For All Those Who Hate Keaton As Batman.....

[larryfilmmaker]

I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

So no film critics know good acting but you do? Kilmer was better? Well, I won't say you're flat out wrong... but at least go the route of "it's all a matter of opinion" when you say things like that.

 

[Yurka]

I still believe Keaton was the best Batman/Bruce to this day, physically he might not have been the best, but psychologically and emotionally he played it to a T, IMO.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Not to me, he's not. He does a good job, but I won't look at him and think "Batman". I look at him and think "try a role that isn't gritty already for God's sakes. It won't hurt your precious cult following".

See Laurel Canyon, I'm Not There, The New World, Mary, Mother of Jesus (Yes, Jesus...that gritty sob), blah blah blah.

I don't get the Mr. Intensity whining when it comes to Bale. He's a young man with a decent and pretty diverse resume`.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

See Laurel Canyon, I'm Not There, The New World, Mary, Mother of Jesus (Yes, Jesus...that gritty sob), blah blah blah.

I don't get the Mr. Intensity whining when it comes to Bale. He's a young man with a decent and pretty diverse resume`.

It's not whining. I'm not upset and I don't care. I'm a grown man with a job and a real life... not some crazed 15 year old on a mission to attack or defend an actor who doesn't know who I am. Relax.

I think we were talking about the movies Bale does as a MOVIE STAR, not the ones he did back when he was just an actor.

Don't be naive. Any movie star who develops a cliche stereotype will do piece of work to prove he is NOT cliche. Hell, even Ashton did the Butterfly Effect. Does that mean it isn't fair to categorize him as a guy who does bad movies? Hell no. He still sucks, despite what he wants you to believe.

Aging stars date younger ones to keep their names fresh in the young audiences' minds and make you forget how old they are. Bad actors do good movies to make you forget how bad they are (see Timberlake or The Rock). It's called strategy. Bale may do the occasional "art" movie and stray from the safe zone of his gritty cult following, but he'll never leave it all together. See things as they are, not just how you're meant to. Hollywood's a big ol' liar because the truth is never as fun.

 

[Swordmaster]

Bale did I'm Not There and The New Wolrd post-Begins, as well as the amazing Rescue Dawn.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I dont know if I think this thread is necessary, if it wasnt for Keaton we would never have what we do now, including the way comic-book movies are made in general.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I still believe Keaton was the best Batman/Bruce to this day, physically he might not have been the best, but psychologically and emotionally he played it to a T, IMO.

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

 

[Mutagen]

I wouldn't understand the mind of the person who says Keaton didn't try and succeed in portraying a good Batman. He's just not my favourite.

 

[CFE]

When it comes to Batman, physicality is very important...But the psychology and thought process of the character is more important.

Physicality can be manufactured into a rubber muscle suit, but the internal character dynamic can't be faked in any form.

Keaton =

CFE

 

[larryfilmmaker]

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

That's a good point actually. There are so many different versions of the iconic, 60-70 year old characters... but some fans act like only one way can be the right way. That's nuts. Batman doesn't have to be super dark and serious, and Superman is allowed to not end up with Lois. At some point, it really IS just entertainment and the fans need to relax.

 

[gqxsensazn]

I don't hate Keaton, I just feel Christian Bale is the Batman/Bruce Wayne for me. Keaton did a fantastic job, that's why I'm a big fan of the character at all. Without him, I doubt I would be interested in Batman. But Christian Bale just took over and became the one I felt portrayed Batman/Bruce Wayne the best.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Keaton was definitely better than Kilmer, but Kilmer wasn't too bad either.

 

[Yurka]

I like him and Bale equally, I dont know why people cant see the obvious....THEY PLAYED TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Batman, its not like they both played the Neal Adams Batman, they both did different takes on the character, just like Val Kilmer did also, just not as good lol.

Oh I understand, I'm saying I liked Keaton's version the best.

 

[byte19]

I think the reviewer, like all film critics, would not know good acting from a cheap box of cigars.

Kilmer was so much better then Keaton,
He played Batman like a human being, and not a cartoon drawing with no life (which Keaton did).

but this guy will think Danny Elfman can ONLY do the score for Batman! who are these ppl??!?

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

That's a good point actually. There are so many different versions of the iconic, 60-70 year old characters... but some fans act like only one way can be the right way. That's nuts. Batman doesn't have to be super dark and serious, and Superman is allowed to not end up with Lois. At some point, it really IS just entertainment and the fans need to relax.

Im glad someone on here understands what Im saying!! t:

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Oh I understand, I'm saying I liked Keaton's version the best.

thats cool most definitly, its a hard tie for me when it comes to Keaton and Bale, it really is, sometimes I just cant decide.

 

[baerrtt]

The problem with fanboys of anything that's lasted decades with a myriad of interpretations (Batman, Bond, Doctor Who etc) as I've noted before in another post on the Batman forum is the 'era' they liked the most is how, in their minds, it should always be and as a result you get the unfortunate impression that many of these 'fans' don't actually appreciate the fact that these characters survive(d) because they're so chameleonic.

Characters like Batman aren't made any better,complex, interesting or durable by sticking to the same damn template over and over again.

Another arrogant assumption is the 'movies should be faithful to the comics 100%' argument. The Batcave was introduced in the first 1940s movie serial, not the comics. The first time Bruce scolds Dick is in that same serial. Heck in Superman's case he first flew in the Fleischer cartoons not the comics. Not to mention, getting back to Batman, the contribution Timm/Dini's show made to the comic continuity (Harley Quinn) a show that, partially, started as a spinoff from the Burton movies (they wouldn't have used Elfman's theme initially otherwise) that many of the hardcore say over and over again they hate.

In other words people have their preferences, I respect that, but they should think about the many versions of the character that have existed within the comics before they whinge about the different version(s) onscreen.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The problem with fanboys of anything that's lasted decades with a myriad of interpretations (Batman, Bond, Doctor Who etc) as I've noted before in another post on the Batman forum is the 'era' they liked the most is how, in their minds, it should always be and as a result you get the unfortunate impression that many of these 'fans' don't actually appreciate the fact that these characters survive(d) because they're so chameleonic.

Characters like Batman aren't made any better,complex, interesting or durable by sticking to the same damn template over and over again.

Another arrogant assumption is the 'movies should be faithful to the comics 100%' argument. The Batcave was introduced in the first 1940s movie serial, not the comics. The first time Bruce scolds Dick is in that same serial. Heck in Superman's case he first flew in the Fleischer cartoons not the comics. Not to mention, getting back to Batman, the contribution Timm/Dini's show made to the comic continuity (Harley Quinn) a show that, partially, started as a spinoff from the Burton movies (they wouldn't have used Elfman's theme initially otherwise) that many of the hardcore say over and over again they hate.

In other words people have their preferences, I respect that, but they should think about the many versions of the character that have existed within the comics before they whinge about the different version(s) onscreen.

This has been said time and again (but rarely so well) on these boards...if I may try and take your message one step further, there are two types of fan; one who realise Batman is a work of fiction, a story that has been told over and over, and like all beloved stories, has been (and must) change to fit every new generation. Robin Hood? Changed endless times. James Bond? Changes all the time.

The other type is those who believe Batman is a real person, and his true adventures are chronicled perfectly in the comicbooks. These comics are holy scripture and are perfect within themselves. The flaws in this outlook are two-fold; one, it fails to take into account the fact that Batman has changed more times in the comics than he has in the movies (Bob Kane's Batman is not Dennis O'Neal's Batman, who is not Frank Miller's Batman) and is largely based on the post-Dark Knight Returns version of the character.

The second flaw is that it assumes, because Batman began in comics, that a Batman movie cannot improve on a Batman comic. It assumes that Batman can't completely change to a new medium. This also fails to recognise that many elements of the Batman mythos (the Batcave, Harley Quinn) come from outside the comics.

Or to illustrate it another way; a crap Batman comic is automatically better than the greatest Batman movie (whatever you think that is) purely because it's a comic. How illogical is that?

 

[MrQuinn]

I didn't even know who Christian Bale was when Begins came out, and I couldn't even remember his name, I just referred to him as "some new guy".

Then I saw Begins the night before it opened, and again the night it opened, and believe me, I remembered his name after that. I then watched Equilibrium, American Psycho, and the Machinest, and they are all favorite movies of mine (including Begins).

While I see the point that yes, he does play weirdos....but think about it, "weirdos" make good movies.

Try Edward Norton i.e. Fight Club, the Score, American History X, 25th Hour, even Death to Smoochy.... all pretty weird guys that seem to have some kind of nervous tick.


I think Bale is a great actor, not only in skills but also changing his appearance....the guy is madly dedicated to his roles.

 

[baerrtt]

This has been said time and again (but rarely so well) on these boards...if I may try and take your message one step further, there are two types of fan; one who realise Batman is a work of fiction, a story that has been told over and over, and like all beloved stories, has been (and must) change to fit every new generation. Robin Hood? Changed endless times. James Bond? Changes all the time.

The other type is those who believe Batman is a real person, and his true adventures are chronicled perfectly in the comicbooks. These comics are holy scripture and are perfect within themselves. The flaws in this outlook are two-fold; one, it fails to take into account the fact that Batman has changed more times in the comics than he has in the movies (Bob Kane's Batman is not Dennis O'Neal's Batman, who is not Frank Miller's Batman) and is largely based on the post-Dark Knight Returns version of the character.

The second flaw is that it assumes, because Batman began in comics, that a Batman movie cannot improve on a Batman comic. It assumes that Batman can't completely change to a new medium. This also fails to recognise that many elements of the Batman mythos (the Batcave, Harley Quinn) come from outside the comics.

Or to illustrate it another way; a crap Batman comic is automatically better than the greatest Batman movie (whatever you think that is) purely because it's a comic. How illogical is that?

Not to mention that the 60s tv series was inspired by the Batman comics of the time (the Sprang era) and as a result is very faithful to the source material of the time yet you have fans acting like the source material was grittier than the show it inspired (which aside from 'Robin Dies At Dawn' they certainly weren't) thus the show wasn't 'real' Batman.

My biggest problem with such 'prejudices' is that by bashing Keaton/Burton, the 60s show, The Batman (the recent animated series) or even Nolan it shows a lack of appreciation for the character's diverse history on and off the printed page. I'll take Tim Burton's cinematic imagination at it's best (BATMAN RETURNS) over endless comic book storylines KNIGHTFALL, WAR GAMES etc that pushed the gritty, realistic, borderline unlikeable Batman on us without actually making him more complex, a template so tiresome that DC (with the aid of Grant Morrison) has taken the character's entire comic history and made it part of the current, modern continuity.

Why? Because those different facets (Kane's dangerous vigilante, Sprang's smiley adventurer, Dennis O'Neill's burned out but human detective, the post Miller's intelligent but emotionally cold hero) combined makes the character a heck of alot more complex (and realistic as in real life people don't retain the same personality throughout their lives) than any one facet displayed throughout. Batman isn't made better when he's just campy nor is he made any better when he's continually dark (in the fictional universe he inhabits the word 'realism' is meaningless at the best of times).

So if anyone is going to say that they didn't like Burton's vision, Keaton or THE BATMAN (for example) because they're 'not like the comics' simply say instead 'they're not like the era I enjoy'.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, Batman begins has a good bunch of inaccuracies itself.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

When it comes to Batman, physicality is very important...But the psychology and thought process of the character is more important.

Physicality can be manufactured into a rubber muscle suit, but the internal character dynamic can't be faked in any form.

Keaton =

CFE

Superbly put as always!!!

I doubt Christian Bale or Michael Keaton loses sleep over which one of them the fanboys like the most.

Please don't treat them as if they are 'BATMAN' - they are actors 'playing' batman and each one of them has their flaws.

Doesn't mean we should condemn them to hell for it!!! jeez!

 

[larryfilmmaker]

the guy is madly dedicated to his roles.

I'm actually sort of against the notion of people losing or gaining tons of weight for roles. It's not healthy, either mentally or physically, to be that devoted to something like movies. Some people will go on big tirades in debate on this, but seriously, all rants aside... it's not healthy or normal.

 

[MrQuinn]

I'm actually sort of against the notion of people losing or gaining tons of weight for roles. It's not healthy, either mentally or physically, to be that devoted to something like movies. Some people will go on big tirades in debate on this, but seriously, all rants aside... it's not healthy or normal.

well you are right about the health issues, especially when it comes to his role in the Machinest ..

Christian Bale starved himself for over 4 months prior to filming, as his character needed to look drastically thin. Allegedly his eating consisted of one can of tuna and an apple each day (approximately 275 calories), although there are conflicting reports on this. According to the DVD commentary, he lost 62 pounds (28 kg), reducing his body weight to 120 pounds (54.4 kg). Bale wanted to go down to 100 pounds (45.3 kg) but the filmmakers would not let him due to health concerns. He later regained the weight, plus an additional 40 pounds (18 kg) due to weightlifting, in preparation for his role in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins.

I mean that is just insane, especially for a gritty underground type movie. But, health concerns aside, I think Bale is phenomenal and he just wants to do whatever it takes to make the best performance he can.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I love early in the film when he's in attendance at his own party and he seems to walk around like he's shell shocked. He perfectly displayed that this man has no clue about the social graces and that he was only complete when he was in costume.

Still, It's not really Batman - it's only Burton's interpretation of the character. Having said that, I think he was perfectly cast as Burton's version of Batman. Honestly, though, he wouldn't have been my casting choice. Not because of Mister Mom but because of his physical appearance.

True what I also didn't like was that Bruce Wayne is well known around the world as a diligent playboy and yet we don't see girls hanging around Bruce wanting to mingle, not even Viki Vale knew who he was and she's a photojournalist for christ sakes.