• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

For All Those Who Hate Keaton As Batman.....

Assassin32

Or: Ronin Iscariot
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
6,595
Reaction score
10
Points
33
.....here is part of an old review for Batman Forever that criticizes Kilmer and compares him to Keaton:

"Keaton went through the first two films unappriciated for the complex, internalized performances he turned in, sometimes audiences misinterpreted as "lackluster." He was criticized for being unmemorable when he was really being grown up in the role."

I cut this review out of The Sacramento Bee back in 1995, and I found it while I was digging around in some of my old junk. The reviewer's name is Joe Baltake, and I think that he's right on with his view of Michael Keaton's performance.
 
I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).
 
I enjoyed Keaton's performance. I think, with a better script, he could have done incredible things.

I love early in the film when he's in attendance at his own party and he seems to walk around like he's shell shocked. He perfectly displayed that this man has no clue about the social graces and that he was only complete when he was in costume.

Still, It's not really Batman - it's only Burton's interpretation of the character. Having said that, I think he was perfectly cast as Burton's version of Batman. Honestly, though, he wouldn't have been my casting choice. Not because of Mister Mom but because of his physical appearance.

Michael has great acting chops and I actually prefer him in drama's to comedies.
 
I didn't like Keaton as Batman I don't care what this reviewer said............let me put it this way Ebert disliked Spider-Man and loved the Hulk and Daredevil........I didn't like those films and loved Spider-Man........I didn't agree with him and I don't agree with this guy, just because he says something doesn't make it true or my opinion, doesn't change it either.:)
 
I remember back in 88 when he was casted and everyone was like no way, he a comic actor, I was the same way, and then I saw it when it came out and was happy. Still am today. I liked Val alot better, due that the costume was better fitting and he was a colder Bruce. But Keaton was good there to, sitting in the cave waiting with sadness. The ? is George was the worst!
 
Originally posted by MarvelMovieFan
I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

Well said MarvelMovieFan.As I have said so many times before in the past,so what if that reviewer said he was good,thats just his opinion,that doesnt prove a damn thing.He also forgot to mention that Keaton was a joke for the role and that many batman fans could not take the first two films serious because of that.They at least took Kilmer serious because of the good points Marvelmoviefan made and because he at least physically fit the role.:rolleyes: deal with it,Keaton was a horrible choice for the part.
 
I thought Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer were both terrific in the role, though I did slightly prefer Keaton. I think Keaton emphasized Batman's attitude, darkness and Batman's "anti-hero" (See scene where he drops Jack Napier in the acid...or does he let go? Awesome acting there) , while Kilmer made Batman seem more "human" and real, and did a better representation of the Bruce Wayne facade, IMO. Weirdly enough, when both were cast I thought both of them would suck in the roles. ;) Neither of them really played the Batman from the comics, but to me they both seemed to be playing the same character(Movie version of Batman) besides physical appearance.

I think Clooney could have been an incredible Batman/Bruce Wayne, if the circumstances were better and he wasn't playing the "intelligent" version of the Tick. ;)
 
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well said MarvelMovieFan.As I have said so many times before in the past,so what if that reviewer said he was good,thats just his opinion,that doesnt prove a damn thing.He also forgot to mention that Keaton was a joke for the role and that many batman fans could not take the first two films serious because of that.They at least took Kilmer serious because of the good points Marvelmoviefan made and because he at least physically fit the role.:rolleyes: deal with it,Keaton was a horrible choice for the part.

What took you so long? I expected you to be the first one to respond to this thread. :o
 
ok, the way i see it, if you all wanna complain about keaton's performance, just remember, adam west wouldve been batman again


just think, another movie where batman dances around, when he's not panting 20 yards behind the villain he's chasing
 
Originally posted by Jackasscoley15
What took you so long? I expected you to be the first one to respond to this thread. :o

Your not the only one. lol
 
I agree with all the people here that said Keaton was a bad Batman.Like it was already mentioned,what a reviewer says doesn't prove anything and it wont change my opinion of him either.:batman:
 
Yeah, it was just an opinion. No one can state a fact that he was a good Batman, or a bad one. It's all opinion.
 
I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." My hope was that the review would make them look at the things Keaton did on screen instead of just his size. Maybe after seeing this post those people will be able to come up with decent arguments as to why they think Keaton was so terrible as Batman.
 
In all fairness to Keaton...I enjoyed his performance..he really gave it his all.
My problem is that he was the wrong actor for the role.. that's all....and that doesnot make me an idiot for saying so Assassin32.

Not critisizing his ability as an actor..but let's face it...he looked the part as Batman in costume....but did not at all work as Bruce Wayne. It was not his size...it was everything.

Bruce Wayne is a millionare Play boy...and we had Keaton wearing a cardigan at dinner with Vale. C'mon...not at all the right guy for the job, but I give him kudos for his effort as he easily out did the other actors that subsequently took over for him.
That's why many of us were soooo happy that George Clooney was chosen for Bat's in the 4th film. He would have been the right guy for the role but he totally goofed it up....and.. Too bad the film sucked.

They are right on the money with the actor for Batman Begins...lets just hope we dont get a 2004 version of B&R.

David

David
 
Take my advise David,dont read anything Assassin says.I stopped reading his posts a LONNNGGGG time ago.As you can tell,anybody that disagrees with him,he automatically bills you as an idiot and calls people names.
 
Oh......ok Thanks Mr Parker.

I was hoping for an intelligent debate on the character or actor...not to be called names.



David
 
No problem David.You actually mentioned one of the reasons why I thought Kilmer was the best BATMAN.I could not take Keaton serious for the role because like I said,he was so physically wrong for the part.I mean when he had on that batsuit to make him look muscular because of how pudgy and out of shape he was,it was confusing seeing him muscular like you said as batman,but when he became bruce wayne all of a sudden he was pudgy and out of shape.I mean how did he go from being muscular and athletic to being pudgy and out of shape???? yeessshhh. At least with Kilmer I could believe that he was as muscular as he looked under the batsuit because as you saw in the film,when he took off his shirt,you could see he had an athletic and muscular build.

I also was actually pretty impressed with his acting as Bruce wayne.he never really got to do much as batman because he had a corny script.I actually went into BATMAN FOREVER thinking I would hate it because of Kilmer because prior to Batman Forever,I always thought of him as a bad actor because with the exception of THE DOORS,I never saw a movie that I didnt think he sucked in,but he surprised me and I was impressed with his acting in BATMAN FOREVER as Bruce wayne.Especially when he was telling chase how he became BATMAN he gave a great moving performance then.He just suffered from a bad script with corny lines unfortunately.If he had been given a better more serious script and dyed his hair black,he would have been the perfect BATMAN.

You were happy with clooney as batman when it was announced? you got to be kidding? Ugly dorky looking George Clooney for Handsome debonier Bruce Wayne? That casting choice was even worse than Burtons choice of Keaton as Bats.Clooney looks like EDDIE MUNSTER for crying out loud.

Assassin doesnt understand that just because a guy is a good actor,doesnt mean that he is right for the role.I dont care if its LAWRENCE OLIVIA who is considered the greatest actor in the world,if he doesnt even come close to fitting the role of a character,he should never be cast for that part.and Keaton did a a decent job as bats but he was hardly amazing.I mean he just copied Chris reeves performance as Superman acting dense adn unsure of himself.Thats not Bruce wayne.Bruce wayne is smooth with the women,thats not who we saw on screen.we saw a dork who couldnt even remember which rooms he was in.Thats nuts.Bruce wayne has lived in that mansion his whole life,hes got to know where the rooms are that he is in.Keaton couldnt even remember where things were.Keaton has been great in other films of his such as Extreme Measures and Jack Frost,But he was just so wrong for this role and not at all the great god of batman that people make him out to be on this site.
 
Originally posted by Mr Parker
I dont care if its LAWRENCE OLIVIA who is considered the greatest actor in the world

um, that's Laurence Olivier
 
DAVIDYR1, I didn't call you an idiot, but if all you can bring to an argument about Keaton is that "he was too small," then I really don't know what else to call you. Mr Parker, you suck dick.:up: I guess some people will never be able accept this film for what it is. It's Tim Burton's Batman, not DC's Batman. And, if you can't see that, you're really missing out.
 
Keaton was so over-cast as Batman, he looked and played the part like a wooden doll with eyes.

Not that a lot of people are intelligent enough to notice this, but i am.
 
Assasin32.....message boards are for public use and as such opinions on issues will vary, but calling someone names because they dont agree with you, well....that shows the kind of maturity level you are at which makes no sence because according to your bio, you are 16 years old. Jeeze, at 16 you'd think people would understand the world doesnt revolve around their own personal beliefs, ideals and desires.

If you cant debate an issue which brings up different opinions on the matter....why even start the thread??? Dictatorships are really a thing of the past....

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy, he was too old to play the role and way to wimpy looking but all the while he did an amazing job. On the same note I have never agreed with Nicholson being the Joker...but he was better cast for the role than Keaton. to Keatons credit he looked the best in costume out of all the others who followed.
Keaton seemed insecure throughout the whole film, not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Assasin32...do you even read comics?? Or is your vision of Batman the movie batman?? You were only 1 years old when the film opened so I suppose it is possible that you were influenced by it as a child more so than the comics....which is cool. Just dont rag out on those who were already old enough to distinguish between Keaton, the film and comics.

So, Assasin32 back to the film and why I think Keaton was no the right guy for the role....ALL THE WHILE RESPECTING HIS PERFORMANCE EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH IT.....seeing as Batman does not have super powers...when he held that punk over the roof top at the beginning of the movie it's obvious that it's Bruce Waynes brute strength doing the work...not some super power. As a result, take a look at Keaton during the film and tell me if THAT Bruce Wayne has the muscle to hold up a person over a roof top?

Nope....sorry. And I wont call you names for disagreeing with me. I accept the film for what it was, I just disagree with what you insist the film was supposed to be taken for...and it was not the Batman movie as it was supposed to be. It was a breakthrough film, set the bar for the rest....but quickly lost it's appeal as time went on.

In my opinion Keaton was the wrong actor for the role, I preferred Kilmer as Bruce Wayne. His performance as Wayne was convincing...his batman...had his moments but did not compare to Keatons effort and overall look.

Assasin32.........read my post carefully and you'll find more than one reason as to why I disagree with you....so please just accept that an opinion is just that......an opinion and dont turn this into an insult fest when it could just be a fun topic of debate.

David
 
Originally posted by Dope Nose
um, that's Laurence Olivier

Oh yeah,My mistake.I wasnt sure how his last name was spelled.Thanks for correcting me.;)
 
Originally posted by MarvelMovieFan
Keaton was so over-cast as Batman, he looked and played the part like a wooden doll with eyes.

Not that a lot of people are intelligent enough to notice this, but i am.
Boy you got that right MarvelMovieFan.
 
Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Assasin32.....message boards are for public use and as such opinions on issues will vary, but calling someone names because they dont agree with you, well....that shows the kind of maturity level you are at which makes no sence because according to your bio, you are 16 years old. Jeeze, at 16 you'd think people would understand the world doesnt revolve around their own personal beliefs, ideals and desires.

If you cant debate an issue which brings up different opinions on the matter....why even start the thread??? Dictatorships are really a thing of the past....

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy, he was too old to play the role and way to wimpy looking but all the while he did an amazing job. On the same note I have never agreed with Nicholson being the Joker...but he was better cast for the role than Keaton. to Keatons credit he looked the best in costume out of all the others who followed.
Keaton seemed insecure throughout the whole film, not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Assasin32...do you even read comics?? Or is your vision of Batman the movie batman?? You were only 1 years old when the film opened so I suppose it is possible that you were influenced by it as a child more so than the comics....which is cool. Just dont rag out on those who were already old enough to distinguish between Keaton, the film and comics.

So, Assasin32 back to the film and why I think Keaton was no the right guy for the role....ALL THE WHILE RESPECTING HIS PERFORMANCE EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH IT.....seeing as Batman does not have super powers...when he held that punk over the roof top at the beginning of the movie it's obvious that it's Bruce Waynes brute strength doing the work...not some super power. As a result, take a look at Keaton during the film and tell me if THAT Bruce Wayne has the muscle to hold up a person over a roof top?

Nope....sorry. And I wont call you names for disagreeing with me. I accept the film for what it was, I just disagree with what you insist the film was supposed to be taken for...and it was not the Batman movie as it was supposed to be. It was a breakthrough film, set the bar for the rest....but quickly lost it's appeal as time went on.

In my opinion Keaton was the wrong actor for the role, I preferred Kilmer as Bruce Wayne. His performance as Wayne was convincing...his batman...had his moments but did not compare to Keatons effort and overall look.

Assasin32.........read my post carefully and you'll find more than one reason as to why I disagree with you....so please just accept that an opinion is just that......an opinion and dont turn this into an insult fest when it could just be a fun topic of debate.

David


So David I see you chose to ignore my advise to not bother reading the posts of Assassin,its your funeral not mine.:D What I think is so funny about his-this person is on your ignore list threads he makes is that he must be advertising himself.Like I said,I dont bother to hit his click here button.No telling how many others dont.:D There are two posters I know of who really liked the choice of Keaton as Batman who I enjoy discussing my disagreements with them about it.They are pat21 and Sean Rules.Unlike Assassin,I can respect those two posters because they are civilized to me in our discussions and disagreements on it.

Anyways,yeah you just mentioned why I had problems with Keaton as Batman like me,you and so many others did also.He just does not look like the millioinarie playboy Bruce Wayne is.Was way too old and too wimpy looking.Yeah he looked so silly prouncing around like a clown that night at that charity event acting goofy trying to copy Chris Reeves performance from Superman being goofy as Bruce Wayne,But macho as Bats.It just didnt work like it did with Reeve as supes.

By the way,expect Assassin to come back with some kind of insult like -You idiot,you cant even spell right,you spelled sence wrong.Its sense not sence.He doesnt realise that posters like me and you get in a hurry sometimes when we post and dont take the time sometimes to proofread out posts before posting,that we dont realise until later on we made an honest mistake and that were only human and will make mistakes once in a while.Or as your already finding out,that you are automatically an idiot to him if you did not like Keaton as Batman,same with another poster named DA CROWE.He is the exact same way.
 
While I don't agree with namecalling, I do agree with some of the points Assassin has raised. Condemning Keaton and his performance because he was a different version of Batman and not the one you would pick if you were in charge is idiotic at best.

As for his size...it's not just that...Keaton does not look like a millionare playboy

Saying Keaton doesn't look like a millionaire playboy makes no sense. Unless you're talking about how he's younger and handsomer than most millionaire playboys (Take a look at Forbes Magazine). He doesn't resemble Bruce Wayne from the comics because very few people who can act do. Not even Christian Bale. He does, however, certainly resemble someone you wouldn't expect to be Batman, which was one of Tim Burton's goal.

I also disagree that he was too old to play the role. Seeing as how Bruce Wayne in the script is written as being 33-35, and that's what the directors and producers wanted, I think Keaton was a perfect age to play the role. He still looks much younger than he is (See LIVE FROM BAGHDAD).

not to mention how silly that whole charity gambling night he had at his house made him look as he prounced around as the clown of the night.

Exactly how was he the clown of the night? Honestly. Tell me.

I've said it a million times. I'll say it again, and perhaps it will sink in to one or two Keaton-haters. BATMAN was an adaption based on the characters of the Batmythos, not a direct translation of the comics. It was never intended to be. Bruce Wayne was supposed to be a brooding man in his mid thirties who fought crime as Batman with his image, his martial skills and arsenal of exotic weaponry. To say "Keaton was a bad choice" is wrong, simply because Tim Burton wasn't LOOKING for a strong, square-jawed Bruce Wayne (Do you really think WB couldn't have found one?). He was looking for the everyman, because that's what his concept was. The everyman as Batman, in a world much more realistic than that of the comics.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,688
Messages
21,787,471
Members
45,616
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"