• AngryishHumanoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      27 days ago

      And I sometimes get crap for this but Batfleck was pretty good too. Those movies had issues, oh my yes, but the casting for those 2 roles was not one of them. Luthor, on the other hand…

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 days ago

        Superman has always been a bit of a boring character, which IMO is hard to write for to make interesting beyond the origin / coming of age story.

        I think screwing up Batman is a lot more offensive. So much good lore and villians to work with.

        IMO, Affleck played a terrible Fatman. He wasn’t dark and brooding, he was wooden and boring. It wasn’t just the story, but Afflecks portrayal of the character.

      • The Giant Korean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        Probably a hot take, but I think Batfleck was the closest we’ve gotten to a comicbook accurate Batman. Batfleck’s size and build were correct (physically imposing, could have been a bit taller), he was intelligent, mostly broody, and could fight. There are some things that could have been better (being a martial artist instead of being a brawler), but of all the movie incarnations so far I’d say he’s the closest.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        Honestly, if Jesse Eisenberg had just been doing a version of his Zuckerberg from The Social Network, it would have been fine. His whole twitchy routine was weird as fuck.