Batman-Online.com

Who should it be? My money's on James Franco.

I hope not.

I'm not sure if Michael Fassbender could do Batman. He was great at Magneto but they are very different.

I like to see Batman as Batman, so I'd like an actor who doesn't bring baggage and is relatively unknown. A star waiting to happen. People will go, how can he be Batman? And then the movie will come out and people will say how were we so blind?

So you want them to do something like the makers of Superman did when they cast Christopher Reeve?  If it happens this way, how will it turn out?

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 13:20
So you want them to do something like the makers of Superman did when they cast Christopher Reeve?  If it happens this way, how will it turn out?

A zillion times better than James Franco, I'll tell you that.

We don't know if it'll be Franco or Fassbender or an unknown.

I am supremely confident Franco's name won't even be raised. And if it were, the boardroom would erupt in laughter. I don't hate the guy, but he's not Batman. No chance whatsoever.

People said the same thing about Michael Keaton...

Fassbender is a very good actor, but fans are suggesting him and Benedict Cumberbatch for pretty much every role these days. I'd be happy to see him in a Batman film, but not as Batman.

And James Franco – I just don't think he's right for the part at all. I've got nothing against the guy. But he's wrong for Batman.

My ideal scenario for the Batman reboot would be to begin with a middle-aged Batman who's already been established for a good ten to fifteen years; depicting events from the perspective of Dick Grayson and using his origin story as an entry point into an ongoing narrative that would culminate in him becoming Nightwing. Instead of retreading ground which Nolan has covered in his trilogy – focusing on a young Batman and his early solo exploits – this would be a progression into fresh territory which, aside from Schumacher's movies, has yet to be covered in a contemporary live action movie.

As far as casting the lead role in this project – well, I've said this in several threads already, but I'll say it again – Jim Caviezel should play Batman. He's the only actor I can think of who is a perfect physical match for the Bruce Wayne in the comics: 6 foot 2, 210lbs, black hair, blue eyes and a chiselled jaw line. He also has a background as a college athlete and trained in martial arts since childhood. He even sounds like Batman. Stick him in the Arkham Asylum costume and IMO you'd have the definitive live action Batman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be9mVKoxUEU

That being said, the new Batman film is obviously going to be aligned with the Man of Steel shared universe. And that means we're going to have to cover Batman's origins all over again. This is problematic for me, not just because Batman Begins only came out eight years ago, but also because Nolan's take on the origin story is so highly revered that audiences are unlikely to accept a different version. It might be better to skip the origin and just hint at it in a few flashbacks, like Burton did in Batman 89. Either way, they're going to need a young actor in his late twenties/early thirties to match up to Henry Cavill (who incidentally was an inspired choice to play Superman). And with that in mind, I have no idea who could play the part. There are no young actors at the moment who really leap out at me as suitable candidates for the role. So I'm going to have to agree with The Dark Knight on this one.

QuoteI like to see Batman as Batman, so I'd like an actor who doesn't bring baggage and is relatively unknown. A star waiting to happen. People will go, how can he be Batman? And then the movie will come out and people will say how were we so blind?

^ This. Let's find a fresh face that none of us have considered. And I'd really like them to pick someone who physically matches up to the role. None of the Batman actors to date have really measured up to the description of Bruce Wayne in the comics. It's about time we had a really tough actor take on the role. Someone who can convince the audience they can really handle themselves in a fight, but who can also convey the intelligence that is so vital to Batman's essence.

Truth be told, I'd much rather have a live action Batman and Robin TV show than another movie. But I also want to see Batman appear in the JLA film. Maybe we could have both: a middle-aged Batman teaming up with Robin on our TV screens, while a younger fresh faced Batman teams up with Superman on the big screen. They could even be set in the same universe, with the TV show taking place fifteen years after the events in the movie series.

Well, I can always dream... :-\

<< Truth be told, I'd much rather have a live action Batman and Robin TV show than another movie.>>


Yes! Yes! Yes! I dream of this too... but sadly it's only a dream.

James Franco has already played a semi-iconic comic-book character so I'll doubt he'll be cast as another one (although admittedly that doesn't stop Chris Evans and Ryan Reynolds playing half of the Marvel Universe between them).  Also, like Dark Knight and Silver Nemesis say, he's not right for the part.

Michael Fassbender, who has already played an even more iconic comic-book character, would be a better fit but I'd personally prefer to see him as James Bond once Daniel Craig 'retires'.  On the basis of the film 'Havoc' Fassbender is one of the few actors who could play the cold, aloof, classy but cruel, and deadly charming British agent exactly as Ian Fleming wrote him.

As for an older actor playing a middle-aged Batman, I'd definitely like to see that for a future Batman series, although my pick would be Jon Hamm who has got the dashing playboy aspect of the character down perfectly on 'Mad Men'.  I see Jim Caviezel more as an older Superman, an otherworldly type with an upstanding moral character.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 17:45My ideal scenario for the Batman reboot would be to begin with a middle-aged Batman who's already been established for a good ten to fifteen years; depicting events from the perspective of Dick Grayson and using his origin story as an entry point into an ongoing narrative that would culminate in him becoming Nightwing. Instead of retreading ground which Nolan has covered in his trilogy – focusing on a young Batman and his early solo exploits – this would be a progression into fresh territory which, aside from Schumacher's movies, has yet to be covered in a contemporary live action movie.

Eh, this opens the door for Batman being first in the Cinematic DCU. I'm not cool with that.

Of course, having said that, I will now proceed to undermine my own point by throwing out Joe Manganiello's name. He was a kinda sorta contender for Superman but when I look at his features... eh, I could see Bruce there. Sure, he was the iconic character of Flash Thompson in the first Raimi movie but I don't think anybody will struggle to see beyond that.

If they did go for a Batman in his 40s, I'd love Caviezel or Hamm in the role, but as stated, with Cavill as Superman, it's more likely we'll get someone around Cavill's age.

My hopes for the next Batman are:
- a Batman voice that's not the brunt of YouTube parodies
- a Batsuit that's closer to the comic aesthetic.  I'd be very happy with a live action Arkham-type suit.
- more of Batman as a superhero.  Let's truly see him as the World's Greatest Detective and one of the world's best martial artists this time.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 19:17
Michael Fassbender, who has already played an even more iconic comic-book character, would be a better fit but I'd personally prefer to see him as James Bond once Daniel Craig 'retires'.  On the basis of the film 'Havoc' Fassbender is one of the few actors who could play the cold, aloof, classy but cruel, and deadly charming British agent exactly as Ian Fleming wrote him.

Exactly. Fassbender would be a great replacement for Craig. The concern with all of these things is age. If Craig does just two more, and that takes another 5 years - which is pretty much the deal, Fassbender would be 41. Though Roger Moore started when he was 45 years old and did 7 films. The days of 7 plus seem over to me considering the scheduling, but Fassbender could fit in 3, maybe 4 films. I'd take that.

Back to the Bat, I also want to see a portrayal that is more focused on detective work. Crime scene kits, the lot. Not as bash and crash, but when the time comes he will put you down quickly and quietly. I think it's time we saw a Batman that was established, though perhaps not too 'old', with a set of rogues already established. We don't need their origins all over again. Let's see the rapport Batman has established with them.

QuoteExactly. Fassbender would be a great replacement for Craig. The concern with all of these things is age. If Craig does just two more, and that takes another 5 years - which is pretty much the deal, Fassbender would be 41. Though Roger Moore started when he was 45 years old and did 7 films. The days of 7 plus seem over to me considering the scheduling, but Fassbender could fit in 3, maybe 4 films. I'd take that.

Just one James Bond movie featuring Fassbender would be great but three (perhaps a self-contained trilogy) or four films would be ideal.

QuoteBack to the Bat, I also want to see a portrayal that is more focused on detective work. Crime scene kits, the lot. Not as bash and crash, but when the time comes he will put you down quickly and quietly. I think it's time we saw a Batman that was established, though perhaps not too 'old', with a set of rogues already established. We don't need their origins all over again. Let's see the rapport Batman has established with them.

I agree.  I'd like to see a Batman live-action series akin to B:TAS where most of the key villains have already been established, as has Batman, without any need for lengthy back-story but a focus instead on the villains' individual plans and how Batman sets about thwarting them.  A few scenes in Arkham Asylum and Blackgate Penetentiary where some of those villains could already by incarcerated would also be appreciated thus implying an already fraught history between Batman and his enemies. 

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 19:09
<< Truth be told, I'd much rather have a live action Batman and Robin TV show than another movie.>>


Yes! Yes! Yes! I dream of this too... but sadly it's only a dream.

Not if it's done in that shoddy, bland, teen-orientated CW style patented by Smallville (which I don't mind but don't particularly love either) and the disappointing Green Arrow.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 02:44

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 19:09
<< Truth be told, I'd much rather have a live action Batman and Robin TV show than another movie.>>


Yes! Yes! Yes! I dream of this too... but sadly it's only a dream.

Not if it's done in that shoddy, bland, teen-orientated CW style patented by Smallville (which I don't mind but don't particularly love either) and the disappointing Green Arrow.

Some of the acting I saw on Smallville was the reason that put me off about the show. I've only seen the pilot for Arrow, which I thought that the concept was good but the acting does not do it any justice. Very soap-opera stuff.

I find it hard to imagine how a Batman TV series could work without making it look as cinematic as possible. And that would still be difficult because, unless you want to continue with that pseudo-reality world Nolan pretended to create, a lot of characters would be hard to adapt convincingly on TV, i.e. Killer Croc, Clayface. Even Gotham City would be hard to imagine convincingly if you wanted to make it look gothic, and make it look high quality too.

On topic, ten years ago I would say Eric Bana would be an alright choice for Batman, but not now. I'd say an unknown would be a better choice.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 03:38

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 02:44

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 13 Jul  2013, 19:09
<< Truth be told, I'd much rather have a live action Batman and Robin TV show than another movie.>>


Yes! Yes! Yes! I dream of this too... but sadly it's only a dream.

Not if it's done in that shoddy, bland, teen-orientated CW style patented by Smallville (which I don't mind but don't particularly love either) and the disappointing Green Arrow.

Some of the acting I saw on Smallville was the reason that put me off about the show. I've only seen the pilot for Arrow, which I thought that the concept was good but the acting does not do it any justice. Very soap-opera stuff.

I find it hard to imagine how a Batman TV series could work without making it look as cinematic as possible. And that would still be difficult because, unless you want to continue with that pseudo-reality world Nolan pretended to create, a lot of characters would be hard to adapt convincingly on TV, i.e. Killer Croc, Clayface. Even Gotham City would be hard to imagine convincingly if you wanted to make it look gothic, and make it look high quality too.

Yes, it's the soap-operish look of these shows that put me off, although like I said before, I kind of like 'Smallville' for what it is even though it's far from my preferred version of Superman.

Also, I agree that a TV budget doesn't really do justice for a character like Batman.  I have a high regard for all the modern Batman movies, even the Schumacher ones to some degree, because good or bad all of them are genuinely 'cinematic' particularly in terms of visuals.

I also hope that whether Batman is next seen in a film or a TV show Warner Bros choose to move on from the pseudo-reality style and instead embrace the more fantastical elements of the character and his world.  Nolan did a great job with the 'realism' angle, now for something different please.

I'd love this type of aesthetic (with a different Batmobile, obviously).  The grandfather clock.  The stairs leading down to the Batcave.  The blimp in Gotham:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VantA55EI7Q

^ Ditto.

Thritto. That would be amazing.

I also want to see a dark, stormy night. The closest we've had to this is The Narrows in BB. I'm thinking along the lines of lightning, hard rain, wind, etc.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 05:22Thritto. That would be amazing.

I also want to see a dark, stormy night. The closest we've had to this is The Narrows in BB. I'm thinking along the lines of lightning, hard rain, wind, etc.

To amplify on that, I'd like the world to be a bit colorless (desaturated) and dirty with overly-harsh bright lights and deep, dark shadows; not much in between. I've advocated that Sin City/300 style before and am doing so again here because I think it's an amazing approach to making films and it's perfect for Batman.

Agreed there too. A level of gloominess that is heightened to that of our own reality. Stylised. But still Earth bound.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 05:22
Thritto. That would be amazing.

I also want to see a dark, stormy night. The closest we've had to this is The Narrows in BB. I'm thinking along the lines of lightning, hard rain, wind, etc.

rain should be in the movie all the way through and there should be some storming going on too. and if its dry during any day scenes the sky should still be so dark and ominous that you need your headlights when you are driving and to have the lights on in your house. plenty of wind too. stiff breezes and stuff.

my first fanfic attempt i mentioned that it was raining in nearly every chapter. i love the sun of course but there is just something about a rainy day.

I'm not overly fond of the bleached-out, heavily CGI-landscaped look of Sin City/300.  It worked well enough for the practically monochrome Sin City but less well for 300 where the harsh brown and yellow landscapes were often overbearing IMHO, and the look was utilised to disastrous effect with The Spirit, which finally allowed the critics and general public (at least the few who saw the film) to see Frank Miller for the nihilistic, misanthropic hack he's always been (the excellent Batman: Year One excepted).  I'm not terribly keen on a future Batman film looking like Alien 3. 

I would prefer something a bit more visually coherent (i.e. less drenched in shadows) yet nevertheless still stylised and unafraid to wear its comic-book origins on its sleeve, ideally a colourful and heightened art-deco aesthetic akin to B:TAS and in terms of live-action films, Dick Tracy and to some extent The Shadow (which got a lot wrong but still featured some gorgeous art direction and cinematography).

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 07:56
rain should be in the movie all the way through and there should be some storming going on too. and if its dry during any day scenes the sky should still be so dark and ominous that you need your headlights when you are driving and to have the lights on in your house. plenty of wind too. stiff breezes and stuff.

my first fanfic attempt i mentioned that it was raining in nearly every chapter. i love the sun of course but there is just something about a rainy day.

Speaking of which, how is your current fanfic coming along?  Going by the existing chapters and the spoilers you teased it has (had?  :-\ ) a lot of potential.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 08:10
I'm not overly fond of the bleached-out, heavily CGI-landscaped look of Sin City/300.  It worked well enough for the practically monochrome Sin City but less well for 300 where the harsh brown and yellow landscapes were often overbearing IMHO, and the look was utilised to disastrous effect with The Spirit, which finally allowed the critics and general public (at least the few who saw the film) to see Frank Miller for the nihilistic, misanthropic hack he's always been (the excellent Batman: Year One excepted).  I'm not terribly keen on a future Batman film looking like Alien 3. 

I would prefer something a bit more visually coherent (i.e. less drenched in shadows) yet nevertheless still stylised and unafraid to wear its comic-book origins on its sleeve, ideally a colourful and heightened art-deco aesthetic akin to B:TAS and in terms of live-action films, Dick Tracy and to some extent The Shadow (which got a lot wrong but still featured some gorgeous art direction and cinematography).

a batman movie styled like dick tracy would be EPIC!

they would have to use some of the more colorful costumes (batsy's grey and blue, catwoman's purple, etc) but that would be great

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 08:17

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 14 Jul  2013, 07:56
rain should be in the movie all the way through and there should be some storming going on too. and if its dry during any day scenes the sky should still be so dark and ominous that you need your headlights when you are driving and to have the lights on in your house. plenty of wind too. stiff breezes and stuff.

my first fanfic attempt i mentioned that it was raining in nearly every chapter. i love the sun of course but there is just something about a rainy day.

Speaking of which, how is your current fanfic coming along?  Going by the existing chapters and the spoilers you teased it has (had?  :-\ ) a lot of potential.

:-\

i know, i know, sorry. its just way hard for me i guess. it would be easier if i could just do my own stories without having to use the model of the earlier movies but you told me something to the effect of you would only read if it was a burton one so yea lol.

No, not Smallville, definitely not. Like Batman TAS but live-action. A sweet dream.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 15 Jul  2013, 07:11
No, not Smallville, definitely not. Like Batman TAS but live-action. A sweet dream.

If it was made today who would you cast, bearing in mind its a TV production rather than a big Hollywood film, and what characters would make up the regular cast?

I'm not good at current actors, and especially not TV actors.


Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Gordon, Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, Riddler as the main heroes and villains with other villains like Pengy, Freeze, Scarecrow and so on appearing as well.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 15 Jul  2013, 07:11
No, not Smallville, definitely not. Like Batman TAS but live-action. A sweet dream.

i have thought that millions of times

I think TV is a better vehicle for serialized characters and stories like comic books anyway. It's tough to find a way to get a "wide" audience on TV these days so if you were to do a Batman show now, I think cable would be your best bet. You could do outlandish characters like Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Killer Croc and others once or twice per season while spending the bulk of your time doing easier villains.

One question you could ask is what kind of rating would you go for? Something akin to PG-13 (mild language, violence) or a hard R-rating could both apply to Batman depending on how you handle it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 15 Jul  2013, 18:30
I think TV is a better vehicle for serialized characters and stories like comic books anyway. It's tough to find a way to get a "wide" audience on TV these days so if you were to do a Batman show now, I think cable would be your best bet. You could do outlandish characters like Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Killer Croc and others once or twice per season while spending the bulk of your time doing easier villains.

One question you could ask is what kind of rating would you go for? Something akin to PG-13 (mild language, violence) or a hard R-rating could both apply to Batman depending on how you handle it.

If you went for an R or even a PG-13 you'd end up with the usual soccer-mom complaints, "Batman is for KIDS!...wahhhh!"  ::)

However, I do agree that ideally cable would be the best format if you were going to do a decent Batman on TV.  My only concern about the 'easier villains' suggestion is that the show turned into a 'freak-of-the-week' type series akin to friggin' 'Smallville' and 'Buffy'.  ::)

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 15 Jul  2013, 20:37My only concern about the 'easier villains' suggestion is that the show turned into a 'freak-of-the-week' type series akin to friggin' 'Smallville' and 'Buffy'.

What's wrong with that approach?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 16 Jul  2013, 01:56

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 15 Jul  2013, 20:37My only concern about the 'easier villains' suggestion is that the show turned into a 'freak-of-the-week' type series akin to friggin' 'Smallville' and 'Buffy'.

What's wrong with that approach?

Maybe it's a matter of personal taste but I don't care for the rigid formula and winking, cliquey, over-familiar approach of shows like 'Smallville' and 'Buffy' in particular.  I would prefer a more ambitious, sophisticated, multi-character, high-budget/semi-cinematic approach that appeals to a much wider audience than teens and fanboys/girls akin to the type of shows one finds on cable TV (i.e. 'Game of Thrones', 'Boardwalk Empire' and 'Mad Men') rather than the CW.  I would like the next Batman reboot to embrace the more fun, fantastical elements Nolan perhaps ignored but not at the risk of becoming campy, self-reverential or gimmicky as per 'Buffy'. 

Whilst I would welcome space for some of the more minor villains to make one-off, or two/three episode-arc appearances now and again the focus should always be on an overarching narrative and perhaps one big villain or storyline per season.  Admittedly, 'Buffy' did do something similar to this approach by always building up to a climactic 'big-bad' each season but the first few seasons of 'Smallville' often got bogged down in 'freak-of-the-week' storylines that ignored the overall Lex versus Clark narrative. 

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 16 Jul  2013, 02:15Maybe it's a matter of personal taste but I don't care for the rigid formula and winking, cliquey, over-familiar approach of shows like 'Smallville' and 'Buffy' in particular.  I would prefer a more ambitious, sophisticated, multi-character, high-budget/semi-cinematic approach that appeals to a much wider audience than teens and fanboys/girls akin to the type of shows one finds on cable TV (i.e. 'Game of Thrones', 'Boardwalk Empire' and 'Mad Men') rather than the CW.

The approach you're talking about sounds pretty ambitious and epic. Unfortunately, TV doesn't usually lend itself to epic. It does small and intimate.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 16 Jul  2013, 02:15Whilst I would welcome space for some of the more minor villains to make one-off, or two/three episode-arc appearances now and again

Which, unless my memory fails me, is more or less the approach I originally advocated.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 16 Jul  2013, 02:15the focus should always be on an overarching narrative and perhaps one big villain or storyline per season. Admittedly, 'Buffy' did do something similar to this approach by always building up to a climactic 'big-bad' each season but the first few seasons of 'Smallville' often got bogged down in 'freak-of-the-week' storylines that ignored the overall Lex versus Clark narrative.

Smallville was intended to follow Clark's journey to becoming Superman. There is (or can be) overlap/contrast with Lex's descent into villainy but matters relating to Lex are at best second priority. The Clark/Lex thing was done well but that wasn't the show's intended purpose. Don't get me wrong, I ate that stuff up with a spoon but that wasn't what SV was supposed to be about.

The other thing is that what you're saying may sound great to core audience types and obsessive fans but you can rest assured that new viewers find self-contained episodes with one-off villains easier to handle when they first start watching. Any TV show has to appeal to both their diehard fans and newbie viewers. The type of layered story you're talking about necessarily must include occasional (or even frequent) self-contained episodes to keep everybody happy and to throw rookies a lifeline.

A show that eschews self-contained episodes risks alienating new viewers. Exhibit A- Veronica Mars. There's a strong argument that the public was simply never going to accept that show... but it's undeniable that they shot themselves in the foot, especially in the second season, by relying so heavily on season-long arcs at the expense of one-and-done stories. Some call this "gimmicky" but it was arguably lifeblood for SV and Buffy over the years.

For myself, I love SV but it's sometimes hard when you just want to watch an episode out of context and without thinking too much about who's doing what to whom in which episode or what dastardly scheme Lex or whoever has in mind this season. In those cases, the self-contained episodes are what the doctor ordered. The early seasons have several such episodes and those are the ones I tend to come back to when I just want to watch the show and be entertained without having to wiki government agencies, Luthorcorp projects or whatever else.

QuoteA show that eschews self-contained episodes risks alienating new viewers. Exhibit A- Veronica Mars. There's a strong argument that the public was simply never going to accept that show... but it's undeniable that they shot themselves in the foot, especially in the second season, by relying so heavily on season-long arcs at the expense of one-and-done stories. Some call this "gimmicky" but it was arguably lifeblood for SV and Buffy over the years.

Personally, I preferred the season-long arcs, such as the Lily Kane murder investigation in S1 and the even more compelling IMHO baseball team bus crash investigation in S2 (that season sure made me think of The Stonecutters favourite Steve Guttenberg in a whole new light), to the individual investigation stories on 'Veronica Mars' even though I wasn't a regular viewer by any means.  I dipped in and out of the show but by-and-large I was still able to follow the overall narrative. 

However, I accept your point about throwing casual viewers a line when it comes to one-off story episodes.  I just think a character like Batman deserves an ambitious approach whether it's done on TV or on film.  I'm not talking about the overly-portentous, overly-earnest approach taken by Christopher Nolan.  We've been there, done that.  But something with ambition and scope that goes beyond appealing primarily to the teen crowd.

Maybe some of the lesser villains would be hired by Rupert Throne or some other boss to keep Batman busy. That way they'd have a purpose as villains and not just pop up randomly.

With the latest announcement that the new Batman will be making his debut in the Man of Steel sequel in 2015, this likely means that we'll know who the new Batman is by the end of the year, with production going on through next year to make the release date on time.

Exciting times!

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 20 Jul  2013, 21:56
With the latest announcement that the new Batman will be making his debut in the Man of Steel sequel in 2015, this likely means that we'll know who the new Batman is by the end of the year, with production going on through next year to make the release date on time.

Exciting times!

Agreed.  The casting of a new Batman is always exciting.  Any ideas who should be picked?

I've got no ideas casting wise. I'll just roll with whoever is chosen.

This Batman universe has the potential to be the richest of all the live action incarnations. Dealing with Superman and possibly other comic heroes.  His strong opinions coming to the fore as well as his skill sets. Think Tower of Babel stuff. And having his own Gotham City adventures. I'm optimistic. 

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 10:14

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 20 Jul  2013, 21:56
With the latest announcement that the new Batman will be making his debut in the Man of Steel sequel in 2015, this likely means that we'll know who the new Batman is by the end of the year, with production going on through next year to make the release date on time.

Exciting times!

Agreed.  The casting of a new Batman is always exciting.  Any ideas who should be picked?

Like I said in another thread, if they had to go after a somewhat known actor, then perhaps they could do worse than Karl Urban; Dredd is unlikely to get any sequels any time soon. But I still prefer someone who is unknown.

I think it's likely that they will consider candidates who were previously up for Superman in Man of Steel:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/henry-cavill-beat-matthew-goode-94438

QuoteWarners and Nolan auditioned actors in Los Angeles, New York, and London in November and December, with someone in the 28- to 32-year-old range as the ideal candidate. In addition to Cavill and [Matthew] Goode, among those who met or were under consideration were White Collar star Matthew Bomer, Social Network's Winkelvoss twins Armie Hammer, True Blood actor Joe Manganiello (scheduling with the HBO show was a factor) and Colin O'Donoghue, who stars opposite Anthony Hopkins in The Rite

Currently, Matthew Goode and Matt Bomer are both 35, Hammer is 26, Manganiello is 36, and O'Donoghue is 32.  (Cavill is in the middle of the age range at 30).  I'm not saying it'll be one of these five guys, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Batman actor is in a similar age range (or that Snyder and Warner Brothers are reviewing the list of people they're familiar with right now).

I was a big cheerleader for Manganiello as Superman for MOS. If he were to be Batman... eh. I see a lot of up sides but shouldn't they cast some of these roles a bit younger to make this stuff more franchise-friendly? Then again, Downey is no spring chicken and he carried the MCU for a while there. So hmm...

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul  2013, 11:15
I've got no ideas casting wise. I'll just roll with whoever is chosen.

This Batman universe has the potential to be the richest of all the live action incarnations. Dealing with Superman and possibly other comic heroes.  His strong opinions coming to the fore as well as his skill sets. Think Tower of Babel stuff. And having his own Gotham City adventures. I'm optimistic.

I'm on your page. ;)

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 05:34Currently, Matthew Goode and Matt Bomer are both 35, Hammer is 26, Manganiello is 36, and O'Donoghue is 32.  (Cavill is in the middle of the age range at 30).  I'm not saying it'll be one of these five guys, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Batman actor is in a similar age range (or that Snyder and Warner Brothers are reviewing the list of people they're familiar with right now).

My understanding that Bomer was relatively shrimpy. Read that he's about 5'10" or so. Assuming that's true, can't we do better than that?

Off-topic - Am I crazy, or does this chick have a somewhat slight resemblance to Harley Quinn?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsgab.com%2Fattachments%2Fcelebrity-pictures%2F38635d1169515402-crista-flanagan-fox-all-star-winter-2007-tca-party-03102_crista_flanagan__fox_all_star_winter_2007_tca_press_tour_party_004_122_397lo.jpg&hash=902380f5fc01df7305c4ed61249877a6f0cc1d75)(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20110919144735%2Fbatman%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa4%2FHarley-quinn-female-villians-2439836-259-337.jpg&hash=3fc0702a5e5e3f92787bb0d4098b8fa10418990f)

...I'll get my coat.  :-[

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 11:29

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 05:34Currently, Matthew Goode and Matt Bomer are both 35, Hammer is 26, Manganiello is 36, and O'Donoghue is 32.  (Cavill is in the middle of the age range at 30).  I'm not saying it'll be one of these five guys, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Batman actor is in a similar age range (or that Snyder and Warner Brothers are reviewing the list of people they're familiar with right now).

My understanding that Bomer was relatively shrimpy. Read that he's about 5'10" or so. Assuming that's true, can't we do better than that?

Google says he's 6'.  IMDB says he's 5'11 1/2.  Speaking for myself, I've seen Bomer in person and think he's probably closer to your 5'10" info, but it was from a distance, so who knows.

The casting of Cavill as Superman will definitely affect the casting of Batman, I think.  You don't really want one to be noticeably towering over the other.  Yes, there are camera tricks to conceal that, but I'd prefer whoever they cast to be of relatively equal stature.  Even if Bomer is only an inch or two shorter than Cavill, his build is definitely smaller.  Same goes for Matthew Goode.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 16:45Google says he's 6'.  IMDB says he's 5'11 1/2.  Speaking for myself, I've seen Bomer in person and think he's probably closer to your 5'10" info, but it was from a distance, so who knows.

I've never seen the guy; I've just talked to people who have and that's what they said. Otherwise, he's a solid actor.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 16:45The casting of Cavill as Superman will definitely affect the casting of Batman, I think.  You don't really want one to be noticeably towering over the other.  Yes, there are camera tricks to conceal that, but I'd prefer whoever they cast to be of relatively equal stature.  Even if Bomer is only an inch or two shorter than Cavill, his build is definitely smaller.  Same goes for Matthew Goode.

Agreed, one should approximate the other. I think Cavill's 6'2" or thereabouts. Surely it's not too hard to find an actor of roughly equivalent stature in Hollywood. Still, Snyder's got his work cut out for him no matter his height. Batman isn't an easy role to cast.

I've seen Bomer's name banded about a bit on other forums.

Seems like a nice guy. He was in the running for Superman before Routh got it - so it might be cool to see him get the role of Bats.

Some rumours circulating that Tyler Hoechlin could be in the frame for the role of Batman.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fq72%2Fs720x720%2F936489_645320685478024_1603972558_n.jpg&hash=0d24098c7883e86477c0ba0347b777a2dfe351b9)

Interesting.  I could definitely see him in role.

I just did a google search since I'm not too familiar with the actor and I've noted that if this rumour is true this won't be the first graphic-novel/comic-book adaptation Tyler Hoechlin has appeared in.  He also played Tom Hanks' son in the brilliant 'Road to Perdition'.  In view of that film's ending, where Hanks' character makes sure his son is not responsible for taking another man's life thus ensuring that his soul remains clean, this potential casting may take on an air of poignancy bearing in mind Batman's 'no kill' policy.

Going from an Oscar-winner like Bale to one of the stars of Teen Wolf would be a drop-down in my book.

He might have the looks to pull off the role but can he act ? Bruce Wayne ain't an easy role to pull off.

Quote from: Batman88 on Wed, 24 Jul  2013, 13:08
Going from an Oscar-winner like Bale to one of the stars of Teen Wolf would be a drop-down in my book.

He might have the looks to pull off the role but can he act ? Bruce Wayne ain't an easy role to pull off.

Let's be fair here.  I've always been a big fan of Bale from 'Empire of the Sun' (one of Spielberg's best and most underrated films IMHO) onwards but immediately prior to 'Batman Begins' his only adult acting role of significant note was 'American Psycho' (and 'The Machinist' but I believe that was being filmed after he had won the Batman part).  His parts in 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' and 'Reign of Fire' hardly set the world alight, and he only won his first Oscar after 'TDK'.

Also, who is Henry Cavill outside 'MOS'?  I hope and suspect his career will get a big boost following the film's success but he's hardly a major name at the moment.

Casting discussions amuse me. You'll never please anyone. We have no say anyway on who they cast. All we can do is hope the guy they choose will be a great actor. I would never rule anybody out for any reason. The fact the guy was in "Teen Wolf" is nothing to be too concerned about. Keaton was in "Mr Mom"! (A film which I do actually get a kick out of simply cos he's in it). Haven't fans learned anything from the Michael Keaton controversy days on Nineteen hundred and eight? Expect the unexpected and you never know, greatness might spark twice over.

Batman's casting has always interested me as unlike most super hero parts pretty well known actors tend to inherit the character. Keaton was well known for things like his comedic background but also "Clean and Sober" and then of course the success of "Beetlejuice". As a kid I knew instantly who Val Kilmer was prior to seeing "Batman Forever" having watched the excellent "Tombstone". George Clooney speaks for himself. Although Christian Bale was quite well known I personally didn't have a clue who he was at first. I hadn't yet seen "Empire of the Sun". But he looked fantastic in "Batman Begins" preview pics and that was all I needed to see how good he was going to be.

This time however I believe it may go to a virtual unknown. And perhaps that will be an interesting way to do it this time. What bother's me about this Tyler bloke is that he looks quite similar facially to Bale. Perhaps story wise they want this, we'll see. I'm not very keen however. I'd like a distinctly different look. Also the fact Snyder is the one to cast him. Does this mean Snyder will also be the director of future Batman movies? I'd rather that responsibility went to the future production crew if it's otherwise. They will be the ones working with him after all. This is one reason why I believe it'd be far better to establish the new Batman in his own movie and then team him with Superman. Unfortunately this now won't be the case. I'm not too happy to hear Synder will continue on Superman let alone potentially be the successor to Christopher Nolan or perhaps just to establish that new world. There must be somebody better surely.

Quote from: Batman88 on Wed, 24 Jul  2013, 13:08Going from an Oscar-winner like Bale to one of the stars of Teen Wolf would be a drop-down in my book.

I know what you mean. Just imagine how some of us felt back in 2004 (seven years before Bale won an Oscar as a supporting actor) when we discovered that Keaton's successor was going to be the kid from Newsies.

Quote from: Batman88 on Wed, 24 Jul  2013, 13:08He might have the looks to pull off the role but can he act ? Bruce Wayne ain't an easy role to pull off.

I dunno about that, Bale won awards for sleeping through it in 2008.

I like Bale as an actor but he just wasn't my Batman. Michael Keaton, Adam West and Val Kilmer were all better than him for me.

West, Keaton and Conroy are the best in my opinion. I still see the value in what the other folks did. After those three I'd probably list Bale.

Conroy was great, I still think he should play Bruce Wayne if they ever make a Batman Beyond film.

Thought this thread would be the best one to post this, but the Hollywood Reporter- a more legit source than others that have been reporting rumored names- says they have a list of frontrunners for the role:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/man-steel-2s-batman-actors-598856

QuoteJosh Brolin, 46 --  Warner Bros likes him a lot. He starred in the studio's Gangster Squad, and that's after he toplined the studio's 2010 dud Jonah Hex. He's also attached to star in Warners' Quasimodo project as well as Crazy for the Storm. Plus, he already has a Frank Miller connection: he leads the cast of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, Robert Rodriguez's upcoming take on the Miller crime comics.
(Two sources say Brolin is the frontrunner at this stage, but a studio source dismisses the chatter, saying that the casting process hasn't even begun.)

Ryan Gosling, 32 -- Yes, Brolin's Gangster Squad co-star appears to be in the mix. He may be younger than the rest, he may be prettier than the rest, but no one questions his acting chops.

Other contenders:
Joe Manganiello, 36  -- According to several insiders, Snyder liked him as a possible Superman for Man of Steel before settling on Henry Cavill, but one major stumbling block was the schedule that Alan Ball had him on for filming True Blood, the HBO vampire series in which Manganiello plays a werewolf.

Richard Armitage, 41 -- The British actor appeared in TV's Strike Back, but may be best known to audiences for playing Thorin in the Hobbit movie for Warners' New Line division. He will reprise the characters for the second and third installments.

Max Martini, 43 -- He cut his teeth playing tough guys on TV in shows such as Revenge, Castle and Hawaii Five-O but won notice as a sacrificing father in Pacific Rim and will play a Navy SEAL commander in this fall's Captain Phillips.

Matthew Goode, 35 -- He's already worked with Snyder in the director's 2009 film Watchmen, in which he played Ozymandias.

I like Brolin, but I'm curious if it'd be too odd for him to take the role when his ex-wife, Diane Lane, is playing Superman's mom.

Other info:

QuoteFirst, some words of caution. The script is still being written, so nothing has been submitted formally to reps and actors. Two, according to sources, director Zack Snyder is only just beginning to look at actors.
But the real insight is the kind of Bruce Wayne/Batman that Snyder is looking to cast. According to numerous sources, this Wayne/Batman will be in the late 30s or around the 40 mark. He will be established and rugged. This new movie will not seek to recount an origin story or the rise of the Dark Knight. Christian Bale, The Dark Knight trilogy Batman, has said he won't return for another film.
Sources say the new movie is aiming for the tone of the relationship and fight seen in Frank Miller's 1980s ground-breaking mini-series The Dark Knight Returns

QuoteOne insider says that any talk of casting is premature since the script isn't yet written. But that has not stopped studio insiders from whispering names or preventing agencies from drawing up lists of their best faces. Another insider scoffs "You might as well put Adam West in this list" and suggests that a left-of-center choice still could emerge.
Casting is likely to solidify in the coming weeks as Warner Bros wants to shoot the movie in early 2014 for a 2015 release.

I'm liking Brolin for the part too especially after that mock-up Ral posted.  He can play the rugged, grizzled action-man as well as the more suave playboy Bruce Wayne who I hope we get to see regardless of Frank Miller's connection to the production.  Brolin is also about three years younger than Diane Lane and bear in mind that she was playing far older than her years for the later parts of 'MOS' (hence the grey hair and slight aging makeup).  I only hope Brolin's part in the misbegotten 'Jonah Hex' hasn't put the *ahem* 'hex' on him playing another DC hero.

^ All true points.  Brolin's my pick out of that list, if they really want an older Batman (Brolin, at 46, would be the oldest actor to take on the role in live action). 

We'll just have to see what comes out of this.  It's important to note that even Hollywood Reporter is admitting that they're getting mixed messages and aren't sure how serious some of these candidates are.  It could be that they've taken it as far as talking to Brolin and company's agents.  Or it could simply be Snyder and WB in a room saying, "Okay, what actors are out there who could do it?"

Quote^ All true points.  Brolin's my pick out of that list, if they really want an older Batman (Brolin, at 46, would be the oldest actor to take on the role in live action).

Almost, but Adam West was 51 when he played Batman in the Legends of the Superheroes miniseries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spi9g6F2tlQ

And yes, this was the first attempt at a live-action Justice League. :(

Of the names on the Hollywood Reporter list, I'd definitely go with Brolin. He's got the rugged, manly screen presence the character needs and the acting chops to pull it off. My only concerns are:
A) He already played Jonah Hex, and ideally I'd prefer an actor who has never appeared in a comic book movie before.
B) Physically he's not that close to the Batman from the comics. In fact he'd be the second shortest actor to play the part after Keaton.
But those quibbles aside, I'd be happy with Brolin. I'd definitely say no to Gosling and Goode. I'm not too familiar with the other names on that list, so I can't comment on them.

QuoteWe'll just have to see what comes out of this.  It's important to note that even Hollywood Reporter is admitting that they're getting mixed messages and aren't sure how serious some of these candidates are.  It could be that they've taken it as far as talking to Brolin and company's agents.  Or it could simply be Snyder and WB in a room saying, "Okay, what actors are out there who could do it?"

Very true. At this stage it's all speculation. I doubt they've entered into serious negotiations with any actors at this stage since they haven't even got a completed script ready.

Having said that, I think we will be hearing some casting news soon. Simply because Warner Bros are fast tracking this sequel and have already scheduled filming to commence early next year. Whoever they do cast as Batman will likely have to begin physically preparing for the role within the next two or three months, and for that reason alone they'll need to pick an actor sooner rather than later.

Latino-Review is adding Gerard Butler to the contenders:
http://latino-review.com/2013/08/03/contenders-emerge-for-the-goddamn-batman/

The article claims that Jim Caviezel and Jon Hamm are also in contention, though LR is ruling them out since the shooting of the film would conflict with the schedules for Person of Interest and Mad Men, respectively.  Shame, too, 'cause those would be my top choices of the list.

QuoteAlmost, but Adam West was 51 when he played Batman in the Legends of the Superheroes miniseries.

Ah, I was only thinking of actors' ages when they first stepped into the role.

QuoteOf the names on the Hollywood Reporter list, I'd definitely go with Brolin. He's got the rugged, manly screen presence the character needs and the acting chops to pull it off. My only concerns are:
A) He already played Jonah Hex, and ideally I'd prefer an actor who has never appeared in a comic book movie before.
B) Physically he's not that close to the Batman from the comics. In fact he'd be the second shortest actor to play the part after Keaton.
But those quibbles aside, I'd be happy with Brolin. I'd definitely say no to Gosling and Goode. I'm not too familiar with the other names on that list, so I can't comment on them.

Agreed as well, though I think they could find a way around the height.  The boots and cowl could help make up for the three-inch height difference between him and Superman (Cavill is 6'1").

As for the others, I wouldn't mind Butler either.  He's younger and more physically close to the role than Brolin.  Gosling and Goode just don't fit in my mind, physically.  I haven't seen much of Martini, but from what I've seen, I have trouble picturing him as Batman.  I think Manganiello and Armitage are possibilities, but I should watch more of each before giving an opinion.  I've only seen the former in Spider-Man and a White Collar episode and the latter in Captain America and The Hobbit.  Still, I have a feeling that it'll be someone with more name recognition, like Brolin or Butler.  But who knows, maybe I'll be wrong.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:31
Latino-Review is adding Gerard Butler to the contenders:
http://latino-review.com/2013/08/03/contenders-emerge-for-the-goddamn-batman/

The article claims that Jim Caviezel and Jon Hamm are also in contention, though LR is ruling them out since the shooting of the film would conflict with the schedules for Person of Interest and Mad Men, respectively.  Shame, too, 'cause those would be my top choices of the list.

Damn because Jon Hamm would be perfect and is my favourite contender followed by Josh Brolin, who always comes across as taller than his officially listed 5'9"/5'10" height.

I would have preferred Caviezel as Superman to be honest.  He exudes the aloof otherworldly integrity of Jor El, which admittedly may be partly to do with the (Passion of the) Christ connections, rather than either the hard-bitten, down-and-dirty grit of the Miller Batman or the suave playboy persona of Bruce Wayne.

Can't Hamm work around his 'Mad Man' schedule ala Michael J. Fox circa 'Back to the Future'/"Family Ties"?  Hamm really exudes the look of a classic comic-book alpha male hero in the same way Cavill does as Superman.   

Another name to (possibly) add to the list: Jeffrey Dean Morgan

http://www.thinkmcflythink.com/movie-news/2013/8/6/could-jeffrey-dean-morgan-be-up-for-batman.html/

I'm not sure about Morgan. He's the right height. And if he could get into the same shape he was in when he made Watchmen then he'd have an adequate build.

But he doesn't really look like any version of Bruce Wayne from the comics. He's the oldest actor that's been suggested so far and I sense his performance might end up being be a tad one note. He's not a bad actor, but he's played more or less similar characters in everything I've seen him in. And I'd prefer someone who hasn't been in a comic book movie before.

Maybe we should create individual threads for some of these actors who are being rumoured. It could be like an election campaign where we argue the merits of our preferred candidates and balance the pros and cons of the ones we're not sure about. Chances are none of these guys will get the role in the end, but it might make for some fun discussions. We could even have a vote in a few weeks time to decide which actor Batman Online endorses.

I agree that he's not my favorite choice.  Funny enough, a few years back when Snyder expressed interest in doing a Dark Knight Returns movie, Morgan piped in that he'd love to take on the role of the older Bruce Wayne:
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/02/watchmen-star-wants-to-be-next.html

Quote"I've heard Zack mention he'd like to do it in the media a few times recently. I'd love to see myself in that role. I don't think [Warner] will do it at the moment, not with what The Dark Knight is doing. But the studio loves Zack, and if Watchmen does as well as we hope it does, you never know, he might get a crack at this thing."

The latest casting rumour is that Mark Strong and Bryan Cranston are up for the part of Lex Luthor:
http://screenrant.com/superman-batman-movie-man-steel-2-lex-luthor-mark-strong-bryan-cranston/

I'm not enthusiastic about Strong. He's already played villains in two comic book movies and I think there are more appropriate candidates out there.

Cranston would be better, but he's a bit old and I'd much rather see him play Commissioner Gordon than Lex. He was perfect in Batman: Year One (2011) and he could easily carry off the role in live action.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  8 Aug  2013, 20:25
The latest casting rumour is that Mark Strong and Bryan Cranston are up for the part of Lex Luthor:
http://screenrant.com/superman-batman-movie-man-steel-2-lex-luthor-mark-strong-bryan-cranston/

I'm not enthusiastic about Strong. He's already played villains in two comic book movies and I think there are more appropriate candidates out there.

Cranston would be better, but he's a bit old and I'd much rather see him play Commissioner Gordon than Lex. He was perfect in Batman: Year One (2011) and he could easily carry off the role in live action.

Of the two choices I personally prefer Strong.  Cranston is one of my favourite actors (as for that matter is Strong) but like you I'd rather see him as a future Commissioner Gordon or some other type of avuncular good guy in a comic-book movie context.  Also, I'd like to see the next Lex Luthor be portrayed as a smooth charmer, which was one of the elements I felt that 'The New Adventures of Superman' AKA 'Lois and Clark' got the most right.  I fear that if Cranston ended up as Luthor we'd end up with yet another semi-comic middle-aged shyster akin to the versions of Luthor already played by Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey.  Do we really need to see that version again?

With Strong you're at least more likely to get a darker, more deadly, sinister type of Luthor.

Silver, what other candidates would you like to see up for the part?

I think both would do fine in the role, but I agree that Strong's typecasting as villains (Sunshine, Sherlock Holmes, Kick-Ass, Robin Hood, John Carter, and Green Lantern) and Cranston's age count against them. 

With Cranston, having a famous actor who's old enough to be Superman's father playing Lex would be yet another echo of the Donner movies in this MoS franchise, though Snyder and Goyer's comments on the character give me hope that their take would be more in line with the S:TAS version that fans want to see.

I think Cranston's performance in the Heisenberg scenes of Breaking Bad show that he could pull off the sinister LexCorp Lex that we've been waiting to see on the big screen.  But then again, you could also watch Se7en or Swimming with Sharks and think Kevin Spacey would've played a darker, more serious Lex than what we got.  In the end, it all comes down to how the character's written.

Funny enough, some of these casting rumors were preceded by these actors' current roles.  On Mad Men, Jon Hamm's character was talked about being his back in Season 1 with one character saying, "He could be Batman for all we know."  In Breaking Bad, Cranston's character shaves his head after his hair starts falling out due to chemo and another character tells him he looks like Lex Luthor.

QuoteSilver, what other candidates would you like to see up for the part?

I'm not sure really. I have strong views on who I think should play Batman, and moderate views on who I think should play certain supporting characters. But when it comes to Lex I'm less certain. I'd rather it not be Strong or Cranston, for the very same reasons you and BatmAngelus outlined. 

What would you think about Billy Zane? I'm not the first person to suggest him for the role, but I think he's quite a good match. He's 6 feet tall, which is only 1 inch taller than the Silver Age Lex. He has the same eye colour as the Silver Age Lex too. And he's... well... bald. I actually think he looks a lot like the Lex from Superman: The Animated Series. He has quite a deep voice like him too.


He'd be 48 when they start filming, but his features are deceptively youthful. One of the things I liked about the Lois and Clark Lex was that you never knew how old he really was. Initially he looks like a fairly young guy in his early forties, but in later episodes they uncover evidence that suggests he could be in his sixties or seventies and may have used science to de-age himself. Zane's Lex could have a similarly ageless quality about him.

I don't know how good an actor Zane really is, but I suspect he's good enough to carry off this role. He's worked with some top talent over the years, including Robert Zemeckis, David Lynch and James Cameron. And he's got a suave charm about him that would be perfect for duping the public into thinking he's a benevolent philanthropist.

The Hackman and Spacey Luthors were both demented outcasts. I reckon we should have a Lex who operates in the public eye, right under the noses of the law, and yet still gets away without so much as a parking ticket. His cult of personality would help cement his political power, and this could lead into a Public Enemies-style narrative where he manipulates popular opinion and turns everyone against Superman and Batman.

Basically I'd like something along the lines of the John Shea and Clancy Brown Luthors. And I think Zane could be the right man for the part. But my feelings aren't terribly strong on the subject, so I'm perfectly open to other suggestions. Maybe there's someone better I haven't thought of yet.

I prey that this is nothing more than a rumour, but there is a claim saying that WB has reportedly offered $50 million to Bale to return as Batman for Batman vs Superman and Justice League. Then again, the same report also says that a stunt actor named Scott Adkins auditioned for the role (apparently he was the stunt actor who portrayed Deadpool in the third act of X-Men Origins: Wolverine).

Source: http://nukethefridge.com/2013/08/09/50-million-offered-to-christian-bale-to-reprise-his-role-as-batman-in-justice-league-film/ (http://nukethefridge.com/2013/08/09/50-million-offered-to-christian-bale-to-reprise-his-role-as-batman-in-justice-league-film/)

To me, the only way that Bale could believably return as Batman is if he portrays a different version than the movies. Otherwise, if he were to come back and subject me to anymore of his dumbfounded, incompetent cookie monster Batman - but this time with Cavill's otherwise good portrayal as Superman, then count me out.

Just posted about the Bale rumors in a different thread:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2272.msg36414;topicseen#new

Long story short- it was one insider's quote being misconstrued as news.  It's pretty much one anonymous guy saying, "WB would probably have to pay him 50 million dollars to come back..." that's now turned into "Oh my God, WB's offered Bale 50 million dollars to come back!"

As for Adkins, the news of his audition apparently comes from his Facebook page, but the source link has expired: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/KingLeonidas/news/?a=85165

As has the tweet: https://twitter.com/TheScottAdkins

So, I'd say neither piece of news is actually true.

QuoteTo me, the only way that Bale could believably return as Batman is if he portrays a different version than the movies. Otherwise, if he were to come back and subject me to anymore of his dumbfounded, incompetent cookie monster Batman - but this time with Cavill's otherwise good portrayal as Superman, then count me out.

I know how you feel.  There are actually fans on SuperheroHype hoping for Bale to return, but as a different version of Batman, just so he can come back in a way that the character's return doesn't "tarnish" the end of the TDK Trilogy.  I feel this smacks of desperation.

Well, even if it is unlikely to be true, I wouldn't know what would be worse otherwise: Bale acting at his worst for yet another outing, or getting paid $50 million for it. I for one hope that he continues to shine in the right films and prove his true skills as actor like in The Fighter and potentially American Hustle, then watch him make a fool of himself by looking dull as Bruce Wayne, and trying to sound 'intimidating' as Batman.  :-[

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 05:36Long story short- it was one insider's quote being misconstrued as news.  It's pretty much one anonymous guy saying, "WB would probably have to pay him 50 million dollars to come back..." that's now turned into "Oh my God, WB's offered Bale 50 million dollars to come back!"

Sounds like a game of Telephone.

Really, the answer here is that some people are complete fvcking idiots. My friend's roommate is like that. He's the most socially retarded person I've ever met. FFS, the stories I could tell you. But anyway he's the reason that websites which push absolute BS as confirmed fact ever get any traction. Idiots like him read something like what you posted, misconstrue it, blab it up to completely disinterested people and that's how the story gets mangled. If there's a chain of information (or communication), well, any chain is only as strong as the weakest link and when some nitwit with a room temperature IQ gets linked in, watch out.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 19:06

QuoteSilver, what other candidates would you like to see up for the part?

I'm not sure really. I have strong views on who I think should play Batman, and moderate views on who I think should play certain supporting characters. But when it comes to Lex I'm less certain. I'd rather it not be Strong or Cranston, for the very same reasons you and BatmAngelus outlined. 

What would you think about Billy Zane? I'm not the first person to suggest him for the role, but I think he's quite a good match. He's 6 feet tall, which is only 1 inch taller than the Silver Age Lex. He has the same eye colour as the Silver Age Lex too. And he's... well... bald. I actually think he looks a lot like the Lex from Superman: The Animated Series. He has quite a deep voice like him too.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy393%2Fsilver-nemesis2%2Fzanelex_zps9ebb862c.jpg&hash=f5e0b37c2af255ea816b1287b60dcdbe80db7f1d)

He'd be 48 when they start filming, but his features are deceptively youthful. One of the things I liked about the Lois and Clark Lex was that you never knew how old he really was. Initially he looks like a fairly young guy in his early forties, but in later episodes they uncover evidence that suggests he could be in his sixties or seventies and may have used science to de-age himself. Zane's Lex could have a similarly ageless quality about him.

I don't know how good an actor Zane really is, but I suspect he's good enough to carry off this role. He's worked with some top talent over the years, including Robert Zemeckis, David Lynch and James Cameron. And he's got a suave charm about him that would be perfect for duping the public into thinking he's a benevolent philanthropist.

The Hackman and Spacey Luthors were both demented outcasts. I reckon we should have a Lex who operates in the public eye, right under the noses of the law, and yet still gets away without so much as a parking ticket. His cult of personality would help cement his political power, and this could lead into a Public Enemies-style narrative where he manipulates popular opinion and turns everyone against Superman and Batman.

Basically I'd like something along the lines of the John Shea and Clancy Brown Luthors. And I think Zane could be the right man for the part. But my feelings aren't terribly strong on the subject, so I'm perfectly open to other suggestions. Maybe there's someone better I haven't thought of yet.

I'm 100% with you on Zane Silver Nemesis.  Like you I think he would be ideal for portraying the smooth, charming yet sinister 'insider' type of Luthor who could convincingly run for President that's so far been missing from the movies but was portrayed brilliantly by John Shea on 'Lois & Clark'.

Unfortunately, I think the boat has sadly sailed on the possibility of Zane playing Luthor.  If Zane ever was a star that time has long since passed and I suspect WB will be looking to cast a 'name' actor or at least a highly-rated character actor along the lines of Michael Shannon in the part (which is why the Mark Strong and Bryan Cranston rumours ring particularly true).

As an alternative to Zane, who I nevertheless would love to see play Luthor in an ideal world, I think Bruce Willis could possibly work as the type of charismatic, yet simultaneously intimidating and bullying, self-made businessman style version of the character and it's about time Willis played a high-profile villain role (he's one of the few aging former A-listers who hasn't) as long as he resisted any urge to camp it up.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 06:32

As an alternative to Zane, who I nevertheless would love to see play Luthor in an ideal world, I think Bruce Willis could possibly work as the type of charismatic, yet simultaneously intimidating and bullying, self-made businessman style version of the character and it's about time Willis played a high-profile villain role (he's one of the few aging former A-listers who hasn't) as long as he resisted any urge to camp it up.

Given how Bruce Willis is being exposed as being a prima donna nowadays, he'll be lucky that he won't be blacklisted if keeps burning bridges with everybody.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 08:14

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 06:32

As an alternative to Zane, who I nevertheless would love to see play Luthor in an ideal world, I think Bruce Willis could possibly work as the type of charismatic, yet simultaneously intimidating and bullying, self-made businessman style version of the character and it's about time Willis played a high-profile villain role (he's one of the few aging former A-listers who hasn't) as long as he resisted any urge to camp it up.

Given how Bruce Willis is being exposed as being a prima donna nowadays, he'll be lucky that he won't be blacklisted if keeps burning bridges with everybody.

;D  Even as I was typing the quoted post I was thinking about whether I should add a caveat about Willis's absurd behaviour over 'The Expendables 3'.  I doubt a star of his magnitude has done any long-lasting damage to his career although it's pretty shameless considering he's meant to be friends with Stallone (plus I always thought that it was Stallone and Schwarzenegger who were the two that didn't get on).

I think Strong stands a better chance than Cranston for Lex.

I'm of the opinion that if your CV contains more TV and voice-over work than movies then you are unlikely to get big film roles...though you folks can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

If you're referring to Cranston, since 2011 alone, he's been in Lincoln Lawyer, Drive, Larry Crowne, Contagion, Red Tails, John Carter (also with Mark Strong), Rock of Ages, Total Recall, Argo, the upcoming Cold Comes the Night, and next summer's Godzilla.  I don't see how that filmography would make him less likely than Strong (or Michael Shannon did for Zod for that matter).

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 15:37
If you're referring to Cranston, since 2011 alone, he's been in Lincoln Lawyer, Drive, Larry Crowne, Contagion, Red Tails, John Carter (also with Mark Strong), Rock of Ages, Total Recall, Argo, the upcoming Cold Comes the Night, and next summer's Godzilla.  I don't see how that filmography would make him less likely than Strong (or Michael Shannon did for Zod for that matter).

Yes, Cranston seems to have been in everything lately and "Breaking Bad" has an amazing reputation amongst the critical community so it stands to reason that he would be chased for a big comic-book movie somewhere down the line.  I just would prefer to see him as an avuncular good guy type like Commissioner Gordon rather than one of the most evil villains in comic-book history.  Cranston's a superb actor but he doesn't convince so well as a baddie particularly going by the dire 'Total Recall' remake.

Cranston's been in so many things actually that he's had to drop out of some roles, like Gangster Squad. 

He was actually almost a comic book supervillain, as Sebastian Shaw in X-Men: First Class, but turned it down to be in Drive since he liked the part in the latter film better.
http://collider.com/bryan-cranston-x-men-first-class-home-again-rock-of-ages/

To me, it makes perfect sense why his name would be considered for the role.  But, like johnnygobbs and Silver Nemesis, I'd prefer him as Gordon over Luthor for the reasons stated.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 17:19
Cranston's been in so many things actually that he's had to drop out of some roles, like Gangster Squad. 

He was actually almost a comic book supervillain, as Sebastian Shaw in X-Men: First Class, but turned it down to be in Drive since he liked the part in the latter film better.
http://collider.com/bryan-cranston-x-men-first-class-home-again-rock-of-ages/

To me, it makes perfect sense why his name would be considered for the role.  But, like johnnygobbs and Silver Nemesis, I'd prefer him as Gordon over Luthor for the reasons stated.

Cranston was excellent in 'Drive'.  I'm also glad he dropped out of 'X-Men: First Class' because I think Kevin Bacon was great in that part and as I've already outlined I don't automatically see Cranston as a villain.  Maybe I've still got "Malcolm in the Middle" on my mind but as wonderful an actor as Cranston he always reminds me of a likeable, warm if slightly bumbling father-type and although he's excelled in a wide range of roles since then I still see him more as a 'good guy' than a villain.

QuoteEven as I was typing the quoted post I was thinking about whether I should add a caveat about Willis's absurd behaviour over 'The Expendables 3'.

Frankly I think it's obscene to pay anyone 1 million dollars for four days' work, never mind 4 million. I'm glad Sly told him to sod off. They've got Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Antonio Banderas and Wesley Snipes now anyway, and all of those guys will bring more to the table than Willis ever would. He's just sleepwalking through every role he does these days. Did you see that interview he did a few weeks ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6viUMICL31E

There's no call to treat anyone like that. Ok, so the interviewer's questions were fairly inane. But isn't that the point of those kind of interviews? They only get a few minutes to ask some quick fire trivia questions, they don't have the time to get into meaningful exchanges. Willis should be used to it by now. I know it must be boring for him, but he's being paid millions of dollars to do it. If he can't deal with it, he should find another line of work.

Kevin Smith – who hates Willis' guts after they worked together on Cop Out (2010) – has also suggested he should play Lex. Though I think he may only be saying that because he wants to see Cavill beat him to a pulp. Smith certainly has some interesting tales to tell about Willis. Apparently the guy really hates his own fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NdK0xWnGJA

Now that I think about it, Bruce would be perfect for the part of Lex. A rich, bald jerk who treats the little people like trash; he'd basically be playing himself. And Kevin Smith could play a 21st century Otis.

LEX:   Otis, drop the joint and get the hell over here! Now!

OTIS:   Uh, sure Mr. Loo-four!

QuoteMaybe I've still got "Malcolm in the Middle" on my mind but as wonderful an actor as Cranston he always reminds me of a likeable, warm if slightly bumbling father-type and although he's excelled in a wide range of roles since then I still see him more as a 'good guy' than a villain.

Agreed. Though Cranston did once play an evil Lex-like character in The Flash episode 'Be My Baby'. Check out the scene from the 10:55 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVBz_1DGkes

But yeah, I reckon he'd be better as Gordon. I loved Gary Oldman's Gordon and I can't see another actor topping him anytime soon. Having said that, I'd like the next Gordon to be more in line with The Dark Knight Returns version: a silver-haired, Charles Bronson-esque former Green Beret with a magnum and a trench coat.

Another great post Silver Nemesis.  You and BatAngelus are definitely two of my favourite posters on this site (but I love you all  :) ).

If Kevin Smith says Willis would make a great Luthor bearing in mind how much Smith hates Willis's guts, and in this case it would appear with good reason, then I'd say that was a pretty big endorsement.  I don't always agree with Smith but no one can deny his knowledge and passion for comic-books and he clearly sees something in Willis that would make him ideal for the part.

Good point about Gordon too Silver.  Like you I loved Gary Oldman's portrayal of the character.  He was nigh-on perfect in the part and looked and acted like he had just walked out of Frank Miller's 'Batman: Year One'.  However, if there was just one aspect missing from Oldman's soft-spoken, man-of-integrity portrayal of Gordon it was the hard-ass, hard-bitten, trench-coat wearing tough-guy element.  I think Cranston could perfectly blend both the elements Oldman already successfully brought to the part with the 'Charles Bronson' characteristics that have so far been lacking from the live action Gordons.

QuoteHowever, if there was just one aspect missing from Oldman's soft-spoken, man-of-integrity portrayal of Gordon it was the hard-ass, hard-bitten, trench-coat wearing tough-guy element.  I think Cranston could perfectly blend both the elements Oldman already successfully brought to the part with the 'Charles Bronson' characteristics that have so far been lacking from the live action Gordons.

Agreed 100%.  This is exactly what I'd like to see from the next Gordon.

The latest rumor for Batman is...Orlando Bloom?!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/421094/Henry-Cavill-Orlando-Bloom-and-Andrew-Garfield-How-Britons-are-the-new-superheroes

QuoteHenry Cavill, a box-office hit in Man Of Steel, will reprise his Superman role in at least two Justice League Of America films in a reported £6million-a-movie deal with Warner Bros.

And Lord Of The Rings and Pirates Of The Caribbean star Orlando Bloom is hot favourite to fight alongside him as the caped crusader after Welsh star Christian Bale announced earlier this month he has relinquished the role of Batman.

With Surrey-raised Andrew ­Garfield, 29, firmly ensconced in the role of Spider-Man, Britons could now command the world's top three superhero screen parts.

Before Bloom, 36, gets to drive the Batmobile, however, he faces opposition from American stars including Ryan Gosling, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and ­newcomer Armie Hammer.

But a senior source at Warner Bros studio confirmed: "Orlando looks odds-on to get the part even before our first casting call.

"He would be perfect to play off Henry and I think US audiences would be happy with two Brits as the joint male leads."

The first Justice League film is not slated for release until 2017 but ­producers are anxious to lock down the two principal parts as soon as possible.

QuoteAnd Bloom is expected to sign as Batman by autumn before casting begins for the other Justice League crime-fighters, including Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter.

Los Angeles-based media analyst Mike Raia said ­yesterday: "British stars are going to be the toast of Hollywood if Orlando does step up to take over the Batman role.

At this point, I think we should all just wait for WB's announcement and ignore the growing supposed actor shortlist.

Orlando Bloom is the latest rumor.

URL- http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=85203

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 02:44
Orlando Bloom is the latest rumor.

URL- http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=85203

Oh dear. Please let it be a rumour.

Eh, I think he could do a good job. And isn't he roughly the same age as Cavill? Eh, I could live with this.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 02:46
Eh, I think he could do a good job. And isn't he roughly the same age as Cavill? Eh, I could live with this.

What 'tough guy' Orlando Bloom?  Really?

I'm not an Orlando Bloom hater.  I'm one of the few people who actually rather likes him in some of the parts he's played outside the "Lord of the Rings" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchises (see 'Elizabethtown' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' for two rather understated and affecting performances from Bloom) but he lacks both the hard, gritty edge for Batman and the room-sweeping charisma of Bruce Wayne.  To be honest, he's a bit wet which is why he was perfect for the roles I just referred to in which he was meant to playing rather sweet, self-effacing, unsure-of-themselves types.  Unfortunately, that makes him completely unsuitable for Batman.

People can bring up the Michael Keaton situation as an example, but yep, I'm right with you on this, Gobbs.

I saw a photo of Jim Caviezel in a tux at some movie premiere the other day and I'm really looking at Bruce Wayne. He really looked like he has it all. I wish it was him but don't think it'll ever happen. After the great Doctor Who casting I doubt I'll get exactly what I wanted for Batman too.

QuoteTo be honest, he's a bit wet which is why he was perfect for the roles I just referred to in which he was meant to playing rather sweet, self-effacing, unsure-of-themselves types.  Unfortunately, that makes him completely unsuitable for Batman.

^ This. Bloom was fine in Lord of the Rings, and I'm sure he's done some other good movies too. But he just isn't right for Batman. His screen presence, his physicality, his appearance, his acting range – they're all wrong for the part.

But I don't think this rumour is accurate anyway. The article also claims that Armie Hammer and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are under consideration. Hammer's already removed himself from the running and Warner Bros have confirmed JGL won't be back. I reckon most of these "exclusives" come from pizza boys who spotted some 8 x 10s pinned to the wall while making deliveries to the Warner Bros offices and then assumed these actors were the dead certs.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm enjoying all the speculation. We've discussed who could play Batman in animated films before, but this is the first time we've been able to discuss the next live action Batman in the knowledge that a name will be announced in the coming months. It feels a bit like an election campaign.

QuoteI saw a photo of Jim Caviezel in a tux at some movie premiere the other day and I'm really looking at Bruce Wayne. He really looked like he has it all. I wish it was him but don't think it'll ever happen. After the great Doctor Who casting I doubt I'll get exactly what I wanted for Batman too.

I picked up copies of some of Caviezel's more recent action movies in the past week, and I've also been doing some research into his athletic background. I'm now more convinced than ever that he is the most perfect actor to play a comic-accurate version of Batman, from any decade. I used to think a young Eastwood would be the best actor, but now I reckon Caviezel would be even better. Like you, I don't think he's going to get the part – that would be too perfect – but I think I might create a thread on the subject soon anyway, just to collect all the arguments in one place.

The talk is now that WB is offering Bale $60 million to return as Batman... ::)

What a joke...Surely all that cash could be put to better use.

What concerns me is that all the pro-Nolan hype has created a mindset that says nobody else can ever usurp Bale in the part.

This is the same misquoted "story" that's been going on for days, just with a different number (60 million instead of 50).

The truth is here: http://batman-news.com/2013/08/09/christian-bale-reportedly-offered-50-million-to-return-in-batman-vs-superman/

Though I love this parody of the original Latino-Review article: http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/features/123522.html

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 14 Aug  2013, 07:20
This is the same misquoted "story" that's been going on for days, just with a different number (60 million instead of 50).

The truth is here: http://batman-news.com/2013/08/09/christian-bale-reportedly-offered-50-million-to-return-in-batman-vs-superman/

Though I love this parody of the original Latino-Review article: http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/features/123522.html

I'm as sceptical as the next man about this rumour but look at the comments on the first link.  It just goes to show that many of these fanboys are still not prepared to 'move on' from Bale as Batman.

Personally, I'm a fan of 'TDK' trilogy and I was happy with Batman's happy ending whether that's 'true' to the comic-books or not.  Like Burton's Batman killing thugs these films are interpretations of the character and if Nolan decides his Batman gets a happy ending I don't see why that's a problem.  However, 'TDK' is now done and that means Bale and Nolan should move on and let someone else have a crack at bringing their version to the big-screen.

On the ending of the trilogy, I'm OK with Batman having a happy end, but the idea that Blake will become the next Batman is not my thing, Batman was presumed dead, they even built him a statue, he lives on through his legacy, why ruin that?

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 14 Aug  2013, 11:52
On the ending of the trilogy, I'm OK with Batman having a happy end, but the idea that Blake will become the next Batman is not my thing, Batman was presumed dead, they even built him a statue, he lives on through his legacy, why ruin that?

I was a little worried before but given the source came from a quote taken out of context, I am not bothered. Besides, connecting Nolan's Batman with Man of Steel wouldn't work on a believable scale for two reasons:

1) It was bad enough nobody could put together that Bruce Wayne and Batman were one and the same despite disappearing, reappearing, and vice versa until they both 'died' - yet trying to bring the two personalities back would further destroy any suspension of disbelief.

2) There is an issue about what time should it take place between those three Nolan movies and Man of Steel. For example, if Man of Steel was supposed to take place around the same time that Rises happened, many others and myself included would find it very hard to believe that Superman did nothing when Gotham was under siege. Of course, one option could be that MOS takes place many years later after Rises but again, would anyone be keen for that idea?

My hunch is that even if these Bale rumours are remotely these films will still be set in a different continuity to 'TDK' series which further begs the question 'why can't "TDK" fanboys move on?'

If however this film is set in the same continuity as 'TDK' I agree with Laughing Fish that it would have to be several years after the events of 'TDKR' but if that is the case surely Batman will be even older than his early 40s.  Bear in mind that besides the flashback scenes to Bruce's childhood, 'TDK' trilogy is supposed to take place within a period of at least fifteen years (Bruce disappears for 7 years traversing the world in 'Batman Begins' and then there is a further gap of eight years between 'TDK' and 'TDKR', which doesn't even take into account of the presumed period between 'Batman Begins' and 'TDK' in which Bruce is actually, you know, being Batman... ::) ).

Yet more rumoured names, including Christopher Nolan's alleged choice, all courtesy of CosmicBookNews:

QuoteAccording to the site, who has a dubious track record at best, Christopher Nolan has made his recommendation to Zack Snyder, tipping Wes Bentley (Ghost Rider, The Hunger Games) - who happens to be shooting Nolan's next film Interstellar as we speak - as Christian Bale's successor under the cape and cowl. Meanwhile, they also claim that Luke Evans (Immortals, The Crow) and Ben Affleck (Daredevil, Argo) will be offered screen tests, while screenwriter David S. Goyer is said to be keen on Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Brokeback Mountain).

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/08/wes-bentley-apparently-christopher.html

Even though most of the names that have been suggested are probably not under consideration, this whole thing is still pretty exciting. A lot of people are predicting we'll know who the new Batman is within thirty days. Sixty at most.

Quote...while screenwriter David S. Goyer is said to be keen on Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Brokeback Mountain).

So Goyer wants Batman to be played by the brother of Batman's love interest... ::) 

I do wish Goyer would just shut the hell up about his hard-on for Gyllenhaal, who has IMHO none of the qualities required for either Batman or Bruce Wayne (and I say that as a fan of Gyllenhaal).  Goyer is such an idiot.  For confirmation, simply watch his awful directorial work on 'Blade Trinity'.

I don't know why you guys are so skeptical. Batman casting-related news is always reliable.

Case in point:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2612613/Cher-to-play-Catwoman-in-next-Batman-film.html

http://screenrant.com/batman-rumours-eddie-murphy-riddler-shia-labeouf-robin-ross-4673/

QuoteI don't know why you guys are so skeptical. Batman casting-related news is always reliable.

Case in point:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2612613/Cher-to-play-Catwoman-in-next-Batman-film.html

http://screenrant.com/batman-rumours-eddie-murphy-riddler-shia-labeouf-robin-ross-4673/

Lol, Shia LaBeouf as Robin?! "Holy no, no, no, no, no, no, no!" That might have been a bit too similar to Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man.

QuoteSo Goyer wants Batman to be played by the brother of Batman's love interest...   

I do wish Goyer would just shut the hell up about his hard-on for Gyllenhaal, who has IMHO none of the qualities required for either Batman or Bruce Wayne (and I say that as a fan of Gyllenhaal).  Goyer is such an idiot.  For confirmation, simply watch his awful directorial work on 'Blade Trinity'.

They might just be raking up Gyllenhaal's name because he was Goyer's favourite for Batman Begins. He's not a bad actor or anything, but I don't feel he's right for Batman. I'm not quite sure what it is Goyer sees in him that the rest of us don't...

According to the rumours I've heard, Warner Bros is aiming to start filming Batman vs. Superman early next year; commencing the shoot at earliest in February or March, or at latest in April or May. They can't start shooting any later than that without compromising their summer 2015 release date. So actors would need to be available sometime within that four month window. They'd also need to have a clear schedule for at least three months afterwards. Principal photography on Man of Steel was estimated to take 2-3 months, though I think it actually ran longer than that. I'm assuming principal photography on BvS will run for a similar duration, with additional pickup footage being filmed later in the summer. The shoot may be shorter due to Warner Bros fast tracking the film's release, but I'm assuming it will be roughly the same.

If this information is correct (which it may not be) then we can already calculate the likelihood of certain contenders getting/not getting the role.

Christian Bale. Not going to happen. The rumours about the 50 million dollar offer are false. If Chris Nolan one day decided to make a fourth entry in his Dark Knight series, maybe then Bale would return. But he's not playing Batman in this film.

Armie Hammer has said he doesn't want the part. So he's out of the running.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt won't be back for the same reasons as Bale. Different universe, different actor. Warner Bros has confirmed this.

Richard Armitage appears to have a free schedule ahead of him. However he was asked about the Batman role in an interview yesterday, and according to the KoolKiwis Twitter page he said he'd love to play the part but has no idea where the rumour came from. Warner Bros is expected to announce the new Batman within thirty days, and if Armitage hasn't been contacted about the role by now it seems unlikely he ever will be. Then again he may just be playing dumb to fool his fans. But I'm assuming he's telling the truth, in which case he's probably not our guy. It's possible he's in the running, but at this point it seems unlikely.

Josh Brolin has signed on to star in the Sean Penn directed film Crazy for the Storm, which is scheduled to begin filming in Los Angeles in April 2014. If filming on BvS isn't already underway by that point, it will be soon afterwards. So it looks like Brolin's out of the running too.

EDIT: I've just found a source that says Crazy for the Storm will begin shooting in January, not April. If filming on that movie is wrapped in under three months then Brolin would be available for an April/May start. So he might still be in the running after all.

Ben Affleck has said he'll never play a superhero ever again. So there's no way it's going to be him.

Joe Manganiello would seem to be available. I've heard rumours that he's not a serious contender, but we've no way of knowing that for sure at this point. He was certainly in the running for Man of Steel, so he could well be under consideration for this too.

Josh Duhamel is not a serious contender as far as I'm aware. He was named in the Batman-On-Film report that first broke the story about Warner Bros looking for an older Batman. But Jett admitted during a podcast that he made up most of the names on that list, saying that only three of them were genuine contenders (he strongly implied those were Brolin, Hamm and Caviezel). So Duhamel is not in the running.

Wes Bentley doesn't appear to have anything lined up that would clash with the proposed shooting schedule. He'll be 35 by time filming begins, which is younger than the rumours indicated they wanted. But he's a viable option. Particularly if the rumours are true about Chris Nolan recommending him for the part. He definitely seems to be a contender.

Jon Hamm has scheduling conflicts. The final season of Mad Men is expected to start broadcasting around April 2014. They'll have to start work on the show a few months earlier than that date and then continue shooting throughout the rest of the spring and summer. So he won't be available.

Jim Caviezel could be available depending on the precise date they start shooting BvS. He started filming season 3 of Person of Interest in early July of this year, which I think is slightly earlier than they began filming the previous seasons. His nine month shooting schedule should be done by the end of March 2014, or early April at the latest. He's then got a clear schedule for the rest of spring and most of summer. If they have to start filming in February or March, then he's not going to be able to do it. But if they start shooting in the second half of April, or better yet May, then Caviezel will be available. So contrary to what Latino Review claimed, I think he's still in the running.

Karl Urban seems to have a clear schedule too. But I doubt he's seriously being considered for the role, mainly because the character is too similar to Dredd. Strong DVD sales and a recent fan campaign endorsed by 2000 AD have left the possibility open for a sequel to Dredd, and Urban himself voiced interest in making such a sequel back in May. I can't see him starring in two concurrent superhero franchises featuring such similar characters. Urban also said he wouldn't want to appear in the new Star Wars films out of loyalty to the Star Trek franchise. I imagine he'd show similar loyalty to the Dredd franchise. So I'd say he's a possibility, but an unlikely one.

Orlando Bloom appears to be available. He's filming a movie later this year, but besides that he should be free. I hope it isn't him, but it's possible.

Ryan Gosling should also be available. Personally I'd rather see him play Barry Allen. I don't think he's right for Batman at all. But he could be in the running.

I'm not sure about Matthew Goode, Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Gerard Butler. They've all got movies in pre-production but I can't find any precise information on filming dates. A part of me suspects they've only been named in the rumours because they've all worked with Snyder before. But I may be wrong. I certainly wouldn't rule out Butler for the part. I'd say he's the most likely contender out of Snyder's previous collaborators.

Of course it's possible that both the rumours and my research are completely inaccurate. Maybe it'll be someone I've ruled out, or someone completely different altogether. I'm sure there are other actors under consideration that we've yet to hear about, so it could easily be one of them. And if I have ruled out your favourite actor – don't worry, I might be wrong.

Here's my own top pick, out on a date with Vicki Vale (featuring a cameo by Selina Kyle). The fight scene at the end where he pushes the thug up against the wall is classic Batman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAaOc2imuE

Seriously, if Snyder picks Bloom over this guy I will boycott the movie.

Great rundown, Silver Nemesis. 

QuoteRichard Armitage appears to have a free schedule ahead of him. However he was asked about the Batman role in an interview yesterday, and according to the KoolKiwis Twitter page he said he'd love to play the part but has no idea where the rumour came from. Warner Bros is expected to announce the new Batman within thirty days, and if Armitage hasn't been contacted about the role by now it seems unlikely he ever will be. Then again he may just be playing dumb to fool his fans. But I'm assuming he's telling the truth, in which case he's probably not our guy. It's possible he's in the running, but at this point it seems unlikely.

I agree.  I feel that he would've pulled a Mark Strong and given a "I can't talk about that/Stay tuned" type of response.

It's possible, as I said earlier, that Armitage (along with a bunch of these actors) was just on a list of names that Snyder and WB put together in a meeting of who they could consider.

QuoteHere's my own top pick, out on a date with Vicki Vale (featuring a cameo by Selina Kyle). The fight scene at the end where he pushes the thug up against the wall is classic Batman.

Haha, I knew exactly what this clip would be before I hit "Play," which shows how much of Person of Interest I've seen.

Also, don't forget Alfred talking into his ear throughout the date  ;)

I think Jim Caviezel would have made a perfect-Superman but I don't think the roles are interchangeable in terms of casting and Caviezel simply strikes me as too thoughtful and soft-spoken for Bruce Wayne, which Bale came the closest out of all the modern 'Batman'-actors to nailing IMHO.  I can see Caviezel as a brooding, gruff, 'older' Batman, and a mentor to Superman, but I don't really see him as the cocky, dashing, apparently shallow son-of-privilege (which I realise is all an act, but it should nevertheless be a convincing act for the part to work).  For that I still  hope that James Brolin who played a variation on those types of roles in 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' might  get the role even though the apparently unavailable Jon Hamm would be my ideal pick.

QuoteIt's possible, as I said earlier, that Armitage (along with a bunch of these actors) was just on a list of names that Snyder and WB put together in a meeting of who they could consider.

That's probably true. For all we know, none of these guys might be under consideration.

QuoteHaha, I knew exactly what this clip would be before I hit "Play," which shows how much of Person of Interest I've seen.

Also, don't forget Alfred talking into his ear throughout the date   

This, combined with the fact you like the William Hartnell era of Dr Who, shows you have excellent taste, my friend.

Reese = Bruce Wayne
Finch = Alfred/Lucius Fox
Carter = Gordon
Fusco = Bullock
Bear = Ace the Bathound

I don't want people to think I'm suggesting Caviezel should just play the same character in BvS. I'm not. The two characters are actually very different. But Person of Interest does have undeniable parallels with Batman, and it shows that Caviezel can bring the required level of intensity and physicality to the role, just like Equilibrium (2002) demonstrated for Bale.

Intensity is a key factor for me. Keaton could convey a potent sense of menace with just his eyes. Caviezel is one of the few actors who can match that.

QuoteI think Jim Caviezel would have made a perfect-Superman but I don't think the roles are interchangeable in terms of casting and Caviezel simply strikes me as too thoughtful and soft-spoken for Bruce Wayne, which Bale came the closest out of all the modern 'Batman'-actors to nailing IMHO.  I can see Caviezel as a brooding, gruff, 'older' Batman, and a mentor to Superman, but I don't really see him as the cocky, dashing, apparently shallow son-of-privilege (which I realise is all an act, but it should nevertheless be a convincing act for the part to work).  For that I still  hope that James Brolin who played a variation on those types of roles in 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' might  get the role even though the apparently unavailable Jon Hamm would be my ideal pick.

The more I think about Brolin in the role, the less I want him to get it. Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor. But physically he's far from perfect for the part. And I think he's been overexposed in recent years to the extent that we'd end up seeing the actor rather than the character. For example, whenever I watch Batman and Robin I don't see the character Batman, I see George Clooney playing Batman. I think I'd have a similar reaction seeing Brolin in the batsuit. I know everyone keeps posting that manip of him in the costume. But what impresses me about that manip is the suit itself, not the 60% of Brolin's face that's visible on top of it. So while I don't think Brolin is the worst choice for the role, I'd still be disappointed if he got it.

He also might not want the part. His previous foray into DC territory landed him some of the worst notices of his career. In fact it's his third lowest rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes. And he's already got another comic book movie coming up with Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014). With his career going so well at the moment, would he really want to risk it by playing Batman in the sequel to a critically maligned movie like Man of Steel? Especially when doing so would involve working with the woman he's currently in the process of divorcing? If he does do it, I reckon it'll be purely as a cash grab. But scheduling conflicts with Crazy for the Storm might eliminate him from the running anyway.

As far as Hamm goes, he's certainly a good actor, but I'm not sure he's right for Batman. I've always thought of him as more of a comedic actor than anything else. Granted, people said the same thing about Keaton back in 1988. But Keaton worked because he had an air of darkness and intensity about him. I'm not sure Hamm does. I can see him playing a smarmy Bruce Wayne, but I'm not sure I can see him fighting ninjas on rooftops. And I suspect he wouldn't want to anyway. He once said:

Quote"I've been offered my share of superhero movies, but I think I've aged out of that [...] I have mad, crazy respect for the people that can pull it off because it's something that can be done poorly so easily. But, you know, it's a big commitment and it's probably something that, unless it's the right thing, it's probably not so much my jam."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=55825

Unless he quits the final season of Mad Men, which is highly unlikely, then he's not going to be available anyway. Truth be told, I'd prefer Hamm over Brolin. But it doesn't sound like he's in the running anymore, or like he'd want the part even if he was.

Personally I think he looks more like the Alex Ross Superman than any incarnation of Batman from the comics.


Moving onto Caviezel, he definitely has the acting ability. He's starred in critically acclaimed movies like The Thin Red Line (1998 – 7 Academy Award nominations) and The Passion of the Christ (2004 – 3 Academy Award nominations), and he's worked with top directors like Ang Lee, Gus Van Sant, Ridley Scott, Mel Gibson and Terrence Malick. Unfortunately he's been blacklisted for the past ten years and has been badly underutilised in the industry. But that's all the more reason why he should get a second break now. He's got enough good roles on his filmography to prove his credibility as a serious actor, but he's not so well known that his pre-established screen persona (not that he has one) would clash with the character he's playing.

Most of the actors who've been suggested are already attached to big upcoming movies: The Hobbit 2 & 3 for Armitage, Star Trek 3 and Dredd 2 for Urban, Interstellar for Bentley, Oldboy and Sin City 2 for Brolin, etc. But Caviezel's got nothing like that on the horizon; just his TV show Person of Interest. Now don't misunderstand me, Person of Interest is a great show. It's getting consistently good reviews and averaging over 10 million viewers each week. But Caviezel deserves more good movie roles, and at present he's perfectly aligned career-wise to step up and tackle a big film. And that film should be Batman vs. Superman.

I know he was a fan favourite to play Superman a few years ago, but he was never really a good match for the Superman in the comics. He's an inch too short and about twenty pounds too light. He is, however, a perfect match for Bruce Wayne. He's 6'2, which is the same height as the Bruce Wayne in the comics. He mentioned in an interview last year that he was 210lbs, which is the exact same weight as the Bruce Wayne in the comics. He has black hair and blue eyes, again, just like the comic character. And personally I think his facial characteristics are identical to how Neal Adams drew Bruce Wayne during the Bronze Age: high cheekbones, deeply set blue eyes, slightly arched eyebrows, strong chiselled chin, prominent lower lip, parenthesis lines at the corner of his mouth.


This manip of Caviezel wearing the cowl helps further demonstrate the likeness.


Looks wise, he's also a logical successor to Bale. The proportions and overall shape of the two actors' faces are close enough that Caviezel could pass for an older version of the Bale Batman, and that might make it easier for the audience to accept a different actor in the role so soon after Bale's last performance.


If you want evidence that he can carry off the playboy persona, look no further than The Count of Monte Cristo (2002). In this film (which co-starred a young Henry Cavill) Caviezel's character embarks on a violent quest for revenge and adopts the public persona of a wealthy 19th century playboy in order to exact it.

Speaking of the Count of Monte Cristo, watch this scene from the end of the movie. His screen presence here has an understated air of menace that is perfect for Batman. It reminds me of Keaton's performance in the cathedral at the end of the 89 film.


Also note his voice. He has a quiet, husky voice reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's when he was younger. You're right when you say he's softly spoken, but that's why his voice is so perfect. It's already low and whispery enough that he won't have to strain it the way Bale did. After three movies of Batman growling like a laryngitic pro-wrestler, I think it's time we had a more Keatonesque whispery Batman. And it's exactly how he's described as sounding in many of the comics.



Then there's the issue of his physical build. At the moment he's maintaining a lean physique for Person of Interest. However if you check out his physique in Outlander (2008) you can see he's capable of gaining muscle when the role requires it. His muscles in that film were bigger than Keaton's, Kilmer's or Clooney's ever were, and probably around the same size as Bale's in The Dark Knight (2008).


He's got a good six months or more to bulk up for the Batman role. I've always thought Bale had an ectomorphic body type, with narrow shoulders and chest, but managed to compensate for it by gaining some impressive muscle mass for the Batman films. By contrast Caviezel has a much larger frame, with naturally broad chest and shoulders.


If he were to pile some muscle on top of that frame he'd look absolutely huge. In the costume, he'd look like the Arkham City Batman.

On the subject of physical suitability, there's one other thing we should take into account, and that's Caviezel's athletic background. Before becoming an actor he'd played college basketball and was on course for a career in the NBA before an injury stopped him. He's spoken of his training regimen in several interviews, mentioning that he'd also studied martial arts and boxing for five years when he was younger. And in recent years he's undergone additional combat training with Special Forces experts for Person of Interest. I don't know exactly how many forms he's studied, but rumour has it he's trained in at least half a dozen different fighting styles. He'd be the first Batman actor to have legitimate martial arts training, as opposed to just training for a few months before making the movie like Bale did.

Admittedly this is something of a moot point, since stuntmen can always be used to compensate for an actor's physical limitations. But wouldn't it be nice to have a Batman actor with an authentic athletic background and real martial arts skills? A lot of people criticised Bale's movements in The Dark Knight trilogy for being too slow and clumsy. Caviezel can move with far greater speed and precision than Bale, and that's something I'd like to see in the next Batman film.



We've had seven movies now starring actors who don't match the Bruce Wayne in the comics. Isn't it about time we had an actor who did? Whenever they pick a Superman actor they evaluate the candidates according to their physical suitability. They have to be a certain height, look a certain way, have a certain tone of voice. I think we should start choosing Batman actors using a similar set of criteria. And according to the physical criteria of being accurate to the comics, Caviezel is by far and away the most suitable choice. If they were going for a younger actor then I could understand not casting him. But if they really are looking for an actor in their forties then it should be him and no one else.

But would he want to play the part? I think so. He's come close to playing superheroes on two previous occasions. First of all he was cast as Scott Summers/Cylcops in the first X-Men movie, but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts with Frequency (2000). Then he was a fan favourite for Superman in the 2006 film and publicly stated he'd love to play the part:

Quote"It appeals to me a great deal [...] I like to play iconic characters, and I see the role of Superman as a big responsibility. Playing Superman would be a great challenge."

Considering this is his third – and likely last – opportunity to play such a character, I think he'd jump at the chance.

The one big obstacle is the possible scheduling conflict with Person of Interest. I've now heard that the shooting schedule for PoI may only be 8 months, in which case he'd be available from late February/early March. But that may not be true. If there is an overlap, I'm wondering if the shooting schedule for the TV show couldn't be reorganised so Caviezel could film his scenes for the last couple of episodes earlier than the rest of the cast, thereby freeing him up for a February start on BvS. Jonathan Nolan is executive producer on PoI, and Chris Nolan is executive producer on BvS. Surely they could work something out?

But in all honesty, I don't think he's going to get the role anyway. If anyone could be for the Batman character what Christopher Reeve was for Superman, I firmly believe Caviezel's the guy. But then I'm talking from the perspective of a comic fan who wants to see the character brought to life from the printed page. The studio is thinking more in terms of star power and marketability, and in those terms someone like Brolin or Brad Pitt would certainly bring in more tickets. And as long as that mentality prevails, I doubt I'll ever get to see "my Batman" in live action. But there is a slim chance it might happen this time, and until Caviezel's definitely ruled out of the running I'm going to continue rooting for him. 

Of course everything I'm saying is just my opinion. I could be wrong. But on this one occasion I don't think I am. Anyway, sorry for yet another overlong post. I considered posting some of this stuff in its own thread, but I decided it would be tidier to keep the casting discussion in one thread.

Good post Silver Nemesis, but none of that seems to address the problem I have with Caviezel as Batman as opposed to Superman, which is as physically well suited as he is for the latter part he doesn't seem to exude the arrogant and to-the-manor-born self-assuredness and slight cockiness I associate with Bruce Wayne and which of all the actors who have so far played him I feel only Christian Bale really caught.  All the stills you posted of Caviezel solidifies his persona as a sensitive brooder.  Like Keaton's permanently haunted Bruce I can certainly see him as a man still reeling from the childhood trauma of his parents' death.  What I can't see is the dashing, charismatic playboy and 'richest man in Gotham' which sets Bruce apart from Superman/Clark (especially Cavill's sensitive drifter version of Clark).  I would still like to see the 'B:TAS' version of Bruce Wayne brought to life and of all the actions so far linked with the part Jon Hamm, despite or perhaps partly because of his occasional comedic cheesiness, comes closest.

Great analysis, Silver Nemesis.

Personally, I like both Hamm and Caviezel for the role and would be happy to see either of them in the cowl. I think their current shows make it easier to see Hamm as the playboy Bruce Wayne and Caviezel in the Batsuit since the former plays a suave womanizer and the latter plays a badass with fighting skills, but I've seen scenes of Hamm's Mad Men character in a dark and intense mode in certain episodes while I recall Caviezel putting on the rich aristocrat act in The Count of Monte Cristo (And I think he'd play the playboy Bruce smoother than he plays Reese in that Person of Interest "date night" clip that SN posted since the Reese character is meant to be uncomfortable and out of his element).

Here's an idea for a future flick: TDKR/Kingdom Come-type World's Finest movie with Jon Hamm and Jim Caviezel.  Since Johnny Gobbs prefers Hamm as Batman and Caviezel as Superman and Silver Nemesis prefers Hamm as the Alex Ross Superman and Caviezel as Batman, I'll leave it up to you guys to envision who'll play who  :P

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 21 Aug  2013, 07:05
Great analysis, Silver Nemesis.

Personally, I like both Hamm and Caviezel for the role and would be happy to see either of them in the cowl. I think their current shows make it easier to see Hamm as the playboy Bruce Wayne and Caviezel in the Batsuit since the former plays a suave womanizer and the latter plays a badass with fighting skills, but I've seen scenes of Hamm's Mad Men character in a dark and intense mode in certain episodes while I recall Caviezel putting on the rich aristocrat act in The Count of Monte Cristo (And I think he'd play the playboy Bruce smoother than he plays Reese in that Person of Interest "date night" clip that SN posted since the Reese character is meant to be uncomfortable and out of his element).

Here's an idea for a future flick: TDKR/Kingdom Come-type World's Finest movie with Jon Hamm and Jim Caviezel.  Since Johnny Gobbs prefers Hamm as Batman and Caviezel as Superman and Silver Nemesis prefers Hamm as the Alex Ross Superman and Caviezel as Batman, I'll leave it up to you guys to envision who'll play who  :P

Good point about 'The Count of Monte Cristo'.  Although Caviezel was playing the poor boy in that film I do recall him doing a decent 'fake aristocrat'.

Also, in an ideal world a 'Kingdom Come' adaptation or something similar featuring 'older' members of the JLA would be awesome.

QuoteGood post Silver Nemesis, but none of that seems to address the problem I have with Caviezel as Batman as opposed to Superman, which is as physically well suited as he is for the latter part he doesn't seem to exude the arrogant and to-the-manor-born self-assuredness and slight cockiness I associate with Bruce Wayne and which of all the actors who have so far played him I feel only Christian Bale really caught.  All the stills you posted of Caviezel solidifies his persona as a sensitive brooder.  Like Keaton's permanently haunted Bruce I can certainly see him as a man still reeling from the childhood trauma of his parents' death.  What I can't see is the dashing, charismatic playboy and 'richest man in Gotham' which sets Bruce apart from Superman/Clark (especially Cavill's sensitive drifter version of Clark).  I would still like to see the 'B:TAS' version of Bruce Wayne brought to life and of all the actions so far linked with the part Jon Hamm, despite or perhaps partly because of his occasional comedic cheesiness, comes closest.

If you want evidence of Caviezel's ability to play a smarmy overbearing douche, look no further than the Australian horror movie Long Weekend (2008). In that film he portrays a smug, self-absorbed urbanite who drinks heavily, kills animals for fun, and is sexually aggressive towards his emotionally vulnerable wife. Unfortunately I can't find any clips from this movie on YouTube other than the trailer and this tiny snippet:


Which... doesn't help illustrate the point I'm trying to make at all. So I'll just have to ask you to take my word for it that he can play a smug, smarmy playboy when the script calls for it.

But I don't want Wayne to be portrayed like that in the next film. He's certainly not like that in the vast majority of comics. I'd prefer a depiction closer to the Bronze Age Wayne: a charming, suave philanthropist possessing an alluring air of mystery about him. And Caviezel's performance in The Count of Monte Cristo was perfectly calibrated for that. Unfortunately I can't find many pertinent clips of that either. Only this scene where he proposes a toast in honour of Henry Cavill's character:


That's exactly how I'd want him to play Wayne. He's certainly a lot smoother and more natural there than Bale's over-the-top interpretation.

If anything, I'd say they overdid Wayne's smarminess in Batman Begins. I understand that they wanted to emphasise a side of his personality that had been underplayed in the previous films, but they made him far too obnoxious in Batman Begins. Very seldom has he been portrayed in such an exaggerated manner in the comics. The scene which bugs me the most is the one where he buys the restaurant and starts frolicking in the pool. He comes across less like an idle aristocrat and more like a 'new money' guttersnipe rubbing his wealth in everyone's faces; some yuppie who struck big at the racetrack and wants to make sure all the 'one percenters' know about it.

I also didn't like the fact they showed Bruce chugging down alcohol in the restaurant. The Bruce in the comics does not drink (with rare exceptions, such as The Dark Knight Returns). They corrected this in The Dark Knight where they showed him raising a glass to toast Harvey, only to discreetly pour the drink over the balcony when no one was looking. But the way he was pouring them back in Begins was inconsistent with the character's attitude to alcohol in the comics. And it placed him under unnecessary public scrutiny.

Ultimately the function of the playboy persona is to deflect attention, not to attract it. If Bruce projects the image of a devil may care eccentric who pulls crazy stunts in public, that's only going to make people suspicious of him. Whereas if he projects the image of a soft, idle layabout who's too self-absorbed to care about what's happening in his city, then no one would think to connect him with the hardened vigilante that's prowling Gotham on a nightly basis.

I can't say I remember Kevin Conroy ever playing Wayne like Bale did in Batman Begins. Conroy's Wayne was always a smooth laid-back gentleman who spoke in a quiet, calm tone of voice. He never came across as a sleazy or overbearing Paris Hilton type. I'd say he was closer to the Val Kilmer Wayne than Bale's. It was only because of the chicks throwing glasses of wine in his face and chewing him out for not returning their phone calls that we got the impression of him being a playboy at all. And that's exactly how I think it should be played.

Personally I would never cast an actor as Batman based primarily on their ability to portray a comedic playboy anyway. That would be like casting a Superman actor based on their ability to play a funny bumbling reporter. It's the easiest and least important aspect of the character to portray on screen. And since they disregarded the bumbling element of Clark Kent in Man of Steel, I'm expecting them to abandon, or at least tone down, the playboy element of Bruce Wayne. They've made it clear they're drawing most of their inspiration from The Dark Knight Returns, and there isn't even a hint of the playboy persona in that entire book.

In fact there are many classic Batman comics that omit the playboy act altogether. Alan Moore wrote four stories featuring Batman in the eighties:

•   'For the Man Who Has Everything...' (Superman Annual #11, 1985)
•   'Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?' (Superman #423/Action Comics #583, September 1986)
•   'Mortal Clay' (Batman Annual #11, 1987)
•   The Killing Joke (1988)

The one thing all these stories have in common is that Bruce Wayne doesn't appear in any of them. Batman only appears unmasked on one page in The Killing Joke. Aside from that, Moore ignored Wayne altogether and focused solely on Batman. And there are plenty of other classic stories where Bruce Wayne doesn't appear. You can have a great Batman story without Bruce Wayne, but you can't have a great Batman story without Batman. Like I say, I can understand the necessity for emphasising the playboy act in Batman Begins because it had been downplayed in the earlier films. But now we've seen it, let's have a more balanced representation of the character. One that more accurately represents how Wayne is depicted in the vast majority of comics.

Bale, for all his strengths, was not a great Batman IMO. A good Bruce Wayne, yes. But his Batman was average at best and laughable at worst. He got too hung up on trying to demarcate between the three main facets of the character: the private Wayne, the public Wayne, and Batman. Ultimately only his private Wayne came across as natural and believable. In an effort to differentiate the other two personas, he overplayed them to the point where they became over-the-top caricatures rather than compelling and verisimilar alter egos. The next Batman actor needs to approach the role with more subtlety, even if that means lessening the distinction between the three personas. At least that's what I think.

QuoteHere's an idea for a future flick: TDKR/Kingdom Come-type World's Finest movie with Jon Hamm and Jim Caviezel.  Since Johnny Gobbs prefers Hamm as Batman and Caviezel as Superman and Silver Nemesis prefers Hamm as the Alex Ross Superman and Caviezel as Batman, I'll leave it up to you guys to envision who'll play who   

Honestly, I wouldn't cast either of them as Superman. Besides Hamm's aforementioned facial resemblance to the Ross Superman, neither of them is right for the part. They're both physically closer to Bruce Wayne than Clark Kent. And their voices are wrong for Superman too. Hamm's is too gravelly (Superman shouldn't sound like a smoker). Likewise Caviezel's is too low and husky. They're both good actors, so they probably could pull it off if they had to...


...but no, they're both better suited to Batman. And if they were in a movie together they'd both have to play Batman, but from alternate universes. I'd cast Hamm as the Golden Age Earth-Two Wayne; the lantern-jawed, pipe-smoking crusader who married Selina Kyle and succeeded Gordon as police commissioner.


And Caviezel would play the Bronze Age Earth-One Wayne; the athletic, globe-trotting philanthropist who served as a member of the Justice League and was ultimately reborn as the Modern Age Wayne.


But let's be honest. If we're talking the Kingdom Come Batman, there's one actor who was clearly born to play him. You all know who I'm talking about, but nobody wants to be the first to say it...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

I agree with you about Bale's slightly OTT 'douchiness' which is why I cited the 'B:TAS' version of Wayne as my ideal.  Whereas Bale's version was clearly a man trying a little too hard to 'put on' a rich idiot act, the 'B:TAS' version is a relaxed, publically self-assured man with no evident chip on his shoulder.  Somebody who displays the easy confidence of a man who was born to the manor (and who suffers no visible torment of his childhood trauma).  That's why your reference to Caviezel's performance as a 'smarmy, overbearing douche' in "Long Weekend" might not necessarily address the concerns I have about his suitability to the part.  Basically, I would ideally like to see a seemingly angst-free Bruce; almost an anti-Peter Parker and a certainly a contrast to the traditional version of the bumbling outsider Clark Kent or even Cavill's brooding, self-effacing version of that character.

I suppose by that rationale George Clooney, your ideal pick for a 'Kingdom Come' version of Batman/Bruce Wayne, should have been the perfect Batman back in 1997 but arguably Clooney was too relaxed in the part and didn't do enough to differentiate the character he was playing from his own real-life persona.  The fact that he was poorly served by a horrendous screenplay and misguided direction didn't help either.