This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
The Premier Source For All Things Batman and DC
As part of Warner Bros.' Justice League marketing, it's finally Batman week! AT&T just kicked things off with the new video above, which features epic new moments from the Dark Knight. Check it out!
Acknowledging that the world cannot be saved by just one hero alone, Batman pulls all the members of the league together to take on this world-ending threat.
Justice League hits theaters on November 17th. Tickets are available now.
SOURCE: AT&T
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
Batsie...!
You always reply to me for some reason with that. What the hell Elizabeth stay away from me!!!!
This
Pity all these scenes were reshot and what we got is an annoyed "Fatffleck"
PSA: if you click on the triangle on the right side of any user's comment, it will give you two options - "Block User" and "Flag as inappropriate." "Block User" will remove that user's comments from your view, and leave them as "This user is blocked."
I highly recommend using that option in order to personalize your comment feed with each article. I've had to do this a number of times, and things are much more civil (though not all of the time). Responding will only make the unsavory types dig in their heels and keep on spewing garbage. Once you block them, they will not be able to respond to you, and you won't have to constantly see their hate vomit. This applies to personal attacks, not disagreements with DC Films content.
This makes for a much more enjoyable experience, and better/more productive conversations (that include both sides) can be had.
Cheers!
(This message will appear in other threads. Please pardon my repetition.)
A lot of people, major Batman fans think this looks terrible. Silencing dissent doesn't make you a better fan, sorry.
I'm not trying to silence dissent. I'm merely wanting dissent to be respectful. I welcome dissent with an open keyboard. But things around here quickly devolve into personal hatred, and the conversation is then no longer about disagreeing on the merits of the movies and/or characters.
Edit: I amended my comment to make my intent more clear. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
A lot of people legitimately hate this universe tho. Finally a great Batsuit, sure, but everything about this movie seems to be working overtime to recreate the red campy glow of Batman and Robin.
And that's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It just sucks when someone's like/dislike of this universe gets met with contempt rather than a mutual understanding of each other's opinions; and I mean that for both sides.
I only wanted to offer a tip for anyone interested in making their feed more tolerable and interesting, and less combative.
I think it's shameful that a constantly out of shape and problematic actor gets to put on the suit, the best suit, even if it's ridiculously padded now. He seems to take his role as seriously as George Clooney without realizing it. It sucks when Thor has a better movie coming out than Batman. Theres a difference between Marvel trolls and disappointed Nolan fans.
Well, I can't make a statement on Thor yet, but I disagree on his out-of-shapeness. He seems to be in very good shape, relatively speaking. I think the suit pads him up a bit, but I can't say he's in any way out of shape.
I think a lot of people are going to disagree with your very good shape assessment, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that we can't truly weigh in until we've seen these movies. Who knows, maybe over the course of 2 hours it will be less noticeable, the discrepancies in Affleck's appearance. These quick cut trailers aren't doing him any favors, though.
A LOT OF PEOPLE are saying your comments are douchie trolling. Very unpopular and complete wish craft. SAD.
I don't understand what you're saying LOL.
Because he is talking out of his ass and trying to seek attention
I’m lukewarm on this movie, but can we really say Thor is a better movie when JL hasn’t been released?
The man is a recovering alcoholic who completed rehab in March. Many recovering alcoholics substitute junk food for alcohol. I rather he show up to set a bit chubbier then unhealthy and slowly killing himself. Him prepping for The Batman (if he's doing it) will be an entirely different situation then these ill timed re-shoots. If he shows up out of shape then or starts hitting the bottle again, then you may have a point.
If we can forgive the chubbier Bale-face in the later portions of Batman Begins, we can forgive Ben having a few small scenes of the same.
Or can we these days? :P People are so aggressively petty anymore.
"Can you drive stick?" The lighting in that smokey scene is unforgivable, Bale looks like the Tick. But Begins is full of shit like that that unnecessarily compromises the film. The quick-cut combat, the train in the third act, Katie Holmes. But everyone knows this and has been talking about it over a decade.
So which one are you, marvel troll or Nolan sheep? Because you sound like you fit either category
and you sound like you suffer from a lack of imagination. I'm a Batman fan you don't agree with, get over yourself and your cut-rate profiling
If you hate it keep it with you. Why spread it ?
It's not even about your opinion. Ben was just not in that good a shape when filming JL. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact (not to mention, the highly excessive padding, which is also a fact. Confirmed by the makers of the damn suit). This is why I can't take the OP's comment and sentiment even remotely seriously, because as you have experienced, simply stating a fact is seen as "spreading hate" on this site. It's unbelievably petty, if you ask me.
what is wrong with the padding? Its supposed to look the way. We are aware those aren't his real muscles. God Idk how many times I have explained this...
No, you most certainly are not "all" aware of that. I've seen plenty of people make the case that there was very little padding. In any case, whether or not you like it, that's more so subjective. I don't like it, because it looks fake, especially when Affleck isn't even half as big, which shows during his Bruce Wayne scenes.
there is a scene in BvS where he is staring at the suit and you can literally see the muscles. The purpose of it is not to make you think that that is actually his physique. They aren't trying to cover anything up. Besides, I am 99 percent sure the padding is there as protection. This one dude who shows up here regularly keeps arguing that it doesn't make sense and that "nothing that would actually be durable enough protect him would look like that" or something or along those lines. But to be perfectly honest, I don't care. Its a comic book world. Not the super grounded realistic world that Nolan crated. You have aliens that look like humans and speak english. Batman can create armor that can withstand being pushed through a building by Superman. Not everything is going make 100 percent sense(and that is just assuming that the guy is even right in the first place). That and it is also there to add more physical presence to him. To intimidate thugs and to look more heroic. This is the larger than life Batman that has to stand with gods(the justice league). He has to look the part. I could never picture the Bale suit in the JL. It just doesn't look right. It worked for Nolan's world. Affleck's suit works for this world. And either way, am I missing something? Is Ben Affleck NOT in pretty good physical shape? He looks pretty sizable to me. So I am not sure what the issue here is. Its not like you are putting a skinny guy in a muscles suit. THAT would be faking.
Again, YOU may have understood it. And I agree with you the movie doesn't exactly hide that fact either. But that simply doesn't change the fact that I have seen MANY people (including the OP) argue that Batfleck's suit didn't have "that" much padding.
I don't care either that the material wouldn't stop a real bullet. But that's not what bothers me. It's the fact that it looks fake. That they are making up for Affleck's physique (or lack thereof). That's what bothers me. Cavill's suit has padding, but it's minimal and it's modeled after his own. So when you see him in the suit, it doesn't look ridiculous. It looks real. Because we're looking at how Cavill actually looks. But when Affleck, they could put a super scrawny kid in that suit, and it wouldn't matter. Because it's the suit that makes the man, and not the other way around. It robs Ben of having a REAL physical presence. Padding is fine, but when that's all we're looking at? No.
"That and it is also there to add more physical presence to him. To intimidate thugs and to look more heroic."
Yes, and the fact that we are CLEARLY looking at a fake suit, ruins that illusion for me. A Batman who's half that big, but is actually that big under the suit would intimidate me way more than a high quality Halloween costume.
"Is Ben Affleck NOT in pretty good physical shape? He looks pretty sizable to me."
He's actually not. He wasn't "that" big in BvS, but big enough (for me). But he was still no where NEAR as big as the suit makes him look. But in JL? No. He has lost what little muscle tone he had. He barely worked out and during the timing of filming JL, he was packing a lot of fat. That's why the suit looks so damn weird from the side.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
The upper body just doesn't lign up with the part beneath the utility belt. It's due to excessive padding, and Affleck being out of shape (this was much less an issue with the BvS suit, despite the fact that it had more padding, if anything).
"Its not like you are putting a skinny guy in a muscles suit."
It's close enough, honestly.
can't really relate to any of that.
but if it is padding/protective material then why does it matter? Would it still bother you if it was actual metal armor on the outside like the suit from Arkham Knight or something? THe only difference here is that instead of being on the outside, its on the inside covered by some sort of fabric or something, thus I suppose giving the "illusion" that it is his actual physique rather than being armor. But again, if its armor, then why does it matter? And no, its really not "close enough". Affleck is big enough to look like Bruce Wayne. If they took Ezra Miller and put him in the batsuit, it would seem wrong
Because if it's supposed to be "armor", why sculpt muscles on top of it? That just seems illogical and pointless. "To look more intimidating"? That's just sad. And to be honest here, the movie doesn't exactly give you the impression that they're going for an "inner-protective" suit. The people behind the suit say it's supposed to hug the body very tightly and it's supposed to show Bruce's real physique. So yes, they are definitely pretending that Affleck is that big. And again, the padding looks off. His upper body doesn't lign up with the rest. They screwed up the proportions.
Yes. too look intimidating. Too look heroic. Why is that so hard to understand? but if its supposed to hug his body tightly and show is real physique, why would the muscles be sculpted in? It sounds like I am rewording what you said but that doesn't make sense. You can literally SEE the muscles when he is staring at the suit in that one scene. If they don't want you to know it is fake, why would they do that? And the JL suit clearly has a more protective armor like look to it.
sorry but god i just dont understand you people. You, Reverse Flash, that dude with the Cowboy Bebop profile pic, and a couple others. You all seem to share the same exact opinion and you are all so god damn stubborn about it. I try SO HARD to explain this stuff to you and none of you will have any of it. Why is it so hard to understand??? God its like EVERY single positive opinion I or someone else has on the DCEU has to be countered by you or one of those other guys. Whether its about the movies themselves, the batsuit, the way Steppenwolf looks, the way the actors look, EVERYTHING. I think I need to just either avoid the comments on these articles from now on or do my best to just ignore you and the others. Because nothing is ever going to change it would seem. I have been at this for so long trying profusely to get you and several others to understand these things and it simply never works. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think we will just have to leave it at that. You think Affleck's suit doesn't make sense and seems to fake. I think Bale's suit looked weird and he was too skinny. I don't care how logical Bale's suit may have been or how illogical Affleck's suit may not be. All I know is that when I see Affleck, I see the best and most accurate interpretation of Batman in live action. It looks good and it is what "I" want from batman. But we clearly aren't going to see eye to eye on neither this nor a great many other matters. So I am just going to do my best to not spark up these debates anymore
BY all means, just fucking leave. I don't need your childish slander.
childish slander would have been me attacking you for your opinions which is not something I did. I merely vented my frustrations regarding the fact that I can never seem to convince any of you to see things differently despite how long I have been at this or how sound I believe my logic to be. I am just fed with arguing and getting nowhere. We have to say, as they say, agree to disagree it would seem.
No. You may want to remember who replied to who before accusing me of "always being negative". Also, there is nothing particularly "sound" about your logic. It's just an opinion. Why would or should it convince me?
Wow...what a long wasted post. Not even worth it to read it all. The fact remains: Affleck IS ripped. Check your eyes you poor fool
So the shirtless battle-prep batcave montage in bvs was cgi?? Lol what are you saying!?because he was clearly more ripped in that film than Bale ever was
I was expressing mine..And you said Back up ! Man don't act like you are a saint.
Clay Castille stfu, you and your 10 fake profiles lmao
at least i have one profile, not 10 to like my own comments lol
Because delusional narcissists live for that
huh?
Red campy glow? You referring to the skies??? In the comics and superman cartoon, red skies were frequently used when darkseid was invading/terraforming earth to be like his planet called apocalypse. Your talking out your ass
Right, so this 350 million dollar blockbuster should look like a direct-to-DVD cartoon, got it. They nailed it!
You are clearly not grasping his point. It's not about silencing dissent; it's about keeping entire comment sections from being completely hijacked by vitriolic rhetoric being endlessly tossed back and forth. It's good advice for anyone who cannot deal with particular users, no matter what your stance is.
In other words, you want a "safe space".
Am I the only one who finds this, not mature or reasoned, but incredibly childish, weak and petty?
Nobody is saying to not debate. I am talking about legitimate shit disturbers that cannot handle civil debate and immediately lower themselves to tossing insults. There is a big difference.
I see a lot of people (the OP included) conflate the 2. Tbh, on this site there really aren't that many (if any) legitimate "disturbers" so even by your logic, none of this should be necessary. I throw around some insults every once in a while, but that's more a form of mockery and it's never the crutch of my argument. And I only do it when my "opponent" is behaving indescribably stupid. I *never* insult people for having a different opinion. The last time I've done it, is when a highly condescending "fan" mocked me for being completely ignorant and dumb, up until I schooled him and provided him with the facts (as in, legitimate actual statistics. Black and white evidence). Yes, I called him a moron and delusional, because he was behaving like it. So in that sense, I am "one of the disturbers", but I NEVER do it purely as a result of a difference of opinion. And if "I" am the worst there is on this site, then I can confidently say, you're all overreacting and being very, very thin-skinned.
It's really not a huge deal. You seem very sensitive about this, so I find it a bit ironic that you are going off about what's weak & petty. If somebody were to block you, man up yourself! There's countless others to still discuss things with. If somebody happens to find you toxic or even tiring, they have the right to simply not deal with you if they feel that to be a positive option for them.
Well, I've seen enough on here over the last few months immediately toss aside logic just to turn to how one is a "blind fanboy" or a "troll." Some of these debates have turned into total shitstorms, so if you like that, great! Stick to not silencing people who potentially entice stirring the pot.
Well, you are the one who is wanting to make this discussion of "disturbers" solely about you for some reason. I, for one, never even had you in mind... I feel there are far worse on here. Not entirely sure why you are coming off so insecure over a nothing issue.
this is kind of debate that had been said earlier, use the knowledge my friend
No worries, bro. Way ahead of you there. Don't want it becoming a big thing, and I'm content in leaving it as is.
Umm no. The difference is, I'm not whining about it, and I'm not blocking anyone even if I were being "sensitive" about all of this. That's the point I'm making.
And I'm also not making this about me? The hell? Maybe you're just projecting? I was CLEARLY talking about the OP's original comment and sentiment. I don't see how that has anything to do with me personally? Maybe you just want to pretend this is personal to me, so it's easier for you to dismiss what I say as insecure whining. Well, in that case, you'd be wrong.
Talking negatives on an unreleased film. For me its spreading negativity.I won't do that.Atleast wait till the rele2 then criticize.Oh sorry I'm living in a world where trailer reviews exist.
So what is talking positive about on unreleased film then? Is that okay? If so, why the double standard? Because if that's the case, you literally proved my point that NONE of you actually care or respect ACTUAL debate. You just want people to say what you would like them to.
Haha.. who said to talk positive before the release ? There is something called hope.You can tell hope it'll be good.Its gonna be a disaster! In any art for this rule is applied why not for films? When yiu see an artist beginning his picture..will you say its gonna be a disaster? And whats wrong with saying it'll be good ? After completing drawing you can change it.and im completely against block people talk against you.
So, you actually prove my point that you have double standards. Why am I not surprised? Being "hopeful" doesn't make any more or less sense than the opposite. Also, you can apply a fair logic here. Expecting JL to be bad, is not unreasonable. Why? Because the people behind the film have consistently failed to deliver us good movies, with the last one being critically panned. So yes, it's completely normal to think JL will be bad. Btw, that doesn't mean people aren't hopeful. I don't think anyone actually wants JL to suck. But what people want, and what they expect are 2 very different things.
You don't think anyone actualy wants JL to suck ? Okay Im out. And regarding double standards.Ive clearly gave you an example of a drawing.Thats how I think.I respect your thoughts.but thats how "I" face things .I only hope for the best output. Independent on which studio makes the film.I hope JL will be good.Because thousands of artis4 worked behind this..not for the lose.
People on this site? No. And in general as well. Maybe a couple of die-hard MCU fanboys / anti-DC haters. But you're giving the fringe of the fringe a platform they don't deserve. You're making up conspiracy theories if you think people in general "want" JL to suck. That's just stupid, blind partisan fanboyism on your part.
Who said all the people want to see JL fail? You said none of them want to see JL fail and I said no.Pls reread your comments . I'm not a DC Fanboy.I love marvel character s but no to MCU.Its personal theyve ruined most of my fav characters including hulk thor and Spiderman.I had issues with some of the part in Bvs and I hope they are gonna clear it in JL.Hope is the one thing that drives me.Im kot gonna face my life thinking something is going to fail.Thats it.Top this and I dont care.
"no" as is, pretty much no one, and you know it. This is just you being nitpicky and pointing out trivial differences.
I've had to block multiple people on this site, but thanks for taking the time to mansplain what blocking is and why people do it, really helpful
I've replied to him .Pls read how I've explain ed my opinion.
And you can prove that?? LOL your full of shit. After dozens of conversations in the past decade, i feel most hardcore fans favor Affleck''s version while the Nolan fan boys only know of that trilogy and the arkham games, yet have never opened a comic or graphic novel in their life. The 90s animated series will always be the greatest non comic version of the character, but Affleck is easily the best live action Batman so far (I am of the opinion that we have yet to see a flawless/perfect live action version, but this is the closest yet)
Well if your point is that some fans are better than others or have more valid opinions I don't really know how to respond to that. I watched BAS every day as a kid, collected Batman 89 baseball cards, devoured each new Knightfall from Robin to Catwoman along with Batman, not to mention reading and rereading the novelization. I loved Nolan beginning with Memento, but his Batman solidified his chops. The argument that the most accurate version of the character belongs on the page defeats your defense of any film, much less Batfleck's. Writers and illustrators might spend ages of time with the character, Nolan spent a decade and is an oscar nominated screenwriter. And Chris Terrio had some amazing esoteric bits in BVS. I wore Batman underwear every night, so your presumptive condescension hardly impresses me dude. I know zero people who like Batfleck the best, but I'm old, maybe my circle is different than yours.
So basically you block people you disagree with and you say that makes it more enjoyable for "both" sides? I can't and will never agree with this because disagreement comes in many forms. What you're looking for isn't debate or respectful / genuine disagreement. You're just looking for people that support your opinion and disagree with you on super trivial stuff that just doesn't matter.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's clearly talking about specifically disregarding vitriolic harassment and bullheadedness, not civilly reasoned opposing opinions.
But even if anyone were saying that, it's certainly a more respectable position than obsessively skulking around forums and picking petty fights with people because they like a movie or an actor that you don't.
Oh, I think he is, you just won't admit it. I'm going to be harshly honest here, but I think people here on Batman-News genuinely can't tell the difference. If you scroll down, in this very comment thread, someone else is already accused of "spreading hatred" for simply stating a fact and having a completely valid opinion. If that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will.
I've seen this a billion times. You all """"love"""" having conversations with people "from the other side", but what you REALLY want, is people who just agree with you 99% of the time. If what you're saying were true, why then, do I see the very same people who say they "love" debating, immediately slander and mock people for having completely reasonable and valid, albeit negative, opinions? So yes, excuse me if I take this with a massive grain of salt.
Disagreement should be polite, but it shouldn't pander. Otherwise what's the point of disagreement? Honesty is severely underappreciated in these circles. You basically want sugarcoated comments because the fact is, negative comments are not appreciated here.
You're just putting words in other peoples' mouths that they never said and have clearly demonstrated the opposite of, all while lumping everyone on 'the other side' together as a hivemind of some kind.
Sorry, but you're not gonna save face by slandering 'the other side'. Don't be a bully and people won't block you.
Really? By your own admission, you have used my own comments, which did NOT feature any type of personal attacks, as "proof" that I am needlessly "negative" and "spreading hate" and all that (again, just when I was discussing something, from a fairly neutral position I might add. But it just didn't align with your opinion, which was more than enough reason for you to see it as "bullying". Btw, I don't bully people). There goes your argument, friend. You can't go around saying "it's not about blocking debate, but blocking "hatred" (or whatever buzzword you want)", and then use NON-hateful and NEUTRAL comments as "proof" of me being needlessly negative. So forgive me, when your words are absolutely hollow and void of meaning to me.
Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. I frankly, don't give a fuck how much you SAY you all "love debate". You are the very same people, who get triggered by the mere sight of slight negativity towards your beloved films and REACT badly yourselves.
I've reached the same conclusion, sadly. Some people can't be reasoned with, and it's best for everyone if both parties just move on. I'm not going to let incessant detractors shroud my enjoyment of anything anymore, and I'm done being hounded at every turn just for liking something. It's ridiculous, bullyish behavior.
The shaming really bums me out. Unfortunately, I've seen it a lot from both sides too.
But hey, doesn't hurt to try. I've had a lot of great conversations here, and do enjoy being able to "talk" with others who see things differently than I do. I mean, I also enjoy being able to excitedly geek out with others, but it's nice for me to see opposing viewpoints. That, to me, means the particular art in question is doing its job.
I bet you loved Independence Day 2 as well. Each to their own!
Thanks mate, I never know about this. i personally come here to entertain myself. this option is best to avoid unnecessary argument. I personally annoyed by fanatic who debate like it matter on life and death situation about comic and batman. Thanks
You're welcome. Glad it can help you. I'm just trying to make things a little more peaceful for those who want it.
I do worry that it'll be used to block out only differing viewpoints rather than personal attacks and shaming, but there's nothing I can do about that, so I just hope for the best.
Yep. but its not something you need to concern with. from what i see you just try to reveal an option, sharing a knowledge. you didnt even create this feature, the feature is an option given by the creator for user to be choosed no matter what the reason. i see a few reply about your comment, its toxic and sensitive already.
Thank you for introducing the internet to basic intuitive disquss functionality that apparently Batman V Superman fans had trouble figuring out. Go figure.
Go with what you think, but I only use the ‘block’ feature for the fake accounts for advertising. If I blocked everyone who trolled me or I disagree with, I’d feel like I’m running from them. Sometimes, I like pushing back harder with better tactics.
I think it all comes down to using it for those "special cases." But really, if somebody is so sensitive that they need to block every person with a varying opinion, they're more likely to be a bit unhinged and irrational to begin with. So really, they're likely doing you a favor, and sparing you a lot of pointless grief. That's my take on it anyway...
I agree with John on this, but I need to stress that he hasn't said he blocks people over simple disagreements.
For example, you and I disagree about some things pretty heavily, but you tend to conduct yourself in a respectable way, so we can just talk about it, maybe enlighten each other, or maybe not, but we move on civilly afterward either way. That's the whole point. It's all about behavior, not conflict of opinion.
I agree in most cases, though when people (try) to troll me, I like to make it a waste of his/her time. There are times some people accuse me trolling just because I don’t believe Affleck is the best Batman, Kent’s death was bold & meaningful, and don’t dismiss the MCU as yuckfests.
I’d never say someone has to agree with me. Be more objective, sure, but not total agreement. I actually like prefer discussions over pep rallies.
Those three examples all sound reasonable to me, even if I probably feel less harshly about the BvS ones. It's also fair to have preferences.
The MCU gets too much flack for the perceived yuckfest thing for sure. I would say it has been a problem here and there to an extent, but a lot of the movies wind up being pretty serious regardless of the humor.
This is wonderful! Thank you
You're welcome.
I actually came back to disqus just because of this. Haha. I was so tired of all the hatred and negativity. Made my day, my friend.
Glad I could help! Hopefully we can all make this place a little more enjoyable. It's really fun talking about all the DC stuff.
Well you can block me, cause you seem like a damn idiot.
"The simple life." Haha awesome!
Yes please
Even though difference in his face in the reshoots are glaring, I am very excited for this. I too dig the BatFleck.
Not that noticeable
Wildly glaringly noticeable
Agreed. Both him and Jeremy Irons look noticeably different that it's hard not to notice. Since Batman is obviously the lead character in the film and likely has the most screentime, it'll be easy to spot just how significant the reshoots really were just by looking at his face.
I feel like they could have at least waited an extra week to have the same amount of stubble...
It's not just the fact that he's clean shaven. It's his whole facial structure. Ben is pudgier in the reshoots. In the initial principal photography, Ben was still fresh off his BvS regime and looked fitter and healthier. And he was clean shaven - the scene where he recruits Barry Allen is the original footage Snyder shot and he looked fine without a stubble.
I know what you are saying. But there are reshoot shots where he had stubble during filming and doesn't later. If they are in the same scene in the movie it will be weird like Obeard-Wan in Attack of the Clones.
I didn’t notice it until I saw the original comment
Maybe not to you...
Maybe
Almost looks cg at times
I agree it's noticeable when you look for it, but this is such a small thing that I don't see myself caring about it when watching the movie.
Agreed. Or, at least, I'm trying to agree... :)
Dude, Batfleck looks so beast mode, he's a Batman I'd be legit terrified of if I saw him in real life, he looks monstrous
That's why he's my favorite Batman!
I guess the fact he killed more than any other Batman doesn't worry you?
I still think Keaton killed more. He blew up an entire factory trying to kill The Joker.
The factory was shown to be mostly empty. Batfleck willfully directly murdered dudes. To me batfleck is worse.
I've literally read every issue of Batman. He hasn't killed, willfully, post-crisis except for Darkseid. Maybe it's you who should read.
Are you deliberately ignorant?
I said post-crisis. Do you even know what that means?
Your examples are either pre-crisis or non-canon.
Are you that desperate to make your point you have to distort fact and misrepresent my point?
It would seem you know nothing of the character if you don't understand that his no killing is a defining trait and has been for near 40 years.
No, you have no post-crisis examples except darkseid.
And maybe put an actual counter-point at the start of your reply after all the irrelevant bullshit?
No, we don't have to take the entire history into account you ignorant dipshit, just the last 40 years that has defined the character and had a status quo. By your logic we should have batfleck dance the batusi.
No, Injustice is not post-crisis, it is elseworlds. Same with Miller.
If you want to count TKJ as post-crisis canon, then Batman didn't kill the Joker because he went on to appear in other adventures.
Your argument is so weak you have to use elseworlds and dreams to try and make it.
Come on bruh.
It's all good I'm sorry for being aggressive.
I just don't like that he killed so freely I see it as betraying the core of the character. But we will see what direction they take him.
I’m looking at my copy of The Killing Joke, which I bought in 1989. There’s no red. (No fading; the Joker’s lips are still bright red.) Besides which, say Batman actually snapped Joker’s neck: no blood.
False. All indirect/unintentional, like TDK Trilogy’s, but more brutal and reckless than TDK Trilogy due to the state of the character at that point of his life in the story. Zack Snyder confirms that that is even what he is going for.
You're full of shit. You'r ignorance and obsession with defending a crappy movie need to stop. Go take a pill for your autism or something.
Batfleck killed intentionally, more than any other Batman. That's just a fact.
His 'state of mind' is irrelevant. I really hope Zack Snyder kills himself. Guy is useless.
Dammit I want Reeves/Affleck Batman film asap! Fingers crossed Affleck knows more about the development and that he'll spill the beans during JL press tour!
Seriously, I want him to play Batman in Reeves movie (altho I have doubts it'll actually happen unfortunately), but one way or another I needta know lol
And i want the bvs batman theme in it!
0:47 - Anyone know who's singing on the screen? It looks like those Japanese groups.
It's a Kpop group called Black Pink, the video is As If It's Your Last. I thought it was really funny to put them there.
Thats not Ben Affleck, thats Bruce Wayne in real life! "I'm rich"
Best batman ever. Can’t wait for JL and his solo trilogy
this
Just saw Thor Ragnarok. Not a bad movie, but definitely not above 90% on RT. Not even 80%.
There were some glaringly obvious inconsistencies, cringe-worthy humor, repetition and bad CGI. There's even Thing rip off in it, for goodness sake.
Hela is constantly over the top, there's no depth neither of her character nor in her motives, classic Loki daddy issues "I want to destroy the world and rule its ashes" thing.
It made me slightly uncomfortable to laugh at some ridiculous jokes while they were showing at the same time how millions are being slaughtered in Asgard.
I liked some of Tika's humor in it, though.
A lot of people seem to be using this forum to review Thor.
Not sure the Kronan race is a Ben Grimm rip off? There was one in The Dark World too.
I respect the opinions of many people here, so the input is valuable for me as someone with similar tastes.
Still kinda funny though, considering B-N has spun-off a Superhero News site with Thor articles. ;P
Does anyone really go in SN? :D
Exactly. haha
I do sometimes, but everyone's here, so I appreciate you guys sharing your opinions of Thor even if it's a little off topic.
The SN comment sections are pretty dead. 🤷🏻♂️
Hmm, yes, we're here for news and things related to Batman and DC, but since a lot of us are comic book nerds, who actually don't mind Marvel movies, I see no mistake in posting mini review of my experience watching a CBM movie.
And, as you've seen, a lot of people have an opinion to share as well, so as long as it's civilized discussion, why preventing it? :D
As for Kronan/Thing guy - you'll see what I'm talking about. I actually liked him. Tika used refreshing humor with his character. If that makes sense to you. :D
Just seems out of place. Perhaps it’s own thread would flow better.
He’s running from scissors, needed pamphlets, & helped with the rebellion, right?
The Thing rip off is a real character though.
The Thing rip-off does exist in the comics and was in the Planet Hulk movie.
I am glad for the Thor reviews since I can't get any of my family to go watch it with me.
RT % isn't a commentary on the quality of the movie it is the aggregate of critics who gave the film a fresh review vs a rotten review according to their metrics, why people continue to confuse these things is beyond me. Scorsese is right.
Scorsese is always right. :D
I'm aware how RT works, but my point here is to shorten it up for people who do and don't know how to use it, regardless.
When they see above 90 or 80 percent, they'll understand that what I'm actually saying is how movie is not that good to be so much unanimously praised and have 9 - 1 fresh/rotten ratio.
Korg? He's not a rip-off, possibly. Thing came out 1961, Korg came out 1962.
i watched it last night and i wasn't that impressed with it. It concerns me a little just how much Joss Whedon loved it!! Its the usual Marvel formula; joke, joke,joke, joke and oooh lets make it like GOTG
This is the ugliest cheesiest looking Batman appearance since Batman and Robin. This film looks dreadful.
No, you spy a life long Batman fan.
Did Batman-on-film send you?
This is THE most comic book Batman looking BATMAN we ever had. And you dislike that? Wow... some people will never get pleased no matter what. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
I've never disparaged this suit. Your criterion for a comic book movie quality is how loyal its costuming is to the source material. Mine is how good the filmmaking is. It's a much bigger ask. Stick to the comics if a suit is all you're looking for. Some people's film standards aren't that low.
"This is the ugliest cheesiest looking Batman appearance..."
Your original post being replied to here said nothing about filmmaking, and you specifically used the words 'ugliest' and 'appearance' in association with Batman here, so, yeah, of course people are going to think this is you bashing Ben's appearance or the suit's. :P
Appearance in a film. If I had meant suit I would have said suit. I don't mind if you misinterpret what I say, but don't attempt to speak for me.
Hes talking about "the ugliest cheesiest looking" batman. That is literally talking about his looks. Stop trolling.
Appearance in a film. If I had meant suit I would have said suit. I don't mind if you misinterpret what I say, but don't attempt to speak for me.
Do you even know what "looking" in your comment even means?. You should edit your comment if what you mean is just his appearance in the movie. If not, again....stop trolling.
And you should grab a fucking dictionary, my explanation was sufficient.
Yet you can't explain your retarded sentence. How about you check what looking means, moron. Then come here and tell me it's not related to the image of something in the context of your comment. Not to mention your grammar is fucked up also.
Prove it, you're the only one bitching, seems like it's all you're good for since you have nothing of substance to contribute, bitch.
Look, you and I are obviously not on the same wavelength bro, why don't I just leave u to urs + me 2 mine
Still, "ugliest" tends to imply you're talking about the visual attractiveness of a thing.
I'm not attempting to speak for you, but to clarify for you why people would have thought you meant that when your word choice made it seem that way.
I don't feel a great burden to keep clarifying my collegiate level English to a someone who thinks the term "ugly" warrants a definition strangers, but since I want to be nice... This film, featuring Batman, since it is not sole-y a Batman film, looks ugly and garish in a way we have not seen Batman appear in since the day-glo camp of Batman and Robin. Red skies, fake looking backgrounds, etc.
On a side note, per your confusion, Affleck's appearance fluxuates unintentionally more than I've seen in any other movie, and it's distracting, but he is not and never has been ugly. His Batsuit is the shit. I'm not a fan of the erratic fine-line ribbing over the grey body, but perhaps that is supposed to denote some kind of Kevlar weave. His new tactical suit picks up light similarly to Clooney's Freeze Suit, tho, and remains my least favorite of the bunch, even though his Dark Knight Returns armor is probably the least cool and was featured too heavily in marketing, but the reference is still great. His Knightmare suit is insanely inspired and one of the coolest super hero duds ever on film.
While the lack of blue pays homage to the traditional black suits of the films started in 89, which designer Lindy Hemming perfected for TDK as a tactical approach (except maybe the lower waist/upper thigh/crotch patterning), it's still not truly comic-loyal, even if it is a long-overdo treat for fans. Everything changed a few years ago with suits being allowed to more accurately reflect the comics they are based-on. But any CBM fan knows this. The real triumph of Snyder's DC universe is Henry Cavill's suit. That Superman costume is flat out beautiful and looked even better in BVS than MOS, supremely elegant and jaw dropping, even if it's also not 100 percent comic loyal. That's why people love this universe in spite of consistent bad storytelling because the love and attention to detail elsewhere is so readily apparent.
The BvS Batsuit is said to supposed to look like a “technical carbon fiber tri-weave body armor,” according to the BvS Tech Manual. Just FYI.
You mispelled most accurate. How does the film look dreadful ? If that's the ugliest and cheesiest to you, then you haven't seen much of batman.
"If that's the ugliest and cheesiest"
Makes me wonder what appearance he considers the polar opposite.
Likewise
I think you misspelled ‘different’. I wouldn’t say ‘most accurrate’ Any more then I’d say ‘ugliest (and) cheesiest’.
Well it is , the most accurate. It looks like its ripped straight from the comics but you are right that it is different from the previous ones we got.
I still can’t go with “most accurate” after his methods in BvS. Also, I don’t recall ever seeing Batman taller then Kent or being 15-ish years older then the crew; though those are very moot nitpicks.
I'm talking about the suit, mostly. Though he has ocassionally killed in the comics and he did kill in the Burton and nolan films. The height and age aren't really that big of a deal.
The BvS suit, yes. He’s more known for not killing them the small percentage of times he has. Only Snyder stated this was the most comic book accurate version. I didn’t like the guns used in the prior versions, nor any of the deaths associated with Batman. Only one version, however, claim to be comic book accurate. The bar was set higher.
But he has killed some and attempted to kill others. And it's not just snyder who said that. He's particularly accurate to millers version of batman with inspiration from others. Well it didn't claim, it was accurate. Hell even in his early days in the comics, he killed.
The only other director I recall stating “this is a living comic book” was Schumacher.
Perhaps Miller’s All Star Batman & Robin.
“Early days” were a handful of issues when he was basically a pulp character like the Spider. By the time Robin came along, he wasn’t packing heat or killing.
"Early days were a handful of issues when he was basically a pulp character"
Which still doesn't negate the fact that he did at one point in the character's history. However this is still keeping in mind that this is an adaptation of the character and perhaps one of the more cinematically faithful ones.
"or being 15ish years older"
There's only a decade age difference between Wayne and Kent.
Batman & Robin’s version has a more prominent history then the early, pulp version. I wouldn’t say something that’s a minor part of the history suddenly makes it the most accurate. If that’s the case, then they’ve all been comic book accurate.
Disagree with the “cinematically faithful” opinion. He wouldn’t be looking to kill Kent if that’s the case.
I’ve only watched BvS once, what part established him as 43?
"I wouldn't say something that's a minor part of history suddenly makes it more accurate."
Neither would I and neither did I state or implied such a thing. I merely stated that his early killing is still a part of his comic history. Whether its early pulp or prominent modern doesn't change that fact one iota. Even if you insist on throwing B&R into the equation I would also argue that they are faithful more or less, which was why I candidly stated "one of the more cinematically faithful ones".
" Disagree....He wouldn’t be looking to kill Kent if that’s the case"
Your prerogative, but again, its an "adaptation". And in this instance the director clearly drew inspiration from minor part of that particular history.
"what part established him as 43"
Wayne is suppose to be in his early to mid 40's and we know that Kent is no more than 35 by the time BvS takes place.
Hell even Burton ssaid his baan was close to the comics.
No, more like millers dark knight returns.
True but that was still part of his history and who he was.
I don’t recall reading Burton making that comment.
He’s not really that violent, deadly, or using firearms with live rounds in DKR.
I wouldn’t say something that’s not widely known outside of readers is enough to really consider the norm. Pointing to something that’s in a small percentage of the history doesn’t really sound like justification.
Well he did. He stated his movie was inspired by the killing joke.
In a way he is, he basically shot a guy in the head point blank during a hostage situation, broke a man's arms and legs and enjoyed it, put a batarang in jokers eye.
Well that's why it's one of many, and it might be small but it's still an important part in the history of the character.
“Inspired” isn’t exactly “comic book accurate.”
Shoulder, not head.
So they’ll be a rainbow suit in the solo movie?
Well yes and no. But he did state his was more accurate than previous incarnations.
Thats debatable. The angulation of his fall is oddly weird for someone who got shot in the shoulder. It implies more so in the head especially with the position of the blood spatter on the wall.
Doubtful but I would pay to see that.
"Only one version, however, claim to be comic book accurate. The bar was set higher."
Ooo, spicy statement. haha :)
Which one do you consider to be comic book accurate?
I feel that they've all strayed from the comics, but I've always been open to and interested in them trying new things, and I accept that Batman is simply a flexible character to some degree.
I wouldn’t really say any of them are comic book accurate. If so, he’s not wearing body armor, is patrolling on a nightly basis, & mostly getting around the city via running on rooftops.
I enjoyed Bale’s the most, but I had issues with that version too.
I've come to realize that no interpretation is ever going to be 100% - or maybe even 80% - aligned with what I envision as the perfect Batman. This extends even to different comicbook writers, who craft different feeling Batmen who make different choices or say off things, or maybe some of the villains and side characters feel mishandled.
An off-hand example: I don't like Catwoman in Year One or The Dark Knight Returns, but I think Miller did a pretty great job with those otherwise, so I try to let it go.
I've decided to be happy with the good and forgive what I don't prefer (usually ;P).
And Bale? Hell yes. Bale is amazing, and got a lot of strong development in his three films. Batman Begins had a huge impact on my life when it came out, because I was struggling with some things and it helped show me a path through it.
In terms of differing from previous interpretations, I would personally describe Nolan's Joker an upgrade. :)
You get it
"I'm talking about the suit, mostly"
The aesthetics and physicality alone were enough to elevate this iteration of the character in the eyes of many. As controversial as the carelessness of collateral damage (and even that has context) was, many of the notable qualities and attributes of the character were allowed to shine through. Its another reason to look forward to what Reeves and Affleck will possibly do with the character.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Ummm I disagree.
Which Batman film would you nominate then?
I'm speaking on appearances here. This is one of the best looking Batman suits.
Appearance like, his appearing in a film, not his costume. Justice League is not strictly a Batman film, he just appears in it.
And BvS was also not strictly a Batman film so what are you basing your original statement on?
It looks extremely painful...
And this is just a movie website?
FREAKING BADASS!!!
"He's here!"
"Who?"
"THE BATMAN!"
The kind of footage that gets your dick hard.
Specially when you see Gal Gadot in that low cut see...damn.
Huh? Oh, yeah. Her too.
Haha
Every time I see Batfleck on screen he just solidifies the best looking Batman period!
There's only been one movie in which he's had a significant part. Hardly a position to declare that he's been in the worst Batman movies.
Not even close! I'll take BvS UE over any Kilmer, Clooney, and Keaton Batman film any day.
Fuck, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were so bad. Burton's Batman is a bit too quirky for me, but I still kinda love Batman Returns. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
These aren't necessarily Batman films though. They're DC ensemble films with Batman in them. The Batman would technically be a Batman movie.
While you're technically right, I love BvS as a Batman film. It's such a potent condensing of many of my favorite elements of the character, and so poetically displayed. :)
My sentiments exactly. Just imagine the possibilities with Reeves and Affleck collaborating. That would be something to behold.
* best batman movies.
I don’t know. As someone who had to watch Batman & Robin 4 times in the theatre, it’s hard to get worse (unless we throw in West’s movie). And this is coming from someone who doesn’t care for Affleck as Batman.
Does West's film supposed to count even his Batman isn't meant to be taken seriously?
I don’t know if it counts. There is a feature film with that version. A buddy made the mistake of getting me the dvd as a gift years ago.
Hey, I enjoy West's Batman for what it is. lol
If we're talking hyper-serious adaptations (which I love and prefer), obviously I wouldn't give West's much weight there, but if you also love camp, it's a fun watch as a Batman fan. At least I find it fun. :)
I can’t stand it. It’s like nails down the chalkboard for me.
Hahaha; I totally understand. ;)
As a kid, I loved it unconditionally as a Batman fan, but then as I started to get older and Batman Begins came out, I decided it was a horrible mistake and was actually embarrassed of it. So I actually related to you for a while there.
Now, I've come around to sort of smile at it as a charming and enjoyable part of pop culture that got a lot of people interested in the hero I love.
Hell, it's mass appeal may even be responsible for creating a platform of marketability that gave us Tim Burton's Batman later, which then paved the way for Nolan and Snyder today (along with BTAS of course). The characters became memorable household names to people from all walks of life because of that show, and the effect lasted for decades.
I took it seriously as a kid when Batman and Robin were in a tight spot, and I loved all the cool secret passageways and puzzles from the villains. As an adult, I watch it for the camp. The cheesiness is actually pretty well done, and Alfred is often a badass. :)
It’s essentially a spoof. Don’t take it too seriously.
what did you do in your other life to deserve the punishment of watching that movie 4 times in theatres? : /
Before I broke my OCD, I “had” to see the 4th Batman movie 4 times. It was a mere coincidence I initially saw Batman Begins 5 times in the theatre. I picked up #6 when I went to a Dark Knight marathon opening night for TDKR.
I wound up clocking 6, 7, & 6 theatric views for TDK trilogy. Money (& time) well spent.
haha I understand why with TDK trilogy, but as much as you could like Batman & Robin I don't think it deserved so many views ;p
It didn’t. After the first viewing I was cursing myself for needing to see it 3 more times.
I think I watched it that many times when I was 11 or 12, just because I loved Batman. haha
It's funny the ways humans find tolerance for the intolerable when they need a fix. :P
If I had that kind of money for movies, I'd do the same thing you did. Would love to have gone to the theater that many times for the Nolan movies.
That was a different, no family, time of my life. Two kids later, I scarcely see movies in the theatre. If so, it’s date night & she picks.
I'm literally in the middle of booking my ticket. The website for this theatre chain is broken though.
Why have you forsaken me... WHY!!!!!!
Main thing about Affleck looking different in the scene with Alfred is it almost looks as though he's too clean shaven.
So excited now, some of those shots look ripped straight from the comics.
For me, it's his lips. They look like they disappeared.
He's not really there, its a hologram; Batman died
Yeah, should filmed a week later after he had time to grow the appropriate stubble.
He looks pink and made of wax
A song from JLA:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Grab it while the video lasts. I now have no expectations for the score anymore. Not that it doesn´t sound professional but Elfman lost his touch a decade ago. Sadly. The 2 released songs could have been an ambient track from any modern game, just with references to Bats 89 and Superman 78.
After Batman, I can only think of two big names they would want to add so close to the 17th: Steppenwolf and Superman.
But it seems like Superman is being left out of a very large portion of pre-release marketing, and I'm totally cool with that. :-)
Me with you
Since the beginning of this production, ive always thought, if an actor in the lead role refuses to get in shape for the character of a superhero, haven't everyone's questions already been answered?
Nah, just means no shirtless scenes
- Snyder
Got ma boi's Jay Fabok artwork in the trailer! Niiiiiice
Unsung legend. I hope he gets to be as well known as Jim Lee.
Hes VERY well known in the DC circle.
He's getting there. They've definitely been putting him more on the pedestal the last several years.
Of course his Batman work is great, but I also loved how he drew Thawne/Reverse Flash in The Button, and Wonder Woman for the later New 52 Justice League books.
This was so cool! Love that Batman’s officially the leader of the JL in the DCEU!! Also, that Tactical Batsuit is looking sharp - hope I get used to the goggles.
One question, though: why the heck does Ben Affleck’s face look super pink and waxy in some scenes? Did they replace him with an animatronic replica midway through lol?
It's probably whatever filter they're using to colorize the scenes. Possibly Whedon brightening up Snyder's darker lighting habits, which is maybe a shame.
Are the goggles a permanent part of the Tactical suit? It's SO rad other than them.
Let’s hope some final edits tone that down a bit before November 17th, heh heh...
I feel like I saw a picture with him in the Tactical without the goggles, so hopefully not
That's a really good take! I'm completely on-board with that.
He might be scrubbing too hard
New profile pic... this is just too damn beautiful! https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
So very Jim Lee-ish.
https://vicsmovieden.files....
Absolutely! I love the way Jim draws Batman!
I might be wrong, but some scenes Ben's hair looks a little different! The reshoots...and he did some kind of plastic surgery.
I'm quite sure Ben didn't have plastic surgery.
He's done Botox before, not plastic surgery but Botox injections.
Look at his eyes!
So I’m not the only one!
He looks like wax lol
Marvel fanboys and Nolan purists. Nothing but a bunch of whiny c*nts. Ben is the best on screen Batman to date so stfu and enjoy f*cks sake.
Is that written as truth instead of an opinion somewhere? I’ve got to be honest, “Ben is the best on screen Batman” seems very subjective.
Well of course it's subjective.
Even the Great Kevin Conroy said it so its no longer subjective.
Bob Kane preferred Val Kilmer to Michael Keaton. Still subjective. Always will be.
Bob Kane only came up with the idea of Batman. For many years he was disconnected from the character. Plus he wasn't going to bash a movie he was obviously profiting from. Kevin Conroy had nothing to gain by saying that. Batfleck is the greatest most accurate Batman to grace the silver screen. For any real Batman Fan that is a fact. Not subjective. Comic books don't lie. You simply have your own opinion. Which you are entitled to.
I am absolutely mesmerized by how perfectly it loops.
Gal Gadot : "Batman, for the first time, understands that he can't do this by himself". He already undestood this when he has recruited Robin I think.
that was totally diferent, as he wanted to help the boy to chanel his inner rage and not become a self-destructive teenager ;)
What about Alfred, batgirl, Gordon, Jason?
Alfred was always there, it's basically his father, in the case of Batgirl it was her decision's, not Batman's (a tad like Tim Drake), Gordon is more like his ally in the other side of the law, as he is not part of the Batfamily per se; and Jason was mostly version 2.0 of Dick's story
Still batman accepted their help he didn't need to.
Weell, knowing how Batman acts in those situations I wouldn't say "accepted" more than "tolerated".
Few times has he willingly call for help, and most of those times there was some hidden information and such
Nah Batman understands when he needs help, he may not like it, but fighting crime alone will get you killed. That's one of the reasons batman trains the robins .So they don't risk their lives without trainning and help. Even if batman hadn't taken Dick Grayson he still would've persued vengeance for his parents, Jason was a street punk with raw talent and would probibly be a mercenary and Tim was the only one that actualy could have a normal life but chose to be Robin.
Have to agree to disagree on that Batman part, he never accepts help happily.
But yeah, what you said about the it's what I said about why he took them in ;)
Batman just stole the JL for me. They are all good and all but his scenes just took my heart away.
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
