Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26080127-20150411163838/@comment-1038387-20150411224408

SforHope wrote: Tupka217 wrote: I watched her first Fast & Furious film to gauge them, but those aren't made to showcase scriptwriting or acting.

Well then, if the WW role is too big for her, we can always have her other talents.

You're referring to her past military career, right? She did her own stunts on F&F. She can beat Affleck and Cavill with two hands tied behind her back and blindfolded. The physical parts shouldn't be a problem.

SforHope wrote:

Keaton was being hated because he was relatively new and had mostly been featured in comedy films. Batman was serious business and people couldn't see Keaton in a role like that. Another point was his height and physique that was nothing like Batman should be. (1.70m/5'8") But the movie was well done, in terms of production value. The acting might not be excellent for nowadays standards, but then it was pretty good.

Affleck on the other hand is now a much more seasoned actor, with good and bad movies from diverse genres and people complains because they can't see Affleck as the Dark Knight; and there's also the thing that he seems "too old", when at 42, Affleck is around the same age as Keaton was on Batman Returns. And nobody mentions that his physique is pretty much Batman's.

Affleck, on the other hand, is 6'3½" (1.93). Cavill is 6'1" (1.85). Gadot is 5'10" (1.78) - which is tall, as far as women in Hollywood go. I'm glad Batman has small ears and Wonder Woman has heels. They need it.

Affleck's not too old at 42 - this is Established Batman, not Year One Batman. It's good this isn't another origin story. Take notes please, whoever is in charge of Marvel's new Spider-Man movie.