Affleck will be Batman in the upcoming Man of Steel 2 movie:

http://variety.com/2013/film/n...-1200586881/?_r=true

quote:

Originally posted by Kennywood:
No....please tell me this is a hoax! This will rank up there with George Clooney as Batman.

Who in the world is making these casting decisions for DC films?? Next they'll announce that Lindsay Lohan has been cast as Wonder Woman.

SIGN!

For me personally, Christopher Nolan's "Batman" trilogy is THE best there is because Nolan's films were deeper and more thoughtful about the human spirit. They struggled with profound themes such as heroism, honor and integrity. Many of the previous Batman films were dark affairs but Nolan's films took the darkness even deeper and he understood the solemnity associated with the story of a man who witnessed his parents get murdered and sought vengeance against his city's criminal masterminds. Nolan told a long, coherent story about the creation and deconstruction of a heroic symbol.

Announcing that Ben Affleck will be the new Batman is a complete deconstruction of Batman before the first shot was even done. This is a joke and a big disgrace for all Batman fans!

The truth is that nobody knows how he'll do in the role until we actually see the movie. All the whining about it on the internet is reminiscent of the bellyaching of the fans that occurred back when Michael Keaton was first announced as Batman back in the eighties.

No offense, but we can be very certain that Ben Affleck's acting won't be any close as deep and intense as Christian Bale's portrayal of Batman was. Kennywood was completly right when he said that if Affleck is the new Batman, Lindsay Lohan could as well be the new Wonder Woman.

Portraying a super hero isn't just about looking good in tights but about telling a story. And Affleck has proven for the past 15 years that he isn't a good storyteller because his acting qualities are that of a Disney cast member to put it diplomatically.

Ben Affleck will be just fine as Batman...not so sure about his portrayal of Bruce Wayne though

My favorite line about this so far is "Ben Affleck as Batman? I guess in this version, Bruce Wayne's parents kill themselves."

I guess we can see either Brad Pitt or Matt Damon as Robin.
Lord Jesus, why oh why?!

Think Ben is eye candy for the ladies but as an actor, hes pretty boring and one-dimensional.

+Affleck can act and was good in "Chasing Amy" and especially "Hollywoodland", in which he played George Reeves, who was most famous for playing Superman in the old TV series.

Not too many people have been popular choices for playing Batman. I remember a lot of whining about it when Christian Bale got the job and that went OK. Affleck will be good, too, people just like to complain about stuff.

Heath Ledger as the Joker!?! It'll never work!
I think it'll work out okay, Affleck's fine-tuned his acting chops the last few years. We'll see...

After his disastrous turn as DareDevil and his higher social and artistic ambitions, I wonder why Affleck would sign on as Batman. I don't like the idea, but then I don't like the one dimensional performances he gives in every movie, where it seems that every other actor in it is more interesting than he is.

The other thing no one has mention is the Superman connection. Although it made a sufficient amount of money just by opening, the Man of Steel movie was a by-the-numbers phone in. Henry Cavill looked the part, but had very little spark, and the plot was a rehash done better in Superman 2. Put this Superman and Batman together and we may all go to sleep.

I wanted them to make a couple more Superman movies with Brandon Routh and Bryan Singer, and I thought "Man of Steel" was pretty good, although there really was a bit too much destruction in the climactic scenes as others have mentioned.

My bar is pretty low on Superman movies, admittedly. I saw "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" in theatres, and walked out thinking, "Wow, that was pretty good! I wonder what Part 5 will be about".

Batman does have so many great stories in the comics, though (and a VAST number more classic stories than Superman has in the comics), so I expect more from the Batman movies, they just have SO much more to work with, a non invulnerable character to start with.

Even so, I don't think any of the Batman movies have been "great" movies with the exception of Dark Knight Rises.

Here's my ratings for Batman movies so far

Batman 1989 -- Not Good
Batman Returns -- Very Good
Batman Forever -- Kind of Good
Batman and Robin --- What th-?
Batman Begins --- OK, but wildly overrated
The Dark Knight --- Very Good, still wildly overrated
The Dark Knight Rises -- Best Batman movie ever and underrated

So looking at that, this Superman/Batman collabo needs to only get, like a 8 on a scale of 10 to be the second best Batman movie ever in my book, and that is definitely do-able. Affleck can act. He's proven it time and again. I can't wait for this new one!

Anything will be better than the travesty that was Man of Steel.

I think Affleck will be great as Batman. He can't be any worse than Christian Bale...don't get me wrong I enjoyed the latest Batman movies, but Bale was never that great in them.

I haven´t seen one good Batman actor. I dont think anyone can seriously do a good Batman role, he is just that kind of character. Bale is a good actor overall. Good luck to Affleck, he is gonna need it!

The bottom line is, the movie will be a huge success, and all of those who are decrying Affleck now will still go to see it once it's out, if only to be able to report in detail what a piece of junk it was and how right they were. So in the end, it gets the money of people who like Affleck in the role, who have no opinion of Affleck in the role, and finally, those who hate the idea of Affleck in the role. And let's not kid ourselves, it is the promise of a big return that makes it even possible a studio will dump a couple of hundred million dollars into something. They make these kinds of movies to get money, not to win awards or the praise of film critics, and definitely not the approval of possibly the least important and yet hardest group to please, comic book fans (like me).

The Batman comic sells maybe 100,000 copies a month. Even if the producers were to alienate every buyer of that comic to the point where they refuse to see the movie, they would lose a mere 1 million off the gross (100,000 comic readers at $10 per ticket), so it would make only 999 million worldwide instead of a billion dollars.

Such a boycott would matter not at all, and exactly as much as all of this pointless hand wringing from people who have for the most part accomplished nothing in the world of film, but worse, act like they know better than people who have. And all because, for whatever reason, they don't like someone who's been a working actor for over 20 years, an Academy Award winning writer, and lately a director and producer of several widely acclaimed films.

I don't ordinarily like to crush trolls here, because thankfully, there aren't too many around this board, but it certainly is easy to do where this subject is concerned. I haven't seen a single good argument against Affleck yet (and no, "Gigli", "Jersey Girl", and "Daredevil", even combined, don't constitute one. Name any actor with more than just a few films to their credit and you can be sure there will be at least one stinker in the bunch, no matter how good that actor is).

This feels like the utterly ridiculous hatred for George Lucas all over again concerning the choices he made (choices he'd EARNED the right to make that no one else had had any business second guessing) regarding the Prequel trilogy (which I am not the biggest fan of, to be honest).

And, as then, I will take on any challenge related to Affleck as Batman, and am confident I would again go undefeated in my defenses. As I said, I haven't yet heard an argument against Affleck that holds water. Not a single one, and I've heard a lot of them already. I welcome more. It's good practice for me.

We'll have to disagree about Ben Affleck CPF, but I absolutely agree with your opinion in the first paragraph. These Marvel and DC movies are going to make money. They cost a lot to make and they take it all back and more in the first 3 weekends. It doesn't matter whether they are bad or good or probably in between. There is a built in audience that will see them.

Its only the off beat expensive movies that really bomb, like John Carter or the Host, or the semi-popular superheroes like Green Lantern or Daredevil or Ghost Rider. And even those movies made millions worldwide and DVD release, its just that the budget cost even more.

Just look how many people have posted that they really only liked the last Dark Knight or Man of Steel was really quite bad. Iron Man 2 wasn't any good at all. Yet they keep making sequels because it doesn't matter to the box office. So in that regard, Ben Affleck won't matter either.

Iron Man 2 was indeed stunningly bad, but they've recovered nicely with Avengers and Iron Man 3. I have high hopes for the next Thor and Cap as I enjoyed the first ones of both of those.

I'm definitely biased in that I want all of these movies to do well so that they'll eventually get to the comic inspired ones I really want them to do, like "Preacher" "Y The Last Man" and even "Acme Novelty Library".

The more successful these big budget ones are, the more money there will be to filter down to some of those lesser known series, which won't necessarily cost a huge amount of money to make which would also mean they don't need to open on 3,500 screens to get the money back.

Without that enormous financial threshold to achieve to be considered successful, there can be more artistry and innovation in the making of the movies themselves, and maybe they can achieve the loftier and more noble goals of filmmaking, such as the creation of actual art instead of merely successful commerce.

It's totally fair game film and comic fans to sound off against the movies they've seen and didn't like, but I do wish people would at least let a movie get filmed and released before they go to town on it.