Greatest portrayal of Batman?

[The Batman]

Or The Batman from the first year of his appearances in Detective Comics who was clearly influenced by pulp characters like The Spider and The Phantom.

An underrated post.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I came into this thread to vote for Kevin Conroy and couldn't find him on the list.

 

[shauner111]

It's for live-action.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Yes, but they should still be looked at as stand-alone films. We are not judging the films when it comes to the overall story of a series. We're seperating Keaton's Batman, Kilmer's, Clooney's, Bale's. So Keaton in this context has nothing to do with Kilmer or Clooney. Judging Keatons Batman alone, he is a cold-blooded killer and you said he's your favorite. Bale was not a cold-blooded killer. He didn't save a man, he left him to die, not exactly murder but it is what it is. Yet you say that's not how Batman would react. So just based on how they treat criminals, logically you should prefer Bale's Batman to Keatons.

But OK, if you're judging it based on everything else (look, behavior etc)...then that's fine. You prefer Keaton and that's cool.

Alright, taking the evolution of the Bruce Wayne that Michael Keaton first played, away from what the character would mould into, I'll judge solely on Keaton!

Yes, he was a cold blooded killer. He let his hatred and anger for criminals, and his desire for revenge, consume him. Granted you can only know that from what Kilmer alleged in BF, but bare with me

Nostalgia aside, how can I keep the feeling the Keaton being my favourite Batman alive?

Well...It's my favourite Batman movie. He's wearing my current favourite Batsuit. He's a driving my favourite Batmobile, that I actually had the pleasure of crossing a rope when I was 5, to stroke it at a car museum that I was attending

I liked the presence that he brought to the table. I liked how he was wrote, and I can actually relate to that Bruce, funnily enough...a scarterbrain that forgets things easily
I loved the social awkwardness that he had about him. It gets me thinking about Chris Reeve's Clark Kent, that you wouldn't take those two idiots for superheroes, and I really enjoyed it.

And his Batman was aces. Said very little, but that's really what made him so badass and awesome. I can overlook the fact that he was a killer, because he was that awesome.

So...I guess with that logic, I can overlook what Bale did to Ra's.

If Bale and Keaton didn't do what they did, which I have to deduct points for, they would be 100% perfect.
I said from the beginning, that no one is a perfect Batman. But let me ask, fairly. What is a perfect Batman? I have my own ideas and preferences, as does everybody else. I don't consider Bale or Keaton perfect, but both did fine as hell jobs with what they were given.

 

[shauner111]

 

[The Question]

Lego Movie.

 

[Rodrigo90]

We're always going to get writers coming along, and they will probably end up producing something that 1 out ouf 10 will disagree with.

Somebody wrote that Batman should be a killer.
Somebody wrote that Batman should reprimand Dick Grayson for wanting to kill his enemy, then only go and do the hypocritical thing of killing that enemy!
Somebody wrote that Batman should let a man die, rather than try to save him.
Somebody wrote that Batman should carry around a Bat Credit Card

Then we have one day Batman leaving KGBeast to die and Catwoman to drown, only for somebody another day to come along and have Batman talk down to anybody who who would do that very same thing!

But what it doesn't take away from anything, is that Batman is both a flawed and noble hero. He struggles between his light and darkness.
He does something wrong, he will then go out to do something that will redeem him in the light, if a writer chooses, or he will continue down his dark tortured path.

One movie, his motivation is revenge, another, it's justice, as it can be with the comics.

However, at the end of the day, he'll always remain a hero, with his main motivation being that he wants to protect the innocent and battle the evil that hurts them, and that's all that really matters

 

[Boy Scout]

It all comes to my own personal feelings.

Which is fine.

I know, that if I saw somebody who I majorly hated, who was a criminal, in a predicament, I would do the right thing and throw him a lifeline.

Which is admirable. I'm not saying that I wouldn't do the same thing; just that I would think no less of Batman if he chose not to, especially considering just how evil a lot of his rogues are.

Just so the authorities could find the reasonable punishment.

I think it's fair to say that Batman has good reason to distrust the authorities as a whole.

I simply prefer the Batman's that would save Ra's and Joker, and you often get them, which I'm pleased about, because it appeals to me most

As long as he doesn't come out looking foolish for doing so (and he would have if he had been given the chance to administer the cure to The Joker in Arkham City), I don't really have a problem with it.

It's not a noble trait though

Batman does a lot of things that aren't strictly noble. What's one more?

 

[Cain]

An underrated post.

One movie, his motivation is revenge, another, it's justice, as it can be with the comics.

However, at the end of the day, he'll always remain a hero, with his main motivation being that he wants to protect the innocent and battle the evil that hurts them, and that's all that really matters

...and this is exactly why I don't participate in these type of conversations anymore.

At the end of the day Batman has worn so many hats and been so many things since 1939 that arguing about the "definitive" one is like arguing about the best type of coffee. In the end if you like coffee and had a great cup of whatever brand you drank does anything else really matter?

To me as long as Batman stories explore the themes that made me a fan in the first place (I.E. duality, altruism, self reflection, family, isolation, alienation, revenge etc.) and explores them in honest, respectful and entertaining ways whether it's through Batman himself, his extended family or his rogues gallery; I'm good.

So to me every single live action Batman movie available has been good on that front.

 

[justanotherguy]

I came into this thread to vote for Kevin Conroy and couldn't find him on the list.

This.

 

[Beyond Batman]

Christian Bale - Batman Begins (2005)
Michael Keaton - Batman (1989)

 

[Flint Marko]

Surprised to see Keaton taking the lead on this one. I thought Bale would have it in the bag.
My vote is for Bale, as Keaton was underwhelming in a lot of ways in my opinion. I recently rewatched both Batman and Batman Returns, and was unimpressed by Keaton's performance. Granted a lot of that was due to how it was written but he did not do anything special with the role in my eyes.

 

[hopeless]

I voted Keaton because he'd be the one who'd be able to scare me, bale I'd just have nothing to do with however I will note I consider West's Batman the one I'd be most likely to listen to purely as he comes across as both likeable and trustworthy as well as not insane even if he is wearing a bat suit!

I second or is that third... fourth heck I've lost count but that comment about Kevin Conroy should be on this list even if he's a voiceover in animation it still counts... because he's Batman!!

 

[spider-neil]

Well done for hunting down instances where Batman allows people to die on his watch thus proving it wasn't 'out of character' in Batman Begins. I've read scores of Batman stories where he has gone out of his way to save killers when it would be easier to let them die.
So now my anger has shifted from Nolan to the comic writers he took inspiration from.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Which is fine.



Which is admirable. I'm not saying that I wouldn't do the same thing; just that I would think no less of Batman if he chose not to, especially considering just how evil a lot of his rogues are.

I always expect Batman to elevate himself above feelings of hatred and judgment. If his mission is purely for justice, then he would deliver a criminal to the courts without fail. The character to me, has to be like a brick in terms of his ideals. He has to rise above feelings that make him no better than those he fights.
Criminals have zero consideration for law, justice or human life. So it's pretty disheartening when you have a hero like Batman, that dedicates himself to those causes, commit those actions that make him look just as cruel and hypocritical.

I think it's fair to say that Batman has good reason to distrust the authorities as a whole.

Yes. But he still shouldn't make himself judge, jury and executioner. Even though he has, it's just behaviour I disagree with.

As long as he doesn't come out looking foolish for doing so (and he would have if he had been given the chance to administer the cure to The Joker in Arkham City), I don't really have a problem with it.

That's where I'm conflicted, and I wonder if it has anything do with Batman simply doing the right, but indeed foolish thing, or with his bond with the Joker.

Put yourself in this scenario. You're in a room with Osama Bin Laden, and like the Joker, he's dying from poison, and you have the cure to save him.
What goes through your mind? It'll be just how evil he is and about what he caused on 9/11. It'll be about how, if you did administrator the cure, he would still be alive, while thousands of others are dead, and wherever he will end up, he'll continue to live and somehow possibly still plot more deaths.
Justice and revenge will be blurred very much together, until you can't see the distinction.
You know the best thing to do is to let the monster die. But the right thing to do is hand him over to the authorities and let them handle it.

For me, I wouldn't want my soul or conscience tainted by his blood. Because that'll be the ultimate diffrence between him and I. He lost his soul and conscience at some point. It was the point where he loaded up terrorists on planes to kill thousands of people. I'm not following that man into hell.

I guess in the eyes of Batman on occasions, depending on the writer and any average person, to let the monster die and spare anymore death, and to avenge the deaths of those he killed. Would you achieve the status of a hero in the public? Of course.
Would you achieve that in the eyes of the law? Probably not.

And back to my own feelings on the matter. Would you be a hero in the eyes of God? Who knows?

And that's where I see the Batman I best prefer. From his very first origin appearance, he was seemingly praying to God and the spirits of his parents, that he would avenge their deaths by fighting the criminal element of society.
And from what we know, Bruce Wayne does 100% believe in the after life, as he talks to his parents graves, thinking they can hear him from the beyond.
So, I'm guessing he does believe in Heaven and Hell.
It's never been stated I don't think, but that's the underlying theme.

So I imagine that he must elevate himself above and beyond, to ensure that he remains on the path of righteousness. He wants to respect the laws of both man and God, for the purpose of perhaps being reunited with his parents when his life is over?
And that's why on occasions, you see him respect all forms of life, it's been drilled into him.

Then on other occasions, he makes the decisions that others can't, and he has to live with that. Thereby possibly sacrificing his soul for the greater good. Or even unknowingly ensuring a place by his parents side.

It all depends on what the writer wants for him and how much of a black and white, or shade of grey that they want in him. Casual or philosophical.
Self-righteous or sacrificing.

I just know I like a Batman that will try to make the right decision, even if it's foolish. Or he will make the other decision, and will do something to redeem himself.

From what Keaton did (and going through the evolution of Kilmer and Clooney) and Bale did, I'd say they more than earned a place in the right place by the end of their journeys

Batman does a lot of things that aren't strictly noble. What's one more?

True

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[The Endless]

Keaton's Batman didn't kill anyone until he realized Jack Napier was the Joker. Maybe it sent him over the edge?

I also think Val Kilmer is pretty underrated. His Bruce Wayne/Batman is the only one to actually come across really intelligent and competent. I liked when Nygma presented his brain waves idea to him, and he just shot the whole idea down. He obviously showed some intellect solving his riddles etc. His Wayne just came across as a much smarter version than any of the others. His argument with Dick about the nature of revenge and how it can corrupt you (calling back to Keaton's version perhaps?) was also a great Bruce Wayne moment.

 

[JAK®]

Just because Batman has been written out of character a few times in his 75-year history does not mean a film should be excused from doing the same thing, especially when said film makes a big deal out of that character trait.

 

[Keehar]

Christian Bale. He gave the best acting performance and got both sides of the character right.

Michael Keaton was boring as Bruce Wayne and just a killer in a Batman suit. Val Kilmer was a good Bruce Wayne but his Batman was too flat and dry. George Clooney was too camp to take seriously.

Just because Batman has been written out of character a few times in his 75-year history does not mean a film should be excused from doing the same thing, especially when said film makes a big deal out of that character trait.

It is not out of character if he's done it several times in the comics.

 

[The Avenger]

Bale..then Keaton. Only negative for me from Bale was he wasn't that great a detective

 

[Boy Scout]

I always expect Batman to elevate himself above feelings of hatred and judgment. If his mission is purely for justice, then he would deliver a criminal to the courts without fail. The character to me, has to be like a brick in terms of his ideals. He has to rise above feelings that make him no better than those he fights.

I don't disagree with you when it comes to petty thugs or even the majority of his rogues gallery, but when it comes to genocidial maniacs like The Joker or Ra's al Ghul, I don't think Batman is under any obligation to go out of his way to save them. No one is. Leaving someone to die is not - in my opinion - the same thing as murder.

Criminals have zero consideration for law, justice or human life. So it's pretty disheartening when you have a hero like Batman, that dedicates himself to those causes, commit those actions that make him look just as cruel and hypocritical.

If Batman had healthy consideration for the law, he wouldn't be a vigilante. He routinely bends or outright breaks the rules at his convenience.

I can't agree with what you're saying. The Joker doesn't deserve to be saved. He doesn't deserve medical attention or urgent care or even the slightest bit of consideration. I'm not saying that Batman should kill him. I'm not saying that Batman shouldn't hold himself to a high moral standard. But to set the bar so high that we would have him rescuing, treating, or resusitating a remorseless, genocidal monster is not something that I agree with.

I think, when it comes to discussions like these, the defining factors are your own personal beliefs. I absolutely respect and understand where you're coming from, but in my opinion, leaving someone to die - while not altogether morally right/justifiable - is not murder, especially not in the circumstances I've been describing.

That's where I'm conflicted, and I wonder if it has anything do with Batman simply doing the right, but indeed foolish thing, or with his bond with the Joker.

In my mind, he's just being foolish.

Put yourself in this scenario. You're in a room with Osama Bin Laden, and like the Joker, he's dying from poison, and you have the cure to save him.
What goes through your mind? It'll be just how evil he is and about what he caused on 9/11. It'll be about how, if you did administrator the cure, he would still be alive, while thousands of others are dead, and wherever he will end up, he'll continue to live and somehow possibly still plot more deaths.
Justice and revenge will be blurred very much together, until you can't see the distinction.
You know the best thing to do is to let the monster die. But the right thing to do is hand him over to the authorities and let them handle it.

I can't say for certain, for obvious reasons, but I think I'd let him die. If he were like The Joker and had proven incapable of longterm incarceration, it would make the decision a bit easier.

For me, I wouldn't want my soul or conscience tainted by his blood. Because that'll be the ultimate diffrence between him and I. He lost his soul and conscience at some point. It was the point where he loaded up terrorists on planes to kill thousands of people. I'm not following that man into hell.

Is your soul worth all the lives he has taken and could possibly take? If you saved him and he went on to kill more people, would your conscience - or soul - remain pure/untainted/unaffected? I can't imagine they would.

...Would you achieve that in the eyes of the law? Probably not.

For Batman, that ship has sailed.

So I imagine that he must elevate himself above and beyond, to ensure that he remains on the path of righteousness. He wants to respect the laws of both man and God, for the purpose of perhaps being reunited with his parents when his life is over?
And that's why on occasions, you see him respect all forms of life, it's been drilled into him.

Respecting life can mean that you simply won't take it - not that you'll preserve it at all costs, under any circumstances, regardless of the consequences.

I just know I like a Batman that will try to make the right decision, even if it's foolish.

But is saving Joker the right decision? I would say no. Not totally.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I don't disagree with you when it comes to petty thugs or even the majority of his rogues gallery, but when it comes to genocidial maniacs like The Joker or Ra's al Ghul, I don't think Batman is under any obligation to go out of his way to save them. No one is. Leaving someone to die is not - in my opinion - the same thing as murder.



If Batman had healthy consideration for the law, he wouldn't be a vigilante. He routinely bends or outright breaks the rules at his convenience.

I can't agree with what you're saying. The Joker doesn't deserve to be saved. He doesn't deserve medical attention or urgent care or even the slightest bit of consideration. I'm not saying that Batman should kill him. I'm not saying that Batman shouldn't hold himself to a high moral standard. But to set the bar so high that we would have him rescuing, treating, or resusitating a remorseless, genocidal monster is not something that I agree with.

I think, when it comes to discussions like these, the defining factors are your own personal beliefs. I absolutely respect and understand where you're coming from, but in my opinion, leaving someone to die - while not altogether morally right/justifiable - is not murder, especially not in the circumstances I've been describing.



In my mind, he's just being foolish.



I can't say for certain, for obvious reasons, but I think I'd let him die. If he were like The Joker and had proven incapable of longterm incarceration, it would make the decision a bit easier.



Is your soul worth all the lives he has taken and could possibly take? If you saved him and he went on to kill more people, would your conscience - or soul - remain pure/untainted/unaffected? I can't imagine they would.



For Batman, that ship has sailed.



Respecting life can mean that you simply won't take it - not that you'll preserve it at all costs, under any circumstances, regardless of the consequences.



But is saving Joker the right decision? I would say no. Not totally.

It's a complex subject isn't it?

The other day, and yes I still watch it on Netflix p), I was watching Hercules The Legendary Journeys.
And growing up, I absolutely idolised the heroics of the character, still do to this day.
There was an episode where Hercules travels with Callisto, this crazy madwoman, who is essentially a female Joker in my opinion. She poisoned his family and she made him travel with her to obtain this golden apple that would grant anyone immortality, in exchange for the cure.
She betrays him, almost kills him and in a fight before a door will close sealing him in, she runs into a burning tree and gets blinded. She begs Hercules to help her, he hesitates, but goes back to help...only for her to start clawing at his face, and he gets out, leaving her to her fate.

And what I loved, was that he went back to help, despite everything she had done.

On occasions as we know, Batman will do that, either because of his promise to his mission of preserving life, even the life of evil men, or its just his conscience. And that's what I best prefer, given my own personal feelings on the subject. His one fear and goal in life is to never lower himself to their levels. Levels of murder mainly, but on other occasions, their levels of callousness and disregard for life in general. Either its a rule from his struggling mind, or simply just his conscience.
And in Batman Begins, I'll never consider what he did to Ra's as murder. He saved him the first time, thinking he was doing the right thing, without questioning it, he also spared the murderer from death...You could see the pain he was going through and the pity he was feeling for the guy begging for his life with his eyes.
It tells me, also like the comics, that Batman is willing to give people second chances to reedem themselves. A bit like Hercules!

And while personally, I can't agree with leaving Ra's to die, I don't consider it murder. The man had his second chance at life and he blew it.

 

[Doc Ock]

Keaton's Batman didn't kill anyone until he realized Jack Napier was the Joker. Maybe it sent him over the edge?

I also think Val Kilmer is pretty underrated. His Bruce Wayne/Batman is the only one to actually come across really intelligent and competent. I liked when Nygma presented his brain waves idea to him, and he just shot the whole idea down. He obviously showed some intellect solving his riddles etc. His Wayne just came across as a much smarter version than any of the others. His argument with Dick about the nature of revenge and how it can corrupt you (calling back to Keaton's version perhaps?) was also a great Bruce Wayne moment.

Val Kilmer is indeed underrated, we don't seem to get enough of detective Batman, do we?

 

[Venomfan]

He left Catman to drown. He left KGBeast to die etc, he's done this kind of thing in the comics. I understand completely why someone would dislike him doing that, but to say it pisses all over Batman, or it's out of character is just wrong.

That's my point. I don't expect anyone to like it.

to be fair, can't you make this same type of argument for Keatons batman? In the original comics Batman killed people, so did Keaton. People say its out of character for how Batman has changed since then.

Now a select few times Batman left someone to die in the comics, wouldn't it be just as right to say that with what is shown in general, that action is out of character?

I think just because something happened in the comics (ie peter parker hitting MJ), doesn't mean it fits with the status quo. I'd hate to see spidey smack MJ in the movies and have someone say "it's not out of character because he did it in the comics"

 

[The Joker]

to be fair, can't you make this same type of argument for Keatons batman? In the original comics Batman killed people, so did Keaton. People say its out of character for how Batman has changed since then.

Now a select few times Batman left someone to die in the comics, wouldn't it be just as right to say that with what is shown in general, that action is out of character?

No you can't, because for a start it wasn't a one off thing, and unlike early killer Batman, it was not eradicated from the character's persona and continuity and basically made an unholy sin Batman would never do. Leaving someone to die, which doesn't go against his no murder rule, and as far as I know the several times it has happened have not been erased from continuity. Nor has there been any huge fan backlash over them either.

I think just because something happened in the comics (ie peter parker hitting MJ), doesn't mean it fits with the status quo. I'd hate to see spidey smack MJ in the movies and have someone say "it's not out of character because he did it in the comics"

If it was a one off event I'd agree with you. You could call it an isolated incident. But this wasn't. Nor was it erased from continuity. If there was several in continuity incidents over the years of Peter smacking MJ then you could say it's not out of character.