Unless you’ve been living under a bat cave since late August, there’s been some pretty big news in the films based on men in tights department. Ben Affleck, the pride of Boston, will be playing Bruce Wayne/Batman himself in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel, set to be released in the summer of 2015. As expected with any casting announcement for a character as beloved as The Caped Crusader, many fans were not pleased. However, this time the negativity was more intense, the line drawn thicker in the sand. In reaction to this reaction, we’re offering two dissenting opinions from a writer who thinks that Batffleck could be worse than “Batman & Robin”, and another who believes maybe having the former Matt Murdock in the cowl and cape isn’t as bad as everyone’s making it out to be.
Batffleck: Worse Than Clooney
by Katherine Petitbone
Can Ben Affleck live up to the legacy that is Batman? Judging from past movies it looks highly unlikely. Here are a few key reasons why I think he will not make a good dark knight.
Ben Affleck doesn’t seem to know how to play such a dark and angst ridden character as he proved in his film Daredevil. He was awkward and didn’t seem to know how to portray his anger against the villains. Many have asked the question, if Ben Affleck can’t cut it as Daredevil then how can he fill the shoes of the caped crusader?
Reason number two; Ben Affleck does not have an intimidating look about him. We the fans know batman as being tall dark and mysterious, all of which Ben Affleck is not. He is more of a soft-faced and easily approachable character. This would be fine if he were just asked to play businessman Bruce Wayne. However, Bruce Wayne is just a mask that Batman wears. Batman has demons that he constantly fights with and hides from the world under the gentle face of Bruce Wayne. From past movies it is not readily apparent that Affleck has a dark side to him. Batman is both a hero and a vigilante with a dark side. He is always fighting the urge to kill the villains he faces and knows that once he bloodies his hands he may not be able to stop. Batman is a complex and deep character with many layers and sides. How can we expect Affleck to be able to portray this if he does not have all the complexities of the caped crusader?
The third reason is that Ben Affleck is far too well known. Fans have seen everything he has to bring to the table. When people see this new Superman vs. Batman movie, all they are going to see is Daredevil as Batman. They should bring a new face to the role of batman. It should be a fresh start so people don’t know what to expect when going into the new movie. With Ben Affleck being in so many movies people will be going in with preconceived ideas and notions of how they think he is going to play the character; which in many people’s opinions is going to be very bad. Do we, as committed fans of the dark knight, want his name to go down as a laughing stock? Do we want him to come in as second best to Superman?
Batffleck: Even Better Than Keaton
by Tim Waugh
There are two problems with most anti-Ben Affleck arguments. The first is that literally every movie used against the man is over a decade old. “Gigli” and “Daredevil” were both released ten years ago exactly. Ben Affleck has certainly grown as an actor and filmmaker in those years, and he has an Academy Award to prove it. Now back to that horned superhero sized elephant in the room, “Daredevil” certainly isn’t a very good movie (although it is arguably better than “Green Lantern”), however just about all of the films problems are not Affleck’s fault. The simplistic writing is the screenwriter’s fault, the Evanescence-heavy soundtrack is 2003’s fault, and there’s a reason the director’s most recent films have gone straight to DVD. The reason Affleck unfairly gets the brunt of the blame is because he is the lead actor, the face of the entire project. In terms of the argument that Ben Affleck does not have the capability to play an intense brooding character like Batman, I strongly disagree. I would implore anyone who is concerned that Affleck is a one note actor to watch “Hollywoodland”, “The Town”, and “Argo”, all films where he shows impressive range (in fact, in “Hollywoodland” he plays George Reeves, one of the first actors to play Superman, technically making Ben Affleck the first actor to play both Superman and Batman). Another interesting fact about those three films is that they have all been released within the last seven years, and he won the Best Picture Academy Award for “Argo” this year. When was the last time anyone complained about an Oscar winner playing a superhero? Just to ground the situation, here’s a history lesson: let’s imagine that instead of Ben Affleck being cast as Batman, the studio instead decides to go with an actor who is not quite a household name, and has only had starring roles in comedies. That’s exactly what happened when Michael Keaton was cast as Bruce Wayne in Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman”. Of course we don’t quite know what the fan reaction was in those pre-internet days, however it’s safe to assume the majority was less than pleased. However Keaton’s interpretation is to this day a fan favorite, and he had a far less impressive acting pedigree at the time than Ben Affleck had. To summarize, it’s healthy for both sides of the argument to remember that it’s best to suspend judgment until, you know, the film is actually made and we can see for ourselves whether Ben Affleck is successful or not as the Dark Knight. However we can all agree on one thing: getting to see Superman and Batman finally throw down on the big screen is going to be pretty rad.