Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Ben Affleck as Batman: Negative Backlash on Twitter, Petition Launched to Drop Actor

71 percent of tweets sent in the first hour of the announcement negatively reacted to the casting news, according to an analysis.

Ben Affleck may be the next Batman, but there appears to be a decent sized portion of the internet that wasn't initially enthused about

In the over 96,000 tweets sent in the first hour after the casting announcement was made, 71 percent of that talk was negative, according to social media analytics firm Fizziology. Only 15 percent of the quick takes were positive and 14 percent were deemed to be of mixed sentiment.

10 percent of the negative conversation mention Affleck's previous turn as a superhero in 2004's Daredevil and 3 percent referenced the actor's infamous box-office bomb Gigli, Fizziology said.

And, as many on Twitter have noticed, there were plenty of jokes about Affleck's co-star in Good Will Hunting being cast as Robin. "19 percent of the mixed chatter came from audiences making jokes about Matt Damon also being cast in the film," the analytics firm found.

Batman fans who were taken aback by the decision have also, inevitably, launched a curt Change.org petition that urges Warner Bros. to "Remove Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne in the Superman/Batman movie." That petition has gathered more than 7,000 signatures since it was started.

Zack Snyder, director of Man of Steel and the forthcoming Batman feature, had praised Affleck in a statement announcing the news: "He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne."

The Batman and Superman film is set to hit theaters on July 17, 2015.

by Anonymousreply 14609/16/2013

What is the Fanboy equivalent to "MARY!!!!"?

by Anonymousreply 108/23/2013

"ZOINKS!"

by Anonymousreply 208/23/2013

Ben Affleck is so 1998. Joseph Gordon-Levitt would have been a more sensible choice because he is young and modern. It makes no sense, he already played a super hero in that god awful Dare Devil movie.

by Anonymousreply 308/23/2013

The only thing I care about is that Hack Snyder buys a tripod so I can actually see what is happening in the film without getting motion sickness.

by Anonymousreply 408/23/2013

I am just putting it out there.. i really liked him in daredevil and thought it was good.

let's be honest, he may not be the greatest actor and has been saddled with the legacy of being with poison pussy lopez at the point when his career should have taken off, but he might surprise you all..

either that or he is giving favours to someone to win it over matt damon

by Anonymousreply 508/23/2013

Ben maybe 1998, but JGL is not a batman material at all, jeez!

by Anonymousreply 608/23/2013

It's too bad these people can't channel their energy into doing something more useful for society.

by Anonymousreply 708/23/2013

The point the director is making is that Bruce Wayne will be an older man in the movie so he would want a mature actor in the roll. He's not replacing the Christian Bales character.

There's got to be too much time on your hands to have to sign a petition for this.

by Anonymousreply 808/23/2013

[quote]Ben Affleck is so 1998. Joseph Gordon-Levitt would have been a more sensible choice because he is young and modern. It makes no sense, he already played a super hero in that god awful Dare Devil movie.

Did you even watch The Dark Knight Rises? Joseph is supposed to be Robin...HEL-LO??

by Anonymousreply 908/23/2013

[quote]It's too bad these people can't channel their energy into doing something more useful for society.

LOL! You're absolutely right.

by Anonymousreply 1008/23/2013

Affleck could direct the movie, but definitely not star in it.

by Anonymousreply 1108/23/2013

I think it's interesting that so many people are up in arms over Affleck (an Oscar winner) being in the movie, but are fine with Cavill (winner of NO acting awards) in the movie even though he's way worse than Affleck and already got bad reviews in Man of Flop.

But at the end of the day, I don't give a fuck about Superman or Batman movies anyway, so it makes no difference to me either way.

by Anonymousreply 1208/23/2013

What I don't get is if they wanted a decent actor, tall and dark-haired who can do a physical role, around 40-ish, why not stick with Bale? He would be the safest choice, since the studio -knows- he can pull of the role already. Was he really that hell bent on not doing it again? what's the story there.

Affleck's a great director but wooden actor. Maybe that's what they wanted, so he wouldn't overshadow Cavill. A better more charismatic actor would have sucked up all the energy in the film.

by Anonymousreply 1308/23/2013

[quote]Affleck (an Oscar winner)

He won one Oscar for meager contributions to a screenplay and the second as a vanity credit as a producer on a (admittedly good) movie he directed.

He can not act for shit.

by Anonymousreply 1408/23/2013

Matt Lanter as Robin?

by Anonymousreply 1508/23/2013

R14 He's not great, but he's certainly better than that plank of wood Cavill.

Why bitch about just Affleck when Cavill sucks just as much?

by Anonymousreply 1608/23/2013

Matt Lanter as The Ass!

by Anonymousreply 1708/23/2013

Neither can cavill dear, kstew has more acting talent than him.

by Anonymousreply 1808/23/2013

Well, when are they going to announce who will play Superman?

by Anonymousreply 1908/23/2013

Nerdy Fanboi's are crazier than the Twilighters ever were. Run, Ben, Runnnn...

by Anonymousreply 2008/23/2013

Ben Affleck is a poor to mediocre actor and it is a mystery that he continues to be cast in anything.

Whereas his younger brother....

by Anonymousreply 2108/23/2013

"I think it's interesting that so many people are up in arms over Affleck (an Oscar winner) being in the movie"

He retains water.

by Anonymousreply 2208/23/2013

[quote]He's not great, but he's certainly better than that plank of wood Cavill.

You are fucking nuts! Cavill was wonderful as the Man of Steel.

by Anonymousreply 2308/23/2013

I see this news item has brought Brandon Routh out of his mom's basement.

by Anonymousreply 2408/23/2013

Idnh but routh gas a $20 million net worth.

by Anonymousreply 2508/23/2013

[quote]I think it's interesting that so many people are up in arms over Affleck (an Oscar winner) being in the movie, but are fine with Cavill (winner of NO acting awards) in the movie even though he's way worse than Affleck and already got bad reviews in Man of Flop.

[quote]But at the end of the day, I don't give a fuck about Superman or Batman movies anyway, so it makes no difference to me either way.

You sure put a lot of time and thought into something you don't give a fuck about.

by Anonymousreply 2608/23/2013

What a bunch of silly queens. You have been howling to bring Ben down, his career is in the tank and as the saying goes on these pages, his collapse is complete.

STFU, Ben can do himself in with this role and you will never have to see the movie or hear of Ben Affleck again.

by Anonymousreply 2708/23/2013

one of my fundamental beliefs about the internet is that there are a lot of people who have become convinced that their opinions are important and that they must BE LISTENED TO. its not the case, of course, and this Ben A. thing is a prime example. So is this response to a post about such a silly thing.

by Anonymousreply 2808/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 2908/23/2013

Losers always bitch about these superhero choices. There has never been a choice that wasn't universally-panned prior to the movie coming out because these comic book loons have nothing better to do than dissect every fucking thing about this shit.

I'll tell you, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Miss Henry signed it. He can't be too thrilled with essentially playing second fiddle in his own franchise.

by Anonymousreply 3008/23/2013

OP, that's a random incident. No one actually cares either way. Affleck was wanted two years ago for "Justice League." Fanbois wanted him.

by Anonymousreply 3108/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 3208/23/2013

According to The Hollywood Reporter Affleck is also attached to star in and direct Justice League

by Anonymousreply 3308/23/2013

Well, at least he's American.

I love the people going on about how "Batman" will now have a Boston accent, because I'm sure Cavill's accent was spot on, right?

I didn't see the movie, but am I to really believe that if you closed your eyes, you'd swear you were listening to Gov. Brownback himself?

by Anonymousreply 3408/23/2013

Ah, so that's why Affleck agreed to do it.

Boy, they really want Snyder out. Going to be a little tense on that SvB set if Snyder already knows he's out of the running to direct JL.

by Anonymousreply 3508/23/2013

Who cares what a bunch of Batman Comic nerds think on Twitter. They don't make up the majority of the batman boxoffice in the slightest. I love how these Affleck threads wreak of such bitter envy from the usual Datalounge losers. Ben's very happy making money, winning oscars and scoring lead roles while you lot remain in mama's basement still wondering why life has passed you by and all you have is an internet forum to fill in time.

by Anonymousreply 3608/23/2013

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be that hated! This is pure hate!

by Anonymousreply 3708/23/2013

Ben Affleck was good as Superman in Hollywoodland (his greatest role!)

by Anonymousreply 3808/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 3908/23/2013

R16, I think the difference is Affleck brings so much baggage. He became acting and box office poison trying to become an action star in the late 90s/early 00s...of course the Bennifer situation that he helped create didn't help.

It seems like a lot of people who happily fellated Affleck just a few months ago for being this (overrated imo) great director now feel betrayed that he's chosen acting dreck when just last year he said he would never wear a costume in a superhero movie again.

I kid you not, I've read those kind of sentiments today.

Whatever, if he sucks at it, fine. Will pop culture still be so into superheroes in 2015 and beyond? That's more frightening than this casting.

Oh and to whomever asked upthread -- Christian Bale said NO to reprising his role as Batman.

by Anonymousreply 4008/23/2013

R7...says the guy spending his time on a gossip message board. IRONY!

by Anonymousreply 4108/23/2013

Career-wise, this is actually good for Cavill.

Regardless of what you may think of Affleck -because you're a petty loser with zero influence over the industry- he's a big player in Hollywood and if Cavill gets in Affleck's good graces, that means more parts for him.

You go, gurl!

by Anonymousreply 4208/23/2013

Ben Affleck?? Was Barney Rubble not available?

And listen...this had better not lead to Jennifer playing Wonder Woman, because we gays will rise up like the French Revolution!

by Anonymousreply 4308/23/2013

Garner is going to parade her kids for the paps until everybody thinks he should do the part and deserves an Oscar for it.

This woman is relentless when it come to getting him recognised.

by Anonymousreply 4408/23/2013

Who would get a petition against them?

by Anonymousreply 4508/23/2013

Proof that Hollywood execs have no vision, taste nor intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 4608/23/2013

[quote]Proof that Hollywood execs have no vision, taste nor intelligence.

You mean a reflection of the public to which they cater.

by Anonymousreply 4708/23/2013

Why Matt Lanter as The Ass, R17?

by Anonymousreply 4808/23/2013

R38 is correct, Affleck was shockingly good in Hollywoodland. Shocked the shit out of me, anyway.

He'll be fine - it's a fucking comic book. Let the teenboys and fauxteenmen howl and petition. They'll all go see it regardless of who is cast.

by Anonymousreply 4908/23/2013

R47

Ehm, isn't the public protesting ............

by Anonymousreply 5008/23/2013

[quote]Why Matt Lanter as The Ass, [R17]?

Because it is a true piece of beauty.

by Anonymousreply 5108/23/2013

Not since Tom Cruise was misplaced into "Interview with a Vampire" have we seen a genre film similarly crapped on with such a cynical determination.

by Anonymousreply 5208/23/2013

Damn straight, R44.

Thank god for California community property laws. The girls and I have acquired rather expensive tastes.

Wait just a couple of years. You are about to see a happy Hollywood divorcee that will make Amy Irving look like a rank amateur.

by Anonymousreply 5308/23/2013

Yes, R50. Just like they did with Heath Ledger and Michael Keaton and even Bale when he was chosen. You know why? Because idiots do things like "protest" superhero choices when they happen.

This "petition" gives them something to do until the movie comes out in two years. And you know what happens then? They line up like lemmings, they pay for the IMAX, the 3D, the 2D, the 3D-IMAX, the IMAX-2D and every other God forsaken format in existence to watch things explode and superheroes flying around because that's what most people do and the "unintelligent" Hollywood execs know it to be the case every single time.

by Anonymousreply 5408/23/2013

Both TV and radio news today has people slamming Affleck from all directions.

by Anonymousreply 5508/23/2013

Henry Cavill and Zack Snyder already ruins it, how could Ben Affleck make it any worse?

by Anonymousreply 5608/23/2013

Why is this film being made? No one seems too excited about it. If Christian Bale is not in it, why bother? Is there any doubt that Superman would win in a fight with Batman anyway? You might as well have a Wolverine vs Howard the Duck movie.

by Anonymousreply 5708/23/2013

Christ Almighty, we're essentially talking about fucking cartoon characters here.

Is it any wonder real billionaires on Wall Street and elsewhere have been able to fuck with the global economy when society chooses to obsess over actors playing a billionaire in a costume who fights crime?

Shame on the idiot who started the petition and the even bigger idiots who signed it.

by Anonymousreply 5808/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 5908/23/2013

Jennifer Lopez should be cast as Catwoman or Poison Ivy. I think it would be such a horrifically bad idea that it would in some strange paradoxical way land them both Emmy nominations (not AA's). I think Jenny Garner might be okay with this (as long as she gets paid. You know how those W.Va. chicks need their cash money on the constant.)

by Anonymousreply 6008/23/2013

People like R59 make me sick. Such pearl clutching over a fucking comic book movie.

by Anonymousreply 6108/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6208/23/2013

There were huge fanboy reactions against the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman and Heath ledger as the Joker (and Anne Hathaway as Catwoman), so I think no one will care about this at all because the consensus was that all those performances were fine.

Indeed, the few really bad superhero/supervillain castings were ones that the fans initially applauded: Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, Jim Carrey as the Riddler, Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern.

by Anonymousreply 6308/23/2013

Nobody applauded Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern.

by Anonymousreply 6408/23/2013

There was huge protest when Mark Ruffalo was cast as Hulk, BUT Ruffalo is a great actor and Avengers was a cool movie. Affleck is a shit actor and a douche and MOS was a meh movie. Different situation, you cant fool the public that long.

by Anonymousreply 6508/23/2013

Fans did, r64. You're misremembering if you claim otherwise.

Before they announced the casting, comics websites repeatedly asked fans who they thought would be the ideal casting for GL, and they repeatedly chose Reynolds. He looks like the part and always plays cocky types; no one in the fan community seemed to realize how charmless he would be.

by Anonymousreply 6608/23/2013

R65 = Blake Lively

by Anonymousreply 6708/23/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6808/23/2013

[quote]MOS was a meh movie. Different situation, you cant fool the public that long.

Apparently, you can:

by Anonymousreply 6908/23/2013

R69, please don't post stuff like that. Poor Brandon Routh is having a hard enough time as it is.

Please try to humor him.

by Anonymousreply 7008/23/2013

R69 Lets just wait and see if they flock to the theatres again for boring pretty boy Cavill and Hollywood douche Affleck, I definitely won't.

by Anonymousreply 7108/23/2013

I agree about Affleck's personality. He is just so smug and douchey I can't stand him, and he really can't act either.

by Anonymousreply 7208/23/2013

While it's true that more often than not, the movie-going public reacts negatively to many casting choices for superhero (and other) movies, that turn out to be acceptable-to-good performances, the knee-jerk reactions aren't unusual, as most people have an idea of whom they envision in any given high profile role. Attacking people for doing so is ridiculous, unless they are absolutely over the top.

Yes, Affleck was surprisingly good in HOLLYWOODLAND, and the more I think about it, he may do well in MOS2 if all elements (e.g., script, direction, acting, execution, editing, etc) come together. However, my first response was, "WTF? I'd rather see Joe M in the role!".

by Anonymousreply 7308/23/2013

R71, where do you think people will be in July of 2015? Traveling to Africa to end hunger? Going to a symposium on heterocyclic chemistry?

They'll be where they always are... in some movie theater watching loud shit to keep their kids occupied.

by Anonymousreply 7408/23/2013

I only want to see Joe M. as Clark Kent, journalist.

If only to hear about his schedule!

by Anonymousreply 7508/23/2013

R74

Maybe you will, I won't!

by Anonymousreply 7608/23/2013

[quote]Henry Cavill and Zack Snyder already ruins it, how could Ben Affleck make it any worse?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Fat Cavill in a movie automatically means it will be shitty.

by Anonymousreply 7708/23/2013

[quote]Fat Cavill in a movie automatically means it will be shitty.

You're fat. Ever look in the mirror, honey?

by Anonymousreply 7808/23/2013

Joss Whedon: Ben Affleck Will ‘Crush It’ As Batman:

by Anonymousreply 7908/23/2013

I think people are missing the point. This is going to be Superman's story. Batman won't be equal. I have a feeling that, in this movie Ben Affleck will be sort of like Marlon Brando in The Godfather. More than a cameo, but definitely not at the same level as Cavill.

I bet Affleck's screen time will be way less than people expect. I had to laugh today when I read that Ben will be devoting two hours a day to working out at the gym before he puts on the cape and the tights.

by Anonymousreply 8008/23/2013

A whole two hours? The horror.

Maybe his time on screen will be spent sitting at the Batcomputer doing research in the Batcave and relaying the information to Superman via headset.

Different universe right? So maybe Bane shows up in the first 20 minutes and breaks Batman's back and he's in a wheelchair the rest of the movie.

I don't know if Affleck will suck or not. Too many variables go into the overall entertainment value of a movie to decide how good or bad it is this early on. The whole superhero movie genre though is so long in the tooth by this point though. Even Star Trek they let rest a couple of years between reboots and stuff. You can't plant crops in the same field over and over each year without wearing out the soil.

by Anonymousreply 8108/24/2013

Whether Affleck sucks or not is irrelevant. The movie will completely suck and yet make a billion bucks.

by Anonymousreply 8208/24/2013

R51, why are Lanter's pants torn in that pic?

by Anonymousreply 8308/24/2013

There's so many batman movies being made, over and over again, does it really matter who plays the cartoon character this time?

by Anonymousreply 8408/24/2013

Go drink some Drano, r65.

by Anonymousreply 8508/24/2013

I'm available should either Cavill or Affleck drop out.

by Anonymousreply 8608/24/2013

Why would WB make a tentpole with two men who have the charisma of drying paint?

Did they learn nothing from RDJ and Ironman?

Seriously, if there are any insiders left here, can anyone explain the thought process?

It seems like there's a quid pro quo behind the scenes for Affleck (aside from the paycheque).

by Anonymousreply 8708/24/2013

Even RDJ was lame acting wise in IM3. Once you force these superhero movies and stories they become tired, try hard and stupid.

IM3 was marketed for Asian audiences, they love action and CGI. The first Iron Man was an interesting character driven superhero story wrapped up in a blockbuster production. All interesting elements the first one (and even the second one) had, were stripped in IM3. I hated that movie, dumb popcorn flick for mass audiences.

by Anonymousreply 8808/24/2013

Affleck likely agreed to stay on with Warners as his studio of choice for his future directorial efforts. There had been talk of his leaving after his mentor Jeff Robinov left a few months ago. Affleck's a big deal at Warners after Argo; this deal should keep him there for a while esp if he was offered a chance to direct the Justice League movie as a part of it.

I also wonder about all the backroom dealings we won't get details about until later. Affleck and Bale are both repped by Pat Whitesell at WME, don't tell me this didn't come into play.

by Anonymousreply 8908/24/2013

I wonder what both Cavill and Snyder are thinking. Cavill's franchise isn't really his and Snyder may be directing his last Superman film.

I'm sure it's still a sweet paycheck for both.

by Anonymousreply 9108/24/2013

WTF, R90? Who cares? I thought R89's information was interesting and explanatory.

by Anonymousreply 9208/24/2013

Nope r90 sorry to disappoint.

by Anonymousreply 9308/24/2013

I second R92. Very interesting info. Do you have anything else, R89/R93?

by Anonymousreply 9408/24/2013

Why not cast Wentworth Miller as Batman/Bruce Wayne?

He seems to be the right type, he doesn't have as much celeb baggage as Affleck, and plus, it would be so much more progressive to cast an openly gay actor in such an iconic role.

by Anonymousreply 9608/24/2013

[quote]There's so many batman movies being made, over and over again

Um, no there isn't. There were four produced from 1989-1997, hon.

From 2005-2012, there's been three.

There's been how many "Twilight" movies, or "Pirates of the Caribbean," or "Bond," or "Mission Impossible," or "Toy Story," or "Men In Black"?

by Anonymousreply 9708/24/2013

[quote]I think people are missing the point. This is going to be Superman's story. Batman won't be equal. I have a feeling that, in this movie Ben Affleck will be sort of like Marlon Brando in The Godfather. More than a cameo, but definitely not at the same level as Cavill.

Honey, have you read the comic books?

by Anonymousreply 9808/24/2013

[quote]Yes, [R50]. Just like they did with Heath Ledger and Michael Keaton and even Bale when he was chosen.

Link to articles slamming the choice of Michael Keaton to play Batman.

Christian Bale was everyone's choice.

The only one who wasn't hailed, and gave a lot of people a wtf? moment, was Ledger.

by Anonymousreply 9908/24/2013

I don't think he'd make an awful Batman, he has that whole square jaw handsomeness Batman has.

by Anonymousreply 10008/24/2013

r101, and what exactly can the average Joe do about the NSA/government lackeys/1%?

That's right, nothing.

Unless you want an armed revolt, which the West isn't ready/willing to pursue, we're stuck.

This is *why* the bandwidth is eaten by bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 10208/24/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 10308/24/2013

[quote]The only one who wasn't hailed, and gave a lot of people a wtf? moment, was Ledger.

Many were upset when Hathaway was chosen to be Selina, it was seen as an offbeat choice although she did alright in the end.

I think people also scratched their heads about Maggie G as Rachel but that was a minor character so the outcry much smaller. There was a lot of moaning on the net when Ledger as the Joker was announced.

by Anonymousreply 10408/24/2013

No there wasn't. It was about the depiction of Ledger's joker. People saw pics of him in the weird make-up and thought it didn't actually look like the character should. Everyone acknowledged that Ledger was a great actor.

by Anonymousreply 10508/26/2013

Michael Fassbender would have been a better choice but I think Affleck is a solid choice. The fanboy backlash is almost entirely attributed to the poorly written and directed Daredevil film. Affleck was fine in it and not deserving of the scorn he has received for it. His more recent work in The Town and Argo suggests he won't be any worse than West, Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney who all played Batman on the big screen.

by Anonymousreply 10608/26/2013

Ethan Hawke would have been an interesting, better choice.

by Anonymousreply 10708/27/2013

This movie will be huge, and I say that as someone who hasn't seen MoS. People are lemmings.

Here's an indication of how huge it'll be... this is a fan-created trailer posted yesterday and already has over 100K views.

by Anonymousreply 10808/27/2013

Catwoman has been both white and black.

I'm picturing a black batman.

by Anonymousreply 10908/27/2013

Idris Elba would've been fantastic, R109.

It's funny how people can accept a white block of wood (looking at you, Miss Cavill), but Heaven forbid a charismatic, black actor as Batman.

We can't take the chance of offending meatheads and hearing them shriek about "PC!"... and of course, the irony of the better actor actually getting the part would be lost on them.

by Anonymousreply 11008/27/2013

How pathetic. 40 something guys probably came up with this petition, obsessed with a franchise targeted at children. They just can never let go. When Chris Nolan decided to make Batman 'realistic', laughably so, these overbearing fans felt validated.

by Anonymousreply 11108/27/2013

They know where the money is, R111.

Little kids' allowances aren't what make these into multi-billion dollar blockbusters.

Their target audience is 30/40-something year old gamers.

by Anonymousreply 11208/27/2013

[quote]Well, when are they going to announce who will play Superman?

I know you're kidding, but that pretty block of wood has in fact been signed for (at least) three.

by Anonymousreply 11308/27/2013

I hate when these people talk about a backlash on the "internet." Everyone is online nowadays. The people who post online are a sample portion of the general population. If Hollywood believes that Nielsen ratings represent the whole of the population, they really should also listen to what the general consensus of what people online say.

That Hollywood Reporter article really nails what's wrong with this decision. It's all about internal politics at Warner Bros, and wanting to stay in Ben Affleck's good graces, and not anything to do with the fans who want a decent Batman movie with a reasonable cast.

by Anonymousreply 11408/27/2013

r110 do you actually think they're going to cast a non-white actor as an iconic character? Do you actually think they're going to cast a non-white actor as the lead in a $200 million dollar movie? Do you know that white males make up 90% of the fan base for these characters? Jesus, get out of your PC fantasy world.

by Anonymousreply 11508/27/2013

I can totally see Fassbender as Batman/Bruce Wayne, he would be a great choice.

by Anonymousreply 11608/27/2013

Who cares what you think, R114? You'll bitch like all of the other nerds, then you'll make your way out of the basement and stand your ass in/on line to watch what we give you... just like you all do every time.

by Anonymousreply 11708/27/2013

I'm old enough to remember when it was announced that Michael Keaton (almost 40 at the time) would be playing Batman. Now THAT was a SHITSTORM, and there wasn't even an Internet then. And the fanboy community wasn't nearly as large as it is now. He turned out to be great in the role, and the movie was a giant hit.

by Anonymousreply 11808/27/2013

I keep seeing Fassbender mentioned for this, but he's far too short. Yes, he is. He's a great actor but this is a role that has physical requirements. Batman/Bruce needs height.

by Anonymousreply 11908/27/2013

[quote]Jesus, get out of your PC fantasy world.

So the above was meant to be a response to this?:

[quote]We can't take the chance of offending meatheads and hearing them shriek about "PC!"

Meathead, indeed.

by Anonymousreply 12008/27/2013

Fassbender is 6', which is exactly the same height as Bale.

by Anonymousreply 12108/27/2013

Stop arguing semantics. What I said is factual.

by Anonymousreply 12208/27/2013

Disagree that he's 6 feet. IMDB has him listed as 5' 11" and I think that's a stretch. If you said 5'10" I might buy it.

Actors lie about height like actresses lie about age.

by Anonymousreply 12308/27/2013

[quote]I think it's interesting that so many people are up in arms over Affleck (an Oscar winner) being in the movie, but are fine with Cavill (winner of NO acting awards) in the movie even though he's way worse than Affleck and already got bad reviews in Man of Flop.

Didn't see the movie, but I know it sure as hell didn't flop, so I don't know why you'd write such nonsense. The fact that they're banking so much on several more is indicative of their support.

I don't know if Cavill can or can't act because I've never seen his work (including The Tudors), but I get the impression he got this part for the same reason Greg Brady was chosen to be Johnny Bravo: He looked the part and looked good in the suit.

Studio's banking on his heartthrob status.

by Anonymousreply 12408/27/2013

[quote]Actors lie about height like actresses lie about age.

Not all of us.

by Anonymousreply 12508/27/2013

Because there's such a huge difference between 5'10" and 6'. *rolls eyes*

by Anonymousreply 12608/27/2013

That's exactly what I say all the time, R126! What's the big freaking difference between 5'10" and 5'7-and-three-quarter inches?!

by Anonymousreply 12708/27/2013

You're quite a tool, R126.

And probably short.

by Anonymousreply 12808/27/2013

[quote]Now THAT was a SHITSTORM, and there wasn't even an Internet then. And the fanboy community wasn't nearly as large as it is now. He turned out to be great in the role, and the movie was a giant hit.

That's nice, but Keaton had only been known as a comedy/light actor and no one knew what Tim Burton was doing.

This casting is different. We know Snyder as a director can be decent at best and horrible at worst, Cavill is just an empty vessel, and Affleck has sucked in a movie hero role before and is certainly no master thespian. B.A. can be an okay actor when he's got an actor's director but that is not Snyder.

I think people are probably pissed because WB just has no clue how to deal with their DC properties. They're hoping to hitch their wagon to Ben Affleck I guess, thinking he's got some kind of magical touch based on the town and argo so who knows how it will end up.

by Anonymousreply 12908/27/2013

(cont. )I have to say I don't really understand that because the worldwide box office of both argo and the town pales in comparison to the box office of man of steel. I don't see how having Affleck on board as an actor helps WB or the DC properties.

What's definitely not a good thing is the movie is slated to premiere less than 2 years from now and they don't even have a completed script. That's far more troubling than Affleck.

by Anonymousreply 13008/27/2013

Oh who gives a shit.We're not talking about Oscar films here.

Here's what really matters:

by Anonymousreply 13108/27/2013

R130 is right, this was mainly done to please Affleck and his out-of-control ego. Jeff Robinov, the WB prez who was Affleck's benefactor, is on his way out and is expected to go to Fox, so WB wanted to keep Affleck in its stable - why, I don't know, it's not like his films are blockbusters.

It goes back to what (God help me) Ashton Kutcher said recently, when he said that Hollywood is too top-heavy and many decisions which are clearly bad ideas (he was talking about Lone Ranger and Disney) are made because those at the top are more concerned with in investing in relationships than in making good business decisions.

by Anonymousreply 13208/27/2013

"I think it's interesting that so many people are up in arms over Affleck (an Oscar winner) being in the movie, but are fine with Cavill (winner of NO acting awards) in the movie even though he's way worse than Affleck and already got bad reviews in Man of Flop."

The Batman role requires a lot more from an actor than Superman. Superman does have to have the iconic big-beefy-blue-black looks, but other than that he has to project goodness and decency and not a lot of intelligence. A Batman doesn't have to have a particular look (although a tall, dark-haired white guy is expected), but he does have to project all kinds of crazy and vengefulness, as well as decency. In other words, a good Batman has to be a better actor than Affleck.

And I bet you that Fassbender is 5'8" tops, and is so skinny he photographs as taller. Really, he is the archetype of the bobbleheaded actor.

by Anonymousreply 13308/27/2013

Why am I a tool? I'm merely pointing out that 5'10" and 6' isn't a significant difference. If Fassbender was 5'7" that would be another story. And anyway, there are all kinds of things they can do to make an actor look taller on camera. Fassbender would still be good, but obviously it's not going to happen.

Affleck has too much baggage. You're always seeing "Ben Affleck, douchebag" everytime he's onscreen.

by Anonymousreply 13408/27/2013

[quote]Oh who gives a shit.We're not talking about Oscar films here.

Many Oscar films in recent years have been steaming piles of horseshit, so it's not like that's a great argument.

by Anonymousreply 13508/27/2013

He's at least American, I'll give him that.

by Anonymousreply 13608/27/2013

[quote]I'm merely pointing out that 5'10" and 6' isn't a significant difference. If Fassbender was 5'7" that would be another story.

Its a difference for a film role, esp a physical one where height's a must.

He's barely 5'10" if that. He's a good inch shorter than Viggo Mortensen in recent red carpet photos and Viggo's listed as 5'11" (and that may be fudged).

by Anonymousreply 13708/27/2013

Fassy? He's Young Magneto, he can't be Batman too, for fuck's sake.

by Anonymousreply 13808/27/2013

[quote]It's all about internal politics at Warner Bros, and wanting to stay in Ben Affleck's good graces, and not anything to do with the fans who want a decent Batman movie with a reasonable cast.

The chances for a reasonable cast ended when they decided to keep that plank of wood Henry Cavill.

by Anonymousreply 13908/27/2013

Could you imagine the insane fangurl fiction if it was Fassbender and Cavill? Not as crazy as if it were either Cumberbatch or Hiddleston, but certainly worthy of being scrawled in menstrual blood on the walls of their bedrooms or an insane asylum.

by Anonymousreply 14008/27/2013

R139 = "Schedule" Joe.

by Anonymousreply 14108/27/2013

Henry was chosen because he is gorgeous and Supermanly. That's really all he was required to do. They filled the supporting roles out with accomplished actors (Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe) to carry the burden of acting.

That is what is so disappointing about Ben Affleck's casting, that they chose such a weak actor for such an important role after choosing so many good ones in "Man of Steel."

by Anonymousreply 14308/27/2013

R143, Adams, Lane and Fishburne will be back in the sequel. And Bryan Cranston is obviously an amazing actor, too.

by Anonymousreply 14408/27/2013

Batfleck negates any Cranston awesomeness.

by Anonymousreply 14508/27/2013

I saw Cranston and Affleck in ARGO recently. I know. I didn't see it when it was in theaters and I didn't give a shit about the Oscars. Sue me. There is some merit in watching a movie after the hype. When things quiet down out here, and you sit down to see a movie when the gold dust settles.

Anyway. I enjoyed it, especially because of Cranston, Garber and John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Superb. Affleck the director does a very good job. He's lucky he discovered that talent. Because he is just a piss poor actor. One of the worst I've seen. He makes Brad Pitt look like Brando.

If Zack Snyder is directing this sequel of Superman and Batman, then we have no worries. Zack Snyder is all about special effects, not acting. He cast Gerard Butler in 300. Need I say more? The only good thing about 300 was the half naked, mostly naked men running around. Rodrigo Santoro is to die for.

by Anonymousreply 14609/16/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.