Anyone still feel Bale wasn't the right choice?? [Archive]

ChrisBaleBatman

12-27-2005, 09:01 PM

It was a safe choice because he knew that the fans wouldn't scrutinize him if he cast Bale because a great deal of Bat fans myself included thought that he was the man for the part. Every Bat actor before Bale was a risk in the eyes of fanboys yet the director's made it work and made us believe that we were seeing Batman in the flesh. Keaton is self explanitory, when he left I remember many people saying "they could finally get Alec Baldwin now" then they cast Kilmer and people were like "wtf? he's too young", "a one dimensional actor", "he's got brown hair" fanboys are a vicious lot and before BF's release alot of them were really ****ting on Kilmer.

Then of course you have Clooney the "TV actor" who ended up being one of the better Bruce Wayne's but of course a terrible Batman. If Nolan really wanted to take a risk with the casting he would've stuck with Jake Gylenhaal who I can't see as Batman but supposedly gave a great screen test. He did play it safe, nothing wrong with that and as predicted Bale did his thing but it was safe casting nonetheless

Nah......I don't buy it man. Bale was not a top liner.....still isn't, so he wasn't the safe choice for the studio. Nolan was searching for the RIGHT actor......and I think Bale is just it. But, I don't think he was the safe choice simply b/c there were a few things that could have screwed Nolan over badly, like Bale's weight and physical condition being one.

I just think Bale had it man, for the fans it may have seemed safe.....but I just don't think anyone else out there can pull it off.

Safe in the eyes of the fans maybe, but not the studio. Just dig around the archives for the bits and pieces of news and confirmed rumors before Bale was cast. You'll get the idea.

Yeah, I remember Ashton Kutcher was BATMAN officially leaked by a couple sites....which very much had me spooked. In fact, I think Bale's announced cast choice kinda came out of left field b/c I think the rumor mill was heavy on Kutcher. Which makes me laugh, cuz it appears that Bale was the no. 1 choice all along.....making me happy to hear.

Actually I believe his cowl was a tad too tight making his face look puffy in the scene where he tells Gordon "Can you drive stick?" and when he saves Rachel and the little boy. I thought it fit quite well in the rest. The costuming dept has gotta pay attention more.

Looked fine to me. I think the cowl being so tight makes sense.....trying to make it more a part of his face and monster like. I actually like the fact that Batman looks NOTHING like Bruce under the cowl.....really great.

but still, he was a great bruce wayne although i could have done without his "playboy act" and "macking it with the ladies", that was kinda unneeded.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Why was it unneeded? I thought it was brilliant how he completely slipped into someone else's skin to throw off all suspicions. It's an aspect of Wayne that needed to be represented on screen, that he's not only a master detective, interrogator, and linguist (I enjoyed that scene where he spoke fluently in Mandarin) but also an incredible actor - it's further reinforced by Rachel Dawes who describes his face as his mask. Bale covered that with excellence, I love how he's able to switch from one mode to another in a split second when he bumps into Rachel at the hotel.

Absolutely. The playboy party animal is needed......Afred explains WHY in the scene where Bruce drops down to do pushups. It's the reason why "Bruce Wayne" (not the man, but the image) is the mask......b/c it keeps the public, the police, the media and everyone else out of Wayne's way and not to discover his other persona.

Pretty much.....think of it like it this. Let's say Paris Hilton was a vigilante at night.....we'd never know cuz she's a total air head and seems to do nothing but part all the time. Obviously, she's not......but her public image has us perceive her as so. So, imagine if that's why Bruce acts like a part animal....people would never even guess he's a dedicated crime fighter at night.

To be honest, I sorta missed Keaton's psychotic Batman at the beginning. But after like the 6th time of watching BB - oddly enough, I'm starting to view more of Bale Batman's psychotic side. Notice how even though he seems so well controlled and calm most of the time, there're moments where you start to wonder, like with his outbursts with Alfred and where he almost shoots Joe Chill. No one who's held a grudge for that long can exactly be of sane mind. Then he decides to lock himself up in a Bhutan prison to beat up inmates for a purpose he's unsure of himself till he's visited by Henri Ducard. How many people in the world do that when they have loved ones gunned down? In the real world he would've been easily classified as mentally disturbed. Then he goes back to Gotham, puts on a cape and a cowl and starts ramming cars off the street. He threads a thin line, dispensing what he believes is true justice, clinging onto what's left of a 'normal' life by the presence of Alfred and Rachel, deceiving himself that what he does is acceptable and neccessary. That's why I believe if Rachel is made to die in BB2, it'll cut the strings and then we might see more of the psychotic side of Batman that was represented by Keaton. At least I hope this will be explored in more detail then.

Ya know.....I'm kinda not for the psyhco Batman. I'm a fan of Jeph Loeb's take.....and he's more of a sane dude there. However, I think if BB2 could sort of touch upon what BATMAN FOREVER attempted to do, which was having Bruce fall into his abyss and sort of losing his identity and stuff...that would be great. Sort of like watching Bruce struggle to maintain his sanity would be fun to see, if done right.

Yeah. The studio wasn't sure on Bale, 'cause he's not a big name Hollywood star. They wanted Ashton Kutcher, which is a bad idea. He may be a big name star, but it doesn't mean he right for the part. I'm thankful WB let Nolan handle it his way, 'cause he gave us the best Batman ever in Bale. :up:

Yeah, I know. But you gotta remember....some of the guys in suits cannot tell the difference. Lets just thank our lucky stars that Kutcher didn't get it.

He was like the unanimous choice over here from 2000-2003 but absolutley there probably was someone else out there. who knows

I dunno........unknown, probably. But, there probably is someone out there that could have pulled off a Michael Keaton.......but that's like hitting the lottery man......we cannot really count that cuz we can't see it coming really.

The Guard

12-27-2005, 11:51 PM

Bale was clearly not a "safe choice" in terms of his condition going into BEGINS production. The main reason WB wasn't sure about him was because of his size at the time of his screentest. However, before that, WB was pretty gung-ho about the possibility of Wayne as Batman. Bale had been mentioned in regard to the role since 2001 (and the era of Aronofsky's YEAR ONE). There was some talk that Aronofsky's eyeing of Bale was what got him noticed by Nolan. Bale's been one of the main choices for a long time, and I think everyone knew it. The other thing there was a lot of talk about was that in the end it came down to being Batman or a possible shot at James Bond for Bale. The only question was could be bulk back up for the role.

Anyway, having seen MUNICH tonight, I think Eric Bana would have made a hell of a good Bruce Wayne. And he has displayed, in his last few films, many of the same mannerisms as Christian Bale brings to his roles.

Seen

12-28-2005, 12:25 AM

Bale was clearly not a "safe choice" in terms of his condition going into BEGINS production. The main reason WB wasn't sure about him was because of his size at the time of his screentest. However, before that, WB was pretty gung-ho about the possibility of Wayne as Batman.

You mean Bale as Batman?

Bale had been mentioned in regard to the role since 2001 (and the era of Aronofsky's YEAR ONE). There was some talk that Aronofsky's eyeing of Bale was what got him noticed by Nolan. Bale's been one of the main choices for a long time, and I think everyone knew it. The other thing there was a lot of talk about was that in the end it came down to being Batman or a possible shot at James Bond for Bale. The only question was could be bulk back up for the role.

I'm not sure it was the only question, but that's a good theory.

Anyway, having seen MUNICH tonight, I think Eric Bana would have made a hell of a good Bruce Wayne. And he has displayed, in his last few films, many of the same mannerisms as Christian Bale brings to his roles.

Bana is more extrovertive, where Bale internalizes a lot which makes him a supreme choice for Wayne/Batman. In my opinion Bana would've made a great middle-aged Superman. He's not exactly prime Batman material.

ChrisBaleBatman

12-28-2005, 03:39 AM

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Bale does very much a great job of showing you emotion that is very much internal. He can play the disturbed character, with internal struggles.

I actually think Bana might have made a solid Superman.......would have been interesting.

Bale

12-28-2005, 05:13 AM

Dark Vigilante

12-28-2005, 01:22 PM

i would liked to have seen someone else, just to see someone else would have done it. Eion Baily looked pretty good for the role, so he would have been interesting. Same goes for BATMAN. I wouldnt mind seeing how Alec Balwin would have been as Batman.

But Bale was excellent in the role.
I think Alec Baldwin would have been the perfect Batman back in 89.

ChrisBaleBatman

12-28-2005, 10:48 PM

Bana was great in Troy

Yup, he was awesome in that movie. I could see him filling the Superman costume well enough.

I think Alec Baldwin would have been the perfect Batman back in 89.

I'm wondering......anyone know if he was ever tested for it in 89?

Mr. Socko

12-28-2005, 11:04 PM

Chris Bale was an excellent choice.

The Guard

12-28-2005, 11:48 PM

You mean Bale as Batman?

Yes.

I'm not sure it was the only question, but that's a good theory.

That was what Bale, Nolan and the WB people themselves said. The issue was his weight and appearance and concern over if he could get back into good enough shape. I don't think anyone doubted he had the personal aspects for the role.

Bana is more extrovertive, where Bale internalizes a lot which makes him a supreme choice for Wayne/Batman.

How much of Eric Bana have you seen? Bana is completely capable of internalizing and bringing things to the surface, and he's smart about it onscreen. He did it a lot in MUNICH, TROY, HULK, and in CHOPPER. Quite honestly, you need an actror who can do both. Bana can. He and Bale have very similar acting styles. They just have different appearances and general voice inflections.

In my opinion Bana would've made a great middle-aged Superman. He's not exactly prime Batman material.

What are you basing this one? What does it take to be prime Batman material?

ChrisBaleBatman

12-29-2005, 12:07 AM

I dunno, I just think Bale looks more like the character. I don't think Bana would have been as good as Bale.

Seen

12-29-2005, 12:12 AM

That was what Bale, Nolan and the WB people themselves said. The issue was his weight and appearance and concern over if he could get back into good enough shape. I don't think anyone doubted he had the personal aspects for the role.

I think his lack of star power had something to do with it also (at least from WB's perspective).

How much of Eric Bana have you seen? Bana is completely capable of internalizing and bringing things to the surface, and he's smart about it onscreen. He did it a lot in MUNICH, TROY, HULK, and in CHOPPER.

I know, I've seen all of those movies. However Bale is more subtle about it.

What are you basing this one? What does it take to be prime Batman material?

What does it take to be prime Batman material? It takes to be Christian Bale.

ChrisBaleBatman

12-29-2005, 03:23 PM

Yeah......I agree with a lot of that.

Namely, too, that WB did want a strong lead actor.......someone with star power. Kutcher, for example. However, they did learn they're lesson in that category with George Clooney. So.......I guess the suits heard Nolan out and gave Bale the opportunity by looking at his test screening. The test screening seems to be what won him the job, in the eyes of the execs at least. I'd love to see that test screening.

The Guard

12-29-2005, 10:53 PM

I think his lack of star power had something to do with it also (at least from WB's perspective).

I seriously doubt it. Considering who else was on their list.

This "Bale is more subtle" thing is fairly absurd. Firstly, because most of the time, Bale's ROLES have more subtle scenes written into them. Eric Bana has obviously been in CHOPPER, then played a warrior in TROY, and a man who gets so angry he turns into a monster in HULK. In these roles there were plenty of subtle moments, but of course he wasn't subtle most of the time. It has little to do with some amazing ability of Christian Bale to be subtle, and Bana's inability to not be so subtle. Watch Bana is his quiet moments. He's a LOT like Bale (or vice versa), with the same mannerisms, facial tics, you name it.

However Bale is more subtle about it.

More subtle about what, exactly? His subtleties? Subtley and the ability to be reserved and internalize your acting is not some amazing acting skill granted by the gods, it's a BASIC acting skill that most actors simply ignore or do not develop properly.

What does it take to be prime Batman material? It takes to be Christian Bale.

If you were looking for an actor, what qualities would you look for in an actor who is to play Bruce Wayne/Batman?

Cats

12-29-2005, 11:15 PM

It's only my opinion, but I feel Bana usually plays out his roles moderately well, but he's never 'powerful' in them. He can play an overall nice guy or a gentleman, and he'll be likable. But he often comes across a little weak when he's playing the roles that stretch his skills. Like when he played Bruce Banner, he was only able to capture the audience long enough to hold them through to when the Hulk came back. The same thing with his role in Troy, he's never interesting enough to be the main character and easily got outshone by Orlando Bloom & Brad Pitt. I can't say what he did wrong, and he's not bad looking either, the only thing I can say is that he's not powerful enough in his roles, and that's something Bruce Wayne needs. Because Bruce Wayne holds as much weight as Batman himself - if not more. Bale made Wayne as interesting and unique as Batman, even while he was out of the suit. It's the man who makes the suit not the other way around. I'm just guessing, but if Bana had been in the role, it would've been the suit that made him cool to watch - and that wouldn't have worked, especially since more than half the movie he's out of cape and cowl.

The Guard

12-29-2005, 11:33 PM

You're definitely guessing. And you didn't watch those movies very closely, because the man oozed power when he needed to. Go see MUNICH.

Nightwing1977

12-29-2005, 11:50 PM

You're definitely guessing. And you didn't watch those movies very closely, because the man oozed power when he needed to. Go see MUNICH.

Still doesn't mean he can be great for other roles. One actor's good role don't mean it can work for other. And I'm sure Cats watch enough. She already point out some good theory there, so I'm sure she watch them very closely enough. :)

Boom

12-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Once again, I have to agree with Guard on this one.

Christian Bale was great. He was definitely a fantastic choice on Nolan's part. But I don't believe he's the end-all-be-all of Bruce Waynes and Batmen. There are alot of actors out there that could have done a hell of a job, just as good as Christian.

And I have to agree again, Bana would've kicked ass.

CrimsonMist

12-31-2005, 03:02 PM

i think Eion Bailey could have made a good Batman. He screen tested as far as i know. He has this look to him, i dont know. The only film ive seen him in is Fight Club and he has a rather small part in it. he has a square jaw as well, from the pictures ive seen. I know some people wanted him for Superman as well.

if they had made a Year One film, i would liked to have seen him as Batman. He just looks right.

El Payaso

12-31-2005, 03:16 PM

Christian Bale was great. He was definitely a fantastic choice on Nolan's part. But I don't believe he's the end-all-be-all of Bruce Waynes and Batmen. There are alot of actors out there that could have done a hell of a job, just as good as Christian.

True. I agree 100%.

But I must defend Bale and can't find not one thing bad about his job (maybe the Bat-voice) and lots of good things.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-01-2006, 10:16 PM

Christian Bale was great. He was definitely a fantastic choice on Nolan's part. But I don't believe he's the end-all-be-all of Bruce Waynes and Batmen. There are alot of actors out there that could have done a hell of a job, just as good as Christian.

Alot...? Like how many? Alot would be like 15 or 20 to me.

I just think Bale's the best man for the job, and I think he proved it.

Seen

01-01-2006, 10:35 PM

^Well said. Again, you speak the truth.

Seen

01-01-2006, 10:45 PM

I seriously doubt it. Considering who else was on their list.

Ashton Kutcher, Jake Gyllenhaal, Joshua Jackson and Billy Crudup (from the successful and highly regarded ALMOST FAMOUS) are considerably bigger name stars than Christian Bale. Not as big as Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise, but bigger stars in their own right.

Even after BEGINS opened, Bale's star power didn't exactly increase dramatically. He was talked about more and probably a lot more people know about him but he's still not as notoriously recongizable as a lot of young male stars out there today, including Kutcher and Gyllenhaal.

This "Bale is more subtle" thing is fairly absurd. Firstly, because most of the time, Bale's ROLES have more subtle scenes written into them. Eric Bana has obviously been in CHOPPER, then played a warrior in TROY, and a man who gets so angry he turns into a monster in HULK. In these roles there were plenty of subtle moments, but of course he wasn't subtle most of the time. It has little to do with some amazing ability of Christian Bale to be subtle, and Bana's inability to not be so subtle. Watch Bana is his quiet moments. He's a LOT like Bale (or vice versa), with the same mannerisms, facial tics, you name it.

Being The Hulk or a warrior doesn't mean you can not have subtletly. Bale has played a deranged psycho killer, a superhero and a gaunt, sleep-deprived factory worker. Each one of the roles Bale could've acted far directly and far more obvious but because of his ingenius ability at being more internal and subtle he added a sense of emotional realism and intregrity to those roles, as well as fantastic subtletley.

More subtle about what, exactly? His subtleties? Subtley and the ability to be reserved and internalize your acting is not some amazing acting skill granted by the gods, it's a BASIC acting skill that most actors simply ignore or do not develop properly.

Bale's just better at it than most actors, including Bana, which makes him such a critic favorite and such an incredible actor.

If you were looking for an actor, what qualities would you look for in an actor who is to play Bruce Wayne/Batman?

All the qualities Christian Bale has, because he posseses all of them required for the role.

Boom

01-02-2006, 01:44 AM

Alot...? Like how many? Alot would be like 15 or 20 to me.

I just think Bale's the best man for the job, and I think he proved it.
Hell if I know how many there are. But including unknown, "non-big name" actors, yes, there's definitely at least 15 actors out there that could be up to par with Bale.

mcflytrap

01-02-2006, 11:28 AM

heh, it's still there in BB. It just isnt as obvious as Val Kilmer's timeless "Thircus". :D

lol

that part always bugged me

mcflytrap

01-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Bale wasn't the perfect choice he was just a "safe" choice.

You really think so? Bale wasn't known at all by your average mainstream audiences and the guy was, at the time of the audition, not quite in the shape he needed to be to play Batman. I think the studio took a real chance...hardly the safe bet. "Safe" would have been Nicolas Cage or some crap.

Batwing6655

01-02-2006, 07:19 PM

Nightwing1977

01-02-2006, 07:26 PM

christian bale is a douchebag as batman...you may argue the point that he makes a great bruce wayne however.. nobody can look, act, and talk better than keaton did in the bat suit. I hate how bale overexaggerates his lips whenever he's in the batsuit and makes his voice sound real gay... anywho keaton was the best of the batmans, if bruce waynes character would have been developed like it was in begins everybody would be ravvvvvvvving

Wow. That is just sad you hate the man because many people are liking him more than Keaton. And nobody can look, act, & talk better than Keaton did as Batman? That your opinion, not fact. And I don't know about the look part. Bale has the more younger & handsome look than Keaton. More hair & not losing any too. And I got to disagree if Bruce Wayne was developed in BB that everyone would be raving, because last I check he was already developed where other has fail. And everybody? I think everybody pretty much raved. Especially here. ;)

And your comments that Bale "sound real gay" is out of line & shouldn't be mention here. You're being reported for slur, kid. :down

Bat Attack

01-02-2006, 08:08 PM

christian bale is a douchebag as batman...you may argue the point that he makes a great bruce wayne however.. nobody can look, act, and talk better than keaton did in the bat suit. I hate how bale overexaggerates his lips whenever he's in the batsuit and makes his voice sound real gay... anywho keaton was the best of the batmans, if bruce waynes character would have been developed like it was in begins everybody would be ravvvvvvvving

So by calling Christian Bale a "Douchebag" you really think he's (this is from wikipedia):

Someone who is annoying, bossy or embarrassing.
Someone who is stupid, intellectually challenged or mentally deranged but less than clinically insane.
Someone who is unintelligently lying or scamming.
Someone who is arrogant, elitist or snobby.
Someone who is socially inept.

Yeah, that describes Chirstian Bale PERFECTLY.:down :down

Pathetic.

Alfie Luke

01-02-2006, 09:01 PM

I think Christian Bale is a fantastic Batman.
Still, I'd really enjoy seeing a bigger, taller Batman... like 6'8'' at least.

That might just be me though.

Golgo-13

01-02-2006, 09:05 PM

^Then everyone would know that this 6'8" guy dressed as a bat has to be the only other 6'8" guy in town-Bruce Wayne. 6 foot plus makes you one big,conspicious ****er. I'm glad they didn't pick a big guy. Bale's ?Wayen size is average-making his Batman cover less obvious....

Alfie Luke

01-02-2006, 09:10 PM

Bat Attack

01-02-2006, 09:33 PM

Batman 6' 8''? That's a little too tall.

Batwing6655

01-02-2006, 10:19 PM

*cough*Superman*cough*

To me, Batman will always be a fantasy hero. That's not something that would bother me much...
Plus, I'd have him be more of a shadowy figure... a giant, bat-like shadowy figure.

Oh yeah!

agreed. burton did batman the best still, IMO. i wasnt crazy about nolans "realistic" approach as batman isnt really that realistic of a hero. a bit more grounded then others, yes, but still, whats batman without the fantasy aspect? please. thats why i simply didnt like BB as much as burtons films. after watching BTAS, i REALLY dislike nolans gotham, AND bales batman. no mystery to batman. that sucks. and that voice.......horrible.

Whack Arnolds

01-03-2006, 12:13 AM

You can't get much better than Bale as Batman...
Actually, I'm positive, YOU CAN'T GET A BETTER ACTOR FOR BATMAN / BRUCE WAYNE.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-03-2006, 04:02 AM

The thing is.....the fantasy aspect is what nearly killed Batman. That's why an extreme was needed, because of the "Oh.....well, he can do that...because....he's Batman" line. Schumacher just over did the fantasy aspect, and I think EVERYONE needed to see him grounded.......thus Begins.

Think of it as the BATMAN 89 to ADAM WEST type of formula.

Bale is 6'2.......6'1 if you believe whatever rants exist. Batman is 6'2, and you gotta believe Bale is ATLEAST 6'2 in the costume.

6'8 Batman.....? ATLEAST??!! Wtf????

That's just ridiculously tall.....Batman would be a joke, he'd never be able to dodge a single bullet, and he'd be off balance constantly with his opponents......lol.

I personally feel Nolan's Batman is better, IMO......but hey this is all opinions we are all sprouting so I can respect all.

Alfie Luke

01-03-2006, 06:45 AM

^ According to IMDb, Christian Bale is 6'.
... and guess what, Michael Caine is 6' 2''.

To my knowledge, Alfred was never taller than Batman... sure, it's a minor detail, but I think it takes away from the character. The fact that he physically looks like an average man ( in good shape ) makes him feel somewhat more ridiculous to me. Batman is supposed to be bigger than most people... it's part of the character.

The thing is.....the fantasy aspect is what nearly killed Batman.

No. It's the " I'm a flashy extraverted metrosexual " aspect of Batman that Schumacher incorporated in the franchise that almost killed it. Plus, there isn't just 1 single 'type' of fantasy. Burton's version was also fantasy, but a lot darker and gothic like. All of the 3 different interpretations I've seen on film ( Burton, Shumacher and Nolan ), I feel that all of them have missed something. They all brought something different to the table with some interesting elements and others a little bit less, but in the end, you always compare them with your own personal view and they all fall short to your expectations.

... not saying they aren't good movies... well, some of them at least.

That's just ridiculously tall.....Batman would be a joke, he'd never be able to dodge a single bullet, and he'd be off balance constantly with his opponents......lol.

Wasn't the fact that they decided to give him bulletproof protection in the movies the whole point? That he WASN'T able to dodge bullets? They shoot him, but it doesn't do anything... it's part of why they think he's something more than human. Plus, there are many tall professional athletes and being tall doesn't involve having no balance. For Batman, I wouldn't want to go under 6' 5'', that's about as short as he can get.

War Lord

01-03-2006, 06:58 AM

^ According to IMDb, Christian Bale is 6'.
... and guess what, Michael Caine is 6' 2''.

There was a picture posted on the hype with all the actors standing side by side and Bale was exactly just as tall as Caine was.

To my knowledge, Alfred was never taller than Batman... sure, it's a minor detail, but I think it takes away from the character. The fact that he physically looks like an average man ( in good shape ) makes him feel somewhat more ridiculous to me. Batman is supposed to be bigger than most people... it's part of the character.

No. It's the " I'm a flashy extraverted metrosexual " aspect of Batman that Schumacher incorporated in the franchise that almost killed it. Plus, there isn't just 1 single 'type' of fantasy. Burton's version was also fantasy, but a lot darker and gothic like. All of the 3 different interpretations I've seen on film ( Burton, Shumacher and Nolan ), I feel that all of them have missed something. They all brought something different to the table with some interesting elements and others a little bit less, but in the end, you always compare them with your own personal view and they all fall short to your expectations.

... not saying they aren't good movies... well, some of them at least.

Wasn't the fact that they decided to give him bulletproof protection in the movies the whole point? That he WASN'T able to dodge bullets? They shoot him, but it doesn't do anything... it's part of why they think he's something more than human. Plus, there are many tall professional athletes and being tall doesn't involve having no balance. For Batman, I wouldn't want to go under 6' 5'', that's about as short as he can get.

Two-Face

01-03-2006, 07:03 AM

Alfie Luke

01-03-2006, 07:03 AM

There was a picture posted on the hype with all the actors standing side by side and Bale was exactly just as tall as Caine was.

Oh! That changes everything![/Sarcasm]

Is it noticeable in the movie? no, Bale and Caine are same height, you sound like Batwing6655.

It may not be 'noticeable' in the movie, but the fact still remains that he is taller and that Batman should be a lot taller than Alfred.
Well, they could always find a shorter actor to play Alfred, I guess... he he he.

... and just so you know, I'm not Batwing6655.

Milkman95

01-03-2006, 08:28 AM

Alpha and Omega

01-03-2006, 08:44 AM

Christian Bale has the look as Bruce Wayne and Batman. He looks like the type of guy who could handle himself. Of the four, which one would have the best chance of intimidating you?

His version could probably beat up Mr. Mom, that guy from Kiss, Kiss, Bang, and Danny Ocean at the same time. I respect each portrayal of Batman, well may except for Clooneys. (Joel Schumacher single-handedly almost killed comic book adaptations)

Batman is supposed to inherently display a dark side. Bale's prescence was perfect as both, because his eyes almost always showed him as a troubled human being. He was brooding due to a lack of self-definition.
His life had no purpose, and he had no moral code. This deeply afflicted him.

This is a character who suffers an unbearable pain, and his remedy, his obssession is too make sure that pain is never experienced by others.

Michael Keaton was good, but Bale is undoubtedly the best.
I don't think Bale's vocal performance was as great as others, but his visual stage prescence more that made up for that possible shortcoming.

I guess Christian Bale is just the type of actor who most people love or hate. Most of my friends pull vehemently for one or the other. Personally, I love his work and believe that he is one of Hollywood's genuinely nice people. The Machinist & American Psycho are both great films also.

El Payaso

01-03-2006, 09:40 AM

So by calling Christian Bale a "Douchebag" you really think he's (this is from wikipedia):

Someone who is annoying, bossy or embarrassing.
Someone who is stupid, intellectually challenged or mentally deranged but less than clinically insane.
Someone who is unintelligently lying or scamming.
Someone who is arrogant, elitist or snobby.
Someone who is socially inept.

Yeah, that describes Chirstian Bale PERFECTLY.:down :down

Pathetic.

Do we know if Christian Bale, the man is actually like that or not to affirm/deny? Which is unimportant btw.

Nightwing1977

01-03-2006, 12:03 PM

batgirl_wxm

01-03-2006, 12:53 PM

I think Bale did an awsomw job as batman. I couldn't and wouldn't want to see anyone else do the part. :)

Shawn Wayne

01-03-2006, 03:24 PM

Amen, sister

I think Bale did an awsomw job as batman. I couldn't and wouldn't want to see anyone else do the part. :)

Alfie Luke

01-03-2006, 03:53 PM

Uh....how does Alfred being taller than Batman take away the character? That is the most dumbest thing I ever heard. Batman is tall, but he doesn't have to be almost like tall than everyone else. It just Michael Caine is tall, so it doesn't matter. The acting is what count, not the height thing.

... most dumbest?

Anyways, it's not the fact that Alfred is taller than Batman that takes away from the character, it's the fact that Batman in the movie isn't really tall, period. I added the part about Alfred to add to the point. To me, Batman has always been a big guy and they never really made him like that on film.

Two-Face

01-03-2006, 04:08 PM

... most dumbest?

Anyways, it's not the fact that Alfred is taller than Batman that takes away from the character, it's the fact that Batman in the movie isn't really tall, period. I added the part about Alfred to add to the point. To me, Batman has always been a big guy and they never really made him like that on film.

Michael Gough seems taller then Michael Keaton but you never complain about that?? since I don't care about that Batman 89 good movie, Caine is inches taller then Bale or even same height that is the lamest thing I heard no wonder you nitpick it like Batwing6655.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-03-2006, 04:44 PM

^ According to IMDb, Christian Bale is 6'.

IMDB....? And they have credibility since when.....?

No. It's the " I'm a flashy extraverted metrosexual " aspect of Batman that Schumacher incorporated in the franchise that almost killed it. Plus, there isn't just 1 single 'type' of fantasy. Burton's version was also fantasy, but a lot darker and gothic like. All of the 3 different interpretations I've seen on film ( Burton, Shumacher and Nolan ), I feel that all of them have missed something. They all brought something different to the table with some interesting elements and others a little bit less, but in the end, you always compare them with your own personal view and they all fall short to your expectations.

... not saying they aren't good movies... well, some of them at least.

Right.......but don't you think the whole, "now he has a giant plane ready" aspect is kinda shot up? I mean, the concept of having the batmobile drive up a freaking wall was bad. Not because it was "homoerotic", but because it was fantastically stupid.

What do we want from the "fantasy" part? Do we want crazier villians? Do we want more comic inspired stuff? I mean....it seems like we are getting more of the comic world from Nolan's Batman, but with his take on it.

Look at this way....unless Robert Rodriguez someday wants to make a panel by panel copy of a Batman comic- most good directors will never do the same. It's a part of movie making. Same as making comics, always different takes.

Wasn't the fact that they decided to give him bulletproof protection in the movies the whole point? That he WASN'T able to dodge bullets? They shoot him, but it doesn't do anything... it's part of why they think he's something more than human. Plus, there are many tall professional athletes and being tall doesn't involve having no balance. For Batman, I wouldn't want to go under 6' 5'', that's about as short as he can get.

6'8 is just clumsy tall. Those guys have a hard enough time getting through doorways.......imagine trying to sneak around ontop of warehouse rafters and balance beams when scoping out the area.

Nope, there's a reason why Batman is 6'2 in the comics. It's because its the perfect blend of atheltic quickness with the ability to intimidate when needed. 6'2 is tall. But, he's able to still get around easily without knocking his head on ceilings.

The reason for the armor suit is for protection.....but not to be hit with a barrage of bullets. Lucuius himself said it can take anything but a straight shot, and it'd be damn hard NOT to hit a 6'8 dude with a straight shot.

6'5 MAY be okay.....but I still think it's unnecessarily tall. Plus.....not many GOOD actors are that tall to begin with.

But, I'll respect your opinion man.....there are SO MANY different takes out there that a 6'5 Batman is probably drawn most of the time. But, I feel that Batman Begins is more like Neal Adams-Denny O'Neil and like a Jeph Loeb-Tim Sale......a Batman that is buff, but is lean.

There was a picture posted on the hype with all the actors standing side by side and Bale was exactly just as tall as Caine was.

Yup, I remember that pic. He was standing alonside most of the cast members. I think he was about even with Ken Watanbe too, who I've heard is like 6'2 or 6'3.

Is it noticeable in the movie? no, Bale and Caine are same height, you sound like Batwing6655.

I think the only time Bale seems shorter than an actor is beside Ra's and Lucius......oh, and that asian dude with the scar on his face, "I'm the devil". But, C'mon......Neeson and Freeman are 6'4.

It may not be 'noticeable' in the movie, but the fact still remains that he is taller and that Batman should be a lot taller than Alfred.

Since when does Batman have to be alot taller than Alfred? Batman is 6'2......should Alfred be like 5'7??? Plus.......in MANY interpretations of Alfred, Alfie had served the armed forces...either as some agent, some solider, or some medic...so it can be suggested that Alfred is a big guy too whose been places. Obviously, he can't use karate......but I don't see why he needs to be less thab 6'0.

Do we know if Christian Bale, the man is actually like that or not to affirm/deny? Which is unimportant btw.

The funny thing about Bale is that he's alot like the Wayne character in the comics....he's a total mystery to the public. He's a very hidden person, very personal. He's a mystery when his private life is concerned, and I respect that becuase in Hollywood that ain't easy to do.

Anyways, it's not the fact that Alfred is taller than Batman that takes away from the character, it's the fact that Batman in the movie isn't really tall, period. I added the part about Alfred to add to the point. To me, Batman has always been a big guy and they never really made him like that on film.

Since when was Batman considered the big guy in the comics? He uses fear and weapons to defeat his eniemies......he's usually drawn as a muscular chararcter, but hardly in the GOOD stories has he been drawn like some giant. Read YEAR ONE......Bruce doesn't appear to be like some 6'6 dude there. Not even very muscular either.........

Btw....Batman looked DAMN TALL and DAMN INTIMIDATING when he smashed Crane's little skull on the concrete wall.

Nightwing1977

01-03-2006, 05:16 PM

Anyways, it's not the fact that Alfred is taller than Batman that takes away from the character, it's the fact that Batman in the movie isn't really tall, period. I added the part about Alfred to add to the point. To me, Batman has always been a big guy and they never really made him like that on film.

He isn't really tall? Bale is 6' 0". That tall for a man. More taller than Keaton for sure, so I ain't complaining. :p

You also forgot that Charles Naiper (I think that his name who play Alfred in the 60s Batman tv show) is surely taller than Adam West. Alfred is supposely normally tall. Supposely taller than Bruce Wayne.

Bat Attack

01-03-2006, 05:26 PM

I think that the man who played Alfred on the 60's tv show name was Alan Napier.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-03-2006, 06:07 PM

Well.....not a problem, Bale is 6'2- 6'1 atleast.

Alfie Luke

01-03-2006, 07:11 PM

Michael Gough seems taller then Michael Keaton but you never complain about that??

Maybe because we're NOT talking about Batman '89?
Plus, let me quote myself on what I distinctively said earlier:

To me, Batman has always been a big guy and they never really made him like that on film.

That wasn't that hard, was it?

IMDB....? And they have credibility since when.....?

The Internet Movie Database, I think it has plenty of credibility.
You should check it out sometime...

Right.......but don't you think the whole, "now he has a giant plane ready" aspect is kinda shot up? I mean, the concept of having the batmobile drive up a freaking wall was bad. Not because it was "homoerotic", but because it was fantastically stupid.

Like I said earlier, there are different kinds of 'fantasy'. When you look at the Batman comics and cartoons, you can see plenty of stuff that isn't 'realistic', but the world of Batman has ( how should I put this ) wider boundaries of reality, which allows it to present fantasy oriented material, while keeping it in the realm of possibility for that particular world.

Look at this way....unless Robert Rodriguez someday wants to make a panel by panel copy of a Batman comic- most good directors will never do the same. It's a part of movie making. Same as making comics, always different takes.

I'm not expecting a 100 % comic-to-movie transposition, far from it. It's based on personal interpretation of the characters and the world around them. Batman has consistantly been portrayed as average in height and I'd like to see otherwise, for once.

6'8 is just clumsy tall. Those guys have a hard enough time getting through doorways.......imagine trying to sneak around ontop of warehouse rafters and balance beams when scoping out the area.

Hence my rectification to 6'5'', no less.

Nope, there's a reason why Batman is 6'2 in the comics. It's because its the perfect blend of atheltic quickness with the ability to intimidate when needed. 6'2 is tall. But, he's able to still get around easily without knocking his head on ceilings.

Batman has had a lot of martial arts training and he's a really intelligent man that knows what he's doing. Being 6'5'' wouldn't really be a dissadvantage to being 6'2'' for him, as he uses his surroundings to his advantage. Plus, even if being 6'2'' was the "best height" according to you, the fact still remains that Christian Bale is only 6'.

The reason for the armor suit is for protection.....but not to be hit with a barrage of bullets. Lucuius himself said it can take anything but a straight shot, and it'd be damn hard NOT to hit a 6'8 dude with a straight shot.

I never said that. As I stated earlier, I said that they decided to give him a bulletproof armor because he wasn't able to dodge bullets in the first place, I never emplied that he wasn't even going to try, due to the armor. Plus, if you're able to shoot a 6'5'' guy, you're able to shoot a 6'2'' guy, come on now.

6'5 MAY be okay.....but I still think it's unnecessarily tall. Plus.....not many GOOD actors are that tall to begin with.

I know there's probably not a lot of good 6'5'' actors that are known and I would never sacrifice talent for height, that's for sure... but that's not going to stop me from wanting a taller Batman.

Since when does Batman have to be alot taller than Alfred? Batman is 6'2......should Alfred be like 5'7??? Plus.......in MANY interpretations of Alfred, Alfie had served the armed forces...either as some agent, some solider, or some medic...so it can be suggested that Alfred is a big guy too whose been places. Obviously, he can't use karate......but I don't see why he needs to be less thab 6'0.

The thing is, in Batman Begins Alfred not only is taller than Batman, he's also quite big... which doesn't really help. Most, if not all interpretations of Alfred that I have seen, there is always a big difference in size between Bruce and Alfred and when I say 'size', it doesn't only involve height but also body structure, wideness, etc. Still, once again I wouldn't sacrifice talent for physique, but in my mind, it takes away from the character...

Since when was Batman considered the big guy in the comics? He uses fear and weapons to defeat his eniemies......he's usually drawn as a muscular chararcter, but hardly in the GOOD stories has he been drawn like some giant. Read YEAR ONE......Bruce doesn't appear to be like some 6'6 dude there. Not even very muscular either.........

Come on now, he's always been pretty big... not "the big guy", but more like a large, muscular man. I'm not trying to emply he's body builder big, but he is a physically imposing man. In my eyes, he should almost NEVER have to look up to anyone, which he does in Batman Begins.

Whack Arnolds

01-03-2006, 10:21 PM

Bale is 6'1 almost exactly. I am 6'0 and when I stood next to him, he was a forehead taller than me. In the suit w/ the boots...he is 6'2 at least.

Alfie Luke

01-03-2006, 10:33 PM

Phaser

01-03-2006, 11:03 PM

The Internet Movie Database, I think it has plenty of credibility.
You should check it out sometime...

Wake up. IMDB is a place where any Joe Schmoe can submit crap and it gets uploaded on the site. IMDB is the last place on the Net to look for accurate, reliable info.

I'm not expecting a 100 % comic-to-movie transposition, far from it. It's based on personal interpretation of the characters and the world around them. Batman has consistantly been portrayed as average in height and I'd like to see otherwise, for once.

Batman had the right height in Begins, period. In "The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight", Bruce Wayne/Batman has a documented height of 6'2. No more, no less. It may only appear as though he is a giant, bulking figure but that is only because of the way he is drawn by many comic artists, nevertheless, fact remains that DC's official information database lists him as 6'2.

Hence my rectification to 6'5'', no less.

That would be ridiculously tall. Heck, Clark Kent/Superman is 6'3 in the comics. And Batman always appears to be an inch shorter than him.

Batman has had a lot of martial arts training and he's a really intelligent man that knows what he's doing. Being 6'5'' wouldn't really be a dissadvantage to being 6'2'' for him, as he uses his surroundings to his advantage. Plus, even if being 6'2'' was the "best height" according to you, the fact still remains that Christian Bale is only 6'.

Bale is at least 6'1. His height was a major point of debate a couple of days before and after his casting and after much deliberation, it was concluded that with the extra inch or two that would be added after he wears the suit, the height would be perfect Batman.

I never said that. As I stated earlier, I said that they decided to give him a bulletproof armor because he wasn't able to dodge bullets in the first place, I never emplied that he wasn't even going to try, due to the armor. Plus, if you're able to shoot a 6'5'' guy, you're able to shoot a 6'2'' guy, come on now. I know there's probably not a lot of good 6'5'' actors that are known and I would never sacrifice talent for height, that's for sure... but that's not going to stop me from wanting a taller Batman.

But Batman isn't 6'5. He is 6'2. And Bale most definitely meets that criteria, particularly when he's wearing the suit.

The thing is, in Batman Begins Alfred not only is taller than Batman, he's also quite big... which doesn't really help. Most, if not all interpretations of Alfred that I have seen, there is always a big difference in size between Bruce and Alfred and when I say 'size', it doesn't only involve height but also body structure, wideness, etc. Still, once again I wouldn't sacrifice talent for physique, but in my mind, it takes away from the character...

The problem here is not Bale, it's Caine. Traditionally, Alfred has been depicted as a lean fellow with a documented height of 6 feet, slightly shorter than Batman. If Hopkins had accepted the role, there wouldn't have been this negligible inconvenience to begin with. But since Caine pulle off the role quite admirably, I think it is not only wise, but indubitable to accept the compromise of the "traditional look" of Alfred in favor of the excellent performance given by Caine. Besides, both Caine and Bale are pretty much the same height, if you've noticed the pics and videos from the premiere.

Come on now, he's always been pretty big... not "the big guy", but more like a large, muscular man. I'm not trying to emply he's body builder big, but he is a physically imposing man. In my eyes, he should almost NEVER have to look up to anyone, which he does in Batman Begins.

Again, the problem is simply the unrealistic and exaggerated manner in which the character is illustrated by some artists in the comics. Otherwise going by the official DC profile, Batman was the right height in Begins.

Phaser

01-03-2006, 11:21 PM

^ Eh... no, he's 6'. Here's a quote by him about his weight loss for The Machinist:

"I just assumed that I would be around 145. But then I just decided I was going to go for it. It’s just an extra nine pounds, and I can drop that in a week or so. But I’m 6 foot — it’s just not healthy" - Christian Bale

It seems like he is only making a self-estimation of his height there (which typically turns out to be an inch more or an inch less and no way is Bale less than 6') and not talking about his accurate height.

millennium movies

01-04-2006, 01:05 AM

Bale was a perfect Wayne and looked like a great Batman. But i still felt something was missing. I cant point my finger at it. Anyone else cringe at the scene where Bats enter the cell and says "scuse me"?

Whack Arnolds

01-04-2006, 01:16 AM

^ Eh... no, he's 6'. Here's a quote by him about his weight loss for The Machinist:

"I just assumed that I would be around 145. But then I just decided I was going to go for it. It’s just an extra nine pounds, and I can drop that in a week or so. But I’m 6 foot — it’s just not healthy" - Christian BaleThat could have been taken down wrong from the interview or something. Either way, I am 6'0 and when Bale stood next to me (like face to face) he was about a forehead taller than me.

Alfie Luke

01-04-2006, 07:53 AM

Wake up. IMDB is a place where any Joe Schmoe can submit crap and it gets uploaded on the site. IMDB is the last place on the Net to look for accurate, reliable info.

You mean like Wikipedia? We all know everything there is über crap because everyday people contribute to making the database larger by adding information they have on specific subjects. [/Sarcasm]

It does have credibility.

Batman had the right height in Begins, period. In "The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight", Bruce Wayne/Batman has a documented height of 6'2. No more, no less. It may only appear as though he is a giant, bulking figure but that is only because of the way he is drawn by many comic artists, nevertheless, fact remains that DC's official information database lists him as 6'2.

There's something you don't seem to understand... I get the impression that you think I'm trying to be 100 % fateful to the comics and cartoons, which I am not. I believe you when you say he's supposed to be 6'2'' according to DC's official database, but the fact still remains that he's always portrayed as being a lot bigger than that ( at least 6'5'' ). That to me, is something that can't just be left out...

That would be ridiculously tall. Heck, Clark Kent/Superman is 6'3 in the comics. And Batman always appears to be an inch shorter than him.

That's not "ridiculously tall", ridiculously tall would be 6'10'' and up.
Even 6'8'', now that I think about it, but not 6'5''.

Bale is at least 6'1. His height was a major point of debate a couple of days before and after his casting and after much deliberation, it was concluded that with the extra inch or two that would be added after he wears the suit, the height would be perfect Batman.

Gary Coleman is also the perfect height for Batman, as when you put him on 1 1/2 foot tall platform shoes, he's 6'2''. [/Sarcasm]
Seriously now, "after much deliberation"? don't make me laugh... it is and has always been a matter of personal interpretation and opinion. If you guys enjoy seing a Batman that's average in height, that's fine with me, but if your goal was to make me change my mind because you people determined, "after much deliberation" that he was the perfect height, you're not going to win. Batman has always been bigger than that in my mind and to me, it only makes the character better.

But Batman isn't 6'5. He is 6'2. And Bale most definitely meets that criteria, particularly when he's wearing the suit.

Bale is 6'. According to you, Bruce Wayne is 6'2''. There 2'' of difference. If they were wearing the same suit, Bale's Batman would be 6'2'' and the real Batman would be 6'4''. There's still a 2'' difference between the two of them.

The problem here is not Bale, it's Caine. Traditionally, Alfred has been depicted as a lean fellow with a documented height of 6 feet, slightly shorter than Batman. If Hopkins had accepted the role, there wouldn't have been this negligible inconvenience to begin with. But since Caine pulle off the role quite admirably, I think it is not only wise, but indubitable to accept the compromise of the "traditional look" of Alfred in favor of the excellent performance given by Caine. Besides, both Caine and Bale are pretty much the same height, if you've noticed the pics and videos from the premiere.

Sure, part of the problem is Michael Caine... like I stated earlier, he's still a somewhat big fellow, but Bale isn't really helping either. I wouldn't have liked Anthony Hopkins in the role either... he's too fat. Plus, I didn't find Michael Caine's performance to be THAT extraordinary, in fact I didn't really feel like it was Alfred, but more like Michael Caine playing Alfred... I'm sure they could've found a good actor that looks more like him.

Again, the problem is simply the unrealistic and exaggerated manner in which the character is illustrated by some artists in the comics. Otherwise going by the official DC profile, Batman was the right height in Begins.

Nah. Batman was 2'' shorter in Begins...

It seems like he is only making a self-estimation of his height there (which typically turns out to be an inch more or an inch less and no way is Bale less than 6') and not talking about his accurate height.

So, what part of what he says makes you believe he's " only making a self-estimation of his height"? That's a pretty weak argument against his very own words. Plus, where the heck do you take the idea that it "typically turns out to be an inch more or less"?!? You look like you are desperately trying to twist reality to make it fit with your view of him as 6'1''.

That could have been taken down wrong from the interview or something. Either way, I am 6'0 and when Bale stood next to me (like face to face) he was about a forehead taller than me.

Then you're not 6' or he was wearing high heels. ( or both for that matter )

CConn

01-04-2006, 08:20 AM

It's really sad you actually care that much, Alfie. :(:o

Alfie Luke

01-04-2006, 08:54 AM

^ I probably care as much for my fictional 6'5'' Batman as Phaser cares for his 6' Christian Bale Batman.
There's no real difference... if you pay attention, of course. ;)

CConn

01-04-2006, 08:58 AM

Phaser

01-04-2006, 10:13 AM

You mean like Wikipedia? We all know everything there is über crap because everyday people contribute to making the database larger by adding information they have on specific subjects. [/Sarcasm]

It does have credibility.

Credibility my ass. I'm not even going to bother listing the hundreds of IMDB screwups during the production of BB alone. Anyone who used to frequent these boards at that time will testify to that. I can't even count the number of false alarms we'd recieved here because of IMDB.

There's something you don't seem to understand... I get the impression that you think I'm trying to be 100 % fateful to the comics and cartoons, which I am not.

Then your argument doesn't have a freakin' leg to stand on. It's nothing but your own personal opinion, one that doesn't have any merit in this debate.

I believe you when you say he's supposed to be 6'2'' according to DC's official database, but the fact still remains that he's always portrayed as being a lot bigger than that ( at least 6'5'' ). That to me, is something that can't just be left out...

If the makers of the character say he is 6'2, then he is 6'2. Period.

That's not "ridiculously tall", ridiculously tall would be 6'10'' and up.
Even 6'8'', now that I think about it, but not 6'5''.

Ridiculously tall, as in ridiculously tall for "Batman".

Gary Coleman is also the perfect height for Batman, as when you put him on 1 1/2 foot tall platform shoes, he's 6'2''. [/Sarcasm]

What the **** does Gary Coleman have to do with this? If you want to get so smart with sarcasm, why don't you at least do it an appropriate manner?

Seriously now, "after much deliberation"? don't make me laugh... it is and has always been a matter of personal interpretation and opinion. If you guys enjoy seing a Batman that's average in height, that's fine with me, but if your goal was to make me change my mind because you people determined, "after much deliberation" that he was the perfect height, you're not going to win. Batman has always been bigger than that in my mind and to me, it only makes the character better.

And just because Batman's been bigger "in your mind" does not put you in sufficient position to counter the indisputable fact that the character has been documented to be 6'2. And Batman is not always drawn as some huge, bulking figure the way some artists illustrate him as. There are many comics where he appears to be only moderately tall and looks his documented height. Year One and a number of Detective comics come to mind as immediate examples, of course there are many, many, many more.

Bale is 6'. According to you, Bruce Wayne is 6'2''. There 2'' of difference. If they were wearing the same suit, Bale's Batman would be 6'2'' and the real Batman would be 6'4''. There's still a 2'' difference between the two of them.

I said Bale was at least 6'1.

And just to show you exactly how wrong are IMDB in this regard, here's just a couple of sources that all list Bale as 6'2, chuck:

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/christian_bale/index.shtml
http://celebritiespictures.supereva.com/celeb.php?name=Christian%20Bale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/christian_bale_biog.html
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/interviews/WildAboutMoviesChristianBaleBatmanBegins.php
http://www.celebsprofile.com/b/christian-bale/index.html
http://webfantasy.info/Christian_Bale/Bio.htm
http://screengazing.dee-dee.net/archives/001368.html
http://musicals.allinfoabout.com/celebspotlight.html

Sure, part of the problem is Michael Caine... like I stated earlier, he's still a somewhat big fellow, but Bale isn't really helping either. I wouldn't have liked Anthony Hopkins in the role either... he's too fat. Plus, I didn't find Michael Caine's performance to be THAT extraordinary, in fact I didn't really feel like it was Alfred, but more like Michael Caine playing Alfred... I'm sure they could've found a good actor that looks more like him.

I strongly disagree.

Nah. Batman was 2'' shorter in Begins...

Prove it, bub.

So, what part of what he says makes you believe he's " only making a self-estimation of his height"? That's a pretty weak argument against his very own words.

That is because many sources that list his height as 6' write it down as "self-reported". And in that quote he seems to be talking very casually (words to consider: "around 145", "in a week or so", "6 foot" when he should have said "feet" instead) and most of the things he said in that quote clearly appear to be approximates and not completely precise.

Plus, where the heck do you take the idea that it "typically turns out to be an inch more or less"?!? You look like you are desperately trying to twist reality to make it fit with your view of him as 6'1''.

Because approximates are never precise. Surely you're smart enough to figure that out. Or are you?

Then you're not 6' or he was wearing high heels. ( or both for that matter )

He is talkin from firsthand experience and it is very much possible he was one of the few guys from this board who were present on-site during BB's filming in Chicago and met with actors and took pictures with them. Frankly speaking, I'd much rather believe him than you. Besides, since you sound so confident, tell, do you have a source that is more reliable than him which claims Bale is only 6 foot? If yes, I'd sure as hell like to see it.

raybia

01-04-2006, 10:52 AM

Anyone else cringe at the scene where Bats enter the cell and says "scuse me"?

A tongue in cheek moment, quite unlike the Burton and Schumaker movies and the Spider-man movies, and the Superman movies, and the X-Men movies, and...:rolleyes:

Alfie Luke

01-04-2006, 11:15 AM

You're the one crying about a two inch height difference. If you talked about this to anyone outside of Batman or comics, they would look at you like you have a second head. And they'd be quite right in their reaction.

I'm not "crying' any more than Phaser is...
He says 6'2'' and I say 6'. There's nothing more to it.

Credibility my ass. I'm not even going to bother listing the hundreds of IMDB screwups during the production of BB alone. Anyone who used to frequent these boards at that time will testify to that. I can't even count the number of false alarms we'd recieved here because of IMDB.

Just to rectify something here... Christian Bale isn't "Batman Begins". There's a big difference between an actual biography and information on a film that his being made.

Then your argument doesn't have a freakin' leg to stand on. It's nothing but your own personal opinion, one that doesn't have any merit in this debate.

Wake up Phaser, I've been presenting my opinion from the very start... I never stated that Batman was officially 6'5'' or more, but that I felt that the way he was presented in the comics and cartoons made him out to be about that size and that I would like to see it like that in the movies, for once. I thought you were aware that the Batman movies have been done based on the director's ( or whomever's ) personal interpretation of Batman, yet it doesn't invalidate their work or view, why should it do it to mine?

If the makers of the character say he is 6'2, then he is 6'2. Period.

Didn't you say that Alfred was supposed to be 6'?
He's taller than that in the movie. Why not do the same for Batman?

Ridiculously tall, as in ridiculously tall for "Batman".

So, 6'2'' is perfect and 6'5'' is just freaking ridiculous?

What the **** does Gary Coleman have to do with this? If you want to get so smart with sarcasm, why don't you at least do it an appropriate manner?

You claimed that, with the added height of the suit, Christian Bale would be okay...
According to you, Batman is 6'2'' ( that's without the suit ), so if you're going to take a shorter actor and claim that the suit will make him the right height, then why not take an even smaller actor but give him a bigger boost? That was the sarcastic part...

And just because Batman's been bigger "in your mind" does not put you in sufficient position to counter the indisputable fact that the character has been documented to be 6'2. And Batman is not always drawn as some huge, bulking figure the way some artists illustrate him as. There are many comics where he appears to be only moderately tall and looks his documented height. Year One and a number of Detective comics come to mind as immediate examples, of course there are many, many, many more.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation... I'm not denying the fact that he may have been portrayed as shorter than 6'5'', but that doesn't change the fact that he HAS been portrayed as that tall and to me, it fits the character better.

I said Bale was at least 6'1.

And just to show you exactly how wrong are IMDB in this regard, here's just a couple of sources that all list Bale as 6'2, chuck:

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...le/index.shtml
http://celebritiespictures.supereva....ristian%20Bale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainme...bale_biog.html
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/inter...tmanBegins.php
http://www.celebsprofile.com/b/chris...ale/index.html
http://webfantasy.info/Christian_Bale/Bio.htm
http://screengazing.dee-dee.net/archives/001368.html
http://musicals.allinfoabout.com/celebspotlight.html

Well, according to you now, he's 6'2''? Then with the added 2'' that you say the suit gives him, he's 6'4'' as Batman? ( as tall as Liam Neeson ) Riiiiiiight! That's border line ridiculous, no? Oh wait, that's right... you said that Christian Bale was the perfect height for Batman, so that means that 6'4'' is perfect and 1'' more is just freaking ridiculous, right? ah ah ah.

I'll use something else to prove my point. You can check anywhere on the net, I think everyone will agree that Morgan Freeman IS in fact 6'2''. Now, let us look at this picture of Batman Begins:

http://www.cinepop.com.br/fotos/batman1_26.jpg

Oh yeah, they clearly are exactly the same height. [/Sarcasm]

I strongly disagree.

... about which part?

Prove it, bub.

See the pic above... bub.

That is because many sources that list his height as 6' write it down as "self-reported". And in that quote he seems to be talking very casually (words to consider: "around 145", "in a week or so", "6 foot" when he should have said "feet" instead) and most of the things he said in that quote clearly appear to be approximates and not completely precise.

Since when do people "self-report" themselves as shorter than they actually are?
Most of the time, I think it's the other way around...

Because approximates are never precise. Surely you're smart enough to figure that out. Or are you?

So, you're down to attempts at insults now?

He is talkin from firsthand experience and it is very much possible he was one of the few guys from this board who were present on-site during BB's filming in Chicago and met with actors and took pictures with them. Frankly speaking, I'd much rather believe him than you. Besides, since you sound so confident, tell, do you have a source that is more reliable than him which claims Bale is only 6 foot? If yes, I'd sure as hell like to see it.

Of course you'd much rather believe him than me, otherwise you'd be wrong... duh.
Plus, apparently Christian Bale saying it himself isn't reliable enough for you so...

Phaser

01-04-2006, 12:19 PM

Just to rectify something here... Christian Bale isn't "Batman Begins". There's a big difference between an actual biography and information on a film that his being made.

But there's no difference between a website screwing up, posting inaccurate (and sometimes, blatantly wrong) information that would hurt it's credibility. And that was exactly my point. IMDB constantly posting unreliable information that makes it less credible.

OK, I'll give you an example of IMDB's celebrity profile screwups. Monica Bellucci date of birth is reported there to be 30th September 1964, when in fact, according to most credible and reliable sources, it's 30th September 1968. Or you going to pull another "Alfie Luke" and now tell me that Bellucci isn't Bale? Of course not, if you get the inference that is.

Wake up Phaser, I've been presenting my opinion from the very start... I never stated that Batman was officially 6'5'' or more, but that I felt that the way he was presented in the comics and cartoons made him out to be about that size and that I would like to see it like that in the movies, for once. I thought you were aware that the Batman movies have been done based on the director's ( or whomever's ) personal interpretation of Batman, yet it doesn't invalidate their work or view, why should it do it to mine?

But of course there have been many versions of the character in the comics themselves in which he is around the same height as he is in Begins. Why not take those into account as well? What makes your selective vision of the character so important that makes it worthy to be complained about and debated with the factual profile presented by the makers of the characters themselves? Otherwise, if you're simply stating an opinion, then do so and move on. Why argue about it if you don't have facts to present in your favor?

Didn't you say that Alfred was supposed to be 6'?
He's taller than that in the movie. Why not do the same for Batman?

And what difference does it make if he isn't?

Besides, it's not like it was a conscious decision on the filmmakers' part to cast a taller-looking Alfred. So why should it apply to Batman, especially when he is the right height to begin with?

So, 6'2'' is perfect and 6'5'' is just freaking ridiculous?

Yes, because even Superman isn't that tall. And Batman pretty much always has been portrayed to be shorter than him, whether it's the cartoons, the comics or the movies.

You claimed that, with the added height of the suit, Christian Bale would be okay...
According to you, Batman is 6'2'' ( that's without the suit ), so if you're going to take a shorter actor and claim that the suit will make him the right height, then why not take an even smaller actor but give him a bigger boost? That was the sarcastic part...

What's so sarcastic about it? They already did try that trick. With Keaton. Your point?

Again, it's a matter of interpretation... I'm not denying the fact that he may have been portrayed as shorter than 6'5'', but that doesn't change the fact that he HAS been portrayed as that tall and to me, it fits the character better.

What makes you so sure that it was Batman that was portrayed as being tall? Perhaps Batman was 6'2 all along. Perhaps it was the other characters who were portrayed as being shorter. Ever think about it that way, chuck?

Now of course, you can deny this and say that it was Batman who was drawn bigger than he's supposed to be, but again, what proof do you have that it wasn't the other characters who were drawn smaller?

Well, according to you now, he's 6'2''? Then with the added 2'' that you say the suit gives him, he's 6'4'' as Batman? ( as tall as Liam Neeson ) Riiiiiiight! That's border line ridiculous, no? Oh wait, that's right... you said that Christian Bale was the perfect height for Batman, so that means that 6'4'' is perfect and 1'' more is just freaking ridiculous, right? ah ah ah.

Get real. The horns and the cowl alone would give him at least 2 inches more (another contributing factor could be if he's wearing boots with thick soles). And yes, if you look closely in the film, when Bale's in the suit, he looks about just as big as Neeson. But that's not Bale. That's the suit. If you get a 6'5 actor, he'd look closer to 6'7 in the suit. And that, is quite ridiculous.

I'll use something else to prove my point. You can check anywhere on the net, I think everyone will agree that Morgan Freeman IS in fact 6'2''. Now, let us look at this picture of Batman Begins:

http://www.cinepop.com.br/fotos/batman1_26.jpg

Nope. Michael Caine is clearly 6'2 and Bale appears to be just as tall. Morgan Freeman is indisutably more than 6'2 (check celebheights.com) and is actually closer to Neeson's height. As you will see in the following pics, no skewed camera angles, no trick photography, pretty much everyone standing straight and upright:

http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem7.jpg
http://eur.yimg.com/i/xp/premier_photo/c/c0b41a1e0c.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem8.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem20.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem19.jpg

Oh yeah, they clearly are exactly the same height. [/Sarcasm]

Let's see you try saying that again now, chump.

... about which part?

About Caine's performance.

See the pic above... bub.

See the pics above, bub.

Since when do people "self-report" themselves as shorter than they actually are?
Most of the time, I think it's the other way around...

Because self reports are mostly approximates and estimates rather than being precise down to the very inch. Besides, I've already shown that Bale seems to be talking very casually in that quote you posted and pretty much every measure he's speaking of. Since he speaks loosely of his weight in approximates, what makes you think that he's completely accurate and precise about his height?

So, you're down to attempts at insults now?

You must be some kind of hypersensitive, emo chick if you took that as an insult.

Of course you'd much rather believe him than me, otherwise you'd be wrong... duh.

No, because after seeing those pics I posted, I'd only be passing myself as blind and senile if I believe you.

Plus, apparently Christian Bale saying it himself isn't reliable enough for you so...

Apparently, you're hell bent on clutching on to one, single quote (and even that is not exact) while real-life pics and numerous celebrity profiles aren't reliable enough for you so...

raybia

01-04-2006, 12:56 PM

I think this thing about complaining about an inch or 2 difference or whether someone else is as tall as Bruce or even taller, is a fanboy hangup.

People who are not well verse in such details had no problem with Bruce's or Batman's height in the movie.

IMO, at no time did Batman height look out of place or awkward, unlike Michael Keaton in the first movie. It was apparent that he was small man in a Batsuit that really look riduculous in the scene where him and vicki are running down the street from the Joker's men.

Speaking of the comics, I noticed on several occasions where Batman's size and height have varied even in the same book.

Even though the Batman films are derived from the comics, its not a comic book; its a movie. And I really think that a 6'3 to 6'5 Bodybuilder, while may look impressive with the batsuit on, would not be a suitable Bruce Wayne.

Alfie Luke

01-04-2006, 02:14 PM

OK, I'll give you an example of IMDB's celebrity profile screwups. Monica Bellucci date of birth is reported there to be 30th September 1964, when in fact, according to most credible and reliable sources, it's 30th September 1968. Or you going to pull another "Alfie Luke" and now tell me that Bellucci isn't Bale? Of course not, if you get the inference that is.

Who are those "credible and reliable sources"?
So, they make mistakes... mistakes that represent what? About 1% of their whole database?

I'm not saying they are perfect, but we can't discredit them for that.

But of course there have been many versions of the character in the comics themselves in which he is around the same height as he is in Begins. Why not take those into account as well? What makes your selective vision of the character so important that makes it worthy to be complained about and debated with the factual profile presented by the makers of the characters themselves? Otherwise, if you're simply stating an opinion, then do so and move on. Why argue about it if you don't have facts to present in your favor?

Pay attention, since the very beginning I've been talking about wanting a taller Batman, because of all the interpretations that have been done of him, the one where he appears taller are the ones that I prefer. I feel as though it fits the character better than being of average height. I don't feel as though I'm "arguing" about it, but more like defending it. Although you claim to respect my opinion, you try to present it as being simply ridiculous and not right.

And what difference does it make if he isn't?

Besides, it's not like it was a conscious decision on the filmmakers' part to cast a taller-looking Alfred. So why should it apply to Batman, especially when he is the right height to begin with?

So, if the actor playing Alfred was 6'6'', you wouldn't mind, because Batman is the "right height"?
( Heck, make all the other actors 5'' taller than they are right now and keep Batman like he is in Begins... does this seem right to do? No )

In the world of Batman, Batman is a taller than average man. If they want to translate that in the movie in a faithful way, they have to keep a sense of proportion, which isn't really the case in Begins.

What's so sarcastic about it? They already did try that trick. With Keaton. Your point?

My point is that, according to the 'standards' you presented, anyone can be the "right height".
I think that was pretty obivious...

What makes you so sure that it was Batman that was portrayed as being tall? Perhaps Batman was 6'2 all along. Perhaps it was the other characters who were portrayed as being shorter. Ever think about it that way, chuck?

Now of course, you can deny this and say that it was Batman who was drawn bigger than he's supposed to be, but again, what proof do you have that it wasn't the other characters who were drawn smaller?

That just there supports my point 100 %, thanks.
Like I just said, it's a question of proportions... if you screw with that, that's when it loses some of it's appeal. Even if it was everyone else that was shorter, the fact still remains that in his world, Batman is considered a big guy. If they make the supporting cast around him bigger, he should be bigger too. It's as simple as that kiddo.

Get real. The horns and the cowl alone would give him at least 2 inches more (another contributing factor could be if he's wearing boots with thick soles). And yes, if you look closely in the film, when Bale's in the suit, he looks about just as big as Neeson. But that's not Bale. That's the suit. If you get a 6'5 actor, he'd look closer to 6'7 in the suit. And that, is quite ridiculous.

If the cowl and the horns alone give him 2'' more + 1'' with the boots, that's 3'' more. Now, if you say he looks "about as big as Neeson", who is 6'4'', it means that he's almost 6'4'' too. Almost 6'4'' - 3'' equals almost 6'1'', which means he's about 6'1/2''. Yeah...

Nope. Michael Caine is clearly 6'2 and Bale appears to be just as tall. Morgan Freeman is indisutably more than 6'2 (check celebheights.com) and is actually closer to Neeson's height. As you will see in the following pics, no skewed camera angles, no trick photography, pretty much everyone standing straight and upright:

* I won't post all the pics again for no reason, just check above *

According to most of the sites I've checked, Morgan Freeman is between 6'2'' and 6'2 1/2'', no more. Now look at him in all the pics you presented ( especially the 4th one ) and in all of them, it's obivious that like a certain amount of people, his head is slighly foward ( slight curve in spine ), which makes him look shorter than he actually is. Now, even with that being said, when you compare him to Christian Bale, he clearly is taller than him. This means that he's less that 6'2''.

http://www.zelluloid.de/images/szenen/42787dcfb3a7e.jpg
Morgan Freeman, being taller than Christian Bale, once again...

http://malestars.codserver.com/cnt/christian_bale/photos/1.jpg
Christian and Matthew... both being 6'0''.

Let's see you try saying that again now, chump.

Here you go bobby:
Oh yeah, they clearly are exactly the same height. [/Sarcasm]

See the pics above, bub.

Yeah, he's not 6'2'' for sure... bub.

Because self reports are mostly approximates and estimates rather than being precise down to the very inch. Besides, I've already shown that Bale seems to be talking very casually in that quote you posted and pretty much every measure he's speaking of. Since he speaks loosely of his weight in approximates, what makes you think that he's completely accurate and precise about his height?

... because height is constant ( at least at this point ), but his weight was constantly changing for his role, hence his approximations.

You must be some kind of hypersensitive, emo chick if you took that as an insult.

Never thought it would be so hard for someone to read so few words... I clearly said "attempt".
... and questionning my intelligence could be seen as one, especially when it's not an issue.

No, because after seeing those pics I posted, I'd only be passing myself as blind and senile if I believe you.

I see those pics and I don't see same heights... open your eyes.

Apparently, you're hell bent on clutching on to one, single quote (and even that is not exact) while real-life pics and numerous celebrity profiles aren't reliable enough for you so...

Of course it's not "exact", because Dr. Phaser said so, right?
I've seen the pics and the profiles and I don't see the same thing, so...

Phaser

01-04-2006, 04:07 PM

Who are those "credible and reliable sources"?
So, they make mistakes... mistakes that represent what? About 1% of their whole database?

And where exactly did you get that "1%" figure from? And besides, that still doesn't prove that they are reliable source of information, especially when their info conflicts what is reported by at least a dozen other sites.

I'm not saying they are perfect, but we can't discredit them for that.

We can discredit them when there are other sources out there that say otherwise.

Pay attention, since the very beginning I've been talking about wanting a taller Batman, because of all the interpretations that have been done of him, the one where he appears taller are the ones that I prefer. I feel as though it fits the character better than being of average height. I don't feel as though I'm "arguing" about it, but more like defending it. Although you claim to respect my opinion, you try to present it as being simply ridiculous and not right.

I "respect" your right to have an opinion, not your opinion itself, because quite frankly, as you put it in your own words, I find your reasoning faulty and ridiculous.

So, if the actor playing Alfred was 6'6'', you wouldn't mind, because Batman is the "right height"?

But is the actor playing Alfred 6'6? What exactly is the point of arguing on such exaggerated assumptions?

( Heck, make all the other actors 5'' taller than they are right now and keep Batman like he is in Begins... does this seem right to do? No )

The only ones who are taller than they're supposed to is Ra's, Alfred and Fox. And they're not so tall as they completely dwarf Bruce Wayne. They just seem a little bit taller. It's somewhat acceptable for Ra's to be a but taller because he plays Bruce's mentor, is the main villain and because of Neeson's jackpot performance. Fox? He was never as significant a character (neither in the film nor in the comics), so it's not that big of a problem. As for Alfred, well he is just as tall as Bruce so again I don't take that big an issue with it. At least not as big as indulge myself into a lengthy debate for it.

In the world of Batman, Batman is a taller than average man. If they want to translate that in the movie in a faithful way, they have to keep a sense of proportion, which isn't really the case in Begins.

There was a sense of proportion. Batman obviously seemed bigger than the Ra's ninjas as well as Crane's and Falcone's thugs. He seemed a bit taller than Gordon in the end as well. Batman was taller than the "average man" in Begins. Unless of course, in your view, a handful of characters like Fox, Ra's and Alfred constitute the "average man".

My point is that, according to the 'standards' you presented, anyone can be the "right height".
I think that was pretty obivious...

But Bale had the right height without the suit. The suit only makes him appear a bit taller and bigger than he already is.

That just there supports my point 100 %, thanks.
Like I just said, it's a question of proportions... if you screw with that, that's when it loses some of it's appeal. Even if it was everyone else that was shorter, the fact still remains that in his world, Batman is considered a big guy. If they make the supporting cast around him bigger, he should be bigger too. It's as simple as that kiddo.

Again, Batman is bigger than the "average guy" in the world of Begins. And clearly the supporting cast does not constitute the "average guy", junior.

If the cowl and the horns alone give him 2'' more + 1'' with the boots, that's 3'' more. Now, if you say he looks "about as big as Neeson", who is 6'4'', it means that he's almost 6'4'' too. Almost 6'4'' - 3'' equals almost 6'1'', which means he's about 6'1/2''. Yeah...

I just checked a couple of pics and it seems like his boots aren't as thick soled as you might have hoped for, not at least to the length that would make him look an inch taller. Seems like you'll have to give Bale that extra inch or so. Makes him around 6'2. See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

According to most of the sites I've checked, Morgan Freeman is between 6'2'' and 6'2 1/2'', no more. Now look at him in all the pics you presented ( especially the 4th one ) and in all of them, it's obivious that like a certain amount of people, his head is slighly foward ( slight curve in spine ), which makes him look shorter than he actually is. Now, even with that being said, when you compare him to Christian Bale, he clearly is taller than him. This means that he's less that 6'2''.

Why don't you compare Freeman's height with Neeson's who you have admitted is 6'4? Like you said, Freeman's head is slightly bent forward or to the side and even then, his height seems pretty close to Neeson's, who is a 6'4. Now imagine Freeman standing upright alongside Neeson and he would appear to be slightly taller, with his height appearing to be even more closer to Neeson's. Besides, Michael Caine is almost unanimously listed as 6'2 everywhere and Bale clearly seems just as tall as him, and Freeman being noticeably being taller than them both.

http://www.zelluloid.de/images/szenen/42787dcfb3a7e.jpg
Morgan Freeman, being taller than Christian Bale, once again...

Yeah, that zelluloid.de logo sure as hell convinced me. :rolleyes:

http://malestars.codserver.com/cnt/christian_bale/photos/1.jpg
Christian and Matthew... both being 6'0''.

This is so pointless and pathetic. That's not a full pic. We can't see whether Bale is standing on a slightly lower surface or if Mathew is standing only a slightly elevated one, nor can we see the posture of their legs.

While the pics are I posted shows all the actors standing upright, side by side which makes for a much better comparison. With the numerous profiles of Bale's height being 6'2 that I posted and now clear as day pics of him standing right beside Michael Caine who is himself the very same height, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by your futile attempts at trying to prove Bale is shorter than that. It reeks of desperation.

Here you go bobby:
Oh yeah, they clearly are exactly the same height. [/Sarcasm]

Not looking good now, skippy.

Yeah, he's not 6'2'' for sure... bub.

Try again, bub.

... because height is constant ( at least at this point ), but his weight was constantly changing for his role, hence his approximations.

But he doesn't seem to be too concerned about getting his height EXACTLY right. Hence why he says "foot" instead of "feet". Like I said before again and again and again, the man seems to be talking casually about his physique and you immediately take it as Bible.

Never thought it would be so hard for someone to read so few words... I clearly said "attempt".

There was no "attempt" at an insult there, chucky, at least not by me. Which brings me to yet another question...why exactly would you think that as an "attempt" at an insult, unless of course, you did find it insulting or at least got the impression that I was trying to insult you when I wasn't?

... and questionning my intelligence could be seen as one, especially when it's not an issue.

It was clearly meant to be side-joke, hence why I put it in white text. If I wanted to "question" your intelligence, I wouldn't even attempt it. I would have outright called you a jackass and a moron then and there.

I see those pics and I don't see same heights... open your eyes.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

Michael Caine = 6'2, as widely reported.

Since those pics show Michael Caine = Christian Bale, hence by logical conclusion, Christian Bale = 6'2. And just for the sake of rechecking and confirming your answer, you can go to the half a dozen plus sources I've listed in my earlier posts.

Of course it's not "exact", because Dr. Phaser said so, right?
I've seen the pics and the profiles and I don't see the same thing, so...

Well, then I must regretfully say that little Alfie Luke is doomed for failure in his next geometry class.

BatScot

01-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Man... and they said I was nitpicky just because I wanted a suit that was a bit more gray than black ;)

Phaser

01-04-2006, 04:22 PM

Man... and they said I was nitpicky just because I wanted a suit that was a bit more gray than black ;)

Away with you, heathen!! :mad:

;)

raybia

01-04-2006, 04:30 PM

I wonder what 6'2 Muscular built 215 - 225 pound actor would have done been a better Bruce Wayne/Batman than Christian Bale?

Could you imagine Nolan telling Bale, "Christian, we love you and we think you are perfect for the role, but you see, You're only 6'0 tall and Bruce Wayne is suppose to be 6'2". I'm sorry, truly."

But how about the role of the Joker in the sequel?

Shawn Wayne

01-04-2006, 05:39 PM

If Bale is only 6' tall, then I gladly give up the other two inches. Two inches only matters that much if you've only got two inches to start with....

Splinter

01-04-2006, 07:55 PM

So by calling Christian Bale a "Douchebag" you really think he's (this is from wikipedia):

Someone who is annoying, bossy or embarrassing.
Someone who is stupid, intellectually challenged or mentally deranged but less than clinically insane.
Someone who is unintelligently lying or scamming.
Someone who is arrogant, elitist or snobby.
Someone who is socially inept.

Yeah, that describes Chirstian Bale PERFECTLY.:down :down

Pathetic.

Hmm... well, sometimes, and just SOMETIMES... Bale comes across as just a TAD bit self-important to me.

No complaints regarding his Bruce Wayne or Batman, please no one hurt me.

Alfie Luke

01-04-2006, 07:57 PM

And where exactly did you get that "1%" figure from? And besides, that still doesn't prove that they are reliable source of information, especially when their info conflicts what is reported by at least a dozen other sites.

It's a number I just threw out there, based on the 2 examples you gave me... calm down kiddo.
IMDb is a database that is being constantly improved by people, it's normal that they make mistakes at some point, doesn't mean they'll always keep it that way.

We can discredit them when there are other sources out there that say otherwise.

There's a difference between discrediting a site and finding a mistake, if there's one.

I "respect" your right to have an opinion, not your opinion itself, because quite frankly, as you put it in your own words, I find your reasoning faulty and ridiculous.

That's like saying you respect the fact that I have a father, but you don't respect my father... because you happen to dissagree with him, nice going billy. Plus, what exactly about my opinion is "faulty"? I'd like a taller Batman, because I think it fits the character better in my eyes and he's often portrayed that way... yeah, that's just ridiculous! [/Sarcasm]

But is the actor playing Alfred 6'6? What exactly is the point of arguing on such exaggerated assumptions?

How can you not get this?
You clearly said that it didn't make a difference to you what height Alfred was in the movie... if that's really the case, you probably wouldn't mind if he was 6'6'' right?

The only ones who are taller than they're supposed to is Ra's, Alfred and Fox. And they're not so tall as they completely dwarf Bruce Wayne. They just seem a little bit taller. It's somewhat acceptable for Ra's to be a but taller because he plays Bruce's mentor, is the main villain and because of Neeson's jackpot performance. Fox? He was never as significant a character (neither in the film nor in the comics), so it's not that big of a problem. As for Alfred, well he is just as tall as Bruce so again I don't take that big an issue with it. At least not as big as indulge myself into a lengthy debate for it.

Although they represent a 'minority' of the population, they are the most important persons in the movie and thus, have a direct impact on the main character, which happens to be Christian Bale, as Batman. Plus, to your information it takes at least 2 people for a debate to occur, so if you don't see the point of making one about those issues, remember that you're part of the problem... so if you're not happy, you're welcome to leave.

There was a sense of proportion. Batman obviously seemed bigger than the Ra's ninjas as well as Crane's and Falcone's thugs. He seemed a bit taller than Gordon in the end as well. Batman was taller than the "average man" in Begins. Unless of course, in your view, a handful of characters like Fox, Ra's and Alfred constitute the "average man".

You see, in your previous quote ( in this post ), you claimed that part of the reason why it was okay for Ra's to be taller was because he's "Bruce's mentor and the main villain", well I just happen to have the same point of view, but with the main hero. According to you, the role of the person in the story has an impact on it's representation... which is what I've been saying. Either your comment is as ridiculous as mine or I'm right, bobby.

But Bale had the right height without the suit. The suit only makes him appear a bit taller and bigger than he already is.

That's not what you said... here it is:

Bale is at least 6'1. His height was a major point of debate a couple of days before and after his casting and after much deliberation, it was concluded that with the extra inch or two that would be added after he wears the suit, the height would be perfect Batman.

You see, you clearly said that only after the added height that the suit provides, would he be the "perfect Batman", not before. Please, at least make the effort to remember what you say, for the sake of the discussion.

Again, Batman is bigger than the "average guy" in the world of Begins. And clearly the supporting cast does not constitute the "average guy", junior.

Like I said, they all have important roles... and whether you like it or not, he'll be compared to them, when it comes to height. Batman being the central character of the movie, it's only fair to have him stand out.

I just checked a couple of pics and it seems like his boots aren't as thick soled as you might have hoped for, not at least to the length that would make him look an inch taller. Seems like you'll have to give Bale that extra inch or so. Makes him around 6'2. See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

I didn't "hope" his boots would be thick... you're the one that said that. You talked about the "added inch or two" that his suit would add. I initially thought that you were reffering to his boots, as having pointy ears doesn't really make someone look "taller". Plus, you're comment about him being almost as tall as Ra's might be too subjective until further proof... sorry bud.

Why don't you compare Freeman's height with Neeson's who you have admitted is 6'4? Like you said, Freeman's head is slightly bent forward or to the side and even then, his height seems pretty close to Neeson's, who is a 6'4. Now imagine Freeman standing upright alongside Neeson and he would appear to be slightly taller, with his height appearing to be even more closer to Neeson's. Besides, Michael Caine is almost unanimously listed as 6'2 everywhere and Bale clearly seems just as tall as him, and Freeman being noticeably being taller than them both.

The thing is, now that you mention the boots, it might end up being a bigger issue than you think... there's so many types of shoes that even with your pic of the group, it would still be pretty hard to say distinctively who's taller than who. You discredit my pics because we don't really see how they are standing or on what... in your pics, we don't see what kind of shoes or boots they are wearing, which could end up addind a few inches. It's not more far fetched than your theory.

While the pics are I posted shows all the actors standing upright, side by side which makes for a much better comparison. With the numerous profiles of Bale's height being 6'2 that I posted and now clear as day pics of him standing right beside Michael Caine who is himself the very same height, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by your futile attempts at trying to prove Bale is shorter than that. It reeks of desperation.

Please, if anything you're as "desperate" as I am...
We're both in the same boat, quit your crying or simply jump out, jacky boy.

Not looking good now, skippy.

I beg to differ.

Try again, bub.

Done once more, kid.

But he doesn't seem to be too concerned about getting his height EXACTLY right. Hence why he says "foot" instead of "feet". Like I said before again and again and again, the man seems to be talking casually about his physique and you immediately take it as Bible.

The only thing you base your interpretation on is the fact that it's written 'foot' and not 'feet', which could've been during the transcription. It's a pretty weak argument... trying to discredit his own quote based on the fact that you "feel" like he doesn't look too "concerned", peh-lease.

There was no "attempt" at an insult there, chucky, at least not by me. Which brings me to yet another question...why exactly would you think that as an "attempt" at an insult, unless of course, you did find it insulting or at least got the impression that I was trying to insult you when I wasn't?

How could it not feel like at least an "attempt"? You questionning my intelligence when it was, at no point in the discussion, never an issue reaks of desperation... and the fact that you would hide the text is even more pathetic.

It was clearly meant to be side-joke, hence why I put it in white text. If I wanted to "question" your intelligence, I wouldn't even attempt it. I would have outright called you a jackass and a moron then and there.

If you called me a jackass or a moron, you wouldn't "question" my intelligence, you would already have made up your mind about it.

Since those pics show Michael Caine = Christian Bale, hence by logical conclusion, Christian Bale = 6'2. And just for the sake of rechecking and confirming your answer, you can go to the half a dozen plus sources I've listed in my earlier posts.

Even celebrity heights says he's not 6'2'', so...

Well, then I must regretfully say that little Alfie Luke is doomed for failure in his next geometry class.

Sorry, I've already finished those... but nice try there cap'tain.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-05-2006, 12:47 AM

The Internet Movie Database, I think it has plenty of credibility.
You should check it out sometime...

I ask again.....since when does IMDB have credibility..........?

Like I said earlier, there are different kinds of 'fantasy'. When you look at the Batman comics and cartoons, you can see plenty of stuff that isn't 'realistic', but the world of Batman has ( how should I put this ) wider boundaries of reality, which allows it to present fantasy oriented material, while keeping it in the realm of possibility for that particular world.

Yeah, and Batman Begins played it nicely.

I'm not expecting a 100 % comic-to-movie transposition, far from it. It's based on personal interpretation of the characters and the world around them. Batman has consistantly been portrayed as average in height and I'd like to see otherwise, for once.

Here ya on that, but I think the "average" (althought 6'1-6'1 is above) makes more sense. The guy NEEDS to dress up to create intimidation.

Hence my rectification to 6'5'', no less.

6'5 is still too tall in my book. Superman is like 6'3-6'4....and it works for me b/c he's a powerhouse. Batman has to be more leaner.....and being so tall can push it. Average height for guys is about 5'10....so theoretically, Batman would have to lower his body to get his hits in effectively to get in fighting stance.

Of course, he could go for the powerhouse angle and just toss them and not fight them..........maybe something like Keaton only less kicking.

Batman has had a lot of martial arts training and he's a really intelligent man that knows what he's doing. Being 6'5'' wouldn't really be a dissadvantage to being 6'2'' for him, as he uses his surroundings to his advantage. Plus, even if being 6'2'' was the "best height" according to you, the fact still remains that Christian Bale is only 6'.

Fact? Why....b/c IMDB....?

I never said that. As I stated earlier, I said that they decided to give him a bulletproof armor because he wasn't able to dodge bullets in the first place, I never emplied that he wasn't even going to try, due to the armor. Plus, if you're able to shoot a 6'5'' guy, you're able to shoot a 6'2'' guy, come on now.

No, there's a difference.....especially if you want a muscled Batman. Batman would have to be atleast 30 to 40 pounds heavier to match with the muscles at 6'2. Meaning, he'd be bulkier....bigger, not just taller. But, a much larger target. It'd be twice as hard to sneak around with all that mass and could lose the "surprise" factor.

Obviously, I think both of our thoughts on Batman are vastly different. I think Batman wants to be more like a shadow to his adversaviers. Like an animal that sneaks around and gets you quick. He's portrayed as so in BEGINS, what with the disappering acts. You seem to feel that Batman wants to be more like an animal in the sense of a beast, literally ontop of you. Both are different and do lead to different styles. But, correct me if I'm worng on that.

The thing is, in Batman Begins Alfred not only is taller than Batman, he's also quite big... which doesn't really help. Most, if not all interpretations of Alfred that I have seen, there is always a big difference in size between Bruce and Alfred and when I say 'size', it doesn't only involve height but also body structure, wideness, etc. Still, once again I wouldn't sacrifice talent for physique, but in my mind, it takes away from the character...

Alfred wasn't taller than Bruce in the film though.

Come on now, he's always been pretty big... not "the big guy", but more like a large, muscular man. I'm not trying to emply he's body builder big, but he is a physically imposing man. In my eyes, he should almost NEVER have to look up to anyone, which he does in Batman Begins.

He does in the comics. But, it varies....artists are different and some are bad at proportions.

Ra's and Lucius...that's like the only ones he looks up to.

^ Eh... no, he's 6'. Here's a quote by him about his weight loss for The Machinist

That's b/c he doesn't give a crap.

That would be ridiculously tall. Heck, Clark Kent/Superman is 6'3 in the comics. And Batman always appears to be an inch shorter than him.

Yes, I think it's sort of like law of the land or something. Batman is damn near always drawn an inch or more shorter than Supes.

But Batman isn't 6'5. He is 6'2. And Bale most definitely meets that criteria, particularly when he's wearing the suit.

Agreed. He's got the size and meets the criteria. I might feel differently if he didn't......but it's hard to blame the guy for being the same body size as the character is in the comics.

Bale was a perfect Wayne and looked like a great Batman. But i still felt something was missing. I cant point my finger at it. Anyone else cringe at the scene where Bats enter the cell and says "scuse me"?

No, it's actually something I think would come out of the comics or even the BTAS.

From what's out there.......Bale is 6'2. Caine is 6'2. Freeman is 6'2. Neeson is 6'2. Oldman is 6'0. Those pics seem to support that.

Phaser

01-05-2006, 01:01 AM

It's a number I just threw out there, based on the 2 examples you gave me... calm down kiddo.
IMDb is a database that is being constantly improved by people, it's normal that they make mistakes at some point, doesn't mean they'll always keep it that way.

Yes, because IMDB is a database that is constantly contributed by people and despite the fact that they could be TRYING to improve, there are far too many examples where they have posted inaccurate information without checking up on it. That's what makes it credibility questionable, especially in this particular case, where I have already posted numerous sources that discredit the information listed on IMDB.

There's a difference between discrediting a site and finding a mistake, if there's one.

I'm not discrediting IMDB completely. Sure they have accurate info. But they are much more prone to posting inaccurate info even moreso than many other sites. That's why information from IMDB can't be held up to scrutiny in an argument.

That's like saying you respect the fact that I have a father, but you don't respect my father... because you happen to dissagree with him, nice going billy.

If that's the way you're going to take it, fine. Besides, if your father is anything like you, I don't see why I'd want to respect him anyway.

People don't have to "respect" each other's opinions. Otherwise no one would have the right to criticize the views of radicals and extremists.

Plus, what exactly about my opinion is "faulty"? I'd like a taller Batman, because I think it fits the character better in my eyes and he's often portrayed that way... yeah, that's just ridiculous! [/Sarcasm]

Here's what's wrong with your logic:

1. You seem to take into account only the instances where the character has been portrayed as a big, hulking menace, yet seemingly discount those where he hasn't, despite the fact that they are just as many in number.

2. You seem to have an issue with something extremely trivial. It's still understandable if you were to complain that his height isn't according to his comics profile, which is 6'2. No, you want it to be a lot more than that. You're giving your own personal preferences such importance that you deem it worthy of as long and pointless a debate as this, regardless of the fact that you don't have any solid, hard facts to back your opinion.

How can you not get this?
You clearly said that it didn't make a difference to you what height Alfred was in the movie... if that's really the case, you probably wouldn't mind if he was 6'6'' right?

If Alfred was 6'6, then I would have wanted Bruce Wayne to be at least as tall as he is. Which he is in Begins.

Although they represent a 'minority' of the population, they are the most important persons in the movie and thus, have a direct impact on the main character, which happens to be Christian Bale, as Batman.

That's just plain contradiction. First, you said you wanted a Batman that should be taller than the average man in his universe. I showed you that he is. Now you're ignoring what you said and jumping off on an other tangent entirely. Nice going, chump.

Plus, to your information it takes at least 2 people for a debate to occur, so if you don't see the point of making one about those issues, remember that you're part of the problem... so if you're not happy, you're welcome to leave.

I can say the exact same thing to you. In fact, I'm in an even better position to tell you that, since I've argued my point backed by a number of different sources, while yours is mostly based on your own personal preferences.

You see, in your previous quote ( in this post ), you claimed that part of the reason why it was okay for Ra's to be taller was because he's "Bruce's mentor and the main villain", well I just happen to have the same point of view, but with the main hero. According to you, the role of the person in the story has an impact on it's representation... which is what I've been saying.

No, what I said was it was because of Neeson's role and performance that I didn't have a "problem" with him being taller than Bale. As in I'm trying to ague how it CAN be acceptable for someone who does complain about it, because of the above factors. Not once did I imply that a person's height has any impact or bearing on his role in the story. It's the performance, and only the performance that ultimately counts when all is said and done. That's why so many people still love Keaton today.

Either your comment is as ridiculous as mine or I'm right, bobby.

Or you simply failed to grasp the meaning behind my words, little toddler.

That's not what you said... here it is:

You see, you clearly said that only after the added height that the suit provides, would he be the "perfect Batman", not before. Please, at least make the effort to remember what you say, for the sake of the discussion.

I said he was "at least 6'1". Not once in that part of my post did I actually imply that it was his accurate height. And the reason why I mentioned the part about the suit eventually making him look bigger than he is anyway because at the time of Bale's casting, there were a handful of sources that reported that Bale was 6'0 or 6'1 and a couple of anal retentive posters like you who made a big deal out of it, and that's how we got them to shut up.

Don't try to judge something you know nothing of, skippy. It'll only make you look bad. Again.

Like I said, they all have important roles... and whether you like it or not, he'll be compared to them, when it comes to height. Batman being the central character of the movie, it's only fair to have him stand out.

Any given actor in any given film "stands out" primarily because of his performance and not his appearance. Just like how Cruise was obviously shorter than Foxx in Collateral but still managed to put on a hell of show.

I didn't "hope" his boots would be thick... you're the one that said that.

I said "if he's wearing thick soled boots". I simply presented it as a possibility.

You talked about the "added inch or two" that his suit would add. I initially thought that you were reffering to his boots, as having pointy ears doesn't really make someone look "taller".

Yes it does. The whole suit makes him look noticeably bigger and bulkier, and the horns and the cowl only amplifies and adds to the illusion of him appearing taller than he is.

Plus, you're comment about him being almost as tall as Ra's might be too subjective until further proof... sorry bud.

Watch the film. I'm tired spoonfeeding you with pics.

The thing is, now that you mention the boots, it might end up being a bigger issue than you think... there's so many types of shoes that even with your pic of the group, it would still be pretty hard to say distinctively who's taller than who.

There are only certain kinds of shoes that people wear with suits. And none of them are as thick-soled as to immediately give a 2 (or even a single) inch boost to the wearer. Heck, even the most thick soled Caterpillar shoes are barely 1.5 inches thick, after you take feet positioning into account, and it's absurd to think that Bale is wearing that kind of shoes with his suit (because nobody does).

You discredit my pics because we don't really see how they are standing or on what... in your pics, we don't see what kind of shoes or boots they are wearing, which could end up addind a few inches. It's not more far fetched than your theory.

Just in case you don't pull yet ANOTHER "Alfie Luke", here's two more pics, where you can clearly see both Caine and Bale, clearly 6'2, standing on even ground, legs and shoes very much visible:

http://www.movie-infos.de/data/media/24/Premierenbild_18jpeg_700x456.jpg
http://www.movie-infos.de/data/media/24/Premierenbild_19jpeg_700x456.jpg

Couple these pics and the other pics I posted with the profiles that list both Caine and Bale as 6'2 and your argument of Bale being any shorter is pretty much dead.

Please, if anything you're as "desperate" as I am...
We're both in the same boat, quit your crying or simply jump out, jacky boy.

I see that you avoided addressing the actual argument there and only responded with a juvenile witty comeback. Thanks again for proving my point.

I beg to differ.

Which is all you can do, anyway.

Done once more, kid.

Thereby leaving me with no doubt you're either blind, senile or in complete denial. That river in Egypt is starting to look real good right about now, eh junior?

The only thing you base your interpretation on is the fact that it's written 'foot' and not 'feet', which could've been during the transcription. It's a pretty weak argument... trying to discredit his own quote based on the fact that you "feel" like he doesn't look too "concerned", peh-lease.

Looking at the pics and the profiles I've posted, it's very much obvious Bale was speaking in a casual manner. I'm not discrediting the guy. I'm only saying he was speaking of his height in loose terms and not in exact values. Why's that so hard to understand? Or are you afraid of losing that final straw you so desperately seem to hanging onto?

How could it not feel like at least an "attempt"? You questionning my intelligence when it was, at no point in the discussion, never an issue reaks of desperation... and the fact that you would hide the text is even more pathetic.

Like I said sweetie, it was a simple joke. The white text would have been inevitably visible once you quoted my post, so there was no point in "hiding it" when you were clearly meant to see it, and see you did. What I didn't anticipate, was you getting your panties in a bunch like that all over it. Jeez, ease down there, babe.

If you called me a jackass or a moron, you wouldn't "question" my intelligence, you would already have made up your mind about it.

I'm aggressively confrontational. I don't "question" people's intelligence. I outright smack them with a condescending and insulting remark should I even get at least a hint of a lack of intelligence. I don't know why I'm so tolerant with you though. Must be because you're not some Johnny-come-lately newbie and seemed alright at first.

Or perhaps you're right. Guess I should make up my mind about that now.

Even celebrity heights says he's not 6'2'', so...

Then celebrity heights is wrong. Because a picture is worth a thousand words and the pics I attached with this post clearly seal the deal. Bale is 6'2.

Sorry, I've already finished those... but nice try there cap'tain.

Marks given out of pity don't apply, son.

millennium movies

01-05-2006, 01:10 AM

The heck? Whats going on here? Whats with all this size issue? It feels like the SR boards debates all over again...

ChrisBaleBatman

01-05-2006, 01:12 AM

Yeah.......I think it's well known that whatever information on IMDB MUST be taken with a grain of salt because chances are.......it could very well be wrong. Don't think the IMDB is a very credible website, they do ofter make mistakes.....and around here on SHH, not much credibility at all.

I mean, the little rumor that Bale had tried out for ROBIN.....which is b.s., came out of IMDB b/c some dude posted it.

Phaser

01-05-2006, 01:34 AM

The heck? Whats going on here? Whats with all this size issue? It feels like the SR boards debates all over again...

I still miss the casting wars. :(

millennium movies

01-05-2006, 02:51 AM

There's always the sequel!

ChrisBaleBatman

01-05-2006, 02:08 PM

And of course, the re-cast rumor mill will fly high as well.

raybia

01-05-2006, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE=Splinter]Hmm... well, sometimes, and just SOMETIMES... Bale comes across as just a TAD bit self-important to me.
[QUOTE]

Yeah, unlike most Hollywood actors. :rolleyes:

ChrisBaleBatman

01-05-2006, 03:22 PM

Really? Like when...? I've sense none of that really....

Shawn Wayne

01-05-2006, 05:13 PM

I've read that about Bale too, but I don't care after the job he did in "Begins"

raybia

01-05-2006, 05:15 PM

I've read that about Bale too, but I don't care after the job he did in "Begins"

If it was in print, then it must be true.

Alfie Luke

01-05-2006, 05:29 PM

ChrisBaleBatman: Don't take this the wrong way, but I'll answer Phaser's post instead of yours, as I feel I've already answered those questions previously. Feel free to question the answers I'll give in this post, but let's not go back this far...

Yes, because IMDB is a database that is constantly contributed by people and despite the fact that they could be TRYING to improve, there are far too many examples where they have posted inaccurate information without checking up on it. That's what makes it credibility questionable, especially in this particular case, where I have already posted numerous sources that discredit the information listed on IMDB.

There are still about 30 000 000 people that are registered at this site and it has won awards of excellence.
I agree that it is probably not the most credible source there is, but I wouldn't discredit it either...

I'm not discrediting IMDB completely. Sure they have accurate info. But they are much more prone to posting inaccurate info even moreso than many other sites. That's why information from IMDB can't be held up to scrutiny in an argument.

So you're not completely discrediting IMDb, but nothing coming from there has any worth?

If that's the way you're going to take it, fine. Besides, if your father is anything like you, I don't see why I'd want to respect him anyway.

People don't have to "respect" each other's opinions. Otherwise no one would have the right to criticize the views of radicals and extremists.

See your first sentence... now it's about not respecting someone, not his opinion.
Whether you agree or not with my point of view is irrelevant.

Here's what's wrong with your logic:

1. You seem to take into account only the instances where the character has been portrayed as a big, hulking menace, yet seemingly discount those where he hasn't, despite the fact that they are just as many in number.

2. You seem to have an issue with something extremely trivial. It's still understandable if you were to complain that his height isn't according to his comics profile, which is 6'2. No, you want it to be a lot more than that. You're giving your own personal preferences such importance that you deem it worthy of as long and pointless a debate as this, regardless of the fact that you don't have any solid, hard facts to back your opinion.

1. Not at all, never. I clearly stated that I felt that the interpretations of him I thought felt more 'appropriate' for the character where the ones in which he looked taller. Plus, I already said that I didn't want a "hulking menace", nor a body builder type of Batman. Therefore, your first argument has no worth.

2. The topic was initially about Bale being the right choice or not... and although I felt he was right for the role, I also said that I would've prefered a taller Batman, because I thought it represented my interpretation of the character better. This only transformed into a "long pointless debate" because you couldn't accept the fact that I wanted him that way ( even though it's my right ) and you contributed into transforming a simple remark into what it is right now. It was never about "facts", as you know as well as me that he has been portrayed in many different sizes throughout the ages and anyone can prefer one over the other... you don't need "facts" to support your personal tastes. Therefore, your second argument has no worth.

If Alfred was 6'6, then I would have wanted Bruce Wayne to be at least as tall as he is. Which he is in Begins.

Again, it is exactly what I'm trying to make you understand. You would want Bruce Wayne to be at least as tall as Alfred, because in your interpretation of the characters, that's how you perceive them. I, on the other hand, thinks that having Bruce Wayne be bigger than Alfred fits my view of the characters better.

That's just plain contradiction. First, you said you wanted a Batman that should be taller than the average man in his universe. I showed you that he is. Now you're ignoring what you said and jumping off on an other tangent entirely. Nice going, chump.

No I'm not... read what I said correctly please. I said that I wanted Batman to be taller than the "average man", thus it is fair to say that the supporting characters should support that aspect, which isn't the case in the film, as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson are all taller than Batman. The only character that has the "right" to be equal to Batman is Ra's ( in this particular movie ).

I can say the exact same thing to you. In fact, I'm in an even better position to tell you that, since I've argued my point backed by a number of different sources, while yours is mostly based on your own personal preferences.

Not really, as I'm not the one whining about being in a "pointless debate".
If you want to continue this, stop crying about the fact that you have to do it and just do it. Nothing's forcing you to stay here and do this if it makes you uncomfortable, junior.

No, what I said was it was because of Neeson's role and performance that I didn't have a "problem" with him being taller than Bale. As in I'm trying to ague how it CAN be acceptable for someone who does complain about it, because of the above factors. Not once did I imply that a person's height has any impact or bearing on his role in the story. It's the performance, and only the performance that ultimately counts when all is said and done. That's why so many people still love Keaton today.

That's not what you said... here's what you said to me:

It's somewhat acceptable for Ra's to be a but taller because he plays Bruce's mentor, is the main villain and because of Neeson's jackpot performance.

You see? According to you, because he's Bruce's mentor and because he's the main villain are two reasons you feel makes it more "acceptable" for Ra's to be taller... silly rabbit, pay attention, will ya?

Or you simply failed to grasp the meaning behind my words, little toddler.

Apparently, you didn't even understand yourself... what a pity.

I said he was "at least 6'1". Not once in that part of my post did I actually imply that it was his accurate height. And the reason why I mentioned the part about the suit eventually making him look bigger than he is anyway because at the time of Bale's casting, there were a handful of sources that reported that Bale was 6'0 or 6'1 and a couple of anal retentive posters like you who made a big deal out of it, and that's how we got them to shut up.

I took this quote from this very conversation... if it wasn't accurate, why post it?
Unless you were attempting to use false information to prove a point? Kids these days...

Any given actor in any given film "stands out" primarily because of his performance and not his appearance. Just like how Cruise was obviously shorter than Foxx in Collateral but still managed to put on a hell of show.

The thing is, Christian Bale's performance didn't stand out any more than the other actor's, as they are all pretty good. Plus, the height of Tom Cruise's 'Vincent' was irrelevant to the story. Batman being tall has a certain degree of importance.

Yes it does. The whole suit makes him look noticeably bigger and bulkier, and the horns and the cowl only amplifies and adds to the illusion of him appearing taller than he is.

It has never been about how bulky he looks. Plus, although the cowl might help to making someone seem slightly taller, the pointy ears don't. In the end, I think what matters the most is when it comes don't to eye contact. Imagine someone that's 4' tall when measured all the way up to his eyes, but that has a 3' forehead. Although he ends up being 7' tall, everyone would say that he's short... the horns mean absolutely nothing, bobby.

Watch the film. I'm tired spoonfeeding you with pics.

Poor little man, already tired...

Just in case you don't pull yet ANOTHER "Alfie Luke", here's two more pics, where you can clearly see both Caine and Bale, clearly 6'2, standing on even ground, legs and shoes very much visible:

Once again, I won't post the pics again to take up more space... you know what they are anyway.

You seem to be forgetting that Micheal Caine's 6'2'' is something that haven't been measured recently. For crying out loud, the man is 72 years old and like Morgan Freeman, you can clearly see in your second pic that there is a curve in his spine ( like almost every old man ), plus you can see that his knee is bent slightly. Bale is still young and in awesome shape... if we could turn back time 40 years and see Michael Caine in his prime, standing perfectly still beside the Christian Bale of today, you'd see a 6'2'' man ( Caine ) standing beside a 6'0'' ( maybe at the most 6'1'' ) man, Christian Bale. Don't you know that people tend to shrink when they get old? ( Not a whole lot, but still... )

Couple these pics and the other pics I posted with the profiles that list both Caine and Bale as 6'2 and your argument of Bale being any shorter is pretty much dead.

The thing with your set of 5 pics is that they could actually be considered as 1, as all the pictures have been taken in the same day. Of course, it doesn't mean that they don't have any worth... I wouldn't go as far as that.

I see that you avoided addressing the actual argument there and only responded with a juvenile witty comeback. Thanks again for proving my point.

The argument was about you not understanding why I would continue to argue he's not 6'2''.
The answer is: Because he's not.

Which is all you can do, anyway.

Because I'm right, of course.

Thereby leaving me with no doubt you're either blind, senile or in complete denial. That river in Egypt is starting to look real good right about now, eh junior?

It wouldn't hurt if you looked in the mirror once in a while there champ, you seem to be missing a lot that's going on around here if you think that's the case. But, if you prefer to live in your own little fantasy world, who am I to stop you?

Looking at the pics and the profiles I've posted, it's very much obvious Bale was speaking in a casual manner. I'm not discrediting the guy. I'm only saying he was speaking of his height in loose terms and not in exact values. Why's that so hard to understand? Or are you afraid of losing that final straw you so desperately seem to hanging onto?

I understand that you think that, but you act like such a narrow-minded man that taking into consideration your "interpretation" of a quote is not something that has a lot of worth. Sorry jacky-boy.

Like I said sweetie, it was a simple joke. The white text would have been inevitably visible once you quoted my post, so there was no point in "hiding it" when you were clearly meant to see it, and see you did. What I didn't anticipate, was you getting your panties in a bunch like that all over it. Jeez, ease down there, babe.

Hmm... sweetie? babe? panties? Sorry Phaser, I'm not really interested...
( It's so strange to know that someone's thinking about my underwear while writting a post like this )

I'm aggressively confrontational. I don't "question" people's intelligence. I outright smack them with a condescending and insulting remark should I even get at least a hint of a lack of intelligence. I don't know why I'm so tolerant with you though. Must be because you're not some Johnny-come-lately newbie and seemed alright at first.

Hey look, it's Mr. Contradiction! You said so yourself:

If I wanted to "question" your intelligence, I wouldn't even attempt it. I would have outright called you a jackass and a moron then and there.

Better luck trying to sound tough next time, kiddo.

Then celebrity heights is wrong. Because a picture is worth a thousand words and the pics I attached with this post clearly seal the deal. Bale is 6'2.

Of course they are, as they don't have the same info as you do! [/Sarcasm]
I think my remarks about those pics speak for themselves...

Marks given out of pity don't apply, son.

Says who? You? Peh-lease, don't make me laugh.
As long as I have 'em, I'm a happy lil' camper, what about you champ?

Shawn Wayne

01-05-2006, 05:38 PM

Now what I said.

If it was in print, then it must be true.

millennium movies

01-05-2006, 05:40 PM

One long ass post! ^

Splinter

01-05-2006, 06:39 PM

Really? Like when...? I've sense none of that really....

I don't know, it's just a slight vibe I get. He seems kind of boasty in The Machinist interviews to me. Like, "Yeah, I'm so dedicated, I made myself a skeleton for the integrity and realism of the film, give me a f***ing award for Christ's sake." Meh, maybe it's because I just watched him in Shaft. *shrugs*

Phaser

01-05-2006, 08:09 PM

There are still about 30 000 000 people that are registered at this site and it has won awards of excellence.
I agree that it is probably not the most credible source there is, but I wouldn't discredit it either...

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Pity it took such a long time for you to admit something as simple as this.

So you're not completely discrediting IMDb, but nothing coming from there has any worth?

In this particular case, it doesn't. Because I have already posted nearly a dozen sources that conflict IMDB's, which in this case means IMDB's info is incorrect. Besides, you've already caved into the fact that IMBD is not the most credible source there is, so why stick their info now?

See your first sentence... now it's about not respecting someone, not his opinion.
Whether you agree or not with my point of view is irrelevant.

Whatever floats your boat, skippy.

1. Not at all, never. I clearly stated that I felt that the interpretations of him I thought felt more 'appropriate' for the character where the ones in which he looked taller. Plus, I already said that I didn't want a "hulking menace", nor a body builder type of Batman. Therefore, your first argument has no worth.

But aren't your preferences derived from the instances in the comics and the cartoons where the character DID appear to be a "hulking menace", particularly because of his height and build? That's like saying "I'll take mango milkshake but I don't want it to taste much like one."

2. The topic was initially about Bale being the right choice or not... and although I felt he was right for the role, I also said that I would've prefered a taller Batman, because I thought it represented my interpretation of the character better. This only transformed into a "long pointless debate" because you couldn't accept the fact that I wanted him that way ( even though it's my right ) and you contributed into transforming a simple remark into what it is right now. It was never about "facts", as you know as well as me that he has been portrayed in many different sizes throughout the ages and anyone can prefer one over the other... you don't need "facts" to support your personal tastes. Therefore, your second argument has no worth.

Uh, no. You made a number of unsupported, absurd claims such as:

1. Alfred being taller than Bruce in BB, when he clearly isn't and I've even posted pics to the effect.

2. Your insistence on sticking with IMDB's info being accurate despite the fact that I have presented numerous sources that say different.

3. You have failed to provide comparitively sufficient evidence to back your dumbfounded claim of being only 6 foot.

I believe a combination of the above factors was what turned into such a lengthy debate, but it's primarily because of your own doggedness in trying to back your futile point of Bale being shorter than he really is with weak arguments.

Again, it is exactly what I'm trying to make you understand. You would want Bruce Wayne to be at least as tall as Alfred, because in your interpretation of the characters, that's how you perceive them. I, on the other hand, thinks that having Bruce Wayne be bigger than Alfred fits my view of the characters better.

Fine, we'll leave it personal interpretations then.

No I'm not... read what I said correctly please. I said that I wanted Batman to be taller than the "average man", thus it is fair to say that the supporting characters should support that aspect, which isn't the case in the film, as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson are all taller than Batman. The only character that has the "right" to be equal to Batman is Ra's ( in this particular movie ).

And again I say that your want of Batman being taller than the "average man" is fulfilled in Begins, where he clearly looks bigger and taller than Gordon, all of Ra's ninjas as well as Crane and Falcone's thugs. Add to that the fact that the average height of the American male is around 5'10 and Batman most definitely turns out taller than your "average man" in every possible way. Repeating myself again - even in the film's universe, the supporting cast, or more specifically, only two characters who are noticeably taller than Batman do not constitute as the "average man". Period.

Which once again proves my point of you outright contradicting yourself.

Not really, as I'm not the one whining about being in a "pointless debate".
If you want to continue this, stop crying about the fact that you have to do it and just do it. Nothing's forcing you to stay here and do this if it makes you uncomfortable, junior.

I say it is pointless because it is pointless. It has nothing to do with my own likes or dislikes about it. I've been in much more longer and drawn out debates at the Hype. If you think my criticism of this asinine argument with you is an indication of a weakness on my part, you're dead wrong. And if you think that you can win this argument simply on the merit of endurance alone, think again.

That's not what you said... here's what you said to me:

You see? According to you, because he's Bruce's mentor and because he's the main villain are two reasons you feel makes it more "acceptable" for Ra's to be taller...

Of course, I was presenting reasons for it to be more acceptable for someone who does have a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce. I don't. So I still don't see how it applies to me.

...silly rabbit, pay attention, will ya?

You're an ideal example of puerile witlessness at it's finest. :up:

Apparently, you didn't even understand yourself... what a pity.

Spare me of your mindless banter. Understandibility is far beyond your feeble grasp, even if one were to shove it right into your face.

I took this quote from this very conversation... if it wasn't accurate, why post it?

What was so "inaccurate" about that quote? I said he was "at least 6'1" and he is.

Unless you were attempting to use false information to prove a point? Kids these days...

What "false information"? Wait, are you trying that age old "I'll post gibberish and get away with it looking all smart and clever" trick? Tsk tsk...

The thing is, Christian Bale's performance didn't stand out any more than the other actor's, as they are all pretty good.

So? You admit he gave a "pretty good" performance. And how exactly does his height have any bearing on that? Come to think of it, how exactly does it have any bearing on the role and performance of any given actor?

Plus, the height of Tom Cruise's 'Vincent' was irrelevant to the story.

Yes, just like it is in the case of Batman.

Batman being tall has a certain degree of importance.

No it doesn't. That's why many skeptics shut their traps when they finally saw Keaton's performance as Batman.

It has never been about how bulky he looks. Plus, although the cowl might help to making someone seem slightly taller, the pointy ears don't. In the end, I think what matters the most is when it comes don't to eye contact.

It's a combination of many different factors. The added bulk of the suit and the cowl already makes him a bit bigger and taller. The effect of the horns on his overall appearance gives an amplified illusion of him being taller even further, if only by a little bit. I don't say that the horns alone make him look taller because they don't. But when combined with the visual effect of the suit in it's entirety along with the cowl and the added bulk of the nomex armor, it does make him look bigger, slightly in height and more noticeably in mass.

Imagine someone that's 4' tall when measured all the way up to his eyes, but that has a 3' forehead. Although he ends up being 7' tall, everyone would say that he's short... the horns mean absolutely nothing, bobby.

When you're looking at the bigger picture, yes of course they do.

Poor little man, already tired...

So you're admitting to being a big-baby that needs to be spoonfed his Cerelac and have his diapers changed at frequent periodic intervals? Good. Unfortunately I was never really good at babysitting anyway, and dumb ones like you that are very demanding aggravate me to no end.

You seem to be forgetting that Micheal Caine's 6'2'' is something that haven't been measured recently. For crying out loud, the man is 72 years old and like Morgan Freeman, you can clearly see in your second pic that there is a curve in his spine ( like almost every old man ), plus you can see that his knee is bent slightly.Bale is still young and in awesome shape... if we could turn back time 40 years and see Michael Caine in his prime, standing perfectly still beside the Christian Bale of today, you'd see a 6'2'' man ( Caine ) standing beside a 6'0'' ( maybe at the most 6'1'' ) man, Christian Bale. Don't you know that people tend to shrink when they get old? ( Not a whole lot, but still... )

Standing on one leg straight with the other knee slightly bent barely makes a difference of less than a quarter inch. Pretty much negligible. Go ahead. Try it and see for yourself.

And what curved spine are you talking about? It's a pic taken directly from the front and you can't tell a curved spine unless you see it from side angles. Besides, if Caine does have a curved spine there or if old age did shrink him by an inch or so, that would explain why he looks slightly shorter than Bale in those two pics. Oh and Bale has one knee slightly bent in the second pic as well.

Here's the pics again for additional reference. Pay attention to the red line above their heads and see the difference for yourself, young one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_18jpeg_700x456.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_19jpeg_700x456.jpg

The thing with your set of 5 pics is that they could actually be considered as 1, as all the pictures have been taken in the same day.

Yes, but the second set of pics I posted with Bale beside Caine are from another premiere.

The argument was about you not understanding why I would continue to argue he's not 6'2''.
The answer is: Because he's not.

From the looks of those pics, guess he is. You were saying...?

Because I'm right, of course.

Premature declaration of self-victory, the mark of a destined and bona fide loser.

It wouldn't hurt if you looked in the mirror once in a while there champ, you seem to be missing a lot that's going on around here if you think that's the case. But, if you prefer to live in your own little fantasy world, who am I to stop you?

Seems like "fantasy" in your definition means facts backed with pictorial as well as written evidence from multiple sources. Guess you're having so much fun and are so immersed in your own version of a make-believe reality that you can't distinguish the real from the artificial anymore. Not surprising to be honest.

I understand that you think that, but you act like such a narrow-minded man that taking into consideration your "interpretation" of a quote is not something that has a lot of worth. Sorry jacky-boy.

Again a gutless reply that showcases your lack of spine in addressing the argument directly and instead, resorting to half-assed and silly comebacks. Your incompetent reply does nothing to discredit my assertion that Bale was clearly talking about his height in loose terms (just like he does with everything else in that quote) and not in exact values.

Hmm... sweetie? babe? panties? Sorry Phaser, I'm not really interested...
( It's so strange to know that someone's thinking about my underwear while writting a post like this )

So you do wear panties? Meaning I was right about you being some hypersensitive emo chick. Figures.

Hey look, it's Mr. Contradiction! You said so yourself:
Better luck trying to sound tough next time, kiddo.

That's practically begging me to insult you.

Fine.

You're a moron. And a jackass. A thickheaded retard that couldn't save his infant intellect from drowning in a teacup.

There. That good enough for you?

Of course they are, as they don't have the same info as you do! [/Sarcasm]

Also because their info doesn't match the comparison pics nor with the dozen or so sites (no doubt there are more) that I posted earlier. If you truly believe your info is correct, why not back it with sufficient evidence instead of sticking "[/Sarcasm]" boxes that speak of your laughable inability to post a simple rolleyes smiley?

I think my remarks about those pics speak for themselves...

That you're wrong?

Says who? You? Peh-lease, don't make me laugh.

"Peh-lease"? "Don't make me laugh"? What are you, in second grade? Or did you run out of your daily allocation of half-wits already that you couldn't put any in this part of your post, junior?

As long as I have 'em, I'm a happy lil' camper, what about you champ?

Someone who's content with mercy marks in grade-school geometry is no position to question me about anything.

Bat Attack

01-05-2006, 08:29 PM

This is great. :) :up:

ChrisBaleBatman

01-05-2006, 08:51 PM

ChrisBaleBatman: Don't take this the wrong way, but I'll answer Phaser's post instead of yours, as I feel I've already answered those questions previously. Feel free to question the answers I'll give in this post, but let's not go back this far...

It's cool man, I know it's not personal.

I don't know, it's just a slight vibe I get. He seems kind of boasty in The Machinist interviews to me. Like, "Yeah, I'm so dedicated, I made myself a skeleton for the integrity and realism of the film, give me a f***ing award for Christ's sake." Meh, maybe it's because I just watched him in Shaft. *shrugs*

It's probably the Shaft thing,......I mean he's a very hateable guy in that film. What with playing a bigot who beat guys head in.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_18jpeg_700x456.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_19jpeg_700x456.jpg

Looks clear cut and dry to me.

Shawn Wayne

01-05-2006, 08:58 PM

Methinks he got cha

El Payaso

01-05-2006, 10:38 PM

I didn't care for Keaton's height or his atypical Bruce Wayne look and surely I don't care for Bale 1 more or less inch.

I just have gratitude for both of them.

Alfie Luke

01-06-2006, 12:32 AM

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Pity it took such a long time for you to admit something as simple as this.

Admit what? Please do quote me on where I said that I thought IMDb was the most reliable site there is. If you've been paying any attention to what I've been saying, you'd know that almost since the beggining, I've been claiming that although they had made mistakes, they still had credibility, which doesn't go against what I've just said... it's a pity you never caught that.

In this particular case, it doesn't. Because I have already posted nearly a dozen sources that conflict IMDB's, which in this case means IMDB's info is incorrect. Besides, you've already caved into the fact that IMBD is not the most credible source there is, so why stick their info now?

Again, I never claimed IMDb was the most reliable source ( I'd never have the nerve, as it is clear that Christian Bale himself would be ). If you'd pay more attention, we would be wasting less time hearing about your imaginary "victories".

Whatever floats your boat, skippy.

That's the spirit, champ!

But aren't your preferences derived from the instances in the comics and the cartoons where the character DID appear to be a "hulking menace", particularly because of his height and build? That's like saying "I'll take mango milkshake but I don't want it to taste much like one."

I don't recall ever talking about having Batman being anything like a "hulking menace", in fact didn't I talk about having him use the shadows at his advantage and all that stuff? I think I did... Your complaints would have more weight if they were based on things I actually said. Oh well, that's the Phaser way!

Uh, no. You made a number of unsupported, absurd claims such as:

1. Alfred being taller than Bruce in BB, when he clearly isn't and I've even posted pics to the effect.

2. Your insistence on sticking with IMDB's info being accurate despite the fact that I have presented numerous sources that say different.

3. You have failed to provide comparitively sufficient evidence to back your dumbfounded claim of being only 6 foot.

I believe a combination of the above factors was what turned into such a lengthy debate, but it's primarily because of your own doggedness in trying to back your futile point of Bale being shorter than he really is with weak arguments.

I knew you would end up being confused about all this... I've been meaning to divide those two topics, so you wouldn't mix them all up in your head, guess I waited too long. You see, the part you just quoted that followed with the answers above was about my interpretation of Batman as been tall, it had nothing to do with the debate about how tall Christian Bale is, so none of the points you just brought have any worth.

So far so good, champ.

Fine, we'll leave it personal interpretations then.

... was that so hard?

And again I say that your want of Batman being taller than the "average man" is fulfilled in Begins, where he clearly looks bigger and taller than Gordon, all of Ra's ninjas as well as Crane and Falcone's thugs. Add to that the fact that the average height of the American male is around 5'10 and Batman most definitely turns out taller than your "average man" in every possible way. Repeating myself again - even in the film's universe, the supporting cast, or more specifically, only two characters who are noticeably taller than Batman do not constitute as the "average man". Period.

Phaser, you're not listening... I said two very distinct things that need to be taken into consideration. First of all, Batman does need to be taller than the "average man", BUT he also has to be in proportion with the important characters of the movie, which isn't the case in Begins. If you want to keep Batman the same height at all cost, take shorter actors to be cast with him ( Yes, it is silly, but if you must keep Batman the way he is... that's what you have to do ) Of course, that's based on what I'd like Batman to be, so try to keep this into consideration when you start babbling.

I say it is pointless because it is pointless. It has nothing to do with my own likes or dislikes about it. I've been in much more longer and drawn out debates at the Hype. If you think my criticism of this asinine argument with you is an indication of a weakness on my part, you're dead wrong. And if you think that you can win this argument simply on the merit of endurance alone, think again.

I never said it was an indication of weakness, but I think pretty much everyone reading this thinks it's "pointless". You don't need to cry about it... I'm enjoying this, I'm sure you are too, so who cares?!?

Of course, I was presenting reasons for it to be more acceptable for someone who does have a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce. I don't. So I still don't see how it applies to me.

Of course you were...

It's somewhat acceptable for Ra's to be a but taller because he plays Bruce's mentor, is the main villain and because of Neeson's jackpot performance.

Yeah, when we read this, it's clear that you're talking about reasons that OTHER PEOPLE than yourself would consider, but certainly not you... come on now, do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

You're an ideal example of puerile witlessness at it's finest.

Spare me of your mindless banter. Understandibility is far beyond your feeble grasp, even if one were to shove it right into your face.

Ah! That always the best moment of a debate... when the other one starts cracking out mindless insults. That my friend, is what being annoyed is all about. Fun stuff...

What was so "inaccurate" about that quote? I said he was "at least 6'1" and he is.

I'm talking about your comment on the added height that the suit provides, of course.

So? You admit he gave a "pretty good" performance. And how exactly does his height have any bearing on that? Come to think of it, how exactly does it have any bearing on the role and performance of any given actor?

If they were to make a "David & Goliath" movie, no matter how good the actors' performance could be, if the actor playing Goliath was let's say 5'9'' and the one playing David 5'6'', it would kinda have an impact on the story... and probably not in a good way.

Yes, just like it is in the case of Batman.

It all depends how you interpret the character... you like to see Batman about average height, I don't. Therefore it has an impact on the story, to a certain extend.

No it doesn't. That's why many skeptics shut their traps when they finally saw Keaton's performance as Batman.

I didn't have any knowledge of Keaton prior to Batman and although he was great in the role, it doesn't mean I wouldn't have prefered to see him taller. You see, it's not about changing the actor to take one that's taller... if they simply could've been taller, it would've been better.

It's a combination of many different factors. The added bulk of the suit and the cowl already makes him a bit bigger and taller. The effect of the horns on his overall appearance gives an amplified illusion of him being taller even further, if only by a little bit. I don't say that the horns alone make him look taller because they don't. But when combined with the visual effect of the suit in it's entirety along with the cowl and the added bulk of the nomex armor, it does make him look bigger, slightly in height and more noticeably in mass.

I don't agree... if someone's standing in front of me in a Batman suit, no matter how long his horns are, it doesn't affect my perception of his height. Unless the person looking at him isn't smart enough to understand this 'trick'... which frankly, doesn't really fool anyone.

When you're looking at the bigger picture, yes of course they do.

If he had fake eyes on the tip of his horns, that would be a different story.
In the mean time, the pseudo effect of his horns is negligable.

So you're admitting to being a big-baby that needs to be spoonfed his Cerelac and have his diapers changed at frequent periodic intervals? Good. Unfortunately I was never really good at babysitting anyway, and dumb ones like you that are very demanding aggravate me to no end.

Lost again, in your silly dillusions... I commented the fact that you were 'tired', the rest you made up yourself. I believe everyone reading this is smart enough to see you're just babbling once more.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_18jpeg_700x456.jpg

Brace yourself for this one... it's called: Perspective!
Try it: Ask you mom to take a picture of you and someone slightly taller or even the same height than you, but have that person stand behind you, let's say a meter or more... and voilà! It looks like you're taller than him!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_19jpeg_700x456.jpg

Again, Michael Caine's knee is noticably bent ( more so than Bale's ) and because of the angle, it's hard to see his other one isn't also. Plus, like I stated earlier, being the old man that he is, we can see a slight curve in his neck that makes him look shorter. Finally, like every old people... he's somewhat 'smaller' than he used to be. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to measure him today, if he was shorter than 6'2'' now.

Yes, but the second set of pics I posted with Bale beside Caine are from another premiere.

Yeah, I know...

From the looks of those pics, guess he is. You were saying...?

That he's not... one more time?

Premature declaration of self-victory, the mark of a destined and bona fide loser.

No. It's something called enthusiasm... I know, it's complicated, right?
Oh look! Some more of Phaser's "insults", so fun! ^_^

Seems like "fantasy" in your definition means facts backed with pictorial as well as written evidence from multiple sources. Guess you're having so much fun and are so immersed in your own version of a make-believe reality that you can't distinguish the real from the artificial anymore. Not surprising to be honest.

Fantasy, as in seeing stuff that isn't necessarily true... you're trying too hard. I see it often anyways, it's no biggie. I think my comments regarding the pic have to be taken into account.

So you do wear panties? Meaning I was right about you being some hypersensitive emo chick. Figures.

Again with the panties? Man that's all you have on your mind...
Ah ah... emo chick, that's priceless kiddo.

That's practically begging me to insult you.

Fine.

You're a moron. And a jackass. A thickheaded retard that couldn't save his infant intellect from drowning in a teacup.

There. That good enough for you?

Actually... not really. Where's the agressively confrontational?
Oh! That's it? Wow... yeah... okay... insults. Hmm... I guess.

Also because their info doesn't match the comparison pics nor with the dozen or so sites (no doubt there are more) that I posted earlier. If you truly believe your info is correct, why not back it with sufficient evidence instead of sticking "[/Sarcasm]" boxes that speak of your laughable inability to post a simple rolleyes smiley?

Please... 9 sites. Plus, I don't feel the need to find other sites to 'prove' what I'm saying because the very pics that you try to use against me prove what I'm saying. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride... sweet stuff.

That you're wrong?

You're almost there... but it's 'right'.

"Peh-lease"? "Don't make me laugh"? What are you, in second grade? Or did you run out of your daily allocation of half-wits already that you couldn't put any in this part of your post, junior?

Yeah, maybe I should start calling you sweetie or babe, to show you who's the boss! ah ah

Someone who's content with mercy marks in grade-school geometry is no position to question me about anything.

Oh wait! You actually thought I was being serious? ... ouch.

Nightwing1977

01-06-2006, 01:31 AM

The pics show it clearly Bale & Caine are quite the same height, Alfie. If you think otherwise, then you're in denial or got some problem here. And the only one is whining & complaining is you with your nonsense about height. People who make big deal about Bale's height as Batman need help. It was fine & it didn't harm what people enjoy BB as the best Batman movie ever made. Get over it already. :down:

Phaser

01-06-2006, 07:28 AM

Admit what? Please do quote me on where I said that I thought IMDb was the most reliable site there is. If you've been paying any attention to what I've been saying, you'd know that almost since the beggining, I've been claiming that although they had made mistakes, they still had credibility, which doesn't go against what I've just said... it's a pity you never caught that.

But it does go against your apparent refusal to accept info that's been reported by the other numerous sites I mentioned. Why else would you be so hesitant in discrediting the info reported by IMDB regarding Bale's height despite the fact that you acknowledge they're not the most reliable site there is, particularly when a number of sources conflict with the info reported by them?

The only other "source" you have is Bale's quote, concerning which you have yet to refute my point of him speaking rather casually and loosely in terms of both his height and weight instead of in exact, precise values.

Again, I never claimed IMDb was the most reliable source ( I'd never have the nerve, as it is clear that Christian Bale himself would be ). If you'd pay more attention, we would be wasting less time hearing about your imaginary "victories".

The only one who's been waving slogans of premature and imaginary "victories" here is you, chump. Something I highlighted in my last post. Cram it in your head like the brain you never had.

I don't recall ever talking about having Batman being anything like a "hulking menace", in fact didn't I talk about having him use the shadows at his advantage and all that stuff?

Where did the "use the shadows at his advantage" argument come from? Are you imagining things, because not once in this ENTIRE THREAD did I ever argue with on that subject...

Also, the word "hulking menace" is but an anology to describe his appearance in relation to the size you want to see him in.

I think I did... Your complaints would have more weight if they were based on things I actually said. Oh well, that's the Phaser way!

Having trouble getting your own words straight? You outright said your preference of wanting Batman to be bigger than the "average man" was derived from instances in the comics and the cartoons where he was drawn as such. And in those incarnations, he is clearly a "hulking menace", at least in a comparitive sense. Now, do you get it, Little Lukey?

I knew you would end up being confused about all this... I've been meaning to divide those two topics, so you wouldn't mix them all up in your head, guess I waited too long. You see, the part you just quoted that followed with the answers above was about my interpretation of Batman as been tall, it had nothing to do with the debate about how tall Christian Bale is, so none of the points you just brought have any worth.

How on earth does your absurd claim of Bale being shorter than Cain in the film, as you put it very clearly in your own words...

According to IMDb, Christian Bale is 6'.
... and guess what, Michael Caine is 6' 2''.

To my knowledge, Alfred was never taller than Batman... sure, it's a minor detail, but I think it takes away from the character.

...not have anything to do with Bale's height?

Phaser, you're not listening... I said two very distinct things that need to be taken into consideration. First of all, Batman does need to be taller than the "average man", BUT he also has to be in proportion with the important characters of the movie, which isn't the case in Begins.

No, you added the part about Batman needing to be in proportion with other characters in the movie (or namely, the only two characters in the movie that are taller than him) after your senseless claim of Batman not being taller than the "average man" in Begins was thrown out in the garbage.

If you want to keep Batman the same height at all cost, take shorter actors to be cast with him ( Yes, it is silly, but if you must keep Batman the way he is... that's what you have to do ) Of course, that's based on what I'd like Batman to be, so try to keep this into consideration when you start babbling.

I don't see anyone would want to prioritize Batman's height so much, especially when the actor in question particularly matches the profile of the character which automatically makes your point a moot one to begin with. Your asinine proposition about recasting shorter actors movie simply because only two freakin' characters are taller than him kills any hope of an intellectual debate with you.

I never said it was an indication of weakness, but I think pretty much everyone reading this thinks it's "pointless". You don't need to cry about it... I'm enjoying this, I'm sure you are too, so who cares?!?

Again, you need to wrap your empty little head around the simple, but indubitable fact that one's expression of the pointlessness of a "pointless" subject does not constitute "crying". It's only a remark on the nature of the topic at hand.

Of course you were...

Yeah, when we read this, it's clear that you're talking about reasons that OTHER PEOPLE than yourself would consider, but certainly not you... come on now, do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Here, I'll lay it all down for you nice and simple -

First of all, I never said that I had a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce, and unless you have clear cut words to quote me on that, you're only deluding yourself with your own assumptions about something I never implied in the first place. And frankly, it is absurd to think that you can hold me responsible for conjecture cooked up by yourself based on your apparent incompetence in understanding my words.

Secondly, my whole argument with you on this entire matter is a testification of that very truth. Because I don't have a problem with it is the VERY REASON why I argue with people who do.

Ah! That always the best moment of a debate... when the other one starts cracking out mindless insults. That my friend, is what being annoyed is all about. Fun stuff...

Open your eyes, chump. This argument went down that road long back. Because hurling condescending remarks like "jackie-boy" and "bobby" are hardly any less insulting.

I'm talking about your comment on the added height that the suit provides, of course.

And what was wrong with that comment?

If they were to make a "David & Goliath" movie, no matter how good the actors' performance could be, if the actor playing Goliath was let's say 5'9'' and the one playing David 5'6'', it would kinda have an impact on the story... and probably not in a good way.

Why argue with irrelevant examples when there are more appropriate ones out there? Does Keaton's Batman being shorter than the Joker have an impact on the story itself in any way, whatsoever?

It all depends how you interpret the character... you like to see Batman about average height, I don't. Therefore it has an impact on the story, to a certain extend.

Average height would be around 5'10. And Batman is undeniably more taller than that in the film, and just about everyone else he encounters, save for only two characters. But since those two characters don't constitute "an average person" even in the film's own universe nor do they dispute the fact that Batman is clearly bigger, both in mass and height than almost anyone he encounters, your redundant argument falls flat on it's face yet again for the umpteenth time.

I didn't have any knowledge of Keaton prior to Batman and although he was great in the role, it doesn't mean I wouldn't have prefered to see him taller. You see, it's not about changing the actor to take one that's taller... if they simply could've been taller, it would've been better.

But that still doesn't provide for your baseless statement that his height had any kind of impact on the story of the film in any way whatsoever.

I don't agree... if someone's standing in front of me in a Batman suit, no matter how long his horns are, it doesn't affect my perception of his height. Unless the person looking at him isn't smart enough to understand this 'trick'... which frankly, doesn't really fool anyone. If he had fake eyes on the tip of his horns, that would be a different story.
In the mean time, the pseudo effect of his horns is negligable.

How many times do I have to say this? It's not the horns alone, but a combination of the horns with the thick cowl and the buffed up bodysuit that gives the amplified illusion of him being even bigger in mass and height (albeit to a slight extent).

Lost again, in your silly dillusions... I commented the fact that you were 'tired', the rest you made up yourself. I believe everyone reading this is smart enough to see you're just babbling once more.

No, it was simply an appropriate reply to your half-witted quote. It's really quite amusing to see you joke around like a clown but having trouble comprehending the same if someone else pulls a joke on you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_18jpeg_700x456.jpg
Brace yourself for this one... it's called: Perspective!
Try it: Ask you mom to take a picture of you and someone slightly taller or even the same height than you, but have that person stand behind you, let's say a meter or more... and voilà! It looks like you're taller than him!

Brace yourself for this one...it's called: Common sense!

Caine isn't even standing an arm's length behind Bale in that pic, let alone "a meter or more" as you so inanely claim.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/Premierenbild_19jpeg_700x456.jpg
Again, Michael Caine's knee is noticably bent ( more so than Bale's ) and because of the angle, it's hard to see his other one isn't also.

Caine's other leg is very much straight. And a slightly bent knee accounts for less than a quarter inch of difference in height. You seem so hilariously desperate grasping for any fraction of inches you could get your pitiful hands on to support your meaningless banter, I can't keep myself from bursting into uncontrolled fits of laughter!

Plus, like I stated earlier, being the old man that he is, we can see a slight curve in his neck that makes him look shorter.

What curve in the neck? What bent spine? You can't make out details like that from a picture taken directly from the front. If you're so sure of what you see, why not zoom in on the part referring to and highlight it for us?

Finally, like every old people... he's somewhat 'smaller' than he used to be. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to measure him today, if he was shorter than 6'2'' now.

Of course he is slightly less than 6'2 now. That's why he looks a bit shorter than Bale. In both pics.

That he's not... one more time?

Wrong again.

No. It's something called enthusiasm... I know, it's complicated, right?
Oh look! Some more of Phaser's "insults", so fun! ^_^

Or more like getting ahead of yourself, toddler.

Fantasy, as in seeing stuff that isn't necessarily true... you're trying too hard. I see it often anyways, it's no biggie. I think my comments regarding the pic have to be taken into account.

Yes, your "comments" regarding the pics have been taken into account. And subsequently discared as well.

Again with the panties? Man that's all you have on your mind...
Ah ah... emo chick, that's priceless kiddo.

Why? Feeling uncorfortable with someone trying to remind you of your true sexuality? Repression is bad for mental and physical health, luv.

Please... 9 sites.

That's still way more than anything you managed to come up with so far, chump.

Plus, I don't feel the need to find other sites to 'prove' what I'm saying because the very pics that you try to use against me prove what I'm saying.

Uh...no they don't, skippy.

I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride... sweet stuff.

Oh this is sweet stuff all right.

You're almost there... but it's 'right'.

Uh-huh. But you're wrong.

Yeah, maybe I should start calling you sweetie or babe, to show you who's the boss! ah ah

"Sweetie" and "babe" were only compliments keeping in mind your femininely hypersensitive qualities, dear. I'm sorry for you if whatever self-esteem you have left was hurt or amputated by the impression of being dominated like that.

Oh wait! You actually thought I was being serious? ... ouch.

So you actually took my comment "seriously" enough as to pull back and reconfirm your stance that you were NOT "serious"? You sure do have a way of blatantly giving yourself away there, chucky. :up:

Alfie Luke

01-06-2006, 09:14 AM

But it does go against your apparent refusal to accept info that's been reported by the other numerous sites I mentioned. Why else would you be so hesitant in discrediting the info reported by IMDB regarding Bale's height despite the fact that you acknowledge they're not the most reliable site there is, particularly when a number of sources conflict with the info reported by them?

Please, do try to keep up with the conversation, champ. My refusal to 'accept' your view of the non-credibility of IMDb goes far beyond the simple part about Christian Bale's height. You seemed more than ready to condemn the whole site, simply based on a few mistakes.

The only other "source" you have is Bale's quote, concerning which you have yet to refute my point of him speaking rather casually and loosely in terms of both his height and weight instead of in exact, precise values.

CelebHeights.com, check it out kiddo.

The only one who's been waving slogans of premature and imaginary "victories" here is you, chump. Something I highlighted in my last post. Cram it in your head like the brain you never had.

Based on your recent statement, it seems to me that you've been doing just that.

Where did the "use the shadows at his advantage" argument come from? Are you imagining things, because not once in this ENTIRE THREAD did I ever argue with on that subject...

You pretented I said that I wanted him to be a "hulking menace", the "use the shadows at his advantage" and all the rest was presented, in order to show you that I hadn't said sucha thing. It was an example of the kind of comment I had made about what I wanted Batman to be like... if you can find anywhere a quote of me saying that I want him to be a "hulking menace", you're a magician... otherwise you're just being delirious. Heck, I even recall talking about not wanting him to be like a body builder or anything like that.

Also, the word "hulking menace" is but an anology to describe his appearance in relation to the size you want to see him in.

There's a heck of a difference between being a "hulking menace" and simply being taller and somewhat bigger. I don't want to see Hulk in a Batman suit.

Having trouble getting your own words straight? You outright said your preference of wanting Batman to be bigger than the "average man" was derived from instances in the comics and the cartoons where he was drawn as such. And in those incarnations, he is clearly a "hulking menace", at least in a comparitive sense. Now, do you get it, Little Lukey?

Being bigger than the "average man" doesn't emply that he's a "hulking menace". Plus, you and I both agree that he's been portrayed in a variety of ways over the years and I said I prefered the interpretations of him as been taller, not a Hulk-like creature of the night. You're trying to twist my words in an attempt to use them against me, but it's not really working. Silly kid.

How on earth does your absurd claim of Bale being shorter than Cain in the film, as you put it very clearly in your own words...

...not have anything to do with Bale's height?

Exactly. Check back the part I said didn't have anything to do with Bale's height...
We're talking about the height I want Batman to be and Bale's height.

No, you added the part about Batman needing to be in proportion with other characters in the movie (or namely, the only two characters in the movie that are taller than him) after your senseless claim of Batman not being taller than the "average man" in Begins was thrown out in the garbage.

I had to "add" it, because you talked about the fact that in the comics or cartoons, it might have been everyone else that was made smaller, to contrast with the officially 6'2'' Batman. By doing so, you proved my argument that Batman was taller than the "average man", but in order for that to be the case, things need to be kept in proportion. Once doesn't really go without the other, that's why it's not actually "added", jacky-boy.

I don't see anyone would want to prioritize Batman's height so much, especially when the actor in question particularly matches the profile of the character which automatically makes your point a moot one to begin with. Your asinine proposition about recasting shorter actors movie simply because only two freakin' characters are taller than him kills any hope of an intellectual debate with you.

You complain about my [/Sarcasm], but when it's not there, you just can't understand a sarcastic remark when you see one. Of course it's absurd to recast all the roles, just to make Batman look taller, that's part of what sarcasm is all about. If you had been paying attention, you would've noticed that I talked about not wanting to recast people, as I said that I thought Bale did a good job. It doesn't mean that I can't say I would've prefered a taller Batman... heck, if Christian Bale was taller, that would be great.

Again, you need to wrap your empty little head around the simple, but indubitable fact that one's expression of the pointlessness of a "pointless" subject does not constitute "crying". It's only a remark on the nature of the topic at hand.

A pointless remark about the pointlessness of a "pointless" subject...
Yeah, that's pretty much like crying for no reason. No one really cares anyway.

Here, I'll lay it all down for you nice and simple -

First of all, I never said that I had a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce, and unless you have clear cut words to quote me on that, you're only deluding yourself with your own assumptions about something I never implied in the first place. And frankly, it is absurd to think that you can hold me responsible for conjecture cooked up by yourself based on your apparent incompetence in understanding my words.

Secondly, my whole argument with you on this entire matter is a testification of that very truth. Because I don't have a problem with it is the VERY REASON why I argue with people who do.

I never said you said you had a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce, kiddo.
Let's have a look at what you said, shall we?

The only ones who are taller than they're supposed to is Ra's, Alfred and Fox. And they're not so tall as they completely dwarf Bruce Wayne. They just seem a little bit taller. It's somewhat acceptable for Ra's to be a but taller because he plays Bruce's mentor, is the main villain and because of Neeson's jackpot performance. Fox? He was never as significant a character (neither in the film nor in the comics), so it's not that big of a problem. As for Alfred, well he is just as tall as Bruce so again I don't take that big an issue with it. At least not as big as indulge myself into a lengthy debate for it.

You see, it was clear that you didn't have an issue with this, that was never the point of what I said. My whole point was about the reasons why that was the case. The way you presented it makes it clear that some of the reasons you don't "take that big an issue" with the height of Ra's is because he's "Bruce's mentor and the main villain", which went along with my conception of a taller Batman.

Open your eyes, chump. This argument went down that road long back. Because hurling condescending remarks like "jackie-boy" and "bobby" are hardly any less insulting.

Ah, you feel insulted by those remarks? I thought we were just joking around...
After that, I'm supposed to be the "emo chick"? Where's all that confrontational aggresiveness you've been talking about?

And what was wrong with that comment?

Oy, you are lost... you should know, you're the one that posted it.
You claimed that the suit would provide Bale with the added height he needed to be the "perfect Batman", but when I presented your own statement to you, you claimed it wasn't 'right' and that it was simply used to "shut people up" that were complaining about Bale's height.

Why argue with irrelevant examples when there are more appropriate ones out there? Does Keaton's Batman being shorter than the Joker have an impact on the story itself in any way, whatsoever?

It's not just a question of "story", it can affect the dynamic between the characters. And yes, it had an impact in Batman '89. You clearly stated earlier that the fact that Ra's was Bruce's mentor and the main villain, it made it okay for him to be taller, therefore height has an impact, depending on who or what the character is... I felt it affected Batman '89 negatively. I'm not taking anything away from the actual performance of Keaton, nor Bale.

Average height would be around 5'10. And Batman is undeniably more taller than that in the film, and just about everyone else he encounters, save for only two characters. But since those two characters don't constitute "an average person" even in the film's own universe nor do they dispute the fact that Batman is clearly bigger, both in mass and height than almost anyone he encounters, your redundant argument falls flat on it's face yet again for the umpteenth time.

Eh eh... "more taller". I know, I know, it's a cheap shot, I just find those funny.
Moving on. It's possible to say that Batman in Begins is "taller than the average man", but it's such a minimal difference that it ends up not having any real worth. At the end of the movie, I still felt as though Batman ( and Bruce Wayne ) were not as tall as they should be. Did it ruin the movie for me? No. Did it annoy me to a certain extend? Yes. Plus, we can't forget Tom Wilkinson, who's also bigger than Bruce... and all the rest, which aren't significantly smaller than him ( Bruce ).

But that still doesn't provide for your baseless statement that his height had any kind of impact on the story of the film in any way whatsoever.

Part of the story is up to interpretation and the relationships between the characters or simply the dynamic between them is relevant to the story. If those are changed, it can change the aspect of the story. You have to look deeper than the simple plot or scenario.

How many times do I have to say this? It's not the horns alone, but a combination of the horns with the thick cowl and the buffed up bodysuit that gives the amplified illusion of him being even bigger in mass and height (albeit to a slight extent).

You don't have to repeat it, as I had made it clear that although the cowl, the costume and the boots DID contribute to making Batman look slightly bigger and taller, the horns didn't have any kind of significant impact on the perception of height of the character. Unless you're completely blind to the notion of 'illusion'.

No, it was simply an appropriate reply to your half-witted quote. It's really quite amusing to see you joke around like a clown but having trouble comprehending the same if someone else pulls a joke on you.

Silly, I was joking too.

Brace yourself for this one...it's called: Common sense!

Caine isn't even standing an arm's length behind Bale in that pic, let alone "a meter or more" as you so inanely claim.

I never "claimed" he was a meter away, that was part of the example I gave, to make you understand perspective, I thought that was pretty clear. Should've known you wouldn't understand... pity.

Caine's other leg is very much straight. And a slightly bent knee accounts for less than a quarter inch of difference in height. You seem so hilariously desperate grasping for any fraction of inches you could get your pitiful hands on to support your meaningless banter, I can't keep myself from bursting into uncontrolled fits of laughter!

What curve in the neck? What bent spine? You can't make out details like that from a picture taken directly from the front. If you're so sure of what you see, why not zoom in on the part referring to and highlight it for us?

How about this then?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale12.jpg

Didn't you say you saw the movie? If you did, you'd know it's clear as day his back is slightly bent, like most old people. Plus, this pic clearly shows that, if his back was straight, he'd be even taller than Bale. Add to that the fact that he's shrinking, slightly... and voilà!

Of course he is slightly less than 6'2 now. That's why he looks a bit shorter than Bale. In both pics.

See the above pic for refutal, thank you.

Wrong again.

Unfortunately for you, it's not the case...

Or more like getting ahead of yourself, toddler.

No, my first idea was better... enthusiasm.

Yes, your "comments" regarding the pics have been taken into account. And subsequently discared as well.

Guess again, cap'tain.

Why? Feeling uncorfortable with someone trying to remind you of your true sexuality? Repression is bad for mental and physical health, luv.

Hmm... look here folks, we're starting to see a clear pattern of someone unconsciously obsessed. He's so far down that he's starting to treat other male members of SHH as "sweetie", "babe", "luv", talks about panties and even tries to question other people's sexuality. Verdict?

That's still way more than anything you managed to come up with so far, chump.

Images speak for me... yours and mine for that matter.

Uh...no they don't, skippy.

Unfortunately yeah, they do... sorry, bobby.

Oh this is sweet stuff all right.

You're telling me, I'm enjoying this since the beginning...

Uh-huh. But you're wrong.

Hmm, what was that again? Oh yeah, I'm right.

"Sweetie" and "babe" were only compliments keeping in mind your femininely hypersensitive qualities, dear. I'm sorry for you if whatever self-esteem you have left was hurt or amputated by the impression of being dominated like that.

Wait a sec, was there someone that felt insulted by our little 'name calling' game?
What? Phaser was? Dammit... fine, I have no other choice but to pass you the torch of hypersensitivity. You earned it kid, enjoy it.

So you actually took my comment "seriously" enough as to pull back and reconfirm your stance that you were NOT "serious"? You sure do have a way of blatantly giving yourself away there, chucky.

It's an old trick I've learned to prevent people from venturing into any territory, it worked perfectly. It forced you to 'come back to relatity', didn't it? Ah, the marvels of the human mind...

raybia

01-06-2006, 10:19 AM

Wow, what an epic battle. I didn't think it would go the distance.

Alfie Luke

01-06-2006, 11:04 AM

raybia

01-06-2006, 11:52 AM

I think this might settle this once and for all... read from bottom up.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Christian-Bale-721.html

Plus, I'll add a few pictures they mention.

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/52998727.jpg?x=x&dasite=GettyImages&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=AB27D050201094215C0E64DE43E5D069C785A1782CB9 AA38C2DFE5B00C99325A

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/52998726.jpg?x=x&dasite=GettyImages&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=AB27D050201094215C0E64DE43E5D069C785A1782CB9 AA38BE33F221A2629F28

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/35/10/12/p1.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/159/baleneeson9fm.jpg

About 95 % of them agree that he's not 6'2''...
For some reason, I think their combined opinion + examples are worth more than yours.

... good day.

I think the consenus it that Bale is between 6'0 and 6'1". That seems awful minute to suggest that someone else should have played Bruce Wayne/Batman other than Bale.

If there was another reason such as better actor, better appearance, etc. then I could at least respect your debate for someone, if not agree, but for a mere 1" to 1 1/2" difference? That just nic picking.

Alfie Luke

01-06-2006, 12:22 PM

^ Actually raybia, I think that's where the missunderstanding lies...
I never once claimed that Christian Bale wasn't a 'good' Batman. In fact, of all the actors that have played him, he's probably the best. But that doesn't stop me from feeling as though it would be better if Batman was taller. If they could take Christian Bale and make him taller, that would be awesome... but they can't.

As I've previously said, I would never sacrifice talent for height. The initial question was whether or not we felt Bale was the right choice or not for the role. I think he is, but I would've prefered if he was taller. I don't think that's a ridiculous complaint at all.

ShadowBoxing

01-06-2006, 12:42 PM

I mean I am sure somewhere out there some guy exists who could have played a better Batman....I just cannot think of who that might be

raybia

01-06-2006, 12:47 PM

Phaser

01-06-2006, 05:41 PM

Please, do try to keep up with the conversation, champ. My refusal to 'accept' your view of the non-credibility of IMDb goes far beyond the simple part about Christian Bale's height. You seemed more than ready to condemn the whole site, simply based on a few mistakes.

How many times have I said "in this particular case" and "regarding Bale's height"? Are you still having trouble that I'm not condemning the site whole site as a failure, but rather a questionable place for reliable evidence when numerous other sources say otherwise?

CelebHeights.com, check it out kiddo.

Just one site? Here, let me help you out a little bit, lad:

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...le/index.shtml
http://celebritiespictures.supereva....ristian%20Bale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainme...bale_biog.html
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/inter...tmanBegins.php
http://www.celebsprofile.com/b/chris...ale/index.html
http://webfantasy.info/Christian_Bale/Bio.htm
http://screengazing.dee-dee.net/archives/001368.html
http://musicals.allinfoabout.com/celebspotlight.html
http://hollywoodhunks.donyell.net/?cat=5
http://www.shinatown.com/Christian%20Bale.htm
http://moviesbuff.com/actor/christian-bale.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
http://www.the-link.ws/stars/200/christianbale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.celebavenue.com/christian_bale.html
http://www.mooviees.com/783-Christian-Bale/celeb_wallpapers
http://www.dvdark.co.uk/c/prod/p822SW/
http://movieposterwebshop.com/height-list.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/03/14/christian_bale_the_machinist_interview.shtml

And if the BBC and Wikipedia aren’t reliable enough for someone, I don't know what is.

Based on your recent statement, it seems to me that you've been doing just that.

Quote me where I've shouted imaginary victory slogans like you. Go ahead.

You pretented I said that I wanted him to be a "hulking menace", the "use the shadows at his advantage" and all the rest was presented, in order to show you that I hadn't said sucha thing. It was an example of the kind of comment I had made about what I wanted Batman to be like... if you can find anywhere a quote of me saying that I want him to be a "hulking menace", you're a magician... otherwise you're just being delirious. Heck, I even recall talking about not wanting him to be like a body builder or anything like that.

But isn't that how he is in the comics and cartoons, which you're using as a crutch for your preference of a taller Batman? He is not only tall, but is big in mass and muscular as well. Hence why I referred to those renditions as "hulking menace" commenting on his size (I never said you coined the term "hulking menace" because you didn't).

You explicitly said that you wanted a taller Batman because that's how you've percieved the character to be from the comics and cartoons that you've seen. But none of those renditions state that he is simply tall. He also looks somewhat like a pumped up bodybuilder as well. Your aesthetical choices of Batman conflict the very sources you derived them from.

There's a heck of a difference between being a "hulking menace" and simply being taller and somewhat bigger. I don't want to see Hulk in a Batman suit.

I used the words "hulking menace" as a figure of speech, junior, and I expected you'd have trouble comprehending the simplicity of the phrase, which is why I added "at least in a comparitive sense" (meaning compared to the people he encounters in said comics and cartoons, he is relatively big) in my last post, which should have removed all doubt that I was not using the term "hulking menace" literally.

You need to either pay attention or haul your ass back to kindergarten.

Being bigger than the "average man" doesn't emply that he's a "hulking menace". Plus, you and I both agree that he's been portrayed in a variety of ways over the years and I said I prefered the interpretations of him as been taller, not a Hulk-like creature of the night. You're trying to twist my words in an attempt to use them against me, but it's not really working. Silly kid.

Made a bona fide idiot out of yourself again, outright demonstrated by your failure in basic reading comprehension that showcases your inability to grasp the simple and obvious fact that I was using the term "hullking menace" as a figure of speech. Which in turn, only reinforces my notion that you passed grade school on the basis of pity.

I had to "add" it, because you talked about the fact that in the comics or cartoons, it might have been everyone else that was made smaller, to contrast with the officially 6'2'' Batman.

I presented that as a possibility, not fact. You can't use possibilities as arguments to support your stand in a debate. But it is useless explaining things to you that are beyond your reach anyway, considering you've been deprived of the privilege of proper schooling.

By doing so, you proved my argument that Batman was taller than the "average man", but in order for that to be the case, things need to be kept in proportion.

Says who? For Batman to be taller than the "average man", he simply needs to be taller than the typical height of the American male, which is 5'10 approximately. There’s no question of "keeping things in proportion" as calculation of averages takes into account both moderate and extreme values. It's basic math, skippy.

Once doesn't really go without the other, that's why it's not actually "added", jacky-boy.

Proportion and averages are two completely different and independent terms. Don't try to play with words you don't know the meaning of. It will only serve to dumb down your already hopeless intellect even further.

You complain about my [/Sarcasm], but when it's not there, you just can't understand a sarcastic remark when you see one. Of course it's absurd to recast all the roles, just to make Batman look taller, that's part of what sarcasm is all about. If you had been paying attention, you would've noticed that I talked about not wanting to recast people, as I said that I thought Bale did a good job. It doesn't mean that I can't say I would've prefered a taller Batman... heck, if Christian Bale was taller, that would be great.

And you seemingly can't get it into your peanut brain that there are only two freakin' characters out of the total cast that clearly appear to be taller than Batman. Complaining about that is not even a complaint. That's not even nitpicking. That is sheer stupidity.

A pointless remark about the pointlessness of a "pointless" subject...

And now you're crying, according to your own logic, since remarking anything as "pointless" apparently constitutes "crying" to you. Great job at kicking your own rear end trying to act all clever.

I never said you said you had a problem with Ra's being taller than Bruce, kiddo.
Let's have a look at what you said, shall we?

You see, it was clear that you didn't have an issue with this, that was never the point of what I said. My whole point was about the reasons why that was the case. The way you presented it makes it clear that some of the reasons you don't "take that big an issue" with the height of Ra's is because he's "Bruce's mentor and the main villain", which went along with my conception of a taller Batman.

But what I did was attempt to justify how Ra's and Fox can be acceptable in this scenario to anyone who had a problem with that because it is those characters heights that have noticeably increased from their comic book profiles. What you are hoping for is a taller Batman, which raises the question of why exactly is a taller Batman necessary when the actor himself in question effectively meets the height criteria according to DC's official profile? I mean it is understandable if you wanted Ra's or Fox to be shorter, but why Batman considering he's already the correct height to begin with? Just like you have a problem with a Batman who is shorter than he’s supposed to, I have a problem with a Batman who is taller than he’s supposed to. Bruce Wayne maybe the zenith of human potential but he is also supposed to appear as a savvy socialite who can easily blend in a crowd, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb (which your 6’5 Batman very much will).

Ah, you feel insulted by those remarks? I thought we were just joking around...

When you post condescending remarks without smileys, the general understanding is that you're serious about insulting. If not, then I too can call you any number of insulting names and get away with it simply by saying it was meant as a joke. Guess I’ll reiterate that you’re a class A jackass, a moron and a thickheaded retard who’s supposed to be quarantined lest his presence prove to be hazardous to the brain cells of unwary bystanders.Of course, I’m only joking. Yeah, right.

After that, I'm supposed to be the "emo chick"? Where's all that confrontational aggresiveness you've been talking about?

I took issue with your constant repetition of condescending statements.

You took issue with a distinctively clear side-joke with text colored in white.

My assertion of you being a hypersensitive emo chick still stands.

Oy, you are lost... you should know, you're the one that posted it.
You claimed that the suit would provide Bale with the added height he needed to be the "perfect Batman", but when I presented your own statement to you, you claimed it wasn't 'right' and that it was simply used to "shut people up" that were complaining about Bale's height.

OK, let me break it down to you, piece by piece, since your pathetic insistence on judging something you know nothing about is simply dragging this argument along even further. Here's what happened:

- Bale was cast as Batman. Many fans rejoiced since he appeared to have the suitable look and height of the comic book Bruce Wayne.
- A handful of posters stumbled upon two or three sites that made the claim of Bale being noticeably less than 6'2. Even though many, many alternate sources were used to discredit those claims, the posters in question were hell-bent on throwing a hissy fit all over it.
- Despite the fact that the majority of the posters agreed on the fact that Bale was indeed 6'2, the handful of skeptics continued their useless rants (just like you). So here's how we got them to shut up: "OK, let's just take it for a moment that even if Bale is not 6'2, the height increments he would recieve from wearing the suit will most definitely fully compensate for it." Hence a common ground was reached and the height issue never came up since then...until now, that is.

It's not just a question of "story", it can affect the dynamic between the characters. And yes, it had an impact in Batman '89.

There was no such negative impact in B89. The only thing that it did have an impact on was the perception of fanboys about how they saw Bruce Wayne.

You clearly stated earlier that the fact that Ra's was Bruce's mentor and the main villain, it made it okay for him to be taller, therefore height has an impact, depending on who or what the character is...

No, height does not have an impact. And my argument of "Ra's being taller than Wayne because he's the mentor and the main villain, hence it is acceptable" is simply an attempt to reason with the opposition using their own perspective. It's not something I endorse myself as clearly the claim of a couple inches difference in height having any kind of impact on the film in any way whatsoever is as ludicrous an idea as they come.

I felt it affected Batman '89 negatively.

How? If you're speaking in terms of character dynamic, I've yet to see a single reputable critic saying "the character interaction between Batman and the Joker was upset because of the two-inch height difference between Keaton and Nicholson" or even something to that effect. Come to think of it, I've yet to see a single sensible review of the fim that even remotely implied anything like that.

Eh eh... "more taller". I know, I know, it's a cheap shot, I just find those funny.

Pointing out people's grammatical mistakes on the Internet is undoubtedly THE lamest way of getting back at anyone. But since you already made the first move, I feel duly obliged to pay you back in the same coin:

-Being 6'5'' wouldn't really be a dissadvantage to being 6'2'' for him, as he uses his surroundings to his advantage...
- I'm not trying to emply he's body builder big, but he is a physically imposing man.
-There's a big difference between an actual biography and information on a film that his being made.
-... and questionning my intelligence could be seen as one, especially when it's not an issue.
-...because you happen to dissagree with him, nice going billy.
-Plus, to your information it takes at least 2 people for a debate to occur, so if you don't see the point of making one about those issues, remember that you're part of the problem...
-You questionning my intelligence when it was, at no point in the discussion, never an issue reaks of desperation... and the fact that you would hide the text is even more pathetic.
-You pretented I said that I wanted him to be a "hulking menace", the "use the shadows at his advantage" and all the rest was presented, in order to show you that I hadn't said sucha thing.
-See the above pic for refutal, thank you.

"Taste of your medicine, doctor?"

Yep, you’re pretty formidable with the English language all right. :down:

Moving on. It's possible to say that Batman in Begins is "taller than the average man", but it's such a minimal difference that it ends up not having any real worth.

What "minimal difference"? Again, the average height of the American male is around 5'10. And with the suit on, Batman is at least 4-5 inches taller than that. "Not having any real worth"? Yeah, seems like every point that overturns your own argument is like that, eh? :rolleyes:

Part of the story is up to interpretation and the relationships between the characters or simply the dynamic between them is relevant to the story. If those are changed, it can change the aspect of the story. You have to look deeper than the simple plot or scenario.

And I repeat - height is very much irrelevant when judging the film's plot or character dynamics, at least when the differences are as minimal as they are in Begins.

You don't have to repeat it, as I had made it clear that although the cowl, the costume and the boots DID contribute to making Batman look slightly bigger and taller, the horns didn't have any kind of significant impact on the perception of height of the character. Unless you're completely blind to the notion of 'illusion'.

Yes, the horns don't have a "significant impact", but they do have an impact, even moreso when in combination with the other elements I previously mentioned.

Silly, I was joking too.

Of course you were. The whole "joke around like a clown" part I said clearly meant that I knew that even before your current admission. Sadly, your handicapped reading comprehension skills failed to make you understand that I was "joking" too. See what I meant by "having trouble comprehending the same if someone else pulls a joke on you"?

I never "claimed" he was a meter away, that was part of the example I gave, to make you understand perspective, I thought that was pretty clear. Should've known you wouldn't understand... pity.

Since Caine was less than half an arm's length distance from Bale, the "perspective" you're talking about here wasn't exactly skewed enough to suddenly make Caine look shorter and Bale look taller than they already are. And quite expectedly, your feeble mind yet again rejects another dose of logic and reason.

How about this then?

Ah, so you don't have a bloody leg to stand on now that you've desperately and completely sidetracked addressing the arguments linked with the last two pics that you've resorted to bringing a whole other set of pictures in? Wow.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale12.jpg

And this pic can be dismissed on the basis of the very reasons that forced me to post those two full pics of Caine and Bale standing side-side. Like we've argued before, we can't see the full body posture, the kind of surface they're standing on nor the type of shoes they are wearing.

Besides, I can post a number of screencaps from the film where Bale appears to be just as tall or even slightly taller than Caine. But we both know it's not going to work because either of us can simply discard it on the basis of the above reasons, which was exactly why I dug up those two premiere pics. Hence nothing but a full-body pic taken directly from the front with the actors standing side by side will suffice.

Didn't you say you saw the movie? If you did, you'd know it's clear as day his back is slightly bent, like most old people.

He appears to be quite upright in the film. And even if his back is slightly bent, it's not as much as it would make a perceptible difference in his height.

Plus, this pic clearly shows that, if his back was straight, he'd be even taller than Bale. Add to that the fact that he's shrinking, slightly... and voilà!

Uhh, no. The full body pics I posted in which both of them are standing together, side by side are a much better example. Now taking into account your apparent lack of spine in addressing the arguments with the last two pics and instead, trying to find cover in using an obviously inferior example and it's not hard to assess your position in this whole debate.

See the above pic for refutal, thank you.

Invalid and incompetent response. Please try again.

Unfortunately for you, it's not the case...

Oh, it very much is.

Phaser

01-06-2006, 05:42 PM

No, my first idea was better... enthusiasm.

Just in case you don't know, "enthusiasm" means heightened interest or being passionate about something and that most certainly does NOT involve prematurely declaring self-victory like you did a couple of posts ago. That, little one, again is very much called getting ahead of yourself.

Guess again, cap'tain.

Same outcome, chump.

Hmm... look here folks, we're starting to see a clear pattern of someone unconsciously obsessed. He's so far down that he's starting to treat other male members of SHH as "sweetie", "babe", "luv", talks about panties and even tries to question other people's sexuality. Verdict?

Hey, I'm only trying to make you feel more comfortable and at ease with your transexuality here in these male-dominated forums. We don't see many outbursts of feminine hypersensitivity around here. Geez, you genuinely try to help someone blend in and they throw it back in your face. Stupid kids...

Images speak for me... yours and mine for that matter.

Of course they do...:)

Unfortunately yeah, they do... sorry, bobby.

Wrong...again!

You're telling me, I'm enjoying this since the beginning...

Sure you do...sweetie.

Hmm, what was that again? Oh yeah, I'm right.

Oh no, you're wrong.

Wait a sec, was there someone that felt insulted by our little 'name calling' game?

Wait a sec, was there someone who was getting all worked up about hidden white text?

What? Phaser was? Dammit... fine, I have no other choice but to pass you the torch of hypersensitivity. You earned it kid, enjoy it.

Ladies and gentleman, let's hear it for Flippity Flappity Alfie Luke. Torch of Hypersensitivity? He said he didn't have it. But then he did. Again he didn't. Now he MOST DEFINITELY does. You can keep it, flippy. I don't even want to touch that thing not knowing where you been stuffing it when you said you didn't have it.

It's an old trick I've learned to prevent people from venturing into any territory, it worked perfectly. It forced you to 'come back to relatity', didn't it? Ah, the marvels of the human mind...

Wow, you really did force me to come back to relatity'...or whatever the heck that stupid word means.

I think this might settle this once and for all... read from bottom up.

Nope, it doesn't.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Christian-Bale-721.html

That's one site with comments that aren't any more reliable than Whack Arnorlds' in this thread.

Plus, I'll add a few pictures they mention.
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/52998727.jpg?x=x&dasite=GettyImages&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=AB27D050201094215C0E64DE43E5D069C785A1782CB9 AA38C2DFE5B00C99325A
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/52998726.jpg?x=x&dasite=GettyImages&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=AB27D050201094215C0E64DE43E5D069C785A1782CB9 AA38BE33F221A2629F28

In both those pics you can see Bale is noticeably hunched over a bit and his head is slightly lower as well. Besides, he is also not standing totally upright like Watanabe is in the first pic, even though he clearly looks shorter than Bale in the second one.

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/35/10/12/p1.jpg

"Like we've argued before, we can't see the full body posture, the kind of surface they're standing on nor the type of shoes they are wearing."

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/159/baleneeson9fm.jpg

Strange, he looks too short in that pic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/snap0112ub.jpg
How come he looks a bit taller in this one?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/poppy.jpg
And even more tall in this one?

So what did we learn today class? Film stills are tricky and unreliable.

Just stick with the good ol' full body premiere pics like the ones I posted of Caine and Bale, chimp.

About 95 % of them agree that he's not 6'2''...

And those guys' opinions don't mean any more to me than Whack Arnolds' does to you.

For some reason, I think their combined opinion + examples are worth more than yours.

For some reason, their examples (half-body shots that have fluctuating heights)<my examples (full body shots with comparatively consistent height)...

...and their combined opinion<facts posted by reliable sources like the BBC, Wikipedia and the rest of the 20 or so sites I posted.

.. good day.

Should you ever decide to come back, I'll be here munching popcorn.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-06-2006, 05:46 PM

This from the editor of hat website you linked Alfie:
I still gotta ask though.......what reliabilty does this site really have....? But, credibility means nothing on the internet I suppose.....really, it's a hard thing to come by I'd say.

You know, he could be just over 6ft, I asked a Fellow called Jon by email who met him at Sundance (click here to view bale (http://129.82.172.172/jp.htm), scroll down page) and he emailed me back: "I'm about 5' 11" - I think he is about 2 inches taller than I".

Btw......I wanted to JUST toss this in here......let's say Bale isn't 6'2 (although, lots of things in this thread goes against that).....let's say he's 6'1 1/2.......or 6'1. Do you really think he's still that height as Batman? He's gotta be almost 6'3 with the boots and cowl on him IF he was 6'1.

DC Comics has Batman listed as 6'2......and we're to assume that's as Batman and not Bruce Wayne. Superman is 6'3.....and he doesn't wear a cowl......and he almost always is an inch taller than Batman when next to him.......so, as Batman he's 6'2. Maybe he's 6'1 or 6'1 1/2 as Bruce.

But, Bale looks 6'2 in those pics......atleast 6'1 1/2 if you try and say that Neeson and all of them had their spinal cords shrunk a little.
Just wanted to try and point out the costume.

Alfie Luke

01-07-2006, 01:11 AM

How many times have I said "in this particular case" and "regarding Bale's height"? Are you still having trouble that I'm not condemning the site whole site as a failure, but rather a questionable place for reliable evidence when numerous other sources say otherwise?

Wouldn't that apply to any site?
No matter how reliable it would be, if numerous sites said otherwise, it would lose credibility until the 'truth' came out, no? Unless of course it was, for example, the official site of the specific subject ( Even then, you never know with celebrities and all )

Just one site? Here, let me help you out a little bit, lad:

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...le/index.shtml
http://celebritiespictures.supereva....ristian%20Bale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainme...bale_biog.html
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/inter...tmanBegins.php
http://www.celebsprofile.com/b/chris...ale/index.html
http://webfantasy.info/Christian_Bale/Bio.htm
http://screengazing.dee-dee.net/archives/001368.html
http://musicals.allinfoabout.com/celebspotlight.html
http://hollywoodhunks.donyell.net/?cat=5
http://www.shinatown.com/Christian%20Bale.htm
http://moviesbuff.com/actor/christian-bale.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
http://www.the-link.ws/stars/200/christianbale
http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/40/cbale.html
http://www.celebavenue.com/christian_bale.html
http://www.mooviees.com/783-Christia...leb_wallpapers
http://www.dvdark.co.uk/c/prod/p822SW/
http://movieposterwebshop.com/height-list.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/03/1...nterview.shtml

And if the BBC and Wikipedia aren’t reliable enough for someone, I don't know what is.

Actually, Wikipedia is a database similar to IMDb and I've been told that there weren't actually that many 'experts' working there... so it's probably as reliable as IMDb, for all it's worth. Plus, CelebHeights.com might be "just one", but it incorporates a lot, instead of simply stating " Height: 6'2'' ". Two or three of them could've simply wrote that and all the others just copied. It wouldn't be the first time a celebrity's height has been exagerated.

Quote me where I've shouted imaginary victory slogans like you. Go ahead.

Fine...

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Pity it took such a long time for you to admit something as simple as this.

This would've made sense, if I hadn't been saying exactly what I said to make you say this.
Guess it just took some time for you to understand...

But isn't that how he is in the comics and cartoons, which you're using as a crutch for your preference of a taller Batman? He is not only tall, but is big in mass and muscular as well. Hence why I referred to those renditions as "hulking menace" commenting on his size (I never said you coined the term "hulking menace" because you didn't).

Tell me, why would it be a "crutch" and not a reference?
I don't think he looks like a "hulking menace" in BTAS, but he feels definitively taller than in Begins. When it comes to the comics, it's somewhat harder to pin-point the exact ones, as there's been so many and it's been a while. In order to avoid confusion, when you're saying "hulking menace", you emply what? Countless visible veins all over the arms and forehead, looks like he's 250 lbs of muscles?

You explicitly said that you wanted a taller Batman because that's how you've percieved the character to be from the comics and cartoons that you've seen. But none of those renditions state that he is simply tall. He also looks somewhat like a pumped up bodybuilder as well. Your aesthetical choices of Batman conflict the very sources you derived them from.

In BTAS and even Batman Beyond, he looks taller than in BB, but not like a body builder.

I used the words "hulking menace" as a figure of speech, junior, and I expected you'd have trouble comprehending the simplicity of the phrase, which is why I added "at least in a comparitive sense" (meaning compared to the people he encounters in said comics and cartoons, he is relatively big) in my last post, which should have removed all doubt that I was not using the term "hulking menace" literally.

Even if it's in a "comparitive sense", a "hulking menace" is still a "hulking menace", it's not being "relatively big", it's being freaking huge. If you say he's a "hulking menace compared to people he encounters", it doesn't mean he's "relatively big".

Made a bona fide idiot out of yourself again, outright demonstrated by your failure in basic reading comprehension that showcases your inability to grasp the simple and obvious fact that I was using the term "hullking menace" as a figure of speech. Which in turn, only reinforces my notion that you passed grade school on the basis of pity.

Whether it was a figure of speech or not, if I say something is "freaking huge", no one's going to think it can be anywhere between "slightly bigger than average" to "infinitely big". It's easy to pretend it's always everyone else's fault for not understanding what you're saying, when in fact you're the one that's saying one thing and 'apparently' means another. Reminds me of my little brother.

I presented that as a possibility, not fact. You can't use possibilities as arguments to support your stand in a debate. But it is useless explaining things to you that are beyond your reach anyway, considering you've been deprived of the privilege of proper schooling.

Whether or not this was actually the case in the comics is irrelevant. It only served to make my explanation more complete. That was the whole point, I guess you missed it.

Says who? For Batman to be taller than the "average man", he simply needs to be taller than the typical height of the American male, which is 5'10 approximately. There’s no question of "keeping things in proportion" as calculation of averages takes into account both moderate and extreme values. It's basic math, skippy.

When I say "taller than the average man", I really mean "taller"... being only 2'' above average doesn't constitute enough a difference to work. Keeping things in proportion is important, especially when it comes to the important people surrounding the character ( Yes, that involves Oldman and the ninjas too )

Proportion and averages are two completely different and independent terms. Don't try to play with words you don't know the meaning of. It will only serve to dumb down your already hopeless intellect even further.

In this context, they are related... if the average height goes up, Batman's height must too, to keep the same proportion of difference it had. They are related whether you like it or not.

And you seemingly can't get it into your peanut brain that there are only two freakin' characters out of the total cast that clearly appear to be taller than Batman. Complaining about that is not even a complaint. That's not even nitpicking. That is sheer stupidity.

Morgan Freeman + Liam Neeson + Tom Wilkinson = 3, not 2.
Plus, Michael Caine is taller than Christian Bale too. Also, the actors surrounding Bale don't need to actually be taller than him, in order to make him appear not very tall. He's not a whole lot taller than Oldman and the ninjas, which he should be.

And now you're crying, according to your own logic, since remarking anything as "pointless" apparently constitutes "crying" to you. Great job at kicking your own rear end trying to act all clever.

I'm pointing out what you're doing... you're just crying about the obivious.
The simple fact that you're still complaining about the fact that I said you were crying proves my point even further.

But what I did was attempt to justify how Ra's and Fox can be acceptable in this scenario to anyone who had a problem with that because it is those characters heights that have noticeably increased from their comic book profiles. What you are hoping for is a taller Batman, which raises the question of why exactly is a taller Batman necessary when the actor himself in question effectively meets the height criteria according to DC's official profile? I mean it is understandable if you wanted Ra's or Fox to be shorter, but why Batman considering he's already the correct height to begin with? Just like you have a problem with a Batman who is shorter than he’s supposed to, I have a problem with a Batman who is taller than he’s supposed to. Bruce Wayne maybe the zenith of human potential but he is also supposed to appear as a savvy socialite who can easily blend in a crowd, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb (which your 6’5 Batman very much will).

If those seemed like reasonable justifications, why couldn't it apply to the hero of the movie? If Batman's height was noticably bigger than his official stats, couldn't we say it's because he's the main hero and he represents at the same time fear and justice? Those aren't that different from the justifications you said could be use to justify Ra's height.

When you post condescending remarks without smileys, the general understanding is that you're serious about insulting. If not, then I too can call you any number of insulting names and get away with it simply by saying it was meant as a joke. Guess I’ll reiterate that you’re a class A jackass, a moron and a thickheaded retard who’s supposed to be quarantined lest his presence prove to be hazardous to the brain cells of unwary bystanders.

But didn't you do just that at the beginning? You're saying that the lack of smileys usually means you're being serious, yet when you questionned my intelligence, you claimed it was a joke and acted like it was obivious... so which is it? Your jokes are obivious even without the smileys but mine aren't? That very comment became your central joke, as I saw it as something that seemed serious... I don't see how that's any different than the fact that you now think I was being serious with the name calling.

I took issue with your constant repetition of condescending statements.

You took issue with a distinctively clear side-joke with text colored in white.

My assertion of you being a hypersensitive emo chick still stands.

The constant repetition of thinks like "jacky-boy", "champ" and "kiddo" was used as a means of provocation, but was never intended to insult you. You being offended by it makes you no different than what you see me as.

OK, let me break it down to you, piece by piece, since your pathetic insistence on judging something you know nothing about is simply dragging this argument along even further. Here's what happened:

- Bale was cast as Batman. Many fans rejoiced since he appeared to have the suitable look and height of the comic book Bruce Wayne.
- A handful of posters stumbled upon two or three sites that made the claim of Bale being noticeably less than 6'2. Even though many, many alternate sources were used to discredit those claims, the posters in question were hell-bent on throwing a hissy fit all over it.
- Despite the fact that the majority of the posters agreed on the fact that Bale was indeed 6'2, the handful of skeptics continued their useless rants (just like you). So here's how we got them to shut up: "OK, let's just take it for a moment that even if Bale is not 6'2, the height increments he would recieve from wearing the suit will most definitely fully compensate for it." Hence a common ground was reached and the height issue never came up since then...until now, that is.

This has never been an issue, you said that before...
This started with you emplying that my interpretation of the height of the boots was incorrect, when I had taken the 'information' from that very post of yours... thus, you were invalidating your own statement that you had made earlier. It's only after this that I guestionned your reasonning behind posting stuff that wasn't true. Simple, no?

There was no such negative impact in B89. The only thing that it did have an impact on was the perception of fanboys about how they saw Bruce Wayne.

You're in no position to say this, as it is a matter of opinion.
I never claimed it was a general consensus.

No, height does not have an impact. And my argument of "Ra's being taller than Wayne because he's the mentor and the main villain, hence it is acceptable" is simply an attempt to reason with the opposition using their own perspective. It's not something I endorse myself as clearly the claim of a couple inches difference in height having any kind of impact on the film in any way whatsoever is as ludicrous an idea as they come.

So a "couple of inches" don't have an impact on a film in any way?
Fine, let's say a couple of inches is... 5''. Keaton is what? 5' 10''? If he was 5'5'', it would've made a heck of a difference in the movie and you know it. People would've complained, no matter how good a performance he would've had.

How? If you're speaking in terms of character dynamic, I've yet to see a single reputable critic saying "the character interaction between Batman and the Joker was upset because of the two-inch height difference between Keaton and Nicholson" or even something to that effect. Come to think of it, I've yet to see a single sensible review of the fim that even remotely implied anything like that.

What, you live your opinions through critiques now?
They give their opinion based on their personal tastes, which is what I did. When I look at the film, the height aspect just doesn't seem right.

Pointing out people's grammatical mistakes on the Internet is undoubtedly THE lamest way of getting back at anyone. But since you already made the first move, I feel duly obliged to pay you back in the same coin:

Again taking offense in something so trivial?

"Taste of your medicine, doctor?"

Yep, you’re pretty formidable with the English language all right.

How utterly pathetic, I'm loving this...
"Taste of your medicine, doctor?" <-- Wow, you really went all out on this one.

What "minimal difference"? Again, the average height of the American male is around 5'10. And with the suit on, Batman is at least 4-5 inches taller than that. "Not having any real worth"? Yeah, seems like every point that overturns your own argument is like that, eh?

In BB, Bruce Wayne is 2'' taller than the "average man", which is a "minimal difference".
The suit doesn't add enough...

And I repeat - height is very much irrelevant when judging the film's plot or character dynamics, at least when the differences are as minimal as they are in Begins.

That's because you're not paying attention to details...

Yes, the horns don't have a "significant impact", but they do have an impact, even moreso when in combination with the other elements I previously mentioned.

In the end, it's so negligable that you can't even count it.

Of course you were. The whole "joke around like a clown" part I said clearly meant that I knew that even before your current admission. Sadly, your handicapped reading comprehension skills failed to make you understand that I was "joking" too. See what I meant by "having trouble comprehending the same if someone else pulls a joke on you"?

The fact that you admit to being joking doesn't emply that you think the other isn't. The simple fact that you waste your time on this quote makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Since Caine was less than half an arm's length distance from Bale, the "perspective" you're talking about here wasn't exactly skewed enough to suddenly make Caine look shorter and Bale look taller than they already are. And quite expectedly, your feeble mind yet again rejects another dose of logic and reason.

Yet, you drew a straight line, not one following the perspective... silly you.

Ah, so you don't have a bloody leg to stand on now that you've desperately and completely sidetracked addressing the arguments linked with the last two pics that you've resorted to bringing a whole other set of pictures in? Wow.

The last 2 pics? I've commented on them... you've been using them for a while now.

And this pic can be dismissed on the basis of the very reasons that forced me to post those two full pics of Caine and Bale standing side-side. Like we've argued before, we can't see the full body posture, the kind of surface they're standing on nor the type of shoes they are wearing.

Yeah, it's clear that Caine is standing on a podium and wearing high heels...
You know the scene in the movie and you know there isn't anything like that.

You can dismiss it if you want, you're just blinding yourself to the truth.

Besides, I can post a number of screencaps from the film where Bale appears to be just as tall or even slightly taller than Caine. But we both know it's not going to work because either of us can simply discard it on the basis of the above reasons, which was exactly why I dug up those two premiere pics. Hence nothing but a full-body pic taken directly from the front with the actors standing side by side will suffice.

If I discard them, it will be based on the previous arguments I've used when reffering to Michale Caine ( mainly his age and spine ). Of course, there's always the actual context of the scene.

He appears to be quite upright in the film. And even if his back is slightly bent, it's not as much as it would make a perceptible difference in his height.

Coupled with his age ( shrinking ), yes it would make a perceptible difference and it's clear in the film that he's somewhat bent.

Uhh, no. The full body pics I posted in which both of them are standing together, side by side are a much better example. Now taking into account your apparent lack of spine in addressing the arguments with the last two pics and instead, trying to find cover in using an obviously inferior example and it's not hard to assess your position in this whole debate.

My comment to your pics was actually my own pic. You talked about not being able to actually see a curve in his neck, which is why I posted a pic of him sideways... so you'd see it. Good work at not seeing the obivious.

Next...

Alfie Luke

01-07-2006, 01:12 AM

Just in case you don't know, "enthusiasm" means heightened interest or being passionate about something and that most certainly does NOT involve prematurely declaring self-victory like you did a couple of posts ago. That, little one, again is very much called getting ahead of yourself.

I’m being enthusiastic about the outcome of the debate, of course.

Hey, I'm only trying to make you feel more comfortable and at ease with your transexuality here in these male-dominated forums. We don't see many outbursts of feminine hypersensitivity around here. Geez, you genuinely try to help someone blend in and they throw it back in your face. Stupid kids...

So, now I'm a transexual?
Wow, leave it to Phaser to incorporate that kinda stuff in a debate about Bale's height. That kid just has such a wild imagination, can't wait to see what kinda crap he comes up with next... lets watch.

Wait a sec, was there someone who was getting all worked up about hidden white text?

^ Yeah, just not as much as that other guy... who cries if you call him junior, bobby, kiddo, jacky-boy, champ or whatever funny name you can come up with.

Ladies and gentleman, let's hear it for Flippity Flappity Alfie Luke. Torch of Hypersensitivity? He said he didn't have it. But then he did. Again he didn't. Now he MOST DEFINITELY does. You can keep it, flippy. I don't even want to touch that thing not knowing where you been stuffing it when you said you didn't have it.

You're the one that created it and decided to pass it to me... never said I deserved it. I'm just giving you back what you tried to get rid of. But now that it's back in his crying owner's hands, everything is just super! ^_^
Come on kiddo, cheer up... oups, I hope I didn't make you cry just there?

Wow, you really did force me to come back to relatity'...or whatever the heck that stupid word means.

Eh eh, that one's actually funny.

That's one site with comments that aren't any more reliable than Whack Arnorlds' in this thread.

None of the sites you presented had that kind of debate... for all we know, one site wrote 6'2'' and all the others just copied.

In both those pics you can see Bale is noticeably hunched over a bit and his head is slightly lower as well. Besides, he is also not standing totally upright like Watanabe is in the first pic, even though he clearly looks shorter than Bale in the second one.

Morgan Freeman is 6'2'' - 6'2 1/2'' top... and he's taller than Bale.
Try finding as many site that says Freeman is more than that.

"Like we've argued before, we can't see the full body posture, the kind of surface they're standing on nor the type of shoes they are wearing."

You know as well as me that the ground is even and for the sake of the shoes, they are wearing the same uniform, which includes the boots. Sean Bean is 5'11'', no more... Bale's 6'0''.

So what did we learn today class? Film stills are tricky and unreliable.

Just stick with the good ol' full body premiere pics like the ones I posted of Caine and Bale, chimp.

They wouldn't make Bale look shorter on purpose, but they might try to make him look taller... which is what they did in Begins. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work.

And those guys' opinions don't mean any more to me than Whack Arnolds' does to you.

Alone, not really... but there's a lot of them and they agree.

For some reason, their examples (half-body shots that have fluctuating heights)<my examples (full body shots with comparatively consistent height)...

...and their combined opinion<facts posted by reliable sources like the BBC, Wikipedia and the rest of the 20 or so sites I posted.

Your "full body shots" shows that they "seem" about the same height, but my arguments still stand when it comes to Caine. Plus, the full body shots I posted prove otherwise.

Wikipedia isn't that reliable and most of the site you posted just write " height: 6' 2'' ", which might not be accurate, as celebrities tend to exagerate their height. ( Even though Bale said he was 6'0" )

Should you ever decide to come back, I'll be here munching popcorn.

Figured that's what your free time consisted of...

ChrisBaleBatman

01-07-2006, 03:58 AM

whoa......this one's an epic.

Cats

01-07-2006, 08:17 AM

Does it really matter if Bale was 1-2" taller or shorter?

El Payaso

01-07-2006, 09:59 AM

Of course not.

Two-Face

01-07-2006, 10:02 AM

Does it really matter if Bale was 1-2" taller or shorter?

Not really, Bale still tall enough.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-07-2006, 11:16 AM

especially as Batman.

El Payaso

01-07-2006, 11:38 AM

as in 'not as specially for Patrick Bateman'?

Phaser

01-07-2006, 10:12 PM

Wouldn't that apply to any site?

Yes, in this case, it's IMDB, because I posted around 20 sources, including some of the most reliable ones anywhere one the Internet, like the BBC and the Wikipedia that say that Bale is the only actor since Adam West to match the height in Batman's profile according to DC comics. Heck, the BBC even coupled that article along with an interview with Bale.

No matter how reliable it would be, if numerous sites said otherwise, it would lose credibility until the 'truth' came out, no?

What "truth"? IMDB may be the most popular film website on the Internet, but it is nowhere near the most reliable. Just check Wikipedia about the criticisms leveled at the site and you'll get a slight idea of what I'm talking about.

Unless of course it was, for example, the official site of the specific subject ( Even then, you never know with celebrities and all )

Taking into account IMDB's checkered past in posting accurate and reliable info as well as considering what many websites I have posted said about Bale's height, it's only logical to assume IMDB's wrong on all counts in this particular debate. Trying to prove otherwise would only be grasping at loose straws.

Actually, Wikipedia is a database similar to IMDb and I've been told that there weren't actually that many 'experts' working there... so it's probably as reliable as IMDb, for all it's worth.

The Associated Press reported about a month ago that according to a study done by the Science Journal, they found Wikipedia to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. That alone should say enough. But if you still aren't convinced, check out what Wikipedia has to say about IMBD's information contribution, filtering and validation processes. That and factual reports about numerous IMDB screwups (a couple of examples I posted in this very thread) should pretty much seal the deal.

Plus, CelebHeights.com might be "just one", but it incorporates a lot, instead of simply stating " Height: 6'2'' ". Two or three of them could've simply wrote that and all the others just copied. It wouldn't be the first time a celebrity's height has been exagerated.

As for celebheights.com, you can see how those guys' don't have any concrete info. Just check what they have to say about Watanabe. They're not sure if he's 6 foot, 2 inches more than that or 3 inch less. That alone explains that they don't have any official sources to back their info with, unlike some of the reputable sites I listed. And just to slap a gravestone on this part of the debate, I advice stupid people to always, always read the disclaimers on the bottom of the page of any site:

"All heights are barefeet Guesstimations. In determining how tall or the height of a star, assume that 0% of the heights are accurate. This site is not associated with ANY of the celebrities it tries to guess heights on, and our own estimates are exactly that - ESTIMATES and not facts, based on photos and films I've viewed."

Those guys are as reliable as any geek sitting on the Internet making guesses looking at a bunch of photos. There goes your final source. Do you have anything left to say in your defense now that one of sources having a checkered history at being reliable and accurate while the other pretty much giving away that their estimates are only a bunch of guesswork and NOT FACT?

Tell me, why would it be a "crutch" and not a reference?

Because your preferences are fairly contradictory to the very sources you seem to be "referencing" from, which is the comics and the TAS.

I don't think he looks like a "hulking menace" in BTAS, but he feels definitively taller than in Begins.

Nope, he doesn't. He's seems to be around the same height as Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent, Bullock and a number of thugs and villains in TAS (Maximillian Zeus immediately comes to mind, who appears to be noticeably taller than Bats). Alfred and Dick seem shorter though.

When it comes to the comics, it's somewhat harder to pin-point the exact ones, as there's been so many and it's been a while.

You might want to recheck Year One, which Begins draws heavily from. And Bruce Wayne appears to be only slightly taller than an average man. He is also less muscular and appears to be more athletic in the comic and that is because the art style of Year One is more natural and not exaggerated like most artists' styles. There are also a gazillion Detective Comics out there that have a similiar art style.

Come to think of it, I can't recall one single realistic and natural illustration of Batman where he appears to be taller than his profiled height.

In order to avoid confusion, when you're saying "hulking menace", you emply what?

I imply what he looks like in the comics. He looks big, he looks extraordinarily muscular and he looks dangerous.

http://www.desktopexchange.com/Comics-pictures/batman_1.jpg
http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/image/article/626/626254/batman-20050616104632089-000.jpg
http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/image/article/677/677822/batman-20051220092715448.jpg
http://www.andysmithart.com/images/Batman-color.jpg
http://www.timsale1.com/postcard/pictures/batman.jpg

Countless visible veins all over the arms and forehead, looks like he's 250 lbs of muscles?

Where are you getting that impression from? The definitions of both the words "hulking" and "menace" imply no such thing. Unless of course, the word "hulking" reminds you of the Marvel "Hulk" and if it does, such an offmark assumption is your problem, not mine.

In BTAS and even Batman Beyond, he looks taller than in BB, but not like a body builder.

The reason for that is the style of Bruce Timm's artwork. All his models are curvy, slightly angular with with very little detail and no muscle definition. And like I said earlier, Batman isn't that much taller in TAS as you're making him out to be.

Even if it's in a "comparitive sense", a "hulking menace" is still a "hulking menace", it's not being "relatively big", it's being freaking huge. If you say he's a "hulking menace compared to people he encounters", it doesn't mean he's "relatively big".

What are you, dense? If I said he's a "hulking menace" in a "comparitive sense", it simply means he is "impressively large" (dictionary definition, junior) compared to others around him. And yes, he is like that in the comics. Some of the most popular Batman artists like Tim Sale, Jim Lee, Eduardo Risso and others draw him like that.

Whether it was a figure of speech or not, if I say something is "freaking huge", no one's going to think it can be anywhere between "slightly bigger than average" to "infinitely big".

Only if you have trouble with reading comprehension, kid.

It's easy to pretend it's always everyone else's fault for not understanding what you're saying, when in fact you're the one that's saying one thing and 'apparently' means another.

No, I've explained the meaning behind my words and it is your apparent inability to read that seems to be always getting in the way in making my point clear.

Reminds me of my little brother.

That must mean you're even worse off that your little brother. That's a damn shame.

Whether or not this was actually the case in the comics is irrelevant. It only served to make my explanation more complete. That was the whole point, I guess you missed it.

Don't try to sidestep the issue at hand, chimp.

Here's what you said before:

I had to "add" it, because you talked about the fact that in the comics or cartoons, it might have been everyone else that was made smaller, to contrast with the officially 6'2'' Batman.

You clearly used what I presented as only a mere "possibility" in the comics as an excuse to "add" the supporting characters to your list of "average man". And when that excuse was thrown into the trash when I dismissed it because you were trying to support your argument on the basis of a "possibility" and not "fact", all of a sudden what happened in the comics is irrelevant (when that wass exactly what you cited as reason to "add" an additional criteria) and your explaination is more complete?

Please pull your brain out of your anal cavity. You're talking gibberish.

When I say "taller than the average man", I really mean "taller"... being only 2'' above average doesn't constitute enough a difference to work. Keeping things in proportion is important, especially when it comes to the important people surrounding the character ( Yes, that involves Oldman and the ninjas too )

What do you mean "taller"? By how many inches? Please cite the source for this criteria - if it is the comics, the issue or the artist's name, or if it is TAS, the episode title.

In this context, they are related... if the average height goes up, Batman's height must too, to keep the same proportion of difference it had. They are related whether you like it or not.

How has the average height gone up? Batman is clearly as tall or in most cases, taller than most of the film's cast : Gordon, Rachel, Crane, Ra's ninjas and all of Crane and Falcone's thugs and just about everyone in the film excluding Ra's and Fox. Heck, he appears to be taller than more people in Begins than he does in TAS which you're "using as a crutch" in this debate.

Morgan Freeman + Liam Neeson + Tom Wilkinson = 3, not 2.

Wilkinson may be taller than Bale in real life, but there is nothing in the film to suggest that, since he only interacts with Bruce in his club where he is seated, thereby making an assessment of his height compared to Bale an impossible task. Sure he may appear to have more mass but that does not necessarily equal more height. And the second time is when Batman pulls him out from the top of his limo (again, gives you no idea of Falcone's height). Wikinson's height is irrelevant and inadmissible in this case. You want to argue with that? Show me where in the entire film does he look "taller" than Bruce Wayne/Batman.

And that again leaves us with only two characters.

Plus, Michael Caine is taller than Christian Bale too.

No he's not. Both of them appear to have almost the same height (albeit Cane looking a bit bigger though, but not taller).

Also, the actors surrounding Bale don't need to actually be taller than him, in order to make him appear not very tall. He's not a whole lot taller than Oldman and the ninjas, which he should be.

No he doesn't need to be "a whole lot taller" than Gordon or the ninjas. Just enough for it to be visible.

I'm pointing out what you're doing... you're just crying about the obivious. The simple fact that you're still complaining about the fact that I said you were crying proves my point even further.

You write something. I reply to it. Who's complaining? If anything, your babble "crying about the obvious" is just as applicable to your own juvenile little self since according to your own definition of "cried", you have "cried" just as much, if not more.

If those seemed like reasonable justifications, why couldn't it apply to the hero of the movie?

Because he is the perfect height already and save for only two characters, is taller than pretty much everyone in the film to begin with.

If Batman's height was noticably bigger than his official stats, couldn't we say it's because he's the main hero and he represents at the same time fear and justice?

First of all, the criteria for the main hero to be tall is one of the most absurd things I have ever read. Despite being the main character in the majority of his films, Al Pacino was always shorter (more like dwarfed, in some cases, heck even his actresses were taller than him) than his fellow actors in every single film he's been in whether he is playing a classy Mafia don (The Godfather), a dirty talking tough Cuban drug smuggler (Scarface), a badass and obsessed LAPD detective (Heat), the Devil (The Devil's Advocate) or a blind retired army colonel (Scent of a Woman), I've yet to see any critic with a half-brain try to say that Pacino was not the right man for the job because he should have been taller in any of the above roles. Nor did it have any kind of effect on the character dynamics in any of those movies.

And secondly, if someone like Keaton who is less than 6 feet can do an amazing job at representing fear and justice, then so can Bale. Your arguments for wanting a taller Batman are downright awful and hilarious.

Those aren't that different from the justifications you said could be use to justify Ra's height.

They are completely different.

But didn't you do just that at the beginning? You're saying that the lack of smileys usually means you're being serious, yet when you questionned my intelligence, you claimed it was a joke and acted like it was obivious... so which is it? Your jokes are obivious even without the smileys but mine aren't?

Here at the SHH boards, hidden white text is used particularly when the poster in question is simply joking around or the very least, not exactly serious about his comment. It's a neat little trick I saw a number of times in the Community forums. Sadly, I didn't know that there were tightasses like you who would create such a big fuss over it.

That very comment became your central joke, as I saw it as something that seemed serious...

It wasn't.

I don't see how that's any different than the fact that you now think I was being serious with the name calling.

No it was very much different. The hidden white text trick has been used many number of times, never with the intention of being serious. Whereas your condescending banter is something anyone and everyone will take offense to.

The constant repetition of thinks like "jacky-boy", "champ" and "kiddo" was used as a means of provocation, but was never intended to insult you.

Those "provocations" were in a downright condescending manner what with belittling someone with words like "jackie-boy" and "kiddo", something anyone will find insulting.

You being offended by it makes you no different than what you see me as.

Except we used very different methods in very different positions. Your constant condescending remarks didn't come until later on when the whole debate had already become quite "heated" whereas my little joke was only in my second reply to your post, when the discussion was quite calm.

This has never been an issue, you said that before...
This started with you emplying that my interpretation of the height of the boots was incorrect, when I had taken the 'information' from that very post of yours... thus, you were invalidating your own statement that you had made earlier. It's only after this that I guestionned your reasonning behind posting stuff that wasn't true. Simple, no?

Rememeber I said "if he was wearing thick-soled boots", meaning I simply stated a possibility instead of making an absolute statement. Hence your bark about me "invalidating my own statement" is well...invalid, considering that I never did make any firm assertion on the subject.

You're in no position to say this, as it is a matter of opinion.
I never claimed it was a general consensus.

No, it is a fact that a couple of differences in height has no bearing on an actor's performance in the film or the film itself in any way whatsoever.

So a "couple of inches" don't have an impact on a film in any way?
Fine, let's say a couple of inches is... 5''. Keaton is what? 5' 10''? If he was 5'5'', it would've made a heck of a difference in the movie and you know it.

Arguing using hypthothetical scenarios is downright stupid and pathetic. And it only shows your glaring incompetence in coming up with any appropriate real life examples to back your point.

"What if Keaton was only 5 foot?" Well, he isn't. Oh and slashing off a whole 10 inches (yeah, that's only "a couple of inches", nearly an entire foot :rolleyes: ...idiot) would have made him look a whole foot shorter than Nicholson. Please do us all a favor and spare us from such intellectually hazardous ideas.

People would've complained, no matter how good a performance he would've had.

I don't see "people" complaining. I see childish know-it-all tightass fanboys over the internet complaining. The general opinion about Keaton's Batman is still quite positive, even AFTER Batman Begins.

What, you live your opinions through critiques now?
They give their opinion based on their personal tastes, which is what I did. When I look at the film, the height aspect just doesn't seem right.

Of course it might not seem right...to YOU. But you have yet to prove your absurd claim of how the height aspect affected the film in any way.

Again taking offense in something so trivial?

Why? Did my highlighting of your l33t grammar skills "emply" any disrespect?

How utterly pathetic, I'm loving this...
"Taste of your medicine, doctor?" <-- Wow, you really went all out on this one.

So says the fool who can't even figure out the use of a quote from a comic book film as being an expression of my levity.

In BB, Bruce Wayne is 2'' taller than the "average man", which is a "minimal difference".
The suit doesn't add enough...

In BB, Bruce Wayne is 6'2, exact the same height he is supposed to be.

That's because you're not paying attention to details...

Forgive me if I don't want to pass myself as an anal-retentive fusspot like yourself.

In the end, it's so negligable that you can't even count it.

You actually "count" the difference? You're either obsessed with people's heights (must be some kind of unhealthy fetish) or you seriously need professional help.

The fact that you admit to being joking doesn't emply that you think the other isn't.

I never said that. I outright pointed out that it was you who was having serious trouble understanding whether or not somebody is joking with him. And from the looks of it, you still don't have a clue.

The simple fact that you waste your time on this quote makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Or the simple fact that you wasted your time replying to that very quote just made you look even worse.

Phaser

01-07-2006, 10:13 PM

Yet, you drew a straight line, not one following the perspective... silly you.

It wasn't even a moderately skewed perspective. Caine only appears to be SLIGHTLY behind Bale in the first pic, while in the second one, he is right beside him. No question of perspective there. I'm still incredibly amused by your constant pathetic attempts to try and use "perspective" as an excuse to deny the obvious.

The last 2 pics? I've commented on them... you've been using them for a while now.

You've yet to address my last reply to those comments of yours. Sure, you quoted that part of my post, but all you did was jump off on yet another completely pointless tangent by posting even more pics rather than sufficiently dealing with the ones already at hand. How does it feel to be a spineless wreck, chump?

Yeah, it's clear that Caine is standing on a podium and wearing high heels...You know the scene in the movie and you know there isn't anything like that.

Or he simply could have been wearing shoes with a thicker sole. Or Bale's "knees" are slightly bent. Or the any number of excuses that you've used which led me to post those two full body pics of Caine and Bale standing side by side.

Caine most certainly doesn't look taller than Bale in that scene, or in ANY scene in the entire movie for that matter. They appear to be of similiar height.

You can dismiss it if you want, you're just blinding yourself to the truth.

"Blinding" myself to the truth? Like how you desperately clinge on to a handful of stills from films and "blinding" yourself from seeing the obvious in the premiere pics I posted? Like how you're so pathetically holding on to only two sources that back your claim (both of which have been appropriately dealt with in this post) while seemingly "blinding" yourself from the many number of alternate sources that belie your claims?

If I discard them, it will be based on the previous arguments I've used when reffering to Michale Caine ( mainly his age and spine ). Of course, there's always the actual context of the scene.

Yeah, and you said his spine was slightly bent by looking at a pic of him that was taken directly from the front. :rolleyes: Who you trying to fool, skippy?

Coupled with his age ( shrinking ), yes it would make a perceptible difference and it's clear in the film that he's somewhat bent.

No he appears to be quite upright in the film. Particularly when he's talking to Bruce about the "Southeast Wing" and when he tries to warn him about guests arriving at his birthday party. He doesn't look bent or shrunk in any way at all. Heck, for a guy in his 80's, Caine appears to be in surprisingly good shape.

My comment to your pics was actually my own pic. You talked about not being able to actually see a curve in his neck, which is why I posted a pic of him sideways... so you'd see it. Good work at not seeing the obivious.

There is no curve in his neck. Heck, you can barely even below the end of his hairline in that pic to begin with, what with the collar of the tuxedo all tight and covering his neck up. Your relentless desperation at trying to prove me wrong has become so severe that you're starting to see things that are simply not there, or simply how you HOPE and WANT to see them. Poor chap.

I’m being enthusiastic about the outcome of the debate, of course.

No, you had already announced the outcome of the debate long back. Didn't I say not to get ahead of yourself, chucky?

So, now I'm a transexual? Wow, leave it to Phaser to incorporate that kinda stuff in a debate about Bale's height. That kid just has such a wild imagination, can't wait to see what kinda crap he comes up with next... lets watch.

Well I'm having a hard time properly deciphering the mystery of your gender, since you apparently act like an annoying, hypersensitive emo chick but your username "emplies" that you're a male. So I figured the best thing to do was leave you somewhere in the middle. :D

^ Yeah, just not as much as that other guy... who cries if you call him junior, bobby, kiddo, jacky-boy, champ or whatever funny name you can come up with.

Again, so says the fool who sees "hidden" white text as an "attempt" to insult him. Ooooh, I bet he's STEAMING like a pressure cooker looking at this right now.

You're the one that created it and decided to pass it to me... never said I deserved it. I'm just giving you back what you tried to get rid of. But now that it's back in his crying owner's hands, everything is just super! ^_^
Come on kiddo, cheer up... oups, I hope I didn't make you cry just there?

I didn't create no torch. I simply said you were a hypersensitive emo chick. You're the one who decided to find and run with some torch thingy or whatever. "Finders keepers" Of course I'm joking, dumbass.

None of the sites you presented had that kind of debate... for all we know, one site wrote 6'2'' and all the others just copied.

Or...both IMDB and celebheights are completely wrong. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Morgan Freeman is 6'2'' - 6'2 1/2'' top... and he's taller than Bale.
Try finding as many site that says Freeman is more than that.

Then how do you explain him looking nearly as tall as Neeson (who is 6'4) in both those Japanese premiere pics you posted, when in fact, he is supposed to be almost two inches shorter than him?

You know as well as me that the ground is even and for the sake of the shoes, they are wearing the same uniform, which includes the boots. Sean Bean is 5'11'', no more... Bale's 6'0''.

Bale is 6'2. And now you're all out of sources, monkey-boy.

They wouldn't make Bale look shorter on purpose, but they might try to make him look taller... which is what they did in Begins. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work.

What are you blabbering about? Bale looks noticeably taller than just about everyone in the film, save for Freeman and Neeson, just like I said countless number of times before.

Alone, not really... but there's a lot of them and they agree.

And like the celebheight.com disclaimer clearly says "those are our ESTIMATES only and NOT FACTS". Looking at a bunch of pics is never a good away to factually pinpoint a person's height. Common sense.

Your "full body shots" shows that they "seem" about the same height, but my arguments still stand when it comes to Caine. Plus, the full body shots I posted prove otherwise.

In your "full body shots", Bale head is slightly lowered and he is clearly hunched over and not standing completely straight. That's why he looks taller than Watanabe in one pic and shorter in the other. See what I meant by "inconsistent heights" in your pics?

Wikipedia isn't that reliable and most of the site you posted just write " height: 6' 2'' ", which might not be accurate, as celebrities tend to exagerate their height. ( Even though Bale said he was 6'0" )

Again, Bale was clearly talking about his height in loose terms and not in exact values, just like his weight and the periods of time related to his weight changes. And now with IMDB and celebheights.com out of the way, your unfounded, unsupported, baseless claim of Bale being 6'0 is pure conjecture at this point.

Figured that's what your free time consisted of...

What can I say, I love popcorn.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-08-2006, 12:54 AM

What "truth"? IMDB may be the most popular film website on the Internet, but it is nowhere near the most reliable. Just check Wikipedia about the criticisms leveled at the site and you'll get a slight idea of what I'm talking about.

Yup, here a few actually:

Despite its popularity, IMDB still has its share of critics. Some of the more common complaints leveled against the site include:

The ability of the software to filter content is limited.
Only 17 staff members are actively involved in validating and processing through the system the hundreds of thousands of lines of presumed information contributed each month.
Staff members gauge the validity of contributed data based on the past reliability of the contributor, as none are themselves experts in significantly varied areas of film history to know what is valid themselves.
Submissions of product data are processed by categories of personnel contained in the submission, meaning the data for one film, e.g., is broken up into several components and examined independently of the other components, then reassembled without checking the continuity of the whole, which may be further disrupted if one manager's section(s) is/are backlogged, an unfortunately regular occurence at IMDb.
The Associated Press reported about a month ago that according to a study done by the Science Journal, they found Wikipedia to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. That alone should say enough.

Yup, they are indeed very accurate. Of course, I'm sure errors get made....but they are not a great deal, and they do have great credibility b/c they are quite often on the money.

As for celebheights.com, you can see how those guys' don't have any concrete info. Just check what they have to say about Watanabe. They're not sure if he's 6 foot, 2 inches more than that or 3 inch less. That alone explains that they don't have any official sources to back their info with, unlike some of the reputable sites I listed. And just to slap a gravestone on this part of the debate, I advice stupid people to always, always read the disclaimers on the bottom of the page of any site:

"All heights are barefeet Guesstimations. In determining how tall or the height of a star, assume that 0% of the heights are accurate. This site is not associated with ANY of the celebrities it tries to guess heights on, and our own estimates are exactly that - ESTIMATES and not facts, based on photos and films I've viewed."

Those guys are as reliable as any geek sitting on the Internet making guesses looking at a bunch of photos. There goes your final source. Do you have anything left to say in your defense now that one of sources having a checkered history at being reliable and accurate while the other pretty much giving away that their estimates are only a bunch of guesswork and NOT FACT?

Wow, I must say....even I didn't notice that one. I mean, I went to the site and check it out....and yes, that's the fine print at the bottom. All I have left to say is.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/sage1047/superslap.jpg

Nope, he doesn't. He's seems to be around the same height as Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent, Bullock and a number of thugs and villains in TAS (Maximillian Zeus immediately comes to mind, who appears to be noticeably taller than Bats). Alfred and Dick seem shorter though.

Yeah, Bats looks pretty much like I'd imagine a 6 foot 2 cartoon to look....he is pretty tall, and his height does look bigger when next to Robin, Alfred and whatever female onscreen. But, he doesn't look like he's any bigger than he was portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS.

You might want to recheck Year One, which Begins draws heavily from. And Bruce Wayne appears to be only slightly taller than an average man. He is also less muscular and appears to be more athletic in the comic and that is because the art style of Year One is more natural and not exaggerated like most artists' styles. There are also a gazillion Detective Comics out there that have a similiar art style.

Come to think of it, I can't recall one single realistic and natural illustration of Batman where he appears to be taller than his profiled height.

Actually, I thought Bruce looked about average height in Year One. He looked less muscular than ever, but very athletic.

In BTAS and even Batman Beyond, he looks taller than in BB, but not like a body builder.

Your kidding, right? In Batman Beyond he was a crippled, 80 yr old-something old man.....hunched over. The only reason you may think he appears so large is b/c Terry is a 15 year old kid, so the dude is under the 6'0 mark for sure.....

Alfie Luke

01-08-2006, 09:52 PM

Yes, in this case, it's IMDB, because I posted around 20 sources, including some of the most reliable ones anywhere one the Internet, like the BBC and the Wikipedia that say that Bale is the only actor since Adam West to match the height in Batman's profile according to DC comics. Heck, the BBC even coupled that article along with an interview with Bale.

... an interview with Bale that claimed to be 6'2''?

The information is just spoon fed to the general public and there aren't any actual sources that tells us where they took that information from. For once I'd like to see something like "This information was given to us by Christian Bale himself" or something along those lines. Otherwise, it could be false information that just speads around... and frankly, who'd care enough to stop it?

What "truth"? IMDB may be the most popular film website on the Internet, but it is nowhere near the most reliable. Just check Wikipedia about the criticisms leveled at the site and you'll get a slight idea of what I'm talking about.

The "truth" as in Bale's actual height.
Plus, to my knowledge... Wikipedia is the same as IMDb in many ways.

Taking into account IMDB's checkered past in posting accurate and reliable info as well as considering what many websites I have posted said about Bale's height, it's only logical to assume IMDB's wrong on all counts in this particular debate. Trying to prove otherwise would only be grasping at loose straws.

The problem is that, like many other sites, the actual sources of the information are not revealed to the general public, thus it is hard to figure out what could be the cause of a particular mistake. I don't like the idea of believing something, simply because it's presented to us in a certain way.

The Associated Press reported about a month ago that according to a study done by the Science Journal, they found Wikipedia to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. That alone should say enough. But if you still aren't convinced, check out what Wikipedia has to say about IMBD's information contribution, filtering and validation processes. That and factual reports about numerous IMDB screwups (a couple of examples I posted in this very thread) should pretty much seal the deal.

I don't think that the fact that Wikipedia talks about IMDb's mistakes makes it any less as unreliable. If person A says that person B is short, it doesn't mean that person A isn't short also, no?

As for celebheights.com, you can see how those guys' don't have any concrete info. Just check what they have to say about Watanabe. They're not sure if he's 6 foot, 2 inches more than that or 3 inch less. That alone explains that they don't have any official sources to back their info with, unlike some of the reputable sites I listed. And just to slap a gravestone on this part of the debate, I advice stupid people to always, always read the disclaimers on the bottom of the page of any site:

"All heights are barefeet Guesstimations. In determining how tall or the height of a star, assume that 0% of the heights are accurate. This site is not associated with ANY of the celebrities it tries to guess heights on, and our own estimates are exactly that - ESTIMATES and not facts, based on photos and films I've viewed."

Those guys are as reliable as any geek sitting on the Internet making guesses looking at a bunch of photos. There goes your final source. Do you have anything left to say in your defense now that one of sources having a checkered history at being reliable and accurate while the other pretty much giving away that their estimates are only a bunch of guesswork and NOT FACT?

The "concrete information" they have is based mostly on 2 different things: Personal encounters / experiences and pictures. I think that one of the best ways to find the truth in those kinds of situations ( when you don't have the actual "truth" ), is to get information and opinions from varied sources and combine the elements to make an estimate as accurate as possible. I didn't bother to check all the sites you listed, but do some of them actually say where they took their information from and is that source really reliable?

Plus, I am aware of the disclaimer at the bottom of the site and I doubt that any site reported by you states that all the information it contains is all 100 % pure facts. The fact that they try to determine the actual height of celebrities based on various sources makes it impossible for them to claim to be 100 % accurate on all they say. The only way they could claim otherwise, would be if they actually measured all celebrities themselves or whatnot. It's a means of protection against people that could argue that their site isn't telling the truth on everything they say.

Of course, you have to add to that the fact that they don't spend as much time and effort on all the celebrities, which makes them even less likely to be right on all accounts. Fortunately, when you look at Bale's profile, it's more than clear that the general consensus is that he is not 6'2''. What you do not seem to understand is that even if Bale himself came to the site and clearly stated that he is in fact 6'0'', the disclaimer would still be there. You have to be able to make those kinds of deductions for yourself Phaser, I won't always be there to explain it to you.

Because your preferences are fairly contradictory to the very sources you seem to be "referencing" from, which is the comics and the TAS.

What difference is there?
There are so many different comics...

Nope, he doesn't. He's seems to be around the same height as Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent, Bullock and a number of thugs and villains in TAS (Maximillian Zeus immediately comes to mind, who appears to be noticeably taller than Bats). Alfred and Dick seem shorter though.

http://worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/bios/heroes/gordon/05.jpg

You have to remember that, in B:TAS, Gordon is presented as taller than in the movie and that Batman's suit doesn't make him taller. It is still easy to see that he is not only taller than Gordon, but also a lot bigger, which doesn't show in Batman Begins.

You might want to recheck Year One, which Begins draws heavily from. And Bruce Wayne appears to be only slightly taller than an average man. He is also less muscular and appears to be more athletic in the comic and that is because the art style of Year One is more natural and not exaggerated like most artists' styles. There are also a gazillion Detective Comics out there that have a similiar art style.

Come to think of it, I can't recall one single realistic and natural illustration of Batman where he appears to be taller than his profiled height.

I actually never saw Year One. To be honest, I haven't really been following Batman comics for a while now, but the movie got me somewhat interested in it again. Plus, for me it has never really been about 'realism'. Whether or not the character appears believable on a physical level was never really an issue. Still, I have to admit that I've had the opportunity to watch a few episodes of The Batman recently and I really enjoy how it's made... might be the 'more normal' looking Batman I like the most. We never know, maybe the idea of seeing him like that will grow on be...

I imply what he looks like in the comics. He looks big, he looks extraordinarily muscular and he looks dangerous.

In the 5th pic, he looks at least twice as big as in the 4th one. Plus, the fact that they put him in skin tight clothing doesn't help either... Look at the 4th pic, but imagine him with loose clothes. He looks like a really athletic guy, but nothing that would compare to something like this:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/103727main_bodybuilder.jpg

Where are you getting that impression from? The definitions of both the words "hulking" and "menace" imply no such thing. Unless of course, the word "hulking" reminds you of the Marvel "Hulk" and if it does, such an offmark assumption is your problem, not mine.

To me, "hulking menace" implies someone huge and very muscular...
Something along the lines of a professional body builder, like shown above.

The reason for that is the style of Bruce Timm's artwork. All his models are curvy, slightly angular with with very little detail and no muscle definition. And like I said earlier, Batman isn't that much taller in TAS as you're making him out to be.

I find the difference between Batman and the others to be at the very least more apparent than in Batman Begins. Of course, B:TAS only serves as a part of a global perception.

What are you, dense? If I said he's a "hulking menace" in a "comparitive sense", it simply means he is "impressively large" (dictionary definition, junior) compared to others around him. And yes, he is like that in the comics. Some of the most popular Batman artists like Tim Sale, Jim Lee, Eduardo Risso and others draw him like that.

I did not say he wasn't like that in some comics, but in your earlier statement, you talking about him begin like a "hulking menace" and then followed with:

(meaning compared to the people he encounters in said comics and cartoons, he is relatively big)

My remark was about those 2 not having the same meaning...
"Hulking menace" doesn't mean "relatively big".

Only if you have trouble with reading comprehension, kid.

That's exactly the point I was making in the earlier statement, jacky-boy.

No, I've explained the meaning behind my words and it is your apparent inability to read that seems to be always getting in the way in making my point clear.

Two people can have different interpretations of the same thing, we just don't seem to see eye to eye on many things. It inevitably makes it somewhat troublesome to see things from the other's perspective. I'd rather be sure of what you're talking about, rather than ending up talking from my perspective, instead of yours.

You clearly used what I presented as only a mere "possibility" in the comics as an excuse to "add" the supporting characters to your list of "average man". And when that excuse was thrown into the trash when I dismissed it because you were trying to support your argument on the basis of a "possibility" and not "fact", all of a sudden what happened in the comics is irrelevant (when that wass exactly what you cited as reason to "add" an additional criteria) and your explaination is more complete?

The fact that you presented this "possibility" forced my to present what I was trying to say from another perspective, but since both the "average man" concept and the "proportion" one are undeniably linked, I don't see where the problem is.

What do you mean "taller"? By how many inches? Please cite the source for this criteria - if it is the comics, the issue or the artist's name, or if it is TAS, the episode title.

"Taller" would imply that there is a visible difference in terms of height when it comes to comparing Batman to the other characters. In Begins, although he is taller than most of the general population, there isn't any real emphasis that is put on that aspect and when constrasted with other more important characters, the difference is not only hard to notice, but in some cases, it's even negative. The fact that there are moments in Begins ( like in the pics ), where Bruce Wayne doesn't look as tall as he 'should', ends up having an impact on the general perception of the hero.

How has the average height gone up? Batman is clearly as tall or in most cases, taller than most of the film's cast : Gordon, Rachel, Crane, Ra's ninjas and all of Crane and Falcone's thugs and just about everyone in the film excluding Ra's and Fox. Heck, he appears to be taller than more people in Begins than he does in TAS which you're "using as a crutch" in this debate.

In some of the comics ( like in some of the pics you have shown ), Batman is presented as significantly bigger than the "average man" ( I think you agree with that ). In Begins, he is clearly a lot "smaller" than that, but it's like the rest of Batman's world didn't receive the same treatment and although it may end up making Batman seem more 'real' or more 'human', in also create a difference in dynamic between the characters, as Batman ( for example ) doesn't seem to be as 'superior' as he used to be. That is why I say that the average height should go up or down, according to how Batman is presented.

Wilkinson may be taller than Bale in real life, but there is nothing in the film to suggest that, since he only interacts with Bruce in his club where he is seated, thereby making an assessment of his height compared to Bale an impossible task. Sure he may appear to have more mass but that does not necessarily equal more height. And the second time is when Batman pulls him out from the top of his limo (again, gives you no idea of Falcone's height). Wikinson's height is irrelevant and inadmissible in this case. You want to argue with that? Show me where in the entire film does he look "taller" than Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Yes, I have to agree with that... we 'know' he is taller, but there is no real toe-to-toe interaction between the two. We could argue that Ken Watanabe is at the very least as tall as Bale, no?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale22.jpg

No he doesn't need to be "a whole lot taller" than Gordon or the ninjas. Just enough for it to be visible.

I did not feel it was noticable enough to actually make a difference.
I feel that Batman's height should have more 'importance' than it has now.

You write something. I reply to it. Who's complaining? If anything, your babble "crying about the obvious" is just as applicable to your own juvenile little self since according to your own definition of "cried", you have "cried" just as much, if not more.

Are we still talking about that? Let it go Phaser, it doesn't matter...
( We should really start to stay to the important topics )

Because he is the perfect height already and save for only two characters, is taller than pretty much everyone in the film to begin with.

But wasn't Ra's "the perfect height" in the comics and cartoons?
The fact that Batman is officially classified as 6'2'' shouldn't stop us...

First of all, the criteria for the main hero to be tall is one of the most absurd things I have ever read. Despite being the main character in the majority of his films, Al Pacino was always shorter (more like dwarfed, in some cases, heck even his actresses were taller than him) than his fellow actors in every single film he's been in whether he is playing a classy Mafia don (The Godfather), a dirty talking tough Cuban drug smuggler (Scarface), a badass and obsessed LAPD detective (Heat), the Devil (The Devil's Advocate) or a blind retired army colonel (Scent of a Woman), I've yet to see any critic with a half-brain try to say that Pacino was not the right man for the job because he should have been taller in any of the above roles. Nor did it have any kind of effect on the character dynamics in any of those movies.

The problem with all these roles is that they didn't have any 'visual' expectations to live up to, like Batman does.

And secondly, if someone like Keaton who is less than 6 feet can do an amazing job at representing fear and justice, then so can Bale. Your arguments for wanting a taller Batman are downright awful and hilarious.

I did not say that it "should" be like that because of those reasons, I used a similar analogy than the one you presented for Ra's. I'm interested in knowing what kind of 'negative' impact on the film a taller Batman would have for you. Is it simply about 'realism'?

They are completely different.

In what ways? They follow a similar path...

Here at the SHH boards, hidden white text is used particularly when the poster in question is simply joking around or the very least, not exactly serious about his comment. It's a neat little trick I saw a number of times in the Community forums. Sadly, I didn't know that there were tightasses like you who would create such a big fuss over it.

It wasn't as much the comment itself, but simply the fact that it was so far out of what the conversation was about and because I often see people trying to use this as a means to try to discredit the other person. Although it might have been a joke, I wanted to make sure that it wasn't something you would end up trying to use to turn this fun debate into something... eh... worse. I think it ended up being beneficial, to a certain extend.

No it was very much different. The hidden white text trick has been used many number of times, never with the intention of being serious. Whereas your condescending banter is something anyone and everyone will take offense to.

You were using those names to try to offend me?

Those "provocations" were in a downright condescending manner what with belittling someone with words like "jackie-boy" and "kiddo", something anyone will find insulting.

Come on, "jacky-boy" ain't that bad... isn't it a character in Sin City? :P

Except we used very different methods in very different positions. Your constant condescending remarks didn't come until later on when the whole debate had already become quite "heated" whereas my little joke was only in my second reply to your post, when the discussion was quite calm.

That's why it was so important to "step up" and try to stop it right there, otherwise we could've ended up having a debate about who's smarter and whatnot. This isn't the place for this...

Rememeber I said "if he was wearing thick-soled boots", meaning I simply stated a possibility instead of making an absolute statement. Hence your bark about me "invalidating my own statement" is well...invalid, considering that I never did make any firm assertion on the subject.

I figured that since you said that, due to that "if", he would end up being the "perfect height" and since you still thought that he was, you still believe in that statement. I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption.

No, it is a fact that a couple of differences in height has no bearing on an actor's performance in the film or the film itself in any way whatsoever.

I didn't say it had an impact on the character's performance, I would never go that far...

Arguing using hypthothetical scenarios is downright stupid and pathetic. And it only shows your glaring incompetence in coming up with any appropriate real life examples to back your point.

"What if Keaton was only 5 foot?" Well, he isn't. Oh and slashing off a whole 10 inches (yeah, that's only "a couple of inches", nearly an entire foot ...idiot) would have made him look a whole foot shorter than Nicholson. Please do us all a favor and spare us from such intellectually hazardous ideas.

I only took 5'' away, but even if I only took 3'' away ( making him 5'7'' ), I still think it would've seemed awkward, when compared to the Joker. Don't be so quick to discredit hypothetical scenarios, as it can allow for better understanding of where the other is coming from.

* Too long, continue on next post *

Alfie Luke

01-08-2006, 09:53 PM

I don't see "people" complaining. I see childish know-it-all tightass fanboys over the internet complaining. The general opinion about Keaton's Batman is still quite positive, even AFTER Batman Begins.

They probably would've complained if he was 5'7'' or less... but since you seem to fail to grasp the point of hypothetical scenarios, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

Why? Did my highlighting of your l33t grammar skills "emply" any disrespect?

Of course not, if you can allow me to better my grammar, I'm happy.

So says the fool who can't even figure out the use of a quote from a comic book film as being an expression of my levity.

It was just too easy and so fanboy-ish, that's all.
If you're comfortable in that... fine.

I never said that. I outright pointed out that it was you who was having serious trouble understanding whether or not somebody is joking with him. And from the looks of it, you still don't have a clue.

You presented it as though when I admitted to being joking, it was a sign of me not being able to know if you were also doing so. My point was that it wasn't necessarily the case.

* I didn't bother to answer some of your comments, if you feel any of them added anything to the discussion, feel free to write them again in your next reply. Don't hesitate to do the same for mine... It would be more fun if we stayed on track on what really matters, no?

End of replies to your first post ------------------------------------------

It wasn't even a moderately skewed perspective. Caine only appears to be SLIGHTLY behind Bale in the first pic, while in the second one, he is right beside him. No question of perspective there. I'm still incredibly amused by your constant pathetic attempts to try and use "perspective" as an excuse to deny the obvious.

Constant? I used in only on one pic...
My other comments regarding Caine still remain more important though.

You've yet to address my last reply to those comments of yours. Sure, you quoted that part of my post, but all you did was jump off on yet another completely pointless tangent by posting even more pics rather than sufficiently dealing with the ones already at hand. How does it feel to be a spineless wreck, chump?

What was 'so' important about them?
Do you honestly they'll turn the tide in your favor, kiddo?

Or he simply could have been wearing shoes with a thicker sole. Or Bale's "knees" are slightly bent. Or the any number of excuses that you've used which led me to post those two full body pics of Caine and Bale standing side by side.

Caine most certainly doesn't look taller than Bale in that scene, or in ANY scene in the entire movie for that matter. They appear to be of similiar height.

He doesn't appear taller?
There is a clear difference, even though there are many things in Caine's dissadvantage.

"Blinding" myself to the truth? Like how you desperately clinge on to a handful of stills from films and "blinding" yourself from seeing the obvious in the premiere pics I posted? Like how you're so pathetically holding on to only two sources that back your claim (both of which have been appropriately dealt with in this post) while seemingly "blinding" yourself from the many number of alternate sources that belie your claims?

I too have presented you "full body pics" that clearly show what I've been saying.

Yeah, and you said his spine was slightly bent by looking at a pic of him that was taken directly from the front. Who you trying to fool, skippy?

What the heck are you talking about? Just like you, I saw the film BEFORE actually starting this debate and I had seen Michael Caine in many movies beforehand... I didn't need that pic to tell me he had a bent spine. Plus, it actually IS visible from the front, if you look close enough... try it, champ.

No he appears to be quite upright in the film. Particularly when he's talking to Bruce about the "Southeast Wing" and when he tries to warn him about guests arriving at his birthday party. He doesn't look bent or shrunk in any way at all. Heck, for a guy in his 80's, Caine appears to be in surprisingly good shape.

So 2 moments? He appears 'up right' in 2 different moments?
Of course he looks in good shape, but he is still stuck with a bent spine, like many old people.

There is no curve in his neck. Heck, you can barely even below the end of his hairline in that pic to begin with, what with the collar of the tuxedo all tight and covering his neck up. Your relentless desperation at trying to prove me wrong has become so severe that you're starting to see things that are simply not there, or simply how you HOPE and WANT to see them. Poor chap.

I'm surprised you're actually going to the "I don't see it" card...
Look at how his shoulders are positionned compared to his head, it's clear.

No, you had already announced the outcome of the debate long back. Didn't I say not to get ahead of yourself, chucky?

"This game is ours!"
This is only a sign of enthusiasm, don't you think cap'tain?

Well I'm having a hard time properly deciphering the mystery of your gender, since you apparently act like an annoying, hypersensitive emo chick but your username "emplies" that you're a male. So I figured the best thing to do was leave you somewhere in the middle.

... and where does my sexuality comes into play in the debate again?

Again, so says the fool who sees "hidden" white text as an "attempt" to insult him.

At least I saw it as an "attempt" and I didn't feel insulted over silly little names that wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, except yours... apparently. It's so sad to see you try to make seem more sensitive than you, really jacky-boy... you're been pathetic. Of course, I'm having a blast having you struggle like a fish out of water... do continue, please.

I didn't create no torch. I simply said you were a hypersensitive emo chick. You're the one who decided to find and run with some torch thingy or whatever. "Finders keepers"

I only conceptualized your own concept, it's yours to keep... in which ever form you see fit.
You're the one that's going to be using it, so make it count bobby.

Or...both IMDB and celebheights are completely wrong. Yeah, that sounds about right.

The other one seems much more plausible... ( yeah, this is going to go on the cutting room's floor )

Then how do you explain him looking nearly as tall as Neeson (who is 6'4) in both those Japanese premiere pics you posted, when in fact, he is supposed to be almost two inches shorter than him?

Have you read CelebHeights.com? It says that Neeson was 6'4'' in his younger years at that he too, has somewhat of a crooked back. Neeson's 'glory days' are behind him ( physically speaking ).

Bale is 6'2. And now you're all out of sources, monkey-boy.

* Checks information posted above * Guess again, donkey.

What are you blabbering about? Bale looks noticeably taller than just about everyone in the film, save for Freeman and Neeson, just like I said countless number of times before.

He doesn't seem "noticably taller" than Michael Caine and Ken Watanabe either...

And like the celebheight.com disclaimer clearly says "those are our ESTIMATES only and NOT FACTS". Looking at a bunch of pics is never a good away to factually pinpoint a person's height. Common sense.

But actual encounters can be, add to that the value that the pics add and voilà!

In your "full body shots", Bale head is slightly lowered and he is clearly hunched over and not standing completely straight. That's why he looks taller than Watanabe in one pic and shorter in the other. See what I meant by "inconsistent heights" in your pics?

When you take the one when he's straight, the difference is still there...

Again, Bale was clearly talking about his height in loose terms and not in exact values, just like his weight and the periods of time related to his weight changes. And now with IMDB and celebheights.com out of the way, your unfounded, unsupported, baseless claim of Bale being 6'0 is pure conjecture at this point.

CelebHeights.com and my pics have enough value to prove he's not 6'2''.

What can I say, I love popcorn.

Yeah... if only we cared.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-08-2006, 11:08 PM

And the drama continues........dum dum dummmmmmmm da da dummmm...

TimDrake64x

01-08-2006, 11:14 PM

im more, was nolan the right choice, not bale

El Payaso

01-09-2006, 06:39 AM

im more, was nolan the right choice, not bale

Aaaaaaaaaaa-Ha!!!

Nolan was right for the movie, except for the blurry secquences (action)

Question is Was Goyer the one?

Katsuro

01-09-2006, 08:41 AM

Wow, this is one of the funniest, most pointless debates I've seen in a while. We're finally gifted with a great actor who matches both the Bruce Wayne persona and Batman persona excellently, and some people cant help but complain that he should be an inch or two taller. Who cares?!?! He was a great actor, he played the role amazingly, he even looks a hell of a lot like the Jim Lee Bruce Wayne, who cares if he possibly could be a tiny bit taller. Bale was definatley the right choice to play Batman and I wouldn't have it any other way, and until this guy brought it up, I never even considered for a second that he wasn't tall enough.

Phaser

01-09-2006, 02:42 PM

... an interview with Bale that claimed to be 6'2''?
The information is just spoon fed to the general public and there aren't any actual sources that tells us where they took that information from.

Yeah, when they attach the little snippet of Bale being the only actor since Adam West to be the height of the comic book Batman right alongside an interview with Bale, only dumbasses like you would think that the info was provided by another source. :down:

For once I'd like to see something like "This information was given to us by Christian Bale himself" or something along those lines.

Of course, you speak of deductions and whatnot but are seemingly incapable of applying them yourself.

Otherwise, it could be false information that just speads around... and frankly, who'd care enough to stop it?

What proof do you have that it "could be false info"? IMBD? Celebheights? Or your own empty little noggin? Really, I'd like to see some sort of verification that implies that all those sources I listed are simply spreading around false info, because that's one big ass claim and both of your sources are hopeless.

The "truth" as in Bale's actual height.
Plus, to my knowledge... Wikipedia is the same as IMDb in many ways.

Yeah, except Wikipedia's realibility has been vouched for by the Science Journal as being as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica, while IMDB is very well known for thier innumerable screwups. Read ChrisBaleBatman's about the reasons for IMDB's unreliability when compared to many other sources.

If you still claim that Wiki is as same as IMDB, then you've got more than a few screws loose up there.

The problem is that, like many other sites, the actual sources of the information are not revealed to the general public, thus it is hard to figure out what could be the cause of a particular mistake. I don't like the idea of believing something, simply because it's presented to us in a certain way.

Yeah, but you don't have a problem in believing in crap that's been fed to you by sites that have a checkered past (IMDB) or sites that come outright and say that their info is only "guesstimates and NOT FACTS". :rolleyes:

You're just grasping for loose straws and it doesn't appear to be working, chump.

I don't think that the fact that Wikipedia talks about IMDb's mistakes makes it any less as unreliable.

How is that possible when Wiki's authenticity has been vouched for by a highly reputed and respectable source such as The Science Journal as well as the fact the Wiki's content contribution and verification processes have earned praise instead of backlash like IMDB's?

If person A says that person B is short, it doesn't mean that person A isn't short also, no?

When persons C, D, E and F and many more say that person A is undeniably taller as well as more truthful and reliable than person B, who is already well-known for his screwups, of course there shouldn't be any doubt as to who is short and who is telling the truth.

The "concrete information" they have is based mostly on 2 different things: Personal encounters / experiences and pictures.

Pictures are not completely reliable, and this thread is the very example of that. Personal encounters, however, are even more unreliable. If the person in question has seen the celebrity from a distance of even a meter or more, then no doubt his "guesstimation" of the height of a celebrity will most definitely be off the mark. And even if they stand right beside the celebrity, most people lack the visual and spatial skills to pinpoint the exact height of someone without a measuring device. And that's exactly why celebheight.com's editor slapped that disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Because the reliability and credibility of his "sources" (pics, films and people) is not only questionable, but are downright inadmissible.

I think that one of the best ways to find the truth in those kinds of situations ( when you don't have the actual "truth" ), is to get information and opinions from varied sources and combine the elements to make an estimate as accurate as possible.

That's why I posted those twenty sites, quite a number of them being reputed online sources. But you still put stock in that garbage posted at IMDB and Celebheights, because they back YOUR baseless notions.

I didn't bother to check all the sites you listed, but do some of them actually say where they took their information from and is that source really reliable?

Is the information coming from IMDB and Celebheights.com reliable, especially considering the incompetence of IMDB's information contribution and verification system and the fact that I can easily create a hundred usernames at Celebheights.com and post that Bale is more than 6'0 and no one will be able to tell the difference?

Heck, at least a number of the sources I posted are run by professionals who have a track record of being reliable and trustworthy, while the geeks at celebheights.com are anonymous nobodys whose reliability and trustworthiness amounts to zero percent, especially when a number of them are basing their estimations simply by looking at a couple of pictures.

Plus, I am aware of the disclaimer at the bottom of the site and I doubt that any site reported by you states that all the information it contains is all 100 % pure facts. The fact that they try to determine the actual height of celebrities based on various sources makes it impossible for them to claim to be 100 % accurate on all they say. The only way they could claim otherwise, would be if they actually measured all celebrities themselves or whatnot. It's a means of protection against people that could argue that their site isn't telling the truth on everything they say.

I think you didn't read the whole disclaimer properly. Here, let me highlight the key points for you:

All heights are barefeet Guesstimations.
This site is not associated with ANY of the celebrities it tries to guess heights on, and our own estimates are exactly that - ESTIMATES and not facts...

So, unlike many reputed online sourcesa and publications, Celebheights is not saying that they aren't 100% accurate. Quite the contrary, they are saying that they are 100% inaccurate. That "all heights" are simply "guesstimates" and "NOT FACTS".

Translation: No information, I repeat, nothing at Celebrityheights has any basis on fact whatsoever. Everything there is simply guesswork and estimates. Totally unreliable.

Of course, you have to add to that the fact that they don't spend as much time and effort on all the celebrities, which makes them even less likely to be right on all accounts.

Uhhh, by their own admission, the Celebheights.com disclaimer says that it is THEY THEMSELVES who are more likely to be WRONG at all counts.

Fortunately, when you look at Bale's profile, it's more than clear that the general consensus is that he is not 6'2''. What you do not seem to understand is that even if Bale himself came to the site and clearly stated that he is in fact 6'0'', the disclaimer would still be there. You have to be able to make those kinds of deductions for yourself Phaser, I won't always be there to explain it to you.

No, I simply see that as a futile and laughable attempt to somehow try and uphold the broken-from-the-start credibility and reliability of Celebheights.com. If those guys were even half-reliable, they would have at least changed the CONTENTS of the disclaimer.

What difference is there?
There are so many different comics...

The difference is that you referenced the comics and you have yet to provide a single example from the comics.

http://worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/bios/heroes/gordon/05.jpg

Great job at posting a pic from the 4th season of TAS. Here's a comparison between the Gordon from the first three TAS seasons and the 4th season Gordon from the very same site you lifted that pic from:

http://worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/bios/heroes/gordon/01.jpg
Gordon as in Season 1-3.
http://worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/bios/heroes/gordon/02.gif
Gordon as in Season 4.

Quite a difference, wouldn't you agree? It's almost day and night there. Way to demonstrate your disgusting double standards by only posting pics that do support your point, instead of posting ones that don't, despite the fact that they're from the same site and the same page.

And in the first three seasons, many villains and supporting characters like Harvey Dent, Bullock, Gordon and many more appear almost as big as Batman himself, so there isn't that big of a difference in their heights as you claim and want it to be. As for the rest, well:

-Ubu is taller and bigger than Batman
-Maximillian Zeus is taller and bigger than Batman.
-the Riddler's thugs in "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" and "The Riddler's reform" are taller and bigger than Batman.
-Two-Face's thugs in "Almost got him" who hold Batman are taller and bigger than Batman.
-The street thugs wearing Mayan costumes who are brainswashed by the Mad Hatter in "The Worry Men" are bigger and taller than Batman.
-Lock-up (the Arkham Security Guard) is very much bigger and taller than Batman in the episode "Lock-up".
-Heck, even the bloody Scarecrow appears to be taller than Batman in the episode "Trial" when Croc and Scarecrow tie him in a straightjacket and put him to trial.

And those are just a handful of examples off the top of my head.

You have to remember that, in B:TAS, Gordon is presented as taller than in the movie and that Batman's suit doesn't make him taller.It is still easy to see that he is not only taller than Gordon, but also a lot bigger, which doesn't show in Batman Begins.

So what? You said that you wanted Batman to be as tall as he is in TAS, even proportionately speaking and guess what, he's actually taller than that in Begins.

Don't make inane excuses like Gordon being taller, the suit not making look Batman tall enough and whatnot. That only exemplifies your desperation.

I actually never saw Year One. To be honest, I haven't really been following Batman comics for a while now, but the movie got me somewhat interested in it again.

Year One is 1989 Batman story, and story from which Begins draws more from than any Batman comic in existence. And according to that fact, using Year One as the barometer, Batman is most definitely as tall (or even taller) as he is supposed to be, thereby renderining all your points moot.

Plus, for me it has never really been about 'realism'. Whether or not the character appears believable on a physical level was never really an issue.

Of course not. Because if "believability" and "realism" are factored in the debate, then your 6'5 Batman is thrown out the window.

Still, I have to admit that I've had the opportunity to watch a few episodes of The Batman recently and I really enjoy how it's made... might be the 'more normal' looking Batman I like the most. We never know, maybe the idea of seeing him like that will grow on be...

And thanks for mentioning The Batman Animated Series. Another example of Batman not appearing as tall as you claim or want him to be.

In the 5th pic, he looks at least twice as big as in the 4th one.

That's because the 4th one is a fan rendering. Shows how much you know about the character. And the 5th pic is Sale's Batman, whose The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and Haunted Knight series are one of the rare few comics that have earned universal praise from the fans. The first pic is from the revolutionary DKR, while the second pic is Jim Lee's Batman.

Come to think of it, Sale and Lee are arguably the most reknowned contemporary Batman artists to date. And both of them draw Batman who is quite big, muscular and appears to be very much menacing.

Plus, the fact that they put him in skin tight clothing doesn't help either...

Again, excuses. First you said that you wanted Batman to look like he did in the comics. Now that I posted pics of how exactly he DOES look like in the comics, now you're trying to sidestep the point? Do you have ANY self-integrity left in that abused shell of yours?

Phaser

01-09-2006, 02:42 PM

Look at the 4th pic, but imagine him with loose clothes.

4th pic is a fan rendition and not by a reputed Batman artist.

He looks like a really athletic guy, but nothing that would compare to something like this:http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/103727main_bodybuilder.jpg

Actually, Sale's Batman does look quite a lot like that at times. If you look at the pic I posted, the arms and shoulders of Sale's rendition do look quite buff.

To me, "hulking menace" implies someone huge and very muscular...Something along the lines of a professional body builder, like shown above.

Uhh, so? The word hulking means "impressively large" while menace means "something threatening or a possible source of danger", those definitions taken straight from Encarta's and Webster's online dictionary. The words "muscular" is not even hinted at anywhere in those definition.

You can't hold me responsible for your asinine assumptions or your apparent lack and misunderstanding of the English language

I find the difference between Batman and the others to be at the very least more apparent than in Batman Begins.

You mean like in this one?

http://worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/bios/heroes/gordon/03.jpg

Oh yeah, Batman looks REALLY bigger than Gordon in that one. :rolleyes:

If you'd only seen enough episodes from the first three seasons, you'd notice that there really isn't a tangible difference between them, neither in size nor in height.

I did not say he wasn't like that in some comics, but in your earlier statement, you talking about him begin like a "hulking menace" and then followed with:

My remark was about those 2 not having the same meaning...
"Hulking menace" doesn't mean "relatively big".

Didn't I say he was a "hulking menace" in a "comparitive sense"? That's the exact the same thing I repeated when I said he's "relatively big", because "relatively" according to dictionary definition means "comparatively speaking: in comparison with other things". Besides, the definitions of "hulking" and "menace" are actually complimentary to my own point, which subsequently undercuts your pointless argument here.

Get it, jackass? I can't believe I'm spoonfeeding everything ad nauseum to you like that. For crying out loud, go get some decent schooling.

That's exactly the point I was making in the earlier statement, jacky-boy.

Oh, you mean you actually do have a problem with reading comprehension? That's old news to me, bub.

Two people can have different interpretations of the same thing, we just don't seem to see eye to eye on many things. It inevitably makes it somewhat troublesome to see things from the other's perspective. I'd rather be sure of what you're talking about, rather than ending up talking from my perspective, instead of yours.

And I've explained my position countless number of times in this thread, but like the pitiful little fool that you are, you're only hell-bent on sticking with what YOU thought I meant rather than paying attention to what I actually said.

The fact that you presented this "possibility" forced my to present what I was trying to say from another perspective, but since both the "average man" concept and the "proportion" one are undeniably linked, I don't see where the problem is.

No, "average man" and "proportion" are not linked. Neither in a mathematical sense nor in logical terms. Both are completely independent of each other. That's just you trying to clutch loose straws again.

You don't "proportionately" adjust the heights of the subjects to find out the height of the "average man", which is exactly what you've been doing all along. You increased the "average height" requirement based on the extreme values of only two subjects, while ignoring the real height of the "average man" as recorded in both real-life and implied by the film itself. You really do like to play around like some know-it-all clown, but you probably don't realize that you're only randomly sprouting out garbage without having that faintest idea of the meaning behind your own words.

"Taller" would imply that there is a visible difference in terms of height when it comes to comparing Batman to the other characters. In Begins, although he is taller than most of the general population, there isn't any real emphasis that is put on that aspect and when constrasted with other more important characters, the difference is not only hard to notice, but in some cases, it's even negative.

Yeah, Batman being taller than Crane, Gordon (he is 5'10, so even if you stick by your baseless claim of Bale being 6'0, he is still taller than Oldman and that fact appears as such in the film) Rachel, Ra's ninjas and all of Crane and Falcone's thugs put together has no meaning at all simply because Fox and Ra's are taller than him. :rolleyes:

I repeat the same request I made to you earlier in this thread: Please pull your cranium out of your anal cavity so that you can at least see things the way they ACTUALLY are.

The fact that there are moments in Begins ( like in the pics ), where Bruce Wayne doesn't look as tall as he 'should', ends up having an impact on the general perception of the hero.

Really?

He looks sufficiently tall when he is fighting the inmates in the prison.
He looks sufficiently tall whenever he is with Rachel.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's playing around with those two chicks at the hotel.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's beside Alfred (both appearing to be around the same height).
He looks sufficiently tall when facing Crane.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's talking with Gordon at the end of the film.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's taking out Falcone's thugs at the docks.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's taking out Crane's thugs in the Narrows and at Arkham.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's fighting Ra's ninjas on the bridge.

"Not enough moments"? Yup, that sounds like yet another attempt by poor Alfie Lukie to put up a barely adequate stand in this debate, which again unfortunately ends in miserable failure. And quite expectedly so.

Yes, I have to agree with that... we 'know' he is taller, but there is no real toe-to-toe interaction between the two. We could argue that Ken Watanabe is at the very least as tall as Bale, no?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale22.jpg

Yeah, the very idiot who's repeatedly talking about "perception" in this debate has posted a pic from a skewed angle to prove his point. The very same idiot now can't see that Bale is standing farther away from the camera than Watanabe. The very same idiot now can't see that Bale isn't standing straight, but is rather a bit laid back resting support on the wooden grail instead of standing upright like Nolan or Watanabe.

I did not feel it was noticable enough to actually make a difference.
I feel that Batman's height should have more 'importance' than it has now.

How much you "felt" was "noticeable enough to make a difference" is totally irrelevant, since your own perception runs contrary to the way things were actually presented in the film.

But wasn't Ra's "the perfect height" in the comics and cartoons?

Well whaddya know? I just saw DC's official profile of Ra's Al Ghul in the Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight and he's listed as 6'5. Looks like both Ra's and Batman are the right height in BB according to their official DC profiles.

The fact that Batman is officially classified as 6'2'' shouldn't stop us...

Now that Ra's is listed as 6'5, it really shouldn't matter anyway.

The problem with all these roles is that they didn't have any 'visual' expectations to live up to, like Batman does.

Have you lost your mind? Isn't there a certain height you expect to see the most inflential don in the Mafia? The fact that both De'Niro and Brando played the roles of Godfather alongside the shorter Pacino should account for something.

And when you hear of a tough, smack talking Cuban drug dealing gangster, I doubt the image that first directly comes to your head is short guy Pacino with an M16 shouting "say hello to my little friend".

Cops have generally been portrayed as guys with decent height and Pacino is easily shorter than that.

No visual expectations? Yeah, only for a spoonfed baby like you.

I did not say that it "should" be like that because of those reasons, I used a similar analogy than the one you presented for Ra's. I'm interested in knowing what kind of 'negative' impact on the film a taller Batman would have for you. Is it simply about 'realism'?

I've already said so before that aside from being a costumed vigilante at the peak of his human potential, Bruce Wayne is also a savvy socialite, a charming playboy who can easily blend inside a crowd. A 6'5 Bruce Wayne like the kind you're demanding would simply stick out like a sore thumb.

In what ways? They follow a similar path...

No, they don't. Especially now since I've seen that both Ra's and Bruce have the right height according to their official profiles.

It wasn't as much the comment itself, but simply the fact that it was so far out of what the conversation was about and because I often see people trying to use this as a means to try to discredit the other person. Although it might have been a joke, I wanted to make sure that it wasn't something you would end up trying to use to turn this fun debate into something... eh... worse. I think it ended up being beneficial, to a certain extend.

Whatever.

You were using those names to try to offend me?

More like condescending. And you bet it works like a charm, monkey-boy.

Come on, "jacky-boy" ain't that bad... isn't it a character in Sin City? :P

Yeah, and "horse cock aka Lefty" is a character in Donny Brasco. Guess now it is okay for me to call you a horse cock in a condescending manner now that I've proved he's a character in some movie. :)

I figured that since you said that, due to that "if", he would end up being the "perfect height" and since you still thought that he was, you still believe in that statement. I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption.

It is an unreasonable assumption by all counts. I always said that I believed Bruce Wayne (when he is not in the suit) is the perfect height. The "if he's wearing thick-soled boots" part was referring to Batman while he's IN the suit. Two very different things.

I didn't say it had an impact on the character's performance, I would never go that far...

A few inches would not have an impact. At all. In ANY WAY WHATOSEVER.

I only took 5'' away, but even if I only took 3'' away ( making him 5'7'' ), I still think it would've seemed awkward, when compared to the Joker. Don't be so quick to discredit hypothetical scenarios, as it can allow for better understanding of where the other is coming from.

Yes, but your hypothetical examples are extreme and exaggerated when compared to the subject of our debate to begin with. My point all along was that if Keaton being shorter than Bale made such a great Batman, then Bale is by far just as good, if not better. Which only reinforced my point that a few inches has no tangible difference in any way.

Keaton was already short. Trying to make him even shorter to prove your point is downright stupid, especially considering the fact that it is Bale's height you have a problem with. Here's a much better, much more appropriate example:

If you think Bale is NOT 6'2, heck even if he is 5'10, two inches shorter than what you claim and the same height as Keaton, it would have made as much a difference as it did in Keaton's case. Which is to say, negligible to no difference at all.

They probably would've complained if he was 5'7'' or less... but since you seem to fail to grasp the point of hypothetical scenarios, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

I don't agree with your hypothetical scenarios because they are ill-concieved and inappropriate. You rely on extreme and exaggerated points to make your argument and your subsequent failure to come up with a better fitting and/or real-life example only shows the fragility of your arguments.

It was just too easy and so fanboy-ish, that's all.
If you're comfortable in that... fine.

Everybody on this entire site is a fanboy in one way or another. And so are you. Else you wouldn't be here *****ing and moaning about a few inches difference in height.

* I didn't bother to answer some of your comments, if you feel any of them added anything to the discussion, feel free to write them again in your next reply. Don't hesitate to do the same for mine... It would be more fun if we stayed on track on what really matters, no?

Any of my arguments you failed to answer is simply failure and incompetence on your part. If you're replying to posts such as mine, I would expect you to be prepared and honest in your replies. If you aren't thorough enough, that's not my problem. I'm having my hands full spoonfeeding you already.

Phaser

01-09-2006, 02:44 PM

Constant? I used in only on one pic...
My other comments regarding Caine still remain more important though.

Your comments regarding Caine have been addressed long back and I am still eagerly awaiting a sufficient reply (especially about the two full body premiere pics of Caine and Bale standing side by side with the Tumbler in the background) .

What was 'so' important about them?
Do you honestly they'll turn the tide in your favor, kiddo?

No, it only demonstrates what a useless, incapable and spineless wrench that you are for ignoring that part of my post and jumping off on a completely different tangent.

He doesn't appear taller?
There is a clear difference, even though there are many things in Caine's dissadvantage.

No, Caine doesn't appear taller than Bale. You're only seeing things you want to see. It's quite a common disorder in delusional idiots like you.

I too have presented you "full body pics" that clearly show what I've been saying.

You posted only two full body pics, and in both the pics, Bale's height seems to fluctuate wherein he appears taller than Watanabe in one despite being hunched over and shorter than him in another.

What the heck are you talking about? Just like you, I saw the film BEFORE actually starting this debate and I had seen Michael Caine in many movies beforehand... I didn't need that pic to tell me he had a bent spine. Plus, it actually IS visible from the front, if you look close enough... try it, champ.

No, Caine doesn't have a bent spine, at least not to the extent that'll suddenly slash away 2-3 inches from his height.

So 2 moments? He appears 'up right' in 2 different moments?

OK...

He appears upright when he sees Thomas Wayne comforting Bruce after pulling him out of the cave.
He appears upright when he consoles a young, guilt-ridden Bruce.
He appears upright when he says "This house, Master Wayne, has sheltered six generations of your family".
He appears upright comes out of the private jet and says "Master Wayne".
He appears upright when he's bringing tea for Bruce the moment Bruce notices a bat inside Wayne Manor.
He appears upright when he's scolding Bruce for his "thrill-seeking".

Shall I go on? You seem to talk as if you've seen the film, but at the same time, act as if you haven't. Ye confused soul.

Of course he looks in good shape, but he is still stuck with a bent spine, like many old people.

http://www.macrobee.de/version2/IMG/jpg/pennyworth.jpg
Looks pretty upright for a guy with a "bent spine"

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/michael_caine/batmanbegins1.jpg
Again, he seems to be walking straight and upright.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale10.jpg
This pic alone says it all. No bent spine, none of that crap (oh and just so you don't get any ideas, they'r standing on stairs, which accounts for the difference in height).

I'm surprised you're actually going to the "I don't see it" card...
Look at how his shoulders are positionned compared to his head, it's clear.

He looks fat and bulky, if anything. Not bent or anything like that. Besides, the pics I posted in this post pretty much seal the deal.

"This game is ours!"
This is only a sign of enthusiasm, don't you think cap'tain?

For a guy who has not read the comics, nor seen enough of TAS - both of which he claims to derive his preferences from, nor does he have no more than two, I repeat, only TWO bloody sources both of which have been proved to be unreliable for any concrete info and whatnot, it most certainly looks like getting ahead of yourself.

Besides enthusiasm means:

1. excited interest: passionate interest in or eagerness to do something
2. engrossing interest: something that arouses a consuming interest

So I say yet again, your foolhardy ways of prematurely declaring victory is not a sign of enthusiasm, but getting ahead of yourself.

... and where does my sexuality comes into play in the debate again?

Not the debate itself, but your sexuality has a lot to do with your girlish reactions in this thread. It's not exactly a point of discussion, unless of course, you wish to make it one. ;)

At least I saw it as an "attempt" and I didn't feel insulted over silly little names that wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, except yours... apparently.

Yeah, that's why you're still "discussing" my old white text trick. Because you weren't insulted. :rolleyes:

It's always funny watching someone put a smile on tears coming out of being humiliated. :up:

It's so sad to see you try to make seem more sensitive than you, really jacky-boy... you're been pathetic. Of course, I'm having a blast having you struggle like a fish out of water... do continue, please.

I think you forgot that you're buttnaked right now, without any sources to cover your bare ass and gibberish claims at the moment. You got bigger things to worry about, chimp.

I only conceptualized your own concept, it's yours to keep... in which ever form you see fit.

"Conceptualized" my own "concept"? Isn't "conceptualization" the process by which a concept is born and NOT the other way around?

LOL, it's best you try not to play with words monkey-boy. You're not very good at it.

You're the one that's going to be using it, so make it count bobby.

Use what? A "conceptualized concept"? :D

The other one seems much more plausible... ( yeah, this is going to go on the cutting room's floor )

Sorry bub. But Celebheights.com's own disclaimer undercuts anything you have to say. It's a really unfair position for you, I know, but you gotta pick your sources wisely, chump, and that's where you screwed up big time.

Have you read CelebHeights.com? It says that Neeson was 6'4'' in his younger years at that he too, has somewhat of a crooked back. Neeson's 'glory days' are behind him ( physically speaking ).

Oh please. The fact that you're still putting any stock in what those jokers at Celebheights.com have to say by looking at a couple of pics and film stills really puts a spotlight on your overly pathetic desperation. Please stop. Otherwise your constant humiliation's going to make a humble man out of me.

* Checks information posted above * Guess again, donkey.

"Donkey"? HAHAHAHAHA! You sound like one of them toddlers in kindergarten who just learned the word and decided to use it at the very first opportunity, regardless of how juvenile it would sound. Keep it up, son. You'll be a teenager...someday.

He doesn't seem "noticably taller" than Michael Caine and Ken Watanabe either...

He doesn't stand right beside Watanabe in the film at any point, at least not in a way that one can make a suitable estimation of their heights. So of course you wouldn't be able to tell if he's taller or shorter than Bale. Caine and Bale appear to be almost the same height, as I said before. Besides, Batman is already taller than more people in Begins than he appears to be in TAS, which is your only crutch left in this debate (and now, even that is broken). Your point?

But actual encounters can be, add to that the value that the pics add and voilà!

Unless those guys stood right beside with a measuring tape to check his height, they are most definitely wrong, especially when looking at their claims in light of the info posted by other infinitely more reliable and trustworthy sites. Besides, who's to say if whether or not those clowns actually did encounter Bale? They all appear to be geeks like you who spend their time deliberating heights of celebrities by looking at pictures and film still and as such, there's no way one can see them a reliable source.

Besides, the pics I posted add just as much value, if not more, than your pics. Not to mention the subsequent refuting of your baseless comments by myself only to see you flee like a rodent with it's tail tucked in between it's legs only reinforces the notion of your constantly failing stand in this "discussion".

When you take the one when he's straight, the difference is still there...

Which pic are you talking about? If it's the premiere pics, then nope, he isn't standing straight in either one of them.

CelebHeights.com and my pics have enough value to prove he's not 6'2''.

And both celebheights.com and your pics have been successively discredited enough to prove he is 6'2.

Yeah... if only we cared.

Obviously.

ChrisBaleBatman

01-09-2006, 07:07 PM

Yeah, and "horse cock aka Lefty" is a character in Donny Brasco. Guess now it is okay for me to call you a horse cock in a condescending manner now that I've proved he's a character in some movie. :)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha .....that's too funny.

Well whaddya know? I just saw DC's official profile of Ra's Al Ghul in the Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight and he's listed as 6'5. Looks like both Ra's and Batman are the right height in BB according to their official DC profiles.

Your right.

This is a link to DC Comics' secret files- the official info on the characters. And your right, Ra's is officially 6'5 and weighs 215 lbs.......so, Neeson was actually an inch too short if you want to nitpick. And if you want to play devil's advocate.......because alot of facts points to Bale actually being 6'2......then Bale being 6'1 actually balances things the way it is in the comics between Bruce and Ra's' heights. But, Batman is
http://www.dccomics.com/secret_files/pdfs/ras_al_ghul.pdf

This is a link to DC Comics' secret file on Batman, where he's officially 6'2 and 210lbs........Which Bale is.
http://www.dccomics.com/secret_files/pdfs/batman.pdf

This totally backs up the casting choices, b/c both men really fit the physical credentials of the characters per the comics.

I've already said so before that aside from being a costumed vigilante at the peak of his human potential, Bruce Wayne is also a savvy socialite, a charming playboy who can easily blend inside a crowd. A 6'5 Bruce Wayne like the kind you're demanding would simply stick out like a sore thumb.

Yep.

6'2 can quilify for the "tall-dark-and handsome" line, and yet can still blend in and not really appear all that athletic if he can wear suits. 6'5 guy does stand out, especially if he's as proportionally built as Bale was.

Remember, Bruce Wayne is supposed to be a guy that nobody would ever guess would be Bats. It's easier to keep up that cloud of charade when your not so freakishly tall and big.

I've gotta say....Phaser seems to be dishing out lots of facts that discredit you Alfie. I mean, as far as resources go: You've given 1 website with a very checkered past in credibilty, and one site with ZERO credibilty by they're own account in the disclaimer.

Phaser is throwing lots of impressive and fact-based arguments, and provided with reliable and more resources.

This debate could change though....of course, depending on the next comment.

patrickbateman

01-09-2006, 07:46 PM

LOL CHECK OUT IMDB

http://imdb.com/name/nm0004770/bio
Was offered the opportunity to play as Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins but turned it down.

^ WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN LIARS I TELL U LIARS

ChrisBaleBatman

01-09-2006, 08:39 PM

LMAO.....imdb, for ya......

TimDrake64x

01-09-2006, 09:40 PM

i hope its a lie, i dont he would have been a good bats

Alfie Luke

01-09-2006, 10:15 PM

Yeah, when they attach the little snippet of Bale being the only actor since Adam West to be the height of the comic book Batman right alongside an interview with Bale, only dumbasses like you would think that the info was provided by another source.

That doesn't imply they asked him...
I just found some additional information that you'll want to check later on in this post.

Of course, you speak of deductions and whatnot but are seemingly incapable of applying them yourself.

We'll see about that, champ.

What proof do you have that it "could be false info"? IMBD? Celebheights? Or your own empty little noggin? Really, I'd like to see some sort of verification that implies that all those sources I listed are simply spreading around false info, because that's one big ass claim and both of your sources are hopeless.

A new record... you quote me as saying "could be false" and then it becomes "all those sources I listed are simply speading around false info". I only hinted at a possibility, nothing more ( but this will all be finished soon )

Yeah, except Wikipedia's realibility has been vouched for by the Science Journal as being as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica, while IMDB is very well known for thier innumerable screwups. Read ChrisBaleBatman's about the reasons for IMDB's unreliability when compared to many other sources.

If you still claim that Wiki is as same as IMDB, then you've got more than a few screws loose up there.

On their main page, it still says:
"Welcome to the Internet Movie Database, the biggest, best, most award-winning movie site on the planet."

... that ain't that bad, kiddo.

Yeah, but you don't have a problem in believing in crap that's been fed to you by sites that have a checkered past (IMDB) or sites that come outright and say that their info is only "guesstimates and NOT FACTS".

You're just grasping for loose straws and it doesn't appear to be working, chump.

You're doing the same thing with your sites...
Plus, I already explained quite well my POV of CelebHeights.com.

How is that possible when Wiki's authenticity has been vouched for by a highly reputed and respectable source such as The Science Journal as well as the fact the Wiki's content contribution and verification processes have earned praise instead of backlash like IMDB's?

Even respectable magazines like The Science Journal can be wrong... and the fact that the height they list Bale as doesn't constitute a big enough mistake to discredit the site... Wikipedia is way too big for that. Even if 1/10000 of their information wasn't really accurate, it would still be pretty darn good.

When persons C, D, E and F and many more say that person A is undeniably taller as well as more truthful and reliable than person B, who is already well-known for his screwups, of course there shouldn't be any doubt as to who is short and who is telling the truth.

Who else says that IMDb isn't reliable... that has any worth, of course.
( Just so you know, that leaves you and ChrisBaleBatman out, silly kids )

Pictures are not completely reliable, and this thread is the very example of that. Personal encounters, however, are even more unreliable. If the person in question has seen the celebrity from a distance of even a meter or more, then no doubt his "guesstimation" of the height of a celebrity will most definitely be off the mark. And even if they stand right beside the celebrity, most people lack the visual and spatial skills to pinpoint the exact height of someone without a measuring device. And that's exactly why celebheight.com's editor slapped that disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Because the reliability and credibility of his "sources" (pics, films and people) is not only questionable, but are downright inadmissible.

At the very least, one of them was standing right beside him... and unlike what you might think, not everyone needs a measuring device to check heights. You're only making up pseudo-facts in order not to have to face the truth. Such a pitty...

That's why I posted those twenty sites, quite a number of them being reputed online sources. But you still put stock in that garbage posted at IMDB and Celebheights, because they back YOUR baseless notions.

They are far from being baseless... you'll see.

Is the information coming from IMDB and Celebheights.com reliable, especially considering the incompetence of IMDB's information contribution and verification system and the fact that I can easily create a hundred usernames at Celebheights.com and post that Bale is more than 6'0 and no one will be able to tell the difference?

Heck, at least a number of the sources I posted are run by professionals who have a track record of being reliable and trustworthy, while the geeks at celebheights.com are anonymous nobodys whose reliability and trustworthiness amounts to zero percent, especially when a number of them are basing their estimations simply by looking at a couple of pictures.

LOL, the simple fact that you didn't even bother to 'defend' your sites proves that none of them actually showed where they took their information from. Although they might be run by "professionals", they are as baseless as the ones you say already are, mine.

So, unlike many reputed online sourcesa and publications, Celebheights is not saying that they aren't 100% accurate. Quite the contrary, they are saying that they are 100% inaccurate. That "all heights" are simply "guesstimates" and "NOT FACTS".

Translation: No information, I repeat, nothing at Celebrityheights has any basis on fact whatsoever. Everything there is simply guesswork and estimates. Totally unreliable.

Again, they are debating, so it is impossible for them to claim that what they write is fact. Even if Bale himself went on the site and said so, they wouldn't change the disclaimer to:

All heights are barefeet Guesstimations.
This site is not associated with ANY of the celebrities it tries to guess heights on, and our own estimates are exactly that - ESTIMATES and not facts... except for the part about Christian Bale's height, because he came here and said so himself.

You can be such a retard when you put some effort into it, kiddo.

Uhhh, by their own admission, the Celebheights.com disclaimer says that it is THEY THEMSELVES who are more likely to be WRONG at all counts.

Until they find actual proofs, like they did...
But you wouldn't understand that, you can't understand anything outside of the actual words.

No, I simply see that as a futile and laughable attempt to somehow try and uphold the broken-from-the-start credibility and reliability of Celebheights.com. If those guys were even half-reliable, they would have at least changed the CONTENTS of the disclaimer.

They aren't pretentious enough to claim they are 100 % accurate half the time.
But putting this disclaimer, they can't be accused of giving false information.

Even though it's done in good spirit, for fun... it doesn't mean they CAN'T be right.

The difference is that you referenced the comics and you have yet to provide a single example from the comics.

It's been a while since I've looked at the comics, my interpretation is based on the conception I had when I was younger. It is impossible for you to even remotely discredit my vision of the character, as there are an almost infinite number of ways to see him.

Great job at posting a pic from the 4th season of TAS. Here's a comparison between the Gordon from the first three TAS seasons and the 4th season Gordon from the very same site you lifted that pic from:

No matter where it's from... it's still a pic from the cartoons that shows Batman as being taller and bigger than Gordon, a lot more so than in Begins. The way they conceptualized Robin also gives a feeling that Batman is even bigger. Maybe they realized that Batman needed to appear bigger, which is why they name Gordon smaller in the 4th season... proves my point even more.

Quite a difference, wouldn't you agree? It's almost day and night there. Way to demonstrate your disgusting double standards by only posting pics that do support your point, instead of posting ones that don't, despite the fact that they're from the same site and the same page.

And in the first three seasons, many villains and supporting characters like Harvey Dent, Bullock, Gordon and many more appear almost as big as Batman himself, so there isn't that big of a difference in their heights as you claim and want it to be. As for the rest, well:

-Ubu is taller and bigger than Batman
-Maximillian Zeus is taller and bigger than Batman.
-the Riddler's thugs in "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" and "The Riddler's reform" are taller and bigger than Batman.
-Two-Face's thugs in "Almost got him" who hold Batman are taller and bigger than Batman.
-The street thugs wearing Mayan costumes who are brainswashed by the Mad Hatter in "The Worry Men" are bigger and taller than Batman.
-Lock-up (the Arkham Security Guard) is very much bigger and taller than Batman in the episode "Lock-up".
-Heck, even the bloody Scarecrow appears to be taller than Batman in the episode "Trial" when Croc and Scarecrow tie him in a straightjacket and put him to trial.

And those are just a handful of examples off the top of my head.

Of course I post examples that support my point... you ask for cartoons that showed Batman as bigger than the rest of the cast without looking like a "hulking menace" and B:TAS's first season does just that.

So what? You said that you wanted Batman to be as tall as he is in TAS, even proportionately speaking and guess what, he's actually taller than that in Begins.

Don't make inane excuses like Gordon being taller, the suit not making look Batman tall enough and whatnot. That only exemplifies your desperation.

According to the pic I posted, he's taller and bigger than in Begins.

Year One is 1989 Batman story, and story from which Begins draws more from than any Batman comic in existence. And according to that fact, using Year One as the barometer, Batman is most definitely as tall (or even taller) as he is supposed to be, thereby renderining all your points moot.

You're completely lost, jacky-boy.
We already agreed that Batman has being perceived in many different sizes through the years, the fact that he's as tall in Year One as he is in the movie is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

Of course not. Because if "believability" and "realism" are factored in the debate, then your 6'5 Batman is thrown out the window.

Batman has often been presented as teaming-up with Superman...
You don't need a 6'5'' Batman to have 'realism' be thrown out the window, boddy.

And thanks for mentioning The Batman Animated Series. Another example of Batman not appearing as tall as you claim or want him to be.

The Batman doesn't imply that he wasn't taller in other series...
Do I have to go through this again? Such a pity you have so much trouble following.

That's because the 4th one is a fan rendering. Shows how much you know about the character. And the 5th pic is Sale's Batman, whose The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and Haunted Knight series are one of the rare few comics that have earned universal praise from the fans. The first pic is from the revolutionary DKR, while the second pic is Jim Lee's Batman.

Come to think of it, Sale and Lee are arguably the most reknowned contemporary Batman artists to date. And both of them draw Batman who is quite big, muscular and appears to be very much menacing.

Why post the first pic then?
No matter where it's from, it still doesn't represent a "hulking menace", like you're trying to pretend.

Again, excuses. First you said that you wanted Batman to look like he did in the comics. Now that I posted pics of how exactly he DOES look like in the comics, now you're trying to sidestep the point? Do you have ANY self-integrity left in that abused shell of yours?

It's a fan rendering, not from the comics...
What a loser, I have to correct him on the very pics he posted... silly kid.

Alfie Luke

01-09-2006, 10:16 PM

4th pic is a fan rendition and not by a reputed Batman artist.

First, you say it's a fan rendering, then it's from the comics, then it's back to being a fan rendering.
Talk about losing credibility... ouch.

Actually, Sale's Batman does look quite a lot like that at times. If you look at the pic I posted, the arms and shoulders of Sale's rendition do look quite buff.

I clearly compared this pic to the 4th one, not the 5th one.
To show you the difference between a "hulking menace" and the "fan rendering".

Uhh, so? The word hulking means "impressively large" while menace means "something threatening or a possible source of danger", those definitions taken straight from Encarta's and Webster's online dictionary. The words "muscular" is not even hinted at anywhere in those definition.

You can't hold me responsible for your asinine assumptions or your apparent lack and misunderstanding of the English language

Try finding someone that is "impressivery large" but isn't muscular... I can't wait to see this.

Oh yeah, Batman looks REALLY bigger than Gordon in that one.

If you'd only seen enough episodes from the first three seasons, you'd notice that there really isn't a tangible difference between them, neither in size nor in height.

One season is enough to prove my point, because it was a question of finding a cartoon in which he did appear bigger than most characters... which he does in the 4th season of B:TAS.

Didn't I say he was a "hulking menace" in a "comparitive sense"? That's the exact the same thing I repeated when I said he's "relatively big", because "relatively" according to dictionary definition means "comparatively speaking: in comparison with other things". Besides, the definitions of "hulking" and "menace" are actually complimentary to my own point, which subsequently undercuts your pointless argument here.

Get it, jackass? I can't believe I'm spoonfeeding everything ad nauseum to you like that. For crying out loud, go get some decent schooling.

When "in comparison with other things", Batman isn't "big", he's a "hulking menace", those aren't the same thing, bub. No matter how you put it, thinking otherwise would be absurd... hey, what do ya know, you're already an expert in this field! Go right ahead, chubby.

Oh, you mean you actually do have a problem with reading comprehension? That's old news to me, bub.

Talk about being off track...

And I've explained my position countless number of times in this thread, but like the pitiful little fool that you are, you're only hell-bent on sticking with what YOU thought I meant rather than paying attention to what I actually said.

* Looks at above post * Look who's speaking...

No, "average man" and "proportion" are not linked. Neither in a mathematical sense nor in logical terms. Both are completely independent of each other. That's just you trying to clutch loose straws again.

You don't "proportionately" adjust the heights of the subjects to find out the height of the "average man", which is exactly what you've been doing all along. You increased the "average height" requirement based on the extreme values of only two subjects, while ignoring the real height of the "average man" as recorded in both real-life and implied by the film itself. You really do like to play around like some know-it-all clown, but you probably don't realize that you're only randomly sprouting out garbage without having that faintest idea of the meaning behind your own words.

If Batman is taller than the "average man", proportion comes into play...
He's taller in proportion to the "average man". That's not complicated... at least for most people.

Yeah, Batman being taller than Crane, Gordon (he is 5'10, so even if you stick by your baseless claim of Bale being 6'0, he is still taller than Oldman and that fact appears as such in the film) Rachel, Ra's ninjas and all of Crane and Falcone's thugs put together has no meaning at all simply because Fox and Ra's are taller than him.

I repeat the same request I made to you earlier in this thread: Please pull your cranium out of your anal cavity so that you can at least see things the way they ACTUALLY are.

He's only 2'' taller, hence my claim that he isn't NOTICABLY taller than him.
Only 2'' isn't enough. same thing with the ninjas... remember the scene when he's training under the effect of the gas, he isn't taller than all the ninjas surrounding him, nor bigger.

Really?

He looks sufficiently tall when he is fighting the inmates in the prison.
He looks sufficiently tall whenever he is with Rachel.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's playing around with those two chicks at the hotel.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's beside Alfred (both appearing to be around the same height).
He looks sufficiently tall when facing Crane.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's talking with Gordon at the end of the film.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's taking out Falcone's thugs at the docks.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's taking out Crane's thugs in the Narrows and at Arkham.
He looks sufficiently tall when he's fighting Ra's ninjas on the bridge.

"Not enough moments"? Yup, that sounds like yet another attempt by poor Alfie Lukie to put up a barely adequate stand in this debate, which again unfortunately ends in miserable failure. And quite expectedly so.

You're comparing him to girls? Come on now... ridiculous.
Plus, he's not enough NOTICABLY taller than Oldman and the ninjas.

... and he's shorter than Alfred, barely.

Yeah, the very idiot who's repeatedly talking about "perception" in this debate has posted a pic from a skewed angle to prove his point. The very same idiot now can't see that Bale is standing farther away from the camera than Watanabe. The very same idiot now can't see that Bale isn't standing straight, but is rather a bit laid back resting support on the wooden grail instead of standing upright like Nolan or Watanabe.

Even with that being said, both of them are about the same height.
( Both of them are around 6'0'' )

How much you "felt" was "noticeable enough to make a difference" is totally irrelevant, since your own perception runs contrary to the way things were actually presented in the film.

No matter how you "think" things were presented in the film...
It's still a matter of being my own perception. I want Batman to be taller, deal with it, kiddo.

Well whaddya know? I just saw DC's official profile of Ra's Al Ghul in the Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight and he's listed as 6'5. Looks like both Ra's and Batman are the right height in BB according to their official DC profiles.

Too bad Liam Neeson is only 6'4'', which by the way isn't 6'5''.

Now that Ra's is listed as 6'5, it really shouldn't matter anyway.

It doesn't change the fact that when you thought he was officially shorter, you felt that being "Bruce's mentor and the main villain" gave him the 'right' to be taller... same thing goes for Batman.

Have you lost your mind? Isn't there a certain height you expect to see the most inflential don in the Mafia? The fact that both De'Niro and Brando played the roles of Godfather alongside the shorter Pacino should account for something.

No, I wouldn't expect a don in the Mafia to be any specific height. In fact, it's not like you see many of these on the streets. Heck, the only ones I've seen where... wait for it... in movies! And who are impersonating them? Guys like Al Pacino. He made characters like those famous... by doing so, he became part of the schema of how people perceive guys from the Mafia.

And when you hear of a tough, smack talking Cuban drug dealing gangster, I doubt the image that first directly comes to your head is short guy Pacino with an M16 shouting "say hello to my little friend".

Cops have generally been portrayed as guys with decent height and Pacino is easily shorter than that.

No visual expectations? Yeah, only for a spoonfed baby like you.

... and why not? The same thing as above applies, champ.

I've already said so before that aside from being a costumed vigilante at the peak of his human potential, Bruce Wayne is also a savvy socialite, a charming playboy who can easily blend inside a crowd. A 6'5 Bruce Wayne like the kind you're demanding would simply stick out like a sore thumb.

Falcone said so himself, Bruce Wayne CAN'T BLEND IN, because of the very fact that he IS Bruce Wayne. Making him bigger would only accentuate that aspect of him, which is a good thing in my book.

No, they don't. Especially now since I've seen that both Ra's and Bruce have the right height according to their official profiles.

It IS similar, and Neeson is 6'4'', not 6'5'' kiddo.

More like condescending. And you bet it works like a charm, monkey-boy.

You wish, skippy... you're the only one complaining about it.

Yeah, and "horse cock aka Lefty" is a character in Donny Brasco. Guess now it is okay for me to call you a horse cock in a condescending manner now that I've proved he's a character in some movie.

Make yourself at home, cap'tain.

It is an unreasonable assumption by all counts. I always said that I believed Bruce Wayne (when he is not in the suit) is the perfect height. The "if he's wearing thick-soled boots" part was referring to Batman while he's IN the suit. Two very different things.

Yes and at the time, you stated that he would be the "perfect height" IN the suit.

A few inches would not have an impact. At all. In ANY WAY WHATOSEVER.

Not on the actor's "performance", but it could in other aspects of the film, like stated previously.

Yes, but your hypothetical examples are extreme and exaggerated when compared to the subject of our debate to begin with. My point all along was that if Keaton being shorter than Bale made such a great Batman, then Bale is by far just as good, if not better. Which only reinforced my point that a few inches has no tangible difference in any way.

Keaton was already short. Trying to make him even shorter to prove your point is downright stupid, especially considering the fact that it is Bale's height you have a problem with. Here's a much better, much more appropriate example:

If you think Bale is NOT 6'2, heck even if he is 5'10, two inches shorter than what you claim and the same height as Keaton, it would have made as much a difference as it did in Keaton's case. Which is to say, negligible to no difference at all.

You said that a "couple of inches" wouldn't make a difference... hence my hypothetical scenario.
It allowed be to show you how false you were, which is good.

I don't agree with your hypothetical scenarios because they are ill-concieved and inappropriate. You rely on extreme and exaggerated points to make your argument and your subsequent failure to come up with a better fitting and/or real-life example only shows the fragility of your arguments.

Again, you said that "a couple of inches wouldn't make a difference", I proved you otherwise by taking only 3'' off of Keaton. It is far from being exaggerated or extreme.

Everybody on this entire site is a fanboy in one way or another. And so are you. Else you wouldn't be here *****ing and moaning about a few inches difference in height.

That doesn't make it less fanboy-ish.

Any of my arguments you failed to answer is simply failure and incompetence on your part. If you're replying to posts such as mine, I would expect you to be prepared and honest in your replies. If you aren't thorough enough, that's not my problem. I'm having my hands full spoonfeeding you already.

I suggest you follow your own advice kiddo... it's not looking too good for you.

Alfie Luke

01-09-2006, 10:16 PM

Your comments regarding Caine have been addressed long back and I am still eagerly awaiting a sufficient reply (especially about the two full body premiere pics of Caine and Bale standing side by side with the Tumbler in the background).

You have yet to prove he doesn't have a crooked spine...

No, it only demonstrates what a useless, incapable and spineless wrench that you are for ignoring that part of my post and jumping off on a completely different tangent.

The pic was the answer, if you're too dumb to understand that, it's not my problem.

No, Caine doesn't appear taller than Bale. You're only seeing things you want to see. It's quite a common disorder in delusional idiots like you.

Again, he does. Even though he's shrinking with age and has a curved spine.

You posted only two full body pics, and in both the pics, Bale's height seems to fluctuate wherein he appears taller than Watanabe in one despite being hunched over and shorter than him in another.

What, so now you think the pics are fake?
You might be stupid, but not enough not to be able to visualize it, chubby.

No, Caine doesn't have a bent spine, at least not to the extent that'll suddenly slash away 2-3 inches from his height.

No, not the curved spine alone... but he's shrinking with age. Those 2 combines is enough to make him 1'' shorter, which is why he's a little bit taller than Bale or basically the same height. ( Bale being 6'0'', at most 6'1'' )

OK...

He appears upright when he sees Thomas Wayne comforting Bruce after pulling him out of the cave.
He appears upright when he consoles a young, guilt-ridden Bruce.
He appears upright when he says "This house, Master Wayne, has sheltered six generations of your family".
He appears upright comes out of the private jet and says "Master Wayne".
He appears upright when he's bringing tea for Bruce the moment Bruce notices a bat inside Wayne Manor.
He appears upright when he's scolding Bruce for his "thrill-seeking".

Shall I go on? You seem to talk as if you've seen the film, but at the same time, act as if you haven't. Ye confused soul.

The key word here is "appear", but he actually isn't...

http://www.macrobee.de/version2/IMG/jpg/pennyworth.jpg

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/michael_caine/batmanbegins1.jpg

His spine might not really "appear" to be curved, but it is... they are pics taken from the front and you know darn well it's almost impossible to see it that way, like you mentionned on your previous pic.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale10.jpg

This pic alone says it all. No bent spine, none of that crap (oh and just so you don't get any ideas, they'r standing on stairs, which accounts for the difference in height).

Nope, I see a curve. Plus, they might be standing on stairs, but it's the same stairs, hence the slight difference in height that favors Caine once more.

He looks fat and bulky, if anything. Not bent or anything like that. Besides, the pics I posted in this post pretty much seal the deal.

Didn't you say he looked in shape? Now he looks fat and bulky?
He might look like he has a belly because of his bent spine... in the lower back area. Years of carrying even a small belly can do this kinda thing to a man, adding to the fact that he appears somewhat shorter.

For a guy who has not read the comics, nor seen enough of TAS - both of which he claims to derive his preferences from, nor does he have no more than two, I repeat, only TWO bloody sources both of which have been proved to be unreliable for any concrete info and whatnot, it most certainly looks like getting ahead of yourself.

Besides enthusiasm means:

1. excited interest: passionate interest in or eagerness to do something
2. engrossing interest: something that arouses a consuming interest

So I say yet again, your foolhardy ways of prematurely declaring victory is not a sign of enthusiasm, but getting ahead of yourself.

I'm keeping the best for last...
Plus, even with that definition, my example still makes sense. Too bad, champ.

Not the debate itself, but your sexuality has a lot to do with your girlish reactions in this thread. It's not exactly a point of discussion, unless of course, you wish to make it one.

You mean like crying over lame name calling? Oh, I see...

Yeah, that's why you're still "discussing" my old white text trick. Because you weren't insulted.

It's always funny watching someone put a smile on tears coming out of being humiliated.

I'm merely replying to your answers...
I could say the same thing about you crying over the silly names.

I think you forgot that you're buttnaked right now, without any sources to cover your bare ass and gibberish claims at the moment. You got bigger things to worry about, chimp.

Ah, now my ass is your new source of interest?
Why am I not surprised?

"Conceptualized" my own "concept"? Isn't "conceptualization" the process by which a concept is born and NOT the other way around?

LOL, it's best you try not to play with words monkey-boy. You're not very good at it.

Yup. I made a concept out of your own concept. Simple, don't you think, kiddo?

Use what? A "conceptualized concept"?

In deed, I'm glad to see you're following.

Sorry bub. But Celebheights.com's own disclaimer undercuts anything you have to say. It's a really unfair position for you, I know, but you gotta pick your sources wisely, chump, and that's where you screwed up big time.

Not if you understand the context... which seems to be something you can't do.
No matter how many times I explain it to you, you'll always be too dumb to get it... sad.

Oh please. The fact that you're still putting any stock in what those jokers at Celebheights.com have to say by looking at a couple of pics and film stills really puts a spotlight on your overly pathetic desperation. Please stop. Otherwise your constant humiliation's going to make a humble man out of me.

I've just found some additionnal info... wait for it.

"Donkey"? HAHAHAHAHA! You sound like one of them toddlers in kindergarten who just learned the word and decided to use it at the very first opportunity, regardless of how juvenile it would sound. Keep it up, son. You'll be a teenager...someday.

I suits you so well... I'll keep it.

He doesn't stand right beside Watanabe in the film at any point, at least not in a way that one can make a suitable estimation of their heights. So of course you wouldn't be able to tell if he's taller or shorter than Bale. Caine and Bale appear to be almost the same height, as I said before. Besides, Batman is already taller than more people in Begins than he appears to be in TAS, which is your only crutch left in this debate (and now, even that is broken). Your point?

When Watanabe and Bale fight, Watanabe doesn't look 'shorter' than Bale, which is enough for me.

Unless those guys stood right beside with a measuring tape to check his height, they are most definitely wrong, especially when looking at their claims in light of the info posted by other infinitely more reliable and trustworthy sites. Besides, who's to say if whether or not those clowns actually did encounter Bale? They all appear to be geeks like you who spend their time deliberating heights of celebrities by looking at pictures and film still and as such, there's no way one can see them a reliable source.

Ah Ah! Only someone like you would claim that you need a measuring tape to have a decent idea of a person's height... good old Phaser. Plus, although you might claim that your sites are "more reliable", not of them even shows where they got their information from. And finally, for all it's worth, you're as much of a 'geek' as I am... heck, you're the one that's been looking all over the net to find sources that 'validated' what you were saying. LOL, what a loser...

Besides, the pics I posted add just as much value, if not more, than your pics. Not to mention the subsequent refuting of your baseless comments by myself only to see you flee like a rodent with it's tail tucked in between it's legs only reinforces the notion of your constantly failing stand in this "discussion".

It doesn't have more value because you are unable to visualise how tall Bale would be if he was standing straight in one of my pics... silly kid. I quickly checked on the net and I found some sites that don't say the same as yours anyway.

Which pic are you talking about? If it's the premiere pics, then nope, he isn't standing straight in either one of them.

The one with "gettyimages" over it... his head is so barely lilted to his left that you can see that even completely straight, he would be shorter than 6'2'' Morgan Freeman.

And both celebheights.com and your pics have been successively discredited enough to prove he is 6'2.

Not CelebHeights.com, but it's apparently too complicated for you to grasp.

Obviously.

Yeah, so... well... hum... shut up? he he.

I've found a few sites that list Bale as either 6'0'' or 6'1'':

http://www.filmbug.co.uk/db/223
http://www.goldenbeaus.com/christian_bale.shtml
http://www.ubersite.com/m/77385

I admit, those aren't worth a whole lot... but these 2 are interesting, for one simple reason. I'll quote both of these sites on the most interesting thing they say:

http://christian-bale.borgfind.com/
Says: "He stands a self-reported 6 feet (183 cm) in height."

http://www.blinkbits.com/blinks/Christian_Bale
Says: "His height: 6 ft 0 in (183 cm). Bale himself has said he is 6 feet tall, despite rumours which put him at 6 ft 2 in."

He shoots... scores! * crowd goes wild *

superkong 500

01-09-2006, 10:46 PM

OMG some of the comments here are just hilarious, bale is smaller than caine, bales not tall enough, not big enough, Iam not generalizing but come on, we got the perfect impersonation of batman in bale, if some one could post a pic of bruce wayne in the jim lee hush series when he's i nthe opera, bale looks just like him, and besides he gives both batman and bruce a lot of depth and darknnes, which other actors tried but didn't quite achieved as well as bale did, that's just my opinion of course.

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:23 AM

That doesn't imply they asked him...

Of course it does, if one goes by the rules of "implication" that you've been playing around with in this very thread.

I just found some additional information that you'll want to check later on in this post.

You won't like what I'll have to say about that.

We'll see about that, champ.

What's left to see? Your seemingly pathetic ways can make even the most miserable loser in life kill himself with uncontrollably hysterical laughter.

A new record... you quote me as saying "could be false" and then it becomes "all those sources I listed are simply speading around false info". I only hinted at a possibility, nothing more ( but this will all be finished soon )

Ah, if you only implied that as a possibility, then that must very well mean you're not sure about it. Which according to your stand in this debate indicates that you made that garbage "possibility" up to cover your own ass.

On their main page, it still says:
"Welcome to the Internet Movie Database, the biggest, best, most award-winning movie site on the planet."

IMDB is the most well known movies site on the Internet and it won all those awards for a reason (reliability not being one of them). Not only is it the largest and most extensive film database, but is also a single stop site to cater to all your basic movie needs, such as film showtimes, reviews, top lists, box office information and so on. Put it simply, IMDB is the jack of all trades, but there are numerous other sites edge out IMDB in terms of reliability and accurate info, especially sites that focus on one particular specialization like Rottentomatoes.com (far more reliable reviews) and Boxofficemojo.com (far more reliable box office info) to name a few.

... that ain't that bad, kiddo.

Oh no no, wait, here comes the worst part:

"Of course, IMDB is not the most reliable source..." (http://www.countingdown.com/movies/1400/news?item_id=3814996)
"IMDB isn't exactly a legally reliable database..." (http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2005/06/foreign_levies.html)
"the wonderful and always reliable news source IMDB (sarcasm guys) reports..." (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Display=Category&Keyword=sincity)
"IMDB relies on user submissions for content, and does not have a reliable track record for movies in production" (http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=2966)
"As a public database, IMDB isn’t exactly a reliable source for news." (http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=1576)

And there are countless number of sources out there that warn of IMDB's seemingly unreliableness. Many such examples of IMDB screwups are in this very thread. Of course, a numbskull like you would have a hard time processing such "facts" anyway.

You're doing the same thing with your sites...
Plus, I already explained quite well my POV of CelebHeights.com.

Your POV is meaningless and irrelevant compared to what Celebheights.com has apparently said about themselves in those disclaimers.

Even respectable magazines like The Science Journal can be wrong... and the fact that the height they list Bale as doesn't constitute a big enough mistake to discredit the site... Wikipedia is way too big for that. Even if 1/10000 of their information wasn't really accurate, it would still be pretty darn good.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's credibility. Wiki has a far more respectable position on the web than IMDB when it comes to information reliability. And really, considering IMDB's checkered past, why am I not surprised that there are barely a handful of sources out there that seem to agree with IMDB on this issue, while there are at least 5 times as many sites that say otherwise.

Who else says that IMDb isn't reliable... that has any worth, of course.
( Just so you know, that leaves you and ChrisBaleBatman out, silly kids )

Already posted, jackass.
Though considering your thickheaded nature, I doubt it will do you any good, since you will undoubtedly go back to your old argument like the incorrigible retard that you are.

At the very least, one of them was standing right beside him...

How do you know for sure? Where you there with him? When did that guy stand beside Bale? What prevents you from thinking the guy's simply full of it?

...and unlike what you might think, not everyone needs a measuring device to check heights.

You need measuring devices to "pinpoint" the exact height. Without it, you'll only be making guesses and estimations which are usually off the mark.

You're only making up pseudo-facts in order not to have to face the truth. Such a pitty...

Forgive me if I don't believe morons on the Internet who claim to nail down the exact heights of celebrities from a distance or by simply looking at pics and film stills. But like they say, "a fool stands by a fool" so you're very welcome to join them.

They are far from being baseless... you'll see.

Oh they're baseless all right.

LOL, the simple fact that you didn't even bother to 'defend' your sites proves that none of them actually showed where they took their information from. Although they might be run by "professionals", they are as baseless as the ones you say already are, mine.

In what way? I didn't need to defend those sites because they don't have a checkered past like IMDB's nor did they have any inadmissible disclaimers sticking out like Celebheights.com.

You're the one who's making the asinine charge of those sites being baseless, so the burden of proof also rests solely upon you. Just like how I did with IMDB and Celebheights.com, I'd simply love to see you step and try to discredit all those 20 sites with examples and supportive sources. Give it your best shot, chimp.

Again, they are debating, so it is impossible for them to claim that what they write is fact.

If they actually had facts, there would have been no room for debate. Again proves my point about Celebheights.com being a bunch of unreliable posers.

Even if Bale himself went on the site and said so, they wouldn't change the disclaimer to:

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Celebheights.com DOES NOT HAVE FACTS. PERIOD.

That's why they put up that disclaimer.
That's why they "debate" regarding celebrities' heights, because they're not sure and have no single, verifiable, universally acceptable fact to support their claim.
That's why only pathetic, desperate cripples like you would put any stock in what those clowns have to say because they appear to be backing YOUR notions.

You can be such a retard when you put some effort into it, kiddo.

You don't even have to try, chuck. Retardedness simply flows through your veins and naturally manifests itself in your laughable character.

Until they find actual proofs, like they did...

What "proofs"? A couple of film stills and pics? The pics I posted conflict what they have to say, thereby rendering those "proofs" moot, or at least questionable.

Supposed encounter with the celebrity? You didn't trust Whack Arnolds when he said that. By the same standard, you shouldn't be trusting those jackasses either. Besides, like I said, pinpointing anybody's height to its exact value without a measuring device is simply words being thrown into the air.

But you wouldn't understand that, you can't understand anything outside of the actual words.

Give me a break. You have made a most glorious demonstration of your handicapped reading comprehension skills in this thread. You're in the worst position to tell anyone what they can or can't understand, chucky. Now go back to brushing up on your language basics before you embarrass yourself any further.

They aren't pretentious enough to claim they are 100 % accurate half the time.

Then they could have put a disclaimer like many online sources or publications do, something like : "We cannot guarantee the complete validity of the sources" "Our information may not be 100% reliable" or something along those lines. Such disclaimers save the source from getting entangled in lengthy legal procedures over minor mistakes, while at the same time, maintaining the source's reliability and credibility factor to a certain extent.

But Celebheights.com does something else entirely. Their disclaimer outright warns viewers that ALL of the heights are "bare guesstimations" and NOT FACTS. That disclaimer warns people from putting any kind of stock in what they have to say:

"In determining how tall or the height of a star, assume that 0% of the heights are accurate."

They are blatantly encouraging people to assume that 0% of the heights listed therein the site are accurate, and that they cannot be relied upon to determine the height of a celebrity. Sound advice you'd do well to follow. But you won't, because you're just that big a stuck-up idiot.

But putting this disclaimer, they can't be accused of giving false information.

No, by putting that disclaimer, they can't be trusted to give accurate information. Learn to read, bozo.

Even though it's done in good spirit, for fun... it doesn't mean they CAN'T be right.

In this case at least, they aren't.

It's been a while since I've looked at the comics, my interpretation is based on the conception I had when I was younger. It is impossible for you to even remotely discredit my vision of the character, as there are an almost infinite number of ways to see him.

I can discredit your "vision" based on the simple fact that you're simply bluffing because you have yet to show a single source for your preference. You want to prove me wrong. SHOW ME the basis for your interpretations.

No matter where it's from... it's still a pic from the cartoons that shows Batman as being taller and bigger than Gordon, a lot more so than in Begins.

And there are a hundred times as many pics from cartoons and comics both combined that show that Batman is only slightly bigger or taller than Gordon. I've already showed pics from the first three seasons of the Animated Series and here's one from Year One:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/thumb/5/53/Batman407.png/200px-Batman407.png

If you're actually inspired by the suck-ass 4th season (both aesthetically and substantially) of the Animated Series and disregarding what Gordon looked like in the first three Emmy Award winning seasons, then go ahead. Your version of Batman is about as good as Adam West's camp trip to cheeseland or the Pre-crisis Batman.

The way they conceptualized Robin also gives a feeling that Batman is even bigger.

No, the whole 4th season gave a pretty useless makeover to the entire series (two years after the third season ended), one that didn't last long, if I might add. There was only one season that had the specific art style as in that pic you posted in 1997, but it was again changed back to the original 3 seasons rendition for Batman Sub Zero in 1998 (guess they decided the new revamped designs weren't good enough when compared to the old ones). Then in 2002 or 2003, they tried their hand again at the revamped designs introduced in the 4th season with Mystery of the Batwoman, only to end with disastrous results. There's a universal consensus that the first three seasons are the true version of TAS, that kicked the crap out of the mediocre 4th season.

Maybe they realized that Batman needed to appear bigger, which is why they name Gordon smaller in the 4th season... proves my point even more.

Prove your point even more? You don't have freakin' clue what you're babbling about. You're just an ignorant poser who pretends to know something he doesn't. Even though you love to bring it up to support your views, you know as much about TAS as a stray dog in the neighbour's alley.

Because if you did know anything about TAS, you would have seen they screwed up most of the better designs from the first 3 seasons, while many important villains like The Riddler and Ra's are very much absent. Plus the entire mediocrity of the 4th season didn't really help either, as the show appeared to migrate from the mature sophisticatedness of the first 3 seasons to a seemingly more comic, colorful and action oriented approach whatwith a whole line of lame new supporting and villain characters.

In fact, many say that the Batman TAS ended with the third season while the 4th Season is simply the animated version of Gotham Knights.

Of course I post examples that support my point... you ask for cartoons that showed Batman as bigger than the rest of the cast without looking like a "hulking menace" and B:TAS's first season does just that.

But that's the way EVERYONE is drawn in TAS. Bruce Timm's designs have very little detail and NO muscle definition. Add to that the fact that I have already mentioned the innumerable times in the first three seasons where there are characters and even thugs that are obviously bigger and taller than Batman. That hardly qualifies as "Batman being bigger than the rest of the cast".

According to the pic I posted, he's taller and bigger than in Begins.

And according to the pics I posted, he's about as tall and big as he is in Begins (if not more in Begins). And my examples are clearly infinitely greater than yours both in number and in substance.

You're completely lost, jacky-boy.
We already agreed that Batman has being perceived in many different sizes through the years, the fact that he's as tall in Year One as he is in the movie is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

How? Begins is more closely inspired by Year One than anything.

-Bruce returning from a lengthy exile to a corrupt Gotham City.
-Gordon being one of the only few honest, good cops left in the miserable hellhole that is Gotham.
-Bruce using image of the bat to strike fear, terrorize and intimidate the scum of Gotham city.
-Bruce's pre-Batman scouting.
-Batman targeting crimeboss Carmine Falcone as the chief target in his quest to rid Gotham of crime and corruption.
-Bruce using the spoiled playboy image, making out with hot chicks to keep people from connecting him to Batman.
-Batman picking off criminals and scaring them to the extent that myths and stories start flying about the giant bat which can seemingly fly and disappear on a moments notice.
-The GCPD, or more specifically, Comissioner Loeb declaring a war on the new bat vigilante.
-The police and SWAT units cornering Batman to try and hunt him down.
-Batman summoning the bats to clear an exit for him.
-The whole ending scene, with the rooftop meeting with Gordon, the signal and the Joker card, all taken directly from Year One.

On the above basis alone, since Batman Begins is so much like Year One, it only makes sense to demand Bruce Wayne/Batman in Begins to look like he did in Year One. And guess what, he does and looks even better.

Batman has often been presented as teaming-up with Superman...

Not nearly as much. Batman has his own dedicated line of comics with the standard continuity, Gotham Knights and Detective Comics. Compared to that, Superman doesn't appear to be teaming up with Batman that often (except in JLA). But of course, since the film itself is not even remotely based on any of the stories or the universe in which Batman teams up with Superman, you point here is completely irrelevant.

You don't need a 6'5'' Batman to have 'realism' be thrown out the window, boddy.

When you're making a live action film or any grounded dedicated Batman story, it's not just the realism that takes a hit with a 6'5 Batman, but the entire Bruce Wayne persona that is negatively affected.

The Batman doesn't imply that he wasn't taller in other series...

No, but it's yet another example where he ISN'T as tall as you want him to be. Besides, so far you have only one example, that too from the 4th TAS season, which is to say not a very good one. Examples are only appropriate when they're from truly great Batman stories or interpretations that people would actually want to see translated for the big screen. And the 4th TAS season is nowhere near that good.

Do I have to go through this again? Such a pity you have so much trouble following.

Or you're simply an ignorant buffoon who's spitting ouy gibberish since you apparently have no idea whatsover about TAS, despite being so fond of quoting it again and again.

Why post the first pic then?
No matter where it's from, it still doesn't represent a "hulking menace", like you're trying to pretend.

Again, do you even know what the word means, dumbass?

It's a fan rendering, not from the comics...What a loser, I have to correct him on the very pics he posted... silly kid.

YOU corrected ME? Wait a second, aren't you the retard who was using the 4th pic to "prove his point" of a muscular, athletic Batman from the comics in his last post and it was I who had to say to him that it was a fan-rendition? Ah yes, it was you all right.

You apparently don't know much about Batman now, do you, arseface?

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:26 AM

First, you say it's a fan rendering, then it's from the comics, then it's back to being a fan rendering.

Talk about losing credibility... ouch.

I only said once that it was a fan-rendering. I dare you to try show and quote me otherwise. Go ahead, you spineless, gutless wimp. Let everybody in here see how pathetically low dishonest scum like you sink while arguing on message boards. Way to try and put words in my mouth, filthy chimp. Just shows how much more desperate you've become now.

I clearly compared this pic to the 4th one, not the 5th one.
To show you the difference between a "hulking menace" and the "fan rendering".

Why not the 5th one, especially considering that the 4th pic is merely a fan rendition while the 5th one is a widely recognized illustration of Batman from the comics, which would apparently make it a much better example to prove my point about Batman looking like a "hulking menace" in the comics.

Of course, the words "hulking menace" themselves have nothing to do with muscularity, but I simply had to show you that Batman has also been drawn to be as exaggerated as the pic you posted.

Try finding someone that is "impressivery large" but isn't muscular... I can't wait to see this.

One doesn't have to be extraodinarily muscular to appear "impressively large".
He could appear to be something like this and still come off as quite large:
http://www.kunsthaus.ch/ausstellungen/2003/hanson/images/plastiken/bodybuilder.jpg

And once again, "muscularity" has NOTHING to do with it. For crying out loud, you peaheaded moron, read the goddamn DEFINITIONS of the word, will ya?

One season is enough to prove my point, because it was a question of finding a cartoon in which he did appear bigger than most characters... which he does in the 4th season of B:TAS.

Or more like most of the other characters were completely dwarfed up to look like small, skinny, kiddy teenagers just to make Batman look tall. It's not an example of Batman being taller. He is only as big as he is in all the other TAS seasons. In fact, it was the other characters that were all chopped down to half their size. Look at the difference between the Gordon and Robin from Seasons 1-3 and Season 4.

If you want a Batman that looks as "big" as he does in BTAS season 4, then that must mean you want Gordon and the rest of the cast to look like preschool dropouts as well, eh? :rolleyes:

When "in comparison with other things", Batman isn't "big", he's a "hulking menace", those aren't the same thing, bub.

How? He does look impressively large in those examples from the comics I posted and you have yet to post a single pic to the contrary. Come to think of it, all you're doing here is simply beat the same old mindless banter again and again, thinking that constantly repeating your meaningless garbage would somehow make it true. Ain't gonna happen.

No matter how you put it, thinking otherwise would be absurd... hey, what do ya know, you're already an expert in this field! Go right ahead, chubby.

Yeah, someone who has repeatedly failed to grasp the dictionary definitions of words, constantly reiterated explainations as well illustrated examples is talking about absurdity. Yeah, that's like ape king saying how hairy everyone else looks.

Talk about being off track...

Awwww, did you run out of witty replies again there, little one? Don't worry, brainless young toddlers like you keep running into such abrupt shortages.

* Looks at above post * Look who's speaking...

Yep, you really did run out of your daily allocation of half-wits, junior. If that's the best you can throw at me, then you might as well try to kiss your ass bent backwards, because even that could yield much more productive results than you throwing such juvenile comebacks at me.

If Batman is taller than the "average man", proportion comes into play...
He's taller in proportion to the "average man". That's not complicated... at least for most people.

But that's not what you're doing at all. You're not comparing Batman's height to the "average man". You're just comparing Batman's height to the "only two characters that are taller than him" and then chalking it all up to proportion. Which is why I explained that two or three extreme values have little to no effect on the overall averages. It has nothing to do with proportion since proportions take into account parts of a whole and Batman's profiled height comprises of a totally independent value.

He's only 2'' taller, hence my claim that he isn't NOTICABLY taller than him.

Noticeably means that something that is easily seen. Granted, he may not be THAT taller than Gordon, but the height difference which is there between those two is very much apparent and visible to the naked eye, regardless of how small it seems to you. Besides, haven't you been crying over half inch differences throughout this whole debate? A whole two inches must mean quite a lot to you then.

Only 2'' isn't enough.

Not enough? You've been *****ing and moaning about a 2 inch difference in Bale's height all along and now you say his "2 inch" advantage over Oldman is not enough? Bloody hypocrite!

...same thing with the ninjas... remember the scene when he's training under the effect of the gas, he isn't taller than all the ninjas surrounding him, nor bigger.

You mean like in these pics?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/1.jpg
He easily looks bigger and taller than many of the guys in the first two-three rows. The only one who looks taller than him is way back in the last row.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/2.jpg
Again, Bale looking taller than the ones beside him.

Your point?

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:27 AM

You're comparing him to girls? Come on now... ridiculous.

Well, they do count as characters, don't they? ;)

Plus, he's not enough NOTICABLY taller than Oldman and the ninjas.

Again, "noticeably" means easy to see. And yes, it's quite easy to see that he is in fact taller than those ninjas and Gordon, regardless of by how many inches.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/3.jpg
Crank up the brightness and the color midtones in that pic and see for yourself exactly how much bigger and taller than Gordon he is. Not to mention when Gordon says, "and you're running around in a mask, jumping off rooftops", he looks up to Batman like how a shorter guy would look up to someone taller like him. That's as good a difference as any.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/4.jpg
Ra's ninjas. Batman easily visible as the bigger and most striking out of them.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/5.jpg
Another good example.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/mark_phaser/6.jpg
Everything about this pic points at complete ownage. The fist, the gauntlets, the inevitable punch that'll knock his ass back to wonderland, Bale's height advantage over that poor looking ninja...

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:28 AM

... and he's shorter than Alfred, barely.

No, he isn't.
http://www.movie-infos.de/data/media/24/Premierenbild_36jpeg_700x456.jpg
Both around the same height.

http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem20.jpg
Same thing again...

http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/LaBatmanPrem19.jpg
...and again. You can also see the "noticeable" differences between Bale and Oldman's heights here as well.

Even with that being said, both of them are about the same height.
( Both of them are around 6'0'' )

How exactly, you dumbass? Bale clearly looks taller than Watanabe in one of your own pics, despite not standing straight.

http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/batmanpressconfjp5.jpg
Bale hunched over, still looking taller than Watanabe.

http://homepage.mac.com/mukaya/media/batmanpressconfjp9.jpg
Bale looking taller yet again. No way him and Watanabe are the same height.

No matter how you "think" things were presented in the film...
It's still a matter of being my own perception. I want Batman to be taller, deal with it, kiddo.

And what is your "basis" for Batman being taller, monkey-boy?

Too bad Liam Neeson is only 6'4'', which by the way isn't 6'5''.

Uhh, so? He was by far the best man for the job. And there's no other actor in his category who is as tall, as good an actor and could have played the dual roles of tough and charismatic mentor and as a manipulative villain with such finesse. Besides, if you still stick by your claims of Bale being 6'0 or 6'1, then Neeson being a bare inch shorter keeps things in balance a bit.

It doesn't change the fact that when you thought he was officially shorter, you felt that being "Bruce's mentor and the main villain" gave him the 'right' to be taller... same thing goes for Batman.

Again, so what? I didn't have a problem with Neeson being that much taller than Bale. And now that I have seen Ra's profile, not only should people NOT have any problems with Neeson being that much taller than Bale, but in fact realise that both men are much closer to the heights they are supposed to be and are examples of spot-on casting by the filmmakers. Which effectively leaves only one oddball choice and that is Morgan Freeman's Fox. And even he isn't a significant character in the film.

No, I wouldn't expect a don in the Mafia to be any specific height. In fact, it's not like you see many of these on the streets.Heck, the only ones I've seen where... wait for it... in movies! And who are impersonating them? Guys like Al Pacino. He made characters like those famous... by doing so, he became part of the schema of how people perceive guys from the Mafia.

Pacino played the part of the Godfather AFTER Marlon Brando, who appeared to be a pretty tall guy. Despite the fact that he was filling in the shoes of an actor who was bigger than him both physically and performance-wise, you're honestly telling me that you had no preconcieved expectations about how successive Godfathers should look like now that you already saw Brando in the role? You must either be lying through your teeth or watched the film with your brain turned off.

... and why not? The same thing as above applies, champ.

Apparently, it doesn't. Especially in the case of cops, who DO have certain visual expectations to live up to. And Pacino doesn't meet them.

Falcone said so himself, Bruce Wayne CAN'T BLEND IN, because of the very fact that he IS Bruce Wayne.

Are you seriously THAT dumb? Falcone was referring to Bruce's social status and not his physical appearance.

Making him bigger would only accentuate that aspect of him, which is a good thing in my book.

No, it would only make him stick out like a sore thumb.

It IS similar, and Neeson is 6'4'', not 6'5'' kiddo.

So? Are you so anal retentive that you can't even take a single inch difference? Get that stick out of your ass. It's apparently playing with your better judgement.

Make yourself at home, cap'tain.

You know what's so great about that word? Apparently I just stumbled upon it by random chance and yet it suits you so well. Horse cock never seemed more appropriate for anyone...until now, that is
:D

Yes and at the time, you stated that he would be the "perfect height" IN the suit.

Yes, he would be the "perfect height" IN the suit for those people who think that he is shorter than 6'2 and is not the perfect height without the suit. Learn to read beyond what your crippled mind allows you to. Push those limits, chump. It's the only way you're going to survive in life.

Not on the actor's "performance", but it could in other aspects of the film, like stated previously.

And what was "stated previously" by you had been refuted long back. Do try to keep up.

You said that a "couple of inches" wouldn't make a difference... hence my hypothetical scenario.

Your asinine "hypothetical scenario" called for a 5 feet tall Keaton (who is really around 5'10), effectively chopping off nearly 10 inches, almost an entire foot in the name of a "couple of inches". If that's not borderline stupidity, I don't know what is.

It allowed be to show you how false you were, which is good.

Or more precisely, it allowed everyone to see just how big a retard you are, who chops off nearly 1/6th of an actor's height to make some ill-concieved and futile point in the name of "hypothetical scenario".

Again, you said that "a couple of inches wouldn't make a difference", I proved you otherwise by taking only 3'' off of Keaton.

So, hypothetically passing a 5'9-5'10 actor as only 5' equals the reduction of only 3''? You've got some l33t mathematical skills there, son.

It is far from being exaggerated or extreme.

No, it's very much exaggerated.

That doesn't make it less fanboy-ish.

Oh it's very much fanboyish. Sadly, you don't even know enough of the character you claim to be a fanboy of, considering your blatant incompetence in trying to come up with even a single example from the comics to back your point.

I suggest you follow your own advice kiddo... it's not looking too good for you.

So says the moron who got slapped with an owned pic. I wonder now that patrickbateman has presented yet another example of IMDB's constant screwups, will you take petty shots at him as well, just like you did with ChrisBaleBatman? Guess there's always the chance of that happening, what with you acting like a stray braying ass lashing out at anyone who attempts to him back to the right path.

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:30 AM

You have yet to prove he doesn't have a crooked spine...

Why do I have to prove anything? You first made the claim that he has a crooked spine, hence the burden of proof lies solely upon you, chuck.

The pic was the answer, if you're too dumb to understand that, it's not my problem.

Yes, the age old "you're too dumb too understand, that's why I will not argue about that anymore" copout, an overused but classic forum trick. In light of your hesitation to address the arguments in question, thanks yet again for showing that you truly are one spineless, gutless wrench that doesn't have an iota of self-esteem. Don't worry Alfie, you're bound to come across someone who will eventually allow you to lick their shoes out of pity.

Again, he does. Even though he's shrinking with age and has a curved spine.

No, he doesn't. The pics I posted clearly show him standing and walking upright, something people with curved spine can't do.

What, so now you think the pics are fake?

Not fake, just not taken from the proper angles. Take a look at some more pics I posted this time.

You might be stupid, but not enough not to be able to visualize it, chubby.

If there's one thing that's an infinitely abundant resource on this planet, it's gotta be irony. Stupid people calling other people "stupid". This world has more than it's fair share of Alfie Lukes. Liabilities like you should be dropped like a bad habit and vaporised into thin air for the preservation and well-being of the human race. Yes, so utterly devastating the power of your stupidity. :(

No, not the curved spine alone... but he's shrinking with age. Those 2 combines is enough to make him 1'' shorter, which is why he's a little bit taller than Bale or basically the same height. ( Bale being 6'0'', at most 6'1'' )

Again, Bale is not shorter than Caine. Check the pics I posted, chimp.

His spine might not really "appear" to be curved, but it is...they are pics taken from the front and you know darn well it's almost impossible to see it that way, like you mentionned on your previous pic.

So you admit to NOT being able to "see" the curved spine yet still assert that he DOES have one? My, my, this is an all-new low, even for you, Alfie.

Nope, I see a curve. Plus, they might be standing on stairs, but it's the same stairs, hence the slight difference in height that favors Caine once more.

What bloody curve? Old people with curved spines look bent and hunched over like this:

http://conservation.catholic.org/PopeMountains5.jpg

They can't stand straight nor walk upright like this:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/_group_photos/christian_bale10.jpghttp://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman_begins/michael_caine/batmanbegins1.jpg

Didn't you say he looked in shape? Now he looks fat and bulky?

I said he looked in pretty good shape for his age. Jesus, Alfie, if that peanut of a brain of yours can't even properly recall words you're going to use in arguments, then don't bother to come here only to get your worthless rear end kicked all over the place.

He might look like he has a belly because of his bent spine...in the lower back area.

What are you, nuts? Look at his face and his neck. It's all chubby and tight.

Look at this pic of him in Get Carter when he was still young:

http://www.movieforum.com/people/actors/michaelcaine/images/getcarter.jpg

Now look closely at that pic and I dare you to try and tell me the guy hasn't put on a lot of weight over the years and all that chubbiness is only his bent spine.

Guess what, you can't (but you probably will since you're really that dense).

Years of carrying even a small belly can do this kinda thing to a man, adding to the fact that he appears somewhat shorter.

No, he appears fat and bulky. There's nothing to support the claim that he's suddenly shorter, since by way of biological process, people don't suddenly "shrink" when they get old, only their bone density decreases which simply causes them to hunch over. And Caine most certainly doesn't look hunched. That's why I said he's in such good shape for his age, because men in their 80's are rarely this upright and capable.

I'm keeping the best for last...

Then you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

Plus, even with that definition, my example still makes sense. Too bad, champ.

No, it doesn't. You didn't show any kind "heightened interest" or "excited passion" there. What you did do was prematurely wave flags of self-victory, something that has NOTHING to do with the definition of enthusiasm. Really, it's quite hilarious to see you only slap words in your post when you're not even reading the definitions that are accompanied in the quotes. Just like a little kid, all you do when you're proved wrong is simply reply back with another juvenile "well, I am still right and you're wrong" kinds of remarks. Heck, I bet even my 3 year old nephew can humuliatingly sodomize you in reading comprehension, and English is not even his first language.

You mean like crying over lame name calling? Oh, I see...

Aww, looks like I touched a little girlie nerve there...am I annoying you, sweetheart?

I'm merely replying to your answers...
I could say the same thing about you crying over the silly names.

And it's even funnier when people who are being humiliated try to act all chivalrous about it. :D

Ah, now my ass is your new source of interest?
Why am I not surprised?

You really can't read, can you? Your ass has nothing to do with it. It was simply a figure of speech. Jeez, if you're going to reply, at least TRY to do it more appropriately, jackass.

Yup. I made a concept out of your own concept. Simple, don't you think, kiddo?

Simple, but also an oxymoron, kiddo. Nice try though.

In deed, I'm glad to see you're following.

Sorry to see that you're not though. Oxymorons are inadmissible and cannot exist beyond mere words. Your "conceptualized concept" will have to return back to the filthy little trash chute it came from (your very own empty noggin, that is).

Phaser

01-10-2006, 09:31 AM

Not if you understand the context... which seems to be something you can't do.
No matter how many times I explain it to you, you'll always be too dumb to get it... sad.

Yup, there it is once more, ladies and gentleman, sidestepping from replying an argument yet again with our personal favorite forum trick, namely the "you're too dumb to understand, that's why I won't argue about this anymore" copout. You're getting there chump. A few more successive steps and you will be well on your way to the planet of idiotic redundancy. Of course, you have stupidity, thickheadedness and an utter lack of spine on your side, so I don't doubt you'll make it there fairly easily.

I've just found some additionnal info... wait for it.

All this buildup for nothing...

I suits you so well... I'll keep it.

Why? Mommy didn't teach you any more names today? LOL, watching little toddlers like you take their first baby steps is really amusing beyond compare.

When Watanabe and Bale fight, Watanabe doesn't look 'shorter' than Bale, which is enough for me.

Yeah, because apparently men don't stand in a particular stance or duck or constantly move around while fighting. :rolleyes:

Besides, I've already posted pics of Bale being taller than Watanabe for chimp heads like you. Have fun. :up:

Ah Ah! Only someone like you would claim that you need a measuring tape to have a decent idea of a person's height... good old Phaser.

A "decent idea" of a person's height does not equal "exact height". Cram that in your thickskull (or if your prefer, your anal cavity since that's where your cranium seems to be most of the time).

Plus, although you might claim that your sites are "more reliable", not of them even shows where they got their information from.

Why should they? The only ones who'll be surfing their sites will be average movie goers and not college students who will be writing a thesis on them, requiring references, sources and bibiliography and such. But I'm sure if you contact them, they'll be happy to point you in the right direction. Besides, these sites are easily more accurate than IMDB and Celebheights.com's anyway for reasons I stated a while ago.

And finally, for all it's worth, you're as much of a 'geek' as I am... heck, you're the one that's been looking all over the net to find sources that 'validated' what you were saying. LOL, what a loser...

Apparently, your illiterate, ignorant little self doesn't know how to use something as simple as a Google search, otherwise your seeminly dazzled brain wouldn't have had trouble figuring out that instead of "looking all over the net", I simply punched in the right search terms and there, I picked those sources within minutes.

It doesn't have more value because you are unable to visualise how tall Bale would be if he was standing straight in one of my pics... silly kid.

Oh they do have more value. He's standing straight along with Oldman and Caine in the fresh pics I posted. Keep pressing that head deeper in that anal canal, skippy. Your view of the world from inside there can only get better from this point onward! :up:

I quickly checked on the net and I found some sites that don't say the same as yours anyway.

Some? Heh. Some sites are not enough to hold your fledgeling arguments here, monkey boy. You'll need to provide at least as many sources as mine if you wish to get back in this debate.

The one with "gettyimages" over it... his head is so barely lilted to his left that you can see that even completely straight, he would be shorter than 6'2'' Morgan Freeman.

Yeah, and the 6'2 Morgan Freeman apparently appears to be almost as tall as the 6'4 Neeson in that pic. :rolleyes:

Not CelebHeights.com, but it's apparently too complicated for you to grasp.

And there we have it! Yet ANOTHER evasive maneuver! I don't know how he does it folks but little Alfie sure has a way on hitting home runs on them copouts today.

I've found a few sites that list Bale as either 6'0'' or 6'1'':

Ah so THIS is the "big one" you've been holding onto all along? Heh, pitiful.

http://www.filmbug.co.uk/db/223
http://www.goldenbeaus.com/christian_bale.shtml

Those two sites say he's 6'1 and frankly I can't imagine how ANYONE in their right minds can have a problem with an actor who is only an inch shorter than perfect. You'd not be able to tell the difference. And Alfie, no matter how many inane hypothetical scenarios you try to cook up, there's no way you could justify that one, single inch has any kind of impact, either on the fim, or on the performances, or on the actors, or in the character dynamics or one's own perception.

http://www.ubersite.com/m/77385

You want me to believe a site that writes "teh hotness" beside Bale? Forgive me for not trusting a source that seems like a complete self-parody of itself.

I admit, those aren't worth a whole lot...

Good. Saved me the trouble of doing it anyways.

but these 2 are interesting, for one simple reason. I'll quote both of these sites on the most interesting thing they say:

http://christian-bale.borgfind.com/
Says: "He stands a self-reported 6 feet (183 cm) in height."

http://www.blinkbits.com/blinks/Christian_Bale
Says: "His height: 6 ft 0 in (183 cm). Bale himself has said he is 6 feet tall, despite rumours which put him at 6 ft 2 in."

He shoots... scores! * crowd goes wild *

Wha..? This is your "wait and see" "big" "interesting" whatever? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

I referenced those sources way back in my second reply to you in this thread, on page 6. So much for the big drumrolls and building up anticipation, kid:

That is because many sources that list his height as 6' write it down as "self-reported".

Both those sites are playing off the same interview quote from Bale that you used in the very beginning. I repeat, Bale's only describing both his height and weight in loose terms rather than exact values in that quote.

Now you can get back to keep gnawing away at those walls, chimpy. :up:

infoghost

01-10-2006, 01:15 PM

An entire thread debating whether or not Christian Bale is or isn't 6'2.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

raybia

01-10-2006, 01:25 PM

An entire thread debating whether or not Christian Bale is or isn't 6'2.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

My newbie friend, one word of advise.

Don't piss off Phaser.

Welcome to the Hype.:up:

El Payaso

01-10-2006, 01:41 PM

My newbie friend, one word of advise.

Don't piss off Phaser.

ooooooooooh... why not?

I'm not planning to do it, I'm not reading the discussion anyway. I mean, 6 pages about 1 inch (and it's not an inch of 'mr. happy' for god's sake - that'd be more understandable to argue about)... not my reading...

Milkman95

01-10-2006, 02:06 PM

^I agree. This thread is hilarious.

Antonello Blueberry

01-10-2006, 02:14 PM

An entire thread debating whether or not Christian Bale is or isn't 6'2.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
I agree. The real problem with Bale is the eye color.:p
Guys, I've seen Christian Bale live (as well as Katie, Nolan and Freeman) and he was imposing, maybe not taller than 6 but big anyway

raybia

01-10-2006, 02:34 PM

Guys, I've seen Christian Bale live (as well as Katie, Nolan and Freeman) and he was imposing, maybe not taller than 6 but big anyway

There you go folks. What more can you ask for.

End of argument.

Alfie Luke

01-10-2006, 05:19 PM

^ Alright! I knew it... ;P

Of course it does, if one goes by the rules of "implication" that you've been playing around with in this very thread.

Until you show me where it says "self-reported" or something that has the same worth, there is no way to prove that they actually asked him and didn't simply take the information from other sources, like they often do.

You won't like what I'll have to say about that.

You have no proof of what you say, sorry kiddo.

What's left to see? Your seemingly pathetic ways can make even the most miserable loser in life kill himself with uncontrollably hysterical laughter.

You keep thinking that, champ.

Ah, if you only implied that as a possibility, then that must very well mean you're not sure about it. Which according to your stand in this debate indicates that you made that garbage "possibility" up to cover your own ass.

It's always a "possibility", unless it's self-reported, then it has a lot more worth.

IMDB is the most well known movies site on the Internet and it won all those awards for a reason (reliability not being one of them). Not only is it the largest and most extensive film database, but is also a single stop site to cater to all your basic movie needs, such as film showtimes, reviews, top lists, box office information and so on. Put it simply, IMDB is the jack of all trades, but there are numerous other sites edge out IMDB in terms of reliability and accurate info, especially sites that focus on one particular specialization like Rottentomatoes.com (far more reliable reviews) and Boxofficemojo.com (far more reliable box office info) to name a few.

Even though I can't prove they won any awards for reliability, you can't prove otherwize.

Oh no no, wait, here comes the worst part:

"Of course, IMDB is not the most reliable source..."
"IMDB isn't exactly a legally reliable database..."
"the wonderful and always reliable news source IMDB (sarcasm guys) reports..."
"IMDB relies on user submissions for content, and does not have a reliable track record for movies in production"
"As a public database, IMDB isn’t exactly a reliable source for news."

And there are countless number of sources out there that warn of IMDB's seemingly unreliableness. Many such examples of IMDB screwups are in this very thread. Of course, a numbskull like you would have a hard time processing such "facts" anyway.

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about not having any worth when it comes to the actors themselves.
It's mostly about news and movie production, etc.

Your POV is meaningless and irrelevant compared to what Celebheights.com has apparently said about themselves in those disclaimers.

Read it right, it makes perfect sense... champ.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's credibility. Wiki has a far more respectable position on the web than IMDB when it comes to information reliability. And really, considering IMDB's checkered past, why am I not surprised that there are barely a handful of sources out there that seem to agree with IMDB on this issue, while there are at least 5 times as many sites that say otherwise.

Like stated by my own source, it's a " rumor that places him at 6' 2'' ".

How do you know for sure? Where you there with him? When did that guy stand beside Bale? What prevents you from thinking the guy's simply full of it?

OMG! ... and what if they are actually aliens? ... what if they're after us?!?
You're just acting crazy, once again.

You need measuring devices to "pinpoint" the exact height. Without it, you'll only be making guesses and estimations which are usually off the mark.

Off the mark by 2''? Gimme a break, kid.

Forgive me if I don't believe morons on the Internet who claim to nail down the exact heights of celebrities from a distance or by simply looking at pics and film stills. But like they say, "a fool stands by a fool" so you're very welcome to join them.

You claimed to "nail it" based on pics and sites on the internet, FYI.
At least "my" source stated it was "self-reported".

Oh they're baseless all right.

With pics and actual encounters? Nope.

In what way? I didn't need to defend those sites because they don't have a checkered past like IMDB's nor did they have any inadmissible disclaimers sticking out like Celebheights.com.

You're the one who's making the asinine charge of those sites being baseless, so the burden of proof also rests solely upon you. Just like how I did with IMDB and Celebheights.com, I'd simply love to see you step and try to discredit all those 20 sites with examples and supportive sources. Give it your best shot, chimp.

If you want to blindly agree with anything you see on the net, go right ahead.
At least I found a source that stated it was "self-reported".

If they actually had facts, there would have been no room for debate. Again proves my point about Celebheights.com being a bunch of unreliable posers.

Even facts can be questionned... depending on the context.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Celebheights.com DOES NOT HAVE FACTS. PERIOD.

That's why they put up that disclaimer.
That's why they "debate" regarding celebrities' heights, because they're not sure and have no single, verifiable, universally acceptable fact to support their claim.
That's why only pathetic, desperate cripples like you would put any stock in what those clowns have to say because they appear to be backing YOUR notions.

You can't even answer a simple question...
If Bale was to go on there and clearly state: I AM 6 FEET TALL. They wouldn't change the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, as there are an incredible ammount of celebrities listed there anyway. If you keep that in mind, it's easy to think that the disclaimer doesn't imply that all the information there isn't good.

What "proofs"? A couple of film stills and pics? The pics I posted conflict what they have to say, thereby rendering those "proofs" moot, or at least questionable.

If that was the case, it would make yours as "questionable".

Supposed encounter with the celebrity? You didn't trust Whack Arnolds when he said that. By the same standard, you shouldn't be trusting those jackasses either. Besides, like I said, pinpointing anybody's height to its exact value without a measuring device is simply words being thrown into the air.

So says the buttface that claims to be able to tell his height with pics. If you can do it with pics, they can do it without measuring devices and just using their judgement and perception skills. You really seem to have something against those guys, guess you're just annoyed that they don't think like you, how predictable.

Give me a break. You have made a most glorious demonstration of your handicapped reading comprehension skills in this thread. You're in the worst position to tell anyone what they can or can't understand, chucky. Now go back to brushing up on your language basics before you embarrass yourself any further.

If someone who's horrible at football tells you you suck at it, it doesn't mean it's not true, simply that person doesn't play well. That's just part of your idioticly deformed logic.

Then they could have put a disclaimer like many online sources or publications do, something like : "We cannot guarantee the complete validity of the sources" "Our information may not be 100% reliable" or something along those lines. Such disclaimers save the source from getting entangled in lengthy legal procedures over minor mistakes, while at the same time, maintaining the source's reliability and credibility factor to a certain extent.

But Celebheights.com does something else entirely. Their disclaimer outright warns viewers that ALL of the heights are "bare guesstimations" and NOT FACTS. That disclaimer warns people from putting any kind of stock in what they have to say:

They are blatantly encouraging people to assume that 0% of the heights listed therein the site are accurate, and that they cannot be relied upon to determine the height of a celebrity. Sound advice you'd do well to follow. But you won't, because you're just that big a stuck-up idiot.

... and what do you say about my previous example?
You're probably going to cry about the fact that it's something of an "exaggerated hypothetical scenario", which you seem to try to use to get out of those situations.

No, by putting that disclaimer, they can't be trusted to give accurate information. Learn to read, bozo.

But they can't be discredited on all accounts.

In this case at least, they aren't.

So says the guy that uses sites that don't even bother to show their sources.

I can discredit your "vision" based on the simple fact that you're simply bluffing because you have yet to show a single source for your preference. You want to prove me wrong. SHOW ME the basis for your interpretations.

I did, Batman: TAS's 4th season. I only needed to prove it existed, which I did.

And there are a hundred times as many pics from cartoons and comics both combined that show that Batman is only slightly bigger or taller than Gordon. I've already showed pics from the first three seasons of the Animated Series and here's one from Year One:

If you're actually inspired by the suck-ass 4th season (both aesthetically and substantially) of the Animated Series and disregarding what Gordon looked like in the first three Emmy Award winning seasons, then go ahead. Your version of Batman is about as good as Adam West's camp trip to cheeseland or the Pre-crisis Batman.

There could be 100 000 000 different pics of Batman being not as tall, it doesn't change the fact that there are others of him as being taller and I prefer those, easy, don't you think, kiddo?

No, the whole 4th season gave a pretty useless makeover to the entire series (two years after the third season ended), one that didn't last long, if I might add. There was only one season that had the specific art style as in that pic you posted in 1997, but it was again changed back to the original 3 seasons rendition for Batman Sub Zero in 1998 (guess they decided the new revamped designs weren't good enough when compared to the old ones). Then in 2002 or 2003, they tried their hand again at the revamped designs introduced in the 4th season with Mystery of the Batwoman, only to end with disastrous results. There's a universal consensus that the first three seasons are the true version of TAS, that kicked the crap out of the mediocre 4th season.

Whether it was good or not is irrelevant.
There was a Batman that is like the interpretation I have, end of story.

Prove your point even more? You don't have freakin' clue what you're babbling about. You're just an ignorant poser who pretends to know something he doesn't. Even though you love to bring it up to support your views, you know as much about TAS as a stray dog in the neighbour's alley.

I never implied I knew a lot about the Batman universe or even B:TAS. I said I had seen him bigger than in the movie and I showed you were, period.

Because if you did know anything about TAS, you would have seen they screwed up most of the better designs from the first 3 seasons, while many important villains like The Riddler and Ra's are very much absent. Plus the entire mediocrity of the 4th season didn't really help either, as the show appeared to migrate from the mature sophisticatedness of the first 3 seasons to a seemingly more comic, colorful and action oriented approach whatwith a whole line of lame new supporting and villain characters.

In fact, many say that the Batman TAS ended with the third season while the 4th Season is simply the animated version of Gotham Knights.

Once again, whether it was good or not is totally irrelevant.
It could have been the worst Batman cartoon of all time or the worse, the fact still remains that it exist and it is a source to support my view.

But that's the way EVERYONE is drawn in TAS. Bruce Timm's designs have very little detail and NO muscle definition. Add to that the fact that I have already mentioned the innumerable times in the first three seasons where there are characters and even thugs that are obviously bigger and taller than Batman. That hardly qualifies as "Batman being bigger than the rest of the cast".

The difference is more noticable in the 4th season, check it out, bobby.