Batman-Online.com

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ben-affleck-is-batman-man-612907

Did not see that coming!

Paul, I think you beat both Batman-On-Film and Batman-News in posting the news!

Thanks to you Ben!

I'm very optimistic about this.  8)

As a friend of mine put it, it'll be very strange having a director in front of the camera who's better than the one behind it.

That was unexpected.

I'm not terribly fussed, I'm eager to judge him on merit rather than supposed looks. I hope he can do the role justice and avoid the kind of overacting that Bale did.

Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 03:27
As a friend of mine put it, it'll be very strange having a director in front of the camera who's better than the one behind it.

On the other hand, it <b>could</b> be a great opportunity to have a better director behind a potential Justice League movie.

Ok. So when I first heard this news, I was all WTF. Totally left field casting.

But hours have since passed, and I'm getting used to the idea. It does feel like Clooney being cast in B&R. They're both big names. It does run the risk of being Ben Affleck in a bat suit, even if the characterisation is different. And it will be. It is what it is, and looking on the positive side:

Bale is no more. Officially done.
Affleck is American.
I can see him playing the tuxedo wearing Bruce Wayne facet. And if the Batman side is gruff and grim, that's a good mix.

All in all, unexpected. It could have been someone like JGL, and that really would have been hell.

Some things worth nothing:

- Physically, at 6'4", I believe Affleck will be the tallest actor to don the cowl.  I can definitely see his jawline in the cowl.  Plus, have you guys seen The Town?  He was ripped in that movie.  If he's kept in the same shape (or gets in even better condition), there won't be a huge problem with his physicality.  Also, Affleck actually has black hair, while most live action incarnations have had brown hair (i.e. West, Bale).

- This obviously isn't his first time in a superhero suit.  Not only was he in Daredevil, but he played George Reeves in Hollywoodland where his character had an affair with Diane Lane!  Guess they didn't have to cast Josh Brolin in this to make this connection after all!

- A lot of the negative comments center around Daredevil.  But let's be honest- Affleck's Daredevil voice > Bale's Batman voice  ;)

*pukes everywhere*

i will wait till the movie shows up on fx. like two weeks after its theatrical release.

Sooooo excited. Loved him in Daredevil. Actually managed to make me excited to see the movie, just to see Affleck. I never thought they'd be able to make me interested in this movie!

To naysayers: remember the reaction to Keaton's casting. I rest my case.

I am kind of relieved actually. I liked Ben Affleck in Daredevil.

Quote
Five Reasons Why Ben Affleck as Batman is a Good Idea

Source: http://www.chicagonow.com/hammervision/2013/08/5-reasons-why-ben-affleck-as-batman-is-a-good-idea/

1. Zack Snyder will make him look like a bad-ass in a way nobody else has before.  Say what you will about Snyder's filmography - his movies look good and he makes his actors look even better.  Remember Gerard Butler in 300?  Bad-ass.  Jackie Earle Hayley in Watchmen?  Bad-ass.  Sarah Polley in Dawn of the Dead?  You get my point.  I had a ton of issues with Man of Steel, but I bought Henry Cavill in the role.  People point to Daredevil as proof that Affleck will suck, but look who directed that movie?  The same guy who did Simon Birch!  Affleck was doomed the second he put on the costume.  At least Snyder can direct.  It's all about the script at this point.

I'm not normally a huge fan of Zack Snyder, but I agree with this. Snyder does have this visual flair that make his movies look amazing.

Quote
2. Bruce Wayne/Batman is not that complex a character. Affleck may not be the greatest actor in the world (I think we can all agree that directing is his greater strength), but he has something other actors don't: charisma.  In the right role, the guy is a movie star.  He has the charm and swagger to play Bruce Wayne, and that's important.  Once he puts on the mask, 75% of the character work is done for him.  Batman has to be intense and must believably kick ass.  Affleck can pull that off.  You don't need Daniel Day-Lewis here.  As amazing as Christian Bale is normally, I don't think anyone would claim that Bale's work in The Dark Knight trilogy is the best he's ever done. It didn't need to be.  Everyone knows the villains get to have all the fun anyway.  Casting Lex Luthor is going to be key.  Paging Heisenberg.

Quote for bloody truth regarding Bale! And I'm being generous. As for the post, I agree with this too. Some people who are totally against Affleck should remember that Batman is not Hamlet. As long as he doesn't overact and doesn't come across as wooden, he should be fine.

Quote
3. Affleck is not the punchline you remember. If you still associate Affleck with the Bennifer days, and movies like Gigli, time to pull your head out of your ass.  The guy has been doing solid work for years now.  Need proof?  Check out Changing Lanes, Hollywoodland, Extract, The Town, Argo, State of Play, and The Company Men.  Hell, the man just won an Oscar for producing Argo.  He's Hollywood royalty now.  He turned his career around in a big way.  It didn't look good for him for a while there, but he's earned this moment, and deserves some respect at this point.

4. Warner Bros. will basically give him carte blanche to direct whatever the hell he wants.  Affleck has been in the business for years.  He knows how the industry works, and you can bet that he has some deal on the side with Warner Bros. (the same studio that made The Town and Argo) that allows him the freedom, and budget, to do any movie he pleases.  Affleck is one of the best directors working today, and I for one want to see him do what he wants, without being stymied by studio interference.  Movies like Argo don't scream hit on paper, and you need the clout of a George Clooney to push them through the system.  Affleck will have that clout now.  In fact, when it comes time to finally pull the trigger on that Justice League movie, maybe we'll even get to see Affleck in the director's chair.  THAT would be cool.

5. Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo.

I wonder if Affleck will have an influence on how the script will turn out for BvS and JL?

EDIT: Now that I read point #2 again, I have to take issue with the part of Batman not being a totally complex character. I thought the writer meant that playing the part is not that complicated, but he's saying that Batman as a character is simple. Which I don't quite agree; not with him trying to juggle his personas as the crime-fighter, the playboy facade and dare I say it, coming to terms with his bizarre sense of morality.

I can already see the trivia question: Who is the only actor who has played both Batman and Superman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodland)) on the big-screen?  :)

Overall, I'm pleased with this piece of casting.  I have mixed feelings about Affleck's performance in 'Daredevil' (there's a lot wrong with that film apart from Affleck but the leading man must share some of the blame in this case) but he's definitely improved as an actor since his 'Bennifer' days.

Plus, he definitely captures both the suave, self-assured playboy persona of Bruce Wayne that I was hoping to see (and hopefully 'Bruce Wayne' will play as integral a part in the sequel as 'Batman') and a darker, edgier, more mature Dark Knight.

Also, like Laughing Fish says, this could be a great prelude to Affleck helming a JLA movie later down the line.

whoever wrote that five things dealio that you posted laughing fish is an idiot if he thinks batsy/bruce wayne isn't complex.

i could see ben affleck playing the empty headed playboy that christian bale did so well but the serious bruce or batman? bleh. at least it is a superman movie too so he won't have to do as much. bruce wayne probably wont be a big part of the movie anyway so its all what he can do in the costume and idk. i just don't like him. every time you read me saying his name you should pretend you're hearing the aflac duck because that's how i say his name because he is a joke to me. i would rather sit through more of bale needing a riccola.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 06:43
i would rather sit through more of bale needing a riccola.

No.

Sorry, nothing can come worse that. Bale trying to act "tough" in a Batsuit is as bad as Tommy Wiseau trying to act emotional.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plz-bhcHryc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plz-bhcHryc)

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 06:43
whoever wrote that five things dealio that you posted laughing fish is an idiot if he thinks batsy/bruce wayne isn't complex.

i could see ben affleck playing the empty headed playboy that christian bale did so well but the serious bruce or batman? bleh. at least it is a superman movie too so he won't have to do as much. bruce wayne probably wont be a big part of the movie anyway so its all what he can do in the costume and idk. i just don't like him. every time you read me saying his name you should pretend you're hearing the aflac duck because that's how i say his name because he is a joke to me. i would rather sit through more of bale needing a riccola.

I agree with the first part of this post.  Batman/Bruce Wayne is complex.  About as complex as you can get (and the contrast with 'Hamlet' seems ironic in view of Bruce's own 'daddy' issues ala The Prince of Denmark).  But that doesn't mean that Affleck needs to play the character as if he's in a permanent state of angst (which admittedly wouldn't come naturally to Affleck).  Bruce is a dashing, charming, seemingly shallow playboy and even in his Batman persona, he's a seemingly straightforward, steely, single-minded man-of-action,

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 06:48

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 06:43
i would rather sit through more of bale needing a riccola.

No.

Sorry, nothing can come worse that. Bale trying to act "tough" in a Batsuit is as bad as Tommy Wiseau trying to act emotional.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plz-bhcHryc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plz-bhcHryc)

i want those seven seconds of my life back. and yes christian's voice was horrible but that should tell you how i feel about aflaaaaaaaaac! as batsy.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 07:05
i want those seven seconds of my life back.

Try watching the rest of that film, it's even worse!  8)

How funny would it be if Affleck would speak in his regular Boston accent as Batman and shouts at an innocent bystanter "Get in farken the cah!"? That, and if only Amy Adams played Lois the same way she did in The Fighter...   ;D :D

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 07:14

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 07:05
i want those seven seconds of my life back.

Try watching the rest of that film, it's even worse!  8)

How funny would it be if Affleck would speak in his regular Boston accent as Batman and shouts at an innocent bystanter "Get in farken the cah!"? That, and if only Amy Adams played Lois the same way she did in The Fighter...   ;D :D

I love Boston accents.  :D

However, since Affleck will be playing an upper-class character his accent should probably be more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9MlYKMFl_A

All we need now is Matt Damon cast as Lex Luthor.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celebitchy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Ffp_7667524_damon_matt_wik_0.jpg&hash=6aabeef43c844fb0c99618406be73c647a378e77)

;D

I don't know how to feel about this but this news doesn't have me overly excited.

I'll just have to wait and see.

Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 08:35
I'll just have to wait and see.

The best approach.

Everyone's talking about Bale's Bat, Schumacher's Bat, their Bat, not their Bat. Everyone's talking about Nolan-ism, realism, this ism, that ism, ism ism ism. All we are saying is give Ben a chance! ;D

If Affleck takes the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman as seriously as he did with his portrayal of George Reeves in Hollywoodland, I think I'll be happy. As I recall, I had some genuine reservations about that casting, but upon seeing the film, and once the end credits began to roll, I was pleasantly surprised. I consider it one of the early, excellent movies of his comeback trail. And much like with that film, I'm hoping for nothing but the best with Affleck on this.

For some reason I'm equating this to Clooney but in a positive way. Imagine the debonair playboy of Clooney but with one hard-ass, grizzled and experienced alter ego. Condescending with a superior attitude towards the younger Superman.

Well didn't see that one coming when I first watched "Armageddon" on VHS with my dad back in 1997! lol

I'm warming up more and more to his casting. I do like Ben Affleck. I'm fully aware he's a comic fan himself. I just worry because of "Daredevil". Personally I enjoy the film but I can't help but feel he was slightly miscast back then. But a decade on perhaps he's gotten much better. This will make watching The Man without Fear's movie quite difficult however in the future now he's also a certain Mr Wayne lol The question is was this truly the best candidate to take over from Christian Bale's Batman??? Bale, like him or not, I thought was excellent although Keaton is always my favorite. Far as I'm concerned he's a tough act to follow. I'm not sure if Affleck was the right man to approach for such a task.

Still I'm delighted we have the new Batman at last. Welcome to the Batman movie universe "A.J Frost/Matt Murdock/weird Angel guy from "Dogma""!

I'm surprised they have continued the trend of going to a "star" to play Batman and not pick an unknown as I believed they would this time. I don't know what your all talking about when you say it'll be just "Affleck in a cape" or like "Clooney in a cape" though. Each actor who has played movie Batman has had an established film career and were all well known before arriving in Gotham City. This is what I think makes the Batman films fairly unique. "Stars" seem to work when being cast as a new Caped Crusader.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 12:06
Bale, like him or not, I thought was excellent although Keaton is always my favorite. Far as I'm concerned he's a tough act to follow. I'm not sure if Affleck was the right man to approach for such a task.

No disrespect but I strongly disagree. I've seen amateur actors in fan films like City of Scars do a FAR better job than Bale's embarrassing portrayal. I thought Bale only acted well in the Bruce Wayne part in Rises, but then again I thought he had to put more effort since his character was getting beaten up all the time.
But as long as Affleck portrays Bruce/Batman with even a bit of charisma and a menacing demeanor then I'll be convinced and satisfied.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 11:07
Everyone's talking about Bale's Bat, Schumacher's Bat, their Bat, not their Bat. Everyone's talking about Nolan-ism, realism, this ism, that ism, ism ism ism. All we are saying is give Ben a chance! ;D

...

after that i'm even less likely to give him a chance.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:14
after that i'm even less likely to give him a chance.

How come Catwoman?  I think Edd made a good point.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:27

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:14
after that i'm even less likely to give him a chance.

How come Catwoman?  I think Edd made a good point.

because it was stupid and made me gag. i hate when people take my fave songs and f*** with the lyrics.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:39

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:27

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:14
after that i'm even less likely to give him a chance.

How come Catwoman?  I think Edd made a good point.

because it was stupid and made me gag. i hate when people take my fave songs and f*** with the lyrics.

What song was this Catwoman?  Apparently, I'm not familiar with it.

James (1989Batmancom) did the Keaton meme

I'm not terribly excited by the news, nor am I turned off.  There's something about his eyes that---I don't know, I just don't see him putting on a batsuit.  I can buy Keaton doing it, Kilmer doing it, Clooney doing it (for Kilmer and Clooney, just not in the movies they wound up in), and even though I really didn't care for his voice I could see Bale doing it.  There has to be something a little 'off' about Bruce/Batman, and I don't see it in any of Affleck's performances or in his aesthetic.

That said, he's a capable actor--he's grown quite a bit in the last 10 years.  As a director and producer he has had a remarkable career/turn around.  This *could* work...but, I don't know.  When I think Batman he just doesn't come to mind for me.  Maybe it's a personal bias about the character. 

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 14:44
James (1989Batmancom) did the Keaton meme

play it again lex. they don't show up.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 14:31

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:39

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:27

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 13:14
after that i'm even less likely to give him a chance.

How come Catwoman?  I think Edd made a good point.

because it was stupid and made me gag. i hate when people take my fave songs and f*** with the lyrics.

What song was this Catwoman?  Apparently, I'm not familiar with it.

It was Give Peace a Chance by The Plastic Ono Band (John Lennon). I made a spoof because I love the song and I want to give Ben a chance.  :)

I'm pleased to see that the reaction to the casting news has been pretty measured as far as this site goes.  Even the detractors don't seem to be emitting steam from their ears.  Contrast that with some of the nonsense on Twitter and other forums where 'fans' are already starting petitions... ::)

I wonder if Ben Affleck will be his generation's Michael Keaton when it comes to Batman  :)

(let's hope the 2020 reboot turns out great)

Quote from: greggbray on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 14:58
I'm not terribly excited by the news, nor am I turned off.  There's something about his eyes that---I don't know, I just don't see him putting on a batsuit.  I can buy Keaton doing it, Kilmer doing it, Clooney doing it (for Kilmer and Clooney, just not in the movies they wound up in), and even though I really didn't care for his voice I could see Bale doing it.  There has to be something a little 'off' about Bruce/Batman, and I don't see it in any of Affleck's performances or in his aesthetic.

That said, he's a capable actor--he's grown quite a bit in the last 10 years.  As a director and producer he has had a remarkable career/turn around.  This *could* work...but, I don't know.  When I think Batman he just doesn't come to mind for me.  Maybe it's a personal bias about the character.

This sums it up nicely.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 17:14
I wonder if Ben Affleck will be his generation's Michael Keaton when it comes to Batman  :)

Oh, I'm sure there will be those who will say Affleck was miles better than Bale, just as there was those who continually praised Bale, and severely downplayed Keaton's portrayal. Ugly cycle, but it's-to-be-expected.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 17:37

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 17:14
I wonder if Ben Affleck will be his generation's Michael Keaton when it comes to Batman  :)

Oh, I'm sure there will be those who will say Affleck was miles better than Bale, just as there was those who continually praised Bale, and severely downplayed Keaton's portrayal. Ugly cycle, but it's-to-be-expected.

I think Edd's referring to the petitions against Keaton's casting and the ones apparently brewing with respect to Affleck's.  By contrast the response regarding Bale's casting seemed almost entirely positive at the time (in fact, I still maintain that the casting was 'fanboy' driven since Bale's name had been bandied about forums well before Nolan was hired for the reboot).  Kilmer and Clooney's casting was also relatively positive if memory serves correctly.

I'm aware of the allusion Edd was referring to. I simply wanted to bring up the cycle of each generation downplaying the one prior when it comes to 'their' Batman. With Keaton, the backlash with him from the get-go was unique as I don't really recall anyone getting such a negative reaction following the official announcement. Unless of course Jack Black was *officially* cast as Green Lantern way back when (I can't remember)? But even so, I don't even think the news of Nic Cage as Superman back in '97 (?) got the negative reaction Keaton did in 1988. From what I can tell, Affleck as Bats, despite Twitter blowing up, isn't going to get to that kind of level.

But it's early.

EDIT:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/23/petition-filed-on-white-house-website-wants-batman-recast/

Oh, darn. Spoke too soon.  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

I made this.... pass it around.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg855.imageshack.us%2Fimg855%2F6756%2Fxq8j.jpg&hash=371a307dd191cc5b9e14394ba107be3f2ee02bc8)

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 17:52
I'm aware of the allusion Edd was referring to. I simply wanted to bring up the cycle of each generation downplaying the one prior when it comes to 'their' Batman. With Keaton, the backlash with him from the get-go was unique as I don't really recall anyone getting such a negative reaction following the official announcement. Unless of course Jack Black was *officially* cast as Green Lantern way back when (I can't remember)? But even so, I don't even think the news of Nic Cage as Superman back in '97 (?) got the negative reaction Keaton did in 1988. From what I can tell, Affleck as Bats, despite Twitter blowing up, isn't going to get to that kind of level.

But it's early.

EDIT:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/23/petition-filed-on-white-house-website-wants-batman-recast/

Oh, darn. Spoke too soon.  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

WTF?  Is this for real?

At least this guy has things in perspective:

'The creator of the petition from Westland, Michigan writes "there are more serious matters that need to be addressed in our country but fans/citizens are outraged at the selection and we want to send a message to Warner Brothers, DC Comics, and Zack Snyder using an outlet that could garner the appropriate media attention to do so."'

Nice that he realises there are more 'serious matters' for the White House to be dealing with.  Wow, you think?   ::)

I was 11 when Batman Begins came out, so Bale should be "my" Batman. But I actually don't like his Batman that much compared to the others. Tastes differ. :)

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 18:33
I was 11 when Batman Begins came out, so Bale should be "my" Batman. But I actually don't like his Batman that much compared to the others. Tastes differ. :)

The Burton/Keaton films are 'my' Batman movies so to speak as they are the ones I grew up with and still have the most affection for.  They were also my first introduction to Batman, although I was vaguely aware of Batman's 50th anniversary during 1989.  However, as much as I love Keaton's layered, heartfelt performance I wouldn't consider him to be 'my' ideal Batman.  The closest on-screen version so far as far as my ideal Batman goes is the 'B:TAS' version.  Since Affleck physically resembles that version and can pull off a similar persona I have high hopes that I'll finally see 'my' Batman finally portrayed in a live-action format.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 18:33
I was 11 when Batman Begins came out, so Bale should be "my" Batman. But I actually don't like his Batman that much compared to the others. Tastes differ. :)

i was 20..damnit thank you for making me feel so old

I'm actually intrigued...and pleasantly. I mean..it isn't like off beat casting hasn't paid off before...

ya know like mister mom and the guy from a Knight's Tale.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 17:14
I wonder if Ben Affleck will be his generation's Michael Keaton when it comes to Batman  :)

I hope so. I want the best for the franchise and Affleck, while a surprise, isn't a terrible decision by any stretch.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 16:56
I'm pleased to see that the reaction to the casting news has been pretty measured as far as this site goes.  Even the detractors don't seem to be emitting steam from their ears.  Contrast that with some of the nonsense on Twitter and other forums where 'fans' are already starting petitions... ::)

Those people deserve a massive kick in the ass. Especially those hacks on Twitter; I never thought those celebrities would show their true colours by posting their pathetic comments. From what I've seen so far, a lot of these people hating on the Affleck casting happen to like Bale's laughably bad, self parody portrayal...
:-[  (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calguns.net%2Fcalgunforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=03d459e22028ae96704f40d910874c5f03542a30)

Like I said before, if Affleck even performs at bare minimum, I'd say that alone would be an improvement from Bale.

Having said that, I'll judge Affleck's performance when the movie comes out. Until then, I won't be making any knee-jerk reactions or predictions.

The harsh response does indeed suck when it's not a bad choice in the first place.

Daniel Craig received one hell of a mean backlash. And he came shining through it. He said afterwards that the response spurred him on even harder to prove the haters wrong. I'm sure Affleck can and will do the same.

I thought I'd gather some fun facts/connections. 

Our new Batman has not only been Daredevil and worn the Superman suit, but he's also:
- Fought off terrorists with Lucius Fox (The Sum of All Fears)
- Fought Harvey Dent/Two-Face, with the aid of Poison Ivy (Paycheck)
- Ran a law office with Happy Hogan (Daredevil)
- Robbed banks with Hawkeye and fell for Maya Hansen and had an old romance with Carol Ferris (The Town)
- Helped throw a play with Pepper Potts in a film that also co-starred Carmine Falcone (Shakespeare in Love)
- Was roommates with Jor-El (State of Play)
- Slept with Martha Kent (Hollywoodland)
- Co-starred with Jonathan Kent, Two-Face/Colonel Phillips, and the new Norman Osborn (The Company Men)

I'm sure we can come up with more, but that's a start for now...

Quote from: greggbray on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 14:58
I'm not terribly excited by the news, nor am I turned off.  There's something about his eyes that---I don't know, I just don't see him putting on a batsuit.  I can buy Keaton doing it, Kilmer doing it, Clooney doing it (for Kilmer and Clooney, just not in the movies they wound up in), and even though I really didn't care for his voice I could see Bale doing it.  There has to be something a little 'off' about Bruce/Batman, and I don't see it in any of Affleck's performances or in his aesthetic.

That said, he's a capable actor--he's grown quite a bit in the last 10 years.  As a director and producer he has had a remarkable career/turn around.  This *could* work...but, I don't know.  When I think Batman he just doesn't come to mind for me.  Maybe it's a personal bias about the character.

This is a pretty decent sum-up of my reaction. Especially with Snyder' statement that Batman is to be the older and more experienced of the two, Affleck's is not a face that seems like it's seen years of a hard, bitter battle against crime IMO.

I'm happy a decision has been made. We know who it is.

And also, Affleck would mean Batman is going to get a solid chunk of screen time. Which really appeals to me. Snyder is bound to have stylised action and cool looking vehicles.

Move over Supe. When Batman is around it's always about him.  ;)

Words of encouragement from two former Batmen:
Adam West: https://twitter.com/therealadamwest/status/371021971556806657

QuoteRemember Ben, with the cape and cowl comes great responsibility (and lots of heat). Bring deodorant. #batman @BenAffleck

Val Kilmer: https://twitter.com/ValEKilmer/status/371045024168833024

QuoteGive Ben a chance!

Good show from those guys.

I'm excited about the coming movie of course, but also the inevitable solo film. If Joker and these dudes show up, they've already met and clashed in the past. Which is what I've wanted for a while.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 01:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 16:56
I'm pleased to see that the reaction to the casting news has been pretty measured as far as this site goes.  Even the detractors don't seem to be emitting steam from their ears.  Contrast that with some of the nonsense on Twitter and other forums where 'fans' are already starting petitions... ::)

Those people deserve a massive kick in the ass. Especially those hacks on Twitter; I never thought those celebrities would show their true colours by posting their pathetic comments. From what I've seen so far, a lot of these people hating on the Affleck casting happen to like Bale's laughably bad, self parody portrayal...
:-[  (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calguns.net%2Fcalgunforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=03d459e22028ae96704f40d910874c5f03542a30)

Like I said before, if Affleck even performs at bare minimum, I'd say that alone would be an improvement from Bale.

Having said that, I'll judge Affleck's performance when the movie comes out. Until then, I won't be making any knee-jerk reactions or predictions.

Even Tom Hardy (Bane) I believe stuck a knife into Affleck on twitter. Not sure if there's history between them? I thought it was a slightly sh*tty and stupid thing to do myself. Celebrities should really stay away from twitter so as to prevent themselves looking like assholes. I think even Christopher Nolan once said it wasn't his place to criticize other Batman projects and good for him. Real gentlemen. That should apply to the future too.

I could not help but notice some buffoon writing this on the Washington Times website writing this in the Disqus comments:

QuoteDaredevil was more of a failure of writing and direction. Why pin the failure of a movie on the star who hadn't reached his prime yet? Just be thankful that Mr.Freeze,Poison Ivy,Batgirl and Riddler aren't going to be in it.

No one can be a true Batman fan if they say something like that. If Affleck has any story input at all, I hope that he will not be dissuaded from using certain characters just to achieve some pretentious level of 'realism'.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 07:46

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 01:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 16:56
I'm pleased to see that the reaction to the casting news has been pretty measured as far as this site goes.  Even the detractors don't seem to be emitting steam from their ears.  Contrast that with some of the nonsense on Twitter and other forums where 'fans' are already starting petitions... ::)

Those people deserve a massive kick in the ass. Especially those hacks on Twitter; I never thought those celebrities would show their true colours by posting their pathetic comments. From what I've seen so far, a lot of these people hating on the Affleck casting happen to like Bale's laughably bad, self parody portrayal...
:-[  (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calguns.net%2Fcalgunforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=03d459e22028ae96704f40d910874c5f03542a30)

Like I said before, if Affleck even performs at bare minimum, I'd say that alone would be an improvement from Bale.

Having said that, I'll judge Affleck's performance when the movie comes out. Until then, I won't be making any knee-jerk reactions or predictions.

Even Tom Hardy (Bane) I believe stuck a knife into Affleck on twitter. Not sure if there's history between them? I thought it was a slightly sh*tty and stupid thing to do myself. Celebrities should really stay away from twitter so as to prevent themselves looking like assholes.

Where'd you hear this?  I could be wrong, but from what I've found, Tom Hardy does not have twitter.

I'm pretty stoked about this actually. The fact that Oscar winner Afleck has decided that to do this means there must be something special in the script. And we may just have also gotten our solo Batman movies director...

I shouldn't really link it but I trust the people on this site have more sense than to sign this utter joke:

http://www.change.org/petitions/warner-brothers-remove-ben-affleck-as-batman-bruce-wayne-in-the-superman-batman-movie?share_id=sULaHufwNf (http://www.change.org/petitions/warner-brothers-remove-ben-affleck-as-batman-bruce-wayne-in-the-superman-batman-movie?share_id=sULaHufwNf)

'change.org' has been used to highlight child poverty and anti-gay discrimination...what the hell is it being used by some saddo fanboys to affect casting on a Batman movie?  ::)  These people need to get a grip.

Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 09:09
I'm pretty stoked about this actually. The fact that Oscar winner Afleck has decided that to do this means there must be something special in the script. And we may just have also gotten our solo Batman movies director...

Interesting thought ElCuervo.  Affleck is one of the most reliable and impressive mainstream filmmakers around at the moment.  I'd also be pretty stoked if he ended up helming a solo-Batman movie/franchise.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 07:10
Val Kilmer: https://twitter.com/ValEKilmer/status/371045024168833024

QuoteGive Ben a chance!

Good on Kilmer.  :)  He's not my favourite Batman but I'm really starting to change my opinion about him.  He's clearly not the prima donna he once was and his self-mocking performance in "Life is Short" was hysterical and proves what a good sport he is these days.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 08:25

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 07:46

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 01:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 16:56
I'm pleased to see that the reaction to the casting news has been pretty measured as far as this site goes.  Even the detractors don't seem to be emitting steam from their ears.  Contrast that with some of the nonsense on Twitter and other forums where 'fans' are already starting petitions... ::)

Those people deserve a massive kick in the ass. Especially those hacks on Twitter; I never thought those celebrities would show their true colours by posting their pathetic comments. From what I've seen so far, a lot of these people hating on the Affleck casting happen to like Bale's laughably bad, self parody portrayal...
:-[  (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calguns.net%2Fcalgunforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=03d459e22028ae96704f40d910874c5f03542a30)

Like I said before, if Affleck even performs at bare minimum, I'd say that alone would be an improvement from Bale.

Having said that, I'll judge Affleck's performance when the movie comes out. Until then, I won't be making any knee-jerk reactions or predictions.

Even Tom Hardy (Bane) I believe stuck a knife into Affleck on twitter. Not sure if there's history between them? I thought it was a slightly sh*tty and stupid thing to do myself. Celebrities should really stay away from twitter so as to prevent themselves looking like assholes.

Where'd you hear this?  I could be wrong, but from what I've found, Tom Hardy does not have twitter.

Just checked it our for you. Total mistake. Somebody wrote this up on another forum and misquoted it all. Turns out it's nothing more than a spoof twitter account. Thank goodness, almost lost my respect for Tom Hardy. Y'see though? People jump into conclusions without thinking matters through first.

Never thought Tom Hardy would do something as dickish as that.  He seems a decent guy.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 09:31
I shouldn't really link it but I trust the people on this site have more sense than to sign this utter joke:

http://www.change.org/petitions/warner-brothers-remove-ben-affleck-as-batman-bruce-wayne-in-the-superman-batman-movie?share_id=sULaHufwNf (http://www.change.org/petitions/warner-brothers-remove-ben-affleck-as-batman-bruce-wayne-in-the-superman-batman-movie?share_id=sULaHufwNf)

'change.org' has been used to highlight child poverty and anti-gay discrimination...what the hell is it being used by some saddo fanboys to affect casting on a Batman movie?  ::)  These people need to get a grip.

Quite pathetic. I think it's amusing how the Doctor Who fan base recently all but accepted the casting of Peter Capaldi and kindly welcomed him into it all and yet the Batman fan base seem inclined to bay for Affleck's blood like immature children. The guy needs a little respect and support and he has mine in bucket loads now after reading all this irritating bullsh*t. He certainly has balls to step into the part at all.

I remember when Matt Smith was first cast as Doctor Who. The forums went into depressing meltdown with a wave of negativity I've not seen since Affleck was announced frankly. Those people who moaned and verbally insulted him are now kissing his butt and begging him not to be leaving Doctor Who. Affleck has a long way to go to pull off such a feat but I sincerely hope he does prove the world wrong and succeeds now.

History repeats itself eh? It's all kinda ironic in a sense. I've always wanted to experience the negativity that Michael Keaton dealt with in 1988. Now it seems with have the modern version unfortunately ten times worse because of the bloody internet lol

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 24 Aug  2013, 09:35
Good on Kilmer.  :)  He's not my favourite Batman but I'm really starting to change my opinion about him.  He's clearly not the prima donna he once was and his self-mocking performance in "Life is Short" was hysterical and proves what a good sport he is these days.

I've found Kilmer to be a pretty cool guy. He made a very funny comment recently about how playing Batman is like being an old man. Look it up. Good stuff. He isn't scared or embarrassed to talk about Batman, unlike some people in famous roles. He seems quite content with his place in history. Good on him.

Kilmer often comes across as quite level-headed. Shame that same trait hasn't established itself into the overtly vocal fanboy community.  :-\

I think it's time to discuss what type of Batman/Bruce Wayne we're in for, characterization-wise.  The press release said the following:

Quote"Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry's Superman. 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, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne. I can't wait to work with him."

I think it's guaranteed that Affleck's Batman will be:
a) different from Bale
b) a contrast from Cavill's Superman

This also confirms that Bruce has been Batman for longer than Clark has been Superman.  One thing that could be explored is that Clark, at the end of MoS, just took on his secret identity as a reporter.  It's believable that he may have some trouble figuring out how to juggle the two lives.  If Affleck's Bruce has been doing this for a while, he could have a better balance between his dual identities.

Clark could learn from Bruce.  Vice versa, the "scars of a seasoned crimefighter" bit as well as the inspiration from Dark Knight Returns could mean that this older Bruce is rather cynical too and it's Clark's Superman who changes his viewpoint and provides him hope. 

I think it's important for Batman not to overshadow Superman in the sequel (while also not making Batman a peripheral character either), so they'd be on equal ground if they both develop as characters, through their interactions.  I'm more interested in that than, say, Batman just being a mentor figure to Superman.

Also, in terms of a 'wiser' Batman, I hope we don't see a too-fully formed character but one who still has plenty of scope for character-'growth' especially if the 'MOS' sequel is intended to segue into a raft of 'JLA' movies or even another solo-Batman franchise.

I hope Batman has a good chunk of screen time, and I'm sure he will. That's surely one of the reasons why he's in the film. He attracts attention. Equal run time or not, Batman will overshadow Superman. It's happening already.

Say what you will about Bale, the man's focused and dedicated to each role he plays (at least when a project is worth it).

Affleck... One gets the impression that he sees this stuff as "beneath him". His deal surely involves a lot of money, but he's probably doing them a favour. He's a successful director, his focus is on his own projects. There's still the possibility of a phone-in performance not for lack of acting skill, but for lack of enthusiasm.

---

A writer in forbes shares this view - LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/08/23/ben-affleck-as-batman-and-the-price-of-artistic-freedom/)

QuoteWith three critically-acclaimed directorial efforts under his belt, the last one being the Oscar-winning Argo, along with a somewhat revived acting career highlighted by strong turns in Hollywoodland, State of Play, and To the Wonder, Warner Bros. needs Ben Affleck as Batman quite a bit more than Ben Affleck needs to be Batman at this point in his career.

---

On the other hand, a very optimistic view (by Mark Hughes at Forbes) - LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2013/08/24/6-reasons-the-internet-is-wrong-about-ben-affleck-as-batman/)

QuoteBen Affleck is probably going to direct some Batman movies, and that is the greatest thing to happen to Batman movies since Christopher Nolan was hired to direct some Batman movies. (...) I think Ben Affleck is already one of the best directors working in cinema today, and I cannot imagine any scenario in which Warner Bros. made a deal with him that didn't include a gold-plated director's chair on the set of a Batman solo movie.

Can't say I'm a huge follower of Affleck's interviews, but I'm not getting any sort of vibe that the material is 'beneath him'. If I am not mistaken, the guy is a admitted comic book fan, which may be a first for an actor playing Batman in a WB produced film, and I'm sure Affleck is more than fully aware that literally each millisecond of his performance is going to be dissected by the fanboys. For a guy who can, especially at this stage, pick and choose the projects he would want to pursue, I find it interesting he chose to do this. Oh, I'm sure there was a an abundance of benjamins thrown his way, but at the same time, accepting the role brings in an entirely specific challenge to prove people wrong. Just as Keaton did in '89.

Guess we'll eventually see how it pans out....

I'm actually pretty excited for Affleck. I can totally see him doing a great job.

one thing about affleck is that he is a huge comic book fan and so combined with his talents behind the camera, I think he can bring some solid ideas to the project.

I don't think he'll act pretentious or as if it is beneath him; remember when he took the daredevil role, his career was on fire.

He's already likely to improve on the voice; he masked his for daredevil enough so that it was different from his regular voice but not annoying and hard to understand like bales,

I'm looking forward to hearing what Ben Affleck's personal favorite Batman stories are and which movie did he enjoy most. As a fan he's no doubt seen them and read them all. I think Christian Bale's favorite story was "Dark Victory". Perhaps it'll provide a hint as to how he may approach it. I'd love if he said Michael Keaton was genius! Then it would be nice to bring a bit of that back.

http://www.contactmusic.com/article/michael-keaton-ben-affleck-casting-approves-batman_3841853 (http://www.contactmusic.com/article/michael-keaton-ben-affleck-casting-approves-batman_3841853)

We can all rest easy now.  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBuHcLBK5Eo

What a class act. Gave the reporter plenty of time and respect. I'm with him in supporting Affleck too. It's 1989 all over again.

It just occurred to me this morning...

While making Daredevil Ben Affleck was trained by Michael Keaton's Batman stunt double Dave Lea?

Haha poor Michael Keaton desperately trying to escape that interviewer there. Probably thinking this guy's never gonna shut up asking questions, better bail to my Wayne getaway car lol What a nice guy though to politely leave rather than just bolt away. The guy hasn't got all night to talk about Batman.

I guess he would never be one to vocally criticize Ben Affleck (especially on camera) but he must have some connection with him right now given the stupid backlash. Affleck really should give him a call to receive advice about how he too can piss off all the fans by proving them wrong. I enjoy Keaton's interviews on the first film dvd in which he takes great delight at having passed the test: "Being a great fan of irony....." Indeed!

Spotted Dave Lea myself when watching the Daredevil extras. That bar brawl near the beginning of the movie is a well choreographed and exciting fight sequence. They really should have hired him back for the Bale films because I always found those fight scenes slow and sluggish (especially the Bane fights in Dark Knight Rises). The Keaton films were always more fast paced and had fun elements to them. Of course fans lambast them for being "too fun" and "too choreographed" today compared to the "this is not a dance!" sequences of the Bale films.

I found this concept art design of Affleck wearing a Batsuit similar to what Bale wore. I hope this is NOT what the costume will look like, the costume that Bale wore for the second and third movies was the worst one since the suits from Batman & Robin.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleedingcool.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fbatman-affleck-600x860.jpg%3Ff6a06b&hash=5bf9faf321effc498c37d1a144baa27945e70016)

Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/09/04/either-this-is-real-ben-affleck-as-batman-concept-art-or-steve-scott-is-a-very-funny-guy/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/09/04/either-this-is-real-ben-affleck-as-batman-concept-art-or-steve-scott-is-a-very-funny-guy/)

I agree that I don't want anything like this either, but I also think it's just an artist's drawing of Affleck in the suit.  There's no way legit concept art would leak this soon or that an artist like Steve Scott would be the one to leak it.  More likely, he was just drawing what he thought Affleck would look like and wrote the "Bat Nipples" comments as a joke.

Also, Scott was "the artist behind the Dark Knight comic book adaptation?"

There wasn't a Dark Knight comic book adaptation.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 15:12

Also, Scott was "the artist behind the Dark Knight comic book adaptation?"

There wasn't a Dark Knight comic book adaptation.

Apparently there was an adaption of the TDK prologue - it was part of the Batman Begins Limited Edition Blu-ray

The cowl in that picture might be close to what we end up with. It's got the shorter ears that are synonymous with the Miller Batman. And I think they might go with a smaller gap around the mouth area in order to conceal the mole on Affleck's right cheek. He's got a mole below his left eye too, but that will be covered by the mask anyway. But if someone were to spot the mole on his cheek and note its position in relation to his chin cleft (or to use the technical term, his "chin ass") they could easily deduce he was Batman.

A better way to solve the problem might be to have Batman sport five o'clock shadow under his cowl. It might be my imagination, but I always thought Keaton had some stubble on his jaw during the finale of Batman 89. And it looked awesome. I don't know why they never did that again in any of the other movies. Five o'clock shadow would cover both Affleck's mole and his chin cleft while allowing a wider gap around his mouth. It would make him look meaner and would provide a neat visual contrast to the clean-shaven jaw of Bruce Wayne. The stubble-look worked in Jim Lee's artwork and I reckon it would work for Affleck too.


Not that the chin cleft is a problem. The Batman: The Brave and the Bold version had a prominent chin cleft too, and he was one of the best Batmen ever.


Speaking of the cowl, isn't it about time we saw Batman's white eyes from the comics? And no, the sonar lenses from TDK don't count.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 18:13

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 15:12

Also, Scott was "the artist behind the Dark Knight comic book adaptation?"

There wasn't a Dark Knight comic book adaptation.

Apparently there was an adaption of the TDK prologue - it was part of the Batman Begins Limited Edition Blu-ray

This is likely what they're referring to.  Still, I find the "Dark Knight comic adaptation" description (from the number of outlets reporting it) to be misleading.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 22:28
Speaking of the cowl, isn't it about time we saw Batman's white eyes from the comics? And no, the sonar lenses from TDK don't count.

What about the sonar lenses from Batman Forever? ;)

I do have faith that Snyder will at least give us a more comic-accurate suit than the Nolan trilogy.  Hopefully, that faith won't end up being misplaced when the official costume pic gets released.

Silver Nemesis, how would you explain a clean-shaven Bruce Wayne and a stubbly Batman?  Simply that his facial hair grows rapidly within the space of a few hours?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 22:28
Speaking of the cowl, isn't it about time we saw Batman's white eyes from the comics? And no, the sonar lenses from TDK don't count.

No, eyes convey emotion. It would just make the actor's job harder.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  5 Sep  2013, 01:09
Silver Nemesis, how would you explain a clean-shaven Bruce Wayne and a stubbly Batman?  Simply that his facial hair grows rapidly within the space of a few hours?

If you had a sequence where Bruce sequestered himself in the Batcave for days on end, obsessing over a case, then he could emerge with genuine stubble on his jaw at the end of it. But if they wanted to have him sport five o'clock shadow every time he dons the cowl then he could always use makeup; similar to how he created the shadows around his eyes in the previous films, or how Selina made herself appear paler in Batman Returns. This is yet another aspect of the character that's been overlooked in all the films so far, but the Bruce in the comics is meant to be an expert at disguise. The Earth-Two Bruce studied theatre (amongst many other things) during his time at college. He was capable of making himself up to look like a completely different person, and he often utilised this skill in his war against crime.


His aptitude for cosmetics was never touched upon in the previous films (although it was referenced in the Adam West show), so maybe now would be a good time to address it.

Then again, perhaps it doesn't need to be explained. In the first issue of All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder Bruce Wayne is shown to be clean shaven while attending the circus. In the following issue, which takes place later that same evening, his jaw is coated in stubble.


It never bothered me that it wasn't explained. It just looked cool.

Quote from: GBglide on Thu,  5 Sep  2013, 01:35

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  4 Sep  2013, 22:28
Speaking of the cowl, isn't it about time we saw Batman's white eyes from the comics? And no, the sonar lenses from TDK don't count.

No, eyes convey emotion. It would just make the actor's job harder.

The shape of a person's eyes convey emotion, not the colour. Unless we're talking Voight-Kampff tests, no one in the audience is going to notice barely perceptible pupillary responses in the actor's eyes. Watch the following clip from the 0:58 mark to the 1:50 mark. Do the white eyes diminish the actor's ability to convey emotion, or is it the shape of his eyes that gets across what he's feeling?


Unlike the Batman in the comics, Affleck has brown eyes (Alex Ross has drawn Batman with brown eyes, but Wayne canonically has blue peepers). Bale also has brown eyes and there were scenes in his Batman films where you could barely distinguish his eyes from the rest of the cowl.


If anything, I'd say digitally rendering Affleck's eyes white in postproduction would enhance his ability to convey emotion. It would make his eyes more visible in the darkness and would highlight their shape. It would also look creepy when he's stalking criminals in the shadows and all they can see are his eyes glaring at them from the darkness.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  5 Sep  2013, 12:16

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  5 Sep  2013, 01:09
Silver Nemesis, how would you explain a clean-shaven Bruce Wayne and a stubbly Batman?  Simply that his facial hair grows rapidly within the space of a few hours?

If you had a sequence where Bruce sequestered himself in the Batcave for days on end, obsessing over a case, then he could emerge with genuine stubble on his jaw at the end of it. But if they wanted to have him sport five o'clock shadow every time he dons the cowl then he could always use makeup; similar to how he created the shadows around his eyes in the previous films, or how Selina made herself appear paler in Batman Returns. This is yet another aspect of the character that's been overlooked in all the films so far, but the Bruce in the comics is meant to be an expert at disguise. The Earth-Two Bruce studied theatre (amongst many other things) during his time at college. He was capable of making himself up to look like a completely different person, and he often utilised this skill in his war against crime.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy393%2Fsilver-nemesis2%2Fsomakeup_zps8d4856a4.jpg&hash=8fd8435a4433a713ce3e7b03f3ea580dc9498a70)

His aptitude for cosmetics was never touched upon in the previous films (although it was referenced in the Adam West show), so maybe now would be a good time to address it.

Then again, perhaps it doesn't need to be explained. In the first issue of All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder Bruce Wayne is shown to be clean shaven while attending the circus. In the following issue, which takes place later that same evening, his jaw is coated in stubble.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy393%2Fsilver-nemesis2%2F5oclock_zps09ee83de.jpg&hash=568670596eaa56839fe8509f4c2779ea55ba5f48)

It never bothered me that it wasn't explained. It just looked cool.

Just as well this is Snyder's version and not Nolan's version then.  :)  Nolan would insist on explaining everything, although I must admit I do rather like your 'master of disguise' explanation and I wouldn't object to a brief shot of Bruce applying make-up 'camouflage paint style' around his eyes and jaw-line just before he heads off as Batman

I finally saw Good Will Hunting for the first time about a week ago.  While I don't expect Affleck to channel his Chuckie Sullivan character into his Bruce Wayne/Batman, I was more curious about the fact that Affleck and Matt Damon co-wrote the screenplay and won the Oscar for it, especially since Affleck may be up for writing/directing a solo Batman film in the future.

What struck me the most was that, in the movie, they did something that should seem familiar to Batman fans. 

At one point, Affleck has a speech about how he always wished that Damon would move away from home and start a new life:
(NSFW Language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i8eIzSeC8w

At the end, Damon fulfills his friend's fantasy as he leaves his hometown to be with the girl he loves (to a score by Danny Elfman):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49TeSoo4Sx8

That's right, guys.  Affleck was the "Alfred" to Damon's "Bruce" in Good Will Hunting, a good fifteen years before The Dark Knight Rises was released.  :P  (And if you ask me, Affleck and Damon did the better version).

Kevin Smith actually discussed the Good Will Hunting connection during a podcast last year. From the 13:03 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SumnRaGVoM

Batfleck is reported to be "weary" and "tired" according WB's president. I assume it means a cynical Batman who distrusts Superman?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/09/12/batman-ben-affleck-tired-weary/2807467/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/09/12/batman-ben-affleck-tired-weary/2807467/)

In other news, it looks like Snyder's regular cinematographer Larry Fong will be behind the camera again. I wonder if we'll get that unique imagery like in Watchmen and Sucker Punch (despite I don't like either of those films)?

www.iamrogue.com/news/movie-news/item/9677-larry-fong-to-shoot-zack-snyders-superman-vs-batman.html (http://www.iamrogue.com/news/movie-news/item/9677-larry-fong-to-shoot-zack-snyders-superman-vs-batman.html)

I take it that this Batman will be an older, experienced crimefighter, even to the point of becoming an anti-hero to contrast with the "beginner" Superman from MoS?

Ben Affleck finally commented on his casting on Jimmy Fallon's show.  Relevant discussion is at 1:43:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8BaVKUoUGo

Quote
Ben Affleck will make Batman cool again, says Anthony Mackie


Anthony Mackie has praised the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman in the Superman vs Batman movie.

Affleck will star as Batman opposite Henry Cavill's Superman in director Zack Snyder's Man of Steel sequel.

Mackie - who will play Falcon in Marvel movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier - recently told E! News that his Runner, Runner co-star will bring a new energy to the Caped Crusader.

"I think [his casting is] great," Mackie commented. "My favourite Batman was Michael Keaton because he made Batman like an everyday guy we can relate to."

He continued: "I feel like the last few [actors playing] Batman have been lost in trepidation that you really can't relate to.

"So I feel like Ben Affleck - what makes him a star is he has that everyman quality. I feel like he is going to bring that back to Batman and make him cool again."

Read more: http://www.digitalspy.com.au/movies/news/a517229/ben-affleck-will-make-batman-cool-again-says-anthony-mackie.html#ixzz2fiWPhoHd

I guess Mackie wasn't a fan of Bale's portrayal either. Can't really blame him.  ;)

But in all seriousness, I'm fascinated about his insight about Keaton having an everyman approach. I always thought he was the only live-action actor to have conveyed emotion appropriately (i.e. the menacing look he gives, letting his body doing the talking with minimal speaking etc). I hope that Affleck's will resemble more like Keaton's, though I'd be happy to see him disguise himself in public as a cocky billionaire Bruce Wayne too.

It's cool to read that Mackie is a fan of Keaton's Batman.  It seems like heresy these days to stick one's neck out publically and profess a preference for the Burton/Keaton Batman or anything remotely critical or less than unequivocally celebratory about the Nolan/Bale Batman so good on Mackie for stating his mind.  :)  I wonder how the hardcore Nolan-fans will react to this.

I do agree that Keaton uniquely brought a more relatable, everyman quality to the character however, I don't necessarily want to see Affleck do the same with the part, not least because I think Affleck has a real shot at accurately capturing the Batman/Bruce Wayne of the comic-books, confident, aloof socialite and all.

a bit OT, but a great read. It discusses the reaction to Affleck's casting, among other things.

Treatment, treatment, treatment. I think the history of this character has proven it's not necessarily the actor chosen, but the treatment applied that determines it's success. Actually the most high profile fan uproars over actors picked to play Batman have never panned out at the box office. Ironically I never heard much fuss over Clooney when he was selected and we all know how badly that cratered in theaters. But Clooney has gone on to have a very successful and lucrative acting career today. Interesting since most actors have spiraled out of demand after their stent in the role.

What makes Affleck a provocative pick are the colorful flops on his resume. And these types of movies are not his strong suit. And with the current depictions suggesting Batman will be a "tired" and "weary" hero, I cringe a bit wondering if Affleck will overact the part. Playing Batman typically requires little more than a grimace. But if Affleck has to denote some kind of angst with social commentary, we then begin to tread on painfully thin ice that borders on camp. It's one thing to provide a state of mind in the cowl. But to engage in a dialogue between two heroes is tricky business. I'm certainly not saying it can't be done. Joss Whedon proved it can be done with the Avengers. But he has a unique gift for gab when it comes to characters in outrageous situations. The key word to this film is pretty simple - balance. Can Snyder balance the tone of the picture without overstepping into campy material? This is a much bigger challenge than I think many are realizing. The treatment will have to be very clever in it's approach. Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

These rumours are getting ridiculous now - Affleck wants Larry David as Mr Myxlplyx?!  ;D

If that were to happen, I'd expect Superman and Batman to stare suspiciously at each other for a minute ala Curb Your Enthusiasm.  :P

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F13movies.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Flarry-david-funny-face.jpg&hash=80abf0f7f5ef6370b5aefa0c0d47786980a20a1a) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F3e%2FMxyzptlk.PNG&hash=ddd007091178cfef19460fa12bb25cf1272d3923)

That would be comedy gold.

Source: http://www.mstarz.com/articles/20048/20131008/man-steel-2-2015-ben-affleck-larry-david-batman-vs.htm (http://www.mstarz.com/articles/20048/20131008/man-steel-2-2015-ben-affleck-larry-david-batman-vs.htm)

Don't believe a word of it.

I'm just wondering what kind of costume design the studio will go after this time. My instincts tell me it will be something similar to the video game version this time.

The Arkhamverse will certainly influence this new Batman, including the look of the batsuit.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Wed, 16 Oct  2013, 13:12
The Arkhamverse will certainly influence this new Batman, including the look of the batsuit.

I certainly hope so. The Arkhamverse has stamped itself as one of the best Batman brands of all.

Yet another unsubstantiated rumour, but this is what this WB producer is claiming on Twitter:

QuoteCan't wait for #BatmanvsSuperman. #batfleck semi-retired/not speaking to Robin anymore. Controlling drones from the batcave"

Source: screenrant.com/batman-vs-superman-movie-robin-drones-kingdom-come/ (http://screenrant.com/batman-vs-superman-movie-robin-drones-kingdom-come/)

I strongly doubt this is true because whoever this guy is certainly isn't producing this movie. That being said, a semi-retired Batman controlling robots sounds a lot like Kingdom Come. The "semi-retired" bit wouldn't make much sense for this movie though, especially since we already had a Batman movie where he had retired.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicbook.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FBatrobot-1.jpg&hash=d0a6c10f3376d9c44f4403b1a26ca50ce3fae084)

Now, I wouldn't mind that rumour. Controlling bat-drones. It would be appropriate for the times, given the debate about US foreign policy, and Superman did pull a satellite out of the sky at the end of MOS. Could be a key point of difference between the two.

"Semi-retired" and "not speaking to Robin"? Unlikely I think for the reboot.. A few Bat-drones to patrol (he's one man, the city is huge) could still be part of Batman's MO, even if he's still active. An added sci-fi element?

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun, 17 Nov  2013, 17:53
"Semi-retired" and "not speaking to Robin"? Unlikely I think for the reboot.

Don't be so sure. If they cast Nightwing and don't show Robin, a little nugget of dialogue is only needed. Superman could give his two cents about the situation. How friends are important, etc.

Yes they can do it, no doubt, but it seems like a strange choice because... doesn't it seem like a lot of backstory to skip?

One assumes Batman in his prime, alongside Robin, had his battles with villains like the Joker etc. Shouldn't these be shown real time, and not as Watchmen-like flashbacks? A semi-retired Batman using drones, it's like Kingdom Come.

Unless the first solo Bat film is set a few years before BvS.

Nah. We've had two origin battles with The Joker on screen already.

When he faces them next in a live action film, they have that established prior history which I've been wanting.

Yes, but Batman and some major villains already established for a few years, but still active, is different than Batman being semi-retired with years of history behind him. A Kingdom Come-like status with Batman using robots almost means that the major threats (like the Joker) are neutralized.

Is this the rumour that Jett was talking from BOF was talking about?

QuoteBen Affleck Quitting 'Batman Vs Superman' and Injury Rumors Update

Jan 22, 2014 09:41 PM EST | James Knight (J.knight@classicalite.com)

There is a new rumor circulating on the internet that claims Ben Affleck is considering quitting the upcoming Batman Vs Superman movie. The reports claim that Affleck has major issues with the script, as well as the production delays. Meanwhile, there is a new update regarding Ben Affleck's reported injury.
Fanboys everywhere may be able to rejoice very soon. New rumors are popping up that claim that Ben Affleck is thinking about walking away from Batman Vs Superman.

According to a new report by Cinematallica, Affleck is not very happy with David Goyer's vision for the character. Get in line Affleck, a lot of people are upset with Goyer after he helped ruin the Batman trilogy and turned Superman into a murderer in Man of Steel.

The rumor also suggests that Affleck is upset with the production delay, as it has caused him to have to alter his already busy schedule. Affleck is allegedly laying down the law and telling Warner Brothers that he will walk if they don't get things together.

However, Latino Review reporter El Mayimbe has claimed this rumor is false, tweeting:
"That Affleck threatening to quit claim is utterly RIDICULOUS...Affleck has a relationship at that studio that goes beyond the Batman role. Affleck has zero reason to play hardball with the WB."

Although, if the rumor is true, could you really blame Affleck? The production delay has upset many fans. Goyer also has fair share of detractors. Too often now, directors and writers have "big ideas" to alter legendary icons. Last time Goyer got his hands on an icon, he made him break someone's neck for shock value. Is this really the man we want to build the DC shared universe?


Meanwhile, the report also claims that Affleck injured his ribs, but that a body double would be used for when he is fight scenes, hinting that Affleck is not the reason for the delay.

What do you think of the new rumors?

Source: http://www.classicalite.com/articles/5434/20140122/ben-affleck-quitting-batman-vs-superman-injury-rumors-update.htm (http://www.classicalite.com/articles/5434/20140122/ben-affleck-quitting-batman-vs-superman-injury-rumors-update.htm)

I'll take this rumour as a grain of salt till something gets confirmed - if it'll ever happen at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Goyer gets the boot, if anything.

But as for this idiotic writer calling Superman a murderer, I'll let this picture underneath do all the talking.  ::)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1604670_10201323876845241_676502815_n.jpg)

Seth Green doesn't rate Affleck being cast.

Quote

Seth Green SLAMS Ben Affleck Cast Choice For 'Man Of Steel 2' [VIDEO] 'You Need A Guy Superman Is Actually Scared Of'

While plenty of fans have lamented the Ben Affleck cast choice for the role of Batman in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel, plenty of celebrities have actually defended the Argo director, who takes over for Christian Bale in the new franchise.

Seth Green is not one of those celebrities.

The comedian and actor recently expressed his disappointment in the 'Batfleck' choice in an interview with Ora TV's Larry King Now, explaining that while Affleck does have some acting chops, an older, more intimidating-looking actor would have fit the role better.
Like Us on Facebook

"I think comic book fans have gotten use to the idea that modern mainstream is accepting of interpretations of these characters with more gravitas," said Green. "You know, we're past the time of Adam West's kind of goofy interpretation of Batman."

With Michael Keaton's Batman role as the example, Green said, "You've got to remember that at the core of that character, Batman's a crazy person. Batman has no powers. Batman is a rich, screwed up kid whose parents were killed in front of him. Who with his money and his insanity decided to become a vigilante symbol to combat darkness."

While he believed Christian Bale was a good match, he stated that Affleck doesn't seem to carry the "I'll do whatever it takes" motto that Batman exudes in the Justice League.

"If this movie is meant to be the idealistic alien, humans before all else Superman, and this is supposed to be the grizzled weathered Batman who's been living in Gotham, fighting crime himself for 10 years, you need a guy who's older. You need a guy who's got more weight. You need a guy that a Henry Cavill Superman is gonna be actually scared of," explained Green.

"You have to remember that Batman is just a dude. He's got no powers. So the fact that Superman is scared of him says something about the gravitas he carries. And it's not just because he's willing to kill. It's because he's scary," continued Green.

Though King backed up Affleck's acting ability, Green countered that he simply doesn't look the part, saying, "Yes, but there is only so much you can act a role before people are or are not going to believe you in that role. I'm never going to play a MMA fighter, because I'd step into the ring with an actual MMA fighter like Batista, and I wouldn't look correct, so there is a physicality of it."

Source: http://www.designntrend.com/articles/10978/20140219/seth-green-ben-affleck-man-of-steel-2-video-superman.htm (http://www.designntrend.com/articles/10978/20140219/seth-green-ben-affleck-man-of-steel-2-video-superman.htm)

I don't really understand Green's complaints here. First of all, we don't even know how Affleck's acting will turn out because we haven't seen any footage; after all,  filming hasn't even started yet. And if he is using Keaton as a reference, he seems to forget that people were campaigning passionately to have him removed from the film because he only starred in comedies. And yeah, if you compare to the comics counterpart, Keaton didn't resemble anything like Bruce Wayne because of his height and receding hairline. And yet, Keaton's portrayal ended up being the best in live-action Batman movies to date, at least as far as I'm concerned. So I don't understand how he could argue that Affleck looks nothing like the part. I said it before and I'll say it again: I won't be judging Affleck as Batman until I actually see footage of him.

On top of the fact that Green thought "Christian Bale was a good match" - well, I don't think I can take his opinion seriously.  ::)

The Austin Powers guy weighs in.

*Yawns*

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 05:17
*pukes everywhere*

i will wait till the movie shows up on fx. like two weeks after its theatrical release.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 23 Aug  2013, 06:43
i could see ben affleck playing the empty headed playboy that christian bale did so well but the serious bruce or batman? bleh. at least it is a superman movie too so he won't have to do as much. bruce wayne probably wont be a big part of the movie anyway so its all what he can do in the costume and idk. i just don't like him. every time you read me saying his name you should pretend you're hearing the aflac duck because that's how i say his name because he is a joke to me. i would rather sit through more of bale needing a riccola.

Ohhhh how wrong I was. Kitty will have her crow now.  :-[

I was always keen on Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne.  He was my second choice for the part after Jon Hamm ("Mad Men"), and I really hope he gets a chance to do a solo Batman movie (preferably a trilogy of solo movies featuring many of his rogues' gallery, if possible).

For those who have seen BvS by now, check out this ScreenRant slideshow analysing how Ben Affleck redefined Bruce Wayne/Batman in terms of commitment and personality compared to the last live action portrayal. Needless to say, don't read this if you haven't seen the film yet because it contains spoilers.

Source: http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ben-affleck-bruce-wayne

That's a good slideshow - thanks for sharing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 31 Mar  2016, 10:11
For those who have seen BvS by now, check out this ScreenRant slideshow analysing how Ben Affleck redefined Bruce Wayne/Batman in terms of commitment and personality compared to the last live action portrayal. Needless to say, don't read this if you haven't seen the film yet because it contains spoilers.

Source: http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ben-affleck-bruce-wayne

Good stuff.

Here is another slideshow from Comic Book Movie that listed ten live action superheroes who have killed people, in response to criticisms of Ben Affleck's Batman taking lives in BvS.

Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/ben-afflecks-batman-and-10-other-big-screen-superheroes-who-a132776

I'll give the editor credit for calling out on Bale's Batman, but where the hell is Michael Keaton? Surely he was directly responsible for killing people more than Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man! ;D

People are always knocking Keaton's Batman for killing people.  I'm glad for once other films are taking the heat.  :)

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  1 Apr  2016, 23:53
People are always knocking Keaton's Batman for killing people.  I'm glad for once other films are taking the heat.  :)

Ignorance is bliss I suppose. That kind of ilk need to pick up a Dark Knight Archives Vol. 1, Batman Chronicles Vol.1, or even the Golden Age Batman Omnibus to see what was really going on with Batman in the early days.

I really liked him. The movie lacked Batman early on, but whenever he onscreen and in costume, we got a good payoff. The suit is very flexible, and the action scenes are a testament to that. Even the mask being more flexible didn't go unnoticed; something like Batman unmasked sitting at the Batcave computer could finally be accomplished.

The voice was great, too. Not too sure about the robot-effects outside of the battle armor, but he still found the proper threatening tone (without pushing it too far). Most importantly, I like his Bruce Wayne. It refreshing to see him use his wit and charm without putting up an obvious naive playboy facade. Plus I loved seeing him go to work as Bruce whenever it was best suited for him instead of Batman.

My feature is back from the dead, most of it anyway.

Check it out here:

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2016/4/12/batmans-new-dawn#sthash.jr3n7nJR.dpbs

Great analysis TDK. Bravo!  8)

Can we tweet this to Affleck?  ;)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Apr  2016, 13:48
Can we tweet this to Affleck?  ;)

I will do it on the bmo twitter - but I would encourage others to. to be honest, twitter moves so fast and has so many posts the odds of him seeing it a very slim - but worth a try in numbers

Well done, TDK! Congrats on your first site feature and kudos for persevering after what happened with your original draft. Your enthusiasm for this incarnation of Batman really shines through, and I like your interpretation of how Superman's death inspires Bruce to reconnect with the more trusting, compassionate side of his personality.

It's already had quite a few 'likes' on Facebook (a lot more than my Batman/Daredevil comparison feature got >:(). I think many fans are hungry for articles that frame the DCEU with a sense of optimism and appreciation, rather than simply dwelling on its shortcomings. A lot of fans will really dig this.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Tue, 12 Apr  2016, 16:48

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Apr  2016, 13:48
Can we tweet this to Affleck?  ;)

I will do it on the bmo twitter - but I would encourage others to. to be honest, twitter moves so fast and has so many posts the odds of him seeing it a very slim - but worth a try in numbers

True.

And thanks Silver.  :)

Let the record show I logged on to Twitter for the first time in more than a year (took me 15 minutes to remember what password and email I used) to tweet this. I did have to stretch the truth and say we're friends, TDK, mainly cause I didn't think it'd look so good if I said "I can't stand the bastard" and besides I didn't have enough characters in the tweet anyway.

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 00:11
Let the record show I logged on to Twitter for the first time in more than a year (took me 15 minutes to remember what password and email I used) to tweet this. I did have to stretch the truth and say we're friends, TDK, mainly cause I didn't think it'd look so good if I said "I can't stand the bastard" and besides I didn't have enough characters in the tweet anyway.

Huh?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 04:04

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 00:11
Let the record show I logged on to Twitter for the first time in more than a year (took me 15 minutes to remember what password and email I used) to tweet this. I did have to stretch the truth and say we're friends, TDK, mainly cause I didn't think it'd look so good if I said "I can't stand the bastard" and besides I didn't have enough characters in the tweet anyway.

Huh?

I tweeted your feature to Ben Affleck, dork. After not being on there since November 2014. I thought it was self explanatory. lol

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 09:23

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 04:04

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 00:11
Let the record show I logged on to Twitter for the first time in more than a year (took me 15 minutes to remember what password and email I used) to tweet this. I did have to stretch the truth and say we're friends, TDK, mainly cause I didn't think it'd look so good if I said "I can't stand the bastard" and besides I didn't have enough characters in the tweet anyway.

Huh?

I tweeted your feature to Ben Affleck, dork. After not being on there since November 2014. I thought it was self explanatory. lol

Nope. Didn't see you say anything about tweeting Ben Affleck until that last post. But thanks.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 09:34

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 09:23

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 04:04

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Apr  2016, 00:11
Let the record show I logged on to Twitter for the first time in more than a year (took me 15 minutes to remember what password and email I used) to tweet this. I did have to stretch the truth and say we're friends, TDK, mainly cause I didn't think it'd look so good if I said "I can't stand the bastard" and besides I didn't have enough characters in the tweet anyway.

Huh?

I tweeted your feature to Ben Affleck, dork. After not being on there since November 2014. I thought it was self explanatory. lol

Nope. Didn't see you say anything about tweeting Ben Affleck until that last post. But thanks.

What else would I have been tweeting?

Oh, I see. With "this" it might have been confusing. Oops. By this I meant your feature. Sorry.

Gooooooood.

By the way, it seems like Batfleck doesn't just encounter Harley and Joker in SS, but Deadshot and Croc too. How cool is that? Hopefully we get a sequence of Batfleck taking them all down, aka Assault on Arkham.

Totally. They had to end up there in the first place somehow.

Did anybody else think the movie was pushing the envelope a bit when Batman had confronted a sex trafficker who locked women up inside a dungeon, and the news report over what he did to a child predator that Clark watched?

For all the debate whether or not the past movies were "realistic", none of them dared to have Batman confront such horrific real world type of felons. I see complaints about how brutal Affleck's Batman is, but I think most people have failed to acknowledge that the world he inhabits is in fact quite brutal itself. From his parents' killer presumably never caught, the loss of Robin and who knows what else Bruce had to suffer through along the way during his twenty year career, to finally experiencing the horrors of what he witnessed Metropolis, I can't understand how anyone could argue that Batman's initial arc and his treatment towards depraved villains in this movie made no sense. I thought the movie provided a strong basis for it.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Apr  2016, 13:52
Did anybody else think the movie was pushing the envelope a bit when Batman had confronted a sex trafficker who locked women up inside a dungeon, and the news report over what he did to a child predator that Clark watched?

I'm surprised we haven't heard of a similar 'backlash' to the one that greeted Batman Returns from certain parents' groups in 1992.  This sounds a lot more adult and troubling in terms of suitability for younger audiences than Oswald Cobblepot biting a guy's nose or Batman strapping a confetti bomb to a circus clown.

Than again, I suppose the goalposts in terms of what we deem suitable for children, have moved significantly since 1992.  Plus, as far as I'm aware there isn't any major Happy Meal campaigns associated with BvS, and thus potentially stymying its director's unadulterated vision.

Different time and place. I remember watching a documentary about Married ... with Children and the producers recalling how a housewife, yes 1 extremely bored and lonely housewife, would write to the show and caused major problems with the show, it's humor, and script approvals due to her constant complaints and threats. The producers made it no secret just how much of a pain she became, and as a consequence, brought about much inner turmoil on the set, and with the big wigs at FOX as well.

These days, something like that wouldn't happen. Shows are rated, and shows/movies can easily be blocked where in the early 90's, the capabilities for parents just wasn't there. Plus we're in a 24/7 news cycle that's always needing to be fed something, where in the past some news stories would linger on and on, along with the fact that we're in an age where parents are alot less conservative than, say, 1992. I mean, there's a possibility that a Wolverine film will be rated R. THAT wouldn't have happened in the '90's.

BvS has its creepy moments, but I still don't find it as dark as BR. Batman does deal with sex predators, but then again, Catwoman viciously stopped a creep from raping a woman, and the Penguin's intention to massacre infants is not something for the faint of heart. BR is still a hell of a lot more gory than BvS too.

It's quite debatable if Affleck and Keaton's Batman are more brutal than the other. Both are dark and tortured men; one became cynical and bleak after recent events, and the other still can't fill this empty void in his life despite avenging his parents. But if you want draw a comparison in Affleck's favour, we don't see him taking any pleasure in a crook's demise like Keaton does with the strongman (yes, that scene is meant to be a cheap joke, I'm not one of those wowsers who get upset over that. I'm only playing the devil's advocate).

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 17 Apr  2016, 22:03
Different time and place. I remember watching a documentary about Married ... with Children and the producers recalling how a housewife, yes 1 extremely bored and lonely housewife, would write to the show and caused major problems with the show, it's humor, and script approvals due to her constant complaints and threats. The producers made it no secret just how much of a pain she became, and as a consequence, brought about much inner turmoil on the set, and with the big wigs at FOX as well.

Well, Married...With Children did take the piss out of everything, much to the annoyance of the PC brigade, so it was only a matter of time before they found some trouble. Classic show, though! ;D

Quote
These days, something like that wouldn't happen. Shows are rated, and shows/movies can easily be blocked where in the early 90's, the capabilities for parents just wasn't there. Plus we're in a 24/7 news cycle that's always needing to be fed something, where in the past some news stories would linger on and on, along with the fact that we're in an age where parents are alot less conservative than, say, 1992. I mean, there's a possibility that a Wolverine film will be rated R. THAT wouldn't have happened in the '90's.

Having said all that, do you think that people still hold Superman as the standard for family entertainment? I ask because MOS and BvS were criticised for being too dark for Superman stories. Then again, a hardcore Superman fan might retort that it doesn't get any darker than turning the character into a "stalking deadbeat dad" as we saw in Superman Returns.  ;D ;D ;D

I'd like to point out that the Christopher Reeve Superman films may have been lighter in tone, but that doesn't mean they didn't have dark moments either. Krypton's destruction used to scare the sh*t out of me when I was kid, Lex pushed a cop towards an incoming train, Zod and company murdered the astronauts on the moon and were quite brutal when they raided the White House - hell, Superman crushed Zod's hand and sent him to his icy grave in the original version of Superman II.  :D And the fight between the evil Superman and Clark Kent in the junkyard during Superman III was quite intense.

I must be the only one who finds no issue whatsoever with Batman branding sex offenders and setting them up for their demise. If I had a child (particularly a daughter) and had to explain those scenes to them, then it might bother me more and when I have children I will wait a bit on letting them watch this, but as it is, I liked it but then I'm someone who feels like real life society is far too lenient on that kind of trash. So you have a sickness that makes you prey on children, hm? What do we do with a sick dog? Exactly.

As for which one is more brutal, I don't know. I wouldn't want to come upon either one if I was a villainess though, because I doubt it'd end very well for me lol.

Was Batman only branding sex offenders though or everyone he caught? He was pretty close to branding Lex and I don't think Luthor was a sex offender.
On the subject of Married with children, that show was one that pushed the envelope, at the time the most raunchy show on TV was all in the family. Despite all the limits it pushed, fox caved quite a bit, it was given a late Sunday night time slot and there was one episode they were not allowed to air (the court episode)

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 15:01
Was Batman only branding sex offenders though or everyone he caught? He was pretty close to branding Lex and I don't think Luthor was a sex offender.

Good question. Lex did some REALLY horrible things though so I would assume he only reserved it for the worst of the worst. If the solo movie is a prequel to this then we may get to see whether the line was clear cut or very blurry day to day.

All this Married...with Children talk is making me reminisce about my Kelly Bundy days...not good. lol.

Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 15:09Good question. Lex did some REALLY horrible things though so I would assume he only reserved it for the worst of the worst. If the solo movie is a prequel to this then we may get to see whether the line was clear cut or very blurry day to day.

And this once again gets to the nub of why I refuse to see this film, and why I am so frustrated when some posters here seem to attack anyone who criticises it.

This Lex, from everything I've read, strikes me as a totally irredeemable and pathetic little brat.  If they'd made the character either a truly evil yet charismatic, assertive and intimidating villain, or one that was a pathetic nerd with daddy issues but was still remotely sympathetic and redeemable, it might make for a fascinating, compelling character, but everything I'm reading, including Catwoman's above comments, just confirms my fears that this character is no more than a truly hideous, despicable POS, albeit one that looks and acts like a jittery daddy's boy with Asperger's.  Basically a nerdy hate-figure punch-bag (according to one poster here based on MOS critic Max Landis, which strikes me as extremely petty and mean-spirited on Snyder's part) for the macho alpha-men (Superman and Batman) to beat-up on.

Please someone tell me I'm wrong...and if I'm not, can we all please dispense with the 'you have no right to say anything until you've seen it' BS?  I am not disposed to shelling out the equivalent of fifteen dollars for the 'pleasure' of watching a two-hour-plus film I know I'm going to hate...and that's simply going by the comments of the (apparently few) people who actually like the film.  :-\

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 15:01
Was Batman only branding sex offenders though or everyone he caught? He was pretty close to branding Lex and I don't think Luthor was a sex offender.

It wouldn't surprise me if he is later revealed to be one, considering how mean-spirited this depiction of Luthor seems to be.  One can only hope the character is entirely rebooted/ret-conned before Snyder gets a chance to do anything else with him.  I can't imagine Jesse Eisenberg will want to return to the part considering the universal hate his performance has elicited (currently he's apparently almost a dead-cert for a Razzie nomination next year).

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 12:46
BvS has its creepy moments, but I still don't find it as dark as BR. Batman does deal with sex predators, but then again, Catwoman viciously stopped a creep from raping a woman, and the Penguin's intention to massacre infants is not something for the faint of heart. BR is still a hell of a lot more gory than BvS too.

It's quite debatable if Affleck and Keaton's Batman are more brutal than the other. Both are dark and tortured men; one became cynical and bleak after recent events, and the other still can't fill this empty void in his life despite avenging his parents. But if you want draw a comparison in Affleck's favour, we don't see him taking any pleasure in a crook's demise like Keaton does with the strongman (yes, that scene is meant to be a cheap joke, I'm not one of those wowsers who get upset over that. I'm only playing the devil's advocate).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BvS meant to take place in a world approximating our own (sex-trafficking has been a truly heinous and prevalent act throughout history, however, it has only really come to the forefront as a pressing issue for organisations such as the United Nations to tackle within recent years, and it appears that the film is being topical in addressing this particular evil).

By contrast, Batman Returns takes place in a fairy-tale type world in which an infant can be raised by penguins to be later heralded as Gotham's 'new golden boy' and a credible mayoral candidate with no questions asked, thirty-three years later.  There is a faux-naivety to the world Burton presents that extends all the way to the credits where the would-be rapist you refer to is credited as a 'Mugger'.  Moreover, look at the way The Penguin intends to kidnap and kill Gotham's 'first born' children; via an absurd circus train that passes through Gotham's streets entirely unabated for acrobats and clowns to bundle little tykes into animal cages.  It's hardly social-realism, and nor is it meant to be.  Arguably it's about as nasty and unsuitable for children as the (admittedly scary) Child Catcher's exploits in 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' or the naughty kids transforming into donkeys in 'Pinocchio'.  And unlike the latter, Pinocchio excepted, Gotham's 'first-born' are rescued before any permanent damage can be done to them.

And sure, Batman does kill a few circus goons in Batman Returns, and he does so with a disturbing glee, but once again, we're meant to accept his actions entirely in the context of a world in which a woman can fall one hundred feet from a skyscraper window only to be revived by stray cats.  Remember, that we never see the Strong Man blow up.  We merely see confetti.  How do we know that Batman hasn't tested the 'dynamite' he is carrying prior to his encounter with the big man?  Perhaps it isn't dynamite at all?  As for the pyromaniac clown who gets set alight by the Batmobile's engines, well in reality he'd be a goner, but I suspect within the context of this fantastical world, he merely rolled about in the snowy ground, and ended up with a few burns for his troubles.

Suffice to say, context is everything, and Batman Returns' violence is meant to be taken no more seriously than Wile E. Coyote getting perpetually destroyed by one of his defective Acme gadgets in the classic Warner Bros cartoons.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 12:46
But if you want draw a comparison in Affleck's favour, we don't see him taking any pleasure in a crook's demise like Keaton does with the strongman (yes, that scene is meant to be a cheap joke, I'm not one of those wowsers who get upset over that. I'm only playing the devil's advocate).

My perception of that scene has changed somewhat over the years, sure the scene is something of a gag since it clearly shows Batman being outmatched physically speaking, by the strong man, but Keaton's Batman actually taking delight in offing him is something I don't necessarily agree with. If anything, it also can come across as a brief moment of one-upmanship,  "Ah ha, gotcha!", as Keaton's Batman demeanor reverts back to being very stoic as he walks away from the explosion.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 17 Apr  2016, 22:03
Well, Married...With Children did take the piss out of everything, much to the annoyance of the PC brigade, so it was only a matter of time before they found some trouble. Classic show, though! ;D

I remember even the Simpsons was mired with controversy. With teachers forbidding students to wear Bart Simpson shirts to school. I guess those "Underachiever and proud of it" shirts were going to ruin everything.  ;D

Quote
Having said all that, do you think that people still hold Superman as the standard for family entertainment? I ask because MOS and BvS were criticised for being too dark for Superman stories. Then again, a hardcore Superman fan might retort that it doesn't get any darker than turning the character into a "stalking deadbeat dad" as we saw in Superman Returns.  ;D ;D ;D

I'd like to point out that the Christopher Reeve Superman films may have been lighter in tone, but that doesn't mean they didn't have dark moments either. Krypton's destruction used to scare the sh*t out of me when I was kid, Lex pushed a cop towards an incoming train, Zod and company murdered the astronauts on the moon and were quite brutal when they raided the White House - hell, Superman crushed Zod's hand and sent him to his icy grave in the original version of Superman II.  :D And the fight between the evil Superman and Clark Kent in the junkyard during Superman III was quite intense.

Yeah, in alot of ways I do think Superman is held in regard as a property that should be lighter in tone, but also agree with you that the Donner/Reeve films had their moments as well. The difference is that the overarching environment/tone/atmosphere of the Donner/Reeve films was indeed lighter, and as a result made 'darker' scenes/actions come across as not as polarizing as they otherwise might have been. It's kinda like the Joker products commercial from Batman 1989. If Burton really wanted to, he could have shot that whole scene as being morbidly dark. The subject matter certainly could have lent itself towards that, but instead it comes across as more comedic than anything. Which I'm sure was intentional.

With BvS being so polarizing/divisive as it is, I think some of it, maybe not quite all of it, but atleast some of it, stems from the fact that with Marvel/Disney making their films so friendly and accessible for everyone, when a film like BvS comes out that's decidedly more darker, and evidently made for a more adult audience, there's just going to be those plebeians whom just cannot perceive that as being a good thing.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 18 Apr  2016, 15:57
This Lex, from everything I've read, strikes me as a totally irredeemable and pathetic little brat.  If they'd made the character either a truly evil yet charismatic, assertive and intimidating villain, or one that was a pathetic nerd with daddy issues but was still remotely sympathetic and redeemable, it might make for a fascinating, compelling character, but everything I'm reading, including Catwoman's above comments, just confirms my fears that this character is no more than a truly hideous, despicable POS, albeit one that looks and acts like a jittery daddy's boy with Asperger's. 

It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

But I'm digressing.

Quote
Basically a nerdy hate-figure punch-bag (according to one poster here based on MOS critic Max Landis, which strikes me as extremely petty and mean-spirited on Snyder's part) for the macho alpha-men (Superman and Batman) to beat-up on.

You're seriously going to take that unsubstantiated theory to attack Eisenberg's characterisation? Really? Don't even go there mate. And as for Superman and Batman "beating Lex up", guess what: Superman saved Lex's life from Doomsday (despite every awful thing Lex did to him), and Batman had a change of heart when he was about to brand Lex and decided to take mercy on him instead.

I've had my number of gripes of how Superman was written for the majority of the movie, but every moment in the last twenty minutes, particularly him saving Lex, made me think in my mind "Now that is SO Superman".

Besides, Max Landis is far from an angel. For someone who is quite opinionated on other people's work, he seems to be quite thin-skinned when the roles are reversed, as you can his tweet dismissing Red Letter Media's critique on his movies because they liked the Hobbit movies:

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/638493083043262464

He also called someone "a revisionist ironic dickhead" because they said Limp Bizkit never made a good song (though he never tagged the name of the person. Still, I can't decide which is worse, calling someone names for having a different opinion or defending Limp Bizkit :-[):

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/602547165748039680

Another example of his lack of humility is him having a Twitter rant after his movie flopped at the box office and complained "nobody appreciates originality anymore":

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/american-ultra-writer-goes-on-twitter-rant-after-m/1100-6430036/

I've only seen one of his movies he wrote, and it was called Chronicle. I really liked it, but I get the impression his ego is growing because of one successful movie, a little bit like that movie's director - Josh Trank. I don't think it's professional of him to talk smack of other people's work when he still hasn't proved himself as a screenwriter, and one who can cop criticism of his own stuff as well. At the moment, he comes across as a spoiled-rotten rich kid who got to be where he is thanks to his well known father.

Quote
Please someone tell me I'm wrong...and if I'm not, can we all please dispense with the 'you have no right to say anything until you've seen it' BS? I am not disposed to shelling out the equivalent of fifteen dollars for the 'pleasure' of watching a two-hour-plus film I know I'm going to hate...and that's simply going by the comments of the (apparently few) people who actually like the film.  :-\

Well...I can't believe what I just read, and I personally find it rather insulting since that was an otherwise reasonable suggestion I made to you recently.

Mate, if you really have no inclination to give the film the time of day then how about you just stop talking about it? I stopped talking about the X-Men films altogether as soon as I heard DOFP cherry-picked certain continuity for its own convenience while creating more inconsistencies at the same time, AND trying to have it's cake and eat it further by rebooting the whole timeline. I haven't bothered to talk about X-Men: Apocalypse because I have no interest seeing it.

Quote
And this once again gets to the nub of why I refuse to see this film, and why I am so frustrated when some posters here seem to attack anyone who criticises it.

What are you even talking about? Nobody here has attacked anyone who criticises the film if they've actually seen it, and simply didn't like it. And to be honest mate, I think it's a narrow-minded and totally unreasonable stance you're taking by refusing to see the film and condemning Eisenberg's performance without judging it under context, and still say it sucks. If I had your attitude, I'd be missing out on a lot of movies I would've liked, or appreciate more than I would've expected. That would be the equivalent of me saying "The Dredd 2012 movie totally sucked because Lena Headey underwhelmed as the main villain"...without actually seeing the whole damn thing.

Quote
There is a faux-naivety to the world Burton presents that extends all the way to the credits where the would-be rapist you refer to is credited as a 'Mugger'.

I thought it was clearly implied that a rape was possible, not only because the creep was gesturing as if he was about to unzip himself, but Catwoman's dialogue "I like a strong man who is not afraid to show it with someone half his size, be gentle it's my first time" made it too on-the-nose for it not to imply some sort of sexual assault was about to happen.

I'm not the only one who has perceived this. There are lots of analyses on the internet and in textbooks that share this description, particularly this excerpt from a book analysing feminist protagonists in rape and revenge-theme storytelling:

Quote
Catwoman's acts of violence in Batman Returns (1992) are acts of revenge against rapist and woman-bashing men, representing a recycling of the second-wave feminist rape-revenge theme found in earlier films.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=b2QXAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=catwoman+rapist+batman+returns

My guess if the actor was credited as a mugger, it's because WB tried to make it ambiguous as possible to avoid further backlash.

I like Batman Returns as much as anyone else on this forum, but even though I do agree that it's set in a fantasy world where you can suspend your disbelief over the bizarre and unrealistic, that still doesn't make it less darker.

As for the possibilities that Batman may not have killed the strongman and the fire breather? I'd be open to strongman (the fire breather is possible), but Daniel Waters was quoted justifying Batman's lethal attitude awhile ago (can't find the original link though):

Quote
We live in dark times. You can't just drop bad guys off in a spider web in front of city hall.

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

I'm not really convinced that the bomb was harmless. If Burton wanted to, he could've shown Batman tampering with the bomb to turn it into a dud, and show the strongman had survived but hurt. He didn't. I don't quite care though, it's not like Batman had a moral code or anything.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 13:13It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

I don't think that the Joker was necessarily supposed to be those things. Charm isn't really something I've seen in many versions of the character. I don't think being unsympathetic, irredeemable or a pile of trash of a human being is completely against the character. I don't see how him being those things makes him not compelling as a character. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 13:52

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 13:13It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

I don't think that the Joker was necessarily supposed to be those things. Charm isn't really something I've seen in many versions of the character. I don't think being unsympathetic, irredeemable or a pile of trash of a human being is completely against the character. I don't see how him being those things makes him not compelling as a character. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

The good ones (Nicholson, Hamill, Romero) have had a charm. There's something magnetic about their versions that draws you in and makes you giggle even in their homicidal moments.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 13:13
It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

But I'm digressing.

Yes, with all due respect you are digressing because I was neither defending nor attacking TDK's Joker in my post, and I have no real opinion on your analysis of the character mainly because we never really learn anything concrete about the character's background (intentionally so).  Besides, The Joker is meant to be a psychopath; he's always been portrayed as one.  That's his very essence.  Luthor should be more charming and charismatic.  He's a character that is supposed to function in everyday society.

QuoteYou're seriously going to take that unsubstantiated theory to attack Eisenberg's characterisation? Really? Don't even go there mate. And as for Superman and Batman "beating Lex up", guess what: Superman saved Lex's life from Doomsday (despite every awful thing Lex did to him), and Batman had a change of heart when he was about to brand Lex and decided to take mercy on him instead.

Firstly, I'm going by the words of a poster whose opinion I very much respect (and I suspect I am not the only one here who feels that way), although to be fair, it is a theory/conjecture rather than a solid, provable fact.

As for my point about Lex being a punch-bag for the alpha-male jocks, I was speaking figuratively.  I didn't literally mean they beat him up (if anything, I'd prefer it if they did as it might render him more sympathetic, and less of a two-dimensional hate-figure - as it stands he now seems to come across as an even bigger brat, who is allowed to effectively get away with his crimes, jail being the very least he deserves).  The point is, the film is treating Lex as a punch-bag; a whiny, pathetic character to despise and someone who is saved by the admirable, awesome alpha-male even when he doesn't deserve it (as your comment about 'every awful thing Lex did to [Superman]' suggests).

QuoteI've had my number of gripes of how Superman was written for the majority of the movie, but every moment in the last twenty minutes, particularly him saving Lex, made me think in my mind "Now that is SO Superman".

::)  This is a discussion about Lex not Superman.  Superman's portrayal is not the issue I particularly have with this film.

QuoteBesides, Max Landis is far from an angel. For someone who is quite opinionated on other people's work, he seems to be quite thin-skinned when the roles are reversed, as you can his tweet dismissing Red Letter Media's critique on his movies because they liked the Hobbit movies:

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/638493083043262464

He also called someone "a revisionist ironic dickhead" because they said Limp Bizkit never made a good song (though he never tagged the name of the person. Still, I can't decide which is worse, calling someone names for having a different opinion or defending Limp Bizkit :-[):

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/602547165748039680

Another example of his lack of humility is him having a Twitter rant after his movie flopped at the box office and complained "nobody appreciates originality anymore":

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/american-ultra-writer-goes-on-twitter-rant-after-m/1100-6430036/

I've only seen one of his movies he wrote, and it was called Chronicle. I really liked it, but I get the impression his ego is growing because of one successful movie, a little bit like that movie's director - Josh Trank. I don't think it's professional of him to talk smack of other people's work when he still hasn't proved himself as a screenwriter, and one who can cop criticism of his own stuff as well. At the moment, he comes across as a spoiled-rotten rich kid who got to be where he is thanks to his well known father.

Once again I'm afraid you've missed my point, The Laughing Fish.

I at no stage defended Max Landis.  I don't particularly care for the guy one way or another.  He may well indeed be all those awful things you suggest he is.  But if anything, that makes the possibility that Zack Snyder sought to use Lex Luthor as a proxy for the guy rather than actually using the comic-books as the source for his characterisation, even more petty.

Lex Luthor is meant to be one of the most iconic super-villains in comic-book history.  To reduce him to a bratty, spoiled-rotten rich kid (and something of an in-joke at that) simply as a means of getting back at a critic, no matter how unlikeable that critic may be, is a disgraceful and self-serving abuse of such a character, and strikes me as yet another reason why Zack Snyder was clearly not the right guy for Warner Bros to hand the reigns of the DCEU to.

QuoteWhat are you even talking about? Nobody here has attacked anyone who criticises the film if they've actually seen it, and simply didn't like it. And to be honest mate, I think it's a narrow-minded and totally unreasonable stance you're taking by refusing to see the film and condemning Eisenberg's performance without judging it under context, and still say it sucks. If I had your attitude, I'd be missing out on a lot of movies I would've liked, or appreciate more than I would've expected. That would be the equivalent of me saying "The Dredd 2012 movie totally sucked because Lena Headey underwhelmed as the main villain"...without actually seeing the whole damn thing.

Firstly, Lena Headey wasn't playing an iconic character in 'Dredd', although I appreciate that is besides the point of what you're essentially saying.

I have perpetually asked to be proven wrong about BvS's portrayal of Lex Luthor, and ironically the same people who keep urging me to see the film before I am allowed to have a say are the ones who keep confirming all my worst fears about the character.  If you, or Catwoman, or The Dark Knight, were to say to me 'actually Lex is a very complex, nuanced, sympathetic villain portrayed with a degree of pathos, and is far from the spoiled-rich odd-ball psychopath you have been led to fear' I might be inclined to give the film a chance.  But that has not been the case, has it?  And thus, I maintain that I am well within the realms of reasonability to choose to avoid this movie on the basis that I will almost certainly dislike it.

Unless, people here can give me a good reason to check the film out for myself instead of merely confirming all my prejudices, I maintain that I am entitled to deride it on the basis of everything I've read and heard (most of it overwhelmingly negative).

But the ball is in your court... :)

QuoteI thought it was clearly implied that a rape was possible, not only because the creep was gesturing as if he was about to unzip himself, but Catwoman's dialogue "I like a strong man who is not afraid to show it with someone half his size, be gentle it's my first time" made it too on-the-nose for it not to imply some sort of sexual assault was about to happen.

Please show me a screencap of the 'Mugger' getting ready to unzip himself.  I have seen this film countless times, and nothing definitely indicates this.

Here is a screencap of the part you're presumably referring to:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaps.pictures%2F199%2F2-batman-returns%2Ffull%2Fbatman-returns-disneyscreencaps.com-4795.jpg&hash=175e5a2a6aa5bb91c6c7547df53f6137063dfce5)

But it's just as likely that the character credited as a 'Mugger' is reaching for his 'Victim's' handbag.  It would certainly make more sense of the angle at which he's reaching down.

Besides, I'm not definitively ruling out rape being the character's motive.  I'm simply saying that Burton left things vague, as do the credits (i.e. 'Mugger').

As for Catwoman's dialogue, all that implies is that the 'Mugger' is bigger and stronger than his victim, and that he's using this to his advantage in subduing her and thus getting what he wants (which as I state, could just as likely be simply her handbag).

QuoteI'm not the only one who has perceived this. There are lots of analyses on the internet and in textbooks that share this description, particularly this excerpt from a book analysing feminist protagonists in rape and revenge-theme storytelling:

I've read a lot of feminist analyses of Batman Returns including ones which suggest that Max invading Selina's personal space just as he is about to push her out of her office window, and his subsequent attempted murder of her, is a figurative representation of rape.  That may indeed be a sound reading of the scene, but it doesn't mean that a literal rape takes place in this sequence, or any other for that matter.

And that's mostly because Burton and his collaborators had the good taste not to depict such horrific real-life abuses literally.

QuoteMy guess if the actor was credited as a mugger, it's because WB tried to make it ambiguous as possible to avoid further backlash.

Like you say, it's a 'guess'.  And I don't know what you mean by 'further backlash'.  The 'backlash' occurred after the film was released, and Warner Bros with its potentially lucrative McDonalds Happy Meals deal, had no idea that any such thing was pending.  Thus, in this case I think when the character is credited as a 'Mugger' we're presumably meant to believe he is just that: a 'Mugger'.

QuoteAs for the possibilities that Batman may not have killed the strongman and the fire breather? I'd be open to strongman (the fire breather is possible), but Daniel Waters was quoted justifying Batman's lethal attitude awhile ago (can't find the original link though): "We live in dark times. You can't just drop bad guys off in a spider web in front of city hall."

That's a decent quote but it doesn't offer de facto evidence that the Strongman and the Fire Breather were in fact killed.  And just to be clear, I'm not definitively saying they survived; far from it.  I'm simply arguing that the film leaves things vague enough that there is a possibility, particularly within the fantasy context this film is set in, that they survived.

QuoteI'm not really convinced that the bomb was harmless. If Burton wanted to, he could've shown Batman tampering with the bomb to turn it into a dud, and show the strongman had survived but hurt. He didn't. I don't quite care though, it's not like Batman had a moral code or anything.

I don't think Burton was concerned in exonerating Batman of such brutality (after all he killed several more goons in the supposedly 'lighter' 1989 Batman, and in all those cases, particularly firing several of them with Batwing missiles, there was next-to-no ambiguity in their fates).  I'm just saying that the film is open to interpretation, and that moreover many of the deaths are purposefully cartoonish, the Strong Man's in particular, befitting a fantastical world akin to a cross-between a Grimm Fairy-tale and a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 13:59The good ones (Nicholson, Hamill, Romero) have had a charm. There's something magnetic about their versions that draws you in and makes you giggle even in their homicidal moments.

I've thought that they all were pretty good. I wouldn't even say that Nicholson's had charm really. No more than with Ledger anyway. But if giggling in their moments is what we're talking about, then I had that with Ledger too. I don't remember enough about Romero to know if he had that. But the only one I really think had charm, as I view it, was BTAS Hamill. Though I found Ledger, Nicholson, Hamill, Monaghan and others versions magnetic too. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

Hopefully.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 18:24
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

I can't wait to hear Snyder's justification for this. I can imagine it now...

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

The splatter behind the mutant in the "I believe you" scene in TDK Returns makes the strong case Batman shot to kill. Miller knows what he intended, and I'm of the opinion he told Snyder during one of their meetings. Though I can appreciate the scene is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so in that sense I don't think Snyder is worthy of ridicule. Nor does he really have to justify himself. It's his interpretation of the comic, just as I think the goon in TDK Returns bought it, given the seriousness of the situation. I mean, the animated movie adaption cops out with the scene, doing a different scenario instead of what the comic presents. So believe what you want happened.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 12:05
The splatter behind the mutant in the "I believe you" scene in TDK Returns makes the strong case Batman shot to kill.

Not to sound condescending, but if Snyder had bothered to actually read TDKR instead of simply looking at the pictures then he would have seen the list of charges levelled against Batman after he resumed his crime fighting career:

•   Breaking and entering
•   Assault and battery
•   Creating a public menace

This scene occurs after the incident where Batman shoots the Mutant gang member, and yet there's no mention of a murder charge. Wouldn't Yindel of all people have held Batman accountable if one of the gang members had died during that scene?


In point of fact, Batman isn't charged with murder until after the Joker frames him.


"Murder is added to the charges against the Batman..."

Prior to that, in another scene occurring after the incident with the gang member, Lana Lang clearly states that Batman has never killed anyone.


And when Batman first confronts the Mutant gang leader, he reflects how easy it would be to simply kill him using the Batmobile's armaments: "Though that means crossing a line I drew for myself thirty years ago." This quote is taken from Batman's internal monologue, so he has absolutely no incentive to lie to himself. And once again, this occurs after the scene where he shoots the gang member.

The artwork in the shooting scene might be ambiguous, but the text itself isn't. Batman did not kill anyone in The Dark Knight Returns. All Batman comic fans know this, and if Snyder was as big a fan of TDKR as he claims he is then he would've known it too.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 12:05Miller knows what he intended, and I'm of the opinion he told Snyder during one of their meetings.

Possibly. But that wouldn't change the fact that Snyder tried to defend a controversial aspect of his film by citing a comic book panel that doesn't exist. Nowhere in TDKR or any other Batman comic does Batman shoot someone between the eyes with a gun. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 12:05I don't think Snyder is worthy of ridicule.

Schumacher and Nolan have been ridiculed mercilessly on these boards. I see no reason whatsoever why Snyder should be exempt from criticism. Why is it ok to say eff-you to the critics and call them out for doing their jobs, but we can't call out the one man who many fans feel is endangering the DCEU in the first place?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 12:05Nor does he really have to justify himself.

Evidently he feels the need to do so.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 12:05So believe what you want happened.

Well I've read the book – many times – so I know what happened.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 10:55

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Frobins%2520axe_zps2ntcwz2n.png&hash=a2d59b6ea54d7eed5fb65fb5d16e7cca86ebb976)

;D ;D

QuoteNowhere in TDKR or any other Batman comic does Batman shoot someone between the eyes with a gun. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen.

I always interpreted that the Mutant thug got shot in the shoulder instead, due to the blood splatter on the wall, but definitely wasn't killed, due to everything mentioned after that SN cited. Anatoli getting burned to death in the film is more violent than what actually happened in the panel.

Miller's Batman doesn't kill until The Dark Knight Strikes Again. There, he runs over Lex Luthor's staff with the Batmobile, slices a guy in half with his "new cape," and hacks off Dick Grayson's head in an attempt to kill him (and gets disappointed when Grayson catches/reattaches the head). He also maims Luthor by carving a Z in his head and has Hawkman's son execute Luthor. Perhaps Snyder should've cited that as the "comic where Batman kills a lot" instead.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 10:55

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 19 Apr  2016, 18:24
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

I can't wait to hear Snyder's justification for this. I can imagine it now...

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Frobins%2520axe_zps2ntcwz2n.png&hash=a2d59b6ea54d7eed5fb65fb5d16e7cca86ebb976)

lmfao this is like the post of all eternity. The "sics" and everything, just perfect, hahaha.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 20 Apr  2016, 17:19
I always interpreted that the Mutant thug got shot in the shoulder instead, due to the blood splatter on the wall, but definitely wasn't killed, due to everything mentioned after that SN cited.

In the film, Batman doesn't shoot the guy in the body, but rather a piece of equipment he's wearing. The flamethrower tank. The hostage taker presses his trigger and kills himself. Snyder has his own interpretation of the comic panel, but he didn't adapt it that way. So his opinion doesn't really matter per se. But he's entitled to it. I think it's really whether or not people think Batman shooting a hostage taker between the eyes breaks Batman's character. I don't think it does. It's a case by case basis. Every scenario is different and requires different methods. Murder isn't going to be necessary each and every time, ala the 'rubber bullets' scene in the Batmobile.

So I was lurking in that cesspool that's called Superhero Hype, and I see some naysayers complaining how they thought Affleck's Bruce was cold-hearted and didn't care about people.

Really? What about when he called the Wayne Financial employee to evacuate everybody in the building during the Metropolis incident? What about when he came to Wallace Keefe's rescue, who was trapped under the rubble, and saved the little girl from getting crushed to death moments later? What about when he frantically did everything he could to prevent Anatoli Knyazev and company from murdering Clark's mother? Like it or not, the whole reason Batman was wrongfully against Superman was because he was afraid that he could turn against the human race.

But let's ignore all of that because Batman kills criminals. Never the mind the fact the criminals themselves were cold blooded murderers themselves (and in some cases, sexual predators).

Remember his anger over why Wallace Keefe hadn't been receiving his checks until they said he'd been returning them? There's another example. This Bruce cares for the innocent as much as he hates the wretched. 

What a bullsh*t statement. But then that's what a lot of people seem to have to grasp at with this movie so  whatever.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun,  1 May  2016, 16:09
Remember his anger over why Wallace Keefe hadn't been receiving his checks until they said he'd been returning them? There's another example. This Bruce cares for the innocent as much as he hates the wretched.

Yep.

And he has the billionaire act without being a jerk. Saying he was looking for the bathroom when attaching the tapping device at the party, joking he probably had one too many drinks and commenting on Mercy's shoes. He also jokes to Lex he came over to Metropolis to drink the place dry.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  2 May  2016, 08:49

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun,  1 May  2016, 16:09
Remember his anger over why Wallace Keefe hadn't been receiving his checks until they said he'd been returning them? There's another example. This Bruce cares for the innocent as much as he hates the wretched.

Yep.

And he has the billionaire act without being a jerk. Saying he was looking for the bathroom when attaching the tapping device at the party, joking he probably had one too many drinks and commenting on Mercy's shoes. He also jokes to Lex he came over to Metropolis to drink the place dry.

Also "The daily planet, do I own that one or is it the other guy?"

Yeah, that was a good line. I think Affleck's Bruce keeps up his family name when out in public. He's not going to lessen his image. But if push comes to shove, and the shove in this instance being Clark's hard questioning, he's going to push back in equal measure. Which is fair to me.

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  2 May  2016, 13:41
Also "The daily planet, do I own that one or is it the other guy?"

That was a nice line, seeing as he did at one point own the Daily Planet in the comics.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  1 May  2016, 10:36
So I was lurking in that cesspool that's called Superhero Hype, and I see some naysayers complaining how they thought Affleck's Bruce was cold-hearted and didn't care about people.

Really? What about when he called the Wayne Financial employee to evacuate everybody in the building during the Metropolis incident? What about when he came to Wallace Keefe's rescue, who was trapped under the rubble, and saved the little girl from getting crushed to death moments later? What about when he frantically did everything he could to prevent Anatoli Knyazev and company from murdering Clark's mother? Like it or not, the whole reason Batman was wrongfully against Superman was because he was afraid that he could turn against the human race.

But let's ignore all of that because Batman kills criminals. Never the mind the fact the criminals themselves were cold blooded murderers themselves (and in some cases, sexual predators).

That doesn't matter. Them being that doesn't change anything. Caring about some people doesn't mean he wasn't cold hearted. The fact that he can purposefully murder people with no remorse or guilt shows that. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:26
The fact that he can purposefully murder people with no remorse or guilt shows that.

I don't agree. It's about who you are being cold-hearted to. Being cruel to criminals doesn't make you cruel to your friends or allies. Bruce had the best interests of his staff at heart.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:31I don't agree. It's about who you are being cold-hearted to. Being cruel to criminals doesn't make you cruel to your friends or allies. Bruce had the best interests of his staff at heart.

Being cruel is different than taking a person's life. That's what's cold hearted. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:26

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  1 May  2016, 10:36
So I was lurking in that cesspool that's called Superhero Hype, and I see some naysayers complaining how they thought Affleck's Bruce was cold-hearted and didn't care about people.

Really? What about when he called the Wayne Financial employee to evacuate everybody in the building during the Metropolis incident? What about when he came to Wallace Keefe's rescue, who was trapped under the rubble, and saved the little girl from getting crushed to death moments later? What about when he frantically did everything he could to prevent Anatoli Knyazev and company from murdering Clark's mother? Like it or not, the whole reason Batman was wrongfully against Superman was because he was afraid that he could turn against the human race.

But let's ignore all of that because Batman kills criminals. Never the mind the fact the criminals themselves were cold blooded murderers themselves (and in some cases, sexual predators).

That doesn't matter. Them being that doesn't change anything. Caring about some people doesn't mean he wasn't cold hearted. The fact that he can purposefully murder people with no remorse or guilt shows that. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Are you f***ing serious? Cold-heartedness has nothing to do with what Batman does to criminals. It may be cool towards the villains but it's shown clearly that Bruce cares deeply for good people. Hence his willingness to risk almost certain death to stop Superman, who he fears will hurt those people.

And don't bother wishing me a good day, because I won't have one anyway. Save you some typing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 05:05
Being cruel is different than taking a person's life. That's what's cold hearted.

You miss the point. Thus you are wasting my time.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 May  2016, 06:02You miss the point. Thus you are wasting my time.

That's the point. Murderers or not, bad people or not, it's still cold hearted in this particular instance.

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue,  3 May  2016, 05:10Are you f***ing serious? Cold-heartedness has nothing to do with what Batman does to criminals. It may be cool towards the villains but it's shown clearly that Bruce cares deeply for good people. Hence his willingness to risk almost certain death to stop Superman, who he fears will hurt those people.

And don't bother wishing me a good day, because I won't have one anyway. Save you some typing.

Cold-heartedness, to me anyway, has everything to do with him murdering criminals. He can care about people. But that doesn't change what he's done. I'm very sorry that you won't have a good day, particularly if I had something to do with it. But I wish you both a very good day anyway.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51FjrDyT6sL._SY344_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=db66967d1f3ac13ab56478cb21f206acf0628db0)

That's what I've been saying for awhile. Trying to debate this movie is just an endless loop of circular logic that's bolstered on semantics.

These are issues audiences get into because of Snyder's style of story telling. He has a Rob Zombie sensibility to him when it comes to depicting moments that otherwise would have been downplayed or made ambiguous as to the fate of the criminal who was inflicted. Snyder is very much a in-your-face director who wants to roll in the gratuitous violence of a moment. If you read his assessment of comics, he says they are without merit unless they have violence and sex in them. So this attitude is certainly catered to in any film he makes. 

So while we can technically suggest his portrayal of Batman is not inconsistent with historical context, it can certainly be said, his intent to highlight those graphic aspects are much more on display which can work against the morality moments when he saves others. When Snyder chooses to amp up those moments of violence, it makes the audience give pause since the attention was not on stopping the criminal but rather the nature of how he takes him down with a degree of exploitation in the act. That denotes a type of pleasure which the director is taking in that scene which is easy to transpose to the character.

One point of view is to embrace that and say it's a more honest interpretation of the dark knight portrayal. Another point of view is that extremity in depiction overshadows and dilutes his qualities as being someone who is morally driven which is where the average person tends to define or justify the actions of someone they hold to a standard. If we can be honest and say Snyder took on the Batman personality as a full blown psychosis that is predicated more on instability born from emotional scarring, then we can't really counterbalance that with the suggestion he can always properly rationalize moments when he's having to define everyone in a situation as good or bad. It's emotional, thus making him irrational.

So , for myself, this is why I don't like Snyder making these films. He parlays too much personal enjoyment for graphic violence into this pseudo-psychological suggestion that is really just there as an excuse to do what he wants to do. Translation: The concept of Batman gets more than a little top heavy when the viewer has to embrace graphic violence in a world where they are already having to suspend their disbelief to accept the character as presented. He's dressed up as a bat driving a military show car. This is a full on comic book. I think the expectation is to service it as such and not dilute it into an endurance contest filled with treatments that run contradictory to the reason why we celebrate these heroes. We can forgive Deadpool for blowing the heads off of villains with one shot because there is no pretext to a standard which demands a code of conduct. Batman is held to a higher standard. And if we want to be completely truthful he's there to sell lots of merchandise with the primary customer being the kids.

If we can go 15 rounds over the nature of Batman's motivations, then I think that by itself is proof positive Snyder didn't do his job and deliver a hero so much as a conflicted character that audiences don't agree with. Everyone is certainly entitled to embrace this or reject the material since it's all fictional in nature. But history definitely shows that Batman tends to play to a broader audience when he is layered with more positive motivations than those more associated with the villains. When the primary question becomes, 'Why did Batman kill those people" the director has placed himself (and the studio) in a unfortunate corner they will have to resolve.

Thing is, there's a lot of buffoons out there who simply don't understand the message of the movie. The Batman of BvS has gone down a dark path. He's overcompensating because he feels threatened. He almost feels redundant by the presence of Superman. Alfred says it best in the film. A good man turned cruel due to a sense of powerlessness. This is deliberately a Batman who has said 'F you' to any moral codes he abided by in the past. That's why Superman is only taking serious notice now, and why he feels so concerned by Batman's methods. That's why The Joker and his kind are still alive, and why they wouldn't be these days if they ever met again.

A clear character arc for Batman is there, yet Snyder is raked over the coals because he's meant to be a simpleton who had Batman kill because 'he thinks it looks cool'. The issue, not that it really is an issue, is partly resolved when Batman chooses not to brand Lex. He's an experienced pro, yes, but we're at the start of this journey he's going on. He wasn't meant to be a likeable chap here. This was the jaded, angry and almost suicidal man at the end of his rope. Now he's inspired and with renewed purpose.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  4 May  2016, 12:51
Thing is, there's a lot of buffoons out there who simply don't understand the message of the movie. The Batman of BvS has gone down a dark path. He's overcompensating because he feels threatened. He almost feels redundant by the presence of Superman. Alfred says it best in the film. A good man turned cruel due to a sense of powerlessness. This is deliberately a Batman who has said 'F you' to any moral codes he abided by in the past. That's why Superman is only taking serious notice now, and why he feels so concerned by Batman's methods. That's why The Joker and his kind are still alive, and why they wouldn't be these days if they ever met again.

A clear character arc for Batman is there, yet Snyder is raked over the coals because he's meant to be a simpleton who had Batman kill because 'he thinks it looks cool'. The issue, not that it really is an issue, is partly resolved when Batman chooses not to brand Lex. He's an experienced pro, yes, but we're at the start of this journey he's going on. He wasn't meant to be a likeable chap here. This was the jaded, angry and almost suicidal man at the end of his rope. Now he's inspired and with renewed purpose.

This is the political dance directors get into with the public when they go against type and parlay into a less supported portrayal. If we look at history, this reaction carries a degree of deja vu with Schumacher's last installment. Joel's treatment went completely "light", while Snyder's interpretation went for a decidedly darker and more disturbed perspective. I wouldn't suggest the public desires a dumbed down version since the Schumacher example cancels out that approach. But then again, I don't believe their looking for a Dirty Harry version to correct that perspective either. Nolan's movies have been the most successful in the franchise' history and those were not exactly kid films. But then again I don't think they disenfranchised kids from watching them either. So it was inclusive enough to receive widespread popularity during it's theatrical run.

I think when it comes to Batman, quality of script is a big player in how people react to each film. When I see the most successful films in the franchise, those stories are heavy on drama but seem to do a good job in explaining character motivations that thrust the hero and the villain into a face off. There's good tension and a build towards a finale that is galvanizing to the audience.

The less successful installments tend to be less defined on character motivation; their tone is uneven; and the purpose for why the opposing sides are at odds are either overly simplistic or muddled in ambiguous story plots that do not generate interest in the outcome. History seems to suggest that audiences like a Batman character they can root for in the face of obstacles set directly or indirectly by the counter player in question.

In the case of BVS, I think Snyder gave us a Batman morally flawed which gambled a bit on the perspective being universally understood and supported by the audience. I don't think Snyder spent enough time building some pathos into this Batman to garner some much needed understanding for his actions. I think audiences are motivated and engaged when they connect with them emotionally on some level. For this Batman to be that jaded, I don't think the audience had the benefit of seeing that journey so much as getting momentary references that were informational but did not necessarily carry the emotional register audiences need to get them to where he was at. So I think to the average viewer, people had to determine merit within his actions based on a cold slate of story points rather than an emotional one that would have serviced the material better.

I think that point is further driven home when Snyder uses the "Martha" exchange as that moment of awakening. There's nothing difficult to understand in that moment in terms of intent, but for me it seriously devalues his life experience as Batman to suggest a moment of empathy makes him a changed man over the years of loss he has suffered. That is an impossible leap of rationalization to arrive at during a very irrational moment in the midst of a struggle to survive. When you consider this as being an older Batman nearing the end of his career that really discredits the possibility. It completely took me out of the story because it was too much of a staged plot point as opposed to a more logical unfolding of events which would lead to this discovery on an emotional level. You needed the audience to feel it with him and I think a more accomplished director could have crafted a better progression of events to get everyone there. I just don't think Snyder was the right person to direct this material.

This movie wanted to be allot of things for allot of reasons. It wanted to be a new Batman film with a complex hero, that needed far more script development than what was offered. It needed to be a sequel to Man of Steel, which it was, but didn't really service his evolution fully (Yes, I know it's coming). Then it needed to be a welcoming mat for the Justice League movie so they did little more than Youtube cameos for those introductions while throwing dream sequences into the story that did more to disrupt the pacing than contribute to the overall intent. And along the way they also needed a villain to do ugly things even though the heroes were already doing that to themselves (provoked by Lex of course) . Personally I think it had more script and more evolution of characters than what they could realistically fit into the finished product at that running time. And that's why I said in my initial review on another thread, I think I really need to see that director's cut before I come to a final assessment on this film.

But what we got in theaters was really a mixed bag of ambitious stories that, in my opinion, didn't get flushed out fully to appreciate them on the level they were written to be properly experienced.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  4 May  2016, 12:51Thing is, there's a lot of buffoons out there who simply don't understand the message of the movie. The Batman of BvS has gone down a dark path. He's overcompensating because he feels threatened. He almost feels redundant by the presence of Superman. Alfred says it best in the film. A good man turned cruel due to a sense of powerlessness. This is deliberately a Batman who has said 'F you' to any moral codes he abided by in the past. That's why Superman is only taking serious notice now, and why he feels so concerned by Batman's methods. That's why The Joker and his kind are still alive, and why they wouldn't be these days if they ever met again.

Insults against people over a movie isn't appropriate. People get it and they understand the message. They just think the message is stupid. They don't want that, see why it's needed and to some people, a Batman who has in cold blood murdered nameless thugs has no justification to not kill the Joker after he's done it. Being a Christian, I see that's not true. But this is fiction. And Superman dying that Bruce had no relationship with has no reason to change his outlook, in real life or not.

QuoteA clear character arc for Batman is there, yet Snyder is raked over the coals because he's meant to be a simpleton who had Batman kill because 'he thinks it looks cool'. The issue, not that it really is an issue, is partly resolved when Batman chooses not to brand Lex. He's an experienced pro, yes, but we're at the start of this journey he's going on. He wasn't meant to be a likeable chap here. This was the jaded, angry and almost suicidal man at the end of his rope. Now he's inspired and with renewed purpose.

It is done because he thinks it's cool. It being resolved doesn't change that. People don't see why Batman ever had to be this. More importantly, they didn't want a Batman to be like this. He's not someone they can root for. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I'm finding the nastiness on both sides of the BvS divide quite depressing.  Like Dagenspear says, it's only a movie.  There is no need for anyone, either fan or critic of BvS, to name-call anyone who disagrees with them.

Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

But again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

Arguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Batman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  5 May  2016, 08:47
Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

But again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

Arguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Batman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

You're applying allot of context and rules of engagement to character building that are of your own making to justify this movie. I'm trying to step back and look at the story mechanics and understand why it widely failed with so many. I don't believe there is any hidden novel here that no one but yourself has figured out.  And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to calling anyone "stupid" because they are in disagreement with your assessment. Making it that personal is unhealthy and honestly deflates anyone taking you serious if you're that upset over a comic book movie. 

Movies are a subjective art form. Batman is a completely unrealistic, fictional character. Superman even more so. Whatever real or imagined psychological study you want to apply here will not bring anymore credibility to the simple fact he's guy in a rubber suit sorting out his demons while he grows paranoid of a guy from another planet  also wearing a suit manufactured by Rubbermaid. There's only so much I can drink from that Kool-aid factory before I have to step back and understand it was a movie intended to sell toys.

It's fun to break down the various story structures and see what was borrowed from comics to build this film if you're a fan of the character. That's the hobby at work here. But opinions on story treatment, costume design, and just a general sense of entertainment value is going to vary from person to person. And yes sometimes criticisms are garnered more from a mob mentality than someone just looking at the film and making their own assessment. Welcome to the internet age. It's loaded with that herd mentality if you let it. And we being fans will pull us a tad too tightly to the material at times, so I get your discourse with feeling some are not really assessing the film as you believe it was intended. But at some point you have to back up and just say, " It is what it is."

I have an endless inventory of movies in my DVD collection that are not critical darlings or even fan favorites by many accounts. But I'm not watching them for mass approval. I watch them for my own personal enjoyment. If you love this film, that is terrific. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you can't. We're Batman fans here. Let's enjoy the fellowship of that bond and try not to split hairs over aspects we don't like. There are more films coming!

Edit:

I had a post here, but I've taken it down. We'll agree to disagree.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  5 May  2016, 08:47Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He did have to know him for him to have any effect on him as a person. He knew he was already. That doesn't change.

QuoteHe's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

The movie didn't develop that idea. It had him state verbatim his reason for the change. Bruce has already crossed that line here, with the situation that's happened, with what he's done, he has no right to be different with the Joker.

QuoteBut again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

The fact that people can understand it enough to dislike it, shows that there's no turning brains off.

QuoteArguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Long term vision has nothing to do with what this movie does or imagination. A movie shouldn't be made, nor a character developed to play into something that can be done in the future. The audience shouldn't have to imagine that. Batman didn't have to be this way. He was made to be this way with logic that doesn't add up. It's the same thought process as Superman can't have a no kill rule unless he knows what it feels like to kill someone. That's not the case. I don't know why you want to insult people about this. There's no reason for it.

QuoteBatman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

It didn't have to be like that. That's the point. His character shouldn't have to be that in this. It doesn't even apply here, because his character has already been that, if want to go by the frivolous comics that have no real point. More than anything, it's him going back to the way he was before. Which makes him being there pointless, because he's never going to face consequences for what he's done. Thank you very much for anything at all! Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed,  4 May  2016, 16:50
I think when it comes to Batman, quality of script is a big player in how people react to each film. When I see the most successful films in the franchise, those stories are heavy on drama but seem to do a good job in explaining character motivations that thrust the hero and the villain into a face off. There's good tension and a build towards a finale that is galvanizing to the audience.

I completely disagree with this after watching the Nolan films. People talk about quality, but they ignore the flawed and inconsistent things about those movies, or worse, reinterpret them to suit their own convenience. I mean, these three films of his were more than seven hours long altogether, but none of them couldn't even spend one minute making sense of Batman's confusing motivationr? Really? Sorry, but when a trilogy has somebody else taking the mantle from the hero despite the whole moral of the story is supposed to be how a vigilante's crusade enabled social reform, or Batman refuses to kill the mass-murdering Joker but then justifies himself for killing another mass-murderer to save millions of innocent people (like he did to Talia in TDKR), it completely ruins it for me and I don't care about his journey at all. Never mind that framing himself to protect a killer was the worst thing the character has ever done on film, in my opinion. I don't know how that is seen as quality storytelling.

Snyder has his faults for sure, and has a lot in common with Nolan when it comes to using too many characters (i.e. the General and the assistant from MOS), and yes, BvS had its share of contrivances that I didn't care for e.g. Superman giving Batman a lenient warning in their first confrontation even though Bats had killed crooks during the car chase, the whole North Africa scene was underwhelming and I didn't get the gist of Superman being wrongfully accused of killing those terrorists, and I thought Superman telling Batman his mother was in dangerous could've been handled better. As you can tell, I have some issues with how Superman is used in a few number of plot points in this movie. But Superman sacrificing himself and how it inspired Batman and Wonder Woman a new found sense of purpose, and the world realising how truly selfless he was despite all his imperfections as it mourns for his death, is a massive mitigating factor I'm grateful for.

Quote
In the case of BVS, I think Snyder gave us a Batman morally flawed which gambled a bit on the perspective being universally understood and supported by the audience. I don't think Snyder spent enough time building some pathos into this Batman to garner some much needed understanding for his actions. I think audiences are motivated and engaged when they connect with them emotionally on some level. For this Batman to be that jaded, I don't think the audience had the benefit of seeing that journey so much as getting momentary references that were informational but did not necessarily carry the emotional register audiences need to get them to where he was at. So I think to the average viewer, people had to determine merit within his actions based on a cold slate of story points rather than an emotional one that would have serviced the material better.

I thought the story more than conveyed where Batman is coming from in this movie. Never mind the death of his parents that naturally scarred him, we could see that this Bruce was frustrated because of what he experienced over twenty years i.e. Robin's death, how the good guys are hard to find, or stay good, as he says to Alfred, and feeling useless as he watches the destruction of Metropolis despite his heroic efforts in rescuing Wallace Keefe and the little girl. Not to mention his anger at Superman's existence and worries what happens if he were to go rogue against humanity. All this experience pointed to a jaded Batman taking a very extreme approach and it made him feel very small in comparison, as he tells Alfred that stopping Superman would be the "only important thing he has ever done" (if I recall correctly). I'm not saying everybody must like this character arc, but I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

Quote
I think that point is further driven home when Snyder uses the "Martha" exchange as that moment of awakening. There's nothing difficult to understand in that moment in terms of intent, but for me it seriously devalues his life experience as Batman to suggest a moment of empathy makes him a changed man over the years of loss he has suffered. That is an impossible leap of rationalization to arrive at during a very irrational moment in the midst of a struggle to survive. When you consider this as being an older Batman nearing the end of his career that really discredits the possibility. It completely took me out of the story because it was too much of a staged plot point as opposed to a more logical unfolding of events which would lead to this discovery on an emotional level. You needed the audience to feel it with him and I think a more accomplished director could have crafted a better progression of events to get everyone there. I just don't think Snyder was the right person to direct this material.

We can debate how the scene was executed very well or very poorly, but it was showing how Batman realised he was becoming everything he fought against his whole life: by nearly murdering someone's son and indirectly causing the death of someone's mother. He had mistaken Superman as an uncaring and inhumane danger to the planet, but his cries for help made Batman realise he was wrong, and Martha's name triggered Batman's tragedy to reflect what he was about to do. His blind rage and hatred allowed Lex to manipulate him, and Batman ended his misdirected anger that had blinded him all this time, and he became a hero again onwards. He felt powerless to prevent his mother from dying as a child, but now he can save another Martha from suffering the same fate.

Again, I won't deny the pacing at the end of the fight and the heroes joining forces could've been handled better, but I believe there's a basis here for Batman redeeming himself. Like the ending was redemption for Superman's flaws earlier in the movie. In that sense, I personally thought it was quite effective.

In my opinion, the epitome of a completely irrational leap of logic for a character arc, is Two-Face's absurd rationale of "The Joker is a mad dog, I'm after those who let him off his leash". I don't care how crazy Two-Face is, that motivation is absolutely ridiculous. The guy spent the entire time trying to stop Joker, even taking matters into his own hands when Rachel's life is in danger...yet he lets his girlfriend's killer go because of some bullsh*t about chaos? In such a short period of time where Dent showed no signs of any real psychotic behavior? I don't buy it.

Quote
You're applying allot of context and rules of engagement to character building that are of your own making to justify this movie. I'm trying to step back and look at the story mechanics and understand why it widely failed with so many. I don't believe there is any hidden novel here that no one but yourself has figured out.  And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to calling anyone "stupid" because they are in disagreement with your assessment. Making it that personal is unhealthy and honestly deflates anyone taking you serious if you're that upset over a comic book movie. 

Maybe it's not my place to speak for TDK, but I see his frustration is aimed at people who completely ignore what the film is going for, or they simply go what the critics say without forming their own opinion. Not necessarily those who understood the plot, but simply didn't like it. As you say in another thread relating to Batman & Robin, there wasn't a huge outcry over the Batnipples or body close-up shots in BF, until B&R was released and outright panned by the critics. All because of a loud minority of haters. Similar to a loud minority influenced impressionable people over Batman's lethal approach in the Burton films, it seems.

When BvS was released more than a month ago, I saw people on another forum who were eager to see it suddenly becoming reluctant because somebody else they knew didn't like it. Worse, one commenter hadn't seen the film at the time, and yet, he still described Affleck's Batman "as an alcoholic shooting people" and compared him unfavourably to Bale's Batman who told Catwoman not to shoot or kill anyone. Now, if this guy actually watched BvS and TDKR, he would've figured out that A) Affleck's Bruce only drank one glass of bourbon from his bed in one scene without there hinting a drinking problem, and B) Bale's Bruce hypocritically armed his vehicles with guns, which resulting in causing Talia and her henchman's deaths. ::)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  6 May  2016, 14:30I completely disagree with this after watching the Nolan films. People talk about quality, but they ignore the flawed and inconsistent things about those movies, or worse, reinterpret them to suit their own convenience. I mean, these three films of his were more than seven hours long altogether, but none of them couldn't even spend one minute making sense of Batman's confusing motivationr? Really? Sorry, but when a trilogy has somebody else taking the mantle from the hero despite the whole moral of the story is supposed to be how a vigilante's crusade enabled social reform, or Batman refuses to kill the mass-murdering Joker but then justifies himself for killing another mass-murderer to save millions of innocent people (like he did to Talia in TDKR), it completely ruins it for me and I don't care about his journey at all. Never mind that framing himself to protect a killer was the worst thing the character has ever done on film, in my opinion. I don't know how that is seen as quality storytelling.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Batman didn't kill Ra's. That's a fact, in film. TDKR even implying that he did is a lie and is a flaw on that movie. Why wouldn't someone take up the mantle of a superhero if the moral is that the vigilante's crusade enabled social reform? That would be a reason to do that, not a reason not to. But your statements don't have a lot of validity when you've ignored what happens in the movies.

QuoteI thought the story more than conveyed where Batman is coming from in this movie. Never mind the death of his parents that naturally scarred him, we could see that this Bruce was frustrated because of what he experienced over twenty years i.e. Robin's death, how the good guys are hard to find, or stay good, as he says to Alfred, and feeling useless as he watches the destruction of Metropolis despite his heroic efforts in rescuing Wallace Keefe and the little girl. Not to mention his anger at Superman's existence and worries what happens if he were to go rogue against humanity. All this experience pointed to a jaded Batman taking a very extreme approach and it made him feel very small in comparison, as he tells Alfred that stopping Superman would be the "only important thing he has ever done" (if I recall correctly). I'm not saying everybody must like this character arc, but I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

I can say that I've seen people who understand it and still don't think that it's appropriate to have a Batman who has had a no kill rule apparently, rejected it with malicious intent and goes back to it. They seem to think that under the circumstances he has no right to be against killing now that he's purposefully with malice of forethought.

QuoteIn my opinion, the epitome of a completely irrational leap of logic for a character arc, is Two-Face's absurd rationale of "The Joker is a mad dog, I'm after those who let him off his leash". I don't care how crazy Two-Face is, that motivation is absolutely ridiculous. The guy spent the entire time trying to stop Joker, even taking matters into his own hands when Rachel's life is in danger...yet he lets his girlfriend's killer go because of some bullsh*t about chaos? In such a short period of time where Dent showed no signs of any real psychotic behavior? I don't buy it.

He didn't let him go. He flipped the coin. It landed on heads.

QuoteMaybe it's not my place to speak for TDK, but I see his frustration is aimed at people who completely ignore what the film is going for, or they simply go what the critics say without forming their own opinion. Not necessarily those who understood the plot, but simply didn't like it. As you say in another thread relating to Batman & Robin, there wasn't a huge outcry over the Batnipples or body close-up shots in BF, until B&R was released and outright panned by the critics. All because of a loud minority of haters. Similar to a loud minority influenced impressionable people over Batman's lethal approach in the Burton films, it seems.

That wasn't hated because of that. It was hated because some people don't like fun. Please don't try and blame others for how people react. People choose how they react to something.

QuoteA) Affleck's Bruce only drank one glass of bourbon from his bed in one scene without there hinting a drinking problem, and B) Bale's Bruce hypocritically armed his vehicles with guns, which resulting in causing Talia and her henchman's deaths. ::)

Even just now hearing that statement, I can say that it seems that the person was being comically hyperbolic by calling him an alcoholic. Bale's Bruce arming himself with guns isn't hypocritical, because he's never once had an issue with using guns in regards to others. It was a statement against Selina specifically using the guns to kill. And those deaths being caused by his weapons isn't based on a purposeful action of trying to kill them, which is the difference between what he tells Selina and what he does later on. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  6 May  2016, 19:27
I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Batman didn't kill Ra's. That's a fact, in film. TDKR even implying that he did is a lie and is a flaw on that movie.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeX6Aqat.gif&hash=e3914371f66ea3f4035fa945dbf4276033346da7)

I found this video explaining making comparisons between Affleck and Bale, while explaining why Affleck is the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeAdCsAnoEs

Apart from a couple of points I completely disagree with (Bale's ugly Batsuit better in terms of Keaton's? Get out of here! And the little dig at Michael Gough's Alfred for only serving soup is lame), I agree with the other points made in regards to how downtrodden Snyder's Gotham looked, the action, the acting, costume and characterization.

If we want to compare Alfred's, one classic trait is that Alfred stays in the batcave and helps Batman while he's out in the field. Gough did this with Keaton in the final act of Returns (helping him save gotham from the penguin attacks), Caine NEVER did this. The extent of him interacting with Batman was usually criticizing the way he handled things. And don't tell me Lucious fox helping Batman catch the Joker through sonar in the dark knight is the same thing, it wasn't the batcave and it wasn't Alfred. Morgan Freeman played his role well but there's a special bond between Batman and Alfred that just wasn't there in that series partially due to Fox. I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever). I think people gave Caines's character a pass because he was great in the third act of the first film. 

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 16 May  2016, 15:48
I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever).

One of the primary influences on The Dark Knight Rises was the Knightfall/Knightquest arc, in which Bruce and Alfred's relationship underwent a similar strain. The scene where Alfred walks out on Bruce was adapted directly from that story arc; specifically from Knightquest: The Search (May 1994).


In both the comic and the film, Alfred tenders his resignation in an attempt to dissuade Bruce from resuming his crime fighting career. But in both stories Bruce calls his bluff and the two part ways. This aspect of the Bruce-Alfred relationship, where Alfred tries to steer Bruce away from his self-destructive lifestyle, was barely touched upon in Burton's films. There's one line in Batman 89 where Alfred says he doesn't want to mourn old friends, and that's it. But in Nolan's films, and in particular in The Dark Knight Rises, Alfred's concern for Bruce was the foundation of his entire character arc. He couldn't bear to stand by and watch Bruce kill himself, so he used the only leverage he had - their friendship - to try and deter him. The exact same thing happened in the comics.

Ultimately I thought Gough's Alfred captured the character's sarcastic, reserved personality better than Caine's. But Cain and Bale captured the characters' familial relationship more effectively than Gough and Keaton did. In many ways Schumacher struck the happy medium, conveying the warmth and love between them while preserving Alfred's sarcastic stiff-upper-lip veneer.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 16 May  2016, 19:18
Ultimately I thought Gough's Alfred captured the character's sarcastic, reserved personality better than Caine's. But Cain and Bale captured the characters' familial relationship more effectively than Gough and Keaton did. In many ways Schumacher struck the happy medium, conveying the warmth and love between them while preserving Alfred's sarcastic stiff-upper-lip veneer.

I do think the kitchen-set scene of Alfred relaying a story to Vicki of young Bruce falling off a horse as a child brilliantly displays the warmer, more tender side of the character, and you get a sense of some of that affection during Bruce and Alfred's Batcave scenes (i.e. "I don't wish to spend my remaining years mourning old friends....or their sons").

The relationship's there, I just don't think it was as thoroughly explored as it was in Nolan's films.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 16 May  2016, 20:16
The relationship's there, I just don't think it was as thoroughly explored as it was in Nolan's films.

Perhaps.  I think the interplay between the magnificent Michael Caine and Christian Bale was beautifully handled in TDK trilogy however, I also think Burton's more minimalist, less-is-more, approach did an equally effective job in capturing the closeness of that relationship.

I agree.

Burton's approach emphasised the stoic, understated camaraderie between two men who were ill at ease verbalising their feelings. Nolan's approach emphasised a more openly intimate dynamic between two family members who were emotionally dependent on one another. Two different yet equally effective approaches to the same relationship.

While we're discussing this, their relationship is very beautiful to me in Batman & Robin. I like it so much. Michael, I think it's safe to say for me, is the actor I compare Alfred's to. Him and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.. They've so far been my favorite. I was working on a Batman tv series pitch, and when I was thinking about Alfred, I pretty had an image of them in my head when coming up with it. That said, I like Sean Pertwee quite a bit on Gotham. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless everyone!

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 16 May  2016, 15:48
If we want to compare Alfred's, one classic trait is that Alfred stays in the batcave and helps Batman while he's out in the field. Gough did this with Keaton in the final act of Returns (helping him save gotham from the penguin attacks), Caine NEVER did this. The extent of him interacting with Batman was usually criticizing the way he handled things. And don't tell me Lucious fox helping Batman catch the Joker through sonar in the dark knight is the same thing, it wasn't the batcave and it wasn't Alfred. Morgan Freeman played his role well but there's a special bond between Batman and Alfred that just wasn't there in that series partially due to Fox. I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever). I think people gave Caines's character a pass because he was great in the third act of the first film.

I may have told you about this before in the past, but I liked Caine's Alfred in BB because he was the concerned parental figure who did the best he could to look after Bruce from childhood, and tried to convince Bruce not to disgrace the family name when he was becoming reckless. He always stood by him no matter what. I have a lot of problems with BB, but Caine alongside Gary Oldman's Gordon were by far the two things I appreciate in that movie.

But by the end of TDK, I just stopped caring about Alfred. I got very annoyed with his constant pretentious monologues along with the Joker, and the whole business over keeping Rachel's letter a secret for eight years doesn't hold water if you ask me.

He explains that he burned the letter to spare Bruce pain. But he failed miserably because keeping the letter a secret caused exactly that. Bruce was misled into believing Rachel would've gotten together with him if she were still alive, and it made him depressed and reclusive as time passed by. Not only did Alfred decided to tell the truth when Bruce had already reached the end of his rope eight years later, he decides to leave him and discourage him from coming back as Batman - despite a new threat is emerging in Gotham City. That's illogical, and even negligent on Alfred's part. All movies have plot conveniences but this wasn't particularly done well at all. I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew a close friend of mine was becoming dead inside because they thought they were deprived of something so deeply, and only I knew the truth of what really happened, I'd quickly tell them the truth before things get any worse.

It didn't help that Alfred and Bruce didn't even reconcile from their falling out, unless you want to count that silly nod to the head in that underwhelming ending. I also don't like how Alfred spoke about the "truth should have its day", yet the film ends with Batman faking his death.

I haven't even read Knigthfall, but from what I understand, Alfred leaves Batman after he was attacked by Bane because he was afraid Bats wouldn't be so lucky to survive if he were to go back and fight for a second time. That made more sense. If TDKR had Bruce Wayne committed to being as Batman for eight years to the point he was losing his identity and life as Bruce Wayne, and a flashback sequence showed Alfred deciding to leave him because he didn't want Bruce to be trapped into this monster anymore, that would've made more sense. But what we got in TDKR was very poorly done, in my opinion.

As for Jeremy Irons' Alfred? You can definitely tell how bitter he is over how cruel and paranoid Bruce has become. Yet for all his talk about how good men become cruel because of rage and feeling powerless, you can say that Alfred was equally powerless because he can't persuade Bruce from stopping his prejudice towards Superman. I wish they had showed him in the ending, or even have him witnessing Bruce regaining a sense of purpose in the end.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 17 May  2016, 11:16But by the end of TDK, I just stopped caring about Alfred. I got very annoyed with his constant pretentious monologues along with the Joker, and the whole business over keeping Rachel's letter a secret for eight years doesn't hold water if you ask me.

If you stopped caring that's not Alfred or the movie's fault.

QuoteHe explains that he burned the letter to spare Bruce pain. But he failed miserably because keeping the letter a secret caused exactly that. Bruce was misled into believing Rachel would've gotten together with him if she were still alive, and it made him depressed and reclusive as time passed by. Not only did Alfred decided to tell the truth when Bruce had already reached the end of his rope eight years later, he decides to leave him and discourage him from coming back as Batman - despite a new threat is emerging in Gotham City. That's illogical, and even negligent on Alfred's part.

Alfred was right. If it hadn't been for Batman, Bane and his men would have likely been caught by the police. Batman at this point in the story isn't helpful and Bruce can't defeat Bane. Alfred knows that. And he was right.

QuoteAll movies have plot conveniences but this wasn't particularly done well at all. I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew a close friend of mine was becoming dead inside because they thought they were deprived of something so deeply, and only I knew the truth of what really happened, I'd quickly tell them the truth before things get any worse.

Alfred had no idea why Bruce was acting the way he was until he told him in the hallway scene where Alfred left.

QuoteIt didn't help that Alfred and Bruce didn't even reconcile from their falling out, unless you want to count that silly nod to the head in that underwhelming ending. I also don't like how Alfred spoke about the "truth should have its day", yet the film ends with Batman faking his death.

It's only underwhelming if you want it to be. Faking his death has nothing to with the truth not having it's day. All of Bruce's friends know he's alive at the end. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 17 May  2016, 11:16

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 16 May  2016, 15:48
If we want to compare Alfred's, one classic trait is that Alfred stays in the batcave and helps Batman while he's out in the field. Gough did this with Keaton in the final act of Returns (helping him save gotham from the penguin attacks), Caine NEVER did this. The extent of him interacting with Batman was usually criticizing the way he handled things. And don't tell me Lucious fox helping Batman catch the Joker through sonar in the dark knight is the same thing, it wasn't the batcave and it wasn't Alfred. Morgan Freeman played his role well but there's a special bond between Batman and Alfred that just wasn't there in that series partially due to Fox. I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever). I think people gave Caines's character a pass because he was great in the third act of the first film.

I may have told you about this before in the past, but I liked Caine's Alfred in BB because he was the concerned parental figure who did the best he could to look after Bruce from childhood, and tried to convince Bruce not to disgrace the family name when he was becoming reckless. He always stood by him no matter what. I have a lot of problems with BB, but Caine alongside Gary Oldman's Gordon were by far the two things I appreciate in that movie.

But by the end of TDK, I just stopped caring about Alfred. I got very annoyed with his constant pretentious monologues along with the Joker, and the whole business over keeping Rachel's letter a secret for eight years doesn't hold water if you ask me.

He explains that he burned the letter to spare Bruce pain. But he failed miserably because keeping the letter a secret caused exactly that. Bruce was misled into believing Rachel would've gotten together with him if she were still alive, and it made him depressed and reclusive as time passed by. Not only did Alfred decided to tell the truth when Bruce had already reached the end of his rope eight years later, he decides to leave him and discourage him from coming back as Batman - despite a new threat is emerging in Gotham City. That's illogical, and even negligent on Alfred's part. All movies have plot conveniences but this wasn't particularly done well at all. I don't know about anybody else, but if I knew a close friend of mine was becoming dead inside because they thought they were deprived of something so deeply, and only I knew the truth of what really happened, I'd quickly tell them the truth before things get any worse.

It didn't help that Alfred and Bruce didn't even reconcile from their falling out, unless you want to count that silly nod to the head in that underwhelming ending. I also don't like how Alfred spoke about the "truth should have its day", yet the film ends with Batman faking his death.

I haven't even read Knigthfall, but from what I understand, Alfred leaves Batman after he was attacked by Bane because he was afraid Bats wouldn't be so lucky to survive if he were to go back and fight for a second time. That made more sense. If TDKR had Bruce Wayne committed to being as Batman for eight years to the point he was losing his identity and life as Bruce Wayne, and a flashback sequence showed Alfred deciding to leave him because he didn't want Bruce to be trapped into this monster anymore, that would've made more sense. But what we got in TDKR was very poorly done, in my opinion.

As for Jeremy Irons' Alfred? You can definitely tell how bitter he is over how cruel and paranoid Bruce has become. Yet for all his talk about how good men become cruel because of rage and feeling powerless, you can say that Alfred was equally powerless because he can't persuade Bruce from stopping his prejudice towards Superman. I wish they had showed him in the ending, or even have him witnessing Bruce regaining a sense of purpose in the end.

One of Alfred (in various interpretations) traits is that he worries about what will happen to Bruce after he dies and if Bruce will truly be alone in the world. In most interpretations Bruce is resistant to Robin and sidekicks but it is Alfred who encourages him. In irons case, at least one Robin has come and gone and Bruce is alone. Although it's not shown I'd think he'd be happy about the JLA forming and Bruce feeing less alone.

I liked Alfred in Begins as well; he was there for young Bruce when his parents died and did his best to ensure Bruce doesn't blame himself. He welcomed Bruce back to gotham. Even though it predates Earth One I felt Alfred gave Bruce some tough love here to help mold him for the things he would need to worry about as a vigilante (explaining scars and alibis) and of course saved Bruce when the mansion burned down.

In the sequels though it seemed as if Alfred was criticizing Bruce and making him feel responsible for every bad things that happened including the mob aligning with the Joker in response to Bruce crossing the line. The only time he showed bruce any real compassion or gave him the benefit of the doubt was after Rachel died reminding Bruce Rachel believed in what he stood for and encouraging Bruce to be gothams only hope with Dent's injury. The timing for Alfred leaving Bruce in TDKR was horrendous; Bruce just donned the cowl again, was about to go up against an overmatched opponent, his company got bankrupted. Again I reiterate we never got a single scene of Caines Alfred in the batcave (or anywhere else) on the computer radioing into Batman helping him in the field the way Gough did in returns and Irons did in BvS.

I've brought up before how Nolan got a pass for doing the same things Sam Raimi got criticized for in spider-man 3.

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

QuoteWhile we're discussing this, their relationship is very beautiful to me in Batman & Robin. I like it so much. Michael, I think it's safe to say for me, is the actor I compare Alfred's to. Him and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.. They've so far been my favorite. I was working on a Batman tv series pitch, and when I was thinking about Alfred, I pretty had an image of them in my head when coming up with it. That said, I like Sean Pertwee quite a bit on Gotham. Have a very great day everyone!

Gough was the best thing in a bad film. Batman & Robin would have been a bigger disaster without Alfred. It really sums up what we discussed earlier; Alfred fearing Bruce will be alone due to trust issues, Alfred reminding Bruce he shant be here forever. After all Alfred does for bruce it is assuring to know that he felt his life taking after heroes fulfilling.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 17 May  2016, 16:10In the sequels though it seemed as if Alfred was criticizing Bruce and making him feel responsible for every bad things that happened including the mob aligning with the Joker in response to Bruce crossing the line. The only time he showed bruce any real compassion or gave him the benefit of the doubt was after Rachel died reminding Bruce Rachel believed in what he stood for and encouraging Bruce to be gothams only hope with Dent's injury. The timing for Alfred leaving Bruce in TDKR was horrendous; Bruce just donned the cowl again, was about to go up against an overmatched opponent, his company got bankrupted. Again I reiterate we never got a single scene of Caines Alfred in the batcave (or anywhere else) on the computer radioing into Batman helping him in the field the way Gough did in returns and Irons did in BvS.

Bruce donning the cowl was the reason he left. He said that it was only way he had left to make him understand. In his words, he's not Batman anymore. He says that he thinks Bruce is doing this to get himself killed, get himself a good death in sense.

QuoteI've brought up before how Nolan got a pass for doing the same things Sam Raimi got criticized for in spider-man 3.

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

I liked both. But those 2 secret keeping situations are very different.

QuoteGough was the best thing in a bad film. Batman & Robin would have been a bigger disaster without Alfred. It really sums up what we discussed earlier; Alfred fearing Bruce will be alone due to trust issues, Alfred reminding Bruce he shant be here forever. After all Alfred does for bruce it is assuring to know that he felt his life taking after heroes fulfilling.

I don't know what you're talking about. Batman & Robin rocked. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

It's not anywhere near the top of my tree, but Batman and Robin doesn't have my hate anymore either. It's very rewatchable, which frankly, is what entertainment is all about.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 17 May  2016, 16:10
I've brought up before how Nolan got a pass for doing the same things Sam Raimi got criticized for in spider-man 3.

We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

Very good point. I didn't like it when that happened in Spider-Man 3 either.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 18 May  2016, 04:39
It's not anywhere near the top of my tree, but Batman and Robin doesn't have my hate anymore either. It's very rewatchable, which frankly, is what entertainment is all about.

It certainly has its flaws, but I can objectively say it has some heart too.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 17 May  2016, 16:10We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 18 May  2016, 13:35But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

But that was only done because the order came from the producers to have Mary-Jane be kidnapped. She was originally going to give a speech about forgiveness to Harry to get him to help Peter and help him save Gwen, who Venom had kidnapped. Here's the image of the scene:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F67.media.tumblr.com%2F90d2c53769054e9e252e34a6dff10dc8%2Ftumblr_inline_n7fd1eXTr21qm2l3k.png&hash=f1dcd4b5f68b309aef81884b8d444e3f2a88458d)
Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 18 May  2016, 13:35

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 17 May  2016, 16:10We all know Nolan gave Dent/two face the Eddie Brock/Venom treatment yet Raimi got vilified for it while Nolan got praised. Yet another thing Raimi got criticized heavily for was having the butler hold onto a key piece of information that would have affected the boss motivation for years. Somehow it's not okay for Harry Osborns butler to withhold Norman being killed by himself instead of Spider-man yet it's okay that Alfred burned Rachels letter to Bruce telling him she will marry Harvey Dent and lets Bruce grieve for 8 years over it?

But the two situations are completely different.

Alfred may have made a mistake in withholding the letter from Bruce, but he did it with the best intentions, to spare Bruce's feelings of a woman he wrongly believed still loved him (Nolan's analogy with A Tale of Two Cities, and the love triangle that takes place in that film is a guide to what he was going for here, with Rachel wrongly choosing the seemingly honourable Harvey over the ultimately more noble Bruce).  Harry's butler had no such good reason for withholding the truth about Spider-Man from Harry, and this reveal was clearly a deus ex machina contrivance in order to allow for a last-minute resolution between Harry and Peter.

I perceived it as the butler not wanting to sully tarnish Harry's memories of his late father (the same reason why Peter brings Norman back and puts him to bed). At the time of death Harry didn't know Norman was the green goblin.


It's weird the inverse relationship of the Schumacher films and Nolan films.

At the time of Batman begins, Nolan gave the fans what they wanted; a Batman film which is realistic and takes itself seriously and focused more on Bruce Wayne. After the third film though many people found it boring and having departed from the character and overall lack of fun or entertainment. The two directors went to both ends of the spectrum; Nolan took himself too seriously, Schumacher not serious enough. I think a lot of people who hated the dark knight rises gravitated back to the Schumacher films and realize he got some stuff right.  I guess it's nice that we have both versions of the character; I can't think of any flaws which exist in both films everything one director got wrong, the other got right.


Dagenspear thanks for posting but one small correction; the producers didnt make the call to make MJ the damsel in distress a third time, as you said the initial plan was have Gwen in danger but Bryce Dallas Howard was pregnant and couldn't do that action scene.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 18 May  2016, 14:16Dagenspear thanks for posting but one small correction; the producers didnt make the call to make MJ the damsel in distress a third time, as you said the initial plan was have Gwen in danger but Bryce Dallas Howard was pregnant and couldn't do that action scene.

Sam Raimi said in the audio commentary that it was because the producers told him to. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 18 May  2016, 14:14
But that was only done because the order came from the producers to have Mary-Jane be kidnapped. She was originally going to give a speech about forgiveness to Harry to get him to help Peter and help him save Gwen, who Venom had kidnapped. Here's the image of the scene:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F67.media.tumblr.com%2F90d2c53769054e9e252e34a6dff10dc8%2Ftumblr_inline_n7fd1eXTr21qm2l3k.png&hash=f1dcd4b5f68b309aef81884b8d444e3f2a88458d)
Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Damn!  That would have been so much better.  I hated MJ being the damsel-in-distress again.  It would have made far more sense if that role had gone to Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard).  Plus, it would have resolved my issue with the last minute contrivance concerning the butler (although I do accept riddler's very good point about the butler wishing not to tarnish Harry's positive image of his father).

Oh well, I guess this is just another of those frustrating 'what could have been' moments.  :(

I watched the film with the commentary, they definitely confirm the script had Gwen in distress (I actually didn't know what MJ's role in the finale would have been until dagenspear posted it). Kirsten Dunst made a sly jab at Bryce Dallas Howard for getting pregnant and forcing MJ to be in despair one more time. Even though details for the next film are conflicted, most report that the plan was for Gwen Stacey to relieve MJ as the love interest.

It's too bad they aren't releasing a directors cut, there are some good scenes I've heard about but never seen actual footage of; Peter looking in the mirror and seeing venom, Flint Marko turning himself into sand so his daughter could make a castle out of him (apparently Eddie Brock saw this and that's how he knew Marko was the sandman). Also an extended battle at the end including Venom fighting Harry on his glider.

I think this film gets an unfair rap and isn't as bad as perceived.

Since we never got a fourth film, I'm actually pleased that MJ was never replaced by Gwen as Peter's love interest.

Unlike TASM films, Sam Raimi's unofficial trilogy, whether by accident or by design, seems complete and sufficiently resolved by the final scene.  Harry has made up with Peter, Spider-Man has defeated his biggest foe yet, and MJ and Peter are united and together, staring at a beautiful sunset.  And remember, as Peter says at the start of the first Spider-Man film, this is a story about a girl.  So in that sense the entire Peter/MJ arc is tied-up.

Re: Ben Affleck is Batman

What I've come to realize over time is that, at least for right now, Bruce's struggles and arcs in this movie hit home for me more than Superman's. Maybe it's just the fact that the future is at best shaky for the DCEU right this moment but Affleck's take on Batman is what grabs me the most about BvS.

He's a tough, brutal version of the Batman and he's been in an increasingly bad mood ever since Zod and Superman tore up Metropolis.

I said in some other post that my big regret about a solo Affleck Batman movie is Zack Snyder won't direct it. I mostly stand by that, though there's more than enough awesome stuff set up in BvS that it's really hard to imagine a solo Affleck film going wrong somehow.

As a filmgoing experience, BvS is entertaining. But in terms of where it leaves the ball for future movies (especially with Superman), I'm starting to think people are right to be concerned. The Batman stuff is all tip-top though.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Jun  2016, 13:47
As a filmgoing experience, BvS is entertaining. But in terms of where it leaves the ball for future movies (especially with Superman), I'm starting to think people are right to be concerned.

In what way?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 27 Jun  2016, 13:58In what way?

It was touched upon a few posts above mine. But specifically goings on related to Clark. We know Superman is coming back. Probably soon, in fact. But Clark was not only declared dead, the mourners believed they were burying his body. Superman can come back from the dead because Superman. But how does Clark come back without giving up any pretense of a secret identity?

That's a fair point. I'm not sure how they'll bring back Clark's persona. Superman full time seems like the direction they're heading down. But we'll see.

But back to Batman - Affleck is the best as far as I am concerned. So much so, I bought a DC Collectibles statue of his Batman and a die-cast metal BvS Batmobile. Affleck is also a genuine lifelong fan. It's not essential, but I like knowing he enjoys the character and his world as much as me. It's not just PR spin.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 28 Jun  2016, 04:15But back to Batman - Affleck is the best as far as I am concerned. So much so, I bought a DC Collectibles statue of his Batman and a die-cast metal BvS Batmobile. Affleck is also a genuine lifelong fan. It's not essential, but I like knowing he enjoys the character and his world as much as me. It's not just PR spin.

What I appreciate about it all is how it so far looks like it's being geared toward an enduring franchise rather than another freaking trilogy. The Affleck version of Batman is a character with a long, dense history and what looks like a long, dense future.

I think you could do a sh*tload of things with this version of Batman, including prequels with a younger actor. So little of his backstory is really defined. You could do prequels that define his backstory, sequels starring Affleck and also team up movies. I doubt prequels will happen. But you could do it if you wanted!

I'm really not trying to beat this to death but this version of Batman has my FULL attention.

I have an idea for Batfleck's final film. Basically, have him appear in about seven or eight films if that is possible. He's already looked in for about four, including BvS. So you have him going from a dark and brutal machine who nearly kills Superman, to someone seeking out meta humans to form a crime fighting group. You see an arc develop. He seems more trusting. He seems a little lighter, even though it's still the goddamn Batman. He develops relationships with the other League members. And then the final Batfleck appearance happens, which in my mind is a Tower of Babel adaption. You see despite his character growth, and improved relations with the other heroes, he always had a deep seated apprehension about it all. A backup plan to take them all down if need be. Which brings it back to the Batman v Superman conflict, where it all originated. Superman votes Batman out of the League, and Batman goes it alone. Back to being the loner fighting his own corner. It's not exactly happy stuff, but I think it'd be bold.

I hope no superhero trilogies are ever attempted the way Nolans was. He closed the door so there's no room for a prequel or sequel for the character, the only possible hope could be an interquel between the first and second films. Had he closed the door in a way that Gotham doesn't find out Bruce is Batman, BvS would likely be set in the same universe as they clearly didn't want to bother telling much of a backstory on the character, only what the character was doing during Man of Steel.

I wouldn't be opposed to eventually retiring the character of Bruce Wayne and having Dick Grayson eventually take the cowl. That can be done here, we don't know who the dead Robin is. It's assumed there isn't a 'current' Robin but it's possible and there's no reason to believe Nightwing doesn't exist currently. Based on how Batman takes things personally with Superman in the film, it's likely he wouldn't want a sidekicks help he wanted to take down Superman one on one.

Given the technology Civil War used to de-age RDJ I don't see why we couldn't see Affleck play a younger Bruce Wayne. I think they do want to establish their JLA. I'm not sure if Affleck will still be around by then but I'd love to see his character become allies with an aged Green Arrow and clash with a cocky Green Lantern.

I think it's apparent Batfleck's old allies have grown up and gone their own way. I'm sure Grayson's Nightwing is busy in Bludhaven. I recall it being confirmed somewhere Jason Todd was the Robin that was killed. But I'm hoping he comes back as Red Hood down the line. It's a cinematic goldmine, and would strengthen that brief BvS scene.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  1 Jul  2016, 12:51
I think it's apparent Batfleck's old allies have grown up and gone their own way. I'm sure Grayson's Nightwing is busy in Bludhaven. I recall it being confirmed somewhere Jason Todd was the Robin that was killed. But I'm hoping he comes back as Red Hood down the line. It's a cinematic goldmine, and would strengthen that brief BvS scene.

I've never enjoyed the idea of bringing Jason back. For one thing, people paid real money for the character to be killed off. Their preference really should be respected.

But second, to me Jason Todd needs to be Batman's Folly. Jason treated his job like a game because on some level, Batman had begun treating it as a game. In the canon, there was a point when everybody was just doing it for laughs. It wasn't deep, dark, deadly and serious. But then one day it become deep, dark, deadly and serious. And Batman wasn't prepared for that.

Jason should be an eternal reminder to Batman of what can go wrong when you treat this enterprise like a game rather than a crusade.

One thing I want to see in solo Batfleck movies is Batman use technology to further his own myth. If he knows for a fact that on Tuesday night he'll beat the sh*t out of a bunch of mobsters or something in their hideout, he'll break into their hideout on Monday night, plant speakers around the place, hide squibs and small explosives and other crap so that when he swoops in on Tuesday night, it'll sound like his electronic voice is emanating from everywhere, stuff is blowing up at random and the criminals are basically peeing their pants.

Batman's entire existence is predicated upon making people believe he's something he's not. Everybody in Gotham thinks Bruce is a shallow, lunkheaded playboy. But we know better. The criminals in Gotham City should question if Batman is a guy in a mask, if he's a ghost, an alien, a demon, a monster or whatever else. I think Batman would put a premium on muddying the waters to enhance his reputation.

No, he can't plant crazy stuff like that everywhere he goes. But if he does it often enough, rumors about his "paranormal" abilities will circulate the Gotham underworld. The ambiguity of it will enhance his reputation and spread fear and paranoia.

That's how I've always wanted to see Batman done and I hope that's the direction Affleck goes.

Red Hood appearing is cinematic bliss because it allows Batman to confront his nightmare of failure face to face. The lasting memory of his old partner is changed and for the worse. He's not just the headstrong kid, but now the headstrong kid who hates Batman's guts and is prepared to kill him. That's an escalation which, in my mind, improves the groundwork already laid. And here's the real advantage. Todd taunts Batman about why he just doesn't kill the Joker and be done with it. In BvS, Batman went down that ruthless path and nearly lost himself to the darkness. He can express this to Todd, and also be tempted to go down that path again. But ultimately, he remains on his path of discipline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oWFMGm58K8

As a fan of the Cash song and Affleck's Batman, I thought this was appropriate to post here.

So, the great Batfleck's kill count has been compiled in a single video...

https://youtu.be/GgkQS7q6sT0

...brought to you by the same guy who compiled the last Batman kill count in live action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=psVIG7YvdjM

According to the videos, this is the overall tally of kills per actor:

• Ben Affleck: 21
• Michael Keaton: 20
• Christian Bale: 15
• Val Kilmer: 9
• Adam West: 1
• George Clooney: 0*

*See, BatmAngelus told you it's an awkward feeling.  :-[

Batfleck should go on another drunken tirade condemning this overblown and hypocritical fuss.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0xtMbxXBJ9w/maxresdefault.jpg)

Most deadly Batman yet? Sure, but at least he's honest about it.  8)

In other news, there's a rumour suggesting the solo Bat movie will take place in Arkham Asylum. I doubt it's true, but if it were, I'd like it to be as intense and claustrophobic as Dredd 2012, another movie were the hero is trapped with his back against the wall.

Source: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/07/19/ben-afflecks-solo-batman-movie-rumored-to-be-set-in-arkham-asylum

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 20 Jul  2016, 12:52
So, the great Batfleck's kill count has been compiled in a single video...

https://youtu.be/GgkQS7q6sT0

...brought to you by the same guy who compiled the last Batman kill count in live action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=psVIG7YvdjM

According to the videos, this is the overall tally of kills per actor:

• Ben Affleck: 21
• Michael Keaton: 20
• Christian Bale: 15
• Val Kilmer: 9
• Adam West: 1
• George Clooney: 0*

*See, BatmAngelus told you it's an awkward feeling.  :-[

Batfleck should go on another drunken tirade condemning this overblown and hypocritical fuss.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0xtMbxXBJ9w/maxresdefault.jpg)

Most deadly Batman yet? Sure, but at least he's honest about it.  8)

In other news, there's a rumour suggesting the solo Bat movie will take place in Arkham Asylum. I doubt it's true, but if it were, I'd like it to be as intense and claustrophobic as Dredd 2012, another movie were the hero is trapped with his back against the wall.

Source: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/07/19/ben-afflecks-solo-batman-movie-rumored-to-be-set-in-arkham-asylum

Kneel before Fleck. The best thing to happen to the character since Michael Keaton. His kill count is so high because he's war weary with a sense of powerlessness. Deal with it haters. And I think the Arkham rumour for the solo will be true. At least for part of the movie. Lots of villain cameos, Batman having to use all his gadgets and skills to survive, etc, etc. It would be a good concept.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Jul  2016, 13:36Kneel before Fleck. The best thing to happen to the character since Michael Keaton. His kill count is so high because he's war weary with a sense of powerlessness. Deal with it haters. And I think the Arkham rumour for the solo will be true. At least for part of the movie. Lots of villain cameos, Batman having to use all his gadgets and skills to survive, etc, etc. It would be a good concept.

I think there's a lot of mojo to the idea of doing a storyline at least somewhat based on one of the Arkham games. We've seen a ton of things in Batman movies in the past. But one thing we've never seen is a story that takes place all in one night. I've wanted something like that from a Batman movie for decades. An Arkham type of story might be a useful vehicle for that.

Or not, I dunno...

It's like once you hear about a Batman movie featuring multiple villains, Arkham would be the next logical step to go. It's obvious. Course Affleck and Johns could always deviate from what's expected for the sakes of originality, which is fine, but then again, since the Arkham formula is not broken and they can more than likely improve upon it .....

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 20 Jul  2016, 22:27It's like once you hear about a Batman movie featuring multiple villains, Arkham would be the next logical step to go. It's obvious. Course Affleck and Johns could always deviate from what's expected for the sakes of originality, which is fine, but then again, since the Arkham formula is not broken and they can more than likely improve upon it .....

Mmm, actually that brings up something I didn't consider before. Arkham has tons of villains in it. Probably the majority of Batman's rogue's gallery. That might not leave a whole lot for future movies to develop.

I think it would be important to feature Gotham City in some way. We haven't really received a true feel of this new interpretation of the city. I like the idea of this solo Batman movie presenting Batman at a great disadvantage. But from this, his resourcefulness and heroism comes shining through. The whole 'I'm not trapped, you're locked in here with ME' mindset. It would be pretty badass if done correctly. As for the villains, I think Joker should be the main man pulling the strings, just like the game. Let Leto have more to do. With maybe a couple of 'boss fights' with other criminals, and cameos for the rest.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Jul  2016, 03:32I think it would be important to feature Gotham City in some way. We haven't really received a true feel of this new interpretation of the city. I like the idea of this solo Batman movie presenting Batman at a great disadvantage. But from this, his resourcefulness and heroism comes shining through. The whole 'I'm not trapped, you're locked in here with ME' mindset. It would be pretty badass if done correctly. As for the villains, I think Joker should be the main man pulling the strings, just like the game. Let Leto have more to do. With maybe a couple of 'boss fights' with other criminals, and cameos for the rest.

Somebody get this man an agent and a WGA card, stat!

There's a lot they could do with the concept. Calling in vehicles like a new Batwing. Oracle on his earpiece. Maybe even the secret batcave. But I do think it would be imperative to make the movie feel original, even though it's influenced by various existing media. Affleck has said as much, anyway, so that wouldn't be a genuine concern. Just as BvS has its fair  share of TDK Returns influences, but went down its own path. Which leads people to think Snyder 'doesn't get' that graphic novel.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Jul  2016, 13:36
Kneel before Fleck. The best thing to happen to the character since Michael Keaton.

When it comes to live action, hell yeah!

When I watched the Ultimate Edition recently, the warehouse fight scene had one cut that I don't think was seen in the theatrical version. As soon as Batfleck had finished beating everybody up, he goes back to face the crook who stabbed him in the shoulder moments earlier. Now that he's pinned against the wall with his own knife, the scumbag cowers as Bats gives him this incredibly enraged staredown. Think Michael Keaton, but on steroids.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FffUlc2n.png&hash=cf973a5032a236eeba43aa94464e64ede1bfdf7e)

Judging by the painful sound of the guy's screams, it appears that Batman had crushed his nuts.

As TDK's Joker says...

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimoviequotes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2F2-The-Dark-Knight-quotes.gif&hash=e1c823b92e1c0cdc99dc250261c908e5fe520c58)

Yeah, I love that moment. Truly a sight you would fear and want to avoid. I have to give it to Affleck. When that mask goes on, he transforms into the character big time. He's big, mean and ready to kick ass at all times.

I almost feel bad for Affleck. Both superhero films he did came out to mixed reviews in theatres but acclaimed directors cuts. The poor guys talents had been reserved for deleted scenes.

The same is arguably true of Val Kilmer in Batman Forever. Some of his finest scenes ended up on the cutting room floor.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 25 Jul  2016, 15:51
I almost feel bad for Affleck. Both superhero films he did came out to mixed reviews in theatres but acclaimed directors cuts. The poor guys talents had been reserved for deleted scenes.

In terms of characters, Clark Kent gets short-changed in the theatrical cut. The Ultimate Edition fleshed out his antipathy towards Batman, and explores how he thought the police were approving Batman's ruthless methods. That explained why Clark gave Bruce that one warning after crashing the Batmobile, instead of turning him in. There's also a scene where Clark seeks wisdom from Martha after watching the divisive news coverage about Superman on TV, which was sorely needed in the theatrical cut.

From what I've seen, Affleck's performance in BvS has garnered acclaim, even from critics. I thought he was alright in Daredevil. Not as good as Charlie Cox, but alright nonetheless.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 26 Jul  2016, 12:07


From what I've seen, Affleck's performance in BvS has garnered acclaim, even from critics. I thought he was alright in Daredevil. Not as good as Charlie Cox, but alright nonetheless.

I haven't seen the ultimate edition, it'll probably be a while for me, I typically don't like seeing films within a year of seeing them in theatres, I'd rather let them sit with me.

You're right though even the critics who trashed the film admit that Affleck did well, the only ones criticizing his performance are (surprise) the Nolanites.

Daredevil the best scenes were on the cutting room floor. The best IMO was the scene in which the blind Murdock attempts to drive the corrupt cop's mercedes and the overall deleted plotline of Murdock and Nelson defending a lowlife wrongly accused of murder.

(https://67.media.tumblr.com/c863cb3178f33ec4fc40fe0ef834c275/tumblr_o9jrx8JOgD1twi2hjo3_500.gif)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/442b7decc3d1fa77d5f4f2fcbf2315b9/tumblr_o9jrx8JOgD1twi2hjo2_500.gif)

This is just glorious, and check those visuals. We haven't had a live action Batman like this before. It's basically the energetic, athletic Batman of the animated series brought to life. Grappling around the landscape like an old pro.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 Aug  2016, 09:21(https://66.media.tumblr.com/442b7decc3d1fa77d5f4f2fcbf2315b9/tumblr_o9jrx8JOgD1twi2hjo2_500.gif)

This is just glorious, and check those visuals. We haven't had a live action Batman like this before. It's basically the energetic, athletic Batman of the animated series brought to life. Grappling around the landscape like an old pro.

One of many things to admire about this iteration of Batman.

And he later throws a lead based smoke grenade, covering his escape. Quick thinking and smarts. That's how a human being manages to stay alive against such overwhelming obstacles. Love it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 Aug  2016, 09:21
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/c863cb3178f33ec4fc40fe0ef834c275/tumblr_o9jrx8JOgD1twi2hjo3_500.gif)

Anyone else spot the Ace Chemicals factory in the background?

I want Affleck in as many films as possible. So far it seems like:

BvS
Justice League
Batman solo film
Justice League 2

He has the Suicide Squad cameo, which is very brief. And possibly something at the end of Wonder Woman.

I hope he does more, but if there's two DC films a year from now on, and Batman isn't in them, Affleck's only getting older and the opportunities become less. But who knows what the future holds. He's just too good to waste.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqtRO0gK.jpg&hash=339522b09e05ab2050ed07b2ea1afcee95cf9ca8)

A site makes a few points about Batfleck going forward from Suicide Squad:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/4030213

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Aug  2016, 23:47
A site makes a few points about Batfleck going forward from Suicide Squad:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/4030213

I am well aware one of the criticisms is the lack of Joker but there has to be more to come. With the Joker apparently killing Robin and corrupting Harley, things are personal with the Joker and the Bat. I'm not sure how much time passes between Harley giving the Joker the machine gun and the end of the film but it seems implied that the Joker has been on the loose for quite some time uncaptured by Batman. So maybe that can be a trait from the comics which the movies (safe for the West series) haven't quite captured until now;

Keaton had no trouble tracking Nicholson but the problem was that he had a big part of the public and police force on his side for most of the film so it wasn't capturing him which would be the conflict for Batman but rather bringing him to justice.

Bale only has 3 scenes with the joker on the outside; one where he does help Gordon capture the joker (intentionally), one in which the Joker attacks the pent house and the final confrontation. The latter two scenes we remain unsure how they ended because of weird editing. The Joker does kind of hint in their final confrontation "we're destined to do this forever" but then that's it for the character.

Leto can be what Nolan talked bout Ledger being; the eternal torementor of Batman. Essentially Batman's kryptonite in which he continues to evade him and the one mystery the world's greatest detective can't seem to solve.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Aug  2016, 23:47
A site makes a few points about Batfleck going forward from Suicide Squad:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/4030213

Maybe I'm just missing something but I guess I blanked out when Harley was implicated (I really wish these Cheetoh-munching bloggers wouldn't use big words if they don't know their meaning) in Robin's death... or whatever happened there.

As to Batman not covering his tracks, well, Lex Luthor apparently had no trouble figuring it out.

In my mind, Puddin crowbarred Jason Todd to death and Harley stood by as a witness. Guilty by association. All Puddin would've had to have done is sweet talk the situation. Say Robin and Batman are standing in the way of their ultimate happiness, and killing Robin is one step closer to realising that paradise.

Affleck says "I'm not Batman" as he officially retires his cowl on the Jimmy Kimmel show.


Meanwhile Forbes has reported that Robbie's Harley Quinn will not be appearing in James Gunn's Suicide Squad reboot. They're also reporting the Leto Joker movie is cancelled.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/02/13/why-the-future-of-dceu-movies-looks-brighter-than-ever/#f675f7e5cc67

Considering Leto's involvement with the new Morbius film, it seems unlikely we'll be seeing his version of the Joker again now.

The Robbie thing was a surprise. She was the breakout character of the first movie. It's strange that the character looks like she's being abandoned. Suicide Squad came out long enough ago that Robbie should've already made a return appearance as Harley.

I understand that WB is on very shaky and unpredictable ground right now. But they really need to shine spotlights on their few major successes to strengthen their brand.

I realize I'm being a bit of a backseat driver here but COME ON!!!!

This was in the article when I went to it:

Quote[UPDATE: I have learned from sources close to production that in fact, the information about Harley Quinn being absent from the new Suicide Squad movie is no longer up to date -- she is indeed expected to appear in James Gunn's The Suicide Squad, which is expected to begin production later this year.]

Yes, it seems Robbie's Harley Quinn is in the movie after all. If Leto's Joker has indeed been retired, then that makes her the new clown prince(ss) of the DCEU.

Snyder made recent comments about Batman's body count in BvS:

Quote"Once you've lost your virginity to this f***ing movie and then you come and say to me something about like 'my superhero wouldn't do that.' I'm like 'Are you serious?' I'm like down the f***ing road on that.

"It's a cool point of view to be like 'my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn't f***ing lie to America. My heroes didn't embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn't commit any atrocities.' That's cool. But you're living in a f***ing dream world."

Snyder indulges in comic iconography and references galore, however he takes a true real world approach when it comes to his depiction of superheroes. It's what grounded Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice. He pushes the material into what some call uncomfortable places – case in point the Metropolis fight with the falling skyscrapers. That sequence alone wipes the floor with anything Marvel. And this approach translates right across the board.

If a real world Batman enters a room and is surrounded by 10-15 heavies, eggs are going to be broken. Moral codes are all well and good, but what does a no kill policy mean when you're about to be killed yourself? Central to everything is your own survival. Even the world's best martial artist is going to be overwhelmed by grenade throwing machine gunners.

As the Dawn of Justice warehouse fight demonstrates, you don't just need skill, but also improvisation and luck. Batman gets shot in the head with a pistol and he also gets stabbed. The real world isn't perfect and clean. If grenades need to be flung back, and crates need to be thrown at heads, you do it. Seconds count, or it's you on the ground. Entering a hostile arena is an acceptance that you will be engaging in violence, and in the fight for your life, other may need to be taken.

Is this a pure representation of the Batman comics? It depends on what comics you're referring to (TDK Returns, Kingdom Come and the early days). Though for me, Snyder's Batman hits the right notes. He's a dark character driven by obsession, using his depression as a superpower. His violence is at a high level because it needs to be when you're attempting a real one man war on crime. That's Batman with a capital B.

Some people will just never get Snyder. I'm not trashing the comics because they are the root of everything, but Snyder elevated them for the sake of cinema. Superman is great because we know he is. But don't kid yourself, folks. He would be booed, harassed and taken advantage of in 2019. This is translated to 'Snyder hates and mistreats Superman'.

Batman may not want to take lives, but it's very likely he will have to through the course of his duties. As Snyder said, it's a cool point of view to think real world heroes would be pure and loved by all, but you're living in a dream world. Hate, fear and depression are substantial themes and Snyder tapped into those to deliver something special, even if it spooked the babies.

Even if Batman knew Superman was innocent, I believe he NEEDED to stomp Superman into the ground for the good of his soul. He NEEDED to get that out of his system. Alfred said it all: everything changed. An adult life devoted to fighting the likes of the Penguin and Joker now meant nothing because an alien made him obsolete. Batman HAD to win that fight to justify his entire career. He met that challenge.

So again, Snyder is someone you either like or you don't. If someone in the street asks you why, just walk away. No conversation was progressed on ignorance. You either get it or you don't.

If Burton, Schumacher and Nolan are allowed to exist, Snyder is as well.

There are probably a few different ways to depict a non-killing Batman. One is to a show a process-oriented, surgically precise Batman who never involves himself in situations he cannot absolutely control. The warehouse shootout is exactly what this type of Batman would strive to avoid. That has the virtue of harmonizing with a lot of comics. But it's not a very movie-friendly approach for Batman to take.

Anybody who objects to Snyder's remarks has probably never considered what would most likely happen if someone attempts the warehouse rescue in real life. Affleck's Batman took probably the only course of action that guaranteed his survival.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 26 Mar  2019, 11:29
Anybody who objects to Snyder's remarks has probably never considered what would most likely happen if someone attempts the warehouse rescue in real life. Affleck's Batman took probably the only course of action that guaranteed his survival.

Try telling that to that f***ing idiot Gerry Conway; he went on Twitter to express how grateful he is now Snyder won't work on DC movies ever again, in response to a piece of sh*t clickbait headline taking the director's words out of context.

https://twitter.com/gerryconway/status/1110242693974614024

It's also quite hypocritical of him to even express any distaste of Batman killing people, because in the Batman #340 issue he wrote together with Roy Thomas, Batman punched the Mole to a likely watery grave. An act he did to not only to protect a friend who sought refuge in Wayne Manor, but to defend himself as well. One thing's for sure, the Mole was never seen or heard of ever again after this issue.

(https://i.imgur.com/7MD4J0B.jpg)

What do you expect from Conway though? He is a delusional, hateful old man who has no respect for reality or intellectual honesty.

But even without referring to the many examples of Batman killing in the comics, you only have to look at all the movies in Warner Butchers' catalogue to realise all but one movie where he didn't kill people. Instead, morons (or worse, liars) still act as if Batman killing people was some shocking reinvention. We get degenerates trying desperately hard making excuses when he does kill, with stupid piss poor reasoning such "he didn't mean to do it" or "at least he said he had a moral code (like that means anything when it gets broken all the time)".

As much as you know how much I hold Nolan in such a very low regard for putting such diseased, illogical ideas into his movies, I blame the brainless masses for eating this nonsense up, and encouraging themselves to make such excuses to defend their favourite interpretation when he kills...while remaining completely oblivious they're defending the character's actions they say they're against. Mindless hypocrites. This only goes to show people don't care about characterisations or stories, they want the characters speak in an idealism that somehow make them feel good, regardless if they actually live up to their beliefs or not. These fools never understood the phrase "actions speak louder than words".

I would respect these idiotic detractors so much more, if they had simply dismissed every Hollywood production for failing to live up their supposed moral standards for the character. If that's the hill they want to die on, they should be f***ing consistent about it. But then again, these people are so full of it, they go praise the Wonder Woman movie as the standard all the DC films should aspire...even though she kills too, and just as ruthlessly.

Excuse me if I went a little out of focus there, but nowadays, I'm convinced discourse surrounding pop culture is so dishonest and poisoned more than ever, to the point I don't believe it can be recovered. We can thank "people" like Gerry Conway for that.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 26 Mar  2019, 14:04
Excuse me if I went a little out of focus there, but nowadays, I'm convinced discourse surrounding pop culture is so dishonest and poisoned more than ever, to the point I don't believe it can be recovered. We can thank "people" like Gerry Conway for that.

Following up my previous post, I found this piece of idiocy from some nobody on Twitter, who responded to a BvS fan tweeting about Batman's character arc in BvS. I wasn't even the person who made these original tweets, but the disingenuity astounds me that I can't help but write about it:

https://twitter.com/dc_connections/status/1110660694804844545

Quote
People want to see him approach that line but you go too far if you actually cross it. I'm immediately disinterested when that happens

Don't me laugh. I don't see how anything Batman did in BvS crossed the line any more than, say, blowing up Axis Chemicals full of Joker goons or blowing up an entire temple of temple full of people despite refusing to execute a prisoner, who likely died in the blast too. And walked away without a care in the world about it despite his supposed moral convictions.

Quote
You're better off saying "This is Zach's vision. You guys are scared of change and creativity."

No one willl take you seriously if you say "All versions of Batman mowed people down with machine guns and missile launchers. They're all the same."

Your approach could use work

Translation: people like me are going to hypocritically make excuses for Batman's actions in other movies, and adopt double standards because we say so, and ignore the merits of Batman's character arc in this movie. And blatantly ignore the fact a certain interpretation expressed his so-called stance against guns.

Quote
Spilt whatever hairs you need to. I just gave a reason for your initial tweet

Pointing out people's double standards for forgiving other portrayals over killing isn't "splitting hairs", you delusional idiot. But I guess this is what happens when people refuse to honestly assess the character in live action for so long, they'll be conditioned to come up with such metal gymnastics to justify why other interpretations can get away with criticism for killing, despite their supposed contempt for Batman doing so under any circumstances. What a bunch of hypocritical liars.

And besides, if Batman's violent conduct was played down, his character arc wouldn't be twice as meaningful as it is. There's no way to emphasise with somebody who renews a sense of optimism, gratitude and hope if he didn't fall in a dark place to begin with, never mind overcome.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 26 Mar  2019, 10:42
If Burton, Schumacher and Nolan are allowed to exist, Snyder is as well.

Herein lies the problem: Snyder wasn't allowed to exist any further. You see, whether you like it or not, the movie by Matt Reeves is predicated on the popular narrative that "Zack Snyder single-handedly destroyed the DCEU" and he "didn't get Batman". Because of the very same "sins" people hypocritically praised other Batman movies for having. Sadly, this is NOT going to change any time soon - not unless more people start reflecting and engaging with the material honestly. Always keep that in mind if you do go see the Reeves movie.

I have no love for Warner whatsoever, but as bad and treacherous as that corporation is for their conduct over the last couple of years, online media and brainless masses played their part in sabotaging Affleck's portrayal and JL too. Don't be naive, had people been more intellectually honest and apply a consistent standard when it comes to Batman and Superman for all adaptations AND didn't blow things out of proportion in regards to BvS, things would've been much different, and Warner wouldn't have sabotaged JL in a misguided attempt to make more money. But because criticising DC's shared universe was a hip thing to do, the corporation thought they were going to give mass audiences what they wanted. Instead, they were still ridiculed. This goes to show JL was always going to be piled-on no matter what. Narrative drives online traffic when it comes to film. Not intellectual honesty or even genuine enjoyment, it seems.

Unfortunately, once again, if a movie pays lip service to a certain ideal and it makes them "feel good", people will overlook any deficiency in the story i.e. if the character keeps breaking a rule, doesn't matter, as long as he says what he believes - not what he does. That's the problem. They only care about sentiment, but they don't care about real character development. People love to talk about how "dark" Batman is, but they don't want to see him actually going down that dark road and slowly pulling himself back together again, because he didn't pretend to subscribe to supposed beliefs that made him separate from criminals. I'll say it again, the concept of "actions speaking louder than words" is unheard of to a lot of these people.

Bruce may have he said "Men are still good" in BvS, but judging by people's reaction towards people involved in the production of this movie, he's wrong. Warner sucks, but something else sucks. Like...the public.

(https://i.imgur.com/PIFDnHe.gif)

Finally, this is what Jay Oliva told that self-described "Chris Nolan butt-kisser" on Twitter in regards to the scrapped Affleck script.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6v4xg2X4AAtoIC?format=png&name=small)

To everyone who has been disappointed with this whole ordeal but still want to see what Reeves does, good luck. More power to you. You know where I stand.

Looks like Jay Oliva responded to Jett from BOF. Honestly, dignifying that maroon with any kind of response is simply never a good idea for someone in Oliva's position. I think Jett has enough ego problems as it is without attracting attention from someone of Oliva's station.

To the point though, Oliva logically would've had access to Affleck's Batman script. He's a director in his own right. So if someone like Oliva says the script is good then the script must have been good, period. It's a crying shame that we'll never get to see the movie it would've resulted in.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 18 May  2019, 16:16
To the point though, Oliva logically would've had access to Affleck's Batman script. He's a director in his own right. So if someone like Oliva says the script is good then the script must have been good, period. It's a crying shame that we'll never get to see the movie it would've resulted in.

As you can see in the screenshot, Joe Manganiello endorsed Oliva's comments with a big tick. He's obviously another person who had belief in the material, since he was cast as Deathstroke. Sadly, it seems his cameo in the JL post-credit scene will remain his only appearance. Yet another reason why I won't be giving any more money to Warner's theatrical movies. If those hacks really didn't want to pursue with Affleck's script then they should never have wasted Manganiello's time in the first place. It's yet another example of that corporation's gross mismanagement.

Jay Oliva is a true professional and a gentleman who has always supported and encouraged the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement. Yes, it is beneath him to answer to trolls and deceitful agenda-driven bloggers. But thanks to him, he is giving fans the inspiration to fight back against negative narratives, and never give up fighting for the true vision of JL to see the light of day. He is a real artist. (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/batmanonlinecom_default/images/post/thumbup.gif)

I found this passage below by The Hollywood Reporter. Judging by the sound of it, Affleck was gradually getting pushed out from playing Batman, and Warner Bastards nor Matt Reeves ever wanted him to return.

Quote
Reeves, who was hired to write and direct a new Batman movie in February 2017, was envisioning actors while penning the script, according to sources familiar with the filmmaker's thinking. It helped that this new Batman needed to conform to a defined age bracket. He is written as around 30 years old, and the story is neither another rehashing of his origin nor the tale of a seasoned crimefighter ruling Gotham City. He is Bruce Wayne still trying to find his footing on his way to becoming the genius detective.

This, of course, eliminated Ben Affleck, as THR first reported back in July 2017. (Affleck and Warner Bros. denied the recasting at the time because the actor, who had played the role in Batman v Superman and Justice League, was to have headlined his own stand-alone movie that was sidelined when the studio began rethinking its superhero strategy.)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/how-robert-pattinson-became-batman-1215438?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

When I shared that 2017 video of Reeves saying Affleck would reprise the role for the solo movie last week, my initial thought was maybe the studio made him lie because of PR reasons leading up to JL. But the cynic in me did suspect he might've played a part in his departure. Now reading this article has made that lie even worse.

How wonderful. We go from Affleck congratulating Reeves for getting the job on Twitter, and then this is what happens. Just when I thought my disinterest and antipathy for the Reeves movie couldn't increase any further.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/batmanonlinecom_default/images/post/thumbdown.gif)

So, not only did the gutless studio decided to reshoot JL and still refuse to release the real version by Snyder to this day, it decided to scrap Affleck's vision too. Affleck may have said he couldn't "crack" the script in the last Jimmy Kimmel appearance, but that must've been a PR spin to save face for Warner because it doesn't match Oliva's praise for his script.

And if that's not enough, a few days ago Oliva claimed he had been involved in the development for Affleck's story, presumably for storyboarding:

Quote from: Jay Oliva
I did not just "read" it, I was actively working on with alongside Ben and Geoff Johns for a few months. I was working on the ending when I was pulled off to do reshoots for WW as they worked on a new draft of Ben's script. So I should know what I'm talking about.

https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1135595069266776064

The Wonder Woman reshoots that Oliva is referring to took place in November 2016.
https://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-gal-gadot-reshoots-pregnant/

As a sidenote: I've seen a lot of fans pointing out at Geoff Johns as being instrumental in derailing Snyder's continuity and shake-up of the franchise, since he was executive producer at DC Films and was one of four producers for JL. Allegedly, he was one of the biggest advocates for the JL reshoots, had a hand in the rewrites of WW and other films, and many will certainly get irked that Johns had involvement in Affleck's script. I have no idea how much sway he has, or if he was just a yes-man. Call me naive, but all I know is Warner Butchers - as a whole - burned too many bridges with their broken promises, lies and terrible PR management, and everybody at management and executive level are all responsible for putting everybody in this predicament.

Finally, a fan remade this 80th Anniversary poster on social media, which didn't include Affleck (or Keaton, for that matter). Quite fitting under the circumstances.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8IoIDUWsAA4Uzk.jpg)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  5 Jun  2019, 14:21Judging by the sound of it, Affleck was gradually getting pushed out from playing Batman, and Warner Bastards nor Matt Reeves ever wanted him to return.

It's hard to say who decided it was time for Affleck to leave: WB or Affleck himself. I could see it either. It may even have been a mutual decision.

There are some practical realities to deal with here. One of them is that Affleck was legit aging out of the role the day he signed on for BVS. He would've had to have been replaced sooner or later anyway. Sooner is my bet. It's doubtful he would've been able to renew his contract once he'd reached his cap on the number of films he had to be in.

In the end, maybe the real tragedy is that Affleck signed up to play Batman maybe six or seven years later than would have been preferable. Yeah, that would've conflicted with Nolan's trilogy but the fact remains that Affleck is amazing as Batman and by all rights we should've gotten at least two or three more movies out of him in the role before he called it a day.

As it stands now, he's got one magnificent Batman film, one horrible Batman film and one semi-forgettable Batman cameo under his belt. He deserved better and he deserved more. And so did the fans.

Alas...

To me, all of that is besides the point. The fact of the matter is Warner no longer wanted to pursue with Affleck's script, and the DCEU suddenly became something he didn't sign up for. Or rather, exists in name only. Especially JL, and especially what Reeves actually had in mind, if we are lead to believe from what this article says. Basically, everything associated with Snyder, with the exception of Wonder Woman and Aquaman, was thrown away.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 18 May  2019, 16:16
To the point though, Oliva logically would've had access to Affleck's Batman script. He's a director in his own right. So if someone like Oliva says the script is good then the script must have been good, period. It's a crying shame that we'll never get to see the movie it would've resulted in.

I'm revisiting this because cinematographer Robert Richardson had this to say while he debunked reports claiming he was hired to work for the Matt Reeves movie:

Quote
"I woke up this morning to a slew of text messages, 'Congratulations, I didn't know you were shooting Batman.' I was highly perplexed," he said. "The closest part of reality is that when Ben Affleck was going to direct, I was going to shoot. But I don't know how that got moved into this space."

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinematographer-robert-richardson-denies-he-is-shooting-batman-1225445

If Affleck stayed on and was allowed to make his movie, Richardson would've been the Director of Photography. It appears the movie was getting closer to pre-production before it got scrapped.

Warner Butchers, once again, you've proven to me how sh*t you really are.

Affleck spoke to GQ on camera the other day to look back at his most famous roles, and he spoke very fondly of his experience with BvS. As well as expressing his disappointment in JL, albeit choosing his words rather carefully.

https://youtu.be/ej99nhfsfXo?t=1098

I love how unapologetic and passionate he was for BvS. You can tell he was totally on board with Snyder's vision not only for that film, but for JL and beyond...until those Warner hacks took it away from the director in the most despicable way imaginable. It makes Affleck's support for the Snyder cut and insisting its availability all the more admirable. It also makes me want to kick myself harder for ever doubting his integrity.

I think it's always telling when somebody's co-workers are still supportive of them years later. Seems like nobody who has actually worked with Snyder has negative things to say about Snyder. He comes off like a cool guy in interviews but that's easy to fake. Genuine loyalty from authentic Oscar-winners says it all for me.

By comparison, Brandon Routh spent the three or four years after the release of Superman Returns as a fairly dependable companyman for Warner Bros, the Superman franchise, Bryan Singer, etc. Everything was always rah-rah let's make another type stuff.

More recently, though, Routh was on Michael Rosenbaum's podcast. You could tell that he was being somewhat diplomatic but he made it pretty clear that working with Singer wasn't necessarily the high point of his career. He still has a lot of affection for the character itself but Singer, specifically... well, not so much.

Anyway, point being that if Affleck still gets excited talking about Snyder's original plan after all these years and after everything Affleck himself has been through, yeah, I'd say something about Snyder inspires a lot of loyalty. Cool guy.

Batfleck's true arc in ZSJL has me very excited as it can push the character's existing brooding elements close to their worst case scenario end point. In BvS Batfleck is angry and hunting. In ZSJL he's a functioning depressive out to atone for his sins by making the ultimate sacrifice. This makes Batfleck equally as dark as his BvS incarnation but in a completely different way.

If Batman isn't killed by the Joker, or doesn't reach old age, another scenario is ending himself. No one else is going to beat him otherwise. Under the right circumstances just about anyone can flirt with such feelings. Josstice League's finale was altered to make it seem Batman was overly ambitious and needed rescuing. In truth Batfleck DIDN'T want rescuing. In SnyderLeague he's attracting the parademons because he's suicidal, just like Dylan's Mr Jones. And if he ain't dead already, girl you know the reason why.

This was the equivalent of the very first scene in TDK Returns, where Bruce pushed his racing car beyond its limits and nearly made it a fiery coffin. These heavy duty themes interest me greatly, such as the plight Arthur endures in JOKER. If you're going to have themes don't have small or medium themes. Have heavy duty themes. It's what made BvS so visceral, eliciting such strong reaction.

This arc will be Batfleck's biggest gain, IMO. In real life I must salute Snyder's work in this area, too. This is serious business, especially now with people locked down without work and not much social interaction.

HBO Max replaced the theatrical cut of BvS with the Ultimate Edition a few days ago, and Snyder celebrates by releasing this never-before-seen picture of Knightmare Batman.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcFyTnLUEAIImk6?format=jpg&name=medium)

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1279437343787630593?s=20

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  4 Jul  2020, 23:37
HBO Max replaced the theatrical cut of BvS with the Ultimate Edition a few days ago, and Snyder celebrates by releasing this never-before-seen picture of Knightmare Batman.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcFyTnLUEAIImk6?format=jpg&name=medium)

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1279437343787630593?s=20

Normally, I oppose removing the theatrical version of any film (yes, even Blade Runner) from mainstream distribution because shared cultural history, blah blah blah. In this case tho, I think exceptions can be made (A) because the theatrical edition is still available through other sources and (B) the Ultimate Edition is SUCH a radical improvement that I don't see the point in ever watching the theatrical edition ever again. To this day, I've only seen it once.

Guys, I'm willing to argue the merits and value of the theatrical Watchmen. The Director's Cut is better there too, but not as drastically better as with BVS.

I choose to interpret this move with the UE as AT&T putting their chips behind Snyder and his vision. Besides, running time matters overall less in the streaming world than the theatrical exhibition world, I imagine.

The only version of BvS worth watching is the Ultimate Edition. I would rather first time watchers not view the theatrical release at all, because they will likely leave with misconceptions about the film and its themes. In The UE, Lex Luthor becomes one of the best live action villains ever put to screen in terms of his scheming, and the way the media assist his false narrative has greater resonance. Case in point Clark waking up to watch TV in the morning. In the UE, he sees the paid off African woman saying "That my family too had dreams. To look him in his eye and ask him how he decides which lives count and which ones do not." If you're Clark, you're thinking what the FUNK are you on about, woman? I saved that village from a drone strike. BvS: UE is a masterclass in how reputations are smeared in the current day without your input. The story is crafted around you. Perception and narrative is king. The added scenes make a huge difference and the Theatrical doesn't have the same nuance.

I recall the first time I watched the UE cut of BvS, it was a bit surprising just how much footage was cut from the theatrical version. As, by that point, I was quite familiar with the theatrical cut, having seen BvS three times in the theaters. Course this wasn't a negative by any stretch, and I am in complete agreement that the UE cut is far superior cut of the two. Admittedly, there are a few alternate footage/edits I generally prefer with the theatrical cut (the shot of Superman flying down to the ground, accompanied with the sonic booms, to save Lois from the African General, being the one that comes to mind first), but it's nothing overly significant. Just how I was initially accustomed to seeing the film.   

I saw this tweet and it spoke to my soul and existence as a human being.

(https://i.imgur.com/7O272J6.jpg)

Do you know the power of ADDICTION? The pull it has. It dominates your mind, but steals your future. If you do something once, you will be inclined to do it again - the slippery slope that Batman talks about is real. As soon as you realize this, I believe the only way is stop staring at the tempting lights and go cold turkey. To keep your mind occupied with different thoughts.

You need to pretend it didn't happen, while still remembering the lessons at the back of your mind, and simply move on. All of this is easier said than done, but otherwise you will be stuck in an endless cycle that doesn't progress your life in beneficial ways. Forget about guilt and shame. They are mental traps of their own, as ZSJL seems to demonstrate.

When you hit a low point that's when the real man comes out. It's a challenge. Were you ever really great? Are you good enough now? You don't rise to the occasion, you fall back on your training.

Real life is a mental wrestle. I'm eager to see these themes explored in ZSJL.

Fans went on Twitter to tweet #ThanksBatfleck to express their appreciation for the actor's performance in BvS and anticipation for ZSJL.

https://www.small-screen.co.uk/fans-twitter-batman-ben-affleck-batfleck-dc-comics-dceu-justice-league-zack-snyder/

According to this screenshot taken by Grace Randolph, the hashtag was a trend that hit 20k+ tweets.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eds_y2pXYAIwnGI?format=jpg&name=large)

In spite of all the detractors, it's a huge testament to Affleck's performance that he has made such an impact among the fanbase.

(https://i.imgur.com/QM7dKXF.jpg)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif) Perfect casting.

Agreed. I don't think I ever questioned Affleck in the role. By then, I trusted Snyder. But Affleck as Batman seemed kind of like a no-brainer.

(And considering the amount of crap he's taken over the years for playing the role, he's due some praise for a job well done)

Snyder posted a "call to arms" to get everyone to vote for Affleck as best Batman on a Twitter poll hosted by IMDB.

https://vero.co/zacksnyder/93-ZCw48SKdMgPsrj2S6W1RN

And look what happened, Batfleck won.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgS2Z-jXYAcyQwS?format=png&name=small)

https://twitter.com/IMDb/status/1297999834654240768?s=20

I don't necessarily take these polls seriously, but in this case, it's a nice little way to welcome Affleck back for The Flash.

Over the weekend, Snyder upload these images from BvS together with his description of the character for Batman Day.

Quote from: Zack Snyder
Batman is all of us... he is our rage at injustice... he stands alone, as we all wish we could, in the face of a corrupt system which wishes to oppress and exploit... he is that broken child, searching the dark alleys of the human soul to bring balance to the world. #BatmanDay

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiSwqQpU8AE7pfe?format=jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiTh8tQUwAEbc7Y?format=jpg)

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1307364477327745024

Of course, some dickhead clout chasers and gatekeepers balked in horror and tried to point out Batman's sidekicks and membership with the Justice League in a desperate attempt to discredit Snyder. Because, "hE iSn'T a LoNeR". Which goes to show how simple-minded they are and how they missed the point badly. Well, I guess the official DC Twitter page and even Matt Reeves retweeting the post goes to show they "don't get" Batman either. Right, naysayers?

Yeah sure, Batman really is an extrovert with a healthy state of mind. He'd never alienate his own sidekicks, nor come up with contingency plans to stop his own JL teammates in case if they would ever go rogue. Right.  ::)

A few years ago, Kevin Conroy revealed who his favourite Batman is.

Quote
I think Ben Affleck has probably gotten the best balance of the two. He's a really good Bruce Wayne and a really good Batman.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.syfy.com/syfywire/kevin-conroy-ben-affleck-is-the-best-live-action-batman%3famp

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 25 Jul  2020, 06:18
I don't think I ever questioned Affleck in the role. By then, I trusted Snyder. But Affleck as Batman seemed kind of like a no-brainer.

(And considering the amount of crap he's taken over the years for playing the role, he's due some praise for a job well done)

It's incredible how much of an impact he made on the franchise in a short space of time.

This isn't the Schumacher series, but look how 'toyetic' things could be if they really wanted:

Four suits: Standard, mech, Knightmare, tactical
Four vehicles: Batmobile, Batwing, Knightcrawler, Flying Fox
Two cool personal cars: Aston Martin DB Mark II, Mercedes-Benz AMG Vision Gran Turismo

The Robin suit is a small touch but adds so much. Visual filmmaking at its best. No dialogue necessary.

Of all the Batman actors so far, I find him the most believable in combat. He's big, mean and credible as a 20 year veteran. The voice is disguised but not the point of parody. Big ticks of approval on those fronts. I like what Keaton did with his socially awkward Bruce Wayne, and a lot of my heart is with that portrayal. However from a more traditional point of view, Affleck nails the billionaire playboy component extremely well. Luthor's party being a good example. 

I am finding it easier to disassociate an actor from their role. I find Affleck likable in this role. With Snyder's direction and aesthetic, they nailed it. A Batman who operates within a Justice League scenario gets to be more of a powerful badass, because he needs to operate at that level. It gives things added excitement, just as how Batfleck took down Superman.

Can't wait for ZSJL to expand upon his legacy. I'm eager to see everything, particularly with Superman, but Batfleck remains my main focus.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 27 Jan  2021, 07:01

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 25 Jul  2020, 06:18
I don't think I ever questioned Affleck in the role. By then, I trusted Snyder. But Affleck as Batman seemed kind of like a no-brainer.

(And considering the amount of crap he's taken over the years for playing the role, he's due some praise for a job well done)

It's incredible how much of an impact he made on the franchise in a short space of time.

This isn't the Schumacher series, but look how 'toyetic' things could be if they really wanted:

Four suits: Standard, mech, Knightmare, tactical
Four vehicles: Batmobile, Batwing, Knightcrawler, Flying Fox
Two cool personal cars: Aston Martin DB Mark II, Mercedes-Benz AMG Vision Gran Turismo

The Robin suit is a small touch but adds so much. Visual filmmaking at its best. No dialogue necessary.

Of all the Batman actors so far, I find him the most believable in combat. He's big, mean and credible as a 20 year veteran. The voice is disguised but not the point of parody. Big ticks of approval on those fronts. I like what Keaton did with his socially awkward Bruce Wayne, and a lot of my heart is with that portrayal. However from a more traditional point of view, Affleck nails the billionaire playboy component extremely well. Luthor's party being a good example. 

I am finding it easier to disassociate an actor from their role. I find Affleck likable in this role. With Snyder's direction and aesthetic, they nailed it. A Batman who operates within a Justice League scenario gets to be more of a powerful badass, because he needs to operate at that level. It gives things added excitement, just as how Batfleck took down Superman.

Can't wait for ZSJL to expand upon his legacy. I'm eager to see everything, particularly with Superman, but Batfleck remains my main focus.

I enjoy all the actors who have played the character.

But like you, Affleck holds a special place in my heart. A very Tim Sale/Bob Kane-looking Bruce, a very Millerized Batman, large, in charge, powerful and dangerous. He's a man who knows his limits and frequently pushes beyond them to get the job done.

Plus, in terms of sheer brutality, he's probably my favorite because you rly do buy that he could and would swoop into a warehouse full of baddies and beat the stuffings out of all of them. History will treat him very kindly, I think.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 27 Jan  2021, 07:10
But like you, Affleck holds a special place in my heart.

Batfleck excited me so much, especially given the contrasts against Nolan. I wrote this analysis (after the original copy was lost) in 2016 and I think my enthusiasm from the time can still be felt:

https://www.batman-online.com/features/2016/4/12/batmans-new-dawn#sthash.jr3n7nJR.dpbs

I've seen some say Batfleck not having a solo movie of his own lessens his standing amongst the others. I don't get that logic. BvS was effectively a solo film with his level of screen time, as far as I am concerned. He's had pretty much everything the other actors have had - parent murder sequence, a character arc, a batcave, Wayne Manor, Alfred, etc. It's all there.

And one other thing: I dig how Batfleck is valued as an experienced warrior in ZSJL. He's giving the "not us united" speech and all eyes are on him. They're in his base of operations, and are about to fly into battle in his plane. Batfleck in the context of a Justice League gives him an unfair advantage when compared to other Batmen, if anything. None of them, sans a Keaton return in Flashpoint, have that stature.

Production designer Patrick Tatopoulos uploaded another version of Batfleck's first look on Instagram.

(https://i.imgur.com/I64W19A.jpg)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRW3IUznT_B/

This is still the best Batfleck costume, and one of the best live action costumes to date. The black and grey is the perfect colour contrast, as opposed with the saturated blue hue they gave him in Josstice League. It sets the tone of the mood too, colour gatekeepers be damned.

I notice fans on social media are preparing a letter writing campaign to #MakeTheBatfleckMovie some time next week, in addition to the Ayer cut campaign later this week. I don't know if the rumours of him being courted to star on his own HBO Max mini-series are true, or if The Flash will mark his final appearance. What I do know is that despite the critics trying to tell you otherwise, you'll be hard-pressed to find another Batman actor who has ignited such passionate fandom.

It was rumoured a month or so ago that JK Simmons is expected to reprise his role as Commissioner Gordon for the upcoming Batgirl. Now it's reported that Batman is expected to be included. If this screenshot from one of the director's Instagram Story is anything to go by, the Batman in question might be Affleck.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBuEVjSXMAAMvrK?format=jpg&name=large)

One thing is certain, if Simmons is playing Gordon again, then Batgirl won't take place in the Burtonverse.

I think this is confirmation. It is nice to clear some of this up. DC always has this feeling that its in limbo until another movie gets made. And while I do like the idea of a continuity reset and was behind it, it would be a tremendous mess that DC/WB just don't have the wherewithal to handle.

From what I heard, the Batgirl project only had to show off concept art at DC FanDome. No news over any new castings at all, let alone Simmons or Affleck.

The whole event sounds like a total waste of time.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  9 Aug  2021, 13:43
Production designer Patrick Tatopoulos uploaded another version of Batfleck's first look on Instagram.

(https://i.imgur.com/I64W19A.jpg)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRW3IUznT_B/

This is still the best Batfleck costume, and one of the best live action costumes to date. The black and grey is the perfect colour contrast, as opposed with the saturated blue hue they gave him in Josstice League. It sets the tone of the mood too, colour gatekeepers be damned.

I notice fans on social media are preparing a letter writing campaign to #MakeTheBatfleckMovie some time next week, in addition to the Ayer cut campaign later this week. I don't know if the rumours of him being courted to star on his own HBO Max mini-series are true, or if The Flash will mark his final appearance. What I do know is that despite the critics trying to tell you otherwise, you'll be hard-pressed to find another Batman actor who has ignited such passionate fandom.

This should have been the first photo released. I think it would have turned more people onto Batfleck alot earlier.

Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sun, 17 Oct  2021, 03:03
This should have been the first photo released. I think it would have turned more people onto Batfleck alot earlier.

It is a superior shot than the first official picture that was released, but don't underestimate the stupidity of people. Even before BvS came out, people were even nitpicking over the most insignificant detail. Worst of all, they had the gall to complain about the dark tone of the movie, despite anything else that's dark and Batman-related was celebrated before and afterwards.

Hypocrites.

It seems JK Simmons is coming back.

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: Bad Boys for Life breakout Jacob Scipio is set to join Leslie Grace in Warner Bros and DC Films' Batgirl. J.K. Simmons is also on board to reprise his role of Commissioner Gordon, and Grace recently landed the role of Barbara Gordon. Scipio's Bad Boys For Life directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah are helming.

https://deadline.com/2021/10/batgirl-jacob-scipio-leslie-grace-1234857334/

From what I heard, this news was not announced at DC FanDome.

As Batman is heavily expected to appear in this film, we'll have to wait and see if Affleck is confirmed to reprise the role. If he does then it certainly means he doesn't die in The Flash.

So Batgirl is set in the DCEU. That was something I was unsure of. Looks like we know now.

Keaton may be replacing Affleck, but I guess we just have to wait and see.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 20 Oct  2021, 14:25
So Batgirl is set in the DCEU. That was something I was unsure of. Looks like we know now.

Keaton may be replacing Affleck, but I guess we just have to wait and see.

We know Keaton is replacing Affleck.

(https://i.ibb.co/3f5nfB1/C90794-F7-50-B0-47-F1-A54-A-1-FB01-F1-B54-CF.jpg)

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 20 Oct  2021, 14:25
So Batgirl is set in the DCEU.

It depends on what you the term DCEU means to you. I personally can't bring myself to use that label nowadays because it's less of a shared universe, and more of a series of films that's loosely connected to each other. Otherwise, they're not connected at all.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 20 Oct  2021, 14:25
Keaton may be replacing Affleck, but I guess we just have to wait and see.

I read another rumour alleging that won't be the case.

https://geekositymag.com/ben-afflecks-batman-wont-die-in-the-flash-movie/

But if it's true that The Flash will be Affleck's last appearance as Batman, he will be replaced by a brand new actor. I don't believe in scoops who say Keaton will be his long term replacement. I love Keaton as much as everyone else here, but that particular rumour doesn't make any sense.

Keaton isn't getting any younger. How many movies and how many years do people really expect him to continue playing the role? Up until his mid to late seventies? If he's expected to wear the costume again for multiple times after The Flash, then that's totally unrealistic. If he retires as an elderly Bruce Wayne who replaces Affleck then all that means the DC universe won't have an active Batman anymore, other than possibly Terry McGinnis or whoever. That wouldn't make any sense either.

Another reason why I believe this scoop is bogus is because rebooting the DC timeline to incorporate Keaton will radically change the entire Burtonverse canon. Really, Commissioner Gordon goes from Pat Hingle to suddenly becoming JK Simmons? In real life, Simmons and Keaton are only four years apart from each other, in terms of age. Having Gordon around the same age as Batman just doesn't really add up. And why the hell would DC Comics commission a Batman '89 comic book run if that new retroactive continuity risks getting thrown out anyway?

If they're not really mixing Burtonvese with the main DC movie timeline per se, does this mean Batgirl will transport from one universe to another, like Flash and Supergirl do in the Arrowverse? That got old very quickly, and I think such loopholes attempting to explain away continuity differences would get tiresome here too.

We shall see, but at this point in time, I believe Keaton staying in his own Batman Beyond universe, while the other Batman (whether it's Affleck or whoever) stays active in the so-called "DCEU" is a much more credible rumour.

Another thing that troubles me is that Batgirl is still slated for a 2022 release. Assuming it keeps that date, and assuming that as an HBOMAX title it will require less turnaround to get to the screen...wouldn't that mean that Batgirl would precede the Flash as the Flash is coming December 2022?

I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 17:03
I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

Pattinson is their main cinematic Batman. Keaton will replace Affleck, but I see him being more of a mentor with bare minimum suit wearing or action. His age or JK Simmons' age is irrelevant in that case, as Batgirl would be the primary antagonist. All the B89 comic series content all would have happened and would remain canon. Nothing gets thrown away as you have to take that journey to get to the timeline merge, which is decades of prior adventures. It's not hard to see the trajectory or even how it will work.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 02:02

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 17:03
I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

Pattinson is their main cinematic Batman. Keaton will replace Affleck, but I see him being more of a mentor with bare minimum suit wearing or action. His age or JK Simmons' age is irrelevant in that case, as Batgirl would be the primary antagonist. All the B89 comic series content all would have happened and would remain canon. Nothing gets thrown away as you have to take that journey to get to the timeline merge, which is decades of prior adventures. It's not hard to see the trajectory or even how it will work.

How isn't the problem. The mechanics aren't the problem. I'm well versed in that. It's a matter of JK Simmons, which I don't think can be hand waved away.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 13:44

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 02:02

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 17:03
I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

Pattinson is their main cinematic Batman. Keaton will replace Affleck, but I see him being more of a mentor with bare minimum suit wearing or action. His age or JK Simmons' age is irrelevant in that case, as Batgirl would be the primary antagonist. All the B89 comic series content all would have happened and would remain canon. Nothing gets thrown away as you have to take that journey to get to the timeline merge, which is decades of prior adventures. It's not hard to see the trajectory or even how it will work.

How isn't the problem. The mechanics aren't the problem. I'm well versed in that. It's a matter of JK Simmons, which I don't think can be hand waved away.

Also 'VampireAnon' just confirmed that their Flash info is more than a year old. The recon might not even be the ending now. There were at least 3 versions of this version of The Flash story.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 17:03
Another thing that troubles me is that Batgirl is still slated for a 2022 release. Assuming it keeps that date, and assuming that as an HBOMAX title it will require less turnaround to get to the screen...wouldn't that mean that Batgirl would precede the Flash as the Flash is coming December 2022?

I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

I'd be very surprised if Batgirl doesn't get pushed back. They would have to finish the casting call soon and start shooting ASAP if it's to meet its release date. So far, there are only three actors who are confirmed.

I don't think it makes any sense to introduce Batgirl in a new movie, only to retcon her immediately in her next appearance. Why bother making the film if you're essentially going to retcon the character anyway?

Quote [size=0px]Also 'VampireAnon' just confirmed that their Flash info is more than a year old. The recon might not even be the ending now. There were at least 3 versions of this version of The Flash story. [/size]

This is why I reckon the other rumour about Flash is no longer killing Affleck off has logic. But again, we shall see.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 13:54

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 13:44

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 02:02

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 17:03
I'm just not buying this, unless they're introing Batgirl just to have her get instantly reconned into a post crisis version of herself?

Pattinson is their main cinematic Batman. Keaton will replace Affleck, but I see him being more of a mentor with bare minimum suit wearing or action. His age or JK Simmons' age is irrelevant in that case, as Batgirl would be the primary antagonist. All the B89 comic series content all would have happened and would remain canon. Nothing gets thrown away as you have to take that journey to get to the timeline merge, which is decades of prior adventures. It's not hard to see the trajectory or even how it will work.

How isn't the problem. The mechanics aren't the problem. I'm well versed in that. It's a matter of JK Simmons, which I don't think can be hand waved away.

Also 'VampireAnon' just confirmed that their Flash info is more than a year old. The recon might not even be the ending now. There were at least 3 versions of this version of The Flash story.

The way I understand it, Hingle would still be Keaton's Gordon but he died long ago. The two worlds would merge, with voids filled by other elements. Simmons wouldn't become Hingle or anything like that.

It comes down to this: do you seriously believe Keaton is returning for only one film? Because I don't. Batfleck may or not die at the end and I really hope he doesn't. The fact it was bandied about at all shows their intent with him. Changing that detail shouldn't be too hard while retaining the core mechanics of the story. Affleck is doing a brief cameo for the fans, and I'm thankful for that. But I still don't see him continuing the ongoing story from here.

QuoteThe Snyderverse haunts Batgirl with a veteran possibly returning, one confirmed.

First of all, J.K. Simmons is officially reprising his role as Commissioner Jim Gordon.

On August 13, 2021, Geekosity reported that Simmons will return in the Batgirl HBO Max film.

Oddly enough, Saturday's DC Fandome event ignored this news; instead, Deadline dropped it a day later.

Sources indicate Warner Bros. Pictures chairman Toby Emmerich didn't want the Snyderverse acknowledged at DC Fandome. (In contrast, the Chinese Flash movie panel featured Snyder Cut footage.)

Hence, no Simmons, no Ben Affleck, no Henry Cavill.

https://geekositymag.com/two-snyderverse-veterans-in-batgirl-film/

This doesn't surprise me if it's true. Emmerich has been a sabotaging POS ever since he got into power, and under his control, WB has developed a notorious reputation over the years. Announcing Simmons coming back to play Gordon on DC FanDome would've given the Batgirl project more publicity, but instead, there was nothing to show for it except for concept art. But this is isn't the first time DC FanDome has spurned the opportunity to announce the return of Snyderverse characters for upcoming movies, let's not forget Affleck's return in The Flash was announced a few days before the event, allegedly as a way to distract people from Ray Fisher's accusations against key people behind the Josstice League debacle at the time.

Hell, there are even photos online of the Chinese version of DC FanDome last week having Justice League statues and memorabilia display, in addition to the Flash movie panel showing ZSJL footage as that Geekosity article says.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FB-tr9rX0AMC-Yo?format=jpg)

https://twitter.com/maxus29/status/1450068580821880832

Anybody who doesn't understand WB's shady and fractured nature by now has either failed to pay attention to what's going on, or is just being willfully ignorant.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 13:44

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 22 Oct  2021, 02:02
Keaton will replace Affleck, but I see him being more of a mentor with bare minimum suit wearing or action. His age or JK Simmons' age is irrelevant in that case, as Batgirl would be the primary antagonist. All the B89 comic series content all would have happened and would remain canon. Nothing gets thrown away as you have to take that journey to get to the timeline merge, which is decades of prior adventures. It's not hard to see the trajectory or even how it will work.

How isn't the problem. The mechanics aren't the problem. I'm well versed in that. It's a matter of JK Simmons, which I don't think can be hand waved away.

There is another character who poses a huge discrepancy: Batgirl herself. As everyone who is keeping up to date with Batman '89 knows, the comics have introduced Barbara Gordon as a grown woman working as a sergeant for the GCPD and is dating Harvey Dent. From the looks of it, Barbara's likeness is believed to be modeled after Winona Ryder, and judging by her rank within the GCPD, I assume her age is between her mid to late thirties. We're only halfway through Batman '89, but it remains to be seen if Barbara will even become Batgirl (or Batwoman) as the saga progresses.

(https://i.imgur.com/TXlTlwZ.jpg)

If JK Simmons wasn't a problem enough, the lead actress playing Barbara/Batgirl throws another spanner in the works for the idea to merge Burtonverse with the DC movie timeline, because Leslie Grace is a twenty six year old actress of Latin American descent.

(https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Leslie-Grace-Barbara-Gordon-Batgirl-620x400.png)

After pointing out all of these differences, how can anyone seriously think the Batman '89 comic timeline would stay the same if it's included in this supposed timeline merge? Even if you ignore the change in both Gordons' physical appearances, there's no way that Grace's Barbara could've been in a relationship with Billy Dee Williams' Harvey. Nor could it be possible for her to become a police sergeant at such a very young age, unless they want to make the movie cartoonish. The events of those comics would either have to be altered heavily, or disregarded completely. And even if those comics are ignored, merging the rest of the Burtonverse in a rebooted DC timeline would still have awkward inconsistencies that need to be addressed.

One might be tempted to argue Keaton's Batman won't make an appearance in Batgirl, but let me remind everyone that the Batgirl directors have gone on record saying a Batman (or as they described it - the "real" Batman) will make an appearance. This is why I believe Affleck will either remain in the DC movie timeline, or he will be replaced by another actor. Either scenarios make much more sense and are far more believable than Keaton becoming the long term replacement.

This thing of race-swapping redhead characters seriously needs to end. Jimmy Olsen, Lana Lang, Barbara Gordon, Jim Gordon, Garth Ranzz, Mary Jane Watson, Wally West, Iris Allen, the list just goes on.

I could give two you-know-whats about "representation" in general. But I especially resent it when their representation comes at the expense of my representation.

I've seen these pages posted elsewhere (not sure what the comic is) in relation to the BvS warehouse scene, specifically Batman using grenades against his attackers.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJBW5YHXoAMGOhp?format=jpg&name=large) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJBW79xWYAgaeDf?format=jpg&name=large)

I never had a problem with Batman using the environment to his advantage in order to survive an encounter. Killing not being something he seeks out, but if it does happen it's collateral damage and the reality of being a vigilante without powers.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 24 Oct  2021, 08:16
This is why I believe Affleck will either remain in the DC movie timeline, or he will be replaced by another actor. Either scenarios make much more sense and are far more believable than Keaton becoming the long term replacement.

As I said in another post, this aged badly. Way to go on the Batgirl directors in hoodwinking everyone, and to rub insult to injury, Keaton's role in Batgirl appears to be increasingly retconned to the point he's likely unrecognisable from the Burton version. Then again, as The Joker said in another thread, it could be a blessing in disguise because the Burtonverse remains untarnished. It's still disappointing nonetheless.

A week ago, Ezra Miller's Flash and Jason Momoa's Aquaman appeared in this incredibly stupid cameo on Peacemaker, with Superman and Wonder Woman appearing in the background as silhouettes. Apparently, Batman was supposed to be there too, but the stunt actor was cut.

(https://preview.redd.it/vyhv6a3zuti81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e743c2e38963272920fb0c8d50ded6628b9e0cc6)

We know why Cyborg was cut because of the obvious dispute between Fisher and the jackasses currently in charge of the studio. So why was Batman removed? We can only speculate, but whatever the reason, I'm glad those two JL members were spared from appearing in that dumb cameo. It's really embarrassing to watch the Justice League being used for some crass, childish joke.

If Keaton ever gets offered to appear in a cameo for that show, let's hope he rejects it. Who knows what sort of idiotic joke Gunn would think of telling at Keaton's expense?

An independent survey came out and claimed one in three Americans think Affleck is the best Batman, with Keaton coming in very close as the second favourite.

https://cw33.com/news/batman-survey-ben-affleck-edges-out-michael-keaton-as-best-version-of-caped-crusader/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=socialflow

A Batfleck Twitter fan page did some research, and pointed out this was reported by dozens and dozens of news channels. According to them, these channels are owned by a mass media company, that also share ownership in Discovery.

https://twitter.com/BatfleckMovie/status/1500674628926255115

Some fans are pondering whether or not this is merely a publicity stunt or this Discovery testing the waters as the WB merger is coming closer. Whatever the case may be, #MakeTheBatfleckMovie and #RestoreTheSnyderVerse continue to trend.

I'm not going to look too deep into this, I just thought it's interesting to share.

I don't have a horse in this race. But I am glad that fans are more willing to follow the money now than they have been in the past.

Watching BvS again for the first time in a long time, and it brought a lot of memories back. What a movie. I love ZSJL but BvS is just better. It's phenomenal how well it has aged. Zack really swung for the fences and had something to say about the world we live in while digging in to the psychology of the characters. He created an interesting, layered mythology and I think Affleck was the best Batman. A bittersweet experience seeing it all again, but I'm so glad it even exists in the first place.

I like BvS the most out of the entire Snyder trilogy.

So it just broke that Affleck will return as Batman in the Aquaman sequel.

lol, wtf? WB has no idea what is going on.

I rly wish WB would either $#!+ or get off the pot already. Either cancel the Snyderverse entirely or else bring it back entirely. But these halfhearted efforts are only pissing me off.

Apropos of Keaton's involvement with Aquaman II, leaks have indicated (SPOILERS) that his Batman would appear in two scenes. One scene is early in the film, where he supplies Arthur with some information that sets the plot in motion, and the other scene is a mid or post-credit thing. (END SPOILERS) A detailed description of The Flash plot also leaked a while back and has been verified by multiple sources. According to this leak (SPOILERS) the movie does indeed end with Keaton replacing Affleck, but then there's a mid/post-credit scene in which Batfleck sends a message to Barry confirming that he's still alive somewhere (possibly another universe) and asking the Flash to find him. (END SPOILERS) If all this is true, then it sounds to me as though they're setting up a Crisis on Infinite Earths movie.

My guess is that while Keaton is still replacing Affleck in the wider DCEU, Affleck is replacing Keaton in Aquaman II owing to the reshuffling of the release schedule. Since Aquaman II is now coming out before The Flash, it wouldn't make sense for Keaton to be in it. I've also read that at least one of the scenes being reshot for Aquaman II features Mera, so it could be the case that the studio is trying to kill two birds with one set of reshoots: removing Amber Heard to avoid the controversy surrounding her and Depp, and reshooting Keaton's scenes with Affleck so they can release the Aquaman sequel before The Flash.

Oh, I had no idea Keaton was supposed to be in Aquaman.

Either way, it sounds like a mess. lol

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 29 Jul  2022, 00:04
So it just broke that Affleck will return as Batman in the Aquaman sequel.

lol, wtf? WB has no idea what is going on.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 29 Jul  2022, 00:56
I rly wish WB would either $#!+ or get off the pot already. Either cancel the Snyderverse entirely or else bring it back entirely. But these halfhearted efforts are only pissing me off.

A few days ago, a YouTuber called Syl Abdul Inc scooped that Batfleck would make an appearance in Aquaman 2, and lo and behold, Jason Momoa confirmed the Affleck surprise on social media. Big win for Syl's channel, although he was told the additional shoots would've happened in a month instead of a few days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPf6X9OeKUg&t=2440s

https://geekositymag.com/ben-afflecks-batman-rumored-to-appear-in-aquaman-2/

https://geekositymag.com/jason-momoa-confirms-ben-afflecks-batman-in-aquaman-sequel/

In addition to the Affleck scoop, Syl Abdul's sources claimed Keaton's scenes in Aquaman 2 were going to be removed because test screenings were confused about his appearance, and the script required Batman to be in this movie. Those are really BIG claims right there. If it's true that Keaton is getting cut from Aquaman 2 in favour of Affleck, then that could mean WBD aren't huge fans of the post-Flash timeline, and want to try and mitigate it as much as possible. Of course, there's always the possibility that Keaton AND Affleck will both be in Aquaman and Flash, and this could very well be a half-assed attempt at Snyder continuity, as you said. We'll see what's really going on soon.

In the meantime, Momoa shared this post on Instagram after "accidentally" leaking Affleck's role. I say that in quotes because I can't help but think this was a publicity stunt.

(https://i.imgur.com/jjHtvNa.jpg)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CgkrXB6P8Qi/?hl=en

A rather curious post by Snyder on VERO. Word has it the car he's driving is an Aston Martin, the same car model that Bruce Wayne drove to Lex Luthor's gala in BvS.

(https://geekositymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Zack-Snyder-Has-Perfect-Response-To-Ben-Affleck-Returning-As-Batman-03.jpg)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 31 Jul  2022, 12:04
A rather curious post by Snyder on VERO. Word has it the car he's driving is an Aston Martin, the same car model that Bruce Wayne drove to Lex Luthor's gala in BvS.

(https://geekositymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Zack-Snyder-Has-Perfect-Response-To-Ben-Affleck-Returning-As-Batman-03.jpg)

And we're supposed to be envious because?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 29 Jul  2022, 12:51
My guess is that while Keaton is still replacing Affleck in the wider DCEU, Affleck is replacing Keaton in Aquaman II owing to the reshuffling of the release schedule.

Aquaman II is now being released next year, after The Flash. We know Affleck shot scenes for the movie. I think there's enough now to say Keaton is one and done. Apparently Keaton's Batman is injured and possibly could be assumed to die during a battle scene in The Flash, before appearing again at the end.  I just hope Keaton can return to the Burtonverse alive and well, rather than just now dying in that scene to wrap things up.  In any case, I'd say Batfleck is back and part of the ten year plan.

In addition to Aquaman 2 now delayed to Christmas next year, Jason Momoa confirmed on camera saying "f*** it, Ben's coming back" and "we have a lot of surprises".

https://youtu.be/4-aiKxYsqYI?t=158

Very interesting. If The Flash keeps its release date, that means Affleck likely has a future as Batman again. Together with the rumours of Henry Cavill appearing in a cameo for Black Adam, did anyone think all of this chatter would've happened three to four years ago?

With that said, I'm not going to get too excited until we get clarification over what's really going on. But the signs appear to be promising so far.

(https://i.imgur.com/PQCut18.jpg)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 25 Aug  2022, 09:31In any case, I'd say Batfleck is back and part of the ten year plan.

I've recently completed Aquarius' 3000 piece A Magical Mystery Tour of 100 Beatles songs jigsaw which is in the process of being framed. I'm now just about to start Aquarius' 3000 piece DC Comics Cast jigsaw. It has taken unprecedented developments to potentially see the reformation of the original Snyder trinity on screen, and as a result the fire of the all out potential of the DC world has been rekindled in me. I really feel it now. Especially as Justice League Batman is the most exciting version of the character you can receive in terms of his experience and feats. I don't need Batfleck to have his own solo film - appearing in ensemble films like ZSJL is exactly what I'd be wanting anyway. Bring. It. On.

I stumbled across a YouTube comment on the Batman vs Superman fight scene. To paraphrase the comment, Batman had become such a villain that he had unconsciously adopted many of his enemies' traits:

• The Kryptonite grenade that explodes into green gas - Joker's fear toxin.
• "Breathe it in. That's fear." - Scarecrow.
• Using tactics to exploit and make Superman vulnerable - Bane.
• Batman's mech-cowl that's later cut open on one side of his face - Two-Face.

Aside from maybe Bane's methods of weakening his opponents and the Scarecrow reference, the other examples are a bit of a stretch, to be honest. But they're curious observations nonetheless.

After today's farcical PR disaster over Cavill basically getting fired from Superman, the weasel Gunn has stated that he and Safran are negotiating with Affleck to - get this - direct a DC project.

I no longer care if Affleck comes back as Batman, he needs to GTFO out of that sinking ship that is WBD as far as possible. The same goes for Keaton. Anyone who is half decent should not have anything to do with that dumpster fire of a company.

The latest Cavill humiliation has shown that Gunn and WBD are not worth the hassle or the agony.

This must've shared elsewhere in the forum, but it's worth reposting here.

Affleck looking back on his Batman experience, while promoting his new movie Air and his newly formed production company.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/ben-affleck-air-production-company-grammys-memes-justice-league-1235353301/

Quote
You're launching this company at a time when the movie business is changing.

When The Way Back came out, I knew. It came out the weekend they shut the theaters down with COVID. But that's not an excuse. Because I knew as it was coming out, just the tracking, I was like, "OK, here's a movie about a guy, son dies, gets divorced, alcoholic. Nobody's going to go to the theater to see this f***ing movie. They're just not." I felt it. Succession is on. Ozark. Narcos. Game of Thrones. You're not competing with [1980s crime drama] Simon & Simon on an 11-inch black-and-white TV. There's really beautiful stuff being made. My daughter is 17. She lives her life largely in opposition to the work her parents have spent their lives dedicated to, where she'll say things like, "I'm not sure film is really ... Do you think it's a genuine art form?" I like the fact that she has this silver rapier tongue. But anyway, I went into it going, "OK, these movies aren't f***ing working anymore. And these are the ones I like."

As opposed to —

The Justice League experience, the fact that those stories became somewhat repetitive to me and less interesting. Yeah, I did finally figure out how to play that character [Batman], and I nailed it in The Flash. For the five minutes I'm there, it's really great. A lot of it's just tone. You've got to figure out, what's your version of the person? Who is the guy that fits what you can do? I tried to fit myself into a Batman. And by the way, I like a lot of the stuff we did, especially the first one [Batman v Superman].

But not Justice League. What went wrong there?

Justice League ... You could teach a seminar on all the reasons why this is how not to do it. Ranging from production to bad decisions to horrible personal tragedy, and just ending with the most monstrous taste in my mouth. The genius, and the silver lining, is that Zack Snyder eventually went to AT&T and was like, "Look, I can get you four hours of content." And it's principally just all the slow motion that he shot in black-and-white. And one day of shooting with me and him. He was like, "Do you want to come shoot in my backyard?" I was like, "I think there are unions, Zack. I think we have to make a deal." But I went and did it. And now [Zack Snyder's Justice League] is my highest-rated movie on IMDb.

Isn't that because Zack Snyder's fans are so intense online?

Say what you want, it is my highest-rated career movie. I've never had one that went from nadir to pinnacle. Retroactively, it's a hit. All of a sudden I was getting congratulated for the bomb I'm in. But I was going to direct a Batman, and [Justice League] made me go, "I'm out. I never want to do any of this again. I'm not suited." That was the worst experience I've ever seen in a business which is full of some sh*tty experiences. It broke my heart. There was an idea of someone [Joss Whedon] coming in, like, "I'll rescue you and we'll do 60 days of shooting and I'll write a whole thing around what you have. I've got the secret." And it wasn't the secret. That was hard. And I started to drink too much. I was back at the hotel in London, it was either that or jump out the window. And I just thought, "This isn't the life I want. My kids aren't here. I'm miserable." You want to go to work and find something interesting to hang onto, rather than just wearing a rubber suit, and most of it you're just standing against the computer screen going, "If this nuclear waste gets loose, we'll ..." That's fine. I don't condescend to that or put it down, but I got to a point where I found it creatively not satisfying. Also just, you're sweaty and exhausted. And I thought, "I don't want to participate in this in any way. And I don't want to squander any more of my life, of which I have a limited amount."

So if DC came to you now and said, "Do you want to direct something?"

I would not direct something for the [James] Gunn DC. Absolutely not. I have nothing against James Gunn. Nice guy, sure he's going to do a great job. I just wouldn't want to go in and direct in the way they're doing that. I'm not interested in that.

First of all, I'll forever kick myself for thinking the guy was a prima donna when was getting out he was likely leaving the role. If I had known about the problems surrounding JL behind the scenes and his own personal troubles, I would never have doubted his integrity. Lesson learned.

I appreciate Affleck sticking up for the fans when the question was framed in a way to make them look negative, judging how the word "intense" was used to describe them. Knowing his dedication for Snyder's vision, you can tell Affleck appreciated the call to get ZSJL to salvage the experience he had after Whedon and co ruined it for him and everybody else.

I loved how Affleck remained professional on the subject on Gunn and DC while insisting he has no interest whatsoever working with him. This made Gunn look bad because he claimed Affleck was eager to direct a project under his watch, even claiming Affleck wanted to be one of the architects of this soft reboot. Gunn lies, water is wet.

Interesting comments about his small role in The Flash. Affleck always appreciated the direction of where his character was going in BvS, so that's not new, but the way he talks about the Flash appearance sounded as if he wish could still reprise the role. And that definitely looked like the case, when he was brought back for a cameo in Aquaman 2 before all hell broke loose.

There was another audio snippet of an interview he did a few weeks ago describing a scene where he was helped by Wonder Woman chasing down some criminals during the first act. Chances are, sadly, these scenes are going to be either cut or heavily edited thanks to the idiotic idea of using this movie to kick off Gunn's ego trip.

I read that Ben Affleck's name did NOT appear in the closing credits of The Flash at all. This is despite the fact his footage and his bat insignia appeared in the trailers.

I would've thought maybe he requested to get his name removed because of the shoddy quality of the final product, what's strange is Affleck attended the red carpet premiere.

Was this Gunn and WBD's petty little way of punishing him for not wanting to direct under Gunn? Remember, Gunn declared Affleck wanted to be an architect for this DCU agenda. I can imagine he must've felt very embarrassed and upset after being exposed for that lie.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  9 Jul  2023, 08:35I read that Ben Affleck's name did NOT appear in the closing credits of The Flash at all. This is despite the fact his footage and his bat insignia appeared in the trailers.

I would've thought maybe he requested to get his name removed because of the shoddy quality of the final product, what's strange is Affleck attended the red carpet premiere.

Was this Gunn and WBD's petty little way of punishing him for not wanting to direct under Gunn? Remember, Gunn declared Affleck wanted to be an architect for this DCU agenda. I can imagine he must've felt very embarrassed and upset after being exposed for that lie.

Neither did Gal Gadot or Jason Mamoa (who we know is still attached to DC *for now*) because they were all Cameos and those dont have to be credited.

Jeremy Irons, Temurea Morrison were credited so take that as you will

Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sun, 23 Jul  2023, 23:53Neither did Gal Gadot or Jason Mamoa (who we know is still attached to DC *for now*) because they were all Cameos and those dont have to be credited.

Jeremy Irons, Temurea Morrison were credited so take that as you will

Affleck had more screen time than Irons in that whole baby shower sequence alone, yet the latter gets credited? That makes no sense.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 24 Jul  2023, 02:46

Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sun, 23 Jul  2023, 23:53Neither did Gal Gadot or Jason Mamoa (who we know is still attached to DC *for now*) because they were all Cameos and those dont have to be credited.

Jeremy Irons, Temurea Morrison were credited so take that as you will

Affleck had more screen time than Irons in that whole baby shower sequence alone, yet the latter gets credited? That makes no sense.

I think it's just a weird industry thing. Plus Afflecks screentime was extended (with reports he wouldnt of even worn the Batsuit and thats why he looks weird *because is a suit made for a stunt double*). In the special features Andy Muschietti even talks about Affleck expanding his role and being hands on (and given the freedom he gave Keaton, and allowed Miller to co-write a scene in the middle of filming) it does not seem far fetched.

Watching Affleck and Gaddot (and to some extend Miller) have fun on set, in a very similar way they did on ZSJL is good enough for me even if the film was not what is was supposed to from inception. After the crap they had to go thru with the JL reshoots. I'm just happy seeing them have fun as the charaters again.