Board Thread:DC Universe Discussion/@comment-3974095-20130611233337/@comment-1895174-20130823193232

Thailog wrote: LoveWaffle wrote: No, but because it's been well-received. You're literally the first person I've heard from to not like his Captain America. I didn't exactly say it was bad; it's just ok. Nothing extraordinary. Then I'll rest my case on this one. If Chris Evans can deliver an adequate Captain America despite not being the best actor and not doing so great as other comic book characters, then Ben Affleck could just as well be an adequate Batman despite being a bad Daredevil. Thailog wrote: LoveWaffle wrote: I don't think a I guy with a Best Picture Oscar sitting on his mantle would be dumb enough to accept a role where he can't have some creative input, and I don't think Warner Bros. would be foolish enough to let Affleck sign on without giving him any. An Oscar is never a guarantee of everlasting quality. Ask Halle Berry. And films tend to unravel into a mess when leading actors try to have a say in the creative process. Oh, and he'll get plenty of unsolicited input himself, I'm sure, from geek pal Kevin Smith, at least. Halle Berry can do well if she's given more to do than just being eye candy, but I digress. I don't know where you get that notion of films unraveling into a mess when lead actors try to have a say in the creative process because that's simply not the case. Sure it doesn't always end well, but there's no real correlation between the quality of the movie and how much say the actors have on the creative process.

Although if there was one, it would trend positive with Affleck since, as you say, he's really good when he's directing himself. And that shiny little golden man on his mantle gives him the clout to have some say on the matter.