The First Teaser Trailer for Divergent is Here!
The Next Batman is Ben Affleck
Warner Bros. announced today that Ben Affleck will be the next man to wear the Batman cowl. Affleck is set to star in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel sequel, tentatively known as Batman vs. Superman.
“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," said Snyder.
It seems like only yesterday that the announcement was made that not only would Man Of Steel 2 be out in time to compete with Avengers: Age of Ultron for the Summer 2015 blockbuster season, but that it would be much more than just a Superman film.The bombshell that the next Superman movie would feature the first live-action meeting between the Man of Steel and the Dark Knight nearly drove fans insane, and the internet (including us...boy, were we wrong!) has been abuzz with casting rumors and speculation ever since. But nobody would have called this one.
Affleck fits the mold of the older, more experienced Batman that Warner Bros. had been hinting at, especially considering their citing of the Dark Knight Returns comics as inspiration. Of course, this isn't Affleck's first brush with the comic book world. Fans may remember him as Matt Murdock in Daredevil, he portrayed Superman actor George Reeves in Hollywoodland, at one point his name was connected with the director's chair for the Justice League film, and Argo, the multi-Oscar winning film which Affleck directed, co-produced, and starred in, was based on a true story which involved art created by King of Comics, Jack Kirby.
Man of Steel 2 (or is it Batman vs. Superman?), is slated for worldwide release on July 17, 2015.
What are your thoughts on Ben Affleck as Batman? Better choice than Orlando Bloom at least, right? Sound off below in the comments!
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
Twitter Reacts to Ben Affleck as Batman
Want to mess with a Marvel fan's head right now? Tell 'em Ben Affleck is gonna be the voice for Rocket Raccoon.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 23, 2013
For those wondering why Ben Affleck would agree to be in this movie, I have the answer. my 10-year-old just asked: who's Ben Affleck?
— BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS (@BRIANMBENDIS) August 23, 2013
Sorry I'm pro-Ben RT @tylerkingkade if elected, will you stop Ben Affleck from playing Batman?
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) August 23, 2013
Ben Affleck would be an awesome guy standing off to the side while Batman whooshes by.
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) August 23, 2013
"You like apples, Riddl-ah?" You can totally use that one, @BenAffleck.
— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) August 23, 2013
You read for a part, you feel good about it, you feel confident, then they cast Ben Affleck.
— Richard Dreyfuss (@RichardDreyfuss) August 23, 2013
. @BenAffleck's Batcave has an Academy Award on the mantle. What's yours got? Right, some plastic crap you bought at Toys R Us.
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 23, 2013
Ben Affleck officially cast as Batman in the Man of Steel sequel. For the first time in history, I kind of want Superman to win.
— The Batman (@TheBatman) August 23, 2013
.@Mark_Wescott53@MetropolisIL Willing to give him a chance. Thought his Daredevil was a shade low key, but I laid that on the director!
— Jim Steranko (@iamsteranko) August 23, 2013
Holy shit... BEN AFFLECK IS THE NEW BATMAN!!! http://t.co/acivqxFl0U Do you know what this means? It means that I've seen Batman naked!!!
— KevinSmith (@ThatKevinSmith) August 23, 2013
Oh, just pipe down. Michael Keaton? Heath Ledger? People were whipped into a frenzy then too.
— NYP Parallel Worlds (@NYPost_PW) August 23, 2013
I wake up from my kid's room to find my feed is now full of people tweeting batman lines in boston accents at me. #whatdimiss?
— Scott Snyder (@Ssnyder1835) August 23, 2013
I don't know how the rumor got started, but I am not playing Robin.
— Jon Favreau (@Jon_Favreau) August 23, 2013
Ben Affleck is Batman: Den of Geek Staff Reactions
Sometimes, even the internet can surprise you, and that's just what happened with the announcement that Ben Affleck, former Daredevil, almost-Superman (see: Hollywoodland), current Oscar winner and critical darling, would be donning the cape and cowl to take on the Man of Steel in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie. While the phrase "broke the internet in half" should probably be put out to pasture, this is still one of those moves that is absolutely certain to be divisive among hardcore fans. This news even hit Den of Geek HQ just as hard as anywhere else, so we had to take a moment to collect our thoughts. Unfortunately, you have to read them.
Mike Cecchini: I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but this makes perfect sense. Considering that Batman vs. Superman (certainly, they're going to find us a better title than this between now and 2015) will have big time competition from The Avengers: Age of Ultron and a new Star Wars movie, Warner Bros. needs all the box-office firepower they can muster, and Affleck's name carries more Oscar wins and nominations than ANY of Marvel's big screen superheroes. This is a guy who has come a long way over the last decade, and he certainly understands the stakes (and the paycheck) involved, especially considering what happened the last time he played a superhero. Say what you will about Daredevil, but Affleck's rather sincere performance as Matt Murdock was the absolute least of that film's problems. And really, playing Bruce Wayne isn't exactly King Lear.
Robert Bernstein: Affleck as Batman is definitely an interesting choice, I'll give Warner Bros. that. I can see it going either way, really. Look at how everyone reacted when Heath Ledger was announced as the Joker; there was outrage and complete skepticism, and look how that turned out. I'm not going to write him off so quickly, as he definitely has the acting chops. On the one hand, he has a few gems like Argo, The Town, and Smokin' Aces (loved it), and big box office success capability with Pearl Harbor. But on the other hand, yes--he was in Gigli (let it go, people!). More significantly, though, he ruined Daredevil for a lot of die hard comic book fans. Let's hope he doesn't ruin Batman.
David Crow: I can safely say that nobody really saw this coming. Sure six months ago, after the success of Argo, everyone and their mother (especially the mothers) wanted to see Ben Affleck DIRECT a Justice League/World's Finest/The Wonder Twins and Robin flick...but to STAR in one? As The Batman, no less? It certainly is a unique choice. Understandably, Ben Affleck is the new Hollywood underdog story. Just as Robert Downey Jr. astoundingly rebuilt his image with Iron Man and Tropic Thunder in 2008, Affleck has been on the long road with Gone Baby Gone, The Town and finally Argo; the last one even nabbed Affleck and, more importantly, WB an Oscar for Best Picture.
Indeed, WB's brand as of late seems to be built around three filmmakers: Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, and Ben Affleck. So why is it surprising that they turned to the last untapped one for a new DC film? Still, as intriguing as the decision is from a business and franchise-building standpoint, I can honestly say that it leaves me a little artistically cold. I have seen Ben Affleck give strong performances: Good Will Hunting; Shakespeare in Love; Boiler Room; Dogma; Hollywoodland. But what do they all have in common? He's in a supporting role. So unless they want Affleck to play complete second fiddle to Henry Cavill (doubtful), I wll approach this with a healthy does of caution. Yet, there has to be some optimism in that this makes the second Batman in a row to win an Oscar! Mind you Christian Bale won for acting, as opposed to writing....
Marc Buxton: Affleck can put together a nuanced performance as proven by Hollywoodland (you know, the movie where he kinda played Superman), and he ruled in The Town and Argo,proving that he not only was an amazing director, but he is more than just the scene chewing pretty boy many claim he is. That being said, I would have much rather them go the Henry Cavill route and cast an almost unknown. Unfortunately, anything but a perfect script and directorial job by Zack Snyder will make this Batman just Ben Affleck dressed in a Bat suit. While Affleck certainly has the chops to kick ass as Bruce Wayne, he might be too big a star to hide in the shadows.
Well those are our initial reactions. What of your own? Can you hardly wait to see how Affleck measures up to the storied tradition of this iconic role or do you feel like Jason Lee, in a 1990s mall, having just spotted that guy from Fashionable Male with the love of your life? Leave a comment and let us know.
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
Disqus - noscript
THIS IS RIDICULOUS. First of all Ben affleck is talented but how can u put a new face behind the cape, that is basically a reboot of batman but what about his origins. Last 3 batman movies are not his origins as its a new face. You can't just put a new batman without telling the audience how he got there n u also have to build his story up before putting him alongside superman. Christian bale let us down, he would have been perfect as he is ageing himself and if not bale then at least make a standalone movie of batman before this superman and batman.
It's actually three Oscar-winning Batmen in a row, as Clooney also won for Syriana. Then again, look how his turn in the suit turned out.
Tore my shirt and rubbed ashes in my hair. Coworkers thought I was crazy until I told them the news.
The Frozen Ground, Review
Drinking Buddies, Review
First teaser for Monsters: Dark Continent
Ordinarily, a 40-second clip of a truck with what looks like giant pieces of rhubarb sticking out of the back of it wouldn't get us in much of a lather. But this isn't just any clip of a truck - this is the first official teaser from Monsters: Dark Continent, the sequel to Gareth Edwards' career-making 2010 sci-fi movie, Monsters.
As teaser trailers go, it's about as vague as they get, but it's certainly thought-provoking, and introduces the sequel's new, Middle-Eastern setting. Edwards, of course, has gone onto direct next year's Godzilla, so it falls to newcomer Tom Green (previously of TV's Misfits) to helm this new movie. It stars Johnny Harris, Joe Dempsie and Sam Keeley, and was shot on location in Jordan.
We're intrigued to see where this continuation of the fledgling Monsters franchise goes next, even without Edwards behind the camera.
Monsters: Dark Continent is due out next year.
Ben Affleck, Batman, and the need to reserve judgement
This morning, we set our alarm to allow ourselves a brash extra 15 minutes in bed. Predictably, this happened on the day when Warner Bros decided to announce its choice as the new big screen Batman. As you probably well know by now, Ben Affleck has been chosen to take over the cape and cowl from Christian Bale. The actor will take on the role in 2015's Batman/Superman movie, and if the plan goes ahead for a 2017 Justice League picture, you can conclude he'll be in that too. Barring a major disaster, he's Batman for a good five years at least, probably more.
One side effect of the extra 15 minutes of snoozing was that by the time we got to the news, it seemed as if a chunk of the internet had already decided that this was the worst casting news ever. That Affleck was a terrible choice, that Warner Bros might as well have called back George Clooney. That Batman was ruined.
The Backlash
People have the right to constructive criticism, of course, and the reaction to Affleck's casting - and the casting of a Batman was always going to be contentious anyway - does seem to factor in that this was something of a surprise. He'd been linked - warmly - with directing the Justice League movie at one stage, but few of us saw him actually getting the Batman role as well.
So let's deal with the initial wave of negativity first. Batman on screen has been here before. When Michael Keaton was cast by Tim Burton to be Batman for his 1989 movie, even before the days of the internet, there was an uproar of sorts. That people were going to boycott the movie, because Keaton was completely wrong for the role. Turned out, he proved them wrong, and to many, he's as good a big screen Batman as we've seen.
Then there's Heath Ledger. The internet absolutely was around when the late actor was cast as the Joker by Christopher Nolan in The Dark Knight, and the initial reaction to that news was not positive. That is a bit of an understatement, in fact. Have a search around, and there are still traces of just how badly the news went down. Ledger would go on to win an Oscar for the role, and create one of the definitive big screen villains of recent times, comic book movie based or not.
When any piece of major casting or personnel news on a movie is announced in the modern era, it does inevitably seem that there's a rush on in small quarters to be the first to slam it. And whilst you may or may not be keen on the idea of Ben Affleck taking on Batman, surely the least the man deserves is a chance.
The Affleck Factor
It's not as if Affleck hasn't been putting in some increasingly interesting acting performances. His leading man status was cemented back in the Jack Ryan movie, The Sum Of All Fears, which continues to stand up as a quality contemporary thriller. But take a look at his work portraying one-time Superman George Reeves in 2006's Hollywoodland. There's a strength and control to that performance for which he didn't get enough credit (it does also mean that Affleck has come the closest to playing both Batman and Superman on the big screen).
Furthermore, whilst it's his movie directing of late that's won him plaudits (and an Oscar), he took the lead role too in Argo, and delivered impressive work in front of the camera as well. See also the likes of State Of Play, The Town and the underappreciated The Company Men. He might not be Ryan Gosling, but Affleck has quietly been impressing as an actor, and maturing as one too. To write him off because he was the lead in a not brilliant Daredevil movie is, we'd argue, just a little disingenuous, and overlooks some of his more recent work. He's a far better actor now. And he wasn't a bad one then (look at Changing Lanes for proof).
Where Affleck ultimately takes Batman remains to be seen, but he's an interesting choice, and one who can take the character towards material that'd be fascinating to see explored on screen. Affleck is 41 now, which already means that we've avoided the trend of a reboot and a young actor to appeal to a lower age demographic. If he stays in the role for a decade or so, then might the eventual standalone Batman movies now be willing to explore the comic book stories where Batman is in his 50s, and struggling not just with the villains of the world, but the limits of his own body?
Even as it stands now, that he's a good decade older than Henry Cavill hopefully provides something that David S Goyer and Zack Snyder will explore in the story they ultimately bring to the screen.
Judgment
Where the story of this particular Batman and Bruce Wayne goes remains to be seen. For now, the lesson that's been taught many times over surely needs to be followed. Whilst there are many in the world who may not go on to like what Ben Affleck does with the role, and may not like the idea of him being Batman, at the very least wait until his work in the movie has been seen before judgment is called.
For whilst there's a small part of us that would have liked to see the role go to a lesser known face, we've a sneaking suspicion that, contrary to some of the negativity surrounding his casting, Ben Affleck might just surprise a few people. And not for the first time. While there's no law saying you have to be happy or sad about the casting of Affleck, it surely makes sense to give the man a chance...
Batman/Superman will be on movie theater screens, whatever it ends up being called, in July 2015.
Grant Morrison on Ben Affleck as Batman
Seven Actors Fans Thought Would Suck
Disqus - noscript
One can not forget about all the fans whining over Mark Ruffalo's casting as the Hulk or Chris Evans as Captain America. I'm really looking forward to this, it can be truly awesome!
I was one of those anti-ruffalo's. I was proven wrong.
TEN MISCAST ACTORS FANS THOUGHT WOULD SUCK...AND THEY DID!
Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four)
Julian McMahon (Fantastic Four)
Halle Berry (Catwoman)
Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns)
Kirtsen Dunst (Spiderman)
Topher Grace (Spiderman 3)
Jean Claude van Damme (Street Fighter)
Tom Cruise (Jack Reacher)
Keanu Reeves (Constantine)
Vince Vaughn (Pshycho)
how dare you say jean claude van damme wasn't the best guile you've ever seen! I think he played the role perfectly for what the movie was (it poked fun at itself)
With the exception of Dunst in Spiderman, the thing that all of those movies have in common which the ones in the article don't have, poor writing.
Also, it's spelled Psycho. No hate there, I'm hoping it was just a typo.
I always knew Ruffalo would be good, but I didn't like the politics of how it happened and what they did to Norton.
I guess I am the only one who didn't think Ledger was all that as the Joker. He was good, really good. But when I saw the movie -- it had been so overhyped, ya know, so it just didn't hit me like it should. I do not think he should have gotten the Oscar. It was just guilt for not wanting him to do the role. I think.
Keanu Reeves was awesome in Constantine.
Gotta say I'm not a big Daniel Craig fan. His version of James Bond is basically the antithesis of what James Bond has been. Bond was a suave,debonair proper gentleman who can occasionally do some super spy stuff, Craig is a rough and tumble action person who's trying to do the suave bit while being 007. Casino Royale hardly held my interest, Quantum of Solace I never wanted to see again, the last movie... hell I don't even remember what it was called.
I'm glad this article came out...all of these naysayers need to just accept it and move on. I never get mad about casting even if it's someone I don't really care for. I don't like Jamie Foxx much at all but I'm cool with him being Electro...I mean I'm sure he will do it well.
Also, that list the guy posted about ten miscast actors that sucked is using examples from movies that had many things wrong with them besides the casting. Most of those movies are poor in more ways than one:
Alba was fine, McMahon was fine, Berry was fine, Bosworth was fine, Dunst was fine at first but later became grating as the series went on, Grace was actually good but wasn't given much to do, Van Damme was great for what that movie was, didn't see Reacher or Constantine but I know those movies aren't universally praised...and the less said about Psycho remake the better...that whole movie was a giant finger to Hitchcock...not just Vaughn's take on Norman.
Michael Keaton and Daniel Craig are the only underdogs on that list that were great in their roles. The other ones were overrated as usual. Jack Nicholson is the best joker and people to this very day overrate Heath Ledger's joker because of it's darkness in the role and because he died. People tend to overrate someones legacy when they die young.
Hah, did Daniel Craig really receive "viscous" phone calls? Sure about that one, Crow?
Interesting article. Winter's Bone is set in the Ozarks, not Appalachia, though.
Well, they were dripping with vitriol...
Keep in mind that the Pajiba post with Heath pictured is from April Fool's Day, this year.
Um, that Pajiba article you screencapped? It's an April Fool's joke. Check the date. And pay closer attention, guys.
Appalachia is NOT the Ozarks.
Uhhh...But Anne Hathaway WAS a bad Catwoman...I like her, but she was still a bad Catwoman.
Add Ben Affleck in Daredevil.
The worst Batman ever was Michael Keaton, 2nd was Val Kilmer. As for Affleck as Batman, I don't think it will be so bad since his acting has greatly improved. As for the slamming of the Daredevil movie, I still enjoy it to this day. Mind you, I watch the extended director's cut which answered all my unanswered questions after watching it in the theater. I am more worried about the actor they have cast as Lex Luther, Michael Rosenbaum should have been picked. Matt Damon for Aquaman would be better than picking him for Martian Manhunter in the JLA.
You realize that picture in the article about Nolan's mistake of casting Heath Ledger is dated April 1st, 2013?
Um. that Ledger piece screenshot you posted was written this year.
Ben wasn't the only thing wrong about the movie. The problem was more that there was nothing right about any of it. Or the Elektra spin-off.
Schlockey-schlock-schlock let's make some more shitty hero movies, Hollywood. When's Ghost-rider 3 out?
I think you are mistaking bad acting with bad scripts.
Anne Hathaway did suck.
I thought Keanu was awesome in that movie. Then again, I never read the comic so what do I know.
Oh, shut up.
Mila Kunis (Oz)
Depends. Are you refering to how Bond has been portrayed in the previous movies, or how he was written in Flemming's books? The Craig Bond has been a good representation of the book Bond. Not so much bravery as recklessness that comes from an acute sense of his own mortality and a fair amount of self-loathing that stems from his work.
If you want sleek, sexy, self-assured, supremely confident Bond, you watch the Brosnan and earlier movies. If you want tortured, conflicted, reckless, self-loathing Bond, you watch the Craig movies or read the books.
Ledger was great. His facial expressions, body language, the voice he had going, every time he did that little licking his lips thing...he was perfect. He personified insanity. He actually acted crazy. If I hadn't already known it was him, I never would have guessed. He was the Joker, not an actor playing the Joker, if that makes sense. As for everyone else on this list, they may have been dealing a lot with bad writing and dialogue, but none of them were all that great.
Actually, I was disappointed myself and over-hyped may be the best way to describe it. But I haven't like most comic movies, a few were okay and only one (Captain America) was good. I have high hopes for Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier. We'll see.
I believe Norton made excessive salary demands, which is what caused the change.
Uhh... you know that you liked his performance. That should be enough for anyone. I can't stand when people are unable to separate the book from the movie. They are two different mediums, you can't compare them, and it is pointless to try. I thought he was pretty good that movie too.
In an interesting juxtaposition, the writer has featured a photograph of Affleck with George Clooney - arguably the worst batman ever.
Jean Claude van Damme was awsome as Guile so was Keanu Reeves in Constantine
what the hell you talking about nab?
go eat poo you fat idiot
Are you kidding?!? The worst Barman, hands down, was George Clooney. (which adds a special dose of irony to the photo above)
Damnit ... Batman, not barman. I'm sure Clooney could serve a mean cocktail.
FYI to the authors of this piece. Winter's Bone was not set in Appalachia. It was actually set in the Ozarks.
jack reacher was awesome lol
Keanu Reeves is awesome in everything. Sure he plays everything the same, but that is his style and he is the king of it.
The whole f'n point is don't judge until you see the end result.
You don't think he should have won? Who should have? He still has the most memorable performance out of anyone that was nominated for any Oscar that year....
He's the only person who's playd guile in the movies isn't he?
So yah.. of course he's the best.
This
agreed
I thought Elektra was dope. Daredevil was complete rubbish. Never dug Affleck until The Town, he was pretty badass in that. So fuck it, who knows? ....nah I'm just kidding, this is terrible. But at least I just saved 10 bucks on a ticket.
I disagree with some of this, but I maintain that the worst cast actor of recent history was Tobey Maguire in The Great Gatsby. What a trainwreck.
*inarguably
Like anoyone gives a flying f--k.
Still anti-Ruffalo. He wasn't terrible or anything, but he was no better than mediocre. Watch his work without any CGI Hulk action and it was a pretty boring, lackluster performance.
Is everyone forgetting Val Kilmer and George Clooney?
actually, I thought Clooney was the ONLY actor, thus far, that pulled off both Batman and Bruce Wayne well. He was just saddled with a horrible movie, in my opinion.
If you think the worst Batman was Michael Keaton and you liked and still enjoy the Daredevil movie to this day, then everything else you will ever say is invalid.
You lost all credibility within your first 3 sentences.
Theres NOTHING overrated about Ledgers performance. He brought the darkness to the Joker that Nicholson sorely lacked.
Ill never understand peoples love for that Tim Burton Batman Movie.
Personally I thought it sucked.
Youre not the only one. But those who agree with you are just as wrong as you are.
The Dark Knight is the ONLY Batman movie of the Nolan Trilogy thats worth watching and thats because of Ledgers performance.
Bale made a decent batman but saddle him with a horrible story and an even worse take on a villain ( Bane ) and you end up with three hours of meh ( The Dark Knight Rises )
I could just as easily name seven that DID suck. These are utterly pointless comparisons.
Thanks for the catch. It was corrected. :)
You're right about Ledger, wrong on Burton. You don't have to choose between the two, they were completely different takes and attempts at portraying the character of Batman.
Burton's first 2 bat flicks were dope for their time. Remember that this was before mainstream comic book movies really existed.
And while Soldier is right that people tend to overrate performances based on the behind-the-scenes type of stories, tragedies or info behind them, Ledger's Joker is NOT an accurate example of this.
It may have been over-HYPED - in fact it definitely was in a thousand different ways - but not at all overrated in any way.
Dude was COMPLETELY unrecognizable as himself in that role. He blew the roof off of what that character could have been or was up until that point.
That was an as iconic performance of any larger-than-life character than I've probably ever seen. I'm an incredibly huge fan of great villains, and if Ledger's Joker isn't in your top 3 or at least top 5 of all time then you should slap yourself as hard as you can and rewatch that movie. No joke.
I may sort of agree about the last Nolan bat flick, and I definitely agree that Bale was not great as Batman. He wasn't bad at all, he was okay, maybe even kind of good? But yeah, nothing about his performance in any of the 3 movies stood out to me as being impressive in any way. I believe he was mediocre in the roles of both Wayne and Batman, but I don't mean that to be as bad of a review as it probably sounds. I guess I mostly just mean that Nolan, the writers, the set designers and costume designers made those movies what they are in my mind, way more than anything about Bale's performance in any of them.
Anycrap, you (Diana P) really are wrong about Ledger's Joker (in my opinion, of course). I don't say that to be insulting, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.
But all I really mean is that your experience should probably make you hate hype more than it should sour you on Ledger's performance.
Nobody can argue that both the film and Ledger's performance were ridiculously over-hyped after Ledger's death. In fact I even hesitated to see it because I started to believe it was all hype, no substance. I knew immediately that I was wrong, and several viewings later have confirmed my initial impression.
Just out of curiosity, have you checked out the movie again since whenever you first saw it under all of they hype?
I feel like if you just tried to watch again, and pretended there was no hype or back story, but that it was just some random movie you stumbled upon, and then evaluated his performance based on that you would probably be more impressed. Although I admit it can be hard to separate.
And more importantly, I'm not that smart, haha, so what do I know?
I really do like Lawrence as Katniss, she's brilliant, but I have to say she actually isn't an accurate physical representation of the character. The character is said to be very short--its hinted that its from malnutrition, as just about everyone is starving. The world, which wasn't portrayed to this severe extent in the movie, is definitely concentration camp-like. With that being said, the character is VERY skinny. Anyone who says Lawrence is fat is an idiot, but she is a healthy, average weight. The character is also described as possibly part Native American. So yes, to readers of the trilogy, Lawrence was an odd choice at first, but she nailed the character.
I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I do believe she is too fat... for that role. If you read the books Katniss and her district are all practically starving. Jennifer Lawrence herself is by no means "fat" but while reading the books I did imagine someone more gaunt. That's why there was fan backlash.
Haha, I like how someone else just thought the same thing I did. It really is nothing against her, but the characters physical description is a big deal because it is a reflection of the society she lives in.
Gone With the Wind was not a novel of the Depression. It was about the Civil War.
yeah that catwoman movie was awful and no amount of awesome acting could fix the terrible story
I think most of those on this list only justify the reasoning people are complaining. Seriously, you're using Anne Hathaway's Cat Woman to say people overreact? Daniel Craig sucks. Jennifer Lawrence was relatively unknown and I don't recall there being an uprising about her playing that role.... One which is no where near as iconic and legendary as Batman. Heath Ledger was ok, but if he didn't pass away near the release time I would doubt his performance could have been as blown up as it has been. Michael Keaton is the only one I would have been surprised by in the entire list.
"... a dirt-poor orphan of the Ozarks in Winter’s Bone was considered too well fed to star in a film called The Hunger Games (which was also shot in another humble mountain range setting: Appalachia)."
got it, aarticle was already fixed when I read it.
The reason for most of those was simply because of bad writing/directing.
VInce Vaughn is a terrible actor overall.
he slept walked that role. He even admitted to it.
Ruffalo was *okay*. He only got the role because of Robert Downey Jr since they had worked together before and he put in a good word for him. There's probably a better fit for the role somewhere out there in the world.
It took me a while to put my finger on why I don't like Affleck for this role...but it's his eyes. He's in a constant state of squint. "So? Vulture you're an idiot." but yea, think back to the 90's animated series with Batman in them. His facial expressions were lead by what his eyes did 99% of the time, and because of that we knew what batman was thinking/feeling based on what his eyes did. It's very subtle. Going into the movies with the same thought...every batman (minus Adam West) wears black around their eyes and rarely shows any facial expressions with their mouth (a smile once or twice, and rage a few times) while they have the mask on. It's all mostly stoic scenes, but there are plenty of times where the eyes are at the center of the frame...focusing on their despair, confusion, anger, etc. This actually explains why they picked Clooney for that particular movie: They wanted someone with eyes that could open up WIDE when he sniffed in that drug from Poison Ivy. And anyone that watches NCIS LA can tell you that Chris O'Donnell's eyes are always changing expressions.
Rooney Mara did suck as Lisbeth Salander. In the original film, Lisbeth is a dynamic badass and easily the main character. In the American version, she's there for Daniel Craig to play off of. Granted that's a decision made by writing team and the director, but she was cast because she wasn't going to steal the show from Daniel Craig. Now, I like Daniel Craig, but my point remains.
Not really digging the Hathaway deal. I hated the thought of her as Catwoman and after watching the movie, I hated her as Catwoman.
the problem with Affleck is the voice. Everyone is expecting him to come out with, "WOOK, IT'S DA JOKAH!" Bruce Wayne is not from Boston's mean streets. So, Ben, you'd better work on your Bruce Wayne voice or you'll get spanked.
While I agree we have no idea if Batfleck will be good or bad, this conveniently forgets that a lot of people said that Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman and Green Lantern and Green Hornet would all suck and they all did. Hard.
To be fair, there wasn't much more you could do with the limited screen time. Hulk in Avengers wasn't supposed to be great, it just had to be good (Avengers being an ensemble piece after all).
I'm surprised Tom Cruise as Lestat didn't make the list. Everyone's problem with Jennifer Lawrence was physical, and I think it was mostly fangirls. Everyone's problem with Tom Cruise, however, was that he was too much of a pretty boy to be Lestat. Anne Rice was horrified and furious. I still can't believe he managed to pull it off.
there is no such thing as bad publicity, maybe, just maybe, that's what this is, make everyone want to see the movie to see how bad he does?
Out of the entire group listed, the only individual I didn't like in the role they played, was Cat-woman, and Michael Keaton was at best a mediocre batman from a mediocre movie.
My problem with Affleck is that like all of his films, his accent will be the same, his performance will be the same, his ability to adopt the role will be the same. Which to sum up, means Ben Affleck will be Ben Affleck as Batman, not an actor portraying Bruce Wayne, or portraying Batman.
Pics of Michael Rooker's Yondu From Guardians of the Galaxy
Tony Jaa Cast for Fast And Furious 7
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
Happy Birthday, W. Lee Wilder
There are several strata of cult filmmakers in the world, directors who generally worked on low-budget, independent genre pictures, but did so with enough personal style and pizazz that their films have earned them a following among obsessive film geeks.
At the top there are those few whose followings have become so large, like John Waters, Roger Corman, Russ Meyer, Ray Harryhausen, even Ed Wood, that they eventually came to earn mainstream recognition, even a certain level of respect in Hollywood. Roger Corman and Ray Harryhausen both received lifetime achievement Oscars, and Ed Wood got an all-star biopic directed by Tim Burton.
Below them are filmmakers like Ray Dennis Steckler, Jess Franco, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Doris Wishman and that awful Paul Naschy, who, while never receiving that widespread recognition or respect, have nevertheless generated enough enthusiasm among the film geek crowd that you can count on commercial releases of most of their films.
Then there are the others who so often remain anonymous and forgotten, even at the height of their careers. Sometimes this is justified, given that most filmmakers are just plain awful. But every once in a while I come across a real treasure, a body of work that is so unique that I have no choice but to pay attention, perhaps even become a little creepy and nutty and pushy about it.
His name was never bandied about elite Hollywood circles, where he remains not just unheralded, but virtually unknown today. He’s not even well-known among the hardcore movie geeks, who so often pride themselves on singing the praises of obscurities. Those few who do know of him certainly don’t hold much respect for him (proof of this lies in the unavailability of most of his films, even in bootleg form), but that’s only because they haven’t been watching carefully enough. For my money, W. Lee Wilder is much more than “Billy Wilder’s less talented older brother,” as he’s usually known by jackanapes and smug dullards who never took more than a cursory glance at the 16 films he produced and directed between 1945 and 1968. To the naysayers, he was just a hack on a par with Ed Wood, but to my mind W. Lee was a much more interesting and adventurous filmmaker than his brother, even though, or perhaps because, he was working with microscopic budgets. He made films that weren’t quite like anything anyone else was making at the time (or since).
The sets tended to be non-descript, the special effects were cheap and obvious, the acting pedestrian. But he did have some fine, sharp little scripts (often written by his son Myles) and an undeniable cinematic flair. Somehow, perhaps pure chutzpah was behind it, or a touch of dark alchemy, or simple madness, all those sub-par onscreen elements came together into some mighty spellbinding wholes.
Part of it might be the fact that Wilder not only made films in nearly every conceivable genre (crime dramas, Westerns, horror, melodramas, comedies, adventure films, noir, science fiction), he made films that seemed to be in nearly every conceivable genre at the same time. And even after blending all these genres together, there was still something else in the mix, something about each film that was just a little askew, a little strange and dizzying, often in ways that aren’t immediately apparent unless you’re paying close attention.
These aren’t films for moonpies to laugh at the way they laugh at Ed Wood. There is nothing incompetent about them, though they may lack the usual Hollywood gloss. At the same time there’s just something wrong with them, something you wouldn’t find in other movies, but it’s usually so subtle it becomes fascinating. Beyond that—Wilder was also a quiet innovator and prescient visionary trapped within the bounds of traditional mid-century filmmaking, probably without even realizing it.
He was born in Austria in 1904 and moved to New York when he was still relatively young. While there he began manufacturing his own line of high quality handbags. By the mid-’40s the original zip-bang thrill ride of purse-making had started to grow a little thin. So he packed up and moved to LA like his brother (who referred to W. Lee as a “boring son of a bitch”) to start producing pictures.
In ‘45 and ‘46 he produced two of Anthony Mann’s first films, long before Mann would go on to direct classics like Side Street, El Cid, and all those Jimmy Stewart Westerns. Then with two Mann films under his belt he decided to start trying his hand at directing his own features. That’s about when things started getting kind of weird.
On the surface, Yankee Fakir seems like light but typical Wilder fare. That is to say it’s almost a romantic comedy, almost a Western, almost a con man film, and almost a murder mystery, but isn’t quite any of those things. It’s a lighthearted little small-town romp, yet as I watched it I kept thinking that something was deeply and deceptively off. Then during the final scenes of the film, I realized what it was. If you look at the script, the acting style, the pacing, the cinematography, even the opening credit sequence, you’d swear you were watching a film made in the early 1930s. But Yankee Fakir was actually made in 1947. In ’47, a film like this would be completely out of place. A quaint anachronism compared with everything else in theaters at the time. Who knows what he was thinking? And then there’s that title. Although the term “Yankee faker” pops up at the end of the film, there are no fakirs among the cast of characters. There are no references to fakirs. The film contains nary a whiff of fakirs of any kind. No one even wears a turban. A friend of mine offered up a very wise and logical explanation for this, but I forget it now. Personally I think they just misspelled the title.
Over the next few years Wilder wrote, produced, and directed a long string of musical short subjects. Then in ‘53 he brought on his 20-year-old son Myles as a screenwriter and perhaps with Myles’ encouragement moved into science fiction. Or at least what appeared to be science fiction. The Wilders were maybe a quarter-step ahead of the curve, and their next several films, while no less screwy, would go on to become their best known.
Like so many other low-budget science fiction films from the ‘50s, 1953’s Phantom from Space opens with a lot of stock footage of military installations and radar screens, together with a long bit of explanatory narration to set the scene. (There’s also a lot of Theremin music in the score, which just confirms you’re watching a sci-fi film.) Taken from the secret files of “The Central Bureau,” we’re told, it’s the story of how “a small group of people, over the course of one long night, held back a wave of panic and hysteria.”
Okay, so that’s not really true, but we’ll ignore that. Military radar stations pick up a UFO near the Arctic Circle and track it across Alaska, south through Canada, then down the West Coast where it disappears in Southern California. Shortly thereafter people living near the beach begin reporting terrible interference with their radio, TV, and phone reception, so crews of communications workers are sent out to find the trouble.
One of the crews is approached by a strangely calm woman who tells them she was having a picnic with her husband and a friend (in the middle of the night) when they were attacked by a man wearing a diving helmet.
Not much later another man is killed and an oil refinery explodes. When questioned by police, all the witnesses report that there was no head inside the helmet.
It gets pretty tangly, but, working together, the chief of police, three scientists from the local institute and the head of the communications commission determine that they’re looking for an invisible radioactive alien who messes up TV reception everywhere he goes.
For its flaws, occasional gaps in logic, and general low budgetness, the script is quite good, the dialogue naturalistic and believable, complete with a lot of great throwaway lines muttered by side characters. And though the actors are for the most part complete unknowns, they’re several cuts above what most sci-fi from the era could offer, easily talking over each other a la the Howard Hawks school for that added bit of realism.
More than most of Wilder’s pictures, it pretty much sticks to form as a sci-fi film. Well, a sci-fi mystery, with a crowd of oddball minor characters and a deeply tragic alien who spends much of the film slowly suffocating. It’s also one of the few films I can think of in which the hero turns out to be the communications commission. The “heroic utility company” would become almost a trademark through the rest of Wilder’s science fiction films.
As surprisingly intelligent, well-acted, and sharply written as phantom from Space was, for most audience members the picture was noticeably light on action and thrills, so W. Lee and Myles returned the following year with Killers from Space.
Not enough can be said about the innovation and almost precognitive vision on display in Killers from Space, which may explain Wilder’s interest in Nostradamus down the line.
After more narration and stock footage (much of it re-used from Phantom), we meet military scientist Dr. Paul Martin (Peter Graves, who was becoming a standard fixture in early ‘50s science fiction). While gathering data from a nuclear test, the controls on his plane freeze, throwing the aircraft into a perfect nose dive into the desert. When rescue crews arrive they discover the plane’s pilot is, oh boy, really dead, but Dr. Martin is nowhere to be found.
Several days later Martin stumbles out of the desert into the base, perfectly fine save for having no memory of the events and a clean surgical scar on his chest. At the time, of course, most sci-fi pictures were Cold War parables in which the aliens are commie stand-ins. It was rarely discussed onscreen, but everyone knew what was going on. Here, though, they not only make the idea clear, they turn it on its head.
When “Martin” shows up perfectly fine save for that scar, the FBI immediately assumes him to be a commie plant there to steal nuclear secrets, and he’s told to take the proverbial “long vacation” until they can prove he is who he says he is.
At home, Martin is tormented by visions of eyeballs and actually does start stealing nuclear secrets, which he hides under a rock in the desert. When he’s caught, he’s returned to the base and placed under hypnosis. This is where things get interesting.
At first it seems (again) like standard material. Seconds before the crash, see, Martin was spirited out of the plane by aliens who bring him to some kind of underground base. While being held captive, Graves learns the details of the alien invasion plan. He escapes and, with the confused assistance of the local electric company (see what I mean about utilities?), sets out to stop them.
However…
Six years before Betty and Barney Hill shared their true story of alien abduction with the world, Wilder put the details of that abduction up on the screen. In fact, the abduction in Killers from Space has essentially become the prototype of what we think of when we think of “alien abduction,” complete with small, silent aliens with large eyes, a metal examination table, and strange medical procedures. In this case they remove Graves’ heart from his body, fix it, and replace it, which is a detail I’ve heard in several “true” abduction stories. And of course, as is also now standard, Graves has no memory of these events until he’s placed under hypnosis.
But that’s not all. During his escape from the aliens, Graves encounters several giant lizards, spiders, and insects. While giant monsters had made appearances in films since the silent era, this was one of the first times a director filmed real creatures and rear-projected them on a screen so the actors could interact with “giant monsters.” This, too, would become industry standard throughout the ‘50s—but do you see Wilder getting any credit? Hell no! Everyone talks about (the admittedly great) Bert I. Gordon, who didn’t make his first rear projection giant monster picture until 1957—three years after Killers from Space!
Today Killers from Space remains Wilder’s best known picture, but it has little to do with the profound but unsung impact it had on the culture at large. No, it’s known today mostly for its regular appearance in box sets of public domain titles. You can’t turn around without running into a damn Killers from Space.
But anyway. The same year as Killers, the Wilder team moved away from space-based horrors to more earthly ones, as usual with a twist. In most cases, “ape man on the loose” pictures (and I’m well on my way to seeing them all) take place in small towns, wooded areas, or the mountains. But in 1954’s The Snow Creature, Wilder follows the model of King Kong by bringing the creature in question to a major metropolitan area.
Dr. Frank Parrish (Paul Langton) is both a botanist and an asshole, leading an expedition high into the Himalayas to collect specimens. When his chief Sherpa, Subra (Teru Shimada, in a fantastic performance) learns his wife has been kidnapped by a yeti, Parrish refuses to let him go look for her. So Subra does the only thing he can do; he incites a mutiny and takes command of the expedition.
For its first half, The Snow Creature makes for an interesting double bill with Val Guest and Nigel Kneale’s The Abominable Snowman (1957). Working with half the budget, Wilder’s external shots near the top of the mountains (accentuated by some gorgeous cinematography) are much more believable than Guest’s. I would even argue that Wilder has made the far more intriguing and exciting (if less philosophical) picture of the two.
Eventually the expedition, now led by Subra, stumbles across a society of yetis in a cave. When one is stunned by a rock they tie it up and carry it back down the mountain, where that dick Parrish makes plans to fly it back to LA in a specially designed refrigerator. Once again this is where we run into something you won’t find anywhere but a Wilder picture.
Upon arriving at LAX, Dr. Parrish is immediately confronted by a customs official, who won’t let the yeti into the country until the creature’s immigration status is determined and all the proper paperwork is filled out. You never saw anything like that in King Kong, and that was a 50-foot gorilla! As dull as it might sound, it’s a funny scene, and a wonderfully logical detail.
Well, though, as the debate rolls on in the customs office, the yeti breaks out of his refrigerator much more easily than any six year old ever did, and begins a rampage across the city. After the bodies start piling up, it’s clear that it’s time to call on a utility company. And sure enough, some 15 years before Chinatown, LA Water and Sewer comes to the rescue, and the film ends with an homage to The Third Man (and a great closing line).
The whole film is beautifully shot in a hard noir style, and once again it’s populated with weird little side characters who liven things up considerably.
Wilder took a break from sci-fi after that to make some crime/adventure/con man/romance/comedies for a bit before returning to the head scratchers. Those odd but very realistic characters around the edges come even more into play in ‘56’s Fright (again written by Myles). It could have been a standard melodrama about a psychiatrist falling in love with a patient, and that’s what it looks like if you don’t think about it too much, but as it rolls on it just gets more and more baffling.
As the police try to talk an escaped killer down from the Queensboro Bridge, a shrink, Dr. James Hamilton (Eric Fleming from Queen of Outer Space) steps out of the gathered crowd and offers to hypnotize him. It works like a charm (though it’s unclear how many people in the crowd were hypnotized as well), and the ensuing publicity brings him far more attention than he’s comfortable with. Not only are reporters constantly nagging him for interviews, but one day when leaving the office he finds a clearly troubled but attractive young blond (Nancy Malone) sitting in his car.
He tries to throw her out, but she insists on vaguely telling him what her vague problem is. After explaining bluntly that he never takes friends as patients and never makes patients friends, he sets up an appointment and asks her to dinner. Ethics be damned.
During their regular sessions he hypnotizes her and soon discovers she has that old shrink movie standby, a split personality. Clearly influenced by Vertigo, the other personality is a tragic 19th century German princess in a suicide pact with a married prince.
Speaking of ethics, very few people in the film seem to have any. The doctor’s dating his patient. A reporter breaks into his office, listens to recordings of private patient sessions, and prints them in the paper. The cops let a convicted killer (the same one who escapes at the beginning of the film) out unshackled in order to play a part in some psychological parlor game in which they know he will be killed. Oh, it goes on and on. But as ever there’s a parade of people on the street, in restaurants, in bars, who all have something interesting to say. Ultimately it’s not among Wilder’s finest, and I think the problem can be traced back to the simple fact that no major utilities are called upon to save the day.
It was roughly around this point that Myles started moving more into television. He’d write a couple more films for his dad in the ‘60s, but most of his efforts were focused on writing for every TV show on the air, from McHale’s Navy to Bonanza to a long stint as the primary writer on The Dukes of Hazzard for some reason.
While W. Lee’s brother Billy (whose real name was Samuel, by the way—W. Lee was the real Billy of the family). Anyway, while Billy was making ho-hum mainstream crap like Some Like it Hot and The Apartment, in 1957 W. Lee returned to straight science fiction (or whatever the hell it was) with The Man Without a Body. It wasn’t written by Myles, but it’s hands down the strangest picture he ever made, pushing that subconscious weirdness and surreality of the earlier films to remarkable new heights.
Now, disembodied head and brain transplant movies had already become fairly commonplace by that time (Black Friday, etc.), but Wilder’s film was, well, let’s just say a little different.
Karl Brussard (George Coulouris, who somehow found himself making this between Citizen Kane and Papillon) is a wealthy asshole industrialist who seems to be going a little dotty. He keeps forgetting the orders he’s given and starts answering phones that aren’t ringing. Not much of anyone is surprised to learn he has an inoperable brain tumor, but like most wealthy asshole industrialists, he’s not much interested in dying when there’s more money to be made. He learns of a Dr. Merritt (Robert Hutton) who’s doing experimental head transplant research in London, and makes an appointment.
Although the doctor is hesitant to attempt one of his transplants on a human (by that time he’d only gotten as far as monkeys), they sort of agree that if Brussard can bring him a useable head, he’d give it a try.
The film then stops dead for a few minutes as Brussard makes an unexpected stop at Madame Toussaud’s wax museum and we get an impromptu tour of the tourist trap’s greatest hits. Inspired and desperate, Brussard goes to a pub, hires a disgraced and drunken surgeon, and together they fly to France and dig up, yes, Nostradamus’ grave. With Nostradamus’ head, see, Brussard would be able to see into the future and make his business decisions accordingly. Fortunately even after 450 years in the ground Nostradamus’ head is remarkably well preserved, so they lop it off and he smuggles it back to London. Dr. Merritt, having no idea whose head he’s got there, plops it in a pan of solution, attaches a bunch of hoses and electrodes, and before you know it reanimates Nostradamus, who speaks remarkably good English for someone who’s been dead that long. (Nostradamus was played by Michael Golden, a British character actor with a 40-year career. So far as I can tell this was the only time he played a disembodied head.)
Well, Brussard’s scheme to use Nostradamus’ precognitive powers for his own personal gain becomes pretty clear to everyone involved, including Nostradamus who, we find out, isn’t terribly tickled with the idea of becoming a wealthy asshole. Looking into the future, Nostradamus offers Brussard some friendly financial advice which brings down the asshole’s entire empire. Then things get all crazy with murder and, well, just plain craziness. Before you know it Nostradamus’ head has been transplanted onto the body of the doctor’s assistant.
Not being a Myles Wilder script the film is missing all those wonderful side characters and a heroic utility company, but with a storyline this nutty, who cares? The end is abrupt, anticlimactic, and perfectly logical, and the film is packed with references to everything from Frankenstein to (as you might expect given the head in question) films that wouldn’t be made for another eleven years. The most important thing about Man Without a Body, though, is that Wilder approaches the material, as utterly insane as it is, so seriously that you have no choice but to sit back and accept the koo koo ride.
This was his last sort-of science fiction film. Over the next decade he would only make a small handful of films, including a sort-of mystery/thriller, a sort-of Cold War espionage picture, and a jewel heist/cannibal film (after you’ve seen enough of his movies you stop asking questions).
Wilder’s last film, The Omegans, came out in 1968. In it, a painter becomes convinced his wife is having an affair, so decides to kill both her and her suspected paramour. He wants it to look like an accident, see, so he asks them to pose for a portrait next to a radioactive river!
(Like I said, after a while you stop asking.)
After the release of The Omegans, Wilder lived quietly in Hollywood for another 14 years. It’s possible, considering the range and scope of his body of work, that he’d simply said all he needed to say.
No, he never received much recognition or acclaim, never made millions and never won six Academy Awards like his dumb brother. But W. Lee Wilder forged on through those twenty-some years, working with small budgets, small crews, and studios that no longer exist. In that time he made 16 features, and I’ll tell you this: even if no one remembers them or Wilder himself, they were the films he wanted to make, films that are immediately recognizable as W. Lee Wilder films, and that’s something he could take to his grave.
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
5 Things Dark Knight Returns Might Tell us About the Batman vs. Superman Movie
Disqus - noscript
With the exception of the bit about Christian Bale, I enjoyed the article. But please, let Bale go. He's not coming back. End of story. A lot of fans don't even want him back.
Don't get me wrong, he's great. But we'll need a Batman a little closer to the comics for it to translate well on film. Just try, if you can, to imagine Bale's Batman on screen with the other members of the league. It would be ridiculous. Silly. Laughable.
We need a Batman who is so ingenious and well prepared that he seems to defy the laws of physics. We really do need the Batman from the comic books.
Umm acutally alot of fans want him back and the gneral audience associates Bale with Batman
It makes sense from a marketing stand point
In a world where Superman indiscriminately will kill thousands of civilians in his little brawls, I do not think you have to worry about Bale's Batman being unable to seem smarter than the rest.
The bigger (and insurmountable) hurdle is that Bale more than likely has no interest in continuing the character arc. It is over and he owns the role for much of the general audience. Why risk that, as well as potentially burning a bridge with Nolan, over this?
bale comes back to gotham wracked with guilt over john blake batman dying (replacing the jason todd robin from TDKR) he comes out of retirement leading to supes going after him. it's acually not that hard to bring a lot of the TDKR tropes in.
Agreed. Christian Bale is to WB/DC like Robert Downey Jr. is to Disney/Marvel, their biggest and more popular actor playing a major character of their franchises. And plus, is TOO EARLY for a Batman reboot, people still associate Bale with Batman. BALE MUST RETURN AS OUR DARK KNIGHT!
False Jonathan. Fans and non-comic people still want Bale as Batman. So do I.
I've been fighting this same fight with people online ever since the news was released. Well said Jonathan, I couldn't agree more.
I love The Dark Knight trilogy...but there is a better Batman out there...and it's going to have to be that Batman to take on Superman.
There's a better Batman out there. Expand your mind Edu.
Who fucking cares about marketing by attaching Bale's name to it. When you make a great movie it'll market itself. It's already a movie with the two most well known comic book characters of ALL TIME. They could just release this movie without saying a word and everyone would know about it. Forget Bale and let Batman move on. Be better than Bale.
Nope.
yeah, well in the early 90s people associated michael keaton with batman. so whats your point ? It's time for a more comic book style batman. He's gotta be the comic book batman to be able to fight superman. Bale's batman wouldn't stand a chance against supes
NOPE !!! Not gonna happen and the movie will be better for it.
How did Marvel feel about recasting Spidey so fast? O yea they didnt care at all and its worked out for them great so far.
sony
Wanna See Something Really Scary? Twilight Zone Movie Gathers Speed At Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. is unlocking the door with the key of imagination to the new Twilight Zone movie. The studio announced that Aron Eli Coleite is on board to write the screenplay. The Twilight Zone movie is in the hands of Leonardo DiCaprio’s production house, Appian Way, along with his partner Jennifer Davisson and Michael Ireland. Sarah Schechter is overseeing the project for the studio. Warner Brothers has also been talking with Joseph Kosinski, who made Oblivion, to direct.
Warner Brothers has been working on the new movie version of Twilight Zone since 2009. The first Twilight Zone film, from 1983, had four segments and was marred by the death of Vic Morrow during the section that was directed by Jon Landis. The new movie will follow just one story that has various elements of the Twilight Zone universe.
Aaron Eli Coleite wrote episodes of the TV shows The River, Heroes and Crossing Jordan as well as the end of the world as we know it movie The End, which is set to be directed by Drew Barrymore on board to direct. Previous version of the script were typed by Anthony Peckham, Rand Ravich and Joby Harold.
The Twilight Zone was created and hosted by Rod Serling, who also created Night Gallery and wrote the screenplay for the classic fight film Requiem for a Heavyweight. The series ran on CBS from 1959 to 1964. Serling wrote or co-wrote 92 of the 156 episodes that aired and delivered the iconic opening and closing monologues.
SOURCE: VARIETY
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Everything We Know
Disqus - noscript
Thanos was confirmed as being in the movie about 2 weeks ago...I don't know why you're saying he's not in it...
Thanks for catching that! Feige did confirm it at Comic-Con, the omnibus of comic book movie news. We'll avoid that in the future.
The new Guardians of the Galaxy spun out of Marvel's "Annihilation: Conquest" story.
Who was the surprise mastermind behind Conquest?
Ultron.
Who's the big bad in Avengers 2?
Ultron.
I can't believe that's coincidental.
Interview with Edgar Wright, Director of The World's End
Jodorowsky's Dune Gets a Release Date From Sony
Disqus - noscript
Dali is dead now, but maybe H.R. Giger can play the Emperor for the princely sum of 10 MILLION DOLLARS... Get this man a budget! Dune's about due for a remake anyway. (I don't consider the dreadful SciFi channel ones as worthy heirs to Lynch's version.)
Interview with Closed Circuit's Eric Bana
Interview with Closed Circuit's Rebecca Hall
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!
Disqus - noscript
He was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!
In other news, WB has announced the CGI cloud of Galactus from the second "Fantastic Four" movie has been cast as Lex Luthor.