This may be mostly to DLB, but it came across as being for everyone. So I'm taking advantage of that by replying.
See, I think what Doc is talking about is a seperate conversation all together. If anything, the main reason most would associate one actor or another with a character is based off who was introduced to you first as said character. As a child you have no history or previous knowledge of actors on screen. As a child, you just see the character. That's why when children meet actors they say things such as: "Oh, that's Harry Potter", etc.
Maybe. But not always.
In my case, I grew up with Michael Keaton's Batman. I'll explain further into that, and you'll understand that isn't saying much at all. While I liked Batman (1989) as a kid, it never spoke to me how it does now, and as a kid I would just as soon watch another movie with more action. It's
Batman Begins that drew me into superheroes. So up until not too long ago, I never felt any 'special nostalgic attachment' for Keaton being Batman. Before I saw BB, I would look at MK in movies like
Multiplicity and say: "That's Michael Keaton. Great actor. He's entertaining in comedic roles." Batman never went into the equation, because back then, Batman'89 didn't mean much to me. Unlike you, I never associated Keaton as THE Batman of my childhood. He played Batman, but superheroes did not impress me too much. Before Bale, B89 and BR meant little if anything to me. That's the truth. I started changing my perception on the character interpretations when comparing them as objectively as possible.
Not everyone who sees what Burton did with Batman is unable to separate the childhood feeling with the objective 'who did the character more accurately.' Some never had a childhood feeling to take into account.
So there goes the concept of nostalgia having everything to do with someone's favorite Batman.
Keaton was extrodinary in his approach to Batman in the 1989 film. However, with Bale ... he just doesn't put his eggs in one basket. He represents the character in FULL. From early Bruce Wayne life, into the legend of Batman.
Do you realize in Batman'89, there is a flashback scene? We see the reason he became Batman. We watch in excruciating melancholy a boy having his parents alive, and then suddenly, they are taken from him with the bang of a gunshot.
Anything after that of 'Early Bruce Wayne' would be needless filler that Burton was smart enough to not include in the movie. Why? Because what you see on screen for B'89, was what Bruce has been for a very, very long time. He decided to devote his life to fighting crime. And to do that, he had to cast aside childish things. That is VERY respectful of the source material.
Nolan, for whatever reason, never grasped the fact that the real Batman doesn't get lost as a young adult. He doesn't walk around saying stupid **** like: "If I had my way, I'd tear it [Wayne Manor] down brick by brick." to his butler.
Bruce Wayne skipped the 'whiny teenager' stage. This is implied repeatedly in the comics. It's logic. As soon as his parents are shot, he says on the inside: "I am going to avenge my parents by fighting these scum." INSTANTLY. Not in his late twenties. Not when he's past the non-existant whiny teenager stage. I-N-S-T-A-N-T-L-Y. That is Batman.
But Doc, when talking about the issues with the writing, I think you're WAY OFF. And I mean, like ... out of the park from a Barry Bond's homer, out the park. The writing of BEGINS entirely sucks you into Bruce Wayne's world.
Inconsistently so. Some scenes bring you in. Other scenes convey: "You're obviously watching a movie with mediocre writing."
It's this intimate reveal, albeit humanization of a mythic character. It has little do with having to 'prove stuff to you' ... it's called development and character growth. See I take that knee jerk reaction and put down as someone who doesn't fully understand what is going on with the movie and story. Processes such as development are in some cases more interesting then the final product themselves. Many find origin stories, and the intrigues of the how's and why's before someone changes to be the most interesting aspect of a story or character. Then you say "just show me and let me suspend my disbelief, thank you" ... see that rarely works.
You are saying all of the exposition in Begins was part of the required story development process. Not so.
BATSUIT: This was probably needed for Nolan's take on Batman. The part I actually like about the exposition on 'how' ... is Bruce Wayne going to Lucius for 'spelunking' supplies or in whatever order it came in. This scene alone establishes that what Bruce's father had started was not only a rich enterprise, but it had connections to the right military departments that could supply what he needed as Batman. What else did this cevlar scene accomplish? Showing some friendship bonding between Bruce and Lucius. This is character development.
Nolan made the mistake of not stopping there.
We already know Bruce can easily acquire a great arsenal of Batman gadgets and whatnot. Nolan has no grasp on the power of implication.
THE TUMBLER: Unnecessary. We already know that Bruce and Lucius are close friends, and that Lucius knows his technical jargon. Nolan needed to bring the Tumbler into the movie when Batman said: "I brought mine!" to Gordon. To surprise us all! But did he do that? No, he spent minutes of the film dragging us into believing that The Tumbler will be the new Batmobile. No shock value. Needless scene.
Especially from a more mature stand point.
LordofHypertime is going to stop and chuckle at that.
All right. I'm done.
It hardly ever works like that. Giving legitimacy to things such as the process and creation of the legend of Batman are highly entertaining, and are the tools that ALLOW suspension of disbelief. To suspend disbelief, the realistic explanation for a fantasy driven story is key. THAT'S what makes people immersed in fantasy.
Sure BB was a good place to start in explaining a few things about Batman. It was just pointless. Even if I do accept all the pointless exposition and play along with BB, I still am left feeling that they overdid it. When a fantasy-driven story about the creation of the legend of Batman becomes honestly dry and boring in too many places throughout, then we have a very serious problem on our hands.
When they can blend the elements and make things FEEL REAL, no matter how out there they may be. That's the sign of a great fantasy, and/or a great writer or director.
Telling without every implying has absolutely nothing to do with making it feel more real. Legitimacy is just that. I know Bruce Wayne is a very rich person and that Wayne Enterprises has connections. That is believable enough for me. But instead of stopping there, Nolan took it to extremes.
You can keep things close to the comics without playing the fantasy element at every turn. That's what BB was trying to do, but it tried too hard and lost itself in the process.
Burton's films are far more 3rd person perspective and non-personal to get as engrossed in the story (or lack there of) as it is easy to do with BEGINS.
Are you saying Burton's films had no story? Watch the films again and get back to me on that. I see the main story in '89 being Batman stumbling upon the identity of his parents' killer and seeking vengeance while that madman rises to power in Gotham. That sounds pretty basic, but add onto that Vicki Vale, the love interest. Her character is there to add the question: should he stay Batman after vengeance or settle down? He chooses the former. And that proves to me that Burton's Batman isn't just the blood-thirsty brute that so many claim him to be. He's a tough hero. That's engrossing to me.
Sure, Burton is mainly about visuals. He'd admit that to you. That doesn't mean his movies are devoid of engrossing stories, though. And if they fail to pull you in as a viewer, it is a personal problem for you. So don't try using it as debate material.
There is a solid story.
It is complemented by unique visuals.
Burton depended on the source material just as much, if not more than Nolan.
The End.
