Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton

[Infinity9999x]

Please ! You can go and watch Batman when Keaton is remembering the Wayne's death and you can feel his pain as well and he didn't even need to break out and cry, his eyes said it all.
Chris, great post buddy. You really got it. Keaton is an awesome actor who loves challenges. It's what estimulates him as an artist. He hates to be bored. Batman was one of those roles in which he had alot of fun overcoming all of the odds. And he did it. Maybe he could have been even better had he trained with weights but that was something he was told not to do. He did train martial arts and kickboxing and his instructor in both movies said he never had a fastest learning student.
And in my opinion it's better when you have both characters (Bruce and Batman) and not suspect that one is the other based on their physique. In comics sometimes it's almost insulting to your intelligence when they paint Bruce with a HUGE body and there he is entering the parties in tuxedo , the biggest guy in the room and nobody suspects he's Batman. I rather believe in a smaller guy who then becomes bigger with his body armour.
And that's why I always said performance wise (I think Bale will be better as Bruce, in action sequences also because he has a better suit and the help of special effects that Keaton didn't have at the time) Keaton is unbeatable. He had a harder job.
I take great confort in knowing how well he's still respected. Crowds cheer very loud and clap when he's in talk shows and mentions Batman. And no matter how hard some fans are enamorated with Bale will try to take down his credit, he will always be Batman to millions.
I do wish Bale good luck and if he impresses me more than Keaton I will be here to admit it. If not, there's no small feat either. He doesn't have to be better. He just has to be good enough. He will be great. But Keaton was amazing.

exactaly, I think it was interesting that they portrayed Batman as a smaller guy becuz then less ppl would suspect Wayne was Batman. That's what always bugged me bout the Superman concept, I mean ok we have this huge built guy in the comics who's always gone when superman is around, and he bares a stricking resemblence to superman.....but kno one knows hes superman...ya right. Oh and for a second there u got me freaked out cuz my Name is Chris and I was like how did he fing out my name.....? and then I saw wallaces name and I was like ohh duh...lol

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

exactaly, I think it was interesting that they portrayed Batman as a smaller guy becuz then less ppl would suspect Wayne was Batman. That's what always bugged me bout the Superman concept, I mean ok we have this huge built guy in the comics who's always gone when superman is around, and he bares a stricking resemblence to superman.....but kno one knows hes superman...ya right. QUOTE]


I can't comment on the Superman comics but in the movies when Christopher Reeve played Clark Kent he even said that he would slouch his shoulders and talk soft as Kent but when he was Superman he would stand up straight and talk with a commanding voice, his performance in dual personalities was believable and Chris Reeve will always be Superman.

 

[Infinity9999x]

ya Reeve did do a good job but I just never bought the whole Superman Idea, I mean a guy can only fool so many people buy taking off his glasses. Reeve was a great actor tho.

 

[Pookie Begins]

While Bale will probably do better. Im still going to Keaton for my favorite and better actor.
I mean aside from the serials in what the 40's? and the campy version doesnt count. Keaton was the first person to take a real crack at the role, and people enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. I think he played a great Bruce adn a great Batman. And yes while Bale may do a better job, Keaton had to try and define what hadn't been done before. Pioneers make mistakes, **** look at the Donner party ^^ But they did show people what not to do. Bale kinda has it easy cause he has references on film. Something Keaton didnt have.

By that logic, it would actually give Bale a better chance at succeding and going above and beyond Keaton, the man who came before him. That is always the evolution of things, someone will always come along and be better after taking what he saw from his predecessors and adding his own flair. It is seen in many different landscapes. And also, Keaton wasn't piornering ANYTHING, the character was being potrayed as bad ass, anti-social nut in the biggest comic book of the 80's aka DKR which he based his entire performance off of.

 

[P. Cushing]

That is always the evolution of things, someone will always come along and be better after taking what he saw from his predecessors and adding his own flair.

That's not always true though. Neither Davison, McCoy, McGann or Eccleston are Better than Baker even though they succeeded him. Same with Everrett and Roxburgh, succeeding Merrison. And again with Oldman succeeding Lee and Palance. Still, it does happen some time (Conroy succeeding Sessions and Keaton, Whitfeild succeeding Rutherford and Hickson, etc.)

 

[Pookie Begins]

That's not always true though. Neither Davison, McCoy, McGann or Eccleston are Better than Baker even though they succeeded him. Same with Everrett and Roxburgh, succeeding Merrison. And again with Oldman succeeding Lee and Palance. Still, it does happen some time (Conroy succeeding Sessions and Keaton, Whitfeild succeeding Rutherford and Hickson, etc.)

I didn't say the next person in line for the role would be better, but which ever one is new to the role and obviously knocked it out the park, borrowed and stood on the shoulders of those before him.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

ya Reeve did do a good job but I just never bought the whole Superman Idea, I mean a guy can only fool so many people buy taking off his glasses. Reeve was a great actor tho.

I disagree. Reeve did such a good job, when he was Clark he looked and seemed TOTALLY different than when he was Superman. It was amazing.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I disagree. Reeve did such a good job, when he was Clark he looked and seemed TOTALLY different than when he was Superman. It was amazing.

I just watched a bit of the movie again tonight, and you are right Reeve did really sell that role, I was really more making the point to the general concept of superman, especially in the comics where the portray Clark Kent as this huge buff guy. That always seemed unrealisitic to me. But I'm just a casual reader of Superman too.

 

[GLREBORN]

Keaton was never Batman

Heck he is not even that great an actor.

 

[P. Cushing]

Keaton was Batman from 1989 to when BTAS premiered.

 

[Crashorama]

Keaton was never Batman

Heck he is not even that great an actor.

He is an awesome actor.

 

[Guason]

Keaton is Batman
And he`s such a great actor, even better than Bale.

 

[anaelmasri]

totally agree with u man
bale looks like he will be great
but KEATON IS BATMAN

 

[portland2002]

Val Kilmer's my favorite Batman.

 

[Guason]

if kilmer and clooney were chosen to play batman in the first 2 movies then i think they would of gave the same or possibly better performace than keaton as batman, also you seem narrow minded with your comment there will never be a better Batman than Keaton as you havn't seen bale's performance in batman begins yet and assume noone can touch keaton's performance

Keaton would have even made a better goofy and talkitive Batman than both Clooney and Kilmer if he had been asked to!
I really have a hard time thinking one of them would have done a better job than he did, `cause let`s admit it they wouldn`t have.

 

[-Fire-Fly-]

Yes I agree Keaton was good for his time but the show must go on...Bale is Batman

Bat-Miles

 

[The Sage]

Bale will be Batman, and Keaton will still be Batman when it's all said and done.

 

[The Guard]

Agreed. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are two different kinds of Batmen, just like West and Keaton were. Keaton was cast to fill the role of a completely re-imagined Dark Knight. Bale's not picking up where Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney left off, he's doing what Keaton did in 1989. Helping reinvent Batman. Nothing, I think, will ever change the fact that Keaton gave a hell of a performance as both Bruce Wayne and Batman in both films. He did things that appealed to comic book fans who flat-out hated those movies and their take on the character. Nothing's going to change that. I seriously doubt we're going to look back after BATMAN BEGINS and go "God, because Bale was good, Keaton's acting sucked".

 

[P. Cushing]

Don't be so sure about that last part, The Guard. Some people will just because.















Keaton rules. A lot.

 

[swifty]

Bale will own Keaton's ass!!!!

 

[Proximo]

Bale will own Keaton's ass!!!!

Bale look like a girl in that pictures.
I have no doubt Bale will be a good Batman but i dont think he will beat Keaton's preformance.

I mean just look at Keaton... He looks so much more intimidating and badass then Bale.
Bale will probably be a better Bruce Wayne then Keaton but Batman no.

 

[buggs0268]

I still think this is so funny. When Batman 89 came out, most people thought Keaton sucked. The fan boys and comic people really hated him as Batman when the first one came out. I remember seeing it at the 12:00 am sneak showing the night before it was officially released, and when the movie was over all the Batman fans where going "God that sucked. He sucked as Batman!" Keaton made it all about the suit, and all the comic fans in 89 hated that. Keaton even said in interviews he played it for the suit. Batman is not just about the suit. I Just thought that would always be the case.

Lets put it this way. After the film was over, and this was in the bigggest theater in town at the sneak preview showing with all the Batman fans there. Half of the audience was dressed up in batman, penguin, or joker cosutmes. Before the lights went out the whole audience was singing the 60 batman theme song. So this was a pro-Batman crowd. But, whent the movie was over, more people were talking about the Lethal Weapon 2 preview then Batman. Hell, more people wee talking about the stupid Yahoo Serious preview than they were Batman. If they where talking about Batman, it was how disapointed they were with it and Keaton. I heard alot of "That was what we were waiting for?" and there was so much hype before it was released, that it was all everyone talked about he following monday. And all the peopel I heard talking about it was how much it sucked, and how much Keaton sucked.

So it jsut really cracks me up that people argue that he is the best now. Hell i think it is funny now that people think The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension was a great film now casue people thought it was really dumb when it came out.

 

[Proximo]

singing 60s theme song? so i guess they expected a campy 60s style batman movie thats why they were pissed of the 89 movie.

Now most of the people. fan boy etc, think burtons movies is the best and keaton is the man... 89 and returns will always be my favorite batman movies inspide of what Batman Begins will be like... i just cant accept someone else play Batman then Keaton... he is Batman for me.

 

[Riven]

Lets put it this way. After the film was over, and this was in the bigggest theater in town at the sneak preview showing with all the Batman fans there. Half of the audience was dressed up in batman, penguin, or joker cosutmes. Before the lights went out the whole audience was singing the 60 batman theme song. So this was a pro-Batman crowd.

No offense, but that "pro-Batman" crowd sounds like a bunch of freaking morons. Regardless if you like the Burton/Keaton Batman, that's just plain stupid.

Ask almost anyone in the general audience who is a little knowledgable about Batman, not fanboys mind you, and they'll say B89 is their favorite Batman ever.

B89 was not a dissapointment, nor was Keaton. B89 could have been a much better movie, but as a Batman movie adaptation it still stands unbeaten. I expect Begins to change that. But it still rules.

 

[buggs0268]

When it came out it was a total disapointment. It made money but that was becasue it was so overhyped everyone went to see it. But people, especially comic book people , hated it. My roomate at teh time owned a comic book store and I helped him set up at a comic book convention and that was what people would say when it was mentioned "God that sucked!" And the pro batman crows was the same type of crowd tha was dressed up and at opening night for all the Lord of the Ring movies. I am telling you from first hand experience, people were let down by the movie.

I know Letterman told Keaton that he was the only Batman, but when Batman came out Letterman was goofing on it and saying things like "It looked nice but you could have cared less if everyone in Gotham died at the end of the movie" and people cheered. It was not well like when it came out as it was such a let down.

And I was 22 at the time I saw it first showing at the biggest theater in town. So I wasn't just a kid. I know you are a fan of it but the movie was a total let down when it came out. And I am not just talking about just the fan boys. This movie was so hyped. Everyone was wearing the black shirt with the Batman logo. People were having the Batman logo cut into thir hair. I mean it was everywhere. And the general audience at the time hated it after it was released.

6 months later, when I went to see a movie on opening night and they would show trivia questions with shots from the film when the lights were still on before the previews, and a shot from Batman came up, people who where paying attention to the screen groaned, and I remember hearing coments like "That movie just sucked"

Again, I know youa re a fan, but when it came out, it was such a let down, not jsut to the fan boys, but to the general public. People liked the car. They liked Elfman's score. they liked the suit. But that was about it. And I know that people say they are the best out of the 4 now, which is my point. To me that is weird as people didn't like them when they came out. Batman Returns did not fly off of the videos shelves. Batman 1 did well on video sales, but that was the first time you could buy a brand new video tape release for $19.00. Before that a brand new video was $79.00-$89.50, if you could get them. Most videos back then you had to wair for 6 months before you bould buy a copy. You could get tehm on laser disc but not VHS. Alot of new releases you could not get at that time because the rental stores had agreements with the studios so that people would rent them instead of buying them. Batman was the first that was so cheap, and it was released in October or November if I remember correctly.

Let me ask you this Riven. How old were you when the film came out? And were you there opening night. Did you see the film in the theater when it was released?