Michael Keaton: Overrated?

[Lead Cenobite]

As much of a beating as the Burton movies have taken in the past few years, I wouldn't really say there's anything about them that's overrated at all. Unless having any semblance of a fanbase is considered overrating them.

 

[Batz]

He was great in 89, limited by the script in Returns imo.

Always loved his Bruce Wayne

 

[TheFuture]

Lately I've been changing my opinion of Keaton's portrayal, IMO it's difficult to connect to his Bruce Wayne on an emotional level. We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

Bale for me is the best Wayne because to date his portrayal has been the most "real" to me, I can connect with the character on a basic human level and this is one of the main reasons why I have enjoyed Nolan's films so much. I actually care about this Bruce Wayne whereas with previous portrayals, I didn't really feel I knew enough about Wayne to care about him or fear for him.

I know a lot of people didn't like the line of "the journey comes to an end" in the TDKR teaser but I loved it because for me, I do feel that I have been with this Bruce Wayne every step of the way in his tragedies, struggles and triumphs.

 

[GothamAlleys]

We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

Hmm. This exactly why I like it actually. Shows how diverse we fans are

 

[Ponyboy]

Lately I've been changing my opinion of Keaton's portrayal, IMO it's difficult to connect to his Bruce Wayne on an emotional level. We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

I feel the total opposite. I feel more pain and anguish from Keaton's performance in the first film than I did the two movies Bale has been in. I also think that Burton was "peeling" the layers of Batman slowly... It's a tease in some ways, but also good storytelling. If we'd have gotten a 3rd Burton film we might've seen more of that side of his character. Pity.

 

[Fudgie]

Lately I've been changing my opinion of Keaton's portrayal, IMO it's difficult to connect to his Bruce Wayne on an emotional level. We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

Bale for me is the best Wayne because to date his portrayal has been the most "real" to me, I can connect with the character on a basic human level and this is one of the main reasons why I have enjoyed Nolan's films so much. I actually care about this Bruce Wayne whereas with previous portrayals, I didn't really feel I knew enough about Wayne to care about him or fear for him.

I know a lot of people didn't like the line of "the journey comes to an end" in the TDKR teaser but I loved it because for me, I do feel that I have been with this Bruce Wayne every step of the way in his tragedies, struggles and triumphs.

Agreed on all points.

 

[El Payaso]

Lately I've been changing my opinion of Keaton's portrayal, IMO it's difficult to connect to his Bruce Wayne on an emotional level. We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

Excellent. Mission accomplished then. Batman remains a mistery and yet we had some really deep glimpses of how this tormented soul is.

You see, when you reveal misteries, the explanation behind is never as fascinating as the mistery itself.

Bale for me is the best Wayne because to date his portrayal has been the most "real" to me, I can connect with the character on a basic human level and this is one of the main reasons why I have enjoyed Nolan's films so much. I actually care about this Bruce Wayne whereas with previous portrayals, I didn't really feel I knew enough about Wayne to care about him or fear for him.

Explaining everything doesn't mean connection necessarily.

As much as I know about Bruce, I couldn't help but agreeing with Joker's anarchism more than with Bruce's take on justice and order. On the other hand, I couldn't help it to feel more for Harvey's tragedy than Bruce's.

And I certainly lost much of the connection when I got that Bale's Batman is perfectly fine with lying to everybody before admitting defeat. People have the right to know and have the right to be treated like adults, not like children someone who's "better" has to protect from cruel truth.

I know a lot of people didn't like the line of "the journey comes to an end" in the TDKR teaser but I loved it because for me, I do feel that I have been with this Bruce Wayne every step of the way in his tragedies, struggles and triumphs.

I love the 'end of a journey' approach from TDKR. At least in the theory. I adore it. Finally someone dared to defy Hollywood's standards and gets to tell the end of the story and not making a third part just to prepare for the fourth one.

 

[uniqueweasel]

I think it's pointless comparing Bales Bruce To Keatons, they are a completley different take on the character and how he goes about "justice." In Keatons he's a more violent explosive character, whereas Bales is a more methodical controlled character.

I think the point we have to remember is Nolan and Bale got to tell the Bruce and Batman origin story and then the Joker Story over two movies. But Burton and Keaton did that in the space of one film. That could be argued as a bad thing, but I think that is testement to the role Keaton played to bring both characters (Bruce and Batman) into that universe and make it the film it became.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Lately I've been changing my opinion of Keaton's portrayal, IMO it's difficult to connect to his Bruce Wayne on an emotional level. We have more than 4 hours of Burton's Batman yet I still don't feel that I know Bruce all that well.

Bale for me is the best Wayne because to date his portrayal has been the most "real" to me, I can connect with the character on a basic human level and this is one of the main reasons why I have enjoyed Nolan's films so much. I actually care about this Bruce Wayne whereas with previous portrayals, I didn't really feel I knew enough about Wayne to care about him or fear for him.

I know a lot of people didn't like the line of "the journey comes to an end" in the TDKR teaser but I loved it because for me, I do feel that I have been with this Bruce Wayne every step of the way in his tragedies, struggles and triumphs.

Tim Burton intended for Batman to be mysterious, much like he was in the early comics.
Christopher Nolan's Batman is much more a traditional protagonist, who the audience is meant to be intimately connected.

I think it's pointless comparing Bales Bruce To Keatons, they are a completley different take on the character and how he goes about "justice." In Keatons he's a more violent explosive character, whereas Bales is a more methodical controlled character.

I think the point we have to remember is Nolan and Bale got to tell the Bruce and Batman origin story and then the Joker Story over two movies. But Burton and Keaton did that in the space of one film. That could be argued as a bad thing, but I think that is testement to the role Keaton played to bring both characters (Bruce and Batman) into that universe and make it the film it became.

I disagree that the comparison is pointless because they're different. In fact, I feel the opposite. Half the fun of having so many diverse incarnations of a character like Batman is comparing them.
Hell, you just made a comparison between the two yourself there.

 

[elgaz]

I think it's pointless comparing Bales Bruce To Keatons, they are a completley different take on the character and how he goes about "justice." In Keatons he's a more violent explosive character, whereas Bales is a more methodical controlled character.

I think the point we have to remember is Nolan and Bale got to tell the Bruce and Batman origin story and then the Joker Story over two movies. But Burton and Keaton did that in the space of one film. That could be argued as a bad thing, but I think that is testement to the role Keaton played to bring both characters (Bruce and Batman) into that universe and make it the film it became.

You have 2 takes on the same character, with 2 different actors performing them. How could you not compare them?

The fact they're vastly different in execution isn't really relevant. Ultimately, each one attempts to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in a certain way, and will do so with varying degrees of success. And that's why it's fun to compare them - to see which had most resonance with the viewers.

I love both films and will always hold a candle for Batman 89, having gone to see it in the cinema on release with my dad. But I agree with Thefuture above - I never really got to 'know' Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He played the character as the strong silent type, and asides from Napier's involvement in the death of his parents, there wasn't much backstory to the character. Where did he learn his skills? Why does he keep doing it after Napier/Joker is dead? What was his ultimate goal as Batman? We sometimes get a sense of the rage and pyschosis inside him, but by and large Keaton keeps the performance toned down. There's nothing wrong with this approach - it suits Burton's gothic, stylistic film and adds a bigger air of mystery to this version of Batman. And of course, we have to bear in mind in 1989, audiences were still engulfed in the era of 80s action flicks. It was nothing strange then to have a male protragonist who simply did their job, and didn't dwell much on feelings and self doubt.

But on a personal level, I prefer Bale's version. His Bruce Wayne is engaging, more given to discussion and to sharing his thoughts with Alfred. Nolan gives us a story that explains how and why he became Batman, and offers forth a Bruce Wayne who isn't just a guy coasting along with this double-life - one who's prone to self-doubt. Hes a Bruce Wayne who's created this monster with an initial vigour and determination, but after seeing the consequences of being Batman, isn't sure if this is the life he wants. I feel Bale's version lets us see behind Batman's mask a little more, and in doing so, deepens our connection with the character. And I feel that Bale plays the roles perfectly : charismatic and suave as the public Wayne, introspective and determined as the private Wayne ............ and of course, agile, muscular and more than credible as Batman. Again this is more suitable for the demands of the modern audience, who are more prone to building emotional connections with characters and asking 'Why?', rather than just accepting what is presented to them on screen.

 

[Godzilla2014]

You have 2 takes on the same character, with 2 different actors performing them. How could you not compare them?

The fact they're vastly different in execution isn't really relevant. Ultimately, each one attempts to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in a certain way, and will do so with varying degrees of success. And that's why it's fun to compare them - to see which had most resonance with the viewers.

I love both films and will always hold a candle for Batman 89, having gone to see it in the cinema on release with my dad. But I agree with Thefuture above - I never really got to 'know' Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He played the character as the strong silent type, and asides from Napier's involvement in the death of his parents, there wasn't much backstory to the character. Where did he learn his skills? Why does he keep doing it after Napier/Joker is dead? What was his ultimate goal as Batman? We sometimes get a sense of the rage and pyschosis inside him, but by and large Keaton keeps the performance toned down. There's nothing wrong with this approach - it suits Burton's gothic, stylistic film and adds a bigger air of mystery to this version of Batman. And of course, we have to bear in mind in 1989, audiences were still engulfed in the era of 80s action flicks. It was nothing strange then to have a male protragonist who simply acted, and didn't dwell much on feelings and self doubt.

But on a personal level, I prefer Bale's version. His Bruce Wayne is engaging, more given to discussion and to sharing his thoughts with Alfred. Nolan gives us a story that explains how and why he became Batman, and offers forth a Bruce Wayne who isn't just a guy coasting along with this double-life - one who's prone to self-doubt. Hes a Bruce Wayne who's created this monster with an initial vigour and determination, but after seeing the consequences of being Batman, isn't sure if this is the life he wants. I feel Bale's version lets us see behind Batman's mask a little more, and in doing so, deepens our connection with the character. And I feel that Bale plays the roles perfectly : charismatic and suave as the public Wayne, introspective and determined as the private Wayne ............ and of course, agile, muscular and more than credible as Batman. Again this is more suitable for the demands of the modern audience, who are more prone to building emotional connections with characters and asking 'Why?', rather than just accepting what is presented to them on screen.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Who cares about older movies, get with the times. In Nolan we trust. Stop living in the past, hes the only one who did real batman movies

 

[Mister Meddle]

Out with the old and in with the new..... BROTHER~!!!

 

[uniqueweasel]

You have 2 takes on the same character, with 2 different actors performing them. How could you not compare them?

The fact they're vastly different in execution isn't really relevant. Ultimately, each one attempts to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in a certain way, and will do so with varying degrees of success. And that's why it's fun to compare them - to see which had most resonance with the viewers.

I love both films and will always hold a candle for Batman 89, having gone to see it in the cinema on release with my dad. But I agree with Thefuture above - I never really got to 'know' Keaton's Bruce Wayne. He played the character as the strong silent type, and asides from Napier's involvement in the death of his parents, there wasn't much backstory to the character. Where did he learn his skills? Why does he keep doing it after Napier/Joker is dead? What was his ultimate goal as Batman? We sometimes get a sense of the rage and pyschosis inside him, but by and large Keaton keeps the performance toned down. There's nothing wrong with this approach - it suits Burton's gothic, stylistic film and adds a bigger air of mystery to this version of Batman. And of course, we have to bear in mind in 1989, audiences were still engulfed in the era of 80s action flicks. It was nothing strange then to have a male protragonist who simply did their job, and didn't dwell much on feelings and self doubt.

But on a personal level, I prefer Bale's version. His Bruce Wayne is engaging, more given to discussion and to sharing his thoughts with Alfred. Nolan gives us a story that explains how and why he became Batman, and offers forth a Bruce Wayne who isn't just a guy coasting along with this double-life - one who's prone to self-doubt. Hes a Bruce Wayne who's created this monster with an initial vigour and determination, but after seeing the consequences of being Batman, isn't sure if this is the life he wants. I feel Bale's version lets us see behind Batman's mask a little more, and in doing so, deepens our connection with the character. And I feel that Bale plays the roles perfectly : charismatic and suave as the public Wayne, introspective and determined as the private Wayne ............ and of course, agile, muscular and more than credible as Batman. Again this is more suitable for the demands of the modern audience, who are more prone to building emotional connections with characters and asking 'Why?', rather than just accepting what is presented to them on screen.

I didn't say you couldn't compare them, I was saying it was pointless. As the question in the thread asks if Michael Keaton is overrated.

And you seem to of missed my point that Nolan and Bale got to tell their Batman origin and Joker arc in two movies. Bearing in mind in 1989 a film of this type was fairly new territory and it's story was told in one film.

I'm the first one to admit that 1989 Batman is full of flaws in the story and character development. Also ignoring the nostalgia that sometimes comes in with these films. You have to look at the fact Keaton really did a good job of his role as Batman, using comic book reference material, and putting a whole new take on Batman that had never been seen before in live action. That to me was a massive leap of faith as an actor, aswell of all the hate that he received on the announcment that he was to play Bats.

I love Nolans/Bales Batman but like I said it's pointless comparing because this is about Keaton being overrated, and for the reasons above i'd say no way is he overrated, it's just the film has aged.

 

[uniqueweasel]

 

[elgaz]

I didn't say you couldn't compare them, I was saying it was pointless. As the question in the thread asks if Michael Keaton is overrated.

And you seem to of missed my point that Nolan and Bale got to tell their Batman origin and Joker arc in two movies. Bearing in mind in 1989 a film of this type was fairly new territory and it's story was told in one film.

I'm the first one to admit that 1989 Batman is full of flaws in the story and character development. Also ignoring the nostalgia that sometimes comes in with these films. You have to look at the fact Keaton really did a good job of his role as Batman, using comic book reference material, and putting a whole new take on Batman that had never been seen before in live action. That to me was a massive leap of faith as an actor, aswell of all the hate that he received on the announcment that he was to play Bats.

I love Nolans/Bales Batman but like I said it's pointless comparing because this is about Keaton being overrated, and for the reasons above i'd say no way is he overrated, it's just the film has aged.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see I never said he was overrated or put in a bad performance. I love Batman 89, and up until Nolan/Bale came along, I felt Keaton was still my #1 Batman. But the film is very much a product of it's time, and nowadays I don't feel his portrayal matches Bale's. Regardless of any contemporary influences, or story arc, I simple feel that Bale plays a more convincing Bruce Wayne than Keaton did.

In retrospect, Keaton's Bruce Wayne was a bit too brooding. I don't think he separated the Batman/Wayne personalities as well as Bale does.

 

[uniqueweasel]

And if you read my post you will see I was answering the question on the thread "Is Keaton Overrated" I never stated that you said he was overrated.

And your basically in the same opinion as me that Nolan and Bale have improved Batman and the 1989 one has simply aged, like most films. But I dont think that can excuse just writing Keaton off.

And again im referring to the thread question not individual posts.

 

[Ponyboy]

Who cares about older movies, get with the times. In Nolan we trust. Stop living in the past, hes the only one who did real batman movies

I think you just made Jesus facepalm.

 

[Two-Face]

Edit

 

[babbage]

His Bruce isn't particularly the characterization I enjoy for the character. But even after all these years, I believe Keaton still did a fantastic job with it.

 

[Hypestyle]

His Bruce isn't particularly the characterization I enjoy for the character. But even after all these years, I believe Keaton still did a fantastic job with it.

he did the best with the material he had, with the director he had.. part 1 was awesome and a seminal event.. part 2 blew it with the story for me, but I digress..

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I think I'm now comfortable saying Keaton did better with his Batman than Bale does with his, but I still prefer Bale because he's closer to what I ultimately view and prefer Batman as being. It's also a matter of presentation as Nolan makes Batman look like a hero while Burton doesn't. Aside from the finale of the first one, there isn't any moment in the Burton films where I see traditional heroism from Batman, especially in Batman Returns.

 

[Macphisto]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3s2ESzHwY

Also: http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-87-percent-of-movies-would-be-better-with-mi,19268/

 

[GothamAlleys]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3s2ESzHwY

Also: http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-87-percent-of-movies-would-be-better-with-mi,19268/

true! Keaton is one of my favorite actors, theres something he brings to all of his roles and hes indeed extremely versatile. He can play Beetlejuice in comedies, he can play haunted alcoholic in dramas, cop, dying father, Batman - its amazing

 

[Cain]

I can't wait to see him reprise Beetlejuice because:

1) I think a Keaton/Burton reunion is long overdue

and

2) The reason Beetlejuice is so damn good a movie is because of the freedom it awarded Keaton and Burton to have. It was packed with a great whimsical concept & Burton really could run wild as it's completely original.

So I could see the both of them conceptualize something worth seeing with that type of freedom again. Burton needs it especially cause he's in that "phone in" stage of a veteran director's career and could benefit from going back to his roots to rediscover the essence. That's why I'm happy he's reworking Frankenweenie too. It's like Ridley Scott with everything before Prometheus and then going back to his roots.

But yeah more Keaton/Burton collabos can't hurt anybody and will be awfully welcome; If only they'd make a 3rd Batman as well while they're at it to give that series proper closure.