CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Batman: The films, the tv-shows, the animation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Batman: The films, the tv-shows, the animation. - Page 2

post #51 of 1104
Clooney had the misfortune of being a pretty decent Wayne/Batman in a completely awful Batman film.
post #52 of 1104
I have to stick with Adam West.

Now this may sound dumb & childish but when I've read the comic books or the graphic novels there is something that has always stood out from the films and it is the same reason why there is one simple fact that Adam West has over all the other Live-Action Batmen... He spends most of the story's time AS BATMAN!
post #53 of 1104
I think Bale's Bruce Wayne works precisely because he invests the character with a stark dichotomy between his Batman and Wayne personas. The real person is the cold, ascetic Batman. Wayne is, as has been said many times, the mask he wears. This is demonstrated brilliantly, in my mind, in Begins. First, when Bruce enters the restaurant and truly plays up the playboy persona, i.e. the models, the sports car, the bathing in the fountain, etc. Second, when Bruce pretends to be drunk to get his birthday guests out of the Manor. That deep and distinctive contrast is something that's never really been played up in the films or animation before.
post #54 of 1104
.

Edited by Agentsands77 - 6/4/16 at 2:41pm
post #55 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Clooney had the misfortune of being a pretty decent Wayne/Batman in a completely awful Batman film.
I think Clooney had the misfortune of being completely terrible in the film, period. He's by the far the worst big screen Bruce Wayne / Batman.
post #56 of 1104
Yeah, Clooney is terrible. Whatever it takes to play Bruce/Batman, he doesn't have it.
post #57 of 1104
Apparently sketching a cowl over someone's face in a magazine isn't a great way to cast Batman.
post #58 of 1104
Anyone see Under the Red Hood yet? Bruce Greenwood does a great Batman. John DiMaggio also gave one of the best renditions of The Joker I've seen.

It was great how much more violence they could get away with. The Joker's got a few parts in it that are shocking. I love The Animated Series quite dearly, but I agree with earlier sentiments in this thread that it can't be the best depiction of Batman because of how it's slightly neutered.
post #59 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I like when he fights the "yellow peril" Chinamen in the serials.
It's Japs, get it right, son.

No, in all seriousness, those serials are insanely racist propaganda. The first one, in which Batman battles Dr. Tanaka (I believe that's his name) has the narrator proclaim the internment camps a miracle blow against the scourge of the "shifty eyed japs" (he actually says that shit).
post #60 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Nature has detected a void, and is filling it by turning Patrick into the new Paul McCartney. You're almost there, just need to be a little zanier about it all.
I was detecting the same thing, honestly. Wish I could avoid it, but I have to be me and stand up for Mr. Keaton.

Clooney could probably be Batman/Wayne but there was no effort at all involved in his performance. None.
post #61 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
Anyone see Under the Red Hood yet? Bruce Greenwood does a great Batman. John DiMaggio also gave one of the best renditions of The Joker I've seen.

It was great how much more violence they could get away with. The Joker's got a few parts in it that are shocking. I love The Animated Series quite dearly, but I agree with earlier sentiments in this thread that it can't be the best depiction of Batman because of how it's slightly neutered.
It was pretty strange how similar the voices of both Greenwood and DiMaggio were to Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. Allthough Bender did creep in more than a few times.
Neil Patrick Harris portrayed a nice wise ass Nightwing.

I didn't really like the movie though. No real mystery.
post #62 of 1104
There wasn't much mystery, no, but I think the filmmakers knew that the target audience knew who the red hood was off the bat and didn't make it much of a mystery film.

The characterizations and action scenes were some of the best I've seen in an animated superhero film.
post #63 of 1104
The Animated Series was great. It had a cool 1940's film quality to it. Very few cartoons (if any) are doing what they did today:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GBzX...eature=related
post #64 of 1104
I'll defend Keaton too. The dullness of Bale pretty much sinks the Nolan movies for me, and I'd even take Kilmer over him. Although I find the whole idea of the "Batman mythology" pretty stupid, so I don't hold too much reverence for the material.
post #65 of 1104
Despite the personal nature of UNDER THE RED HOOD's story, it lacked the human element needed for a truly great Batman film. It was still very well done though. I can't really imagine why a fan of Batman wouldn't enjoy it for what it is.
post #66 of 1104
Keaton had the best Batmobile. West had the best Robin. Bale has the best Alfred. Kilmer had the best hair. Clooney had the best trophy girlfriend, so no one would think it was strange that he'd taken in an orphaned 20-something.
post #67 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
Also, the Joker doesn't kill people. I blame the children.
Reminds me of this great Bruce Timm doodle.

post #68 of 1104
Bradito, To me...Kim Basinger is the best of Batman's gal pals, with Katie Holmes easily being the...worst! Now, if Nolan gets...Marion Cotillard as Catwoman, she would be the...Cat's meow.
post #69 of 1104
Thread Starter 
That Bruce Timm doodle is amazing.

Yay! More Keaton advocates!

So ,why do you think Michael Caine is superior to Michael Gough? Is it because he's more a part of things? The father figure? More of an actor? I think Caine fits Nolan's films much better than Gough ever would, but I have a soft spot for the guy. At the very least, I prefer his accent to Caine's. More uppercrust? I sort of imagine Caine's Alfred to be a bruiser in his past. Maybe Gough just makes the better butler.
post #70 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
At the very least, I prefer his accent to Caine's. More uppercrust? I sort of imagine Caine's Alfred to be a bruiser in his past. Maybe Gough just makes the better butler.
He kinda was. In the animated series he used to be a spy. And in TDK he tells that story which implies that he got into some sort of shenanigans in his past.

In the comics, he was a soldier and in MI-5.
post #71 of 1104
I kind of like the idea of an Alfred with no military past, just a bemusement at his master's vigilante hobby, and that's kind of what Gough gets across. But it sucks that, apart from Batman '89, he pretty much is only used for bad one-liners. Nolan utilizes Alfred a million times better, and Caine gives him real character. Advantage: Caine.
post #72 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by therewillbezodiac View Post
I love The Animated Series quite dearly, but I agree with earlier sentiments in this thread that it can't be the best depiction of Batman because of how it's slightly neutered.
Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker kind of took care of that. It ended up just being kind of grisly.

The animated Crisis on Two Earths had a decent Batman voiced by Billy Baldwin.
post #73 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyWorm View Post
I am of the opinion that we've yet to see a truly singular Batman/Bruce Wayne in live action. I don't think any of the actors have nailed the part the way that, say, RDJ nailed Tony Stark or Connery nailed Bond.
Yeah, this.

I remember how excited the fan community was when Bale was cast (coming on the heels of American Psycho and Equilibrium), because it was one of those times that fancasting and reality actually lined up. American Psycho showcased Bale's ability to bring the disturbed and Equilibrium proved he could handle the physicality. Home run, right?

Not really, more like a double. Aside from his unintentionally funny Bat-growl, Bale's Batman also fails to be definitive for me in that he's unconvincing as a detective; the bullet-analyzing stuff in TDK only proves that he's got a lot of money and gadgets. That's partly due to the script and the overall 21st-century take on Batman as more of an urban commando than a classic detective, but Bale is not blameless. His Batman actually comes across as somewhat on the dim side, especially when sharing scenes with Morgan Freeman.
post #74 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
Bradito, To me...Kim Basinger is the best of Batman's gal pals, with Katie Holmes easily being the...worst! Now, if Nolan gets...Marion Cotillard as Catwoman, she would be the...Cat's meow.
Okay, Keaton had the best car AND the best arm-candy. Clooney had the best...chin? I dunno.
post #75 of 1104
To anyone who enjoyed Alan Moore's Swamp Thing run, Batman & Robin is also guilty of completely wasting Jason Woodrue.
post #76 of 1104
Aw, really? John Glover might be the only thing about that movie that I like.
post #77 of 1104
I never saw the movie, but I've just finished re-reading New Frontier and I absolutely love it. It really makes me wonder why someone actively decided to draw a line in the sand circa 1956 and declare there to be two active continuities (Earth 1 and 2) vibrating side by side in the DCU. If only they'd known what kind of shitstorm they'd started.

It's cooler to me to have there be visible aging and generations. Conan, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and the Shadow live in certain time periods: they lived and died, but stories can still be told within that time frame. I wish Batman had been allowed to age. He's such a product of 1939, on the cusp of WWII. I find that time period, with the heroes not being able to defeat Hitler because he possessed the Spear of Destiny and then the JSA being forced to retire in 1951 due to HUAC, infinitely more fitting for DC's brand of hero than the way they're portrayed today.

I would argue that Batman Begins secretly takes place in 1939: notice how there's all the talk of Gotham City just getting out of a depression, and how Bruce's journey around the world is like something out of an old pulp serial. Much the same way Payback could easily be in the '70s, Begins harkens back to an old era. Not as strongly, for instance, as something like Sin City but it's there.

Maybe I just love Darwyn Cooke's art, and how he makes everything seem lived in yet stylish at the same time.

Speaking of Under the Red Hood, it's a bit of reverse engineering but why not have the Red Hood be the villain of Nolan's Batman 3? Obviously he wouldn't be Jason Todd, but he would be a violent anti-hero darkly reflecting Batman's methods. I just want there to be someone, whether it be Deathstroke or Deadshot or Hush or whatever, that can fight Batman head on? And have Bruce lose the mask and cape during the climactic final battle so we can see more expression.
post #78 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
I would argue that Batman Begins secretly takes place in 1939: notice how there's all the talk of Gotham City just getting out of a depression, and how Bruce's journey around the world is like something out of an old pulp serial. Much the same way Payback could easily be in the '70s, Begins harkens back to an old era. Not as strongly, for instance, as something like Sin City but it's there.
Well, that would be cool but remember when Alfred pointed at the TV, and chewed out Master Wayne for driving recklessly.

"That's some good television."
post #79 of 1104
In terms of Batman/Wayne being a real nutjob (which I prefer), I gotta give it to Conroy in the animated series. His Batman voice is his "normal" voice when he's not in public. Keaton had the best live-action Batman, hands down. Bale is too joyless, Kilmer's in it for the paycheck, and George Clooney is being himself. Adam West is wonderful, but it's tough to group him in with the other Batmen since it's an entirely different genre he played Batman in.
post #80 of 1104
My main problem with Batman '89 is that it established the sculpted-rubber-suit/body armor look. Which I find annoying on most all movie superheroes but singularly inappropriate for Batman. Wayne's supposed to have trained his body to its physical peak in addition to having those 'wonderful toys', dammit.

I agree that the Timm/Dini version remains the best all-around interpretation, and that Batman Beyond featured some compelling expansion on the characters. Particularly the Barbara Gordon stuff-- Stockard Channing was inspired casting.
post #81 of 1104
The animated series will always be my favorite iteration. I could watch those episodes all day, and they're just as great as they were in the '90s. It's the perfect hybrid of the Batman of the '60s and the stoicness of the '80s.; it's also contains some of the most moving storylines in the Batman universe.
post #82 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walker View Post
Well, that would be cool but remember when Alfred pointed at the TV, and chewed out Master Wayne for driving recklessly.

"That's some good television."
Well I know it actually takes place in the present day, but it's got the spirit of '39 if that makes any sense.
post #83 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
I never saw the movie, but I've just finished re-reading New Frontier and I absolutely love it. It really makes me wonder why someone actively decided to draw a line in the sand circa 1956 and declare there to be two active continuities (Earth 1 and 2) vibrating side by side in the DCU. If only they'd known what kind of shitstorm they'd started.

It's cooler to me to have there be visible aging and generations. Conan, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and the Shadow live in certain time periods: they lived and died, but stories can still be told within that time frame. I wish Batman had been allowed to age. He's such a product of 1939, on the cusp of WWII. I find that time period, with the heroes not being able to defeat Hitler because he possessed the Spear of Destiny and then the JSA being forced to retire in 1951 due to HUAC, infinitely more fitting for DC's brand of hero than the way they're portrayed today.

I would argue that Batman Begins secretly takes place in 1939: notice how there's all the talk of Gotham City just getting out of a depression, and how Bruce's journey around the world is like something out of an old pulp serial. Much the same way Payback could easily be in the '70s, Begins harkens back to an old era. Not as strongly, for instance, as something like Sin City but it's there.

Maybe I just love Darwyn Cooke's art, and how he makes everything seem lived in yet stylish at the same time.

Speaking of Under the Red Hood, it's a bit of reverse engineering but why not have the Red Hood be the villain of Nolan's Batman 3? Obviously he wouldn't be Jason Todd, but he would be a violent anti-hero darkly reflecting Batman's methods. I just want there to be someone, whether it be Deathstroke or Deadshot or Hush or whatever, that can fight Batman head on? And have Bruce lose the mask and cape during the climactic final battle so we can see more expression.
Yeah, pop culture tends to draw Batman back into his original 30's mode - Batman Begins definitley has that feel, but so do some of the society balls in the 90's run of movies, and of course Batman: The Animated Series cultivated its "dark deco" style.

I don't think there's ever a shortage of comics playing with Batman on that level (with Elseworlds if nothing else), but the 50's Batman Darwyn Cooke used for New Frontier was already a pretty different character than the 30's Bats - he didn't kill, for instance.
post #84 of 1104
I've been going through the TAS the past month or two. Just casually watching episodes whenever I've had time. I still love this show from back when I was a kid. I was actually kinda surprised at how violent it was for a kids and how scary the Joker was. But all around, yeah, Conroy is pretty good. The serious and demanding tone of his Batman and then the quiet, semi-sarcastic-ish, joking Bruce Wayne work good.

I like Keaton. He's does brood a lot when just sitting around his home or Batcave but when he's Bruce Wayne he does seem to act like an idiot.

Kilmer is just boring and Clooney is nothing. He plays both the same way.

Bale I like. The restaurant scene in TDK with Harvey and Rachel kind of sealed it for me. He was such an arrogant, smug asshole and it totally fit his "rich boy" persona. But when he's with Rachel or Alfred he's different. Way different.

So I won't really say Ripoll is wrong. He likes Keatons Batman. Fine. I like Bale and Conroy. I think if Bale really wanted to he could do a better Wayne and Batman is he just listens to some of the criticism. I'm not saying his performance should be based solely around fan complaints but just listen to some of the more reasonable issues and maybe read a few of the more "celebrated" (I guess thats the best word) comics/graphic novels and watch some of the TAS cartoons to get a better idea of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

The character is such an interesting one to play because you have three personas built around one person. Batman, real Bruce Wayne and the fake, rich boy, smug Bruce Wayne. I think it's been hard for the movies to find time to show off all three.

Oh, and "Under the Red Hood" is good. Greenwood was alright and Bender as Joker has some good moments. The fight between Red Hood and Batman at the end in the bathroom was so well done. And Jokers realization as to what was happening and hopping out of the closet on the chair was hilarious.
post #85 of 1104
I don't think Val Kilmer gets enough credit. I agree he didn't do enough to make his Bruce Wayne and Batman different, but I think he did as good a job at being imposing in the Batsuit as Keaton, and he had some good moments as Wayne, like his flirting with Chase and arguing with Grayson about being Robin.

I think Keaton made some odd choices. What the hell was that whole "you wanna get nuts?" bit? As Bruce Wayne, Keaton just seemed like a quiet guy who would occasionally perk up and act weird. I prefer Bruce Wayne acting out the smug, buffoonish playboy persona, and Bale and Conroy did it best. I especially appreciate how Conroy could make his cheerful public Bruce Wayne voice and his solemn Batman voice both sound natural. It amazes me that he had that mastered in the very first episode...watch how he switches between them effortlessly as he's talking to Alfred and then to someone over speaker phone.

The downside is it seems like Bale was inspired to mimic what Conroy did and is failing miserably. I would prefer him sounding pretty much the same as Batman and Bruce Wayne (like Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney) than doing such a forced put-on voice. I don't think it would be that obvious that Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same just based on the voice unless they both had such a distinctive vocal pattern as Adam West.
post #86 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Also, that Bruce Wayne is always wearing a brown sports coat and mustard yellow shirt. What?
Batman is Dwight Schrute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
There is always a consistent faction of twitchy recluses who come out to defend Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman.
I'll defend him as well. Not because I'm a twitchy recluse, but because I'm shameless. I found Keaton entertaining in an Elseworlds kind of way. Which is what Burton's take is. I didn't know it when I was 13, as I only had Adam West and Scooby Doo cameos to compare to, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Clooney had the misfortune of being a pretty decent Wayne/Batman in a completely awful Batman film.
Only he played them exactly the same way. I believe Clooney has the ability (look at his other screen characters easy), but the direction of that film trumped all good taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
Yeah, pop culture tends to draw Batman back into his original 30's mode - Batman Begins definitley has that feel, but so do some of the society balls in the 90's run of movies, and of course Batman: The Animated Series cultivated its "dark deco" style.
Mobsters are more fun with fedoras and tommy guns than without.
post #87 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post
I think Keaton made some odd choices. What the hell was that whole "you wanna get nuts?" bit?
It's basically him wanting to be Batman but being completely unable to be Batman under the circumstances. Definitely one of the best parts of the movie. The raw sexual insecurity at hand is incredible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
Mobsters are more fun with fedoras and tommy guns than without.
A million times yes. And police are always more fun with tiny revolvers and hats.
post #88 of 1104
I think you're giving Burton and Keaton waaay too much credit in that scene, Patrick.
post #89 of 1104
Burton didn't write the script and Keaton is an amazing actor. Regardless, it doesn't matter what their intent was, that's exactly how it plays in the film.
post #90 of 1104
I don't want to derail, but I do agree with Ripoll that Keaton is an awesome actor. What the hell happened to him after Multiplicity? Pixar notices his chops, hence his turn as Chick Hicks (Cars) and Ken (TS3). That amount of talent, charisma, and likeability shouldn't be cast aside on the big screem (or relegated to First Daughter or Love Bug remakes).

Anyways, am I missing something? He doesn't seem like a prima donna or an ass. He actually seems like an awesome guy.
post #91 of 1104
Believe it was voluntary on his part.

I was very excited to find out that my library has a DVD of those old serials from the 40's. Will probably be checking that out later today.
post #92 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Burton didn't write the script and Keaton is an amazing actor. Regardless, it doesn't matter what their intent was, that's exactly how it plays in the film.
I thought it played as Wayne being an obnoxious dick in order to get Joker to shoot him. Then he breaks that "idiot Bruce Wayne" character he's gone into at the last second when he hears the "pale moonlight" line. He's attempting to defuse the situation in shrewd fashion, not struggling with his inner Batman.

Please note: Michael Keaton is indeed an amazing actor.
post #93 of 1104
Then why didn't he stay hidden?
post #94 of 1104
The 1943 serial is marginally better than the later one. At least if you can get past the Japanese slurs. There's a modest attempt at some atmosphere there, from the director of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER. It's cheap and shows it. It has unimaginative action. But it's relatively faithful to the books of the time, and early Batman has a number of plusses.
post #95 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Then why didn't he stay hidden?
Because he wants to put himself between Vicki and Joker without doing any Batman heroics. So he steps out, does the deluded millionaire hero act and takes all the heat from Jack and the gang. It's the '89 version of Bale doing faux-drunk and insulting all his socialite friends.
post #96 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Because he wants to put himself between Vicki and Joker without doing any Batman heroics. So he steps out, does the deluded millionaire hero act and takes all the heat from Jack and the gang. It's the '89 version of Bale doing faux-drunk and insulting all his socialite friends.
Now someone will try to tell us Keaton's version was better. Bruce Wayne was underwritten and overshadowed in TDK, but Bale was indeed really good in Begins. Stretch them memories, Internet Generation!
post #97 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Because he wants to put himself between Vicki and Joker without doing any Batman heroics. So he steps out, does the deluded millionaire hero act and takes all the heat from Jack and the gang. It's the '89 version of Bale doing faux-drunk and insulting all his socialite friends.
I concur with this read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker
Bruce Wayne was underwritten and overshadowed in TDK, but Bale was indeed really good in Begins. Stretch them memories, Internet Generation!
But also concur with this.
post #98 of 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Because he wants to put himself between Vicki and Joker without doing any Batman heroics. So he steps out, does the deluded millionaire hero act and takes all the heat from Jack and the gang. It's the '89 version of Bale doing faux-drunk and insulting all his socialite friends.
So he gets himself shot so...what? In the off case that Joker only had one bullet? That doesn't help anything. Once he's shot and presumed dead, they could continue whatever they were going to do. My read makes more sense.
post #99 of 1104
How does your read account for Joker not having more than one bullet any more than Andrew's? The scene never "made sense."
post #100 of 1104
Because he's a weird fuck up?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Batman: The films, the tv-shows, the animation.