It’s official: The world has a new Batman. But many people aren’t happy about who it is.
On Aug. 22, Warner Brothers announced that Ben Affleck, known most recently for directing the Best Picture Oscar-winning “Argo,” would replace Christian Bale as the brooding Caped Crusader in the “Man of Steel” sequel, beating out other contenders that, according to The Hollywood Reporter, included Ryan Gosling and “Jonah Hex” star Josh Brolin. This casting set off a blast of anti-Affleck sentiment in the Internet populace, escalating as far as a White House petition to remove the actor from the role. (That post has been taken down, but a similar petition on change.org currently sits at over 90,000 signatures.)
This isn’t the first time a casting snafu has taken hold of media coverage or discussion. In fact, several roles in recent history that have made their actors famous could have been entirely different and weren’t necessarily the top choice of fans or studios. However, as is evident, they turned out to be the right one.
This isn’t even the first time a character from the Batman universe has caused an uproar, as several media sites have brought up in the defense of Affleck. In 2006, following the success of “Batman Begins,” director Christopher Nolan cast Australian star Heath Ledger as the Joker in “The Dark Knight,” which turned out to be Ledger’s final completed role before his death in January 2008. The Internet went into a frenzy, with Ledger hate spreading like wildfire due to his image as a heartthrob from previous films, including “10 Things I Hate About You” and “A Knight’s Tale.” Ledger ended up delivering a performance that won him a posthumous Academy Award and earned his Joker the third spot on Empire magazine’s “100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time” list in 2008. It’s safe to say that Ledger was a surprise, and his casting was actually perfect.
The list goes on when it comes to famous roles that could have been someone else’s. Imagine “Forrest Gump” with John Travolta instead of Tom Hanks, or “Pirates of the Caribbean” with Jim Carrey instead of Johnny Depp. Travolta was offered the role as the iconic man from Greenbow, Ala., who let us know how “life’s like a box of chocolates,” but turned it down. Carrey was the first choice for Captain Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates” franchise, but turned it down due to scheduling conflicts with “Bruce Almighty.” Hanks and Depp ended up getting their respective roles, and both actors are credited with making their characters iconic.
The list goes on and on, and it provokes the question: How would these films be without the actors that made them icons? What if someone else had been in that role? Would “Les Miserables” have been the same with songstress Taylor Swift as the tragic and brave Eponine rather than the actress ultimately chosen, Samantha Barks? What if Hugh Jackman said yes to James Bond before Daniel Craig took over in “Casino Royale?” What if Julia Roberts had taken the role in “The Blind Side” that won Sandra Bullock her Oscar? I’d make the case that each of these films would have been different with the actors the studios originally considered, and not just because of the obvious. Their roles would have been different, their personas changed. The movies may not have been as good as they were because the final casting choices worked out.
With the laundry list of roles that could have been different and the track record that several of them worked out to be good choices, I don’t understand the outburst over Ben Affleck as Batman. He may not have been the fans’ first choice, but he’s what they’ll get come summer 2015, when “Batman vs. Superman” is released. Obviously, the film’s director, Zack Snyder (who’s slated to return, along with stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams and Diane Lane from “Man of Steel”) had faith in him. Personally, I think he’s an interesting choice, and he might do a good job. No one’s going to know whether or not he’ll be good until the film comes out, but it’s possible that he’ll be better than people seem to think. He deserves a chance.
