Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton

ShadowBoxing said:
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.


if he did a good job then he wasn't unfit. keaton was an excellent choice to play this specific batman. the fact that he didn't look like a superhero is what made him perfect. he was just a man that became something else when he put on the suit.
 
Sabotage8475 said:
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.
The reason why so many people say this isn't b/c of the screen-time issue; we got to see more of the Joker in a completely different way. We got to know the Joker a little bit. We got to know the Penguin & Catwoman. We got to see the how & why of it all. We never really got to know Bruce Wayne or Batman. It was, "My parents got killed & so now I wear a cape." That was very incomplete storytelling. The only movie that even attempted to touch on Bruce's mentality & motivations was "Batman Forever", & that left out a very crucial part; when young Bruce was looking through his father's journal, the final entry read "Bruce insits on seeing a movie tonight."
 
mister Lennon said:
That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations.

Remember that flashback scene in the film where an 8 year-old Bruce is out with his parents, they encounter muggers, and they subsequently kill his parents? Am I missing something? That's ALWAYS been his motivation for becoming Batman!! We see how affects his relationships, and how he reacts to things around him. The fact that he let Vicki so close in the first place is a miracle, which is why he lies to her to avoid her. He convinces himself that he has to be alone. We also have several scenes of Alfred showing concern for Bruce. He doesn't want to spend what little life he has left grieving for bruce should he die as a result of being Batman. He sees Bruce as a son, and it would devestate him if he ever lost him. And again, the city hall scene. The shooting starts and Bruce is so focused on the fact that Jack Napier's still alive, he doesn't even flinch when he GOT SHOT!! You have to be pretty screwed up psychologically screwed up to cut yourself off from pain like that. To say nothing of the fact that there's a clear questioning of Batman's mental state within the context of the film. There's always been the idea that Batman is more than likely as disturbed, if not moreso, as the criminals he fights. Vicki questions him on that in the Batcave.

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne.

And that evidence is?

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.

Why? You saying the focus is on Jack Napier/Joker doesn't make it so! You're not backing up your claim with anything!!
 
I think that the main problem is that Burton made his own thing, not an adaptation of batman and his world.

Yes, Burton did his own thing. Guess what? A lot of elements of it caught on, even in the comic books. And Burton definitely made an "adaption of Batman and his world". What he didn't do was a "literal translation." Neither is Nolan.

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.

So you wanted a Batman in blue and gray spandex, a Joker who didn't usually kill, and a Penguin who wore a blue yellow and purple tux and commited crimes involving birds and umbrellas? Would you have preferred actors that WEREN'T of the caliber of Keaton, Nicholson and DeVito? Nevermind that Nolan's taking the same approach, casting huge or well known pop culture names as the main villains and supporting cast. Is that what I'm getting from your comments? You all spit on Burton's changes and are so ready to accept Nolan's...many of which actually seem to deviate more from the comics than Burton's did (changes which were mostly VISUAL changes to characters, not character or mythos changes). It's pretty funny.

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.

Don't know about Nicholson, but he definitely wasn't the main focus. He had a lot of screentime so his character had WEIGHT, depth, and a complete origin, as well as a strong continuing character. Nothing more, nothing less. The story is titled BATMAN. It begins with Batman, everything we see is in relation to how it affects Batman, not Joker. batman gets the girl, saves the day, and has the most emotion shown onscreen. In every sequence that he's onscreen, Batman gets the upper hand and shows up anyone else. It's his film.

And as far as your comments on RETURNS go, not true. Keaton has more screentime than Penguin and Catwoman in RETURNS, and a lot of their screentime is when he's onscreen with them, or in scenes with them.

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

Not really. And at least you spelled argument right once in that sentence.

Let me get this straight

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

Physically unfit? Have you ever heard about Keaton training with kickboxing and martial arts before BATMAN, and how his mentors raved about him? Do you see excess flab hanging off him when he is shirtless, or in a tight shirt?

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

No. Since they're part of two different franchises. Did Keaton make people forget about Adam West? Did Conroy make people forget about Keaton? Does the comic book make you forget about all other versions? No. No it doesn't.

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.

Ooh, "The Red Hood". How cinematic.

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

Not slavishly faithful to the character, no. Adaptions rarely are. Shall we talk about how the movie WAS faithful to The Joker's character? Seriously, do you need it pointed out?

Also (I don't think Joker looked that different BTW) physical build is a big deal when casting I think.

Not to most moviegoers apparently. Seems they wanted to see one of the best men for the job.

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).

Do you have any idea how big Ashton Kutcher is and how ripped he could get? Or the fact that he was in the running and impressed in screentests for both the Batman and Superman roles? You just counteracted your own argument.

The size, or ability to gain such size is a big deal in these types of movies.

Not in BATMAN, where Burton dared to do something new with the superhero/action genre.

You have to believe the person could go out and fight crime.

Watch it, you're about to offend every short, overweight cop in the world.

Would you cast a fat guy as Lance Armstrong, no, no one would believe it.

Uh...Lance Armstrong is a real person. Batman is not.

There needs to be some ressemblence of the character in the actor.

There was. Dark features, handsome...black hair...somewhat had the jaw. And he looked great in the suit.

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.

I pity you.

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.

Batman's motivation was exactly what it was in the comics...helping people and protecting Gotham from evil. Not just finding his parents killer or avenging their deaths.

"Because no one else can."

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.

Shall we list the things we learned about Bruce from BATMAN and the things we learned about The Joker and see which list is longer?

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

What a well thought out, well-supported conclusion.

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

There is a JACK, though. I believe it's in that beloved "Red Hood" origin remake in THE KILLING JOKE.

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.

Seriously. I don't think The Joker was ever meant to be a purely sympathetic character. There's an element of sympathy there, but he still chooses to do evil. Not only that, I think the idea of a failed comedian putting on a red hood to rob a playing card factory is lame, lame, lame, and much less interesting than the mob connection The Joker was given in BATMAN and the reason Jack was put into that situation.

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.

Only for people who can't see the forest for the trees.

That is the main reason on why i dont believe in the whole story of the movie.

What does how a man looks as a character have to do with not believing the story of a movie, especially when it ties INTO the story of the movie? See, in BATMAN, Bruce Wayne was more like your average man, and that was part of the story. So you should have believed it more, if anything.

Also, the costume should be only a costume, not an armor trying to simule a muscular body for a everyman guy.

I think it's trying to simulate a large bat creature. Not a muscular body. Doesn't Bale's costume do the same thing for him in the suit?

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.

Watch some Nicholson films for about a day. Then watch BATMAN. You should see what I mean fairly quickly. Definitely not a typical Nicholson performance.

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.

Shall we list what we know about Wayne and his motivations that you were too busy worrying about what he looked like to see?

At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne.

At the end of the film, I got the feeling that Batman was Gotham's new protector, and remembered how Bruce had gotten there. Since Joker was dead and all, and most of what I remembered about him was his evil ways.

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.

Proof please.

We never really got to know Bruce Wayne or Batman. It was, "My parents got killed & so now I wear a cape." That was very incomplete storytelling.

We got to know him well beyond that. Shall I explain it? It wasn't incomplete storytelling, it was an introduction to a character, and one that assumed audiences weren't stupid and liked to think once in a while.
 
The Guard said:
Only for people who can't see the forest for the trees.

It's sad, but true.. There are those who apparently have a hard time looking beyond the "surface" of the film and to notice the film's and it's director's intentions in exploring the character. No this is not a film were Batman simply saves the day. This is not a film that's driven by you typical comicbook adventure yarn. It actually goes beyond that mentality, as theres more to read inbetween the lines (which is really not THAT hard to figure out. Though some people seem to be displaying otherwise...) There's a reason why Batman and the Joker are very much a like.. But, I'm probably wasting my breath as always (Guard, I don't know how you do it.. :)) Here's hoping BATMAN BEGINS is not only a good movie, but a little more 'basic' ...? :rolleyes:
 
Two Face said:
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.
Joker's really name in the comics could well be Jack Napier. All we know is that he has a cousin named Reipan and his first name begins with the letters "Ja".
 
ShadowBoxing said:
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.
You seem to be mixing up pre and post crisis. Post crisis, Batman doesn't know who his parents killer is and the Joker is a failed comedian; Pre crisis, the Joker is a theif who was working towards a million dollars before he retired and the Wayne's were killed by Joe Chill (under orders from Lew Moxon).
 
Timstuff said:
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.

In the episode "Dreams in Darkness", an Arkham Asylum doctor refers to Joker as Jack Napier. I think there is also a Jack Napier reference in the episode "Joker's Wild". In TNBA, they say that Joker had many aliases before his acid bath.
 
WhiteRat said:
Although I disagree with what your saying you do make some good points here.Keaton gave a good performance as Batman but people could not take him serious in that role because when he got out of the Batman costume it made you wonder how he went from looking strong and muscular in that bat outfit to looking fat and out of shape as Bruce Wayne.:confused: Because of that ,people could not take Keaton serious in the role which is why the franchise is being started all over again.Im just thankful that the director of the new Batman movie cares about what the fans feel unlike Burton did and was concerned enough to make the best casting choice possible in Bale-someone who DOES physically fit the role.Burton only cast Keaton because he was friends with him,he did not care about making the best casting choice possible.

have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
cryptic name said:
have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't waste your breath. You can't reason with some people, lest of all WhiteRat or Mister Lennon. They go out of their way to be completely unreasonable.
 
DocLathropBrown said:
Don't waste your breath. You can't reason with some people, lest of all WhiteRat or Mister Lennon. They go out of their way to be completely unreasonable.

Thank you very much, dude. Its great to feel be in the unreasonable team of these forums against the " Burton is a genious not matter what he did in the batman movies" ruler of the absolute reason team.
 
Y'know, I do feel that overall, Begins was a better film. But in terms of portrayal of the character, I gotta give it to Keaton. Bale looked better, came across more physically imposing, & had a better suit (IMO) & toys. But Keaton gave such a masterful performance that edges Bale out just a little.
 
Desagree. When i watch Bale playing Bruce Wayne, i think: he is bruce wayne and he is acting like bruce wayne. But when i see keaton as wayne, i think: its just michael keaton with some memory problems and thinking in somewhat.
 
cryptic name said:
have you ever seen a fat person? because there is no point in the film where keaton looks fat. you can't even say he looks out of shape because we never see him in tight clothing or shirtless. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dude, have you ever read a troll typing. They say anything just for the sake of it. Just don't pay attention.
 
mister Lennon said:
Desagree. When i watch Bale playing Bruce Wayne, i think: he is bruce wayne and he is acting like bruce wayne. But when i see keaton as wayne, i think: its just michael keaton with some memory problems and thinking in somewhat.
I see a man uncomfortable in his own skin. The only part of the manor that he considers his own is the cave; the rest of it is still his father's house. ("I don't think I've ever been in this room before.") Keaton's character saw Batman as who he was & Bruce Wayne as something he had to do.
 
Chris Wallace said:
I see a man uncomfortable in his own skin. The only part of the manor that he considers his own is the cave; the rest of it is still his father's house. ("I don't think I've ever been in this room before.") Keaton's character saw Batman as who he was & Bruce Wayne as something he had to do.

I like to discuss with you or with kevin rogele because altought i desagree with your opinons, i can respect your opinions. Just the oppossite with people like the little clow or payasito, who always go on offenses and name callings.Poor guy.

But back to the issue, your reason is good for a boy bruce wayne , but not for a 35 years old dude.
 
I don't really see a difference. Bruce's childhood effectively ended when the first shot went off.
 
And you're supposed to be able to have fun w/these discussions, even (or especially) if you don't agree w/the poster. See, I can see validity in your posts (at least to me; I don't know what was said before I came back to the thread & I don't much care.) but my opinion stands.
 
cryptic name said:
if he did a good job then he wasn't unfit. keaton was an excellent choice to play this specific batman. the fact that he didn't look like a superhero is what made him perfect. he was just a man that became something else when he put on the suit.
My argument wasn't that he was unfit, but that he should've been unfit, or rather that, based on his physicality many would say he was.
 
Agreed, Keaton is still the best batman, I think he could be surpassed, but I don't see it anytime soon. Still, Bale is doing a good job also, not his finestrole however, I'd put BB as Bale's fourth best performance on screen, but still better than kilmer and dare i speak his name...clooney
 
The problem for me is the wrong concept of the character in burton's mind. Bruce Wayne isnt a everyman who became a hero when he puts himself that suit. He is man with a 20 years old trainning , a perfect human peak specialist in many martial arts and fight kinds. Bale was that and it was showed. Keaton wasnt that and it wasnt showed.
 
Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....

Pat Collins said:
"Daring, spectacular, exciting. Worth the wait, worth the hype and worth the wait in line. Michael Keaton makes you believe in BATMAN."

For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.
 
DocLathropBrown said:
Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....



For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.


Nicely put, I agree for the mostpart
 
DocLathropBrown said:
Bale's okay, but I blame his medocrity on Nolan more than anything else. But I still blame Bale for that terrible Bat-voice.

He was fantastic in the video game. That was a different writer and director, so that clinches it for me. I blame Goyer for his lame script and Nolan for his so/so directing. A guy who won't use certain villains from Batman because they're "too unrealistic" is not the right guy for the material. Burton wouldn't have had any problem using Clayface, for instance...

I think Pat Collins siad it best back in '89....



For me, he's still the only person who ever made me believe. That says it all.
I'm not sure Burton would've used someone like Clayface or Man-Bat. I'd rather not see them, to tell the truth.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"