BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - - Part 17

[Sharkboy]

There isn't much acting with Batman anyway, Bruce Wayne might be a bit tougher..

Wrong.

 

[Maze]

There isn't much acting with Batman anyway, Bruce Wayne might be a bit tougher..

I think there are both challenging in their own way.

You can look good as Batman, intimidating and all, BUT if you have not it, you can be lost within that costume easily.

 

[luis4u]

Is that from the Pak Batman/Superman run? Horribly forced, but cute.

greg pak too bad is not earth prime..

 

[luis4u]

Wrong.

George clooney good as Bruce Wayne, but not as Batman.

 

[Sharkboy]

George clooney good as Bruce Wayne, but not as Batman.

Ok. So if there's not much acting involved with Batman, how come George Clooney wasn't good as Batman then?

 

[Maze]

I think that have to do with the writing and the direction too imo, but yes.

 

[Maze]

It's as if Shumasher said, well you are a Batman, don't take yourself seriously, be Georges Clooney a cool guy.

 

[luis4u]

Ok. So if there's not much acting involved with Batman, how come George Clooney wasn't good as Batman then?

WB wanted to make toys, causing the movie to be rushed ..

 

[luis4u]

It's as if Shumasher said, well you are a Batman, don't take yourself seriously, be Georges Clooney a cool guy.

I think WB was the reason. he made some dark films before batman and robin.

 

[Maze]

To take another example of that time : In Batman forever, Shumasher was trying to have a more serious batman take. Kilmer an excellent actor, not bad in eitheir of the roles, but it seemed to me that he had not (in that movie) the extra factor that Keaton had ( imo the guy was radiating intensity, danger within that suit, even without speaking)

 

[Maze]

I think WB was the reason. he made some dark films before batman and robin.

He made some dark film and he had already also a campy affinity in some of his movie (and i think he is a good director)

at the end of the day, Warner is reponsible, but i think he was in agreement with a lot of ideas, and it seem that he pushed also for it. ( i mean the guy was shouting on the set, that it was a comic book movie aka "don't take it seriously")

 

[luis4u]

To take another example of that time : In Batman forever, Shumasher was trying to have a more serious batman take. Kilmer an excellent actor, not bad in eitheir of the roles, but it seemed to me that he had not (in that movie) the extra factor that Keaton had ( imo the guy was radiating intensity, danger within that suit, even without speaking)

Can believed this was deleted [YT]Dfzzal8keIU[/YT]

 

[luis4u]

He made some dark film and he had already also a campy affinity in some of his movie (and i think he is a good director)

at the end of the day, Warner is reponsible, but i think he was in agreement with a lot of ideas, and it seem that he pushed also for it.

too bad people will only remember him for ruining batman..

 

[ThePhantasm]

Exactly, you've got to radiate that intensity. Nolan said before that this was the reason they chose Bale. Not because of his performance as Bruce but because of the raw energy of his performance as Batman.

 

[Maze]

too bad people will only remember him for ruining batman..

Yup that's not fair i agree.

 

[luis4u]

Yup that's not fair i agree.

Agreed

 

[ThePhantasm]

He didn't ruin Batman.

Batman is still kicking ass and taking names in terms of popularity.

 

[luis4u]

He didn't ruin Batman.

Batman is still kicking ass and taking names in terms of popularity.

Batman franchise was from 1998 through 2005..

 

[Maze]

Exactly, you've got to radiate that intensity. Nolan said before that this was the reason they chose Bale. Not because of his performance as Bruce but because of the raw energy of his performance as Batman.

Yup. That was a slightly different vibe ( raw energy like you put it, more pure rage, more ...i don't know "youthful"? ) but Bale had it too.

 

[StarLord]

As a director, Schumacher has done some great movies - 'St. Elmos Fire', 'The Lost Boys', 'Falling Down', 'A Time to Kill' and 'Tigerland'.

I think it was a case of the studio focusing too much on selling toys and making everything seem bright and shiny for kids.

I love 'Batman Forever' though. It's a Batman movie I could just put on and watch right through no problem.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Batman franchise was from 1998 through 2005..

A franchise taking some time to right the ship or just to reevaluate its vision doesn't mean the character is ruined, any more than the cinematic gap between the 60s and 1989 means the character was ruined.

 

[AnneFan]

Batman franchise was from 1998 through 2005..

Maybe so, but animation, comics and other media continued. And the cinematic return was worth the wait.

Batman cannot be stopped.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yup. That was a slightly different vibe ( raw energy like you put it, more pure rage, more ...i don't know "youthful"? ) but Bale had it too.

And Bale was also able to convey multiple emotions through the mask, which is important. He conveys surprise at times, sorrow at times, fatigue, exasperation, compassion, etc. He's more than just a dude hitting stuff and growling.

 

[Maze]

Exactly. There are a lot of great moments with him as Batman imo.

 

[Green Goblin]

The bat-voice is underated. It was great in Begins and good in Knight but was pretty laughable at times in Rises.

If they re-used it would be fine seeing as this Batman is not a completly different take.