TheMovieman

I'd still say Luke Evans (34 years old):

islandclaws

For me, Evans has zero presence on screen. He's great for cardboard villains and not much else.

stvn1974

Clooney should get a second chance.

TGM

did you see The Raven? he was pretty good in that.

Why So Blu?

Evans was awesome as Zeus in Immortals and cool in Three Musketeers. He'll be in the next chapter of The Hobbit.

PenguinJoe

This is your argument? He was good in two very shitty movies?

PenguinJoe

Please no Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne. Please just stop.

Why So Blu?

Who's arguing? He's a cool cat.

Mike86

Hamm isn't that old. He's 42, compare that with say Robert Downey Jr. who was around 43 when Iron Man came out. I think he could pull of being Wayne/Batman for a few movies at least. If he got in shape a bit he could easily pull the role off if you ask me. He's perfect for Wayne as he has that playboy image yet also has that ability to play a character with a darker side. He's pretty much the perfect choice if you ask me.

Also to whoever listed Luke Evans no. I can't envision him as Wayne at all and that's a pretty good picture to judge off of. Imagining that picture minus the facial hair just doesn't look like a Wayne at all. Honestly it's too bad when Clooney had his shot it was wasted. He could have been an interesting choice and honestly there were moments in Batman & Robin where he wasn't bad as Wayne particularly. He was just given total crap to work with.

Brack

Jon Hamm would be great if they can get him. Plus that'd be a good age gap to make the movie interesting. There should be a sense of wisdom and experience to Batman, and I don't think we'd get that from a younger actor or someone just slightly older than Superman.

Why So Blu?

Well, since they have Frank Miller as a consultant, or will have him as one, forget Jon Hamm. It'll be Brolin. And Brolin works as a gruff and tough Batman.

DJariya

Hamm won't happen. He will be busy filming the final season of Mad Men.

Dragon Tattoo

Pretty sure that'll be done by March.

DJariya

Yeah but he's not going to jump from filming 5-6 months of Mad Men to another 12-18 months filming this movie. I'm pretty sure he has to do press/promotions for Mad Men as well.

Deftones

12-18 months filming a movie? Usually a movie like this is 4-6 months, tops.

JumpCutz

He was also an openly gay man who attempted to shuffle back into the closet.

http://www.eonline.com/news/257449/o...ck-into-closet

http://flavorwire.com/389636/will-lu...ay-leading-man

DJariya

Oops you're right. Man of Steel took approximately 6 months to film.

Why So Blu?

I think he's bi, but does that fucking matter? What's your point?

JumpCutz

I have no point.

Well, other than I don't think he would be a very good choice to play Bruce Batman. He's not a very good actor.

Hazel Motes

If they're doing a 40ish actor. My vote would be Jon Hamm

TheMovieman

Then why bring it up?

TGM

your comment simply makes zero sense. as we are discussing the actor and his ability to play Barman, and not a discussion about defending the movies in his resume, I think it is a very strong and solid argument.

Brack

Mad Men is 12 episodes, how long could it possibly take to film those? Someone said March it would be wrapped? Sounds about right. It will premiere in April probably. Plus why not try to take a real jump from tv to movies when you are in a great position to do so? And it wouldn't take long for Hamm to get ripped. The guy already is in good shape. He's no Tobey Maguire having to bulk up for Spider-Man, which I imagine took some time.

Of course that depends on what he wants to do with his career, and whether or not he likes the script. Could be crap, and he seems like an actor not interested in just a big payday. He's probably making very good money for his last season on Mad Man.

MrSmearkase

No shit.

islandclaws

Yes, and I thought it was mostly terrible and rather boring. I'll agree Evans was one of the film's stronger points, but he's never memorable in anything.