So, SUPERMAN/BATMAN movie? (SDCC)

[Umbran]

Best I saw today - someone so eager to show outrage, in the process they confused Ben Affleck with Ben Stiller.

 

[Abraxas]

I have seen a lot of hate for this choice. A lot of hate. And the things that always get brought up are "Gigli" and "Daredevil", both of which were made a decade ago.

So I have to ask folks (not frankthedm particularlly, but people in general) how they'd feel if they were judged on their worst work, from ten years ago, and had that used as the yardstick for all future judgements made about you? Especially when you've had recent major success ("Argo") that seems to be ignored.

But what has he done in that intervening decade that really stands out? Just Argo, IMO, and really that was more about the story than anything he did on screen. So you have a decade of mediocre at best, with one high point - that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

I'm willing to give the guy a shot. With a good script, and good direction, I think he may surprise us.

I doubt there is any way for the general public to change the casting, so we all pretty much have to give him a shot. Doing a poor job with a good script and direction would also be a surprise - just not a good one

 

[Abraxas]

Every comic book nerd I knew at the time was outraged, with very few taking a "wait & see" attitude. And, people who hadn't just read The Dark Knight series a few years earlier probably thought it was going to be Adam West/Burt Ward type Batman comedy when Keaton was announced...

The comic book guys I knew didn't freak that bad about the choice of Keaton - they were more concerned over Burton as director.

 

[sabrinathecat]

A good actor would help. But we need a good script and a good director. I don't see that happening.
Keaton was an odd choice, but worked.
Val Kilmer was excellent--as Michael Keaton. Really, the problem with Kilmer was all Shumacher.
Clooney might have worked, with a good script and no Shumacher.
Bale needs to learn how to convey emotion. Any emotion. I have yet to see it. In fact, he seems to have made a career of playing characters who are devoid of anything like emotion so that they fit within his acting range.

The problem with Craig as Bond wasn't that he was blonde, so much as it was horrible scripts and director. We got grit, but none of the opulence of the high life that Bond is supposed to have.

 

[Umbran]

But what has he done in that intervening decade that really stands out?

"The Town" from 2010, ran at 94% on the Tomatometer. "The Company Men" did less well critically, but was still taken positively, running at 67%. Hollywoodland came in at a 69%

So, looking at that, it is starting to look like most of his recent works were at least okay, with two major stand outs in the last three years. That should inspire a great deal more confidence.

I doubt there is any way for the general public to change the casting, so we all pretty much have to give him a shot.

Pre-deciding with many paragraphs of rant and whine over how he's *horrible* and will "ruin the franchise" does not, in my opinion, qualify as giving him a shot. YMMV.

 

[Abraxas]

"The Town" from 2010, ran at 94% on the Tomatometer. "The Company Men" did less well critically, but was still taken positively, running at 67%. Hollywoodland came in at a 69%

So, looking at that, it is starting to look like most of his recent works were at least okay, with two major stand outs in the last three years. That should inspire a great deal more confidence.

I hadn't even heard of "The Town" until you mentioned it. Company Men was not financially successful and both Company Men and Hollywoodland were less well rated by audiences than by critics. Affleck is getting a lot of praise as a director, but not so much for his acting.

Pre-deciding with many paragraphs of rant and whine over how he's *horrible* and will "ruin the franchise" does not, in my opinion, qualify as giving him a shot. YMMV.

I meant that we have no choice - it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

 

[Umbran]

I meant that we have no choice - it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

The fact that he'll be in the movie, like it or not, does *NOT* equate to people actually giving him a shot.

In order to give him a shot, we have to keep our minds open. Pre-judgement can and does color our perceptions when the thing finally comes around. Giving a shot requires an open mind, not one closed by beating of the drum of how bad it will be.

Oh, and financial success has little to do with whether the movie is any good. Some movies generally regarded as bad by critics and viewers alike have been financially successful, and some dramatic masterpieces don't make money.

 

[sabrinathecat]

True.
Forest Gump was very well received, but was a financial failure. At least, as far as the writer was concerned. Thanks to some financial giggery pokery, he never received any royalties.
And the studios had the brass to ask him to write a sequel.
Several of my favorite movies were box-office failures.

On the other hand, last time I chided people about waiting to give the movie a chance, and ignore the hollywood "insiders" who were bad-mouthing it, was G.I.Joe, and look how 'well' that turned out.

 

[Abraxas]

The fact that he'll be in the movie, like it or not, does *NOT* equate to people actually giving him a shot.

Like I said, we have no choice - it's going to happen whether we like it or not is all I meant.

Oh, and financial success has little to do with whether the movie is any good. Some movies generally regarded as bad by critics and viewers alike have been financially successful, and some dramatic masterpieces don't make money.

True, but you ignored the other point that these so called good movies weren't as well liked by the audiences as by the critics. I find film critics to be fairly useless in suggesting to me how good or bad I will find a movie to be. Their review criteria seems to be just about anything but "did I enjoy watching the movie" because they are concerned about things that I don't give two hoots about.

Ultimately, I really don't care who is cast because, with a few exceptions, the batman and superman movies have not been very good and they have a pretty low bar to beat. I'll wait until it hits the cheap seats and then go see it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Nobody will admit it now, but there was a whole lot of question of Heath Ledger as the Joker, too. We didn't see it, until it happened.

Don't think that would have been me. I'd always liked Ledger but don't recall having any opinion on him as Joker one way or another. And I'm not saying I expect anything from Affleck one way or another. I could certainly think of worse choices if I wanted to try. I'm just saying the choice of him as Batman generates serious congnitive dissonance for me. Like Al Pacino as Han Solo or Sissy Spacek as Princess Leia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/al-pacino-star-wars-han-solo_n_3380625.html Or Sean Connery as Gandalf? Given the portrayals we actually got from Ford and Fisher the SW movies could have turned out VASTLY different. We might even have seen different actors playing the parts with every movie as we've seen with Batman and Superman portrayals.

I look forward to either being enthralled by the performance of a lifetime (as with Ledger as Joker), or opportunity to really be a jerk heaping anonymous scorn if he phones it in as, say, Clooney did with the character. Petitions though? That really is disappointing. That's just rabid fanboyism run amok and doing everyone a disservice.