The Michael Keaton Effect: Still Possible Today?

[El Payaso]

Samuel L jackson as Nick Fury?

Oh I did once and everyone was so busy shouting "Racist!" that the point got lost.

So far so meh

Absolutely.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Not comic book related but Daniel Craig is one of the most recent examples of the "Michael Keaton Effect" for James Bond. Poor guy got the same amount of flack that Keaton got (even down to a website denouncing him) but he also completely owned the role once the film was released and shut up the naysayers.

 

[comicfan4Life]

Not comic book related but Daniel Craig is one of the most recent examples of the "Michael Keaton Effect" for James Bond. Poor guy got the same amount of flack that Keaton got (even down to a website denouncing him) but he also completely owned the role once the film was released and shut up the naysayers.

That is a very true/accurate point. I hope Evans & Reynolds can do the same, both are great actors imo.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Well it's kinda like why is Arnold the terminator or why Robert Englund is Freddy, they're good at it. No one else can play those roles, hence why when they made so many movies they brought them back. They tried Freddy without Robert and look at the response. Yeah, it was #1, made money, sure, but so was Friday the 13th and the sequel is not even going through because they were terrible movies. He isn't Hannibal King, because Hannibal King wasn't Hannibal King. How do you get loud mouth,one-liner, vampire killer from private detective vampire? He is however Van Wilder & Berg because those characters were made for him to play, not King, until Goyer wrote him that way, but it's still not King.

But Arnold has excelled in plenty of roles and when he played a charming secret agent or tramatized bodyguard, on one said, "But he's the Terminator." They are actors. have continued making movies if not for politics. Its like Stallone. He is Rocky, but hes also Rambo. My point is just because you can't divorce them from some role that doesnt mean they can't excel in others. Ryan and Arnold are not typecast, they just have iconic roles to their names.

As for Superheroes not being that special, then why is hollywood in such a rush to make the movies then? Money, because they are a big deal to everyone else. If they weren't that special you wouldn't have comic-con and every hollywood guy in town bothering to showing up. Same with vampires, sure crazes come and go, but they come back eventually. Pretty soon, you could probably expect 80s style action flicks to come back in style if expendables kicks ass. But yes, I agree with you 100% that they are roles being played by capable actors that can perform the task well. Then sometimes you get stuff like Arny as Mr. Freeze, Clooney as Batman, Cage as Ghost Rider, or even O'Neal as Steel. But yes, Reynolds is a capable actor and so is Evans, but I still can't see them as those characters, but apparently I'm not the only one.

Your taken the argument in a completely different direction. When I say superheroes arnt special, I mean that just like any other role. You don't need all these stupid special circumstances that fanboys place on them.

And your examples are terrible. Arny as Freeze and Clooney as Batman would have been fine if they had a different director and script. Cage has been ****** for years, and O'Neal as Steel doesnt even come close to "capable." Reynolds on the other hand has a great director, apparently has a great script, and the filmography that has trained him to play an egotistical hotshot who can handle action and learns to be a hero. If you were to describe Hal or generalize Ryan's career, thats it.

Do I want those films to kick ass? Yes! Do I want to be floored by their performances? Yes! But right now as it stands, I just can't see them for those roles, like most couldn't see Jane for Punisher, Ledger for Joker, or even Jackman for Logan. yet they were great, and despite me not seeing them in action yet I'm willing to give Reynolds & Evans a chance before I do like most others and go, "They suck, blah blah blah, etc."

I still don't see how you can't see Reynolds as Hal when is filmography has basically trained him for the role. The mindset you seem to have is like saying actors can only do the same character for their entire career. Just doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That is a very true/accurate point. I hope Evans & Reynolds can do the same, both are great actors imo.

But they aren't close to being as criticized as Craig or Keaton.

 

[comicfan4Life]

But they aren't close to being as criticized as Craig or Keaton.

True they got it the most. Keaton still to this day. But Craig kicked ass, but there are people I know that still won't give Casino Royale a look, such a shame.

 

[comicfan4Life]

But Arnold has excelled in plenty of roles and when he played a charming secret agent or tramatized bodyguard, on one said, "But he's the Terminator." They are actors. have continued making movies if not for politics. Its like Stallone. He is Rocky, but hes also Rambo. My point is just because you can't divorce them from some role that doesnt mean they can't excel in others. Ryan and Arnold are not typecast, they just have iconic roles to their names.



Your taken the argument in a completely different direction. When I say superheroes arnt special, I mean that just like any other role. You don't need all these stupid special circumstances that fanboys place on them.

And your examples are terrible. Arny as Freeze and Clooney as Batman would have been fine if they had a different director and script. Cage has been ****** for years, and O'Neal as Steel doesnt even come close to "capable." Reynolds on the other hand has a great director, apparently has a great script, and the filmography that has trained him to play an egotistical hotshot who can handle action and learns to be a hero. If you were to describe Hal or generalize Ryan's career, thats it.



I still don't see how you can't see Reynolds as Hal when is filmography has basically trained him for the role. The mindset you seem to have is like saying actors can only do the same character for their entire career. Just doesnt make sense to me.

1. My point exactly! Arnold when you see him in films he has personality. Pumping Iron, Conan, Kindergarten Cop, Last Action Hero,True Lies etc. are all films that show his sense of humor/charisma. He can even do serious work as well (End of Days/Collateral Damage), but to play the cold emotionless robotic assassinating time traveling cyborg pops up the most. Because he did a great job, he did a great job in all of those films which is why I have a wait and see approach to Reynolds & Evans. There's nothing that says they can't be those characters and there's nothing that says they won't be good it's just I can't see them for the character. They got the role fine, I'm cool with that I'm just not sold. Maybe when I see some trailers or the film itself then ok. Again, Robert Englund played the friendly reptilian alien in "V". Then he plays a child murdering dream demon, no one would have put that together, but he played it well.

Heath Ledger, 10 things I hate about you, A Knight's Tale, The Order, Monsters Ball, and Broke Back mountain don't indicate he would've made a good batman antagonist, let alone the joker, but he was. I'm not judging the actors saying they suck and shouldn't have been cast, but I'm not 100% sold on them is all. It's not uncommon, most people have certain actors in mind for roles and stick to their guns even after another actor plays the role and does good. You can't please everyone, fine. Then you have those that are casted and you can see them spot on. But sometimes stuff happens and rolls get recasted. Fine, but then you have those that aren't sold and have the "I automatically hate it" or the "I'll wait to see the movie before I judge mentality" mentality. I fall into the latter, I'm not saying Evans & Reynolds are bad actors (if anything they're a 180 degrees off bad), but I'm still not sold, like most haven't been sold on other actors playing certain roles before. I know I wasn't the only one who went "Reynolds as GL & Evans as Cap? WTF?!" nor will I probably be the last or in the minority, but I'm keeping an open mind and waiting for the final product before I judge.

Again, I want them to rock, I want them to make sequels, I want them make money, but most of all I want them to be in comic films that are actually good. It's like buying a car, I don't want to rush into it, or get something I can't get a feel for, because in the end once you pay your money for and roll it off the lot it's yours and yours alone.

2. You're a 100% percent right on the money there. They're roles being played by actors (some capable, some not). But they are important. It's not because of the fanboys its because of the money. Hence why every year you got big studios bothering to show up at comic-con. Do you see conventions for films like A Few Good Men, no, but there's one for Superman. They are roles, but they are important because they have importance to them. First from the fans by buying and supporting them, now by hollywood because they see us do it and they know that will go over to film as well. And not just from "fanboys" but from people in general that like super heroes. But it's easy to understand how "fanboys" or anyone in general can place certain importance on things if they care for them a lot. Sure not everything is that serious like "OMG, Blade doesn't have wooden daggers!" I just want the film to be good, but others let silly stuff get in the way of their enjoyment. Uncertainty about Evans & Reynolds aside, I'm still pumped for their films and will see them regardless and if others let that stop them it's their loss. However, if they suck well then that's my plate and I have to eat what's on it.

3. Should've, could've, would've. Maybe, but they weren't. So the director and script wasn't good, big whoop. What does that have to do with their performance. Lots of actors play in crap movies, with crap directors, and crap scripts but they still do good with what they're given. Case in point Michael Cain, or most recently to my mind Ray Stevenson in PWZ. Great Frank, crap movie, etc. Same with Snipes, great blade, but trinity sucked. I hear you on cage though, but that's exactly my point on O'Neal as Steel: far from capable.

4. So Reynolds played a bunch of hot headed egotistical hot shots that can handle action? Well so did, Tom Cruise, Mark Wahlberg, Woody Harrelson, Bradley Cooper, Sean William Scott, etc. Plus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Blade Trinity, and Smoking Aces are all I know of that show him doing heroics with the hot shot egotistical persona and those aren't really good films to lean on, hence why from his filmography I can't see him in the role of Hal. But again, despite quality he did do a good job with what he was given and he is capable, which is why I'm "waiting" to see him in action. He can act, no doubt, but I'm still waiting to see the final result of the product regardless. If my mindset says to you actors can only do the same role for the rest of their careers, well, I don't mean for you to take it that way because that's not the way I'm going. I'm going the way of I can't see him as Hal, until I see how he does as Hal.

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah, as much as I love to see Marvel pumping out so many films and really trying to bring their universe (as opposed to a couple characters like DC has so far) to film, the whole Fury/Samuel L. Jackson thing annoys me. I like Sam to some extent, but I find it kind of ridiculous that they took one of my favorite characters and morphed him into a cartoon of SLJ's typical movie persona, and then took it a step further and cast him in the movies. Why don't they just change his name from Nick Fury to Samuel L. Jackson, because that's who he's actually playing.

 

[El Payaso]

Why don't they just change his name from Nick Fury to Samuel L. Jackson, because that's who he's actually playing.

That or 'Jules Winnfield' again, I don't know anymore.

 

[david icke]

Em, I don't know, but the Sam L Jackson act/Jules from Pulp, are kind of like the attitude 616 Fury had, no bs, takes command of the situation, has the odd sarcastic comment on the other heroes etc

Sam L Jackson's persona in those kind of roles is much like Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne, he is very good at a certain type, white 616 Fury is that certain type, and so he is very suitable for the role.
I know they based the Ultimate version off of him, but that is part of the reason why I think.

edit: You could say the same thing about Robert Downey Jnr and Stark, he has done that kind of act before, there is a lot of himslef in the performance, but still, it is very suitable for what they wanted for that particular version of Stark.

 

[Brother Jack]

Jackson can definitely do more than the Winfield shtick he's been doing, though admittedly he's the best at that. Go back and watch him in earlier roles like Jungle Fever or even in Unbreakable. He's doing real acting there, stretching himself beyond this persona that goes from his movies to real life.

 

[david icke]

............

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

holy crap people who liked keaton as batman, i'm not alone.

i though that view point was banned from this site

 

[david icke]

holy crap people who liked keaton as batman, i'm not alone.

i though that view point was banned from this site

Actually, if you go over to the 'Misc Batman films' forum you will find that just about everyone likes Keaton as Bruce/Batman. I'm sure there have been, but right now i can't recall many instances of dispariging comments on his casting, apart from my own.

 

[Marx]

holy crap people who liked keaton as batman, i'm not alone.

i though that view point was banned from this site

Michael Keaton is still (arguably) the best Batman to hit the screen. Alot of the criticism that exists now is because people have a 'new shiny toy' in Bale.

As far as the 'Keaton effect', I think Ledger is the only other successful example.

 

[david icke]

Michael Keaton is still (arguably) the best Batman to hit the screen. Alot of the criticism that exists now is because people have a 'new shiny toy' in Bale.

I harddly ever read any bad criticism of Keaton, here or on cbr. Sure, some people might now prefer Bale, but I don't read much in the way of dislike for Keaton in the role, i have always felt in the extreme minority with my opinion on him.
Sure, I like him, he is enjoyable to watch, but he only ever felt like Batman and BW in a few scenes here and there to me. Part of that was his physicality, but also, the psycho killer thing he brought to the character, the relish with which he killed the strongman in BR, the somewhat creepy way he acts with Vale in the cave....that did not feel like Batman to me.
I prefered Kilmer back in the day and was glad Keaton was replaced. Keaton was just too small and it did not help the matter by the fact he always looked like he was in a rubber straight jacket.
He was very likeable as Bruce Wayne, and had a cool demeanor as Batman, and the best voice, I was always just pulled out of the reality of him being Batman when we got full shots of him stiffly fighting, running or just generally moving around.
My fav scene with him is in the Batmobile driving Vicki back to the cave. Sitting in the car I could imagine he had the physical presence I expected Batman to have onscreen, i could buy the illusion 100% there.

 

[Panthro]

John Leguizamo as Luigi in 1993's "Super Mario Brothers" could be cited as an example of the Keaton Effect not working.

I don't thinking the Keaton Effect would work for a character like Wonder Woman. I mean would anyone seriously accept someone like Kristen Bell or Natalie Portman as the star spangled Amazon Princess?

 

[GL1]

John Leguizamo as Luigi in 1993's "Super Mario Brothers" could be cited as an example of the Keaton Effect not working.

I don't thinking the Keaton Effect would work for a character like Wonder Woman. I mean would anyone seriously accept someone like Kristen Bell or Natalie Portman as the star spangled Amazon Princess?

I don't think the Keaton Effect would work very well for any female character because their physical attributes are usually more valued than their character attributes. So no matter if someone nails the 'Wonder Woman' character to a T, if they're flat chested, people are going to be dissatisfied.

1. My point exactly! Arnold when you see him in films he has personality. Pumping Iron, Conan, Kindergarten Cop, Last Action Hero,True Lies etc. are all films that show his sense of humor/charisma. He can even do serious work as well (End of Days/Collateral Damage), but to play the cold emotionless robotic assassinating time traveling cyborg pops up the most. Because he did a great job, he did a great job in all of those films which is why I have a wait and see approach to Reynolds & Evans. There's nothing that says they can't be those characters and there's nothing that says they won't be good it's just I can't see them for the character. They got the role fine, I'm cool with that I'm just not sold. Maybe when I see some trailers or the film itself then ok. Again, Robert Englund played the friendly reptilian alien in "V". Then he plays a child murdering dream demon, no one would have put that together, but he played it well.

Heath Ledger, 10 things I hate about you, A Knight's Tale, The Order, Monsters Ball, and Broke Back mountain don't indicate he would've made a good batman antagonist, let alone the joker, but he was. I'm not judging the actors saying they suck and shouldn't have been cast, but I'm not 100% sold on them is all. It's not uncommon, most people have certain actors in mind for roles and stick to their guns even after another actor plays the role and does good. You can't please everyone, fine. Then you have those that are casted and you can see them spot on. But sometimes stuff happens and rolls get recasted. Fine, but then you have those that aren't sold and have the "I automatically hate it" or the "I'll wait to see the movie before I judge mentality" mentality. I fall into the latter, I'm not saying Evans & Reynolds are bad actors (if anything they're a 180 degrees off bad), but I'm still not sold, like most haven't been sold on other actors playing certain roles before. I know I wasn't the only one who went "Reynolds as GL & Evans as Cap? WTF?!" nor will I probably be the last or in the minority, but I'm keeping an open mind and waiting for the final product before I judge.

Again, I want them to rock, I want them to make sequels, I want them make money, but most of all I want them to be in comic films that are actually good. It's like buying a car, I don't want to rush into it, or get something I can't get a feel for, because in the end once you pay your money for and roll it off the lot it's yours and yours alone.

2. You're a 100% percent right on the money there. They're roles being played by actors (some capable, some not). But they are important. It's not because of the fanboys its because of the money. Hence why every year you got big studios bothering to show up at comic-con. Do you see conventions for films like A Few Good Men, no, but there's one for Superman. They are roles, but they are important because they have importance to them. First from the fans by buying and supporting them, now by hollywood because they see us do it and they know that will go over to film as well. And not just from "fanboys" but from people in general that like super heroes. But it's easy to understand how "fanboys" or anyone in general can place certain importance on things if they care for them a lot. Sure not everything is that serious like "OMG, Blade doesn't have wooden daggers!" I just want the film to be good, but others let silly stuff get in the way of their enjoyment. Uncertainty about Evans & Reynolds aside, I'm still pumped for their films and will see them regardless and if others let that stop them it's their loss. However, if they suck well then that's my plate and I have to eat what's on it.

3. Should've, could've, would've. Maybe, but they weren't. So the director and script wasn't good, big whoop. What does that have to do with their performance. Lots of actors play in crap movies, with crap directors, and crap scripts but they still do good with what they're given. Case in point Michael Cain, or most recently to my mind Ray Stevenson in PWZ. Great Frank, crap movie, etc. Same with Snipes, great blade, but trinity sucked. I hear you on cage though, but that's exactly my point on O'Neal as Steel: far from capable.

4. So Reynolds played a bunch of hot headed egotistical hot shots that can handle action? Well so did, Tom Cruise, Mark Wahlberg, Woody Harrelson, Bradley Cooper, Sean William Scott, etc. Plus, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Blade Trinity, and Smoking Aces are all I know of that show him doing heroics with the hot shot egotistical persona and those aren't really good films to lean on, hence why from his filmography I can't see him in the role of Hal. But again, despite quality he did do a good job with what he was given and he is capable, which is why I'm "waiting" to see him in action. He can act, no doubt, but I'm still waiting to see the final result of the product regardless. If my mindset says to you actors can only do the same role for the rest of their careers, well, I don't mean for you to take it that way because that's not the way I'm going. I'm going the way of I can't see him as Hal, until I see how he does as Hal.

4. So... you can only 'see them as a character' if they've A) Played the character before *and* B) The movie was good. I assume C) Resemble the character as well? I don't think that applied to Reynolds as Deadpool or Evans as Human Torch before those films came out. I personally can't remember ANY Ryan Reynolds movies.

3. Bad direction and bad scripts negative effect performances, neither is this effect consistent for all characters, factors like scripting for that particular character, executive/production power of the actor in question, relationship with the director all filter how bad management affects performance. You cannot look at an actor and say "they overcame it, so can every one else, just as easily." That's very simplistic thinking and leads to a a lot of weird questions when actors put out both good performances and bad performances in short periods of time? Do they just suck and then get good and then suck as actors again?

2. So if Chris Pine was Captain America, would we then say "I can't see him as Cap, because he's Kirk?" That's still wonky dude. It's still just a role, no matter the money behind it.

1. I don't get it. Because Arnold did a good job in a number of films (news to me) you can't see Reynolds and Evans as those characters?

I guess I'm jumping in, but I certainly am not 100% sold on either of them, but seeing Reynolds as Hal is as easy as watching his previous films. There's nothing Hal does that he hasn't already done just like seeing Bale as Batman was equally as easy. . If you can't see GL being a good movie, because the previous films where he acted like Hal weren't good, that's... well, that's again a misunderstanding of how script and direction affect quality and a misjudgment of the amount of influence an actor's ability has on the finished product.

Now Evans is a different story. He's potentially the Keaton/Craig/Ledger effect, because there really isn't anything in his filmography to say Cap. Cellular might be the closest thing. So, yeah, I honestly can't see him as Cap either.

 

[redhawk23]

Its not the same America anymore. A "flag waver" nowadays is usually a finger pointing paranoid person who thinks everything and anything that doesnt strictly agree with them is anti-American. Rogers should have a more unfaulting personal morality rather an undying allegiance to government that is progressively losing trust with their people.

Ultimate Cap is a "flag-waver." USAgent is a "flag waver." Captain America is a boyscout.

Damn straight!

but not in the same way as Superman who when he is described that way its usually as an insult. superman gives off the whole "cheerful service" vibe.
Where as Captain America is "duty to country"

this is such a random post I know but yeah

Also I wanted to rake my brain out at the thought of Kirsten Stewart as Wonder Woman, shed be the most detatched, self doubting, hair twirling Amazonian ever.

Id actually support Bieber as robin though, as long as it was Jason Todd and the film started off with the Joker bashing in his face with a Crobar. Yea I'd pay to see that.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Some characters can get away with certain actors playing them, others can't. Superman is one of those characters that must be played by someone who looks like superman, batman isn't.

Exactly I still scratch my head at the thought of Nicolas Cage's casting as Superman, yeah so Burton wanted to bring a sense of oddity and awkwardness to the character. Sorry but Kal-El isn't Edwars Scissorhands.

I can't honestly think of an actor that played batman where I said that's batman as he looks in the comics. But if we get actors that can do it fine, case in point I couldn't see Christian "Patrick Bateman" Bale as batman, but he's a pretty damn good batman.

Me too, Bale is perfect as Batman but I don't picture him when I'm reading Batman comics.