The Big Picture: Batfleck

[maximara]

More than anything having to do with Ben Affleck, I'm just happy to hear someone vocalize my batman complaint I've been rephrasing for the better part of a decade. I don't like superheroes because they remove the concept of heroism away from something anyone can do and make it into something only people who were already special for some other reason first can do. Superman is an Alien, the X-Men all have superpowers, Thor is a God, ect. These are not stories about things you can do if you find yourself in a situation and can act selflessly. These are stories of people who received something from an outside force that just makes them better than you and now they use it in whatever way they see fit. Equality? Nope, you're meant to side with the guys who were born with what they need. Batman was always the first character anyone ever went to in an attempt to counter my argument. "Batman doesn't have any super-powers and yet he's still a hero!" they'd say. To which his inherited super-fortune and purchased super-gadgets would be my retort. Batman still has abilities that place him above you. His super-power is simply to have been born with enough money to win. Superheroes are, at their heart, a fascist concept and I couldn't be more pleased that someone else sees it, at least in Batman.

It was even more obvious in the very early comics. Batman actually carried a gun and the villains he ran into tended to wind up with a serious case of dead by the end of the story.

In fact you can see seed for Batman in the Spider a now obscure pulp hero from 1933: millionaire...check. Dresses up in costume to frighten criminals...check. Uses violent means to deal with said criminals that tend to buy it...double check.

Superman wasn't much better. Imagine Phillip Marlow or Sam Spade with superpowers and that was Superman.

They both got toned down in the 1940s (for obvious reasons) but they weren't that pleasant in the beginning.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Has anyone read a certain "Cracked" article [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-ugly-lessons-hiding-in-every-superhero-movie/] on awful lessons that superhero movies are teaching their viewers?

That's a surprisingly awesome article. Thank you.

It was even more obvious in the very early comics. Batman actually carried a gun and the villains he ran into tended to wind up with a serious case of dead by the end of the story.

In fact you can see seed for Batman in the Spider a now obscure pulp hero from 1933: millionaire...check. Dresses up in costume to frighten criminals...check. Uses violent means to deal with said criminals that tend to buy it...double check.

Superman wasn't much better. Imagine Phillip Marlow or Sam Spade with superpowers and that was Superman.

They both got toned down in the 1940s (for obvious reasons) but they weren't that pleasant in the beginning.

The 1930s was an odd time. After the Stock Market crash, everyone was scrambling from the middle to find refuge in the radicals. People who thought the reason everyone's lives sucked now was because of rich people being stingy with their money now that their stupid bets fell through became a radical leftist. Even Lucile Ball, later to become Lucy on "I Love Lucy" was a card-carrying member of the communist party, though she'd come to regret that and narrowly avoid blacklisting for it come the 1950s. Everyone who thought, however, that the problem had really been that there were too many poor people, non-whites, etc, dragging the rest of society down became Fascists. Even Charles Lindbergh, the first man to cross the Atlantic by air, was an outspoken proponent of fascism and the protection of the white race from non-white influnences. In the 1930s there was even an attempted fascist coup against FDR by a group of corporate conspirators, including Prescott Bush, Former President George H.W. Bush's father, who approached Marine Corps Major-General Smedley Butler and offered to install him as a fascist dictator. [http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm] General Butler turned them down and then attempted to turn them in by reporting the conspiracy to congress. As you might imagine, no one was ever punished for the near-coup.

Thus, I find it as only mildly surprising that the original superhero comics had a distinct far-right tone to them before the war. Given how few people had any love for the disaster moderate policies had led them to, if the comic writers hadn't been fascists, they probably would have been communists and made comic strips about how the poor just want to have the ability to do well as a result of their own hard work. But, of course, those comics never would have been run in newspapers owned by rich people...

 

[bjj hero]

Batfleck

MovieBob gives us the ins and outs of the new Batman and his alter ego Ben Affleck.

Watch Video

Im glad others see what a truely horrible charecter Batman is.


Batman is like Ayn Rands wet dream. Gotham city as as a society would fall without this one super wealthy, super important individual. Multi-Billionaire white industrialist Bruce Wayne is born to elite mega wealthy parents. He inherits his wealth, and apparently superior genetics. He even inherited a servant.

By day hes the philanthropist giving to the "deserving poor". By night he comes down from his bat themed ivory tower to terrorise, assault and imprison the undeserving poor, ethnic minorities, the mentally ill, and the disabled who never really stand a chance. All with the far better equipment that only he can afford to buy.

Thats before you get onto how as a member of the upper class hes better than than these wretches. Some of them may be physically stronger or excel at one thing but Batman is super intelligent, well trained, strong and mentally tough. Just unbelievabley well rounded and more wealthy.

Then you get onto how hes mastered 100 odd martial arts, multiple weapons and gymnastics. He is in peak physical condition. Add a master detective, an expert in criminology, maths, interrogation, law, psychology, escapology, forensics, computer sciences, engineering, physics, biology, chemistry, it goes on and on. Oh, and hes a prolific inventor. Oh yeah, he can also fly planes and helicopters.

If any of this was at all possible it would have to put him in his 60s to fit in all of his study time.

Superman is about the same, he too was born special. At least he can say hes an alien to explain it.

OT: I think Afleck is a great pick but if the writing is awful it wont matter. WB seems unable to have fun with its charecters which are at their base kids fantasies from comic books. People forget Batman wasnt always "woe is me" teen angst Batman.

Well, I can tell that you have no idea what your talking about because you just used the word "poor", and "ethnica minority" to describe his enemies. Let me tell you something, in the Batman Year one comics the first people Batman goes after are the corrupt police who beat up the poor on the streets, and the mafia who steel from them. The reason why Batman acted outside of the law was because working inside of the law was not an option. These people were rich, old, white, and even a few were fat. They didn't have to be in Batman's universe. In Batman's universe a rich person could train and discipline themselves as Bruce Wayne did, but they didn't and instead they became like the Penguin, another rich guy who hurt those who don't deserve it. Batman fought the system, he didn't believe for a second that his wealth made him better than the other citizens of Gotham and that's why he's better than you think he is.

Defensive? You can tell I have no idea what Im talking about? You cant see how he magically is great at everything because hes rich?

Ive never met a rich policeman and mafia goons tend to be italian stereotypes. You didnt expect each enemy to check every box that terrifies conservative groups did you?

 

[Tribalism]

I'm actually quite tired of Bob's hating on Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises. He finds a way to inject it into every other episode of either this or Escape to the Movies. I get that he didn't like the films for whatever reason (TDKR was too long/dwarfed by the prequel and MoS wasn't "Superman" enough) but jeez, just drop the grudge, it's getting old. Same thing went for the new Spider-Man (which I had mixed feelings about) and the Green Lantern. I'm just tired of it shitting up these videos at the expense of a few jokes (which aren't appreciated by everyone).

On the subject of Batfleck, I'm undecided. It's not a big deal, granted, but I do find Christian Bale to be an enjoyable actor to watch and his presence will be missed. On the subject of the overall premise for the film... we just have to see, since at this point it's all speculation (and over-speculation is what ruined TDKR for some people, expecting something better than its predecessor).

 

[Dunesen]

Has it been two weeks? Time for Bob to complain about The Dark Knight Rises again. Seriously, Bob, did this movie kill your father or something? Yes, the movie had flaws, but god damn, you never turn down an opportunity to complain about it or its presentation of Batman. We get it. You didn't like the movie. Hell, you were already preparing to not like it months before it came out ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dm0Jk6tN4 ). Like your nostalgia for 80's/disdain for the 90's it's just tiresome and the more you repeat it the more you come across as one-dimensional. Hell, man you've had not one but two other big, failed blockbusters come out since then to repeatedly trash. Move on.

As for the news about Ben Affleck... whatever. I don't think I could care less. It just smacks of a Hail Mary pass, DC/Time Warner trying to so hard to stop the bleeding as Marvel builds up and expands its shared universe seemingly effortlessly while DC can only keep returning to the Batman and Superman wells after their one (1) attempt at creating a different franchise failed and scared them off from doing anything that isn't connected to their two biggest characters. Only it's even worse than that because as Bob said (and I agree with him on this) Man of Steel completely fumbled the character of Superman and gave DC no foundation upon which to build a shared universe. Batman isn't being brought in as the equal of Cavill's Superman (in terms of stature) but rather to elevate the character to where he should have been after MoS. DC is saying 'We need to build everything on Batman because he is the one and only character we have.'

The news that DC is pinning everything on a Batman/Superman crossover is, to me, the greatest possible sign that they have no faith in a Justice League movie and/or no clue how to go about doing it. Putting aside for the moment that MoS was not the breakout, unimpeachable hit DC wanted it to be, if they were serious about matching Marvel's success their next step wouldn't be anything featuring Batman or Superman. It would be a Wonder Woman movie. Regardless of how successful MoS could have been and how successful the Nolan Batman trilogy was, if DC wanted to make the equal of Marvel's The Avengers they would be building up the characters non-comic fans know little to nothing about.

Yes, they tried Green Lantern and yes, it failed. But that was ages ago in Hollywood time, and now is the time to try again. It's not the time to be putting all the chips on Batman, Superman, or Batman/Superman. Look at how Marvel went about their plan: they started with Iron Man, a character nobody cared about prior to 2008. Then they had Hulk, Iron Man 2, followed quickly by Thor (another character no one cared about originally) and finally Captain America - easily the most recognizable Avenger - before bringing the team together for its own movie.

If DC was serious about building up to a Justice League movie they would take a mulligan on Man of Steel (but keep Cavill as Superman) and get to work on a Wonder Woman movie for 2015, then Flash and Green Lantern movies for 2016 and a Justice League movie for 2017. Or hell, if they wanted to be daring they could do an Aquaman or Hawkman/Hawk Girl movie instead of Flash or Green Lantern. But either way, if DC was serious they would be putting their money in developing name recognition of their characters who are not already universally recognized. (Actually, if DC was serious Wonder Woman would already be in pre-production for a 2014 release date, and everything else would be coming out a year earlier than I just said.)

But they're not. Marvel made stars of its characters and it has paid off handsomely. DC is content to (or is too scared to do anything but) cash in on what they already have. As it is, I expect Batman/Superman will come out in 2015, and then they'll try to rush a Justice League movie for 2016, introducing all the other characters in one burst and just hoping audiences will care enough to see Batman and Superman again.

This is Hollywood's worst tendencies to bleed recognizable franchises dry and fail to develop fresh ideas on display. I have no faith in DC's ability to build a shared universe because they don't seem to have any faith themselves.

 

[Baresark]

I think Bob's irrational hatred for the Man of Steel has finally blinded him to reality. I mean, say what you want about the movie, it's still the number 67 all time grossing movie. It sits right behind the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. That could not be considered a box office failure if you tried. It cost a lot to make, but it brought in almost three times that cost, more than enough to warrant a sequel. We should honestly all be grateful for another chance at it rather than waiting for a new budget, new cast, new story turn around again

So in that case, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is one of the top 10 movies ever made?

And you're talking about BOB being irrational??

I said it can't be considered a box office failure, which is how Bob referred to it. I said this independent of opinions on the movie. He stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that it didn't do well in the box office, so it's necessary to put these two properties together in order to make a sequel worth while. I'm simply saying that a sequel is worth while because it still brought in a lot of money, from the perspectives of the studio.

 

[Baresark]

TLR

I've watched Man of Steel, and all I want to say is that I didn't hate it as much as some critics do, but I differently don't love it as much as a lot of other people do. Hopefully I'm not coming across as someone trying to stay on every bodies side. The reason why I don't is because I believe that the character's where just not very consistent, nor was the tone and feel. However, I actually enjoyed the first half of the movie. Really though, I just don't like Zack Schneider. He's just too much of a bro and his movies really show it: 300, Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and Man of Steel. Sure they have great visual effects, but I really don't like the way he treats women in his movies (although admittedly I have not scene 300, yet). His story telling is usually pretty awful too and I think the main reason Man of Steel was half as good as it was was because Christopher Nolan having a hand in its production. Zack did make some changes of course, ones that Nolan didn't quite agree with such as Zod's death scene, but I suppose it didn't get quite as fucked as it could've been. I guess, Superman is mostly a bro fantasy and it could've have done worse than a bro director.

I agree it wasn't the amazing piece of filming that people were expecting. It definitely had it's flaws. But I'm basically with you on the Zack Schneider thing. At this point he is a one trick pony. He uses that same filming technique which makes it look all dreamy in every movie he does... and I'm getting tired of it. One of my biggest complaints about that movie is they used this technique and desaturated the entire movie to a ridiculous extent. At points, it was very very annoying such as with all the crazy action scenes. It also gave it an overall depressing feeling. This did detract from the movie.

 

[Dunesen]

TLR

I've watched Man of Steel, and all I want to say is that I didn't hate it as much as some critics do, but I differently don't love it as much as a lot of other people do. Hopefully I'm not coming across as someone trying to stay on every bodies side. The reason why I don't is because I believe that the character's where just not very consistent, nor was the tone and feel. However, I actually enjoyed the first half of the movie. Really though, I just don't like Zack Schneider. He's just too much of a bro and his movies really show it: 300, Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and Man of Steel. Sure they have great visual effects, but I really don't like the way he treats women in his movies (although admittedly I have not scene 300, yet). His story telling is usually pretty awful too and I think the main reason Man of Steel was half as good as it was was because Christopher Nolan having a hand in its production. Zack did make some changes of course, ones that Nolan didn't quite agree with such as Zod's death scene, but I suppose it didn't get quite as fucked as it could've been. I guess, Superman is mostly a bro fantasy and it could've have done worse than a bro director.

I agree it wasn't the amazing piece of filming that people were expecting. It definitely had it's flaws. But I'm basically with you on the Zack Schneider thing. At this point he is a one trick pony. He uses that same filming technique which makes it look all dreamy in every movie he does... and I'm getting tired of it. One of my biggest complaints about that movie is they used this technique and desaturated the entire movie to a ridiculous extent. At points, it was very very annoying such as with all the crazy action scenes. It also gave it an overall depressing feeling. This did detract from the movie.

Yeah, the look of Man of Steel was a HUGE problem with the movie, bringing down the entire tone.

 

[Jenvas1306]

BUY MY BOOK!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZg8E72xXFA

(I didnt mind yahtzees advertising much, but Bobs is really grinding my nerves if I dont shut his videos fast enough to avoid hearing about it again)

BUY MY BOOK!

 

[Ashley Blalock]

If they let Affleck play Batman like his character in Argo then it might be a breath of fresh air after way too much grim and gritty in the superhero films. I'm kind of ready for a hero who has his problems but who goes out and does the right thing because they are a good person at heart.

Sadly I just don't know that Warner Brothers understands the DC heroes once they jump over into live action so even with a talented actor with lots of range I'm sure they will find a way to take out what's good about a character to make it a mess.

 

[RavenTail]

The Internet proved its worth in making casting decisions when it wept and screamed and protested at the call to cast Heath Ledger as The Joker.

Thank you! This is history repeating itself and no one has learned a damn thing.

 

[viranimus]

Wow...

Alright. Well on Afleck. I honestly think it is a good choice. Yes the "outrage" is moronic. Here is the thing though. Most people are. While there are never shortages of people who "think" they are experts on such things yet have no clue that... well they have no clue.

Ill give an example. With all the angst over Afleck, it seems almost as if it was somewhat appeased by the rumor mill churning out that Bryan Cranston is in consideration for Lex Luthor in said franchise. Now WHY? Cranston is a good actor no question, but why do people actually think this is good? They think 1: Walter White. 2: Bald head. 3:...... 4:...PROFIT! Thats it. They do not want Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor... they essentially want Walter White as Lex Luthor. Now with that said from an actors standpoint that would practically be career death for Cranston. If he succeeds he becomes forever typecast "IF" he is lucky. However what is muuuuuch more likely is that if it were to come to pass and it did not meet up with fans expectations of Y U NO WALTUR!!! they would turn on him and such a negative response could possibly take an actor with a fair degree of skill and make him seem worse than the plague to a movie studio. That in turn would likely keep him on TV and again "IF" the bad rep would not also kill those opportunities too.

Very few people truly understand what makes a good film and makes it functional because very few people really understand what is in their best interest.

Captcha: Live with purpose
V: Your not the boss of me!

 

[bjj hero]

Defensive? You can tell I have no idea what Im talking about? You cant see how he magically is great at everything because hes rich?

Ive never met a rich policeman and mafia goons tend to be italian stereotypes. You didnt expect each enemy to check every box that terrifies conservative groups did you?

I can't tell whether your called me defensive, or maybe I called you defensive at one point and you asking why. I'm sorry about that but quick literature lesson, you need to be consistent in your writing. You're first question could mean anything, but your second and third question are clearly about you, when your first was probably direct at me.

OT:First of all, you've never met a rich policeman who is not on the take. The policeman who are not corrupt don't get paid by rich people to look the other way, and in the Batman verse that is exactly what they are, until Gordon becomes commissioner. Second, Batman isn't goddamn magic you stupid, twister of words. Bruce Wayne is a human being, and "to Er is Human". That's what separates him from the likes of Wonder Woman and Superman. He makes mistakes, and the consequences are huge. If he was always right and always made the right choice then Jayson Todd wouldn't have died and comeback to destroy Batman's foundation. Bat-girl wouldn't have been shot and crippled. Bruce Wayne is broody because he isn't all powerful, not despite. If he had the powers of Superman, he'd be Superman.

Also, it's very interesting you'd call me a conservative, because I've felt that I've been taking a very Liberal approach to Batman. Most people even call me a hippy.

I mean magic by the way hes an expert in everthing. If youd read my first post hed need a life time of study to master maybe a 5th of the things hes meant to be an expert in. Id asked if you were defensive? I can see no other reason for insults. Its fine if we disagree but we should be able to discuss it like adults without petty jibe. Finally, if it appeared that Id made a judgement on your political leanings then I apologise. I actually said conservative groups, I wont pretend to know what your political beliefs are.

But you are right, Ive not read or seen everything with Batman in. I was more discussing the flavour or overview of Batman.

 

[Korskarn]

Wow... hyperbole much, Moviebob?

MoS and DKR were not "debacles", in any sense of the word. 56% on Rottentomatoes is not "poorly reviewed" - more than 50% of reviewers thought it was good, and it's a mere 4% away from being "certified fresh".

And while you can argue that Batman "buys his way to victory" and was born to a wealthy family, he also works hard to ensure that he maintains his wealth to fund his crimefighting ways - it's not like the money and resources are automatically there. You know what movie explored what happens when he doesn't spend the time to maintain his wealth and resources? The "debacle" Dark Knight Rises.

So, yeah, I think Batfleck is going to be a lot better than the whiney internet kneejerk brigade thinks, but I *still* think that MovieBob's hatred of Rises and Steel blind him to some of the subjective better qualities and the objective strategic outcomes of those movies.

 

[lastjustice]

I'm fine with Ben Afleck playing Batman. It just seems like he's like the Michael Bay or Nickelback of actors that people just love to hate, even though clearly someone is supporting their efforts as they make money. They're just cool to hate. In the end we got a tall good looking guy who can act. I don't see how he'd be somehow worse than Bale's throat cancer batman. If anything Bale set the bar pretty damn low.

I do agree it's hard to be excited about anything coming out of the DC movie universe. Man of Steel was alright, but definitely didn't hit the spot(I jokingly call it Nolan's Transformers since there's way too many parallels between them. Zod is basically Megatron lol.). I enjoyed Green Lantern but it's not without it's problems.(I will say it seemed get the spirit of the comics closest of the recent films.) I didn't care for the Nolan verse as a hole, as there was so much contrivance for a world that wanted to be gritty and realistic then always had some magical tech device every film in the next breath...which is it Nolan you can't have it both ways. Rises was pretty much the emperor has no clothes I've been saying all along, just finally we got a film bad enough people had to be honest with themselves about this whole experiment.

One of my friends, she loves all these gritty crappy films DC has made, but I'd argue she's a fangirl and hardly objective about these movies.(She seems to be trapped in the 90s, and thinks having a super hero with a trench coat and no code name is where it's at. Yes the gritty adventures of Bob Johnson!!!) Most people I know are largely indifferent to what DC has made. The Avengers saga though people generally seem to have a much more positive attitude toward and continue to look forward to it's next installments. Even if there's been a few missteps along the way. I think that says just how out of touch the whole DC experience has been. I'd argue that the DC films besides Green lantern have been pretty much afraid of their source material. It's people pandering to make what they think works while the marvel films have been mostly people making what they love and it shows. DC where is the love?

 

[wetfart]

If the criteria for being batman are White and Big Chin, then shouldn't Bruce Campbell have been playing him since '89?