Guardian Article: Why Christian Bale will always be the best Batman

[johnnygobbs]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/04/why-christian-bale-will-always-be-the-best-batman#comment-69936332

I'm pleased to see many of the posters disagree with the article's writer, and are in fact citing either Michael Keaton or Kevin Conroy as the best Batman so far.

I'm also highly amused by one commenter who says the following:

Bale will always be the best Batman because, by making the Dark Knight Trilogy universe resemble reality as closely as possible, his portrayal of Batman did something no other could: It inspired ordinary real life people to take up the fight against crime.

Its ironic that this article should appear on the same day that Jeremy Corbyn backed decriminalizing the sex industry. Let me explain. On Monday and Tuesday of this week a case was heard at the Family Law Court in Goulburn Street, Sydney, between a bankruptcy trustee and the bankrupt individual plus his ex-wife. You'll understand that for legal reasons I can't name any one these people yet...

...Hopefully, pray to God, if all goes well, and the judge rules in my favour I will at least get my home back and we will have something cos right now we have nothing and I mean nothing. Its been a ten year fight. Throughout that whole time The Dark Knight trilogy has been a constant source of inspiration so I would like to thank everyone involved in making such truly epic works.

A hero can be anyone.

  What an utter moron.

If TDK trilogy is 'inspiring' people to become vigilantes and take the law into their own hands it's another example of why Burton's Batman is superior.  No one should seriously look at Batman as an example of someone to take seriously in their own life.

[JokerMeThis]

Sometimes I think that part of the reason why I am so indifferent to Nolan's Batman is because I get tired of hearing how great it is. I feel like I'm being told that I'm a fool for preferring Burton's Batman. Or that I'm a fossil. A relic.

Maybe if people were more moderate and reasonable about Nolan's Batman I might be more willing to like it a little more. Just a little bit more anyway. I truly am pretty indifferent to it. Maybe it's a generational thing.

[The Dark Knight]

I feel the same way. If TDK Trilogy was considered good but nonetheless popcorn entertainment like all the others, I'd probably like it more. But TDK Trilogy is sold by its defenders as being so much better than what came before, as if the rest of the character's filmic and animated history was middling at best. And now here's the real version. Which I simply do not buy at all. If we want to talk turkey, BTAS is still the top dog and it completely wipes the floor with Nolan's films. People can enjoy Nolan's films by all means. But TDK Trilogy is simply not the definitive benchmark all other Batman media should aspire to. Batman has always been great, long before 2005.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm not even going to bother reading the article because I will only repeat the same things over why I didn't rate Bale's portrayal, and why I thought the writing and his acting sucked ass. I'm becoming sick of doing that, especially since I like Bale otherwise.

But I will address that commenter's remarks that johnnygobbs had mocked.



I have absolutely no idea what the hell that guy was watching. One movie has Batman capturing copycats and telling them he doesn't want their help. And then he tells Alfred that people taking the law into their own hands wasn't something that he had in mind to inspire people. So no, the original message wasn't encouraging vigilantism at all.

But then it gets changed in TDKR, where Bruce tells Blake that he wanted Batman to be a symbol where he could be "anyone". Huh?
Never mind the fact that it further clashes his original intent that Batman is meant to be a short-term goal to fix the city from corruption, because in the end Gotham will still need a vigilante to look after it when he gives Blake the role to take over. What bullsh*t.

It astounds me that people continue to watch these films with rose-tinted glasses, and get completely manipulated by the expository dialogue. It's just like the moral code nonsense, the creators must make a choice and stick with it. Either Batman wants people to be inspired by him, or he doesn't. It CAN'T be both.

Seriously, it's rubbish like this where I won't feel too critical of Batman v Superman if/when I find something I don't like about that movie. If people can consider this mess of a trilogy as good storytelling, never mind a "masterpiece", then I really don't see how anything in BvS could considered to be objectionable.

Sometimes I think that part of the reason why I am so indifferent to Nolan's Batman is because I get tired of hearing how great it is. I feel like I'm being told that I'm a fool for preferring Burton's Batman. Or that I'm a fossil. A relic.

Trust me, it's not any of that at all. You're not really missing out on much.

[johnnygobbs]

I despair that comic-books are becoming too much real-life and real-life is becoming too much like the comic-books. 

[Edd Grayson]

Sometimes I think that part of the reason why I am so indifferent to Nolan's Batman is because I get tired of hearing how great it is. I feel like I'm being told that I'm a fool for preferring Burton's Batman. Or that I'm a fossil. A relic.

Maybe if people were more moderate and reasonable about Nolan's Batman I might be more willing to like it a little more. Just a little bit more anyway. I truly am pretty indifferent to it. Maybe it's a generational thing.

I'm glad that people don't have a similar attitude on this forum. If anything, I think that the posters here are willing to discuss every Batman film in a reasonable way. I don't have a problem if some fans like one movie or a set of movies more than others, but claiming superiority because of that is what puts me off as well.

And about the "fossil" thing, I'm younger and yet I prefer Burton's films to Nolan's, and some Nolan fans have tried to put down my preference as mere nostalgia, but that's obviously not the case, as I saw the Burton films long after they came out and I wasn't a child then, in fact I watched them even after two of Nolan's Batman films had come out already and I was familiar with them. They ran out of arguments after that. 

[The Dark Knight]

Seriously, it's rubbish like this where I won't feel too critical of Batman v Superman if/when I find something I don't like about that movie. If people can consider this mess of a trilogy as good storytelling, never mind a "masterpiece", then I really don't see how anything in BvS could considered to be objectionable.

Agreed. You'll likely see the Nolan crowd saying 'yeah, Snyder has better visuals, but you can't beat the heart, soul and storytelling of Nolan'. Which I'll naturally find laughable. TDK Trilogy is okay, but I'll relish anything that knocks it down a few pegs.

[riddler]

Seriously, it's rubbish like this where I won't feel too critical of Batman v Superman if/when I find something I don't like about that movie. If people can consider this mess of a trilogy as good storytelling, never mind a "masterpiece", then I really don't see how anything in BvS could considered to be objectionable.

Agreed. You'll likely see the Nolan crowd saying 'yeah, Snyder has better visuals, but you can't beat the heart, soul and storytelling of Nolan'. Which I'll naturally find laughable. TDK Trilogy is okay, but I'll relish anything that knocks it down a few pegs.

Affleck had better fight scenes than Bale ever did. Affleck also showcased his detective skills, something Nolan talked about doing but never did. If Nolan's storytelling is so great why are there so many plot holes? There is no way the Joker could have planned that out of Rachel and Harvey one lives and the other dies and this is coming from someone who enjoyed the Dark Knight maybe even more than the Burton films.

[Dagenspear]

I have absolutely no idea what the hell that guy was watching. One movie has Batman capturing copycats and telling them he doesn't want their help. And then he tells Alfred that people taking the law into their own hands wasn't something that he had in mind to inspire people. So no, the original message wasn't encouraging vigilantism at all.

But then it gets changed in TDKR, where Bruce tells Blake that he wanted Batman to be a symbol where he could be "anyone". Huh?
Never mind the fact that it further clashes his original intent that Batman is meant to be a short-term goal to fix the city from corruption, because in the end Gotham will still need a vigilante to look after it when he gives Blake the role to take over. What bullsh*t.

It astounds me that people continue to watch these films with rose-tinted glasses, and get completely manipulated by the expository dialogue. It's just like the moral code nonsense, the creators must make a choice and stick with it. Either Batman wants people to be inspired by him, or he doesn't. It CAN'T be both.

What about that line makes you think it's supposed to be literal? The clear intent is the idea that Batman was meant to be something that people can be inspired by, that anyone could see themselves as Batman, not that he wanted everyone to be Batman, like him. A moral code being stuck with doesn't mean it can't and won't be broken. Bruce says he won't kill. He means that. That doesn't mean that he won't get people killed or accidentally kill people. It makes no sense to think that.

Seriously, it's rubbish like this where I won't feel too critical of Batman v Superman if/when I find something I don't like about that movie. If people can consider this mess of a trilogy as good storytelling, never mind a "masterpiece", then I really don't see how anything in BvS could considered to be objectionable.

It's only a mess because you haven't paid attention to it. TDKRises was a messy movie. The trilogy wasn't. Tonally jarring from movie to movie, yes, I'd agree there. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!