BatfleckFollow

Me? I think it really depends on the material. I'm thinking since this is the followup to Man of Steel, it's going to be Superman focused with BVatman as the "bad" guy (until the "misunderstanding" is cleared up & they team up to take down the real bad guy). I think Ben can do it, he's got the chops, I just don't think Snyder can do justice to The Dark Knight Returns if he makes it Superman-centric & drops, ya know, the whole point of TDKR - An older Batman returns to fight crime 10 years after crime fighting was made illegal (except for Superman, who's Reagan's lapdog), his villains also return (essentially because he does), setting up a "final" fight between Batman & Superman after Bats wraps up his final confrontation with the Joker.

I don't think she'd fit that thing in that tight suit.

This.

Anyway, I hope this Batman is closer to the World's Greatest Detective than Bale's was.

Daredevil

Problem for me is I don't like Affleck as an actor per se. As a director he shines but before the camera... Meh.

I'd rather watch Keaton again than a crapfest like the last movie. At least Keaton was entertaining and the movie fun to watch.

Supposedly the Daredevil Director's Cut is a halfway OK movie. I haven't seen it for myself, but that's what I've been told.

I don't mind Elektra. I mind the way they wrote Elektra.

And yeah, at no point did Kingpin strike me as someone who could rule all the organized crime in the city. Big muscles is not a big brain. I haven't seen enough of Farrel to rule on him, but that was a terrible performance. But how many lines did he even have? It was pathetic. He only existed as a mechanism to get Daredevil to the Kingpin, and it showed. Painfully.

The movie had some scenes that were fine. But they were typically ruined by cinematography and editing that just weren't quite good enough. The cafe scene, for instance. That was a good scene, from a writing perspective. But it just wasn't well edited or shot. Well, scratch out the horrible "I smell perfume" bit. The rest was good.

But writing? It does a lot to establish his character - quietly playful - it shows his tactical ability. The mustard bit promises some comedic relief in either outcome. It breaks the awkward "Oh yeah, I'm blind" ice that had to come eventually, and does it quickly, awkwardly, humorously, and then lets it go so we can move on. And both Aflek and Garner's acting was perfectly acceptable for the situation for most of it.

Of course, they followed it with the playground scene that made no sense, established no ones characters, and was all around confusing...

But the rest of the movie? The father/daughter stuff that was shoe-horned in, the random blame-Daredevil stuff, wondering how Kingpin ever actually fits in, the weird flash romance... They were too hesitant to take the long view of things in the movie, and they shouldn't have been. You're already telling his origin through flashbacks. We don't need to see the romance between them blossom. Give us the cafe scene in a flashback, and then flash back to the present, in the future, where you've been investigating her father for months or something.

I don't bother much anymore with films I expect to be more mindless entertainment, so I was happy with them. But given how well Fast and Furious movies seem to be doing, I'm sure I'm not the primary position in that area.

Though I also tend to engage media for the characters and the story. And you generally get richer versions in the drama stuff. I've never been into Superman, because the character didn't interest me. I find it more interesting to watch the directors see how far they can bend the characters before the break than I do to watch them blow stuff up.

But I still like superheroes, so it's win-win for me.

Agreed. I was missing a fun factor in the recent Batman movies (and Superman too.) Batman sneaking up on a guy in the dark may be cool, but it's not fun in the same sort of way as watching Iron Man punching a robot in the face.

Yeah, that's how I feel about it. Daredevil was a horrible movie, but Affleck was hardly to blame for it. I thought he made for a passable Matt Murdock. Kind of like with Reynolds in the Green Lantern movie.

SpoilerI'm okay with changing aspects of a character to fit a movie, since condensing decades of comic book lore into two hours is next to impossible, but even I couldn't get passed the whole "Young Murdock magically turns into a ninja and totally understands everything about what happened to him in an instant" aspect. Would it really have killed them to introduce a short lived Miyagi character during the early life montage? Also the whole circumstance leading up to the accident was horrible. Originally he gets blinded because he's saving an old blind guy, but here it's just a random accident, and then he saves Stan Lee which doesn't really amount to much as far as the story is concerned.

One thing about the movie I did like was how a lot of the named characters were named after Marvel staff, like Romita and Quesada. Just one of those little Easter Egg touches.

Edited, Aug 26th 2013 11:00am by lolgaxe

Past tense. MCD died in 2012.

Edit: Also, you should watch The Green Mile.

Edited, Aug 27th 2013 1:58pm by Mazra

Seen it {the books were better), still don't think he was very good in it. He was more Kingpin like in The Slammin' Salmon than he was in Daredevil.