The "Comparing The Batman to past incarnations" thread

[The Batman]

A big topic of conversation on these boards has been whether or not "The Batman" tops certain past versions of the character.

With the film officially releasing today, I'm hoping that this thread can allow that line of conversation to thrive, while allowing the other threads here to talk more about the movie. Maybe that won't happen. We'll see.

Here, you can discuss whether or not "The Batman" is better than certain Batman films and why, and how certain actors in "The Batman" compare to their predecessors.

If you want to avoid "Vs" style discussion, you can use this thread to discuss story/character similarities between certain versions of a Batman movie or Batman movie character.

 

[DoomRulz]

I think that Bale and Keaton did a better job of separating Bruce and Batman as two distinct characters. Pattinson, in and out of the suit, is always moping and it felt one-dimensional.

 

[JackWhite]

After seeing it again, my only real gripe is no duality between Bruce/Bats. I understand Bruce is still growing and I bought into that, but I think if Pattinson had that multi-layered portrayal like say, Bale, The Batman might be my favorite Batman movie.

 

[Captain Tired]

I've never made any secret of the fact that Keaton's Batman has always been my favourite. And so after leaving the cinema, I was mainly comparing and contrasting Pattinson's Batman with his take tbh. I'm sure comparing and contrasting this latest portrayal with the other takes (e.g., Bale, Affleck and Kilmer) will organically spring to mind at a later date.

Y'know, prior to the movie, I was really expecting Pattinson's Batman to be even more extreme than Keaton's in the sense of being quite morally dubious and very much feeling like an unknown quantity. A powder keg waiting to go off, etc. Instead I feel that Pattinson's Batman is already a very traditionalist and straight-laced one. The handling of Bruce Wayne thus far is where a lot of the intrigue and nuance comes into play, and where his and Keaton's versions of the character intersect the most imo. But that's about where the similarities end imo. At least as far as I've been able to see after my first viewing of this latest film.

As far as their portrayals of Batman are concerned, they're actually incredibly different characterisations. Like, night and day. Even despite the scene of Pattinson's Batman going wild and pounding that thug's face in near the end of the film, I never once seriously questioned that he was on the straight and narrow, morally speaking, and that he had very clearly solidified ideas of what was right and wrong. I felt that things would be fine with him around.

Keaton's Batman, on the other hand, I still generally find to be a very discomforting and uneasy presence. Keep in mind that I'm mainly talking about all of this in relation to their disposition and manner, and not just necessarily the writing or the actions that either versions undertake in their respective films. And I'm not saying that either take is necessarily any better than the other, either. At this point I'm actually undecided on whether Keaton's Batman is still my favourite, such was the tremendous quality of Pattinson's performance.

But I do like that feeling of uncertainty that comes with the Keaton portrayal. I like that slight feeling that Batman could genuinely turn and go off the deep end into utter moral depravity if he's not careful. And Keaton's Batman still owns that aspect in spades imo.

 

[The Batman]

HiTop films said that he regards Robert Pattinson as being to Batman what Christopher Reeve is as Superman, and I still can't agree with that at all. The title of "Definitive" Batman is still very much up for grabs.

In regards to Catwoman...I think Zoe is in the top 3, but Michelle is still the best Catwoman. Not really comic accurate, but her performance was too strong regardless.

Dano did a great job as Riddler. I'd still say Gorshin is the best, though. Gorshin did such a great job, he made Riddler one Batman's five most iconic villains.

Farrell's Penguin was highly entertaining, but again, I'd give the nod to a '66 performance here. Burgess' Penguin was not only a great performance, this version of the character was portrayed as one of Batman's biggest enemies. Right now, you can't say the same about Farrell's Penguin.

Keoghan as Joker...I like the little we've seen, but...yeah. Not the best Joker we've ever seen. Better than Leto though, so that's good. I will say, he had good arch nemesis chemistry with Pattinson.

Turturro is the best Falcone. Easily. Almost wish he'd stayed for one more film.

 

[Gothamsknight]

A lot of this is just gonna come down to personal preference I think. I loved The Batman, which I've stated countless times, but Pattinson and the film itself is not my definitive Batman. I loved what Pattinson did with the role, but his Bruce Wayne is still something I'm getting accustomed to. I get that it's a different interpretation, but I still hope we end up at a spot where we can see a somewhat familiar Bruce Wayne. as it stands, Pattinsons Batman ranks behind Bales (and maybe even Keatons), and his Bruce wayne ranks behind Bales, and Keatons as well for me. Penguin was amazing, and what farrell did has made him my favorite live action version and what Dano did with Riddler has made him my favorite live action version too. easily one of the best Batman films ever, but not the best and certainly not a masterpiece. I don't know if it's because of the genre at this point, but I feel like it's rare for these films to have staying power with me anymore. Everytime I think of "peak CBM cinema", my mind always goes backwards in time. This isn't a knock on The Batman, but let's be real, The Batman doesn't do that much new. Which is fine! That's not a always a flaw, and it's something to be expected with a character that's been done so many times. But it is something I noticed.

I was 12 when Batman Begins came out, so naturally Bale and the Nolan films are MY generations Batman. Does that make it the definitive version? probably not, but it does for me and I've come to the conclusion that I highly doubt any live action interpretation will be able to hit me emotionally as much as that version did. As a Batman fan, it give me pretty much everything I wanted out of the character in live action. If you ask me, The Dark Knight gave me the definitive live action Batman vs Joker story. It gives you everything you could want, and showcases why their rivalry has lasted decades. That aside, I also still think Bales Bruce Wayne/Batman is the best live action interpretation, voice and all. He's the only one to have a clear cut character arc over the course of 3 films.

I want to see more of Keoghan as Joker, but as it stands, he's currently ranked behind Ledger, Nicholson, Phoenix, and Romero for me.

 

[Boom]

Pattinson's Batman.
Bale's Bruce.
Caine's Alfred.
Oldman's Gordon.
Ledger's Joker.
Pfeiffer's Catwoman.
Farrell's Penguin.
Dano's Riddler.
Eckhart's Two-Face.
Turturro's Falcone.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Affleck as both and all, is my personal favourite.

 

[BMW 224]

A lot of this is just gonna come down to personal preference I think. I loved The Batman, which I've stated countless times, but Pattinson and the film itself is not my definitive Batman. I loved what Pattinson did with the role, but his Bruce Wayne is still something I'm getting accustomed to. I get that it's a different interpretation, but I still hope we end up at a spot where we can see a somewhat familiar Bruce Wayne. as it stands, Pattinsons Batman ranks behind Bales (and maybe even Keatons), and his Bruce wayne ranks behind Bales, and Keatons as well for me. Penguin was amazing, and what farrell did has made him my favorite live action version and what Dano did with Riddler has made him my favorite live action version too. easily one of the best Batman films ever, but not the best and certainly not a masterpiece. I don't know if it's because of the genre at this point, but I feel like it's rare for these films to have staying power with me anymore. Everytime I think of "peak CBM cinema", my mind always goes backwards in time. This isn't a knock on The Batman, but let's be real, The Batman doesn't do that much new. Which is fine! That's not a always a flaw, and it's something to be expected with a character that's been done so many times. But it is something I noticed.

I was 12 when Batman Begins came out, so naturally Bale and the Nolan films are MY generations Batman. Does that make it the definitive version? probably not, but it does for me and I've come to the conclusion that I highly doubt any live action interpretation will be able to hit me emotionally as much as that version did. As a Batman fan, it give me pretty much everything I wanted out of the character in live action. If you ask me, The Dark Knight gave me the definitive live action Batman vs Joker story. It gives you everything you could want, and showcases why their rivalry has lasted decades. That aside, I also still think Bales Bruce Wayne/Batman is the best live action interpretation, voice and all. He's the only one to have a clear cut character arc over the course of 3 films.

I really want to see more of Keoghan as Joker, but as it stands, he's currently ranked behind Ledger, Nicholson, Phoenix, and Romero for me.

Gotta be honest I'm starting to understand what you mean now that I've rewatched The Batman for the 5th time now that the novelty has worn off a bit.

Robert Pattinson is still my favorite Batman and I still really enjoy the film but I'm not sure I love as much as I did the first two times.

It's not any glaring issues or anything it's more the feeling of as you said it doesn't nessarcarily do anything new.


It's really great Batman film don't get me wrong but there's alot of stuff we've already seen that's just fleshed out a bit more.

And alot of stuff I don't feel was fleshed out enough.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Gotta be honest I'm starting to understand what you mean now that I've rewatched The Batman for the 5th time now that the novelty has worn off a bit.

Robert Pattinson is still my favorite Batman and I still really enjoy the film but I'm not sure I love as much as I did the first two times.

It's not any glaring issues or anything it's more the feeling of as you said it doesn't nessarcarily do anything new.


It's really great Batman film don't get me wrong but there's alot of stuff we've already seen that's just fleshed out a bit more.

And alot of stuff I don't feel was fleshed out enough.

It gives you exactly what you want as a Batman film, which I feel can be somewhat a double edged sword. I definitely haven't forgotten about the movie, but there is a sense of "onto the next". In some small ways it reminds me of when the Holland movies came out, but I found this to be vastly better than all of those. But what I mean is that it's like "okay, we got the detective angle" similar to how people were making a huge deal about Spidey being in high school with quips. That being said, I'm far more interested in the future of this than I was that.

 

[BMW 224]

It gives you exactly what you want as a Batman film, which I feel can be somewhat a double edged sword.

I think that's my major problem with it.

Besides Bruce Wayne I don't think it really takes much creative risks which as you said can be good thing too I mean we basically got a solid Batman film.

But I don't know the more I rewatch the more the actual movie feels more and more... Safe ?

Definitely not corporate this is Matt Reeves vision through and through but after the novelty of "wow this is just a straight up year 2 detective noir Batman movie with a great looking Gotham City and phenomenal performance from Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz" is starting to wear off for me and I'm struggling to find anything else I truly "love" about it.

I think it's the Wayne's for me the most the more I rewatch it the more I'm convinced that the Wayne's should have been corrupt for this take regardless of comic accuracy.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I think that's my major problem with it.

Besides Bruce Wayne I don't think it really takes much creative risks which as you said can be good thing too I mean we basically got a solid Batman film.

But I don't know the more I rewatch the more the actual movie feels more and more... Safe ?

Definitely not corporate this is Matt Reeves vision through and through but after the novelty of "wow this is just a straight up year 2 detective noir Batman movie with a great looking Gotham City and phenomenal performance from Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz" is starting to wear off for me and I'm struggling to find anything else I truly "love" about it.

I think it's the Wayne's for me the most the more I rewatch it the more I'm convinced that the Wayne's should have been corrupt for this take regardless of comic accuracy.

Yes, this is how i feel too. Or maybe the Waynes thing should've been scrapped all together honestly. It's why I hope the next film, as solid as this one was, takes more risks and surprises me.

 

[BMW 224]

Yes, this is how i feel too. Or maybe the Waynes thing should've been scrapped all together honestly. It's why I hope the next film, as solid as this one was, takes more risks and surprises me.

It's weird because for so long the one thing I was asking for after Nolan's take was a more small scale dective noir Batman film that mostly doesn't take deviations or risk from the lore yet still feels like a directors vision and now that I finally have exactly that it feels like something is missing....

 

[spideyfan77]

I know you both love the movie above but I could not disagree more. This movie is literally nothing like current superhero movies and takes the most risks of anything I have seen for superhero movies in recent memory.

This movie is literally not for everyone. Like I can safely say that many casual movie fans will not like this movie. It is a 3 hour slow burn detective noir movie that is dark/brutal. Not much action.

For me the Nolan movies are way more accessible because it is way more of a blockbuster movie that you would expect.

This movie was so needed in a time where superhero movies are over saturated that it differentiates itself perfectly. No other movie is like this movie. Maybe Joker or Logan? This movie felt darker than those movies even though this was PG-13 compared to R.

Respect both of your opinions as I know you are huge fans but man I am on the other spectrum. This movie was literally a Batman graphic novel come to life. I ate it up and can’t wait for more. Still stuck with me over a month later.

 

[Filmfreak]

I don't know. It certainly has more creative freedom and vision from the director than most comic book films these days, but at the same time I did feel like there was too much of a box ticking to what fans wanted to see and too much dependence on them already knowing and caring for the characters from different media and past incarnations. And while the movie certainly is not your run-of-the-mill superhero adaptation, at the same time I didn't feel like it was anything groundbreaking or extremely fresh like previous iterations of the character managed to be. I still like the film a lot but these are some of the reasons I don't love it like others do.

 

[BMW 224]

I know you both love the movie above but I could not disagree more. This movie is literally nothing like current superhero movies and takes the most risks of anything I have seen for superhero movies in recent memory.

This movie is literally not for everyone. Like I can safely say that many casual movie fans will not like this movie. It is a 3 hour slow burn detective noir movie that is dark/brutal. Not much action.

For me the Nolan movies are way more accessible because it is way more of a blockbuster movie that you would expect.

This movie was so needed in a time where superhero movies are over saturated that it differentiates itself perfectly. No other movie is like this movie. Maybe Joker or Logan? This movie felt darker than those movies even though this was PG-13 compared to R.

Respect both of your opinions as I know you are huge fans but man I am on the other spectrum. This movie was literally a Batman graphic novel come to life. I ate it up and can’t wait for more. Still stuck with me over a month later.

I agree with you if your comparing to what the general audience thinks a comic book movie should be.

But as a Batman fan I've always wanted a adaption like this and always thought it would work.

The "safe" aspect comes from a Batman fan perspective to be clear not the general comic book movie perspective.

Comparing it to something like the MCU or DCEU the risks it takes and how truly different It is emense I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.

I just think compared to other Batman movie's it doesn't take as much risks or changes which to be fair is not nessarcarily a bad thing but it has been affecting my view of the movie after my last couple rewatches.

 

[BMW 224]

I don't know. It certainly has more creative freedom and vision from the director than most comic book films these days, but at the same time I did feel like there was too much of a box ticking to what fans wanted to see and too much dependence on them already knowing and caring for the characters from different media and past incarnations. And while the movie certainly is not your run-of-the-mill superhero adaptation, at the same time I didn't feel like it was anything groundbreaking or extremely fresh like previous iterations of the character managed to be. I still like the film a lot but these are some of the reasons I don't love it like others do.

Yeah I agree with you.

I think Bruce Wayne and the dective tone were fresh though but it didn't manage to be as groundbreaking as I was expecting going in.

 

[HarveyHarris]

HiTop films said that he regards Robert Pattinson as being to Batman what Christopher Reeve is as Superman, and I still can't agree with that at all. The title of "Definitive" Batman is still very much up for grabs.

I mean to me the closest to a definitive Batman is still Adam West, which I think says a lot.

 

[The Batman]

I mean to me the closest to a definitive Batman is still Adam West, which I think says a lot.

West is always an underrated choice in the "Best Batman" race. Dad Bod and farcical approach aside, he really does cover a lot of the aspects of the character. As I said in another thread, he's still the only live action Batman who comes off as being the World's Greatest Detective.

Also, he's the only live action Batman that comes close to feeling like a version of comic Batman come to life. Even in regards to villain performances from the '66 series, that's one thing Romero and Meredith have over their respective successors.

 

[Marvel united]

I'm gonna say something controversial, but this is wholly how I feel, Pattinson makes all of the other Batmen look like dudes in cosplay, and I mean that in the most respectful way possible, esp towards Bale. He's THAT good in my opinion.

Never before has Batman actually scared/unsettled me, and I mean that in the best way possible. For the first time, I felt like I was in the criminal's shoes, genuinely frightened by the level of intensity that Pattinson brought to the role. He always feels like he's teetering on the edge of a psychotic break, and it just reallllly sells the character for me, more than any other performance.

I'd argue that Pattinson is easily going to the become the definitive version of the character on film, with time. I look forward to seeing him further grow into the role

 

[BatLobster]

One random thing that I thought was worth sharing here is I keep noticing Mattson Tomlin liking tweets that are calling out people hating on Bale/TDK Trilogy. I think it's cool that one of the (uncredited) writers of the new film gets it, is a fan and doesn't want to see incarnations from the past that he loved torn down just to prop up the thing that he was involved with creatively. It's a small gesture but it's classy IMO.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I mean to me the closest to a definitive Batman is still Adam West, which I think says a lot.

Yeah, if we're talking strictly comic accuracy, West is by far the most accurate. Maybe not to who the character is by modern standards, but he is 1:1 with who the character was in the 60s.

HiTop films said that he regards Robert Pattinson as being to Batman what Christopher Reeve is as Superman, and I still can't agree with that at all. The title of "Definitive" Batman is still very much up for grabs.

Honestly I can't say I agree. I'd definitely say Pattinson's probably the best modern Batman we've ever gotten and absolutely is definitive at his core. All the other actors definitely could've been, Bale literally won a goddamn Oscar for crying out loud. But they needed the right director who could let them flex their acting chops with this character. Bale only really got passing opportunities to do that with Nolan, Keaton definitely showed his off but was unfortunately limited to Burton's..."interesting subversion" of who the character is and Affleck definitely had it in him but...lmao BvS.

Pattinson got to show off his acting like Keaton, in a movie that is an honest to God love letter to this character in every way. There are definite differences at this moment, such as the lack of a Bruce Wayne facade which will likely develop in the sequels, but to me Pattinson embodies the soul of the character like no other. Who the character is, deep down, beyond both the Bruce mask and Batman mask. This deeply tortured and mentally scarred man who just doesn't want a child to experience the same loss he did. A man who walks the edge of the abyss every night, who has to constantly struggle with almost falling in but never does in the name of justice and because the compassion that's at the core of his heart always prevents him from doing so. Keaton was the abyss, Affleck never even mentioned the abyss, Bale never seemed like someone on the edge of it and from moment 1 was certain of himself. Pattinson is on the edge but doesn't fall in. The Bruce Wayne facade, while important, isn't important for the core of the character. Pattinson has that core, in a movie which adapts his most important aspects to the letter. It was just lightning in a bottle, in my opinion, that we've never seen before.

 

[BatLobster]

It's interesting.

I remember at the time Begins came out, there was a quote where Bale said that basically their aspiration was to create the "Christopher Reeve" equivalent for their version of Batman. Obviously we know Nolan himself was heavily influenced by the Donner Superman films in his approach.

But in reality, I truly believe there's no such thing as a "definitive" Batman. It's a mirage that fans keep chasing. People have their own definitive Batmans.



I timestamped it here, there's a part of the trilogy doc where Guillermo del Toro and then Jonathan Nolan hit on this point very nicely. I think creatively there's always an ambition to do something that 'feels' definitive and has a lasting impact, but I think it's cool when creators acknowledge that there own take is still just one version in a much bigger tapestry.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I don't know. It certainly has more creative freedom and vision from the director than most comic book films these days, but at the same time I did feel like there was too much of a box ticking to what fans wanted to see and too much dependence on them already knowing and caring for the characters from different media and past incarnations. And while the movie certainly is not your run-of-the-mill superhero adaptation, at the same time I didn't feel like it was anything groundbreaking or extremely fresh like previous iterations of the character managed to be. I still like the film a lot but these are some of the reasons I don't love it like others do.

This is something that took me some time to nail down. I felt like Gordon and Batmans relationship was great, but at the same time it felt a bit hollow to me. I mean, I get that it's year 2, but aren't we supposed to be invested in when they work together? It ended up feeling a little cold at times to me. It's hard to emotionally connect if I don't know their past.

It just felt like it did tick all the boxes, but it kind of ended up hurting itself in some ways. It's also why the ending, as good as it is, didn't have me aching to make a 20 minute video explaining why it was perfect. The "vengeance isn't the answer" has been done before in Batman Begins. I've always made the point that some ground will always be covered more than once when it comes to Batman due to how many live action adaptions there are, but I feel like it's impact on me this time around was not surprising enough.

Also, I think what's definitive really depends on who you ask. People will say Tom Holland is definitive because he embodies a teen and quips. To me, he's not the definitive Spider-Man though. Just like how I don't think Pattinson is either.

 

[Frodo]

While I think Pattinson's Batman has qualities that alot of comicbook fans have always wanted from a live action Batman, I wouldn't say he's the definitive film version of the character.

At this point , he's only got one film, and while it's a strong freshman outing, it's just one film.

I'd give him a few more films to see how or if this Batman grows beyond what we've seen in this first film, before I would put him in consideration as a definitive Batman.