1. Robin (when younger)
2. Mister Fantastic
3. Cyclops
4. Daredevil (it wasn’t his fault)
5. That’s actually it. There should be no other options.
Contributed by: Sumeet
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Shadows & Noise 
I, of course, have to take issue with Daredevil. Maybe there were a thousand other problems with that movie, too, but he was an effing terrible choice!
People do feel about Ben Affleck the way they feel about Cyclops. I enjoyed this defense of the X-Men’s surly and square leader: http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/difficult-x-men-a-defense-of-cyclops/
“That you can make a lot of real people angry by disrespecting a made-up person on the Internet is not news.” Ha, I love it!
This is exactly why Affleck would work as Cyclops. You’re supposed to kind of hate him. I actually love what James Marsden did with the characters in the movie. Play him as a dick; we have enough likeable superheroes.
I stand by Daredevil. Although the movie was horribly written, the character itself is pretty much a watered down, less intimidating, more cartoony version of Bruce Wayne/Batman. So I suppose we could also add Joel Schumacher’s Batman as #5.
Not on point, but my favorite line from the Cyclops article: “He’d technically cheated on the not-technically-dead Jean with a fake Jean created by the Phoenix Force, then married a Jean look-alike, then effectively left her for the real, resurrected Jean, who was still in love with Scott but also a little jealous because he’d been with two women who looked exactly like her, one of whom was a goddess. I remember actually finding all of this romantic, which says a lot about how comics can ruin your life.”
So if he can play Matt Murdock, he can play Bruce Wayne, right?
Okay, first time poster and reader, but like what I see so far! Also appreciate the link to an in-depth defense of Cyclops and completely agree with that pick. And I agree that Daredevil wasn’t a terrible casting choice – and, for that matter, Clooney wasn’t a terrible choice for Batman either. They have the look and the acting chops. They were just in terrible, terrible movies. But … Ben Affleck playing Robin? And even more bizarre, Reed Richards?! No. RE: Robin, I get that there’s a “when he was younger” caveat here. But Robin’s typically been in the 10 to 16 age range. (Chris O’Donnell is not a good counterpoint, fyi.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but we’ve never seen Affleck in any movie when he was anywhere close to looking that young. Plus Robin’s kind of short. I’m not saying 13 year-old Ben Affleck couldn’t play Robin. I just don’t get why he’d be any better or worse than 13 year-old, I don’t know, Tom Hanks, or Jimmy Stewart or Charlie Day. And with Reed Richards, we have the opposite problem! Looks like the new movie will skew younger, but Reed Richards is typically an older looking distinguished guy with grey temples and a professorial demeanor. Sure, Affleck is 41, but he really doesn’t fit – or hasn’t demonstrated on film – any of these characteristics.
Other options to consider: Iron Fist, the Flash, Havok, or the Living Tribunal.
Robin’s just kind of a potshot, right? As in, you’re not qualified to play Batman — here’s his wussy teenage sidekick. Reed Richards I agree with you on. I just can’t visualize it.
As for the others, we’ll see if Sumeet checks in on this today, but I think the Flash is a great option. He’d actually make a lot of sense in that role (other than the fact that I think of the Flash being a little younger). I’m gonna disagree with you on the Living Tribunal (which I admittedly had to google to remind myself who that even was) on the grounds that Ben Affleck doesn’t have three faces. http://marvel.com/universe/Living_Tribunal
Robin was mainly a potshot, but I do think Ben Affleck has the ability to play a level of charismatic sarcasm appropriate to Robin that, for example, I wouldn’t imagine even in a teenage Tom Hanks (I’m thinking Dogma and Good Will Hunting here).
As for Reed Richards, it might be a bit of a stretch–pun intended–but in a sense he’s the Fantastic Four’s version of Cyclops, just with more intelligence and less angst. I mainly had Argo in mind for both of those picks, where I thought Ben Affleck fit well as the somewhat boring, single-minded leader of a much more emotionally diverse group. He ultimately may not have the look or feel of someone as smart or methodical as Reed Richards, but it still seems a plausible choice to me. And I’m sure he’s hiding some gray he could use!
Flash is another great pick. I should have seen that one. I can’t pretend to have a very informed opinion on the other three options, but thank you Adam for giving me a reason to find out more!
Oh, and to your point Spencer, I don’t think Ben Affleck is a misfit for Bruce Wayne (or rather Bruce Wayne’s persona), just terribly lacking in the darkness, gravitas and physical intimidation necessary to fully play Batman.
Bruce Wayne should always be a little disturbed. This is why Christian Bale and Michael Keaton were so well cast in the role. And why Clooney and Affleck don’t make sense of it. They’re both too nice, too likeable. Bruce Wayne isn’t a likeable guy. He broods and goes around beating up people when he’s not publicly pretending to be a rich douchebag.
And what makes the miscasting even worse is that, when you’re putting Batman and Superman together, it’s even more essential that Batman be unlikeable. Superman is the goody-goody, Batman is the vigilante, and the tension comes from the fact that the two really don’t like each other and strongly disagree with each other’s philosophies. Casting Affleck makes it virtually impossible to establish that dynamic.