Batman/Bruce Wayne Casting Thread - Part 1

[shauner111]

So we discussed this idea briefly in the last thread, but I want to pose it again.

Suppose Matt Reeves wanted to bring Christian Bale back to play Batman, but it would be an entirely new take on the character, in an entirely new continuity completely divorced from the Nolan trilogy. Think Judi Dench's M in the James Bond franchise, only take that idea and apply it to a major titular character. In effect, Bale would become the cinematic face of Batman.

1) Would that idea even work?
2) Would you be up for it?

1) I think it would work just fine, but it would work better for them in the long run if they got somebody like Gyllenhaal who is a bit younger and probably willing to do a trilogy. With Bale, I'm not so sure if he would do more than one film even if it was a success across the board. I wouldn't put it past WB to offer Bale crazy money for "one movie and then we'll see what happens". They must be thinking "Look at how successful everything was with Bale. We reboot with Affleck, and look what happens. Let's try to get Bale back!". But the right thing to do would be to keep moving forward.

2) Nothing would make me more excited than waking up one day, in January or whenever, grab my phone and see Twitter blowing up with Deadline/Variety/THR announcing that Bale is in heavy talks to come back. Or that he's officially signed. Because I love him as an actor, I loved his Bruce/Batman, and I know in my heart that he would be even better in a new universe with new suits etc. He would probably approach it a little differently too.

Jake is my top choice for a reboot or soft reboot. And I might get a dope trilogy out of it. But I'd probably sacrifice all of that, knowing that Jake could still step into the role in the future, if it meant Christian returned for just one film. The concept of him returning is fascinating to me. Have we ever seen an actor reprise his role in a superhero franchise, after another actor has stepped into that suit?

They would have to keep it separate from Nolan's trilogy. No Caine, Freeman, Oldman.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So we discussed this idea briefly in the last thread, but I want to pose it again.

Suppose Matt Reeves wanted to bring Christian Bale back to play Batman, but it would be an entirely new take on the character, in an entirely new continuity completely divorced from the Nolan trilogy. Think Judi Dench's M in the James Bond franchise, only take that idea and apply it to a major titular character. In effect, Bale would become the cinematic face of Batman.

1) Would that idea even work?
2) Would you be up for it?

at this point, I'd be over the moon about it.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I don't think it'd work all that well, but hell no I'm not up to it. New director, new actor, new take. Send Affleck home, replace him with a new in universe actor, preferably one who can play the role for 10 years before they're 50.

 

[shauner111]

You can't count on anyone playing the character for 10 years. And I doubt they'll sign any actor for 3 films after what happened with Affleck. I'd expect a one film at a time situation with all of their heroes.

 

[Boom]

You can't count on anyone playing the character for 10 years. And I doubt they'll sign any actor for 3 films after what happened with Affleck. I'd expect a one film at a time situation with all of their heroes.

Eh, I still think they sign the next actor to a three-film contract specifically for the Batman franchise, with options to negotiate appearances in Justice League films down the road. Even Bale signed a three-film contract.

The Affleck situation is precisely why they would want to sign an actor to a three-film contract, as it cuts out of this maddening uncertainty. The problem with Affleck's contract was that it applied to BvS, JL, and one solo film. Obviously, with WB wanting to put more emphasis on the Batman franchise moving forward, Affleck only having one film left on his contract is proving to be a headache. Nevermind the guy's growing lack of enthusiasm for the role.

Reeves wanting to take it one film at a time is the right way to go, and they may ultimately decide not to exercise sequel options, but they absolutely have to lock down the next Batman for three movies.

 

[TheVileOne]

I thought it applied to two Justice League movies and The Batman came in later?

But I mean, is the uncertainty really taken away with multi-film deals? Ben Affleck apparently signed to write and direct The Batman beforehand, but look where we are right now.

 

[shauner111]

Boom, what you said makes sense except that last sentence. Why do they absolutely HAVE to lock down an actor for 3?

 

[Boom]

What you said makes sense except that last sentence. Why do they absolutely HAVE to lock down an actor for 3?

Simple. Let's say WB signs the actor to one film. Matt Reeves makes the film, and it's a big success. WB and Reeves are both up for making a sequel. They approach the actor.

"Nope. Got other things I want to do."

Granted, you can argue the likelihood of such a scenario playing out, but the possibility remains. Whether it be a scheduling conflict, or whether the actor pulls a "Ryan Gosling" and simply doesn't want to be involved in a franchise, the actor may decide not to return. Then you're right back to where we are now, discussing a recast. Only this time, continuity between the Batman films themselves is being disrupted. Why risk it?

Disney/Marvel is locking up actors for 6+ films. Surely WB can find at least one actor out there willing to sign on to three Batman films.

 

[metaphysician]

So we discussed this idea briefly in the last thread, but I want to pose it again.

Suppose Matt Reeves wanted to bring Christian Bale back to play Batman, but it would be an entirely new take on the character, in an entirely new continuity completely divorced from the Nolan trilogy. Think Judi Dench's M in the James Bond franchise, only take that idea and apply it to a major titular character. In effect, Bale would become the cinematic face of Batman.

1) Would that idea even work?
2) Would you be up for it?

1. No
2. No

Basically for the same reason- Bale is so tightly connected to one specific creative vision of the character, that putting him in a different one would just create a mess. It would, at best, be distracting stunt casting. At worst, it would be openly parasitic. Its just not the same as keeping a supporting character, who could continue to function in essentially the same role.

The only exception is if it were a fundamentally different version of the role, such that the casting is a thematic callback and can't be taken as anything beyond that. Which is to say, if twenty years from now they wanted to do a Batman Beyond movie, you *could* cast Bale as Old Bruce. That's not really the same thing, though, since Old Bruce is functionally a different character, not a different version of the same character.

 

[shauner111]

Simple. Let's say WB signs the actor to one film. Matt Reeves makes the film, and it's a big success. WB and Reeves are both up for making a sequel. They approach the actor.

"Nope. Got other things I want to do."

Granted, you can argue the likelihood of such a scenario playing out, but the possibility remains. Whether it be a scheduling conflict, or whether the actor pulls a "Ryan Gosling" and simply doesn't want to be involved in a franchise, the actor may decide not to return. Then you're right back to where we are now, discussing a recast. Only this time, continuity between the Batman films themselves is being disrupted. Why risk it?

Disney/Marvel is locking up actors for 6+ films. Surely WB can find at least one actor out there willing to sign on to three Batman films.

Ok I get it. That's why it's best for them to get a younger actor. But we have to entertain the other possibility. That things changed for Warner Brothers and Reeves' situation since the numbers hit for Justice League. Back in the summer or whenever it was, Reeves talked about wanting to do a trilogy. Doesn't mean he'll get that chance but okay fine. Once JL hit: 40 percent rating, bad box office. Maybe the studio don't give a damn about an eventual Justice League sequel now. Maybe they don't care about a "soft reboot". Maybe they want a "one film at a time" approach without having to think of sequels.

I see a trilogy happening but maybe they just don't care. You know how stupid they can get. That's why I don't doubt new Bale rumors at a time like this because they're dumb businessmen sometimes and you gotta believe they're longing for the good ol days. Especially with TDK trilogy being reissued on 4K only weeks after the Batfleck/JL fiasco.

Bale won't take it if it's offered. I just know he won't. But put yourself in the studios shoes. One film with Bale, especially if it's good, will make them craaazy money. Bringing a new actor in for ANOTHER vision is a risk. Doesn't matter if it's Jake, Armie, or friggin Jonah Hill. BvS rebooted the Bat, only a year and a half ago. Now they need to sell the audience a new guy and they can't market it as a recast. This is more like Kilmer coming in after Keaton (except ppl loved Keaton more than Affleck). Different tone and look than Justice League/BvS. Naturally you would say, that's a good thing. Samesies. But from their perspective, announcing a new actor in two months and then delivering a film in less than two years is probably risky. Who's the villain? How do they market the movie to ensure asses in seats? Suddenly a past, successful, safe face/actor back in the role doesn't seem so bad right?

 

[Rorschach2012]

I've been thinking a lot lately about how great it would've been if we got one more Nolan Batman movie, and then Nolan would've been heavily involved in BvS and Justice League so it'd be way better.

God this universe has been such a disaster

Might be for the best to just scrap the shared universe idea for now, and just let Gyllenhaal do his 3 Batman movies without any cameos or references to the greater DCEU. Just focus on Batman

And yeah I'd be totally down with Bale coming back. There's pretty much no downside to that.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Strongly against any ties with the Nolan's trilogy in any shape or form. Means none of the actors should play the same roles from it. If they want to cast Bale in some role in the new Batman saga - fine by me. Only this role shouldn't be Bruce Wayne/Batman.

In case they decide to cast Bale in the role in the entirely new take - I have no idea if it will work or not. But I want them to move one and try to do something new. Bale played the part and that story has ended.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I'd be legitimately worried about Bale's health. I don't know what losing that Dick Cheney weight and then getting in shape for Batman would do to his heart.

 

[Rorschach2012]

There are rumors that Bale is getting a massive offer to come back.

They should just shell out 200m to get both Bale and Nolan back for the last Batman movie.

 

[Eddie Dean]

You're more likely to see another Joel Schumacher Batman movie than another Nolan movie.

 

[shauner111]

THAT story ended. Not this one! Lol

They should have Flash reset the universe and screw up the timeline or access Nolans universe. And then we get Bale as Batman in some alternate reality, in his 40's as Batman.

 

[Rorschach2012]

**** it! Get Burton and Keaton back for a third one. How sick would THAT be?

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

at Bale coming back hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Tim Burton's The Dark Knight Returns

Starring Michael Keaton and..............

Spoiler

NICOLAS CAGE

FUND IT.

 

[Matt]

THAT story ended. Not this one! Lol

They should have Flash reset the universe and screw up the timeline or access Nolans universe. And then we get Bale as Batman in some alternate reality, in his 40's as Batman.

In all fairness, it didn't. That is to say, I think some of the reason TDKR is knocked so often is because its sort of the story Nolan had to throw together on the fly after his plan was interrupted by forces beyond his control (Ledger dying). That is to say, no matter how much the studio wishes to deny it, I don't buy for a second that the director who shoehorned every major character from the first movie into the sequels somehow (including Scarecrow's increasingly eyeroll worthy cameos) had no intent to use Joker as part of the end game. Especially considering that his final words in TDK consisted of telling Batman that they were destined to keep doing their dance forever. I doubt we'll ever really know how Nolan originally intended his trilogy to end, but I doubt it was what we got.

However, it is all a moot point. Ledger is dead. There is no changing that. Neither Nolan nor Warners would dare to recast the Ledger Joker. So no matter how much money WB threw at Nolan and Bale to bring them back, it seems silly to revisit that universe when we will never get closure on its most interesting character/dangling plot thread.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

**** it! Get Burton and Keaton back for a third one. How sick would THAT be?

 

[OutOfBoose]

**** it! Get Burton and Keaton back for a third one. How sick would THAT be?

 

[Matt]

That being said, if Batman Beyond does ever see the light of the day, Keaton should totally play Bruce.

 

[shauner111]

In all fairness, it didn't. That is to say, I think some of the reason TDKR is knocked so often is because its sort of the story Nolan had to throw together on the fly after his plan was interrupted by forces beyond his control (Ledger dying). That is to say, no matter how much the studio wishes to deny it, I don't buy for a second that the director who shoehorned every major character from the first movie into the sequels somehow (including Scarecrow's increasingly eyeroll worthy cameos) had no intent to use Joker as part of the end game. Especially considering that his final words in TDK consisted of telling Batman that they were destined to keep doing their dance forever. I doubt we'll ever really know how Nolan originally intended his trilogy to end, but I doubt it was what we got.

However, it is all a moot point. Ledger is dead. There is no changing that. Neither Nolan nor Warners would dare to recast the Ledger Joker. So no matter how much money WB threw at Nolan and Bale to bring them back, it seems silly to revisit that universe when we will never get closure on its most interesting character/dangling plot thread.

Don't be ridiculous, they didn't come up with the story on the fly. They worked on for as long as they worked on the first two. And Bruce retiring at the end, with a smile on his face, was discussed around the Begins era if they ever had a chance to tell more stories. Joker or not.

What does Ledger have to do with what we're all talking about? Also, shoehorned into the sequels? WHAT are you talking about? You're also the only person i've ever encountered who called Scarecrow's cameos "eye rolling".

Nolan would never come back to make another Batman movie. It will never happen. The only thing that could happen is Nolan telling Bale to go for it, if Christian was offered the chance to return in a new universe.

 

[Kane52630]

That being said, if Batman Beyond does ever see the light of the day, Keaton should totally play Bruce.

Oh yes.