Out of curiosity, is there anyone around here who disliked Michael Keaton's Batman?

[El Payaso]

I can't believe I make a joke and Keaton-haters try to find the logic on that with furious anger.

These guys logic goes this way:

A majority going to see a movie like B89 doesn't prove a thing.
A majority (according to them, with no links or any other way to corroborate except for their posts) hating Keaton is proof enough that he was bad.

Any Keatonite can quote me *wink*

 

[batmaluco]

I can't believe I make a joke and Keaton-haters try to find the logic on that with furious anger.

These guys logic goes this way:

A majority going to see a movie like B89 doesn't prove a thing.
A majority (according to them, with no links or any other way to corroborate except for their posts) hating Keaton is proof enough that he was bad.

lol
Another brilliant example of their "logic": your joke about thousands post trolling (your title) is the living proof that you're a Troll.
hahaha
But they're good in to ignore.

 

[mister Lennon]

Ok, pro Keatons, here are the proofs and the links that you wanted. But please, stop with the lies and stop staying that the keaton haters are a minority when is TOTALLY FALSE. First of all, IMDB is the best site about cinema on the net with the most complete and extensive database about cinema in all the net.

On IMDB: Batman begins is ranked with an 8'4 of 10. Ranked number 81 in the top 250 of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/

Batman 89: ranked with an 7'4 of 10. Not appearance in the top 250 of all time. 1 point of difference with begins.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/

Batman returns: Ranked with an 6,6 of 10. Not appearance in the top 250 of all time. 1'8 points of difference with Begins.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/

Mmmm, that its intesting. Difference of 1 points and 1'8 points. Not apparitions in the top 250 of all time. I think that isnt a siginal of a good movie.

Lets see some of the reviews there and the links:

An interesting review comparing batman 89 with begins:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/nest/37358147

Note all the bad reviews and critics against batman 89 and curiously, none of them are londog, whiterat or mister lennon.

Another bad review against the burton movies and praises about begins, and comparing the films:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/thread/45130128

Or comparing Keaton with Bale:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/thread/45123597


Some bad critics against returns:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/43911312

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/40138127

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/44132898

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/43680476

Just another thing, batman returns got some razzies nominations, included danny de vito for his awful peformance of the freak, sorry, of the penguin. wonder how such a great quality film is nominated for the razzies, the awards about the worst films every year.

And i posted only some of the bad reviews against those movies. And remember, the IMDB is considered the best web about cinema on internet, and the best database about cinema on internet.

And none of those people are whiterat, longodg or myself. I guess that there are more than three burton and keaton haters around there.

 

[mister Lennon]

And those are only some of the hundred of bad and fierce reviews against the burton films on imdb. If i would post all of them it took to me two or three days at least. But if people like the payaso or doc ock want to still telling lies and saying that the haters of those movies are a little minority, its their problem, but far from the reality.

 

[The Joker]

Ok, pro Keatons, here are the proofs and the links that you wanted. But please, stop with the lies and stop staying that the keaton haters are a minority when is TOTALLY FALSE.

You are in the minority, which I shall prove in a minute.

First of all, IMDB is the best site about cinema on the net with the most complete and extensive database about cinema in all the net.

IMDB is the WORST site out there, not only for having the worst people posting there, but for making up idiotic BS about movies and movie scoops etc.

And if you doubt that, we can make a thread about it and ask everyone on the Hype.

Just recently for example, they had Aunt May listed as Carnage in Spider-Man 3 for weeks LMAO! Carnage isn't even in the movie.

On IMDB: Batman begins is ranked with an 8'4 of 10. Ranked number 81 in the top 250 of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/

Batman 89: ranked with an 7'4 of 10. Not appearance in the top 250 of all time. 1 point of difference with begins.

Wow a one point difference.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/

Batman returns: Ranked with an 6,6 of 10. Not appearance in the top 250 of all time. 1'8 points of difference with Begins.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/

Mmmm, that its intesting. Difference of 1 points and 1'8 points. Not apparitions in the top 250 of all time. I think that isnt a siginal of a good movie.

Show me this top 250 list, because I bet there's tons of great movies not on it. And a 1'8 points difference is tiny.

Btw I see Returns was nominated for 2 Oscars. Another 2 wins & 11 nominations,and Batman 89 won an oscar.I didn't know that.

Lets see some of the reviews there and the links:

An interesting review comparing batman 89 with begins:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/nest/37358147

Note all the bad reviews and critics against batman 89 and curiously, none of them are londog, whiterat or mister lennon.

Another bad review against the burton movies and praises about begins, and comparing the films:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/thread/45130128

Or comparing Keaton with Bale:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/thread/45123597


Some bad critics against returns:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/43911312

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/40138127

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/44132898

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103776/board/thread/43680476

Can't read any of them. You'll have to copy and paste them.

Just another thing, batman returns got some razzies nominations, included danny de vito for his awful peformance of the freak, sorry, of the penguin. wonder how such a great quality film is nominated for the razzies, the awards about the worst films every year.

Links to prove this??

And i posted only some of the bad reviews against those movies. And remember, the IMDB is considered the best web about cinema on internet, and the best database about cinema on internet.

LOL! No it's not. And again we can go and prove this if you like.

Now to show you how much in the minority you are:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._1_1/104-1212737-6213504?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130 255 reviews, with an average rating of 4 out of 5 stars

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._1_8/104-1212737-6213504?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130 370 reviews with another 4 out of 5 star average rating.

Some Hollywood.com reviews now:

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/184231 3 and a half out of 4 stars for Batman Returns, and they show Rotten Tomatoes ratings too.

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/162009 Another 3 and a half out of 4 stars for Batman 89

And now for a few critic reviews:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/batmanreturnspg13howe_a07fbb.htm

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/empo...3a7da67cce31960a882567bd00028331?OpenDocument

http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=221 200 ratings on this one, with an average of 4 and a half out of 5 stars.

Now I can provide lots more sites with many positive reviews if you wish.

 

[mister Lennon]

You are in the minority, which I shall prove in a minute.

Lieing again and again, DUDE, THATS ITS ONLY YOUR OPINION.NOT THE REAL THING. to show that your opinion is the reality, is just stupid and nonsense.

IMDB is the WORST site out there, not only for having the worst people posting there, but for making up idiotic BS about movies and movie scoops etc.
False, false and false. IMDB is one of the best sites in internet about cinema, if not the best. They have their mistakes, ok, but what internet page doesnt have theirs mistakes?

And if you doubt that, we can make a thread about it and ask everyone on the Hype.
Ok, do it when you want, because that its false. IMDB is listed in all the sites as one of the best movie sites and data bases on the net, if not the best one.
Just recently for example, they had Aunt May listed as Carnage in Spider-Man 3 for weeks LMAO! Carnage isn't even in the movie.

One of the mistakes that i was refering before. Perfection doesnt exist.



Wow a one point difference.
That is a list of 10 points, one point means too much in that list. Also, Did you coment on the not apparition of batman 89 in the top 250.?


Show me this top 250 list, because I bet there's tons of great movies not on it. And a 1'8 points difference is tiny.

I repeat, on a list of 10 points, 1 points or 1'8 points means something bigger than normally does. And here is the top 250:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

As you can see , there are movies like the godfather, the godfather part two, the shanwsack redemption, lord of the rings, casablanca, citizen kane, shindler list, star wars, someone flew over the cuckoo nest, rear window, usual suspects, pshycho, goodfelas,etc. A great list of great movies. And a very largue list, 250. Batman begins is number 81, batman and batman returns arent in the list. I think that its a signal of something.





Btw I see Returns was nominated for 2 Oscars. Another 2 wins & 11 nominations,and Batman 89 won an oscar.I didn't know that.

Yes, and returns was nominated for the razzies too. And batman begins has an oscar nomination , also 4 wins and 30 nominations more.



Can't read any of them. You'll have to copy and paste them.

Strange because i see them. Someone more have the same problem? Sorry, but they are too long to copy and past here. Could someone more read the links and confirms that they are true?





Links to prove this??
Here is:

http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=342&PN=1


LOL! No it's not. And again we can go and prove this if you like.

Now to show you how much in the minority you are:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._1_1/104-1212737-6213504?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130 255 reviews, with an average rating of 4 out of 5 stars

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._1_8/104-1212737-6213504?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130 370 reviews with another 4 out of 5 star average rating.

Some Hollywood.com reviews now:

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/184231 3 and a half out of 4 stars for Batman Returns, and they show Rotten Tomatoes ratings too.

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/162009 Another 3 and a half out of 4 stars for Batman 89

And now for a few critic reviews:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/batmanreturnspg13howe_a07fbb.htm

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/empo...3a7da67cce31960a882567bd00028331?OpenDocument

http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=221 200 ratings on this one, with an average of 4 and a half out of 5 stars.

Now I can provide lots more sites with many positive reviews if you wish.

And i can provide you more sites with bad reviews if you wish. I never denied the existence of pro keatons and good reviews about those movies, what i deny with all my force is the supposed minority that you are claimed all the time. I afirm, once again, that threre are at least so many keaton and burton haters than pro keaton and burtons.

 

[El Payaso]

First of all, IMDB is the best site about cinema on the net

This statement alone explains so much about this guy's taste.

Yeah, and Supergirl was the best of Superman movies.

 

[The Joker]

Agh what way did you reply to me?? Most of it is all jumbled in one big quote.

Ok, the top 250 list. This is based on the IMDB user ratings right?? Well that's called an opinion. Look here, Time Magazine did the top 100 movies of all time, and not a sign of a Batman movie, not even Batman Begins. Does this make them wrong, or is only IMDB's ratings solid?? http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html

Same here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0760906.html

I can't find any top 250 lists. Seems IMDB is the only one that has one.

Now the Razzie link, where is Batman Returns nominated?? I only see DeVito nominated for Penguin. But maybe Katie Holmes gave a better performance??

And i can provide you more sites with bad reviews if you wish.

Go for it.

I never denied the existence of pro keatons and good reviews about those movies, what i deny with all my force is the supposed minority that you are claimed all the time. I afirm, once again, that threre are at least so many keaton and burton haters than pro keaton and burtons.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. But show me more of these sites with bad reviews please.

 

[mister Lennon]

Here are some more bad reviews and critics against burton films:

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/b/batman.html
A bad rewiew against batman 89, by James Beradinelli from ReelViews.

http://www.screenit.com/movies/1989/batman.html
From screen it, giving a 6 over 10 and critizing keaton and posting that the movie was so-so.

http://claytonandtheresa.users.btopenworld.com/Batman.html
Another bad review against the first Burton movie. Note the critizm against Keaton.

http://clcole.people.wm.edu/batman.html
From apreciating great trash. Hard review against the 89 film.

http://decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2616
From Steven Graynus, from Decent films. Another great review against the burton film and his poor script and characters take.

http://qwipster.net/batman.htm
Another so-so review

http://www.7mpictures.com/inside/reviews/batmandvd_review.htm
Another bad review.

 

[mister Lennon]

Agh what way did you reply to me?? Most of it is all jumbled in one big quote.

Ok, the top 250 list. This is based on the IMDB user ratings right?? Well that's called an opinion. Look here, Time Magazine did the top 100 movies of all time, and not a sign of a Batman movie, not even Batman Begins. Does this make them wrong, or is only IMDB's ratings solid?? http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html

Same here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0760906.html

I can't find any top 250 lists. Seems IMDB is the only one that has one.

The number doesnt matter. And about the another lists, well, some movies are in all the lists, some others not. Batman begins is one of those lists. The others not.

Now the Razzie link, where is Batman Returns nominated?? I only see DeVito nominated for Penguin. But maybe Katie Holmes gave a better performance??
Yeah, but devito was nominated. I didnt deny that kathy holmes was nominated too. She was the worst part in begins.



Go for it.
See my last post.


We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. But show me more of these sites with bad reviews please.

Again, see my last post.

 

[WhiteRat]

YAWN.



Noone was taken to school, please get over yourself. I have been reading this thread chuckling at both sides of the argument. Personally, i love the Burton movies and Keaton. I know that there are people who dont like those particular movies, however, those are the same poeple who dont like any of the 4 original flicks. I do know of some, who only like Forever, but they dont "hate" the Burton movies. This includes people ive met personally and people ive talked to on the net. I will agree with the statements that the "haters" are a smaller group than the fans of the Burton movies. Bringing up actual percentages and numbers is a pretty desperate measure when discussing a pretty lame subject like this over the internet. I personally dont care what any of you think of these movies, love em or hate em, and ill bet any one of you could care less about others opinions as well. I like what i like and there isnt one of you who is going to change my mind on it, and the same goes with all of you. I do agree bringing up personal stories of the hating means *****. I could tell you just as many about people who loved it. Its all heresay. Written articles about Burton haters? I have just as many in the opposite direction, probably more. Internet reviews? Please. There are some that review B&R as the best of the original 4. Internet reviews mean nothing. As with any movie, there are people who like and people who dislike. So, whats the main debate here? There are "thousands" of haters? Well, there are "thousands" of "lovers". And as ive said, for you guys talking of relatives and friends who hated Burton and Keaton and have for years, i have the same but with them loving it. Bringing up different regions? I have relatives in Florida who back up my stories, same goes for California. Does that mean there arent people who disliked it? No. However i can say that, as i said before, based on this, and based on the overall 89 mania (which did have an effect on peoples love/hate decision) the "haters" are the smaller group. I do believe this was established, so why all the debate over this?

Okay good points.but as Mister Lennon just so brillintly pointed out in his posts though there really isnt any proof that the Burton haters are in the minority though.Like he said,none of those people he pointed out in those links are me,mister lennon, or Long Dong.Those are incredible numbers of people that have wrath for the Burton movies.See unlike Payaso or Doc Ock,I can respect your posts and enjoy talking with you about this even though we dont see eye to eye on each other about things such as this topic or the 9-11 travesty because YOUR posts contain rational well thought out posts unlike theirs do.I wish you could get them to use more logic and rational in their posts like you do.You bring good points and I like discussing things such as this with you and the 9-11 travesty discussion we had and btw,good post you made on my 9-11 travesty thread we had in the community section about LBJ. Oh and Im sorry that we got off on the wrong foot a little bit on our Bush /Clinton discussion.But you should contact this author named Terry Reed though- I say contact him because his book is a confusing read to read through,it wasnt written vert well or in a very good format,but he was a CIA operative and knew Clinton and Bush so he wrote that book COMPROMISED.Clinton Bush and the CIA.How the presidency was co -opted by The CIA.He discusses evidence he has that Bush and Clinton indeed have been long time buddies.He only wrote that book to help pay for a trial he had against arkansas police officers Clinton sent out to try and kill him since he knew so much about The drug smuggling Clinton was involved in in arkansas.The major media did not talk about this though,the only media that did touch it was For The People Radio show.well enough of that,were in the Batman section,but feel free to pm me if you would like to talk about that though. as you can see,I do find that a topic MUCH more important than how Burton screwed up the batman movies with his nightmarish choice of Keaton as batman. LOL peace out bro.

 

[The Joker]

Here are some more bad reviews and critics against burton films:

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/b/batman.html
A bad rewiew against batman 89, by James Beradinelli from ReelViews.

http://claytonandtheresa.users.btopenworld.com/Batman.html
Another bad review against the first Burton movie. Note the critizm against Keaton.

http://clcole.people.wm.edu/batman.html
From apreciating great trash. Hard review against the 89 film.

http://decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2616
From Steven Graynus, from Decent films. Another great review against the burton film and his poor script and characters take.

http://www.7mpictures.com/inside/reviews/batmandvd_review.htm
Another bad review.

Ok, first let me thank you for offering a proper civilized debate, and not trying to offer friend stories to support you arguements.Now onto the business at hand....

I'm going to exclude these two reviews you posted: http://qwipster.net/batman.htm http://www.screenit.com/movies/1989/batman.html because they are average reviews. Not good or bad ones.

Now let me offer more positive reviews:

Batman Returns reviews:

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/80/2280/review973.php

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/film.nsf/reviews/batmanreturns

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.reviews/msg/af3d9b59ca4eb16d

http://www.movie-gazette.com/cinereviews/506

http://search.reviews.ebay.com/Batm...91694QQucptZ1QQupvrZ4QQuvidZ10000000000357525

http://www.bullz-eye.com/mguide/reviews_1992/batman_returns.htm

Batman 1989:

http://www.moria.co.nz/fantasy/batman89.htm

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/reviews/batman.htm

Loads of positive user reviews on Yahoo: http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/drv?mid=1800340927

http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=1174 126 reviews on this one, with an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars.

http://movies.go.com/readerreviews/movie?movieId=825029&page=1 6 pages of positive reviews here.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/review.php?varRevID=391 12 ratings here, with an average grade of A-

http://movie-gurus.com/content/reviews/b/1020/index.html

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/vhs-title-ba-bi/batman/reviews/ 13 positive reviews here


Now I can show more again if you so wish. I'd also like to note that on several of my links I have shown MULTIPLE positive reviews by many people, while all 6 of yours, except for IMDB, shows a single review from one person.

I stand by what I've been saying, the haters are a minority to the people who like Burton's movies.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Okay good points.but as Mister Lennon just so brillintly pointed out in his posts though there really isnt any proof that the Burton haters are in the minority though.Like he said,none of those people he pointed out in those links are me,mister lennon, or Long Dong.Those are incredible numbers of people that have wrath for the Burton movies.See unlike Payaso or Doc Ock,I can respect your posts and enjoy talking with you about this even though we dont see eye to eye on each other about things such as this topic or the 9-11 travesty because YOUR posts contain rational well thought out posts unlike theirs do.I wish you could get them to use more logic and rational in their posts like you do.You bring good points and I like discussing things such as this with you and the 9-11 travesty discussion we had and btw,good post you made on my 9-11 travesty thread we had in the community section about LBJ. Oh and Im sorry that we got off on the wrong foot a little bit on our Bush /Clinton discussion.But you should contact this author named Terry Reed though- I say contact him because his book is a confusing read to read through,it wasnt written vert well or in a very good format,but he was a CIA operative and knew Clinton and Bush so he wrote that book COMPROMISED.Clinton Bush and the CIA.How the presidency was co -opted by The CIA.He discusses evidence he has that Bush and Clinton indeed have been long time buddies.He only wrote that book to help pay for a trial he had against arkansas police officers Clinton sent out to try and kill him since he knew so much about The drug smuggling Clinton was involved in in arkansas.The major media did not talk about this though,the only media that did touch it was For The People Radio show.well enough of that,were in the Batman section,but feel free to pm me if you would like to talk about that though. as you can see,I do find that a topic MUCH more important than how Burton screwed up the batman movies with his nightmarish choice of Keaton as batman. LOL peace out bro.

Well, it seems like some are taking this all so personal. Im not going to lose sleep or cry in bed because some poeple dislike Burton/Keaton. C'mon. Like i said, i love them. I experienced something awesome in 1989 and no one can ever take that away. I turned 16 when that movie opened, you could say it was my "coming of age" movie.lol. It, the whole Batmania, took my love of Batman to another level, Id relive that summer in a heartbeat.

Oh, and i think youre confusing me with someone else, because i have no idea what your talking about with the presidential stuff.lol.

 

[Bat Attack]

 

[El Payaso]

Let's make a simple sylogism taking two of the 3 Keaton-haters core affirmations as if they were real and then reaching a basic conclusion out of them.

1.- According to Keaton's haters, a majority's taste on something doesn't mean a proof about how good/bad it is. (eg: Batman 89 b.o.)
2.- According to Keaton haters, a majority dislikes Burton and Keaton
3.- THEREFORE, according to Keaton's haters, a majority disliking Keaton and Burton doesn't mean a proof that Burton and Keaton are bad.

Yes, according to them and their logics, not mine.

Nevertheless, they say the opposite. Once again, they use majority's tastes to corroborate their own opinions and then they use the same against other people's opinions.

Pretty... stupid.

 

[the_joker]

Keaton's Batman was awesome. Deal with it Keaton haters. Either you were too young when you watched the Batman movie or you obviously have no taste. Get over it.

 

[El Payaso]

Either you were too young when you watched the Batman movie or you obviously have no taste.

Could it be both.

Get over it.

If so, they wouldn't be posting at all in these boards man.

 

[batmaluco]

Let's make a simple sylogism taking two of the 3 Keaton-haters core affirmations as if they were real and then reaching a basic conclusion out of them.

1.- According to Keaton's haters, a majority's taste on something doesn't mean a proof about how good/bad it is. (eg: Batman 89 b.o.)
2.- According to Keaton haters, a majority dislikes Burton and Keaton
3.- THEREFORE, according to Keaton's haters, a majority disliking Keaton and Burton doesn't mean a proof that Burton and Keaton are bad.

Yes, according to them and their logics, not mine.

Nevertheless, they say the opposite. Once again, they use majority's tastes to corroborate their own opinions and then they use the same against other people's opinions.

Hence...

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Keaton's Batman was awesome.

Damn right !

 

[atomicbattery]

I think that, if you were a Batman fan before the movie opened in 1989, one of the most offensive things about Michael Keaton was how he acted as if playing the role was beneath him, that he never would have considered it if it had not been for Tim Burton.

-In the January 23, 1989 Newsweek ('Return to Gotham City', p.68) Keaton said "'I read the script out of politeness'... It's clear that Keaton, Burton... are working hard to subvert the traditional concept of the basic story." (You can say that again.)

-In the July 1989 issue of Premiere ('Batguy", p.50): "When he was first offered the role, he was unenthusiastic... When Burton called about Batman, Keaton hesitated again. 'I don't know the comic book, the television series, none of that. Never cared about any of it,' he says... Still, out of curiosity and as a favor to Burton, who had directed him in 'Beetlejuice', Keaton read the script."

-In the June 29, 1989 Rolling Stone ('Batman- Can Michael Keaton Fill the Cape?', p.44) Keaton said "When Tim first came to me with the script, I read it out of politeness."

He went out of his way to emphasize this in interview after interview.
This is the man who played Johnny Dangerously.
Playing one of the handful of great popular culture icons of the 20th century, however, held no interest for him.

If you call yourself a Batman fan, and you read the disdain in those comments, I think you have to ask yourself: Are you really a Batman fan?

 

[The Joker]

So he isn't a comic book fan, big deal. Of course he's going to be hesitant of accepting the role or even reading the script if he has no keen interest in comics.

Frankly I don't care how an actor feels about the comics or the role, as long as they deliver a good performance. And Michael Keaton did, twice over.

And that doesn't make me any less a Batman fan.

 

[The Chairman]

So he isn't a comic book fan, big deal. Of course he's going to be hesitant of accepting the role or even reading the script if he has no keen interest in comics.

Frankly I don't care how an actor feels about the comics or the role, as long as they deliver a good performance. And Michael Keaton did, twice over.

And that doesn't make me any less a Batman fan.

Exactly. Singer wasn't exactly an X-Men fan, and yet he pulled it off.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

C'mon, atomic....that's pretty unfair. I mean, who the **** wouldn't be unenthusiastic with the role after watching Adam West do his thing. Although....Keaton doing a funny Batman makes more sense then I'd like to admit.

Basically.....Batman wasn't cool, the way I see it. So, I don't think it's fair to hate on Keaton for not being interested in the character before he read the script.

To be fair here, Christian Bale......who's ontop of the comic book fandom world, wasn't all that interested in the character either before. He got interested in the role, and the character, AFTER he had heard who was directing......and now he's a fan.

It's really really really easy to not take the character seriously based on some of the crap that's been out there....

I like Keaton, he did good.......I personally just think Bale is the best.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Singer wasn't an X-MEN fan....?

Are you sure? I mean.....I don't know if he's read any comics......I know he has read any Superman comics.....but he's a fan of the characters.......I mean, he'd have to be if he ever got interested in making a film of it. Same with Burton, he was a fan of the character and the potential of the character....just didn't read the books.

 

[atomicbattery]

Basically.....Batman wasn't cool, the way I see it. So, I don't think it's fair to hate on Keaton for not being interested in the character before he read the script.

And Batman was most decidedly uncool after 'Batman and Robin'. Yet Bale unashamedly said that he desperately wanted the role and that it was an honor to play it.

I would also dispute the notion that Batman was un-cool in 1988. This was after 'The Dark Knight Returns' and 'Batman: Year One', both of which received massive mainstream media attention (I still have my Rolling Stone, New York Times and Time magazines with feature articles on them).