So, SUPERMAN/BATMAN movie? (SDCC)

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I thought Ledger was an absurd choice, and I'm sure I and many other people were quite surprised at his transformation. Not the same thing though. For one thing, Ledger wasn't a bad actor. The issue was more that he had never done anything remotely like the character he was being cast to play. Conversely, Affleck has already done Daredevil, which was not particularly well-received and apparently got him a Razzie.

The other issue is the celebrity level. Ledger wasn't unknown, but he certainly was never an A-lister; and he could probably have walked down a street in the US without getting mobbed. Everyone pretty much knows who Ben Affleck is. In superhero movies; I think it's better to cast an actor whose presence in public consciousness doesn't overshadow the part. Bale made a believable Batman in part because most viewers didn't know who he was, same with Cavill and this new Superman, Tobey Maguire and Spider-Man, etc. etc.

I say let Affleck continue to direct moderately sized movies (which is what he's apparently doing a decent job at) and leave playing the big-budget superheroes to someone else.

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?

I'd pretty much take it in stride. Happens all the time. Celebrities' worst work probably sticks in people's minds more easily, but people of all stripes get judged for things that happened a long time ago; sometimes fairly, sometimes not.

 

[Mark CMG]

Affleck will do well. He's a solid actor who knows how to work as part of a team striving for a collective vision. If we know nothing else from Daredevil, we know he can handle the physicality of a Batman role. No need to shoot around a smaller actor since Affleck is over six-foot-three. He's got a combination of boyishness/seriousness that lends itself to the role of a wealthy risk-taker that likes his toys and fighting crime. The only thing that I think will be unpleasant about his having the role is the folks complaining about him having the role.

 

[Mark CMG]

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

For a comedy, there was a fair amount of pathos in Mystery Men.

 

[Emerald88]

I still think this movie's biggest obstacle is that Nolan/Snyder are at the helm. I like Cavill as Superman, and I think Affleck will be great in the role, but Nolan's style is to dark for Superman, and Snyder is just terrible.

A friend said that Affleck's probably pretty grateful to Miley Cyrus this weekend.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Nolan's style is to dark for Superman

I don't think that's true. Have you ever read The Dark Knight Returns?

And Nolan's style isn't all that dark. Next to Joel Schumacher, it looks pretty dark, but there's plenty of tones he's capable of capturing.

 

[Emerald88]

I don't think that's true. Have you ever read The Dark Knight Returns?

I have, and it's a good read, as an alternate take on the character, but it's pretty far from definitive.

Agreed, Nolan is a director that can adapt. But I'm not talking about color. His approach to Batman doesn't work for Superman. It's to gritty, to real, to trying-to-not-be-about superheroes.

Darkening Superman, trying to make him more realistic/human misses the point of the character.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Darkening Superman, trying to make him more realistic/human misses the point of the character.

What is the point of the character?

 

[Emerald88]

What is the point of the character?

Something we're supposed to aspire to be. He's moral, non-judgmental and helps people. Dragging him down to our level isn't fair.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Something we're supposed to aspire to be. He's moral, non-judgmental and helps people. Dragging him down to our level isn't fair.

Frankly I think what Nolan did with the first two Batman films was a wonderful job of debunking that. After all, Batman is also what we would aspire to be (most superheroes are). He rises out of tragedy and instead of going down any number of negative paths, devotes himself to helping others, receiving nothing in return and no acknowledgement for his service. He's got innumerable talents, cool gadgets, and a righteous mission. Don't we all want that?

But then, in The Dark Knight (and in various sources that inspired it) we see why that doesn't work. Vigilantes make mistakes. People copy their idols, often with subpar results. And then there's the whole "escalation" theme.

I'd like to see Superman deconstructed in a similar way. Sure, he sounds great at first, but similarly, his mythos doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I would hope that point of all superhero mythology is this: it's important to dream, but it's also important to wake up.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Superman is a symbol of hope.
Batman is more of a symbol of fear/revenge tempered with justice.

Superman works best when stopping other superhuman opponents.
Batman works best when fighting psychopaths.

Superman is a mary-sue cliche'.
Batman is a brooding loner.

Dark Knight Returns was groundbreaking in establishing different/alternate personalities for the characters, and that they are likely to be in conflict where justice and sorting out problems goes, but the politics/political characters are not well done--more charactiture and knee-jerk reactionary depiction.