In support of a Burton Batman fan's opinion piece why Keaton should play the character one more time, the blogging piece of crap website known as SyFy tweeted the article with the caption: "Keaton's #Batman still is still the gold standard".
Source: https://twitter.com/SYFY/status/1077194683535613953
Under normal circumstances, I'd be happy that a website is giving Keaton praise, but SyFy is nothing more than your typical garbage website that have been guilty of using their own clickbait tactics to criticise the DCEU. Their cable TV channel broadcasts the Krypton TV show, and yet they spend a lot of the time writing up articles complaining about Superman killing Zod in MOS. For all I know, they might've done the same to Batman in BvS, so their praise for Keaton, or any other version for that matter, as the gold standard for Batman on screen is suspect. Besides, I highly doubt these people were holding Keaton and the Burton films in high esteem during the Nolan era. I wouldn't be surprised if they joined in the narrative of undermining the Burton era's influence on the franchise to prop up Nolan, as well as ignoring his movies' own problems and pretentious nonsense.
As for the article itself?
Source: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/why-michael-keaton-is-the-batman-we-need-right-now
As much as I think the Burton films still don't get enough credit for their influence on the franchise, that article is just fanboy wankery, and an excuse to have a dig on Affleck's Batman and the uncertain future of the entire franchise. You don't speak for me, Daniel Dockery. As far as I'm concerned, Affleck is right up there with Keaton and West as the best actors to have played the character, so you don't get to dictate fan consensus just because you say so.
The entire blog entry is only wishful thinking too. Let's get some perspective here, Keaton will be turning 70 years old in a few years from now. If there was a time when he could've appeared as Batman yet again, it would've been in the early 2000s - or better yet, in Batman Forever. I'm afraid to say it, but now it's simply too late. You might support the blogger's argument that there are still older actors returning to play their famous roles again, but maybe they shouldn't. Just because Arnold is playing the Terminator again for yet another reboot doesn't mean it's a good idea. The only return I've been comfortable with is John Wesley Shipp reprising the role as the 90s Flash in the Elseworlds crossover, but that's because he still appears to be in good shape and he's four years younger than Keaton. Never mind the fact he's been a recurring character on the CW's version of The Flash.
Putting age aside for a moment, I have no interest in a Batman Beyond adaptation, and The Dark Knight Returns was already adapted brilliantly as a two-part animated saga, to the point I don't even think a live version would do it justice. Besides, we've already had Rises and BvS taking elements from Miller's story, for better or worse, so a direct adaptation would be redundant, in my opinion.
I'm a fan of Keaton and Burton's take on Batman as anyone else here, and as I said before, those two films had an enormous impact on other media, i.e. its influence on BTAS, the introduction of the grapple gun, Batman's voice and they certainly inspired Nolan to recreate ideas and scenes from Burton when he made his movies. Keaton and Burton definitely had a legacy just as important as Reeve and Donner did with Superman.
The difference is, I don't think Keaton - or anybody for that matter - should be seen as the benchmark to how the character should be seen in live action. In principle, I believe there are going be adaptations you will like and you will hate, you take them as they come, but always look forward to the future. Of course, the PR fiasco surrounding WB's handling of Justice League has wrecked my enthusiasm going forward, but that was my stance. The last thing Batman needs now is to introduce a Donner-like cult following that puts one adaptation on a pedestal and dismissing the rest. It's bad enough we have people wearing rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Nolan, we don't need Burton fans doing the same thing.
Just my two cents.
I see Batman as overall healthier than Superman. It's one thing for fans to have their preferences. It's unavoidable, really. And, arguably, it's somewhat desirable. For a while there, Donner's influence was too powerful among Superman fans, imho.
I'd be worried if Nolan's influence was inescapable in film right now. Snyder, TB&TB, Gotham and other things prove that Nolan's shadow isn't as long as the core Nolan fans might think. For a while there, Donner's influence was too powerful in Superman media, imho.
I'd be absolutely panicked if Nolan's influence was inescapable in comics right now. But the sheer variety of Batman comics that have been published since 2005 illustrate (hehe, see what I did there?) that Nolan's influence on comics is important but, frankly, noticeably less than, say, Burton's influence was back in the old days. For a while there, Donner's influence was too powerful in Superman comics. Even comics talent seemed to want to acknowledge that Superman's best days were behind him.
All in all, Batman is in a much safer place than Superman is (or was). Nolan's Batman is fondly remembered but I don't think it's gone overboard yet. For Superman, yeah, Donner's shadow loomed large. But it seems to be receding. We're reaching a time now when the great majority of people under the age of 30 haven't seen STM. That wasn't the case back in the late 80's.
The challenge Superman is facing right now is more fundamental in nature than anything Batman faces. As Donner becomes more forgotten by the broad masses, Superman will have to prove his authenticity to the general public anew. I believe there are reasons for optimism there.
Batman, meanwhile, has been virtually the zeitgeist of superheroes since 2005. His brand is strong even now but the challenge he's facing is that the public still has fond memories of Nolan's work. Establishing a different Batman who can appeal as strongly to general audiences has been the name of the game so far.
Frankly, I think that maybe some good medicine for Batman right now might be a lighter take on the character in film. Maybe not as light as B&R was but something less dark and gritty than the stuff we've seen lately might appeal to wide audiences. If nothing else, it avoids an immediate and obvious comparison to Nolan's work, which I believe would be a positive thing.
As to this business about Keaton being definitive, I've always struggled with that. To me, the defining element of B89 and BR is Tim Burton's vision. Keaton is simply one brush stroke on a much bigger canvas. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most of what I love about Keaton's performances is owed to Burton. I don't know that I care to see a Batman film starring Keaton which isn't directed by Burton. So I don't think I agree with the writer of that article in that respect.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 27 Dec 2018, 06:24
Snyder, TB&TB, Gotham and other things prove that Nolan's shadow isn't as long as the core Nolan fans might think. For a while there, Donner's influence was too powerful in Superman media, imho.
Yes, there are plenty of fans of Affleck's Batman, but unfortunately media consensus - or manipulation if I may be cynical about it - can affect reception among the wider public. That blog isn't the first time somebody tried to criticise Affleck's acting, I've seen somebody trying to say the same thing recently in a Variety blog.
As for The Brave and The Bold and Gotham, it's great they have fans. But I don't see them popular enough among wider audiences. At best, their appreciation is the equivalent of STAS and Smallville. They have their fans, but not enough to skew Donner's influence.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 27 Dec 2018, 06:24
All in all, Batman is in a much safer place than Superman is (or was). Nolan's Batman is fondly remembered but I don't think it's gone overboard yet.
I have to disagree. From what I've seen of the overblown backlash towards BvS, I'm convinced Nolan's shadow IS stronger more than ever.
Look at the critical reaction to his series and overpraise for its dark tone and its seriousness, but conveniently turned it against Snyder when he made BvS. They turned a blind eye to blatant faults in Nolan's stuff, but suddenly nitpicked everything about Snyder from top to bottom. The thing is, the darkness and seriousness they hated so much about Snyder is influenced by Nolan, which they loved. I might like MOS okay, but I'm objective enough to see Nolan's fingerprints, and the obvious fact he and Goyer co-wrote the script together. I'm not blinded by the fact that MOS and BvS wouldn't exist today if it weren't for those Nolan movies. But as we can see, there appears to be multiple standards when it comes to these comic book adaptations.
These critics and fans move the goalposts to suit themselves. For example, I remember TDK got a lot of positive feedback for using 9/11 and Al-Qaeda imagery in many scenes because, according to them, it gave the film a sense of "realism". But when it came to MOS and BvS showing the severe attacks on Metropolis and Capitol bombing, it was suddenly deemed "too exploitative". Suddenly, mirroring disastrous events to real life tragedies were done in "bad taste". That's what I see people say on social media. Well, going by their criteria, doesn't that make TDK exploitative as well?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 27 Dec 2018, 06:24
Frankly, I think that maybe some good medicine for Batman right now might be a lighter take on the character in film. Maybe not as light as B&R was but something less dark and gritty than the stuff we've seen lately might appeal to wide audiences. If nothing else, it avoids an immediate and obvious comparison to Nolan's work, which I believe would be a positive thing.
I know it's not what you meant to say, but if this is true, this only proves a certain standard doesn't apply to Nolan compared to other interpretations of Batman. I don't see how this is any different or better than the perception over Donner. I would not be surprised if Reeves makes his Batman movie the first one the character doesn't kill anybody since George Clooney, critics and audiences will suddenly complain about how unrealistic it is. Do NOT underestimate how fickle and stupid these people are.
Honestly, it's come to a point people will desperately do anything to keep the narrative of "Nolan is the best" alive. It's as dishonest as the narrative behind "only the MCU knows how to make good comic book movies".
I had a good think about this, and ultimately I sided with colors.
Yes, the DCEU has become a patchwork, so the Nolan era is looked back upon fondly. It has a good reputation, whether some people like it or not. So indeed, there is a shadow being cast by Nolan in that regard.
There are Nolan influences in other Batman media, sure. But is it all encompassing? I say it's not.
It's been six years since TDK Rises, and eventually, an equilibrium is eventually reached. Everything settles back into the greater ocean that is 'the brand'. The brand is bigger than any one incarnation, no matter what any petty blogger says.
At the end of the day, the brand is something as simple as seeing someone wearing a Batman logo t-shirt. The spirit of the character where the logo can represent anything you want it to. Everything reverts to that basic idea, no matter how many films get released in your lifetime.
As colors essentially argues, Donner has been far more corrosive to the Superman brand in comparison to Nolan. Far more.
I'll say this about Donner. He definitely had an everlasting legacy, both good and bad, when it comes to Superman. As a matter of fact, you could call it the true "Superman curse".
His impact can definitely be seen in a lot of TV shows, the CW being the most inspired by his concepts. Even Snyder, Nolan and Goyer took a lot of story elements from 1978 and SII to create MOS, such as the S symbol being a family crest, Zod as the villain, him and Superman battling it out in Metropolis, and so on.
But there is definitely a negative side to the Donner legacy. Specifically, people's romanticised obsession with the first two Reeve films, to the point they're blinded by their flaws. For all the kick and fuss about what Pa Kent's death in MOS, for instance, people love to refer to the scene where Glenn Ford's death was inevitable because Clark realises "all my powers, and I couldn't even save him". Sadly, this poignant scene does get undermined by the end of the movie, perhaps even more so in the Donner cut SII, when Superman turns back time to prevent every trouble he faces in the third act.
Sure, if you watch that scene from an emotional perspective, it's brilliant. But from a plot perspective, it's nonsense. It does make you question if Superman can turn back time at some point in history, then why doesn't he go back further and take his father to hospital for treatment before he suffers that heart attack? It would've prolonged his life a bit longer, or better yet, prevent every other tragedy that affected the world? It is a pretty big cop out, and does ruin every tension happening in the story. And of course, there is the desperation some people have trying to argue Zod didn't die in SII because of the deleted arctic scene, even though neither Lester nor Donner included that scene in the final cut, but whatever.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but like Batman, there isn't a definitive, nor perfect, version of Superman. Reeve and Cavill both have their pros and cons, whether or not fans want to admit it.
Going back to Keaton, I somehow doubt his reemergence over the last four years would've made more of these bloggers to look back fondly of his Batman performance. I've noticed that entertainment writers love to parrot popular opinion and whatever is trendy for the moment. Had Keaton never returned to the Hollywood limelight, and didn't get praise for Birdman, I bet they'd still play down his portrayal in the Burton movies, as they did over a decade ago.
Speaking of Birdman, this scene perfectly sums up blockbusters and moviegoers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLyqFFR9kPE
I do like Reeve and Cavill, but I don't think the cinematic franchise has captured the universe as well as the animated series. There's true warmth in the relationship between Clark and Lois, and Clark is not a bumbling dweeb. There's a good range of villains and a fun tone that still engages with interesting plots. The Dean Cain show is a close second for me for most of the same reasons. I do think a certain cheesy lightness works for Superman really well, but it's a very specific kind of atmosphere that differentiates itself from other heroes. It's old school in spirit and kinda hard to explain, but it's there. Along the lines of the shirt rip, the phone booth and the use of glasses as an identity. It's kinda corny but hard not to love.
In somewhat related news, Eric Roberts was recently asked about who was his favourite Batman, and he says it's Keaton.
Quote
I loved Michael's performance in that movie. And I believed him! He was the Batman!
https://toofab.com/2019/12/26/eric-roberts-declares-which-batman-was-best-by-far-exclusive/
I found this blog that collected some of the most negative reactions when Keaton was cast as Batman back in the day.
https://www.liveabout.com/angry-reactions-to-the-casting-of-michael-keaton-as-batman-327068
Without a doubt, it's a far cry from the adoration that most people have for his portrayal nowadays. Let alone people getting excited over his rumoured return.
Thankfully, social media didn't exist back in the late eighties. The cartoon below would've been a popular meme among the haters. Had the internet existed back then, it would've reached a wider audience far beyond the confines of a magazine readership.
(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/nDNIzENMc3rwOE0SdL58S_XbAic=/889x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/michaelkeatonasbatman-56ab309f3df78cf772b4da78.jpg)
Correction: what's wrong with this picture? ;)
(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/TQbNhxB63BQ9YnH2h1dQsofczUg=/1002x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/keatonbatman1989-56ab23053df78cf772b4cf6a.jpg)
I think Keaton and Bale are both pretty definitive, between them basically the most definitive. New actors, and directors, have big boots to fill.
I'm a bit less fond of Keaton personally since he did Birdman and the idea of bringing to do a Batman Beyond wouldn't make sense since, like it or not, Burton and BB have entirely different perspectives on killing, BB largely based on that he's unwilling to continue because he's unwilling to use lethal weapons.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 17:19
I think Keaton and Bale are both pretty definitive, between them basically the most definitive. New actors, and directors, have big boots to fill.
Burton's Batman is still the gold standard in terms of atmosphere and music, which goes a long way. But on paper, I think Affleck is the best overall actor for the role we've had since 1989, and I'm confident that will be shown again in ZSJL. He's the most physically intimidating and sells the billionaire playboy better than any of them. Which demonstrates to me that nostalgia is extremely powerful but it can be penetrated. I'm not sure just how high Pattinson will climb, but I'm making the prediction he'll be better than Bale.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 17:19
I'm a bit less fond of Keaton personally since he did Birdman and the idea of bringing to do a Batman Beyond wouldn't make sense since, like it or not, Burton and BB have entirely different perspectives on killing, BB largely based on that he's unwilling to continue because he's unwilling to use lethal weapons.
How do we know Keaton retired? I think it's possible he kept fighting for 30 years, with allies such as Alfred and Gordon passing away during that time. If Keaton had to retire, or at least slow down, some physical impairment would be a satisfactory explanation.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 17:19
I think Keaton and Bale are both pretty definitive, between them basically the most definitive. New actors, and directors, have big boots to fill.
I disagree on Bale, his portrayal was rather terrible. I'd pick any other actor in the Batman role before him. It's too bad, he's otherwise a great actor.
Keaton is definitely an innovator when it comes to playing Batman, so it's about time more people are starting to give him the credit that he deserved.
Quote from: Andrew on Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 17:19
I'm a bit less fond of Keaton personally since he did Birdman and the idea of bringing to do a Batman Beyond wouldn't make sense since, like it or not, Burton and BB have entirely different perspectives on killing, BB largely based on that he's unwilling to continue because he's unwilling to use lethal weapons.
I get that Birdman had some antipathy towards comic book films, but I'd like to think that Keaton wants to be known for more than be a typecast for certain roles. Plus, his return to comic adaptations with him playing the Vulture in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Morbius shows he isn't completely dismissive to the material.
If Batman Beyond starring Keaton ever happens, I wouldn't expect it to copy the show's premise just because they share the same title. The third Captain America film was subtitled Civil War but took lots of liberties from the comic source material. So I would expect a potential Batman Beyond film to do the same.
Besides, if you want a faithful film adaptation of Batman Beyond then I'm afraid you're in for some tough luck. Apart from George Clooney and Val Kilmer, all the other Batmen have killed and used guns.
QuoteBut there is definitely a negative side to the Donner legacy. Specifically, people's romanticised obsession with the first two Reeve films, to the point they're blinded by their flaws. For all the kick and fuss about what Pa Kent's death in MOS, for instance, people love to refer to the scene where Glenn Ford's death was inevitable because Clark realises "all my powers, and I couldn't even save him". Sadly, this poignant scene does get undermined by the end of the movie, perhaps even more so in the Donner cut SII, when Superman turns back time to prevent every trouble he faces in the third act.
Sure, if you watch that scene from an emotional perspective, it's brilliant. But from a plot perspective, it's nonsense. It does make you question if Superman can turn back time at some point in history, then why doesn't he go back further and take his father to hospital for treatment before he suffers that heart attack? It would've prolonged his life a bit longer, or better yet, prevent every other tragedy that affected the world? It is a pretty big cop out, and does ruin every tension happening in the story. And of course, there is the desperation some people have trying to argue Zod didn't die in SII because of the deleted arctic scene, even though neither Lester nor Donner included that scene in the final cut, but whatever.
The reason that scene works in the first film is because Superman is driven by sadness over the loss of a loved one, frustration of being too late in saving her and defiance from his father's repeated words of not interfering with human history. This was a brilliant move of their part to make this original ending for Superman II the ending of the first to give more weight to the climax than simply Superman averting disaster. This is exactly why everyone reacted negatively to how they repeated this for the Donner Cut. None of that is apparent other than they needed a way to return to the status quo without dire consequences. I'm sure this wasn't going to be repeated if Donner was allowed to finish the movie properly.
QuoteI disagree on Bale, his portrayal was rather terrible. I'd pick any other actor in the Batman role before him. It's too bad, he's otherwise a great actor.
Bale is honestly the only actor current viable actor I can see in the role then and now. He's got the right look and chips to pull it off. Others like Affleck bring a lot of unwanted weight (no pun intended) to the role.
The problems he encountered playing the role lie sorely on Nolan's direction. He admired that he had no clear vision on how he wanted the Batman persona to come across on screen and they went overboard with him growling his overly long dialogue. Burton and Keaton knew that less is more went a long way with their incarnation. There are many scenes that would have played out perfectly had they'd thought to have Bale drop the Batman voice when delivering his long monologues.
QuotePlus, his return to comic adaptations with him playing the Vulture in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Morbius shows he isn't completely dismissive to the material.
Keaton is doing it all for the money, taking a lesson from his co-star Jack Nicholson.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 10:08
Bale is honestly the only actor current viable actor I can see in the role then and now. He's got the right look and chips to pull it off. Others like Affleck bring a lot of unwanted weight (no pun intended) to the role.
If we're going by the standard of unwanted weight, say hello to Bale's Terminator set rant and the relationship with his mother and sister. Nobody is perfect, and strictly speaking it's only the performance that should be judged.
QuoteNobody is perfect, and strictly speaking it's only the performance that should be judged.
Take it away!
https://youtu.be/SsPrQgTO0HU
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 12:49
QuoteNobody is perfect, and strictly speaking it's only the performance that should be judged.
Take it away!
https://youtu.be/SsPrQgTO0HU
Still clinging on to old prejudices, I see. Affleck has come a long way since Pearl Harbour, from Hollywoodland to most recently The Way Back.
Besides, Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't get everything right. Don't you remember the rather obscene way they spoofed Christopher Reeve and stem cell research on South Park? Or the despicable way they had George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raping Indiana Jones in the same show, just to express their disgust for the fourth Indy movie? Excuse me if I don't totally trust their own judgement of character, satire be damned.
QuoteStill clinging on to old prejudices, I see. Affleck has come a long way since Pearl Harbour, from Hollywoodland to most recently The Way Back.
Besides, Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't get everything right. Don't you remember the rather obscene way they spoofed Christopher Reeve and stem cell research on South Park? Or the despicable way they had George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raping Indiana Jones in the same show, just to express their disgust for the fourth Indy movie? Excuse me if I don't totally trust their own judgement of character, satire be damned.
Exactly your problem, damming satire. I'm sorry you're not a fan of political or dark humor. It was clearly a parody of people stating "George Lucas raped our childhood," an allegory that is taken to the extreme.
What I don't get how you can cling to a bottle when you're somehow married to an incredible woman like Jennifer Gardner. It's a real shame that he's gotta jump on everyone's bandwagon when comes to the opinion of Daredevil. He didn't care that he was a decent comic book movie of its time and it gave him an opportunity to meet his future ex-wife.
Affleck is the washed up ex-jock pretending he's the hero he never was. He knows how good he had it and has paid the price.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:07
Exactly your problem, damming satire. I'm sorry you're not a fan of political or dark humor.
Not necessarily true, I just don't care for certain instances when it backfires miserably. Hence my following comment.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:07
It was clearly a parody of people stating "George Lucas raped our childhood," an allegory that is taken to the extreme.
Yeah, well, considering I know someone who did get raped when they were younger, you can forgive me if I think such an allegory is abhorrent. But hey, if you think I'm too sensitive to appreciate such "dark humour" because of this tragic knowledge I've got in the back of my mind then that's your problem.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:07
What I don't get how you can cling to a bottle when you're somehow married to an incredible woman like Jennifer Gardner. It's a real shame that he's gotta jump on everyone's bandwagon when comes to the opinion of Daredevil. He didn't care that he was a decent comic book movie of its time and it gave him an opportunity to meet his future ex-wife.
Affleck is the washed up ex-jock pretending he's the hero he never was. He knows how good he had it and has paid the price.
You seem to resent Affleck for not showing any respect for the Daredevil film he worked on. Well, I got news for you, sometimes actors just don't care for the material that they starred in. For instance, Alec Guinness once told a young enthusiastic Star Wars fan to stop watching the film, because he hated it himself. Harrison Ford doesn't seem to care much for the franchise either, even though it made him such a household name. I shouldn't have to point out actors play make-believe for a living.
QuoteNot necessarily true, I just don't care for certain instances when it backfires miserably. Hence my following comment.
Yeah, well, considering I know someone who did get raped when they were younger, you can forgive me if I think such an allegory is abhorrent. But hey, if you think I'm too sensitive to appreciate such "dark humour" because of this tragic knowledge I've got in the back of my mind then that's your problem.
Definitely a hazard when it comes to approaching this type of material. Some of it will land and some of it won't. They definitely landed on Affleck's case.
QuoteYou seem to resent Affleck for not showing any respect for the Daredevil film he worked on. Well, I got news for you, sometimes actors just don't care for the material that they starred in. For instance, Alec Guinness once told a young enthusiastic Star Wars fan to stop watching the film, because he hated it himself. Harrison Ford doesn't seem to care much for the franchise either, even though it made him such a household name. I shouldn't have to point out actors play make-believe for a living.
Your examples reacted that way because it's something they're constantly asked about. Guinness was annoyed that his body of work seemed to him was going to ignored for this one role of his. Ford feels the same way and isn't someone who doesn't like his personal space violated. Affleck got his noise with his light over the years and is only now starting to sober up. For Daredevil, he acts as though he was in an episode of the 80's Superboy TV show than a multi-million dollar movie, calling it "embarrassing." That kind of attitude never warrant him to wear the cowl of Batman. Adam West truly did material that at times was embarrassing but he never called it that. He was always grateful for the opportunity.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:07What I don't get how you can cling to a bottle when you're somehow married to an incredible woman like Jennifer Gardner.
Usually, I try to stay out of other people's drama. But dude, not cool. Addiction is a real thing. Nobody asks to be born with it. All the love in the world won't necessarily stop somebody from throwing their lives away on their addiction. It's no reflection on either Affleck or Garner's personal character that Affleck has a serious problem.
The rest of your post is a matter of taste that isn't open to debate. But this comment was out of line, if you ask me. And if it helps to establish my own prejudices, I find
Affleck The Public Figure to be obnoxious and kind of unbearable at times.
Problem with Affleck is that he never let anyone give him this speech until it was too late.
https://youtu.be/X03KitgIrxk
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:59
QuoteNot necessarily true, I just don't care for certain instances when it backfires miserably. Hence my following comment.
Yeah, well, considering I know someone who did get raped when they were younger, you can forgive me if I think such an allegory is abhorrent. But hey, if you think I'm too sensitive to appreciate such "dark humour" because of this tragic knowledge I've got in the back of my mind then that's your problem.
Definitely a hazard when it comes to approaching this type of material. Some of it will land and some of it won't.
Then don't patronise and make any assumptions if people don't appreciate such edgy attempts at satire. If someone doesn't think a taboo "joke" is funny, they likely have a very good reason.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:59
QuoteYou seem to resent Affleck for not showing any respect for the Daredevil film he worked on. Well, I got news for you, sometimes actors just don't care for the material that they starred in. For instance, Alec Guinness once told a young enthusiastic Star Wars fan to stop watching the film, because he hated it himself. Harrison Ford doesn't seem to care much for the franchise either, even though it made him such a household name. I shouldn't have to point out actors play make-believe for a living.
Your examples reacted that way because it's something they're constantly asked about. Guinness was annoyed that his body of work seemed to him was going to ignored for this one role of his. Ford feels the same way and isn't someone who doesn't like his personal space violated.
Guinness wasn't only annoyed that his whole career was going to be ignored for only one role, he was very scathing of the entire script for A New Hope. He reportedly called it "fairy-tale rubbish" even before he started working on it.
https://dangerousminds.net/comments/alec_guinness_a.k.a._obi_wan_kenobi_kind_of_hated_star_wars
As for Ford, one can argue he can be a bit of a primadonna seeing as he has enjoyed a rather illustrious career compared to some of his fellow Star Wars co-stars.
But you know what? All of that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that some actors, like in Guinness and Affleck's case, did some projects for the money but without affection for the material. And you know what? That's life. They're actors. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone whose real-life personalities reflect that of the characters they play on screen. The only thing you can expect from them is to play their roles at the very best of their abilities. Not everyone is like Chadwick Boseman or Adam West.
Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 14:59
Affleck got his noise with his light over the years and is only now starting to sober up. For Daredevil, he acts as though he was in an episode of the 80's Superboy TV show than a multi-million dollar movie, calling it "embarrassing." That kind of attitude never warrant him to wear the cowl of Batman. Adam West truly did material that at times was embarrassing but he never called it that. He was always grateful for the opportunity.
The problem is you're judging Affleck because of his lack of appreciation for his own work in Daredevil, when you don't seem to realise (or are possibly ignoring) that he is actually grateful to play Batman. The only reason Affleck got convinced to star in comic book adaptations again was because he was impressed with Snyder's vision of the character. And guess what? Unlike Daredevil, Affleck has gone on record saying how much he loved working on BvS and he had been very supportive of the campaign to get the Snyder cut released. I'll even post the videos again that I shared in the Daredevil comic influences thread.
https://youtu.be/ej99nhfsfXo?t=1098
https://youtu.be/3GrxCD0pSAs
That's right, despite all the derision BvS gets from critics and detractors, and how much they would've loved the Snyder cut to stay buried, Affleck still appreciates playing Batman and stands by those films. Had there not been any trouble behind the scenes of JL, it wouldn't have exacerbated his own personal life problems, and he would've more than likely starred in his own solo film by now.
I get you don't like Affleck, that's fine. You can even continue making crass little remarks at his past addictions if it makes you feel any better. But spare us this petty bullsh*t that he should never have been given the Batman role just because he didn't enjoy playing Daredevil many years ago.
QuoteThen don't patronise and make any assumptions if people don't appreciate such edgy attempts at satire. If someone doesn't think a taboo "joke" is funny, they likely have a very good reason.
And don't act like you're the gatekeeper of humor and crass everyone that doesn't follow you. Again, this type of humor is not on the same level of things that are meant to be knee slapping hilarious. People probably don't find The Joker fying someone to death because they may know someone burned to death. Look up how Jack Cassidy died.
QuoteGuinness wasn't only annoyed that his whole career was going to be ignored for only one role, he was very scathing of the entire script for A New Hope. He reportedly called it "fairy-tale rubbish" even before he started working on it.
Ooh, can I play too? Schwarzenegger was calling the first Terminator sh*t before it came out and became his signature role that he can't escape from now with all of the attempts at bringing it back. Guinness most likely wasn't fond of the working conditions but he seemed to get along with his costars and was lucky that it all came together as good as it did. Again what really annoyed him the most was that was going to be the first thing mentioned in his eulogy and not his preferred body of work that he wanted to be remembered for. An actor of his stature like wants to be remembered for all of his roles, not the one that made the most money at the box office.
QuoteAs for Ford, one can argue he can be a bit of a primadonna seeing as he has enjoyed a rather illustrious career compared to some of his fellow Star Wars co-stars.
What's wrong with a man appreciating the success he's had? He's not a total curmudgeon because he's taken a lot of it in stride. It's part of his sense of humor and appeal. He let Conan O'Brien air a clip of him in the Star Wars Holiday Special and played up the humor of the situation. If you played a clip of Gigli for Affleck, he would just get pissy and storm off like a child.
QuoteThat's right, despite all the derision BvS gets from critics and detractors, and how much they would've loved the Snyder cut to stay buried, Affleck still appreciates playing Batman and stands by those films. Had there not been any trouble behind the scenes of JL, it wouldn't have exacerbated his own personal life problems, and he would've more than likely starred in his own solo film by now.
I get you don't like Affleck, that's fine. You can even continue making crass little remarks at his past addictions if it makes you feel any better. But spare us this petty bullsh*t that he should never have been given the Batman role just because he didn't enjoy playing Daredevil many years ago.
The main reason he's doing all of this praise of Snyder and all is because he was involved beyond just being an actor. He used his Oscar winning leverage to get Chris Terrio involved with the final screenplay and was an executive producer on Justice League. He can't turn against this as easily as he's done with films that's made him a star (not just Daredevil, but Armageddon and Pearl Harbor). He knows that he can blame only himself for decisions that lead to the polarizing at best reception to the films he was Batman in.
Now that this Snyder cut is coming soon, it's the only thing he's got to cling to since he's now relegated to cheap sports movies now that his last directorial effort was a bomb, thanks partially in part to him not considering this kind of reaction taking on a big part like Batman that dominated a lot of the publicity. It was largely a mistake to cast a star like Affleck in this role because Batman doesn't need to star. The suit makes the man.
And since were passing around clips, just see how this guy deals with people that have a different opinion from him. He believes getting pissy and angry will somehow make him win an argument when all it does is just makes look terrible, just like a lot of his acting. Again, not worthy of the cowl. I trust that learning this is not acceptable behavior has been part of his sobering process.
https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60
Personally I liked Affleck's acting (Pearl Harbor aside) in his movies to about 2004/2006, since then he's come off as too egotistical for me to like (including or especially in that clip, sarcastically responding "You're the expert" is a very annoying, weak response to take in a discussion), I used to completely separate actors' personal lives and screen presences but that division has been declining.
Ford and Affleck do both come off as overly egotistical and unappreciative of their stardom but I guess that's not really surprising or unusual, with enough talent to do great in a role you probably usually will think that you completely deserved it and you specifically were what made the rest great.