Ben Affleck On How His Batman Differs From Christopher Nolan & Christian Bale's



The December issue of Studio Ciné Live (via batman-news) has Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice on the cover, and inside, an interview with Ben Affeck. He discusses how his Batman differs from the one we saw Christian Bale play in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy and compares Jesse Eisenberg to Oscar-winner Heath Ledger.

Affleck was asked if he studied Christian Bale's performance to distinguish himself. "I don’t want to compete with other incarnations, nor do I want to emulate them," Affleck told Studio Ciné Live. "Those versions belong in another universe. Christopher Nolan used his Batman to tell a finite story. My version is different, but remains faithful to the Batman mythology and all the themes associated with it. The other difference is that Nolan’s Batman isn’t part of a universe where other superheroes exist as well. Here – because we’re working towards the Justice League – there’s Superman, and it’s a world populated with super beings. This situation generates an altogether new reality."

In The Dark Knight saga, Bruce Wayne took on the playboy persona to make sure nobody would believe a spoiled, wealthy brat could be Gotham's savior. In Batman V. Superman, Bruce has another reason for indulging in the playboy lifestyle. "We also play a bit more with the billionaire playboy side of the character," Affleck explained. "He lives that life at full tilt. He courts many women, owns many cars, and parties a lot. He does that as a way to fill the void in his soul. Moreover, past incarnations dealt with a straightforward search for justice. This time, Batman’s reasoning is clouded by frustration, bitterness and anger."

Affleck gives high praise to his co-star Jesse Eisenberg, comparing his Lex Luthor to Heath Ledger's Joker.  "Luthor is, for me, the most interesting character in the film," he shared. "He’s radically different from what we’ve seen so far. He’s grounded in reality, and he’s extraordinary. This type of film is only as good as its villain. That’s why The Dark Knight was so brilliant, because of Heath Ledger’s Joker. Jesse improves the film with each scene he’s in. He’s not your usual one-dimensional villain, there’s a whole psychology behind him."

In Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City’s own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis’s most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it’s ever known before.

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice opens March 25, 2016.

Join the Conversation


    • Flash187
    • 524 Posts in 29 Months

    I trust Affleck's opinion on acting and his overall take on the film. The guys made some great films especially from a dramatic perspective so his opinion is one I'd trust. Very much look forward to this film...

    • wheelwork
    • 2254 Posts in 26 Months

    "This type of film is only as good as its villain."- Ben Afflaq. FOOL! The matter is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Absolutely disgraceful.

    • _L0Bo_
    • 3197 Posts in 26 Months

    Who says other superheroes didn't exist in Nolan's universe, it still was a DC universe and it was more than just Batman, that's for sure.

    Hey if Affleck's as good as Keaton was I personally will be a happy bunny, he'll be pure awesome.

  1. he's right.  nobody cares about the hero if they dont have an even better villian.

    lets look at nolan's terrible batman movies.  there was only 1 good one.  the dark knight.  thats entirely because of ledger.

    liam neesam was a terrible ras al ghoul.  dont even get me started on how bad the villians were in the third film.

    yes the hero is important.  one of the reasons nolans films were so terrible is because christian bale was the worst batman in history with his gargle broken glass voice and his complete lack of intelligence that relied entirely on morgan freeman's character for any type of intelligence whatsoever (making it impossible for him to be the world's greatest anything, let alone detective).

    but its commonly known, the antagonist is more important than the protagonist in a story.  without the antagonist, the protagonist just sits there and does nothing.  

  2. Actually, he is EXACTLY CORRECT.  Without a good villain there is nothing for the hero to play off.  The conflict between the hero and villain is what creates the circumstances in which the hero's relative morality is determined.  

    The hero can't undergo any character progression if they don't have some conflict to overcome (sometimes internal/sometimes external).  The villain is WAY more important to the story than the hero every time.

  3. See All 10 comments
Hide comments