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

[SHADOWBAT69]

Something i think that alot of people are missing here is Batman 1989 was the first live incarnation since the 60's West series. They wanted to get as far away from that idea as possible, they wanted something that went the other direction. Dark, gritty, gothic, thus Tim Burton and his unique vision. As far as the casting of Keaton, it was Tim who ultimately convinced WB to have him play the character. If you look at some of the other choices that were being thrown around at the time, it could have been much worse. This movie clicked. As said by Peter Guber, "it was of its time". I remember 1988 and 1989 like it was yesterday, yeh there was the controversy about casting, but after the movie was released, most of all that quickly went away. And it stayed away until Nolan brought us Begins. Now this new generation of bat fans, who most of which werent born yet or was too young to experience Batman 1989, feel that nothing touches this latest incarnation. Its the same type of thing that happened with 89 when it was being compared to the campy 60's. Those guys were defending West as alot of us are keaton. No one is wrong. Why? Because like Guber said, "its of its time". 20 years from now youll have a new generation of batfans dissing Bale saying his performance lacked, because there will be yet another screen incarnation that they feel is right. Every actor that has put on a bat costume can be debated, not one of them got everything "right", even Bale.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Come on don't be an ass, this is a place where people are debating and expressing opinions, not a thread like the video game ones where scumbags throw insults at each other. Don't try to stir **** up man, if that is your game just go away and let the debate continue.

You call this a debate? It's going nowhere because each side is sticking to their opinions like glue. Not to mention the flaming going on, at least several pages back.

 

[The Kid]

Second of all, for me , the ian mackellen example is totally wrong because his sexuality doesnt matter, his phsichal yes. And he looked like magneto , he is little older as magneto is, but he looked the part much more than keaton did.

That's what I'm getting at with the example. The gayness was just to further, I don't know, show how non-masculine his real life self was compared to who he is in the movies thanks to the magic of good acting that brought the character's personality to life. The magneto I remember is ripped, and not so wrinkley but none of that really mattered because he played it so well and looked close enough to the part. . It was the same with keaton for me.

 

[El Payaso]

Second of all, for me , the ian mackellen example is totally wrong because his sexuality doesnt matter, his phsichal yes. And he looked like magneto , he is little older as magneto is, but he looked the part much more than keaton did.

Why exactly the sexuality is not important and the height it is? Lecture us. Because from here it seems that both aspects are the same in terms of being totally unrelated to a movie quality and the character acting and development.

Ian mcKellen looked like Magneto?

Yeah right. The shoulders specially.

OH. You said 'looked much more'.

So there's a point where you can nopt look like the part and it's still Ok and another point where is totally wrong. Please show us where that point exactly is. I mean, since this is your own personal invention.

Third and about the main issue of the thread, for me, to say that Keaton and Burton wanted to do his own thing and version of batman isnt valid. For me, and for a lot of fans batman and bruce wayne should be tall and athletich and handsome, and if they dont bring me that, that character isnt batman or isnt bruce wayne. I dont want to see a tim burton version of batman and a michael keaton playing batman, i want to see batman on screen and batman himself. That was what nolan did and christian bale did, not burton and keaton.

Yes.

And change Michael Caine, because Alfred is bald, black-haired and have a tiny moustache. No baldness, No alfred. Your rules.

It seems these damn directors can do their own visions and not asking you a thing about it first.

Out of curiosity where are you from dude? WHat other languages do you speak?

For a starter, I don't speak english, go figure. Typos are my treat though.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Call me crazy......but didn't Magneto get younger through some giant story arc in X-Men comics?

He WAS old......but I think Marvel realized they couldn't conceivbly keep Magneto a threat, if he was sooo old......so I think there was a story arc where they had him get younger, ala Ra's al Ghul.

That's one of the reasons I heard that they were going to do the same in the X-Men franchise and get a younger Magneto.

I'll look some stuff up and see.....I'll get back to you guys on that.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

All right, I learned that Magneto is indeed a Holocaust survior in the comics, like in the movies.

He was old, but in a story arc concerning gentic tampering....trying to erase his "EVIL" genes.....he had his youth restored by an alien Shi'ar agent Davan Shakari, who normally goes by the code-name "Erik the Red".

So...that's why he's not old in the comics....

 

[El Payaso]

*still waiting for your point*

 

[LongDong]

Why exactly the sexuality is not important and the height it is? Lecture us. Because from here it seems that both aspects are the same in terms of being totally unrelated to a movie quality and the character acting and development.

Ian mcKellen looked like Magneto?

Yeah right. The shoulders specially.

OH. You said 'looked much more'.

So there's a point where you can nopt look like the part and it's still Ok and another point where is totally wrong. Please show us where that point exactly is. I mean, since this is your own personal invention.



Yes.

And change Michael Caine, because Alfred is bald, black-haired and have a tiny moustache. No baldness, No alfred. Your rules.

It seems these damn directors can do their own visions and not asking you a thing about it first.



For a starter, I don't speak english, go figure. Typos are my treat though.

Magneto need not "look the part" as much as Batman as he is a super powered being who does not rely on his body to defeat his enemies. Big difference between the characters.

 

[LongDong]

You call this a debate? It's going nowhere because each side is sticking to their opinions like glue. Not to mention the flaming going on, at least several pages back.

Then just stay out of it, yes it is a debate on some levels. The flaming has stopped, stop trying to stir it back up.

 

[El Payaso]

Magneto need not "look the part" as much as Batman as he is a super powered being who does not rely on his body to defeat his enemies. Big difference between the characters.

Magneto wears no mask.

Batman does.

And Magneto is the one not having to look the part?

Stripped of your... "vision" all we can see is that McKellen doesn't look the part but he's a ****ing great Magneto. Which is the truth so we must accept it. That means that Keaton could be a good Batman in spite of how tall he is/isn't. You know, like if that is not related to how good/bad he could be.

 

[Bat Attack]

Me gusta keaton. My spanish is terrible, but than again I'm only in Spanish I.

 

[El Payaso]

Si no te gusta Keaton él te volará el trasero.

 

[The Kid]

que? :P

 

[Bat Attack]

Hola, me llama Batattack.

 

[Bat Attack]

Si, my gusta Keaton es Batman. I don't know, lol.

 

[mister Lennon]

you are wrong thinking that all the comic characters needs the same kind of treatment in the movies. Thats is totally wrong. An easy example: does spiderman needs to wear mask in the movie? yes, because he is peter parker, a guy with a public identity. ¿Same with Wolverine? not, because he is only logan, an outsider with any public identity. Now, the magneto and batman issue. ¿ does magneto need to be tall and muscular in a movie? clearly not, the force of this character is the magnetism, he doesnt need to be phischal imppossing. Only a middle aged aged actor with white hair and a powerful voice and great acting skills. Same with batman? clearly not. Batman bases his power in his fighting skills and his impossing precense, plus, the secret identity of batman, bruce wayne , is supposed to be a tall and handsome and atlhetic playboy. Why? because this guy has been training all his life and he needs a great body to do the things that batman does, and because he has to be handsome to get all the woman in parties.

I think that its very clear. The sexuality of Ian Makellen i thing that doesnt matter because one thing is his personal life and the other is his life on screen. And Makellen is a powerful presence on screen.

Here is magneto in the comics:

http://www.mckellen.com/images/misc/magneto.jpg

Here is Ian Makellen as magneto in the movies:

http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/news/xmen2/magneto2.jpg

Here is the bruce wayne from the comics:

http://www.thecomicbox.
com/online_store/store/images/comicpics/brucewaynemurderer-tpb.jpg

Here is michael keaton as bruce wayne:

http://www.batman.moviesection.de/v6/cont/bilder/michaelkeaton.jpg

I think that the difference is evident.

 

[El Payaso]

you are wrong thinking that all the comic characters needs the same kind of treatment in the movies. Thats is totally wrong. An easy example: does spiderman needs to wear mask in the movie? yes, because he is peter parker, a guy with a public identity. ¿Same with Wolverine? not, because he is only logan, an outsider with any public identity. Now, the magneto and batman issue. ¿ does magneto need to be tall and muscular in a movie? clearly not, the force of this character is the magnetism, he doesnt need to be phischal imppossing. Only a middle aged aged actor with white hair and a powerful voice and great acting skills. Same with batman? clearly not. Batman bases his power in his fighting skills and his impossing precense, plus, the secret identity of batman, bruce wayne , is supposed to be a tall and handsome and atlhetic playboy. Why? because this guy has been training all his life and he needs a great body to do the things that batman does, and because he has to be handsome to get all the woman in parties.

I think that its very clear. The sexuality of Ian Makellen i thing that doesnt matter because one thing is his personal life and the other is his life on screen. And Makellen is a powerful presence on screen.

As I thought you're creating new 'rules' as your previous points seem refuted.

 

[WhiteRat]

you are wrong thinking that all the comic characters needs the same kind of treatment in the movies. Thats is totally wrong. An easy example: does spiderman needs to wear mask in the movie? yes, because he is peter parker, a guy with a public identity. ¿Same with Wolverine? not, because he is only logan, an outsider with any public identity. Now, the magneto and batman issue. ¿ does magneto need to be tall and muscular in a movie? clearly not, the force of this character is the magnetism, he doesnt need to be phischal imppossing. Only a middle aged aged actor with white hair and a powerful voice and great acting skills. Same with batman? clearly not. Batman bases his power in his fighting skills and his impossing precense, plus, the secret identity of batman, bruce wayne , is supposed to be a tall and handsome and atlhetic playboy. Why? because this guy has been training all his life and he needs a great body to do the things that batman does, and because he has to be handsome to get all the woman in parties.

I think that its very clear. The sexuality of Ian Makellen i thing that doesnt matter because one thing is his personal life and the other is his life on screen. And Makellen is a powerful presence on screen.

Here is magneto in the comics:

http://www.mckellen.com/images/misc/magneto.jpg

Here is Ian Makellen as magneto in the movies:

http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/news/xmen2/magneto2.jpg

Here is the bruce wayne from the comics:

http://www.thecomicbox.
com/online_store/store/images/comicpics/brucewaynemurderer-tpb.jpg

Here is michael keaton as bruce wayne:

http://www.batman.moviesection.de/v6/cont/bilder/michaelkeaton.jpg

I think that the difference is evident.

Well said Mister Lennon. Like I said before,that seems to be a concept that Payaso seems to fail to grasp though.

 

[WhiteRat]

You are a lying bastard Wesyeed(j/k)...

You are lying through your teeth if you say you'd completely believe that. Let's get Drew Carey or another heavy, wrong aged person to to play Spider-Man...and let's say he actually played him decently... you know damn well no one would believe it (including you). And it would be a direct slap in the face of the true fans of the character by not even trying to have someone cast that represents the look of the character. Ian Mckellen's sexuality has nothing to do with ANYTHING. Ian Mckellen LOOKS like your typical Magneto drawing...he doesn't LOOK like someone completely different. Regardless of how good the actor is, you have to have a balance when potraying these characters on screen. Good actor? Yes... but he also has to at least resemble the character, and Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne / Batman (while being pretty cool)...didn't resemble the character in the slightest. Michael Keaton looked like the only battle he SHOULD be fighting is the traffic to get to his 10 year old's soccer game. He didn't look like a young, handsome, strapping, athletic playboy who just spent years honing his body and skills in an effort to wage an all out "War on Crime" in the most corrupt city IN THE WORLD.

There is a difference, please believe that. No can argue about Keaton's performance, itself. It was actually pretty good, but he still can't entirely represent the character, without having ANY simalrities in terms of look to the comic book counterpart.

Bravo,you just took Payaso to school on that.maybe someday he will grasp that logic and learn something about logic and common sense.something he is not yet privy to.

 

[LongDong]

Magneto wears no mask.

Batman does.

And Magneto is the one not having to look the part?

Stripped of your... "vision" all we can see is that McKellen doesn't look the part but he's a ****ing great Magneto. Which is the truth so we must accept it. That means that Keaton could be a good Batman in spite of how tall he is/isn't. You know, like if that is not related to how good/bad he could be.

You are contradicting what I said. Try reading it again.

 

[LongDong]

In defense of payaso it seems he is using a translation program to understand english. If any of you have ever tried using those things then you know they sometimes can butcher what was being said. The fact that it appears he is not getting what we are saying can be contributed to this, if it were the case.

 

[El Payaso]

Bravo,you just took Payaso to school on that.maybe someday he will grasp that logic and learn something about logic and common sense.something he is not yet privy to.

Translation: "I cannot against El Payaso by myself, but this guy talk better than I do (whiterat)"

Btw, just out of curiosity:

... and I wont waste my time with such ignorant comments like that,this will be my only post to you since you act like a child when people rightly criticise Keaton as batman.

After 3 or 4 pages... when are you starting the ignoring stuff? Don't tell me you can't find the right button. Or that you can't stand your word.

You are contradicting what I said.

That's the idea.

In defense of payaso it seems he is using a translation program to understand english. If any of you have ever tried using those things then you know they sometimes can butcher what was being said. The fact that it appears he is not getting what we are saying can be contributed to this, if it were the case.

Yes, it must be something.

No no wait. Your arguments are totally debatable!

 

[LongDong]

Translation: "I cannot do it, but this guy talk better than I do (whiterat)"



That's the idea.



Yes, it must be something.

No no wait. Your arguments are totally debatable!

 

[El Payaso]

Everyone here knows. Read below my nickname.

 

[WhiteRat]

Something i think that alot of people are missing here is Batman 1989 was the first live incarnation since the 60's West series. They wanted to get as far away from that idea as possible, they wanted something that went the other direction. Dark, gritty, gothic, thus Tim Burton and his unique vision. As far as the casting of Keaton, it was Tim who ultimately convinced WB to have him play the character. If you look at some of the other choices that were being thrown around at the time, it could have been much worse. This movie clicked. As said by Peter Guber, "it was of its time". I remember 1988 and 1989 like it was yesterday, yeh there was the controversy about casting, but after the movie was released, most of all that quickly went away. And it stayed away until Nolan brought us Begins. Now this new generation of bat fans, who most of which werent born yet or was too young to experience Batman 1989, feel that nothing touches this latest incarnation. Its the same type of thing that happened with 89 when it was being compared to the campy 60's. Those guys were defending West as alot of us are keaton. No one is wrong. Why? Because like Guber said, "its of its time". 20 years from now youll have a new generation of batfans dissing Bale saying his performance lacked, because there will be yet another screen incarnation that they feel is right. Every actor that has put on a bat costume can be debated, not one of them got everything "right", even Bale.

uh dude apparently you have not read through the previous posts because you are incorrect that back then the controversy about keaton being Batman died down after the movie came out.As I said and another poster stated earlier,my coworkers and HIS coworkers were outraged over the casting choice of keaton as batman back then and after the movie came out,most of them did not change their minds about keaton.It is also false to mention that people have only started bashing keaton after Batman Begins came out.I have been blasting away at Keaton ever since back in 89 when Burton made that horrific casting choice of Keaton back then as have many of my friends have over the years.so I dont know WHERE you came up with that false information because it is so incorrect.Many people here already ALSO mentioned and pointed out how Alec Baldwin would easily have been a much better far superiour choice for batman then keaton was.Bale may get some flack as the old batman when a new batman series is made 20 years from now,but I guarantee you,he WONT get anywhere the amount that Keaton has gotten over the years.Yeah People might have still preferred west over keaton but thats because how crappy burtons batman movies were.I guarantee you those same people dont prefer west over Bale.