like Batman, were just regular people, quite often the other side of a coin flip of the Dark Knight himself.

Shazam.

Of course they still need to make the movies, and make them good. I'm not sure I have faith at this point that the latter is going to happen. I'm fairly certain they've already ruined the Joker, and can't see that character being redeemed short of another re-boot.

Of course, I know that is the difference, but does it really matter that it's Affleck and not Bale? I don't think so. I think people look at THE Batman! That is all. I'm not sure what new things Affleck brings to the table that Bale already did. Plus Catwoman was in Nolan-verse and possibly Robin?

Shazam. I forgot about Shazam. The Rock is doing shazam. He may save the whole damn franchise, but by that time it may be too late?

Jared Leto said he was tricked into playing Joker... I don't think he is satisfied with his performance in the movie. DC needs better control over their directors and actors so they can stop thrashing their own films. That's what ultimately brought down Fantastic 4, but it doesn't help matters that it actually WAS bad. The other movies have been sub-par, considering Warner Brothers talent in making franchises. This one has been a complete disaster.

 

[Culhwch]

Of course, I know that is the difference, but does it really matter that it's Affleck and not Bale? I don't think so. I think people look at THE Batman! That is all. I'm not sure what new things Affleck brings to the table that Bale already did. Plus Catwoman was in Nolan-verse and possibly Robin?

For starters, Catwoman and 'Robin' are just further extensions of my point - both are very much just regular people, in a realistic setting.

I'm not sure that audiences prefer Bale over Affleck, or Affleck over Bale, or if it really matters at all, if that is your question. Audiences may be more attracted to a certain actor (and arguably Affleck was a far bigger name going into BvS than Bale was going into Begins), but if the movie is bad, the actor isn't going to save it. Bale's Batman was acclaimed because of the very good movies built around him by Nolan. Affleck's Batman has started at a disadvantage, because I think BvS was expected to be bad by a large percentage of the market, and then pretty much lived up to that expectation. I absolutely think Affleck can turn it around with a good stand-alone Batman movie. I even think Justice League can get the DCEU moving in the right direction, despite (or in spite of) Snyder's involvement, now that they have two movies' worth of bad reactions to help them navigate.

From a personal standpoint, I think the Affleck Batman is better aesthetically - I think he captures the comic book look far better than Bale did, and not just physically but in things like the Batmobile, Batwing and Batcave. Character-wise, the jury is definitely out. This Batman is pretty much a stone-cold killer (although most film versions aren't as averse to killing as the comic book version is), but I think they can turn that around by playing up that Batman is twenty years in and somewhat jaded. Putting together the Justice League could inspire him back to his idealistic viewpoint from his earlier days (perhaps demonstrated through flashbacks). Or they might just double-down and keep him as a killer, which would be disappointing.

If the question is, 'Are audiences going to get sick of Batman?', I honestly don't think so. Batman is just one of those enduring characters that people can't seem to get enough of. The important point is that people don't just want more movies, they want good movies. And because Marvel, by and large, give them good movies, the bar is set higher than it once was. And if Justice League and The Batman flame out, then I think DC and WB just clears the schedule and re-boots in pretty short order.