Who did you guys think WB was going to cast before the Keaton shocker?

[Paul (ral)]

If I were with those fans, I probably would've been mad with them.

You know...I may have to agree with you to a certain extent.  However since Batman 89 was my proper introduction to Batman (I like the rest of mainstream at that time were mostly exposed to the TV show and then the movie) I wasn't one of those fans back then.

Were I 10 years older then perhaps I would be mad at Keaton's casting - though I have to say that if I was 21 in 1989 I probably wouldn't have been a Batman fan now - who knows.  Look at all the Keaton opposers who were opposed to Ledger as the Joker intially...

[burtongenius]

By adding a little of the 60s batman, I meant the heart of that show, not the comedy.  I understand how you could get confused.  What I mean is, is that batman is dark.  But he's a hero and does have a heart.  I think that basic innocent hero should show itself a little in batman incarnations.

Now, what you guys are saying is that you were too young to really know who batman was to be mad at how they were changing him from the comics.
Now, this topic is before any trailer or any idea of where the movie was going.  Are you guys saying you didn't expect batman to be muscular?  To me, I just don't understand that.  I don't mind that people like keaton or burtons version.  But people had to have had an initial thought on who batman was, right?  I mean, even if you didn't know anything about batman, people knew he fought crime and dressed up like a bat.  To fight crime, people think fight skills and muscles-big guy.  Now burton changed that, I'm sure.  But isn't what I've said the logical initial thought on batman?

[burtongenius]

I also understand what johnnygobbs said about burton changing the preconceptions of what batman was.  The comics = muscular.  Burton = regular guy scaring people.  But going to the comics that doesn't fly.  And thats why I would've been mad.  I mean, their casting a pipsqueak for batman.

After people saw the movie though, they were definetely understanding what burton was doing.  Even if they didn't like it, they thought that what he did for batman and everything else fit into his world.

If I were back then, I would've expected a no name, handsome, big, but not too big, soon to be star.  Because, and I hope everybody understands this, making a batman movie is probably the biggest thing the motion industry had done for a long, long time.  I mean, the batman from the comics on film.  That'll be unbelievable.  As far as warner bros., I don't think they were the best company to make batman.  I don't think they had the right image (hence their casting options).  But, unlike a lot of people, I wasn't "swept off my feet" by burtons either.  (full respect- its a good movie- just personally).

[Paul (ral)]

I think movies were made differently back then - look at Batman and Superman

both driven to a certain degree by the producers (who to their credit took risky decisions).

Nowadays is it fair to say WB has more creative power over it's titles? Are they any better to make the movies than they were 20 years ago?

[BatmAngelus]

Just felt like adding here: There's always seemed to be a gross exaggeration, to me, on the differences between Keaton's look and Bruce Wayne's look.

So he didn't have a square jaw.  Neither does Christian Bale and I don't see anyone criticizing him for that.
I've heard him called a "midget."  Seriously?  I mean, it's not like Warwick Davis was cast as Batman.  Sure, he's probably not the tallest person in either movie, but his height was never noticeably lacking for me.
As for his frame, I know he's not bodybuilder size, but he wasn't emaciated.  Nor was he fat.  His physical abilities in the Burton films were believable for how he looked.

The Batsuits, of course, helped these aspects.  Keaton certainly didn't look like a pipsqueak midget to me when he was in the suit.

[The Dark Knight]

It?s a comic book adaption, but aspects of it have to mirror real life. I don?t see many normal folks out there in the big wide world with perfect stereotypical square jaws, chiseled physiques so on all rolled into one.

I mean, it?s really quite a co-incidence that the comic book Batman is super muscular and has a square jaw as well. He is drawn like that in the comic because it is a comic and things can be exaggerated.

Keaton is not a midget. He?s a regular man with a burning obsession who wills himself to go out there every night. Keaton is unassuming and mysterious, as Batman should be. I consider that more realistic, and the magic of it all is that it?s set in the world of comic book. He is strong, but I think it's a different kind of strong. More in line with cardiovascular fitness.

As Tim Burton has said, Keaton?s stature makes sense because he comes into being once he puts on the suit. He transforms and the suit aids him. This is a man who requires the suit. You can be as strong as you want, but you can't have one without the other.

Bruce Wayne getting around looking as ripped as The Hulk would send some alarm bells ringing, some interest and discussion at least. And you wouldn't want that. He has to blend into both worlds, and he does that perfectly.

[thecolorsblend]

So he didn't have a square jaw.  Neither does Christian Bale and I don't see anyone criticizing him for that.

Good point.  I'm used to a double standard with those films though.

It?s a comic book adaption, but aspects of it have to mirror real life. I don?t see many normal folks out there in the big wide world with perfect stereotypical square jaws, chiseled physiques so on all rolled into one.

I mean, it?s really quite a co-incidence that the comic book Batman is super muscular and has a square jaw as well. He is drawn like that in the comic because it is a comic and things can be exaggerated.

Keaton is not a midget. He?s a regular man with a burning obsession who wills himself to go out there every night. Keaton is unassuming and mysterious, as Batman should be. I consider that more realistic, and the magic of it all is that it?s set in the world of comic book. He is strong, but I think it's a different kind of strong. More in line with cardiovascular fitness.

As Tim Burton has said, Keaton?s stature makes sense because he comes into being once he puts on the suit. He transforms and the suit aids him. This is a man who requires the suit. You can be as strong as you want, but you can't have one without the other.

It's funny you should say that.  BY1, BTAS (MOTP anyway) and even the Nolan movies all endorse that same basic point.  The outfit is what completes everything Bruce was doing.  Burton's outlook isn't all that far from the truth... a remarkable observation, really, for someone who, by his own admission, isn't exactly a comics junkie.

[burtongenius]

What I think though is, is that batman is both parts.  He's a strong guy and he's scary.  He needs both to stop bad people.  If someone was just strong and tried to stop bad people, yes he would stop a few, but people wouldn't be afraid of him because they have guns and numbers.  With the addition of the utility belt and the batarangs he does better.  But he will never stop bad guys completely because the bad people will see that he's just another regular person who can stop them, but they can deal with it.  With the addition of the bat suit, he becomes something more.  He scares the bad guys and finishes with his strength and tools.  His presence makes people want to stop being bad for a while.  Without all three I don't think batman could really stop crime in Gotham City.  Keaton has the suit and the costume.  Not the physique or fight skills.(I don't like to say bad stuff about Keaton, he did really good, but I can't give up what I think I know about the Batman Bob Kane created).  Thats why Batman fans were mad about having Keaton be Batman.  I also think Nolan could've been a little more muscular as well, but I think he was a little more muscular and fought better than Keaton.

[Paul (ral)]

Without all three I don't think batman could really stop crime in Gotham City.  Keaton has the suit and the costume.  Not the physique or fight skills.

This is evidenced where? We never see his physique (except for his back when swinging - which looks toned). We do see his fight skills!

I also think Nolan could've been a little more muscular as well, but I think he was a little more muscular and fought better than Keaton.

Nolan? A square jaw does not a good film-maker make!

[johnnygobbs]

I also think Nolan could've been a little more muscular as well, but I think he was a little more muscular and fought better than Keaton.

Nolan? A square jaw does not a good film-maker make!

  I wonder who'd win in a fight between Keaton and Nolan.