Why do some people have to have a definitive Batman?

[Kevin Roegele]

I'm all for favourites, but the arguments over whether Bale or Keaton is superior, or whether Burton or Nolan got closest to the spirit of the comic has got to a stage where I'm bemused.

The fact is, every Batman film is faithful to the comics. Just to different eras. It would be more accurate to say Keaton's is the definite version of the very earliest stories, when the character was still, 'The Batman' or even 'The Bat-Man'. Bale's version isn't especially similar to that version, so if Kane and Finger's original version is the most legitimate Batman, then Keaton is the best screen translation.

If we're talking 50's and early 60's Batman comics, Adam West is by far the most faithful. He's spot on. Clooney's not far off either. Kilmer seems to be the Neil Adams/Dennis O'Neil Batman, more of a superhero yet still serious. Bale's version of Batman is the most faithful to the post-2000 comics.

But who is to say which is the most legitimate version? There isn't one. There can't be. The same with the films themselves. Like all the comicbooks, they are just interpretations of the Batman story and characters. They could not be anything else.

So instead of eliminating all the films that don't match your idealised vision of Batman - and no film ever will - why don't you simply concede that they are all simply interpretations of Batman, each influenced by different eras of the comic?

Tim Burton's Batman and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins are both wonderful films that can exist alongside each other (such as on my DVD shelf). You don't have to accept one as 'your' version and dismiss the others as false, nor do you have to kiss the ass of one Batman act whilst denouncing any others as heretics.

On this forum we should be discussing how fantastic the majority of these Batman films are, how lucky we are to have so many when, say, Spidey and the Hulk have so few, and so on. That makes far more sense than arguing about which film is the 'proper' Batman film, and disregarding all the others.

Further to this, if you can't enjoy the 1960's Batman TV show or movie because it conflicts with your view of the character then....well, then you're being pretty silly.

 

[Catman]

I agree 100%. Sure. . .I have my FAVORITE version of Batman. However, that's not to say that I dislike every other version. In fact, I like every interpretation of Batman. . .with the exception of the sci-fi stuff we got in the `50s. But, yeah, I enjoy every interpretation. I didn't hate Batman & Robin because it was campy. I hated it because it was stupid. That is why I can enjoy Adam West. Sure its campy, but they manage to entertain me.

 

[El Payaso]

Good artists can make you love different versions of the same character.

 

[The Joker]

Good artists can make you love different versions of the same character.

Exactly.

I love Keaton's Batman, Bale's Batman, Conroy's Batman, Neal Adam's Batman, heck even Adam West's Batman, all for different reasons.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Great post. Even though I prefer the Keaton/Burton versions, I love Batman Begins, like Forever and the 60's tv show as campy as it was. I think all of them (with the exception of Batman and Robin because it was THAT bad) are valid interpretations of the Batman legend.

 

[mister Lennon]

Fair enough if you think in that way. But also fair enough if you disliked one or more of those different versions and you have the right on post it.

By the way, tell me something, didnt you disliked batman and robin or the spiderman movies? Arent they different versions of the character?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Fair enough if you think in that way. But also fair enough if you disliked one or more of those different versions and you have the right on post it.

Well, of course. I'm not saying you don't have the right to like or dislike anything. I'm saying, don't slavishly worship one version of the character and ignore the merits of the others.

By the way, tell me something, didnt you disliked batman and robin or the spiderman movies? Arent they different versions of the character?

But I don't dislike Batman & Robin simply because I consider it unfaithful to the comics. It is faithful to the era it's based on. I can enjoy the lighter, more family-friendly Batman (I'm reading Showcase Presents Batman now, and it's absolutely George Clooney's Batman.) I dislike Batman & Robin it because it has no substance, very little characterisation, terrible fight scenes....you know, all that stuff.

I'm not a big fan of the Spider-Man movies, but not because I consider them unfaithful to the source. I have never been fond of any of Raimi's movies, I consider them tasteless and lacking in any form of subtlety. But his version of Spidey is perfectly valid, I just don't consider his movies especially good.

 

[mister Lennon]

Perfect and valid for me, and totally agree with you in the substance of your mensagge.

The only thing that i bother me is the fanboysm and the over the top reactions in these forums for critize some movie or some actor. I have nothing against tim burton or michael keaton, only i disliked their work in those batman movies. And i dont love chris nolan or chris bale, only i liked more their version. Once said it, i respect and admire the work of those four people and i have liked many things of their work.

I love to discuss things with you , kevin, because your post are almost always very reasonable .

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Perfect and valid for me, and totally agree with you in the substance of your mensagge.

The only thing that i bother me is the fanboysm and the over the top reactions in these forums for critize some movie or some actor. I have nothing against tim burton or michael keaton, only i disliked their work in those batman movies. And i dont love chris nolan or chris bale, only i liked more their version. Once said it, i respect and admire the work of those four people and i have liked many things of their work.

Great, that's all I'm asking for.

I love to discuss things with you , kevin, because your post are almost always very reasonable .

Likewise. I mean, what is there to gain from arguing endlessly that one version of Batman is 'wrong' and another is 'right'? Nothing whatsoever, except wasting time.

 

[mister Lennon]

Yes, that its the thing. It could work or not work at our eyes, but it doesnt mean that its wrong or not. Its a matter of taste, pretty subjetive.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Yes, that its the thing. It could work or not work at our eyes, but it doesnt mean that its wrong or not. Its a matter of taste, pretty subjetive.

And whilst we're on this, a person's view of what Batman is changes as they read more comics and see more movies. If, for instance, someone has only read Batman comics post-Knightfall, go back and read the Neal Adams/Dennis O'Neil stuff and you'll see a different Batman. The Bob Kane/Bill Finger stuff is also different. Then you have Frank Miller, and he makes Batman work in a completely different manner.

It's almost wasting the character to suggest that he be portrayed the same way all the time.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I agree, I do have favorites but none are my accurate then others.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I don't have a problem with any version of Batman. I even love to debate the qualities among the actors and the era, etc...

I only ever get unreasonable when somebody goes out of their way to try and stir up trouble by trying to thinly (or not so thinly) offend those whose opinions are in contrast to theirs.

 

[Bathead]

Exactly. Especially when someone starts tossing around overused pejoratives like "fanboy" when someone disagrees with them about how the character is presented.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm all for favourites, but the arguments over whether Bale or Keaton is superior, or whether Burton or Nolan got closest to the spirit of the comic has got to a stage where I'm bemused.

The fact is, every Batman film is faithful to the comics. Just to different eras. It would be more accurate to say Keaton's is the definite version of the very earliest stories, when the character was still, 'The Batman' or even 'The Bat-Man'. Bale's version isn't especially similar to that version, so if Kane and Finger's original version is the most legitimate Batman, then Keaton is the best screen translation.

If we're talking 50's and early 60's Batman comics, Adam West is by far the most faithful. He's spot on. Clooney's not far off either. Kilmer seems to be the Neil Adams/Dennis O'Neil Batman, more of a superhero yet still serious. Bale's version of Batman is the most faithful to the post-2000 comics.

But who is to say which is the most legitimate version? There isn't one. There can't be. The same with the films themselves. Like all the comicbooks, they are just interpretations of the Batman story and characters. They could not be anything else.

So instead of eliminating all the films that don't match your idealised vision of Batman - and no film ever will - why don't you simply concede that they are all simply interpretations of Batman, each influenced by different eras of the comic?

Tim Burton's Batman and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins are both wonderful films that can exist alongside each other (such as on my DVD shelf). You don't have to accept one as 'your' version and dismiss the others as false, nor do you have to kiss the ass of one Batman act whilst denouncing any others as heretics.

On this forum we should be discussing how fantastic the majority of these Batman films are, how lucky we are to have so many when, say, Spidey and the Hulk have so few, and so on. That makes far more sense than arguing about which film is the 'proper' Batman film, and disregarding all the others.

Further to this, if you can't enjoy the 1960's Batman TV show or movie because it conflicts with your view of the character then....well, then you're being pretty silly.

Great post as always, Kevin.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

^ Kiss-ass.

 

[BatScot]

Instead of eliminating all the films that don't match your idealised vision of Batman - and no film ever will - why don't you simply concede that they are all simply interpretations of Batman, each influenced by different eras of the comic?

Because it does not follow from this that all interpretations are of equal merit or that the source material was of equal value.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Because it does not follow from this that all interpretations are of equal merit or that the source material was of equal value.

Who is to decide which intepretations, and which source material, is of greater merit than others?

 

[Bathead]

^^That would be me.^^

 

[Mr. Socko]

^Your Conrad avay is scary

 

[Bathead]

^Your Conrad avay is scary

Yah, It is. One of the reasons I like it.
Once again I would like to thank ICXCNIKA for providing the link to that pic.

 

[Dcknight]

It'S cool to see a thread where nobody insult somebody, Just people who talk about that they like batman, and that nobody's will be the definitive Batman, cause they are all great, personally, Keaton is the most Mysterious (voice and appearance) Batman, Bale, the most Violent and Anger Batman (also mysterious but not as Keaton) West, the most funny!

 

[Mr.Nerd]

i love keaton. i like bale. i like ham, i hate cheese. but you need ham with cheese to have the great sandwhich in the world!!!!!
think about it.

 

[blind_fury]

Batman TAS and Schumacher's Batman and Robin were both inspired by past incarnations of Batman. But one did it more respectfully and carefully than the other.

How can we decide which one is a better incarnation of Batman. We know by the level of sophistication and what it adds to the Batman mythos. Batman and Robin lacked sophistication and added nothing to Batman mythos. Batman TAS had a considerable amount of sophistication and elevated the Batman mythos.

It is very possible to conclude which Batman movies/shows elevate the source material and what lowers it.

 

[Bat Attack]

I'm all for favourites, but the arguments over whether Bale or Keaton is superior, or whether Burton or Nolan got closest to the spirit of the comic has got to a stage where I'm bemused.

The fact is, every Batman film is faithful to the comics. Just to different eras. It would be more accurate to say Keaton's is the definite version of the very earliest stories, when the character was still, 'The Batman' or even 'The Bat-Man'. Bale's version isn't especially similar to that version, so if Kane and Finger's original version is the most legitimate Batman, then Keaton is the best screen translation.

If we're talking 50's and early 60's Batman comics, Adam West is by far the most faithful. He's spot on. Clooney's not far off either. Kilmer seems to be the Neil Adams/Dennis O'Neil Batman, more of a superhero yet still serious. Bale's version of Batman is the most faithful to the post-2000 comics.

But who is to say which is the most legitimate version? There isn't one. There can't be. The same with the films themselves. Like all the comicbooks, they are just interpretations of the Batman story and characters. They could not be anything else.

So instead of eliminating all the films that don't match your idealised vision of Batman - and no film ever will - why don't you simply concede that they are all simply interpretations of Batman, each influenced by different eras of the comic?

Tim Burton's Batman and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins are both wonderful films that can exist alongside each other (such as on my DVD shelf). You don't have to accept one as 'your' version and dismiss the others as false, nor do you have to kiss the ass of one Batman act whilst denouncing any others as heretics.

On this forum we should be discussing how fantastic the majority of these Batman films are, how lucky we are to have so many when, say, Spidey and the Hulk have so few, and so on. That makes far more sense than arguing about which film is the 'proper' Batman film, and disregarding all the others.

Further to this, if you can't enjoy the 1960's Batman TV show or movie because it conflicts with your view of the character then....well, then you're being pretty silly.

I couldn't possibly agree more, well said.