Everybody Needs to Calm the F**k Down About Ben Affleck

Ben Affleck will play Batman in the upcoming “Man of Steel” sequel, we learned yesterday, which essentially caused the Internet to implode. My Facebook and Twitter feeds are full of angst-ridden responses to this news, some of which come from legitimately sane people decrying the decision as if it were the end of the world.

The announcement from Warner Bros. that Affleck will replace Christian Bale as tormented vigilante crimefighter Bruce Wayne has spawned not only the cutesy contraction of #Batfleck but also the hashtag #BetterBatmanThanBenAffleck. Meryl Streep will be happy to know she made the cut.

Why the freak-out? How much of it has to do with Affleck himself, and how much of it would have occurred no matter who was chosen? Yes, Affleck starred in what is widely considered one of the worst films ever based on a comic book, 2003’s “Daredevil,” which flopped critically (45 percent on the Tomatometer) and commercially ($102.5 million total domestically, which is usually what a blockbuster superhero movie will make on its opening weekend alone). Last I checked, Affleck didn’t write or direct “Daredevil.” He’s just the guy in the shiny, red suit at the center — so he gets to take all the blame.

I also see lots of bandying about of the word “Gigli,” as if the infamous 2003 Bennifer vehicle were the only career-defining cinematic moment in his 20-year career. Was “Argo,” this year’s best-picture Oscar winner which he directed and stars in, really so long ago? Has he not proven his brains and solid instincts time and time again over the past decade? Affleck also happens to have played George Reeves, TV’s Superman, in the 2006 drama “Hollywoodland,” and it represented his best work in a while at that point.

In the right supporting role, Affleck can be charismatic as hell — just look at his early work in “Boiler Room,” “Shakespeare in Love,” even “Good Will Hunting,” which essentially belongs to his best friend Matt Damon. But to get back to “Argo” for a minute, what he did as that film’s star — functioning as the all-business straight man in the middle and allowing the flashier Alan Arkin and John Goodman to shine around him — is difficult to do well. It’s easy to underestimate his skills as an actor, and even easier to turn him into a punch line.

The more I think about it, though, the more I’m inclined to suspect that whoever was picked to play opposite Henry Cavill’s Superman would have prompted some sort of backlash, simply because fans of this genre are so passionate and proprietary about it. I witnessed this personally last summer when I dared not heap massive praise on “The Dark Knight Rises” — and I happen to be a woman, which inspired a whole ‘nother charming level of vitriol. If not Affleck, then who would have been the right choice? We could peruse the filmography of myriad potential candidates and find a questionable decision here or there.

I can only imagine the sort of outcry that would have arisen had Twitter existed (or the Internet, for the matter) when Michael Keaton starred in Tim Burton’s “Batman” back in 1989: “Not Michael Keaton! He wore a flannel shirt and played poker with the neighborhood housewives in `Mr. Mom’!” Now, he’s regarded as one of the best Batmans (Batmen?) we’ve had.

So let’s all just take a moment, take a breath, and wait ’til Zack Snyder’s film comes out sometime in 2015. Let’s just calm the fuck down. Because until then, I promise you: Ben Affleck does not care what you think.

12
  1. My biggest complaint would not be that Ben Affleck or anyone else would be cast as Batman. It is that the next film will have Batman in it period.
    We have barely got to know Superman. I would have much preferred a film where we get to see Superman do his stuff, on his own.
    I fear that this is just their way of setting up a Justice League film.
    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. I have no problem with Ben as Batman. I just hope it is a good film.

  2. All due respect, but just because you differ in opinion from the loud voices does not put you in the right to tell anyone to shut up. When actors are cast in these roles, yes, they land the jobs because of their acting chops, but it would be foolish to not assume that they don’t also have to weight the reaction of the public, because the public is what they are appealing to. So when the public lets it’s voice be heard, then it wouldn’t exactly be smart to outright dismiss it. Could everyone be wrong? Sure… is everyone’s reaction wildly unfounded? Nope, there is plenty of material to support the hate for this decision.

    So rather than being obnoxious in the face of obnoxiousness, try just showing your support instead.

  3. I’m indifferent on Affleck as Batman. My gut reaction wasn’t a positive one, but I find I’m often wrong when I prejudge casting choices, so I’m perfectly fine with giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    You know what would have gotten me really excited? Reading that Affleck had been hired to _direct_ the next Batman movie.

    Also, I now desperately want to see Meryl Streep’s Batman.

  4. Christy suggested folks calm down, not shut up. As far as I’m concerned, good actors have done bad Batman. So it’s more than just the actor. Affleck can be very good in some roles.

    And “Dark Knight Rises” was really overlong and tedious. Fans like that it took chunks of several favorite storylines and wove them together. I got that, but it threw any story sense out the window to do it, losing the momentum of two previous good movies. To quote a former Roger Ebert review of a Star Trek movie, it was “much about muchness.”

    I honestly had more doubts about Zack Snyder helming the next film than I did about Affleck co-starring.

  5. First off, do we really NEED another Superman movie? I mean, don’t we all know the man of Krypton’s story? We, the audience, are not slow learners. Let’s invent a new superhero and stop regurgitating MAN of STEEL year after year.

    Now, Ben Affleck. I love him. He’s great in all the movies you named, and even better, to me, in one you missed JERSEY GIRL. I watch that movie every time it’s on TV. If the real Ben Affleck is anywhere near as charming, vulnerable and sincere as that character I say give him the keys to Hollywood and let him make any movie he darn well pleases. And if that mean yet another Superman flick, then . . . yawn . . . bring it on.

  6. His work in front of the camera is serviceable. He is no thespian. He is wooden and seems to play the same character over and over – Ben Affleck as… It happens, some actors cannot disappear in a role, some can.

    His work behind the camera has been stellar, even though I found Argo be extremely overrated full of cliches, with better facial hair than acting.

    As for your comment, “Has he not proven his brains and solid instincts time and time again over the past decade?” Sure, he has BEHIND the camera. Does that mean we should have Spielberg or Scorsese fill the Batsuit next time?

    People are having trouble envisioning Ben for a reason, they do not care for his acting. Not sure why we should “Calm the F**k Down.” This seems like the perfect time to speak out. Nothing will change, but at least Hollywood may hear the message when they cast for other roles.

    Remember, this is all a bargaining chip to get Affleck to direct the Justice League movie… nothing else.

  7. Given how disappointing “Man of Steel” was, the problem is Zack Snyder, not whoever they put under Batman’s cowl. He’s this generation’s Michael Bay: everything looks pretty, but it’s woefully stupid.

  8. Here’s the thing about this whole argument: It always ends up being moot, to my mind.

    A good Batman/Superman/superhero movie elevates the actor and a bad one reduces him. Who knows what George Clooney, a real actor, might have done as Batman with Tim Burton directing behind him and Anton Furst’s sets to wander through? Or, conversely, could the disappointing bubblegumness of “The Incredible Hulk” have been altered had Mark Ruffalo played Bruce Banner instead of Edward Norton (full disclosure: I say this as one of the, oh, four fans of Ang Lee’s “Hulk”)?

    We infuse so, so much into the actor who plays the hero. Justifiably so, maybe: Robert Downey Jr. breathed a sensibility into “Iron Man” that no one else could have. But I’m wondering if we should be pretending that these movies really are about the leading men when they’re such franchises that to some extent it’s plug and play. My take remains that Keaton was the best Batman, and I remember being 21 and outraged when I heard about that casting. Was it Keaton’s fault/credit that it worked? Or did Tim Burton make it happen?

    Once you pull back the lens and view the actor in the context of the entire movie instead of AS the movie, it seems clearer to me that the best comic-book movies prevail generally in spite of the leading actor, and the worst are not the worst simply because of him.

  9. Well reasoned and supported argument, which means almost no one who doesn’t already agree with you will listen to you.

    To me, hysteria about this is equivalent to hysteria about a One Direction hairstyle change. I’m a grownup, and so superheroes, faked-up boy bands, zombies, Transformers, and paranormal romances bore me and confuse me as to their very existence when some piece of business regarding them drifts into my sphere of awareness. To quote the late, great Molly Ivins (she was speaking of her own reaction to Madonna), “I achieve a positively George Bushian level of Not Getting It.”

    I like your reviews. Congrats on the new website–looks good.

Post a comment

Top