Yeah as a couple people have said,this topic has been done to death in the Batman section.Its good that it got posted here though cause many people that normally dont go to the Batman section have posted their thoughts here that otherwise would not have gotten posted.
That being said,Bale is the one and only true Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the part.I agree with Bruce Skywalker.His voice was awesome.All the others are phony imposters.Okay Adam West was great the way he did it.It was great the way he hammed it up.That show wasnt suppose to be a serious adaptation of Batman so I loved Adam West in that classic show.Its still fun to watch today for laughs.
Thank god for Nolan cause all the other actors that played Batman in the movies prior to Bale just did not cut it.Keaton,Kilmer and Clooney all sucked.Keaton was a good Batman.He did good work in using his voice but he was a horrible Bruce Wayne.Not only was he a joke in that role cause he had the wrong build and wrong look which is crucial for the character,but he acted nothing at all like Bruce Wayne.Especially in the first film.
Kilmer while a much better choice for Bruce Wayne than Keaton was since he had the right build and look,was an excellent Bruce Wayne and portrayed him very well but was a very bad Batman. Bale was awesome as BOTH Bruce Wayne and Batman.Clooney was just god awful in both roles and didnt even disguise his voice as Batman like Keaton and Kilmer did.
There may someday be another actor like Bale who does an amazing job as both Bruce Wayne and Batman in future years when they restart the franchise again but for right now,Bale is the one and only true Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the role so far.again thank god for Nolan.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Feb 2nd, 2009 at 05:40 PM
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
Bale, as portrayed within Begins. He was certainly good in TDK, and without him, the entire movie would have fallen apart, but I think he came off as more interesting and three-dimensional in Begins. This is likely due to the entire focus on Begins being on him, while TDK is more of an ensemble- so you can 'blame' it on the writers.
and at exactly which part did you see me saying that I was 100% objective? also, it won't be the first time where a secondary character stole the show. Silence of the lambs wasn't Clarice's show but winded up becoming all about Hannibal Lecter. Apocolypse Now was all supposed to be about Charlie Sheen but ended up being all about just TWO appearances by Brando's Kurtz. yes it was a Batman movie but Batman was an inferior character to Ledger's joker.
ditto
well, its arguable but Joker definitely made Bats run for the money.
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
Actually, Silence of the Lambs is a very nice analogy, because while Lecter stole the show and was therefore the most memorable character, the movie would've utterly failed without Clarice Starling, who represents a sympathetic emotional center that Lecter simply cannot. Now, while I think Clarice is considerably better acted than Batman, it still stands that this same thing applies to TDK- Joker may be the flashiest and most memorable character, but Batman represents a sympathetic emotional center. At least I think so.
^Right. Bales role by its very nature woldn't allow him to be more memorable than the Joker. Ledger was more memorable because he was more visceral and generated fear(or at least sheer evilness), while Bale had a more human character.
yes, Joker on his own probably wouldn't have carried the movie. no one is denying that batman did do something for the movie. no one's denying the hard work Bale put into it either (the man's professional about his work) but for the titler character, he was easily overshadowed by the secondary. it happens often, and its probably the strength of Ledger's performance, the dynamic nature of the character or over emphasis on Joker instead of Batman.........or all three perhaps. either way, Batman winded up paling in comparison.
To add more to what Sado22 states, the movie is titled The Dark Knight. Bale version of Batman for that movie did not live up to the name. He lacked two very important attributes that was displayed in Batman Begins and Keaton’s version, intelligence (the ability to frustrate the criminals and be one step ahead), and a darkside (Bale’s version would never kill).
The script was written so that Joker would be the supreme villain and where I give credit to Ledger’s performance the script help a lot. The criminals and even Batman seemed like punks in comparison to the Joker. This is why I give it to Keaton. Bale’s version was damaged in The Dark Night.
^What? He displayed very good detective skills befitting one with the moniker "worlds greatest detective". He also displayed good engineering prowess as he built the giant sonar device himself.
Do you actually read the comics? Batman doesn't kill, Burton's Batman was a deviation from that stupid rule, which is why alot of comic fans were pissed at Burton. Hell, that is the reason Keaton's cannot be the best Batman(bit of an oxymoron, eh?).
Batman was facing a far superior Joker than Keaton's in terms of intelligence. So that is a fallacious argument as to why Keaton's Batman wins the intelligence department.
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
I agree, but I still think it should be noted that the nature of their roles means the Joker will always overshadow Batman, especially in a realistic environment like Nolan's. Hell, Batman's a far more realistic character than the Joker. But that's besides the point. What is the point is the fact that Bale's role is considerably more subtle than the Joker's; when you go out of the movie, you think "Damn, what a badass the Joker was". Maybe you'll think that Batman was impotent or flat; but regardless, there's no denying that he carried forward the psyche of the film.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 2nd, 2009 02:47 PM
