A Better Batman Than Ben Affleck

I'm not going to go into all the reasons why Ben Affleck is a terrible choice for Batman. I think after reading about the qualifications of my alternate choices, Affleck's shortcomings will be manifest.

Josh Brolin

First of all, Brolin bears a resemblance to Christian Bale. This would help with the suspension of disbelief and continuation of Nolan's world. Second, I loved Bale as Bruce Wayne. He perfectly captured the angst of the scarred child combined with the image of a shallow playboy. But I wasn't always convinced when he was in the Batsuit. I guess it seemed like he was trying a little too hard to be scary. Brolin, on the other hand, just exudes tough. Like his father, Josh doesn't need to act intimidating...it's in his DNA.

Michael Fassbender

One thing every devoted comic book reader knows is that Batman is crazy. The only actor to truly capture that angle was Michael Keaton (maybe because Keaton is a little crazy.) Fassbender gives me the same vibe. He's the kind of guy that can't come off as normal, no matter how hard he tries. Which would make for a very intriguing Bruce Wayne. Some may say "he can't be Batman...he's already Magneto!", but Chris Evans has pulled it off with Johnny Storm/Captain America. And then Affleck portrayed Daredevil....never mind.

Benedict Cumberbatch

I just love Benedict Cumberbatch and would watch a movie of him reading a newspaper. That being said, I think he would specifically make an excellent Batman. He exudes dark, and who is darker than The Dark Knight? Plus, we know he could handle the physical stuff - we was quite frightening in the fight scenes as Khan. And it doesn't hurt that he portrays Sherlock Holmes. One element missing from all of the Batman films so far is the fact that, in the comics, Batman is considered the greatest detective in the world. In fact, Ra's al Ghul simply refers to him as "The Detective". Makes sense that the world's greatest detective in one genre would portray the world's greatest detective in another.

---

Jeffrey Dale Starr is a vodka enthusiast, oil painter, and owner of mobile software company Purple Falcon.

3 Reasons Why "Into Darkness" is the Best Star Trek Movie

First, some context: I am a middle-aged, lifelong Trekker. In 1970 I had a model Enterprise hanging from my bedroom ceiling. I have watched every iteration and variation of Star Trek since the get-go. I am not some kid who thinks life began in 2005.

And I absolutely loved Into Darkness.

Here is why:

Benedict Cumberbatch

One of the reasons people took Star Wars seriously from the start was the caliber of actors involved. Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, James Earl Jones...these were highly respected thespians who gave the movie credibility. You had to figure if these guys saw something in the script, there had to be some gravitas to the story. By way of contrast, what did the Star Trek movies have? Um...uh...the original casts? (Tom Hardy doesn't count because he was still a kid.) I love Ricardo Montalban, but he isn't exactly Marlon Brando. But featuring one of the greatest actors of our generation gives Into Darkness a classic vibe. Years from now his scenes will be viewed as legendary and reflect very well on the series. Same thing with Michael Fassbender as Magneto.

Spock In Love

One of my favorite episodes from the original series was "This Side of Paradise", which featured, among other things, Spock revealing and displaying his love for Leila. It really showed the constant struggle the Vulcan goes through to tamp down emotions that are always just below the surface. But some fans (see: codgers) are screaming, "Spock and Uhura can't be in love!!!" To me this makes no sense. Sarek, Spock's father, married a human woman. And he is 100% Vulcan. Why in the world would it be hard to believe that a half-Vulcan would give in to his emotions? I think it's great and the relationship adds entire levels of complexity and twists to the story that benefit all concerned.

Action

Up until the J.J. Abrams movies, the Star Trek films had a fatal flaw: they were boring. And I reiterate...I am a massive Trekker. Of the TV shows. The movies - not so much. Star Trek as a TV series has always been very cerebral. And that works in the framework of a TV show. For 22 episodes a year, stories can be slowly developed and allowed to mature organically. But a 2-hour movie? Forget it. Viewers need to be drawn in and stimulated early on to be come emotionally invested into the story. Into Darkness performed this task to perfection.

---

Jeffrey Dale Starr is a whiskey enthusiast, oil painter, and owner of mobile software company Purple Falcon.