30th year

[KeatonisBatman]

I'm still holding out hope that some theatre here in NZ will have a one-off showing for the film's 30th.  So far I've heard nada...

[BatmanFurst]

I'm still holding out hope that some theatre here in NZ will have a one-off showing for the film's 30th.  So far I've heard nada...

I still want to see the 70mm print one day.

[KeatonisBatman]

I still want to see the 70mm print one day.

I might fly to the U.S. for that   

[The Laughing Fish]

Nolan's trilogy was quite different from what Burton did as it seemed more grounded in the "real" world.  I really liked how he handled all the villains in the series, especially Bane and Two-Face.  But I have never been partial to Christian Bale's performance, which to me is rather stale, and at times almost "dialed in" and even tedious to watch.

Finally... I guess I have to say I can't even rate Affleck as Batman.  I've just got nothing really nice to say about it at all, so best not to say anything. 

I completely disagree. I reckon Affleck is up there with Keaton as one of the best actors to play the character. The whole darkness they evoked, and Affleck's case, the path towards redemption is something I admire. Bale is a great actor, but his acting in all three movies was embarrassing to watch, and not one of his finest hours. It didn't have to be that way though, his audition for Batman for BB was way better than the performances in all three movies.

I never understood the praise for the so-called "realism" in Nolan's stuff. What the hell is exactly so realistic about it, apart from the fact Gotham City isn't an Art Deco background? I don't understand how people praise for the supposed "great" villains in that series either. The only villain who had an understandable M.O. was Ra's al Ghul. Two-Face was bloody awful, both in terms of writing and in appearance (that charred face is anything but realistic, and even Eckhardt's acting worsens as the movie goes on). As for Bane? I enjoyed watching Hardy hamming it up for comedic value, but if another director had that same character with that same plot, they would've been ridiculed for the convenient and typical Bond Villain Stupidity. But since Nolan is a brand that's never questioned, it's accepted.

[KeatonisBatman]

I completely disagree. I reckon Affleck is up there with Keaton as one of the best actors to play the character. The whole darkness they evoked, and Affleck's case, the path towards redemption is something I admire. Bale is a great actor, but his acting in all three movies was embarrassing to watch, and not one of his finest hours. It didn't have to be that way though, his audition for Batman for BB was way better than the performances in all three movies.

I never understood the praise for the so-called "realism" in Nolan's stuff. What the hell is exactly so realistic about it, apart from the fact Gotham City isn't an Art Deco background? I don't understand how people praise for the supposed "great" villains in that series either. The only villain who had an understandable M.O. was Ra's al Ghul. Two-Face was bloody awful, both in terms of writing and in appearance (that charred face is anything but realistic, and even Eckhardt's acting worsens as the movie goes on). As for Bane? I enjoyed watching Hardy hamming it up for comedic value, but if another director had that same character with that same plot, they would've been ridiculed for the convenient and typical Bond Villain Stupidity. But since Nolan is a brand that's never questioned, it's accepted.

Hey to each his own LaughingFish.  Over the years I've evaluated my own perspective on the actors who have played Batman.  Have I been too hard on them?  Am I stuck in the past?  I've been accused of nostalgic ignorance even!  LOL

The main thing, I think, that Burton's version of Batman (or to be more specific) Keaton's Bruce Wayne established was a manic sort of oddness.  I mean, the guy was just a bit off.  And he seemed crazy at times, depressed in others, and even mentally disturbed.  And despite all that you still actually felt sorry for him.  Whatever emotions one might take from, for example, Keaton's eyes or his body language alone have (for me) not been duplicated by the other actors.  That said, I'm willing to accept the possibility that Keaton's Batman simply slotted in so well with the 1989 vision of Gotham that his portrayal alone might have been amplified (overrated if you will) because of certain factors such as the uniqueness of Burton's then-creation.  In other words, Keaton's version of the character might not "work" so well in Snyder or Nolan's world, if at all.  But that's another discussion for another time really.    Now, one might also argue in your favour that the Batman of the comics is more like Affleck's portrayal, and thus is "better."  And fair enough if that's how you feel.  I'm simply saying that (again, for me) it's not as interesting to watch.  The way Keaton portrayed the character in and out of the mask clicked with me, and why this guy would dress up as a giant bat in first place made sense to me at least in part through his performance.  And I don't think any other on screen Batman to date has quite pulled that off. 

Nolan's trilogy was interesting and had a lot of good things about it.  I wasn't an overall fan of it, but I do enjoy watching the movies.  When I mentioned Two-Face earlier, I should've expounded a little more.  I always loved Two-Face from my first exposure to him in the late 80s when I read The Dark Knight Returns, and then again in the '92 Animated Series.  I always wanted to see that version of Harvey.  Of course Batman Forever poo'ed all over Harvey.  And so to get what we got in Nolan's trilogy was a welcome upgrade.  I still don't think it came close to getting it right, I'm simply saying I enjoyed it.  Same with Bane... the only version I knew was from the comics when Bane broke Batman's back (which I believe happened in 1993)... and then of course Schumacher's version which is heinous beyond belief, so what Nolan gave us was a much more rounded and fulfilling version of each.

[The Laughing Fish]

That said, I'm willing to accept the possibility that Keaton's Batman simply slotted in so well with the 1989 vision of Gotham that his portrayal alone might have been amplified (overrated if you will) because of certain factors such as the uniqueness of Burton's then-creation.

I'd be happy to see a growing return to appreciate Keaton's portrayal, but it hasn't always been like that, as we saw in the last decade and a half.

Now, one might also argue in your favour that the Batman of the comics is more like Affleck's portrayal, and thus is "better."  And fair enough if that's how you feel.

Wrong, I don't subscribe to the snobbish mentality of "if it's closer to the comics, it's automatically better". If that were the case, I wouldn't have liked any of the BR villains.

Let's face it, all of these Hollywood productions pick and choose ideas from comics and then reinvent new ideas to create their portrayals of these characters, and in some cases, the comics adapt those movie ideas into their work. Superman comics taking ideas from the Reeve era is a perfect example. So to praise something alone just because it's closer to the comics is moot and irrelevant. Besides, I never said Affleck was better than Keaton, I only mentioned I liked both equally. As a matter of fact, I agree with most of your assessment of Keaton's portrayal of the character, and it reminds me why I resonated with him in the first place. His body language certainly made him an operatic character.

Nolan's trilogy was interesting and had a lot of good things about it.  I wasn't an overall fan of it, but I do enjoy watching the movies.

This is where the sentiment "each to his own" might come in, as you say. But this only goes back to what I've been saying all along: expectations in Batman movies got so unbelievably low after B&R that people were willing to accept anything that Nolan did, as long as it took itself seriously and more darker, ignoring every flaw in the process. Which hypocritically and conveniently, these same traits would be used against BvS when that came out, to hyperbolic proportions.

Again, I disagree about TDK Two-Face being any good. That portrayal and writing was so bad, it actually made me like Tommy Lee Jones better, and that was something I didn't think was possible. The irony is Jones had arguably the most accurate comic book backstory out of all Batman movie villains, as you can see in the scene where Bruce watches the news archive footage of Batman failing to prevent Maroni from throwing acid in Harvey Dent's face. No, it doesn't suddenly make Jones' Two-Face a great villain, but his descent towards madness made a lot more sense than the crap we were given in TDK. And Hardy's Bane, despite entertaining to watch, still left a lot to be desired when you consider how self-destructive his plans are and it's revealed he's yet another lackey, as he was in B&R. I don't demand characters to be perfectly portrayed like in the comics or on TV, but FFS, for a film series that was met with overblown acclaim, I expected something a lot more competent than we were given.

But then again, who am I to tell you what to enjoy and feel?

[KeatonisBatman]

I'd be happy to see a growing return to appreciate Keaton's portrayal, but it hasn't always been like that, as we saw in the last decade and a half.

I appreciate your thoughtful response (no sarcasm whatsoever!).  I always like Keaton (I think my username might be an indicator... ahem hem) haha

Wrong, I don't subscribe to the snobbish mentality of "if it's closer to the comics, it's automatically better". If that were the case, I wouldn't have liked any of the BR villains.

Let's face it, all of these Hollywood productions pick and choose ideas from comics and then reinvent new ideas to create their portrayals of these characters, and in some cases, the comics adapt those movie ideas into their work. Superman comics taking ideas from the Reeve era is a perfect example. So to praise something alone just because it's closer to the comics is moot and irrelevant. Besides, I never said Affleck was better than Keaton, I only mentioned I liked both equally. As a matter of fact, I agree with most of your assessment of Keaton's portrayal of the character, and it reminds me why I resonated with him in the first place. His body language certainly made him an operatic character.

Forgive me for assuming your connection to the character was comics-based.  That's the argument I've come across most over the years when there's any discussion of who was the best Batman and why.  I don't think we've seen anyone on screen do a perfect rendition (ie. focusing on the detective aspect has been seriously lacking).  I appreciate that you like Affleck.  In the looks department he's a solid Bruce Wayne. 

This is where the sentiment "each to his own" might come in, as you say. But this only goes back to what I've been saying all along: expectations in Batman movies got so unbelievably low after B&R that people were willing to accept anything that Nolan did, as long as it took itself seriously and more darker, ignoring every flaw in the process. Which hypocritically and conveniently, these same traits would be used against BvS when that came out, to hyperbolic proportions.

Again, I disagree about TDK Two-Face being any good. That portrayal and writing was so bad, it actually made me like Tommy Lee Jones better, and that was something I didn't think was possible. The irony is Jones had arguably the most accurate comic book backstory out of all Batman movie villains, as you can see in the scene where Bruce watches the news archive footage of Batman failing to prevent Maroni from throwing acid in Harvey Dent's face. No, it doesn't suddenly make Jones' Two-Face a great villain, but his descent towards madness made a lot more sense than the crap we were given in TDK. And Hardy's Bane, despite entertaining to watch, still left a lot to be desired when you consider how self-destructive his plans are and it's revealed he's yet another lackey, as he was in B&R. I don't demand characters to be perfectly portrayed like in the comics or on TV, but FFS, for a film series that was met with overblown acclaim, I expected something a lot more competent than we were given.

But then again, who am I to tell you what to enjoy and feel?

You are right about the precedent that Batman & Robin set.  Pretty much any Batman movie after that (as long as it went in the opposite direction) would've been welcome.  LOL  And I hope I didn't come across as if I thought Nolan walks on water.  I think he's brilliant, naturally, and I love his other movies (Inception, Interstellar for example) but I don't fawn over his Batman trilogy.  In fact, I've only seen each one of them a few times. 

As far as Two-Face... I did like the origin in Batman Forever, but once established, Jones' Two-Face just comes across a bit like a howling clown.  Almost a caricature of Nicholson's Joker that just wasn't interesting to watch; hammy for no apparent reason.  Though I did enjoy the scene of him tossing the coin over the cop's body before they chucked him in the bank vault.  So yeah, I would say I appreciate parts of it.  Did Aaron Eckhart get it right?  Not really.  But I did enjoy watching it.  The first time I watched The Dark Knight I was baffled that they killed Harvey the way they did.  It happened so fast after his "creation" that I went, wait, no way... and then as the movie ended I didn't even believe him to be dead.  I think Two-Face is a character that could easily carry a Batman movie as the singular villain.  Sadly he's never had that chance to breathe really and always gets overshadowed on film by another joker.  I did enjoy his Two-Face, limited as it was.  Naturally I would much rather see a BTAS version of Two-Face on the big screen.  As with Mr. Freeze.  If we ever got a "Heart Of Ice" version of Mr. Freeze in live action, it would make everyone completely forget about Arnold's version. 

[DarkVengeance]

The first four BATMAN movies are getting a special Fathom Event in early May. Check Fandango to see if there will be any in your area.

https://comicbook.com/dc/2019/03/30/original-batman-movies-return-theaters/?fbclid=IwAR2EhQvgmM4YCK260lypWXkxrcVVKcCHHJZUzyHcjWenZ24QkQpnP2bka-I