It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
https://movieweb.com/the-batman-actors-replace-ben-affleck/
I'd agree with you on BvS, but JL was a shitshow and they ruined Affleck's characterisation of the character because they didn't have the creative mettle to see it through.
Having said that, I personally wasn't impressed with Affleck's interpretation, and am somewhat happy he is gone. He certainly looked the part, but I didn't feel the inner darkness and turmoil that I felt with Keaton or Bale, which I think is essential for a good Batman interpretation.
I agree with both of you. Batfleck was the best thing they had, and they ruined it. And this coming from a guy who doesn't appreciate superhero flicks. But, Batman is Batman. And although I don't like Affleck, I did enjoy his take on the character.
I'm afraid Justice League really was pretty terrible—there's no salvaging that one—but BvS is in serious need of a reappraisal.
Affleck was a quality Batman, at least in BvS. Would have been nice to see him in his own film. I just hope whoever inherits the cowl next is more Affleck than Kilmer.
Irrespective of what one thinks about the Marvel films, BvS and JL were absolute trash movies. Audiences and critics alike acknowledged this easily because of how apparent it was in just how awful those films were and I'll add that no revisionist appraisal is going to change that.
Better suited for Man-Bat.
That's not really true in the case of BvS. For every person who hates it, there's someone out there who loves it. Now, I'm not one of them (I'm quite indifferent to it) but audiences and critics certainly weren't alike in their response to it.
Also, it's not possible to say that a reappraisal wouldn't change it as that reappraisal hasn't happened yet. Many, many films were panned on release only to have the views on them soften over time. There were already a number essays about "things we didn't quite get" in BvS even in the twelve months afterwards, especially once the three hour cut came out.
JL, though, is a failure no matter what way you cut it. It should be studied as an example of how not to let a studio handle your film, along with SS.
It worked beautifully in the Justice League animated series, but of course the folks behind that show were far more talented than the people who made the film.
It is studio interference, more than anything else, that squeezed a lot of juice out of JL. It was the same interference from the studios that left Ayer throwing his arms in the air when trying to do an edgy SS.
I didn't say they were untalented, just that they weren't as talented as the folks making the cartoons. Geoff Johns is very prolific, but he didn't write or direct the Justice League film, and he was just one of a clown-car full of producers. As for Zach Synder, I thought the DCEU was screwed the minute he was hired, and I have yet to revise that opinion. Studio interference could certainly be a factor, but then I wonder why Marvel's films seem to have escaped or overcome that problem.
Robert Pattinson is not a bad actor though--he gave a superb performance in Good Time, playing a sleazy New York drug dealer. But he's a bit too young-looking to play Batman.
Nevertheless, had the internet been around in 1989 it would have exploded in rage when Michael Keaton was chosen, so we shouldn't necessarily reject unconventional casting. Plus Batman is sort of a vampiric character...
Yes, but he doesn’t glitter (unless Schumacher’s at the helm).
Maybe Joel could return as the costume designer for the new film. I feel the recent Batman films have been short on nipples and codpieces.
Remember they're casting a young Ben Affleck, so Pattinson is possible.
Wow.
Not a name I’d have considered, but now you mention it. I think I need this to happen. Robert Pattinson is a terrific actor. I think there are a few reactionary types who will be put their nose up to him due to Twilight – but he was fantastic in Good Time. I love that film.
However….has this been confirmed as taking place inside the DCEU? We know that they are after a younger Bruce Wayne. But I was under the impression that Matt Reeves’ film would standalone. Doesn’t that mean a contemporary story with a young Batman?
Personally, I’d much rather see a period 80’s/90’s set film - sounds cooler. Is this confirmed?
Nothing's confirmed, but it seems like the most logical step. If I was the producers for Warner Bros, I would still wanna keep Affleck in house just in case it doesn't work out and if does work out, they have two Batmans and can explore many different areas of his character.
It also makes sense, because it also solves some of the issues regarding Joaquin Phoenix's Joker. It's already been mentioned that the Joker film will star a young Bruce Wayne, so it seems will be seeing Bruce Wayne across the decades.
I support this. Maybe Ben Whislaw could play him.
I miss Affleck already
There maybe more villains then these two. Fingers crossed!
DC comics' plans for Batman over the year. Keep your eyes open!
I approve!
And incidentally Batman did meet Sherlock Holmes at one point.
I have always liked the way Ra's refers to Batman as 'Detective'
Not the voice cast I would of wanted (This should of been Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil’s final performance along with most of the animated series cast)
But still excited to get this