West Vs Bale Vs Keaton Vs Kilmer Vs Clooney!

[MIB41]

In order of my personal favorites:

Christian Bale - A great actor who does a terrific job in both roles as Wayne and Batman. None before him have handled duel roles with more believable complexity.

Michael Keaton - To be the first to take on the role (seriously) in a theatrical project took alot of balls and he transformed himself in grand fashion. He also took alot of heat from the fan boys before the film's release and handled it with great style. Many still think of his image when they think of Batman on the big screen.

Adam West - Clearly a childhood favorite, but also a parody of the character. Classic television, but NOT classic Batman. And Adam, as a person, has been anything but Batman in real life. The best example of an actor who constantly takes advantage of fans to make a quick buck (sometimes charging $40 -$80 for an autograph?). How ashamed his television counterpart would be.

Val Kilmer - Okay as Batman, but a complete miss as Bruce Wayne. His portrayal was cartoony at best and, as a cast choice, a tad too young to have Robin at his side. Perhaps we should blame Schumacher for that but, at the end of the day, I have to judge on the final product and that's what I got.

George Clooney - Adam West-style acting on the big screen. He was terrible and completely unconvincing. To believe him capable of that role is like asking me to believe in Big Foot...not in this life time.

[darklord1967]

You guys are putting way too much time and effort into this. When it isn't fun anymore, I'm out. We should just agree to disagree and enjoy the frickin' movie, or don't, if you choose not to. It's your loss though.

Chris

Well, Chris, speaking for myself, I made it pretty crystal-clear in my initial review for The Dark Knight that I thoroughly DID "enjoy the frickin' movie".

I just took issue with those few details regarding Bale's visual appearance and thespian interpretation of The Batman (not so much Bruce Wayne).

In any event, a good healthy debate about these things never hurt anyone, and in fact likely made all of The Batman media that we've enjoyed over the last 20 years possible.

Look, as I said before, I am an unabashed Batman "purist". But I'm not such purist that I cannot enjoy a slightly different take on some aspects of the mythology. If that were the case I'd have rejected Heath Ledger's excellent version of The Joker outright, and Aaron Ekhardt's rendition of Harvey Dent / Two-Face. They too were considerable departures from the comic book versions.

Yes, this armor business has been around in the movies for 20 years now, and a whole generation has grown up with that version.

But as a dedicated fan who would have preferred some details about the Batman character to have remained a bit more traditional when presented on film, I think it's only fair to point out that the character has been around for nearly 70 years now... NON-armored in virtually EVERY medium he in presented in.

Only the so-called "more realistic" live-action films depict him as armor-clad.

I'm not dense. I'm very well aware that some things from the printed comic page don't translate well to live action film.

I just don't think that a simpler-looking stripped down Bat-suit (even if it were armored) is one of those things that doesn't translate.

Is it really necesaary to sculpt The Batman's movie outfit (even if it IS armor) with all that high-tech looking crap?

To me it just ruins the simplicity that the costume is supposed to have. Bruce is emulating a simple ORGANIC night creature. In my eyes, his LOOK should be basic, primal, un-fettered, and un-decorated... not "high-tech" or robotic.

I remember years ago being annoyed that the live-action movie Batman's eyes were not blanked out underneath the cowl (with mirrored lenses or something). I felt that visible eyes (being the emotional window of the human soul) were completely inappropriate for a character that is supposed to be dark, grim, unstoppable, and uncompromising. Even Samm Hamm's original script for the 1989 Batman movie made reference to blank eyes underneath his cowl... something about a terrified thug seeing only twin reflections of his own fear in the Batman's mirrored blank cowl lenses.

Well when the movie came out (with Michael Keaton's eyes visible through the cowl), and I complained about it, everybody and their mother said "some things don't translate well from the comic book page... blah, blah, blah"

Now all these years later, we finally have a scene in this new excellent Dark Knight film where The Batman uses night vision lenses in his cowl that effectively give him the blank-eyed look from the comics.

And I thought he looked amazing.

Turns out that blank eyes were a little detail from the comics that (given the chance) would work quite well on film. Evidently, even Chris Nolan thought so... at least for that one scene.

I just think that so many of these details that folks keep saying "don't translate well" from the comics page will translate just fine if given the chance. Sandy Collora's "Dead End" proved that.

I also think that quite a few of the details of The Batman's movie look have been at the mercy of outside factors that have NOTHING to do with serving the character.

There's a famous and popular multi-million dollar actor cast to portray Bruce Wayne / Batman?

Well, you can't very well cover up his eyes with blank lenses behind the Bat-Cowl. That just won't do.


Millions of dollars have been spent on The Batman's latest high-tech movie outfit look?

Well, you can't very well cover it up by draping the big bat-cape closed in front of it (The grim, gritty Batman's preferred way of wearing the garment). That just won't do either.

So many things that "don't translate well from the comics" are decided upon by weird, eccentric filmmakers (like Tim Burton) who know NOTHING about (or DON'T CARE about) the traditional aspects of the character. These people summarily do away with vital character-defining details while simultaneously creating new details that contradict the original intention / motivation for the character.

If given the chance, Tim Burton would have raped the movie version of Superman with some other type of untraditional weird garbage, that then somehow would have stuck... because he's such a "visionary".

Don't forget, Tim Burton was the one who wanted comedian Marlon Wayans to play Robin The Boy Wonder at one point. Yeah. Marlon Wayans.

I guess in Tim Burton's mind, twenty-something year old wisecracking black guys translate better on screen as The Batman's partner than a traditional 13 or 14 year old orphaned circus arealist who's parents have been murdered.

[The Bat]

You guys are putting way too much time and effort into this. When it isn't fun anymore, I'm out. We should just agree to disagree and enjoy the frickin' movie, or don't, if you choose not to. It's your loss though.

Chris

Agreed! Most of Us like it...some don't....that's Life.

[Earth 2 Chris]

You guys are putting way too much time and effort into this. When it isn't fun anymore, I'm out. We should just agree to disagree and enjoy the frickin' movie, or don't, if you choose not to. It's your loss though.

Chris

[The Bat]

Actually, I am in the minority on this issue on this message board. There are thousands of like-minded Batman "purists" (which I unabashedly admit to being) who frequent Batman websites who feel exactly the way I do.

Indeed, on those message boards, the "pro-armor stance" is the minority.

There are a HUGE number of folks who love "The Dark Knight" and hail it as a real triumph of comic book film adaptation (just as I do), but who would also have preferred a non-armored, non-lisping Batman, a Batmobile that was NOT a virtual Sherman Tank, and a more "traditional" approach to some of these details.

The trouble is, most of those jokers on those message boards couldn't care less about MEGOS, so their judgement is clearly HIGHLY SUSPECT.

Maybe I am more alone on this that I thought. After all, there really is no "right or wrong" on this issue (just opinions). However even if there were a right or wrong, I really wouldn't want the main supporters of MY position to be a bunch of non-MEGO lovers. I'd rather be over here catchin' a beating from you guys.

I meant that You're in the minority according to the Box Office numbers & general Audience's.....not the "rabid Fanboys" like You run into over at Superhero Hype.com. You know...the People who whine about every little detail that isn't exactly like the Comics(Organic Webshooters & Batman's Body Armor). You have to understand(or not)that this is a Movie...and what works in the Comics, doesn't always translate well on to the big Screen.

AS for the Tumbler/Batmobile...since it was destroyed in the Movie....I think We'll get to see a more traditional Batmobile in the next one.

[darklord1967]

The above is incorrect, a misstatement of fact. The body armor element was in the 1988 Sam Hamm script BEFORE Burton was hired or Keaton was cast. It was not added because Keaton was deemed too slight; it was the product of the writer, Hamm, thinking about the characters in terms of the real world, and how such a vigilante could operate believably in a world of machine guns and high-powered firearms. The entire premise of your position is factually inaccurate.

Actually, you're right about that little nugget of information. I had forgotten about Hamm's original reference to armor in his script. Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected.

"Certainly you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it bears pointing out that you are by far in the minority in this."




And that......is the truth!!

Actually, I am in the minority on this issue on this message board. There are thousands of like-minded Batman "purists" (which I unabashedly admit to being) who frequent Batman websites who feel exactly the way I do.

Indeed, on those message boards, the "pro-armor stance" is the minority.

There are a HUGE number of folks who love "The Dark Knight" and hail it as a real triumph of comic book film adaptation (just as I do), but who would also have preferred a non-armored, non-lisping Batman, a Batmobile that was NOT a virtual Sherman Tank, and a more "traditional" approach to some of these details.

The trouble is, most of those jokers on those message boards couldn't care less about MEGOS, so their judgement is clearly HIGHLY SUSPECT.

Maybe I am more alone on this that I thought. After all, there really is no "right or wrong" on this issue (just opinions). However even if there were a right or wrong, I really wouldn't want the main supporters of MY position to be a bunch of non-MEGO lovers. I'd rather be over here catchin' a beating from you guys.

[darklord1967]

Just some opposing thoughts.

Compared to the market that watches movies as they come out at the cinema (aka the general public), the market that reads Batman Comics, or watches Batman Cartoons, is absolutely miniscule. Petite.

If a movie were to offer nothing more than the comic book. . . then no-one except the comic book readers would have gone to see it.

If the movie going public wanted Batman exactly as it is in the comic. . .well. . .they would go and buy the comics. . .FACT IS THEY DON'T.

For it to become a movie and cross that to that medium - it has to offer something New. Something not seen before. Expanding on what is known or has been done before.

If what you say is true, then the first EXCELLENT Superman film (which was very faithful to the comics, but with some very minor changes to the material) would have been a huge DUD with general audiences.

The general movie-going public that you describe was completely UNAWARE of a dark, gritty approach to The Batman, especially back in 1989. To them, the term Batman conjured images of the campy Adam West TV Batman.

Fact is, a dark, gritty Batman WAS something NEW and not seen before to this group. General (non-comic book reading) audiences would have flocked to see anything with The Batman name on it (and they did), because of name-recognition appeal, curiosity, and nostalgia.

Comic fans woud have flocked to see it (and they did) because it was a chance to see a dark gritty film approach to The Batman which they were famiriar with from the pages of comics.

Win-win situation.

[Jeff1967]

All I have to say is if they let Bale go and do another movie without him, it would be a waist of time. Christian Bale is perfect for the Batman roles. Keep Christopher Nolan as director and how can you fail? TDK set the records. What to do next?

[The Bat]

"Certainly you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it bears pointing out that you are by far in the minority in this."




And that......is the truth!!

[Vortigern99]

The ONLY reason this armor nonsense is even a debate is because the 1989 Batman film established an inadequately built actor in a muscle suit that was explained as body armor and so the concept stuck.

If they had chosen back then to be faithful to the look of Batman as he appeared in the comics (as they had done with Superman), the look would have changed very little from film to film, and all these points about "realism" this, and "avoiding getting shot" that would NOT even be an issue.

The above is incorrect, a misstatement of fact. The body armor element was in the 1988 Sam Hamm script BEFORE Burton was hired or Keaton was cast. It was not added because Keaton was deemed too slight; it was the product of the writer, Hamm, thinking about the characters in terms of the real world, and how such a vigilante could operate believably in a world of machine guns and high-powered firearms. The entire premise of your position is factually inaccurate.

Audiences would have HAPPILY accepted a traditional looking Batman, especially if it was well-written, dark, and gritty (like the current Dark Knight film).

The movie Batman would simply have been depicted dodging bullets, incapacitating gunmen with a speedy Bat-A-Rang throw (before they could even get a shot off) or deflecting gunfire with a lighting-fast swirl of his HUGE bullet resistant cape.

Maybe audiences would "HAPPILY" accept this; I for one cannot averr what mass audiences would or would not definitely accept. But the fact is the Nolan brothers and Goyer (the writers) have approached the material as though it were set in the real world, or at least in a believable, non-fantastical alternate version of the real world. In such a world, Batman would wear body armor. You may not like or agree with this, but it's the logical and sensible decision based on the chosen setting.

Audiences would NOT have had a problem accepting ANY of this. They DO NOT demand any more "realism" from a Batman film than they do from an Indiana Jones film, or a James Bond Film, or a Die Hard film. If fact, they arguably expect LESS "realism" from a comic book-based film where the hero wears bizzare costumes, masks, and capes in public and literally leaps off of 60-story tall buildings while chasing criminals.

Contrast THAT "realism" against what that same audience might expect from, say, a James Bond film. It would NEVER fit within their reasonable limits of suspension of disbelief to accept something like that from a 007 adventure.

Batman Begins set the bar for the realistic depiction of this character in a real-world setting. The unfettered fantasy and unreality of the Schumacher versions -- which, as you may be aware, are universally reviled -- has been rejected in favor of a more real-seeming approach. This approach evidently works for millions of fans, mass audiences and critics alike. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it bears pointing out that you are by far in the minority in this.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

The ONLY reason why this whole armor nonsense is even a debate is because the 1989 Batman film established an inadequately built actor in a muscle suit that was explained as body armor and so the concept stuck.

If they had chosen back then to be faithful to the look of Batman as he appeared in the comics (as they had done with Superman), the look would have changed very little from film to film, and all these points about "realism" this, and "avoiding getting shot" that would NOT even be an issue.

Audiences would have HAPPILY accepted a traditional looking Batman, especially if it was well-written, dark, and gritty (like the current Dark Knight film).

Just some opposing thoughts.

Compared to the market that watches movies as they come out at the cinema (aka the general public), the market that reads Batman Comics, or watches Batman Cartoons, is absolutely miniscule. Petite.

If a movie were to offer nothing more than the comic book. . . then no-one except the comic book readers would have gone to see it.

If the movie going public wanted Batman exactly as it is in the comic. . .well. . .they would go and buy the comics. . .FACT IS THEY DON'T.

For it to become a movie and cross that to that medium - it has to offer something New. Something not seen before. Expanding on what is known or has been done before.

It was 19 years ago. . . we have to accept it and move on. People who are in their 20's now, grew up with this as their reality to Batman. Who are you or we as a group, to say this entire generation is wrong?

Just thoughts.

[twilitezoner]

Back in the day I was not a fan of the rubber suit. Over time the 89 suit grew on me and I think the Dark Knight suit is even better. Below is a picture from the 89 film that evokes the comic as well as any suit could or would have.

[darklord1967]

This holds no water. There is NOBODY going to see the Batman movies who doesn't kow something about him. He is ingrained in the average movie going public's minds. The bat armor is completely unneccessary. The 89 movie had the best look as it looked like just muscles, not Iron Man ans was understated and they made a point of saying it was body armor. NOBODY walked out of that movie disbelieving it was such. It's a cop out at best.

Very well said! A "cop out" indeed! I would also add one other point:

The ONLY reason why this whole armor nonsense is even a debate is because the 1989 Batman film established an inadequately built actor in a muscle suit that was explained as body armor and so the concept stuck.

If they had chosen back then to be faithful to the look of Batman as he appeared in the comics (as they had done with Superman), the look would have changed very little from film to film, and all these points about "realism" this, and "avoiding getting shot" that would NOT even be an issue.

Audiences would have HAPPILY accepted a traditional looking Batman, especially if it was well-written, dark, and gritty (like the current Dark Knight film).

The movie Batman would simply have been depicted dodging bullets, incapacitating gunmen with a speedy Bat-A-Rang throw (before they could even get a shot off) or deflecting gunfire with a lighting-fast swirl of his HUGE bullet resistant cape.

Audiences would NOT have had a problem accepting ANY of this. They DO NOT demand any more "realism" from a Batman film than they do from an Indiana Jones film, or a James Bond Film, or a Die Hard film.

If fact, they arguably expect LESS "realism" from a comic book-based film where the hero wears bizzare costumes, masks, and capes in public and literally leaps off of 60-story tall buildings while chasing criminals.

Contrast THAT "realism" against what that same audience might expect from, say, a James Bond film. It would NEVER fit within their reasonable limits of suspension of disbelief to accept something like that from a 007 adventure.

[twilitezoner]

I loved Batman Dead End, but trust me, if I were a villain in a mob gang, and he came up to my crew, I'd pump him so full of lead you'd be picking him up with magnets.

The only problem with that statement is, that you would never see him coming.

[Vortigern99]

Batman and Robin is the worst big-budget film ever made! Nobody should watch that thing, especially as a first introduction to the characer. It's suitable perhaps for unintentional laughter and open derision. HardyGirl, your mother should watch Batman Begins and decide if she likes the movie/character or not based on that depiction.