Michael Keaton Sucked As Batman!

Lets see, First of all, i think that Michael Keaton is a great actor. he is good in comedy movies, and he is good in drama movies. I like almost all his work beasides the batman movies. He is a great and talented actor.

But, lets go to the batman movies. If they are doing an adaptation of the batman comics to screen, they should create all the crediblitiy that they can, but they didnt it. They should get an actor who looks Batman and Bruce Wayne , acts well and fit the part , Keaton didnt it. Not only he was phisichally the oppositte as batman and bruce wayne is, his Wayne was terrible. anything to do with the comic character. His wayne was a goofy and insecure idiot, insecure with women and absteminded. Come on, even he couldnt rememember some rooms in his own house. That was stupid. We want the cool play boy that bruce is in the comics and they bring us an absurd Chris Reeve's clark kent impersonator. Keaton sucked in the batman movies so bad that it was a total nightmare for the batman fans. Plus, the guy was a terrible fighter and slow as hell. His only merit was his voice change from wayne to batman, noting more.

About the other batmans, Kilmer was ok specially as Bruce, Clooney sucked as bad as keaton because he was only playing himself and playing doug ross from the I.E.R. tv show in stead of batman or bruce wayne and Bale IS batman and IS bruce wayne.

Well if it means anything, here are the
North American and international Box Office numbers (in millions) for each film:

Batman (1989) 251.1 160.1

Batman Begins (2005) 205.3 166.4

Batman Forever (1995) 184.0 152.5

Batman Returns (1992) 162.8 104.0

Batman and Robin (1997) 107.2 130.9

I still think that Keaton did a good job, Kilmer is one of the most over rated actors ever.

I dont think that it prooves anything. I mean, are the acting specially good in the best movies at the box office?

Yeah that means diddly squat and proves nothing.Batman 89 was brilliantly promoted back then with trailers advertising the movie a year before its release.It was the FIRST Batman movie made so naturally its going to be the bigger money maker at the box office over Begins which had 2 negatives going against it-one that there had already been four Batman movies made prior to it and Two-the biggest and worst hurdle it had to face-the fact that unlike batman 89,it was so horribly promoted by Warner Brothers.So yeah,that proves nothing at all.also like Bakerboy said so brillantly,Keaton sucked as both Bruce wayne and Batman because all Keaton did was copy Reeves performance as Superman by acting like a goofy doofus as Bruce wayne not remembering his name and what room he was in and then being cool and macho as Batman.True Kilmer really isnt that great an actor but he at least portrayed Bruce wayne much more accurately to the TRUE Bruce Wayne Than Keaton did.He behaved the way Bruce wayne does and he at least wasnt a horrible fighter in fights like Keatons batman was.Because of that,keatons Batman was an embarrasement to Batman fans.I agree with the people that said that Clooney was just horrible as batman as well because he just played himself.Kilmer is the second best to have played Batman so far but again Bale is the one and ONLY true Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah that means diddly squat and proves nothing.Batman 89 was brilliantly promoted back then with trailers advertising the movie a year before its release.It was the FIRST Batman movie made so naturally its going to be the bigger money maker at the box office over Begins which had 2 negatives going against it-one that there had already been four Batman movies made prior to it and Two-the biggest and worst hurdle it had to face-the fact that unlike batman 89,it was so horribly promoted by Warner Brothers.So yeah,that proves nothing at all.also like Bakerboy said so brillantly,Keaton sucked as both Bruce wayne and Batman because all Keaton did was copy Reeves performance as Superman by acting like a goofy doofus as Bruce wayne not remembering his name and what room he was in and then being cool and macho as Batman.True Kilmer really isnt that great an actor but he at least portrayed Bruce wayne much more accurately to the TRUE Bruce Wayne Than Keaton did.He behaved the way Bruce wayne does and he at least wasnt a horrible fighter in fights like Keatons batman was.Because of that,keatons Batman was an embarrasement to Batman fans.I agree with the people that said that Clooney was just horrible as batman as well because he just played himself.Kilmer is the second best to have played Batman so far but again Bale is the one and ONLY true Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Wow. Have you ever tried meditation? lol

My opinion: The original 1989 Batman was the overall best Batman movie. Michael Keaton looks nothing like you'd expect Bruce Wayne to look, and I enjoyed Bale's Wayne a tad more. However, Keateon played the role with heart and his actual scenes in the suit trump anything I saw in Batman Begins (it's tough to beat Tim Burton's directing).

I think the true test of whether or not Bale is the better man for the job will come in on the sequel, if there's one planned (haven't checked on this sort of thing). I don't see any reason to dislike Keaton, and Clooney and Kilmer were a pair of duds in comparison, but overall people were more excited about Keaton's film and his performance as the Caped Crusader and not much is going to change that.

Christian Bale is being completely bummed over his performance in Batman Begins and I ask.. WHY? As a big fan of Batman I hated Batman Begins, I hated Bale, Keaton and Burton were the best thing that ever happened to the Batman Movies, pity people don't realise that.

Burton had his reasons for choosing Keaton. I just forgot what they were.

Originally posted by DraconianDevil
Christian Bale is being completely bummed over his performance in Batman Begins and I ask.. WHY? As a big fan of Batman I hated Batman Begins, I hated Bale, Keaton and Burton were the best thing that ever happened to the Batman Movies, pity people don't realise that.

err no that would be Bale and Nolan that were the best thing to ever happen to the Batman franchise.They erased that horrible nightmare Burton/scumacher franchise.thank god.no whats really a pity is that there are people here that dont realise those two started that franchise off into ruination and betrayed the comicbook,Burton should NEVER have been allowed near a Batman franchise.

Originally posted by Sludge
Wow. Have you ever tried meditation? lol

My opinion: The original 1989 Batman was the overall best Batman [b]movie. Michael Keaton looks nothing like you'd expect Bruce Wayne to look, and I enjoyed Bale's Wayne a tad more. However, Keateon played the role with heart and his actual scenes in the suit trump anything I saw in Batman Begins (it's tough to beat Tim Burton's directing).

I think the true test of whether or not Bale is the better man for the job will come in on the sequel, if there's one planned (haven't checked on this sort of thing). I don't see any reason to dislike Keaton, and Clooney and Kilmer were a pair of duds in comparison, but overall people were more excited about Keaton's film and his performance as the Caped Crusader and not much is going to change that. [/B]

Well you got half that right anyways. 😄 Clooney AND Keaton were duds.Kilmer was the best from that choice since not only did he at least look the part-if you dont look the part you bring no credibility to the role,some people here just dont get that though, 🙄 and he also at least acted like Bruce wayne.If you guys would bother to read the previous posts you would understand why he was so misccast in that role. 🙄

Why do you say Spiderman should have been called ManSpider? Your sig, when I think about how deeply the naming of the movie and using organics and being a sin and all that, has bugged me for the longest time.

Especially when it used to say "Movie should have been called MAN-SPIDER.Organics are the biggest sin in Hollywood history."

It looked like you were advertising a website (MAN-SPIDER.Org)

Well we had that conversation at least once before when i first joined by pm.By the way,you didnt even bother to post your thoughts on if you agree with the thread starter of this thread that Keaton sucked as batman.post your thoughts on that,the topic of this thread and I will send you a pm and answer your question for you on that AGAIN.

They all sucked, there's my opinion, now send me the PM.

Originally posted by botankus
They all sucked, there's my opinion, now send me the PM.

well yeah all the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies with Keaton,Kilmer and Clooney all sucked,your right about that.Thank god for Nolan,he erased that nightmare Burton/Schumacher franchise with Batman Begins. 💃 okay here comes your pm. 😄

Originally posted by DraconianDevil
Christian Bale is being completely bummed over his performance in Batman Begins and I ask.. WHY? As a big fan of Batman I hated Batman Begins, I hated Bale, Keaton and Burton were the best thing that ever happened to the Batman Movies, pity people don't realise that.

I realize that. 😮

Pretty much back in the late 80's people were saying that Keaton replace Adam West as the image of Batman. In our current present Christian Bale replace Keaton as the image of Batman. Keaton is still a good actor. But as far as Batman....his image has faded and now Bale rules above all.

yeah keaton is a good actor.No doubt about that.im definetely not anti-Keaton.He just sucked as Batman though.Totally miscast.Actually Keaton and Burton were the WORST thing to ever happen to Batman and Bale and Nolan were the BEST thing to ever happen to Batman.Its a real pity that some people dont realise THAT.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Burton had his reasons for choosing Keaton. I just forgot what they were.

He only had two reasons for casting him.One because he had worked with him before and felt comfortable working with him,two because he was friends with him from then.He only cast him because of that.he did not care about making the best casting choice possible.Thats why Burton should have NEVER been allowed near a Batman movie.

I thought that Bale's performance and the whole movie was overrated. And thats my opinion.

Originally posted by Tired Hiker
Does anyone agree with this??? Mean, he was out of shape, geeky, and just didn't have that Christian Bale build. 😬

I agree, Michael keaton was the worst casting for Batman. I was disappointed in his performance in the movie. He didn't even have the body build like Batman has. The good Batman actors, were Christian Bale and Val Kilmerr. Keaton, just sucked.