It's terrible! How DARE they allow this guy to play Batman! I mean, his previous work was Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom! And as Johnny Dangerously! It's an outrage!
Oh. Wait. I was just repeating what fans said in 1988 when they announced Michael Keaton as Batman. I swear whenever I read people complaining about casting in Suiper-hero movies, I flash back to those Comic Buyer's Guide letters pages where people lost their minds.
I'm gonna wait until I see the movie and THEN judge. I mean, yeah, he sucked in some movies, but Argo was probably one of the best movies of the last 20 years.
(needed more Jack Kirby, tho)
To be fair, Keaton was a comedy guy. We've seen Ben doing plenty of stuff, including play a super hero. A slightly dark, brooding super hero at that.
I don't like this. At all. Bale being back would be ten times better.
I actually this having Bale return would make it worse. It'd shit on what Nolan did beforehand. THIS Batman had to be someone new.
Here's my (possible) Kaboom:
I'm more concerned with the idea then the actor. Affleck 10yrs ago would concern me more then Affleck today. The Town & Argo has proved he's grown as an actor. I'm not 100% sold on the actor, but I'm not upset or uninterested in the movie now. Having this actor means we probably won't get a new Batman trilogy anytime soon (luckily). We might get solo movies of other JLA-ers with Batman more like Nick Fury making cameos. Plus, if Affleck directs to JLA movie, I'd be very happy with it.
Having a big name actor means what happened in Man of Steel will be overshadowed. I wanted to see more of Cavill's Superman without another hero. His Superman just got derailed both by another hero AND a bigger actor playing the hero.
Now with a big name actor, Batman WILL be the DC universe. I'd like to see everyone more on par then a big name actor surrounded by lesser known. I'm also more concerned the JLA movie train will pick up speed and crash then travel.
M
Snyder: "He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter..."
How is someone with chops, older, and bearing the scars of a seasoned crime fighter.... how does that not describe Bales Batman? And why would it "shit" on what Nolan did? We don't even know what the movie is going to be.
I don't like this. At all. Bale being back would be ten times better.
I actually this having Bale return would make it worse. It'd shit on what Nolan did beforehand. THIS Batman had to be someone new.
Here's my (possible) Kaboom:
I'm more concerned with the idea then the actor. Affleck 10yrs ago would concern me more then Affleck today. The Town & Argo has proved he's grown as an actor. I'm not 100% sold on the actor, but I'm not upset or uninterested in the movie now. Having this actor means we probably won't get a new Batman trilogy anytime soon (luckily). We might get solo movies of other JLA-ers with Batman more like Nick Fury making cameos. Plus, if Affleck directs to JLA movie, I'd be very happy with it.
Having a big name actor means what happened in Man of Steel will be overshadowed. I wanted to see more of Cavill's Superman without another hero. His Superman just got derailed both by another hero AND a bigger actor playing the hero.
Now with a big name actor, Batman WILL be the DC universe. I'd like to see everyone more on par then a big name actor surrounded by lesser known. I'm also more concerned the JLA movie train will pick up speed and crash then travel.
M
Snyder: "He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter..."
How is someone with chops, older, and bearing the scars of a seasoned crime fighter.... how does that not describe Bales Batman? And why would it "shit" on what Nolan did? We don't even know what the movie is going to be.
The ending of TDKR was the ending of THAT story. Bring back Bale means that isn't the end of the story. The original ending had Bruce die. Going back to the well would tarnish the trilogy. Like what Miller did to DKR with Strikes Again & All-Star!
Actually, @Matt touched on something that I think is a much bigger problem (not that I have a huge problem with Affleck as Batman). EVERYONE saw DKRises... Batman is gone. Done.
Are they :
A. going to bring him "out of retirement" (or death, as the entire world sees it)?, or
B. this is Gordon-Levit/Robin having taken up the role, and now being played by Affleck (which is confusing in itself), or
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Not to mention that everyone's excuse for Superman being slightly off model with property damage/casualties and doing the spoilery thing to Zod at the end, is that "this is early in his career, he hasn't formed his true Superman-ish morality, yet".
But in just his SECOND appearance, we have him VS. another character we have invested 3 movies in believing he is such a good guy he sacrificed everything for the good of the people. How can Superman not come across as a dick? That's as stupid as making him a deadbeat dad/stalker.
WB wants an Avengers-like franchise SO BAD, but they are not willing to do the hard work and have the patience for the slow burn of Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Captain America to build it up.
Affleck or not, I don't see this going well for them.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
What I thought was funny was how the announcement made sure to emphasize how OLD Affleck was--as if to say (as some have said, here), "Look, guys. This is a DIFFERENT Affleck. This is not the same guy that was in Gigli...or Reindeer Games...or Phantoms...or (God forbid) Daredevil."
Yeah, that was the thing with Keaton. The only thing remotely dramatic he'd done up to that point was Clean and Sober...not exactly a Batman-esque portrayal. Affleck's DD can be used to make a potentially more accurate prediction. And I will say I was NOT a fan of that portrayal.
But he HAS learned a lot since then. The question is whether he's learned enough to be a lynchpin in the same manner RDJ has. The thing with RDJ (and most of the casting Marvel did) is that, not only did they cast based on the skill of the actor, but the PERSONALITY of the actor--with the possible exception of Chris Evans.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
Actually, @Matt touched on something that I think is a much bigger problem (not that I have a huge problem with Affleck as Batman). EVERYONE saw DKRises... Batman is gone. Done.
Are they :
A. going to bring him "out of retirement" (or death, as the entire world sees it)?, or
B. this is Gordon-Levit/Robin having taken up the role, and now being played by Affleck (which is confusing in itself), or
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Not to mention that everyone's excuse for Superman being slightly off model with property damage/casualties and doing the spoilery thing to Zod at the end, is that "this is early in his career, he hasn't formed his true Superman-ish morality, yet".
But in just his SECOND appearance, we have him VS. another character we have invested 3 movies in believing he is such a good guy he sacrificed everything for the good of the people. How can Superman not come across as a dick? That's as stupid as making him a deadbeat dad/stalker.
WB wants an Avengers-like franchise SO BAD, but they are not willing to do the hard work and have the patience for the slow burn of Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Captain America to build it up.
Affleck or not, I don't see this going well for them.
From what I've read, Snyder is doing a reboot version completely different from Nolan's. Nolan has been adamant about that.
Actually, @Matt touched on something that I think is a much bigger problem (not that I have a huge problem with Affleck as Batman). EVERYONE saw DKRises... Batman is gone. Done.
Are they :
A. going to bring him "out of retirement" (or death, as the entire world sees it)?, or
B. this is Gordon-Levit/Robin having taken up the role, and now being played by Affleck (which is confusing in itself), or
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Not to mention that everyone's excuse for Superman being slightly off model with property damage/casualties and doing the spoilery thing to Zod at the end, is that "this is early in his career, he hasn't formed his true Superman-ish morality, yet".
But in just his SECOND appearance, we have him VS. another character we have invested 3 movies in believing he is such a good guy he sacrificed everything for the good of the people. How can Superman not come across as a dick? That's as stupid as making him a deadbeat dad/stalker.
WB wants an Avengers-like franchise SO BAD, but they are not willing to do the hard work and have the patience for the slow burn of Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Captain America to build it up.
Affleck or not, I don't see this going well for them.
From what I've read, Snyder is doing a reboot version completely different from Nolan's. Nolan has been adamant about that.
M
That's what I assumed... but unless there's an origin story (again), how will anyone understand that? It seems a reboot of 1 character in the second film of another character is weird, and not really doable. And if ANY character deserves his own movie for the FIRST APPEARANCE, it would be Batman. Just sayin'...
I think doing it this way relegates the character to Black Widow or Hawkeye status... background player who MIGHT get their own movie if people like them enough... seriously? BATMAN?
I'm quite positive about this, to the chagrin of Mr Deemer on facebook earlier today. I don't think this was WB courting Affleck, I think he wanted the role and went after it. I put a lot of faith in people who really care about the role they're playing, some mediocre actors (of which I don't think Affleck is one) have put in some great performances because they really wanted the role.
It's sad that he's being judged on movies that he was doing 10+ years ago. 10yrs ago (ish) RDJ was doing Ally McBeal and Fassbender was doing a hospital soap.
...and RDJ did a great job on Ally McBeal. He's been a great actor most of his career. Have you ever seen Less Than Zero? He had an incredible performance in that movie--better than Affleck in Chasing Amy (and Amy is one of my favorite movies).
What held RDJ back before was his history for unreliability. He had a rough track record for even showing up, much less knowing his lines. Affleck's history is a bit different. It's sort of the inverse of RDJ. No one questions Affleck's work ethic, but he had to build up his skills as an actor. RDJ was the opposite. Sort of makes sense, since RDJ grew up in an artistic family. He grew into acting from a young age.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
I am sure he is going to be good, but I wish they cast an unknown. It will be a little strange watching him stand next to a smaller actor. The Marvel films have done a good job making stars for the most part.
I'd say this is WB's way to mirror Marvel Studios. The most known "Avenger" was Robert Downey, Jr. Presumably, Affleck will be the most well-known actor in the JLA with lesser known actors rounding out the cast. WB has this notion Batman will be the linchpin for their movie universe, so it makes more sense to cast a globally known actor.
M
Once again Affleck will probably be good, but I would rather see a known actor in the superman role because we have had so many established actors tackle batman already. I think Batman is really diverse and would love to see a radically different take on the character.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
Yeah, but the one word answer to this is Spider-Man.
Well...is that one word or two? One hyphenated word.
As others in this thread have said, people said the same thing about ASM. There are several ways you could go about introducing the character in a new way or leaving the origin story out for now--introducing it in a follow-up story later. I don't fault WB/DC for doing this kind of hand-off between Supes and Bats.
I'm just curious if Affleck is up to the task. Both review and take-wise, MoS was not as much of a home run as Iron Man 1 was. The production budget for Iron Man was about $80M less than MoS, and MoS still hasn't surpassed Iron Man's numbers--not to say it won't, but it's been out for more than 2 months now. In Box Office time, that might as well be 2 years.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
But you don't necessarily have to SHOW the origin in THIS movie. You can just give the viewer clues as to how, definitively, this is a different Batman. For instance, make it so he was Batman for longer than a year followed by 8 years of convalescence.
The first page of All Star Superman should be how the origins of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man are portrayed on film. The audience does not need the information jammed down their throats every year or so.
There is nothing wrong with people assuming that this is the Bale version, if that is what they perceive.
The first page of All Star Superman should be how the origins of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man are portrayed on film. The audience does not need the information jammed down their throats every year or so.
There is nothing wrong with people assuming that this is the Bale version, if that is what they perceive.
Except now rather then an origin, they'd have to explain why Bruce (not Robin John) is Batman, isn't limping, no longer "dead", has his wealth back, retains his secret identity again, etc.
Making THIS version the same as Nolan's pisses on what TDKR's ending did for the character.
The first page of All Star Superman should be how the origins of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man are portrayed on film. The audience does not need the information jammed down their throats every year or so.
There is nothing wrong with people assuming that this is the Bale version, if that is what they perceive.
Except now rather then an origin, they'd have to explain why Bruce (not Robin John) is Batman, isn't limping, no longer "dead", has his wealth back, retains his secret identity again, etc.
Making THIS version the same as Nolan's pisses on what TDKR's ending did for the character.
M
Where does it say anything you are stating as fact?
TDKR needs to exist separately, or this film franchise makes no sense. Modern cinema audiences are smart they will get it. Unless JGL is in the role, this thing is going to have to completely part ways.
Actually, @Matt touched on something that I think is a much bigger problem (not that I have a huge problem with Affleck as Batman). EVERYONE saw DKRises... Batman is gone. Done.
Are they :
A. going to bring him "out of retirement" (or death, as the entire world sees it)?, or
B. this is Gordon-Levit/Robin having taken up the role, and now being played by Affleck (which is confusing in itself), or
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Not to mention that everyone's excuse for Superman being slightly off model with property damage/casualties and doing the spoilery thing to Zod at the end, is that "this is early in his career, he hasn't formed his true Superman-ish morality, yet".
But in just his SECOND appearance, we have him VS. another character we have invested 3 movies in believing he is such a good guy he sacrificed everything for the good of the people. How can Superman not come across as a dick? That's as stupid as making him a deadbeat dad/stalker.
WB wants an Avengers-like franchise SO BAD, but they are not willing to do the hard work and have the patience for the slow burn of Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Captain America to build it up.
Affleck or not, I don't see this going well for them.
From what I've read, Snyder is doing a reboot version completely different from Nolan's. Nolan has been adamant about that.
M
That's what I assumed... but unless there's an origin story (again), how will anyone understand that? It seems a reboot of 1 character in the second film of another character is weird, and not really doable. And if ANY character deserves his own movie for the FIRST APPEARANCE, it would be Batman. Just sayin'...
I think doing it this way relegates the character to Black Widow or Hawkeye status... background player who MIGHT get their own movie if people like them enough... seriously? BATMAN?
Totall agree. The general audience ain't going to get it. ESPECIALLY when this "new" reboot is supposed to already be older and more xperienced. Experienced doing what? Not those 3 movies we saw a few years ago?
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
The first page of All Star Superman should be how the origins of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man are portrayed on film. The audience does not need the information jammed down their throats every year or so.
There is nothing wrong with people assuming that this is the Bale version, if that is what they perceive.
Except now rather then an origin, they'd have to explain why Bruce (not Robin John) is Batman, isn't limping, no longer "dead", has his wealth back, retains his secret identity again, etc.
Making THIS version the same as Nolan's pisses on what TDKR's ending did for the character.
M
Where does it say anything you are stating as fact?
TDKR needs to exist separately, or this film franchise makes no sense. Modern cinema audiences are smart they will get it. Unless JGL is in the role, this thing is going to have to completely part ways.
It was in reference to people needing a new origin to separate Bale from Affleck. If its perceived to be the same version, more then an origin explanation would be needed.
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Robert Downey Jr is still going to play Tony Stark in the next Avengers movie so everything should be ok
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
That was my point...the idea of a "stand alone universe" will get you some blank stares from most of the populous who made Nolan's Batman a 3 billion dollar franchise. We are used to multiple universes, reboots, Elseworlds, etc. but my mom and dad (as an example) don't.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
That's a good point but I heard a lot of people (non comic geeks) saying why did they have another origin story for Spider-man we know who Spider-man is just get to the good stuff.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
My point, again, is that if they did not do the origin AGAIN in ASM, people would have no choice but to think this Spider-Man was the same as the Tobey McGuire one. How could they not? Hence, the origin redo.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
I'm not so sure. We assumed Clooney's Batman was the same as the 3 movies before, but was there really any movie reference? In Forever, they reference Catwoman, but nothing in B&R. They altered the suits, cave, vehicles, & tone.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
Except Robin was held over, commissioner Gordon as held over, Alfred was held over. The house was held over. Many things let us know what was going on.
So 00-Craig is the same as 00-Bronsnan?
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
Comments
How is someone with chops, older, and bearing the scars of a seasoned crime fighter.... how does that not describe Bales Batman? And why would it "shit" on what Nolan did? We don't even know what the movie is going to be.
http://www.newsarama.com/18753-public-service-reminder-how-the-internet-reacted-to-heath-ledger-as-joker-casting.html
M
Are they :
A. going to bring him "out of retirement" (or death, as the entire world sees it)?, or
B. this is Gordon-Levit/Robin having taken up the role, and now being played by Affleck (which is confusing in itself), or
C. a new reboot of the character just 3 or so years after a half-billion people saw what is the greatest superhero trilogy to date...
Not to mention that everyone's excuse for Superman being slightly off model with property damage/casualties and doing the spoilery thing to Zod at the end, is that "this is early in his career, he hasn't formed his true Superman-ish morality, yet".
But in just his SECOND appearance, we have him VS. another character we have invested 3 movies in believing he is such a good guy he sacrificed everything for the good of the people. How can Superman not come across as a dick? That's as stupid as making him a deadbeat dad/stalker.
WB wants an Avengers-like franchise SO BAD, but they are not willing to do the hard work and have the patience for the slow burn of Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Captain America to build it up.
Affleck or not, I don't see this going well for them.
B-)
That said, I would think the Nolan Batman movies are done in a stand alone universe and over and done with, at least I would hope so.
However if the season premier of Arrow Thea calls up Olliver and says "did you see the news about what happened in Metropolis" I would not be disappointed.
Yeah, that was the thing with Keaton. The only thing remotely dramatic he'd done up to that point was Clean and Sober...not exactly a Batman-esque portrayal. Affleck's DD can be used to make a potentially more accurate prediction. And I will say I was NOT a fan of that portrayal.
But he HAS learned a lot since then. The question is whether he's learned enough to be a lynchpin in the same manner RDJ has. The thing with RDJ (and most of the casting Marvel did) is that, not only did they cast based on the skill of the actor, but the PERSONALITY of the actor--with the possible exception of Chris Evans.
The people who read comics and are hip to this, sadly, number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS... not the millions who pay to see these movies.
M
I think doing it this way relegates the character to Black Widow or Hawkeye status... background player who MIGHT get their own movie if people like them enough... seriously? BATMAN?
It's sad that he's being judged on movies that he was doing 10+ years ago. 10yrs ago (ish) RDJ was doing Ally McBeal and Fassbender was doing a hospital soap.
What held RDJ back before was his history for unreliability. He had a rough track record for even showing up, much less knowing his lines. Affleck's history is a bit different. It's sort of the inverse of RDJ. No one questions Affleck's work ethic, but he had to build up his skills as an actor. RDJ was the opposite. Sort of makes sense, since RDJ grew up in an artistic family. He grew into acting from a young age.
People have seen the origin enough that I think you can get away with it.
Now when Affleck signs on to do the next Daredevil movie they may have to revisit the origin well, it's been a while and people might have forgotten.
Well...is that one word or two? One hyphenated word.
As others in this thread have said, people said the same thing about ASM. There are several ways you could go about introducing the character in a new way or leaving the origin story out for now--introducing it in a follow-up story later. I don't fault WB/DC for doing this kind of hand-off between Supes and Bats.
I'm just curious if Affleck is up to the task. Both review and take-wise, MoS was not as much of a home run as Iron Man 1 was. The production budget for Iron Man was about $80M less than MoS, and MoS still hasn't surpassed Iron Man's numbers--not to say it won't, but it's been out for more than 2 months now. In Box Office time, that might as well be 2 years.
Likewise, if they have a Ben Affleck Batman, with no *new* origin, people would assume he was either Bale's Batman, or the Gordon-Levitt character. It's not a matter of whether or not people remember his origin, it's whether or not people understand that he's a different interpretation of the character.
When Begins came out, did everyone assume it was Keaton's Batman? I think with some alterations, they could pull off the Snyder Batman from Nolan's. I'd hope they stay away from any lengthy Batman origin in his "new" movie. Lets be honest, ghd movie might be a Man of Steel sequel, but its a Batman movie; hence one of my main concerns with this experiment.
M
There is nothing wrong with people assuming that this is the Bale version, if that is what they perceive.
Making THIS version the same as Nolan's pisses on what TDKR's ending did for the character.
M
Some highlights:
WINNER!:
TDKR needs to exist separately, or this film franchise makes no sense. Modern cinema audiences are smart they will get it. Unless JGL is in the role, this thing is going to have to completely part ways.
M
What things besides returning cast (house was different) let you know it was definitely the same?
Incidentally, despite the different feel & look of the movie (and of course the actor in the Bat-suit), I've always lumped B&R with the other movies of the 90s. I just don't think everything is as finite as WE make them out to be.
M
M