Favorite Batman portrayal and why

[The Joker]

Bale gets 3 shots and Affleck gets 1? My comparison is pretty self-explanatory.

Now please explain how 1 film could make Ben a completely irredeemable choice to play Batman.

Your comparison is nonsense. It's about quality not quantity. The characterisation in BvS was horrendous. That has to do with quality, not how many movies he was in.

Do you think its unfair to call Clooney's Batman terrible just because he had one movie?

 

[The_Manhunter]

Your comparison is nonsense. It's about quality not quantity. The characterisation in BvS was horrendous. That has to do with quality, not how many movies he was in.

Do you think its unfair to call Clooney's Batman terrible just because he had one movie?

Why did you dodge my question?

 

[The Joker]

Why did you dodge my question?

What question? I answered all your points.

If you want to talk dodging questions, why didn't you answer my one about Clooney?

 

[The_Manhunter]

What question? I answered all your points.

If you want to talk dodging questions, why didn't you answer my one about Clooney?

You never answered my question about why you think he's an irredeemably bad Batman.

And sure, I'll answer it. You can judge Clooney because he had a precedent to adhere to - Keaton had played him in 2 films and Kilmer in 1. He did not adhere to that precedent, plus any remaining sequels were cancelled so we don't really have a choice but to judge him based on B&R alone.

Not so with Affleck.

 

[The Joker]

You never answered my question about why you think he's an irredeemably bad Batman.

Where did I say he was IRREDEEMABLY bad? Link me to the post.

And sure, I'll answer it. You can judge Clooney because he had a precedent to adhere to - Keaton had played him in 2 films and Kilmer in 1. He did not adhere to that precedent, plus any remaining sequels were cancelled so we don't really have a choice but to judge him based on B&R alone.

Not so with Affleck.

This does not make a lick of sense. Affleck had four prior Batman actors to adhere to if he wanted to. Not to mention the plethora of great Batman comic book material to draw from. Or Kevin Conroy in the BTAS show. How was Clooney chained to mimicking Kilmer and Keaton (who were totally different to each other) but Affleck was somehow a free spirit with no great Batman to aspire to?

 

[The_Manhunter]

Where did I say he was IRREDEEMABLY bad? Link me to the post.



This does not make a lick of sense. Affleck had three prior Batman actors to adhere to if he wanted to. Not to mention the plethora of great Batman comic book material to draw from. Or Kevin Conroy in the BTAS show. How was Clooney chained to mimicking Kilmer and Keaton (who were totally different to each other) but Affleck was somehow a free spirit with no great Batman to aspire to?

1) You said one movie was more than enough to say he was a terrible Batman. Thus, "irredeemably bad."

2) Affleck's is the first Batman in a new universe. He is a different version of Batman. He was not supposed to adhere to the previous versions.

Clooney's version though should have adhered to Keaton's and Kilmer's because they were all the same character in the same universe. And did I say mimicking? No, he didn't have to mimic, but he wasn't even close to Keaton's portrayal. The way I saw it, Kilmer was close enough to Keaton that it wasn't a huge issue.

 

[The Joker]

1) You said one movie was more than enough to say he was a terrible Batman. Thus, "irredeemably bad."

Wrong. Saying one movie was enough to say he was a terrible Batman means he was a terrible Batman in that movie. Not that he can never be a good Batman.

2) Affleck's is the first Batman in a new universe. He is a different version of Batman. He was not supposed to adhere to the previous versions.

Neither were the other Batman actors supposed to adhere to their predecessors. That's why Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, and Bale were all so different from each other. Every new actor is supposed to put their own stamp on the character, not mimic their predecessors.

This is another nonsense point you've made.

Clooney's version though should have adhered to Keaton's and Kilmer's because they were all the same character in the same universe.

Rubbish. All the James Bond actors pre Craig are set in the same universe, but they all put their own stamp and style that they were all unique and never felt like they were same.

And did I say mimicking? No, he didn't have to mimic, but he wasn't even close to Keaton's portrayal. The way I saw it, Kilmer was close enough to Keaton that it wasn't a huge issue.

How was he close to Keaton's portrayal? Keaton's Bruce Wayne was a hermit type who doesn't even get recognized by members of the press at his own party. Kilmer's Bruce Wayne gets spotted as soon as he walks into a room "OOOOHHHH there's Bruce Wayne!!!".

Kilmer's Batman had actual interactions and a relationship with Jim Gordon. Keaton's Batman shared 3 seconds with Hingle's Gordon between his two movies.

Kilmer's Batman made booty calls to psychiatrists who turn on his batsignal just to hit on him.

Do I need to go on?

 

[KevTravels]

Kevin Conroy in the Batman Animated Series

 

[The_Manhunter]

Wrong. Saying one movie was enough to say he was a terrible Batman means he was a terrible Batman in that movie. Not that he can never be a good Batman.

Then say it that way.

Neither were the other Batman actors supposed to adhere to their predecessors. That's why Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, and Bale were all so different from each other. Every new actor is supposed to put their own stamp on the character, not mimic their predecessors.

This is another nonsense point you've made.

I think it's OK to expect character consistency. And this is what I mean in the other thread, you had to throw that dig at me in at the end.

Rubbish. All the James Bond actors are set in the same universe, but they all put their own stamp and style that they were all unique and never felt like they were same.

Batman is not James Bond, he is Batman. Just look at how Marvel handled the casting of War Machine. That was how I think Batman should have been handled in the classic series.

How was he close to Keaton's portrayal? Keaton's Bruce Wayne was a hermit type who doesn't even get recognized by members of the press at his own party. Kilmer's Bruce Wayne gets spotted as soon as he walks into a room "OOOOHHHH there's Bruce Wayne!!!".

That has nothing to do with the character, that has everything to do with different people picking up on different things. For example, I could walk into a bar and recognize Stacey King (basketball player), but someone else would probably not even think twice because they don't know who he is.

Kilmer's Batman had actual interactions and a relationship with Jim Gordon. Keaton's Batman shared 3 seconds with Hingle's Gordon between his two movies.

Kilmer's Batman made booty calls to psychiatrists who turn on his batsignal just to hit on him.

Do I need to go on?

Just because he didn't talk to Gordon means he is a completely different portrayal? I don't agree with that.

Keaton's Batman did equally ridiculous things (like smiling when he realized that grenade was gonna go off below that guy).

 

[BH/HHH]

Keaton's Batman did talk to Gordon too in Returns. He didn't in '89 in terms of a working relationship becaus in '89 Batman is mysterious and not out to the world yet.

 

[The Joker]

Then say it that way.

I did. Your misreading of something so straight forward is your own fault. Not mine.

I think it's OK to expect character consistency.

It depends on what consistency you mean. There are some consistencies between all the actors, but not enough to make them all feel the same.

And this is what I mean in the other thread, you had to throw that dig at me in at the end.

That's a dig at the stupid argument you are making about Batman, not you. If you think that's a dig at you personally, then report me.

Batman is not James Bond, he is Batman. Just look at how Marvel handled the casting of War Machine. That was how I think Batman should have been handled in the classic series.

The analogy is valid. They were playing the same character in the same universe. Fact, not opinion.

Cheadle's Rhodey feels totally different to Howard's. For the better, too.

That has nothing to do with the character, that has everything to do with different people picking up on different things. For example, I could walk into a bar and recognize Stacey King (basketball player), but someone else would probably not even think twice because they don't know who he is.

That has everything to do with the character. Kilmer's, and even Clooney's Bruce Wayne was a well known philanthropic type (the charity circus event, the telescope party, the Nygma party etc) and was instantly recognized by the press of his own city.

Keaton's Bruce wasn't recognized by the press IN HIS OWN HOUSE.

Just because he didn't talk to Gordon means he is a completely different portrayal? I don't agree with that.

So you ignore key character relationships as part of a character's persona.

Keaton's Batman did equally ridiculous things (like smiling when he realized that grenade was gonna go off below that guy).

That's not ridiculous. That's just cold blooded.

Keaton's Batman did talk to Gordon too in Returns. He didn't in '89 in terms of a working relationship becaus in '89 Batman is mysterious and not out to the world yet.

Gordon: "Thanks for saving the day. I'm afraid the circus gang is back"
Batman: "We'll see"

That 3 second interaction the "talk" you're referring to? He had more dialogue with the air head Ice Princess than he did with Commissioner Gordon lol.

 

[BH/HHH]

Gordon: "Thanks for saving the day. I'm afraid the circus gang is back"
Batman: "We'll see"

That 3 second interaction the "talk" you're referring to? He had more dialogue with the air head Ice Princess than he did with Commissioner Gordon lol.

It's still an interaction, so thanks for proving my point

 

[The Joker]

It's still a talk, so thanks for proving my point

Lol that's not proving your point. That's just you repeating what I already said before you; http://oi66.tinypic.com/65c2fm.jpg

 

[BH/HHH]

Lol that's not proving your point. That's just repeating what I already said before you; http://oi66.tinypic.com/65c2fm.jpg

Yes it was, they had interaction in BR and they did in BF. That was my point!

 

[The Joker]

Yes it was, they had interaction in BR and they did in BF. That was my point!

What kind of a point is that exactly? What does that prove? I already acknowledged they had one very, very, VERY brief interaction. Whereas they had interactions in BF, as in actual proper discussions. Hingle even got to interact with Kilmer's Bruce Wayne several times, too.

You comparing those to their brief 3 second blink and you'll miss it interaction in BR shows what? That BR treated one of Batman's most important character relationships as though it was nothing? That they gave him more scenes and dialogue with made up characters like the Ice Princess and Schreck than they did with a character who is as important as Alfred to the mythology.

Really I don't get what you think you achieved here.

 

[BH/HHH]

What kind of a point is that exactly? What does that prove? I already acknowledged they had one very, very, VERY brief interaction. Whereas they had interactions in BF, as in actual proper discussions. Hingle even got to interact with Kilmer's Bruce Wayne several times, too.

You comparing those to their brief 3 second blink and you'll miss it interaction shows what? That BR treated one of Batman's most important character relationships as though it was nothing? That they gave him more scenes and dialogue with made up characters like the Ice Princess and Schreck than they did with a character who is as important as Alfred to the mythology.

Really I don't get what you think you achieved here.

Why you so upset about it? Chill man.

Yes because it is interaction! Simple as, they spoke that's interaction.

interaction
noun [ C or U ] UK ? /??n.t??ræk.??n/ US ? /??n.t???ræk.??n/
?
C1 an occasion when two or more people or things communicate with or react to each other.

I was replying to what Manhunter said. Didn't even read your post so stop getting all pent up.

 

[The Joker]

Why you so upset about it? Chill man.

I am as chilled as Mr. Freeze.

Yes because it is interaction! Simple as, they spoke that's interaction.

For three tiny insignificant seconds in a totally forgettable scene that added nothing to the characters. So I say again I don't get why you thought that was worth highlighting again.

I was replying to what Manhunter said. Didn't even read your post so stop getting all pent up.

You didn't quote him. Not to mention I had already said it directly to him in our discussion.

 

[BH/HHH]

For three tiny insignificant seconds in a totally forgettable scene that added nothing to the characters. So I say again I don't get why you thought that was worth highlighting again.

It's still interaction though, which again was my point.

You didn't quote him. Not to mention I had already said it directly to him in our discussion.

I didn't feel the need to it was directly under his post.

In any case, happy to move on.

 

[The_Manhunter]

I did. Your misreading of something so straight forward is your own fault. Not mine.



It depends on what consistency you mean. There are some consistencies between all the actors, but not enough to make them all feel the same.



That's a dig at the stupid argument you are making about Batman, not you. If you think that's a dig at you personally, then report me.



The analogy is valid. They were playing the same character in the same universe. Fact, not opinion.

Cheadle's Rhodey feels totally different to Howard's. For the better, too.



That has everything to do with the character. Kilmer's, and even Clooney's Bruce Wayne was a well known philanthropic type (the charity circus event, the telescope party, the Nygma party etc) and was instantly recognized by the press of his own city.

Keaton's Bruce wasn't recognized by the press IN HIS OWN HOUSE.



So you ignore key character relationships as part of a character's persona.



That's not ridiculous. That's just cold blooded.



Gordon: "Thanks for saving the day. I'm afraid the circus gang is back"
Batman: "We'll see"

That 3 second interaction the "talk" you're referring to? He had more dialogue with the air head Ice Princess than he did with Commissioner Gordon lol.

1) What you said literally was an entirely different statement, so no, the burden is not on me.

2) Calling my argument stupid is simply not necessary? You may as well have called me stupid.

3) I have seen the Iron Man movies many times - while they look different physically, I find their mannerisms and personalities to be pretty similar.

4) Then that's the fault of the filmmaker.

5) Not every Batman story in the comics has Gordon in it. Just like I may go months without seeing some of my closest friends due to life. Doesn't mean we're not friends.

6) It comes off as pretty comical and inappropriate to Batman in my view.

 

[The Joker]

It's still interaction though, which again was my point.

So you were making a point that was already made in this discussion?

1) What you said literally was an entirely different statement, so no, the burden is not on me.

No, it wasn't. That was once again your own misreading of something very simple and straight forward.

2) Calling my argument stupid is simply not necessary? You may as well have called me stupid.

Why isn't it necessary if I feel the argument is stupid? Even intelligent people can make stupid arguments.

3) I have seen the Iron Man movies many times - while they look different physically, I find their mannerisms and personalities to be pretty similar.

I have seen the Iron Man movies many times - while they look different physically, I find their mannerisms and personalities to be quite different. Cheadle is a more nuanced and heartfelt Rhodey, who is more believable as an army veteran and friend to Tony.

4) Then that's the fault of the filmmaker.

Doesn't matter who's fault it is, the result is still the same.

5) Not every Batman story in the comics has Gordon in it. Just like I may go months without seeing some of my closest friends due to life. Doesn't mean we're not friends.

Not every Batman story has the Joker in it. Doesn't mean he should be an unimportant non entity when he's put into a movie.

6) It comes off as pretty comical and inappropriate to Batman in my view.

I agree with you on the inappropriate part.

 

[BH/HHH]

So you were making a point that was already made in this discussion?

And as I said I didn't even read your post or did you conveniently forget that.

Not every Batman story has the Joker in it. Doesn't mean he should be an unimportant non entity when he's put into a movie.

Yet you think Gordon was important in Batman Forever?

 

[The_Manhunter]

1) It was literally not stated as you claim as it was.

2) Because over the top language will only inflame a situation.

3) Good for you, and that's fine. But that means they failed in your eyes to keep character consistency, does it not?

4) Fair enough.

5) I can see where you're coming from - I think, as always, it depends on the execution. Like Vision in Age of Ultron - he was barely in it at all, but he was captivating while on screen.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Bale gets 3 shots and Affleck gets 1? My comparison is pretty self-explanatory.

Now please explain how 1 film could make Ben a completely irredeemable choice to play Batman.

Batman & Robin made George Clooney a fanboy punching bag. Val Kilmer has his fans, but there are also plenty of us who thought he was terrible as Batman. Both of them only starred in one movie.

Oh, and Affleck's horrible performance in Daredevil led to most fans hoping he'd never wear the cowl again.

Bale got three turns to play the character because the movies were good, successful and critically acclaimed.

 

[The Joker]

And as I said I didn't even read your post or did you conveniently forget that.

Then you should read the discussion instead of blindly jumping in repeating points that were already mentioned.

Yet you think Gordon was important in Batman Forever?

Not even remotely. But his presence and relationship with Batman is far more felt than it was with Keaton. Which is one of the many key difference between him and Kilmer, which again was the point of the discussion if you had bothered to read it.

1) It was literally not stated as you claim as it was.

It literally was.

2) Because over the top language will only inflame a situation.

On what planet is the word stupid over the top?

3) Good for you, and that's fine. But that means they failed in your eyes to keep character consistency, does it not?

Yes, it does. Most recasts do.

5) I can see where you're coming from - I think, as always, it depends on the execution. Like Vision in Age of Ultron - he was barely in it at all, but he was captivating while on screen.

Exactly. Quality over quantity. Look at Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. He had like 18 minutes of screen time, and most of that was just him sitting in a cell talking to Jodie Foster.

But Lecter became immortalized as one of cinema's greatest villains after that movie, and Hopkins won an Oscar. All for 18 minutes of just talking to Clarice Starling mostly.

Quality over quantity every time. That's why I assert Affleck, Clooney....who ever only being in one movie has no relevance to others who had 2 or 3 movies. You judge them for what they did, not how many movies they did it in.

 

[BH/HHH]

Then you should read the discussion instead of blindly jumping in.

It's a forum I'm sure you don't read every single post. I as responding to what Manhunter said. It's my right, as usual you like telling people what they should and shouldn't do

Not even remotely. But his presence and relationship with Batman is far more felt than it was with Keaton. Which is one of the many key difference between him and Kilmer, which again was the point of the discussion if you had bothered to read it.

I don't think it was at all anymore. They just happened to have a little more interaction. Nothing substantial same as Returns.