Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Michael Keaton as Batman
I did enjoy the first two Keaton outings. Still do.
I like Nolan's more grounded version, though, too.
In terms of Bale's performance...I think it's tough to gauge.
The first one takes the character along such a journey that it's never 100% clear where the line gets drawn, which I think is the point. Where does Bruce Wayne end, and Batman begin? I think part of why I got that sense was because so much of the first Nolan film was about Bruce Wayne's journey to BECOMING Batman. You didn't get to see as much of him as an established Batman, and, consequently, as an established Bruce Wayne. The closest you get to the fake Wayne persona is the scene during the party where he pretends to be drunk and rude to get everyone to leave. Outside of that, everything else is Wayne preparing for his mission, which really isn't that different from Batman.
By contrast, Batman '89 draws much starker differences, but is in many ways a less personal journey. Mostly because it's not a journey for the Wayne/Batman character. It's an introduction to Batman. Two different things.
With TDK, I think the big problem was the lack of focus, and the splitting between three principal characters. You had to take all this time to show who Harvey Dent was, so that you could show what happens as he becomes Two-Face. You had to show the Joker's arrival on the scene, so that you build up the menace he represents. Oh, right, and Batman was somewhere in that film, too. And I think Bruce Wayne was in it for...what...30 seconds?
TDK was entertaining as a thrill-ride, but I found it to be a lot less satisfying as a BATMAN story than Batman Begins. The focus was lost. Much as I would've wished in Begins to see a bit more of what makes Scarecrow tick, in retrospect, I'm glad we didn't get much of him. He isn't the point of the film -- Batman is. TDK, on the other hand, is a lot more about Dent and The Joker and oh-by-the-way-Batman-too, and as a result it never feels like it gives any one of the characters enough time. MAYBE the Joker, but I think people were just focused on the whole "Last Role" thing. (even though it wasn't his last role)
I still enjoyed TDK, but...it felt kind of all-over the place. I've only seen it once, so maybe repeated viewings would help it coalesce for me, but Begins always felt very tightly focused, and I appreciated that.
Oh, and I dislike the Bat-Voice, too. I think it got worse in TDK because you saw so much of it. I kept wondering how Bale didn't just break into coughing fits or give up and go all Doctor Claw. "I'll get you next time, Joker! NEXT TIME!!"
I did enjoy the first two Keaton outings. Still do.
I like Nolan's more grounded version, though, too.
In terms of Bale's performance...I think it's tough to gauge.
The first one takes the character along such a journey that it's never 100% clear where the line gets drawn, which I think is the point. Where does Bruce Wayne end, and Batman begin? I think part of why I got that sense was because so much of the first Nolan film was about Bruce Wayne's journey to BECOMING Batman. You didn't get to see as much of him as an established Batman, and, consequently, as an established Bruce Wayne. The closest you get to the fake Wayne persona is the scene during the party where he pretends to be drunk and rude to get everyone to leave. Outside of that, everything else is Wayne preparing for his mission, which really isn't that different from Batman.
By contrast, Batman '89 draws much starker differences, but is in many ways a less personal journey. Mostly because it's not a journey for the Wayne/Batman character. It's an introduction to Batman. Two different things.
With TDK, I think the big problem was the lack of focus, and the splitting between three principal characters. You had to take all this time to show who Harvey Dent was, so that you could show what happens as he becomes Two-Face. You had to show the Joker's arrival on the scene, so that you build up the menace he represents. Oh, right, and Batman was somewhere in that film, too. And I think Bruce Wayne was in it for...what...30 seconds?
TDK was entertaining as a thrill-ride, but I found it to be a lot less satisfying as a BATMAN story than Batman Begins. The focus was lost. Much as I would've wished in Begins to see a bit more of what makes Scarecrow tick, in retrospect, I'm glad we didn't get much of him. He isn't the point of the film -- Batman is. TDK, on the other hand, is a lot more about Dent and The Joker and oh-by-the-way-Batman-too, and as a result it never feels like it gives any one of the characters enough time. MAYBE the Joker, but I think people were just focused on the whole "Last Role" thing. (even though it wasn't his last role)
I still enjoyed TDK, but...it felt kind of all-over the place. I've only seen it once, so maybe repeated viewings would help it coalesce for me, but Begins always felt very tightly focused, and I appreciated that.
Oh, and I dislike the Bat-Voice, too. I think it got worse in TDK because you saw so much of it. I kept wondering how Bale didn't just break into coughing fits or give up and go all Doctor Claw. "I'll get you next time, Joker! NEXT TIME!!"
