Discussion in 'Batman World' started by Thread Manager, Jul 23, 2011.
Nah Keaton is more boring to watch. He doesn't get anything interesting to do except kill people.
As I've said before, depends on whether you like your Batman tortured and scary... or Nolan's version. Personally I think Keaton does more with his eyes. Interesting to watch. To say otherwise means you don't enjoy subtlety or nuance.
Burton made Batman scary, that's the thing. Nolan's version is creepy to criminals but I wouldn't be scared ****less seeing him alone unless I was a crook.
Washington Post described him best:
What Keaton brings to his characterization of both Batman and his millionaire-playboy alter ego, Bruce Wayne, is a quality of coiled concentration, a wary vigilance. In his Batsuit, Keaton's movements are stylized, almost robotic, and the stiffness of movement carries Arthurian associations, as if he were indeed a dark knight, armored for battle
But as evocative as he is in his Bat regalia, it's as Bruce Wayne that Keaton announces his own arrival. This is a true star performance, subtle, authoritative and sexually vibrant.there's genuine pain in the performance, signs of a wounded man trying to shake free of childhood traumas.
There are different ways to be intimidating. You can be intimidated by a big and angry bodybuilder who says that hell mess you up. You can also be intimidated by a lone child in the middle of the night standing still in front of your house staring. Keaton is that creepy child while Bale is that bodybuilder.
Keaton's Batman is a mysterious figure of the shadows, a Phantom of the Opera kind of a character who stays quiet and paralyzes with his psycho stare while remaining quoet and someone who is completely psycho and unpredictable. Almost a Norman Bates type. Nolan is someone who looks like he can rip you to pieces and he shows it with his anger, temper and yell (see: Flass interrogation). Again, both intimidating in different ways, both awesome. I like both the steak and the cake.
Kilmer was a joke imo. He wasnt intimidating at all he was just moping around and looked like bored and depressed blonde pretty boy who is as intimidating as Justin Timberlake. The only thing Kilmer did throughout entire movie was moping around. For me a Batman that is turned into reserved psycho because of the traumatic event (Keaton) and an angry Batman that is set for revenge on crime (Bale) is far more interesting than the DepressionMan (Kilmer). Then again, Kilmer was cast as Batman cause he was a pretty boy. Funny that Keaton was picked because of his temper and stare and Bale was picked for his intensity, while Kilmer was picked cause he was "Young" and "handsome". And he looks startled all the time when in the suit
Clooney is imo the worst casting choice in the history of motion picture. He looked idiotic in the suit, like some baseball dad with his son dressed for halloween and played a doctor next door in a Batman suit, not Batman and not Wayne
Also, I see Fudgie does absolutely nothing in this section other than trolling Burton's movies and board domination, aka bludgeoning people with his opinion. He is always here to rain on the parade and doesnt have anything to say other than hardcore Burton bashing. Just check his post history, every single post in this section is a bash. The member truth did the same with Nolan movies, and look what happened to him. I dont think Fudgie was ever told to back off tho. I feel some double standard here
I like that. A psycho vs. a bodybuilder. That's exactly how I feel. Bale can do all the stuntman work but it just comes off as any other superhero movie of the week: he can do all those things but he doesn't put the fear in Batman.
It's almost like you can put person X, as long as he's buff and rich enough, into Nolan's Batman world and he'd emerge as the same Batman as what Bale has given us.
Can't say the same for Burton's Batman. He's unique, one of a kind. You can't just drop a rich and good looking playboy into Burton's world and automatically make him Burton's Batman. It takes a certain psychological edge to be on Keaton's level.
Maybe it's Burton too, the sets, the lighting, the photography peeps and the costume designers: these guys made sure only saw much of Keaton's Batman as you needed to know that he's there, but only enough to leave you guessing just what the heck this psycho is about to do. I never got this sense of mystery from Bale's Batman. It's as if we're comparing a figure in the shadows to an overexposed GI Joe with Bat-ears full lighting. We know too much from Bale's exposition and dialogue, literally knowing that he's an actor who playing a dude who's supposed to be in so and so mood, that it leaves zero interpretation or analysis for the viewer.
That brings me to another issue. After Rachel died in TDK, when Bale is sitting there sulking, I thought the "acting" there didn't capture the gravity and graveness of the situation. Is this a Bale issue or a Nolan issue? I don't know. But there could have been much more effective ways to show how hollow Bruce has become inside.
I'd disagree that Val was a terrible Batman. He wasn't Keaton but he had his own take:
I believe Clooney could play a good Batman, but one where Batman is meant to be much older, more at ease with his identity. Of course out of all the Batman he's the most off-beat of them all but with the right script and direction Clooney can do a good job. He had some touching moments with the Alfred-dying-from-McGregor-Syndrome subplot, where an aged Bruce has to confront the fact that his old servant won't be around for much longer.
That's why I have never been impressed by Bale, except when he's screaming and hootenannying like he did in American Psycho.
Keaton's both Wayne and Batman were quite one dimensional characters.Both of them cold..cool..smooth talking guy.Also his look doesn't represent both Wayne & Batman.His voice was almost same as Bruce & Batman. He was too tiny to be Batman and weird look to be Wayne.
Bale played very young version of Bruce when he came back to kill Chill.He played cold & struggled version of Bruce when he was with Ra's.He played as pimp-like in hotel scene with girls.He played as almost innocent,childish love interest in scenes with Rachel. In Dark Knight he played colder,bitter,more obsessed version of BB Wayne.And he delivered great emotional scenes after Rachels death.
Bale's Batman is more complex also.He played cool and scary Batman in docks.He was scary&angry as hell with Flass.He was totally badass Batman after Ra's attack to Gotham.
Same as well in TDK. He started as cool and baddass character in the scenes with scarecrow,party scene & clubscene. He was scary with Maroni.He went crazy & desperate in intergation scene with Joker.Even some doesnt like his voice it was sure unrecognizable and creepy.
Don't get me wrong..Both Keaton & Bale great actors.But in Burton version all Bruce&Batman were cool,cold blooded,smooth talker. Nolan's (and comic book) Batman probably one of the most complex characters.He played couple of Different version both Bruce & Batman.Bale also trained fight styles.Get in Batman shape.
Burton's and Keaton's Batman might be your favorite Batman&Wayne version but as performance and effort Bale did much more and much better.Not even close.
To me, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are playing different incarnations of Batman. Michael Keaton's Batman is based on Batman in his first appearances, while Christian Bale's Batman is based on the modern Batman. My personal preference between the two is Christian Bale's Batman, as I prefer the modern characterization of Batman to his original characterization.
Tim Burton definitely knew how to light and shoot Batman.
Having an opposing opinion is not trolling. If someone crosses the line, it will be addressed. There's no double standard.
One glance by Keaton's Batman sweeps away dozens of heroic speeches.
Exactly. And thats the condensed truth. The main mistake in this thread is that some people take one version of Batman from certain age and judge all the Batmans on it, while they were based on different incarnations and were very faithful to their sources. Keaton was Batman of the early 40s, Kilmer was based on the 70s, Clooney on 60s and Bale on graphic novels and mini series' of the late 80s and early 90s. Therefore Keaton is more like Dracula, not appearing much and acting like a ghost almost, Clooney acts like a normal guy in a halloween suit and Kilmer and Bale are more or less the closest because theyre based on eras that were close to each other and are more about their backstories and motivations
So its fine to only visit a certain section youre not a fan of to bash in every single thread?
Better how? Its not better, its what you prefer, Goth vampire story or a superhero story (I love both) They were aiming for different things and were both perfect in achieving what they were suppose to achieve. Bale played the more conventional main character, played a guy on his emotional journey and his way to becoming this iconic crime fighting figure. Keaton, as explained by Burton, was suppose to base his performance and play as in a silent film, play with eyes like people in the silent expressionism films, play a quiet spook like Nosferatu. Completely different approaches and both perfect for their portrayals and both very complex. One shown as complex through series of events, one from being a very mysterious guy that we can never fully figure out. Someone who, as stated by Hamm, is indeed insane, hence the occasional smiling, sitting alone in the dark room, hanging upside down and sadistic kills
And as for Keaton being tiny, its another one of those BS myths that were widespread by haters and the so called Nolan Nazis (aka the type of fans of the Nolan Bat films who give us normal fans a bad name online). Keaton is only 2 inches shorter than Bale and is very well built.
2 inches? Isn't Bale like 6'1 or 6'2? I thought Keaton was around 5'8 or 5'9?
And Keaton was cut, post-Batman, I think. But not built. He looked toned in Extreme Measures...but he's never looked muscular in any film to me.
People pick at Keaton's height, but it wasn't noticeable, at all, in the movies except for maybe that long shot at the very beginning of B89 when he's coming down on the crooks. But, aside from that one scene, his height isn't a problem to me. I think maybe he was shorter than Selina, but again...the way it was shot I never remember it being an issue.
Bale's voice in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight sounded the same to me.
I'm surprised anyone liked The Dark Knight, really. Considering so many people don't like Batman. It's a Batman movie...so, not liking Batman sounds like something that would make the movie bad for people.
The last I heard Keaton was 5'10 which is the same height as the guy that's playing a 6'8, 400 pound villain.
Michelle is 5'7 plus she was wearing high heels as Catwoman. Regardless of that Batman looked to be at least two inches taller. It's not necessarily the best example because her knees are slightly bent and Batman's head is slightly tilted down but the height difference was obvious in the film.
Katon is either 5'9 or 5'10, there are conflicting sources. Bale is roughly 2 inches taller
He was always well built and athletic. Even before Batman he played a professional athelete in Touch and Go.
He also studied kickboxing
He was also buff during Batman Returns as seen in this screencap from '92 SNL, look at his arms
And again, Desperate Measures:
In most other movies he simply just doesnt show up without a shirt. But the fact remains hes well built and only 2 inches shorter than Bale, which goes against the myth that hes physically wimpy
actually, i would rate all the batmans pretty much in the order they were released, actor wise. keaton was the best, hands down. i have absolutly no issues with him as batman, he just fit the role despite his size. val kilmer was a step down, but i thought he still rocked as batman and did a good solid job and brought a different kind of energy to the roll, not to mention more athletic and he looked bangin in that sleek batsuit. george clooney for some might be the worst, but he was the most likeable batman, obviously very friendly and i thought his scenes as bruce wayne were better then his batman scenes. at least he was likeable. then you got bale who i just plain couldnt stand in or out of that rediculous looking batsuit with the gigantic egghead cowl and the silly looking S&M rubber and cloth cape. the Begins suit looked downright awful, worst suit of the films, even more then TDK suit, which doesnt get a free pass either but at least it looked a bit sleeker. still, bale to me is wooden, comes off as an irritating college kid who can do anything he wants and get away with it. i honestly dont see whats so special about him as batman. he lacks charisma that even clooney managed to have.
You would say George Clooney as a better Batman than Christian Bale?
not a better batman prese, im talking about acting. ive never been a clooney fan, but at the very least, he was likeable as his scenes with alfred in B&R outdo anything bale did in his 2 films. lets just say, clooney used to kinda annoy me, but after seeing bale, he doesnt annoy me that much anymore.
And I think Keaton and Bale were the only good Batmans, both interesting and fitting. Kilmer for me is "Mormon Batman", always on valium, always calm, never angry, never motivated, always relax, always half a sleep. Clooney didnt play Batman at all. He played his character fro ER, in and outside the suit and looked absolutely ridiculous in the suit. I do agree that the Begins suit is awful tho. That flexible rubber and gigantic neck in the cowl were just...bad. But I absolutely love the TDK suit
I think the Begins suit is miles ahead of the TDK suit.
Agreed on all parts except for the Kilmer remarks. I liked him. The only part I cringe at is that cheesy grin he makes after he leaves Chase's.
Val Kilmer's Batman comes across as depressed to me. He doesn't seem to have much of the drive or obsession I associate Batman with having.
Those nightmares about his parents death, falling into the cave and seeing the giant bat that kept haunting him are straight from the comics.
It's the only time we got to see inside Batman's mind and what haunts him in the old franchise.
True, but he still comes off as lacking Batman's traditional drive and obsession. He is neither the laconic, weird creature of the night that Michael Keaton's Batman was nor the frightening, driven man of justice that Christian Bale's Batman is. He comes across as having become depressed by his parents' death, and such depression isn't consistent with the hard work, dedication, and sacrifice that becoming and being Batman would entail.
Did you forget about the flashbacks to the Waynes' deaths in Batman (1989)?