Batman with Ben Affleck-- Rumors, pic, etc;

[eyeresist]

Killing is the lazy, stupid way to solve things. Any animal or falling rock or large body of water can kill -- it's nothing to praise or admire.

A strawman – few are claiming that killing is admirable. But it is sometimes justifiable or necessary.

The morality of refusing to kill is not about judging other people's goodness, it's about not losing our own. I despise the argument that if someone else does something bad, that entitles you to turn off your ethics and do the same bad thing to them.

See, there's that moral equivalence I was warning about. The actions of a serial killer are NOT equivalent to that killer being executed. The motivation, method and result are distinctly different.

But if your argument is valid, let's extend it – if killing is wrong, then so is assault and deprivation of liberty. Batman is wrong for punching bad guys, and the state is wrong for putting those guys in jail.
You talk about avoiding moral compromise, but accepting assault and imprisonment of criminals is, by your argument, also a moral compromise. And if you say, "Ah, but it's acceptable in context, because it's a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm," well, that's my argument too.

And superheroes are supposed to be aspirational figures. They're supposed to represent the best of human potential. No, not all of them -- there's room for flawed heroes or antiheroes in fiction -- but many of them, certainly. Superheroes represent hope, and if every single one of them is unable to find an alternative to killing or doesn't even try, that's just cynical and depressing. I grew up in the '70s and '80s with TV heroes who refused to take life, or who at least regretted it when they were unable to avoid it.

The harmless hero is a good thing in children's entertainment, but it's a fantasy adults should not entertain in a serious way. Unlike genre fiction, reality doesn't provide handy plot twists and gimmicks so the hero doesn't have to sully his hands. When bad people are doing bad things, usually the only thing that will stop them is force, which is sometimes deadly.

 

[Set Harth]

At least Nolan's Batman paid lip service to refusing to kill, even if he fell short of that ideal in the first and third movies.

Forgetting the second movie?

 

[eyeresist]

I should just point out, I'm not saying Batman SHOULD kill, I'm just saying that the choice is valid.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Rumor mill has it that Justice League 2 is being pushed back to make room for Affleck's Batman solo movie.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Affleck expects to start shooting in spring.

Variety| Ben Affleck Talks Batman Standalone Film, Praises 'Dark Knight'

 

[LJones41]

Killing is the lazy, stupid way to solve things. Any animal or falling rock or large body of water can kill -- it's nothing to praise or admire. It's the crudest way humans have to solve anything.

I never understood the hullabaloo over whether comic book heroes should kill or not. We expect police or detective protagonists to kill, but not comic book heroes? If we're supposed to regard them as something "higher", I simply cannot do it. They're just individuals in the end, with their own set of virtues and flaws.

 

[Christopher]

I never understood the hullabaloo over whether comic book heroes should kill or not. We expect police or detective protagonists to kill, but not comic book heroes? If we're supposed to regard them as something "higher", I simply cannot do it. They're just individuals in the end, with their own set of virtues and flaws.

Actually we shouldn't expect police or detective protagonists to kill, except as an absolute last resort. Proper police procedure should be to employ all possible methods to de-escalate a situation before deadly force is needed -- although that's unfortunately seeming to change as US police departments get more militarized. But fictional cops often tend to be far more quick on the trigger than their real counterparts. Real cops can go their entire careers without ever having to fire a weapon outside the practice range.

See, that's the thing about fiction -- it differs from reality. And which way it differs depends on the taste and goals of the storyteller and the target audience. Fictional heroes can be made more violent than real ones, or they can be made less violent. Superheroes tend to be aspirational figures, so they tend to be less violent because that's an ideal that we can aspire to, a way we wish the world could be. And as I said, killing is nothing to admire; any idiot can do it. I prefer heroes who find better ways, not just because they're more good and compassionate, but because they're more clever and skilled.

However, there is a more objective, legal reason why it makes sense for superheroes to avoid killing -- because vigilantes are not state actors, and thus do not have the authority of the state backing them up in the event that they do use lethal force. Which leaves them open to prosecution or wrongful-death suits that could end their careers. So it's just stupid to go around killing if you're a vigilante. Even aside from basic decency, it's a matter of self-interest to avoid deadly force if at all possible.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

However, there is a more objective, legal reason why it makes sense for superheroes to avoid killing -- because vigilantes are not state actors, and thus do not have the authority of the state backing them up in the event that they do use lethal force. Which leaves them open to prosecution or wrongful-death suits that could end their careers. So it's just stupid to go around killing if you're a vigilante. Even aside from basic decency, it's a matter of self-interest to avoid deadly force if at all possible.

Aren't you already breaking the law by becoming a vigilante? As a masked superhero you take the enforcement of law unlawfully into your own hands. That alone pretty much leaves you open to prosecution regardless of methods you decide to use.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Aren't you already breaking the law by becoming a vigilante? As a masked superhero you take the enforcement of law unlawfully into your own hands. That alone pretty much leaves you open to prosecution regardless of methods you decide to use.

Even so, the average jury would likely make things a lot more difficult for a prosecutor trying to try Superman than they would for one trying to try the Punisher. And that's without even considering the political issues.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Even so, the average jury would likely make things a lot more difficult for a prosecutor trying to try Superman than they would for one trying to try the Punisher. And that's without even considering the political issues.

You're talking about the two extremes though. I was talking about "beat-the-crap-out-of-criminals-Batman" vs the "let-criminals-die-Batman". In real life they both would be facing the full weight of the law.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

You're talking about the two extremes though. I was talking about "beat-the-crap-out-of-criminals-Batman" vs the "let-criminals-die-Batman". In real life they both would be facing the full weight of the law.

That's because in real life the concept of a superhero can't work. So it's not exactly the best yardstick for judging superhero fiction.

But you don't have to look solely at the extremes to see that there would be a clear difference between various types of cases and how they might be handled. It's a matter of acceptance/perception. If the hero can convince the public they're doing the right thing, they have a better chance of not facing legal consequences (either through a sympathetic jury or political pressure on the DA/mayor/governor/police). Killing bad guys as a matter of routine would make that harder to achieve, because it blurs the line between the hero and the villains. Even killing in one single instance with perfectly justifiable reasons could cause problems if the situation is murky enough to be misinterpreted by the public.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Affleck steps down as director...

“There are certain characters who hold a special place in the hearts of millions,” Affleck said in a statement. “Performing this role demands focus, passion and the very best performance I can give. It has become clear that I cannot do both jobs to the level they require. Together with the studio, I have decided to find a partner in a director who will collaborate with me on this massive film. I am still in this, and we are making it, but we are currently looking for a director. I remain extremely committed to this project, and look forward to bringing this to life for fans around the world.”

 

[Set Harth]

I have a bad feeling about this...

 

[Samurai8472]

Live by Night tanked.

It's a good move for Affleck to step down and not take on the colossal beast of directing Batman.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

We've seen with both Snyder after BvS and Whedon after AoU, the toll directing these big budget, studio movies can have on the men behind the camera. Affleck was going to do all that AND star as the lead of his film. No way.

 

[Tosk]

I'm not surprised. Affleck seemed increasingly annoyed by the questions about Batman*, and then Live By Night bombed hard. It's even money on whose idea it really was for him to step down.

*Not to say he shouldn't, I just mean it may have been a sign of his desire to not direct it any more but he couldn't come out and say so at that time.

 

[JacksonArcher]

This could be interpreted a lot of different ways. Warner Bros. issued a statement saying they support Affleck's decision to step down, implying it was his decision. Although, Affleck says it was a decision that came out of mutual agreement with the studio. So it was possible WB approached Affleck about stepping down, and he was merely amicable.

At the same time, I remember Affleck saying a couple weeks back that he was apprehensive about acting & directing. He mentioned how overheated he became in the Batsuit and mentioned the suit would need to be "extensively reworked", saying he couldn't foresee directing in the Batsuit unless the suit was retooled to be removed easier. So it is entirely possible he just couldn't foresee acting in and directing this enormous undertaking, with the scrutiny (which he already seemed overwhelmed by) and pressure that would come along with it.

In that sense, him dropping out as director makes a lot of logical sense.

Then, there's going to some who will speculate he dropped out because the DC Extended Universe has had a decidedly divisive reaction so far from fans & critics. With rumors circulating Wonder Woman & Justice League are "disasters", it makes sense from a career perspective to step down. If either or both of those projects under-perform and/or bomb, it'll be easier to step away from the franchise if he's just starring in it.

I honestly think he's still committed to this franchise and this universe. I just think the daunting task of co-writing, co-producing, directing and starring in it was becoming too much for him to handle. This way, Affleck can just focus on acting and someone else can handle the herculean task of bringing this to cinematic fruition.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Conversely, according to rumors Warner Bros. was upset the script was taking so much time to get right. WB originally wanted The Batman before cameras this spring. That was later delayed to this summer. It is possible WB was just frustrated with how slow the script-writing process was, and it is also possible Affleck was equally frustrated as well (based on interviews, this seems highly likely).

This way, Affleck is freed from the burden of perfecting the script. Warner Bros. doesn't have to worry about delaying this any longer. They get their 2018/2019 release date, and Affleck is still attached to star and produce. It honestly seems like the best of both worlds, at least for the studio.

 

[Commander Richard]

I didn't think it would be easy to direct himself in the type of fighting and action sequences we saw in BvS.

 

[dahj]

Understandable decision, but still kinda disappointed we won't be getting a produced, directed, written by and starring Batman.

I know there's no chance of it happening, but it would be great if Snyder could step in as director.