Ben "The Bat" Affleck

I'm a bit late to the party, but apparently people are worried about Ben Affleck playing the caped crusader in Batman vs. Superman. Me? I think it has a lot of potential to be great, and after seeing people freak out for some time, I thought I'd add my voice to the cacophany. Normally I'd make this a "My Top 10," but there are so few reasons to worry it became monotonous to come up with 10 counterpoints.

Affleck looks good in a mask.
Say what you will about Daredevil and why it never should have existed, I loved Affleck in that movie. He played the role well for a time when comic movies still weren't taken completely seriously. His portrayal of Matt Murdock may have been a bit underwhelming, but when he donned that funky leather outfit I thought he did quite well.

Not only that, but his face was made for a cowl. He has a square jaw and dimpled chin that, with a bit of stubble, will aid in the typical gruffness of the Dark Knight.

Batman vs. Superman won't be about Batman
I've said my piece about Superman in the past. One big problem with Superman is that his powers coupled with his audience appeal makes it hard for him to play a role alongside someone. Despite Batman getting first billing, we know that the focus of the movie will be on the Man of Steel and his ability to do anything. Sure, something will come up that will require Batman to use his gadgets and intelligence, but he certainly won't be getting as much screen time.

We've had worse Batmen
Everyone has their pick for "best Batman," so Affleck has all that against him. Not only that, but he's following Nolan's vision of Batman, which has been, in my opinion, the best Batman universe yet. But if you ignore that Batman, which is only one of many, think of who else we have to compare him to.

• Adam West. We could lump all the actors before him in this category, because they were all pretty awful.
• Michael Keaton. Keaton is a contender for the best Bat of all time. He gave a much different tone than Bale, and was the only other Batman people really enjoyed.
• Val Kilmer. I can't really say Kilmer was a bad choice, though he certainly looked like a regular Joe wearing a mask rather than someone who was made for it. What Kilmer lacked was made up for by the variety of villains, who were really the only memorable thing in Batman Forever.
• George Clooney. Like Affleck, Clooney's face was made for the mask. He could have had a better showing if Batman & Robin wasn't a two hour toy commercial mixed with bad puns and nipple-armor.

What I'm saying is that Affleck may not be the best, but he certainly won't be the worst. He'll just be another Batman that sets a bar, or he may just fade in to the background of his on-screen companions.

Affleck wasn't their last pick
Yes, Hollywood can be idiotic. But when their bank account relies on them picking the right actor for a big movie, I'd like to think they make the win-win choice of choosing an actor we like, which gets them more money. At this point in our superhero movie age, people know that the actor can make or break a movie. So when they have a host of celebrities on their table, I have a hard time believing that Affleck is the result of them scraping the barrel.

Maybe the script is so bad that no one else would touch it. Maybe Bale's representation of Batman was so legendary that no one wants to commit career sepuku by playing the role so soon. Or maybe, just maybe, Affleck is the kind of actor they had in mind all along, and maybe they aren't trying to make a purposely bad movie.

I cite as evidence the outcry of geeks everywhere when pretty-boy Heath Ledger was chosen for the Joker.

Bale was a great Bruce, but a bad Batman
This is purely subjective, but I really didn't like Christian Bale as Batman. Ten years from now when we're watching this, I think his Batman voice will be completely laughable. I mean in Nolan's universe, where you can't just use your normal voice and fool everyone, it makes sense. But of all the ways Bale could have done it, using a voice that limited his articulation, especially with hard consanants, was a bad move.

However, it's important to remember that there's a harsh divide between Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman isn't just an extension of his alterego like Spiderman or Superman. Bruce isn't a brutal bringer of justice, and Batman isn't a playboy. Bale played the role of Bruce Wayne better than anyone - he has the charm, poise, and mannerisms to play the part perfectly. But when he starts hunting bad guys, the only thing Bale brings to the table is a voice and jaw. Everything else - the suit, the fighting, the gadgets, isn't really Bale so much as Nolan, the writers, and the choreographers.

And let's face it, there will be no Bruce Wayne in the upcoming movie. There won't be an origin story, and we won't see how a single superhero gets through life outside his heroic persona. It will be focused on the heroes and the threat they face - for that all Affleck needs is a voice and jaw. I've established he's got the jaw, so the only real question is whether he can do a decent, gruff Batman voice. Considering he's had 10 years between Daredevil (which wasn't that bad!) and now, I'm pretty confident he can be trained to not sound... well, awful.


So what do you think? Is Affleck a horrible choice, or are people standing outside with "The End Is Nigh" signs a bit too soon? You guys have always given me thoughtful feedback, so I'm curious to hear some opinions!


See you tomorrow!

Remember to follow me on Facebook! I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways. This month's giveawayis a set of ten 30mm bases from Forgecraft Games!