'Batman v Superman': Ben Affleck explains his take on the role

Affleck recently discussed his portrayal of the Caped Crusader in the upcoming film and how it's different from previous iterations we've seen. It will be interesting to see how the movie performs in a Marvel-dominated world.

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
Ben Affleck stars in 'Batman v Superman.'

Comic book fans, if you thought Christian Bale’s Batman was brooding, then just wait until you see Ben Affleck’s version. 

Fans impatiently waiting for the upcoming movie “Batman v Superman” recently got some new information about the film via interviews the cast and crew did with Entertainment Weekly. Director Zack Snyder, who previously directed a Superman film with 2013’s “Man of Steel,” is helming the film and it stars “Steel” star Henry Cavill as Superman, while actor Ben Affleck takes on the role of the Caped Crusader following Bale’s turn in the critically acclaimed "Dark Knight" film trilogy by Christopher Nolan.

According to Affleck, in “Superman,” Batman’s outlook on the world is less than rosy in the upcoming movie. “He’s on the verge of being swallowed up by the anger and the rage that we see haunt this character in the other manifestations of it,” says Affleck. “But this guy is further down the line and has become more embittered and cynical.” Apparently the reason that “versus” is in the movie title is that Batman is troubled by the amount and range of superpowers Superman has and he decides that the man also known as Kal-El needs to be defeated. 

Batman has now been at his job for decades and his house, Wayne Manor, apparently reflects his current way of thinking, with the house largely uncared-for and showing water damage and unchecked plant life. 

One would think a film pitting two of pop culture’s most famous superheroes against one another would be a guaranteed home run, and curious fans will most likely flock to the box office. The movie’s critical reception is less guaranteed. Snyder’s “Steel” was slammed by critics, currently holding a score of 55 out of 100 on the review aggregator website Metacritic, and the landscape has changed at the superhero box office in the short three years in between Bale’s last turn as Batman. Nolan’s “Dark Knight” series was and is venerated, with actor Heath Ledger having won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his turn as the villain the Joker.

But Marvel is even more of a force at the multiplex than when “The Dark Knight Rises” was released – the same year “The Dark Knight Rises” came out was the year that Marvel put out its massive hit “The Avengers,” and Marvel has only cemented its reputation since then as the superhero movie studio to beat with hits like “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Warner Bros., the studio behind the most acclaimed superhero series of all time, now finds itself the underdog trying to win back ground.

And many fans are employing a definite wait-and-see attitude about approving of Affleck as Batman, if not objecting outright to the decision. Some, however, think it could be good, with Forbes writer Mark Hughes writing that he thinks “becoming a director gave Ben Affleck additional insights and perspectives about acting… Watch ‘The Town’ and ‘Argo,’ and you should be able to grasp that Affleck is not a terrible actor.” Huffington Post writer Mike Ryan agreed, writing, “Ben Affleck will most likely be a fine Batman. Maybe even terrific.” 

Fans will find out this March when the film hits theaters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.