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.

[draconianguard]

This thread brings up a lot of good points. Like what was posted earlier, I always felt it wasn't fair to compare the Adam West Batman to other actors that took the role as the times and the character changed so much. When people can't believe I don't detest Batman & Robin , I always remind them that this is a grown man walking around in a rubber batsuit and I can't take it too seriously.

West- Did a great job with the character and the show was ahead of its time. I still crack up when I watch him

Keaton - I was surprised how good he was. I cringed when I first heard he was given the role and he proved he could pull it off. His Bruce Wayne was maybe a little too nice and should have had a playboy type aura about him. He's my favorite of the movie Batmen.

Kilmer-I expected a better performance out of him and he was a bit wooden.

Clooney- Great Bruce Wayne and a decent Batman. I think too many fanboys hate Clooney as they view him too much as a Hollywood A list type and not a real actor like his predecessors. Alicia Silverstone was the worst thing about Batman & Robin to me, not Clooney.

Bale-I think he is the most talented actor to play Batman, but still feel that something is missing. Maybe he tries too hard, especially with the Batman voice that comical IMO.

Another thing that was mentioned was the costume. I remember when I first heard they were restarting the series with Batman Begins, I thought for sure they would do the Alex Ross inspired costume route like Batman Dead End had. When I saw the rubber suit, I thought it they should have done something to make this franchise have a look to seperate it from the previous films.

I just try to have fun and not take these movies too seriously because as I stated before, its pretty hard to when you a guy running around in a bat suit. Hell, even Morgan Freeman pointed out how ridiculous it sound for a the extremely wealthy Bruce Wayne to actually act like as a vigilante!

P.S.
Suprised I didn't see any mention of Robert Lowery or Lewis Wilson as Batman

[Raydeen1]

Crap. I had a whole post written and lost it.

In any event. I don't believe the cop out:"Doesn't translate to film".

Can you explain why exactly organic web shooters do translate well and mechanical ones do not? The fact that Peter is a genius has been a major part of his character since his debut yet Hollywood decided they'd just remove that little tidbit from history. I don't know exact numbers but I would bet money more than 50% of folks who watched that movie thought his web shooters were mechanical.

As for Batman. He has almost 70 years of being an icon in the general publics' minds. Nobody going to see the film has no clue about him. My wife never read comics as a kid and she knows his suit doesn't look like that. The movie would work just fine and make just as much money if his suit were stripped down and made to look less like Iron Batman. How many people do you think went in with a visualization of the Batmobile and were shocked to see that....thing?????? I bet MOST of the people buying tickets.

It's spoon fed, Hollywood BS to say it doesn't translate well. Obviously, it worked once already with the 89 film. The Batmobile sure didn't look like the Adam West Batmobile but it was undeniably the Batmobile. I don't think it's a major thing to change it but the excuse of: "It doesn't translate well on film" is total BS.

I'm sorry I can't see why you guys are so enamored of this version of Batman and I'm sorry I keep harping on it but I'm passionate about the character and have been all my life and I would dearly love to see him done properly some day. It's like waiting for a Mego Batman for Christamas and getting Judge Dredd instead.

I tried to enjoy Begins but the mere look of Batman was enough to turn me off. If not for the ears, he could be any poor Image Comics rip off.

I have enjoyed many interpretations of Batman over the years and I've liked almost all of them but to just change things at someone's whim really bothers me. Ra's A Ghul is a cool villain but did the character in Begins resemble the comic book character in any way? Not so much. Scarecrow is also a cool character but the twit that played him tried to give him a Jim Carrey/Riddler vibe and his performance was terrible.

This is not to say I completely hated the movie. Loved Gordon, loved Lucius Fox. Hated Alfred, Hated Katie Holmes(not that it mattered much). I think Bale may be ok but I couldn't get past the lisp and that gawdawful suit and cowl. He just wasn't Batman. I loved that they explored Batman's training. Just annoyed that it was with Ra's. It was disappointment after disapointment watching it. Had I not cared about the character so much, like Hulk or Ironman, whom are both cool characters but not in my top 10 and certainly not my favorite, I may have been able to enjoy the movie. My coworker saw Dark Knight over the weekend and told me some stuff about it. He loved it but he really knows nothing about the character. He's a Marvel/Xmen guy and he had lots of negative stuff to say about those movies. lol.

I can understand why people enjoyed Begins and Dark Knight and I can respect it. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't see it. I'm just disappointed and I'm *****ing about it.

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.

[MIB41]

I think Batman can vary in appearance according to one's desires. Obviously some need him in tights for tradition, while others need his appearance to be functional and meaningful to the purpose and needs of the story. The current Batman series works (and is popular) because the subject matter is taken seriously as a concept. The outfit is not intended to be a fashion statement for fan boys, but to function as a weapon within the world Nolan has created. Could you see Lucius telling Bruce it's okay to wear spandex against the Joker? I don't think so.

[darklord1967]

Crap. I had a whole post written and lost it.

In any event. I don't believe the cop out:"Doesn't translate to film".

Can you explain why exactly organic web shooters do translate well and mechanical ones do not? The fact that Peter is a genius has been a major part of his character since his debut yet Hollywood decided they'd just remove that little tidbit from history. I don't know exact numbers but I would bet money more than 50% of folks who watched that movie thought his web shooters were mechanical.

As for Batman. He has almost 70 years of being an icon in the general publics' minds. Nobody going to see the film has no clue about him. My wife never read comics as a kid and she knows his suit doesn't look like that. The movie would work just fine and make just as much money if his suit were stripped down and made to look less like Iron Batman. How many people do you think went in with a visualization of the Batmobile and were shocked to see that....thing?????? I bet MOST of the people buying tickets.

It's spoon fed, Hollywood BS to say it doesn't translate well. Obviously, it worked once already with the 89 film. The Batmobile sure didn't look like the Adam West Batmobile but it was undeniably the Batmobile. I don't think it's a major thing to change it but the excuse of: "It doesn't translate well on film" is total BS.

I'm sorry I can't see why you guys are so enamored of this version of Batman and I'm sorry I keep harping on it but I'm passionate about the character and have been all my life and I would dearly love to see him done properly some day. It's like waiting for a Mego Batman for Christamas and getting Judge Dredd instead.

I tried to enjoy Begins but the mere look of Batman was enough to turn me off. If not for the ears, he could be any poor Image Comics rip off.

I have enjoyed many interpretations of Batman over the years and I've liked almost all of them but to just change things at someone's whim really bothers me. Ra's A Ghul is a cool villain but did the character in Begins resemble the comic book character in any way? Not so much. Scarecrow is also a cool character but the twit that played him tried to give him a Jim Carrey/Riddler vibe and his performance was terrible.

This is not to say I completely hated the movie. Loved Gordon, loved Lucius Fox. Hated Alfred, Hated Katie Holmes(not that it mattered much). I think Bale may be ok but I couldn't get past the lisp and that gawdawful suit and cowl. He just wasn't Batman. I loved that they explored Batman's training. Just annoyed that it was with Ra's. It was disappointment after disapointment watching it. Had I not cared about the character so much, like Hulk or Ironman, whom are both cool characters but not in my top 10 and certainly not my favorite, I may have been able to enjoy the movie. My coworker saw Dark Knight over the weekend and told me some stuff about it. He loved it but he really knows nothing about the character. He's a Marvel/Xmen guy and he had lots of negative stuff to say about those movies. lol.

I can understand why people enjoyed Begins and Dark Knight and I can respect it. I'm not by any means saying you shouldn't see it. I'm just disappointed and I'm *****ing about it.

Extremely well said, good buddy! Another home-run post! I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Vortigern99]

Raydeen1, I find it ironic that whereas you hate the Bale Batman because you think he doesn't look or talk like Batman, I love the Bale Batman exactly because to me he represents the iconic character as depicted in DC Comics from 1969 - the present day. He speaks, moves and looks exactly the way I have imagined the character in my head all these years. The body armor is just a real-world addition that makes good, logical sense. In the movie, Batman moves so quickly and/or is in such deep shadows that you never get a bead on the tech suit. The iconic silhouette remains. (BTW, my wife just came in and I told her the discussion we're having. She said, "Yeah, you're not thinking about what the suit looks like, you're thinking about the awesomeness of what he's doing!" Truer words could not be said.)

These new films reject the silliness of the Schumacher versions and take a realistic approach, which precludes fantastical plot elements like Al Ghul's Lazarus Pool (which was used in 2002's Blade II, anyway) or a normal man who moves so fast he doesn't need armor against machine guns and automobile accidents. This is a Batman who could exist in a world very similar to our own. If you do not like that concept of Batman, then indeed this film is not for you.

[The Bat]

I'm not going to argue with You Raydeen1...if that's what You're looking for....try Superherohype.com. You'll find plently of People to fight with over there. This is mainly a Mego Collector Forum.

All I can say is...Batman alway has been, and always will be My favorite Character(I'm 43)....and I couldn't be more pleased with what Chris Nolan & Christian Bale have brought Me! It's the Batman I've alway imagined, and waited all my life to see...and I'm so happy it's finally been done RIGHT!

If I had one complaint...it would be the Tumbler/Batmobile. But it made sense in the begining...and now it's been destroyed. So I think You'll see a completely different Batmobile in the next Movie.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

Adding from Vortigern99 and The Bat above . . .
I think one of the neat things is that practicallity. In the previous movies. . .they just had these ultra sculpted suits appear. . . several in a movie at times. . . who is making them. . . where are they coming from. . .they just appear.

But in Batman Begins. . .there is an origin and practical explanation for each part of the suit. . .and this builds the realism. . .from the undies out. . . very cool. . . and it works well.

Superman. . . well he is bullet proof anyway. . . if he wasn't. . . .and he was a billionaire. . . he would be getting his own body armour!

[darklord1967]

*++

Raydeen1, I find it ironic that whereas you hate the Bale Batman because you think he doesn't look or talk like Batman, I love the Bale Batman exactly because to me he represents the iconic character as depicted in DC Comics from 1969 - the present day. He speaks, moves and looks exactly the way I have imagined the character in my head all these years.

Trouble is, to a Batman purist (and there are quite a few of us out there) he does NOT move, speak, OR (certainly not) look like the character we imagined.

I won't speak for Raydeen, but I certainly never imagined the Batman to speak with a lisp, and with an overly melodrmatic growl that made him sound badly constipated.

And I never imagined a guy (that despite how quickly he moves) gets clumsily shot and stabbed and trips over as often as this guy does.

I think we imagined something more primal and legendary... like The Shadow. We imagined a guy, that you'd probably never even get a chance to shoot, because like a good illusionist, he'd duck into a shadow just as a thug pulled his gun. By the time the hood discharged his weapon, he'd be firing at empty air. And just as he'd realize he was wasting bullets, The Batman would suddenly pounce unexpectedly... from behind.

As far as the look is concerned, I DEFINITELY never imagined a look for the character that was as un-necesarily high-tech as this one was. And I'm willing to bet that all of the bat-armor defenders on this site never imagined it either prior to 1988 when the first solid bits of Bat-movie news began to leak from Warners.

Speaking for myself, I was always under the impression that Bruce Wayne selected the simple, terrifying image of an ORGANIC night creature... a BAT... and that therefore, his uniform reflected that. Basic and stripped down... not decorated, high-tech, and robotic.

The body armor is just a real-world addition that makes good, logical sense. In the movie, Batman moves so quickly and/or is in such deep shadows that you never get a bead on the tech suit. The iconic silhouette remains.(BTW, my wife just came in and I told her the discussion we're having. She said, "Yeah, you're not thinking about what the suit looks like, you're thinking about the awesomeness of what he's doing!" Truer words could not be said.)

No. That's just the problem. There are PLENTY of scenes (even in THIS outstanding film) where we see The Batman (in all of his armored high-tech glory) standing perched on ledges (without his cape, no less), in brightly-lit rooms (fund-raiser for Harvey Dent scene), or casually chatting on rooftops with Jim Gordon.

With all due respect, your wife is likely NOT a long-time comic book reader/ Batman fan. She is likely not a Batman purist.

This is not an indictment against her, mind you. Please do not think that. It is simply a supposition on my part. Clearly I could be wrong. And I whole-heartedly apologize in advance if I am.

But the fact is, you are CONSTANTLY reminded of what the armored bat suit in this film looks like because scenes are devoted to explaining its features and showing it off... in BOTH of Nolan's Bat films.

For a Batman purist, the key aspect of the Dark Knights "awesomeness" (as your wife called it) is the character's natural incredible crime fighting abilities, within his human limitations (due to extensive dicipline and training).

Unfortunately, most of the "awesome" feats that your wife refers to which we see The Batman perform in this film are a by-product of the features of his high-tech armored uniform.

That's were the problem comes in for us "purists".

These new films reject the silliness of the Schumacher versions and take a realistic approach, which precludes fantastical plot elements like Al Ghul's Lazarus Pool (which was used in 2002's Blade II, anyway) or a normal man who moves so fast he doesn't need armor against machine guns and automobile accidents. This is a Batman who could exist in a world very similar to our own. If you do not like that concept of Batman, then indeed this film is not for you.

I don't think any of us miss the "silliness" of the Shumacher versions of the character. Good riddance.

The trouble is, despite Nolan's obviously more "grounded in reality" version of the mythology, he only further exaggerated what Shumacher did in terms of the high-tech look of The Batman... minus the nipples on the Bat-suit, of course. Draconianguard seems to agree:

I remember when I first heard they were restarting the series with Batman Begins... When I saw the rubber suit, I thought it they should have done something to make this franchise have a look to seperate it from the previous films.

In addition, I propose that if "fantastical" plot elements were going to be done away with in a new more "realistic" film series re-boot of The Batman, then perhaps (the immortal) Ra's Al Ghul (arguably The Batman's most mystical and fantastical villain) was not an appropriate choice to begin the series with.

And if mystical Ra's Al Ghul WAS going to be used, then why do away with the TWO aspects of the character that give him his main effectiveness as a villain (A) The Lazarus pit which rejuvenates him back from the dead AND (B) His daughter Talia who is one of the few women who has managed to legitimately secure Bruce's heart (and who thereby creates a dramatic conflict with her heroic lover being her villainous father's chief nemesis).

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

Either the Batman film-re-boot was going to be more "realistic" or it was not. Which is it?

In either case, I don't think it was necessary for a "realistic" approach to The Batman films to PRECLUDE the depiction of a costumed man who moves so fast he can avoid gunfire. In our "real" world, that type of thing actually does exist, albiet very rarely. But the Batman is a rare individual. That's the point.

And indeed we're still talking about Batman movie "realism", where heroes can dive off of 60 story-tall buildings in their exploits.

Even with Nolan's excellent new film, that "realism" must be taken with something of a grain of salt... just as when you watch a James Bond or Die Hard flick. And I still maintain that even the most "realistic" Batman film operates on a more fantastical level than a Bond film or Indy film.

[Vortigern99]

We'll just have to disagree. I don't know what you mean by Bale's "lisp", and I for one have always imagined a soft growl coming out of that hood. I don't think he sounds "constipated"; you're just being derogatory to help sell your rejection of this element of the movie. Nor do I notice Bale "clumsily" tripping over stuff and getting shot and stabbed constantly, as you seem to believe is happening. Let's just part ways with you thinking Bale's Batman is a lisping, constipated clutz, and me believing he's a growling, martial artist badass.

BTW, I've been reading Batman comics since 1976 , especially a run of every single DC book and graphic novel between 1984 and 1990, and I have a very clear idea of who the character is. I too consider myself a "purist", but to me the body armor -- first introduced almost 20 years ago now, in the movies as well as in the comics -- is just a logical addition to the character that totally gels with who and what he is. Almost all of the elements of the Batman character were added as the character evolved and developed; they were not part of him from the very beginning. The Batmobile, the Batcave, Robin, and now body armor, were all products of later decades as the character developed. Reject the armor as you like, but it makes sense in the real-world setting as created/adapted by the Nolan bros.

[The Bat]

Well....I'm about to update My ignore list by two names.

[Raydeen1]

Not looking to argue but I am passionate about the character and I LOATHE Hollywood BS changing things and crying:"Doesn't translate"... It's utter BS.

I just can't see if you're a Batman fan how you can think the Joker for instance, with a cut up face and wearing makeup ala The Crow is done right?????? I don't get it. Would the fact that he was chemically changed in an accident be less believable? Clearly not or the 89 film would have bombed. I just don't get how everyone is so accepting of these changes I guess. I still don't think it's been done right.

In the next film, Bats will be driving around in a Sherman Tank.

"

I'm not going to argue with You Raydeen1...if that's what You're looking for....try Superherohype.com. You'll find plently of People to fight with over there. This is mainly a Mego Collector Forum.

All I can say is...Batman alway has been, and always will be My favorite Character(I'm 43)....and I couldn't be more pleased with what Chris Nolan & Christian Bale have brought Me! It's the Batman I've alway imagined, and waited all my life to see...and I'm so happy it's finally been done RIGHT!

If I had one complaint...it would be the Tumbler/Batmobile. But it made sense in the begining...and now it's been destroyed. So I think You'll see a completely different Batmobile in the next Movie.

[Hector]

Vortigen and The Bat...right on, dudes.

Raydeen and Darklord...I respect your opinions...but I just don't agree with most anything you have said...but carry on...it's fun reading this, lol.

[darklord1967]

We'll just have to disagree. I don't know what you mean by Bale's "lisp", and I for one have always imagined a soft growl coming out of that hood.

That's what I imagined too, but I don't believe that a "soft growl" is what we got in Bale's performance. It was a much more gutteral, FORCED growl (borderline cough and / or clearing of his throat). I actually think it was considerably softer in Batman Begins (although still inappropriate in one or two places).

I don't think he sounds "constipated"; you're just being derogatory to help sell your rejection of this element of the movie.

That's not fair at all, and frankly I believe it is dismissive of what I legitimately detect in Bale's vocal performance. If we disagree on this stuff, well that's just fine with me. But make no mistake, I'm not trying to "sell" anything. And I'm not being derogatory, just for derogatorty's sake. I'm expressing my honest opinion as I see (and hear it) regarding Bale's voice.

To me, it honestly sounds like a forced voice coming through under some sort of physical strain.

Furthermore, the "lisp" I refer to is faint as The Batman and even fainter as Bruce Wayne... but it's there. I am not the only viewer to point it out.

The Bat cowl mouth opening is so tight and constricting around Bale's mouth that the faint lisp he normally has is augmented a bit. The tight mask opening limits the lower facial muscles used for normal speech so that "lispy" distortion comes through. Like I said, it's faint, but it's there.

I make my living as a voice-over performer, so I'm VERY concious of that type of thing.

My own preference for The Batman's voice is more of a grim, deep whisper.

Nor do I notice Bale "clumsily" tripping over stuff and getting shot and stabbed constantly, as you seem to believe is happening. Let's just part ways with you thinking Bale's Batman is a lisping, constipated clutz, and me believing he's a growling, martial artist badass.

Well if Bale is NOT getting shot at and stabbed constantly (as you suggest), then it seems to me that's all the more reason why the darn armor in unnecessary.

The fact is, This movie opens with The Batman getting bitten by a DOG causing a huge gash on his arm.

So let me get this straight: It's more "realistic" for the movie Batman to wear armor to protect him from bullets and knives during crime-fighting. But his armor offers absolutely NO defense against Fido's bite?

Um, okay.

As for "tripping and falling" I think I may have been thinking more of The Batman's less-than-graceful landings after falls (Re: Saving Rachel Dawes from falling out a window, and yet ending up on his butt down below. Or a similar fall at the end of the film with Two-Face)

The Batman I prefer is much more graceful than that.

[darklord1967]

Well....I'm about to update My ignore list by two names.

Feel free to update that ignore list.

But you know, Bat, it's a real shame that you cannot participate in a debate about The Batman character without deciding to place the proponents of an opposing viewpoint on an ignore list.

I haven't agreed with virtually anything you or Hector have said on this matter from the beginning. But I am at least respectful and interested enough to hear what you both have to say... no matter how many times or how many ways you want to say it.

I certainly would not want to put you or Hector on an ignore list over something as innocuous as the validity of Batman's movie armor.

What does it say about YOUR viewpoint on this matter that you are not even willing to tolerate an opposing one?

I know I have a colorful way of expressing my viewpoint on this. I also know that I have a strong opinion.

But I have always been respectful of the opposing viewpoint by the very virtue of the fact that I take the time to address EACH of the opposing argument's points in thoughtful well-written posts.

I don't simply throw up my hands and dismiss the forcefully-expressed opposing viewpoint by saying "I'm putting you on an ignore list".

If you read my posts, I think you will find that I have approached this debate with even-handed fairness (I universally praise The Dark Knight as a film), and even with tongue-in-cheek humor.