The Marvel movies are glorified comedies.The Dubya said:
DC movies are going for a more gritty take on things.
I don't know why we can't have both?
The Big Picture: Batfleck
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
DC movies are going for a more gritty take on things.
I don't know why we can't have both?
I honestly don't get the reaction to Ben Affleck as Batman. I thought it was a good thing? What has Ben done to deserve this kind of "outrage"... Actually, remember when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman? I recall a similar outrage from that... and yet he turned out to be the best live-action Batman of them all.
I want to disagree with Bob. I want to say he's overrating Affleck. But...
...son of a fucking *****, he's right. Affleck was great in Argo, he does have a good head on him, and he could be a good idea after Frank Miller destroyed Batman with his Sin City bullshit. I like to think of Argo as Ben learning from Michael Bay's mistakes, and maybe the perspective he gained in the bad Daredevil movie could help him fix Miller and Mark Steven Johnson's mistakes.
...son of a fucking *****, he's right. Affleck was great in Argo, he does have a good head on him, and he could be a good idea after Frank Miller destroyed Batman with his Sin City bullshit. I like to think of Argo as Ben learning from Michael Bay's mistakes, and maybe the perspective he gained in the bad Daredevil movie could help him fix Miller and Mark Steven Johnson's mistakes.
Dear Bob,
Ben Affleck isn't a very good actor.
It doesn't matter if he's turned out to be a good director/writer/producer.
And he's not a very good actor.
Ben Affleck isn't a very good actor.
It doesn't matter if he's turned out to be a good director/writer/producer.
And he's not a very good actor.
The only thing I remember him praising Man of Steel without qualifications is the visuals. His words in his review went something like "Visually, the film is a masterpiece." But then he follows it up with something like "But the film's core is cold, calculating, and soulless."daxterx2005 said:
So the visuals of Man of Steel are gorgeous (and I agree), but the core of the film was lacking, which I also felt. At the end of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers I felt like I knew what those characters were there for. I knew why they were there, why they wanted to be there, and what they were about. At the end of Man of Steel, I didn't feel like I "got" Superman, or Kal El, or whatever we're calling him. His issue wasn't that Superman is too "bland" or too much of a goody-goody to hit the big screens, people said the same thing about Captain America when the movie was announced but he still turned out to be awesome. And I don't know enough about Superman to really pin down what they missed or what they could have done better, all I know is something vital to his character was missing, and it kept me from identifying with him.
And at the end, I didn't even recognize the significance of him killing General Zod. I didn't learn until I watched Moviebob's rewview afterward that it was a big deal. I kind of figured Superman was one of those "no-kill" heroes, but that was never made clear in the movie, and I kind of assumed he was used to collateral damage after he helped level New York with most of the population still inside. I just found it incomprehensible that he was so bent out of shape over Zod after his slamming and flying around would have killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocents.
As to the Op-ED it should have been edited instead of just repeating.
As for the role, I agree Ben is a fine choice. He has the acting chops. But since most Directors that also wrote the script tend to massively fail, I hope he does not get the big chair too. Sure there are a few exceptions to this, and perhaps Ben might have been able to pull it off if the idiot factory that is Hollywood gave him the time to do things his way. Of course, they will not. They will chase their losses with demands for a rush-to-theater 'blockbuster' that comes off as well as this year's blockbusters (MoS, Pacific Rim, Lone Ranger, etc.).
I disagree about Batman however. Light and fluffy is not what we want, it is the Dark Knight. I would love to see a script based on Happy Bat vs Superman. I think it would all take place in a HiSHe* cafe involving a lot of talk instead of combat. I would also love to see the script where a thinking Batman is not needed to beat Superman. What is he going to do, buy LexCorp and finally use those anti-Superman weapons?
Of course, I do agree that the concept is a fail as a real movie. It would have been better to explore as an animated version. It logically interferes with the Justice League forming, and someone in LA LA land will eventually purchase the option on a clue and call this whole train-wreck off. Then they will just make JL and take a run at some of that Avenger's gold.
*www.howitshouldhaveended.com
As for the role, I agree Ben is a fine choice. He has the acting chops. But since most Directors that also wrote the script tend to massively fail, I hope he does not get the big chair too. Sure there are a few exceptions to this, and perhaps Ben might have been able to pull it off if the idiot factory that is Hollywood gave him the time to do things his way. Of course, they will not. They will chase their losses with demands for a rush-to-theater 'blockbuster' that comes off as well as this year's blockbusters (MoS, Pacific Rim, Lone Ranger, etc.).
I disagree about Batman however. Light and fluffy is not what we want, it is the Dark Knight. I would love to see a script based on Happy Bat vs Superman. I think it would all take place in a HiSHe* cafe involving a lot of talk instead of combat. I would also love to see the script where a thinking Batman is not needed to beat Superman. What is he going to do, buy LexCorp and finally use those anti-Superman weapons?
Of course, I do agree that the concept is a fail as a real movie. It would have been better to explore as an animated version. It logically interferes with the Justice League forming, and someone in LA LA land will eventually purchase the option on a clue and call this whole train-wreck off. Then they will just make JL and take a run at some of that Avenger's gold.
*www.howitshouldhaveended.com
Anyone notice his accent becoming more prevalent? I didn't used to notice but now I can't ignore it.
Anyone notice his accent becoming more prevalent? I didn't used to notice but now I can't ignore it.
While I have little doubt Bob's political views had a little bit to do with that analogy, I think he does have a point in that Bruce Wayne having so much wealth affects how well the word "resourceful" can be applied to him. Well-prepared is definitely a word for him, but when you have pretty much an infinite amount of resources at your disposal, I don't think "resourceful" is applicable anymore. He doesn't look at a pile of junk and see a weapon, or see a few scattered objects and see a clever trap to lay. That is resourceful. No, he just have a lot of fancy gadgets that make stuff happen for him.scotth266 said:
I sincerely doubt anyone could inherit that much wealth on its own; Brucey spends so much to make himself look like a billionaire playboy he still has to earn at least a large portion of it through being a buisnessman with his head screwed on right.
In addition, Batman is not about revenge and really should not be. That's the whole reason we never learn the identity of the original shooter in the comics: the whole point is that crime and evil are anonymous. There's no one person to blame for the problems of the world.
And while I DON'T like the idea that Batman and Superman are enemies, I love the idea that the two are ideological opposites. When you get right down to it both characters are trying to inspire hope in the world in their own way.
Other than that, though, I find it hard not to agree. Batman beating Superman is pretty much Lex Luthor beating Superman dressed in leather and spandex. Granted, in DKR, Superman being the 'symbol of hope' (fuck these video ads, i can't see my gorram post) had been perverted in his own universe but that's no excuse for writing it that way.
In addition, Batman is not about revenge and really should not be. That's the whole reason we never learn the identity of the original shooter in the comics: the whole point is that crime and evil are anonymous. There's no one person to blame for the problems of the world.
And while I DON'T like the idea that Batman and Superman are enemies, I love the idea that the two are ideological opposites. When you get right down to it both characters are trying to inspire hope in the world in their own way.
Other than that, though, I find it hard not to agree. Batman beating Superman is pretty much Lex Luthor beating Superman dressed in leather and spandex. Granted, in DKR, Superman being the 'symbol of hope' (fuck these video ads, i can't see my gorram post) had been perverted in his own universe but that's no excuse for writing it that way.
I've no qualms about Afleck as Batman or Bruce Wayne. He can't possibly be as bad as Cloony, and the only way he can be as bad as Christian Bale is if the directing mandates genital clamps for the batsuit or whatever diet of that made Bale's rendition sound like Batman was perpetually trying to pass a kidney stone.
No, the real question is whether or not the writing and directing will actually give enough of a fuck this time to make something beyond mediocre. They cast Ryan Reynolds for the Green Lantern and while Reynold's performance was about as intense as soggy towel on a cloudy day, so was everyone else in that fucking atrocity.
No, the real question is whether or not the writing and directing will actually give enough of a fuck this time to make something beyond mediocre. They cast Ryan Reynolds for the Green Lantern and while Reynold's performance was about as intense as soggy towel on a cloudy day, so was everyone else in that fucking atrocity.
I like how Hasselhoff is actually wearing pretty much the same outfit as Black Widow in the Avengers. Good times.misterprickly said:
I don't really mind the actor, it's the plot I'm worried about, Superhero stories have never had the most watertight or innovative plots, even now with all the publicity and backing even Josh Whedon phoned in the Avengers ending for crying out loud with the hive mind, and let's not forget the continuity gaps in the Dark Knight Rises (short chase scene through tunnel starting in daytime and ending in the middle of the night)
Just make the plot good. Iron out the plotholes, give us an interesting storyline we haven't seen before. One of the things I really liked about Iron Man 3 was the twist in the middle, because nothing like that bait and switch had been done before in a superhero movie. It was genuinely shocking, and totally suited the campier style of the movie. Having some original writing like that, which works with the movie as a whole, but gets your audience to have an actual "I have no idea where they're going with this, but it's going to be totally awesome" moment is what I want. Not a paint by numbers seen it all before mediocrity we will probably end up with.
Going off your post, it seems you think of someone resourceful as being a McGyver/A-Team type character: someone who assembles junk into weaponry.Lilani said:
When I hear resourceful, I think of someone who knows how to use what he's got. The dictionary definition is "having the ability to find quick and clever ways to overcome difficulties." McGyverism is included in that, but it can also mean knowing how to use a cave full of military-level R&D equipment. In other words, resourcefulness is planning ability - the actual resources involved are unimportant.
One of the problems that surrounds Batman is when the writers turn his resourcefulness into the magic-gadget idea that you mention, but that's more the fault of the writers - the same way that terrible writers bore people with Superman by writing stories where Superman can't lose until Kryptonite comes in. It's less the character's fault than the pens behind him - and deus ex machinas are annoying in any story (I'm looking at you, Bioshock Infinite.)
EDIT: Devil's Advocate: I guess you could say that Batman doesn't HAVE to be particularly resourceful because he has oodles of cash to buy solutions - but that strikes me as being a bit dishonest, as you're no longer criticizing the character for what he is, but what he could be.
Y'know? At least we all can agree on one thing.
Afleck will be better Batman than Clooney.
Afleck will be better Batman than Clooney.
Especially if we take into consideration that Superman is solar powered
Seriously, how Superman can operate at night?
So if take that right before sunrise Superman is in his weakest form,
then fight that occurs lets say at 4-5am, with Batman bringing all of his most powerful tools/weapons/armor (those that could easily annihilate ordinary person), Batman has chance even without kriptonite
Seriously, how Superman can operate at night?
So if take that right before sunrise Superman is in his weakest form,
then fight that occurs lets say at 4-5am, with Batman bringing all of his most powerful tools/weapons/armor (those that could easily annihilate ordinary person), Batman has chance even without kriptonite
I think Ben Affleck is an excellent choice, if not just because he's a good actor and a wonderful director. But because he fits the part to play Bruce Wayne beautifully. Bruce Wayne is a well known, billionare playboy who no one in the world could ever suspect taking on the cowl of Batman to fight crime at nights. And Ben Affleck is a famous, rich, hollywood actor who no one could ever see putting on the cowl to play Batman.
Comparing Batman to Mitt Romney makes no sense. Romney worked his entire life to obtain his living, Batman inherited it.
I had no idea Ben Affleck had this good of a track record! Not that I hated the idea of him being Batman, but this actually makes it sensible.