Best Batman portrayal

Unpopular opinion: Bale's Batman voice is great.

It's really fun to do as well.

Like Kevin Conroy said, Christian Bale's Batman sounded unintentionally funny like he had laryngitis.

It is really funny to do Bale's Batman voice.

 
Last edited:
I really like West and Bale's portrayals quite a bit. I do think that Bale is the best Bruce Wayne by far.

However, Keaton is my favorite Batman primarily because of the 89 film. One aspect that Keaton nailed that every other live action actor has failed to live up to is that he succeeded in making Batman and Bruce Wayne feel like two completely separate entities. As much as I like Bale I don't know that I ever saw his Batman as anything more than Bruce Wayne in a suit putting on a different voice. Keaton actually brought character to Batman which in my opinion is something that is lacking in almost every other live action adaption. On top of that Keaton invented the Bat-Voice which has become a staple for any actor taking on the character whether it be in live action or animation.

In terms of accuracy it really depends on which era of Batman we're talking about. The 89 film is clearly inspired by many comics from the 50 years of stories up until that point. I really see an influence from the Kane/Finger era pre-Robin. Keaton is definitely accurate to that era of the character when Batman was a silent vigilante prior to his hard stance on killing. West's Batman feels like the lighter comics from the 40's. Bale's feels like the Batman from the Bronze Age.
 
Last edited:
Superficially, sure, the Keaton films were accurate. Tim "anyone who knows me knows I'd never read a comic book " Burton had someone show him some pages from Dark Knight Returns and the early Kane/Finger comics and went "yeah, make it look like that I guess" and that's about it . In terms of the actual essence of the characters, though, Nolan nails it, without question .
 
This idea that Keaton managed to make Bruce/Batman feel like two different characters while Bale didn't is...certainly a take. Bale actually managed to create three distinct personas: The shallow, careless Billionaire Playboy, The monstrous, rage filled Vigilante, and the real man, who has a dry sense of humor. And all those personas are actually closer to the spirit of the character than what Keaton did.

Keaton didn't actually portray Bruce Wayne, he portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic version of himself. Like Hellblazer said, Keaton is accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated.
 
It doesn't help that Keaton's Bruce Wayne got overshadowed by the main villains (particulary in Batman Returns) and that he feels like an afterthought in his two movies. I think it would have been better if Batman 89 was an actual origin story for Batman.

I do agree that Keaton's Batman superficially looks awesome and I love the look of his Batmobile. But I think Bale nailed the essence of the character and that Bale's Batman is arguably the most heroic live action Batman.
 
I often feel like I'm taking crazy pills whenever I argue this point, so I'm glad I'm not alone lol
 
This idea that Keaton managed to make Bruce/Batman feel like two different characters while Bale didn't is...certainly a take. Bale actually managed to create three distinct personas: The shallow, careless Billionaire Playboy, The monstrous, rage filled Vigilante, and the real man, who has a dry sense of humor. And all those personas are actually closer to the spirit of the character than what Keaton did.

Keaton didn't actually portray Bruce Wayne, he portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic version of himself. Like Hellblazer said, Keaton is accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated.

It doesn't help that Keaton's Bruce Wayne got overshadowed by the main villains (particulary in Batman Returns) and that he feels like an afterthought in his two movies. I think it would have been better if Batman 89 was an actual origin story for Batman.

I do agree that Keaton's Batman superficially looks awesome and I love the look of his Batmobile. But I think Bale nailed the essence of the character and that Bale's Batman is arguably the most heroic live action Batman.

Couldn't agree more.
 
This idea that Keaton managed to make Bruce/Batman feel like two different characters while Bale didn't is...certainly a take. Bale actually managed to create three distinct personas: The shallow, careless Billionaire Playboy, The monstrous, rage filled Vigilante, and the real man, who has a dry sense of humor. And all those personas are actually closer to the spirit of the character than what Keaton did.

Keaton didn't actually portray Bruce Wayne, he portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic version of himself. Like Hellblazer said, Keaton is accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated.
Couldn't agree more.
Yup, I gotta agree with The Batman and Joker here. I coudn't have said it better and its why stuff like his "voice" doesn't bother me at all and never has. He nailed the character.
 
Superficially, sure, the Keaton films were accurate. Tim "anyone who knows me knows I'd never read a comic book " Burton had someone show him some pages from Dark Knight Returns and the early Kane/Finger comics and went "yeah, make it look like that I guess" and that's about it . In terms of the actual essence of the characters, though, Nolan nails it, without question .

Couldn't disagree more. The "Tim Burton never read a comic book" mythos is from the gospel of Kevin Smith's An Evening with Kevin Smith (2002) smack talking Tim Burton. Except Smith misquoted Tim Burton's words from "Anybody that knows me knows I do not read comic books" to "'Anyone who knows me will tell you that I would never read a comic book.' Which, to me, [profanity] explains Batman." Kevin Smith admitted to having had "some bad blood" aimed at Tim Burton all because Tim Burton brought in Wesley Strick to do a rewrite of Kevin Smith's Superman Lives script in 1997, just as Tim Burton brought in Wesley Strick to do a rewrite of Daniel Waters' Batman II script in 1991.
https://nypost.com/2001/08/07/directors-duel/
In 2007 Kevin Smith admitted, "For me, it's like, I would definitely cast Michael Keaton as Batman. I thought Michael Keaton was an awesome Batman."
Holy Retread Batman! Kevin Smith Picks Michael Keaton For His JLA Cast

Producer Michael Uslan explained, "In my first three meetings with Tim Burton, it was my responsibility to introduce him to Batman [comic books] and provide him with the material. I only let Tim see the original year of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger run, up until the time that Robin was introduced. I only let them see the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers and the Neal Adams/Denny O’Neil runs. I was very careful to not show them the comics from the ’60s."
Michael Uslan: Man Behind the Batman - Part 1 - SuperHeroHype
Over three lunch meetings, Uslan loaned Burton a stack of comic books, including a photocopy of Batman #1 (1940) written by Bill Finger, art by Bob Kane, Sheldon Moldoff, and Jerry Robinson, which includes the original two-page Batman origin and introduced the Joker, Catwoman and Professor Hugo Strange's Monster Men; Batman #217 (1969) "One Bullet Too Many" written by Frank Robbins, art by Irv Novick, Batman #251 (1973) "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" written by Denny O'Neil, art by Neal Adams, etc. Out of his personal collection, Uslan shared with Burton his all-time favorite Batman story, Detective Comics #439 (1974) "Night of the Stalker" written by Steve Englehart, art by Sal Amendola. "Just as important as what I gave him was what I kept away from him," Uslan says. "I didn't want him to see the campy and ridiculous stuff."
How the Dark Knight Became Dark Again

In Movieline #103 (1989) Tim Burton said, "You don't want him to start saying things like 'There's a bat in the window. Now that's an idea!' We tried to avoid that... What we didn't want to see were word balloons coming out of Michael's mouth..."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Movieline" June 23, 1989 Vol. V Issue #103
In Starburst #133 (1989) Tim Burton said, "You can't just do, 'Well, I'm avenging the death of my parents - Oh! a bat's flown in through the window. Yes that's it, I'll become a Bat-Man!' ... works on the comic page - but not so much for movie purposes."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Starburst" Issue #133 September 1989
So Tim Burton must have read the original origin story with the bat flying in through the window, the oath to avenge the parents, etc. or he wouldn't have know anything about any bat flying in through a window, or avenging the death of the parents, etc.

In Cinefex #41 (1989) Tim Burton even explained, "I had looked at the Batman encyclopedia [referring to The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman (1976) by Michael Fleisher] and found that the mythology contradicts itself - it changes it's own history and has gone through many alterations over the years. So early on, I realized that even if I wanted to be true to the 'real' Batman, there could be substantial argument as to what that really was... We were drawing from the original comics for inspiration - there was bound to be a certain '40s feeling to it."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Cinefex" Issue 41

Tim Burton explained in his book Burton on Burton (1997), "I loved The Killing Joke. It's my favorite. It's the first comic I ever loved. And the success of those graphic novels [Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke] made our ideas more acceptable."
In Cinefantastique [November 1989] Tim Burton explained, "We could never get Robin in before the last third of the movie. By that time we just wanted to get on with the story rather than introduce somebody else new in tights simply because the comic lore dictated it. Luckily, when I made the decision to cut him out entirely - something that made everybody nervous - that comic book issue was published where fans voted to kill off Robin [Batman #428 (1988) "A Death In the Family Chapter 5" written by Jim Starlin, art by Jim Aparo]. The timing was very helpful in convincing Warners that Robin didn't matter."
www.1989batman.com/2013/08/vintage-magazine-article.html
Micheal Keaton explained on WTF with Marc Maron that Tim Burton gave Keaton the Dark Knight Returns to read, "This was gutsy on his part, Tim said 'I'm doing Batman. Would you read the script?' I wasn't familiar with the comic, but here's what he did, he said, 'read this one,' which was the Frank Miller thing, which was Dark Knight Returns."

Danny Elfman explained on the Batman special edition DVD that Burton sent Elfman the Dark Knight Returns to read, "After Beetlejuice I got a call from Tim saying 'I'm doing this thing you might be interested in it.' He sent me the Dark Knight comics."


This idea that Keaton managed to make Bruce/Batman feel like two different characters while Bale didn't is...certainly a take. Bale actually managed to create three distinct personas: The shallow, careless Billionaire Playboy, The monstrous, rage filled Vigilante, and the real man, who has a dry sense of humor. And all those personas are actually closer to the spirit of the character than what Keaton did.Keaton didn't actually portray Bruce Wayne, he portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic version of himself. Like Hellblazer said, Keaton is accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated.

Michael Keaton actually managed to project various sides of Bruce Wayne: The calculated champagne guzzling philanthropic billionaire playboy image that Knox mocks as "worthless" and "vain." The script explains that when you think Bruce Wayne's not paying attention -- you're dead wrong. He doesn't miss a thing, and the script revealed that he actually was drinking non-alcoholic ginger ale in a champagne glass pretending it's champagne, which Miss Vale later figured out when she said, "I feel a little drunk [referring to the bottle of champagne she drank] and you're not anything." Then Keaton's Mr. Wayne claimed that one drink from the champagne and he'd be "flying" drunk, and he has casual affairs with Miss Vale and Miss Kyle. There is also the business side of Keaton's Wayne that Shreck sees at the meeting in Batman Returns. There's the mysterious vigilante Batman image terrifying superstitious criminals, and then there's the real reclusive Wayne in the Batcave working on a case, or working on the Batmobile in Batman Returns etc., that Alfred knows. And all those personas are actually closer to the spirit of the character than what Bale did. While Bale portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic guy that clearly has issues, like his Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. Bale said himself, "I also kind of view Batman—you know, somebody mentioned American Psycho. (Pause.) He's kind of an American psycho."
Groucho Reviews: Interview: WonderCon Batman Begins Panel Transcript
I see Bale as accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated by the majority of casual fans conforming to popular assumptions.

It doesn't help that Keaton's Bruce Wayne got overshadowed by the main villains (particulary in Batman Returns) and that he feels like an afterthought in his two movies. I think it would have been better if Batman 89 was an actual origin story for Batman. I do agree that Keaton's Batman superficially looks awesome and I love the look of his Batmobile. But I think Bale nailed the essence of the character and that Bale's Batman is arguably the most heroic live action Batman.

The point was to establish Batman as mysterious with a quiet demeanour, keep to the mystery and only allude to what happened in the past. I must say that the people who get that, in general, have been wise and intelligent. Kevin Smith claimed, "Tim Burton wasn't really interest in Batman, only the villains." Tim Burton explained in the book Burton on Burton, "That's not true. But there is an inherent difference in the characters. The Joker is an extrovert and Batman an introvert. So you can't match the energy, the balance. You have this character [Batman] who always wants to remain in the shadows, to remain hidden. If these two were standing on the street, Batman would always be wanting to hide [in the shadows], whereas The Joker would be, 'Look at me. Look at me.' So that's part of what the energy of it was. I certainly wasn't less interested in Batman, it's just that he is who he is, and The Joker is who he is. Some people got it, some people understood it. Obviously, a lot of people thought The Joker was the thing, but a lot of people found Michael [Batman] to be more compelling because of that. He captured a certain subtle sadness in his character. And there was a pent-up, bottled-up [rage] feeling to him."
In Fantazone #1 (1989) writer Sam Hamm explained, "It struck me as a much better solution to treat his origin as a mystery and gradually work back to it."
www.1989batman.com/2013/10/vintage-magazine-article-fantazone.html
In Cinefantastique [November 1989] Sam Hamm explained, "The better to keep him offstage and shadowy and make his brief appearances as flashy as possible."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Cinefantastique" November 1989 (Volume 20 Number 1 & 2)
In Fantazone #26 (1992) Batman Returns scriptwriter Daniel Waters explained, "He [Michael Keaton] would go through my scenes and say, 'We don't need all this. All Batman has to say is one line.'"
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Fantazone" Issue #26 Summer 1992
Daniel Waters again explained, "Michael Keaton was great to work with. He was such a smart guy. I would give him all these great speeches and what I thought were great lines, and he would say 'Batman should only say this. Bruce Wayne should only say this.' He was very specific that when Batman is wearing the suit, he shouldn't say three sentences put together at any one time. At the time I was thinking 'I'm giving you gold here! I am going to get into trouble now because Penguin and Catwoman have more lines.' But he was right. Then when I saw The Dark Knight (2008)... there's a scene towards the end where [Christian Bale's] Batman is giving a big speech to [Heathcliff Ledger's] the Joker and you could go grab a bottle of water and come back and he would still be talking. Michael [Keaton] was right. [Christian Bale's] Batman shouldn't be giving speeches in the costume with the Batman voice."
MONEY INTO LIGHT: DANIEL WATERS ON 'BATMAN RETURNS'
Keaton requested that he be given less dialogue. Keaton felt the less he said, the stronger he became and the more he grew in the imagination of the audience, instead of playing the conventional speechifying superhero who's life is like an open book. So Michael Keaton did not feel like he's presence was being overshadowed by the main villains at all. I see Keaton doing a great job, being very restrained, very mysterious version of Batman lurking in the shadows, instead of '80s Keaton's typical fast-talking riffing wiseguy in-your-face comedy in Night Shift (1982), Mr. Mom (1983), Beetlejuice (1988), etc., and on the other hand, it was Nicholson that was really acting nuts. Jack hadn't acted that crazed since The Shining (1980).
Michael Keaton explained in Comic Scene #9 (1989), "Working with Nicholson was a definite intensive for me as an actor. With Nicholson, you get much more than his talent. You get his knowledge and his point-of-view about movies. You get an actor who comes to life right in front of your eyes."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Comics Scene" Issue #9
Michael Keaton explained in Comic Scene #29 (1992), "I like the story idea. I liked the idea of the two villains, and I love the idea that Tim [Burton] was going to do it again."'
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Comics Scene" #29
In Entertainment Weekly [June 19th 1992] Michael Keaton's business partner Harry Colomby explained, "There's no escaping that the nature of the project is 'Let's look at the next villain.' He's in a way the host of this franchise, and he's going to be gracious and open the door and have these people come in."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Entertainment Weekly" June 19, 1992
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why quoting a bunch of people heavily involved in the creative aspects of Batman '89 and Batman Returns praising Keaton's version actually proves anything. Of course the ones who made those movies are going to sing the praises about their own version of the character. No huge revelation there.

Oh and to Daniel Waters saying Bale's Batman gave a speech to the Joker in their final scene, the man must be high. He says three lines to him in their last scene together; "You'll be in a padded cell forever", "This city just showed you its full of people ready to believe in good", and "What did you do?". All spaced by apart by Joker's dialogue, too. If that's a speech then I'm the King of England.
 
Yeah, that's a pretty long-winded way of saying what I basically said ; that they showed him some comics and he went "yeah, make it look like that" . And just because Smith is biased doesn't automatically make him wrong. Also, while it is true that he had that element of tee-totalling... I mean, so did Bale lol. But the personality of Bruce still didn't exactly feel right ; he had this extreme sense of quirkiness to him. Look at the scene of him approaching Selina on the street in Returns and then look at Bruce's scenes with Selina in Rises and there's an unbelievable difference. Keaton is awkward af with Pfeiffer while Bale remains with his more smooth talking persona. The whole point of the Bruce Wayne persona is to have a sort of superficial charm to him, a confidence that Keaton rarely showed. And as The Batman stated, Bale nailed all three aspects of the character ; the vigilante, the playboy, and Bruce with Alfred in their more private moments. When you say Bale was superficially accurate, I can't say I see how ; while Burton was shown the early Batman who killed the way a chain-smoker smokes cigarettes and therefore it's a bit more understandable that he had his Batman murder people when you consider that, the majority of Batman stories simply do not have that. Bruce has, as he even puts it in TDK , "one rule". To Bruce, there has to be at least one thing that separates him from his enemies, and that would be the value of human life. He constantly does whatever he can to avoid that option to kill. Is it always easy? No. Are casualties avoidable 100% of the time? No. But, again, this is still a vital rule of his. Nolan captured not only that, but the basis of the relationship between Batman and Joker. Joker is fascinated with Batman because of how he constantly stands near the edge of that choice every night but remains true to that rule, so he's constantly pushing him to see what could break him, to achieve the ultimate victory/death from him in one perfect battle. None of that is in 89, at all. They randomly decide to make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents so that Bruce has a reason to go all psycho killer and "defeat" the villain at the end of the movie to wrap it all up. Gone is the longevity. Gone is the moral dilemma. Oh, and up until the third act of the movie, their relationship basically boils down to seeing each other as nuisances and both happening to want to plow the same woman. That's... About it . Burton says he loves TKJ, yet apparently he missed the entire point of it, which was Batman trying to find a way for him and Joker to NOT end up killing each other. I'd say that TDK is a much better adaptation of TKJ and it's themes. Hell, it's a better adaptation than the actual animated adaptation :o

And yeah, he did not give a long winded speech to Joker in TDK. Infact, he barely says much to Joker throughout the movie, it's always Joker giving the speeches if anything. Maybe they're thinking of the speech he gives to Gordon? You know, a close ally of his? That's another thing the Nolan films nail ; the relationship between Bats and Gordon. In all of the old films, be it Burton or Schumacher, Gordon's role basically boils down to "thanks for saving the day, Batman! I'll... Just go and get a doughnut". Gordon's role should be so much more than that, which it was in Nolan's films.

Yes, Batman should remain in the shadows and all. But when the titular character of a movie barely feels like the main character, can one really honestly say they cared much about developing said character? Nolan did the opposite of that. He actually gave Bruce a legitimate character arc. And all he gets from "fans" nowadays is bull**** for that.
 
Last edited:
I think the bottom line is we had two different Batman franchises made with two different goals, in two different contexts, in two different time periods.

Basically, the Burton and co weren't so much focused on the comics as ,they were bringing the darker elements from the lore to the big screen, and separating from the campy 60s show to the GA of 1989-1992.

They may have read some comics for inspiration, but they really weren't focused on bringing a comicbook accurate Batman to the big screen.

At that point, the goal was to get this thing made, and have it taken seriously. Most of the time, they could care less about total fidelity to the comics.

To be fair, that was the attitude of alot of cbm tv shows and movies back then.

While there were comics fans at the time who probably didn't like the deviations from the Batman source material the bottom line is , other than them, most of the critics and GA didn't know, or care, how true Batman 89 was to the comics.

If anything, B89 was probably more par for the course in terms of how studios approached these properties in relation to the comics back then.

It really was a very different world from the one Chris Nolan operated in when he made TDK trilogy.

All that is not to forgive or explain away Daniel Waters or Tim Burton's creative choices made on their films.

Still though, it was a different time and these properties in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, really weren't viewed by Hollywood the way they are today.
 
Michael Keaton actually managed to project various sides of Bruce Wayne:

The fact that you're trying to shift goalposts says it all.

While Bale portrayed a broodier, borderline psychotic guy that clearly has issues, like his Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. Bale said himself, "I also kind of view Batman—you know, somebody mentioned American Psycho. (Pause.) He's kind of an American psycho."

1. Regardless of what Bale said in an interview, anybody with working eyes, ears, and cognitive function can recognize that Bale's Bruce Wayne is nowhere near his Patrick Bateman in terms of psychological issues. Nice try, though.

2. Now lets say he was...If he was, what would you say about a Batman who smiles, straps a bomb to a guys chest, and throws him down a hole as he explodes? A Batman who sets people on fire, blows up a factory full of people, and backhands women off of high buildings?

I see Bale as accurate in a superficial sense, its why he and Affleck are often overrated by the majority of casual fans conforming to popular assumptions.

Now, you're just being petty. :o
 
To me the closest and best one is still Kevin Conroy.

As for the live actors, they've been good in their own ways, all of them really. But each version is lacking something or missing that certain it-factor. Even Affleck's version had his moments at times, though I still think he was miscast.

Just for example, I never really cared for that moment in Batman Begins where Lucius Fox gives Wayne some scientist exposition and Wayne is basically like "What the hell in English please!" Granted, that's something they did sort of fix later on in the other films. But even Dark Knight Rises was probably the most flawed of Nolan's films to me, like having Batman retire for eight years and just be a recluse. I can understand why Nolan did what he did though. He didn't want anyone else to continue his story and ride on his coattails.
 
I think Christian Bale was the perfect casting for Bruce Wayne. It helps that both him and Nolan had the same idea on that they wanted to modernise Batman for audience but keep the character somewhat faithful to the comics, in my mind they've achieved that.

I will give Keaton the credit on introducing the brilliant idea of using different voices to distinguish between his portrayal of Bruce Wayne and Batman.
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why quoting a bunch of people heavily involved in the creative aspects of Batman '89 and Batman Returns praising Keaton's version actually proves anything. Of course the ones who made those movies are going to sing the praises about their own version of the character. No huge revelation there.Oh and to Daniel Waters saying Bale's Batman gave a speech to the Joker in their final scene, the man must be high. He says three lines to him in their last scene together; "You'll be in a padded cell forever", "This city just showed you its full of people ready to believe in good", and "What did you do?". All spaced by apart by Joker's dialogue, too. If that's a speech then I'm the King of England.

Actually, Puddin', I left out the real praising quotes from Michael Uslan, etc. like "Tim's vision for it [Michael Keaton's Batman] is really the root of his genius." - Uslan quote from Back Issue #113 (2019).
And "Jack Nicholson is ideal as the Joker, and it's like God created him for this role." - Uslan quote from Slaughterhouse Magazine #4 (1989).
www.1989batman.com/2014/05/vintage-magazine-article-slaughterhouse.html
There's a lot of that singing praises from Uslan that I left out of my previous post. I only shared Uslan quotes explaining what old comic books he loaned Tim Burton, plus the Burton quotes about it, the Batman encyclopedia, The Killing Joke, also Keaton and Elfman quotes about Burton giving them both the Dark Knight Returns. Hamm quotes about treating the origin like a mystery and keeping Batman mysterious in the shadows instead of in the limelight giving Miss Vale an interview. Waters quotes about Keaton requesting that he be given less dialogue to keep to the mystery instead of becoming a speechifying social butterfly, so Keaton didn't feel slighted in dialogue and screen time, and Keaton quotes that working with Nicholson was actually an intensive for him, and that he liked the idea of two villains in Batman Returns. Descriptive and explanation quotes. I had left out the real praising quotes from Uslan, etc.

Of course Daniel Waters was exaggerating it, try not taking it too seriously. . In a scene towards the end of The Dark Knight (2008) Bale's Batman, sounding like he had a bad case of laryngitis, says to Ledger's shocked Joker about his failed ferryboat scheme, "There won't be any fireworks. What were you trying to prove? That deep down everyone is exactly as you? You're alone... You'll be in a padded cell forever. This city just showed you that it's full of people ready to believe in good. What did you do?" And then to Eckhart's Harvey Dent he says, "You don't want to hurt the boy, Harvey. What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act. We three. Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall. You're the one pointing the gun, Harvey. So point it at the people responsible." And then to Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon he says, "You don't have to thank me. They must never know what he did. The Joker cannot win. Gotham needs its true hero. You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I'm not a hero, unlike Dent. I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be. Call it in. You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me, set the dogs on me. Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded," as he frames himself for the murders Two-Face committed and retires for 8 years to preserve a false image of Harvey Dent as an incorruptible heroic District Attorney. I agree with Waters that he talked too much and it sounded unintentionally funny to me.

Yeah, that's a pretty long-winded way of saying what I basically said ; that they showed him some comics and he went "yeah, make it look like that" . And just because Smith is biased doesn't automatically make him wrong. Also, while it is true that he had that element of tee-totalling... I mean, so did Bale lol. But the personality of Bruce still didn't exactly feel right ; he had this extreme sense of quirkiness to him. Look at the scene of him approaching Selina on the street in Returns and then look at Bruce's scenes with Selina in Rises and there's an unbelievable difference. Keaton is awkward af with Pfeiffer while Bale remains with his more smooth talking persona. The whole point of the Bruce Wayne persona is to have a sort of superficial charm to him, a confidence that Keaton rarely showed. And as The Batman stated, Bale nailed all three aspects of the character ; the vigilante, the playboy, and Bruce with Alfred in their more private moments. When you say Bale was superficially accurate, I can't say I see how ; while Burton was shown the early Batman who killed the way a chain-smoker smokes cigarettes and therefore it's a bit more understandable that he had his Batman murder people when you consider that, the majority of Batman stories simply do not have that. Bruce has, as he even puts it in TDK , "one rule". To Bruce, there has to be at least one thing that separates him from his enemies, and that would be the value of human life. He constantly does whatever he can to avoid that option to kill. Is it always easy? No. Are casualties avoidable 100% of the time? No. But, again, this is still a vital rule of his. Nolan captured not only that, but the basis of the relationship between Batman and Joker. Joker is fascinated with Batman because of how he constantly stands near the edge of that choice every night but remains true to that rule, so he's constantly pushing him to see what could break him, to achieve the ultimate victory/death from him in one perfect battle. None of that is in 89, at all. They randomly decide to make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents so that Bruce has a reason to go all psycho killer and "defeat" the villain at the end of the movie to wrap it all up. Gone is the longevity. Gone is the moral dilemma. Oh, and up until the third act of the movie, their relationship basically boils down to seeing each other as nuisances and both happening to want to plow the same woman. That's... About it . Burton says he loves TKJ, yet apparently he missed the entire point of it, which was Batman trying to find a way for him and Joker to NOT end up killing each other. I'd say that TDK is a much better adaptation of TKJ and it's themes. Hell, it's a better adaptation than the actual animated adaptation :oAnd yeah, he did not give a long winded speech to Joker in TDK. Infact, he barely says much to Joker throughout the movie, it's always Joker giving the speeches if anything. Maybe they're thinking of the speech he gives to Gordon? You know, a close ally of his? That's another thing the Nolan films nail ; the relationship between Bats and Gordon. In all of the old films, be it Burton or Schumacher, Gordon's role basically boils down to "thanks for saving the day, Batman! I'll... Just go and get a doughnut". Gordon's role should be so much more than that, which it was in Nolan's films.Yes, Batman should remain in the shadows and all. But when the titular character of a movie barely feels like the main character, can one really honestly say they cared much about developing said character? Nolan did the opposite of that. He actually gave Bruce a legitimate character arc. And all he gets from "fans" nowadays is bull**** for that.

"Anybody that knows me knows I do not read comic books" is not the same as "'Anyone who knows me will tell you that I would never read a comic book." Let's not fight. Look, I'll make it real simple, Burton apparently did read comic books loaned to him by Uslan in research for Batman. He didn't say he would never read a comic book, that was Kevin Smith's misquote for his standup punchline. Burton just does not read comic books regularly, he's a movie buff. Tim Burton's favorite movies are The War of the Gargantuas (1966) [directed by Ishiro Honda], Where Eagles Dare (1968) [directed by Brian G. Hutton], and The Omega Man (1971) [directed by Boris Sagal].


Bruce Wayne is an eccentric billionaire, Keaton's Bruce Wayne has eccentricity and wealth and he does show a disarmingly likeable superficial charm and he could get away with a lot with a smile like that. Keaton's Bruce is even a chick magnet and had Miss Vale and Miss Kyle immediately pursuing him for a date. Miss Vale was pursuing him with the excuse of "This is an amazing house, I'd love to shoot it sometime." Miss Kyle wanted to escort him to "Anywhere he wants. Preferably some nightspot, grotto, or secluded hideaway. Nice suit." Even in real life Michael Keaton had had an affair with Michelle Pfeiffer. Michael Keaton explained in Comic Scene #29 (1992), "I had some moments of thinking, 'Boy, this is going to get strange,' or, 'The press is going to have a field day with this,' but there's a lot of mutual respect involved between us. We know enough about each other personally that it helped us, but our knowledge wasn't enough to get in the way." Michael Keaton explained that his favorite Bruce Wayne scene centered on his encounter on a Gotham City street with Selina Kyle, "It's the scene where I see her talking to herself, which is something I've always found attractive in a woman. Selina's nuts, Vicki's not. Selina's got a head thing going and is a lot like Bruce. Vicki's not like that. She seems to be working more out of her gut. Vicki is probably the easiest of the two to be around. Being around Selina takes a lot of work. I'm consistently filling out forms for state hospitals."
Batman- The 1989 Film: Vintage Magazine Article: "Comics Scene" #29

Burton's Batman doesn't really murder people, he committed justifiable homicide in using deadly force against criminal assailants [attackers, assaulters] intent on either killing or causing serious bodily injury to Batman, and also to innocent victims. Batman only killed in self defense and in defense of innocent victims. Batman deliberately killed criminals only when he regarded it warranted, and seemingly as a last resort, but he also showed no remorse, which is a throwback to the 1939 "A fitting end to his kind" murmuring Batman grimly. Comic book Batman killed villains, until a DC editor named Whit Ellsworth created rules that Bill Finger had to follow against killing in the 1940s, [the editiorial mandates included such rules as: "Bloodshed. ─ Characters ─ even villains ─ should never be shown bleeding. No character should be shown being stabbed or shot. The picturization of dead bodies is forbidden. Killing. ─ Heroes should never kill a villain, regardless of the depth of the villainy. Good people should be good, and bad people bad, without middle ground shading. Heroes should act within the law, and for the law."] that's pretty much what became the Comics Code in the 1950s - so that's how the comic book Batman no-kill rule was started and how Joker was changed from being a killer clown leaving smiling corpses to a prankster clown and Penguin was changed from being a killer bird to a silly crook because of those rules. Ellsworth's philosophy in regard to the comic books was that they were for children and should be nonviolent so Batman got softened and softened into clean wholesome kid stuff stuck in a safe clean Gotham for a long time by a misconception that comics were just for kids.

It's explained in Bob Kane's autobiography Batman & Me (1990): "I never had complete control over the Batman [comic book] strip, and the editors placed increasing limitations on what Bill [Finger] and I could do. In the first year, Batman had been a grim vigilante who operated outside of the law. In several early issues of Detective [Comics] he even carried a gun. We had our first brush with censorship over Batman's use of a gun in BATMAN #1. In one story in that issue he had a machine gun mounted on his Batplane and used it. We didn't think anything was wrong with Batman carrying guns because the Shadow used guns. Bill Finger was called on to the carpet by Whitney Ellsworth. He said 'Never let Batman carry a gun again!' The editors thought that making Batman a 'murderer' would taint his character, and mothers would object. The new editorial policy was to get away from Batman's vigilantism and bring him over to the side of the law. So he was remade as an honorary member of the police. The whole moral climate changed in the 1940-1941 period. You couldn't kill or shot villains anymore. DC prepared it's own comics code which every artist and writer had to follow. He wasn't the Dark Knight anymore with all the censorship."
Testimony of Mr. Gunnar Dybwad
Realistically, Batman wouldn't even be able to avoid gunfights and killing on occasion in his war on crime. People die in war. 1939 Batman's war on crime had to do with vengeance ["I swear by the spirits of my parents to avenge their deaths by spending thre rest of my life warring on all criminals."], and by making the Joker the killer of the parents it brings back that original motivating factor that has to do with vengeance into his fight against the Joker in Batman (1989), he takes care of the vengeance himself, doesn't call the police. Grant Morrison's interpretation of The Killing Joke is that Batman is strangling the Joker in the end to kill him. 1939 Commissioner Gordon actually tried to have Batman arrested for his vigilante methods, they were not friends, the 1989 movie is a throwback to that. In the 1941 comics Commissioner Gordon had become dependent and accepting of help from Batman, but they were not made into chatty best pals, and Batman Returns reflects that. In the book Batman Returns: The Official Movie Book (1992) by Michael Singer, Pat Hingle explained, "Commissioner Gordon has become more dependent on help from Batman. If it weren't for Batman, Gordon would need about two more batallions of policemen to control the city. Gordon makes no effort to downplay Batman's contribution. The Commissioner regards Batman as a colleague."

The fact that you're trying to shift goalposts says it all.

This says to me that you like to use machismo sports metaphors about goalposts. We're not playing rugby, Batsy. My goal is just to share information about Batman, I don't have much free time for "Nolanite versus Burtonite" debates nowadays that go on and on and that ultimately comes down to difference of opinion and preferences of versions - agree to disagree, to each their own - anyway.

1. Regardless of what Bale said in an interview, anybody with working eyes, ears, and cognitive function can recognize that Bale's Bruce Wayne is nowhere near his Patrick Bateman in terms of psychological issues. Nice try, though.

Tell that to Christian Bale. I'm pretty sure Christian Bale has working eyes, ears, and cognitive function. I was just going along with what Christian Bale said about his version of Batman, like it or not, it's his version of Batman and he said, "I also kind of view Batman—you know, somebody mentioned American Psycho. (Pause.) He's kind of an American psycho."
Groucho Reviews: Interview: WonderCon Batman Begins Panel Transcript
I also can see parallels between Bale's Batman and Bale's Bateman in American Psycho. They both are wealthy American urbanites that have dual personas, in public life acting insincerely cheerful and chipper with a superficial charm by day - which is the mask, and being dark and violent predators at night.

2. Now lets say he was...If he was, what would you say about a Batman who smiles, straps a bomb to a guys chest, and throws him down a hole as he explodes? A Batman who sets people on fire, blows up a factory full of people, and backhands women off of high buildings?

I would say that 1989 Batman is a throwback to 1939 Batman that straps a lasso to guys necks [Dr. Death's henchmen Jabah and Professor Hugo Strange's Monster Men] and strangles them to death in Detective Comics #29 (1939) "The Batman Meets Doctor Death" and Batman #1 (1940) "Professor Hugo Strange and the Monsters." A Batman who starts a fire and leaves Dr. Death trapped to burn to death in Detective Comics #29 (1939) "The Batman Meets Doctor Death," blows up the Scarlet Horde's Dirigible of Doom full of people in Detective Comics #33 (1939) "The Batman Wars Against the Dirigible of Doom," and knocks the Joker over the side of a cliff to seemingly certain death in Batman #7 (1941) "Wanted: Practical Jokers." A Batman that smiles as even Robin caused the deaths of two men and says "Nice going, kid!" in Batman #5 (1941) written by Bill Finger and art by Bob Kane, Jerry Robinson and George Roussos.

Now, you're just being petty. :o

Now the pot calls the kettle black. Holy malarkey, Batman. Have a nice day. :yay:
 
Last edited:
You keep bringing up 1939/40s Batman as if that wasn't already brought up. We KNOW that's mainly what was looked at. The thing is that it's not an accurate representation of Batman in general. It's an early version of Batman that wasn't really a fully realized character until later on.

Yes, the no-kill code started off as censorship. But later on, Bats was brought back to his darker roots and he STILL had the no-kill rule because it became such a vital part of who he is. It's not mutually exclusive. And no, he can't always avoid casualties in a war on crime. That's... Why I literally brought up just that lol. It's why I can excuse Batman's actions with Ra's in Begins or accidentally tackling Harvey off the edge of the building in TDK. It's NOT always avoidable, but that's the point. That's the struggle.

What he says to Joker in TDK is legit a callback to what he says to him in TKJ

15f62e88cd832209a3fb3d87a2343dbf209a5e9f.png


Oh dear, just look at all those words. Does he really gotta talk so much ? :o

And "he didn't murder, he just committed justifiable homicides" is kind of a ridiculous statement.
 
Yeah, that's a pretty long-winded way of saying what I basically said ; that they showed him some comics and he went "yeah, make it look like that" . And just because Smith is biased doesn't automatically make him wrong. Also, while it is true that he had that element of tee-totalling... I mean, so did Bale lol. But the personality of Bruce still didn't exactly feel right ; he had this extreme sense of quirkiness to him. Look at the scene of him approaching Selina on the street in Returns and then look at Bruce's scenes with Selina in Rises and there's an unbelievable difference. Keaton is awkward af with Pfeiffer while Bale remains with his more smooth talking persona. The whole point of the Bruce Wayne persona is to have a sort of superficial charm to him, a confidence that Keaton rarely showed. And as The Batman stated, Bale nailed all three aspects of the character ; the vigilante, the playboy, and Bruce with Alfred in their more private moments. When you say Bale was superficially accurate, I can't say I see how ; while Burton was shown the early Batman who killed the way a chain-smoker smokes cigarettes and therefore it's a bit more understandable that he had his Batman murder people when you consider that, the majority of Batman stories simply do not have that. Bruce has, as he even puts it in TDK , "one rule". To Bruce, there has to be at least one thing that separates him from his enemies, and that would be the value of human life. He constantly does whatever he can to avoid that option to kill. Is it always easy? No. Are casualties avoidable 100% of the time? No. But, again, this is still a vital rule of his. Nolan captured not only that, but the basis of the relationship between Batman and Joker. Joker is fascinated with Batman because of how he constantly stands near the edge of that choice every night but remains true to that rule, so he's constantly pushing him to see what could break him, to achieve the ultimate victory/death from him in one perfect battle. None of that is in 89, at all. They randomly decide to make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents so that Bruce has a reason to go all psycho killer and "defeat" the villain at the end of the movie to wrap it all up. Gone is the longevity. Gone is the moral dilemma. Oh, and up until the third act of the movie, their relationship basically boils down to seeing each other as nuisances and both happening to want to plow the same woman. That's... About it . Burton says he loves TKJ, yet apparently he missed the entire point of it, which was Batman trying to find a way for him and Joker to NOT end up killing each other. I'd say that TDK is a much better adaptation of TKJ and it's themes. Hell, it's a better adaptation than the actual animated adaptation :o

And yeah, he did not give a long winded speech to Joker in TDK. Infact, he barely says much to Joker throughout the movie, it's always Joker giving the speeches if anything. Maybe they're thinking of the speech he gives to Gordon? You know, a close ally of his? That's another thing the Nolan films nail ; the relationship between Bats and Gordon. In all of the old films, be it Burton or Schumacher, Gordon's role basically boils down to "thanks for saving the day, Batman! I'll... Just go and get a doughnut". Gordon's role should be so much more than that, which it was in Nolan's films.

Yes, Batman should remain in the shadows and all. But when the titular character of a movie barely feels like the main character, can one really honestly say they cared much about developing said character? Nolan did the opposite of that. He actually gave Bruce a legitimate character arc. And all he gets from "fans" nowadays is bull**** for that.
Bravo, man. I couldn't have explained this any better.

And the sad part about fans today who s*** on Nolan is that they all seem to just care about how "big" batman is and how his outfit looks, but don't give a damn about the fundamental things that make the character who he is today. It gets sickening seeing so called fans say "This Batman could destroy the nolan Bane!!!!" like, why is that relevant to anything? Well anyway, I'm starting to ramble. My point is I think people arae losing sight of what makes Batman be such a fascinating character. His entire relationship with the Joker is pointless if he murders nonstop.
 
Whoa Michael Uslan, an executive producer on the Burton movies praised them? Well knock me down with a feather. Another person involved in making those movies praising them. Imagine that.

And double whoa, Bale's Batman said more than five lines in one scene? What the hell were they thinking?!? That never happens with Batman. Totally out of character; "Shut up, you're going to jail", "Wrong on both counts", "Why are you doing this? Lets just take him to the Police, then we can go home...together. Selina, don't you see we're the same. We're the same. Split, ripped down the center. Selina please". If Schreck had not knocked him on him on his ass with a bullet he'd probably have still been talking.

Plenty of examples of Batman being a chatter box in the comics, too. Take a very famous example, a comic according to your quotes is the first comic Tim Burton loved. Batman carries an entire page of dialogue yapping to the Joker;

Batman-The-Killing-Joke-45.jpg


And you're here complaining because Bale's Batman had a few lines of dialogue in key scenes with important characters. Waters isn't just exaggerating, he's being ignorant. Unless Batman is chatting up a storm in every scene he's in, there isn't a thing wrong with him having some extensive dialogue in important character scenes.
 
Bravo, man. I couldn't have explained this any better.

And the sad part about fans today who s*** on Nolan is that they all seem to just care about how "big" batman is and how his outfit looks, but don't give a damn about the fundamental things that make the character who he is today. It gets sickening seeing so called fans say "This Batman could destroy the nolan Bane!!!!" like, why is that relevant to anything? Well anyway, I'm starting to ramble. My point is I think people arae losing sight of what makes Batman be such a fascinating character. His entire relationship with the Joker is pointless if he murders nonstop.
"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words" ;

1.) Bane iz stoopeed wiff dumb voice and 2tiny

2.) Keif Lettur just play da anarki$t in da klaown maycup, he naht da 1 troo jokur

3.) Bail habn throat can sir

4.) Nolan fanbois pwned
 
"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words" ;

1.) Bane iz stoopeed wiff dumb voice and 2tiny

2.) Keif Lettur just play da anarki$t in da klaown maycup, he naht da 1 troo jokur

3.) Bail habn throat can sir

4.) Nolan fanbois pwned
Yep, that about sums it up right there.
 
I think the significance of things like Batman killing to start with (and at times over the course of his run) isn't that people can't be attached to what Batman later becomes and want it represented, but that it's a version of the character. A prolific, popular version, but still a version. It shows that just because a character starts out a certain way doesn't mean that people are honorbound to see that as the truth of the character and want or expect it to be upheld. So it's basically the same thing as when someone like me is a fan of Batman through the Burton films (and Batman Forever, in my case) and looks at things from that angle. If someone defines Batman through BTAS, through the Arkham games, through Nolan's films, through Snyder's films, then they're doing the same basic thing. They're a fan of the version of the character that means something to them. Even those non-killing Batman comics change in certain ways from era to era, so you probably won't get '40s Batman fans agreeing much with '80s Batman fans.

I mean, how source accurate the Burton movies are can certainly be discussed and debated, although that not being in the title naturally opened the conversation up, but no particular person is required to care if they're comic book accurate. Since Batman '89 through Forever defined Batman for me, to the extent that it matters that they don't line up with the comics, that's an issue with the comics for me, not the movies. I like the mysterious, brooding, all-black wearing Keaton Batman. I don't care that his Bruce Wayne isn't as much of a playboy. I didn't need to find comics that matched up with it before feeling that way, because it wasn't about the inherent truth of Batman, just my experiences with the character.

"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words" ;

1.) Bane iz stoopeed wiff dumb voice and 2tiny

2.) Keif Lettur just play da anarki$t in da klaown maycup, he naht da 1 troo jokur

3.) Bail habn throat can sir

4.) Nolan fanbois pwned

I'm sorry, but making a "dumb voice" to attack people with different points of view is just a ridiculous ad hominem attack. You can do that with anything, it means nothing at all.
 
sorry, but making a "dumb voice" to attack people with different points of view is just a ridiculous ad hominem attack. You can do that with anything, it means nothing at all.
Trust me, that's a pretty accurate representation of at least the people on Facebook who share those views lol

for example, I never really cared for that moment in Batman Begins where Lucius Fox gives Wayne some scientist exposition and Wayne is basically like "What the hell in English please!" Granted, that's something they did sort of fix later on in the other films. But even Dark Knight Rises was probably the most flawed of Nolan's films to me, like having Batman retire for eight years and just be a recluse. I can understand why Nolan did what he did though. He didn't want anyone else to continue his story and ride on his coattails.
yeah, I do have to admit that I did not like that moment in Begins. The guy's meant to be a polymath ffs lol. I guess you can write it up to him still trying to play dumb. Fox knew a good chunk of his secrets but not the full extent by then exactly if I recall. When it comes to the reclusiveness in Rises, I consider that another influence from Dark Knight Returns ; Bruce quitting being Batman because The Joker killed someone close.to him and he blames himself for it and other failures. We see him in a deep state of depression in that film.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"