Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton

[Guason]

I said Burton movies
Ansara and Glover were awesome!
Now that you mention
Could Whiterat be the banned Mr. Parker?

 

[BatmanRules33]

like ive stated before

Keaton=Definitive Batman (unless Bale proves otherwise, and even then, Keaton will be #1)

Whiterat=clueless

 

[Furious Styles]

I think ALOT of people will watch Batman Begins and begin (no pun intended) to say that Bale blew Keaton out of the water and that's how it should be done and they will try and belittle Keaton's performance. Infact, some people are already saying that and they haven't even seen the movie.

I think that is unfortunate, I think both Keaton and Bale are amazing actors and they will/have both add to the character of Batman in a positive way.

I think Keaton's performance was amazing. He was great inspite of his physical appearance. That shows you how much he put into the performance and how great an actor he is. If someone showed you a picture of him normally and then said, "that's Batman!" They'd laugh. But if you showed them a picture of Keaton in the Batsuit with his menacing look, I bet you they would believe.

I think Keaton will be Batman to a certain generation and then to some who seem bitter for some reason, they will curse him until they have Bale. I don't know why people can't enjoy both movies and both actors.

Infact, I enjoyed Val Kilmer as well and if you've seen Dusk 'Till Dawn, Clooney has the acting chops so I mean in an alternate universe, he could have whipped out a good Batman performance.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I think ALOT of people will watch Batman Begins and begin (no pun intended) to say that Bale blew Keaton out of the water and that's how it should be done and they will try and belittle Keaton's performance. Infact, some people are already saying that and they haven't even seen the movie.

I think that is unfortunate, I think both Keaton and Bale are amazing actors and they will/have both add to the character of Batman in a positive way.

I think Keaton's performance was amazing. He was great inspite of his physical appearance. That shows you how much he put into the performance and how great an actor he is. If someone showed you a picture of him normally and then said, "that's Batman!" They'd laugh. But if you showed them a picture of Keaton in the Batsuit with his menacing look, I bet you they would believe.

I think Keaton will be Batman to a certain generation and then to some who seem bitter for some reason, they will curse him until they have Bale. I don't know why people can't enjoy both movies and both actors.

Exactly. Wise words, my friend.

 

[BatmanRules33]

Exactly. Wise words, my friend.

wise indeed! i love both keaton and bale, but keaton will always hold a special place with me. to me, he will always be THE Batman!!

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

wise indeed! i love both keaton and bale, but keaton will always hold a special place with me. to me, he will always be THE Batman!!

I feel the same way.

 

[nosebleed.]

Why argue about who's better? Keaton was very convincing as Wayne and Batman, but he had this very villian oriented movie that overshadowed much of his performance. The movie and rest of the cast of both Batman and BR were so eccentric that Batman/Wayne seemed like the only normal characer...when he's supposed to be the outcast. I saw the movie when I was 11 years old and I remember being sorta disappointed after all the hype too. I remember thinking before I saw the movie, "Keaton as Batman?? That's weird of them to cast a comedian as Batman". But watching the movie convinced me he was a great choice. Bottomline...Keaton was great...movies were weird.

Now with Bale, we get the best of everything. Great actor that looks the part and has the acting chops to boot, great supporting cast that can make this movie shine and awesome director that is taking the material very seriously and with great attention to detail. So in a way, Bale does have it a little easier because Nolan is sticking more to source material than weirded out Burton. But saying Keaton is THE definitive Batman is saying too much to me.

Let's reserve judgement til we see BB. Then talk ***t.

 

[P. Cushing]

he had this very villian oriented movie

I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.

 

[Sabotage8475]

I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.

Like I said in the past (many times), in terms of character analysis Batman IS the main focus. Both in BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS. Just becuase he doesn't appear on screen all the time doesn't means jack sh/t. I don't understand why some people need eveything spelled out for them.. Now as for people wanting to see Batman have more 'screen-time', thats another thing entirely. That I can understand. But please don't flat-out insist that Batman wasn't the focus. He certainly was.

 

[nosebleed.]

I keep hearing this, but Batman had more screentime than the Joker and was definately the main focus of the film.

For a movie called "Batman" that does make sense.

 

[mister Lennon]

I think that the main problem is that Burton made his own thing, not an adaptation of batman and his world. He made his own batman with everyman michael keaton, his own joker with fat and old jack nicholson and his own penguin with the freak apparence of danny de vito. It pissed myself and another fans because we were waiting for an adaptation of batman, not tim burton vision about batman and his world.

Actually, posting that batman was the main focus in the burton movies its false. Nicholson's joker has a lot of more screentime than Keaton and is the main focus, same with devito's penguin and michelle's catwoman in returns. The villains were the main focus and they have more screentime than batman.

 

[KenK]

How much more screentime did Joker really have over Batman/Bruce Wayne, has anyone really timed it to see and be able to say that one had an overwhelming amount of screentime over the other? And in the case of Batman Returns, I think there was some SERIOUS focus put on Bruce Wayne as his relationship with Selina developed. The nature of his relationship as Batman with Catwoman is right from the comics. Batman sees an equal despite them being on opposite sides of the law. The whole point, in my opinion, is that we understand Batman through his villains. They either have some physical deformity and a demeanor to go along with it, or they do what he does, put on a mask in order to free themselves. While DeVito's Penguin is debatable, are you really gonna tell me Nicholson's Joker was such a betrayl of the character because he wasn't tall and skinny like his is in the comics? It doesn't matter that almost everything else about the character is dead on? Aside from making him a gangster, the origin and motivations of the character remained: chased by Batman in a chemical plant, falls into aside, goes mad, and kills people(often rather gruesomely) for his own amusement. His whole trademark of killing people with chemicals and gasses so they have grins on their faces like him, is that not from the comics? As for Batman, how different is Bruce Wayne/Batman, aside from not looking insanely buff? Were his parents not murdered in front of him as a child? Does not act more sociably and cordial as Bruce Wayne, and detached and dark, and troubled as Batman? Does he not do any investigative work to figure out how the Joker is poisoning the city? I mean, what's missing that makes Burton's Batman so drastically different from the comic?

 

[Timstuff]

Kilmer was good-even if he had precious little to work with. I have every reason to believe that Bale will be great. But no one will ever surpass Keaton for one simple reason: He had to rely totally on his performance.
Think about it. He was completely physically wrong for the part. Wrong height. Wrong build. Wrong hair. He didn't have the "pretty boy Wayne' features. But he played the role so well that WE DIDN'T CARE.

Speak for yourself. I cared. ALOT.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

How much more screentime did Joker really have over Batman/Bruce Wayne, has anyone really timed it to see and be able to say that one had an overwhelming amount of screentime over the other? And in the case of Batman Returns, I think there was some SERIOUS focus put on Bruce Wayne as his relationship with Selina developed. The nature of his relationship as Batman with Catwoman is right from the comics. Batman sees an equal despite them being on opposite sides of the law. The whole point, in my opinion, is that we understand Batman through his villains. They either have some physical deformity and a demeanor to go along with it, or they do what he does, put on a mask in order to free themselves. While DeVito's Penguin is debatable, are you really gonna tell me Nicholson's Joker was such a betrayl of the character because he wasn't tall and skinny like his is in the comics? It doesn't matter that almost everything else about the character is dead on? Aside from making him a gangster, the origin and motivations of the character remained: chased by Batman in a chemical plant, falls into aside, goes mad, and kills people(often rather gruesomely) for his own amusement. His whole trademark of killing people with chemicals and gasses so they have grins on their faces like him, is that not from the comics? As for Batman, how different is Bruce Wayne/Batman, aside from not looking insanely buff? Were his parents not murdered in front of him as a child? Does not act more sociably and cordial as Bruce Wayne, and detached and dark, and troubled as Batman? Does he not do any investigative work to figure out how the Joker is poisoning the city? I mean, what's missing that makes Burton's Batman so drastically different from the comic?

Joker was great, but just because JN did a good job of acting insanely clownish. But the origins were changed drastically, especially Joker's. Joker was a down and out comedian tricked into doing a raid under the guise of the Red Hood. He had no prior criminal record...we are aware of, or really of any importance. Furthermore he didn't murder Bruce's parents, Joe Chill did. They didn't really change him character wise, I agree. But just because some vague originesque story is done does not mean that they were faithful to the character

Also (I don't think Joker looked that different BTW) physical build is a big deal when casting I think. For example Ashton Kutcher may be cool and all, but I sure as hell wouldn't make him a superhero (superman rumors a while back). The size, or ability to gain such size is a big deal in these types of movies. You have to believe the person could go out and fight crime. Would you cast a fat guy as Lance Armstrong, no, no one would believe it. There needs to be some ressemblence of the character in the actor.

 

[P. Cushing]

All that means is that they don't think Bale will match Keaton's performance.

 

[Two-Face]

I think Bale will.

 

[mister Lennon]

The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story. We need some resemblensse with the character.

The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story. Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.

If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.

In batman returns, we know a lot more about oswald coblepott and his whole story and about selina kyle and her whole story. Bruce wayne is more a supporting character.

 

[mister Lennon]

I think that Bale will do a great job. And Keaton's performance wasnt that great.

 

[Two-Face]

Jack Napier isn't Joker in the comics cos there's no Jack Napier in comics!

Jack napier is only Joker in Burton Batman movie.

 

[KenK]

The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.

Let me get this straight

Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.

Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.

Just because someone doesn't have a six pack doesn't make them unfit. Keaton was hardly out of shape.

 

[mister Lennon]

Yeah, keaton was hardly out of sharpe because he wasnt on shape.

 

[KenK]

The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story. We need some resemblensse with the character.

Batman suit, aside from being all black(hey, just like the suit in Begins!) what's different about it, aside from the accents of how it's attached to the cape? Joker, sorry if he isn't anorexic, but other than that, the green hair, white skin, and red lips, coupled with Nicholson's performance made me believe in the story.

The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story.

Did it ever cross your mind that using Joker's exact origin might just put MORE of that undeserved focus on him? Think about it, You use Joker's origin about him being a failed comedian who loses his wife and unborn child and you're REALLY gonna draw attention away from Batman/Bruce Wayne. Audiences would have struggled with who to feel for in the context of the film. If the argument is that the main focus should be on Bruce Wayne/Batman, using Joker's origin as is would have threatened that.

Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.

Up until that point near the end of the film, his motivation was against all criminals and still was after the film. He hadn't spent the entire film looking for the killer of his famil.

If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.

First of all, let's not act like the film was that "in-depth" in it's relationship between Joker and Alicia. One scene with him and Jack to establish him messing with Grissom's girl, leading to the setup in the plant, one scene that's less than 30 seconds showing her in the mask, clearly something's been done to her. One scene with "the reveal", and none of those scenes really linger like Bruce and Vicki's scene. From their introduction to each other, there's loads more development in their relationship, especially in regards to Bruce's reluctance to take the relationship further. The scene outside city hall for god's sake! All that beforehand when she follows him to where his parents were murdered, and discovers that his parents were murdered! The scene when they have dinner and she tries to figure him out. Not to mention all the scenes between Bruce and Alfred. You're telling me there was less focus on Bruce in those scenes than the two or three cumulative minutes of footage between Jack and Alicia? Gimme a goddamn break!

In batman returns, we know a lot more about oswald coblepott and his whole story and about selina kyle and her whole story. Bruce wayne is more a supporting character.

No, Batman is an established character, there's a difference. We know why he does what he does, and furthermore, we learn more about him through his encounter with Selina. We see evidence of Batman's ego, his whole "I am the night" persona is challenge with the emergence of the Penguin. Alfred even says it in one scene, "Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?". Then there's Penguin's claim that Batman is jealous that he has to wear a mask to distance himself from humanity, and Batman pretty much agrees with him. We get a clear indication of how Bruce/Batman sees himself. The first time we see him in the film, he sits alone in the dark and nothing brings him to life except Gotham's need for Batman. Batman is who he is, as opposed to something he just does every night, and Returns pushes that idea.

 

[mister Lennon]

Well, in the way that Burton used batman and bruce wayne, the joker's origin wasnt that important, he will be always the main focus of the film.

Yeah, the suit is black, i noticed it too. but the guy bethind the mask doesnt look Bruce Wayne at all. That is the main reason on why i dont believe in the whole story of the movie. Also, the costume should be only a costume, not an armor trying to simule a muscular body for a everyman guy. And the joker should be only tall, thin and young, not anorexic. I liked Nicholson performance, much more than Keaton's , but i think that he was only jack being jack with joker make-up.

That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations. In a first film of a character , the focus should be in the main character, not in his foe.

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne. Yeah, the relationship between Bruce and Vicky is more developed than the one between Jack and Alicia, but the main focus is jack napier and the joker, not Bruce Wayne.

Well, in spiderman 2 peter parker is a stabilished character and the focus is on him, not on doctor octopus. In superman 2 the focus is the stabilished character superman, not on general zod and his friends. One thing is to present a two new characters and another thing is all the focus on them.

 

[Timstuff]

Jack napier is only Joker in Burton Batman movie.

I'm quite certain that in the Animated Series they called him Jack Napier at least once (I remember this episode being on one of the DVDs from the Volume 1 set). It really doesn't mean diddly to me what Joker's real name is, as long a he's true to the real character. I could care less if his real name is Jack Napier or not.