I'm totally fine with being told 'chillax, he might be good'. You're right, he might be.
However I'm already really fucking fed up of being 'chillax, he'll probably be good because Heath Ledger was good'. It just isn't the fucking same.
The Daniel Craig comparisons don't fly either - he was criticised purely because being short and blond he didn't fit what people thought Bond should look like. But anyone who'd seen Layer Cake knew it was a good shout.
Abyss, on 26 August 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:
LAST OF THE MOHICANS was weak and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE was grounds for self-harm.
Last of the Mohicans was totally fine, vile being! Haven't seen the other one, though.
Y'know what... it doesn't matter.... AGE OF INNOCENCE is a complete answer to the question.
AGE OF INNOCENCE is FAR from Lewis' fault.
First off, it's an INSUFFERABLY boring book by Wharton (Pulitzer prize aside, ppl in the 1920's liked boring shit apparently).
Secondly, Martin Scorsese is not the perfect director everyone always touts him as...he's DECIDEDLY hit and miss, and his career is far more spotty than anyone is willing to admit. People liked GOODFELLAS, RAGING BULL and TAXI DRIVER and all of the sudden the guy is elevated to god status. Checking out his resume is a clear hit and miss career. AGE was one of his biggest misses.
Neither of those things are Lewis' fault.
It's the same argument with DAREDEVIL....just because an actor stars in a bad film, does not make them a bad actor.
Natalie Portman is atrocious in the Star Wars prequels...but she's a revelation on either side of it with stuff from her youth like LEON and latter stuff like BLACK SWAN. That's a result of poor direction, and script. Neither of which can be laid at the feet of the actor themselves.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
"Someone will always try to sell you despair, just so they don't feel alone." ~Ursula Vernon
I think we bag on Affleck without taking into account some serious consideration of what a "good" Affleck Batman could look like? What are the goal posts on this?
Are we expecting him to try his best to be another Bale? Or introduce new aspects of the Batman character? Ben can do emotional at the drop of a hat, something Bale did not often indulge in. I can see him bringing in an unhinged, on the edge of breaking version of Batman... Has that story ever been explored on cinema?
Ben can play Bruce, not as well as RDJ plays Tony Stark (not even close) but I think Affleck can play the douche role with relative ease. Landing the dichotomy of Batman and Bruce Wayne is the real problem and that's all up to plot and directing. Looking at the whole picture the range is there but the credibility Ben Affleck brings to the stage is a question.
Am I wrong here in saying this?
“Behind this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof Gas-Fireproof.”
.......just because an actor stars in a bad film, does not make them a bad actor....
Exactly that was my point in Afleck's favor.
Exactly. This also comes down to what you perceive as a bad film. Some have said they enjoyed Daredevil and it was financially successful enough to launch Elektra (unfortunately). If you compare it to, I dunno, Glengarry Glenross which is full of fantastic talent, with the only person involved whos not a household name being Jonathan Price whos won 2 Tony awards, and critically acclaimed being a financial flop then Daredevil is a good film.
Dolmen+, on 26 August 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:
OK devils advocate time:
I think we bag on Affleck without taking into account some serious consideration of what a "good" Affleck Batman could look like? What are the goal posts on this?
Are we expecting him to try his best to be another Bale? Or introduce new aspects of the Batman character? Ben can do emotional at the drop of a hat, something Bale did not often indulge in. I can see him bringing in an unhinged, on the edge of breaking version of Batman... Has that story ever been explored on cinema?
Ben can play Bruce, not as well as RDJ plays Tony Stark (not even close) but I think Affleck can play the douche role with relative ease. Landing the dichotomy of Batman and Bruce Wayne is the real problem and that's all up to plot and directing. Looking at the whole picture the range is there but the credibility Ben Affleck brings to the stage is a question.
Am I wrong here in saying this?
Your right
You know the speech in Batman Begins where he has to clear his house of people because he knows its about to go down and he pretends to be drunk and clears them out in a smarmy arrogant way? Affleck could do that along with alot of arrogant playboy billionaire stuff. The problem is he has to be threatening like Bale was, atleast until the sequels made him do long monlogues in the stupid Batman voice.
It does not put me off this film that Aflleck is the star. The biggest put off is they have a 200 million dollar film to complete in 2 years and they dont have a full script for it yet AFAIK.
What puts me off this movie is that, due to how they announced it, apparently they're pissing all over superman in his own sequel by likening it to arguably one of the worst portrayals of Superman in his history!
What puts me off this movie is that, due to how they announced it, apparently they're pissing all over superman in his own sequel by likening it to arguably one of the worst portrayals of Superman in his history!
Snyder went on record as saying that he was DEFINITELY not adapting Miller's TDKR and only used that line of dialogue for the reveal that Batman would be in the sequel.
And to be honest we have a few things to deal with in the sequel...the largest of which was an untested alien hero who was a party to MASSIVE collateral damage and loss of life, and the fact that he
Spoiler
killed Zod.
and the VERY best person to come at Superman for it, and through the two of them butting heads is Batman/Bruce Wayne....the man who REFUSES to kill, who feels that Justice is an absolute that is never found through killing (collateral damage or otherwise)...
Clark needs a teacher. His father's are both gone. There is no one better than an older, more experienced Batman (Affleck is ten years Cavill's senior) to affect that learning. He will do it brutally, and he will do it without feeling for Clark. They will not be friends when they meet, but they will eventually be brothers. The flip sides of the same coin.
In essence, Batman will help Clark/Superman BECOME the boyscout he will eventually need to be.
That's going to be the point of MoS 2.
And to be honest, it makes a lot of sense to take the MoS version of the character there. The only father he ever knew taught him to keep his powers a secret, and not explore them. The result of which (not Pa Kent's fault mind you) was Clark not knowing really how to dial the powers back enough to properly fight Zod and Co. without the loss of human lives.
Anyways, check out this fan trailer. Pretty solidly done.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
"Someone will always try to sell you despair, just so they don't feel alone." ~Ursula Vernon
Location:The call is coming from inside the house!!!!
Interests:Interesting.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:04 PM
Primateus, on 27 August 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:
What puts me off this movie is that, due to how they announced it, apparently they're pissing all over superman in his own sequel by likening it to arguably one of the worst portrayals of Superman in his history!
Disagree. TDKR is a brilliant portrayal of Superman for the point in time when it was done.
MoS2 is obviously not going to be DKR, but there's a reason it's considered legendary and part of that is Superman's part of the story.
Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 27 August 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:
champ, on 27 August 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:
Not sure if it has been mentioned but Bryan Cranston has been cast as Lex Luthor... fuck yeah!
Already noted upthread. Some people are claiming this is also a bad choice as hes not physically threatening enough *sigh*
...
Those same people probably said Bale couldn't possibly play Batman, and personal opionions aside, theres a gajillion dollar signs that say they were wrong.
Anyhoo, Cranston's a brilliant actor and if he was lazy (which i doubt will happen) and played Luthor as Walter White with more money it would be worth watching.
THIS IS YOUR REMINDER THAT THERE IS A 'VIEW NEW CONTENT' BUTTON THAT ALLOWS YOU TO VIEW NEW CONTENT
Oh, I'm sure he'll be threatening, it's just I saw him fight Colin Farrell in Total Recall and they needed to fire the fight choreographer. Into the sun.
Hello, soldiers, look at your mage, now back to me, now back at your mage, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped being an unascended mortal and switched to Sole Spice, he could smell like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a warren with the High Mage your cadre mage could smell like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an acorn with two gates to that realm you love. Look again, the acorn is now otataral. Anything is possible when your mage smells like Sole Spice and not a Bole brother. I’m on a quorl.
People are getting very excited about Cranston and while it's certainly plausible and would be great, all the reports appear to be coming from the same source which does not have the most reliable reputation, so let's chill our beans. There's nothing official yet.
Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 27 August 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:
Already noted upthread. Some people are claiming this is also a bad choice as hes not physically threatening enough *sigh*
Who the fuck came up with that? Luthor's not supposed to be physically threatening, certainly compared to Superman.
People are getting very excited about Cranston and while it's certainly plausible and would be great, all the reports appear to be coming from the same source which does not have the most reliable reputation, so let's chill our beans. There's nothing official yet.
Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 27 August 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:
Already noted upthread. Some people are claiming this is also a bad choice as hes not physically threatening enough *sigh*
Who the fuck came up with that? Luthor's not supposed to be physically threatening, certainly compared to Superman.
I know its manipulative scheming that makes Luthor the villain.
I hope it is Cranston. Though of course this guarantees nothing. If you said Kevin Spacey was going to be Lex Luthor youd be positive he put in a good performance. Now I cant remember that much about Superman Returns but I know a ew people liked SPacey in it. The script will be the decisive factor not one performance.
Help
Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 25 August 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:
