West Vs Bale Vs Keaton Vs Kilmer Vs Clooney!

[Hector]

Although...I can actually see why Darklord gets bothered by the voice.

This scene actually bothered me.

The one where Bale is in full Batman costume, the part where he's talking to Morgan Freeman.

Why did he continue with that deep growl voice?

I accept the fact (and I always have), Batman talking like that to disguise his voice (as in Nolan's vision). But why keep talking like that in front of Morgan Freeman? Freeman already knows who Batman is. Why didn't Batman simply talk normal in his Bruce Wayne voice to Freeman?

That lone scene really bothered me.

I hope that gave you a little smile, Darklord.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

Your retorts Darklord are no doubt well considered and constructed and I for one, have definately enjoyed the ride.

[Hector]

I haven't agreed with virtually anything you or Hector have said on this matter from the beginning..

I never said anything about ignore lists...I already said to keep 'em coming...I like reading your stuff...agree or not.

[Raydeen1]

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.

Nobody has said anything about spandex.

In fact, based on the Hollywood logic here, The Joker should also be wearing armor. I know of a cene I won't mention due to spoilers that would NEVER happen in the "real World". Joker walks around putting himself in the line of fire every bit as much as Batman yet no armor. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Raydeen1]

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

That's too bad. I was fine with evrything you said except the crack about whining about every little detail when you tried to make this personal.

The fact is, changing Spiderman's web shooters to organic drastically changes the character and is something Marvel would have kittens over if done in another forum. I find it funny they allowed it so easily.

And I suppose NOBODY said a word about Superman having all these new powers in Superman 2 back in the day? Such as a large S being thrown from his uniform? It's the same thing.

[Raydeen1]

I never said anything about ignore lists...I already said to keep 'em coming...I like reading your stuff...agree or not.

You da Man Hector. It's all in fun. It's a bit of "What If they'd done this"? I'm only complaining because this stuff irks me. Not to disagree or be nasty with anyone. It's all in good fun.

[Hector]

Yeah Raydeen...it's all in good fun. All this thread shows that we ALL love Batman...and in the end...that's what counts.

[darklord1967]

Although...I can actually see why Darklord gets bothered by the voice.

This scene actually bothered me.

The one where Bale is in full Batman costume, the part where he's talking to Morgan Freeman.

Why did he continue with that deep growl voice?

I accept the fact (and I always have), Batman talking like that to disguise his voice (as in Nolan's vision). But why keep talking like that in front of Morgan Freeman? Freeman already knows who Batman is. Why didn't Batman simply talk normal in his Bruce Wayne voice to Freeman?

That lone scene really bothered me.

I hope that gave you a little smile, Darklord.

It sure did, good buddy! Thanks! You've basically said what I've been saying all along:

Using the growling voice during a thug's interrogation is one thing. But using it while casually chatting with Gordon on a rooftop, or with Lucius Fox?

Ugh.


On the flip-side, there were one or two moments when Bale's Batman voice didn't sound so forced... and it worked GREAT.

Compare the growling delivery of most of Bale's Batman dialogue (in "The Dark Knight") to the moment in "Batman Begins" where a terified thug in an alley screams, "Where are you??!!!!" and behind him a creepy, hoarse, half whispered voice says simply, "Here."

THAT worked beautifully!!!!

OR how about his response to The Joker's quip to Rachel at Harvey Dent's fundraiser:

THE JOKER: Oooh. A bit of fight in you. I like that."

Then a hoarse, creepy, half-whispered voice...

THE BATMAN: Then you're going to LOVE me."

BE-YOO-TIFUL!!! Perfectly delivered line!!



The trouble is MOST of Bale's Batman lines of dialogue were NOT delivered with the type of subtlety exhibited in those two examples. It was much more... gutteral, and consequently (to my ears), overly melodramatic.

But I wish to repeat (for the umpteenth time) I absolutely LOVED "The Dark Knight".

By far, the VERY BEST Batman film so far. Lots of fun, and (my problems with Bale notwithstanding), plenty of terrific performances. My wife and I are anxious to enjoy the attendance of our second viewing this weekend.

[darklord1967]

Your retorts Darklord are no doubt well considered and constructed and I for one, have definately enjoyed the ride.

You're a gentleman, sir. Thank you so much for saying that. It means quite a lot.

[The Bat]

I never said anything about ignore lists.

Nope...that was Me Hec. It had to be done(it's peaceful here now)....the Mego Museum is where I come to relax....not to argue. And this subject...is too close too My Heart...it's hard to be objective.

[Vortigern99]

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 softer in Batman Begins (altough still inappropriate).

This comes down to interpretation and to a matter of subjective opinion. You don't feel that Bale's Batman voice is appropriate to the character; I and many others feel that it is wholly appropriate, given that he is disguising his voice in a spooky snarl designed to scare criminals.

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.

Okay, so you honestly believe Bale sounds "constipated". Erm... do /you/ sound like this when you're constipated? Does anyone you know or have met speak like this when they're constipated? What would cause you to come to this conclusion? It seems unnecessarily derogatory and vulgar, an "ad hominem" attack on a fictional character, or on the actor portraying him, just to build up your own case.

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.

Okay. Like I said, subjective opinion. I've done voice work as well, and I employ a wide variety of accents and celebrity imitations, and I don't hear the lisp. /shrug/

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.

Yeah, that's not what I said. The film shows us that the armor is necessary in key scenes of violence and aggression perpetrated upon Batman. Dog bites, bullets, car accidents. What the movie doesn't do is depict Batman as a clumsy doofus constantly being shot and stabbed, which is what you claimed in an earlier post. Well, you didn't say "doofus" but you did use the word "clumsy", again insulting a fictional character just to build your case.

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.

He was "graceful" enough to survive those landings without sustaining serious injury. In the real world, he would not always land on his feet, ready to spring into action the moment he hit the turf. In the real world, the wind would get knocked out of him from time to time, and sometimes he would even suffer injury. Again, this is part of grounding the character in a realistic world, which appears to be the basis of your objection on every point. So, you don't like the realistic approach. We do. End of debate.

[darklord1967]

This comes down to interpretation and to a matter of subjective opinion. You don't feel that Bale's Batman voice is appropriate to the character; I and many others feel that it is wholly appropriate, given that he is disguising his voice in a spooky snarl designed to scare criminals.

A voice disguised in a spooky snarl is all well and good, and it's completely appropriate for The Batman. I've never stated otherwise.

The question is whether or not Bale did it effectively. You are of the opinion that he did. I am of the opinion that he did too... but only at times, and maybe even MOST of the time in Batman Begins.

But for the most part (with a few notable exceptions) Bale, chose a more exaggerated vocal syle for the character this time around in The Dark Knight, and it didn't work for me.

Clearly you have not read all of my posts on the subject of Bale's voice interpretation for The Batman. Additionally, you seem more interested in turning this debate into a message board conflict by disrespectfully belittling my opinion and reducing it to a verbal tactic on my part rather than acknowledge it as my genuine opinion on this matter.

Once again: My objection is the inappropriate dramatic CONTEXTS within which the growling voice was occasionally employed. A dramatic growling voice (in and of itself) is not necessarily objectionable in a situation where a hood is being violently interrogated while being dangled off a ledge.

But a growling voice when chatting calmly with Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent on a rooftop just comes off as excessive... in my view.

In my previous posts I believe I also made the distinction between the inconsistent style of voice delivery that Bale presented when performing The Batman. I gave ample examples of Batman lines of dialogue that were NOT delivered in the somewhat labored style that I object to... even in The Dark Knight.

Okay, so you honestly believe Bale sounds "constipated". Erm... do /you/ sound like this when you're constipated? Does anyone you know or have met speak like this when they're constipated? What would cause you to come to this conclusion? It seems unnecessarily derogatory and vulgar, an "ad hominem" attack on a fictional character, or on the actor portraying him, just to build up your own case.

It may seem that way to YOU. But no one else misunderstands my metaphor or thinks of it as "vulgar". I used no foul language in making my statement. Even Hector, who vehemently disagrees with most of my stated viewpoint on all this, understands what I am referring to regarding the overly labored voice.

You pretend NOT to understand my (somewhat tongue in cheek) assessment of a strained voice that sounds like it's coming from a "constipated" individual. Well, it think it is YOU who who is just using the "tactic" of calling the expression of my viewpoint "vulgar" just to further YOUR point.

I doesn't take a genius to realize that I'm referring to the strained way a human voice might sound when undue pressure is placed on the diaphram... the same undue pressure that someone who is constipated (or suffering from stomach cramps, for example) might experience.

Okay. Like I said, subjective opinion. I've done voice work as well, and I employ a wide variety of accents and celebrity imitations, and I don't hear the lisp. /shrug/

Fair enough. We disagree on that. I hear something that you don't.

Yeah, that's not what I said. The film shows us that the armor is necessary in key scenes of violence and aggression perpetrated upon Batman. Dog bites, bullets, car accidents. What the movie doesn't do is depict Batman as a clumsy doofus constantly being shot and stabbed, which is what you claimed in an earlier post. Well, you didn't say "doofus" but you did use the word "clumsy", again insulting a fictional character just to build your case.He was "graceful" enough to survive those landings without sustaining serious injury. In the real world, he would not always land on his feet, ready to spring into action the moment he hit the turf. In the real world, the wind would get knocked out of him from time to time, and sometimes he would even suffer injury. Again, this is part of grounding the character in a realistic world, which appears to be the basis of your objection on every point. So, you don't like the realistic approach. We do. End of debate.

There you go again. I don't need to insult this fictional character to "build my case". I repeat: I am expressing my GENUINE opinion on this matter.

Furthermore, I have absolutely no objection to Batman stories (whether filmed or printed) being depicted realistically.

All I'm saying is I see no reason why the fictional mystique of the character needs to suffer in the process (Re: graceful landings after falls from high places, etc.)

And if the "realistic" approach must be employed while depicting the character on film wearing armor, then at least be logical and consistent regarding the protection that the armor supposedly affords.

It makes no sense that a uniform that protects against gunfire does NOT also protect against the considerably weaker trauma exherted by a mere dog bite.

Regarding movie Batman's precieved clumsiness:

As you pointed out, the "clumsiness" that I see in the movie Batman is the "real world" physical trials and tribulations that you see (and clearly don't object to). Well that's fine.

But don't belittle me or my choice of verbage when I express my expectation for more grace from a fictional character who is depicted in the comics (and even in the previous Nolan Film) to have better physical coordination than that. Once again, THAT'S my genuine opinion.

And yet even in the first film, there are examples of the type of awkward clumsiness I refer to:

I was absolutley cringing during Batman Begins when the Scarecrow set The Batman on fire and sent him tumbling sloppily out a window to the alley below.

You would think that the high-tech protective Bat-suit from the films would actually be fire-resistant too, no?

There's that inconsistency again.

I mean, there are more than just a few irritating gaps in logic regarding the protective viability of that armored suit.

But don't get me wrong: Those gaps in logic are by no means NEW and/or limited to Chris Nolan's filmic take on The Batman.

The Batman has worn that protective armor (in one form or another) as a movie hero for nearly 20 years. And within these "more realistic" takes on the character, there are ample examples of how little protection the armor actually affords (contradicting other scenes where it stops bullets, etc.)

In Batman Returns The Batman (wearing an UPGRADE of the armored outfit he wore in the first film which stopped bullets) fights Michelle Phiffer's Catwoman on a rooftop. She actually stabs right through the protective armor with her simple hand claws, injuring The Dark Knight slightly.

This is the type of thing I'm taking about. Dramatic inconsistensies and contraditions regarding the armor.

Why even have it, if a dame dressed in leather can punture it with slip-on finger nails?

Oh and one last thing: This debate ends when it ends naturally. Not when you, I or anyone else unilaterally declares it ended. No one person on this message board (save for a moderator) has the power to arbitrarily terminate ANY message board discussion.

[Vortigern99]

Darklord, thank you for outlining your opinions and criticisms so thoughtfully. I appreciate the effort you've put into stating your case and sticking up for yourself. But I still disagree with you on point after point.

Regarding the voice, you're overlooking the fact that it also /disguises his identity/. That's why he employs it when speaking to Gordon, for example. With Fox, the die has already been cast, so to speak. This is simply how the Batman persona speaks. Bruce Wayne speaks one way; Batman another.

Here's a quote from C. Bale on the subject: "Try putting on a bat suit and not laughing at yourself, it's very tricky," Bale told Us. "The only way you can manage that is by creating this demonic, angry creature. You cease to become a man, you become a creature."

Darklord, you've mentioned that you do voice work. Have you also acted? Because I know from first-hand experience that once a costume goes on -- especially an elaborate costume including make-up or a mask -- one's normal/daylight persona tends to be pushed to the background to make way for the character one is assuming. For example, I played FrankNFurter in the Rocky Horror Show for five years. When I was in make-up and costume, I pretty much spoke and moved like Tim Curry the entire time, even before and after performances. This is only human nature, well-attested in many actors' accounts of their theatrical and movie-making experiences, as well as in anthropological studies involving shamanic rites and "magic" masks. It's just how the human mind/psyche works: The mask goes on, the persona changes accordingly, unconsciously. Batman talks that way with Fox, even though Fox knows Bruce Wayne is under there, simply because that's how Batman talks.

As to the body armor, first and foremost I am speaking only to its use in the Nolan films. The Burton/Shumacher movies are largely illogical and silly, and not worth my consideration as examples of realistic filmmaking.

The origin and necessity of the bat-armor are explained in Batman Begins. I think it's plausible that while the armor is designed to stop bullets and protect against concussive blows, the tearing/grinding action of a dog bite (sharp teeth + jaw pressure with x psi) for a sustained duration of time MIGHT rend material designed only to obstruct the path of a bullet. Such armor also might not be designed to withstand flame. I'm not a phsycial scientist or a military engineer, but to my mind these limitations to the material seem well within reason. The armor works well in some cases and poorly in others. This is not an inconsistency but, again, a reflection of reality. Flame-retardent materials do not generally stop bullets, and vice versa.

On the subject of clumsiness vs. superior grace, again we'll just have to disagree. I think it's realistic that Batman would sometimes be taken unawares, suffer injuries and take a bad fall. It shows us he's human, fallible. He doesn't always land on his feet. For you this takes away his mystique; for me it makes him seem more realistic and plausible. All of the character's falls and injuries are written to reveal the underlying thrust of the Nolan films as "realism" and "plausibility".

(BTW, I assure you I've read everything you've written on this subject in this thread. My most recent post (4:46), above, was being written at the same time you were writing your previous post (3:20), so some of the points you made there I did not see until after I posted my own. I assure you this was not a deliberate neglecting of your points. Also, I am not intentionally "belittling" you by pointing out an ad hominem attack. Calling the voice "constipated" is clearly an insult with no basis in reality other than metaphorical. Calling the character "clumsy" is also a clearly incorrect attempt at derogation. I stand by this assessment, even as you disagree with me and assert that your pride has been wounded by my pointing it out. I have my opinion and you have yours; I offer no intentional disrespect or insult.)

[darklord1967]

Darklord, thank you for outlining your opinions and criticisms so thoughtfully. I appreciate the effort you've put into stating your case and sticking up for yourself. But I still disagree with you on point after point.

That's fair enough. I disagree with you on point after point as well.

That doesn't mean we can't be civil and respectful while having this debate (more on this later).

Regarding the voice, you're overlooking the fact that it also /disguises his identity/. That's why he employs it when speaking to Gordon, for example. With Fox, the die has already been cast, so to speak. This is simply how the Batman persona speaks. Bruce Wayne speaks one way; Batman another.

It's because of statements like this that I assert that you have NOT read all of my posts on the subject.

I have repeatedly said that as a Batman fan, different voices for the two personas makes absolute perfect sense.

Our difference of opinion on this is a matter of subtelty. There ARE times when I think Bale absolutely NAILED The Batman voice (examples exist in BOTH films). I'm just of the opinion that the gutteral (almost shouting) voice that he puts on for some of the more casual dialogue scenes comes off as way over the top.

Also, you fail to acknowledge how I previously addressed the dual / character voice contrast by approaching the BRUCE WAYNE voice very, very light-heartedly and in a higher register than The Batman's (which Bale does perfectly), sufficiently creating the dual character contrast you speak of.

I'll quote myself:

Bruce Wayne disguising his voice when dressed as Batman has been a staple of the character in the comics and in the (post-modern) animated adventures for years. Nolan didn't come up with that.

Furthermore, it has been argued by some that in the Dark Knight mythology, the true "disguise" is actually Bruce Wayne, and that therefore it is his voice that is disguised to be light-hearted, jovial, intentionally higher in pitch, and removed from the deeper and "darker" natural tone of his true personality and spirit... The Batman.

The voice that Bale puts on for The Batman is so forced and painfully melodramatic that he honestly comes across as a borderline psycho himself just when having a casual conversation.

It's one thing to growl menacingly at some thug that's being interrogated while being dangled over a rooftop. It's another thing entirely to speak like that when chatting calmly with Commissioner Gordon on a rooftop.

I've always felt that it would be MUCH more frightening and unnerving for the character's image if The Batman hardly spoke at all. And the few times he does speak, I imagine his voice to be an almost choked whisper, uttered through clenched teeth, from the shadows... something like Clint Eastwood's voice the way it sounds now... a voice that invokes heartache, outrage, and heroism simultaneously. Remember Clint in "Million Dollar Baby"?

A simple dark voice like that contrasted against the light, jovial Bruce Wayne voice would work just fine to disguise the difference between both personas.

It can be done, and HAS been done before.

Chris Reeve did a phenomenal job of what I'm describing in the first "Superman" film. His goofy Clark Kent voice was the "put on", and his heroic Superman voice was an extension of who he really was inside. And it didn't come across as melodrmatic or forced.

Here's a quote from C. Bale on the subject: "Try putting on a bat suit and not laughing at yourself, it's very tricky," Bale told Us. "The only way you can manage that is by creating this demonic, angry creature. You cease to become a man, you become a creature."

Darklord, you've mentioned that you do voice work. Have you also acted? Because I know from first-hand experience that once a costume goes on -- especially an elaborate costume including make-up or a mask -- one's normal/daylight persona tends to be pushed to the background to make way for the character one is assuming. For example, I played FrankNFurter in the Rocky Horror Show for five years. When I was in make-up and costume, I pretty much spoke and moved like Tim Curry the entire time, even before and after performances. This is only human nature, well-attested in many actors' accounts of their theatrical and movie-making experiences, as well as in anthropological studies involving shamanic rites and "magic" masks. It's just how the human mind/psyche works: The mask goes on, the persona changes accordingly, unconsciously. Batman talks that way with Fox, even though Fox knows Bruce Wayne is under there, simply because that's how Batman talks.

Vort, I respectfully submit that Bale's quote here is a strong symptom of the "problem" that I detect (but that you have no issue with).

You see, I completed my higher education in New York film School. Believe it or not, my graduate thesis student film, (written, shot, and directed by me) was a Batman film entitled "GOTHAM: Legend of the Batman".

It was a low-budget student film, and it's barely even worth mentioning. But here is my point:

When I held casting sessions for the actor who would play The Batman I looked for the physical characteristics of Bruce Wayne, and of course, really good acting chops.

At one point I had settled on about 5 possible guys. But my final decision was made when one by one, I invited them to my apartment (on different days) to try on the Bat suit.

Three of those final candidates felt silly in the suit. They giggled upon looking in the mirror and seeing themselves for the first time.

Those actors were automatically disqualified from consideration. I needed an actor who could believe in himself and see himself as The Batman without feeling that the mythology, the uniform, and the iconography was funny lookin' or silly.

The terrific actor that I finally decided upon was about the nicest guy you could ever hope to meet. Cheerful, witty, and all around pleasent. When HE put the costume on for the first time he didn't laugh. He didn't giggle.
He unquestioningly believed himself to be a dark avenger of the night, and I watched him become just that the moment the cowl slipped into place and the mirrored lenses were put on.

He suddenly became silent. Morose. Brooding. It was absolutely bone-chilling to watch.

I submit that if Bale's first impression upon seeing himself in a Bat-suit was to somehow find it ridiculous and / or amusing, then something was deadly wrong with the decision to cast him, because he did not understand / respect the fundemental responsibility of playing this 70 year old American icon.

Chris Reeve most certainly did NOT laugh or find himself silly looking when he first saw himself in blue tights and red cape (See supplementary section on Superman DVD for more details)

Evidently, Bale "settled" into his Batman role, and quite possibly even worked-out his initial "giggles" over imagining himself clad in Bat-imagery. After all, his portrayal of The Batman IS probably the best one presented in a serious live-action film.

But his initial amused reactions upon seeing himself as the character, and consequently the (over-compensated) acting style he decided upon when portraying The Batman's voice (in most scenes, but NOT all) explains a lot.

Also to answer your question I HAVE acted extensively, and continue to do so today. I acted in countless student films back in college. I've done musical theatere. I've played Darth Vader in numerous public appearances (student films, stage appearences, mall appearences, etc). So I completely understand how a character can infuse / possess an actor when the masks and garments come on.

All I'm saying is that if after the masks and garments come on, the actor's initial reaction is to find himself silly-looking, then he is not properly immersed in the character... unless, of course, if the character is a comedic one (which The Batman is not). Bale's initial understanding of the character's psychological workings were probably not complete. And consequently, the choices he made while playing the character may have been ineffective (Re: Overly growling / shouting voice for many casual scenes)

Let me be clear.

There ARE examples of The Batman's voice in both films that (in my opinion) Bale performed correctly (No strained shouting growl).

There ARE scenes in both films where (in my opinion) the growling strained Batman voice are perfectly acceptable (Re: Interrogating hoods, interrogating The Joker, Fight scenes, etc.)

However, in The Dark Knight (particularly) there were a number of casual dialogue scenes where the strained, growling version of the Batman's (angry) voice were employed by Bale inappropriately (in my view). The more appropriate hushed, hoarse voice would have been just fine (Re: Speaking casually with Gordon. Speaking Casually with Lucius... even while dressed in the suit)

I am not suggesting that Bale should have sounded like Bruce Wayne when speaking with Lucius Fox even when he was dressed as Batman.

But he should not have sounded like "angry, growling, interrogating" Batman either.

As to the body armor, first and foremost I am speaking only to its use in the Nolan films. The Burton/Shumacher movies are largely illogical and silly, and not worth my consideration as examples of realistic filmmaking.

Perhaps not. But my illustration was meant to point out the creative corners that one paints themselves into when a character is established as wearing high-tech armor, and can still get burned, bitten, and (in the case of Keaton's uniform... pre-silly Schumacher) stabbed by fingernails.

It is an issue that has bugged me since the introduction of Bat armor in 1989, and one that has only been compounded by the introduction of (supposedly even MORE high-tech and protective) Bat-armor in the new films.

The origin and necessity of the bat-armor are explained in Batman Begins. I think it's plausible that while the armor is designed to stop bullets and protect against concussive blows, the tearing/grinding action of a dog bite (sharp teeth + jaw pressure with x psi) for a sustained duration of time MIGHT rend material designed only to obstruct the path of a bullet. Such armor also might not be designed to withstand flame.

I'm not a phsycial scientist or a military engineer, but to my mind these limitations to the material seem well within reason. The armor works well in some cases and poorly in others. This is not an inconsistency but, again, a reflection of reality. Flame-retardent materials do not generally stop bullets, and vice versa.

Regarding the dog bite, your supposition is fair enough. However, the dog attack upon Batman was not really sustained. It was a single bite that caused a nasty gash.

Not reasonable at all given the stated protective features of the suit:

I spent 9 years working in Federal Law enforcement (as a translator / linguist 1996-2005) I worked with joint poice / bureau task forces around the country that were all required to undergo quarterly SWAT training.

Some of the guys I worked with were assigned to canine units. The protective training arm sleeve that thay used while training the dogs was made of a considerably weaker material than the kevlar vests worn to stop bullets and knives. Yet the dogs... no matter how strong the bite... are totally incapable of puncturing or penetrating it with their teeth.

Nomex is a completely fire resistant material used for making garments that protect against FLAME. The wearer can walk right into flame and only feel slight external heat. The Batman's high-tech bullet resistant outfit is sheathed in Nomex. This is covered in The Batman Tech History channel documentary which focused primarily on the tech from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Even if an accellerant were sprayed on the Batman's suit and set alight (like The Scarecrow did in the scene from Batman Begins), The Batman should NOT have been incapaciated (certainly not to the extent he was) and sent tumbling out the window groaning in pain and shock.

He would have felt very little in his protective Nomex suit.

On the subject of clumsiness vs. superior grace, again we'll just have to disagree. I think it's realistic that Batman would sometimes be taken unawares, suffer injuries and take a bad fall. It shows us he's human, fallible. He doesn't always land on his feet. For you this takes away his mystique; for me it makes him seem more realistic and plausible. All of the character's falls and injuries are written to reveal the underlying thrust of the Nolan films as "realism" and "plausibility".

You make some good points here, but as you said this is clearly an aesthetic personal preference issue so we'll just disagree.

(BTW, I assure you I've read everything you've written on this subject in this thread. My most recent post (4:46), above, was being written at the same time you were writing your previous post (3:20), so some of the points you made there I did not see until after I posted my own. I assure you this was not a deliberate neglecting of your points. Also, I am not intentionally "belittling" you by pointing out an ad hominem attack. Calling the voice "constipated" is clearly an insult with no basis in reality other than metaphorical. Calling the character "clumsy" is also a clearly incorrect attempt at derogation.

The "clumsy" label is only incorrect by YOUR assessment and judgement of The Batman's falls and injuries as more realistically-based.

But if those injuries are a by-product of situations where the suit fails to protect (as it is supposedly designed to), and if those falls appear less than graceful to someone who admittedly prefers for the Batman's (less realistic?) "mytique" to be presevered, then they come off as "clumsy".

Again, a subjective take. No right or wrong.

I stand by this assessment, even as you disagree with me and assert that your pride has been wounded by my pointing it out. I have my opinion and you have yours; I offer no intentional disrespect or insult.)

If appreciate you saying that you offer no disrespect or insult. However despite the fact that my pride has NOT been "wounded" by our exchange (I'm just as secure in the veracity and validity of my viewpoint as you are of yours), calling my constipated metaphor "vulgar", and asking if I personally speak that way when constipated IS disrespectful and un-necessarily insulting.

My metaphor was no more vulgar than YOUR assessment that Maggie Gylenhall was so attractive in another film she appeared in that perhaps pillows might be in order to hide a resulting erection.

Furthermore, even if I disagreed with YOUR assesment about Maggie's beauty (which I do not), I certainly would not ask YOU to quantify your viewpoint by asking if an erection was YOUR reaction upon seeing her.

[Vortigern99]

Okay. We've both made our cases and stated our opinions and observations. I understand your objections, and the reasoning and personal experiences that led you to those objections. And yet I continue (predictably) to disagree.

YOU: Bale's voice is sometimes too harsh, strained, and over-the-top.
ME: I see what you mean, but I don't have a problem with it. The persona consumes him utterly.

YOU:That Bale laughed when he first put on the suit indicates he's not right for the role.
ME: Clearly he is right for the role, as you yourself have agreed, so I fail to see the relevance of this fact. I used to laugh every time I put the Frank garb on, but I still took the role seriously when it came time to perform.

YOU: Professional experience and expert knowledge proves that the bat-armor would probably be more flame-resistant than it appears in Begins, and dogs would not be able to bite through it.
ME: But the material your canine unit worked with is a different material. You've never worked with this specific material, nor observed its properties, which evidently includes bullet resistance /without/ stopping dog bites. Also, regarding the flame retardent properties of Nomex, that's a fair point, but you're overlooking the fact that Scarecrow had just sprayed Batman with his fear gas. Batman's reaction to the flame was one of terror; at the end of the scene we see his cape has been burned but his (Nomex-coated)armor was still intact.

YOU: Calling someone "constipated" by dint of the strained sound of their voice is not vulgar. Asking someone if they've reached this conclusion because of their own voice when constipated is insulting and disrespectful. Pointing out that Maggie Gyllenhall causes male erections in her role in the film Secretary is at least as vulgar as the "constipation" label.
ME: Look, no one I know who has complained of constipation sounded like Bale doing his Batman growl. I've had it, my wife has had it, I remember my mother having it when I was a kid -- and none of us talked Bale's growl. The whole thing is just ridiculous, including your getting upset about me pointing out that it's ridiculous. With Maggie, we were talking about her sex appeal, which is to a certain extent quantified by her capacity for inspiring male erections. With Bale the crux of the matter is not whether his stool is solid and his bowlels immotile. Please stop acting offended and insulted; it's getting us nowhere, and the whole thing is based on the fact that you're evidently incapable of apologizing for misspeaking.