Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think Keaton

does anyone agree?

uh...depending on which Batman version you're talkin about.

West was superb as the campy Batman that reflected the comics in the 60s.

Keaton looked like the hardcore Batman that comics decided to return to after the campy 60s. He may not look like much of a Bruce Wayne..but in costume, I think he pulled off the menacing Batman quite nicely.

Keaton all the way. Those eyes!

Keaton

I have to agree with Spy. It really depends which kind of portrayal you go for. West and Keaton are so different in style and in when they did the role, so it is not a fair question to judge one based on the other. Now, if you had asked who was better- Keaton or Val Kilmer, then that would be more fair in my opinion.

I would have to say Keaton

Keaton is god of the Batfilms

yes he is

If one or the other must be chosen, I say Adam West.

Keatons a fine actor but whoever it was in that big dumb rubber bucket helment- it wasn't Batman.

Nah I hated those two films, myself. Keaton was miscast, but that is just my personal opinion, I am not bashing on anyone who says they prefer him as Batman.

Kevin Conroy (voiceover for the animated version).

Adam West of the two available choices as he had more of a lively character (though not the character type I like in the comics/animation). Michael Keaton appeared rather stiff, but it could also be due to the lack of flexibility of the costume.

keaton was a great Batman, give him his dues, I think it is about time for that.

Hmm the same could be said for Kilmer. It is nothing personal against Keaton, you know. In my opinion, he is simply not the best there is.

Adam West always cracks me up! I like'em both so is a tie.

keaton. for me. those movies were the first comic book movies i ever watched and that is what got me into comics.

only the god of the worst batmans ever.

No that would be George Clooney

you wont get an argument from me on that.they both sucked.They were both physically wrong for the role.Clooney looks like Eddie Munster for god sakes.

Keaton

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)

Dont forget Jack Palace he may had a small role, but he shine great.

You got a point about Clooney looking like Eddie Munster.

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

but what about keatons portrayal of batman? not bruce wayne, batman.

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.

yea...i dont' really care for Keaton's Bruce Wayne....but underneath the mask and cape, he's 100% Bats. The voice delivery, the scowl, the threatening presence when he glides down....totally killer.

who said bats couldnt fight? he kicked ass in the original movie.

Michael Keaton IS batman, before that was just a long running gay joke, and after was.......a long running gay joke (val kilmer played a good bruce wayne though), till now that is

thats just my opinion though

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.

micheal keaton fought that sword wielding guy in a dark alley, that was cool for its time, people are talking about it like the movie came out last year, they didnt have the scope of actors at that time as we do now

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

uh....NO COMMENT!!!!

What? I can see that Punkyhermy doesn't seem to be that fond of possibly the best Batman(unless you count Bale, he's gonna take second place leaving Kilmer third)that got me into not only the franchise of films, but the Golden Age and Silver Age Batman(already was in continuity)as well.

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.

There is no comparing who is best there.Micheal Keaton is the one and only best batman!No one can be better then him!West is well pitfull.JM

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.

okay YOUR reasons unlike Batdudes are actually reasonable points so I can respect YOUR reasons for liking the first two better.I still say the first two sucked even worse than BATMAN FOREVER did though.

Mr. Parker, I think you have this bizzare illness that makes you hate me. I try to be a nice guy with good reasons, but YOU try to diss me because I don't word things correct. What I've been trying to say is that Keaton made a more Year One mature badass Bats, he didn't have the bat shaped grappling hooks, but he was still perfectly good. And I know you think he was miscast but he did a good job right? Val was good, but he was, like SpyCspider said, too pretty boy for a lot of people. (This is off topic but the machine guns on the Batmobile in BATMAN were used to make a door through the Axis Chemicals garage when he blew it up)
And like I said before about the thug beating on Batman, he was pretty big and no Batman in the comics would probably need his eyes to fight him.

I would replie but I think I have put all my ideals on why Keaton is better in other posts/trends, and Think of going back to all Joker, and getting rid of the Mortal Kombat sig/avtor.

Now now... Be nice you two

er....just throwing my two cents in....

i kinda thot that the scene where the guy whips out his toys and comes running at batman in the third movie were good. hm.....come to think of it, i think it happened twice. once in the beginning, at the bank, and once at nygma's party. the second one i thot was kinda funny/good. this guy puts all this energy into looking intimidating and impressive, and then batman "says" you're done? good? ok. WHAM! translation= the other guy put all his effort into looking intimidating and oh boy batman i'm gonna slice you to ribbons, and batman actually delivered the goods, doing what this guy hoped to accomplish by trying to look scary/nasty.

but then *blush* i'm kinda a fan of the third movie, but for different reasons than mr parker.

adam west>all

I think this is getting a little old but oh well, Keaton rox!

Lets see, the batman actors. West was a good Bruce Wayne and a good campy batman for his time. Keaton was a joke, fat, short, too old, bad figther, made of bruce wayne a goofy idiot with memory problems , doing a bad copy of chris reeve portrayal of clark kent in superman, didnt look anything as batman or bruce wayne, ect. Kilmer didnt impress me, he was too unconvincet and without soul as batman or bruce wayne, too insipid, but he looked more as batman or bruce wayne and he was a better figther than keaton and his bruce wayne wasnt an goofy idiot as he is supposed to be in the comics. Clooney is a good actor sometimes, but in batman and robin the script was terrible and his acting was terrible because he was playing the same thing as batman or as bruce wayne. That was a joke. To resume it, the three actors sucked, but kilmer was the best one of the three.

spycspider, best post so far.

kilmer was the best one of the three.

although we have many of the same agreements on the batman movies bakerboy,we also have quite a few disagreements on the batman movies as well.However,that last statement you hit the nail right on the head about Kilmer being the best to have played the role so far.Its ONLY on the net where you find people who liked Keaton so much,most people in real life I talk to "and I know you have told me the same thing that most people you talk to in real life in your country as well" hated Keaton also because of how physically miscast he was for the role.

Yeah, mr parker, you are right. In fact , i remember the day of the release of the first batman in my country, and my friends who were seeing the movie with me and some people in the public was laughing and making coments about what wrong was Keaton as batman. I remember a little girl saying " what a small batman" , i laughed my ass when i remember it. It prooves what stupid was the cast of michael keaton as batman. For not mention than his supossed "great performance" is a urban legend.
2

Yeah exactly Bakerboy.I also remember people walking out of the theaters saying-Man what a stupid and horrible casting choice casting that short runt, half bald michael keaton for Batman.Further proof it was a horrible casting choice.

You guyz and your "miscast" he was a better actor in BATMAN than Kilmer was in Batman Forever. And who really cares if he was a little wrong(the short thing was kinda right but he wasn't fat or bald) And Kilmer was a idiot in front of Chase as I can remember, "I uh I'm uh sorry uh I uh thought you were uh in trouble." You know, Keaton was also a good fighter. And the first thing that will come to your mind is "yeah right, remember the guy in the belltower that beat his ass!" Well he was pretty big if you ask me. And one more thing, Some people were miscast in Forever, Kilmer was one(he sucked because he was a terrible actor) Tommy Lee Jones(same reason) and Jim Carrey(more like a Joker, but Nichalson would be better) And further more, BATMAN and Batman Returns were far better than Batman Forver and Batman and Robin. Here is a question, who was a better dark Batman?(not Kilmer)

first of all

the guy in the bell tower was huge. and batman was f*cked up after the crash

maybe kilmer was physically better, but keaton was miles batter as te character. keaton is a better actor period.

Exactly

not as Bruce wayne he wasnt.and please dont use that old lame ass excuse that he was hurt and that guy was huge because AGAIN that guy had no special fighting skills at all and size dont mean shit when your a master in martial arts anyways so batman should EASLIY have been able to beat that guy blindfolded.its not like he broke both his legs and couldnt walk or anything. please I hate that old lame ass excuse that he was hurt so dont use it because it does not wash.all bats had to do was kick him in the nuts.problem easily solved. just admit that it was simply horrible screen writing no shame in that.

Nothing pleases you Mr. Parker

the guy was bigger than any bruce i've ever seen.

and its only a lame excuse to you, kinda like 'kilmer was better cos he was more physically suited'.

if any human being was in that crash, even one as fit as batman, he'd be injured. and how do you know the guy couldn't fight? and then even if he couldn't, batman is at a disadvantage because he's in so much pain. no matter how good a martial artist you are, you would suffer alot due to the amount of pain you were in. you can see it when he falls against the benches in the church. he's struggling to walk, let alone
fight a guy bigger and stronger than him.

and keaton WAS imo a better batman than kilmer.

and the writing is up there with the best of any comic book movie. that museum scene is a classic.

anyway, on topic,

i don't think its fair to compare west and keaton. when west was the 'camp' batman, the comics were in the same vain as the t.v. show. when keaton came along, the comics had become alot darker, and imo keaton suited the role of a dark batman.

Those excuses are stupid as always. I have seen batman injured in the comics and beating people like killer croc or man bat, who are monster with superhuman strenght , or 4 or 5 people at the same time. Batman is an expert in all kinds of fight, he has all in his mind , not only in his body. He is so clever that he could fight very well even injured, because his intelligence and his tactics. Could you say me that this stupid and slow guy from the movie is more dangerous than killer croc or man bat?

That is only a poor excuse to Keaton's poor fight movements. He was a terrible fighter and that is pathetic in a character as batman. One reason more because keaton sucked.

ffs...

first of all, its a movie, an adaptation of a comic, did u watch the other comic movies? i've read plenty of batman comics, and i've seen him recover from tons of shit, but if u put that on a screen people are gonna think its ridiculous. its a little thing called artistic license, they have to make him seem more human. his technique wasn't bad at all, and he came through most of his fights pretty well imo.

as for intelligence and tactics, they don't do shit if you've just crashed down the middle of a street and f*cked yourself up.

"hey my ribs are cracked and i might have brain damage, but my tactics will help me!"

bullshit.

yeah well said Bakerboy.you just shot down that poor excuse those two are making for batman being a wipm in that movie.We have tried to spell it out for them as best as they can but they want to keep on coming up with lame ass excuses as always.please give me a break,he stumbled briefly,after that,it shows him walking rapidly up the steps and its so obvious that by that time he had recovered.Again well said Bakerboy,you pointed out so well how those are poor excuses to use for his terrible fighting skills.because like you said,in the comics,Batman has beatem MANY people far stronger than that dude was while seriously hurt so for the umpteenth time,that was horrible film making,I could go into several details on WHY it is not only a horrible comicbook movie,but horrible as a movie as well but I wont since that would be off topic..a guy who in real life would EASILY have beat that guy blindfolded since he is trained in all forms of combat.at least schumacher didnt make that stupid mistake with HIS batman when he was fighting.man stop putting words in my mouth.I didnt say I liked Kilmer better because he came closer to fitting the role,I said I liked him better because not only did he at least physically fit the role,but he behaved MUCH more like the bruce wayne from the comics than keaton did and his acting was impressive in the times he got to say serious lines.I liked him better because of those TWO reasons.

please its just a comicbook movie.There are SEVERAL things in that film that are FAR more rediculous than that. so give it up with that lame argument.there was never any indication afterwards that his ribs were cracked.Looked like he was walking around pretty fine to me afterwards,and he didnt have brain damage so stop with the poor excuses already.

omfg... *bangs head against wall* wtf are u guys taking? seriously?

nobody recovers from a crash that quickly, the huiman body is incapable of it. he got up the stairs so quickly because vicki was in trouble. running up some stairs and fighting bad guys are two completely different things.

and parker, what comics did u read that made kilmer seem more like bats? the ones where u just looked at the pictures?

Obviously you have only read parts of my posts when you have read them and not the whole thing because I jave spelled it out to dozens of times WHY he should have EASILY handled that guy but you refuse to admit it.and the batman from the comics doesnt act like a doofus around women like keaton did and cant remember which room he is in.You would know that if you ever read the comics.

Well, as a reply to what Mr. Parker and Bakerboy keep saying, it's a bad excuse, you are wrong my friends. Bruce in Forever never had to even look at a guy bigger than him! Like I said before, all he fought was runts with guns. I for one, like that Batman gets his ass beat some times, he shows that he's only human and that's the hero part of it. And like I said before, Kilmer shouldn't have been chosen at all. But it seems I have a question for everyone who posted here...Who's your favorite Batman director(mine is Tim Burton) and it has to be from past movies(so no Chris Nolan or whatever) and by the way, as I was watching my collection of Bat-films the other day, I noticed something, Bruce gets shot in 1 and 3. Joker shoots him right after his trademark line, "Have you ever danced with the devil by the pale moon light?" "What?" "It's something I say to all my victims, I like the way it sounds." Blam!
And one more thing, you guys have to be insane to think Bruce would be able to beat some guy with his eyes blind folded! Impossible! The guyz only human or have you forgot that?

hm....respectfully, bat dude.....i think some o two face's thugs were pretty big.....look at a quick shot at when he's jumped off the building at nygma's party, and they shunt him into a dead end subway construction and you see some guy turning on a gas valve----it's just a quick flash, but golly, he's a heck of a lot bigger than batman/bruce wayne/val kilmer, any way you'd like to slice him.

first of all, Ive read your posts, and they are funny.

as for the room thing? its so blatantly obvious, he was pretending, to break the ice with vicki, ffs, havent you ever acted like a bit of an eejit to make a woman laugh? come on.

saying the same thing dozens of times doies not count. fact is bats beat him n all, despite the fact he was injured.

i can't believe i'm debating this with the manspider twins.

i'm not going to bother anymore

eh....sigh....i think he did that as a joke. Meaning his place is so big, even he can't figure out which room he's in. Vale laughs right after he said that and he smiles to show he has a sense of humor. Plus, it's a way to break the ice and invite her to a more cozy dinner with Alfred.

As for fighting that big dude in the clock tower. Again, Batman facing opponents working for the biggest criminal in Gotham. Not some lowly thug who he can just spread his cape and scare the shit out of. And yes, he did get his ass kicked in Batman: Year One. By a bunch of hookers!! If you want to compare time periods, that is. And Keaton's Bats seemed pretty fine at kicking those goons with the swords and guns in the middle alley scene. AND again, 1988 (or 1989)--no need for Neo Matrix-style kungfu. Not saying Batman Forever used those either, but it satisfied audiences for the time.

Physically or not, I think Keaton's Wayne showed more depth to character. He's always shown in his cave thinking, reminiscing. Whenever he's deep in thought (aka watching Joker's threatening commercials, staring at Vale and the other dude through his cameras, etc), he scrunges up his eyebrows...it's a piercing gaze. Even in Batman REturns, in the beginning when he is summoned for help against the Circus Gang, he's in his room, in "The Thinker" position. And as Bats, he tells Vale "it's not a normal world now is it?" --totally shows his torment. When she discovers his secret, he is reluctant to tell her the truth ("look sometimes even I don't know what's going on.........it's not a perfect world. It's just something I have to do. Cuz nobody else can." I mean, c'mon....that's totally classic. You're moved by it. You can feel his struggle. I can see Keaton's BATMAN AND WAYNE talking like he does in the comics....ie. imagine his character in any of them, Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, NO Man's Land, HUSH--he would totally fit. he can be slick, goofy, and serious all at once.

Vilmer on the other hand, has to seek a therapist to whine about his problems. He sounds more like Anakin in Star Wars II--a pitiful boy who needs to discuss his "dreams." He doesn't show torment or suffering...he speaks in a monotone voice about falling into a cave, finding the red book, etc (after a while I always fast forward those parts cuz they were...ugh...so...freaking...slow...). As an aside, during Two-Face's attack on the Graysons, HE FREAKING JUMPED in the crowd to fight the goons--who chose him to be hero???. Nice way to blow your identity, Mr. Wayne. "Harvey, I'M BATMAN!!!"

Again, all about delivery.
Who sounds scarier? "I want you to do me a favor, I want you to tell ALL your friends about me. I'm BATMAN"
OR
"Aren't you forgetting something, Harvey? Your coin..."
Sorry that's the best I can come up with for Kilmer. I seriously can't find one instance where he talked in a raspy, scary voice to the villains. Someone find me one, please.

Sorry for the long post. It's just whenever you ask the general public who was the better Bats, they say Keaton. Only comic fans would debate about it--AND i still vote Keaton. He'll be remembered for being THE BATMAN (as opposed to Mr. Mom or whatever). And not just cuz Tim Burton's films made it more mature, less fruity, and had a polar-opposite villain to combat Batman's darkness. Keaton knew how to act as the character we've all come to love in the comics.

But hey...to each his own.

Respect

Classic Keaton Batisms
"EAt floor, high fiber."
"Admiring your handiwork? You're not the mayor. What do you want? Things change..."
"'scuse me, have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" <PUNCH!!>
"You weigh a little more than 108" (Hilarious even at a serious time)
"They're psychotic"
"You're right, I could...but there's something else that you got that I want." <lift cape>
"I made you. You made me first."
"Shutup...you're going to jail."

Keaton As Wayne:
"It matters to me." (after Shrek said "it doen'st matter who's mayor."
"Alright, just shut up. I like you a lot, but for now, just shut up. I have something to tell you." (to Vale)
"A kiss is even deadlier...if u mean it..."
"Alfred, let's go shopping."
"Oh and...give Knox a grant." (smooooooth)

Vilmer as Bats: (these are the lines I liked)
"If Bruce Wayne could've given his life to your parents, he would have."
"I don't fit well at a Sunday picnic."
"I see without seeing. To me, darkness is as bright as day. What am I? Exactly"

Vilmer as Wayne:
"What the hell do you think you were doing?"
"I can stop you."
"Is that the technical term?"

See the thing is, I think Kilmer was TRYING to act like Keaton's portrayal of the Dark Knight. Batman and Batman Returns did well and people loved Keaton so in order for Kilmer to be accepted, he had to imitate that version of Bats. But combined with some weak lines (not to mention the lisp) and having to deal with colorful wily goons, Kilmer seemed confused how to be HIS version of Bats. Maybe if he had been Bats from the beginning and Tim Burton as director, he'd have soemthing better to work with--again, not judgeable since it didn't happen.

Keaton's Wayne was never goofy like C. Reeve's Clark Kent. He never said "Golly" or "uh....uh...s..s..sorry Mr. White" or "A Hamburger...at 9 AM?" or in general stuttered when he talked. Or get stuck in doors on purpose or walk through traffic like a bumbling idiot. Remember when Keaton's Wayne walked to Crime Alley to lay his rose or to the press conference? Even in public, he's serious, not geeky like Clark. On that note, Reeves played an awesome Clark and Superman.

Peace

Lets see. We will going by parts:

Batman wasnt that injured in the clock tower, he hasnt any damage brain or something like that, the proof he had enough strenght to catch vicky vale and beat the joker. Hadly, he could do it with any brain damage or another important injury. That is only another stupid excuse from people who doesnt know a shit abot the character. So, batman with some pain and hurt couldnt beat a slow and stupid guy because it would be ridiculous in a superheroe movie? in the same movie based in a comic book with a guy with a bat costume and with a lot of weapons and vehicles that made of james bond or the usa governement army like a children game? the same movie when a guy fall down in a tank of chemichal products and doesnt die and loooks exaclty as a clow? Very logical.


Also , keaton wasnt doing a joke with vicky, he was a goofy idiot. See the scene of him not remember what to going when alfred said to him that gordon went out of the party suspiciously. Or in batman returns in the elevator scene with selina, or in wayne manor with selina when he saw the news on tv and doesnt remember where is the entry to the bat cave. And that is typical in bruce wayne? Please, that isnt bruce wayne, that is a bad copy of Reeves Clark Kent. Bruce would act as Kilmer played him, a play boy arrogant at times, misterious at the others, never a dumb ass as keaton was.

And , keaton in a thinking posse in his chair is a good acting for somebody? please, even steven seagal could do that posse. The character of bruce wayne is NEVER ENOUGH DEVELOPED IN THE BATMAN MOVIES. all the story was about the joker in the first one and about the penguin and catwoman in the second one. To have some scenes in a thinking posse isnt enough in a character like bruce wayne .

i can't believe i'm debating this with the manspider twins.

i'm not going to bother anymore

smart move since you lost the debate a longgggggg time ago and have been proven wrong so many times on this thread.. also,I seriously doubt that you did read all the post instead of parts of it because you conviently ignored points that shot down your poor excuse for him being a poor fighter.

yeah well said Bakerboy.Again great points on why Keaton was a horrible Bruce wayne and Kilmer was the better.again as I said earlier,the general public only pick keaton over Kilmer because Keaton is more of an accomplished actor and has done more quality movies than Kilmer has and is also a more well liked person in real life than Kilmer is.I have already mentioned that the public and the bat fans as well just cant get past that Bias to see that Kilmer was the better of the two. thats why they are making BATMAN BEGINS because hollywood heard so much backlash over the fans out crys over how they hated keaton as batman.as I said earlier,I have encountered many people over the years that felt the same as I did,that they hated the first two batman films because of how miscast keaton was for the role.

I have not heard of a big out lash becuase of
Keaton.

That outlash came whith Clonney. Not Keaton.

And Keaton was the better Batman.

you dont get out enough then obviously because i have heard it hundreds of times over the years.

well that was just a horribly written story by the writers obviously of him getting beat up by hookers.Kinda like how I was hated the spiderman storys where he got the crap beat out of him by kingpin a normal human being with no special powers,spidey a guy who can lift a bus over his head,should easily wipe the floor with kingpin in the comics and cartoons,in both cases,thats just bad writing on the writers part.

see thats the thing,in HUSH its believeable that he is seriously injured,in the movie it is not.as I mentioned earlier,after his little stubling bit,he looked like he was recovered and ready to go the way he climbed up the steps rapidly after that.again very bad writing on the writers part for that movie just like in those instances in the comics i mentioned with spidey and bats was bad writing.yes I watched the alley scene where he kicked the jokers goons asses and thats why it is inexcusable for him to have gotten the crap beat out of him by the goon of the jokers,he was enough recovered at that point to where he could have beaten that guy blindfolded with all his martial arts training he has. seemed obvious to me that he really did not even know where he was in the mansion and had no recollection.Im not saying he said all the same lines like reeve did in superman,Im saying that it looks like he copied reeves performance as being a doofus around Kim Basinger instead of being calm and cool around her like Kilmer was with Chase.Kilmer behaved more like Bruce wayne does and thats one of a few reasons I think Kilmer was so much better for the role than Keaton.Netiehr one of us are going to change the others mind so it seems pointless to continue the discussion at this point.

i didn't lose... in fact i'd say im winning... what thread are u reading? i read everything, and how exactly did u prove me wrong? who shot down my excuse? you guys tried, but failed to listen to what is a decent point.

thats because you made no decent points and YOU failed to listen to the points that addressed them many times.deal with it,you lost a long time ago.you and batdude dont need to take defeat too badly though,it happens to the best of us. good bye,im done with this thread.

good riddance, you were never in contention anyway... it'd be so much easier if you just accepted getting beaten...

This is stupid, Keaton wins hands down. SpyCspider, great post, best post I've read. I think there are 1...2...3...and I think 4 people who have great reasons why Keaton's Batman and Bruce Vanye is better.(sorry got that from BATMAN, the mirror scene)"Look at this, maybe he should be called Bruce Vayne" Alexander Knox, BATMAN "Oh, look! He must have been king of the Wicker people!" Alexander Knox, BATMAN
Anyway, you guyz need to look past the physical part(it's not that important, only about a third)what's more important is how well the actor can bring out his personality(Keaton did an AMAZING job)

And this is off topic but Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were probably the best Marvel Movies made(next to Blade)I've never seen Superman or the other Superman movies(quest of peace, etc.) but I want to so I can see how you guyz are comparing. On History channel(Superheroes unmasked)it said BATMAN revolutionized the hero movie biz. It was a great movie, period. Forever might have been better if Tim Burton directed.

Man spider 1 and 2 sucked and are just bad movie with bad filmanking and bad scripts. The best marvel movies are x men movies and daredevil, even the punisher was better than the man spider movies.

And once again, keaton was terrible as batman and bruce wayne because he wasnt credible in the role in any moment, AND FIRST RULE IN ACTING, CREDIBLITY.

first of all, the spiderman movies were well written, well acted and well made, just because you got your panties in a bunch because his webs are organic is ridiculous. its a lot more credible than having web shooters. the spiderman movies are probably the best marvel movies made so far.

credibility? keaton was more credible, easily more than kilmer or clooney.

Sure, a short ,fat, middle aged, lmost bald and asbtedminded guy as the play boy bruce wayne and the powerful batman. A ton of crediblity.

And if you say the scripts of man spider and man spider 2 are good, you dont know nothing about cinema or about scripts. Those scripts could be written by a 10 years old child.

And yes, web shooters couldnt be credible in a movie of superheroes and supervillans based in a comic book. Great arguments.

wtf? not short, not fat, middle aged? i dont think so... and not nearly bald...



ive read tons of spidey comics and plenty of scripts, they werent excellent, but they were faithful to the comics. and i seem to know more about cinema than you...



i didnt say they couldnt... just that making them organic was a better option for some...

Organics is not a better option in any way.

And if you say that you know more of cinema than me , proof it.

And keaton was pudgy, used a wig in the movie and was 40 years old when he did the movie.

its no worse than web shooters...

how, your the one who claimed i didn't know anything...

only a little pudgy, which wasnt too bad, wig? didn't look bad to me...
and 40? nothing wrong with that... he was fit enough for the role imo. sure kilmer was fitter, still doesnt make him a better bruce than keaton imo.

Not, web shooters is much better because it could bring much more sub plots and it prooves the genious of peter parker.

The issue is that the character should be portrayed by a good actor in his mid thirties at much, full hair and athletic. That is because keaton was wrong for the character.

Im not a fan of kilmer batman, but he was the best of the three because he looked more the character, was a better fighter and his bruce wayne was closer to the character from the comics, althougth his performance was nothing special for me.

i just dont see why web shooters are such a big deal, and i'm as big a spidey fan as most... and there were a few decent references to peter's
intellect i thought.

but thats only physical... i agree kilmer looked better, but keaton fought just as well i think. keaton played the character emotionally and personally better imo, he had more darkness and depth to his character than kilmer imo, and keaton seemed to go from playboy to loner with relative ease, a feat kilmer did not. maybe he was the victim of bad writing, we'll never know...

Keaton wins, admit it. He was way more realistic and better suited for a dark, intelligent man.(I wish I could get a replica of the Batsuit from BATMAN. It looked awesome)Kilmer was ok. But more people seem to like Keaton better.(Why don't they just rename the thread, "Who's better, Kilmer or Keaton?" Keaton of course.

Michael Keaton Hands Down!
George Clooney. ermmm. id rather not discuss that and forget about it!

How many have said Keaton already? A lot more than Kilmer that's for sure!

yep, most people perfer Keaton's Batman, and yes I one of them lol.

Micheal Keaton is the best batman!JM

The best batman was the one from the comics and the one from the tv animated series. And im sure that Christian Bale Will be the best batman in movies.

Yeah, by Summer Bale will be best, but that's only a possible future. For now, Keaton rox.

of couse Bale might flop you just never know, I wont judge until I see it.

I didnt like either of them.

Neither. i think Val Kilmer was the best Batman ever.

awesome.Great to see someone else on here besides me and bakerboy who agrees that Keaton sucked as batman and Kilmer was the best so far.

oi! ok, i don't think keaton was terrible, i thought he was pretty good, but i liked VK best, too! *shakes finger in mr Parker's face*

Huh? you agree with me so why are you shaking your finger in my face? that makes no sense. Just to clarify what I am saying,i dont think Keaton was terrible,he did a decent job.But as I said many many times before,he was so horribly miscast because of his physical build that he was not credible in the role.the thing I hate about the argument of who cares if he wasnt right for the role,his acting was awesome is according to that absurd logic,Dustin Hoffman should have been cast for the role because he's a much better actor than keaton is so if you are only concerned about someone doing a good acting job as many people here are,then dustin hoffman should have been cast for that role.many people here remind me of this moron name DA CROWE at superherohype-he's a moron because he insults people anytime they bash keaton as batman and when he doesnt agree with people,no matter how many times you explain to that guy da crowe that keaton should never have been cast for the role because he didnt even come close to fitting the role and thats why he was not credible in the role,it just went through one ear and out the other with him.som,e people here are the same way as that guy DA CROWE.if you ever come across that guys user name at any message beoard dont try and get into a discussion with him because he is impossible to debate with because he will just insult you anytime he disagrees with you.

just cuz people think VK is better as Batman doesn't mean they think (in your words) Keaton SUCKED as him....tha'ts putting words in people's mouths.

I know that.I have never said that Keaton sucked in the way he played batman,thats putting words in MY mouth.Just look at my last post,I said he gave a DECENT performance.I just always say he sucked as batman only because of how physically wrong he was for the role because when you dont even come close to physically fitting the role,no matter how great an actor you are,you bring no credibility to the role because as any GOOD director will tell you,fitting the role is whats first and foremost important in being cast for the role,not how good an actor you are.as I mentioned earlier,I have a friend who does community theater,he's a great actor,but he has lot out on roles before because as he later learned from the director,it was because he didnt physically fit the part which is an EXTREMELY important part in the casting of roles which some people around here obviously dont understand.

golly hope i haven't started the fight again!

i shake my finger coz you said bakerboy is the only one who agrees that kilmer was the best of the bunch, ignoring me!

actually, not to put too fine a point on it, i wouldn't say that he was the best of the bunch so much as i would say i *liked* him the best in the role. i do hear the logic of your argument about dustin hoffman, though. makes sense. and besides, that kind of movie is not really likely to have an oscar nomination for best male lead, after all. it's shot more for fun than for breathtaking acting.

i watched that first batman movie again a bit ago, not having seen it in a long time, and my first reaction when i saw him (minus the mask) was "My GOSH, he looks so young!" but that said.... VK was my fav.

Kilmer was ok, West was ok, Clooney(don't wanna go there) and Keaton was what I consider Batman. Dude, I would probably fit the character and physical part pretty well. I was just watching BATMAN and Batman Returns today and I saw something that made me think, why did Joker kill Bob?(his number one guy) And does anyone know where I can get BTAS Vol. 1 and 2 at a store? Circut City? BestBuy? Where?

he was angry...

and the duston hoffman thing is just patronizing...

Vol one should be at a type of mall, I think you can also order it on line.

As for why Joker killed Bob, Well in the comics, movies ete, Joker always kill his hectmen, For not laughing at a turn or what ever.

IT also show how crazy Joker was by killing Bob.

He stole my Balloons, He stole my Balloons, Why didnt some one tell me he had one of thsos things. Bob Gun, Bang.

Classic.

HAHAHAH...what are you TALKING ABOUT? You've just ranted for god knows how many posts on the way "Keaton played an idiotic, bumbling, Clark Kent-ish Wayne" and then on "Keaton sucks as Bats, he can't even fight that Joker goon." How is that not saying "Keaton sucks in the way he played Batman?"

Or a few posts ago: "awesome.Great to see someone else on here besides me and bakerboy who agrees that Keaton sucked as batman and Kilmer was the best so far."


I understand you went back and edited your post above to clarify your points but when you said that at first, it threw me off guard. "Sucking at playing" and "sucking as" means the same to many people.

Hmm...Dustin Hoffman? IMO Michael Keaton is SO not comparable to Dustin Hoffman. That's like saying "uh....Michael Clark Duncan (if you believe him to be a great actor) can be a grreat Batman too but he's black, so he doens't physically fit the role." Not a valid comparison.

hahaha....when i first watched Harley's character in Animated Series, I had a brief thought that maybe that Alicia girl in Batman (1989) who Joker took from Boss Carl Grissom could turn out to be her. But then I read Harley's background and it dint' make any sense....

Why Michael Keaton is not comparable with Dustin Hoffman? Its just an example of a bad cast. Dustin hoffman is a better actor than keaton and is almost his same height, so , why isnt comparable?

Ok, where did West go? "Alica jumped out a window..."Joker "I'm afraid the Circus Gang is back."Commishiner Gordan "I believe the word you're looking for is...ah!" Penguin "Let 'em go, or I'll do Gordan!" Bob "That didn't sound right." Me "Ya know why rich people are weird, becuz they can afford to be." Alexander Knox
That was off topic. But anyway, can we put the Kilmer Keaton issue behind us now? "I mean killing sleeping children, isn't that a little"...blam! "No, it's a lot!"

Originally posted by SpyCspider
Hmm...Dustin Hoffman? IMO Michael Keaton is SO not comparable to Dustin Hoffman. That's like saying "uh....Michael Clark Duncan (if you believe him to be a great actor) can be a grreat Batman too but he's black, so he doens't physically fit the role." Not a valid comparison.

Okay now thats absurd to say that Dustin Hoffman is not comparable to michael keaton because as bakerboy said so well in his post he is the same height and if the keaton lovers are only concerned about good acting and not if they come close to fitting the role,then to THAT weird logic,Dustin Hoffman SHOULD have been cast back then because he is a far more accomplished and better actor than keaton is.

Okay all the way up till now,unlike batdude and pr13,you at least have made reasonable points that are not ludicrise like theirs which is why I have continued this discussion with you so far but NOW your getting redicules like them with that Michael Clark Duncan thing,were talking about the batman movies now not the daredevil movie.your just dodging the issue here because you cant admit a valid point has been made that shoots down the argument that Dustin Hoffman should have been cast back then instead of keaton because he's a better actor.Duncan IF he was a great actor,would be horrible choice for the role because he has the size build of BANE instead of Bruce wayne and is even MORE bald than keaton obviously and as I have said so many times,Bruce wayne is not a guy with a receding bald hairline like keaton had which made him a horrible casting choice for the role amongs the other things.

Honestly,you are starting to hang around batdude and pr 1983 too much because their insane ramblings are starting to rub off on you now. just a friendly joke.You really need to start hanging out with sileas a guy obviously with logic and common sense who understands a valid and good point when he sees one.Just do the mature thing and say thats a good valid point has been made like sileas has instead of being like batdude and pr1983 by coming up with poor excues to try and counter it when you cant.

Well said , mr Parker. I laughed my ass when i see that example of Michael Clarke Duncan as batman. Please, we know that duncan couldnt be batman in the same way that verne troyer couldnt. That example is ridiculous. Also, the example of dustin hoffman is because he is almost in the same heigth of keaton and is a better actor, so, if you keaton fans are only worried about good acting, hoffman has more acting talent than keaton, so, why not cast him? As my friend mr parker has said so well, a friend of him who knows very well the acting and the theatre said him that the phisichal part is as important as the acting talent, because if the actor doesnt look the part, the people who is seeing that movie/play couldent believe him as the character, doesnt care what great he is as an actor, the actor must look the part that he is playing. But you all, burton and keaton fans, seems to doesnt know anything about acting or about casting.

And i repeat once again, Keaton actings wasnt that great because the character isnt enough developed in the movies, we dont know his motivations or why he becomed batman or his origin . Beasides his pathetic goofy acting as bruce wayne.

And i repeat once again, Keaton actings wasnt that great because the character isnt enough developed in the movies, we dont know his motivations or why he becomed batman or his origin . Beasides his pathetic goofy acting as bruce wayne.

Exactly.as I said before,keatons acting was decent but it was hardly anything amazing as Bruce wayne because Bruce wayne never goes around acting like a pathectic and goofy doofus, and like Bakerboy said so well,his acting wasnt all that great because the only thing you got out of it and the script was that he was sad about his parents death,thats it,his character wasnt developed well enough in the movies because like he said,we dont know his motivations,his origin or WHY he became batman and that was because that idiot Tim Burton decided to have Batman be just a supporting character and have the villians be the main characters which was totally stupid .we didnt know any of that till batman forever when we SHOULD have been shown what was in batman forever in the FIRST film.

You guys have not got a f*cking clue, come on, do i have to spell it out for you? have you ever heard the word 'context' before?

when we say keaton is a better actor, we mean as portraying batman, not anything else. to a lot of us keaton was the perfect bats because he played the CHARACTER so well, dustin hoffman can't do action and doesnt have the persona, keaton DOES.

kids these days...

the only twisted logic is your own...

ha ha,your points are as laughable and more absurd than ever.to say dustin hoffman- an amazing actor doesnt have the persona is almost as absurd as your points of defending keaton being a wuss,almost as laughable as those,you'll never top those though.ha ha. Keaton CAN do action? is that why he was a wuss with that goon of the jokers with no fighting skills? you cripple your arguments worse and worse each time,ha ha.yep your right,you got twisted logic. but thats kids for ya. at least silias here gots logic unlike you guys.

I like all the batmans


well besides George Clooney

seriously parker... do u even read the posts in between all the laughing?

thats the question you need to be asking yourself.either you dont,or want to keep grasping at straws at debate you lost ages ago and still are.

really? your psychic or something? is that it?

fact is, u lost this debate a long, long time ago, the way you keep coming back proves that, and then i have to shoot you down... its getting really monotnous...

I dont know why I decided to start reading your posts again when you lost the debate ages ago.I really shouldnt have bothered.yep you shoot your arguments down and cripple yourself everytime and still live in denial about it.

You two act so cute to each other. I can feel the love in the air.

u know it vaya... honestly i feel like i'm teaching again...

you just wasted your time typing that last message,I did not read it as I said I would not.Im done watching you shoot down your arguments and cripple yourself with your ludicrise ramblings.

Aww. I like watching you two go back and forth. It was kind of fun

well fun times over,they always have to end sometime right? Im sure you'll get to see us go at it again in the future though on another thread.

it was vaya, its just so easy though, i feel like i'm talking to a wall with the little guy, i keep knocking him down and he keeps coming back, its only endearing for so long...

I should have known better in the first place to try and reason with a man-spider fan.

You do have a point. Knowing you two you to will just start it up in another thread.

yeah... keep talking little guy...

Bakerboy and Mr. Parker(the "Man-Spider" twins) why do you call Spder-Man Man-Spider? Is it the webbing? If so, why don't you complain about the symbiote costume? That Spider-Man had webbing made from Peter's body, so why not have it a new power? It seems a lot easier than having to make another dose every time. And Kilmer was alright. But Keaton was better, case closed. Only 3 people like Kilmer's portrail(unless you count Yaya, who likes them all except Clooney who I think did ok, not great, and not terrible, but ok)And I think this debate was over a long time ago, it's 4 to 3(in favor of Keaton) so, think of this as a message from Keaton, "You lose."

Well I really didnt care for any of the batmans actors except for Val Kimer

Yes batdude,he is a man-spider now and not spider-man anymore because of the webbing since he is a damn monster now .Im not going to get into it with you here though since this is the batman section .the spiderman section is the place for that.and your right batdude you lose,you two guys have been disproven so many times on this thread with your wild theorys its laughable and not even worth explaining to you anymore.just because the numbers are fewer that dont prove diddly duh. the fact that there are thousands out there though as I have pointed out to you so many tiimes before who hated keaton for the role,DOES prove he was a horrible choice.

thats just being plain ignorant,the net doesnt account for everybody out there who hates keaton as batman. if you tell me you havent run into people in your life who hated keaton because of how physically wrong he was for the role,Ii dont believe a word of it because I have run into dozens of them over the years and I know bakerboy has as well.we tried to point that out to you earlier.Once again the NET DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR EVERYBODY OUT THERE.

btw mr parker you made a good poin about dustin hoffman

Thanks.It sure is amazing how a couple people here unlike you, refuse to acknowledge that though.sheesh.

*gets some food, and watchs the show* how entertaining you are Mr. Parker, and all your little friends.

first of all, dont you dare call me ignorant, you dont know the meaning of the word.

fact is you lost this debate a long time ago, because you couldn't structure a decent argument, and your still going on about dustin hoffman? can't you read? i explained that a long time ago...

and every batman fan i met before kmc loved keaton... i never said the net counted for anything, my opinion of keaton is my own, i just happen to share it with a lot of people. but hey, you dont have to believe it... denial isnt just a river in egypt...

Mr. Parker, I would expect this from someone who cares too much about apperances and not enough about the portrail and plot(the BATMAN 89 plot was great!)Kilmer was ok, just get over with it like I am(but still Keaton did the best Batman, Kilmer did best Bruce though) P.S. The people you meet don't account for everyone out there! Just like the internet, the people you personally meet don't account for the rest of us! Let's just get back on topic(where West is in it) And I think that Keaton would have been extremely good if he was voice of Batman in an animated series(where appearances don't count) Did you hear when he said, "I am Batman." to the two thugs? That is what Batman animated needs, a dark voice. And in Batman 66 and btas, wouldn't people recongize voices? I mean Bruce and Batman sounded the same in those two programs! And just because someone is black doesn't mean they can't be Batman. That's racism!

the only thing I am going to comment on about that post is batman 89 had an incredibly stupid plot and Im not the one who brought up batman being black,that was spyspider who made that insane comment.

ok, about a black batman, if he(whoever they get at hypothetically) is the best choice for the job, then great. but if u have a black guy and a white guy who are equal... i'd pick the white guy because bruce is white in the comics, its not racist, its a fact... if bishop is in x3, then i'll pick a black guy. picking someone of a minority just to be pc is wrong, you have to pick the best guy who fits the role...

i loved the bats 89 story...

What made the plot stupid Mr. Parker? It was the BEST out there. And you dare call yourself a Spidey fan? When I was back in New York, all I heard about was how good Spider-Man was. And I agree. It was good, no wait, great, and possibly the best Marvel movie I have ever seen. Daredevil was ok, but this is the Batman forum so here it goes... Batman Returns and BATMAN were best by far for their plots, cast, and of course, DIRECTOR. You can't say the same about the next two(in which I blame Joel for everything that went wrong) (off topic: Man Spider my ass! The symbiote costume did the same thing, he probably based it off the symbiote costume! sheesh!) Stop, Hammer time.

again if you want to talk about why the man-spider movies are about the worst marvel comic films ever and that people are just so blind about the fact that spiderman has been brought to the screen that they refuse to see how bad these movies really are,then you need to go to the spiderman section,get off that topic already this is the batman section.the symbiote costume is comparing apples and oranges also.give me a break its totally different.BATMAN AND BATMAN RETURNS were far worse than batman forever as I have already pointed out before and why.Danny devito was horrible as the penguin and deal with it,michael keaton was the worst casting choice in comicbook history,great cast my foot.thats why all the batman movies sucked in one way or another because the casting was so horrible in all of them.tim burton sucked as a director even more so than Schumacher did.

Burton did not direct the horrble Batman and Robin and Batman forever, Schumacher did.

Batman and Batman returns were good movies, Batman 1 was a great movie, Danny was a ok Penguin, but the down fall was he was not base on the comic Penguin.

obviously you have not been reading through this whole thread because you missed it where I have pointed out many times before why batman forever is the best batman movie and sorry batman returns was just as aweful as batman and robin was.I admit batman 89 was much better than batman and robin,that on was crap no question about it,but batman forever is the best of the 4.Hands down no contest.SO yes BURTON screwed up even more so than schmumacher and should never have been allowed to make a batman movie.burton DID direct the horrible batman 89 and batman returns so he is a horrible batman director,deal with it.Burton has made some good films before in the past such as edward scissorhands and ed wood,but batman is NOT one of them.

batman forever is the third best, they go from 1 to 4, batman 89 was the best, batman and robin was the worst, batman returns was good, devito played a sinister more twisted penguin, but i liked it. keaton was better than kilmer and burton was a great director of the batman movies.

hey pr,did you know I have stopped reading your posts on this thread?

your assuming i care

come on, He keeps saying Batman forever is the best Bat movie there ever is, but just because Mr Parker says it, does not mean it is true. I have read this whole trend, the Down fall with Batman Forever were the bright lights. And the goofy Batsuit out fit, and the bat butt shot. You never see Keaton do a butt shot, But Kilmer started it, and it ended with Cloony and O Donner.

so the brief bat butt shots makes it a bad movie? sure to us guys it wasnt appealing but Schumacher was clearly doing that to appeal to the girls.proof that it was such a bad movie is in the fact that you will come across hundreds of people both on the net and in real life if you ask around enough like I have over the years of people who agree with me that keaton was a horrible choice for the role of batman because of his physical build and the fact that burtons movies were all about the villians and that bats was just a supporting character pissed off many batman fans.thats why batman begins is being made because of how these batman films pissed off so many fans such as myself.

Keaton has a bigger following as Batman than Kilmer. You cant deny that, His won evey singal best Batman poll there is on this forum.