I don't see why you don't like Keaton Mr. Parker. He and Jack were probably the best thing that ever happened to that movie. And Batman Forever was good but Val made Bruce and Batman look like idiots! Here's a qoute from it: "I uh...sorry, I... thought you were...uh... in trouble." "It's the car, chicks dig the car."
Val Kilmer sucked as Batman.Good Wayne, but terrible Batman. Keaton at least made Bruce as he is depicted in my fave comic book arcs, Batman:Evolution, and DKR. He was The Dark Knight. George was also a good Bruce but not a very good Batman. He at least did a better job at Bats then Kilmer. But the only thing good about the last two was Micheal Gough(Alfred) but the best three from all are Alexander Knox(Robert Guhl) Joker(Jack Nicholson) and Batman/Bruce Wayne(Micheal Keaton)
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't see why you don't like Keaton Mr. Parker. He and Jack were probably the best thing that ever happened to that movie. And Batman Forever was good but Val made Bruce and Batman look like idiots! Here's a qoute from it: "I uh...sorry, I... thought you were...uh... in trouble." "It's the car, chicks dig the car."
Val Kilmer sucked as Batman.Good Wayne, but terrible Batman. Keaton at least made Bruce as he is depicted in my fave comic book arcs, Batman:Evolution, and DKR. He was The Dark Knight. George was also a good Bruce but not a very good Batman. He at least did a better job at Bats then Kilmer. But the only thing good about the last two was Micheal Gough(Alfred) but the best three from all are Alexander Knox(Robert Guhl) Joker(Jack Nicholson) and Batman/Bruce Wayne(Micheal Keaton)
because he was so horribly miscast is why.Keaton is a good actor but he was miscast for the role of bruce wayne and you cant blame Kilmer for his portrayal of batman because he suffered from a bad scriot with corny lines,if he had had serious lines like he had as bruce wayne, did,there would be no question he was the best batman. keaton all he did was copy reeves performance as clark kent from superman where kilmers portrayal was a lot closer to ho how bruce wayne acts.the only good thing about the first two batman movies were Jack nicolson,michelle phieffer and kim basinger
Keaton's Batman IS Batman, just because he wasn't fit doesn't mean he did horrible and sucked. Kilmer was the worst! What are you talking about! Everyone I know says so. And one more thing, Kilmer isn't even physically fit for the role either. And in Batman 1989, Batman DID do martial arts, it was in the scene where Vicki Vale is on a rooftop, and Batman is fighting the Joker's men. There was one guy who had two katana swords and Batman kicked his a** so bad he ran away.
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Keaton's Batman IS Batman, just because he wasn't fit doesn't mean he did horrible and sucked. Kilmer was the worst! What are you talking about! Everyone I know says so. And one more thing, Kilmer isn't even physically fit for the role either. And in Batman 1989, Batman DID do martial arts, it was in the scene where Vicki Vale is on a rooftop, and Batman is fighting the Joker's men. There was one guy who had two katana swords and Batman kicked his a** so bad he ran away.
Okay you clearly dont have a clue what so ever what you are talking about so this is going to be my last post to you.I didnt say he did horrible,I just said that he was a horrible casting choice because he didnt even come close to physically fitting the role of bruce wayne and Bruce wayne is every bit as important a part of batman as Batman himself is.Thats why i am so happy that Batman Begins is being made because Christian Bale at least is pysically right for the role of Bruce wayne.No Kilmer is by far the best who has played the role.As I mentioned earlier,people just want to toot Keatons horn so much because they cant get past the bias of how Kilmer is a jerk of a person in real life and was extremely difficult to work with on the set of Batman Forever and that Keaton is a lot easier to work with and a lot more likeable of a person.Thats WHY people refuse to see that Kilmer is the best to have played the role so far.All the batman movies sucked big time in one way or the other,with batman forever,it was because of corny lines that not even the greatest actor could make work like the one you mentioned of-its the car right chicks dig the car. Saying that Kilmer was not physically fit for the role is really grasping at straws to try and win an argument that your clearly losing.You must have watched a different batman movie than I did because the one I saw,when Val Kilmer took off his shirt he clearly showed he had an athletic and muscular build like Bruce wayne is suppose to have.whwn I mention martial arts skills,I am talking about at the end of the movie when he got the crap beat out of him by the jokers goon.Ketons Batman was a total wuss,he couldnt even beat one guy.That guy had no special fighting skills at all and yet keaton got the crap beat out of him.He was a total wuss.The batman from the comics would have wiped the floor with that guy blindfolded.
pr1983-as I just mentioned to Batdude,Batman hardly kicked ass in the first film.He got the crap beat out of him by one guy-the jokers goon at the end who he should EASILY have handled.so yes BATMAN couldnt fight in that film.Kilmers Batman at least showed he could handle a bunch of goons at one time by demonstrating his martial arts skills he had. also you cant just dismiss that Keaton was horribly miscast just by saying what about his portrayel as batman not bruce wayne? Because Bruce wayne is every bit as important to the movie as batman is which is why I like Kilmer so much better because the times that he got to be serious in that movie was as Bruce wayne,he never got to be serious as batman because of the script.The few times he DID get to be serious as Batman with serious lines such as IF BRUCE WAYNE COULD HAVE GIVEN HIS LIFE FOR YOUR PARENTS HE WOULD HAVE.he did a fine job then.As I mentioned before,if he had been given a serious script to work with like Keaton was,theres no question that he would have been the best bruce wayne/Batman to have played the role so far.Kilmer was by far the best to have played the role so far because he was everything bruce wayne is suppose to be that Keaton was not,which is handsome,debonier,an athletic build AND a full set of hair.Not only that,he was pretty impressive in the role when he was given serious lines to work with which again was mostly as bruce wayne.
Dude, Mr. Parker, in Batman, the goon was HUGE! And in Batman Forever, was there one goon who was bigger than Batman? No. There was a bunch of puny son of a b****es that had nothing but stupid tommy guns. Now, what has Keaton's Batman had to defeat? Gangsters, ninjas(the goon with the two swords) penguins, Catwoman, Joker, Penguin, a big thug, two thugs on a roof, and a pardige in a pair tree(sorry, just wanted to bring the spirit of Christmas on all us here at KMC)
But besides that, Val is my second choice(when I said he was the worst, I lied) but he's only second best. West third, Clooney fourth
parker, first of all, portraying the character's personality is a lot more important than the physical side. i'm not saying physicality is not important, just that the character is more important.
keaton fought alot harder enemies than kilmer.
batman is as important as wayne, and keaton perfected bats.
kilmer was more cocky and self assured yes, and with a script he might have done well. but keaton actually gave you the impression that he had gone through hell losing his parents, kilmer didn't imo. keaton gave u the sense that he was a loner, kilmer didn't. yeah kilmer's better looking, but he's a weaker actor.
I must say I'm kinda biased overall just cuz BATMAN and BATMAN Returns seemed to be more for a mature audience...it's grittier, savage, and less colorful. And hence, Keaton made a Batman in THAT Gotham City with its insane Joker more believable.
Batman Forever made it seem like a big merry-go-around. Tommy Lee Jone's portrayal of the supposedly deranged and bitter Two-Face fell flat because he was too goofy. While Val COULD have portrayed the Dark Knight rather well, the characters and surrounding he had to interact with made him a less formidable Bats. He kept having to switch from a dark to a light side. BATS would NEVER make a grand entrance into a crowd of onlookers during the beginning scene just to talk to Chase and the Commish. He'd go in silently like a ninja like Bats did at the AXIS Chemicals plant in the first movie. Or when he tried to rescue the ice princess in BAtman Returns. The point is Batman Forever was made as it was--I don't think you can judge what Vilmer could have done with a better script or not.
If you had to ask me which Batman emulated Kevin Conroy's Bats the most in performance, it would have to be Keaton's Batman. As Bruce Wayne, physically, I actually think Clooney would fit Bruce Wayne the best since he had the square jaw, the manly look (like in the animated series). Kilmer had a pretty boy look. And as short as he was, Keaton had the lonely, torn mysterious look as Wayne.
As for fighting, you gotta remember this was 1988 (or was it 1989). Martial Arts films in the U.S. weren't filled with Matrix-style Hong Kong choreagraphy. There WERE a few films that had that, but none of which were blockbusters. I think the fighting scenes satisfied audiences for its time. As weak as he was shown fighting that big dude in the end, you gotta remember this was supposed to be somewhat Bats in his early career....just coming out and fighting PROFESSIONAL criminals, not lowly thugs. How can you not enjoy Bats grabbing that big dude in the end by the legs and throwing him down the cathedral? How can you NOT like Batman punching that clown in the throat sideways without even glancing at him in Batman Returns? In BATMAN FOREVER, I hated that "comical fight scene" when that dude whips out his gadgets and Bats waited and kicked him in the face. But I loved it when Bats kicked that sword guy charging him in the face in BATMAN. See the difference? It's all about delivery.
I'd want Keaton's BAts to back me up. Not so much with VAl's.
Originally posted by pr1983
parker, first of all, portraying the character's personality is a lot more important than the physical side. i'm not saying physicality is not important, just that the character is more important.keaton fought alot harder enemies than kilmer.
batman is as important as wayne, and keaton perfected bats.
kilmer was more cocky and self assured yes, and with a script he might have done well. but keaton actually gave you the impression that he had gone through hell losing his parents, kilmer didn't imo. keaton gave u the sense that he was a loner, kilmer didn't. yeah kilmer's better looking, but he's a weaker actor.
Yeah but like I just said,Bruce wayne is every bit as important to the story as Batman is and I dont care if its Lawrence Oliviea who is considered by many to be the best actor in the world,if he doesnt even come close to fitting the role,he should never be cast for it.Keaton was totally miscast-Burton did not care about making the best casting choice possible,he only cast keaton because he was friends with him,he did not care that he was so horribly miscast for the role.I have run into dozens of people over the years that feel exactly the same as I do,that they hated the first two films as well because of how physically wrong keaton was for the role.thats why they are redoing the batman franchise with Batman Begins because they now realise how it pissed off so many fans with the casting choice of Keaton.Well maybe YOU didnt get the impression that Kilmer had gone through hell losing his parents,but I sure as hell did.And this is coming from a guy who expected to hate Batman Forever because of the casting choice of Kilmer because other than the doors,I had never seen a movie with Val Kilmer in it,that I was impressed with his acting and always thought of him as a bad actor,but he pleasantly surprised me in this movie with his performance mainly as bruce wayne, especially when he was telling chase about how he became Batman,I was really moved by his performance then. That enemy that keaton fought at the end as I mentioned was hardly a tough guy.The batman from the comics could EASILY have beat that thug with no special fighting skills blindfolded as I already mentioned.It amazes me how people always ignore that point and cant ackknowledge that to be true. 🙄 I have come across many people as well over the years who also thought the same as i did on that point. Yes keaton is a more accomplished actor but he was hardly amazing in this movie.He did a decent job,but he wasnt outstanding by any means.All he did was copy Chris Reeves performance from superman by acting like a goofy doofus around women.Bruce wayne doesnt act like that.Kilmers portrayal was MUCH closer to Bruce wayne than Keatons was.Kilmer has always been the weaker actor in past films but he was hardly weak in Batman Forever and again,I totally expected him to be but he was a pleasant surprise to me in his portrayel.