Greatest portrayal of Batman?

[Doctor Octopus]

Christian Bale is best Batman and Bruce Wayne. Val Kilmer second. Adam West third. Michael Keaton fourth. George Clooney last.

Ben Affleck might have a chance at being better than Christian but it will be very hard.

 

[Beast]

Uh, and Keaton is actually winning. Interesting.

 

[Rodrigo90]

No he didn't. If he had trapped Ra's on the train and smashed the brakes, then he would have killed him. Ra's killed himself. Refusing to save him is not killing him.

Simple as that. That's why the line is 'I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you'. Your avatar perfectly illustrates a scene that is the antithesis of what Batman would do; smiling because he's about to murder someone. He would never do that, even if he was forced to kill someone.

The avatar is ironic, especially where I'm coming from

But it's not about killing Ra's. It's about letting him die. It was in a scene that was meant to generate a laugh, and even Batman smiles it with a smirk on his face when he says it. That's actually less heroic to me than Keaton's Batman killing villians out of necessity. It made him look more of an ******* than anything else. There's no justifying that scene in my eyes.

It's the definitive portrayal of the movies. All the others are lacking very important Batman traits (Keaton most of all ironically). Bale is as close as it comes to the full package.

Keaton's Bruce was a dull reclusive type, and his Batman was basically The Punisher, and had no character relationship with Gordon. He's not even the main character in his own movies. The villains are. They're the ones the plots revolve around and get all the development. Which I guess makes sense since they were more interesting than he was, and carried the movies.

I like Keaton's Batman for what it was, but he's the least interesting version of the movies. Even Kilmer and Clooney tapped more into Bruce's soul than Keaton's character did.

That was the genius of it though, or at least it's what many people liked about it back then. Batman was meant to be in the shadows and an unknown figure.
The villians were deliberately designed to be loud and have more scenes. Which is why I think Keaton's Batman is fascinating. You have absolutely no idea what goes on through his head. There's only very little insight into things.
Sure, I agree, it might things boring, bit it made him the mysterious figure they wanted him to be.
And even with those small qualities, that might have made him seem uninteresting and boring, it's what puts Keaton's Batman high up there alongside Bale.

How psychologically tortured were you expecting? Was he traumatized by what happened to his parents? Yes. Did he use his fear of bats to become Batman? Yes. What happened when he wasn't needed as Batman any more? He lost his sense of purpose and became a reclusive mess. In what way wasn't he psychologically tortured? What were you expecting, him to be sitting in the dark at night waiting for the batsignal? That's not Batman. He doesn't do that. He gets off his ass and gets out there. He doesn't wait to be called. Not unless you're in the happy camp world of Adam West's Batman with a red Bat phone.

No offense but if you missed where Bale was going then you were not paying attention to the movies. His initial plan was to save Gotham and inspire it's people. Then he got so entrenched in it that he could never let go of it (which is why Rachel moved on with Dent). That's why he became so lost after TDK when Batman wasn't needed any more. He lost his purpose.

One piece of reflection on his parents would've been sufficient. That's the main horror and motivation into becoming Batman. He got over it quite quickly. His Howard Hughes transformation was quite laughable.

His motivation is quite different as opposed to the others, Bale's Batman was born from the thought of villiany winning in Gotham and his motivation was to free it. While it was noble, it's still not a psychologically damaged motivational thing I expect from Batman, which in turn, makes the portrayal less interesting to me, as it's too plain and straight forward.

Rubbish. Catwoman killed Black Mask in the comics. It didn't stop Bruce from loving her and wanting to be with her.

In TDKR there was like minutes to go before the whole city gets blown up. Catwoman was no physical match for Bane. Batman was tied up. She had no choice. Even Batman would recognize that without feeling any conflict.

I don't know anything about Catwoman killing Black Mask. I'm aware of it, but I never read it. So I'll take your word that Batman doesn't care about killing anymore, and it was no surprise in TDKR anyway

 

[The Joker]

The avatar is ironic, especially where I'm coming from

No doubt, but it's a perfect visual illustration of one of many reasons why Keaton's Batman falls short. Batman doesn't get his jollies from killing like that.

But it's not about killing Ra's. It's about letting him die. It was in a scene that was meant to generate a laugh, and even Batman smiles it with a smirk on his face when he says it. That's actually less heroic to me than Keaton's Batman killing villians out of necessity. It made him look more of an ******* than anything else. There's no justifying that scene in my eyes.

Three things;

1. The scene was not generated for a laugh. Don't know where you got that impression from.

2. This is not a smirk;

3. Keaton's kills were not out of necessity. He could have stopped the strongman, or the fire clown, or Joker's goon squad in Axis Chemicals, or at the parade etc without killing them. It's a sad day when Batman can't take out a few henchmen without murdering them.

That was the genius of it though, or at least it's what many people liked about it back then. Batman was meant to be in the shadows and an unknown figure.

Really? Because I recall it being one of the criticisms of the movies, and rightly so;

The villians were deliberately designed to be loud and have more scenes. Which is why I think Keaton's Batman is fascinating. You have absolutely no idea what goes on through his head. There's only very little insight into things.
Sure, I agree, it might things boring, bit it made him the mysterious figure they wanted him to be.
And even with those small qualities, that might have made him seem uninteresting and boring, it's what puts Keaton's Batman high up there alongside Bale.

That doesn't make him fascinating, it just makes him boring. We know who Batman really is, where he lives etc. So he's not a mystery character. He's just a dull under developed one. Even when he's saying why he does it he just says "Because nobody else can". That's it. One throwaway line. I couldn't have been less interested or invested in this guy because the movie gave me no reason to care.

One piece of reflection on his parents would've been sufficient. That's the main horror and motivation into becoming Batman. He got over it quite quickly. His Howard Hughes transformation was quite laughable.

You got several reflections of his parents. So what are you talking about? That was his motive to becoming Batman. His anger and his guilt over what happened nearly made him kill Joe Chill. Then he went around the world carrying that so he could study criminals and learn to fight them.

His Howard Hughes transformation was not an actual transformation. Because it's all an act. He's pretending. He's not really a playboy. It's all to divert suspicion off him.

Again that's a staple of the character, also shown in his very early days without any big build up to it, like in Batman Year One:

[YT]ActhgRIui7M[/YT]

His motivation is quite different as opposed to the others, Bale's Batman was born from the thought of villiany winning in Gotham and his motivation was to free it. While it was noble, it's still not a psychologically damaged motivational thing I expect from Batman, which in turn, makes the portrayal less interesting to me, as it's too plain and straight forward.

That's incorrect, his motivation was born from his parents' death which opened his eyes to see how bad Gotham was and how it's spawned the Joe Chills of Gotham. That's why he wants to fight crime, and turn fear against those who prey on the fearful as he put it. That's the soul of Batman right there.

Batman's motive is straight forward. His parents died, which made him hate crime and try to fight it. I don't know what version of Batman you've been reading where it is any different to this. He wants to save Gotham from crime and then hang up his cape;

I don't know anything about Catwoman killing Black Mask. I'm aware of it, but I never read it. So I'll take your word that Batman doesn't care about killing anymore, and it was no surprise in TDKR anyway

I never said Batman doesn't care about killing any more. I said he forgave Selina for it and still loved her and wanted to be with her. And that was in a situation where she didn't even have to kill like in TDKR.

 

[Beast]

Lol at people discussing the writing of the films when this is clearly about the performance of the actors.

 

[Rodrigo90]

No doubt, but it's a perfect visual illustration of one of many reasons why Keaton's Batman falls short. Batman doesn't get his jollies from killing like that.

It made him look badass though

1. The scene was not generated for a laugh. Don't know where you got that impression from.

2. This is not a smirk;

3. Keaton's kills were not out of necessity. He could have stopped the strongman, or the fire clown, or Joker's goon squad in Axis Chemicals, or at the parade etc without killing them. It's a sad day when Batman can't take out a few henchmen without murdering them.

It was obviously a
"Ah, jokes on you Ra's!" kind of scene. And he says the line with a smirk on his face.
It's because he wasn't going to do what Ra's was expecting him to do, and even his face (Ra's) was
"What the ****?"

And whatever it was or was not intending, it still made Batman look like a *****e.

Really? Because I recall it being one of the criticisms of the movies, and rightly so;

That doesn't make him fascinating, it just makes him boring. We know who Batman really is, where he lives etc. So he's not a mystery character. He's just a dull under developed one.

Keaton wouldn't remain an endeared Batman to this day, if that's what everybody thought.
Bobba Fett didn't do much in the Star Wars movies, and everybody still loved him for what he was, a small minor character. It's what Keaton provided and how he did it, that keeps him extremely popular.

You got several reflections of his parents. So what are you talking about? That was his motive to becoming Batman. His anger and his guilt over what happened nearly made him kill Joe Chill. Then he went around the world carry that so he could study criminals and learn to fight them.

His Howard Hughes transformation was not an actual transformation. Because it's all an act. He's pretending. He's not really a playboy. It's all to divert suspicion off him.

Again that's a staple of the character, also shown in his very early days without any big build up to it, like in Batman Year One:

[YT]ActhgRIui7M[/YT]

That's incorrect, his motivation was born from his parents' death which opened his eyes to see how bad Gotham was and how it's spawned the Joe Chills of Gotham. That's why he wants to fight crime, and turn fear against those who prey on the fearful as he put it. That's the soul of Batman right there.

Batman's motive is straight forward. His parents died, which made him hate crime and try to fight it. I don't know what version of Batman you've been reading where it is any different to this. He wants to save Gotham from crime and then hang up his cape;

I never said Batman doesn't care about killing any more. I said he forgave Selina for it. And that was in a situation where she didn't even have to kill like in TDKR.

Bale's characterisation was all over the place in my opinion.
His motivation and goal was straight forward, but it was the getting there that was confusing.
Granted, he's looking for SOMEBODY to save his city, whether it was Batman or Harvey Dent. He was looking for a hero to free it from the reigns of evil.
An admirable goal.

But the whole looking to quit as quick as he could, wasn't very Batman to me. It was Nolan's Batman and I don't define him as the definitive portrayal.
I don't do that with Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney.

None of them have come close to the comics Batman, not even Bale.
If Bale was as close as possible, in my eyes, he would've
A) Reflected on the horrors of his childhood and parents a little more.
B) Saved Ra's.
C) Continued to fight, instead of looking for the quick way out.

 

[The Joker]

It made him look badass though

Batman doesn't need to shove a stick of dynamite down a guy's pants to look badass.

It was obviously a
"Ah, jokes on you Ra's!" kind of scene. And he says the line with a smirk on his face.
It's because he wasn't going to do what Ra's was expecting him to do, and even his face (Ra's) was
"What the ****?"

And whatever it was or was not intending, it still made Batman look like a *****e.

I'm sorry but you're wrong on this. For a start he was not smirking. The pictorial proof is right there. Second this was not a joke's on you thing. Ra's was expecting Batman to kill him; "Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?". So either way Ra's was expecting to die. Leaving him to his own self created fate as opposed to killing him is not a joke's on you situation. A joke on you situation would be Batman knowing that the ferries were not going to blow each other up in TDK and telling Joker he was wrong and alone.

Smiling when you shove dynamite down someone's pants, that makes you look like a *****e.

Keaton wouldn't remain an endeared Batman to this day, if that's what everybody thought.

I didn't say everyone thought it, I said it was a common criticism. That doesn't mean everyone hates his character for it. I like Keaton a lot, warts and all. He is endearing to me, just not as much as Bale or West. Keaton did the best he could with the little he had, but he didn't cut enough of the mustard to even be a contender for best on screen Batman, IMO. There just wasn't enough for him to do with the character for that.

Bale's characterisation was all over the place in my opinion.
His motivation and goal was straight forward, but it was the getting there that was confusing.
Granted, he's looking for SOMEBODY to save his city, whether it was Batman or Harvey Dent. He was looking for a hero to free it from the reigns of evil.
An admirable goal.

How was his characterization all over the place. It was very defined and clear cut. He was going to save Gotham and inspire it's people. Then Harvey Dent came along, a guy who could clean up crime and do it without a mask, ergo he was a better hero and symbol of hope than a masked vigilante.

Where is the mix up or confusion here?

But the whole looking to quit as quick as he could, wasn't very Batman to me. It was Nolan's Batman and I don't define him as the definitive portrayal.

It's not like Batman has never wanted to hand his reigns over to someone else either in the comics. For example after Knightfall Bruce was going to let Jean Paul Valley (Azrael) keep the Batman mantle permanently and he was going to retire and pursue Shondra Kinsolving and live a normal life. But then AzBats went nuts and Bruce had to come back to take the mantle off him.

It's not like these are things not found in the comics.

I don't do that with Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney.

None of them have come close to the comics Batman, not even Bale.
If Bale was as close as possible, in my eyes, he would've
A) Reflected on the horrors of his childhood and parents a little more.
B) Saved Ra's.
C) Continued to fight, instead of looking for the quick way out.

A) Begins did it ten fold, and he was dreaming about his parents again in Rises. TDK is the only one where he took a breather from reflecting on his parents, and even then it wasn't necessary. I mean I don't hold it against Batman Returns for not having Bruce brooding over his dead parents for a scene. Even the great BTAS, you can count on one hand how many episodes had him mulling over his parents. It doesn't always have to be there.

B) Covered that one already above

C) He didn't look for a quick way out. He wasn't even thinking of passing the mantle to anyone until he met Dent, and he wasn't doing because he saw it as a quick fix so he could finish, he did it because he genuinely believed it was a better solution for Gotham than Batman. He even made Dent prove himself first by giving him Lau and seeing could he deliver the goods and put all those criminals away.

 

[-Arya-]

Keaton and Bale are tied for best. It's difficult for me to choose one over the other.

 

[Dark Raven]

I hope there is a new version of this thread after Batman v Superman when we've seen Affleck's performance.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Batman doesn't need to shove a stick of dynamite down a guy's pants to look badass.

Still, it worked...in a eerily creepy fashion

I'm sorry but you're wrong on this. For a start he was not smirking. The pictorial proof is right there. Second this was not a joke's on you thing. Ra's was expecting Batman to kill him; "Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?". So either way Ra's was expecting to die. Leaving him to his own self created fate as opposed to killing him is not a joke's on you situation. A joke on you situation would be Batman knowing that the ferries were not going to blow each other up in TDK and telling Joker he was wrong and alone.

Smiling when you shove dynamite down someone's pants, that makes you look like a *****e.

Here's how I interpreted the scene.

Ra's throughout the film, was goading his student for his mistakes.
"Always mind your surroundings"
"You haven't beaten me, you've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke" etc.

And in the latter scene, I laughed when Bruce fell through the ice, and so did a few other people I was with when watching.
It was a little touch of comedy - the student making a schoolboy error.

And in Wayne Manor, Ra's goads him, again, for not minding his surroundings, by throwing him under the beam.

Then on the train, I chuckled when Batman goaded Ra's for reminding him of the same thing. It was like a little ironic payback.
And it was only added when the student goaded his master further, by stating that he wasn't going to do what he wanted, which was to kill him.
And you could, or at least I could, that Bruce got a little feeling of satisfaction when he did that to Ra's.
At the time, I laughed at that as well, because Bruce finally got one over on him and I cheered for him.
If Batman felt a stronger sense of moralism, he would've saved Ra's and not left him to his fate of death, just so he could goad him, like Ra's constantly goaded Bruce.
That's how I see it. It felt like a
"Ha! In your face, ya bastard! You weren't expecting all this from me!" Kind of scene.

I didn't say everyone thought it, I said it was a common criticism. That doesn't mean everyone hates his character for it. I like Keaton a lot, warts and all. He is endearing to me, just not as much as Bale or West. Keaton did the best he could with the little he had, but he didn't cut enough of the mustard to even be a contender for best on screen Batman, IMO. There just wasn't enough for him to do with the character for that.

Well, it was all Burton's idea to leave Bruce and Batman in the shadows.
He may not have had enough to do and say, but he left quite the impression and that's all we could ask for.

How was his characterization all over the place. It was very defined and clear cut. He was going to save Gotham and inspire it's people. Then Harvey Dent came along, a guy who could clean up crime and do it without a mask, ergo he was a better hero and symbol of hope than a masked vigilante.

Where is the mix up or confusion here?



It's not like Batman has never wanted to hand his reigns over to someone else either in the comics. For example after Knightfall Bruce was going to let Jean Paul Valley (Azrael) keep the Batman mantle permanently and he was going to retire and pursue Shondra Kinsolving and live a normal life. But then AzBats went nuts and Bruce had to come back to take the mantle off him.

It's not like these are things not found in the comics.



A) Begins did it ten fold, and he was dreaming about his parents again in Rises. TDK is the only one where he took a breather from reflecting on his parents, and even then it wasn't necessary. I mean I don't hold it against Batman Returns for not having Bruce brooding over his dead parents for a scene. Even the great BTAS, you can count on one hand how many episodes had him mulling over his parents. It doesn't always have to be there.

B) Covered that one already above

C) He didn't look for a quick way out. He wasn't even thinking of passing the mantle to anyone until he met Dent, and he wasn't doing because he saw it as a quick fix so he could finish, he did it because he genuinely believed it was a better solution for Gotham than Batman. He even made Dent prove himself first by giving him Lau and seeing could he deliver the goods and put all those criminals away.

The only beef I have with Bale's Batman, is the whole letting Ra's die incident. He could've saved him. Letting him die, for whatever reason, was just totally out of character, and for that reason mainly, I can't sat that he is the definitive Batman.
And I find Bale the most boring Batman going. He has a mission and a goal, and that's it. Asides from the 8 years he spent as Howard Hughes, there just wasn't a lot of weight or conflict, or anything remotely interesting about his character. Batman Begins, that's when it was exciting, because you didn't know what was going to arrive around the corner.
But in the whole, he was just so bland. He was too much of a goody two shoes, because his mission was too noble and he had a clear idea about how to save Gotham. There was virtually no other interesting qualities to his character.
When Joker killed Rachel, and he winged a bit, then no other mention after that, not even a glint of anger or any emotion in his eye when confronting the man that stole his chance for happiness, I was a bit peeved.
Even Keaton demonstrated some form of anger and hatred in his confrontation with the character.
Bale did nothing and I was scratching my head at that.

What was intriguing about Keaton, was that you had to guess what he was thinking. He stored up his thoughts and feelings, which made him a mystery and I liked it. I felt sorry for him. He didn't need to become Howard Hughes to demonstrate turmoil

 

[The Joker]

Still, it worked...in a eerily creepy fashion

No, it really didn't. It's one of the worst scenes of the Batman movies. It reduces Batman to little more than a psycho murderous thug.

Here's how I interpreted the scene.

Ra's throughout the film, was goading his student for his mistakes.
"Always mind your surroundings"
"You haven't beaten me, you've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke" etc.

And in the latter scene, I laughed when Bruce fell through the ice, and so did a few other people I was with when watching.
It was a little touch of comedy - the student making a schoolboy error.

And in Wayne Manor, Ra's goads him, again, for not minding his surroundings, by throwing him under the beam.

Then on the train, I chuckled when Batman goaded Ra's for reminding him of the same thing. It was like a little ironic payback.
And it was only added when the student goaded his master further, by stating that he wasn't going to do what he wanted, which was to kill him.
And you could, or at least I could, that Bruce got a little feeling of satisfaction when he did that to Ra's.
At the time, I laughed at that as well, because Bruce finally got one over on him and I cheered for him.
If Batman felt a stronger sense of moralism, he would've saved Ra's and not left him to his fate of death, just so he could goad him, like Ra's constantly goaded Bruce.
That's how I see it. It felt like a
"Ha! In your face, ya bastard! You weren't expecting all this from me!" Kind of scene.

No offense but that is one of the most gross misinterpretations I've ever read. Go back and re-read what you've just typed there and you'll see the major flaw in your train of thought.

Bruce falling through the ice, yes obviously that was went to be humorous because Bruce thought he won, and Ra's turned the tables on him. That had no bearing on the finale scene at all.

All I see when I read your interpretation is you chuckling at things in various Ra's scenes with Bruce that in 9 years since BB's release I have never heard anyone else find humorous. Ra's was defeated. He was down. The train tracks were blown. His plan had failed. He expected Batman to finish him off. He didn't. He just left him to his own fate that he created.

Where is the humor there? There is none. I've never seen anyone misconstrue such a simple scene before. You even convinced yourself that he was smirking when he very clearly wasn't.

I can't fathom how your mind was working when you watched this movie, even after you explained it because none of it makes a lick of sense.

Well, it was all Burton's idea to leave Bruce and Batman in the shadows.
He may not have had enough to do and say, but he left quite the impression and that's all we could ask for.

No that's not all you could ask for. You could ask for a more three dimensional, interesting, fleshed out character, and not a 2 dimensional Punisher wannabe.

The only beef I have with Bale's Batman, is the whole letting Ra's die incident. He could've saved him. Letting him die, for whatever reason, was just totally out of character, and for that reason mainly, I can't sat that he is the definitive Batman.

So Batman not killing someone and leaving them to their own fate you can't get past, but him killing criminals left, right, and center when he didn't need to is your favorite.

Yeah like I said your logic escapes me on this issue.

And I find Bale the most boring Batman going. He has a mission and a goal, and that's it.

And what else is Batman supposed to have besides his mission and goal? A friendship with Gordon? Check. Running his family company to honor his family name and help the city? Check.

What pray tell was he missing?

Asides from the 8 years he spent as Howard Hughes, there just wasn't a lot of weight or conflict, or anything remotely interesting about his character.

You're having a laugh right? You mean besides taking back his family company, saving Gotham from several super villains and mass destruction (twice), taking the blame for Two Face's murders, escaping the worst prison in the world, rebuilding Wayne Manor and so much more.

Go on and wow me with the impressive weight and conflict we got from the each of the other movie Batmen that surpassed all that.

Batman Begins, that's when it was exciting, because you didn't know what was going to arrive around the corner.

I don't get what you mean by that. How did BB provide not knowing what was coming more than TDK or TDKR?

But in the whole, he was just so bland. He was too much of a goody two shoes, because his mission was too noble and he had a clear idea about how to save Gotham. There was virtually no other interesting qualities to his character.

A goody two shoes? He pancakes Cop cars on the evening news. He kidnaps a CEO from China. He breaks Maroni's ankles trying to squeeze info from him about the Joker. He takes out two SWAT teams. He covers up Dent's crimes as Two Face. And to you he's too much of a goody two shoes.

Again your logic escapes me.

Name me a version of Batman who doesn't have a clear idea about saving Gotham.

When Joker killed Rachel, and he winged a bit, then no other mention after that, not even a glint of anger or any emotion in his eye when confronting the man that stole his chance for happiness, I was a bit peeved.

It's like you were watching a different movie. Batman showed his emotional anger at Joker when he beat the hell out of him in the interrogation room when he learned Joker had her. He then blamed himself after she had died, thinking he had brought it on her. He carried guilt, not anger. In case you missed that in the finale with Two Face, he said what happened to Rachel wasn't chance, it was because they decided to act against the criminals. Dent was the one carrying the emotional rage for Rachel's death.

And you could clearly see that pain in Batman's face, especially when Dent said why was he the only one who lost everything, and Batman quietly replies "It wasn't". Because he lost Rachel, too, but he can't tell Dent that. He has to carry that pain on his own.

Even Keaton demonstrated some form of anger and hatred in his confrontation with the character.

Yeah because he just learned that very night in one of the worst plot twists ever (hated by both fans and writer Sam Hamm) that Joker killed his parents, and he was going to kill him for it. He said it out right. "I'm going to kill you". And he did. That's not Batman.

What was intriguing about Keaton, was that you had to guess what he was thinking. He stored up his thoughts and feelings, which made him a mystery and I liked it. I felt sorry for him. He didn't need to become Howard Hughes to demonstrate turmoil

He already was Howard Hughes. Even the Gotham press didn't recognize him. And there's nothing intriguing about trying to guess what a character is thinking. We should see it on the screen. We should be given reason to care about the character.

What you found intriguing, which was basically knowing nothing, I found boring. An intriguing mystery character is someone like the Joker in TDK. We don't know who he really is or what made him that way, but we get glimpses and teases in what he says about his conflicting back stories, and his warped view of the world. That's an intriguing, fascinating mystery character. Not one who simply says he does it because nobody else can. Bland, dull, and weak. Batman is worth so much more than that.

 

[The Batman]

After over 20 years reading comics i can honestly say that letting Ras die when he could easily have saved him is not the most Batman-like thing he could have done. But again, it´s pretty silly to pretend there´s a "definitive" Batman, when the reality is that the character has been pretty schizofrenic over the decades. I guess the "definitive" version of Batman is the one you liked the most, but that doesn´t make it more valid than the others.

I feel the same way.

 

[Rodrigo90]

No, it really didn't. It's one of the worst scenes of the Batman movies. It reduces Batman to little more than a psycho murderous thug.

It was funny though

No offense but that is one of the most gross misinterpretations I've ever read. Go back and re-read what you've just typed there and you'll see the major flaw in your train of thought.

Bruce falling through the ice, yes obviously that was went to be humorous because Bruce thought he won, and Ra's turned the tables on him. That had no bearing on the finale scene at all.

Of course it had bearing. At least some level of it.
Bruce finally learning from the mistakes and pitfalls that Ra's mocked him about, and Ra's finding himself in a situation that Bruce was in. I thought the irony was humorous and why shouldn't it be?
Student finally bests master who thought he couldn't. Good for Bruce!

All I see when I read your interpretation is you chuckling at things in various Ra's scenes with Bruce that in 9 years since BB's release I have never heard anyone else find humorous. Ra's was defeated. He was down. The train tracks were blown. His plan had failed. He expected Batman to finish him off. He didn't. He just left him to his own fate that he created.

Where is the humor there? There is none. I've never seen anyone misconstrue such a simple scene before. You even convinced yourself that he was smirking when he very clearly wasn't.

I can't fathom how your mind was working when you watched this movie, even after you explained it because none of it makes a lick of sense.

[YT]tph2hqk78Jk[/YT]

Look at that and watch his expression. He grimaces when saying
"I won't kill"
But when he says
"but I don't have to save you", look at the change of his expression and listen to the change of voice tone. He says it with a smug little smile.

"I saved your life"
"I warned you about compassion"

It was an obvious dig and I laughed! He wasn't going to make that mistake again. So the lessons and teaching had come full circle.

But it was still *****ey.

No that's not all you could ask for. You could ask for a more three dimensional, interesting, fleshed out character, and not a 2 dimensional Punisher wannabe.

 

[The Joker]

It was funny though

What ever tickles your funny bone

Of course it had bearing. At least some level of it.

How? Bruce thought he won in a sword fight on the ice. He didn't. What bearing has that on the ending scene?

Bruce finally learning from the mistakes and pitfalls that Ra's mocked him about, and Ra's finding himself in a situation that Bruce was in. I thought the irony was humorous and why shouldn't it be?
Student finally bests master who thought he couldn't. Good for Bruce!

That's not humor. Learning from your mistakes and becoming better than your master isn't funny. It wasn't played as being funny. You are the first person in 9 years I have ever seen that found that funny.

[YT]tph2hqk78Jk[/YT]

Look at that and watch his expression. He grimaces when saying
"I won't kill"
But when he says
"but I don't have to save you", look at the change of his expression and listen to the change of voice tone. He says it with a smug little smile.

For the umpteenth time that is not a smile. A smile has the corners of your mouth go up. There is no hint of a smile there. Nor anything in his voice that suggest this is supposed to be funny.

"I saved your life"
"I warned you about compassion"

It was an obvious dig and I laughed! He wasn't going to make that mistake again. So the lessons and teaching had come full circle.

A dig, yes. Funny no. He was basically telling Ra's he won't do what he expects him to do, which was kill him.

I don't know why you think Bruce learning from his mistakes is meant to be funny.

Only if it's something worth appreciating

 

[The Batman]

I don't know how anyone could possibly think Batman was smiling during that train scene. He has such a pissed off look just before he leaves the train.

 

[Rodrigo90]

What ever tickles your funny bone

It was pratically Looney Tunes humour

That's not humor. Learning from your mistakes and becoming better than your master isn't funny. It wasn't played as being funny. You are the first person in 9 years I have ever seen that found that funny.


For the umpteenth time that is not a smile. A smile has the corners of your mouth go up. There is no hint of a smile there. Nor anything in his voice that suggest this is supposed to be funny.


A dig, yes. Funny no. He was basically telling Ra's he won't do what he expects him to do, which was kill him.

I don't know why you think Bruce learning from his mistakes is meant to be funny.

So you didn't find any humorous irony in Ra's being finally screwed over by Bruce, and being reminded all in one scene, about the things that he mocked Bruce over, and Bruce himself getting that dig in?
Not even a little
"Yeah! You tell him Bruce!" with a smile on your face?

To me, it was the same as Bond getting a dig into a villain after he kills them. Without the quip of course

And if that line of
"But I don't have to save you" is meant to be serious and if Bale isn't delivering it with a smug sense of slap in the face to Neeson, my entire outlook will change! And I will possibly like this Batman less!

Only if it's something worth appreciating

And I'm betting you don't appreciate Chris Reeve as Superman either?

 

[The Joker]

I don't know how anyone could possibly think Batman was smiling during that train scene. He has such a pissed off look just before he leaves the train.

You should know, you're the god damn Batman!

So you didn't find any humorous irony in Ra's being finally screwed over by Bruce, and being reminded all in one scene, about the things that he mocked Bruce over, and Bruce himself getting that dig in?
Not even a little
"Yeah! You tell him Bruce!" with a smile on your face?

To me, it was the same as Bond getting a dig into a villain after he kills them. Without the quip of course

Ironic yes, funny irony no. Bruce was not throwing anything back in his face in a humorous way. Ra's was expecting Batman to kill him. But Bruce again rejected his warped ideals and left him to his own self made fate.

It was a serious scene delivered in a serious manner. No smiles there. I should know, I'm the Joker, I can spot a smile a mile away

And if that line of
"But I don't have to save you" is meant to be serious and if Bale isn't delivering it with a smug sense of slap in the face to Neeson, my entire outlook will change! And I will possibly like this Batman less!

If you call rejecting Ra's warped ideals a slap in his face, then yes he slapped him in the face. Batman had a way of verbally slapping the main villains in the face when he defeated them;

Ra's - Batman got him pinned on the floor and said "You never minded your surroundings".
Joker - "What were you trying to prove, that deep down everyone is as ugly as you? You're alone" when the ferries didn't blow up, which Batman predicted.
Bane: "Tell me where the trigger is then you have my permission to die". Throwing back his own words he had said to Batman earlier in the movie.

But none of these were meant to be funny.

And I'm betting you don't appreciate Chris Reeve as Superman either?

I think Reeve is the best Superman by far. Not only because of his terrific performances, but he had excellent material to sink his teeth into and convey in those performances to make Clark and Superman a fully rounded character.

 

[Cain]

I feel the same way.

That makes 3 of us.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Ironic yes, funny irony no. Bruce was not throwing anything back in his face in a humorous way. Ra's was expecting Batman to kill him. But Bruce again rejected his warped ideals and left him to his own self made fate.

It was a serious scene delivered in a serious manner. No smiles there. I should know, I'm the Joker, I can spot a smile a mile away

If you call rejecting Ra's warped ideals a slap in his face, then yes he slapped him in the face. Batman had a way of verbally slapping the main villains in the face when he defeated them;

Ra's - Batman got him pinned on the floor and said "You never minded your surroundings".
Joker - "What were you trying to prove, that deep down everyone is as ugly as you? You're alone" when the ferries didn't blow up, which Batman predicted.
Bane: "Tell me where the trigger is then you have my permission to die". Throwing back his own words he had said to Batman earlier in the movie.

But none of these were meant to be funny.

I remain defiantly adamant I believe the scene was meant to hit a dramatic, but humorous note.
Humour can be found within irony. There are many different forms of irony. You have romantic, dramatic, and tragic, etc.
I think humour can be found within Bruce mocking Ra's, as the way he did him.
All in one spot, he rectified the wrongs he made in the past, and shoved them in Ra's' face.
It was a form of mockery by turning his own words and meanings onto him, making them look the fool in return.

And when Batman got one over on Ra's and said with a TINY bit of satisfaction that he was to leave him, and the look on Ra's' face, I chuckled a bit and thought
"Haha, good for Batman"

I think it just comes down to the look on Neeson's face lol

I think Reeve is the best Superman by far. Not only because of his terrific performances, but he had excellent material to sink his teeth into and convey in those performances to make Clark and Superman a fully rounded character.

Absolutely

 

[The Endless]

Keaton's Batman was more intimidating with a whisper and that glare than Bale's with all his shouting and ggaaarrbblaaagghhh! I mean if i saw Bale's Batman down a dark alley and he started shouting at me with that ridiculous lisp i'd laugh. If i was down a dark alley and saw Keaton's Batman just standing there staring at me silently it would creep me the **** out.

I thought Keaton portrayed that deeply tortured side to the character better. The scene in Returns where we first see him, brooding in the dark all alone... until the Bat-Signal shines through his window and he stands to attention is THE iconic Batman/Bruce Wayne moment for me, from any Batman movie. It just encapsulates the Batman character as i view him perfectly.

 

[shauner111]

And what I'm going to say, may shock...Bale's Batman, while great, was something I could never handle. Not just the voice, but his whole
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" thing.
He pretty much killed Ra's by not saving him, even if he didn't finish him off before he died.

I disagree 100 percent. He didn't kill Ras, and i always shake my head when i see somebody accuse him of that. There's a reason why he says "i wont kill you, but i dont have to save you", because Ras put himself on that train. It was a suicide mission.

I think Joker nailed it in his responses.

Did somebody replace you with another Rodrigo? t: Because i recall you wanting Bale to return, and saying really great things about the Nolan/Bale movies and portrayal. Suddenly you're turning to Keaton ever since the Affleck casting, like Nolans was a trashy version. Sounds like a band-wagon mentality, or some nostalgic thing. Suddenly you're revealing how peeved you were with this and that, but it sounds like a brand new thing you thought up this year, not something you've been feeling since 2008.

I love Keaton, but i have never seen that smiling scene as badass. To me it was hokey and the polar opposite of what i see Batman doing in that situation. First you called that scene "eerily creepy" then you're calling it hilarious like it's straight out of the loonie toons. I dont get that lol. Unless i didn't read it properly, then forgive me.

Regardless, while he was in the Bat-suit he looked great. He moved like Batman, his voice was fine too, but that sounds very shallow doesn't it? Because nothing else was like the character. Batman isn't just putting on a cape and cowl, moving around like a ghost and driving a cool batmobile. It's the surface.

Bale wins this for me.

He didnt kill Ras. You or i see a man about to take his life. You see that if he pulls it off, he's going to murder a TON of people in the process. So you try to stop it, you do what you can to get the people away from the scene. But he's still going to crash his plane. You have a chance to save him from his own plane that he's going to crash, or not. I dont know about you, but i dont see that as murder if you let this guy die the way he originally wanted. His mission was suicide and murder. Like a suicide bomber.

So Batman not killing someone and leaving them to their own fate you can't get past, but him killing criminals left, right, and center when he didn't need to is your favorite.

Yeah like I said your logic escapes me on this issue.

To quote Joker, sorry bud, but i have to agree. Your logic is not making sense here.

 

[DCW]

I love all the bat actors but you just can't beat that. I have high hopes for Batfleck though.

 

[Steamteck]

I hate TDK with a purple passion but Bale was not one of its problems. although pretty hampered by the later films he was an excellent Bruce and Batman. sloppy writing and bad fight scenes were not his fault and he did a very good job except for the stupid Batvoice.

I have high hopes batfleck with deliver on all levels.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Okay! I admit it, my logic is flawed, I'm not a well man and I contradict myself more than Mr. Contradict himself

I have no issues with Bale's Batman, other than the fact that he allowed Ra's to die. I don't understand why he couldn't have saved him!
A lot of people around here, I remember, compared that action to a Frank Miller Batman inspiration, and it was. Apart from that, he was a fine Batman, a noble and heroic character.
But I didn't feel the torture I've been looking for since Val Kilmer's interpretation. Keaton's Batman bottled up his emotions, and you only caught little glimpses to his pain through expressions and short pieces of dialogue. Kilmer's character was about his pain and anguish finally bubbling over the surface, and he revealed himself more verbally, with Chase and the audience.

And while I shouldn't complain about it, Bale's Bruce just didn't display that emotionally crippled man that Batman really is. So for what Keaton and Kilmer gaves us, I prefer that.

But other than one act, which was out of character I think, I have no issues with Bale's Batman.

I just prefer the darker and more tortured portrayals of the past. Even Clooney's happy go lucky Batman, delved into the issues of him fighting to conquer death itself, and he reflected on his past pain.
It was there in Batman Begins, which was greatly done, none existent in TDK, and pratically glossed over in TDKR, with a little flashback to his dad in the well.

Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney all played the same Bruce Wayne/Batman...and while the films may have went downhill with each step, it was still keeping his characterization intact. Clooney was actually about him finally finding the peace that eluded him in B89, BR and BF. But it still showed him having that little bit of pain left, that he's spent all his life trying to beat death.
But when you think about it, he didn't do that, because he brought death to villians...

And so that brings me to my point...

No one has done a direct faithful portrayal of Batman.
Bale's may have been the closet, in certain qualities...BUT HE LEFT A MAN TO DIE AND THE REAL BATMAN WOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A CHAMPION FOR LIFE AND JUSTICE

So in conclusion...Bring on Ben Affleck and let's not have him be too much like Frank Miller's ideas...Please?

 

[shauner111]

Alright, but leaving a man to die is not killing him.