Batman's Cowl Face

[SheldonLevene]

and for the record i still think Bale is a better Batman and all around actor as well

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I'll let you answer yourself



Thanks for saving me the time.

LOL

I was talking to someone else, but ok? ...

That and the acting makes Keaton a great Batman.

It did. Keaton was a good Batman, without a doubt.

Better than Bale? I wouldn't bother since Bale was great too.

I give Bale the nod for the simple fact that over the two movies Bale showed much larger range in the role, and showed growth, and wasn't a 2-D image of a character. And that conversely doesn't mean Keaton was bad, just his performance didn't require as much talent, work, and effort as Bale's role did.

Except for a few issues with the voice

Which boils down to preference, not performance. Since Bale was deliberetly doing something never done before.

and the tight cowl's mouth.

Which had nothing to do with Bale. And was only a problem in a few minor camera angles and scenes in Batman Begins.

In the real world, any guy in a rubber suit with a cape wouldn't look menacing without a big share of laughability.

I'd vehemently disagree. If there was never a concept of a Batman in popular culture, I'm pretty sure the image would inspire some feat.

But that's not the point, I wasn't actually referring to the actual real world anyway. I'm talking about Christian Bale in a Batman suit still looking intimidating in a non fantastical atmospheric lighting and setting. He looked believable and threatning in real man made lighting structures and scenerey not over designed by artists for a movie's visual sake. Difference. And I just doubt Keaton's Batman would look visually on par with anything in those elements. He looked the way he did becauce of the setting more than it was Keaton's "intimidating precense and visage" ...

Like... you have seen Bale in bat-suit yourself?

Yes, actually I have. A few times in the summer of 2004 while they were filming Batman Begins, and a few times in the summer of 2007 when they were filming The Dark Knight. And yes, he had physical precense in the Bat-suit and didn't look goofy, and this wasn't viewing in the context of a movie. Christian Bale himself is a very intense and intimidating looking kat in person, OUT OF the Bat-costume.

You don't think they just put the cameras and start rolling with natural lightning right?

Of course lighting was aided. But not the the fantastical extent it was used in a way to express the images themselves they way it was in the Burton / Shumacher films. The lighting techniques weren't creating something like they were for Keaton's Batman on screen. It was a lighting technique that aided the natural look. Not making something other wordly.

Are you saying that Burton's movies looked cooler or are more appropiate for Bale?

Burton's movies do look cooler visually. That's all he has to hang his hat on.

t:

And it was those specific lighting techniques that made his Batman look the way it did.

I'm saying Bale can look good in more natural, real settings without looking ridiculous. I mean he made his Batman a threat in a BRIGHTLY lite interrogsation room under bright lights. He looked natural and threatning in a regular everyday structure like a concrete parking garage. Not a dimly lite, gargoyle, shadow infested rooftop with artificial lighting used to enhance the image of the Batman.

Keaton looked intimidating too when he faced the Joker.

I know, and ???

I said Batman looked intimidating in the Burton movies. And attribute that to the lighting and the setting created by the fanatstic people in the art and cinematography and lighting departments. That isn't all Keaton. Where as Bale can make his Batman visually look convincing in threatning in bright lights, real world visual context, etc.

But I still prefer Batman to be the intimidating side of Bruce not Bruce himself.

I don't disagree but Bruce Wayne's determination and repressed anger IS Batman. Sometimes Bruce Wayne can and should look intimidating where he momentarily lets his public mask fadeaway when he's pushed into Batman mode. As evident in the part scene in The Dark Knight. Bale without a mask or anything looked utterly frightening when the Batman fire burned in his eyes, and you saw that bad ass determined look on his face as he knocks out thug w/ shotgun, then diassembles it without missing a beat military style. He's a man with a mission. Batman's look isn't all in the suit. When Bruce puts on his "game face" sort of speak, I think it's interesting to see an actor able to give him the precense of being Batman WITHOUT the costume. Bale did this a few times in The Dark Knight, and made the character threatning without being in his costume in a dark alley.

 

[El Payaso]

I was talking to someone else, but ok? ...

You're in a public forum ok?

I give Bale the nod for the simple fact that over the two movies Bale showed much larger range in the role, and showed growth, and wasn't a 2-D image of a character. And that conversely doesn't mean Keaton was bad, just his performance didn't require as much talent, work, and effort as Bale's role did.

It's not the talent that's required but the talent that's shown. In that dept. neither Keaton or Bale have anything to envy from each other. As for the effort it is well known that, once again, it is all about the results not the hours working, which incidentally we have no idea of how many each of them actually took. One actor might need months of rehersal to achieve what other actor need 1 week to get.

Which boils down to preference, not performance.

Which is why your argumentation of lighting is weird. Every movie ever done uses lighting to emphasize the characters' mood or visuals. Thus, it is not about lighting but preference of one actor over the other one.

Which had nothing to do with Bale. And was only a problem in a few minor camera angles and scenes in Batman Begins.

As I said, they're few issues that didn't ruin the thing.

I'd vehemently disagree. If there was never a concept of a Batman in popular culture, I'm pretty sure the image would inspire some feat.

I'm pretty sure that Keaton's silent Batman would inspire some fear too.

Thing is we'll never know. We only can assess their presences and performances within the context of the movie which inalienably includes lighting, frame, etc.

Thus, lucubrating about which Batman would inspire fear outside of the movies is futile. We cannot go much further than being personally "pretty sure of."

But that's not the point, I wasn't actually referring to the actual real world anyway. I'm talking about Christian Bale in a Batman suit still looking intimidating in a non fantastical atmospheric lighting and setting. He looked believable and threatning in real man made lighting structures and scenerey not over designed by artists for a movie's visual sake. Difference. And I just doubt Keaton's Batman would look visually on par with anything in those elements. He looked the way he did becauce of the setting more than it was Keaton's "intimidating precense and visage" ...

Once again you're either "pretty sure" about one point and you "doubt" about the second. Why? Because we cannot prove it concretely.

Not being able to exist outside of the context of the movie, we can only assess their performances and presences according to it. Which includes lighting and a long etc.

What's the point in stating that Keaton would look bad in a realistic or natural lightened context if he never was or will be in that context?

Yes, actually I have. A few times in the summer of 2004 while they were filming Batman Begins, and a few times in the summer of 2007 when they were filming The Dark Knight. And yes, he had physical precense in the Bat-suit and didn't look goofy, and this wasn't viewing in the context of a movie. Christian Bale himself is a very intense and intimidating looking kat in person, OUT OF the Bat-costume.

Unless general audiences have that very possibility, it's useless.

On the other hand you never saw Keaton in a bat-suit in the same conditions so you can compare fairly, right?

Of course lighting was aided. But not the the fantastical extent it was used in a way to express the images themselves they way it was in the Burton / Shumacher films. The lighting techniques weren't creating something like they were for Keaton's Batman on screen. It was a lighting technique that aided the natural look. Not making something other wordly.

Every movie had the lighting it was required. It is secure to think that, without the proper lighting, none of the characters would have looked and been felt as good as they were with it.

Burton's movies do look cooler visually. That's all he has to hang his hat on.

Actually the performances in his movies are always applauded as well. As it's the music and the style.

But visuals are as valid as any other form of narrative. And Burton's visuals can narrate what other director take words to do. Are we going to rule out one of the styles of movie narration?

And it was those specific lighting techniques that made his Batman look the way it did.

And it was wires what made Christopher Reeve fly.

In the end, it worked wonderfully.

I'm saying Bale can look good in more natural, real settings without looking ridiculous. I mean he made his Batman a threat in a BRIGHTLY lite interrogsation room under bright lights. He looked natural and threatning in a regular everyday structure like a concrete parking garage. Not a dimly lite, gargoyle, shadow infested rooftop with artificial lighting used to enhance the image of the Batman.

He looked threatening in the interrogation scene because many things; editing, and the fact that he was kicking the crap out of Joker. Once again, all the classic moviemaking devices.

I know, and ???

I said Batman looked intimidating in the Burton movies. And attribute that to the lighting and the setting created by the fanatstic people in the art and cinematography and lighting departments. That isn't all Keaton. Where as Bale can make his Batman visually look convincing in threatning in bright lights, real world visual context, etc.

What we see in the Nolan movies that looks convincingly as "real world" is not such. It's not the real world but sets that are specially equiped to look both good and natural.

I don't disagree but Bruce Wayne's determination and repressed anger IS Batman. Sometimes Bruce Wayne can and should look intimidating where he momentarily lets his public mask fadeaway when he's pushed into Batman mode. As evident in the part scene in The Dark Knight. Bale without a mask or anything looked utterly frightening when the Batman fire burned in his eyes, and you saw that bad ass determined look on his face as he knocks out thug w/ shotgun, then diassembles it without missing a beat military style. He's a man with a mission. Batman's look isn't all in the suit. When Bruce puts on his "game face" sort of speak, I think it's interesting to see an actor able to give him the precense of being Batman WITHOUT the costume. Bale did this a few times in The Dark Knight, and made the character threatning without being in his costume in a dark alley.

Absolutely. But so did Keaton.

 

[MrQuinn]

with all this lighting talk, I thought Nolan's movies used a lens to give it a grittier look? Wouldn't that be considered aiding natural light, granted it was to try and make everything look more "real", but just the same. Not really arguing one way or another, it just seemed like The Grin Reaper maybe thought there wasn't much assistance in the look of the lighting of the film?


Course, I could just be wrong all together, haha.

 

[El Payaso]

with all this lighting talk, I thought Nolan's movies used a lens to give it a grittier look? Wouldn't that be considered aiding natural light, granted it was to try and make everything look more "real", but just the same. Not really arguing one way or another, it just seemed like The Grin Reaper maybe thought there wasn't much assistance in the look of the lighting of the film?

That has a simple explanation; Nolan did a brilliant job.

 

[mjbull23]

There is that moment in Batman Returns... where Keaton saves Pfeiffer's life ...and after knocking out the bad guy.. he just stares at her.. with so much lust in his eyes.

That was a brilliant scene right there. I dont think people appreciate just how effective Keaton was with his expressive eyes. It clearly distinguishes him from Bale.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

They both look amazing in their cowls, in the right lighting and angle.

 

[Crook]

There is that moment in Batman Returns... where Keaton saves Pfeiffer's life ...and after knocking out the bad guy.. he just stares at her.. with so much lust in his eyes.

That was a brilliant scene right there. I dont think people appreciate just how effective Keaton was with his expressive eyes. It clearly distinguishes him from Bale.

Co-signed. And Burton took full advantage of that rare skillset, thankfully. Lighting (as with all films) only helps to aid imagery that is already present. I've seen nothing in any of the batfilms that would indicate a false representation of a character, solely from a light source.

For the record, I've seen the Keaton and Bale batsuits up close. In "real-world" settings and lighting, they both look equally ridiculous. As much of a batfan as I am, the batsuit truly is stupid looking when taken out of it's narrative context.

 

[Gexmeister]

Keaton. It's his lips and his eyes.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

For the record, I've seen the Keaton and Bale batsuits up close. In "real-world" settings and lighting, they both look equally ridiculous. As much of a batfan as I am, the batsuit truly is stupid looking when taken out of it's narrative context.

You probably saw them in a glass case being displayed, possibly with shockingly bright museum type lights on them ..

I saw dude standing on a 10 story building, IN REAL WORLD CONTEXT, without or pre lighting and didn't look absurd at all.

Besides the fact you acknowledge its Batman a cartoon / comic character you've grown up watching.

If there was no existent of that and you saw the same image, it would have even more impact.

Bale in costume, up close, or up high looking down on the city streets from a building didn't look ridiculous at all. In fact, fairly threatning, even though you knew what it was, and who it was, and that they were filming a Batman movie.

If someone was walking around a grocey store with a Batman costume on of course they'd look ridiculous.

But I know damn well comparing what you saw was not the same in what I saw. In context.

C'mon, bro ...

 

[Rockbottom]

 

[Bat Attack]

Michael Keaton ftw.

 

[bane]

The REAL deal

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Man, that cowl and costume on the right is so ridiculously bad ass looking.