Affleck and Cavill are 2 of the best actors around for Batman and Superman

[Ragedaug]

Christopher Reeves was my favorite Clark Kent. IMO, the only actor ever to attempt to sell the "Clark Kent" disguise, which made him the only one where I could at least suspend disbelief to accept that those closest to him didn't know he was Superman. You could argue that Brandon Routh also played the disguised Clark Kent role, but I would argue he was trying to be Christopher Reeves more than he was trying to be Clark/Superman. Henry Cavil is probably my favorite Superman (Christopher Reeves comes in a close 2nd).

Val Kilmer was my favorite Bruce Wayne. In my head he fit closest to what I imagined Bruce Wayne to be like. Christian Bale is probably my favorite Batman.

Honorable Mention: Robert Pattinson is my favorite Nightwing. (Seriously folks, great actor, but he's not Batman)

[Gumble]

Cavill was good as Superman, however he was horrible as Clark Kent and all the scripts for his movies have been awful.

Affleck was perfect as Bruce Wayne, and he looked like Frank Miller's Batman, however his script and what they had Batman do was really poor.


Both actors could do a decent job as these characters, but Cavill needs to learn from Reeves how to play Clark Kent in a way where people don't just go "oh yea that's Superman" and both actors need a director/writer that actually likes those characters and isn't just using them to tell edgelord-aynrand-stories. Also, they need to get rid of Amy Adams as Lois, she has no personality or chemistry with Cavill and that relationship is core to making you care about Clark/Superman. She is blandly pretty, but Clark is supposed to the bland, while Lois is supposed to be the fire/sparks that makes the relationship work. (think Terry Hatcher or Erica Durance)

[scubi666stacy]

Cavill was good as Superman, however he was horrible as Clark Kent and all the scripts for his movies have been awful.

Affleck was perfect as Bruce Wayne, and he looked like Frank Miller's Batman, however his script and what they had Batman do was really poor.


Both actors could do a decent job as these characters, but Cavill needs to learn from Reeves how to play Clark Kent in a way where people don't just go "oh yea that's Superman" and both actors need a director/writer that actually likes those characters and isn't just using them to tell edgelord-aynrand-stories. Also, they need to get rid of Amy Adams as Lois, she has no personality or chemistry with Cavill and that relationship is core to making you care about Clark/Superman. She is blandly pretty, but Clark is supposed to the bland, while Lois is supposed to be the fire/sparks that makes the relationship work. (think Terry Hatcher or Erica Durance)

Second all of this.
Terry Hatcher was a really wonderful Lois. She also looked just like she came from the pages of Claudio Castellini's "DC vs. Marvel" images.

[Ivanstone]

Doesn’t matter who Batman is. George Clooney is the best actor to ever play Batman and he did the worst performance. Batman is one of the few characters that doesn’t really need an actor. You could film an entire without ever seeing his face and it would still work.

Henry Cavill was an adequate Superman. Could he have been a great Superman? Maybe but he has behind the wrong director to do that.

I always thought Jennifer Jason Leigh would be a great Lois based on her performance in the Hudsucker Proxy. She’s aged out of the part though.

[eschatological]

Cavill can’t play for dear life (outside, maybe, in man of U.N.C.L.E.), which sometime work with his role (mission impossible or witcher) but clearly failed as superman and even more deeply failed as Clark Kent.
Affleck was a good Batman and an excellent Bruce Wayne, to my surprise. Sad he left the role because of his personal issues.

The role issue with the DCEU was obviously Snyder, who’s a terribly overrated director with no substance and a questionable, but highly recognizable, style.

Bingo. I can't believe people A) wanted a Snyder cut, and B) thought it was good when it released. Believe me, I watched that whole monstrosity, and it wasn't good.

Snyder is stuck entirely too far up his own ass.

[Koriani]

Love how the OP just assumes everyone's opinion is the same here and we all agree with him. On the movies themselves, or the actors.
"universally loved even by people who didn't like the movies" - uhh.. maybe in your reality.

I'll agree on Cavell - but at the same time, I'm not saying I don't think anyone else can do just as good, or better of a job, than he does. I think yes, he makes a great Superman, but he's not the only person who /can/ make a great Superman. We've just also not had a ton of other actors play Superman to compare to (only 3 in movies anyway) - unlike Batman and Batman movies. (Numbers untold - no really I just can't think of them all LOL).

But I totally DO NOT agree on Affleck as "Best Batman" we have. Nope. Not even close. I thought he was a pretty boring Batman actually, and brought zippo to the roll. He's not Clooney level of bad, but I saw nothing great either. Maybe he would have displayed better chops with a better writer/director - but I've seen other Affleck movies and he's "hit or miss" with me. *shrugs*

I'm not saying I loved any, or all, of the other Batman actors better than Affleck. Most of the Batman actors are just equally forgettable to me, even if not outright 'bad'. My favorite was Keaton - but I'm also willing to admit my own bias and that part of the reason I love Keaton and his Batman has nothing to do with the actor and everything to do with me being 12 and in love with the entire gothic-ness of the Burton movie as a whole. Which I feel still hasn't been topped. Pattinson was "fine" and better than I expected. I found Bale just...crappy and stupid and I'm insulted every time he uses the 'fake gruff voice'.

I don't think we've found the "greatest Batman" actor possibility yet for 'our time'. Pattinson was the 'best' of all the ones since Keaton, but I chalk that up as much to the writing/directing as the actor themselves - and we've had a LOT of bad/dull Batman movies where no actor would really 'shine' because they aren't give the writing to shine with. I'd be just as fine with whatever "Batman" movie came next trying out another 'new' Batman actor - because we've not found a "great one" yet. Even assuming we have to have the 'same actor' in multiple movies - which is a relatively new 'requirement' in Hollywood movie making. And depending on the age of an actor, really hampers one's actor choices overall.

And if you mean "fault of production" to include bad writing and directing- then ok, I can agree with that. But I'd say the same about hundreds of other top-level-quality-actors who are in 'bad' movies that 'fail'.

[Biglog]

It's a subjective opinion, kind of an odd thing to definitively state as some sort of fact. It'd be like confidently saying, I'm sure glad blue is the best color in the world. Nice that you think that, but it doesn't mean everyone does or that it makes it true.

Personally I think Affleck is super-overrated as an actor and hasn't been good since his very early films. His acting in Pearl Harbor was comically bad. Hot take he's also awful at Batman. Cavill is much better as Superman. But in the end these are action movies based on comics, so the acting bar is pretty low (ex. Aquaman).

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

But off course, she is gone, and Zaslav reportedly wants Superman and Batman to be the front runners of a DC universe as their biggest heroes.. which off course makes sense. and Ben Affleck and Cavil are almost universally loved as Batman and Superman, even by people who didn't like the movies they were in that much.

The other side of that is that Zaslav also wants to create some distance between Discovery Warner and the failures of the Snyder-Verse. He might be looking to start fresh and with the Success of Robert Pattinson's Batman movie... he's got an easy road forward for that.

Adding to that is also Ezra Miller's current controversies make their future of playing Barry Allen highly unlikely. I doubt that The Flash movie will get axed the same way Batgirl did... but it's probably going to suffer a bit at the Box Office due to Ezra's poor public perception.

Another factor to consider is the longevity of the actors playing those roles. Affleck is pushing 50 now and he's already retired the role of Batman once already... so his commitment to playing the character long term is, at the very least, questionable. Cavil is younger...but he's also highly in demand and attached to other projects that require much of his time. He's also allegedly already in talks with Marvel about joining the MCU.

I do agree that the failure of the Snyderverse to really come into it's own is not on either Affleck or Cavil though. I was initially against Affleck being cast as Bruce Wayne...but he did a decent job with the material he was given. Cavil could have been a truly great Superman...but he was never really given an opportunity to shine.

[Koriani]

Another factor to consider is the longevity of the actors playing those roles. Affleck is pushing 50 now and he's already retired the role of Batman once already... so his commitment to playing the character long term is, at the very least, questionable. Cavil is younger...but he's also highly in demand and attached to other projects that require much of his time. He's also allegedly already in talks with Marvel about joining the MCU.
.

I wanted to expound on this point as I hit it in my post above yours, but didn't get into it their either - but I do think its an important point here.

Its an interesting...'backed into a corner' phenom that viewers and Hollywood have now danced themselves into. As much as humans would, naturally, enjoy the same actor playing a roll for multiple movies/years - its also a very difficult standard to keep maintaining. Its a relatively "new" standard though, absolutely made the 'standard' by long-running series like Harry Potter and the MCU pulling it off - but it also could have been one of those 'fluke miracles' that HP or MCU was able to pull off with its 'starting roster' that we can't really expect as the REAL STANDARD for every single multiple-movie-verse to come.

Prior to these big-hitting-series doing it - sure - it was awesome when the same actor played the same superhero (or any character) for multiple movies - but it was by no means the requirement/rule/standard.

But now that it seems the viewing public wants to MAKE it some type of standard - you really have a situation (IMO) where the industry/fans shoot themselves in the foot. Because if you're only casting actors who can commit to a 6-8-10+ years movie-spread, then age starts to matter more than it should and how popular that actor is (at the beginning of the contract) starts to matter more than it should (the more in demand the are, the less likely they want to sign away the ability to be on other projects). That if you want "already big name actors" then you have less probability that they will be willing to commit so many years of their time to a project, as well as being older when they start (as not many 'established actors' are so established by 21 or 25).

But, of course, the risk with younger, or less established actors, is that they flunk their role in the first movie and now the studio/viewers have to 'reroll' and start over - possibly with (again) another unknown, or younger actor, simply to try and meet that "Well if people like this person we want them in these movies for the next 10 years because audiences really hate it when we don't have the same one!"

And that doesn't even begin to touch all the 'cons' or 'challenges' of committing YOUNG (child/teenager) actors to multiple-year-commitment deals. Variable in their talent as they grow and mature, how their body changes on its own timeline, the questionable ethics behind committing an 8 year old to a 10 year contract, etc. etc. One already could see some of this negative response in some of the reception of Stranger Things - after the pandemic break - and some viewers having a really hard time (apparently) ignoring the fact that teenagers can look very different at 14 and 18 (between each other, and with their own selves) and it effecting their enjoyment of the show.

Its just a weird, very human, conundrum... quandry... interesting sociological experiment? However you want to see it - I am curious to see how this "standard" (or not) continues in its trend over the next decade of these movies.

Thank you for reading my thought experiment .

[Jotaux]

I think Tyler Hoechlin is my favourite Superman.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I wanted to expound on this point as I hit it in my post above yours, but didn't get into it their either - but I do think its an important point here.

Its an interesting...'backed into a corner' phenom that viewers and Hollywood have now danced themselves into. As much as humans would, naturally, enjoy the same actor playing a roll for multiple movies/years - its also a very difficult standard to keep maintaining. Its a relatively "new" standard though, absolutely made the 'standard' by long-running series like Harry Potter and the MCU pulling it off - but it also could have been one of those 'fluke miracles' that HP or MCU was able to pull off with its 'starting roster' that we can't really expect as the REAL STANDARD for every single multiple-movie-verse to come.

One of the reasons it worked with the MCU is that they didn't really go after that many A-list actors at the start. RDJ is an incredible actor...but he was practically unhireable when he was cast as Tony Stark. Chris Evans is a big star now...but until Captain America he wasn't really a household name. And you can go through the list with pretty much the entirety of phase one. Lots of actors you would have seen before... but very few that would have been considered huge stars at the time.

Also, even the MCU has had it's share of replacement actors. Edward Norton was replaced by Mark Ruffalo, Terrence Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle. Three different Actors have portrayed Howard Stark and there's a handful of other changes that don't really stand out much (ex: Red Skull, Fandral, Cassie Lang)

[Gumble]

I think Tyler Hoechlin is my favourite Superman.

He is decent, but suffers from the same issue of "too cool Clark" that makes it hard to believe the disguise.

Reeves did it best, everyone else has struggled with it to one degree or another.

[paxen]

I think Tyler Hoechlin is my favourite Superman.

Agree. And I can't see how he's a "too cool Clark", he's playing dorky dad to a tee.

Probably not better than Reeves, but I'd rate him no 2 superman all time.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

He is decent, but suffers from the same issue of "too cool Clark" that makes it hard to believe the disguise.

Reeves did it best, everyone else has struggled with it to one degree or another.

I mean, there's nothing about the "disguise" that has ever been remotely believable in the first place. You're a journalist at one of the most prestigious news organizations in the world and you don't notice that guy in the cubicle next to you has the exact same face as the guy who is consistently on the front page of your own newspaper because of a pair of glasses? Get a new career.

[Ihavewaffles]

I never got a batman feeling from affleck, it always felt like he put on a costume for a masquerade, or Halloween, he looks like a side-kick, like he should play Robin or something...dude, take that costume off, n stop embarrassing yourself..it's so cringe when he tries to be serious...just...stop..

Robert Pattinson is best batman...

[Ragedaug]

I mean, there's nothing about the "disguise" that has ever been remotely believable in the first place. You're a journalist at one of the most prestigious news organizations in the world and you don't notice that guy in the cubicle next to you has the exact same face as the guy who is consistently on the front page of your own newspaper because of a pair of glasses? Get a new career.

I learned something interesting in Boot Camp after they shaved everyone bald. Without hair, I couldn't tell anyone apart until I was around them for a while and my brain started making associations so I could recognize and remember who everyone was. I could remember if a guy was tall or large or something obviously different from everyone else, but just based on eye/nose/ear/mouth placement it took a while.

This is why Reeves nailed it. He slumped his shoulders, changed his gait, talked in a higher pitched voice, often held his lips differently (pursed or tighter lips), and even changed the side of his head he parted his hair. So you are correct, in that any superman actor who didn't do anything but put a pair of glasses on, would be hard pressed to fool anyone, but IMO Reeves is somewhat believable that folks could be fooled.

[s_bushido]

What exactly did Cavill do as Superman? Scowled and moped and snapped a guy's neck? Other that how he looked, I have no idea why people are so attached to him in that role.

Affleck's Batman was similarly forgettable. Blame the studio, blame the shitty director, or whatever...doesn't change anything.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I learned something interesting in Boot Camp after they shaved everyone bald. Without hair, I couldn't tell anyone apart until I was around them for a while and my brain started making associations so I could recognize and remember who everyone was. I could remember if a guy was tall or large or something obviously different from everyone else, but just based on eye/nose/ear/mouth placement it took a while.

This is why Reeves nailed it. He slumped his shoulders, changed his gait, talked in a higher pitched voice, often held his lips differently (pursed or tighter lips), and even changed the side of his head he parted his hair. So you are correct, in that any superman actor who didn't do anything but put a pair of glasses on, would be hard pressed to fool anyone, but IMO Reeves is somewhat believable that folks could be fooled.

I will say that Reeves does the most believable performance by giving Clark and Superman very different physical mannerisms...but it still doesn't change his face. It might fool casual observers...but anyone that had spent a good deal of time around both Clark and Superman would not be fooled at all. Especially if that person happened to be a pulitzer prize winning journalist.

Superman himself addresses this problem:



The comics have, at times, used the idea that there is a low-level hypnotic effect that prevents people from making the connection between Clark and Superman.

[Mace]

Love how the OP just assumes everyone's opinion is the same here and we all agree with him. On the movies themselves, or the actors.
"universally loved even by people who didn't like the movies" - uhh.. maybe in your reality.

I'll agree on Cavell - but at the same time, I'm not saying I don't think anyone else can do just as good, or better of a job, than he does. I think yes, he makes a great Superman, but he's not the only person who /can/ make a great Superman. We've just also not had a ton of other actors play Superman to compare to (only 3 in movies anyway) - unlike Batman and Batman movies. (Numbers untold - no really I just can't think of them all LOL).

But I totally DO NOT agree on Affleck as "Best Batman" we have. Nope. Not even close. I thought he was a pretty boring Batman actually, and brought zippo to the roll. He's not Clooney level of bad, but I saw nothing great either. Maybe he would have displayed better chops with a better writer/director - but I've seen other Affleck movies and he's "hit or miss" with me. *shrugs*

I'm not saying I loved any, or all, of the other Batman actors better than Affleck. Most of the Batman actors are just equally forgettable to me, even if not outright 'bad'. My favorite was Keaton - but I'm also willing to admit my own bias and that part of the reason I love Keaton and his Batman has nothing to do with the actor and everything to do with me being 12 and in love with the entire gothic-ness of the Burton movie as a whole. Which I feel still hasn't been topped. Pattinson was "fine" and better than I expected. I found Bale just...crappy and stupid and I'm insulted every time he uses the 'fake gruff voice'.

I don't think we've found the "greatest Batman" actor possibility yet for 'our time'. Pattinson was the 'best' of all the ones since Keaton, but I chalk that up as much to the writing/directing as the actor themselves - and we've had a LOT of bad/dull Batman movies where no actor would really 'shine' because they aren't give the writing to shine with. I'd be just as fine with whatever "Batman" movie came next trying out another 'new' Batman actor - because we've not found a "great one" yet. Even assuming we have to have the 'same actor' in multiple movies - which is a relatively new 'requirement' in Hollywood movie making. And depending on the age of an actor, really hampers one's actor choices overall.

And if you mean "fault of production" to include bad writing and directing- then ok, I can agree with that. But I'd say the same about hundreds of other top-level-quality-actors who are in 'bad' movies that 'fail'.

I do chalk Affleck not shining more due to production etc.

He fits the fantasy Sunwell in appearance and pulls off the look and feel of Batman when I saw him in the movies. Also those predictions had badass action scenes, it's just that there was so much flawed here and there, many blame on Warner execs interfering and forcing creative cha ges almost to ruinous effect for that.


Still, for super hero batman, I have found Affkeck the coolest and closest to the animations. For a realistic batman, I still think the Nolan films best the Patterson ones for a good batman

[Ivanstone]

Still, for super hero batman, I have found Affkeck the coolest and closest to the animations. For a realistic batman, I still think the Nolan films best the Patterson ones for a good batman

Most realistic Batman is Hawk from the Titans show. Dude spends most of his time in bed because he's too fucked up from all the injuries he's taken over the years.

Second most realistic Batman is the actual Batman from the Titans show. Iain Glenn's a better actor than Affleck. We never get to see him fight but its Batman. You don't need to.