Reeve's Superman or Bale's Batman

[SupermanFan]

Technically he is. His Batman had something that's more important than a whispery voice or an Arkham games fights scene, an actual character.

There’s no technical about it, it’s subjective

 

[Awest66]

There’s no technical about it, it’s subjective

Fine. Bale still has the best characterization of all the live-action Batman so far and that should count for more than whatever Keaton or Affleck have.

 

[SupermanFan]

Fine. Bale still has the best characterization of all the live-action Batman so far and that should count for more than whatever Keaton or Affleck have.

That’s just your subjective opinion not absolute fact.

 

[Awest66]

That’s just your subjective opinion not absolute fact.

Okay I guess. I'm not really seeing much evidence to the contrary though.

 

[Captain Tired]

It's more accurate to say that Bale is simply the most extensively explored Batman. And I would say that Bale being the most extensively explored and written Batman does not necessarily equal him having the best characterisation. I mean, even Kilmer is explored more than Keaton's version, but that still doesn't amount to Kilmer's Batman being a better movie character. And I'd say that's the case for a lot of people. That aspect that you're continuing to highlight, is, as SuperRouth said, purely subjective imo. For me personally, despite his Batman being mostly confined to the shadows, Keaton's Batman still manages to shine brighter than Bale's.

 

[Awest66]

It's more accurate to say that Bale is simply the most extensively explored Batman. And I would say that Bale being the most extensively explored and written Batman does not necessarily equal him having the best characterisation. I mean, even Kilmer is explored more than Keaton's version, but that still doesn't amount to Kilmer's Batman being a better movie character. And I'd say that's the case for a lot of people. That aspect that you're continuing to highlight, is, as SuperRouth said, purely subjective imo. For me personally, despite his Batman being mostly confined to the shadows, Keaton's Batman still manages to shine brighter than Bale's.

I look at Batman Begins and I could not disagree more. It's ironic you say this when the most recurrent criticism of the Burton movies is how little interest they actually have in the character of Batman himself and how sidelined he is compared to the villains of his movies.

There's also little things like Batman and Joker's dynamic being simplified down to wanting to kill each other for revenge and his Batman saying "you may be right" in response to Penguin's accusation of him being jealous of his being a "genuine freak". I really don't see how his characterization is better.

 

[SupermanFan]

It's more accurate to say that Bale is simply the most extensively explored Batman. And I would say that Bale being the most extensively explored and written Batman does not necessarily equal him having the best characterisation. I mean, even Kilmer is explored more than Keaton's version, but that still doesn't amount to Kilmer's Batman being a better movie character. And I'd say that's the case for a lot of people. That aspect that you're continuing to highlight, is, as SuperRouth said, purely subjective imo. For me personally, despite his Batman being mostly confined to the shadows, Keaton's Batman still manages to shine brighter than Bale's.

Yeah that’s spot on and that is factual cause ooh the movies we had a full exploration of Bruce Wayne from childhood to adulthood to retirement.

I agree on Keaton too, for me he’s still the best Batman.

 

[Captain Tired]

I look at Batman Begins and I could not disagree more. It's ironic you say this when the most recurrent criticism of the Burton movies is how little interest they actually have in the character of Batman himself and how sidelined he is compared to the villains of his movies.

There's also little things like Batman and Joker's dynamic being simplified down to wanting to kill each other for revenge and his Batman saying "you may be right" in response to Penguin's accusation of him being jealous of his being a "genuine freak". I really don't see how his characterization is better.

lol I've already explained how I disagree with your presupposition and think it's wrong, and yet you continue to argue on the assumption that it's correct. Again: Bale being more extensively written does not necessarily equal a better characterisation. Less can often be more.

Simple exchanges like the 'genuine freak' line, or how bats are 'great survivors', can sometimes carry more weight than a glut of backstory. I'm also amused to find that you think the dynamic between the Joker and Batman in '89 is any more simple than the one presented in TDK.

Both basically come down to being a symbiotic-type relationship. With TDK, it's a case of the Joker feeling philosophically excited and perhaps even fulfilled by Batman's existence. With Batman '89, it's more hinted to be cyclically parturitional or even predestined. The Joker gave birth to Batman, and in turn, the Batman gave birth to the Joker. Almost an inverse ouroboros.

 

[The Joker]

Less can be more. But in the case of Keaton I think less is less. His character is under written, under utilized, and feels like a back seat character to the villains in both of his movies, especially Returns.

I look at his character at the beginning of B'89 and Returns, and at the end of each movie, and he is pretty much in the same place he was. Oh yes in Batman '89 Gotham is accepting of him now as a heroic figure, but that is not something that adds to him or actually goes anywhere interesting. Burton did nothing interesting with him. The best thing that came from Keaton's Batman in the two movies was the scenes with Selina Kyle, and that was predominately thanks to Pfeiffer's amazing and layered performance. I found Keaton's Wayne to be extremely bland. When Schreck says "Yawn" to Keaton's Wayne at the costume party it was the perfect response to his character. He's just dull.

I rate Kilmer's Batman better than Keaton's because at least there was some meat to his character. He felt like he had something to say and do, and was not just there as a reactionary action piece. It was the first time in the movies that Batman felt like a real character, IMO.

I know Keaton wanted more exploration to his Batman character, too. He actually wanted to delve into Batman's origin in the third movie;

"You look at where [Nolan] went, which is exactly what I wanted to do when I was having meetings about the third one. I said you want to see how this guy started. We’ve got a chance here to fix whatever we kind of maybe went off. This could be brilliant… [But Schumacher] didn’t want to do it, so I didn’t want to do it."

Trivia: Michael Keaton Wanted His Third Batman Film to Be a 'Batman Begins' Style Origin Story – /Film

 

[Captain Tired]

I look at his character at the beginning of B'89 and Returns, and at the end of each movie, and he is pretty much in the same place he was. Oh yes in Batman '89 Gotham is accepting of him now as a heroic figure, but that is not something that adds to him or actually goes anywhere interesting.

He also starts the movie as a brutal but ultimately well meaning hero, and ends the film as a murderous, vengeful and perhaps even sadistic vigilante. There's also that at least. Naturally I disagree with most of the rest of your post. I think there's a great deal to be inferred from Keaton's portrayal. The fact that the news of his Batman's return had such a joyous and celebratory response from the vast majority of fans is just further testament to how successful and well loved a characterisation it turned out to be. Different strokes and all that.

 

[The Joker]

He also starts the movie as a brutal but ultimately well meaning hero, and ends the film as a murderous, vengeful and perhaps even sadistic vigilante. There's also that at least. Naturally I disagree with most of the rest of your post. I think there's a great deal to be inferred from Keaton's portrayal. The fact that the news of his Batman's return had such a joyous and celebratory response from the vast majority of fans is just further testament to how successful and well loved a characterisation it turned out to be. Different strokes and all that.

The beginning of the movie throws out a huge indicator that he was killing from the get-go with the conversation between the muggers about how infamous Johnny Gobbs was thrown off a roof by Batman. But even if we disregard that, in what way is he not still a well meaning hero at the end? That soppy letter about fighting "the forces of evil" he sent the Cops at the end still indicates he's a well meaning hero.

Throwing out the fact that the character is popular doesn't negate what I said about him. Popularity and quality don't exclusively go hand in hand. If you want to play the popularity card then Nolan's Batman is hands down the best if that's what defines greatness. You could also throw in the nostalgia factor, too, as playing a significant part in the welcoming response to his return. Judge a character on the merits as you see them, and not how much other people like or dislike them.

 

[Captain Tired]

The beginning of the movie throws out a huge indicator that he was killing from the get-go with the conversation between the muggers about how infamous Johnny Gobbs was thrown off a roof by Batman. But even if we disregard that, in what way is he not still a well meaning hero at the end? That soppy letter about fighting "the forces of evil" he sent the Cops at the end still indicates he's a well meaning hero.

Throwing out the fact that the character is popular doesn't negate what I said about him. Popularity and quality don't exclusively go hand in hand. If you want to play the popularity card then Nolan's Batman is hands down the best if that's what defines greatness. You could also throw in the nostalgia factor, too, as playing a significant part in the welcoming response to his return. Judge a character on the merits as you see them, and not how much other people like or dislike them.

No it doesn't. It's two dumbass criminals talking about what they heard on the street. It's basically 'I know a guy who knows a guy', etc. He kills neither of those two thugs at the start of the movie, despite needing just one to spread his message. He also never makes an attempt to kill any criminal during the shootout at Axis Chemicals. Instead he takes steps to actually save the ones he puts in harm's way, including Jack Napier himself. It's only after finding out that the Joker killed his parents, that Batman goes ballistic and starts killing people left and right. So yeah, his Batman does undergo change during 89. It might not be a feel-good hero's journey a la Star Wars, but it's definitely development. And I wasn't claiming he wasn't a hero, but the fact that he's now a murderous, vengeful and somewhat sadistic one, does render him much more morally dubious than he first appeared. And my comment on his popularity wasn't intended as a rebuttal against Bale. It was meant to stand alone as an indication of that particular characterisation's success.

 

[The Joker]

No it doesn't. It's two dumbass criminals talking about what they heard on the street. He kills neither of them at the start of the movie, despite needing just one to spread his message. He also never makes an attempt to kill any criminal during the shootout at Axis Chemicals. Instead he takes steps to save one or two, including Jack Napier himself. It's only after finding out that the Joker killed his parents, that Batman goes ballistic and starts killing people left and right. So no. And I wasn't claiming he wasn't a hero, but the fact that he's now a murderous, vengeful and somewhat sadistic does render him much more morally dubious than he first appeared. And my comment on his popularity wasn't intended as a rebuttal against Bale. It was meant to stand alone as an indication of that particular characterisation's success.

But it doesn't make him more dubious. In fact the movie treats it the opposite. Nobody questions or chastises him for it. Not Alfred, not Vicki. Vicki is apparently still with him. Gotham embraces him as a hero. The movie just sweeps it under the rug. Hence why I said the only difference between the beginning and the end is his status in Gotham's eyes, and even that doesn't add anything to the character and just makes Gotham look stupid.

I wasn't talking about Bale, I was just making an analogy since you brought up popularity. Your bringing up of the character's popularity was an obvious attempt at some kind of defense for the criticism being given towards the character. Otherwise why even bother mentioning it.

 

[Captain Tired]

Already this is getting way too pedantic and time consuming for my tastes. Put it simply: His Batman does undergo change. That's the point I was arguing. Everything else is neither here nor there. Perhaps the big summer blockbuster event movie was overall a teeny bit inconsistent in reflecting that change, but I'd imagine it was worth it to end to the movie on a triumphant note and have the audience feeling happily fulfilled. I can't imagine why the filmmakers would want to do such a thing though. Not like they were getting a feel for a franchise or anything lol.

Also, going back over my post, it's very much worth noting that I never used the word 'quality' (though I do happen to believe it is indeed that), I used the word 'successful'. I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you of its quality. You've made it quite clear on numerous occasions that you think it's a big pile of ****e and with very little artistic merit to it lol. What use would it be to try and say otherwise.

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Out of the two I would go with Reeve's Superman but really I prefer Cavill's Superman since his Superman is more like post crisis Superman (which is the one I grew-up on) while Reeve's Superman is more silver age Superman.

 

[Babillygunn]

Out of the two I would go with Reeve's Superman but really I prefer Cavill's Superman since his Superman is more like post crisis Superman (which is the one I grew-up on) while Reeve's Superman is more silver age Superman.

Very interesting (and makes sense given when the movies came out.) But this got me to thinking: Rebirth Superman is closer to silver age than any other post-Crisis version. Would you agree?

 

[Schlosser85]

I like Reeve and all, but objectively Bale is easily a better actor and a stronger performance.

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Very interesting (and makes sense given when the movies came out.) But this got me to thinking: Rebirth Superman is closer to silver age than any other post-Crisis version. Would you agree?

Yeah I agree about Rebirth Superman especially if the rumors are true and they are going back to more of a Silver Age style of storytelling for DC where there is no more continuity but just self contained stories.

 

[SupermanFan]

I like Reeve and all, but objectively Bale is easily a better actor and a stronger performance.

Bale had it easier in a time when actors aren’t type cast though so there’s no telling what Reeve could have done in an era where he got meatier roles. While Bale is probably an actor with more more range there’s no way his performance as Batman stands against Reeve’s as Superman imo.

 

[The Batman]

"Objectively", Bale's Batman is only superior in terms of the films he got to be in. Otherwise, while Bale is the better actor in general,Reeve is more effective at playing Superman than Bale is as Batman.

 

[batdude]

Bale had it easier in a time when actors aren’t type cast though so there’s no telling what Reeve could have done in an era where he got meatier roles. While Bale is probably an actor with more more range there’s no way his performance as Batman stands against Reeve’s as Superman imo.

Yeah, no. Keaton was better as Batman. Reeve just nailed Superman However, he never really got another iconic part Like the two Batmen Could(Ok maybe Beetlejuice.)

 

[SupermanFan]

Yeah, no. Keaton was better as Batman. Reeve just nailed Superman However, he never really got another iconic part Like the two Batmen Could(Ok maybe Beetlejuice.)

What are you saying Keaton was better as Batman then Bale was or Keaton was better as Batman than Reeve was as Superman?

 

[batdude]

Keaton was better than Bale. I know that is probably an unpopular opinion here. It's just too bad we never got that Reeve/ Keaton team up movie they were talking about years ago.

 

[SupermanFan]

Keaton was better than Bale. I know that is probably an unpopular opinion here. It's just too bad we never got that Reeve/ Keaton team up movie they were talking about years ago.

Oh I agree with you mate, I think Bale is a great Bruce Wayne but his Batman honestly is cringey in some scenes. Keaton just nailed it and I even liked the way he played Bruce too, a different take.

 

[Awest66]

Oh I agree with you mate, I think Bale is a great Bruce Wayne but his Batman honestly is cringey in some scenes. Keaton just nailed it and I even liked the way he played Bruce too, a different take.

Bruce Wayne is the most important part of the character though and Bale runs circles around Keaton in that regard.