As I write this, I honestly can’t believe that it’s been less than 24 hours since Ben Affleck was announced as the new Batman. Memes have launched and subsequently dissipated, media outlets (including IGN) have collected reactions to the news from social media – some balanced and some not so much – and outrage has been strewn across the cyber battlefield.
Not since the Heath Ledger-as-Joker announcement has the Internet been so aflame with discussion about movie casting (how’d that Ledger thing turn out, by the way?).
Affleck is a great choice for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he’s bringing inherent pedigree to Superman vs. Batman. You know, the Oscar-winning writer/director, Ben Affleck. This is a pedigree that could very likely bring in a different audience, thus growing the box-office – and the appeal of the characters themselves.
I admit I would’ve much rather seen him direct a Batman movie than star in one, but the plausibility of him doing both in the future just increased tenfold. In fact, I would bet that part of Affleck’s motivations for taking the gig in the first place is freedom to pick-and-choose future directing projects at WB. But in terms of performance, Affleck has the chops needed to play both Bruce Wayne and Batman.
We saw him play Daredevil in 2003 and showcase the duality of a darker superhero and his secret identity. As a movie, Daredevil is pretty bad – but it’s unfair and incorrect to lay blame at Affleck’s feet for a movie that probably would’ve been terrible even if it starred Peter O’Toole in his prime. Come to think of it, Supergirl is a pretty terrible movie and that does have Peter O'Toole. But I know that Daredevil is divisive, good performance or not. Really, it’s Hollywoodland that should be a clear indicator for why Affleck is fit for the role.
In the film, Affleck plays George Reeves, star of the 1950s television hit The Adventures of Superman. Though a working actor since 1939 (he even acted for the U.S. Army after being drafted during World War II) , Reeves became an international superstar while portraying Superman, yet dealt with depression until committing suicide in 1959 (though the cause of death has been contested throughout history, which is what Hollywoodland is about). Affleck’s performance in Hollywoodland reeks of tough guy bravado that’s underlined by a fundamentally broken and fragile human being. That sounds like the Dark Knight to me.
It’s important to remember that any vitriol Affleck receives appears to stem from a very brief period of his career that only lasted a few years. Before that period (Good Will Hunting, Chasing Amy) and after it (Hollywoodland, The Town, Argo) has been, predominately, a great body of work. There are a few stinkers in there, sure, but show me an actor that hasn’t been in a crappy movie or five (let alone other Batman actors).
I would also argue that Affleck’s ability to bounce back from the Gigli-era of his career, to become an A-list actor/writer/director with a Best Picture Oscar under his belt, parallels Batman’s own struggle against the never-ending cowardly and superstitious criminal element of Gotham City (the Internet). And look, if movie studios listened to every single fan gripe ever hurled at them from behind a computer monitor, I can guarantee you that superhero movies would not be even a fraction of what they’ve become in the last decade.
If you simply can’t reserve judgment until you see Superman vs. Batman and just absolutely cannot accept the idea of Affleck as Batman, here’s the good news: In another decade or so, you can look forward to somebody new taking over the cape and cowl. Batman will never die, no matter what he looks like or what actor plays him.
Myself, I’m looking forward to your grizzly growl, Mr. Affleck. And please, if you could, give Batman a beard.
Joey is a Senior Editor at IGN and a comic book creator. Follow Joey on Twitter @JoeyEsposito, or find him on IGN at Joey-IGN. He felt overwhelming joy at this announcement.
Source : ign[dot]com
No comments:
Post a Comment