Guest razazteca Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 They might as well give it to Jaime Kennedy.
Guest mach7 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 ...at this rate, Elijah Wood will end up playing Batman... no slight to Mr. Wood... but just imagine the ridiculousness of him as Bruce Wayne...
Guest the 1inch punch Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Let me do it, because i swear to God I'm a better choice than the Punk'd idiot
Guest starvenger Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Let me do it, because i swear to God I'm a better choice than the Punk'd idiot No, let me. I mean, I'm 5'9" and Chinese. Gold, I tell you, GOLD...
NYU Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 And seriously, Ashton has been famous for about 4-5 years now....I think its time to drop the flash in the pan, 15 minutes of fame tag. Not that I want to see him as batman, but come on. Now, by famous, do we mean "He's been on television, so now he's famous" or "He's really gained the attention of the public and is being highly sought after now" Because, if we're going by definition 1, then yeah, you can consider him famous. But if we're going by definition 2, then he's only been famous for a few months now. He's only gotten a LITTLE attention because of his show Punk'd, but most of his attention for going out with Demi Moore. If he wasn't going out with her at this time, I don't think he'd be getting nearly as much attention as he is now. Personally, I would go with Definition 2 to consider someone famous. Otherwise, we'll have to consider people as minor as "the father on Baby Bob" or "the butler on Joe Millionaire" famous as well because they've been on TV too.
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Why is casting Superman and Batman such a HUGE deal? Because it's Superman and Batman. The roles MUST be perfect or fanboys and net folks (like me) would jump down the studio's throat. Both characers are bigger than anything Marvel's got to this day. So casting the Marvel movies isn't as big a deal as getting the perfect actors for the two most Iconic characers in comics. Kutcher as Batman is terrible casting. WB should ashamed of themselves for trying to cash in on flash-in-the-pan success as opposed to rebuilding the franchise. Pearce on the other hand sounds great in the role. But the Scarecrow as the villain does nothing for me. Spider-Man better than Superman?
Guest TonyJaymzV1 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 You know, Kutcher might not be so bad. Has anyone seen him do any drama or of the sorts? For all we know he could be the shit. Hopefully, if he does get the Batman role, not everybody will go "fuck That" and not watch it...don't hate it before it comes out, hate it when you see it. Oh and Batman Returns sucked balls....just saying
Guest SP-1 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I have to agree with Big, despite my name being blatantly tied to a MArvel property. Marvel may be where I find the most content, but Batman and Superman are friggin Icons. They are the top of the comics heap, pretty much. Casting them must be done well. Marvel has quirky characters that can be experimented with, but Supes and Bats have to be done a certain way. Anything less and WB will lost alot of support, and alot of money. I wish DC would get themselves away from AOL/TIME WARNER somehow. Let New Line make a Batman movie.
Guest Vyce Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Spider-Man is EASILY better than Superman. I watched Superman recently. IT DOES NOT HOLD UP TO THE TEST OF TIME. It's just not THAT great of a film. Good for a comic book movie, I suppose, but it's not as good as the stuff that came later, including Batman and, yes, Spider-Man.
Guest El Satanico Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 It's true that Ashton could have dramatic acting ability. Before Requeim who thought that Marlon Wayan's could do good drama? Even if he does have hidden talent, he shouldn't cut his dramatic teeth in the high profile role of Batman.
Guest JMA Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 In what universe was Spider-Man better then Superman? Oh, and Batman Returns was a perfect comic book movie. The Hulk tried to be Marvel's Batman Returns and failed miserably. As a HUGE Batman fan, I can safely say Batman Returns (and all live-action Batman films) sucked. It's nothing compared to MotP. And I would consider Superman the SECOND best movie of all time. In what universe is Spider-Man better than Superman? Several of them. Earth-1 Earth-2 Earth-S Earth 4 Earth-Prime Although, Superman IS better on Earth-3. I hope this answers your question.
Guest starvenger Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Why is casting Superman and Batman such a HUGE deal? Because it's Superman and Batman. The roles MUST be perfect or fanboys and net folks (like me) would jump down the studio's throat. Both characers are bigger than anything Marvel's got to this day. So casting the Marvel movies isn't as big a deal as getting the perfect actors for the two most Iconic characers in comics. I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman?
Guest JMA Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman? Keaton and West weren't perfect for Batman. They weren't even acceptable. Chris Reeve and George Reeves WERE perfect. Cain was average.
Guest Choken One Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 It can be any worse then George Cloonley... At least Val Kilmer PHYSICALLY was great for the Batman role... If they can mesh Keaton's Wayne and Kilmer's Batman...They could have something... I AM DIGGING THE Christopher Llloyd as Scarecrow though...
Guest BorneAgain Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Eh, I liked Spider-man more than Superman, but I would chalk that up the my intense hatred of the Superman character in general more than the quality of the films. As far as who's going to be the next Batman, stay away from the good looking flavor of the months and go with an established actor who can truly pull off dark roles. One more thing, yeah most of the live action Batman films suck, but the original (1989 version) I still enjoy, despite some the GLARING changes they made to Joker's and Batman's stories.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Well, the truth of the matter is, was, and always will be: 1.) Adam West was PERFECT for Batman... circa 1965. And today, that means: dick. 2.) Michael Keaton was a PERFECT actor for Batman... too bad he's about 4 feet tall. 3.) Val Kilmer has the PERFECT look for Batman, and is a decent actor... but not as good an actor of Keaton. So, what's the answer here? I think it's fairly obvious: Ashton Kucher. I mean, it's obvious. When I think of the dark knight detective, I obviously think of Kelso from That 70's Show. It was just a natural connection have the same guy for both parts. But seriously, I'd like to see Kiefer Sutherland as Batman.
Guest Youth N Asia Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 I'd only like to see Kelso as Batman if they made it a full on comedy.
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Why is casting Superman and Batman such a HUGE deal? Because it's Superman and Batman. The roles MUST be perfect or fanboys and net folks (like me) would jump down the studio's throat. Both characers are bigger than anything Marvel's got to this day. So casting the Marvel movies isn't as big a deal as getting the perfect actors for the two most Iconic characers in comics. I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman? Nope. And I never said anyone that played the roles were perfect. Although as was said before, Chris Reeve WAS Superman. He's the only person you listed that I felt was 'perfect' in their role. Superman dated when compared to a movie made a year ago? No shit! And Kushton as Batman wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't taking on the role when he's supposed to be roughly in his mid to late 30s. If this were a Year One deal, I'd give it a shot.
Guest El Satanico Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Why is casting Superman and Batman such a HUGE deal? Because it's Superman and Batman. The roles MUST be perfect or fanboys and net folks (like me) would jump down the studio's throat. Both characers are bigger than anything Marvel's got to this day. So casting the Marvel movies isn't as big a deal as getting the perfect actors for the two most Iconic characers in comics. I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman? Nope. And I never said anyone that played the roles were perfect. Although as was said before, Chris Reeve WAS Superman. He's the only person you listed that I felt was 'perfect' in their role. Superman dated when compared to a movie made a year ago? No shit! And Kushton as Batman wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't taking on the role when he's supposed to be roughly in his mid to late 30s. If this were a Year One deal, I'd give it a shot. If the character is suppose to be in his mid 30s than there's only a 10 year difference for Ashton. Ten years was probably the difference between Keaton and Clooney It's not like it would be an 17 or 18 year old playing the part of a 35 year old. Age has nothing to do with rather or not Ashton is right for the part. His face being too goofy and happy looking is why he's not right for the part. Even if he can be dramatic his face will throw people off during his first serious role. He should do smaller roles that calls for him to show his dramatic side so people can accept him, before a studio gives him a big high profile role.
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Why is casting Superman and Batman such a HUGE deal? Because it's Superman and Batman. The roles MUST be perfect or fanboys and net folks (like me) would jump down the studio's throat. Both characers are bigger than anything Marvel's got to this day. So casting the Marvel movies isn't as big a deal as getting the perfect actors for the two most Iconic characers in comics. I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman? Nope. And I never said anyone that played the roles were perfect. Although as was said before, Chris Reeve WAS Superman. He's the only person you listed that I felt was 'perfect' in their role. Superman dated when compared to a movie made a year ago? No shit! And Kushton as Batman wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't taking on the role when he's supposed to be roughly in his mid to late 30s. If this were a Year One deal, I'd give it a shot. If the character is suppose to be in his mid 30s than there's only a 10 year difference for Ashton. Ten years was probably the difference between Keaton and Clooney It's not like it would be an 17 or 18 year old playing the part of a 35 year old. Age has nothing to do with rather or not Ashton is right for the part. His face being too goofy and happy looking is why he's not right for the part. Even if he can be dramatic his face will throw people off during his first serious role. He should do smaller roles that calls for him to show his dramatic side so people can accept him, before a studio gives him a big high profile role. I completely agree, but his age is a factor because he looks way too young and, like you said, goofy to play the role.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 I dunno, was Michael Keaton or Adam West "perfect" for Batman? Was Christopher Reeve or George Reeves or Dean Cain "perfect" for Superman? Keaton and West weren't perfect for Batman. They weren't even acceptable. Chris Reeve and George Reeves WERE perfect. Cain was average. No, West was perfect for the Campy 60's batman. Although I don't think he'd work with today's Batman. Keaton owned you.
Guest Lethargic Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Who can say that he's not old enough for the part when we have no idea what Nolan's treatment is yet? He could be the perfect age for what's he doing. Then again, if Pearce is the other candidate, I don't see those two age ranges criss-crossing very much.
Guest EdwardKnoxII Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 I wish DC would get themselves away from AOL/TIME WARNER somehow. Let New Line make a Batman movie. I wish DC would make some movies of it's other heros. With todays special effects a Green Lantern movie would rock and so would the Flash but, all DC wants to do is make Batman and Superman. As for Superman I'm very happy with Smallville and if they make a Superman movie I want it to be with the cast from Smallville. And as for Batman with the way he's been screwed with and all the talk about a new movie for so many years I wouldn't be to upset if they decided to not make another one for at least the next 15 years.
Guest SP-1 Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 HELL YES. I'd take a GL movie over a Batman movie any day of the week. Why? Because we got a really good Batman in '89. But we've never had a GL movie. I don't care if it's Hal or Kyle, but one of the two. And the Corps. They must be around as well somehow. Screw continuity if I can get a badass scene of the Gl Corps opening a will-powered can of galactic whoopass.
Guest What? Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 Which GL? It all depends on which one it is. If it were Rayner, I think maybe Colin Farrel would be good if he grew out his hair a little more...my opinion, though.
Guest SP-1 Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 While I'm a HUGE Colin mark, I think he might be just a bit too old. Though I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head that might be good for the role.
Guest DrTom Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 But we've never had a GL movie. I don't care if it's Hal or Kyle, but one of the two. Fah. Alan Scott kicks ass of j00. But for better brand recognition, they'd have to go with Hal or Kyle.
LivingLegendGaryColeman Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 I wouldn't mind "Kelso" as much if this was going to be Batman Year One. It'd still be odd, but it'd be better than what they are attempting now, cause they need someone younger, what the heck, cut his hair and try to make him work, maybe... maybe I so wish a Green Lantern would be done. This is one I feel would transition well. If there is any unused DC property, I feel Lantern or Flash would be best. Some of the other "well knowns" I doubt would do as well, such as Aquaman or Green Arrow. Does anyone see a future in maybe a Lobo movie? I saw recently they are making a Lobo video game to be released in 2004...
Guest SP-1 Posted July 4, 2003 Report Posted July 4, 2003 But we've never had a GL movie. I don't care if it's Hal or Kyle, but one of the two. Fah. Alan Scott kicks ass of j00. But for better brand recognition, they'd have to go with Hal or Kyle. I read a wonderful BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE backup in a GOTHAM KNIGHTS a while back featuring Alan. He and Batman were following the same trail and wound up meeting up. It was interesting. Really more of a character piece than normal superhero fare, too.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now