For All Those Who Hate Keaton As Batman.....

[Assassin32]

.....here is part of an old review for Batman Forever that criticizes Kilmer and compares him to Keaton:

"Keaton went through the first two films unappriciated for the complex, internalized performances he turned in, sometimes audiences misinterpreted as "lackluster." He was criticized for being unmemorable when he was really being grown up in the role."

I cut this review out of The Sacramento Bee back in 1995, and I found it while I was digging around in some of my old junk. The reviewer's name is Joe Baltake, and I think that he's right on with his view of Michael Keaton's performance.

[MarvelMovieFan]

I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

[DavidTyler]

I enjoyed Keaton's performance. I think, with a better script, he could have done incredible things.

I love early in the film when he's in attendance at his own party and he seems to walk around like he's shell shocked. He perfectly displayed that this man has no clue about the social graces and that he was only complete when he was in costume.

Still, It's not really Batman - it's only Burton's interpretation of the character. Having said that, I think he was perfectly cast as Burton's version of Batman. Honestly, though, he wouldn't have been my casting choice. Not because of Mister Mom but because of his physical appearance.

Michael has great acting chops and I actually prefer him in drama's to comedies.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I didn't like Keaton as Batman I don't care what this reviewer said............let me put it this way Ebert disliked Spider-Man and loved the Hulk and Daredevil........I didn't like those films and loved Spider-Man........I didn't agree with him and I don't agree with this guy, just because he says something doesn't make it true or my opinion, doesn't change it either.:)

[Blackweb]

I remember back in 88 when he was casted and everyone was like no way, he a comic actor, I was the same way, and then I saw it when it came out and was happy. Still am today. I liked Val alot better, due that the costume was better fitting and he was a colder Bruce. But Keaton was good there to, sitting in the cave waiting with sadness. The ? is George was the worst!

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MarvelMovieFan
I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

Well said MarvelMovieFan.As I have said so many times before in the past,so what if that reviewer said he was good,thats just his opinion,that doesnt prove a damn thing.He also forgot to mention that Keaton was a joke for the role and that many batman fans could not take the first two films serious because of that.They at least took Kilmer serious because of the good points Marvelmoviefan made and because he at least physically fit the role.:rolleyes: deal with it,Keaton was a horrible choice for the part.

[Dr.Dude]

I thought Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer were both terrific in the role, though I did slightly prefer Keaton. I think Keaton emphasized Batman's attitude, darkness and Batman's "anti-hero" (See scene where he drops Jack Napier in the acid...or does he let go? Awesome acting there) , while Kilmer made Batman seem more "human" and real, and did a better representation of the Bruce Wayne facade, IMO. Weirdly enough, when both were cast I thought both of them would suck in the roles. ;) Neither of them really played the Batman from the comics, but to me they both seemed to be playing the same character(Movie version of Batman) besides physical appearance.

I think Clooney could have been an incredible Batman/Bruce Wayne, if the circumstances were better and he wasn't playing the "intelligent" version of the Tick. ;)

[Jackasscoley15]

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well said MarvelMovieFan.As I have said so many times before in the past,so what if that reviewer said he was good,thats just his opinion,that doesnt prove a damn thing.He also forgot to mention that Keaton was a joke for the role and that many batman fans could not take the first two films serious because of that.They at least took Kilmer serious because of the good points Marvelmoviefan made and because he at least physically fit the role.:rolleyes: deal with it,Keaton was a horrible choice for the part.

What took you so long? I expected you to be the first one to respond to this thread. :o

[BeserkerHilf]

ok, the way i see it, if you all wanna complain about keaton's performance, just remember, adam west wouldve been batman again


just think, another movie where batman dances around, when he's not panting 20 yards behind the villain he's chasing

[ShaneHelms]

Originally posted by Jackasscoley15
What took you so long? I expected you to be the first one to respond to this thread. :o

Your not the only one. lol

[Batman]

I agree with all the people here that said Keaton was a bad Batman.Like it was already mentioned,what a reviewer says doesn't prove anything and it wont change my opinion of him either.:batman:

[Clerk]

Yeah, it was just an opinion. No one can state a fact that he was a good Batman, or a bad one. It's all opinion.

[Assassin32]

I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." My hope was that the review would make them look at the things Keaton did on screen instead of just his size. Maybe after seeing this post those people will be able to come up with decent arguments as to why they think Keaton was so terrible as Batman.

[DAVIDYR1]

In all fairness to Keaton...I enjoyed his performance..he really gave it his all.
My problem is that he was the wrong actor for the role.. that's all....and that doesnot make me an idiot for saying so Assassin32.

Not critisizing his ability as an actor..but let's face it...he looked the part as Batman in costume....but did not at all work as Bruce Wayne. It was not his size...it was everything.

Bruce Wayne is a millionare Play boy...and we had Keaton wearing a cardigan at dinner with Vale. C'mon...not at all the right guy for the job, but I give him kudos for his effort as he easily out did the other actors that subsequently took over for him.
That's why many of us were soooo happy that George Clooney was chosen for Bat's in the 4th film. He would have been the right guy for the role but he totally goofed it up....and.. Too bad the film sucked.

They are right on the money with the actor for Batman Begins...lets just hope we dont get a 2004 version of B&R.

David

David

[Mr Parker]

Take my advise David,dont read anything Assassin says.I stopped reading his posts a LONNNGGGG time ago.As you can tell,anybody that disagrees with him,he automatically bills you as an idiot and calls people names.

[DAVIDYR1]

Oh......ok Thanks Mr Parker.

I was hoping for an intelligent debate on the character or actor...not to be called names.



David

[Mr Parker]

No problem David.You actually mentioned one of the reasons why I thought Kilmer was the best BATMAN.I could not take Keaton serious for the role because like I said,he was so physically wrong for the part.I mean when he had on that batsuit to make him look muscular because of how pudgy and out of shape he was,it was confusing seeing him muscular like you said as batman,but when he became bruce wayne all of a sudden he was pudgy and out of shape.I mean how did he go from being muscular and athletic to being pudgy and out of shape???? yeessshhh. At least with Kilmer I could believe that he was as muscular as he looked under the batsuit because as you saw in the film,when he took off his shirt,you could see he had an athletic and muscular build.

I also was actually pretty impressed with his acting as Bruce wayne.he never really got to do much as batman because he had a corny script.I actually went into BATMAN FOREVER thinking I would hate it because of Kilmer because prior to Batman Forever,I always thought of him as a bad actor because with the exception of THE DOORS,I never saw a movie that I didnt think he sucked in,but he surprised me and I was impressed with his acting in BATMAN FOREVER as Bruce wayne.Especially when he was telling chase how he became BATMAN he gave a great moving performance then.He just suffered from a bad script with corny lines unfortunately.If he had been given a better more serious script and dyed his hair black,he would have been the perfect BATMAN.

You were happy with clooney as batman when it was announced? you got to be kidding? Ugly dorky looking George Clooney for Handsome debonier Bruce Wayne? That casting choice was even worse than Burtons choice of Keaton as Bats.Clooney looks like EDDIE MUNSTER for crying out loud.

Assassin doesnt understand that just because a guy is a good actor,doesnt mean that he is right for the role.I dont care if its LAWRENCE OLIVIA who is considered the greatest actor in the world,if he doesnt even come close to fitting the role of a character,he should never be cast for that part.and Keaton did a a decent job as bats but he was hardly amazing.I mean he just copied Chris reeves performance as Superman acting dense adn unsure of himself.Thats not Bruce wayne.Bruce wayne is smooth with the women,thats not who we saw on screen.we saw a dork who couldnt even remember which rooms he was in.Thats nuts.Bruce wayne has lived in that mansion his whole life,hes got to know where the rooms are that he is in.Keaton couldnt even remember where things were.Keaton has been great in other films of his such as Extreme Measures and Jack Frost,But he was just so wrong for this role and not at all the great god of batman that people make him out to be on this site.

[Dope Nose]

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I dont care if its LAWRENCE OLIVIA who is considered the greatest actor in the world

um, that's Laurence Olivier

[Assassin32]

DAVIDYR1, I didn't call you an idiot, but if all you can bring to an argument about Keaton is that "he was too small," then I really don't know what else to call you. Mr Parker, you suck dick.:up: I guess some people will never be able accept this film for what it is. It's Tim Burton's Batman, not DC's Batman. And, if you can't see that, you're really missing out.

[MarvelMovieFan]

Keaton was so over-cast as Batman, he looked and played the part like a wooden doll with eyes.

Not that a lot of people are intelligent enough to notice this, but i am.

[DAVIDYR1]

Assasin32.....message boards are for public use and as such opinions on issues will vary, but calling someone names because they dont agree with you, well....that shows the kind of maturity level you are at which makes no sence because according to your bio, you are 16 years old. Jeeze, at 16 you'd think people would understand the world doesnt revolve around their own personal beliefs, ideals and desires.

If you cant debate an issue which brings up different opinions on the matter....why even start the thread??? Dictatorships are really a thing of the past....

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy, he was too old to play the role and way to wimpy looking but all the while he did an amazing job. On the same note I have never agreed with Nicholson being the Joker...but he was better cast for the role than Keaton. to Keatons credit he looked the best in costume out of all the others who followed.
Keaton seemed insecure throughout the whole film, not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Assasin32...do you even read comics?? Or is your vision of Batman the movie batman?? You were only 1 years old when the film opened so I suppose it is possible that you were influenced by it as a child more so than the comics....which is cool. Just dont rag out on those who were already old enough to distinguish between Keaton, the film and comics.

So, Assasin32 back to the film and why I think Keaton was no the right guy for the role....ALL THE WHILE RESPECTING HIS PERFORMANCE EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH IT.....seeing as Batman does not have super powers...when he held that punk over the roof top at the beginning of the movie it's obvious that it's Bruce Waynes brute strength doing the work...not some super power. As a result, take a look at Keaton during the film and tell me if THAT Bruce Wayne has the muscle to hold up a person over a roof top?

Nope....sorry. And I wont call you names for disagreeing with me. I accept the film for what it was, I just disagree with what you insist the film was supposed to be taken for...and it was not the Batman movie as it was supposed to be. It was a breakthrough film, set the bar for the rest....but quickly lost it's appeal as time went on.

In my opinion Keaton was the wrong actor for the role, I preferred Kilmer as Bruce Wayne. His performance as Wayne was convincing...his batman...had his moments but did not compare to Keatons effort and overall look.

Assasin32.........read my post carefully and you'll find more than one reason as to why I disagree with you....so please just accept that an opinion is just that......an opinion and dont turn this into an insult fest when it could just be a fun topic of debate.

David

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by Dope Nose
um, that's Laurence Olivier

Oh yeah,My mistake.I wasnt sure how his last name was spelled.Thanks for correcting me.;)

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MarvelMovieFan
Keaton was so over-cast as Batman, he looked and played the part like a wooden doll with eyes.

Not that a lot of people are intelligent enough to notice this, but i am.
Boy you got that right MarvelMovieFan.

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Assasin32.....message boards are for public use and as such opinions on issues will vary, but calling someone names because they dont agree with you, well....that shows the kind of maturity level you are at which makes no sence because according to your bio, you are 16 years old. Jeeze, at 16 you'd think people would understand the world doesnt revolve around their own personal beliefs, ideals and desires.

If you cant debate an issue which brings up different opinions on the matter....why even start the thread??? Dictatorships are really a thing of the past....

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy, he was too old to play the role and way to wimpy looking but all the while he did an amazing job. On the same note I have never agreed with Nicholson being the Joker...but he was better cast for the role than Keaton. to Keatons credit he looked the best in costume out of all the others who followed.
Keaton seemed insecure throughout the whole film, not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Assasin32...do you even read comics?? Or is your vision of Batman the movie batman?? You were only 1 years old when the film opened so I suppose it is possible that you were influenced by it as a child more so than the comics....which is cool. Just dont rag out on those who were already old enough to distinguish between Keaton, the film and comics.

So, Assasin32 back to the film and why I think Keaton was no the right guy for the role....ALL THE WHILE RESPECTING HIS PERFORMANCE EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH IT.....seeing as Batman does not have super powers...when he held that punk over the roof top at the beginning of the movie it's obvious that it's Bruce Waynes brute strength doing the work...not some super power. As a result, take a look at Keaton during the film and tell me if THAT Bruce Wayne has the muscle to hold up a person over a roof top?

Nope....sorry. And I wont call you names for disagreeing with me. I accept the film for what it was, I just disagree with what you insist the film was supposed to be taken for...and it was not the Batman movie as it was supposed to be. It was a breakthrough film, set the bar for the rest....but quickly lost it's appeal as time went on.

In my opinion Keaton was the wrong actor for the role, I preferred Kilmer as Bruce Wayne. His performance as Wayne was convincing...his batman...had his moments but did not compare to Keatons effort and overall look.

Assasin32.........read my post carefully and you'll find more than one reason as to why I disagree with you....so please just accept that an opinion is just that......an opinion and dont turn this into an insult fest when it could just be a fun topic of debate.

David


So David I see you chose to ignore my advise to not bother reading the posts of Assassin,its your funeral not mine.:D What I think is so funny about his-this person is on your ignore list threads he makes is that he must be advertising himself.Like I said,I dont bother to hit his click here button.No telling how many others dont.:D There are two posters I know of who really liked the choice of Keaton as Batman who I enjoy discussing my disagreements with them about it.They are pat21 and Sean Rules.Unlike Assassin,I can respect those two posters because they are civilized to me in our discussions and disagreements on it.

Anyways,yeah you just mentioned why I had problems with Keaton as Batman like me,you and so many others did also.He just does not look like the millioinarie playboy Bruce Wayne is.Was way too old and too wimpy looking.Yeah he looked so silly prouncing around like a clown that night at that charity event acting goofy trying to copy Chris Reeves performance from Superman being goofy as Bruce Wayne,But macho as Bats.It just didnt work like it did with Reeve as supes.

By the way,expect Assassin to come back with some kind of insult like -You idiot,you cant even spell right,you spelled sence wrong.Its sense not sence.He doesnt realise that posters like me and you get in a hurry sometimes when we post and dont take the time sometimes to proofread out posts before posting,that we dont realise until later on we made an honest mistake and that were only human and will make mistakes once in a while.Or as your already finding out,that you are automatically an idiot to him if you did not like Keaton as Batman,same with another poster named DA CROWE.He is the exact same way.

[The Guard]

While I don't agree with namecalling, I do agree with some of the points Assassin has raised. Condemning Keaton and his performance because he was a different version of Batman and not the one you would pick if you were in charge is idiotic at best.

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy

Saying Keaton doesn't look like a millionaire playboy makes no sense. Unless you're talking about how he's younger and handsomer than most millionaire playboys (Take a look at Forbes Magazine). He doesn't resemble Bruce Wayne from the comics because very few people who can act do. Not even Christian Bale. He does, however, certainly resemble someone you wouldn't expect to be Batman, which was one of Tim Burton's goal.

I also disagree that he was too old to play the role. Seeing as how Bruce Wayne in the script is written as being 33-35, and that's what the directors and producers wanted, I think Keaton was a perfect age to play the role. He still looks much younger than he is (See LIVE FROM BAGHDAD).

not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Exactly how was he the clown of the night? Honestly. Tell me.

I've said it a million times. I'll say it again, and perhaps it will sink in to one or two Keaton-haters. BATMAN was an adaption based on the characters of the Batmythos, not a direct translation of the comics. It was never intended to be. Bruce Wayne was supposed to be a brooding man in his mid thirties who fought crime as Batman with his image, his martial skills and arsenal of exotic weaponry. To say "Keaton was a bad choice" is wrong, simply because Tim Burton wasn't LOOKING for a strong, square-jawed Bruce Wayne (Do you really think WB couldn't have found one?). He was looking for the everyman, because that's what his concept was. The everyman as Batman, in a world much more realistic than that of the comics.

[DAVIDYR1]

Let me put it in plain English....I didnt like Keaton for the role. Period.
Nothing needs to sink in. I applauded his performance over and over again...I however dont like him in that role and I dont like Nicholson in his role either.

Is a different opinion allowed around here or is Castro and his regime running this place?

I never cut up his performance...I just didnt care for the directors choices in the actors used...is that not enough or do I have to explain why???

Where is the problem here??? You like Keaton in the role...great. I never thought of making that an issue....what's the issue with me not liking that choice??

Trust me...I understand why those choices were made... BUT I am disagreeing with them...and doing so without offending or telling anyone that things need to sink in....but I am beginning to think some people arn't reading my posts but just commenting on the fact that I dont agree.

David

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Let me put it in plain English....I didnt like Keaton for the role. Period.
Nothing needs to sink in. I applauded his performance over and over again...I however dont like him in that role

So, you applaude his performance over and over, but you didn't like him.....okay.:confused:

Anyway, I was going to dissect your post and show you were you were wrong, but The Guard got to it first. About the name calling, DAVIDYR1, this is what I posted: "I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." If you fall under this category, then yes, I called you an idiot because you are. However, you claim to have legitamate reasons as to why you hated Keaton, so I don't see why you would find this offensive.

I'm 15, by the way, and just because I was 1 when the film came out doesn't mean ****. True, Burton's Batman has been just as much a part of the character for me as has the comics, but I know the difference between the two. Consider the Burton films as Elseworlds titles and you'll love them.

P.S. Mr Parker has absolutely no respect from any poster on these boards. **** you, Mr Parker.:)

[DAVIDYR1]

So, Mr. Castro...umm, I mean Assasin32...

Anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot..??? Why?? Why do I have to agree with you and what gives you the right to classify all of us who dont agree with that casting choice??

As for applauding his performance...man, this was pretty clear above but let me give it another whirle....

Keaton did a fantastic job...I didnt like him in that role.

Michael Jackson is a talented artist....not at all my kind of music or musician....but I am mature enough to recognize his talent...even if we can all agree it's going down hill.

Sometimes people, actors, athletes, musicians....ect do their best at whatever it is they are doing. No one will condemn their efforts but that doesnt mean that they were the right people for the job, role or the event they were in.

My point...unless it's still not clear is that I think Keaton did a great job...but IN MY OPINION he was not the right person for the role.m What that also means is that someone who would have been more suited for the role back then AGAIN IN MY OPINION may have looked better in the role but it IS POSSIBLE that they would not have done as well as Keaton did. Are you getting any of this or are you blinders still stuck on the fact that I didn't like Keaton for the choice of Batman?

I could go as far as say that anyone who doesnt agree with me is an IDIOT...but that would be immature and stupid of me....but you can go ahead and continue to insult us that disagree with you Mr. Castro.

Lastly, read my last post again and try a little harder to understand what I meant by you being 1yrs old when the Keaton film opened and stop being so defencive....this is supposed to be a fun debate on who likes or who disliked Keaton in that role.

David

[Assassin32]

You're so full of ****. Show me where I called you an idiot. Show me the exact post.

[DAVIDYR1]

"I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." If you fall under this category, then yes, I called you an idiot because you are.

I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton


Well Assasin32 according to your logic...I'm an idiot...and full of ****.

That is where you are calling us idiots.

Not only was Keaton in my opinion too small, but totally the wrong actor for the role. Reasons specified above repeatedly. However I still applaude his performance...and explained this with the example of Michael Jackson....hoping that was easy enough for you to understand this time 'round.

Tell you what...when you are smart enough..... ( I wanted to say old enough but that would be an insult to all the other members here who are your age or even younger) .....to understand your own words posted within this thread...I'll be happy to continue this debate with you. Problem is it'll probably take another 75 years for that to happen but..........hey, until then I'll continue to be an idiot for disagreeing with you.

David

[LoisLane]

Not opinion... FACT.

KEATON: A balding, short, scrawny, goofing looking comedic actor...

BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN:
A tall, muscular, square jawed, good looking, debonair aristocrat and intimidating creature of the night.

What's wrong with this picture?

Lois

[DAVIDYR1]

Well said.

David

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally posted by LoisLane
Not opinion... FACT.

KEATON: A balding, short, scrawny, goofing looking comedic actor...

BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN:
A tall, muscular, square jawed, good looking, debonair aristocrat and intimidating creature of the night.

What's wrong with this picture?

Lois F**kin eh Thankyou very much! you are right, IT's not opinion It's a fact, he was is not will not ever be right for batman end of story.

[Goongala]

Mike Keaton was and always will be the best...Keaton Would rock all of you punks, Like Prince and the blouses rocked charley murphey in basketball.....

[The Guard]

No, Michael Keaton would not make a good comic book Batman. But then, he wasn't supposed to be, now, was he? Why do I even bother pointing out that Keaton was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE THE COMIC BOOK VERSION OF BATMAN? It just keeps going right over peoples' heads.

[Jackasscoley15]

Very good point, Gaurd.

[LoisLane]

I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

[The Batman]

I'm surprised by how many idiots are posting in this thread...

[LoisLane]

Does that include you?

LL

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Well Assasin32 according to your logic...I'm an idiot...and full of ****.

That is where you are calling us idiots.

Not only was Keaton in my opinion too small, but totally the wrong actor for the role. Reasons specified above repeatedly. However I still applaude his performance...and explained this with the example of Michael Jackson....hoping that was easy enough for you to understand this time 'round.

Tell you what...when you are smart enough..... ( I wanted to say old enough but that would be an insult to all the other members here who are your age or even younger) .....to understand your own words posted within this thread...I'll be happy to continue this debate with you. Problem is it'll probably take another 75 years for that to happen but..........hey, until then I'll continue to be an idiot for disagreeing with you.

David

Never is your name mentioned in that post, therefore I was not calling YOU an idiot. You've said before that you have legitamate reasons as why you hated Keaton in the role, but instead you keep repeating yourself: "He was too small." That is not a legitamate reason at all. So, yeah, you know what? You ARE an idiot. Now, pretty please, with sugar on top, get the **** out of my thread.:)

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by Goongala
Mike Keaton was and always will be the best...Keaton Would rock all of you punks, Like Prince and the blouses rocked charley murphey in basketball.....

:up:

[DavidTyler]

Originally posted by LoisLane
I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

[Clerk]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

I love you, lets go have babies together.

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by LoisLane
I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

Well said Lois. Keaton sucked for the role of Batman plain and simple. Chicks like YOU rule I agree. That hot looking chick Kim Basinger is the only thing that makes me able to sit through that movie. :D Keaton definetely does not rule.

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

Well said again David.Thats all this movie was,a movie about a guy named Batman.The title of the movie as I have said so many times before in the past should have been called THE JOKER since Nicholson had the majority of the screen time and it was mainly about him with Batman just being a supporting character.:rolleyes: speaking of The Joker,you also made a great point about Nicholson as The Joker another reason I was dissapointed in this film.I give my props to Nicholson in his portrayle as The Joker.He did an awesome job.But he like Keaton was just so physically wrong for the role. The Joker is suppose to be a tall lanky guy with LOTS of hair.Nicholson was practically bald a lot more even so than Keaton was back then and is on the chuncky side.Ceasar Romero still rules as the true Joker brought to life from the comicbooks since he more so looked the part than Nicholson did.

Yeah thats exactly what Burton did,he turned Bruce Wayne into another of his warped characters.He clearly only cares about his vision and did not care about accurately bringing the batman from the comics to life on the screen.He only cast Keaton because he felt comfortable working with him,he did not care that Keaton was so totally wrong for the role or getting the best choice possible which is why Burton should NEVER have been allowed near a Batman franchise.Burton HAS made some good films before such as Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare before Christmas but Batman is not one of them.As I said before Keaton acted too goofy as Bruce Wayne and was way too silly in his portrayel of him. The movie was clearly a Tim Burton film and not a Batman film and actually more like a James Bond flick than a Batman film as well which is another problem I had with the film.

I think you meant to say at the end though that Keaton was Playing Keaton as Batman not Burton as Batman though right? In that case you are so right,Keaton was playing Keaton as Batman and not as Bruce Wayne/Batman which like you said,there IS a difference.

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

You see, this guy has legitamate reasons. Burton's vision just wasn't his cup of tea, and that's fine.

[The Guard]

Sigh...

What I keep trying to point out, and I want some of you to pay close attention here, is there have been MANY versions of Batman throughout the years. Different generations are familar with different ones. For instance, some fans of the 70's version can't seem to stand this uber-brooding, superBatman we have in the current comics. I don't see how one version is any more valid than the other. Bob Kane's Batman had it's strengths and its weaknessess. So did the later versions. So did the 60's version. So did the Neal Adams, Dennis O'Neil version. So did the late 80's Batman, the movie version, the mid 90's, and the current Batman. There are hundreds of versions of Batman, including Elseworlds. Yes, Batman was born in the comics. He has transcended them as a medium. This may surprise some of you, but the Batman as he exists today in the comics wasn't around back in the late 70's, or even the mid-eighties when Sam Hamm and Burton and WB were working on Batman. Rather than choose one direction for their film (camp or dark), or try to somehow satisfy fans who all wanted THEIR Batman, they did the smart thing. They did what Richard Donner did, in a way. They took elements from MANY versions and REINVENTED the character in an interesting, realistic manner that would appeal to general audiences. I do not understand this bias against the Batman movies, in other words, calling them crap simply because they weren't what YOU wanted to see. Quite honestly, I grew up with the Adam West Batman, and graduated to the late 70's version. So to me, Batman wore blue and gray and made jokes. The Tim Burton movies wowed me. They were cool, dark, and showed me a side of Batman I'd never seen before. This led to me checking out Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, and basically getting into comics. I've said it before. Burton's Batman, for all his faults, also had his good elements. Elements which, like it or not, HAVE influenced the animated series and the comic books almost immediately.

Michael Keaton WAS the best choice for the role, because Tim Burton wanted a man who wasn't a musclebound He-Man. He wanted an "everyman" who could play some tough emotions. He got him.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

I see. Was the 1966 BATMAN film not Batman? It certainly wasn't the current Batman, does that somehow make it less valid an interpretation or "not Batman"?

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman.

Which one? Seriously. Which one is the "true Batman", and why aren't the others?

The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him.

I'm not sure what you mean. Batman has been in several mediums almost since his beginning in 1939, including film, TV, radio, toys, comics, playing cards, etc. Seems to me that the only time Batman was in danger of dying out was when superhero comics went out of style and sci fi become the "in thing". And the only reason Batman even survived when other characters didn't is all the weird stuff he was forced to go through. The alien invasions, the shrinking, the alternate dimensions, etc, etc, etc. It's the same reason Superman comics survived.

Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

I see. How is Batman warped in the movie anymore so than what we've seen of him elsewhere in the comics? And how is the landscape "unreal"? And frankly, we do know the character. And I can point out where he IS Batman, where things are pulled directly from the comics and dropped into BATMAN, and have before.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

Huh?

[Assassin32]

They're never going to listen to you.

[The Guard]

Nah, but it's fun trying. :)

[DavidTyler]

To clear up a point that seems to have a couple of people puzzled:
Yes, I intended to say that Keaton was playing 'Burton as Batman'.

His direction was that of Burton and how Burton sees the character. If you've never acted or been directed I can see how this statement would confuse you. The director is not a passive participant, sitting back and yelling action. He/she is involved in every element of what you see on the screen. Every character on the screen is, in part, the director. Every character in a theater production, for that matter. It applies to both.

So, when you see Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, there is a little bit of Tim Burton behind that mask as well.

Having said that, there is a massive amount of Tim Burton in Michael Keaton's 'Batman'.

As to which interpretation ... I already answered that question. I'm speaking of the current incarnation. the Guard keeps referencing the 70's as a joking period for Batman but my memories are the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neal confrontations with characters like Ra's Al Ghul (which is actually pronounced Ross Al Ghoul and properly translated means 'Head of the Ghoul' - Sorry Denny - Ghul means ghoul not demon), Two Face, and the revival of the Joker in 'The Joker's 5-way Revenge'. I also include in that, the Marshal Rogers stuff of the early 80's. I also can't forget writers and artists like Frank Robbins and Irv Novick who followed that same path. Batman was dark and moody. I'm at a loss to understand why The Guard keeps refering to Batman as a jokester during this period. Carmine Infantino ushered in the age of intentional camp during his run of the late 60's as a direct result of the tv show. It ended when Neal and Denny came aboard with the intent of totally doing away with the camp and to restore Batman to his rightful place as the shadowy creature that he is. We saw a great decline in the Bat gadgets and more reliance on his wits and fists. Denny's Batman WOULD pick up a peice of pipe and use it as a weapon if he were in a pinch. Neal's Batman would sweat and dodge bullets, often using his cape as a distraction.

Because the general public had only the image of Batman as this Adam West silly costumed clown that lost it's luster along with camp itself, it was 20 years before Batman would be allowed to grace a screen again. Saturday morning lousy cartoons aside. God, I can't believe that I suffered through that awful Superfriends just to get my fix of superhero stuff. Even at that, Burton's film, as dark as it was, was still not that far removed from the camp. By blending some straight character into the silliness, he made a pitch to both the nostolgiac's who had a secret soft spot for the humor, and a tip of the hat to those who were hoping for something more serious. It wasn't completely satisfying but at least it wasn't an out and out joke.

And, if you're asking my opinion, NO - the Bill Dozier/Adam West 'Batman' wasn't any more Batman than the Burton. The 60's Batman was a clown.

I believe that Burton picked Keaton because he had worked with him before and that he would be Burton's idealized version of himself on screen. As I say, most directors inject quite a bit of themselves into the characters.

As to things pulled right from the comix - of course there are: The shot of young Bruce in the midst of his dead parents was lifted right from Mazzuchelli who got it from someone elses earlier interpretation. The flowers being left in Crime Alley? Thank Sam Hamm for that. Alfred being the Wayne's butler - of course - but a surragate grandfather? He wasn't that in the comix and isn't now. What elements Burton may have dropped into B89 were by Sam Hamm and were elements that were necessary to the film. There were other elements that only made the film less... The Joker being the murderer of the Waynes? By that thinking, Batman should have hung up his cape after the Joker's death.

About Keaton being an everyman ... what everyman could do what Batman does? Could you? I know I couldn't and I'm not in bad shape. It takes a lifetime of training - both physical and mental - to do what Bruce did. He would have a well chiseled physique from a lifetime on the parallel bars and lifting weights. Why would he need to be that strong and agile? C'mon. I don't need to answer that and I'm not going to. Suffice to say, Keaton had to have the sculpted rubber suit because, without it, he might just as well been Bill Murray. Someone a little more in shape would have been a wonderful thing. Chris Reeve made it a point to get into shape for Superman.

Fortunately, we are so far removed from camp that I'm betting that Nolan will play it fairly straight. Alfred will make us laugh a bit but will have some pretty insightful observations hidden in those jibes. Bruce will jibe back. That will be the humour.

It may come as a suprise to some of you but Batman has evolved. He isn't and shouldn't be that silly character from the 40's through the 60's. No more so than you should be forced to continue to wear diapers. Comix are source. That's the end all statement. Comics are where Batman was born and where his evolution takes place. No changes become canon until they are made part of the regular comix continuity. As I've said on many occassions, Batman lives in the comics, movies just borrow him for a few hours ever couple of years.

[The Guard]

The Guard keeps referencing the 70's as a joking period for Batman

I do? I thought I said that the dark, brooding, loner version of The Batman we know today didn't exist back then. Because he didn't. Bruce Wayne had a life, Batman had a life. The man was seen in public, and he didn't push his friends and family away. And yes, he did joke around a bit. He even (gasp) smiled quite a bit.

but my memories are the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neal confrontations with characters like Ra's Al Ghul (which is actually pronounced Ross Al Ghoul and properly translated means 'Head of the Ghoul' - Sorry Denny - Ghul means ghoul not demon), Two Face, and the revival of the Joker in 'The Joker's 5-way Revenge'. I also include in that, the Marshal Rogers stuff of the early 80's.

Yes, my memories are those things, too, but even in those stories, there was quite a bit of lightheartedness. Batman talked a lot, especially while he was fighting. He was friendly a lot of the time, and even polite. He was, in a word, human.

Batman was dark and moody. I'm at a loss to understand why The Guard keeps refering to Batman as a jokester during this period.

Again, I never said that. I said the version we know today wasn't around. The Batman that pushed everyone and every thing away and sought the deepest darkness without crossing over into obsession. But like I said, I can recall plenty of jokes and puns during that era. Tom Mankiewicz's THE BATMAN is, I think, a good example of what kind of Batman movie that era might have presented. Very lighthearted, very heroic, not as dark and brooding as we'd like to think.

We saw a great decline in the Bat gadgets and more reliance on his wits and fists. Denny's Batman WOULD pick up a peice of pipe and use it as a weapon if he were in a pinch.

I don't know about great decline. I never saw many Bat-gadgets in the comics to begin with, and the ones that he did use, like the Whirly-Bat, survived the "reinvention" and are still around in some form. I suppose that Batman used less gadgets than he did in the TV show, but wasn't that the case even in the comics? There have always been a few staples of Batman's aresenal: The batarang, batrope, rebreather, and smoke and gas pellets. All those were present both before and after the Dennis O'Neil/Neal Adams period. Batman's always been resourceful. That's nothing new, and certainly I've seen Batman throw barrel rings to capture fleeing criminals. And that was in the 40's and 50's. :)

Because the general public had only the image of Batman as this Adam West silly costumed clown that lost it's luster along with camp itself, it was 20 years before Batman would be allowed to grace a screen again.

Or it could have been that comic books were seen as children's fare for a very long time. After all, Superman and most other heroes didn't even get a campy TV show, and most heroes didn't grace screens again until the late 70's.

Even at that, Burton's film, as dark as it was, was still not that far removed from the camp.

Now this I'm interested in. How so? Because I see a dark, disturbed version of The Dark Knight. Not camp. Unless we have different definitions of the word.

By blending some straight character into the silliness, he made a pitch to both the nostolgiac's who had a secret soft spot for the humor, and a tip of the hat to those who were hoping for something more serious. It wasn't completely satisfying but at least it wasn't an out and out joke.

Let's be honest, though. There's always been, and always will be, humor in Batman stories. I don't think that makes it campy.

And, if you're asking my opinion, NO - the Bill Dozier/Adam West 'Batman' wasn't any more Batman than the Burton. The 60's Batman was a clown.

So the entire 30-40 year period before Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams came along meant nothing?

As to things pulled right from the comix - of course there are: The shot of young Bruce in the midst of his dead parents was lifted right from Mazzuchelli who got it from someone elses earlier interpretation. The flowers being left in Crime Alley? Thank Sam Hamm for that. Alfred being the Wayne's butler - of course - but a surragate grandfather?

I don't mean things that were directly lifted out of the comics. I was referring more to things like...classic elements pulled from the comics. Things we'd seen over and over again in the pages. Some I can think of, off the top of my head.

-Gadgets. We saw the batarang/batrope in the opening scene, the batbola, and the use of smoke pellets.

-Batman using his image to strike fear into criminals.

-Despite what many people say, the same martial arts oriented Batman we saw in the comics. Up until about 1990, Batman's repertoire consisted of punches, kicks, chops, blocks, flips, and swinging down into people. All those save one were in the film.

-The Joker killing innocent people for the sheer thrill of it, and even killing his own men in clever ways.

-Batman the detective. No, he didn't tell us what chemicals The Joker used to poison Gotham, but that's because most of us wouldn't have understood it anyway. He didn't go that in depth in the comics either, and his detective work was usually something far more obvious and "gimmicky", and supervillain oriented.

-Bruce Wayne's obsession with his mission, and his desire for a normal life, and love, but the realization that he cannot have one.

-The Joker orchestrating a huge parade/party with innocent lives at stake to draw out Batman.

-The Joker surviving impossible odds, when by all rights, he should be killed. (The Batwing's attack)

-Romance. Batman was always having romantic flings in the comics. Vicki Vale, Talia, Silver St. Cloud, Rachel Caspian, even Catwoman for a while.

-The Bat-Signal. Come on, the first movie nailed the signal. :)

And that's in the first film. The subsequent films had some more. No, it wasn't the exact same Batman people were used to. But beneath the surface, the core of the character and his world were there.

There were other elements that only made the film less... The Joker being the murderer of the Waynes? By that thinking, Batman should have hung up his cape after the Joker's death.

Why? It was fairly obvious that he wasn't in it for revenge in BATMAN, but because he could do, as he told Vicki, something that no one else could. Otherwise, why would he have bothered rescuing that family in the beginning? He was clearly a Batman determined to make Gotham safe for decent people. And that only made the character richer, I think.

About Keaton being an everyman ... what everyman could do what Batman does?

No one. But almost anyone could do what Keaton's Batman did, with enough drive. But then Burton's Batman wasn't the uber-acrobatic, leaping-before-he-looks version of the comics. He was grounded in reality. A man dealing with real criminals in a real world. Where some martial arts training and clever gadgets were enough.

Could you?

With that suit, a modicum of training, and some gadgets, I'd say so. I don't see why not.

Suffice to say, Keaton had to have the sculpted rubber suit because, without it, he might just as well been Bill Murray. Someone a little more in shape would have been a wonderful thing.

Keaton has a rubber suit because that's what Tim Burton and the costume designer wanted. Armor. Something to protect him, and make him look imposing, not ridiculous, as tights almost certainly would have. That's probably also why the Batsuit is black, not blue and gray. That's what early costume designs show, that's what Burton and Keaton and Ringwood have said for a long time. It was the plan from the get-go to have whoever Batman wearing a kind of "armor".

Chris Reeve made it a point to get into shape for Superman.

Superman is supposed to be huge. He can afford to wear tights, because bullets bounce off him.

It may come as a suprise to some of you but Batman has evolved. He isn't and shouldn't be that silly character from the 40's through the 60's.

True, but he will continue to keep elements of those years in his mythos. Things like Joe Chill, The Red Hood, Lew Moxon, his penchant for detective work, colorful villains, and even Robin.

No more so than you should be forced to continue to wear diapers. Comix are source. That's the end all statement. Comics are where Batman was born and where his evolution takes place.

Then why did the movies appear to have something to do with his evolution toward a darker, more realistic version of the character in the comics?

[KenK]

Here's my whole, more than West, more than Kilmer or Clooney, Keaton nailed something that's very important to the character of Batman, he made him and Bruce Wayne two different people. Him and Burton understood that Bruce Wayne is something Batman does to cover up the darkness inside him. A perfect example of this is when Vicki comes into the Batcave and meets him out of costume. Realizing that he can't hide being Batman, his personality is different from how he was before she knew he was Batman. Or the scene when Knox and Vicki are making fun of his armor collection. He was very much how Bruce Wayne should be, inviting, charismatic, with just enough aristocracy about him to come off like someone you'd never expect to be Batman. The problem with Clooney was, yeah, he could do Bruce Wayne dead on with the comics, but he couldn't do Batman. Kilmer was too stiff as Bruce Wayne, and not menacing enough as Batman. And a lot of that was probably more due to the overall atmosphere of Batman Forever, which made Batman far too much of a public figure instead of a mysterious vigilante. The first time we see Batman in Gotham in the film, he's just chillin' on the street with a bunch of spectators around. Forever, and Batman and Robin took far too many opportunities to have Batman fight criminals in public, at parties and whatnot. Honestly, Kilmer wasn't given a chance to come off as that mythical type character some fans have known him to be. Not that I think he would have been better than Keaton, in any scenario, but Kilmer was at a disadvantage going into the film.

[bakerboy]

Well said, david. Michael Keaton was a total joke as batman/Bruce Wayne and a total wrong casting choice, one of the worst casting choice of all time. A short middle age guy, almost bald, out of sharpe, pudgy and goofy guy who doesnt remememer the things in his own house was a totally incredible as batman or bruce wayne. And about that stupid thing of the everyman and that is Tim Burton's batman and not dc batman. Well, so, lets go with another examples. Why not cast danny de vito or don knots or gene wilder or dustin hoffman or al pacino or woody allen as batman, more everymen than them , impossible. And why not Steven Spielberg take a spiderman, make of them a 50 years old guy fat and with only the power of crawilling walls, and he gets his powers from a ray and his spider costume is white and yellow and some guy called neutro man as the villain.Buts no problem, that is Steven Spielberg's spider man, not marvel's spider man. Go to hell with the original sources, lets go with new things. Please, you all must be joking. We want to see a movie about batman from dc comics, not a version from tim burton.

[KenK]

Why does everyone think Keaton was ever fat? And it may be after the fact, but if you've ever seed Desperate Measures, I'm sure you'd be surprised by how in shape Keaton was.

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well said, david. Michael Keaton was a total joke as batman/Bruce Wayne and a total wrong casting choice, one of the worst casting choice of all time. A short middle age guy, almost bald, out of sharpe, pudgy and goofy guy who doesnt remememer the things in his own house was a totally incredible as batman or bruce wayne. And about that stupid thing of the everyman and that is Tim Burton's batman and not dc batman. Well, so, lets go with another examples. Why not cast danny de vito or don knots or gene wilder or dustin hoffman or al pacino or woody allen as batman, more everymen than them , impossible. And why not Steven Spielberg take a spiderman, make of them a 50 years old guy fat and with only the power of crawilling walls, and he gets his powers from a ray and his spider costume is white and yellow and some guy called neutro man as the villain.Buts no problem, that is Steven Spielberg's spider man, not marvel's spider man. Go to hell with the original sources, lets go with new things. Please, you all must be joking. We want to see a movie about batman from dc comics, not a version from tim burton.

Well said Bakerboy.Yeah give me a break with all this nonsense of it was Tim Burton wanting a regular everyday joe for Batman.If he just wanted some regular everyday joe for batman like Bakerboy said,he should just go out and cast somebody like Danny Devito or Don Knotts for batman because they are more regular every day joes than Keaton is.:rolleyes: Please stop with that everyday guy nonsense.We want dc's Batman not Tim Burtons version of batman.At Least Nolan unlike Burton seems to want to bring Dc's version of batman to the screen by casting Bale as the choice.Great choice.

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by KenK
Why does everyone think Keaton was ever fat? And it may be after the fact, but if you've ever seed Desperate Measures, I'm sure you'd be surprised by how in shape Keaton was.
Uh thats so obvious for anybody that has two eyes that Keaton was fat and out of shape in the batman movies.All you got to do is watch the film and you can see the bulgy belly underneath his shirt.Thats why you never saw keaton with his shirt off was because he was insecure about how physically out of shape that people would see him in.He mentioned that one time.

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Uh thats so obvious for anybody that has two eyes that Keaton was fat and out of shape in the batman movies.All you got to do is watch the film and you can see the bulgy belly underneath his shirt.Thats why you never saw keaton with his shirt off was because he was insecure about how physically out of shape that people would see him in.He mentioned that one time.

http://www.castlereshka.com/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=6025&stc=1

[DAVIDYR1]

What's interesting is how all these people can agree or disagree on the casting choice of Keaton WITHOUT throwing around insults.

That pic of keaton above is almost 10 years after Batman came out. He did not look like that in Batman....and had he he STILL wouldn't have been the right choice for all the reasons specified above....and specified above without insulting anyone...but somehow I get the feeling that will soon change now.

David

[KenK]

"That pic of keaton above is almost 10 years after Batman came out. "

Then points for him looking like that 10 years after he was supposedly 'too old and out of shape' to play Batman!!

[DAVIDYR1]

KenK

I couldn't agree more with you. Well put. He really looked good there...unfortunately, I still wouldnt buy him in the role of Batman.
Keaton is a great actor....no one will take that away from him.

David

[KenK]

"I couldn't agree more with you. Well put. He really looked good there...unfortunately, I still wouldnt buy him in the role of Batman.
Keaton is a great actor....no one will take that away from him."

I can respect that, but it's just funny, because looking back on the role he played in Desparate Measure(where the above picture came from), he's playing a character that's very intelligent, resourceful, and slightly(okay very) psychotic. If that ain't Batman, I don't know what is!

[DAVIDYR1]

Yes, all the qualities of the character he played in Desparate Measures reflect those of Batman, I agree, but my problem is with Keaton in that role.
I guess I would have preferred at the time to see Alec Baldwin, or anyone else who just was more fit, less balding, and basically better suited for the role.
Alec Baldwin is/was at the time a Big guy, well built....looks good in a suit and sure as heck would have looked good in a batsuit. Any actor, any good actor can exhibit the characteristics that Keaton did while making Desparate Measures...but I still dont agree with Keaton in the role of Batman. He just was not the right choice.

Keaton in 89 did not look like he could hold up that crook over the roof top in the opening scene. Keaton from Desparate Measures, 10 years later on the other hand might...but that's not the Keaton we got.

David

[DavidTyler]

John Lennon used to say that he liked working with the people he already knew. He played with Ringo when he could have had the best drummer of the day.

I kinda feel that Burton is the same way. He prefers to work specifically with people he's already worked with in other films or people from his personal life. This is why you get Johnny Depp in two films and Michael Keaton in three. I don't think it has much deeper implications than that. When he was casting Batman, he had already worked with Keaton on 'Beetlejuice'.

I often wonder what the 1989 Batman film would have been like with someone like Alec Baldwin in the part. I think he would have turned in a pretty decent performance. He's quite a powerful actor.

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
John Lennon used to say that he liked working with the people he already knew. He played with Ringo when he could have had the best drummer of the day.

I kinda feel that Burton is the same way. He prefers to work specifically with people he's already worked with in other films or people from his personal life. This is why you get Johnny Depp in two films and Michael Keaton in three. I don't think it has much deeper implications than that. When he was casting Batman, he had already worked with Keaton on 'Beetlejuice'.

I often wonder what the 1989 Batman film would have been like with someone like Alec Baldwin in the part. I think he would have turned in a pretty decent performance. He's quite a powerful actor.

Johnny Depp and Michael Keaton are two of the best actors in the buisness. Of course Burton loves working with them. Also, in 1988, Alec Baldwin and Tim Burton did not enjoy working with each other, which is why he wasn't Batman. I'm not too sure about their relationship today.

[Mister Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, it was just an opinion. No one can state a fact that he was a good Batman, or a bad one. It's all opinion.

Sigh. Don't we wish art was that easy.

[SunshineButMoreRain]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
[B]I enjoyed Keaton's performance. I think, with a better script, he could have done incredible things.

I love early in the film when he's in attendance at his own party and he seems to walk around like he's shell shocked. He perfectly displayed that this man has no clue about the social graces and that he was only complete when he was in costume.

Still, It's not really Batman - it's only Burton's interpretation of the character. /B]

Since there is no definitive version of Batman, I don't see your point. All there are are different interpretations.This is not a character with a single, ideal version that everyone agrees is the best -- he's instead a character that is many different things to many different people.

Burton's version is no more or less valid than Frank Miller's. Or anybody else's, though it is one of the more interesting and quality takes on the character I've seen in any medium.

[Assassin32]

Yup.

[Phantasm]

keaton sucked ass as batsy.the only reason he shines through is because batman succesors were even worse.that is it!

[Assassin32]

No.

[red scrpion]

He really did stink up the screen!

[Assassin32]

Except, no he didn't.

[hippie_hunter]

Keaton rocked as Batman but was a dull Bruce Wayne

Kilmer sucked ass as Batman but was an excellent Bruce Wayne one of the few things done right in the crapfest Batman Forever

[ab38416]

"A square jaw does not make Batman. It's all about Bruce Wayne and an audience believing in Bruce Wayne. If we can create a portrayal of a guy so obsessed and so driven - nearly to the point of being psychotic - then we can convince them that he's the guy capable of dressing up like a Bat." - Tim Burton

[Kevin Roegele]

"A square jaw does not make Batman. It's all about Bruce Wayne and an audience believing in Bruce Wayne. If we can create a portrayal of a guy so obsessed and so driven - nearly to the point of being psychotic - then we can convince them that he's the guy capable of dressing up like a Bat." - Tim Burton

Burton also made a quote along the lines of, "If Bruce is 6 foot plus, incredibly handsome and build like a tank, why does he need to dress up as a bat to scare criminals? Why not just put on a hockey mask and beat the crap out of them?"

The answer, which I've only really thought of recently, is that most of the criminals he deals with are muscle-bound thugs as well. He needs something extra. Being Batman, the criminals are scared beforehand, scared just by his presence, so half the battle is won by psychological warfare.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Uh thats so obvious for anybody that has two eyes that Keaton was fat and out of shape in the batman movies.All you got to do is watch the film and you can see the bulgy belly underneath his shirt.Thats why you never saw keaton with his shirt off was because he was insecure about how physically out of shape that people would see him in.He mentioned that one time.

Keaton was never out of shape. He trained hard for both movies with kickboxing/martial arts instructors (both of them champions in their sport) that both have stated they never had any student that learned faster or worked harder than Keaton. Just because he didn't do weight training like Bale doesn't mean he was out of shape. Plus only someone who HAS never seen Keaton can say he's fat. He's anything BUT fat.

[fabman]

ridiculous... keaton fat - lol

[inspiritonly]

Keaton was Batman!! I would not have chosen him for the part, but damn if he didn't make me a believer. As for size, True Keaton is short but he wasn't out of shape when he made Batman. You need to look at some of his stills other than Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r99/inspiritonly/dm3.jpg(Keaton in Desperate Measures)

Keaton got in shape for Batman and stayed in shape to make Desperate Measures.
As for Kilmer, it was his worse role to date. He spent the whole film speaking in a low whisper with all the emotion of a dead fish. Clooney didn't stand a chance. By the time he got the part it had been camped up by Schumacher to the levels of the 60's TV show. Just remember that it was Tim Burton that revived the "Dark Knight" version of Batman. I leave you with this quote:

1995 was most notable for a film that Keaton did not appear in. He was offered the chance to return to the role of the Dark Knight (along with a hefty paycheck) in Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever". Perhaps sensing that he would once again be fighting for screentime with big name villains, and without the artistic vision of the first two films to make up for it, Keaton wisely turned the film down. This allowed the producers to cast a younger, "sexier" actor in the role, Val Kilmer. The film turned out to be marginally more successful than it's predecessor at the box office, but was arguably a failure in every other department. Kilmer in particular did not compare favourably with Keaton in the role - his Batman was too light and his Bruce Wayne too dark. However, it still seemed for or a while that the Batman franchise would carry on successfully without the original dream team of Keaton, Burton and composer Danny Elfman. That was until the massive failure of "Batman & Robin" (which was as different from Burton's films as neon is from gothic) put the final nail in the coffin.

[Kevin Roegele]

the original dream team of Keaton, Burton and composer Danny Elfman

Whilst some may doubt their contribution to the Batman mythos, I don't think you can deny that those three went together absolutely perfectly. Keaton, like Johhny Depp, is a muse for Burton, and Elfman seems to be psychically linked to Burton the way he scores his films exactly right.

There's a promosing synergy between Nolan and Bale - they are on exactly the same page and could probably finish each other's sentences about Batman.

[Lead Cenobite]

Wow, people were insane back in 2004. =P

[ab38416]

Keaton has a rubber suit because that's what Tim Burton and the costume designer wanted. Armor. Something to protect him, and make him look imposing, not ridiculous, as tights almost certainly would have. That's probably also why the Batsuit is black, not blue and gray. That's what early costume designs show, that's what Burton and Keaton and Ringwood have said for a long time. It was the plan from the get-go to have whoever Batman wearing a kind of "armor".

Here's some trivia. Bob Ringwood's initial designs for the batsuit in Batman didn't have rubber muscles. It looked more like mechanical armor. This later became the inspiration for the Returns suit.

When Keaton was cast, the producers wanted a muscular armor design to make up for his small build.

[SelinaAndBruce]

I can't get over all the praise Val Kilmer is getting. Val only looked the part. He absolutely sucked in Batman Forever mostly because the script sucked. I mean when your first line in the film is "I'll Get Drive Thru" there's not a lot of hope there.

But he turned in a very wooden performance as Bruce Wayne. He didn't even really seem that interested in his female lead outside of the suit. I got the feeling Batman wanted her slightly more. And the whole "I'm Batman" scene at the circus, sucked.

IMO the only Batman/Bruce Wayne that was ever worth a damn is Keaton and Bale.

Kilmer sucked. Less than Clooney but he still stank up the joint.

[captain_jimbo]

Keaton was Batman!! I would not have chosen him for the part, but damn if he didn't make me a believer. As for size, True Keaton is short but he wasn't out of shape when he made Batman. You need to look at some of his stills other than Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r99/inspiritonly/dm3.jpg(Keaton in Desperate Measures)

Exactly, I totally agree. I don't think I would have chosen him either, but Keaton will always be Batman to me. :up:

[DieSmiling]

The fact of the matter is that I just hate Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne. I like him as Batman... But he's just so not Bruce Wayne. He comes off like a doofus, a weirdo, a social reject/cripple, and a recluse. That's not Bruce Wayne. There's no explanation or obvious reason why Vicky Vale would even be remotely into this guy save his money. It's just not the character.

And he just looks like a little twerp I could kick the crap out of.

That said, I don't just blame Keaton -- it has just as much to do with the writing, direction, etc.... But I just don't like the presentation of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character in the Burton films.

Bale's is exactly what I envision Batman being like, and I'd give Kilmer the nod for second place.

[GoogleMe94]

whats wrong with his bruce wayne? he had more friggin wit and humour then bale, clooney and kilmer combined. there were some scenes where keaton just made me burst out in laughter as bruce wayne, hes just so good! if bruce is just uber serious all the time, it gets boring. but keaton had it all, the serious tone, the humouress moments, the emotional moments even! he was just all around good. sure, he may not LOOK like the comics bruce wayne, but if i wanted that, ill just read a COMIC BOOK. lets just say, seeing batman89 and Returns, if i had a choice between getting a no-name "accurate" bruce wayne and keaton as bruce, i would choose keaton in a heartbeat, no question. we got the "accurate" version with bale, kilmer, and clooney, but there batmans sucked ass and there bruce waynes were either major dorks or overly serious and wooden.

whos kilmer, or bale, or clooney? Keaton IS Batman.

[fabman]

And Bale IS Batman, too.

Also, you should express your opinions better. You ain't saying much with "bale, kilmer, and clooney, but there batmans sucked ass" (also, it's "their," not "there," same with your sig, dude).

[Darkest Knight]

Bale was so diverse in his role as Bruce Wayne, that even comparing him to Keaton's 2-dimensional interpretation is insulting to knowledgeable movie fans.

Bale plays the confused lost soul, the angry / vengeful young man, the driven idealist, the rich savvy business man, the billionaire playboy ladies man, the introspective son, the giving and caring citizen, and the occasional drunken Paris Hilton-esque snob. THAT as a whole is Bruce Wayne. Bale was utterly BRILLAINT in the role. To me, while Keaton was a great Batman, he didn't encompass ANY of these characteristics as Bruce Wayne.

Don't ge me wrong, Keaton was OUTSTANDING in the part ... but Bale's character is on a whole nother playing field. So much of the movie relies on Bale's acting abilities and range, that they can't even be compared. The weight of BEGINS rested on Bale's shoulders, and he not only carried it, but exceled in the role. Keaton played apart in a cast of people that as a whole put together a great pair of movies. The success of BEGINS primarily rested on the abilities of ONE ACTOR, not several.

Bale's performance is by far and away the best of the series ... and check it, he's only been in ONE Batman movie. Let's see where he takes it now.

[The Chris]

Yeah, Bale was like five or six different Bruce Waynes.

It also helps that unlike Keaton, Batman Begins was Christian Bale's film.

I still Like Mike though, just not as much.

[BurtonBegan]

I cannot believe that anyone could rate Kilmer over Keaton

[larryfilmmaker]

I remember back in 88 when he was casted and everyone was like no way, he a comic actor, I was the same way, and then I saw it when it came out and was happy. Still am today. I liked Val alot better, due that the costume was better fitting and he was a colder Bruce. But Keaton was good there to, sitting in the cave waiting with sadness. The ? is George was the worst!


Val kilmer was a colder Bruce than Keaton was? .....

[larryfilmmaker]

And Bale IS Batman, too.



Not to me, he's not. He does a good job, but I won't look at him and think "Batman". I look at him and think "try a role that isn't gritty already for God's sakes. It won't hurt your precious cult following".

[Damiean Dark]

"try a role that isn't gritty already for God's sakes. It won't hurt your precious cult following".

This is sooooo true Bale is great in american psycho (still his best acting role) but i dont think he has the range to play the roles the likes of keaton has played (beetlejuice, multiplycity, much ado about nothing, desperate measures, mr mom etc) or kilmer for that matter (doc holiday, jim morrisson, madmardigan ect) Bale continuisly plays grim troubled characters and in his attempt to play more light hearted roles he looks uncomptfortable (midsummer nighs dream).

[Dr. Fate]

I can't get over all the praise Val Kilmer is getting. Val only looked the part. He absolutely sucked in Batman Forever mostly because the script sucked. I mean when your first line in the film is "I'll Get Drive Thru" there's not a lot of hope there.

But he turned in a very wooden performance as Bruce Wayne. He didn't even really seem that interested in his female lead outside of the suit. I got the feeling Batman wanted her slightly more. And the whole "I'm Batman" scene at the circus, sucked.

IMO the only Batman/Bruce Wayne that was ever worth a damn is Keaton and Bale.

Kilmer sucked. Less than Clooney but he still stank up the joint.
Is it so wrong that some people actually liked Kilmer in the role?

[GoogleMe94]

Yeah, Bale was like five or six different Bruce Waynes.


umm what? diverse? how so? IMO bale was the one that played bruce wayne in a very cliche'd 2 demensional way. i only remember him being a smartass and then being "serious" bruce, and then being batman. ummm thats what keaton did to, and better. these 6 bruce waynes you speak of dont exist, cuz bale just did the same stuff keaton was doing. just different dialogue. i think the nolan fans are looking too much into begins then is there. you dont have to agree with me, but i found keaton much more convincing then bale. IMO he was the better actor. that scene at the bat computer in B89 showed keatons range, and there were times in Returns where i truly felt connected with keaton's character. bale just looked constipated half the time. and his "playboy" act was lame too. i liked keatons serious, slightly offbeat bruce wayne, made him much more real to me then anything bale did. bale was just wood. didnt make me laugh, cry, or anything. he was too dry.

to fabman, thanks for the grammer lessons, but i could care less about how i misspelled a word in my post. if it really bugs you that much, then dont read my posts. you already dont agree with me, so it shouldnt be that difficult.

[David Rice]

umm what? diverse? how so? IMO bale was the one that played bruce wayne in a very cliche'd 2 demensional way. i only remember him being a smartass and then being "serious" bruce, and then being batman. ummm thats what keaton did to, and better. these 6 bruce waynes you speak of dont exist, cuz bale just did the same stuff keaton was doing. just different dialogue. i think the nolan fans are looking too much into begins then is there. you dont have to agree with me, but i found keaton much more convincing then bale. IMO he was the better actor. that scene at the bat computer in B89 showed keatons range, and there were times in Returns where i truly felt connected with keaton's character. bale just looked constipated half the time. and his "playboy" act was lame too. i liked keatons serious, slightly offbeat bruce wayne, made him much more real to me then anything bale did. bale was just wood. didnt make me laugh, cry, or anything. he was too dry.

to fabman, thanks for the grammer lessons, but i could care less about how i misspelled a word in my post. if it really bugs you that much, then dont read my posts. you already dont agree with me, so it shouldnt be that difficult.

Ummmm, no he really didn't. Keaton was not a smartass, he was a more "serious" Bruce, but that is what worked for the him and film.

[GoogleMe94]

you dont remember him in B89 when he first met vicky vale? he was being a total smartass to knox. even some of his scenes with pfieffer were him being snobby rich guy, like when they first met. he wasnt ALWAYS serious, but yes, for the most part he was more serious then bale, which is why i like keatons interpretation more. i never liked the jokey bruce anyway, or the playboy one either. always annoyed me in the comics. i know its an act an all, but i still thought they were dumb. i could have done without those babe antics at the resturaunt, or that fake drunk thing at the party, those IMO were bales worst scenes. i liked it more when he was just more serious, cuz obviously bale isnt good at bein funny. even sean connery's funny scenes as james bond were funnier.

[DocLathropBrown]

Google, you're embarassing yourself. Please stop.

[SHADOWBAT69]

when was Keaton a smart ass to Knox?

"Alexander Knox"

"Oh, I read your work, I like it. I like it alot."

"Thanks. Can I have a grant?" both chuckle

blah,blah,blah
"...oh, and give Knox a grant." pats Knox on the back and leaves.

and snobby rich guy when he first met Selina? Where?

[Assassin32]

BUMP for a classic.

[Superhobo]

Reading Mr. Parker's and Bakerboy's posts were just - wow. The mind boggles.

[Catman]

Reading Mr. Parker's and Bakerboy's posts were just - wow. The mind boggles.

lol. I know. My theory has always been that they, along with Spiderfreddie, were just messing with you. It was all a big joke.

[larryfilmmaker]

I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

So no film critics know good acting but you do? Kilmer was better? Well, I won't say you're flat out wrong... but at least go the route of "it's all a matter of opinion" when you say things like that.

[Yurka]

I still believe Keaton was the best Batman/Bruce to this day, physically he might not have been the best, but psychologically and emotionally he played it to a T, IMO.

[Paste Pot Pete]

Not to me, he's not. He does a good job, but I won't look at him and think "Batman". I look at him and think "try a role that isn't gritty already for God's sakes. It won't hurt your precious cult following".

See Laurel Canyon, I'm Not There, The New World, Mary, Mother of Jesus (Yes, Jesus...that gritty sob), blah blah blah.

I don't get the Mr. Intensity whining when it comes to Bale. He's a young man with a decent and pretty diverse resume`.

[larryfilmmaker]

See Laurel Canyon, I'm Not There, The New World, Mary, Mother of Jesus (Yes, Jesus...that gritty sob), blah blah blah.

I don't get the Mr. Intensity whining when it comes to Bale. He's a young man with a decent and pretty diverse resume`.

It's not whining. I'm not upset and I don't care. I'm a grown man with a job and a real life... not some crazed 15 year old on a mission to attack or defend an actor who doesn't know who I am. Relax.

I think we were talking about the movies Bale does as a MOVIE STAR, not the ones he did back when he was just an actor.

Don't be naive. Any movie star who develops a cliche stereotype will do piece of work to prove he is NOT cliche. Hell, even Ashton did the Butterfly Effect. Does that mean it isn't fair to categorize him as a guy who does bad movies? Hell no. He still sucks, despite what he wants you to believe.

Aging stars date younger ones to keep their names fresh in the young audiences' minds and make you forget how old they are. Bad actors do good movies to make you forget how bad they are (see Timberlake or The Rock). It's called strategy. Bale may do the occasional "art" movie and stray from the safe zone of his gritty cult following, but he'll never leave it all together. See things as they are, not just how you're meant to. Hollywood's a big ol' liar because the truth is never as fun.

[Swordmaster]

Bale did I'm Not There and The New Wolrd post-Begins, as well as the amazing Rescue Dawn.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I dont know if I think this thread is necessary, if it wasnt for Keaton we would never have what we do now, including the way comic-book movies are made in general.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I still believe Keaton was the best Batman/Bruce to this day, physically he might not have been the best, but psychologically and emotionally he played it to a T, IMO.

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

[Doctor Doom]

I wouldn't understand the mind of the person who says Keaton didn't try and succeed in portraying a good Batman. He's just not my favourite.

[CFE]

When it comes to Batman, physicality is very important...But the psychology and thought process of the character is more important.

Physicality can be manufactured into a rubber muscle suit, but the internal character dynamic can't be faked in any form.

Keaton = :up:

CFE

[larryfilmmaker]

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

That's a good point actually. There are so many different versions of the iconic, 60-70 year old characters... but some fans act like only one way can be the right way. That's nuts. Batman doesn't have to be super dark and serious, and Superman is allowed to not end up with Lois. At some point, it really IS just entertainment and the fans need to relax.

[gqxsensazn]

I don't hate Keaton, I just feel Christian Bale is the Batman/Bruce Wayne for me. Keaton did a fantastic job, that's why I'm a big fan of the character at all. Without him, I doubt I would be interested in Batman. But Christian Bale just took over and became the one I felt portrayed Batman/Bruce Wayne the best.

[StylishHokie21]

Keaton was definitely better than Kilmer, but Kilmer wasn't too bad either.

[Yurka]

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

Oh I understand, I'm saying I liked Keaton's version the best.

[byte19]

I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).but this guy will think Danny Elfman can ONLY do the score for Batman! who are these ppl??!?:cmad:

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

That's a good point actually. There are so many different versions of the iconic, 60-70 year old characters... but some fans act like only one way can be the right way. That's nuts. Batman doesn't have to be super dark and serious, and Superman is allowed to not end up with Lois. At some point, it really IS just entertainment and the fans need to relax.

Im glad someone on here understands what Im saying!! :woot:

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Oh I understand, I'm saying I liked Keaton's version the best.

thats cool most definitly, its a hard tie for me when it comes to Keaton and Bale, it really is, sometimes I just cant decide.

[baerrtt]

The problem with fanboys of anything that's lasted decades with a myriad of interpretations (Batman, Bond, Doctor Who etc) as I've noted before in another post on the Batman forum is the 'era' they liked the most is how, in their minds, it should always be and as a result you get the unfortunate impression that many of these 'fans' don't actually appreciate the fact that these characters survive(d) because they're so chameleonic.

Characters like Batman aren't made any better,complex, interesting or durable by sticking to the same damn template over and over again.

Another arrogant assumption is the 'movies should be faithful to the comics 100%' argument. The Batcave was introduced in the first 1940s movie serial, not the comics. The first time Bruce scolds Dick is in that same serial. Heck in Superman's case he first flew in the Fleischer cartoons not the comics. Not to mention, getting back to Batman, the contribution Timm/Dini's show made to the comic continuity (Harley Quinn) a show that, partially, started as a spinoff from the Burton movies (they wouldn't have used Elfman's theme initially otherwise) that many of the hardcore say over and over again they hate.

In other words people have their preferences, I respect that, but they should think about the many versions of the character that have existed within the comics before they whinge about the different version(s) onscreen.

[Kevin Roegele]

The problem with fanboys of anything that's lasted decades with a myriad of interpretations (Batman, Bond, Doctor Who etc) as I've noted before in another post on the Batman forum is the 'era' they liked the most is how, in their minds, it should always be and as a result you get the unfortunate impression that many of these 'fans' don't actually appreciate the fact that these characters survive(d) because they're so chameleonic.

Characters like Batman aren't made any better,complex, interesting or durable by sticking to the same damn template over and over again.

Another arrogant assumption is the 'movies should be faithful to the comics 100%' argument. The Batcave was introduced in the first 1940s movie serial, not the comics. The first time Bruce scolds Dick is in that same serial. Heck in Superman's case he first flew in the Fleischer cartoons not the comics. Not to mention, getting back to Batman, the contribution Timm/Dini's show made to the comic continuity (Harley Quinn) a show that, partially, started as a spinoff from the Burton movies (they wouldn't have used Elfman's theme initially otherwise) that many of the hardcore say over and over again they hate.

In other words people have their preferences, I respect that, but they should think about the many versions of the character that have existed within the comics before they whinge about the different version(s) onscreen.

This has been said time and again (but rarely so well) on these boards...if I may try and take your message one step further, there are two types of fan; one who realise Batman is a work of fiction, a story that has been told over and over, and like all beloved stories, has been (and must) change to fit every new generation. Robin Hood? Changed endless times. James Bond? Changes all the time.

The other type is those who believe Batman is a real person, and his true adventures are chronicled perfectly in the comicbooks. These comics are holy scripture and are perfect within themselves. The flaws in this outlook are two-fold; one, it fails to take into account the fact that Batman has changed more times in the comics than he has in the movies (Bob Kane's Batman is not Dennis O'Neal's Batman, who is not Frank Miller's Batman) and is largely based on the post-Dark Knight Returns version of the character.

The second flaw is that it assumes, because Batman began in comics, that a Batman movie cannot improve on a Batman comic. It assumes that Batman can't completely change to a new medium. This also fails to recognise that many elements of the Batman mythos (the Batcave, Harley Quinn) come from outside the comics.

Or to illustrate it another way; a crap Batman comic is automatically better than the greatest Batman movie (whatever you think that is) purely because it's a comic. How illogical is that?

[MrQuinn]

I didn't even know who Christian Bale was when Begins came out, and I couldn't even remember his name, I just referred to him as "some new guy".

Then I saw Begins the night before it opened, and again the night it opened, and believe me, I remembered his name after that. I then watched Equilibrium, American Psycho, and the Machinest, and they are all favorite movies of mine (including Begins).

While I see the point that yes, he does play weirdos....but think about it, "weirdos" make good movies.

Try Edward Norton i.e. Fight Club, the Score, American History X, 25th Hour, even Death to Smoochy.... all pretty weird guys that seem to have some kind of nervous tick.


I think Bale is a great actor, not only in skills but also changing his appearance....the guy is madly dedicated to his roles.

[baerrtt]

This has been said time and again (but rarely so well) on these boards...if I may try and take your message one step further, there are two types of fan; one who realise Batman is a work of fiction, a story that has been told over and over, and like all beloved stories, has been (and must) change to fit every new generation. Robin Hood? Changed endless times. James Bond? Changes all the time.

The other type is those who believe Batman is a real person, and his true adventures are chronicled perfectly in the comicbooks. These comics are holy scripture and are perfect within themselves. The flaws in this outlook are two-fold; one, it fails to take into account the fact that Batman has changed more times in the comics than he has in the movies (Bob Kane's Batman is not Dennis O'Neal's Batman, who is not Frank Miller's Batman) and is largely based on the post-Dark Knight Returns version of the character.

The second flaw is that it assumes, because Batman began in comics, that a Batman movie cannot improve on a Batman comic. It assumes that Batman can't completely change to a new medium. This also fails to recognise that many elements of the Batman mythos (the Batcave, Harley Quinn) come from outside the comics.

Or to illustrate it another way; a crap Batman comic is automatically better than the greatest Batman movie (whatever you think that is) purely because it's a comic. How illogical is that?

Not to mention that the 60s tv series was inspired by the Batman comics of the time (the Sprang era) and as a result is very faithful to the source material of the time yet you have fans acting like the source material was grittier than the show it inspired (which aside from 'Robin Dies At Dawn' they certainly weren't) thus the show wasn't 'real' Batman:whatever:.

My biggest problem with such 'prejudices' is that by bashing Keaton/Burton, the 60s show, The Batman (the recent animated series) or even Nolan it shows a lack of appreciation for the character's diverse history on and off the printed page. I'll take Tim Burton's cinematic imagination at it's best (BATMAN RETURNS) over endless comic book storylines KNIGHTFALL, WAR GAMES etc that pushed the gritty, realistic, borderline unlikeable Batman on us without actually making him more complex, a template so tiresome that DC (with the aid of Grant Morrison) has taken the character's entire comic history and made it part of the current, modern continuity.

Why? Because those different facets (Kane's dangerous vigilante, Sprang's smiley adventurer, Dennis O'Neill's burned out but human detective, the post Miller's intelligent but emotionally cold hero) combined makes the character a heck of alot more complex (and realistic as in real life people don't retain the same personality throughout their lives) than any one facet displayed throughout. Batman isn't made better when he's just campy nor is he made any better when he's continually dark (in the fictional universe he inhabits the word 'realism' is meaningless at the best of times).

So if anyone is going to say that they didn't like Burton's vision, Keaton or THE BATMAN (for example) because they're 'not like the comics' simply say instead 'they're not like the era I enjoy'.

[El Payaso]

Well, Batman begins has a good bunch of inaccuracies itself.

[Dark Knight90!]

When it comes to Batman, physicality is very important...But the psychology and thought process of the character is more important.

Physicality can be manufactured into a rubber muscle suit, but the internal character dynamic can't be faked in any form.

Keaton = :up:

CFE

Superbly put as always!!!

I doubt Christian Bale or Michael Keaton loses sleep over which one of them the fanboys like the most.

Please don't treat them as if they are 'BATMAN' - they are actors 'playing' batman and each one of them has their flaws.

Doesn't mean we should condemn them to hell for it!!! jeez!

[larryfilmmaker]

the guy is madly dedicated to his roles.

I'm actually sort of against the notion of people losing or gaining tons of weight for roles. It's not healthy, either mentally or physically, to be that devoted to something like movies. Some people will go on big tirades in debate on this, but seriously, all rants aside... it's not healthy or normal.

[MrQuinn]

I'm actually sort of against the notion of people losing or gaining tons of weight for roles. It's not healthy, either mentally or physically, to be that devoted to something like movies. Some people will go on big tirades in debate on this, but seriously, all rants aside... it's not healthy or normal.

well you are right about the health issues, especially when it comes to his role in the Machinest ..

Christian Bale starved himself for over 4 months prior to filming, as his character needed to look drastically thin. Allegedly his eating consisted of one can of tuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna) and an apple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple) each day (approximately 275 calories), although there are conflicting reports on this. According to the DVD commentary, he lost 62 pounds (28 kg), reducing his body weight to 120 pounds (54.4 kg). Bale wanted to go down to 100 pounds (45.3 kg) but the filmmakers would not let him due to health concerns. He later regained the weight, plus an additional 40 pounds (18 kg) due to weightlifting, in preparation for his role in Christopher Nolan's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Nolan) Batman Begins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins).

I mean that is just insane, especially for a gritty underground type movie. But, health concerns aside, I think Bale is phenomenal and he just wants to do whatever it takes to make the best performance he can.

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I love early in the film when he's in attendance at his own party and he seems to walk around like he's shell shocked. He perfectly displayed that this man has no clue about the social graces and that he was only complete when he was in costume.

Still, It's not really Batman - it's only Burton's interpretation of the character. Having said that, I think he was perfectly cast as Burton's version of Batman. Honestly, though, he wouldn't have been my casting choice. Not because of Mister Mom but because of his physical appearance.

True what I also didn't like was that Bruce Wayne is well known around the world as a diligent playboy and yet we don't see girls hanging around Bruce wanting to mingle, not even Viki Vale knew who he was and she's a photojournalist for christ sakes.