Ben Affleck or Christian Bale?

[Verick808]

lol even Punisher doesn't kill every criminal he meet. Bale kill nobody in BB. Ben killed uncountable number of people in this. He just a thug in a costume.

Tell that to the LoA. Or the prisoners that he ended up blowing up. The ones he didn't want to kill. Imposter Ra's ended up being pretty dead. Real Ra's ended up pretty dead as well. And yes he killed Ra's he derailed the train and let Ra's die on it even though he could have saved him. He let him die in cold blood.

 

[The Joker]

I think Affleck's performance is getting a bit overrated due to the fact it was pretty much the only decent aspect of the film that people can agree on.

There's no way though I've seen enough of Ben as Batman to put him over Bale and his 3 films yet.

Seconded

 

[The Joker]

Tell that to the LoA. Or the prisoners that he ended up blowing up. The ones he didn't want to kill. Imposter Ra's ended up being pretty dead. Real Ra's ended up pretty dead as well. And yes he killed Ra's he derailed the train and let Ra's die on it even though he could have saved him. He let him die in cold blood.

He didn't kill those ninjas. He never tried to kill anyone there. They all had ample chance to haul ass and escape. It wasn't an inescapable death trap, otherwise he'd have been dooming himself, too. He created a distraction to scare them off. He saved the only person who was incapable of saving himself there - Ducard/Ra's. All the others chose to stay and try and fight him in spite of the impending danger. Sealed their own fate.

Refusing to save Ra's is not killing him. He didn't put Ra's on the train. He didn't smash the brakes.

 

[Serpico Jones]

He didn't kill those ninjas. He never tried to kill anyone there. They all had ample chance to haul ass and escape. It wasn't an inescapable death trap, otherwise he'd have been dooming himself, too. He created a distraction to scare them off. He saved the only person who was incapable of saving himself there - Ducard/Ra's. All the others chose to stay and try and fight him in spite of the impending danger. Sealed their own fate.

Refusing to save Ra's is not killing him. He didn't put Ra's on the train. He didn't smash the brakes.

He killed him. He had a chance to save him and he let him die...which is fine because Ra's was an *******.

 

[The Joker]

He killed him. He had a chance to save him and he let him die...which is fine because Ra's was an *******.

Refusing to save someone is not killing them, unless you are the cause of their death.

 

[Serpico Jones]

Refusing to save someone is not killing them, unless you are the cause of their death.

He let him die. He killed him...which I have zero issues with. He also killed Two-Face which I again have zero issue with.

 

[The Joker]

He let him die. He killed him

No, he didn't. No offense but you don't understand the definition of killing someone if you think refusing to save someone from their own self made death trap is killing them.

He also killed Two-Face which I again have zero issue with.

Yes, to save a child's life. That was fine.

 

[Robin91939]

Neither characterization is totally perfect.

Bale's Batman's actions led to deaths. And some of his actions (Talia and Harvey) he actively killed them.

Bale's Batman retired. He gave up being Batman. This is almost as against the characterization of Batman as killing is -- if not more.

Affleck's Batman is more reckless with his actions that lead to the death of villains. He is now a guy who breaks his no-killing rule. And it's evidenced by the "Something new?" "We're criminals Alfred, we've always been criminals." That Bruce becoming more brutal and branding villains, etc is a relatively new trend (he's only branded two criminals at this point).


Bottom line. Neither is 100% perfect. And both is a unique take. Both are Batman. And both are really, really well done.

I'll probably never be able to definitely choose between them. I love them both.

-R

 

[Doctor Octopus]

He killed him. He had a chance to save him and he let him die...which is fine because Ra's was an *******.

lol if you not save a person that make you responsible for them dying. Train could have been stopped if Ra's al ghul not destroy train brakes. He was going to die on speeding train with no brakes.

 

[bbasher]

No, he didn't. No offense but you don't understand the definition of killing someone if you think refusing to save someone from their own self made death trap is killing them.



Yes, to save a child's life. That was fine.

Batfleck killed to save Superman's mom, which is also fine.

 

[Serpico Jones]

I have more issues with Bale quitting for 8 years, that's just ridiculous. Batman never quits, the only thing that'll stop him is death.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Neither characterization is totally perfect.

Bale's Batman's actions led to deaths. And some of his actions (Talia and Harvey) he actively killed them.

Bale's Batman retired. He gave up being Batman. This is almost as against the characterization of Batman as killing is -- if not more.

Affleck's Batman is more reckless with his actions that lead to the death of villains. He is now a guy who breaks his no-killing rule. And it's evidenced by the "Something new?" "We're criminals Alfred, we've always been criminals." That Bruce becoming more brutal and branding villains, etc is a relatively new trend (he's only branded two criminals at this point).


Bottom line. Neither is 100% perfect. And both is a unique take. Both are Batman. And both are really, really well done.

I'll probably never be able to definitely choose between them. I love them both.

-R

Spot on!

 

[The Joker]

Batfleck killed to save Superman's mom, which is also fine.

The only kill he did for Martha was the flamethrower guy. That's it. That is his only excusable kill in the whole movie.

I have more issues with Bale quitting for 8 years, that's just ridiculous. Batman never quits, the only thing that'll stop him is death.

The Dark Knight Returns Batman, the Batman the was THE main influence for Affleck's, quit for 10 years. Does this make him an invalid version of Batman?

Lets not pretend that the only reason they don't retire Batman long term in the comics is because the comics are an infinite universe and Batman retiring means no more Batman. Like they don't kill off the villains in the comics like they do in the movies, because it's ok in the movies because they're a finite universe, whereas the comics are not.

But you're wrong about Batman never wanting to retire, he wants to;

So to say he wouldn't is false. They just won't ever do it because he is too popular to retire.

 

[Serpico Jones]

The only kill he did for Martha was the flamethrower guy. That's it. That is his only excusable kill in the whole movie.



The Dark Knight Returns Batman, the Batman the was THE main influence for Affleck's, quit for 10 years. Does this make him an invalid version of Batman?

Lets not pretend that the only reason they don't retire Batman long term in the comics is because the comics are an infinite universe and Batman retiring means no more Batman. Like they don't kill off the villains in the comics like they do in the movies, because it's ok in the movies because they're a finite universe, whereas the comics are not.

But you're wrong about Batman never wanting to retire, he wants to;

So to say he wouldn't is false. They just won't ever do it because he is too popular to retire.

I don't buy his reason for retiring in Rises.

 

[Robin91939]

The only kill he did for Martha was the flamethrower guy. That's it. That is his only excusable kill in the whole movie.



The Dark Knight Returns Batman, the Batman the was THE main influence for Affleck's, quit for 10 years. Does this make him an invalid version of Batman?

Lets not pretend that the only reason they don't retire Batman long term in the comics is because the comics are an infinite universe and Batman retiring means no more Batman. Like they don't kill off the villains in the comics like they do in the movies, because it's ok in the movies because they're a finite universe, whereas the comics are not.

But you're wrong about Batman never wanting to retire, he wants to;

So to say he wouldn't is false. They just won't ever do it because he is too popular to retire.

I agree with much of this.

My favorite self-contained Batman story is Broken City. In it, he says that he wants to retire. And he wants there to be a day when there is no longer a need for Batman. And he prays that, for our sake, that day is tomorrow.

I love this take on the character. Because it shows that while he WANTS to retire. He knows that he probably never will be able to.

I see Batman being somewhere between this and The Dark Knight. I think if Batman did retire, he'd have to come back. In some form. Whether it's back into the suit like in The Dark Knight Returns or something like Batman Beyond, Bruce can't stop being Batman. It is fundamentally who he is.

Bale's Batman could stop. And in the context of the story and the world they created, it worked.

Who knows? Maybe in some future in that time line, Bruce can't take the retired life and dons the cape once again.

-R

 

[NJCaliboi]

Christian Bale without question. He has a sense of nobility, integrity, and honor to his portrayal (and not just in the writing) that is missing in this version. Beyond killing, Affleck's just seems bitter and broken. Bale, even at his lowest points, maintained his own virtue, heroism and idealism about what is best for his city. Plus Bale has a better sense of naturalism and inner-life than Affleck does as an actor. Bale also captured the character's sense of levity better.

With that said, Affleck is going to DOMINATE this poll the weekend of BvS's release. Ask again in a year or even six months, and it will be much, much closer, I think.

what this person said

 

[The Joker]

I don't buy his reason for retiring in Rises.

That's a different complaint to the one you previously made. Crime being so low that Batman is not needed is a very plausible reason for him to retire. Can't be Batman if you're not needed.

Compare that to The Dark Knight Returns Batman, who retired while the city still needed him.

Now tell me which is bad; the one that retires because he's not needed, or the one who retires while the city still needs him.

 

[Robin91939]

That's a different complaint to the one you previously made. Crime being so low that Batman is not needed is a very plausible reason for him to retire. Can't be Batman if you're not needed.

Compare that to The Dark Knight Returns Batman, who retired while the city still needed him.

Now tell me which is bad; the one that retires because he's not needed, or the one who retires while the city still needs him.

Both have valid reasons.

In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman retires twice.

First time: I understand. His body is broken. His spirit is down after losing Harvey Dent. And the crime rate is down and he's not entirely needed.

Still, when needed, he HAS to come back. Because he's Batman.

Second time: That is one I don't think Batman would do. Retire for good like that. Fly off into the proverbial sunset. Batman can't help but be Batman.


In The Dark Knight Returns:

Bruce retires because of a promise, a vow he makes to a dead loved one. To Jason Todd. He promises "Never again." It's a perfect bookend to his vow to his parents.

Crime is up, yes. But his soul is broken. He's lost his partner. The government has outlawed him, etc.



Both versions of Batman are valid.

-R

 

[Brother Jack]

Batman also retires in DKR because the government outlaws superheroes. Only Superman remains because he allies himself with the government. It's a very similar reason to the Dent Act in Rises. They're both political measures that effectively remove Batman's reason for being.

 

[batman1]

Bale.

 

[Robin91939]

Batman also retires in DKR because the government outlaws superheroes. Only Superman remains because he allies himself with the government. It's a very similar reason to the Dent Act in Rises. They're both political measures that effectively remove Batman's reason for being.

That's only part of the reason.

The other is a promise he made after the death of Jason.

"Never again."


-R

 

[InJustice]

Both have valid reasons.

In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman retires twice.

First time: I understand. His body is broken. His spirit is down after losing Harvey Dent. And the crime rate is down and he's not entirely needed.

Still, when needed, he HAS to come back. Because he's Batman.

Second time: That is one I don't think Batman would do. Retire for good like that. Fly off into the proverbial sunset. Batman can't help but be Batman.


In The Dark Knight Returns:

Bruce retires because of a promise, a vow he makes to a dead loved one. To Jason Todd. He promises "Never again." It's a perfect bookend to his vow to his parents.

Crime is up, yes. But his soul is broken. He's lost his partner. The government has outlawed him, etc.



Both versions of Batman are valid.

-R

I never understand the argument that "Batman would never retire because he can't help but be Batman." The whole logic of what Batman represents, depends on what type of Gotham, crime setting you're trying to accomplish. The Nolan Batman was never meant to be the permanent solution to Gotham's problems. It was about one man who takes action and enables a city who has lost its way, to work towards regaining its identity. That's why there was so much focus on organized crime, police corruption, and the legal system. Moreover, Batman was about being an addiction, and accompanied a journey arc where Bruce learns to be his own man and lets go of the Batman persona.

 

[seriesofdreams]

I'm still in the Bale camp. I appreciated Ben's portrayal, though. He did a good job. One of the bright spots of an otherwise dull movie.

Michael Keaton was also great. Definitely had an awesome presence in the Burton movies.

 

[Brother Jack]

I never understand the argument that "Batman would never retire because he can't help but be Batman." The whole logic of what Batman represents, depends on what type of Gotham, crime setting you're trying to accomplish. The Nolan Batman was never meant to be the permanent solution to Gotham's problems. It was about one man who takes action and enables a city who has lost its way, to work towards regaining its identity. That's why there was so much focus on organized crime, police corruption, and the legal system. Moreover, Batman was about being an addiction, and accompanied a journey arc where Bruce learns to be his own man and lets go of the Batman persona.

Bruce's goal was to create a symbol that was larger than himself to save Gotham and he ultimately succeeds at that. But that means Batman has to be bigger than Bruce, which is why he leaves behind a successor after he moves on. And that idea has been done in the comics so many times with Dick Grayson, Terry McGuiness, and others. I love Bruce Wayne as a character and will always prefer him in the cowl but to say that he always has to be Batman just isn't true. If nothing else, there would come a point where he would become too old and feeble to do it and would have to retire permanently. Which, of course, is a factor in Rises.

 

[Saint]

Who decides "when he has to"?

Me. It's the movie's job to try and sell me on Batman's actions, and it's my job to be the arbiter of what does or doesn't work, or what is or is not acceptable in my own experience.

More simply, if you radicalize an element of a character, it's not unreasonable for someone to say "Crap, you went too far."

I'm okay with Captain America shooting a an enemy combatant. I'm not okay with him, say, torturing a subdued enemy. I'm okay with Batman shooting the God of Evil in the shoulder. I'm not okay with him using lethal force on a security guard trying to stop him from burglarizing his place of work, or plotting to murder Superman, or intentionally throwing an already-incapacitated enemy into a live grenade.

I'm really, really not okay with it. I get that it doesn't violate the internal logic of the film, and I'm still really, really not okay with it. If you make me hate Batman, well, that's going to affect my filmgoing experience.