Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton

[Chris Wallace]

Kilmer was good-even if he had precious little to work with. I have every reason to believe that Bale will be great. But no one will ever surpass Keaton for one simple reason: He had to rely totally on his performance.
Think about it. He was completely physically wrong for the part. Wrong height. Wrong build. Wrong hair. He didn't have the "pretty boy Wayne' features. But he played the role so well that WE DIDN'T CARE. When he was onscreen in that ridiculous, confining rubber costume, we believed he was Batman. That's what sets him apart from all other actors in all comic book movies. We nitpick to death everything from muscle tone to eye color. But the complaints we get about Keaton are few & far between-not b/c we don't see the flaws. We just don't care. :batman:

[Captain_Obvious]

who is this we you are refering to?

[Chris Wallace]

1st "we"-moviegoers.
2nd "we"-Batfans & comic fans in general.
3rd "we"-moviegoers again.
4th "we"-all of the above :batman:

[Captain_Obvious]

hmmm you're just assuming moviegoers and batfans/comic fans think like that though :(

[Comic Book Boy]

I agree and disagree...

Keaton was amazing and did a great performance.

I think Bale will be better.:batman:

[P. Cushing]

There already is a better Batman than Keaton: Kevin Conroy.

[Proximo]

Keaton will always be the live action Batman for me.. no mather how bale pull it of in BB, im so sure about it. Keaton just had it in his eyes.. and ... omg alot more.. he is batman...:batman:

[DarkKnightYone]

I think your opinions will change once you see Begins. I liked Keaton too but Bale will deliver more to the fanboys and the general audience.

[Two-Face]

I think your opinions will change once you see Begins. I liked Keaton too but Bale will deliver more to the fanboys and the general audience.


I'm gonna like Bale as Bats/Bruce more and Keaton will be my second choice.

[bingy13]

There already is a better Batman than Keaton: Kevin Conroy.

HECK YA!!! Go Batman: TAS!!!

[AnavelGato86]

While Bale will probably do better. Im still going to Keaton for my favorite and better actor.
I mean aside from the serials in what the 40's? and the campy version doesnt count. Keaton was the first person to take a real crack at the role, and people enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. I think he played a great Bruce adn a great Batman. And yes while Bale may do a better job, Keaton had to try and define what hadn't been done before. Pioneers make mistakes, **** look at the Donner party ^^ But they did show people what not to do. Bale kinda has it easy cause he has references on film. Something Keaton didnt have.

[Guason]

While Bale will probably do better. Im still going to Keaton for my favorite and better actor.
I mean aside from the serials in what the 40's? and the campy version doesnt count. Keaton was the first person to take a real crack at the role, and people enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. I think he played a great Bruce adn a great Batman. And yes while Bale may do a better job, Keaton had to try and define what hadn't been done before. Pioneers make mistakes, **** look at the Donner party ^^ But they did show people what not to do. Bale kinda has it easy cause he has references on film. Something Keaton didnt have.
Keaton is the only Batman!

[Riven]

There already is a better Batman than Keaton: Kevin Conroy.He's a voice actor. :rolleyes:


Keaton was amazing, Bale will be too. Better? We'll see!

[DorkyFresh]

Keaton did a great job as Batman....but he didn't look the part.

Keaton's great job + Someone who looks the part = Bale

nuff' said.

[Infinity9999x]

idk Bale will really have to pull this off to make me say he was better then keaton. Like Wallace states, a guy has to pull of some damn great acting to sell us that hes batman when he doesnt have the build, look, or a good costume for the part. It would be like imagine some skinny dude playing superman, but he never puts on the super-man coustume, has light brown hair, and has a skinny face, but still pulls off the role. Bale will be great, but Keaton was damn Amazing.

[Chris Wallace]

Egg-ZACT-lee. I ain't knockin' Bale. I have very high hopes for Bale, but Keaton had to overcome several disadvantages to be accepted in the role & in my opinion, he did it.

[TheDarkKnight]

For me, Keaton IS Batman. Bale will take over that role, and will probably exceed it because movies now are much, much better than movies in 1989. Kilmer and Clooney aren't Batman IMO.

[P. Cushing]

He's a voice actor. :rolleyes:
So? So was Orson Welles.

[DorkyFresh]

Egg-ZACT-lee. I ain't knockin' Bale. I have very high hopes for Bale, but Keaton had to overcome several disadvantages to be accepted in the role & in my opinion, he did it.
Bale has to overcome the disadvantage of everyone comparing him to Keaton.

[bbb]

if kilmer and clooney were chosen to play batman in the first 2 movies then i think they would of gave the same or possibly better performace than keaton as batman, also you seem narrow minded with your comment there will never be a better Batman than Keaton as you havn't seen bale's performance in batman begins yet and assume noone can touch keaton's performance

[DorkyFresh]

To tell you the truth...Keaton's performances as Bruce Wayne aren't anything all that special. Actually there we a couple of moments that made me go "WTF?" like....."You wanna get nuts???? C'MON!!! Let's get nuts!"

Don't get me wrong....Keaton did a great job, but it's not like his performance as Bruce Wayne struck any real emotions from the audience. Whereas even in Mr. Bale's worst movie (IMO)...in Equilibrium, when he started crying on the steps....you could feel his pain.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Please ! You can go and watch Batman when Keaton is remembering the Wayne's death and you can feel his pain as well and he didn't even need to break out and cry, his eyes said it all.
Chris, great post buddy. You really got it. Keaton is an awesome actor who loves challenges. It's what estimulates him as an artist. He hates to be bored. Batman was one of those roles in which he had alot of fun overcoming all of the odds. And he did it. Maybe he could have been even better had he trained with weights but that was something he was told not to do. He did train martial arts and kickboxing and his instructor in both movies said he never had a fastest learning student.
And in my opinion it's better when you have both characters (Bruce and Batman) and not suspect that one is the other based on their physique. In comics sometimes it's almost insulting to your intelligence when they paint Bruce with a HUGE body and there he is entering the parties in tuxedo , the biggest guy in the room and nobody suspects he's Batman. I rather believe in a smaller guy who then becomes bigger with his body armour.
And that's why I always said performance wise (I think Bale will be better as Bruce, in action sequences also because he has a better suit and the help of special effects that Keaton didn't have at the time) Keaton is unbeatable. He had a harder job.
I take great confort in knowing how well he's still respected. Crowds cheer very loud and clap when he's in talk shows and mentions Batman. And no matter how hard some fans are enamorated with Bale will try to take down his credit, he will always be Batman to millions.
I do wish Bale good luck and if he impresses me more than Keaton I will be here to admit it. If not, there's no small feat either. He doesn't have to be better. He just has to be good enough. He will be great. But Keaton was amazing.

[BatmanRules33]

Please ! You can go and watch Batman when Keaton is remembering the Wayne's death and you can feel his pain as well and he didn't even need to break out and cry, his eyes said it all.
Chris, great post buddy. You really got it. Keaton is an awesome actor who loves challenges. It's what estimulates him as an artist. He hates to be bored. Batman was one of those roles in which he had alot of fun overcoming all of the odds. And he did it. Maybe he could have been even better had he trained with weights but that was something he was told not to do. He did train martial arts and kickboxing and his instructor in both movies said he never had a fastest learning student.
And in my opinion it's better when you have both characters (Bruce and Batman) and not suspect that one is the other based on their physique. In comics sometimes it's almost insulting to your intelligence when they paint Bruce with a HUGE body and there he is entering the parties in tuxedo , the biggest guy in the room and nobody suspects he's Batman. I rather believe in a smaller guy who then becomes bigger with his body armour.
And that's why I always said performance wise (I think Bale will be better as Bruce, in action sequences also because he has a better suit and the help of special effects that Keaton didn't have at the time) Keaton is unbeatable. He had a harder job.
I take great confort in knowing how well he's still respected. Crowds cheer very loud and clap when he's in talk shows and mentions Batman. And no matter how hard some fans are enamorated with Bale will try to take down his credit, he will always be Batman to millions.
I do wish Bale good luck and if he impresses me more than Keaton I will be here to admit it. If not, there's no small feat either. He doesn't have to be better. He just has to be good enough. He will be great. But Keaton was amazing.


^ well said my friend, well said. Keaton WAS and IS :batman: !

[Chris Wallace]

Bale has to overcome the disadvantage of everyone comparing him to Keaton.
I'll give you that.

[Riven]

So? So was Orson Welles.So? Did Orson Welles ever voice Batman?

You can't compare a voice actor's performance to a regular actor's performance of one and the same character. It's two entirely different mediums that requite two entirely different approaches and skills.

I'm not saying voice actors are inferior to regular actors, I'm saying it's silly to say Conroy was better or worse than Keaton, since they did different jobs with the same character.

[Infinity9999x]

Please ! You can go and watch Batman when Keaton is remembering the Wayne's death and you can feel his pain as well and he didn't even need to break out and cry, his eyes said it all.
Chris, great post buddy. You really got it. Keaton is an awesome actor who loves challenges. It's what estimulates him as an artist. He hates to be bored. Batman was one of those roles in which he had alot of fun overcoming all of the odds. And he did it. Maybe he could have been even better had he trained with weights but that was something he was told not to do. He did train martial arts and kickboxing and his instructor in both movies said he never had a fastest learning student.
And in my opinion it's better when you have both characters (Bruce and Batman) and not suspect that one is the other based on their physique. In comics sometimes it's almost insulting to your intelligence when they paint Bruce with a HUGE body and there he is entering the parties in tuxedo , the biggest guy in the room and nobody suspects he's Batman. I rather believe in a smaller guy who then becomes bigger with his body armour.
And that's why I always said performance wise (I think Bale will be better as Bruce, in action sequences also because he has a better suit and the help of special effects that Keaton didn't have at the time) Keaton is unbeatable. He had a harder job.
I take great confort in knowing how well he's still respected. Crowds cheer very loud and clap when he's in talk shows and mentions Batman. And no matter how hard some fans are enamorated with Bale will try to take down his credit, he will always be Batman to millions.
I do wish Bale good luck and if he impresses me more than Keaton I will be here to admit it. If not, there's no small feat either. He doesn't have to be better. He just has to be good enough. He will be great. But Keaton was amazing.

exactaly, I think it was interesting that they portrayed Batman as a smaller guy becuz then less ppl would suspect Wayne was Batman. That's what always bugged me bout the Superman concept, I mean ok we have this huge built guy in the comics who's always gone when superman is around, and he bares a stricking resemblence to superman.....but kno one knows hes superman...ya right. Oh and for a second there u got me freaked out cuz my Name is Chris and I was like how did he fing out my name.....? and then I saw wallaces name and I was like ohh duh...lol :rolleyes:

[Lazlo Panaflex]

[QUOTE=Infinity9999x]exactaly, I think it was interesting that they portrayed Batman as a smaller guy becuz then less ppl would suspect Wayne was Batman. That's what always bugged me bout the Superman concept, I mean ok we have this huge built guy in the comics who's always gone when superman is around, and he bares a stricking resemblence to superman.....but kno one knows hes superman...ya right. QUOTE]


I can't comment on the Superman comics but in the movies when Christopher Reeve played Clark Kent he even said that he would slouch his shoulders and talk soft as Kent but when he was Superman he would stand up straight and talk with a commanding voice, his performance in dual personalities was believable and Chris Reeve will always be Superman.

[Infinity9999x]

ya Reeve did do a good job but I just never bought the whole Superman Idea, I mean a guy can only fool so many people buy taking off his glasses. Reeve was a great actor tho.

[Pookie Begins]

While Bale will probably do better. Im still going to Keaton for my favorite and better actor.
I mean aside from the serials in what the 40's? and the campy version doesnt count. Keaton was the first person to take a real crack at the role, and people enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. I think he played a great Bruce adn a great Batman. And yes while Bale may do a better job, Keaton had to try and define what hadn't been done before. Pioneers make mistakes, **** look at the Donner party ^^ But they did show people what not to do. Bale kinda has it easy cause he has references on film. Something Keaton didnt have.By that logic, it would actually give Bale a better chance at succeding and going above and beyond Keaton, the man who came before him. That is always the evolution of things, someone will always come along and be better after taking what he saw from his predecessors and adding his own flair. It is seen in many different landscapes. And also, Keaton wasn't piornering ANYTHING, the character was being potrayed as bad ass, anti-social nut in the biggest comic book of the 80's aka DKR which he based his entire performance off of.

[P. Cushing]

That is always the evolution of things, someone will always come along and be better after taking what he saw from his predecessors and adding his own flair.
That's not always true though. Neither Davison, McCoy, McGann or Eccleston are Better than Baker even though they succeeded him. Same with Everrett and Roxburgh, succeeding Merrison. And again with Oldman succeeding Lee and Palance. Still, it does happen some time (Conroy succeeding Sessions and Keaton, Whitfeild succeeding Rutherford and Hickson, etc.)

[Pookie Begins]

That's not always true though. Neither Davison, McCoy, McGann or Eccleston are Better than Baker even though they succeeded him. Same with Everrett and Roxburgh, succeeding Merrison. And again with Oldman succeeding Lee and Palance. Still, it does happen some time (Conroy succeeding Sessions and Keaton, Whitfeild succeeding Rutherford and Hickson, etc.)I didn't say the next person in line for the role would be better, but which ever one is new to the role and obviously knocked it out the park, borrowed and stood on the shoulders of those before him.

[Comic Book Boy]

ya Reeve did do a good job but I just never bought the whole Superman Idea, I mean a guy can only fool so many people buy taking off his glasses. Reeve was a great actor tho.
I disagree. Reeve did such a good job, when he was Clark he looked and seemed TOTALLY different than when he was Superman. It was amazing.

[Infinity9999x]

I disagree. Reeve did such a good job, when he was Clark he looked and seemed TOTALLY different than when he was Superman. It was amazing.

I just watched a bit of the movie again tonight, and you are right Reeve did really sell that role, I was really more making the point to the general concept of superman, especially in the comics where the portray Clark Kent as this huge buff guy. That always seemed unrealisitic to me. But I'm just a casual reader of Superman too.

[GLREBORN]

Keaton was never Batman

Heck he is not even that great an actor.

[P. Cushing]

Keaton was Batman from 1989 to when BTAS premiered.

[Crashorama]

Keaton was never Batman

Heck he is not even that great an actor.

He is an awesome actor.

[Guason]

Keaton is Batman
And he`s such a great actor, even better than Bale.

[anaelmasri]

totally agree with u man
bale looks like he will be great
but KEATON IS BATMAN

[portland2002]

Val Kilmer's my favorite Batman.

[Guason]

if kilmer and clooney were chosen to play batman in the first 2 movies then i think they would of gave the same or possibly better performace than keaton as batman, also you seem narrow minded with your comment there will never be a better Batman than Keaton as you havn't seen bale's performance in batman begins yet and assume noone can touch keaton's performance
Keaton would have even made a better goofy and talkitive Batman than both Clooney and Kilmer if he had been asked to!
I really have a hard time thinking one of them would have done a better job than he did, `cause let`s admit it they wouldn`t have. :hq:

[-Fire-Fly-]

Yes I agree Keaton was good for his time but the show must go on...Bale is Batman

Bat-Miles:batman:

[The Sage]

Bale will be Batman, and Keaton will still be Batman when it's all said and done.

[The Guard]

Agreed. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are two different kinds of Batmen, just like West and Keaton were. Keaton was cast to fill the role of a completely re-imagined Dark Knight. Bale's not picking up where Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney left off, he's doing what Keaton did in 1989. Helping reinvent Batman. Nothing, I think, will ever change the fact that Keaton gave a hell of a performance as both Bruce Wayne and Batman in both films. He did things that appealed to comic book fans who flat-out hated those movies and their take on the character. Nothing's going to change that. I seriously doubt we're going to look back after BATMAN BEGINS and go "God, because Bale was good, Keaton's acting sucked".

[P. Cushing]

Don't be so sure about that last part, The Guard. Some people will just because.















Keaton rules. A lot.

[swifty]

http://img224.exs.cx/img224/7440/batman027ok.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Bale will own Keaton's ass!!!!

http://img143.exs.cx/img143/8075/batman50ml.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Proximo]

http://img224.exs.cx/img224/7440/batman027ok.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

Bale will own Keaton's ass!!!!

http://img143.exs.cx/img143/8075/batman50ml.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

Bale look like a girl in that pictures.
I have no doubt Bale will be a good Batman but i dont think he will beat Keaton's preformance.

I mean just look at Keaton... He looks so much more intimidating and badass then Bale.
Bale will probably be a better Bruce Wayne then Keaton but Batman no.

[buggs0268]

I still think this is so funny. When Batman 89 came out, most people thought Keaton sucked. The fan boys and comic people really hated him as Batman when the first one came out. I remember seeing it at the 12:00 am sneak showing the night before it was officially released, and when the movie was over all the Batman fans where going "God that sucked. He sucked as Batman!" Keaton made it all about the suit, and all the comic fans in 89 hated that. Keaton even said in interviews he played it for the suit. Batman is not just about the suit. I Just thought that would always be the case.

Lets put it this way. After the film was over, and this was in the bigggest theater in town at the sneak preview showing with all the Batman fans there. Half of the audience was dressed up in batman, penguin, or joker cosutmes. Before the lights went out the whole audience was singing the 60 batman theme song. So this was a pro-Batman crowd. But, whent the movie was over, more people were talking about the Lethal Weapon 2 preview then Batman. Hell, more people wee talking about the stupid Yahoo Serious preview than they were Batman. If they where talking about Batman, it was how disapointed they were with it and Keaton. I heard alot of "That was what we were waiting for?" and there was so much hype before it was released, that it was all everyone talked about he following monday. And all the peopel I heard talking about it was how much it sucked, and how much Keaton sucked.

So it jsut really cracks me up that people argue that he is the best now. Hell i think it is funny now that people think The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension was a great film now casue people thought it was really dumb when it came out.

[Proximo]

singing 60s theme song? so i guess they expected a campy 60s style batman movie thats why they were pissed of the 89 movie.

Now most of the people. fan boy etc, think burtons movies is the best and keaton is the man... 89 and returns will always be my favorite batman movies inspide of what Batman Begins will be like... i just cant accept someone else play Batman then Keaton... he is Batman for me.

[Riven]

Lets put it this way. After the film was over, and this was in the bigggest theater in town at the sneak preview showing with all the Batman fans there. Half of the audience was dressed up in batman, penguin, or joker cosutmes. Before the lights went out the whole audience was singing the 60 batman theme song. So this was a pro-Batman crowd.

No offense, but that "pro-Batman" crowd sounds like a bunch of freaking morons. Regardless if you like the Burton/Keaton Batman, that's just plain stupid.

Ask almost anyone in the general audience who is a little knowledgable about Batman, not fanboys mind you, and they'll say B89 is their favorite Batman ever.

B89 was not a dissapointment, nor was Keaton. B89 could have been a much better movie, but as a Batman movie adaptation it still stands unbeaten. I expect Begins to change that. But it still rules.

[buggs0268]

When it came out it was a total disapointment. It made money but that was becasue it was so overhyped everyone went to see it. But people, especially comic book people , hated it. My roomate at teh time owned a comic book store and I helped him set up at a comic book convention and that was what people would say when it was mentioned "God that sucked!" And the pro batman crows was the same type of crowd tha was dressed up and at opening night for all the Lord of the Ring movies. I am telling you from first hand experience, people were let down by the movie.

I know Letterman told Keaton that he was the only Batman, but when Batman came out Letterman was goofing on it and saying things like "It looked nice but you could have cared less if everyone in Gotham died at the end of the movie" and people cheered. It was not well like when it came out as it was such a let down.

And I was 22 at the time I saw it first showing at the biggest theater in town. So I wasn't just a kid. I know you are a fan of it but the movie was a total let down when it came out. And I am not just talking about just the fan boys. This movie was so hyped. Everyone was wearing the black shirt with the Batman logo. People were having the Batman logo cut into thir hair. I mean it was everywhere. And the general audience at the time hated it after it was released.

6 months later, when I went to see a movie on opening night and they would show trivia questions with shots from the film when the lights were still on before the previews, and a shot from Batman came up, people who where paying attention to the screen groaned, and I remember hearing coments like "That movie just sucked"

Again, I know youa re a fan, but when it came out, it was such a let down, not jsut to the fan boys, but to the general public. People liked the car. They liked Elfman's score. they liked the suit. But that was about it. And I know that people say they are the best out of the 4 now, which is my point. To me that is weird as people didn't like them when they came out. Batman Returns did not fly off of the videos shelves. Batman 1 did well on video sales, but that was the first time you could buy a brand new video tape release for $19.00. Before that a brand new video was $79.00-$89.50, if you could get them. Most videos back then you had to wair for 6 months before you bould buy a copy. You could get tehm on laser disc but not VHS. Alot of new releases you could not get at that time because the rental stores had agreements with the studios so that people would rent them instead of buying them. Batman was the first that was so cheap, and it was released in October or November if I remember correctly.

Let me ask you this Riven. How old were you when the film came out? And were you there opening night. Did you see the film in the theater when it was released?

[buggs0268]

singing 60s theme song? so i guess they expected a campy 60s style batman movie thats why they were pissed of the 89 movie.

Now most of the people. fan boy etc, think burtons movies is the best and keaton is the man... 89 and returns will always be my favorite batman movies inspide of what Batman Begins will be like... i just cant accept someone else play Batman then Keaton... he is Batman for me.

No, no one was expecting Camp. We were told there would be no camp in it, so no one was expeting it. But that was the only Batman theme song. The Elfman score had not been released till November of that year. The prince album was out, but teh 60's theme was the most recognizable. But, like I said, I wa there sneak preview before opening night and the next week that was all that people talked about, non fan boys included was that the movie was a let down. We were expecting something on the calibre of how Superman 1 was treated minus the Otis crap. I remember people groaned when the joker pulled that damn long gun out of his pants. It was as bad as when the fricken penguins came out to drag the penguin to the water at teh end of Batman Returns. Everyone groaned. There were a few "Oh come on!" being shouted out.

After Returns, there were Warner guys where there, as it was the day after opening day, handing out survey cards. The card had questions like "Will you buy this when it comes out on video?" "What wa the part you liked the most?" "What was the part yo uliked the least?" Stuff like that. I hadned my cards in last and I asked the Warner Rep there, who was with three other guys tallying up responses, how it rated. The guy said, "Same as last night and what we are hearing from other guys doing this aroudn the country. People don't like it."

[Proximo]

No, no one was expecting Camp. We were told there would be no camp in it, so no one was expeting it. But that was the only Batman theme song. The Elfman score had not been released till November of that year. The prince album was out, but teh 60's theme was the most recognizable. But, like I said, I wa there sneak preview before opening night and the next week that was all that people talked about, non fan boys included was that the movie was a let down. We were expecting something on the calibre of how Superman 1 was treated minus the Otis crap. I remember people groaned when the joker pulled that damn long gun out of his pants. It was as bad as when the fricken penguins came out to drag the penguin to the water at teh end of Batman Returns. Everyone groaned. There were a few "Oh come on!" being shouted out.

After Returns, there were Warner guys where there, as it was the day after opening day, handing out survey cards. The card had questions like "Will you buy this when it comes out on video?" "What wa the part you liked the most?" "What was the part yo uliked the least?" Stuff like that. I hadned my cards in last and I asked the Warner Rep there, who was with three other guys tallying up responses, how it rated. The guy said, "Same as last night and what we are hearing from other guys doing this aroudn the country. People don't like it."

What yoou write dosent make any point, But however the long/big gun is Joker's things his gadjets is supposed to be overdesigned and laughable at.
As for the end of Returns when the penguins dragged him down the water i hated to, but overall '89 and Returns is to date the best Batman live action we have seen, Some people may hate burtons batman but not as much as Joels. and Begins will probably be good in its own way. i mean its gone 16 years since the first movie came. Its a big diffrence about the film making 16 years ago and today.

[Infinity9999x]

I dont know about you buggs but I first saw B89 when I was in second grade and I thought it was loads better then BR, and B&R which both had more action and were aimed more for kids my age at the time. Many of my friends, who aren't comic fans at all, like B89 much more then the other movies because they thought the movie was more serious and had a better storyline then the other movies. In this forum its almost a complete concensuss that B89 and BR are the best batman movies to date. I really haven't heard anyone say that movie sucked.

[buggs0268]

Right, they are better then forever and batman and robin. I saw all the movies on opening night except returns, which I saw the next day, and Batman 89, which I saw the sneak showing at 12:00 am the night before opening night. Watching Batman and robin was like, as ford fairlane puts it, Ma*******ing with a cheese grater. It was torture. I like parts of Forever but then hated parts. So Batman 89 is best in that series, but in all they all sucked ass. I think Batman Begins will put all of them to shame. But I wished they had filmed the Mankeweitcz script. That was the closest to Batman. The ending needed work but it would have made a great film. Far superior to Batman 89. but what I am saying is that when the film came out, okay meaybe kids in the second grade like it, but the adults didn't. It was a big let down. people were expecting what Donner did for Superman, minus the otis, teshmacher and luthor treatment. It was very disapointing. All I am saying is now ir is revered, but when it was released most people hated it as it was a big let down.

And trust me, the big Joker gun got a lot of groans. It was rediculous. It was something you would expect from the 60's series. People groaned during that high shot of batman in the begingin when they used cell animation for batman. I Know that Derek Meddings tried to do it with a rod puppet, and it didnt work, so his sone did it with cell animation. It just sucked oit see it on the screen. People hated the fact that the much of the batcave walls are supposed to be the support pylons of the buildings in Gotham. but Wayne Manor is outside of town and the cave is underneath the house. There were just alot of things that people hated. People hated the voice activated batmobile as it was too muchj like Night Rider.

People were upset because instead of a viscious Joker who cracks jokes, we got an old guy saying things like "I'm of a mind makes a movie" and "never rub another mans rubarb." We thought we were going to get a Joker that was up to par with Jack Torrence from The Shining. not this goofball thing that Batman could have kicked his ass in two seconds. And Keaton may be Batman to you guys, but to us older people he was just Mr. Mom in a Batman suit. If Ashton Kutcher had been chosen to be superman, to all of us now it would be "Micheal for that 70's show or the guy from Dude Where's My Car in a Superman suit. That is what it was for us. Mr. Mom in the Batman suit.

IN short, we were expecting Batman begins, and we got this weird thing.

[swifty]

Bale look like a girl in that pictures.
I have no doubt Bale will be a good Batman but i dont think he will beat Keaton's preformance.

I mean just look at Keaton... He looks so much more intimidating and badass then Bale.
Bale will probably be a better Bruce Wayne then Keaton but Batman no.


oooookay!!! time to change those glasses and make sure to go the best optometrist money can buy!!! :)

[Infinity9999x]

actually w/ those two pictures keaton looks more intimidating. I think it's because of the lighting, Bale's in more light while keaton's in more shadow.

[swifty]

I very much like Keaton as an actor, and in all honesty I liked him as batman back in 89, but now compared to Bales batman, he looks anything but intimidating.

[Infinity9999x]

Right, they are better then forever and batman and robin. I saw all the movies on opening night except returns, which I saw the next day, and Batman 89, which I saw the sneak showing at 12:00 am the night before opening night. Watching Batman and robin was like, as ford fairlane puts it, Ma*******ing with a cheese grater. It was torture. I like parts of Forever but then hated parts. So Batman 89 is best in that series, but in all they all sucked ass. I think Batman Begins will put all of them to shame. But I wished they had filmed the Mankeweitcz script. That was the closest to Batman. The ending needed work but it would have made a great film. Far superior to Batman 89. but what I am saying is that when the film came out, okay meaybe kids in the second grade like it, but the adults didn't. It was a big let down. people were expecting what Donner did for Superman, minus the otis, teshmacher and luthor treatment. It was very disapointing. All I am saying is now ir is revered, but when it was released most people hated it as it was a big let down.

And trust me, the big Joker gun got a lot of groans. It was rediculous. It was something you would expect from the 60's series. People groaned during that high shot of batman in the begingin when they used cell animation for batman. I Know that Derek Meddings tried to do it with a rod puppet, and it didnt work, so his sone did it with cell animation. It just sucked oit see it on the screen. People hated the fact that the much of the batcave walls are supposed to be the support pylons of the buildings in Gotham. but Wayne Manor is outside of town and the cave is underneath the house. There were just alot of things that people hated. People hated the voice activated batmobile as it was too muchj like Night Rider.

People were upset because instead of a viscious Joker who cracks jokes, we got an old guy saying things like "I'm of a mind makes a movie" and "never rub another mans rubarb." We thought we were going to get a Joker that was up to par with Jack Torrence from The Shining. not this goofball thing that Batman could have kicked his ass in two seconds. And Keaton may be Batman to you guys, but to us older people he was just Mr. Mom in a Batman suit. If Ashton Kutcher had been chosen to be superman, to all of us now it would be "Micheal for that 70's show or the guy from Dude Where's My Car in a Superman suit. That is what it was for us. Mr. Mom in the Batman suit.

IN short, we were expecting Batman begins, and we got this weird thing.

I saw Mr. Mom too and I thought Keaton did a pretty good job of portraying Batman, the guy just didn't have the physical appereance to play Wayne as well as Bale probably will. I don't know, I still find B89 entertaining, and while not as close to the comics as desired, still fun to watch. I wouldn't say the movie sucked, B&R sucked, The Fantastic Four straight to video movie sucked, The Captain America with rubber ears movie sucked. B89 didn't suck, it may have been diffrent, but I personally still thought it was enjoyable.

Nicholson's Joker may have been diffrent from what we were expecting but I still thought he did a good job, many people think he stole the show and was the best part of the movie for them. I guess its all in how you want to view the Movie. I viewed B89 as a diffrent take on the Character of Batman, and Nicholson's Joker was a diffrent preception of the Joker. Though I would still prefer a Joker like Hammil's from B:TAS I still liked Nicholson's Joker.

I hope Begins is better then B89, but i'm not getting my hopes up yet, I want to reserve judgment until I see the movie. I don't want to hype myself up to much because then if it's bad it'll hurt more.

[darknight7]

all you BALE WILL BE THE BEST are just a bunch of ban wagoners...


*And I agree with you CW...Keaton...IS THE BEST:up::)

--dk7

[P. Cushing]

Right, they are better then forever and batman and robin. I saw all the movies on opening night except returns, which I saw the next day, and Batman 89, which I saw the sneak showing at 12:00 am the night before opening night. Watching Batman and robin was like, as ford fairlane puts it, Ma*******ing with a cheese grater. It was torture. I like parts of Forever but then hated parts. So Batman 89 is best in that series, but in all they all sucked ass. I think Batman Begins will put all of them to shame. But I wished they had filmed the Mankeweitcz script. That was the closest to Batman. The ending needed work but it would have made a great film. Far superior to Batman 89. but what I am saying is that when the film came out, okay meaybe kids in the second grade like it, but the adults didn't. It was a big let down. people were expecting what Donner did for Superman, minus the otis, teshmacher and luthor treatment. It was very disapointing. All I am saying is now ir is revered, but when it was released most people hated it as it was a big let down.

And trust me, the big Joker gun got a lot of groans. It was rediculous. It was something you would expect from the 60's series. People groaned during that high shot of batman in the begingin when they used cell animation for batman. I Know that Derek Meddings tried to do it with a rod puppet, and it didnt work, so his sone did it with cell animation. It just sucked oit see it on the screen. People hated the fact that the much of the batcave walls are supposed to be the support pylons of the buildings in Gotham. but Wayne Manor is outside of town and the cave is underneath the house. There were just alot of things that people hated. People hated the voice activated batmobile as it was too muchj like Night Rider.

People were upset because instead of a viscious Joker who cracks jokes, we got an old guy saying things like "I'm of a mind makes a movie" and "never rub another mans rubarb." We thought we were going to get a Joker that was up to par with Jack Torrence from The Shining. not this goofball thing that Batman could have kicked his ass in two seconds. And Keaton may be Batman to you guys, but to us older people he was just Mr. Mom in a Batman suit. If Ashton Kutcher had been chosen to be superman, to all of us now it would be "Micheal for that 70's show or the guy from Dude Where's My Car in a Superman suit. That is what it was for us. Mr. Mom in the Batman suit.

IN short, we were expecting Batman begins, and we got this weird thing.
I have a feeling that The Guard will verbally kick your ass.

[The Guard]

Done and done.

If people didn't like BATMAN, why did it clean up the box office for much more than one weekend? Why did merchandise fly off the shelves? Why was there clamor for a sequel? Why do DVD/VHS copies of it still sell fairly well?

I like parts of Forever but then hated parts. So Batman 89 is best in that series, but in all they all sucked ass.

Why?

I think Batman Begins will put all of them to shame.

Let's hope so. With a budget of more than fifty percent more than what BATMAN & ROBIN or any previous film had, a star-studded cast of even bigger names, and almost eight years of advancement in special effects technology, as well as the talent involved, it damn well better.

But I wished they had filmed the Mankeweitcz script. That was the closest to Batman. The ending needed work but it would have made a great film. Far superior to Batman 89.

Hardly. Even the second draft of that script is filled with camp.

but what I am saying is that when the film came out, okay meaybe kids in the second grade like it, but the adults didn't. It was a big let down.

Adults made up quite a bit of the moviegoing audience for BATMAN.

people were expecting what Donner did for Superman, minus the otis, teshmacher and luthor treatment.

I think that people were expecting exactly what they saw in trailers, and exactly what they got. A Batman film with a new, darker, different take on the character, black rubber, a new Batmobile and Batwing, Jack Nicholson as The Joker and Kim Basinger as the love interet, directed by one of the hottest directors at the time.

It was very disapointing. All I am saying is now ir is revered, but when it was released most people hated it as it was a big let down.

Odd, because blockbuster movies tend to be LESS revered as time goes on. Most people don't even remember BATMAN, other than the fact that Keaton was Batman and Nicholson was "some villain".

And trust me, the big Joker gun got a lot of groans. It was rediculous. It was something you would expect from the 60's series.

It was also something you'd see The Joker do. But funny, I never saw it in the 60's series.

People groaned during that high shot of batman in the begingin when they used cell animation for batman.

Because in 1989, everyone watching that shot knew it wasn't real. And would have cared anyway. Right.

People hated the fact that the much of the batcave walls are supposed to be the support pylons of the buildings in Gotham. but Wayne Manor is outside of town and the cave is underneath the house. There were just alot of things that people hated.

Those are obviously not support pylons. If anything, it's an old part of the sewer system. People hated a lot of things? Or you did?

People hated the voice activated batmobile as it was too much like Night Rider.

Except that The Batmobile didn't talk to him. Or have flashing red lights.

People were upset because instead of a viscious Joker who cracks jokes, we got an old guy saying things like "I'm of a mind makes a movie" and "never rub another mans rubarb."

Speaking of vicious, I seem to remember him killing innocent people. Just for fun. And then trying to kill Bruce. Just for being with the girl The Joker considered to be his. Nothing viscious there. The Joker was extremely faithful beyond his age.

We thought we were going to get a Joker that was up to par with Jack Torrence from The Shining. not this goofball thing that Batman could have kicked his ass in two seconds.

Batman's always been able to kick The Joker's ass in a short amount of time.

And Keaton may be Batman to you guys, but to us older people he was just Mr. Mom in a Batman suit. If Ashton Kutcher had been chosen to be superman, to all of us now it would be "Micheal for that 70's show or the guy from Dude Where's My Car in a Superman suit. That is what it was for us. Mr. Mom in the Batman suit.

That's tough. It really is. Because what you're going to see in BATMAN BEGINS is, you guessed it, Patrick Bateman in a Batsuit.

IN short, we were expecting Batman begins, and we got this weird thing.

Why would you be expecting BATMAN BEGINS? And what was so weird about it?

[Riven]

Great reply, Guard. Too bad your talents were wasted on such obviously unfounded and rediculous statements to begin with.

"people hated the support pylons in the batcave" ???

Most everyone in a general audience unwittingly swallows ANY kind of HUGE plot flaw and THAT is something he claims is something a whole theatre of people objected to? Sounds more like something he thought up all by himself on a dull wednesday afternoon... cause I've heard practically ALL bull$h!t criticisms on B89, but I've never heard that one before.

The Mankiewicz script was terrible. At certain points it was as campy as B&R. Maybe campier.

B89 delivered exactly what it promised. And people LOVED it. To be honest, yes it could have been a much better movie. But in no stretch of the imagination did it "suck @ss". The general audience, if reminded of it, have fond memories of it, just like they did in 1989. Fanboy appreciation changes with the wind... one day B89 is their end-all-be-all of Batman movies, the next day it's utter $h!t that will be crushed under the brilliance of Begins.

Do I expect Begins to be a better (Batman) movie than B89? Well, I have not seen it yet, but indeed I do expect it to be better. Like The Guard said, it has the advantage of a great cast, great director, huge budget and technological advances. Most importantly, it has the benefit of HINDSIGHT in that it can look back on the previous Batman movies and even Spiderman to avoid and learn from mistakes made in the past involving superhero flicks.

I think it is also important to remember that it IS possible to love both B89 and Begins (heck, I like BR a LOT better than B89). To consider both GREAT Batman movies and to regard both Keaton and Bale as great interpretors of the role.

And not come up with strange revisionistic recollections of how a movie audience reacted to the most minute of details back in 1989 to prove some kind of bizarre point that one movie sucked and that another will kick its hiney.

[Guason]

First Batman is a movie better than Superman
why?
I`ll quote Mattew Doberman
"Cinematic superheroes had moved from the simplicity of Christopher Reeve`s
Superman to the brooding, tormented, shadow-enshrouded Dark Night.
Batman remains one of the best adaptations of a comic character to the screen and certainly one of the most stylized. This is not your father`s Batman, and given its relentless grimness, it shouldn`t be your kid`s either."
As for which of the first two Bat movies is better, I couldn`t answer but Batman is definitely the more effective.

[KenK]

Why does everyone keep saying Burton's Batman was a "re-imagining" of the character? Despite Keaton's physique, he was the same character. Parents murdered in front of my as a child, devotes life to fighting crime dressed up as a bat. Batman had seen plenty of dark periods in the comics before the movies, so let's cut the crap about Burton coming up with all that.

[GLREBORN]

Keaton was not now, nor will he ever be Batman, Heck he is not even an actor.

[Dark Vigilante]

Keaton was not now, nor will he ever be Batman, Heck he is not even an actor.
? Um ok. So what is he?

[P. Cushing]

Keaton was not now, nor will he ever be Batman, Heck he is not even an actor.
He was, he was, he is.

[Edd Extraordinaire]

Keaton was not now, nor will he ever be Batman, Heck he is not even an actor.

Shut your hole, Mr. Born.

[Guason]

Keaton was not now, nor will he ever be Batman, Heck he is not even an actor.
he is, he will always be , he is.

[regwec]

I enjoyed B89 a lot, but some of you people seriously believe that's the most accurate protrayal of Batman that is possible for any actor, ever? Maybe your standards are a little low?

[The Guard]

I don't think anyone said that. No one truly believes (at least I don't) that an interpretation of a famous character can't be improved on, depending on the writing and acting and look of the actor. But regardless of whether it was depicted as it is in the comics (and in a lot of ways, it was), Michael Keaton flat out nailed the role he was playing.

[Lazlo Panaflex]

man you guys sure do talk a lot.

[P. Cushing]

That's the thing with message boards.

[Punisher 04]

I'll reserve judgement on Bale and Batman Begins til June 17, 2005 (my birthday by the way) when I have already seen it. I remember discussing Batman '89 in class and saying "they got freakin Beetlejuice to play Batman what a joke". But after I saw Batman '89 in the theater with dad and my friend, we were impressed how good the movie was and how Keaton was perfect as Batman. To this day it's still my favorite Batman movie,and one of my favorite movies I've seen.
http://www.horreur.net/img/batman1-pic2.jpg
http://www.nixflix.com/movieimages/batman_pic3.jpg
http://www.nixflix.com/movieimages/batman_pic4.jpg

[Infinity9999x]

I'll reserve judgement on Bale and Batman Begins til June 17, 2005 (my birthday by the way) when I have already seen it. I remember discussing Batman '89 in class and saying "they got freakin Beetlejuice to play Batman what a joke". But after I saw Batman '89 in the theater with dad and my friend, we were impressed how good the movie was and how Keaton was perfect as Batman. To this day it's still my favorite Batman movie,and one of my favorite movies I've seen.
http://www.horreur.net/img/batman1-pic2.jpg
http://www.nixflix.com/movieimages/batman_pic3.jpg
http://www.nixflix.com/movieimages/batman_pic4.jpg
Ditto. It's my fav batmovie 2. And I dont wanna get too hyped bout BB, just being cautious. I member bein hyped bout league of extrodinary Gentlemen....ya, learned my lesson there.

[Procneus]

Jack Nickelson (sp??) made the first batman movie great, his evil eyes and face and sense of humor just made the movie amazing. Michael Keaton was very good, but I think Val Kilmer has been the best so far. However, I do have high hopes for Christian Bayle....

[P. Cushing]

I do have high hopes for Christian Bayle....
Personally, I doubt he'll be a patch on Christian Bale. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[DocLathropBrown]

I don't post here often because of these petty debates, but I once again feel compelled to put in my two cents...

The fact is that most all fans are jaded. So concerned with accuracy that they can't see something good unless it bit them in the ass.

B89 was an excellent film. Begins will be an excellent film. The real difference is that Begins will be more accurate. While B89 wasn't. But the alterations to the source material in B89 weren't that obtrusive. But, that's still all everyone needs to dump on the Burton films.

Christian Bale looks like Batman. Michael Keaton did not, out of the costume. However, Michael Keaton delivered one of the best performances of his career. And nailed the Batman character. If you can look at him without a jaded opinion, you'll see that his Bruce Wayne was excellent. Although not totally accurate. But really, he cannot be blamed. Keaton played the Wayne Burton wanted him to play. So don't dump on Keaton for a Bruce Wayne that isn't accurate enough to please you.

I, for one, loved Keaton's subtle performance as Wayne. But I digress.

There's always people out there that love to *****. Mark my words; the day Begins comes out, there will be a group of people here *****ing about it. The first inaccuracy to hit the screen will make all of them run wild. They'll catagorize Begins as ****, worse than the other films, or call them all collective ****. And I look forward to that day, because half of ther people here will probably eat their words.

[WhiteRat]

Kilmer was good-even if he had precious little to work with. I have every reason to believe that Bale will be great. But no one will ever surpass Keaton for one simple reason: He had to rely totally on his performance.
Think about it. He was completely physically wrong for the part. Wrong height. Wrong build. Wrong hair. He didn't have the "pretty boy Wayne' features. But he played the role so well that WE DIDN'T CARE. When he was onscreen in that ridiculous, confining rubber costume, we believed he was Batman. That's what sets him apart from all other actors in all comic book movies. We nitpick to death everything from muscle tone to eye color. But the complaints we get about Keaton are few & far between-not b/c we don't see the flaws. We just don't care. :batman:

Although I disagree with what your saying you do make some good points here.Keaton gave a good performance as Batman but people could not take him serious in that role because when he got out of the Batman costume it made you wonder how he went from looking strong and muscular in that bat outfit to looking fat and out of shape as Bruce Wayne.:confused: Because of that ,people could not take Keaton serious in the role which is why the franchise is being started all over again.Im just thankful that the director of the new Batman movie cares about what the fans feel unlike Burton did and was concerned enough to make the best casting choice possible in Bale-someone who DOES physically fit the role.Burton only cast Keaton because he was friends with him,he did not care about making the best casting choice possible.

[The Guard]

Fat and out of shape? You see him with his shirt off in one scene, and he's got pretty decent definition. When did being toned and lean become fat and out of shape.

[DACrowe]

I think Keaton probably will have given the best perfomrance if he could play Batman with so many disadvantages and still blow everyone away. But who will be the better Batman? Only time will tell.

[WhiteRat]

Fat and out of shape? You see him with his shirt off in one scene, and he's got pretty decent definition. When did being toned and lean become fat and out of shape.

The one scene you are referring to was when he had his shirt off and he was up early in the morning on that machine and you can hardly tell if he looks toned and lean in that scene since you cant tell because of the fact that he is so far away from the camera you dont even get a very good view of his body from such a far distance.:rolleyes: As Chris Wallace said so well in his post.He had the wrong look and wrong build which angered so many Batman fans.Also Keaton did not blow everybody away as a couple people are suggesting here.Of the 3 People that have played him so far,that honor would go to Val Kilmer.Give him a serious script to work with without corny lines and there would be no question about that like there is now since he didnt have a serious script to work with.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Any point you were trying to made lost us as soon as you said fat and out of shape. Anyone who has seen Keaton knows he's anything BUT fat. As far as being out of shape, how can anyone who trained months with martial arts/kickboxing teachers for both films (who have stated they never had a fastest learning student than Keaton) can be out of shape ? If you want to say he wasn't muscular enough I would buy that, even because that wasn't asked of him, but fat and out of shape it's a ridiculous comment...

[Guason]

Just compare any photo of Keaton in suit with a Kilmer one.
It just doens´t even compare, just look at the eyes.
Keaton was also given a few corny lines and he delivered them perfectly.

[BrlntDsgse]

Why does everyone keep saying Burton's Batman was a "re-imagining" of the character? Despite Keaton's physique, he was the same character. Parents murdered in front of my as a child, devotes life to fighting crime dressed up as a bat. Batman had seen plenty of dark periods in the comics before the movies, so let's cut the crap about Burton coming up with all that.

Yeah, Keaton was the same character. I sure LOVE all those issues of Batman I own where he murders criminals in cold blood left and right, LOL. You fanatics need to get over it and just admit that Keaton,Burton, and the whole of B89 are not as great as your "rose-tinted" glasses make them seem. I will admit that if forced to choose it was the best out of that series of Batman films, but to me that's just like saying if I had to choose I'd rather drink piss than eat crap.

[The Guard]

Any point you were trying to made lost us as soon as you said fat and out of shape. Anyone who has seen Keaton he's anything BUT fat. As far as being out of shape, how can anyone who trained months with martial arts/kickboxing teachers for both films (who have stated they never had a fastest learning student than Keaton) can be out of shape ? If you want to say he wasn't muscular enough I would buy that, even because that wasn't asked of him, but fat and out of shape it's a ridiculous comment...

Exactly.

Yeah, Keaton was the same character. I sure LOVE all those issues of Batman I own where he murders criminals in cold blood left and right, LOL. You fanatics need to get over it and just admit that Keaton,Burton, and the whole of B89 are not as great as your "rose-tinted" glasses make them seem. I will admit that if forced to choose it was the best out of that series of Batman films, but to me that's just like saying if I had to choose I'd rather drink piss than eat crap.

No, Keaton wasn't the Batman of the comics all the way. That was kind of the point of the movies. They were adaptions, and Burton did something new with Batman. He made him an everyman. But I'll play your game. What aspects of Batman, besides the obvious change in size and appearance, did Michael Keaton's Batman NOT display in BATMAN?

[WhiteRat]

Any point you were trying to made lost us as soon as you said fat and out of shape. Anyone who has seen Keaton knows he's anything BUT fat. As far as being out of shape, how can anyone who trained months with martial arts/kickboxing teachers for both films (who have stated they never had a fastest learning student than Keaton) can be out of shape ? If you want to say he wasn't muscular enough I would buy that, even because that wasn't asked of him, but fat and out of shape it's a ridiculous comment...

Okay maybe fat was a little too strong a word since he is nothing like John Goodman who screams fat but its clear in the movie that he has a pudgy gut under his shirt and is out of shape and does not have anywhere the muscular build for Bruce Wayne that an actor should have like Kilmer at least had.Thats why Kilmer was able to take his shirt off in a CLOSEUP view because he had the muscular build for the role and thats why Keaton did not take the shirt off for the closeup since he didnt have the build and sorry,Keaton did not have any corny lines in his two movies since the scripts were more serious.

[Detective Flass]

There already is a better Batman than Keaton: Kevin Conroy.


I'd have Keaton over Conroy anyday. :o

[Guason]

All actors who played the Character in the Burton movies were better than the actors who voiced them in the animated series except Gordon and the Joker.

[The Guard]

Okay maybe fat was a little too strong a word since he is nothing like John Goodman who screams fat but its clear in the movie that he has a pudgy gut under his shirt

Really? What scene was that in? Pudgy is too strong a word, too.

and is out of shape

When did not having huge, bulging muscles become "out of shape"?

and does not have anywhere the muscular build for Bruce Wayne that an actor should have like Kilmer at least had.

Here's the thing. His Bruce Wayne wasn't supposed to be a muscleman. He was an everyman. That was the whole point of the suit.

Thats why Kilmer was able to take his shirt off in a CLOSEUP view because he had the muscular build for the role and thats why Keaton did not take the shirt off for the closeup since he didnt have the build and sorry,Keaton did not have any corny lines in his two movies since the scripts were more serious.

Keaton had some corny lines. He delivered them perfectly, and almost made them lose their corniness and camp factor. And maybe Keaton didn't take his shirt off because there was no need for a pointless shirtless scene. And perhaps, just perhaps, Kilmer took his shirt off because there was a reason for it written into the script, not just to show off his hot bod. And btw, didn't Keaton have his shirt off in BATMAN RETURNS when he was recovering from his bout with Catwoman in a scene similar to Kilmer's in FOREVER?

[Guason]

Keaton had some corny lines. He delivered them perfectly, and almost made them lose their corniness and camp factor. And maybe Keaton didn't take his shirt off because there was no need for a pointless shirtless scene. And perhaps, just perhaps, Kilmer took his shirt off because there was a reason for it written into the script, not just to show off his hot bod. And btw, didn't Keaton have his shirt off in BATMAN RETURNS when he was recovering from his bout with Catwoman in a scene similar to Kilmer's in FOREVER?[/QUOTE]
Just like Michelle Pfeiffer who made such a simple phrase who any of us could say any day sound terrific. (Because he´s Batman you morron!)

[WhiteRat]

Really? What scene was that in? Pudgy is too strong a word, too.



When did not having huge, bulging muscles become "out of shape"?



Here's the thing. His Bruce Wayne wasn't supposed to be a muscleman. He was an everyman. That was the whole point of the suit.



Keaton had some corny lines. He delivered them perfectly, and almost made them lose their corniness and camp factor. And maybe Keaton didn't take his shirt off because there was no need for a pointless shirtless scene. And perhaps, just perhaps, Kilmer took his shirt off because there was a reason for it written into the script, not just to show off his hot bod. And btw, didn't Keaton have his shirt off in BATMAN RETURNS when he was recovering from his bout with Catwoman in a scene similar to Kilmer's in FOREVER?

Okay this is going to be my last post to you because you are clearly delusional-sorry but you deserve that remark with your childish name calling you displayed on Celya's thread. But you are seeing things that are clearly not there by coming up with statements that are false.Huge bulging muscles? you are hilarious,you crack me up.Again you are delusional and seeing things that are clearly not there because there would not be threads being made by people like chris wallace and celya on that other thread pointing out how he had the wrong physical build.You are clearly grasping at straws here.Like celya and chris wallace in his original post said on this thread,keaton clearly had the wrong build because he was pudgy and out of shape-and no pudgy is NOT a strong word because its clear he IS in those movies.You really need to deal with reality dude.

Well if you want an everyman, someone such as cant think of his name now-the guy who plays Al Bundy on married with children should have been cast because he is even MORE of an everyday man than keaton is.Bruce Wayne ISNT an everyman so Michael Keaton was wrong for the role in the beginning.deal with it.As far as him having his shirt off in Returns? Well I hated that film as much as Batman and Robin and didnt enjoy ANYTHING at all about that flick- unlike the first film which I still enjoy watching over and over again just to look at the hot looking kim Basinger,the ONLY good thing about that movie.So I only saw Batman Returns once so I will have to look at that scene again.But since I know he was pudgy and out of shape in the first film,then there is no reason at all for me to believe he will be muscular when I look at that scene again in Returns.You also keep saying Keaton had corny lines,prove it,lets see some examples although it will be a waste of your time since I wont read it since I am done with you on this thread since you keep making up false and untrue statements that he was muscular when its clear he was pudgy and out of shape.:rolleyes:

[WhiteRat]

Just like Michelle Pfeiffer who made such a simple phrase who any of us could say any day sound terrific. (Because he´s Batman you morron!)[/QUOTE]

Okay since you two feel the need to act like children by engaging in name calling and cant admit the truth that Keaton was pudgy and out of shape,I am done with you as well and this will be my last post to either of you on this thread.As I mentioned to Guard,dont expect a reply out of me since I am done with you and I wont bother to read your response.

[Proximo]

Keaton never took of his shirt either in 89 or Returns. exept when he is hanging upside down in the bedroom in the first movie...
IN returns after the fight whit catwomen he is sitting in the batcave, pull out the claw from his stomach.. nothing more.

Keaton still looked great as Bruce wayne and in the suit even if he wasnt "buff" as Bale are.

But Keaton will always be the best Batman/Bruce Wayne for me..

[WhiteRat]

[QUOTE=Proximo]Keaton never took of his shirt either in 89 or Returns. exept when he is hanging upside down in the bedroom in the first movie...
IN returns after the fight whit catwomen he is sitting in the batcave, pull out the claw from his stomach.. nothing more.

Thanks for pointing that out.I was pretty sure that the scene you mentioned in the first film was the only time in either of the two films that he ever took his shirt off and now that you mention that,I remember that,your right,all he did was pull the claw out of his batsuit,nothing more.Boy some people will really go to extremes when they are losing an argument.

[Guason]

Just like Michelle Pfeiffer who made such a simple phrase who any of us could say any day sound terrific. (Because he´s Batman you morron!)

Okay since you two feel the need to act like children by engaging in name calling and cant admit the truth that Keaton was pudgy and out of shape,I am done with you as well and this will be my last post on this thread.As I mentioned to Guard,dont expect a reply out of me since I am done with you and I wont bother to read your response.[/QUOTE]
you won´t believe me but I was just talking about how Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer delivered their one liners to perfection, that wasn´t meant to you.

[The Guard]

Okay this is going to be my last post to you because you are clearly delusional-sorry but you deserve that remark with your childish name calling you displayed on Celya's thread.

If you all can't see the subtle humor in my calling him a moron...twice...when I almost never resort to insults, I don't know what to tell you.

But you are seeing things that are clearly not there by coming up with statements that are false.Huge bulging muscles? you are hilarious,you crack me up.

Seeing what that isn't there now? Yes, I said huge bulging muscles. You know, the kind Batman has, and most people want him to have. I never, however, said that Keaton had them. I said Burton didn't want his Batman to have them.

Again you are delusional and seeing things that are clearly not there because there would not be threads being made by people like chris wallace and celya on that other thread pointing out how he had the wrong physical build.

He didn't have the wrong physical build. Tim Burton has said NUMEROUS times (long before this ever became an issue) that he wanted a man who was not a bodybuilder type. He wanted a smaller man who would NEED the suit to intimidate. Yes, this is not like the comics. But it wasn't SUPPOSED to be in the first place.

You are clearly grasping at straws here.

How so?

Well if you want an everyman, someone such as cant think of his name now-the guy who plays Al Bundy on married with children should have been cast because he is even MORE of an everyday man than keaton is.

The problem with "the guy who played Al Bundy" is that he was a little old for the role Burton had in mind (Keaton was five years younger at the time, I believe), wasn't that great an actor, and he's not all that handsome. And he's pretty typecast as "Al Bundy". Burton wanted handsome, he wanted 30ish, and he wanted a man who could show off a lot of charisma and still have that dark edge to him. Which Ed O'Neill didn't really have in spades.

Bruce Wayne ISNT an everyman so Michael Keaton was wrong for the role in the beginning.deal with it.As far as him having his shirt off in Returns? Well I hated that film as much as Batman and Robin and didnt enjoy ANYTHING at all about that flick- unlike the first film which I still enjoy watching over and over again just to look at the hot looking kim Basinger,the ONLY good thing about that movie.So I only saw Batman Returns once so I will have to look at that scene again.But since I know he was pudgy and out of shape in the first film,then there is no reason at all for me to believe he will be muscular when I look at that scene again in Returns.

It depends on what your definition of muscular is. I don't think he's going to look EXTREMELY muscular, but he's certainly not "out of shape". Keaton's martial arts teachers raved about him. So did his stuntmen. And have you seen him in DESPERATE MEASURES?

You also keep saying Keaton had corny lines,prove it,lets see some examples although it will be a waste of your time since I wont read it since I am done with you on this thread since you keep making up false and untrue statements that he was muscular when its clear he was pudgy and out of shape.

"Eat floor. High fiber."

Would you like some more?

Like celya and chris wallace in his original post said on this thread,keaton clearly had the wrong build because he was pudgy and out of shape-and no pudgy is NOT a strong word because its clear he IS in those movies.You really need to deal with reality dude.

Pudgy, last time I checked, means "short and fat". Keaton was neither of those things. He was average, or above average height for males, and definitely not fat. He was certainly not a combination of short AND fat. Therefore, I don't think he was pudgy.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Burton did not WANT a musclebound Bruce Wayne. He WANTED, and the role was DEFINED as, a normal looking "everyman". Which Keaton is. So he fits the role PERFECTLY.

Moron.

[Riven]

[southern belle]"Mah lord, an interpretation of a concept that is different from what Ah am familiar and comfortable with! That is entirely too much for lil' ol' me. What-evah shall Ah do??"[/southern belle]

:rolleyes:

http://www.wiliqueen.com/ophelia/lovl.jpg

[P. Cushing]

Dear WhiteRat,
You are childish, annoying, pigheaded and the spawn of Bakerboy.
Sincerely,
Oldman = Gordon.

[P. Cushing]

All actors who played the Character in the Burton movies were better than the actors who voiced them in the animated series except Gordon and the Joker.
You thought Jim Carrey's Riddler was better than John Glovers?! You though Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face was better than Dick Moll's?! You thought Ahnold's Mr. Freeze was better than Michael Ansara's?! You thought Jeep Swenson's Bane was better than Henry Silva's?!

[Guason]

I said Burton movies
Ansara and Glover were awesome!
Now that you mention
Could Whiterat be the banned Mr. Parker?

[BatmanRules33]

like ive stated before

Keaton=Definitive Batman (unless Bale proves otherwise, and even then, Keaton will be #1)

Whiterat=clueless

[Furious Styles]

I think ALOT of people will watch Batman Begins and begin (no pun intended) to say that Bale blew Keaton out of the water and that's how it should be done and they will try and belittle Keaton's performance. Infact, some people are already saying that and they haven't even seen the movie.

I think that is unfortunate, I think both Keaton and Bale are amazing actors and they will/have both add to the character of Batman in a positive way.

I think Keaton's performance was amazing. He was great inspite of his physical appearance. That shows you how much he put into the performance and how great an actor he is. If someone showed you a picture of him normally and then said, "that's Batman!" They'd laugh. But if you showed them a picture of Keaton in the Batsuit with his menacing look, I bet you they would believe.

I think Keaton will be Batman to a certain generation and then to some who seem bitter for some reason, they will curse him until they have Bale. I don't know why people can't enjoy both movies and both actors.

Infact, I enjoyed Val Kilmer as well and if you've seen Dusk 'Till Dawn, Clooney has the acting chops so I mean in an alternate universe, he could have whipped out a good Batman performance.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I think ALOT of people will watch Batman Begins and begin (no pun intended) to say that Bale blew Keaton out of the water and that's how it should be done and they will try and belittle Keaton's performance. Infact, some people are already saying that and they haven't even seen the movie.

I think that is unfortunate, I think both Keaton and Bale are amazing actors and they will/have both add to the character of Batman in a positive way.

I think Keaton's performance was amazing. He was great inspite of his physical appearance. That shows you how much he put into the performance and how great an actor he is. If someone showed you a picture of him normally and then said, "that's Batman!" They'd laugh. But if you showed them a picture of Keaton in the Batsuit with his menacing look, I bet you they would believe.

I think Keaton will be Batman to a certain generation and then to some who seem bitter for some reason, they will curse him until they have Bale. I don't know why people can't enjoy both movies and both actors.



Exactly. Wise words, my friend.

[BatmanRules33]

Exactly. Wise words, my friend.

wise indeed! i love both keaton and bale, but keaton will always hold a special place with me. to me, he will always be THE Batman!!

[Bruce_Wayne29]

wise indeed! i love both keaton and bale, but keaton will always hold a special place with me. to me, he will always be THE Batman!!

I feel the same way.

[nosebleed.]

Why argue about who's better? Keaton was very convincing as Wayne and Batman, but he had this very villian oriented movie that overshadowed much of his performance. The movie and rest of the cast of both Batman and BR were so eccentric that Batman/Wayne seemed like the only normal characer...when he's supposed to be the outcast. I saw the movie when I was 11 years old and I remember being sorta disappointed after all the hype too. I remember thinking before I saw the movie, "Keaton as Batman?? That's weird of them to cast a comedian as Batman". But watching the movie convinced me he was a great choice. Bottomline...Keaton was great...movies were weird.

Now with Bale, we get the best of everything. Great actor that looks the part and has the acting chops to boot, great supporting cast that can make this movie shine and awesome director that is taking the material very seriously and with great attention to detail. So in a way, Bale does have it a little easier because Nolan is sticking more to source material than weirded out Burton. But saying Keaton is THE definitive Batman is saying too much to me.

Let's reserve judgement til we see BB. Then talk ***t.

[P. Cushing]

he had this very villian oriented movie
I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.

[Sabotage8475]

I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.


Like I said in the past (many times), in terms of character analysis Batman IS the main focus. Both in BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS. Just becuase he doesn't appear on screen all the time doesn't means jack sh/t. I don't understand why some people need eveything spelled out for them.. Now as for people wanting to see Batman have more 'screen-time', thats another thing entirely. That I can understand. But please don't flat-out insist that Batman wasn't the focus. He certainly was.

[nosebleed.]

I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.

For a movie called "Batman" that does make sense.

[mister Lennon]

I think that the main problem is that Burton made his own thing, not an adaptation of batman and his world. He made his own batman with everyman michael keaton, his own joker with fat and old jack nicholson and his own penguin with the freak apparence of danny de vito. It pissed myself and another fans because we were waiting for an adaptation of batman, not tim burton vision about batman and his world.

Actually, posting that batman was the main focus in the burton movies its false. Nicholson's joker has a lot of more screentime than Keaton and is the main focus, same with devito's penguin and michelle's catwoman in returns. The villains were the main focus and they have more screentime than batman.

[KenK]

How much more screentime did Joker really have over Batman/Bruce Wayne, has anyone really timed it to see and be able to say that one had an overwhelming amount of screentime over the other? And in the case of Batman Returns, I think there was some SERIOUS focus put on Bruce Wayne as his relationship with Selina developed. The nature of his relationship as Batman with Catwoman is right from the comics. Batman sees an equal despite them being on opposite sides of the law. The whole point, in my opinion, is that we understand Batman through his villains. They either have some physical deformity and a demeanor to go along with it, or they do what he does, put on a mask in order to free themselves. While DeVito's Penguin is debatable, are you really gonna tell me Nicholson's Joker was such a betrayl of the character because he wasn't tall and skinny like his is in the comics? It doesn't matter that almost everything else about the character is dead on? Aside from making him a gangster, the origin and motivations of the character remained: chased by Batman in a chemical plant, falls into aside, goes mad, and kills people(often rather gruesomely) for his own amusement. His whole trademark of killing people with chemicals and gasses so they have grins on their faces like him, is that not from the comics? As for Batman, how different is Bruce Wayne/Batman, aside from not looking insanely buff? Were his parents not murdered in front of him as a child? Does not act more sociably and cordial as Bruce Wayne, and detached and dark, and troubled as Batman? Does he not do any investigative work to figure out how the Joker is poisoning the city? I mean, what's missing that makes Burton's Batman so drastically different from the comic?

[Timstuff]

Kilmer was good-even if he had precious little to work with. I have every reason to believe that Bale will be great. But no one will ever surpass Keaton for one simple reason: He had to rely totally on his performance.
Think about it. He was completely physically wrong for the part. Wrong height. Wrong build. Wrong hair. He didn't have the "pretty boy Wayne' features. But he played the role so well that WE DIDN'T CARE.

Speak for yourself. I cared. ALOT.

[ShadowBoxing]

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.

[ShadowBoxing]

How much more screentime did Joker really have over Batman/Bruce Wayne, has anyone really timed it to see and be able to say that one had an overwhelming amount of screentime over the other? And in the case of Batman Returns, I think there was some SERIOUS focus put on Bruce Wayne as his relationship with Selina developed. The nature of his relationship as Batman with Catwoman is right from the comics. Batman sees an equal despite them being on opposite sides of the law. The whole point, in my opinion, is that we understand Batman through his villains. They either have some physical deformity and a demeanor to go along with it, or they do what he does, put on a mask in order to free themselves. While DeVito's Penguin is debatable, are you really gonna tell me Nicholson's Joker was such a betrayl of the character because he wasn't tall and skinny like his is in the comics? It doesn't matter that almost everything else about the character is dead on? Aside from making him a gangster, the origin and motivations of the character remained: chased by Batman in a chemical plant, falls into aside, goes mad, and kills people(often rather gruesomely) for his own amusement. His whole trademark of killing people with chemicals and gasses so they have grins on their faces like him, is that not from the comics? As for Batman, how different is Bruce Wayne/Batman, aside from not looking insanely buff? Were his parents not murdered in front of him as a child? Does not act more sociably and cordial as Bruce Wayne, and detached and dark, and troubled as Batman? Does he not do any investigative work to figure out how the Joker is poisoning the city? I mean, what's missing that makes Burton's Batman so drastically different from the comic?

Joker was great, but just because JN did a good job of acting insanely clownish. But the origins were changed drastically, especially Joker's. Joker was a down and out comedian tricked into doing a raid under the guise of the Red Hood. He had no prior criminal record...we are aware of, or really of any importance. Furthermore he didn't murder Bruce's parents, Joe Chill did. They didn't really change him character wise, I agree. But just because some vague originesque story is done does not mean that they were faithful to the character

Also (I don't think Joker looked that different BTW) physical build is a big deal when casting I think. For example Ashton Kutcher may be cool and all, but I sure as hell wouldn't make him a superhero (superman rumors a while back). The size, or ability to gain such size is a big deal in these types of movies. You have to believe the person could go out and fight crime. Would you cast a fat guy as Lance Armstrong, no, no one would believe it. There needs to be some ressemblence of the character in the actor.

[P. Cushing]

All that means is that they don't think Bale will match Keaton's performance.

[Two-Face]

I think Bale will.

[mister Lennon]

The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story. We need some resemblensse with the character.

The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story. Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.

If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.

In batman returns, we know a lot more about oswald coblepott and his whole story and about selina kyle and her whole story. Bruce wayne is more a supporting character.

[mister Lennon]

I think that Bale will do a great job. And Keaton's performance wasnt that great.

[Two-Face]

Jack Napier isn't Joker in the comics cos there's no Jack Napier in comics!

Jack napier is only Joker in Burton Batman movie.

[KenK]

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.

Just because someone doesn't have a six pack doesn't make them unfit. Keaton was hardly out of shape.

[mister Lennon]

Yeah, keaton was hardly out of sharpe because he wasnt on shape.

[KenK]

The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story. We need some resemblensse with the character.

Batman suit, aside from being all black(hey, just like the suit in Begins!) what's different about it, aside from the accents of how it's attached to the cape? Joker, sorry if he isn't anorexic, but other than that, the green hair, white skin, and red lips, coupled with Nicholson's performance made me believe in the story.

The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story.

Did it ever cross your mind that using Joker's exact origin might just put MORE of that undeserved focus on him? Think about it, You use Joker's origin about him being a failed comedian who loses his wife and unborn child and you're REALLY gonna draw attention away from Batman/Bruce Wayne. Audiences would have struggled with who to feel for in the context of the film. If the argument is that the main focus should be on Bruce Wayne/Batman, using Joker's origin as is would have threatened that.

Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.

Up until that point near the end of the film, his motivation was against all criminals and still was after the film. He hadn't spent the entire film looking for the killer of his famil.

If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.

First of all, let's not act like the film was that "in-depth" in it's relationship between Joker and Alicia. One scene with him and Jack to establish him messing with Grissom's girl, leading to the setup in the plant, one scene that's less than 30 seconds showing her in the mask, clearly something's been done to her. One scene with "the reveal", and none of those scenes really linger like Bruce and Vicki's scene. From their introduction to each other, there's loads more development in their relationship, especially in regards to Bruce's reluctance to take the relationship further. The scene outside city hall for god's sake! All that beforehand when she follows him to where his parents were murdered, and discovers that his parents were murdered! The scene when they have dinner and she tries to figure him out. Not to mention all the scenes between Bruce and Alfred. You're telling me there was less focus on Bruce in those scenes than the two or three cumulative minutes of footage between Jack and Alicia? Gimme a goddamn break!

In batman returns, we know a lot more about oswald coblepott and his whole story and about selina kyle and her whole story. Bruce wayne is more a supporting character.

No, Batman is an established character, there's a difference. We know why he does what he does, and furthermore, we learn more about him through his encounter with Selina. We see evidence of Batman's ego, his whole "I am the night" persona is challenge with the emergence of the Penguin. Alfred even says it in one scene, "Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?". Then there's Penguin's claim that Batman is jealous that he has to wear a mask to distance himself from humanity, and Batman pretty much agrees with him. We get a clear indication of how Bruce/Batman sees himself. The first time we see him in the film, he sits alone in the dark and nothing brings him to life except Gotham's need for Batman. Batman is who he is, as opposed to something he just does every night, and Returns pushes that idea.

[mister Lennon]

Well, in the way that Burton used batman and bruce wayne, the joker's origin wasnt that important, he will be always the main focus of the film.

Yeah, the suit is black, i noticed it too. but the guy bethind the mask doesnt look Bruce Wayne at all. That is the main reason on why i dont believe in the whole story of the movie. Also, the costume should be only a costume, not an armor trying to simule a muscular body for a everyman guy. And the joker should be only tall, thin and young, not anorexic. I liked Nicholson performance, much more than Keaton's , but i think that he was only jack being jack with joker make-up.

That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations. In a first film of a character , the focus should be in the main character, not in his foe.

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne. Yeah, the relationship between Bruce and Vicky is more developed than the one between Jack and Alicia, but the main focus is jack napier and the joker, not Bruce Wayne.

Well, in spiderman 2 peter parker is a stabilished character and the focus is on him, not on doctor octopus. In superman 2 the focus is the stabilished character superman, not on general zod and his friends. One thing is to present a two new characters and another thing is all the focus on them.

[Timstuff]

Jack napier is only Joker in Burton Batman movie.

I'm quite certain that in the Animated Series they called him Jack Napier at least once (I remember this episode being on one of the DVDs from the Volume 1 set). It really doesn't mean diddly to me what Joker's real name is, as long a he's true to the real character. I could care less if his real name is Jack Napier or not.

[cryptic name]

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.


if he did a good job then he wasn't unfit. keaton was an excellent choice to play this specific batman. the fact that he didn't look like a superhero is what made him perfect. he was just a man that became something else when he put on the suit.

[Chris Wallace]

Like I said in the past (many times), in terms of character analysis Batman IS the main focus. Both in BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS. Just becuase he doesn't appear on screen all the time doesn't means jack sh/t. I don't understand why some people need eveything spelled out for them.. Now as for people wanting to see Batman have more 'screen-time', thats another thing entirely. That I can understand. But please don't flat-out insist that Batman wasn't the focus. He certainly was.The reason why so many people say this isn't b/c of the screen-time issue; we got to see more of the Joker in a completely different way. We got to know the Joker a little bit. We got to know the Penguin & Catwoman. We got to see the how & why of it all. We never really got to know Bruce Wayne or Batman. It was, "My parents got killed & so now I wear a cape." That was very incomplete storytelling. The only movie that even attempted to touch on Bruce's mentality & motivations was "Batman Forever", & that left out a very crucial part; when young Bruce was looking through his father's journal, the final entry read "Bruce insits on seeing a movie tonight."

[KenK]

That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations.

Remember that flashback scene in the film where an 8 year-old Bruce is out with his parents, they encounter muggers, and they subsequently kill his parents? Am I missing something? That's ALWAYS been his motivation for becoming Batman!! We see how affects his relationships, and how he reacts to things around him. The fact that he let Vicki so close in the first place is a miracle, which is why he lies to her to avoid her. He convinces himself that he has to be alone. We also have several scenes of Alfred showing concern for Bruce. He doesn't want to spend what little life he has left grieving for bruce should he die as a result of being Batman. He sees Bruce as a son, and it would devestate him if he ever lost him. And again, the city hall scene. The shooting starts and Bruce is so focused on the fact that Jack Napier's still alive, he doesn't even flinch when he GOT SHOT!! You have to be pretty screwed up psychologically screwed up to cut yourself off from pain like that. To say nothing of the fact that there's a clear questioning of Batman's mental state within the context of the film. There's always been the idea that Batman is more than likely as disturbed, if not moreso, as the criminals he fights. Vicki questions him on that in the Batcave.

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne.

And that evidence is?

Yeah, the relationship between Bruce and Vicky is more developed than the one between Jack and Alicia, but the main focus is jack napier and the joker, not Bruce Wayne.

Why? You saying the focus is on Jack Napier/Joker doesn't make it so! You're not backing up your claim with anything!!

[The Guard]

I think that the main problem is that Burton made his own thing, not an adaptation of batman and his world.

Yes, Burton did his own thing. Guess what? A lot of elements of it caught on, even in the comic books. And Burton definitely made an "adaption of Batman and his world". What he didn't do was a "literal translation." Neither is Nolan.

He made his own batman with everyman michael keaton, his own joker with fat and old jack nicholson and his own penguin with the freak apparence of danny de vito. It pissed myself and another fans because we were waiting for an adaptation of batman, not tim burton vision about batman and his world.

So you wanted a Batman in blue and gray spandex, a Joker who didn't usually kill, and a Penguin who wore a blue yellow and purple tux and commited crimes involving birds and umbrellas? Would you have preferred actors that WEREN'T of the caliber of Keaton, Nicholson and DeVito? Nevermind that Nolan's taking the same approach, casting huge or well known pop culture names as the main villains and supporting cast. Is that what I'm getting from your comments? You all spit on Burton's changes and are so ready to accept Nolan's...many of which actually seem to deviate more from the comics than Burton's did (changes which were mostly VISUAL changes to characters, not character or mythos changes). It's pretty funny.

Actually, posting that batman was the main focus in the burton movies its false. Nicholson's joker has a lot of more screentime than Keaton and is the main focus, same with devito's penguin and michelle's catwoman in returns. The villains were the main focus and they have more screentime than batman.

Don't know about Nicholson, but he definitely wasn't the main focus. He had a lot of screentime so his character had WEIGHT, depth, and a complete origin, as well as a strong continuing character. Nothing more, nothing less. The story is titled BATMAN. It begins with Batman, everything we see is in relation to how it affects Batman, not Joker. batman gets the girl, saves the day, and has the most emotion shown onscreen. In every sequence that he's onscreen, Batman gets the upper hand and shows up anyone else. It's his film.

And as far as your comments on RETURNS go, not true. Keaton has more screentime than Penguin and Catwoman in RETURNS, and a lot of their screentime is when he's onscreen with them, or in scenes with them.

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Not really. And at least you spelled argument right once in that sentence.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Physically unfit? Have you ever heard about Keaton training with kickboxing and martial arts before BATMAN, and how his mentors raved about him? Do you see excess flab hanging off him when he is shirtless, or in a tight shirt?

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.

No. Since they're part of two different franchises. Did Keaton make people forget about Adam West? Did Conroy make people forget about Keaton? Does the comic book make you forget about all other versions? No. No it doesn't.

Joker was great, but just because JN did a good job of acting insanely clownish. But the origins were changed drastically, especially Joker's. Joker was a down and out comedian tricked into doing a raid under the guise of the Red Hood.

Ooh, "The Red Hood". How cinematic.

He had no prior criminal record...we are aware of, or really of any importance.

Furthermore he didn't murder Bruce's parents, Joe Chill did. They didn't really change him character wise, I agree. But just because some vague originesque story is done does not mean that they were faithful to the character

Not slavishly faithful to the character, no. Adaptions rarely are. Shall we talk about how the movie WAS faithful to The Joker's character? Seriously, do you need it pointed out?

Also (I don't think Joker looked that different BTW) physical build is a big deal when casting I think.

Not to most moviegoers apparently. Seems they wanted to see one of the best men for the job.

For example Ashton Kutcher may be cool and all, but I sure as hell wouldn't make him a superhero (superman rumors a while back).

Do you have any idea how big Ashton Kutcher is and how ripped he could get? Or the fact that he was in the running and impressed in screentests for both the Batman and Superman roles? You just counteracted your own argument.

The size, or ability to gain such size is a big deal in these types of movies.

Not in BATMAN, where Burton dared to do something new with the superhero/action genre.

You have to believe the person could go out and fight crime.

Watch it, you're about to offend every short, overweight cop in the world.

Would you cast a fat guy as Lance Armstrong, no, no one would believe it.

Uh...Lance Armstrong is a real person. Batman is not.

There needs to be some ressemblence of the character in the actor.

There was. Dark features, handsome...black hair...somewhat had the jaw. And he looked great in the suit.

The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story.

I pity you.

The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story. Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.

Batman's motivation was exactly what it was in the comics...helping people and protecting Gotham from evil. Not just finding his parents killer or avenging their deaths.

"Because no one else can."

If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.

Shall we list the things we learned about Bruce from BATMAN and the things we learned about The Joker and see which list is longer?

I think that Bale will do a great job. And Keaton's performance wasnt that great.

What a well thought out, well-supported conclusion.

Jack Napier isn't Joker in the comics cos there's no Jack Napier in comics!

There is a JACK, though. I believe it's in that beloved "Red Hood" origin remake in THE KILLING JOKE.

Did it ever cross your mind that using Joker's exact origin might just put MORE of that undeserved focus on him? Think about it, You use Joker's origin about him being a failed comedian who loses his wife and unborn child and you're REALLY gonna draw attention away from Batman/Bruce Wayne. Audiences would have struggled with who to feel for in the context of the film.

Seriously. I don't think The Joker was ever meant to be a purely sympathetic character. There's an element of sympathy there, but he still chooses to do evil. Not only that, I think the idea of a failed comedian putting on a red hood to rob a playing card factory is lame, lame, lame, and much less interesting than the mob connection The Joker was given in BATMAN and the reason Jack was put into that situation.

Well, in the way that Burton used batman and bruce wayne, the joker's origin wasnt that important, he will be always the main focus of the film.

Only for people who can't see the forest for the trees.

That is the main reason on why i dont believe in the whole story of the movie.

What does how a man looks as a character have to do with not believing the story of a movie, especially when it ties INTO the story of the movie? See, in BATMAN, Bruce Wayne was more like your average man, and that was part of the story. So you should have believed it more, if anything.

Also, the costume should be only a costume, not an armor trying to simule a muscular body for a everyman guy.

I think it's trying to simulate a large bat creature. Not a muscular body. Doesn't Bale's costume do the same thing for him in the suit?

And the joker should be only tall, thin and young, not anorexic. I liked Nicholson performance, much more than Keaton's , but i think that he was only jack being jack with joker make-up.

Watch some Nicholson films for about a day. Then watch BATMAN. You should see what I mean fairly quickly. Definitely not a typical Nicholson performance.

That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations. In a first film of a character , the focus should be in the main character, not in his foe.

Shall we list what we know about Wayne and his motivations that you were too busy worrying about what he looked like to see?

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne.

At the end of the film, I got the feeling that Batman was Gotham's new protector, and remembered how Bruce had gotten there. Since Joker was dead and all, and most of what I remembered about him was his evil ways.

Yeah, the relationship between Bruce and Vicky is more developed than the one between Jack and Alicia, but the main focus is jack napier and the joker, not Bruce Wayne.

Proof please.

We never really got to know Bruce Wayne or Batman. It was, "My parents got killed & so now I wear a cape." That was very incomplete storytelling.

We got to know him well beyond that. Shall I explain it? It wasn't incomplete storytelling, it was an introduction to a character, and one that assumed audiences weren't stupid and liked to think once in a while.

[Sabotage8475]

Only for people who can't see the forest for the trees.

It's sad, but true.. There are those who apparently have a hard time looking beyond the "surface" of the film and to notice the film's and it's director's intentions in exploring the character. No this is not a film were Batman simply saves the day. This is not a film that's driven by you typical comicbook adventure yarn. It actually goes beyond that mentality, as theres more to read inbetween the lines (which is really not THAT hard to figure out. Though some people seem to be displaying otherwise...) There's a reason why Batman and the Joker are very much a like.. But, I'm probably wasting my breath as always (Guard, I don't know how you do it.. :)) Here's hoping BATMAN BEGINS is not only a good movie, but a little more 'basic' ...? :rolleyes:

[P. Cushing]

Jack Napier isn't Joker in the comics cos there's no Jack Napier in comics!

Jack napier is only Joker in Burton Batman movie.
Joker's really name in the comics could well be Jack Napier. All we know is that he has a cousin named Reipan and his first name begins with the letters "Ja".

[P. Cushing]

But the origins were changed drastically, especially Joker's. Joker was a down and out comedian tricked into doing a raid under the guise of the Red Hood. He had no prior criminal record...we are aware of, or really of any importance. Furthermore he didn't murder Bruce's parents, Joe Chill did.
You seem to be mixing up pre and post crisis. Post crisis, Batman doesn't know who his parents killer is and the Joker is a failed comedian; Pre crisis, the Joker is a theif who was working towards a million dollars before he retired and the Wayne's were killed by Joe Chill (under orders from Lew Moxon).

[ab38416]

I'm quite certain that in the Animated Series they called him Jack Napier at least once (I remember this episode being on one of the DVDs from the Volume 1 set). It really doesn't mean diddly to me what Joker's real name is, as long a he's true to the real character. I could care less if his real name is Jack Napier or not.

In the episode "Dreams in Darkness", an Arkham Asylum doctor refers to Joker as Jack Napier. I think there is also a Jack Napier reference in the episode "Joker's Wild". In TNBA, they say that Joker had many aliases before his acid bath.

[cryptic name]

Although I disagree with what your saying you do make some good points here.Keaton gave a good performance as Batman but people could not take him serious in that role because when he got out of the Batman costume it made you wonder how he went from looking strong and muscular in that bat outfit to looking fat and out of shape as Bruce Wayne.:confused: Because of that ,people could not take Keaton serious in the role which is why the franchise is being started all over again.Im just thankful that the director of the new Batman movie cares about what the fans feel unlike Burton did and was concerned enough to make the best casting choice possible in Bale-someone who DOES physically fit the role.Burton only cast Keaton because he was friends with him,he did not care about making the best casting choice possible.

have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.

[DocLathropBrown]

have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't waste your breath. You can't reason with some people, lest of all WhiteRat or Mister Lennon. They go out of their way to be completely unreasonable.

[Chris Wallace]

I had forgotten all about this thread.

[mister Lennon]

Don't waste your breath. You can't reason with some people, lest of all WhiteRat or Mister Lennon. They go out of their way to be completely unreasonable.

Thank you very much, dude. Its great to feel be in the unreasonable team of these forums against the " Burton is a genious not matter what he did in the batman movies" ruler of the absolute reason team.

[Chris Wallace]

Y'know, I do feel that overall, Begins was a better film. But in terms of portrayal of the character, I gotta give it to Keaton. Bale looked better, came across more physically imposing, & had a better suit (IMO) & toys. But Keaton gave such a masterful performance that edges Bale out just a little.

[mister Lennon]

Desagree. When i watch Bale playing Bruce Wayne, i think: he is bruce wayne and he is acting like bruce wayne. But when i see keaton as wayne, i think: its just michael keaton with some memory problems and thinking in somewhat.

[El Payaso]

have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dude, have you ever read a troll typing. They say anything just for the sake of it. Just don't pay attention.

[Chris Wallace]

Desagree. When i watch Bale playing Bruce Wayne, i think: he is bruce wayne and he is acting like bruce wayne. But when i see keaton as wayne, i think: its just michael keaton with some memory problems and thinking in somewhat.
I see a man uncomfortable in his own skin. The only part of the manor that he considers his own is the cave; the rest of it is still his father's house. ("I don't think I've ever been in this room before.") Keaton's character saw Batman as who he was & Bruce Wayne as something he had to do.

[mister Lennon]

I see a man uncomfortable in his own skin. The only part of the manor that he considers his own is the cave; the rest of it is still his father's house. ("I don't think I've ever been in this room before.") Keaton's character saw Batman as who he was & Bruce Wayne as something he had to do.

I like to discuss with you or with kevin rogele because altought i desagree with your opinons, i can respect your opinions. Just the oppossite with people like the little clow or payasito, who always go on offenses and name callings.Poor guy.

But back to the issue, your reason is good for a boy bruce wayne , but not for a 35 years old dude.

[Chris Wallace]

I don't really see a difference. Bruce's childhood effectively ended when the first shot went off.

[Chris Wallace]

And you're supposed to be able to have fun w/these discussions, even (or especially) if you don't agree w/the poster. See, I can see validity in your posts (at least to me; I don't know what was said before I came back to the thread & I don't much care.) but my opinion stands.

[Chris Wallace]

if he did a good job then he wasn't unfit. keaton was an excellent choice to play this specific batman. the fact that he didn't look like a superhero is what made him perfect. he was just a man that became something else when he put on the suit.
My argument wasn't that he was unfit, but that he should've been unfit, or rather that, based on his physicality many would say he was.

[Cyrusbales]

Agreed, Keaton is still the best batman, I think he could be surpassed, but I don't see it anytime soon. Still, Bale is doing a good job also, not his finestrole however, I'd put BB as Bale's fourth best performance on screen, but still better than kilmer and dare i speak his name...clooney

[mister Lennon]

The problem for me is the wrong concept of the character in burton's mind. Bruce Wayne isnt a everyman who became a hero when he puts himself that suit. He is man with a 20 years old trainning , a perfect human peak specialist in many martial arts and fight kinds. Bale was that and it was showed. Keaton wasnt that and it wasnt showed.

[DocLathropBrown]

Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....


"Daring, spectacular, exciting. Worth the wait, worth the hype and worth the wait in line. Michael Keaton makes you believe in BATMAN."

For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.

[Cyrusbales]

Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....



For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.


Nicely put, I agree for the mostpart

[Chris Wallace]

Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....



For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.
I'm not sure Burton would've used someone like Clayface or Man-Bat. I'd rather not see them, to tell the truth.

[mister Lennon]

Goyer lame script??? If you want to see lame scripts and corny lines, go and see batman, batman returns, batman forever and batman and robin.

[Chris Wallace]

The problem for me is the wrong concept of the character in burton's mind. Bruce Wayne isnt a everyman who became a hero when he puts himself that suit. He is man with a 20 years old trainning , a perfect human peak specialist in many martial arts and fight kinds. Bale was that and it was showed. Keaton wasnt that and it wasnt showed.
I don't think the concept was necessarily wrong. Yes, Bruce Wayne/Batman is supposedly a specimen of human perfection. It's just that Burton was more focused on the psychological aspect rather than the physical. And mind you, this was many people's introduction to Batman. Prior to that, all they knew was the happy-go-lucky Caped Crusader. Of course, had they made the movie nowadays we wouldn't be having this discussion, b/c they would've hired an actor who wasn't physically fit for the part & subjected him to the workout from hell for 4 months.

[mister Lennon]

I think that its a problem of interpretion of the concept. I think that many fans, myself included, we think that the phsichal part is as important as the psychological part in the character.

And for my part, anything against tim burton and michael keaton. I think that burton is a visual genious in many movies, and keaton is a very good actor in very different roles, but i think that Burton had a different and wrong for me concept of the character and keaton was just wrong for the part.

[DocLathropBrown]

Goyer lame script??? If you want to see lame scripts and corny lines, go and see batman, batman returns, batman forever and batman and robin.

I'm voicing my opinion. I know it's hard for you to believe, but voicing my opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking those who like BB, or that I'm trying to pick a fight. So please stop acting like I am.

Goyer's script had all of the right stuff in it, but the guy can't write lines to save his life. Half of them sounded pre-written. It doesn't help that some of them were delivered all wrong.

And another thing, telling me how 'wrong' I am isn't going to make me change my opinion, so save your breath.

[mister Lennon]

I'm voicing my opinion. I know it's hard for you to believe, but voicing my opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking those who like BB, or that I'm trying to pick a fight. So please stop acting like I am.

Goyer's script had all of the right stuff in it, but the guy can't write lines to save his life. Half of them sounded pre-written. It doesn't help that some of them were delivered all wrong.

And another thing, telling me how 'wrong' I am isn't going to make me change my opinion, so save your breath.


About first line, i dont know where do you come from with that conclussion. I dont get it like an atack against batman begins and the people who liked it, only like it was, an atack against the script or some lines of the script.

About second line, i found goyer script not perfect, but very very good and faithful with the character and mithos, and with very good dialogue and lines in it, what its much more that i could say that the previous scripts in the previous movies, with tons of corny lines and cheesy dialogue.

And about third line, its a draw.Your lines wont change my mind in any way.

[Kevin Roegele]

Goyer lame script??? If you want to see lame scripts and corny lines, go and see batman, batman returns, batman forever and batman and robin.

Batman Returns has a superb, multi-layered script. Batman Forever has a great script as well.

[DocLathropBrown]

Batman Returns has a superb, multi-layered script. Batman Forever has a great script as well.

For my money, B89 has a great script as well. If Goyer, a comic scribe gets praise for BB (Which I found under par, save the last scene), Sam Hamm (another Batman scribe) deserves credit, too.

[mister Lennon]

Batman Returns has a superb, multi-layered script. Batman Forever has a great script as well.


Many and many dialogue and lines from both returns and forever were absolute crap and non sense.

[mister Lennon]

More developed argument. Many penguin lines, scene between selina, max and bruce in shreck room, etc were crap.

In forever, many batman dialogue, riddler dialogue, two face dialogue, chase dialogue, alfred one lines, etc, were crap.

[Chris Wallace]

I think that its a problem of interpretion of the concept. I think that many fans, myself included, we think that the phsichal part is as important as the psychological part in the character.

And for my part, anything against tim burton and michael keaton. I think that burton is a visual genious in many movies, and keaton is a very good actor in very different roles, but i think that Burton had a different and wrong for me concept of the character and keaton was just wrong for the part.
Okay, tell me why when I came to this thread you were getting flamed so badly. I only have issues w/posters who are intolerant and/or unreceptive to opposing points of view. I am now under the impression that you are not one of those people.

[DocLathropBrown]

More developed argument. Many penguin lines, scene between selina, max and bruce in shreck room, etc were crap.

In forever, many batman dialogue, riddler dialogue, two face dialogue, chase dialogue, alfred one lines, etc, were crap.

Sucks that you feel that way, but at least that's a list of what you find wrong with the stuff instead of just saying "Burton/Keaton suck".

[DocLathropBrown]

And for my part, anything against tim burton and michael keaton. I think that burton is a visual genious in many movies, and keaton is a very good actor in very different roles, but i think that Burton had a different and wrong for me concept of the character and keaton was just wrong for the part.

Now, see... that's a reasonable and fair post. If you always posted like this, there wouldn't have been any problem.

[mister Lennon]

Okay, tell me why when I came to this thread you were getting flamed so badly. I only have issues w/posters who are intolerant and/or unreceptive to opposing points of view. I am now under the impression that you are not one of those people.
Go and tell it to those people. I have tried many times but i failed again and again.

[Chris Wallace]

And BTW, Bale also played Bruce as a man out of his element, except when he was Batman. He just did it to somewhat a lesser extreme than Keaton.
"I don't care about my name."
"if I had my way I'd pull the whole thing down, brick by brick."
"Your true face is the one the criminals now fear."

[mister Lennon]

Yes, i guess that bruce wayne have to be a man out of his element, but in think that keaton performance was too extreme in this aspect , as you have said. Bale have it, but he also have the play boy stuff, going to parties, being with many women, being arrogant, etc. For me, it was the first time that i was watching the true bruce wayne on screen. Keaton was more michael keaton playing some kind of bruce wayne aspect and in an extreme way.

[Chris Wallace]

But you gotta be fair, dude. Everybody likes a character for different reasons, & a filmmaker is always likely to play up certain aspects & downplay others. I've had this debate regarding the Spider-Man movies more times than I care to count. It doesn't mean that the characterization of Bruce was necessarily wrong, just that you saw too much of one side & not enough (for your liking) of others.

[El Payaso]

DocLathrop, Chris Wallace, please don't feed the trolls. They get reproduced by any typed idea.

[Bathead]

We all have our favorite versions, nothing wrong with that, But I can't help but feel that an absolute statement such as the title of this thread is pretty narrow-minded. It's coming off more a statement of fact than what it is, which is someone's opinion.
I would have no problem with it though, if you added the words "to me." at the end.

[Chris Wallace]

Fair enough.

[Palpadious]

Many and many dialogue and lines from both returns and forever were absolute crap and non sense.

In defense of Batman Returns,

"It's not who I am on the inside. It's what I DO that defines me"

"Nice Coat"

You can crap all over Forever. It was balls.

[fabman]

the batman begins script is better than the returns one, i think... i'll explain my point of view when i have time...

[El Payaso]

In defense of Batman Returns,

"It's not who I am on the inside. It's what I DO that defines me"

"Nice Coat"

My favourite ones are: "I gotta get one of those", "Dr. Crane is not here right now" and both Batman's and GHordon's "Sorry" / "Excuse me". They all ruined good scenes.

You can crap all over Forever. It was balls.

But "Joygasm!" redeems :hyper:

[fabman]

lol

i don't think those lines ruined good scenes... 'i gotta get one of those', c'mon, i mean, they need to put some oneliners in that movie... to bring some humour and irony to the whole thing...

[El Payaso]

lol

i don't think those lines ruined good scenes... 'i gotta get one of those', c'mon, i mean, they need to put some oneliners in that movie... to bring some humour and irony to the whole thing...

Man, they do not need to put one-liners. They do just because of following a formula, because 'it is supposed to' be like that.
Now, if they want to bring some humour and irony then they should use funny and ironic one-liners, but usually - not only in BB case - they put some really crappy ones that cause nauseas instead of laughter.

[GreenKToo]

while I think B.B. was a better film,I liked keaton's performance as batman/bruce wayne better

[DocLathropBrown]

For me, Keaton just felt right. He exuded deep thought, hidden trauma, without even having to try. Like Kim Basinger said; "I could easily see him as an orphaned child."

The mystery aspect that Burton gave Batman, I won't say that it was the right way to go.... we should know something about Batman's origins other than the catalyst, but after seeing BB, I'm glad he's more mysterious to us in B89/BR. God, it sure helps give him a more Batman-ish aura, because we don't know that much about him, just like everyone else in the film.

Just as Nolan made us see Batman as the criminals see him (not at all), Burton did the same thing, just not applied to fight scenes. We know barely enough about Batman, so he's just as mysterious to us as he is to every other character in the piece.

BB, for my money, took the mystery out of Batman. It told too much. Becuase it had to cater to an audience that wanted to know too much. As a film buff/amatuer filmmaker, it didn't feel right. We delved too far into Bruce's psyche, so by the time he becomes Batman, it feels too much like Bruce Wayne in a mask, not like another being, which is something specified in the comic books. Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different entities.

And Burton nailed that. By simply keeping us in the dark about Batman and letting Keaton's eyes and mannerisms tell us what kind of person he was, and how he felt inside. Burton's Batman and Wayne feel like the seperate entities that they're supposed to be.

About the BB comedy... it didn't always work. Almost never, actually. But I don't despise it as much as other people. I was able to look past it. Alfred was made too much of a smartass in the name of comedy. He's supposed to have a warmth to him, and because of him being a smartass, the scenes where he should have felt warm, really didn't. Alfred says smartass things in the books, but not to the degree that Nolan, Goyer and Caine had him go in the film. Not to mention he's supposed to have a proper British accent...

But I'm getting off-topic.... On another note, Keaton just felt dangerous. Bale was Dangerous as well, but it was more akin to a police officer. You know he could kick your ass, but he's reasonable. Keaton's Batman just felt like I probably wouldn't want to get on his bad side, at all. Keaton just caught that ready-to-explode power that I get when I read the Batman comics, Bale's Bat is no less lethal, but overall, doesn't feel the same. It's hard to explain, really.

I won't say that Burton gave us the right Batman films (At least, not for the modern version of the character), but I ultimately feel it's better because even though both Burton and Nolan heavily tweaked the material (And Nolan tweaked it in worse ways that Burton, I feel), Burton just tweaked it in a way that feels more mythic. Like the DC Comics, I might add. I prefur DC to Marvel because DC's got larger-than-life characters that deal with problems befitting of them. Marvel has down-to-Earth characters who relate to angsty teenagers, who deal with the problems we face. That's all well and nice, but Marvel heroes are the ones you want to be.... DC's are the ones you want to look up to. And Burton captured that. BB felt closer to Marvel style heroes than it should have, and Burton's feels mythic, grand and big, like the Batman comics.

I just saw B89 last night on my friend's new 65 inch 1080p HDTV, with 7.1 surround.... it was like being born again. B89's my favorite film, seen it a truly countless number of times.... but last night was like seeing it again for the first time! I was just in awe at how much better it is than BB to me. I was totally transported back to my childhood, and I stared at that screen in awe. I was watching my hero save Gotham City. And that's all that really matters. Bale's not my hero, Keaton is. And it'll really never change.

[El Payaso]

Bravo again for Doc.

[Bruce_Wayne29]

For me, Keaton just felt right. He exuded deep thought, hidden trauma, without even having to try. Like Kim Basinger said; "I could easily see him as an orphaned child."

The mystery aspect that Burton gave Batman, I won't say that it was the right way to go.... we should know something about Batman's origins other than the catalyst, but after seeing BB, I'm glad he's more mysterious to us in B89/BR. God, it sure helps give him a more Batman-ish aura, because we don't know that much about him, just like everyone else in the film.

Just as Nolan made us see Batman as the criminals see him (not at all), Burton did the same thing, just not applied to fight scenes. We know barely enough about Batman, so he's just as mysterious to us as he is to every other character in the piece.

BB, for my money, took the mystery out of Batman. It told too much. Becuase it had to cater to an audience that wanted to know too much. As a film buff/amatuer filmmaker, it didn't feel right. We delved too far into Bruce's psyche, so by the time he becomes Batman, it feels too much like Bruce Wayne in a mask, not like another being, which is something specified in the comic books. Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different entities.

And Burton nailed that. By simply keeping us in the dark about Batman and letting Keaton's eyes and mannerisms tell us what kind of person he was, and how he felt inside. Burton's Batman and Wayne feel like the seperate entities that they're supposed to be.

About the BB comedy... it didn't always work. Almost never, actually. But I don't despise it as much as other people. I was able to look past it. Alfred was made too much of a smartass in the name of comedy. He's supposed to have a warmth to him, and because of him being a smartass, the scenes where he should have felt warm, really didn't. Alfred says smartass things in the books, but not to the degree that Nolan, Goyer and Caine had him go in the film. Not to mention he's supposed to have a proper British accent...

But I'm getting off-topic.... On another note, Keaton just felt dangerous. Bale was Dangerous as well, but it was more akin to a police officer. You know he could kick your ass, but he's reasonable. Keaton's Batman just felt like I probably wouldn't want to get on his bad side, at all. Keaton just caught that ready-to-explode power that I get when I read the Batman comics, Bale's Bat is no less lethal, but overall, doesn't feel the same. It's hard to explain, really.

I won't say that Burton gave us the right Batman films (At least, not for the modern version of the character), but I ultimately feel it's better because even though both Burton and Nolan heavily tweaked the material (And Nolan tweaked it in worse ways that Burton, I feel), Burton just tweaked it in a way that feels more mythic. Like the DC Comics, I might add. I prefur DC to Marvel because DC's got larger-than-life characters that deal with problems befitting of them. Marvel has down-to-Earth characters who relate to angsty teenagers, who deal with the problems we face. That's all well and nice, but Marvel heroes are the ones you want to be.... DC's are the ones you want to look up to. And Burton captured that. BB felt closer to Marvel style heroes than it should have, and Burton's feels mythic, grand and big, like the Batman comics.

I just saw B89 last night on my friend's new 65 inch 1080p HDTV, with 7.1 surround.... it was like being born again. B89's my favorite film, seen it a truly countless number of times.... but last night was like seeing it again for the first time! I was just in awe at how much better it is than BB to me. I was totally transported back to my childhood, and I stared at that screen in awe. I was watching my hero save Gotham City. And that's all that really matters. Bale's not my hero, Keaton is. And it'll really never change.

What a awesome and heartfelt post. I subscribe everything you said.

[Kevin Roegele]

But I'm getting off-topic.... On another note, Keaton just felt dangerous. Bale was Dangerous as well, but it was more akin to a police officer. You know he could kick your ass, but he's reasonable. Keaton's Batman just felt like I probably wouldn't want to get on his bad side, at all. Keaton just caught that ready-to-explode power that I get when I read the Batman comics, Bale's Bat is no less lethal, but overall, doesn't feel the same. It's hard to explain, really.

Keaton's Batman is there to be debated. Burton asks the audience, "Is this guy sane? Is he a hero?" and there are plenty of hints that he deliberately kills bad guys and is as dangerous as anyone.

Bale's Batman we know is a hero, we know he's more or less sane, and we know his goals. We know he's not going to kill anyone. We know exactly what's going on inside his head because the whole film is about that.

[El Payaso]

Roegele, you just described the exact magic of every version.

[Cyrusbales]

Keaton's Batman is there to be debated. Burton asks the audience, "Is this guy sane? Is he a hero?" and there are plenty of hints that he deliberately kills bad guys and is as dangerous as anyone.

Bale's Batman we know is a hero, we know he's more or less sane, and we know his goals. We know he's not going to kill anyone. We know exactly what's going on inside his head because the whole film is about that.

Good points, and I find the Keaton batman more interesting, partly for that exact reason!

[Chris Wallace]

Keaton's Batman is there to be debated. Burton asks the audience, "Is this guy sane? Is he a hero?" and there are plenty of hints that he deliberately kills bad guys and is as dangerous as anyone.

Bale's Batman we know is a hero, we know he's more or less sane, and we know his goals. We know he's not going to kill anyone. We know exactly what's going on inside his head because the whole film is about that.
That has as much to do w/how they're written as how they're played. Still, it's an accurate assessment.

[Bathead]

Keaton's Batman is there to be debated. Burton asks the audience, "Is this guy sane? Is he a hero?" and there are plenty of hints that he deliberately kills bad guys and is as dangerous as anyone.

Bale's Batman we know is a hero, we know he's more or less sane, and we know his goals. We know he's not going to kill anyone. We know exactly what's going on inside his head because the whole film is about that.
Right, and that is exactly why I prefer Bale's version, it's more like the Batman I've known for over 40 years.

[The Sage]

For me, Keaton just felt right. He exuded deep thought, hidden trauma, without even having to try. Like Kim Basinger said; "I could easily see him as an orphaned child."

The mystery aspect that Burton gave Batman, I won't say that it was the right way to go.... we should know something about Batman's origins other than the catalyst, but after seeing BB, I'm glad he's more mysterious to us in B89/BR. God, it sure helps give him a more Batman-ish aura, because we don't know that much about him, just like everyone else in the film.

Just as Nolan made us see Batman as the criminals see him (not at all), Burton did the same thing, just not applied to fight scenes. We know barely enough about Batman, so he's just as mysterious to us as he is to every other character in the piece.

BB, for my money, took the mystery out of Batman. It told too much. Becuase it had to cater to an audience that wanted to know too much. As a film buff/amatuer filmmaker, it didn't feel right. We delved too far into Bruce's psyche, so by the time he becomes Batman, it feels too much like Bruce Wayne in a mask, not like another being, which is something specified in the comic books. Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different entities.

And Burton nailed that. By simply keeping us in the dark about Batman and letting Keaton's eyes and mannerisms tell us what kind of person he was, and how he felt inside. Burton's Batman and Wayne feel like the seperate entities that they're supposed to be.

About the BB comedy... it didn't always work. Almost never, actually. But I don't despise it as much as other people. I was able to look past it. Alfred was made too much of a smartass in the name of comedy. He's supposed to have a warmth to him, and because of him being a smartass, the scenes where he should have felt warm, really didn't. Alfred says smartass things in the books, but not to the degree that Nolan, Goyer and Caine had him go in the film. Not to mention he's supposed to have a proper British accent...

But I'm getting off-topic.... On another note, Keaton just felt dangerous. Bale was Dangerous as well, but it was more akin to a police officer. You know he could kick your ass, but he's reasonable. Keaton's Batman just felt like I probably wouldn't want to get on his bad side, at all. Keaton just caught that ready-to-explode power that I get when I read the Batman comics, Bale's Bat is no less lethal, but overall, doesn't feel the same. It's hard to explain, really.

I won't say that Burton gave us the right Batman films (At least, not for the modern version of the character), but I ultimately feel it's better because even though both Burton and Nolan heavily tweaked the material (And Nolan tweaked it in worse ways that Burton, I feel), Burton just tweaked it in a way that feels more mythic. Like the DC Comics, I might add. I prefur DC to Marvel because DC's got larger-than-life characters that deal with problems befitting of them. Marvel has down-to-Earth characters who relate to angsty teenagers, who deal with the problems we face. That's all well and nice, but Marvel heroes are the ones you want to be.... DC's are the ones you want to look up to. And Burton captured that. BB felt closer to Marvel style heroes than it should have, and Burton's feels mythic, grand and big, like the Batman comics.

I just saw B89 last night on my friend's new 65 inch 1080p HDTV, with 7.1 surround.... it was like being born again. B89's my favorite film, seen it a truly countless number of times.... but last night was like seeing it again for the first time! I was just in awe at how much better it is than BB to me. I was totally transported back to my childhood, and I stared at that screen in awe. I was watching my hero save Gotham City. And that's all that really matters. Bale's not my hero, Keaton is. And it'll really never change.


Well said Doc. Keaton's still my hero as well.

[dude love]

Keaton's Batman is there to be debated. Burton asks the audience, "Is this guy sane? Is he a hero?" and there are plenty of hints that he deliberately kills bad guys and is as dangerous as anyone.

Bale's Batman we know is a hero, we know he's more or less sane, and we know his goals. We know he's not going to kill anyone. We know exactly what's going on inside his head because the whole film is about that.

That's why I like Keaton better. Ultimately Batman's just a guy in a costume. But when's got a few screws loose it adds more to him.

[Cyrusbales]

It may not be the most accurate representation, but in terms of a film, it's easily the most superior

[Kevin Roegele]

It may not be the most accurate representation, but in terms of a film, it's easily the most superior

It's no more or less accurate than any other representation.

[Cyrusbales]

It's no more or less accurate than any other representation.

A lot of fanboys claim BB is more accurate to the comics, Then again, the comics have undegone a great deal of change over the years anyway

[El Payaso]

^ Totally right. But a tip; never listen to fanboys.

[Bathead]

^^Don't listen to fanboys on either side of the issue, right?^^

[mister Lennon]

Curioulsy, allways the fanboys are in the batman beings side, by the opinion of some people. But posting a thread titled: why there will never be a better batman than keaton isnt fanboysm. Very curious.

By the way, when i see a movie about superman, i want to know about superman, kal-el and clark kent. When i watch a movie about batman , i want to know about batman and bruce wayne, the man inside the suit,his way of thinking, his motivation, why he is doing that, how he has been at this poin, what happened to him , how he got that costume and cave and weapons, etc. Nolan and bale did it in a very good way, not perfect, but great . We know a lot about bruce wayne the person, the man inside the bat costume, but still, batman is a misterious, dark and sinister figure that scare the criminals. It was the perfect balance.

[Kevin Roegele]

A lot of fanboys claim BB is more accurate to the comics, Then again, the comics have undegone a great deal of change over the years anyway

Accurate is maybe not the best word to use, because it suggests that the target of the movie should simply be to get as close to the comics as possible.

Begins is certainly faithful enough to the comics of today.

[Cyrusbales]

Accurate is maybe not the best word to use, because it suggests that the target of the movie should simply be to get as close to the comics as possible.

Begins is certainly faithful enough to the comics of today.

Fair enough, faithful then:).

[Cyrusbales]

Curioulsy, allways the fanboys are in the batman beings side, by the opinion of some people. But posting a thread titled: why there will never be a better batman than keaton isnt fanboysm. Very curious.

By the way, when i see a movie about superman, i want to know about superman, kal-el and clark kent. When i watch a movie about batman , i want to know about batman and bruce wayne, the man inside the suit,his way of thinking, his motivation, why he is doing that, how he has been at this poin, what happened to him , how he got that costume and cave and weapons, etc. Nolan and bale did it in a very good way, not perfect, but great . We know a lot about bruce wayne the person, the man inside the bat costume, but still, batman is a misterious, dark and sinister figure that scare the criminals. It was the perfect balance.


Then again, as I've mentioned in other threads, batman is nothing without the villains, if there were no villains, then there would be no batman, so it seemed very intelligent to focus around the badguys more than films usually do, it's sets us with batman's mindframe, and tells us more about batman than people usually think

[Mr. Socko]

I can name tons of fanfilms that were more faithful to the comics then the movies. But thats why they're fanfilms.

Anyway, Keaton's Batman was good but I think he was better as Betelgeuse.

[El Payaso]

Curioulsy, allways the fanboys are in the batman beings side, by the opinion of some people. But posting a thread titled: why there will never be a better batman than keaton isnt fanboysm. Very curious.

Who said it isn't? :meow:

[mister Lennon]

Nobody said that it was, neither.

[mister Lennon]

Then again, as I've mentioned in other threads, batman is nothing without the villains, if there were no villains, then there would be no batman, so it seemed very intelligent to focus around the badguys more than films usually do, it's sets us with batman's mindframe, and tells us more about batman than people usually think

Batman is nothing without the villains? I wonder what batman comics have you been reading. Batman for himself is one of the most interesting heroes in comic books ever. That is an asbsurd excuse for me,batman is enough interesting to focus on him.

[Cyrusbales]

Batman is nothing without the villains? I wonder what batman comics have you been reading. Batman for himself is one of the most interesting heroes in comic books ever. That is an asbsurd excuse for me,batman is enough interesting to focus on him.

Without crime to fight, there would be no need for him to dress up as batman, same goes for almost all superhero's. Without villains, batman jjust becomes a weird S&M freak....

[mister Lennon]

Without crime to fight, there would be no need for him to dress up as batman, same goes for almost all superhero's. Without villains, batman jjust becomes a weird S&M freak....

So keeping your theory, none superhero its interesting by theirselves because without the villains, they just becomes in weird freak with weird costumes.

Dude, batman villains are a lot interesting, maybe the more interesting villains in comics books, but batman himself is so interesting as his villains. Probably one of the most interesting and complex characters in comic books.

[Chris Wallace]

Without crime to fight, there would be no need for him to dress up as batman, same goes for almost all superhero's. Without villains, batman jjust becomes a weird S&M freak....
Villains are important, yes, but never put them above the hero. The previous filsm always put the focus on them, never on Batman where it should have been. And I disagree that his motivations, etc. should have remained a mystery. As someone else said, we saw the catalyst of his crusade but nothing that drove him to tha particular path he took. I'd rather the Joker's past be kept a mystery than Batman's.

[Cyrusbales]

The way in which B89 And BReturns were filmed, put us in Batman's ideal place, rather than a third person, we saw what batman was focused on, ie: The villains, it is more intelligent form of filmmaking, as it also adds a social critique of the media, and acknowlegdes the format upon which the story is told, ie: film.

[Kevin Roegele]

The way in which B89 And BReturns were filmed, put us in Batman's ideal place

I disagree. The first film is definetly not from Batman's POV. The opening with the thugs on the rooftop is more with them than it is with Batman. When he appears in Axis, we're with Gordon and co, "Who is this guy?"

The audience is with Vicki Vale, she's the character you're supposed to relate to in the midst of the craziness. She's like Dorothy.

Batman Returns, I'd argue, is more from Selina and the Penguin's view than Batman's.

[Cyrusbales]

I disagree. The first film is definetly not from Batman's POV. The opening with the thugs on the rooftop is more with them than it is with Batman. When he appears in Axis, we're with Gordon and co, "Who is this guy?"

The audience is with Vicki Vale, she's the character you're supposed to relate to in the midst of the craziness. She's like Dorothy.

Batman Returns, I'd argue, is more from Selina and the Penguin's view than Batman's.

I said IDEAL view, as in what he wishes himself to be veiwed, It is his mysterious ideal of himself I was referring to....

[El Payaso]

:up:

[Cyrusbales]

:up:

what's the thumbs up to? The thread in general or my little post:)?

[Chris Wallace]

The way in which B89 And BReturns were filmed, put us in Batman's ideal place, rather than a third person, we saw what batman was focused on, ie: The villains, it is more intelligent form of filmmaking, as it also adds a social critique of the media, and acknowlegdes the format upon which the story is told, ie: film.
But again, the problem is we never got to know him. To say the movies focused on the villains b/c HE was focused on them doesn't make much sense. Why is he focused on them? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Especially when he had a hand in creating many of them. Look, a kid who watched his parents die for no reason is gonna be scarred for life, no doubt. But there are numerous things he could have done. He could've become a cop, a lawyer, a prosecutor, he could've run for office. He could've become a forensic scientist. He could've become a serial killer. He could've channeled his pain into poetry or crime novels. The events that made him choose costumed crimefighter, & take up that particular motif, and operate out of a musty, bat-infested cave, are crucial to his character & yet for 4 movies they went pretty much ignored.

[Cyrusbales]

But again, the problem is we never got to know him. To say the movies focused on the villains b/c HE was focused on them doesn't make much sense. Why is he focused on them? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Especially when he had a hand in creating many of them. Look, a kid who watched his parents die for no reason is gonna be scarred for life, no doubt. But there are numerous things he could have done. He could've become a cop, a lawyer, a prosecutor, he could've run for office. He could've become a forensic scientist. He could've become a serial killer. He could've channeled his pain into poetry or crime novels. The events that made him choose costumed crimefighter, & take up that particular motif, and operate out of a musty, bat-infested cave, are crucial to his character & yet for 4 movies they went pretty much ignored.

I like the way it makes batman seem very on edge, we are allowed to see what a sick serial killer does, but not what batman does, that let's us imagine his torment, which all filmmakers will tell you, makes a lasting impression, as the audience fillls it in exactly how they want, without detracting from the film etc, it's a common shock/involvement tactic. And of course batman the character is gonna be focused on villains, it's what he does!

[Chris Wallace]

We see what a serial killer does. We don't see why. We see what Batman does. We don't see why. Batman is not V. V's complete origin was never told, & much of his past is kept a mystery. Batman's story has been told numerous times but Burton & Schumacher felt it wasn't necessary to include the how & why of it. They gave us who, what & where, & pretty much left it at that.
I'm not saying the '89 movie was bad. (Didn't care for Returns) But I was left wanting more of the Dark Knight himself. I like getting to know Batman the way we've gotten an intimate look at every other costumed hero to hit the big screen in the last 17 years. It's a disservice to the character to do otherwise.

[Cyrusbales]

Then again, everyone knows about batman's past already, I thought it was a different and more intelligent angle, I prefered Burton's approach to Nolan's.

[Chris Wallace]

No, everybody DOESN'T know Batman's past! How would they have learned it? From the Adam West show? That didn't cover it. The Superfriends? Nope. It was never revealed or even touched upon. No, everybody knows Superman's past. Unless you are an avid reader of Batman comics, you probably have no clue why he does what he does. It's not common knowledge.

[SurfDUI]

I like getting to know Batman the way we've gotten an intimate look at every other costumed hero to hit the big screen in the last 17 years. It's a disservice to the character to do otherwise.

Well if this argument is delegated to us that know him best, Hey I think the smell from that leather suit that NEVER comes off anymore is indicitive of the current Batman's tempo. HE IS NEVER Bruce anymore. I was just at local show and picked up a couple of '80's issues, and Bruce used to solve mysteries and do detective work outside of the suit.

The comics, the animated JLU-Bats is bats now, he is moving further away from well, a 'normal' person and more towards the people he sends to Arkham. The cloning thing, he's just raw now:cmad: .

[El Payaso]

No, everybody DOESN'T know Batman's past! How would they have learned it? From the Adam West show? That didn't cover it. The Superfriends? Nope. It was never revealed or even touched upon. No, everybody knows Superman's past. Unless you are an avid reader of Batman comics, you probably have no clue why he does what he does. It's not common knowledge.

The interesting point in what you say is how Batman has been successful throughout all these years without people having a full knowledge about his origin, that is, with people not caring for or not needing a fully detailed origin.

[Chris Wallace]

1-much of that has to do with the Adam West show.
2-much of it also has to do with the all-star casts his movies had, back when star power meant something.

[El Payaso]

Oh, yes.


Still.

[Chris Wallace]

In order to distance the current projects from what was done before, it was imperative that the franchise be taken in a new direction. Shifting the focus to the how & why of Batman was a smart move, & crucial.

[SurfDUI]

I disagree. The first film is definetly not from Batman's POV. The opening with the thugs on the rooftop is more with them than it is with Batman. When he appears in Axis, we're with Gordon and co, "Who is this guy?"

The audience is with Vicki Vale, she's the character like Dorothy.

Batman Returns, I'd argue, is more from Selina and the Penguin's view than Batman's.

Yep, You know when a Judge has inside knowledge of a case and has to purcure him from it. YOU ALL KNOW as comic fans, these characters are closer to our hearts than most people. And in our narrow view, we want them to attain the lofty position w/in us for everyone else.

TRUTH is comic's are still kid's fare to most people. Hell, most people would be shocked to know that your average book is $2.95-$3.99I know better, WE know better, but since most feel that way-the live action renderings WILL NEVER live up to our standards. So we should just take a step back and enjoy I think. As far as the Bat renderings, He's such a rich character that each film can adopt a different POV and still stay true to the continuity.

As a single cat, I meet women all the time and the last thing that comes up is Civil War. They just wouldn't understand. Then too I can't feel anything for Grey's Anatomy either too me it's a soap.

[Chris Wallace]

Well I am not so single. I got my wife hooked on this guy
<------------ a while back & that's about the only comic she really reads, apart from Ghost Rider.
She gets it, better than most. Better than any woman I've ever dated. She thinks the Civil War situation is insane, that Peter's been really stupid for following Tony & that Tony is just (read my sig.)

[ab38416]

edit

[Bat Attack]

I'll say it again, Keaton will always be Batman in my mind. So to me he is the best. :batman:

[SelinaAndBruce]

I never felt in the Burton films I never got to know Batman. I know people say that a lot but I never felt like that.

[bcgvh]

Keaton was awesome. I think he had the perfect facial features and voice for Batman, but yeah he was mainly too short and skinny. But I think Bale is the best so far. Keaton was great though.

[CFE]

I'd have to agree about Kevin Conroy being the best Batman.

The author of this thread stated that Keaton could only rely on his performance rather than his physicality to pull off being Batman.

Conroy had to do the same thing, but in an even more literal sense because he was never "physically" on screen in a costume.

Add that to the fact that Keaton held the mantle from 89 to 92 until Conroy took over from 92 - Now.

No actor's put more man hours into portraying Batman than Conroy (Maybe no actor ever will)...and no one's done it better. The man only had his voice as a tool to work with.

And with only his voice and his talent, Conroy convinced 14 years worth of Bat-Fans that he was our beloved hero.

Conroy = Batman.

CFE

[Damiean Dark]

I dont really count Conroy when i list the greatest batman its a far different and harder task to act out a scene on camara then to sit in a booth and read lines in a booth the voice actor can do things that would look ridiculous on camara.

[CFE]

I dont really count Conroy when i list the greatest batman its a far different and harder task to act out a scene on camara then to sit in a booth and read lines in a booth the voice actor can do things that would look ridiculous on camara.

Really? I'd assume VO work would be harder because you have nothing to go off of except your own imagination.

Keaton had to be in a costume and on the set of Gotham City to try and convince fans he was Batman.

Conroy just had to "sit in a booth" to do the exact same thing; and arguably better than Keaton.

CFE

[regwec]

Have one of the lazarus pits drained into the forum?

[CFE]

That DOES seem to be the case, huh?

CFE

[ab38416]

edit