Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

[Cupcakes]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but consider me in the camp of people that disliked Man of Steel as well. Aside from Russel Crowe and Kevin Costner's performances, the movie was pretty unenjoyable for me. I'm willing to approach this Batman vs. Superman idea with an open mind, but...right now it's really not sounding good, especially since they can't seem to decide what to do with Batman.

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

Well It has a 76% like it rating from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. And on most review sites the audience gave it at least a 75% positive rating. So more people liked it then didn't like it. The critics were mixed on it. But I don't really listen to critics anymore because most of the time they are wrong.

 

[jtsalien]

Well It has a 76% like it rating from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. And on most review sites the audience gave it at least a 75% positive rating. So more people liked it then didn't like it. The critics are either liked it or didn't like it. But I don't really listen to critics anymore because most of the time they are wrong.

Look. Nobody is saying you can't like the movie. That's your personal taste. However, what it not a matter of personal taste is whether or not that was a good representation of the character of Superman. It most certainly was not. And that is the completely justifiable reason why people didn't like it. And just like people need to understand that you enjoyed it, you need to accept the fact that they bastardized one of the most beloved characters of all time and that rubbed many people the wrong way.

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

Look. Nobody is saying you can't like the movie. That's your personal taste. However, what it not a matter of personal taste is whether or not that was a good representation of the character of Superman. It most certainly was not. And that is the completely justifiable reason why people didn't like it. And just like people need to understand that you enjoyed it, you need to accept the fact that they bastardized one of the most beloved characters of all time and that rubbed many people the wrong way.

Bastardized? How so? Everyone is going to complain no matter what anyways. They don't like Superman this way, they don't like Superman that way. It's goes in circles over and over again.

 

[TylerDurden]

Well It has a 76% like it rating from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. And on most review sites the audience gave it at least a 75% positive rating. So more people liked it then didn't like it. The critics were mixed on it. But I don't really listen to critics anymore because most of the time they are wrong.

Review aggregator sites don't necessarily tell you a movie is good all the time. For one thing, they take the liberty of judging from a review if it is positive or not when really, they can interpret a critic all wrong. Furthermore, when looking at audience ratings, it's not polling audiences who thought it was a movie deserving of a 75% score, its saying that 75% out of the people polled tolerated the film. First off, when going to review a film you're more likely to rate it positive than negative; if you have no interest in the film you won't bother with it. More importantly, that 75% of people may have only thought it was decent or ok, but they still count as positive reviews which goes toward the large 75% number. That percentage really doesn't always accurately gauge how good a movie is--sometimes its just how many people didn't hate it. 'Aliens' has a 100% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's not the best movie ever by any stretch. It just didn't have enough complaints to warrant negative write-ups.

And of course, what jtsalien said

 

[jtsalien]

Bastardized? How so? Everyone is going to complain no matter what anyways. They don't like Superman this way, they don't like Superman that way. It's goes in circles over and over again.

It's been explained at least 5 times in this thread. If you don't get it now, you never will. To put it as absolutely as simply as possible: Superman films are suppose to be happy movies where Superman saves people.

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

Review aggregator sites don't necessarily tell you a movie is good all the time. For one thing, they take the liberty of judging from a review if it is positive or not when really, they can interpret a critic all wrong. Furthermore, when looking at audience ratings, it's not polling audiences who thought it was a movie deserving of a 75% score, its saying that 75% out of the people polled tolerated the film. First off, when going to review a film you're more likely to rate it positive than negative; if you have no interest in the film you won't bother with it. More importantly, that 75% of people may have only thought it was decent or ok, but they still count as positive reviews which goes toward the large 75% number. That percentage really doesn't always accurately gauge how good a movie is--sometimes its just how many people didn't hate it. 'Aliens' has a 100% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's not the best movie ever by any stretch. It just didn't have enough complaints to warrant negative write-ups.

And of course, what jtsalien said

Then why do you guys comment on this particular thread? To just bash Man Of Steel? And the future movie? Everyone has their own opinion and are aloud to disagree and what not but what's the point? Why even comment on this particular thread if your going to just bash the film or future endeavors? Just like when people say on here to me, "we get it you like the movie/or ride", "well I get it you didn't like the movie/or ride". And what about The New 52 comics of Superman? The more grittier comics?

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

It's been explained at least 5 times in this thread. If you don't get it now, you never will. To put it as absolutely as simply as possible: Superman films are suppose to be happy movies where Superman saves people.

Well, who are you to say what a Superman film is? This isn't the last or most meaningful Superman film. Could it just be that this is a darker interpretation of the character and people like you, who are familiar with the comics/older movies, just don't like this version of Superman? I mean, this is a comic based film. I don't know much about comics but I do know that there are thousands of different versions of all the iconic characters. I mean, how many times has Spider-Man died in all the comic book universes? In the Joker comic by Brian Azzarello, all the characters are very dark...Joker rapes someone and Harley is a stripper.

I think it's fair to say that YOU, the Superman faithful don't like this new version of Man of Steel but I don't think you can say these characters are supposed to be a certain way. Like I've said before, I think the darker tones work better with some characters (Batman) and don't work with other characters (Spider-Man), and it could be that some people, like myself, like this darker Superman but not everyone does and not everyone has to.

 

[TylerDurden]

Then why do you guys comment on this particular thread? To just bash Man Of Steel? And the future movie? Everyone has their own opinion and are aloud to disagree and what not but what's the point? Why even comment on this particular thread if your going to just bash the film or future endeavors? Just like when people say on here to me, "we get it you like the movie/or ride", "well I get it you didn't like the movie/or ride". And what about The New 52 comics of Superman? The more grittier comics?

:look: Relax dude...it's just a discussion. I've never bashed anything, I've stated my opinions, as have you and everyone else. Nobody says you're wrong for liking the movie...what we've done is stated what we thought was wrong with it and how it will bode for this new Batman vs Superman film. As a matter of fact, the post you quoted of mine is simply an explanation of why Rotten Tomatoes isn't a great source to show how good a film is, would you consider me using 'Aliens' as an example bashing on that movie too? You're not meant to take it personally or take any offense to it, but I'm sorry if you have. I just don't think anybody realized talking about our own opinions of the movie would become this big of a deal.....

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

:look: Relax dude...it's just a discussion. I've never bashed anything, I've stated my opinions, as have you and everyone else. Nobody says you're wrong for liking the movie...what we've done is stated what we thought was wrong with it and how it will bode for this new Batman vs Superman film. As a matter of fact, the post you quoted of mine is simply an explanation of why Rotten Tomatoes isn't a great source to show how good a film is, would you consider me using 'Aliens' as an example bashing on that movie too? You're not meant to take it personally or take any offense to it, but I'm sorry if you have. I just don't think anybody realized talking about our own opinions of the movie would become this big of a deal.....

What? I'm not offended.

 

[jtsalien]

Well, who are you to say what a Superman film is? This isn't the last or most meaningful Superman film. Could it just be that this is a darker interpretation of the character and people like you, who are familiar with the comics/older movies, just don't like this version of Superman? I mean, this is a comic based film. I don't know much about comics but I do know that there are thousands of different versions of all the iconic characters. I mean, how many times has Spider-Man died in all the comic book universes? In the Joker comic by Brian Azzarello, all the characters are very dark...Joker rapes someone and Harley is a stripper.

I think it's fair to say that YOU, the Superman faithful don't like this new version of Man of Steel but I don't think you can say these characters are supposed to be a certain way. Like I've said before, I think the darker tones work better with some characters (Batman) and don't work with other characters (Spider-Man), and it could be that some people, like myself, like this darker Superman but not everyone does and not everyone has to.

Because over the years of his history, not until very recently has anyone tried to make such a dark Superman. Was he always a Boy Scout? No. But they tried to make him another Batman, and that is something the character is just not. And there aren't thousands of Supermans. There are always common threads that make him Superman at his core. Except in MoS. Where they decided to make him Batman, except a Batman that kills someone.

In DC, outside of Batman, you've basically got a lineup of superhuman gods. That right there, is why the Dark Knight series works. Batman is far and away the only DC character that translates well to a "real" world. In Man of Steel you're taking a character who is a parallel to Jesus and trying to make it "gritty". It just doesn't have the same effect as Batman, because it's too much of a stretch.

Again, I don't know why it keeps being brought up what you like. I'm happy you liked the film! That's fantastic. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the representation of the character, and certainly doesn't make it a good one.

 

[TylerDurden]

^^^,^^^^^,^^^^^^^!

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

Because over the years of his history, not until very recently has anyone tried to make such a dark Superman. Was he always a Boy Scout? No. But they tried to make him another Batman, and that is something the character is just not. And there aren't thousands of Supermans. There are always common threads that make him Superman at his core. Except in MoS. Where they decided to make him Batman, except a Batman that kills someone.

Just because no one has ever made a darker Superman doesn't mean they can't. Personally, I would rather someone take a risk with changing a character than giving me the same thing. Also, you guys gotta get over that kills someone thing I get that that is a big deal for you guys, but...

And ok, maybe not thousands of Superman adaptations, but maybe that's why they did this. He was ready for a 2013 refresh. What if they made a gay Spider-Man or a black Human Torch (rumors are, they are), is that a problem, too? Would you guys keep going on and on that Spider-Man loves Mary Jane, not Mark Jane? Or that Johnny Storm is not adopted? These are characters that should be open to flexibility and most importantly catering to the current audience. People like dark superheroes now. I get that you probably want your comic book characters to stay "true" to the original. Problem is, people like me, who don't give a crap about the characters staying "true", also pay money to see these films and since Hollywood is giving me nothing besides comic book reboots every 5 years, at least do me a favor and change the characters a bit.

Again, I don't know why it keeps being brought up what you like. I'm happy you liked the film! That's fantastic. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the representation of the character, and certainly doesn't make it a good one.

Check my posts, please. I have not been repeating that I love the film. In all honestly, I thought it was so-so. I didn't hate it but I thought it was massively long. It was the only comic book based film I liked this year, but what were my choices?

You hit the nail on the head by saying "not everyone has to agree with the representation of the character", that is my point. That's exactly what my post was saying. This darker Superman is a 2013 representation of a stale character. If you don't like it, don't see the movies that have characters that aren't painted with the brush that you prefer. If the majority of the world are like you, this Superman/Batman film will fail and Hollywood might not risk changing iconic characters anymore.

TLDR; Just because the Superman in this series of films doesn't match what you think the character should be really doesn't matter. This is a new, modern version to satisfy new, modern audiences. Hell, I think vampires die in the sun, but that doesn't make Twilight unpopular. Twilight is god-awful, for me, but boy, do a bunch of younger people disagree.

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

Because over the years of his history, not until very recently has anyone tried to make such a dark Superman. Was he always a Boy Scout? No. But they tried to make him another Batman, and that is something the character is just not. And there aren't thousands of Supermans. There are always common threads that make him Superman at his core. Except in MoS. Where they decided to make him Batman, except a Batman that kills someone.

In DC, outside of Batman, you've basically got a lineup of superhuman gods. That right there, is why the Dark Knight series works. Batman is far and away the only DC character that translates well to a "real" world. In Man of Steel you're taking a character who is a parallel to Jesus and trying to make it "gritty". It just doesn't have the same effect as Batman, because it's too much of a stretch.

Again, I don't know why it keeps being brought up what you like. I'm happy you liked the film! That's fantastic. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the representation of the character, and certainly doesn't make it a good one.

He had to kill General Zod. What else was he supposed to do? Let him kill the innocent people? Or maybe even more innocent lives? Superman killed General Zod in Superman 2. I believe even in the animated series there's instances of that. Superman only kills when he absolutely has to.

 

[jtsalien]

Just because no one has ever made a darker Superman doesn't mean they can't. Personally, I would rather someone take a risk with changing a character than giving me the same thing. Also, you guys gotta get over that kills someone thing I get that that is a big deal for you guys, but...

And ok, maybe not thousands of Superman adaptations, but maybe that's why they did this. He was ready for a 2013 refresh. What if they made a gay Spider-Man or a black Human Torch (rumors are, they are), is that a problem, too? Would you guys keep going on and on that Spider-Man loves Mary Jane, not Mark Jane? Or that Johnny Storm is not adopted? These are characters that should be open to flexibility and most importantly catering to the current audience. People like dark superheroes now. I get that you probably want your comic book characters to stay "true" to the original. Problem is, people like me, who don't give a crap about the characters staying "true", also pay money to see these films and since Hollywood is giving me nothing besides comic book reboots every 5 years, at least do me a favor and change the characters a bit.

Check my posts, please. I have not been repeating that I love the film. In all honestly, I thought it was so-so. I didn't hate it but I thought it was massively long. It was the only comic book based film I liked this year, but what were my choices?

You hit the nail on the head by saying "not everyone has to agree with the representation of the character", that is my point. That's exactly what my post was saying. This darker Superman is a 2013 representation of a stale character. If you don't like it, don't see the movies that have characters that aren't painted with the brush that you prefer. If the majority of the world are like you, this Superman/Batman film will fail and Hollywood might not risk changing iconic characters anymore.

TLDR; Just because the Superman in this series of films doesn't match what you think the character should be really doesn't matter. This is a new, modern version to satisfy new, modern audiences. Hell, I think vampires die in the sun, but that doesn't make Twilight unpopular. Twilight is god-awful, for me, but boy, do a bunch of younger people disagree.

Personally, for me risk tasking for me doesn't excuse a drawn-out, melodramatic piece of crap

I'm not going to touch that trap of a second paragraph. Totally not the point at hand here.

Check my posts, please. I have not been repeating that you love the film.

Except Superman has decades of history that make him Superman. There are extensive references to his history and character identity. I can make a movie where someone with "S" on his chest flies around and destroys a city, knocks up a female reporter who he raped, and strangles a few mobsters to death, but calling him Superman won't make it a Superman movie. Superman is a tangible thing. He's definable. There's certain things that have to be there to make him Superman.

And that's great for those young people. But as I'm sure you won't object, popularity does not mean quality.

They can change Superman. I don't need to see a reshoot of the classic Superman films to think they did him justice. Wanna change him? Change the stupid stuff. Like how glasses make him Clark Kent. Or strip away some of the ridiculous powers he picked up over the years. Make him struggle with who is he. That's all perfectly fine with me. However, don't forget to make him a hero. And hero goes beyond just killing the bad guy. Don't forget to make him Superman.

EDIT: Also, I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "good" here. Good is not being used in the sense of whether you enjoy something. The quality of the execution is irrelevant even. It's just whether or not you get a Superman character out of the film, and in my opinion, you don't here. That in itself doesn't diminish the quality of the movie or doesn't mean people can't like it.

I've seen it perfectly stated elsewhere, where they observed it's just almost as if WB regretted having to make a Superman movie. Like, "We know guys. This is terrible. So we're just gonna make the best of it and push through it. We're so sorry."

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

Personally, for me risk tasking for me doesn't excuse a drawn-out, melodramatic piece of crap

I'm not going to touch that trap of a second paragraph. Totally not the point at hand here.

Check my posts, please. I have not been repeating that you love the film.

Except Superman has decades of history that make him Superman. There are extensive references to his history and character identity. I can make a movie where someone with "S" on his chest flies around and destroys a city, knocks up a female reporter who he raped, and strangles a few mobsters to death, but calling him Superman won't make it a Superman movie. Superman is a tangible thing. He's definable. There's certain things that have to be there to make him Superman.

And that's great for those young people. But as I'm sure you won't object, popularity does not mean quality.

They can change Superman. I don't need to see a reshoot of the classic Superman films to think they did him justice. Wanna change him? Change the stupid stuff. Like how glasses make him Clark Kent. Or strip away some of the ridiculous powers he picked up over the years. Make him struggle with who is he. That's all perfectly fine with me. However, don't forget to make him a hero. And hero goes beyond just killing the bad guy. Don't forget to make him Superman.

I thought the 2nd paragraph really helped illustrate our differences. My only problem was you trying to say what Superman is, no offense, but I don't think you have that power. Characters change all the time. No, popularity does not equal quality and that's not the issue I was debating. I was purely talking about taking an iconic character like Spider-Man and turning him gay, taking the Human Torch and making him black and taking Superman and making him darker and someone who *gasps* kills a bad guy. Audiences change, characters change.

A lot of you are getting up in arms about THIS Superman. Do you think this is going to be the last one?! That's like people of today complaining about Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Those were films of their time. Man of Steel is a movie of this time. If you want your Superman, there are other films from the past to choose from. I'm also positive that in a few years they will reboot Superman and maybe that version you will like more.

Again, not saying that you cannot dislike his movie because it's not what you believe Superman to be. That's fine. Hell, I'm not a cheerleader for this movie. I just like to see characters change. I might not like the changes, in that case I won't see the movie, but I'm not going to say that because Bane doesn't wear a Mexican wrestlers mask that The Dark Knight Rises isn't a Batman film. It's a Batman film for the audience of 2012, with a director that had a dark and realistic vision. I don't think you can be "wrong" when it comes to film, I think it's being different and that difference is not something that everyone has to like.

 

[TylerDurden]

Just because no one has ever made a darker Superman doesn't mean they can't. Personally, I would rather someone take a risk with changing a character than giving me the same thing. Also, you guys gotta get over that kills someone thing I get that that is a big deal for you guys, but...

And ok, maybe not thousands of Superman adaptations, but maybe that's why they did this. He was ready for a 2013 refresh. What if they made a gay Spider-Man or a black Human Torch (rumors are, they are), is that a problem, too? Would you guys keep going on and on that Spider-Man loves Mary Jane, not Mark Jane? Or that Johnny Storm is not adopted? These are characters that should be open to flexibility and most importantly catering to the current audience. People like dark superheroes now. I get that you probably want your comic book characters to stay "true" to the original. Problem is, people like me, who don't give a crap about the characters staying "true", also pay money to see these films and since Hollywood is giving me nothing besides comic book reboots every 5 years, at least do me a favor and change the characters a bit.



Check my posts, please. I have not been repeating that I love the film. In all honestly, I thought it was so-so. I didn't hate it but I thought it was massively long. It was the only comic book based film I liked this year, but what were my choices?

You hit the nail on the head by saying "not everyone has to agree with the representation of the character", that is my point. That's exactly what my post was saying. This darker Superman is a 2013 representation of a stale character. If you don't like it, don't see the movies that have characters that aren't painted with the brush that you prefer. If the majority of the world are like you, this Superman/Batman film will fail and Hollywood might not risk changing iconic characters anymore.

TLDR; Just because the Superman in this series of films doesn't match what you think the character should be really doesn't matter. This is a new, modern version to satisfy new, modern audiences. Hell, I think vampires die in the sun, but that doesn't make Twilight unpopular. Twilight is god-awful, for me, but boy, do a bunch of younger people disagree.

I'll take a stab at your second paragraph there...

What youre talking about is changing a characters physical characteristics. Superman is more than a big guy with black hair and a cape--he is an icon. He stands for hope, peace, etc. Spider-Man doesnt stand for heterosexuality and the Human Torch doesnt stand for white supremacy; therefore making Spider-Man a homosexual or the Human Torch African-American does nothing to affect the characters or what people have come to love about them. However, turning Superman, a superhero who is NOT realistic, who is NOT supposed to be troubled, into a dark and gritty character betrays what the character traditionally stands for. People dont identify with Spider-Man because of his sexuality nor do they identify with Human Torch because of his race--the same can be said for Superman. People havent made Superman an American icon because hes tall, white, and has dark hair; hes become an icon because people identify with his good nature and plight for peace. With Superman, people could forget about their problems and just put themselves in his shoes. Superman appealed to peoples desire to be invincible and powerful, and targeted the good-nature in everyone. People connected with Superman for those reasons, which is why he has lasted so long. When you take a character that people feel a connection with, and have an emotional attachment to, and completely bastardize what made them fall in love with him in the first place, those people are going to have a reaction.

It wasnt about taking risks and shaping Superman to modern times--I think everyone welcomes change and ambition, especially in film, which has become an increasingly stale business. But the problem was that 'Man of Steel' didnt adapt or take risk--instead, it mistook those things for a complete role reversal which betrays what people have come to love about Superman. The producers of 'Man of Steel' didnt change anything physical about Superman like race or personal about Superman like sexuality--they changed everything that people connected with. And when people have spent the last few decades using Superman to escape their problems and save the world, its going to create negativity when all that is taken away in exchange for conflict and darkness...especially when these things are added haphazardly, carelessly, and in an attempt to cash in on other unrelated successes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Superman just automatically being the never wavering good guy undermines any notion of character development. That was always the big hurdle with the character. Even if we hold on to the Jesus as God parallel, Man of Steel works as the stories that have come out of the millennia to fill in the gap between Jesus being 12 and 30 in the Gospels. It's that time of discovery, understanding and coping that gives a more relatable, human dimension. There is nothing engaging about Clark Kent just waking up one morning and deciding to be Superman without a single conflict or regret. There is no challenge (plot)if he cannot possibly fail in some way. That is the persistent allure of the Batman-Superman conflict, Bruce Wayne's ability to battle with a god.

 

[jtsalien]

It's not to say that Superman can't be redeemed in B/S. Because really, the reason he became so warped as a character is Pa Kent. He's what gives Clark his moral compass. It's his wishy-washy morality that really changes the character. They didn't wanna take the tough road and make Pa stand up for what's right. It's his "maybe, I don't know..." attitude that epitomizes what pushed the film of course for so many people. Is his unwillingness to stick his neck out more reflective of today's society? Honestly probably. Is a poor father figure more realistic in today's society? Yeah you could make an argument for that. However, if that's the film you want to make, then why bother using Superman? There are plenty of characters that come from fractured homes in comics. Yeah, I know technically Superman's whole freaking planet blew up. But it was his strong upbringing with the Kent's that made him different and made him Superman.

The film takes for granted that you root for Superman. There's no moment of incarnation with the public, so to speak. No massive heroic feat to make you care about him as a character. They just put him in the suit and go, "Well, you know who it is. Here ya go." In MoS he's not an American, or for that matter even Earth, hero. He's just a alien destroying a city while he battles more aliens.

It's quite possible that we'll see a heroic Superman in B/S. And really for the dynamic between the two of them to work, we sort of have to. It's just unfortunate that we have to even wonder. There was a lot of good in MoS. The action was actually pretty great, tone aside it had great art direction, and I think it was cast pretty well. It was just obvious that WB didn't want to make a Superman movie. They just wanted another Dark Knight series. Hopefully they blow us away with the second one here too. We'll see.

 

[Drew]

So Ben Affleck is playing Batman. Confirmed.

BURBANK, CA, August 22, 2013 – Ending weeks of speculation, Ben Affleck has been set to star as Batman, a.k.a. Bruce Wayne. Affleck and filmmaker Zack Snyder will create an entirely new incarnation of the character in Snyder’s as-yet-untitled project—bringing Batman and Superman together for the first time on the big screen and continuing the director’s vision of their universe, which he established in “Man of Steel.” The announcement was made today by Greg Silverman, President, Creative Development and Worldwide Production, and Sue Kroll, President, Worldwide Marketing andInternational Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures.

The studio has slated the film to open worldwide on July 17, 2015.

Last month’s surprise announcement of the new movie featuring both Superman and Batman created a wave of excitement and immediately fueled discussion and debate—among fans as well as in the media—about who would put on the cape and cowl of Bruce Wayne’s alter ego.

Snyder successfully re-imagined the origin of Clark Kent/Superman in the worldwide blockbuster “Man of Steel,” which has earned more than $650 million worldwide to date, and climbing. The director will now create an original vision of Batman and his world for the film that brings the two DC Comics icons together.

Affleck will star opposite Henry Cavill, who will reprise the role of Superman/Clark Kent. The film will also reunite “Man of Steel” stars Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane.

In the announcement, Silverman stated, “We knew we needed an extraordinary actor to take on one of DC Comics’ most enduringly popular Super Heroes, and Ben Affleck certainly fits that bill, and then some. His outstanding career is a testament to his talent and we know he and Zack will bring new dimension to the duality of this character.”

Snyder also expressed his excitement about the casting of Affleck, noting, “Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry’s Superman. He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne. I can’t wait to work with him.”

Kroll added, “We are so thrilled that Ben is continuing Warner Bros.’ remarkable legacy with the character of Batman. He is a tremendously gifted actor who will make this role his own in this already much-anticipated pairing of these two beloved heroes.”

Affleck recently starred in the Academy Award®-winning Best Picture “Argo,” which he also directed and produced, earning acclaim and a BAFTA Award nomination for his performance in the film, as well as a number of directing honors. In 2010, he starred in and directed the hit crime thriller “The Town.” His recent acting work also includes “The Company Men,” “State of Play,” and “Hollywoodland,” for which he received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor. Earlier in his career, Affleck starred in and co-wrote (with Matt Damon) “Good Will Hunting,” for which he won an Oscar® for Best Original Screenplay.

The new Super Hero film is being scripted by David S. Goyer from a story he co-created with Zack Snyder. Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder are producing, with Benjamin Melniker, Michael E. Uslan and Wesley Coller serving as executive producers. Production is expected to begin in 2014.

The film is based on Superman characters created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster, and Batman characters created by Bob Kane, published by DC Entertainment.

I'm fine with this choice. Wish he was directing too...