Batman Madness

[Drtooth]

The catch 22 of it all is, if they have a big celebrity play Batman they'll complain about it being a big celebrity. If they cast a virtual unknown, they'd be all like, "What? A Big celebrity isn't good enough for Batman?"

Which is why I had most nerds on the internet. There's always one guy who nailed it, and we never want to give anyone else a chance. There's only one version of something that was perfect and we never need it again. I can see that for certain things, but when it comes to comic books, let's face it... there is no one way to interpret a character, and there is no one author who should be the end all be all. Many authors and artists have interpreted these characters in their own ways, for better or worse. Why shouldn't that be reflected in comic book media. If anything's a bad movie, we'll forget about it and try again in a few years.

 

[jvcarroll]

Here's the thing about Affleck for me. I don't think he's as horrible as some people say. But his casting feels like it was motivated by name recognition more than anything else. And all I can think about is the working actor who might have done a better job as Batman but won't ever get the chance.

I completely agree. The thing is, I don't think his name, at least as an actor, really sells tickets. Remember when Demi Moore kept getting paid insane amounts of money to be in horrible films? She'd been in a string of successes, but the success wasn't necessarily due to her performance. I'm not saying that she's a bad actress or anything of the sort. She just wasn't the magic ingredient that studios thought she was. These things are incorrectly measured.

On another topic, I just saw Life of Pi. 99% of that film's success was due to the wonderful special effects by Rhythm and Hues. Sure, their work received an Oscar, as did the film's director, Ang Lee. However, Rhythm and Hues had to file for bankruptcy while Lee gains the majority of the praise...and yet neglects to even mention them in his acceptance speech. When given a chance to correct this in a backstage interview, he just states how he thinks effects work should be less expensive. The ocean, the animals and about 99% of the film was these beautiful special effects. The thing is, there's much competition for special effects so houses have to underbid each other to land the job. There are people trying to change that, but it doesn't help when directors and studios don't adequately acknowledge their contributions.

I bring this up because people keep saying, if the script is good, if the direction of the movie is good, then Ben Affleck will be too. He's getting paid millions of dollars. Everything else shouldn't be propping him up. This goes for every other factor of the film. I'm not saying that will be the case. He might provide a good performance. I'm just saying that the argument that a successful Batman performance rests primarily in the material the actor is given is a pretty weak one. We'll see. It's Monday. The world has had it's time to freak out. It will probably dissipate.

 

[Drtooth]

Patton Oswalt once again proves why he's brilliant...

No matter how many times you post your stupid "Fire Ben Affleck from Playing Batman" petition, I'm going to delete it and block you. Take a deep breath, and think for a second:
Yeah, the dude's made some bad films. Every actor has. Every actor does. Every actor will. It's a huge, arcing career and NO ONE has control over where it goes. Movie to movie, year to year, you're collaborating and trying and risking and, sometimes, yes -- failing.
Plus, everyone seems to forget that he had the world dropped in his lap when he was YOUNG. And, judging by how other suddenly-famous youngsters do in the same situation, he fared pretty well. Even when it went wrong, he seemed to keep a self-deprecating, long-view philosophy about the burning freak carousel he'd found himself on.
And then what happened? I mean, he'd fallen from a HEIGHT. You know what happens to 95% of people who weather a descent that steep? They come apart, fray at all of their sanity nodes, and give up.
But then there's the 5% who embrace crushing defeat and see it for the gift it is. And here's the gift: when you fail, and fail UTTERLY, you wake up the next morning and see that the world didn't end. And then the fear of failure is gone. And you're free. You're free to proceed on your own terms and pace -- if you have the ego that permits you to.
Ben brushed himself off, realized he'd kept his eyes open on the movies he'd done, and started directing. And he's become a **** good one.
A Batman portrayed by someone who's tasted humiliation and a reversal of all personal valences -- kind of like Grant Morrison's "Zen warrior" version of Batman, post-ARKHAM ASYLUM, who was, in the words of Superman, "...the most dangerous man on the planet"? Think for a second and admit that Ben Affleck is closer to THAT top-shelf iteration of The Dark Knight than pretty much anyone in Hollywood right now.
I'd write more, but I have to go work on my post about how an overweight 44 year-old comedian with bad feet and insomnia would be a bold choice for The Joker.

 

[jvcarroll]

Patton Oswalt once again proves why he's brilliant...

He's usually brilliant. I like Patton Oswalt, but his anti-freak-out is in itself an over-the-top freak-out. One that's not based in much reality either. I get what he's saying about perseverance. Still, this is acting. It's not some great or noble feat like fire fighting, brain surgery or feeding the poor.

Ben Affleck may provide a serviceable Batman performance. The idea that a privileged actor with a spotty history in films could be perceived by anyone as "the most dangerous man on the planet" at this point is laughable. Even though I agree with much of Oswalt's summation, his rant is the kind of insider Hollywood dbaggery that most of the general public finds narcissistic and loathsome. I usually enjoy his Twitter rants so I'll just ignore the ick-factor in his diatribe and watch Ratatouille.

 

[Teheheman]

Look, NOBODY is saying that Ben Affleck can't make a bad movie now and then. The problem a LOT of people have with this is the fact that he's made WAY too many bad movies as an actor. The few good movies he's made were when he was also a BRILLIANT director. Now, I would like it if they said "Ben Affleck is directing the next Superman movie where Batman makes an appearance" and then, if they said he was gonna be him, I would have probably thought 'The casting isn't good, but he was good in those other movies he directed, so it might work'. I, personally, have a wait and see attitude about it because it MIGHT work, but ya never know. Although, I think I heard somebody say that they haven't even gotten a script or anything yet and this is supposed to be out in 2015 so.......they might wanna think about that first.

Daniel

 

[Drtooth]

He's usually brilliant. I like Patton Oswalt, but his anti-freak-out is in itself an over-the-top freak-out. One that's not based in much reality either. I get what he's saying about perseverance. Still, this is acting. It's not some great or noble feat like fire fighting, brain surgery or feeding the poor.

Ben Affleck may provide a serviceable Batman performance. The idea that a privileged actor with a spotty history in films could be perceived by anyone as "the most dangerous man on the planet" at this point is laughable. Even though I agree with much of Oswalt's summation, his rant is the kind of insider Hollywood dbaggery that most of the general public finds narcissistic and loathsome. I usually enjoy his Twitter rants so I'll just ignore the ick-factor in his diatribe and watch Ratatouille.

His rant is the rant of someone who's clearly annoyed with people cluttering his inbox with whiny fanboys. I totally get what he's saying, and why he's annoyed enough to say it. Hollywood narcissism or not, the true dbags are man children that think everything has to be just so, complain their butts off about it not being like something they grew up with, and then, in the end, wind up whining even harder that the show or movie franchise they were pulling their hair over is ending. I've seen it before. I still remember people flipping a snot over Spectacular Spider-Man for some reason... either it wasn't the heavily censored and not really all that good 1990's series or the character designs... some crap like that. And then once the series ended, they're still blaming everyone possible (except the real villains, the CW for dumping their Saturday Morning line up, almost losing the show forever, causing them to tell people to pack it up as soon as Season 2 ended). Same with any Batman cartoon that's not Batman TAS. I can see why Patton got passionate.

Meanwhile, Adam West, Val Kilmer, and even Joss Wheadon are in favor of Affleck. I don't see Hollywood narcissism... I see Hollywood telling obnoxious fanboys to shut up and wait to see a result.

 

[jvcarroll]

His rant is the rant of someone who's clearly annoyed with people cluttering his inbox with whiny fanboys. I totally get what he's saying, and why he's annoyed enough to say it. Hollywood narcissism or not, the true dbags are man children that think everything has to be just so, complain their butts off about it not being like something they grew up with, and then, in the end, wind up whining even harder that the show or movie franchise they were pulling their hair over is ending. I've seen it before. I still remember people flipping a snot over Spectacular Spider-Man for some reason... either it wasn't the heavily censored and not really all that good 1990's series or the character designs... some crap like that. And then once the series ended, they're still blaming everyone possible (except the real villains, the CW for dumping their Saturday Morning line up, almost losing the show forever, causing them to tell people to pack it up as soon as Season 2 ended). Same with any Batman cartoon that's not Batman TAS. I can see why Patton got passionate.

Meanwhile, Adam West, Val Kilmer, and even Joss Wheadon are in favor of Affleck. I don't see Hollywood narcissism... I see Hollywood telling obnoxious fanboys to shut up and wait to see a result.

They Kilmer and Whedon didn't say they favored the choice so much as they encouraged fans to give him a chance and/or that his success would depend on the material he is given. And I'm still giving him that chance...begrudgingly...because he's the selection and I want the project to be good.

I'm still wondering is Oswalt's bloviating has a facetious underbelly. While I understand the criticism of fanboys (and let's face it, we're all fanboys and fangirls on this forum), but I don't quite get why anyone would so staunchly support Affleck's acting skills. The notion that since he's had a lot of terrible projects, it means he'll be good now really doesn't make much sense. He still hasn't lent a remarkable performance to anything in the last few years.

Again, we'll see. I hope for the best.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm still wondering is Oswalt's bloviating has a facetious underbelly. While I understand the criticism of fanboys (and let's face it, we're all fanboys and fangirls on this forum), but I don't quite get why anyone would so staunchly support Affleck's acting skills. The notion that since he's had a lot of terrible projects, it means he'll be good now really doesn't make much sense. He still hasn't lent a remarkable performance to anything in the last few years.

Something tells me those projects would be terrible no matter who starred in them. I'd say his rationalization is basically a personal interpretation of Batman, which is why this whole Affleck thing strikes a nerve. Other than that particular personal interpretation, I think he's onto something. I wonder how many of those lame petitions piled onto his inbox. I'd block them too.

Still, if anyone is upset about the choice, we all have to remember this is the studio's fault. If the studio holds this much sway in casting and film direction, I'd worry far more about the content of the movie than the actors in it. I see tell tale signs of Spider-Man 3 style shenanigans by the higher ups enforced on the film makers, who won't have too good a time writing the film, giving us a shoddy product and sinking the Superman film franchise they were so very careful to restart. It's one thing if MOS was a flop, but if the second one turns sourly into a toy commercial, they're going to destroy the franchise.

I'm not saying the movie's already doomed. It has some potential. But if the studio meddles with it, giving the film makers no reason to provide a quality script, they've done damage that can only be fixed by waiting another 4 years and trying another reboot then.

 

[Drtooth]

I hate double posting, but all the noise about Affleck is hiding the true story of awesome casting... Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. I think he can pull that one off, as long as he doesn't turn him into an annoying cartoonish coward, like Gene Hackman did. At least Bry isn't afraid to go bald. He already went there.

 

[mr3urious]

I hate double posting, but all the noise about Affleck is hiding the true story of awesome casting... Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. I think he can pull that one off, as long as he doesn't turn him into an annoying cartoonish coward, like Gene Hackman did. At least Bry isn't afraid to go bald. He already went there.

As long as he's more Walter White and less Hal from Malcolm in the Middle, then I'm sure he'll do great.