In The Shadow of the Bat: What Ben Affleck Means for Batman vs. Superman

Where were you when Ben Affleck was cast? Last week, news broke that Ben Affleck, the guy who wrote and directed "The Town" and "Argo" and, yes, starred in "Gigli" and "Daredevil," had been cast as the next iteration of the Dark Knight. Affleck is now set to star opposite Henry Cavill as Superman in 2015's still untitled "Man of Steel" sequel, widely speculated to be called "Batman vs. Superman." The Internet, to put it mildly, did not take this lightly. It seems Affleck's former reputation as a talentless pretty boy has refused to die, considering the millions of nerds attempting to usurp Affleck from the cowl with idiotic rants and pointless petitions to the White House. To these so-called "fans" I ask-where do you get off?

Did none of you see "The Town" or "Argo?" Did none of you see Affleck's nuanced performances in "State of Play" or "Hollywoodland," where he played, respectively, a billionaire and an actor-turned-media superhero? Affleck's come a long way from the guy who played Daredevil, having reshaped himself into an Oscar winning screenwriter, actor and director. To put it simply, this guy knows his stuff. Not only is he now a major Hollywood player, but his longtime friendship with Kevin Smith and childhood love of comic books have given him a unique understanding of the superhero mindset. Affleck's past roles have practically primed him for Bruce Wayne, both the playboy persona by day and the brooding vigilante by night.

But this also begs the question- what exactly does Ben Affleck's casting bode for the Superman/Batman film? Ever since the announcement that "Man of Steel" would be followed up by this crossover film, various thoughts have crossed my mind. Does Warner Brothers really have no faith in Superman, to the point they think casting Batman will get more people to go? Is this all an attempt to compete with "The Avengers," and if so is anything about this film really sincere? If there is more to this than a gimmick, how will the film successfully build on the story and character arcs of the previous film while introducing a new, rebooted version of Batman, especially one so soon after the previous trilogy? In short, how the hell is this going to work, Ben Affleck or otherwise?

Well, let's take into account what WB hopes to get out of Ben Affleck as Batman that they didn't get out of Christian Bale. First off, Bale was a more realistic Batman, one who had military grade equipment, sought to take down organized crime, and ultimately wanted to give up his persona to live a normal life. As celebrated as Bale was, there are still many hardcore fans who decry this version as not representing the Batman of the comics. That Batman was the World's Greatest Detective, who had a strategy for everything, resources to take down every superhero, and an uncompromising spirit that refused to quit the cowl. Zach Snyder already confirmed with Affleck's casting that he is meant to play an older, more experienced version of Bruce Wayne. This is supposedly to counter the younger, inexperienced Cavill as Superman. The fact that Snyder wishes to have an older Batman speaks volumes of what we should hope to get out of this movie.

When "Batman vs. Superman" (I seriously hope that isn't the final title) was announced, Snyder had Christopher Meloni read a quote from "The Dark Knight Returns," which features a veteran Batman fighting a Superman who had become a lapdog of the government. While by no means will this film be a straight adaptation (it is a "Man of Steel" sequel first after all), it is obvious that the filmmakers are looking to that comic for inspiration. Namely, the idea of an older Batman putting Superman in his place, so to speak. So, knowing that Affleck is set to play an elder Batman against a rookie Superman, in a plot that both follows "Man of Steel" and takes inspiration from "Dark Knight Returns," we (meaning I) can venture a guess as to how this whole thing will shake out.

David Goyer, the writer of "Man of Steel" and its upcoming sequel, said in an interview that Superman will have to deal with the repercussions of all the destruction wreaked upon Metropolis. Just like "The Dark Knight," this sequel will deal with the themes of escalation and the consequences of the previous film. For Superman, that would ultimately mean owning up to his rookie mistakes of nearly destroying a city and killing a fellow Kryptonian. Since the military still doesn't trust him, it could be that come this film, the public is still having a hard time adjusting to Supes and believing he is a savior.

The voice of the people will be Lex Luthor (Lex Corp was set up too much in the previous film and is too good a foil to both Bats and Supes not to be included here). Through his company, possibly with help from Wayne Enterprises, Luthor rebuilds Metropolis and begins a smear campaign against Superman. He proclaims that this god-like being looks human but is not, and proves it through Superman's inability to own up to the mistakes he has so far made.

While Supes doesn't like justifying killing, he truly believes he did what he had to do for the greater good. He knows he was fighting beings capable to devastating destruction and couldn't stand to see even more life taken, given his inability to use his powers publicly in adolescence. Superman continues to fly around the world, saving as many people as possible from various natural disasters and maybe even interfering in military conflicts. He is literally putting the weight of the world on his shoulders, trying desperately to gain the trust of his adopted people.

Batman, meanwhile, is introduced as a hero several years into his career. He has been watching Superman closely since his first appearance, deeply worried about Superman's allegiances. While his actions in Metropolis at the very least show he intends to do good, Batman sees a man who relies too much on raw power and doesn't take time to think before he uses them. He wants to save humanity, but every time he uses his powers he unwittingly puts more people in danger. If he keeps this up, Luthor will have even more ammunition against him, and the people will completely turn on him. Bruce decides Superman must be humbled in some way, to show that he is just as vulnerable as those he protects so as to make him think properly about the use of his powers.

Meanwhile, the government is also worried about Superman's behavior, and go to Luthor to come up with a deterrent against him. At this point in the franchise, I think it's only right that Kryptonite finally be introduced. Personally, I'd like to think this will either lead to power armor or Metallo, possibly both. Let's say John Corben is introduced as a government liaison to Luthor, who synthesizes kryptonite to power an experimental exoskeleton that could take down Supes. Since Bruce wants to humble Superman, he teams with Luthor and the military to create this exo suit. When another heroic act from Superman unwittingly causes more destruction,  Bruce strong arms Luthor into giving him the suit as Batman so he can use it against Supes, saying no military man is as qualified to take down the alien.

Bats, who has been operating in the shadows for years and is only known by the criminal underworld and certain factions of police, publicly unveils himself. Superman is immediately turned off by the idea of a vigilante operating in Gotham, especially one who uses fear as a weapon. Since Batman seems to represent everything Superman hates (pessimism against optimism, dark against light, fear against hope, etc.), Superman decides to go to Gotham to deal with him. He thinks that if he publicly brings Batman in, he can win the hope of the people. When Supes arrives, Batman engages him with the exoskeleton, using its increased strength, its effects on Superman, and his own analysis of Supes' powers and personality to bring him down. We could also learn here that Batman has even deduced Superman's identity, and here we could get that famous line from "The Dark Knight Returns" that was recited at Comic-Con. In fact, I'd like this entire fight to be a homage to that comic, except for the outcome.

Batman ultimately chooses to spare Clark, saying it was his intention to humble him, not to kill him. He explains that there's a difference between having power and knowing how to use it, and that a man with gifts like his should endeavor to actually help people more than show off brute force. It is only through this can Clark actually succeed in becoming the symbol of hope Jor-El wanted for him. We see that this battle is just as much an ideological one as it is a physical one, with the two heroes seething with hatred as well as envy for one another. Clark secretly admires how an ordinary man could find the willpower to reinvent himself like he has, while Bruce admires how, despite his flaws, that this man could have easily conquered the Earth but chooses to use his powers for good. He secretly wishes he did not have to utilize fear, but instead wants to give people hope the way Superman wants to. In this way, both men have something the other wants, and thus learn and grow from each other. Like good opposites, they attract.

While this is just speculation, I'm guessing that from here we'll have the standard heroes become allies after fighting. Luthor will find a way to replicate the exoskeleton and give it to Corben, and then using the media he will defame Batman as well, trying to make him Superman's accomplice. Corben, now Metallo, can lead the military to bring the two in. Supes and Bats are then forced to go on the run together (like in the first arc of the Superman/Batman comics), and it is here that they realize they each have something the other admires. They gain a grudging respect for each other and come to see the other as a friend. In the end, they work together to take down Metallo, maybe even Luthor if he chooses to climb into a mech suit (possibly a larger, more complete one).

The end result is Luthor defeated and embittered against both men, while Superman and Batman have put aside their differences to become the World's Finest. Batman has humbled Superman in a way that he comes to realize his mistakes, atone for them, and finally become the optimistic, loving hero we all know. In doing this, Superman has realized his full potential, and has given hope not only to the people of Earth, but to Batman as well.

I admit, this is all 100% speculation. But the reason I believe strongly that we will get something close to this or at least thematically similar is because it makes sense given where this film seems to be going. We know Superman, still a rookie in the first film, needs to fully grow into his savior status, meaning he needs to own up to the destruction he caused and learn from it. He'll need to be humbled in some way and learn what it means to be vulnerable, so that he may be smarter in using his powers. This is where having a crossover with Batman could actually add to the story and characters, instead of coming off as a gimmick.

A dark character like Batman will be someone Superman at first despises for being so different from him, but in time he will become a trusted ally. This is because an older Batman will help Clark understand what it means to be truly human, since the underlying element of Bats is his humanity. Given a great script, the meeting of Superman and Batman will advance the characters, story and themes of "Man of Steel" while continuing to expand this new universe to not only create a more comic accurate Batman, but a foundation that "Justice League" can build on. If the filmmakers play their cards right, this movie can be exactly what they need to establish an ongoing DC franchise and compete with Marvel.

This is why the casting of Ben Affleck is actually key to all of this. Since we know he's playing an older Batman, it makes perfect sense for WB to go for this type of storyline. In essence, Batman will at first fight Superman (that will be the main draw for audiences) before mentoring him in how to be a better hero. By helping Superman realize his own potential, Batman will then gain a trusted friend in the war against crime and hope that his mission will someday come true. Affleck has reached the point in his career that he can pull off a compelling portrait of a tortured billionaire turned vigilante, and with his star power he can easily stack up to Cavill while teaching him the ropes. There could even be a meta twist to all this, since the seasoned Affleck, fresh off an Oscar, is the perfect person to help the inexperienced Cavill literally take off. It practically writes itself.

But of course, since this is all the ramblings of one nerd, I could be completely off base. Perhaps WB just wants Affleck for the recognition, to put some much needed star power opposite the still relatively unknown Superman, in hopes of increasing his box office. And that's most likely true in some way. But WB is not what it was in the '90s. Batman and Superman are now their biggest moneymakers, and after Chris Nolan helped make both heroes respectable again, I don't think they're stupid enough to throw all of that away. They casted Affleck for a reason.

After "Argo" and "The Town," Affleck has shown some serious potential not only as an actor, but as a writer and director as well. Whose to say he might come in and revise Goyer's script, maybe even down the line write and direct "Justice League" or a new solo Batman series? The casting of Affleck, while in many ways a gamble, is also WB's safest bet to make sure this crossover flick is more than just a gimmick to compete with Marvel. I'm hoping by 2015 my theories will have some merit, and if they don't, that's just WB's loss for once again squandering some serious potential. Here's to Ben Affleck, our new Batman, and the promise he brings to what could very well be THE comic book event of 2015.

The Kick-Ass Summer of 2013

"Try to have fun," Colonel Stars and Stripes tells Kick-Ass towards the beginning of "Kick-Ass 2." "Otherwise, what's the point?" Words to live by indeed, Colonel. The movies I've seen this past summer are fueled by the desire to have fun. While many try to aim higher than mere entertainment, they mostly just end up as decent popcorn flicks. I guess in that aspect, this summer was disappointing for movies. And yet, I still had a hell of a time seeing all these different films this summer.

Some of them escaped my grasp, I admit. "Fast & Furious 6," "Despicable Me 2," "The Great Gatsby," "The Lone Ranger" and "World War Z" all eluded me. But I still found time to see ten very different, very entertaining films in theaters, the most recent of which was "Kick-Ass 2." With my return to college imminent, I've decided to review "Kick-Ass 2" in the context of the other films I've seen this summer, ranking them all from worst to best in accordance with how much I enjoyed them. This will not only allow me to review the films I didn't get a chance to blog about, but also look back at summer 2013 as a whole and return to the films I did review. So with that said, let us begin.

10. Now You See Me- Jesse Eisenberg. Woody Harrelson. Morgan Freeman. Mark Ruffalo. Michael Caine. All in a movie about magic. This film intrigued me when I first heard about it, and upon seeing it I delighted at the magic tricks displayed by the main cast, who use their shows to steel from the rich and give back to the audience.

The entire endeavor came across as something akin to a modern day "The Prestige" crossed with a heist flick, and was vastly entertaining from the first scene to the last reel.  It all looks great, but while the A list cast is a joy to watch, we have no time to really get to know them. Just as in the film itself, the best magic only serves to distract the audience from something else. In this case, it's all a marvelous distraction from the underdeveloped characters.

9. Elysium- I've already elaborated on how much of a disappointment this film was, so there's really no need to go into detail here. While Neil Blonkamp has created a fully realized sci-fi world, he never goes in depth about the politics or intricacies that define his characters. The potential themes about rich vs. poor are lost amid all the cool sci-fi action, hampering what could have been a heady science fiction flick that was just as much about themes as it was about action.

8. Kick-Ass 2- While being this low on the list seems demeaning, "Kick-Ass 2" was in fact a fun return to the world set up in the first film. Aaron Taylor Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz and Christopher Mintz- Plasse all return to play their respective characters. The film does a masterful job of setting up the parallels between Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl, and the newly christened Motherf*cker as they begin maturing and figuring out who they are and what they want to do with their lives. Hit-Girl's arc is especially emotional, giving her a "Mean Girls" style subplot as she learns to be a "normal girl" before embracing her destiny as a superhero.

Donald Faison and Jim Carrey give hilarious, if brief, turns as new heroes Doctor Gravity and Colonel Stars and Stripes, but the real breakout star was Olga Kurkulina as new villain Mother Russia. The action is great, the humor still works, and the characters are still as interesting as the last film. However, while this works as both a continuation of the first film and an adaptation of the comics (a controversial scene from the book is changed to great humorous effect here), the film never quite reaches the hilarious heights of the original. A worthy sequel, to be sure, but it fails to surpass the uniqueness of its predecessor.

7. This Is The End- I don't usually go see comedy films in theaters, but for this one I had to make an exception. The premise was just too good to pass up. A deliciously meta film about Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and other celebrities as they try to survive the Biblical Apocalypse, "This Is The End" was a treat to watch.

Not only did I get to see all these actors basically poke fun at themselves and their egos for an hour and a half, but I was treated to some hilarious jokes about celebrity culture mixed in with a decent plot about the world ending. One scene in particular, where James Franco and Danny McBride go at it, had me laughing so hard I couldn't breath. I wouldn't say this is the best comedy in recent years, but it gets props for its creativity and its showcase of both the arrogance and humility of some of today's top actors.

6. Star Trek Into Darkness- This movie should have been higher on this list. It was an absolute blast to watch in theaters, both as a continuation of the first "Star Trek" film and as a character study of the growing friendship between Kirk and Spock. Not to mention some great parallels to the way our government runs covert ops in a post 9/11 world. Abrams crafted a damn near perfect "Star Trek" film that serves as an action-packed, yet still heartfelt, science fiction film. What ruins it is an ending that, while still entertaining, is a complete do over of "Wrath of Khan."

It's no secret that Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison is Khan Noonien Sign. While he easily gave the best performance, his character was somewhat wasted in a retread of the classic Khan stories. It did not lessen my enjoyment of the film, but I do wish Abrams and crew were a little more original with their story, as they were with the first film. This is a parallel universe, after all. At least the film promises that future endeavors will take the Enterprise crew to where no man has gone before. And hopefully, the franchise with it.

5. Iron Man 3- I've already discussed this at length, but it bears repeating: I liked the Mandarin twist. While I'm as diehard of a Marvel fan as it gets, I appreciate the risk the filmmakers took in taking Iron Man's outdated archenemy and putting a hilarious, but ingenious twist on him. The film largely works, both as a continuation of "The Avengers" and a capper to the solo "Iron Man" trilogy.

But its greatest strength is being a largely standalone feature, one that perfectly captures the essence of Tony Stark and how it's his genius, not his technology, that makes him special. While it beats "Iron Man 2" by a wide mile, its occasional over reliance on comedy puts it a step below the original, which had a better balance of comedy and seriousness. Still, RDJ is great as ever, and the film thrives as pure popcorn entertainment.

4. The Wolverine- This is, by a wide margin, the best film to feature Hugh Jackman as everyone's favorite feral mutant. Unlike "X-Men Origins" and "X3," "The Wolverine" is first and foremost a character study of Logan, and what it means to have purpose when he's essentially immortal. By losing his healing factor, and at the end fighting an enemy who can cut through his claws, Logan comes to understand what it means to be vulnerable, and through this finds his purpose again when he falls in love with the daughter of a Japanese warlord.

There's a jarring tonal shift towards the end when the Japanese noir/samurai epic suddenly becomes another superhero slugfest, but the action is still personal and the stakes still high for Logan. Plus, that end credits scene was fan service at its finest. All in all, "The Wolverine" makes up for some of the biggest mistakes of its predecessors and proves that even the X-Men franchise can heal.

3. Monsters University- For a film that had no right to exist, "Monsters University" was an impressive prequel that not only stands on its own but also adds more depth to the characters and world of the first film. The focus here is on Mike, and the film is all the better for it. As Mike makes rivals with Sully over who will become the top scarer in school, we are treated to some hilarious college-themed jokes that manage not to gross out the kiddies. This is basically a child oriented "Revenge of the Nerds," and not the Pixar Animal House some were expecting.

The college setting is really an ingenious set up for Mike and Sully to truly bond, all the while learning the importance of teamwork and the powerful lesson of how sometimes, childhood dreams don't come true. A bold take for Disney, to be sure, but then again Pixar has always been bolder than its parent company. While not as emotional as the first, or for that matter many of Pixar's finest of recent years, this still had more effort put into it than either "Cars 2" or "Brave," and signals the return to form for Pixar that I have been craving.

2. Man of Steel- For all the flak this film has gotten from fans and critics about how this isn't the Superman they grew up with, I give this movie props for making me truly care about the invincible man from Krypton. While the action and scale are undeniably impressive, what really sold me was Henry Cavill's performance, which truly sells the identity crisis of Clark Kent as he tries to resolve his human and alien halves.

Yes, there's a lot of destruction, some would say senseless. Yes, Superman does the big no no and kills Zod at the end. But by the time the credits roll, you see the potential that this new series has as Clark greets Lois and gives her that gigantic grin. For all the darkness, the filmmakers still understand that Superman, at his core, is a hopeful character. Dark this picture may be, but in time this new Superman will bask in the sun, and hopefully the fans will follow. Now bring on Batman and Lex Luthor, so we can truly see how optimistic Kal-El is meant to be.

1. Pacific Rim- The level on which this film works is beyond impressive. It's not only a homage to mecha anime and kaiju flicks, it's also a throwback to the feel good summer blockbusters of the '80s and '90s, when characters were underdog archetypes that actually had fun while saving the world. The robot-monster battles are worth the price of admission alone, but Guillermo Del Toro never forgets the beating human heart at the center of all the colossal set pieces. This film is pure, unadulterated, uncompromising, summer entertainment at its finest, and for that it deserves the top spot as my favorite film of summer 2013.

With summer gone and school beginning, I know not how much time I'll get to update this blog. But the geek world keeps spinning, and I'll always have an opinion on the goings on in this vast sphere of pop culture. School may take up most of my time, but the need to talk about nerdy news will never cease. Look out for my continuing rants, as there's no chance of me stopping anytime soon. 

Elysium Review

I love science fiction. Good, hard, earnest science fiction. Sci-fi that creates an entirely new world. Sci-fi that promises good action and character development wrapped in an interesting premise. But what I love most about sci-fi are the ideas it brings. I watch "Blade Runner" and I wonder about what it means to be human. I watch "The Matrix" and I speculate about the nature of reality. You know what I wondered when I saw Niel Blonkamp's new sci-fi opus "Elysium"? Why is there nothing to this world beyond the cool ships, weapons and satellites.

It's a shame, really. I had such high hopes for this film, especially coming off Blonkamp's previous effort, the fantastic "District 9." That film was one of the most original sci-fi flicks I'd seen in years. As intelligent as it was action-packed and heart-wrenching, the film used aliens, and a man who was transforming into one, as a metaphor for humanity's underlying racism. "Elysium" also aims to use sci-fi as a metaphor for a current social problem, namely the gap between the rich and poor. It's just disappointing that, unlike its predecessor, this film doesn't nearly deliver on the clever premise it sets up.

We open in the year 2154, where Earth has become an overpopulated ghetto planet, the equivalent of a third world country. The rich have evacuated to a pristine, high-tech satellite colony called Elysium, where robots tend to their every need and med pods can cure any disease. On Earth, a worker named Max (Matt Damon) is exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. In order to save himself, he needs to get to one of Elysium's med bays.

Desperate, he agrees to have an exo-suit implanted to his nerves, allowing him to download information directly from the mind of his former employer, the CEO of a giant corporation. Things turn ugly when Jodie Foster's Security Director, who wants to stage a coup on Elysium, drafts the CEO into creating a program that could reboot the satellite's entire system. With Max now possessing the information, he's the subject of a manhunt led by Foster's agent Kruger (Shartlo Copey), a psychopath who will stop at nothing to bring Max in.

This is a fantastic set-up, not only for the premise but for how Blonkamp visualizes this future world. The effects are jaw dropping, creating some of the best visuals in a film this year. We are led to believe that this will be more than just an average summer blockbuster because this set up has so much potential. Of course the stage is set for some amazing action, but by having a protagonist trying to break in to a utopian society run by the rich, we could have gotten a cool sci-fi take on the Occupy Movement, or any other timeless tale about the economic gap.

Ultimately, it fails to deliver. The more action Max gets involved in, the more the film becomes about the cat and mouse game between Max and Kruger and less about the societal issues set up, or the world they occupy. We never get to really see the society of the titular satellite, or what really drives Jodie Foster's character into becoming an evil, manipulative harpy. She mentions having kids to protect, but we barely see them. No amount of insight is given into how the rich actually live or how they think.

Of course the rich look down on the poor. But how does living on a satellite with med bays change your way of thinking? Do you see the people of Earth as vermin, biding your time until they all kill each other so you can retake the planet? Are you less cautious because the med bay can heal any injury? (I mean literally-a man's face is completely reconstructed after a grenade blasts it off). We spend so much time with the poor down on Earth we never get to see the perspective of the rich. Blonkamp just assumes the audience knows how the rich are thinking, making the overall conflict very one dimensional.

Compounding this is the fact that Jodie Foster is set up as the main villain, but is quickly overshadowed by Kruger. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing- Copey's sympathetic performance made "District 9," and here he makes for a completely ruthless villain. The film comes alive whenever he is on screen. The problem is not necessarily how his character is written, but how he fits into the plot. Max and Kruger's conflict and the resulting action goes against the themes introduced at the beginning of the film. Kruger is a sleeper agent for Foster on Earth. He seems to have no personal stake in protecting Elysium; all he wants to do is kill people.

Unlike "District 9," where the action progressed the film's story and characters by showing our protagonist side with and protect the aliens, here the action is there for the sake of action, nothing else. There is no social or political subtext about the widening gap between rich and poor, only two men fighting each other in mech suits. The entire film comes across as a visually realized, very well done sci-fi actioner that throws in the rich-poor conflict haphazardly to come across as deep.

Not only that, but aside from Kruger none of the other characters are very interesting. Foster, as I said, is severely underdeveloped. She has no real motivation other than gaining power, and we never get to see her real view on why the citizens of Elysium deserve these resources more than Earth. Max seems developed at first, but devolves into another generic action hero once he puts on the exo suit.

He gets a rather predictable arc about accepting the inevitability of death, and it's no surprise what he does at the end to try and hammer home the suddenly resurfaced social themes. This also raises even more questions about the availability of Elysium's resources. It completely took me out of the film, as I began to ask why a severely polluted Earth would allow a satellite of rich people to hog all the cool tech while the rest of humanity suffers.

In short, "Elysium" is a science fiction film that focuses more on action and visuals than on story or characters, setting up an intriguing world ripe with possibilities but never bothering to explore it in depth. It's disappointing, yes, but at the very least the action is well staged and Copey's entertaining performance made it an exciting thrill ride. It just breaks my heart to see a film with such a brilliantly realized world completely waste its storytelling potential. Blonkamp, either improve your storytelling craft or start working on that "District 9" sequel.

And speaking of sequels, "Kick-Ass 2" is the last film remaining on my summer movie hit list. Tune in this weekend for my review, which will be included in a rant that looks back at all the films I've seen this summer.