Opinion: Why Ben Affleck is not a good representation of Batman
Ever since Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice came out, I've seen a lot DCEU fans promote Ben Affleck Batman, also known as Batfleck, as a "comic accurate" Batman in terms of characterisation by saying that he is based on The Dark Knight Returns Batman, even going as claiming that Batman killed people in The Dark Knight Returns just to defend the concept of Batfleck being a killer, but I am not convinced by any of this. Batfleck is a very cheap imitation of the Batman that is depicted in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which I will abbreviate as TDKR.
Batman never killed anyone in The Dark Knight Returns. Granted, he did use a gun at some point to shoot a mutant, and also caused another mutant to be electrified, but there's no proof that any of them were killed, it's perfectly plausible that they survived. If they had been killed, I think it would've been brought up, but it wasn't. Batman was pretty brutal towards the mutant gang members, but he never killed any of them. He even used rubber bulllets against the mutant gang army, and the mutant leader even mocks Batman for using rubber bullets. When Batman has the chance to use his batmobile to kill the Mutant Leader, he refuses to do it, saying "And there's only one thing to do about him that makes any sense to me -- just press the trigger and blast him from the face of the Earth. Though that means crossing a line I drew for myself thirty years ago... I can't think of a single reason to let him live" in his internal thoughts. He even refuses to finish off the Joker in their final confrontation, and Joker finally snaps his own neck to frame Batman (no it was not a hallucination), and this was the same Joker whose own henchmen killed Jason Todd in the same Millerverse. The reason why Batman was brutal to the mutant gang members was because crime and corruption in Gotham had ramped up to a level that Batman had to make himself scarier. The reason why he even fights Superman is because the US Goverment forced Superman to fight him.
Batfleck in stark contrast, branded criminals with the bat insignia, leading to them being killed in prison, and doesn't give a shit about it. He also brutally killed a lot of thugs and mercenaries working for Lex Luthor, but hasn't killed the Joker for some unexplained reasons. He still killed people even after his character arc had been concluded (the infamous Martha scene). Zack Snyder's explanation for why Batfleck was a killer was that he thought Batman killed people in TDKR, but this is blatantly false. Snyder even claimed the concept of Batman being a killer originated from the Tim Burton Batman movies... The same movies where Batman uses dynamite to blow up a thug, even smiling about it... So yeah, Snyder is a massive dunce. And let's not forget the time Batfleck said "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race and if we believe there is even a one percent chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.... And we have to destroy him” i.e. Batfleck admits that he has no real evidence that Superman is a bad guy, and still wants him dead.
I've also seen a lot of DCEU fans argue that the reason why Batfleck is a killer is that he used to have a moral code, but DCEU Dick Grayon's death made him feel like his moral code was useless, but I don't recall this being brought up on screen. But even from a "comic accuracy" standpoint, this is inaccurate because Batman didn't become a killer after Jason Todd died in A Death in the Family. He does try to kill the Joker, but fails due to Joker's miraculous plot armour and diplomatic immunity, and he only expresses lethal intent against Joker. He does become self destructive in the following story, A Lonely Place of Dying, in that he becomes more moody and reckless, throwing away his usual strategic methods and just blindly bullrushing his adversaries, but he doesn't become a killer there either.
I do like Ben Affleck as Batman, but not because of "comic accuracy" as many people argue he is. The only things about him that are actually good are Ben Affleck's performance, his batsuit, and the choreography in his fight scenes. The way his character is written is really crap. All of the live action Batman has their fair share of inaccuracies to be honest. Christian Bale is the only live action Bruce Wayne/Batman that I'd say is great, but he does have some inaccuracies. Michael Keaton isn't very accurate as Bruce Wayne, but that's mainly because his Bruce Wayne lacks psychological depth. Bruce Wayne is a very psychologically complex character, and Keaton lacks psychological depth. Keaton isn't a bad Batman though, but I honestly think he's like Golden Age Batman in terms of characterisation and behaviour because he doesn't have any qualms about killing, and when he does kill, he does it in a cartoonish and comedic fashion. He's also pretty distant with the GCPD, we see very little of his relationship with Jim Gordon, which does remind me of how Batman barely worked with the GCPD in his first several comic appearances. Christian Bale's Batman wasn't completely accurate, but I'd still say he that he was the closest to his comic book counterpart.
This is just my opinion of course. This isn't to say that anyone is wrong for liking Batfleck. Films are art. Art is subjective. But arguments require evidence and logic, and the arguments used to promote Batfleck as a "comic accurate" Batman in terms of characterisation are too inadequate.
Re: Opinion: Why Ben Affleck is not a good representation of Batman
Nice post. I agree with this part in particular.
I think his fight scenes in particular was probably the main draw, and then people tried to justify the rest.
The choreography really show cased his skill on a level that we haven't seen at all from any live-action film, and was a move in the right direction. I think it still hasn't reached "comic accuracy", but that I think will be difficult to do in a live action.
I've commented on this elsewhere, but I also think Batfleck's physique felt a little too bloated. Could be a little slimmer and agile-looking.
Re: Re: Opinion: Why Ben Affleck is not a good representation of Batman
Thanks. And yeah, I agree that even Batfleck's fighting style wasn't "comic accurate" either. He is far too reliant on brute strength and at one moment, he literally just punches a thug repeatedly, like a madman, and gets shot in the cowl.
I absolutely agree.
No, that's not everything. There are other aspects too i.e. writing and characterization, which sucked and I explained why I think they sucks.
Batfleck is far more badass than any Batman. You just look at the guy coming and think yeah this guy can take anyone. And then you see him in action.
Batman is a character defined by the fear he inspires. The most dangerous man on the planet, and he made sure everyone knew it. And even gods who failed to acknowledge it, he made them regret it
Keaton was too goofy. The smoke and mirrors Baleman who regularly got smacked around by ordinary goons in very small numbers made a terrible impreesion of the character. Him having his no kill rule didn't do anything when he was a weakling, and way before Batman had his no kill rule he still was someone nobody dared to cross. Not Balemook
Why hasn't he killed the Joker? For the same reason anyone trying to kill any incarnation of Joker fails. TvTropes called it Joker Immunity
__________________
Thanks for the sig Scot-and for the help with my avatar
When someone annoys you, it takes 42 muscles to frown but only 4 to reach out and bchslap them upside down on their head
No, I absolutely do not think that Batfleck can take anyone. I won't deny that he has better feats than Baleman, I even acknowledged Batfleck's fight scenes and choreography as one of his redeeming qualities, but it's not even to make up for how much of a badly written character he is, as well as Snyder's poor explanation for why he is a killer. I was critizing the way his character was written, not the way he fought.
Yeah, one of Batman's core character traits is that he is a symbol of fear; a creature of the night. But it isn't because he is a sadistic edgelord (which he isn't, except in stories like All Star Batman and Robin which are terrible anyway). Part of what makes Batman terrifying in the eyes of his enemies is that he is calculating and methodical. He's also an enigma because people don't know if he is human or not (at least early on his career). Batfleck is intimidating for the wrong reasons. When Bruce got his back broken by Bane in Knightfall, Jean Paul Valley temporarily took on the mantle of Batman, but his methods were much more violent and rough because he brutalised criminals, which Tim Drake absolutely hated because it wasn't the kind of fear that Bruce used because it was too ruthless and brutal. Batfleck is even more violent than Jean was in Knightfall, because Jean refused to kill Bane even when Bane asked him to at the end of the Knightfall story arc. Batfleck is intimidating because he's a sadistic edgelord who brutally kills people, and his reasons for wanting Superman dead are absolutely retarded because he admits that he has no real evidence that Superman is a bad guy, and still wants him dead because of that 1% chance he might become a bad guy one day.
Baleman never regularly got smacked around by average goons in very small numbers. He never got smacked around when he fought at least 12 of Falcone's goons in his first full appearance in Begins. He never got smacked around by any of Scarecrow's goons in Begins. He never got smacked around by thugs or of Bane's mercenaries in TDKR. The only times he really struggled with goons was when he fought Joker's goons in the penthouse, and when he got tagged by Marone's goons in the nightclub (which he still shrugged off anyway). The latter happened when Baleman was fighting in a confined space that restricted his movements, and the former is the only legitimate low showing, which isn't really consistent with his other showings in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises. And no, Baleman wasn't a weakling at all. In Batman Begins, there's a lot of choppy editing and shaky cam in the fight choreography, which got criticised a lot because they could barely see what was happening in the fight scenes. Nolan's explanation for the use of choppy editing and shaky cam was that he wanted to convey Baleman as "blindingly quick" and "animal like" from the perspective from Falcone's goons i.e. that he's literally a blur. Keep in mind that Baleman achieved all of this whilst wearing a heavy body armour that slows him down and restricts his movements in that it doesn't allow him to turn his neck independently of his body, which is something that no real life human would be able to acheive. Moreover, Baleman achieved this whilst fighting and being surrounded by at least 12 goons, and he incapacitates them all 21 seconds. So no, he's not a weakling. He might not be as good as Batfleck, but that doesn't make him a weakling.
Yes, but there are in-universe reasons too that make sense, which is that Batman wants to kill Joker, but refuses because he's worried that he won't be able to stop killing if he kills the Joker (Under the Red Hood). And every time he has tried to kill the Joker in Post Crisis, it failed, either because the Joker recieved diplomatic immunity (A Death in the Family) and that Jim Gordon doesn't approve of Batman killing criminals (Batman: Hush). The DCEU doesn't even try to explain why the Joker is still alive despite Batfleck being a killer, so it's just really contrived. Not to mention, comics are a different medium than movies; comics can go on forever and are far more heightened, hence why comic book characters generally don't get killed off (at least not permanently). Movies don't. The DCEU has even done this by killing off Dick Grayson off screen. Dick Grayson lasted a long time in the comics, Dan Didio's obsession to kill him off aside.
Baleman:
-Better character arc - He was boring across all 3 movies but sure.
-Better at steath - Nah. Affleck had some cool in the shadows scenes.
- More believable as a vigilante - In that he got his ass kicked a lot, sure.
-Wealth is a disadvantage - K
Batfleck
-Better physique - definitely.
-Better at intimidation - Yeah.
- More believable as a superhero - Definitely.
-Wealth is an advantage - It’s his superpower so yeah.
Both have great gadgets and great Alfreds - I think Affleck takes gadgets pretty easily. Michael Caine was way better. Jeremy Irons didn’t have much to do.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 24th, 2020 05:51 PM
