Something I've noticed in the tumultuous story of Affleck's superhero career is that actors don't have an objective view of their own projects. Nor should they. Whatever we may think of Affleck's Daredevil, he give it all he had, and I think he more than anyone is allowed to be biased in its favor. So I feel for him that the new one is beloved, and the one he put his heart and soul into is so reviled. It's good to see him keeping it classy, giving credit where he can.

It's kind of in keeping with the comic book aesthetic to cast a 50 year old as a 70 year old. Superhero comic artists are amazing at drawing cut men and mighty women, but kinda drawers as anyone else. Old men and women tend to look like superheroes with a few superficial lines added to indicate their age. And everyone has a good laugh at John Byrne's attempts at drawing children.

It also feels like a middle finger to the audience who rejected them. "You don't want me as Batman anymore? Too bad! I'm the Dark Knight and there's nothing you can do to stop it!"

Years ago, I think it was the Onion that published an article begging Hollywood to stop trying to make Armie Hammer happen. They finally got the memo. But people like him never learn. It's exactly this "Don't take no for an answer" behavior that got him canceled In the first place. So I don't think this is gonna turn public opinion around.

I imagine the biggest problem is that there are still too many hangers-on in the WB hierarchy that want to pee on that particular fire hydrant, just so it smells like them. A lot of these tentpole films feel less like a single film than a bunch of half-films Frankensteined together. Too many hands are pulling in different directions, not to serve the film, but their own egos. Even The Batman: part 1 kinda felt like some exec insisted they shoehorn in the Joker, whether there was a need for him or not. And that scene felt like it belonged in a totally different movie.