actually i can really see hoq this guy feels...it had the traditional yellow symbol thing which i always hated,the point is for them to not see you at all,and chances are they won't always aim for your armor...if they spot you they can shoot you in the head (or with deadshot in the eyes).

the armor had a paste look to it

the way he ran and moved made him look like an action figure with poor articulation,also affecting his fighting,notice some people were there just for comedy...like some fighting guys,they fought poorly on purpose.

and taking down a group of thugs is something everybody can do,even cops.

also that batsuit just looked primitive or some sort of post-crisis look where batman had giant pointy ears,which i sorta like.

the catwoman was terrible,nearly every part,but even in his suit it had a weak spot....even in that primitive suit it should've had full protection,but hey that's just me.

also i would and wouldn't recommend bale's batman...however,the dark knight rises was a masterpiece,loved it and even the way catwoman looked,bane looked,batman's device on his belt,the batmobile,(the batwing could've been better),but i FAR recommend bale's batman over Keaton's,however i hate how they made ra's al ghul's name be ra's al ghul (short a)..and it got the dark part of batman's universe,however,it was so realistic that it made it impossible for people like mr freeze and clayface...who i love.

but it's like new 52,some things i don't like,but overall it's good

@DrEgonSpengler said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Guardiandevil83 said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Guardiandevil83 said:

He would kill. And Keaton is a bit short. Thats all I got.

What about he couldn't fight or that he barely even talked.ng

Since when has Batman been a talker? And dude fought a swordsman weilding two Katana with only his gloves. He beat down all of Jokers henchman and didn't even touch his belt except when he needed to climb buildings ect.

He should have said a bit more at-least. He was so quiet. That fight sequence really sucked, honestly. He looked really stiff and slow.

Keaton was better than Bale I think. I also thought Bale looked slow in most of his fights too. I personally liked Keaton's fight scenes better, and at least he had a Batmobile!

I was pretty much going to write the same thing but had to go to work. Keaton and Bale are the best Batmen period. I loved Keatons Batman. From the costume, the gadets, everything. He was also a great Bruce Wayne. But Bale had the physical aspect down pat. He looked as if he spent years training his body to fight crime, and you can see the sadness of his loss during the first half of begins almost instantly. Also I loved the ''Bat Voice." He was the only one to realize that because of his social standing, Bruce would have to change his voice. He would have most likely been outed long ago without it. He does it in the comics, we just can't hear it. I mean how many public speeches has he given? How many Televised events? Bale got that and I thought it was awesome. Those are the only things to me that trump Keatons potrayal.

Again, "think" versus "is".

 I didn't watch any single Batman film and go "Yes. That is Bruce Wayne done perfect", but to me, Keaton and the Tim Burton films were lame. My inner hipster tells me to say they're masterpieces in noir, but nahh B, I refuse. 

 I honestly don't think Keaton was anything special. At least Bale got his Bat-brood on.

For me my only problem with Michael Keaton was he didn't portray a good Bruce Wayne. I think his Batman was fine, but he looked nothing like Bruce. The scene in the first movie where he's trying to tell Vicki Vale he is Batman was so un-Bruce Wayne its not funny. Not only that but we never saw the business side of Bruce.

@Vance Astro, I'm sorry but how does he look more like Bruce Wayne? Keaton was 5"9 (Bruce in the Comics is 6"2), he wasn't in shape and really didn't capture the character. He didn't capture the playboy billionaire style either. Bale was near the height (he's 6"0), he's in great shape and got to 190lbs for the role and really captures the conflict and emotion of the character. He has a true motive to fight crime and really expressed that, whilst Keaton didn't. He was very plain in comparison. He's not really intimidating as Bale, though he was quite and mysterious. Bale really used the shadows (watch his movies), most of the thugs can't even see him. Keaton's fighting could have atleast been a tad better.

I thought Keaton did alright. Each actor who played Batman has had his own flaws. Keaton's Batman seemed lacking in motivation. I feel like I saw more of the Bruce Wayne persona than I did the Batman persona. He didn't feel as driven, intelligent, or dark as Batman usually does. But considering his only precedent to Batman was Adam West's series and a few Super Friends cartoons I guess I can't really hold that against him.

That's the thing. Bale's Wayne was driven by the loss of his parents and was determined to launch his war on crime. He even went to lengths to become a criminal at one point and learn how they think. His Batman also emphasised fear, in his first appearance in Batman Begins when he first appears, the criminals can't even see him and they stumble. In TDK he uses a-lot more gadgets, etc. Something I felt Keaton lacked, I think too many people are put off by his voice.

Actually, no. Keaton was a better Batman than Bale was.

I think you just prefer the Nolan films (better scripts and better CGI).

If you put Keaton's Batman into the Nolan films, the movies would be better.

The entire thing was horrible. It's just an updated version of the tv series.

I liked him as Bruce Wayne/Batman.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

Nothing worth nitpicking about. I love his Batman to this day & I'd rank it higher than Bale's Batman.

@sinestro_GL said:

Actually, no. Keaton was a better Batman than Bale was.

I think you just prefer the Nolan films (better scripts and better CGI).

If you put Keaton's Batman into the Nolan films, the movies would be better.

I agree. If Keaton starred in Nolans Bat-films and Bale in the Burtons, the same thing would be said only with both actors in diffrent lights. Keaton worked with what was given and did quite well. Bale had the benefits of a more modern time and a director who cared for the Character. Tim Burton even said in an interview that he would never read a comic. The Studio didn't care, they only chose him due to the name. His name. Fox was like that with the X-films. They, thanks to Marvel and Chris Nolan, stepped their game up during First Class. And although it wasnt even 75% accurate, you can see how much better it was compared to everything except X2. Keaton had no scenes where he spoke much as Batman? Then blame the writers. The ''Lets Go Nuts." Again blame the writers. I doubt that was improve. And honestly. Until one of these guys gets Black hair and Blue eyes...NONE OF THEM ARE BRUCE!

@Vance Astro, I'm sorry but how does he look more like Bruce Wayne? Keaton was 5"9 (Bruce in the Comics is 6"2), he wasn't in shape and really didn't capture the character. He didn't capture the playboy billionaire style either. Bale was near the height (he's 6"0), he's in great shape and got to 190lbs for the role and really captures the conflict and emotion of the character. He has a true motive to fight crime and really expressed that, whilst Keaton didn't. He was very plain in comparison. He's not really intimidating as Bale, though he was quite and mysterious. Bale really used the shadows (watch his movies), most of the thugs can't even see him. Keaton's fighting could have atleast been a tad better.

@Vance Astro, It's nice to see someone that actually matches or near enough matches Batman's stats. Jackman was good because he was an amazing actor, if Keaton had been amazing then I wouldn't have minded. But it's nice to see someone who is in his Comic height range. He was in average shape, if Bale took the time to get in shape and capture Bruce's physique accurately so why couldn't Keaton? Jackman was in very good shape for Wolverine, Reeves was in very good shape for Superman, etc. To capture the character accurately, even though capturing the emotion is very important, it helps if you can capture the physical ability. We saw Bale doing non stop pressups in his Batman movies, Bruce Wayne is at the peak of human ability. Jack and Ledger were different, Jack was more comical and classy, but he wasn't crazy. Ledger's was chaotic. An example is when Jack fought Keaton, Jack begged for his life. But when Ledger was thrown off a building, he was laughing. Two different approaches. Keaton's Batman was intimidating in his movie because he had built a reputation in Gotham, in the early scenes of the 89 movie we see criminals talking about him, even rumors of him not being human. In Keaton's universe Batman was already established, Bale's wasn't. In Batman Begins Bale says something like "I want to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful", so he thought that It would be a useful tactic. In the comics he has ridiculous physical abilities. He uses those tactics to make thugs stumble and panic then he comes down and fights them. Keaton could have moved a bit more really, but even though his Batman came before comparisons will be made. Regardless of the time period, they may have been good at the time, but not now. And why would Keaton need to use gadgets on thugs?

Keaton's version of Bruce Wayne and Batman is more akin to what we see in the comics while the Bale version to me seems unique to the Nolan Trilogy. I will say the tone of the recient trilogy while darker, the Batman comics in recient years have been darker as well.

@Vance Astro, It's nice to see someone that actually matches or near enough matches Batman's stats. Jackman was good because he was an amazing actor, if Keaton had been amazing then I wouldn't have minded. But it's nice to see someone who is in his Comic height range. He was in average shape, if Bale took the time to get in shape and capture Bruce's physique accurately so why couldn't Keaton? Jackman was in very good shape for Wolverine, Reeves was in very good shape for Superman, etc. To capture the character accurately, even though capturing the emotion is very important, it helps if you can capture the physical ability. We saw Bale doing non stop pressups in his Batman movies, Bruce Wayne is at the peak of human ability. Jack and Ledger were different, Jack was more comical and classy, but he wasn't crazy. Ledger's was chaotic. An example is when Jack fought Keaton, Jack begged for his life. But when Ledger was thrown off a building, he was laughing. Two different approaches. Keaton's Batman was intimidating in his movie because he had built a reputation in Gotham, in the early scenes of the 89 movie we see criminals talking about him, even rumors of him not being human. In Keaton's universe Batman was already established, Bale's wasn't. In Batman Begins Bale says something like "I want to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful", so he thought that It would be a useful tactic. In the comics he has ridiculous physical abilities. He uses those tactics to make thugs stumble and panic then he comes down and fights them. Keaton could have moved a bit more really, but even though his Batman came before comparisons will be made. Regardless of the time period, they may have been good at the time, but not now. And why would Keaton need to use gadgets on thugs?

@Vance Astro said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Vance Astro, It's nice to see someone that actually matches or near enough matches Batman's stats. Jackman was good because he was an amazing actor, if Keaton had been amazing then I wouldn't have minded. But it's nice to see someone who is in his Comic height range. He was in average shape, if Bale took the time to get in shape and capture Bruce's physique accurately so why couldn't Keaton? Jackman was in very good shape for Wolverine, Reeves was in very good shape for Superman, etc. To capture the character accurately, even though capturing the emotion is very important, it helps if you can capture the physical ability. We saw Bale doing non stop pressups in his Batman movies, Bruce Wayne is at the peak of human ability. Jack and Ledger were different, Jack was more comical and classy, but he wasn't crazy. Ledger's was chaotic. An example is when Jack fought Keaton, Jack begged for his life. But when Ledger was thrown off a building, he was laughing. Two different approaches. Keaton's Batman was intimidating in his movie because he had built a reputation in Gotham, in the early scenes of the 89 movie we see criminals talking about him, even rumors of him not being human. In Keaton's universe Batman was already established, Bale's wasn't. In Batman Begins Bale says something like "I want to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful", so he thought that It would be a useful tactic. In the comics he has ridiculous physical abilities. He uses those tactics to make thugs stumble and panic then he comes down and fights them. Keaton could have moved a bit more really, but even though his Batman came before comparisons will be made. Regardless of the time period, they may have been good at the time, but not now. And why would Keaton need to use gadgets on thugs?

If I could actually tell Batman stats without looking them up, maybe this would matter. Jackman was good because he was an amazing actor but in terms of LOOKING like Wolverine, his height wasn't a factor. Being almost as tall as Batman is supposed to be doesn't make Bale a better depiction of Bruce Wayne for me. As far as their physiques, it didn't actually matter that Keaton's didn't match Wayne's because you didn't really see it. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine had his shirt off alot, in the Wolverine film there were parts where he had to dress down and wear nearly nothing, so it makes sense his physique would have been important to the film. Same with Superman, the physique of that character is important to the film and the character, not so much Batman. He wears a full armored costume, and as Wayne he's always well dressed, so you would never have seen his physique. We only know because we know what Michael Keaton looks like. As far as the Joker, what movie did you watch? Jack's Joker wasn't classy, he was out of his mind. When he first becomes the Joker he goes to the office of his partner in crime, shoots him until it's empty, all the while he's dancing and making faces..and when he realizes the gun has no more bullets in it he celebrates and laughs. There's also the instance with the "shake the clowns hand trick" where the guy goes to shake his hand and the electricity is so intense he catches on fire and the whole time this guys body is smoking the Jack is making jokes about it and singing. At the end when Batman kills the Joker he doesn't beg for his life, He actually makes jokes up until he tries to escape via helicopter. Unless you mean him screaming when he falls? I understand that there were two different approaches on the Joker, that's what I pointed out, they were both crazy; however. Keaton did move, quite a bit in his Batman film, maybe you just don't recall it. He used gadgets on thugs because Burton didn't take the approach that he was a great martial artist, more so that he was a great intellect. The time period is a factor in why the fight scenes were alot different.

For a Batman fan, these things can matter. Maybe not for an average movie goer but they can for a fan. Jackman was acceptable because he was an amazing actor, the thing is Keaton wasn't. He didn't nail the role, whilst Jackman did. If Keaton nailed the role, it wouldn't matter at all. But their are many things he didn't nail. I'm not saying it's a big factor, but it's good to be near the stats of the comic character. But okay let's put the stats aside we'll just end up going around in circles. Keaton didn't have his shirt off but he should have (not trying to sound gay or anything) but to showcase Bruce's physique. Like Nolan did with Bale.

Classy was the wrong word. He just wasn't that crazy, he was too comical. Like the things he said ''You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses'', the more comical he became the less intimidating he became. All those things you are listing, he was trying to be too funny and comical. Ledger was serious and scary, but he also joked in a serious way (like the pencil trick). He was completely insane and unpredictable, I'm sorry but Jack wasn't unpredictable. But in that movie, you could tell that Jack's Joker just did not want to die. Ledger was insane and complex, like getting all that money and burning it all. If Jack's Joker got that money, would he have burnt it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1mo79ZBi4

Keaton was very slow and prodding. Throwing one punch at a time, check out the link. Burton may have taken that approach but in Nolan's movies he did both, using shadows, martial arts and gadgets.

Now look at Bale's fight scenes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFSqcqK3KB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctHIC1ULQo

Much faster.

Though their was a time period difference, I'm fully aware of that. But these comparisons take place.

@comicdude23: Theres a thing called the utility belt, look it up and maybe you will understand why Batman uses gadgets, even if it is on thugs.

Also Nolan's version of Bruce to me was bad. When I think of Bruce Wayne never would I think of someone who is emo, a quitter and a complete fool in terms of his own financial well being. Just because Bale can do a few pushups, pullups & is only 2 inches taller than Keaton (who is 5'10" not 5'9") doesn't make his interpretation of Bruce Wayne the best.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23: Theres a thing called the utility belt, look it up and maybe you will understand why Batman uses gadgets, even if it is on thugs.

Also Nolan's version of Bruce to me was bad. When I think of Bruce Wayne never would I think of someone who is emo, a quitter and a complete fool in terms of his own financial well being. Just because Bale can do a few pushups, pullups & is only 2 inches taller than Keaton (who is 5'10" not 5'9") doesn't make his interpretation of Bruce Wayne the best.

I'm not an idiot.

Nolan's Batman is more realistic than the other live action portrayls. It's more realistic that someone like Bruce who was traumatized and broken by the events of TDK would retire. Have you never read The Dark Knight Returns btw? He was totally destroyed emotionally, that makes for a good story-line. He's not invincible.

The push-ups was just showing he was in shape.

He was a sh*tty Bruce Wayne. Great Batman (my personal favorite as far as live-action goes), but his Bruce Wayne sucked.

@Gambit1024 said:

He was a sh*tty Bruce Wayne. Great Batman (my personal favorite as far as live-action goes), but his Bruce Wayne sucked.

IMO Bale's Batman had a better voice (yep I said it) and was just a better portrayal.

@comicdude23 said:

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23: Theres a thing called the utility belt, look it up and maybe you will understand why Batman uses gadgets, even if it is on thugs.

Also Nolan's version of Bruce to me was bad. When I think of Bruce Wayne never would I think of someone who is emo, a quitter and a complete fool in terms of his own financial well being. Just because Bale can do a few pushups, pullups & is only 2 inches taller than Keaton (who is 5'10" not 5'9") doesn't make his interpretation of Bruce Wayne the best.

I'm not an idiot.

Nolan's Batman is more realistic than the other live action portrayls. It's more realistic that someone like Bruce who was traumatized and broken by the events of TDK would retire. Have you never read The Dark Knight Returns btw? He was totally destroyed emotionally, that makes for a good story-line. He's not invincible.

The push-ups was just showing he was in shape.

Never said you were an idiot but when one asks "And why would Keaton need to use gadgets on thugs?" well....

yes I did read it, i didn't realize Bruce was in his mid 40s when he quit and too old to be Batman in the movie.

Sure I get how the whole tragedy thing affected him but again to me it doesn't make it a great portrayal of Bruce, it makes him look super pathetic. Heroes make sure the kids orphanage have money to stay funded. Heroes don't just sit in his room being pampered by an old man day after day. Also the idea that Bruce would allow his company to head towards financial ruin do not make sense to me.

Alfred said it the whole time, there are other things he could have done besides being Batman to help the city but he didn't do it. He just stayed there like a pathetic old man waiting for the day that the city will crumble.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23: Theres a thing called the utility belt, look it up and maybe you will understand why Batman uses gadgets, even if it is on thugs.

Also Nolan's version of Bruce to me was bad. When I think of Bruce Wayne never would I think of someone who is emo, a quitter and a complete fool in terms of his own financial well being. Just because Bale can do a few pushups, pullups & is only 2 inches taller than Keaton (who is 5'10" not 5'9") doesn't make his interpretation of Bruce Wayne the best.

I'm not an idiot.

Nolan's Batman is more realistic than the other live action portrayls. It's more realistic that someone like Bruce who was traumatized and broken by the events of TDK would retire. Have you never read The Dark Knight Returns btw? He was totally destroyed emotionally, that makes for a good story-line. He's not invincible.

The push-ups was just showing he was in shape.

Never said you were an idiot but when one asks "And why would Keaton need to use gadgets on thugs?" well....

yes I did read it, i didn't realize Bruce was in his mid 40s when he quit and too old to be Batman in the movie.

Sure I get how the whole tragedy thing affected him but again to me it doesn't make it a great portrayal of Bruce, it makes him look super pathetic. Heroes make sure the kids orphanage have money to stay funded. Heroes don't just sit in his room being pampered by an old man day after day. Also the idea that Bruce would allow his company to head towards financial ruin do not make sense to me.

Alfred said it the whole time, there are other things he could have done besides being Batman to help the city but he didn't do it. He just stayed there like a pathetic old man waiting for the day that the city will crumble.

I was just saying that he could have showcased some skills...

Bruce was about 39-40 I think in TDKR. This ISN'T the Bruce in the Comics, Bruce doesn't want to be Batman he has to. Do you think he likes being Batman? Nolan directed a Wayne that was a man inside, a man with determination but a man that could be broken. When Batman took the rap for Dent's crimes, Gotham's crime rate went down like hell, tbh their was no need for a Batman. Bruce was living in a world of his own, he didn't give a sh*t about his company because he couldn't move on. He may have ''beaten'' The Joker and put him away but he couldn't move on, like I said, he's not a god. He loved Rachel and really, that was one of the few people he trusted. He can't let that pass, Joker psychologically broke him and made him weak. But in time he rose.

He did nothing because he couldn't move on, Rachel was his life. Or so he thought.

@comicdude23 said:

I was just saying that he could have showcased some skills...

Bruce was about 39-40 I think in TDKR. This ISN'T the Bruce in the Comics, Bruce doesn't want to be Batman he has to. Do you think he likes being Batman? Nolan directed a Wayne that was a man inside, a man with determination but a man that could be broken. When Batman took the rap for Dent's crimes, Gotham's crime rate went down like hell, tbh their was no need for a Batman. Bruce was living in a world of his own, he didn't give a sh*t about his company because he couldn't move on. He may have ''beaten'' The Joker and put him away but he couldn't move on, like I said, he's not a god. He loved Rachel and really, that was one of the few people he trusted. He can't let that pass, Joker psychologically broke him and made him weak. But in time he rose.

He did nothing because he couldn't move on, Rachel was his life. Or so he thought.

As oppose to the "skill" Bale's batman showed? Did you actually see him fight? it was just a bunch of pathetic punches. Especially the first fight against Bane, it was like a 10 year old with no skill charging against a adult. Then all Batman had to do was a few pushups & pullups and all of a sudden he could win? Sorry, I would rather have seen more gadgets especially in the 2nd fight because it made no sense how Batman who is trained to fight like a ninja fought like a drunk at a bar in all of the movies.

Also your description is making him sound emo. I don't understand how arguing for my point that he is pathetic & emo is going to change my mind that he was not portrayed as the Bruce we know in the comics & why I don't like it. You may like emo Bruce, I don't.

And are you sure he couldn't move or do anything? the guy had a cane & could walk with it. Also the limp didn't prevent him from being able to rappel down a building.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23 said:

I was just saying that he could have showcased some skills...

Bruce was about 39-40 I think in TDKR. This ISN'T the Bruce in the Comics, Bruce doesn't want to be Batman he has to. Do you think he likes being Batman? Nolan directed a Wayne that was a man inside, a man with determination but a man that could be broken. When Batman took the rap for Dent's crimes, Gotham's crime rate went down like hell, tbh their was no need for a Batman. Bruce was living in a world of his own, he didn't give a sh*t about his company because he couldn't move on. He may have ''beaten'' The Joker and put him away but he couldn't move on, like I said, he's not a god. He loved Rachel and really, that was one of the few people he trusted. He can't let that pass, Joker psychologically broke him and made him weak. But in time he rose.

He did nothing because he couldn't move on, Rachel was his life. Or so he thought.

As oppose to the "skill" Bale's batman showed? Did you actually see him fight? it was just a bunch of pathetic punches. Especially the first fight against Bane, it was like a 10 year old with no skill charging against a adult. Then all Batman had to do was a few pushups & pullups and all of a sudden he could win? Sorry, I would rather have seen more gadgets especially in the 2nd fight because it made no sense how Batman who is trained to fight like a ninja fought like a drunk at a bar in all of the movies.

Also your description is making him sound emo. I don't understand how arguing for my point that he is pathetic & emo is going to change my mind that he was not portrayed as the Bruce we know in the comics & why I don't like it. You may like emo Bruce, I don't.

And are you sure he couldn't move or do anything? the guy had a cane & could walk with it. Also the limp didn't prevent him from being able to rappel down a building.

Pathetic punches? You try and do it then. He was taught to fight by TLOS. He was pathetic against Bane for a few reasons:

• This was his first true test in his comeback. And he wasn't in the best condition.
• He TOTALLY under-estimated Bane. He even said to Alfred all he has to do is try hard and he'll win.

A few pull-ups? He learnt how strong Bane was and learnt to never under-estimate him. That and he went from BARELY ABLE TO MOVE TO ESACPING THE PIT, that's quite the accomplishment.

Look at the Swat fight, he was in his prime then.

His first fight with Bane is a bad example. He went in completely under-estimating Bane's abilities.

Making him emo? He was a person. He's not god, what would you do if the gal you loved died?

Couldn't move ON. What the hell did you think I meant???

@comicdude23 said:

@Gambit1024 said:

He was a sh*tty Bruce Wayne. Great Batman (my personal favorite as far as live-action goes), but his Bruce Wayne sucked.

IMO Bale's Batman had a better voice (yep I said it) and was just a better portrayal.

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the whisper-ish voice to the screaming. Bale had the voice perfect in Begins, but in TDK, there were moments where the screaming was just inappropriate. As far as portrayal goes, that's more of the writers' issue than it is the actors'. The Dark Knight Trilogy was dark and gritty; Batman should be dark and gritty. The Burton movies were much more comic-bookie; Batman should be comic-bookie. Both interpretations were great as far as I'm concerned.

@comicdude23 said:

Pathetic punches? You try and do it then. He was taught to fight by TLOS. He was pathetic against Bane for a few reasons:

• This was his first true test in his comeback. And he wasn't in the best condition.
• He TOTALLY under-estimated Bane. He even said to Alfred all he has to do is try hard and he'll win.

A few pull-ups? He learnt how strong Bane was and learnt to never under-estimate him. That and he went from BARELY ABLE TO MOVE TO ESACPING THE PIT, that's quite the accomplishment.

Look at the Swat fight, he was in his prime then.

His first fight with Bane is a bad example. He went in completely under-estimating Bane's abilities.

Making him emo? He was a person. He's not god, what would you do if the gal you loved died?

Couldn't move ON. What the hell did you think I meant???

All of the action scenes in all 3 movies were pathetic, yes even the scene vs the swat. And yay, he jumped to escape a pitt that a little girl could do, big whoop. i'm suppose to be in awe that Batman can do that?

and again, you do not understand that you are just agreeing w/me that he's emo. Again, I don't like emo Bruce just like I didn't like emo Peter in Spider-Man 3.

Also the Batman I know do not underestimate his opponent and goes in fighting like a 10 year old. Thanks, now I have another reason why I don't like this portrayal of Bruce/Batman.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23 said:

Pathetic punches? You try and do it then. He was taught to fight by TLOS. He was pathetic against Bane for a few reasons:

• This was his first true test in his comeback. And he wasn't in the best condition.
• He TOTALLY under-estimated Bane. He even said to Alfred all he has to do is try hard and he'll win.

A few pull-ups? He learnt how strong Bane was and learnt to never under-estimate him. That and he went from BARELY ABLE TO MOVE TO ESACPING THE PIT, that's quite the accomplishment.

Look at the Swat fight, he was in his prime then.

His first fight with Bane is a bad example. He went in completely under-estimating Bane's abilities.

Making him emo? He was a person. He's not god, what would you do if the gal you loved died?

Couldn't move ON. What the hell did you think I meant???

All of the action scenes in all 3 movies were pathetic, yes even the scene vs the swat. And yay, he jumped to escape a pitt that a little girl could do, big whoop. i'm suppose to be in awe that Batman can do that?

and again, you do not understand that you are just agreeing w/me that he's emo. Again, I don't like emo Bruce just like I didn't like emo Peter in Spider-Man 3.

Also the Batman I know do not underestimate his opponent and goes in fighting like a 10 year old. Thanks, now I have another reason why I don't like this portrayal of Bruce/Batman.

How were they pathetic? Yeah they could have been better but they trump Keaton's fight scenes. The thing is the girl escaped for a few reasons.

• Rush of adrenaline. She was running away from prisoners that were trying to kill her.
• She didn't use the rope.
• She was truly determined, more so than any of the other prisoners.

Your just stereotyping emo. In Spider-Man 3 he was acting like a douche and doing sh*tty dance moves, The Amazing Spider-Man had a true emo. He was always on his skateboard, etc. What do you expect Bruce to be? His life has been destroyed, so he retires as Batman and carries on his business and becomes even more successful, donating to more charities and becoming a role model, Bane comes along and he has to become Batman? LOL, no.

Bruce being a depressed emo and then becoming Batman again was a good transformation. Realistically, if that happened to someone, chances are that you'd become an ''emo''.

Well this was very early in his comeback, so under-estimating him was a mistake. If he didn't under-estimate then he wouldn't have been broken, etc. It's all for the plot.

@Gambit1024 said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Gambit1024 said:

He was a sh*tty Bruce Wayne. Great Batman (my personal favorite as far as live-action goes), but his Bruce Wayne sucked.

IMO Bale's Batman had a better voice (yep I said it) and was just a better portrayal.

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the whisper-ish voice to the screaming. Bale had the voice perfect in Begins, but in TDK, there were moments where the screaming was just inappropriate. As far as portrayal goes, that's more of the writers' issue than it is the actors'. The Dark Knight Trilogy was dark and gritty; Batman should be dark and gritty. The Burton movies were much more comic-bookie; Batman should be comic-bookie. Both interpretations were great as far as I'm concerned.

It was good in BB, I loved the TDK voice, it was quite good. In TDKR it was improved, more like the BB voice. The first Burton movie was okay but the next one was painful to watch.

Keaton's still a better Batman than Bale. The Nolan films are good but Bale does not portray a good Batman in my eyes.

I guess it's down to opinion. IMO Bale was a perfect Batman. Very tactical.

@comicdude23 said:

How were they pathetic? Yeah they could have been better but they trump Keaton's fight scenes. The thing is the girl escaped for a few reasons.

• Rush of adrenaline. She was running away from prisoners that were trying to kill her.
• She didn't use the rope.
• She was truly determined, more so than any of the other prisoners.

Your just stereotyping emo. In Spider-Man 3 he was acting like a douche and doing sh*tty dance moves, The Amazing Spider-Man had a true emo. He was always on his skateboard, etc. What do you expect Bruce to be? His life has been destroyed, so he retires as Batman and carries on his business and becomes even more successful, donating to more charities and becoming a role model, Bane comes along and he has to become Batman? LOL, no.

Bruce being a depressed emo and then becoming Batman again was a good transformation. Realistically, if that happened to someone, chances are that you'd become an ''emo''.

Well this was very early in his comeback, so under-estimating him was a mistake. If he didn't under-estimate then he wouldn't have been broken, etc. It's all for the plot.

It was boring. Not saying Keaton's were great either but it's definately not an advantage here for Bale/Nolan's batman.

As far as the pit scene, again big whoop. I guess since Bale's Batman can miraculously recover from a broken spine by being punched in the back and just standing upright, then ok, guess it was impressive.

my dad & grandparents passed in same year, i still got up to work. bruce stayed indoors for 8 years and was waited on hand & foot. sorry, that's pretty pathetic.

@comicdude23 said:

I guess it's down to opinion. IMO Bale was a perfect Batman. Very tactical.

I agree

@comicdude23 said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@comicdude23 said:

@Gambit1024 said:

He was a sh*tty Bruce Wayne. Great Batman (my personal favorite as far as live-action goes), but his Bruce Wayne sucked.

IMO Bale's Batman had a better voice (yep I said it) and was just a better portrayal.

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the whisper-ish voice to the screaming. Bale had the voice perfect in Begins, but in TDK, there were moments where the screaming was just inappropriate. As far as portrayal goes, that's more of the writers' issue than it is the actors'. The Dark Knight Trilogy was dark and gritty; Batman should be dark and gritty. The Burton movies were much more comic-bookie; Batman should be comic-bookie. Both interpretations were great as far as I'm concerned.

The first Burton movie was okay but the next one was painful to watch.

I agree, but that's not Keaton's fault. It's Burton's.

For a Batman fan, these things can matter. 

 Jackman was acceptable because he was an amazing actor, the thing is Keaton wasn't.

Keaton didn't have his shirt off but he should have (not trying to sound gay or anything) but to showcase Bruce's physique. Like Nolan did with Bale.

Classy was the wrong word. He just wasn't that crazy, he was too comical. Like the things he said ''You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses'', the more comical he became the less intimidating he became. All those things you are listing, he was trying to be too funny and comical. Ledger was serious and scary, but he also joked in a serious way (like the pencil trick). He was completely insane and unpredictable, I'm sorry but Jack wasn't unpredictable. But in that movie, you could tell that Jack's Joker just did not want to die. Ledger was insane and complex, like getting all that money and burning it all. If Jack's Joker got that money, would he have burnt it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1mo79ZBi4

Keaton was very slow and prodding. Throwing one punch at a time, check out the link. Burton may have taken that approach but in Nolan's movies he did both, using shadows, martial arts and gadgets.

Now look at Bale's fight scenes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFSqcqK3KB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctHIC1ULQo

Much faster.

Though their was a time period difference, I'm fully aware of that. But these comparisons take place.

@GillaDro: @Deranged Midget: chicks dig the car *insert clooney smirk* (the neon car to be precise)

He's the Batman I would really be afraid of

keaton to me is the perfect batman. throat cancer voice aside, bale was not intimidating he was ridiculously pathetic. keaton was intimidating. even when he smiled. he might have been clunky but was a good fighter. he didnt analyze everything to death like bale, he was dark, broody and kept everything inside. bale is not batman or bruce wayne. when you look at keaton would you think he is batman? hell no. but thats why it works. bale with his bruce wayne was trying to much you could see he is hidding something.

@Vance Astro said:

@KnightRise said:

Again, "think" versus "is".

What?

Refering to the fact that what I said was an opinion, meaning "I think it is..." versus "It is..."

@Vance Astro said:

@KnightRise said:

I didn't watch any single Batman film and go "Yes. That is Bruce Wayne done perfect", but to me, Keaton and the Tim Burton films were lame. My inner hipster tells me to say they're masterpieces in noir, but nahh B, I refuse.

My last post didn't really have anything to do with the quality of Burton's films starring Keaton, it has more to do with the critical acclaim. You said that Burton's Batman Films are put on a pedestal but the fact is no superhero film trilogy or series has been put on a higher pedestal than Nolan's Batman films. It's the one group of films, people almost act like you're crazy if you haven't seen.

My post did, though. I didn't say the Burton films don't deserve acclaim, and I can see why people like them more, but personally I think that neither the films themselves nor Keaton's rendition were that good. Its subjective. I agree, however, its like a crime to criticize any Nolan film since they're so popular today. And the fact that the recent films are constantly being compared to Batmanand Batman Returns shows that the're both on pretty high pedestals. I think its about equal; the Nolanverse, the Burton films, plus the first Chris Reeves Superman are all in some apprarent untouchable list.

@Vance Astro said:

@KnightRise said:

I honestly don't think Keaton was anything special. At least Bale got his Bat-brood on.

I don't think Keaton was the perfect Batman, but he was far better than Bale. Sometimes good casting has nothing to do with acting ability because Bale is one of my favorite actors, he's just IMO not capable of pulling off Batman\Bruce Wayne.

Again, its subjective. Bale wasn't how I picture Bruce, but I by far prefer his brooding loner aspect with the psudeo-airhead playboy cover.

Refering to the fact that what I said was an opinion, meaning "I think it is..." versus "It is..."

My post did, though. I didn't say the Burton films don't deserve acclaim, and I can see why people like them more, but personally I think that neither the films themselves nor Keaton's rendition were that good. Its subjective. I agree, however, its like a crime to criticize any Nolan film since they're so popular today. And the fact that the recent films are constantly being compared to Batmanand Batman Returns shows that the're both on pretty high pedestals. I think its about equal; the Nolanverse, the Burton films, plus the first Chris Reeves Superman are all in some apprarent untouchable list.

Bale = Batman

Keaton = Bruce Wayne

@Vance Astro said:

@KnightRise said:

Refering to the fact that what I said was an opinion, meaning "I think it is..." versus "It is..."

I understood that without you telling me.

@KnightRise said:

My post did, though. I didn't say the Burton films don't deserve acclaim, and I can see why people like them more, but personally I think that neither the films themselves nor Keaton's rendition were that good. Its subjective. I agree, however, its like a crime to criticize any Nolan film since they're so popular today. And the fact that the recent films are constantly being compared to Batmanand Batman Returns shows that the're both on pretty high pedestals. I think its about equal; the Nolanverse, the Burton films, plus the first Chris Reeves Superman are all in some apprarent untouchable list.

But you responded to me, So I assumed your post would be in direct relation to mine. I know you didn't say that Burton's films didn't deserve acclaim. My point was that Nolan's Batman films are placed on a bigger pedestal. I don't think the fact that there are people that make a comparison between it the films, proves that they are on an equal level, I think it just shows more movies goers have a mind of their own then I thought. They aren't accepting that Nolan's films were the best just because so many are raving about it.

Fair enough.

Keaton wins. Game over. next.

@Vance Astro:

@Vance Astro: Right, but i'm a Batman fan and it doesn't matter TOO ME.

I'm a Batman fan but it DID matter to me, it CAN matter.

That has nothing to do with your height argument. If his height is important for LOOKING like the character then his acting is irrelevant. Hugh Jackman LOOKED like Wolverine, regardless of his height.

But the thing is Keaton didn't look like Bruce Wayne, Bale did.

Maybe Burton didn't think it was necessary to showcase something that isn't important to the film.

But you see Bruce Wayne doesn't have powers, he is a human that has to keep himself in tremendous shape. Nolan showed that Bale's Batman was fit and at the peak of his physical abilities, we saw Bale's Batman training and showing that he was in shape. Why do you think actors have to get into shape for films?

He was that crazy. The Joker isn't supposed to be intimidating he's supposed to be a psychopath. The part of the Joker that makes people afraid of the Joker, is his recklessness. That's what Jack's, Joker was. Ledger being serious doesn't mimic the Joker because the Joker is almost never serious even when the situation he's in..IS. Ledger's Joker, was unpredictable because the point Nolan was trying to get across was that the Joker could match wits with Batman, that's not the point Burton was trying to make with his Joker. Jack was more ruthless and nonchalant. As far as the money question, Jack's Joker was passing out money to the people of Gotham at that parade. If you're asking to say he would have kept the money.

I get he was crazy but he had his limits. Ledger had no limits. But you see The Joker became intimidating to the people of Gotham and even his own henchman he is intimidating. Look at the way Ledger was serious in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9psvYv1O4I

Ledger's Joker is thrown off a building, that's serious. But instead of screaming he's laughing. I was trying to get across that The Joker needs a good balance of comedy and seriousness, Jack was over-comical. And the more comical he became the less scary he became, The Joker is a psychopath. A damn scary one, he's a mass murdering clown, the only person he's funny to is himself. Yes he was throwing out money but if he was in the EXACT same situation as Ledger (with the entire stash of it) would he burn it?

There IS a time period difference. Bale's fight scenes weren't that great. In fact they were the worst part of the film IMO. Bale didn't do a good job of coming off as one of DC's greatest martial artists, anymore than Keaton did (which Burton wasn't trying to show in the first place).

They weren't great (but I think the Bane and S.W.A.T scenes were). But Nolan was trying to make them realistic and not add too many silly flips, he was a practical fighter. And he was fast, something that Keaton wasn't. I KNOW that there was a time difference but when we compare Keaton and Bale we have to compare this, regardless of the time difference. Fact is the time difference wasn't colossal it was 16-23 years (including all 3 Nolan films). The fact is Bale could move and if he wasn't armed with gadgets he could fight.

I think Bale is a better Batman because he not only fought with his bare hands but he also used gadgets (sticky grenade shooter, sonar tech, EMP though it didn't work well against Bane). He could use both, he also used a bat-gun bender (sorry I don't know the name of it and it does sound lame, lol).

But his Batman took on an army of S.W.A.T, I know he had Fox's help but he was fighting them and they were all armed. But he was able to dis-arm them and fight tactical. He could just do so much more.

@daredevil21134 said:

He's the Batman I would really be afraid of

Small man walking around in a slow prodding rubber suit. I'd be afraid too.

@Shamelesslysupportinaznballers said:

@comicdude23 said:

How were they pathetic? Yeah they could have been better but they trump Keaton's fight scenes. The thing is the girl escaped for a few reasons.

• Rush of adrenaline. She was running away from prisoners that were trying to kill her.
• She didn't use the rope.
• She was truly determined, more so than any of the other prisoners.

Your just stereotyping emo. In Spider-Man 3 he was acting like a douche and doing sh*tty dance moves, The Amazing Spider-Man had a true emo. He was always on his skateboard, etc. What do you expect Bruce to be? His life has been destroyed, so he retires as Batman and carries on his business and becomes even more successful, donating to more charities and becoming a role model, Bane comes along and he has to become Batman? LOL, no.

Bruce being a depressed emo and then becoming Batman again was a good transformation. Realistically, if that happened to someone, chances are that you'd become an ''emo''.

Well this was very early in his comeback, so under-estimating him was a mistake. If he didn't under-estimate then he wouldn't have been broken, etc. It's all for the plot.

It was boring. Not saying Keaton's were great either but it's definately not an advantage here for Bale/Nolan's batman.

As far as the pit scene, again big whoop. I guess since Bale's Batman can miraculously recover from a broken spine by being punched in the back and just standing upright, then ok, guess it was impressive.

my dad & grandparents passed in same year, i still got up to work. bruce stayed indoors for 8 years and was waited on hand & foot. sorry, that's pretty pathetic.

It was more interesting than Keaton IMO. IT WAS NOT A BROKEN SPINE, it was a misplaced vertebrate, something like that. NOT a broken spine. I'm sorry about that btw, but some people have more will than others. It just took time for Bruce.

Keaton was not a good choice for Batman.

@comicdude23 They are both very different Batmen and they a good in there own right. Think if Keaton did bad why make sequels.Plus also why slag Keaton he's much better than Kilmer or Clooney and in certain areas better than Bale. I overall prefer Bale but liked Keaton's film. Plus Batman isn't meant to speak much.

@johnkmccubbin91 said:

@comicdude23 They are both very different Batmen and they a good in there own right. Think if Keaton did bad why make sequels.Plus also why slag Keaton he's much better than Kilmer or Clooney and in certain areas better than Bale. I overall prefer Bale but liked Keaton's film. Plus Batman isn't meant to speak much.

I think I've changed my mind on him. I don't hate him, I quite like him but I can't say he's the best. He's way better than Kilmer and Bat nipples, lol.

@comicdude23: Thats good this is what I think myself but the only one I truly hate is Clooney and thats nothing too how much I hate Joel Schumacher

Keaton wins. Game over. next.