I say yes. When asked who he is, his "I'm Batman" is a line my wife and I love to quote.
shareYup. He pioneered aspects of the character that wound part of the comic and the lore itself. His use of silence and space, focus on physicality, and his stressing of "presence" stuck the landing. I think he did the best Wayne/Batman juxtaposition, too. He's my favourite for sure.
His closest rival is, for my money, Kevin Conroy.
Definitely, though he doesn't have great competition. Affleck was ok but was trying a bit too hard to be angry and menacing. Bale just straight up sucked. He had no presence and his voice was comical.
shareNope Kevin Conroy is the best. Bale and Keaton are debatable. Pros and cons to both.
shareNah. Voice acting is not the same category as a live-action performance.
shareWell the animated series is my favorite depiction of Batman in media. Which is why I loved mask of the Phantasm since it was on the big screen. However if you go live action it is a debate between Bale and Keaton. Pros and cons to both. Burton does not do everything better than Nolan like you try to claim. I am actually fair and can say Nolan does not do everything better than Burton either. Both have their strengths and weaknesses but overall I prefer Nolan over Burton. Bale had more of an acting challenge than Keaton did. His character went through more changes for the films he was in.
He had to be Bruce the recluse, Bruce in training, Bruce the older mature man. Keaton's Batman is the same in Batman 1989 and Batman Returns. I liked Keaton but the character does not really change much.
Who's talking about Nolan vs. Burton? Try and stick to the topic of the thread, it's about who the best Batman was and it certainly wasn't Bale with his throat cancer voice.
shareTough to say though. The voice gets flack but actually sounded pretty descent in Batman Begins. Bale's physical stature is more in line with the comic book version of Bruce Wayne. He felt like a deeper character to me. I feel his Bruce Wayne is deeper than simply wanting vengeance. Keaton while good and subdued I always felt got overshadowed by the villains. You can make this argument for Bale but I feel in Batman Begins he was the star and the villains did not outshine him. I like both Keaton and Bale but if I had to say I would lean towards Bale. I get someone preferring Keaton though. Keaton is my childhood Batman I grew up with him lots of nostalgia, Bale is my teenage Batman I have nostalgia for him as well.
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unHEXmTtWkM
The voice is just too comical to get past, it almost sounds like a parody of something.
Keaton while good and subdued I always felt got overshadowed by the villains. You can make this argument for Bale but I feel in Batman Begins he was the star and the villains did not outshine him.
Affleck's voice is more altered in post production than Bale's is. I do not hate it but it sounds so fake and inorganic I can't get behind it. Also BVS was one of the worst blockbusters in recent memory. Not to mention never been a big Affleck fan. I always felt he was a mediocre actor at best, was not a fan of his Batman either. He was not terrible but overall meh. The movie he was in though yikes terrible.
Disagree I have always been far more interested in the villains than I was in Keaton. What is interesting is in Batman 1989 we know less about Batman and lots about the Joker, where as in The Dark Knight we know more about Batman and less about the Joker.
The villain in Batman Begins was not bland at all. Liam Neeson as Ras Al Ghul was very refreshing. It was the first Batman villain where we had no idea he was the villain until the end. The way he disguises himself, the mentor turned villain all good stuff. The only critique I have of him is he is not super theatrical like Joker, Bane, or Penguin. However that is kind of the charm of his character that he blends in.
Meh, couldn't care less about Affleck's Batman, that was just the first video I found with examples of Bale's batvoice.
Disagree, Keaton's Batman was always the coolest character in his movies. The fact that we didn't know too much about him kept him intriguing and mysterious. Batman Begins exposed the inner workings of Batman to the point where the character loses all mystery and intrigue. I don't want to see how he makes his Batarangs, that's not interesting.
The villains in Batman Begins were totally bland, both Ras Al Ghul and Scarecrow were pretty forgettable. I can't even remember any memorable or iconic scenes with them.
Bale's Batman voice has been made fun of plenty. I understand the criticism, I am not dismissing it. I do think in Begins it sounded the best. For instance when he is talking to Rachael in the cave it sounds perfect.
Here is what I find interesting you give Batman props for being more mysterious couldn't the same case be made for Ledger's Joker? Ledger's Joker is more mysterious than Nicholson's Joker. So sometimes less is more? Also no Begins was the prime example of how you do a reboot correctly. We had never seen how Batman became Batman on the big screen before. Therefore instead of recycling a plot blueprint, or relying on nostalgia to sell your movie by cloning a previous film cough cough the force awakens or amazing Spider-man it made a story from scratch. Speak for yourself I loved seeing Batman's origin as did many other people. Judge a movie for what it is rather than what you want. I want a live action Batman movie that feels just like the animated series and the arkham games. Just because I do not get exactly what I want does not mean that what was done in the film was bad. You wanted something else but just because you disagree with something doesn't make it wrong.
Oh I can remember plenty of iconic scenes with them.
Scarecrow:Would you like to see my mask? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqfFu7eAAs
Ras Al Ghul: Is Ras Al Ghul immortal are his methods supernatural?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4AsF0DIgpA
Not to mention all his training stuff is awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiaRYQlsjy4
Here is what I find interesting you give Batman props for being more mysterious couldn't the same case be made for Ledger's Joker? Ledger's Joker is more mysterious than Nicholson's Joker. So sometimes less is more?
Oh I can remember plenty of iconic scenes with them.
Scarecrow:Would you like to see my mask? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srqfFu7eAAs
Ras Al Ghul: Is Ras Al Ghul immortal are his methods supernatural?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4AsF0DIgpA
Execution is key on anything in film. Joker is also not the protagonist of the film. Keaton has so much mystery it honestly hurts him. It is why Conroy's Batman I feel is better. Taking away mystery doesn't automatically make something bad as I demonstrated with Joker. It can add to something but lack of mystery is not by default bad. Understanding Batman's motives on a deeper level was something original. Which is what made Batman Begins good. I personally loved seeing Batman's origin and how he got his equipment.
Yes it is iconic. Do you know the definition of the word iconic? It's not about comparison you constantly get hung up on that. Bane is not as iconic as Joker but he is still iconic. Batman Begins had cultural impact not as much as Batman 1989 but it still had cultural impact. Ras Al Ghul, Scarecrow and two face are iconic.
Nope I take Ras Al Ghul over Penguin personally. A villain doesn't need to be over the top or cartoonish to be great. Anton from no country for old men proves this well.
" A villain doesn't need to be over the top or cartoonish to be great. Anton from no country for old men proves this well."
The guy that goes around with a big ass air tank and uses a cattle prod to kill people; the guy that randomly wants to do a coin toss to determine if someone that annoyed him should live or die? Come on now, be intellectually honest, do you really think Anton was not an over the top villain?
I agree that Ras Al Ghul was not over the top; Liam Neeson delivered a character that was motivated by a warped sense of justice and seeking 'revenge' for the loss of his family. He was one of the most subdued and realistic villains of ANY batman film, which is why it was a shame he was only 'seemingly' tacked on at the end for a rushed finale showdown that did not properly build up.
I guess I should have been more specific and elaborated more. The performance specifically is not exaggerated. His actions are but the performance is very restrained. If you ever seen the Fargo TV show Lorne Malvo played by Billy Bob Thornton is in this same type of vain. Point I'm making is both villains can be good. However okay you are right not a great example. A more realistic less exaggerated villain can be great also is my point.
I don't think he was tacked on. It is illustrated he was behind the gas about to be spread across Gotham. He worked behind the scenes kind of like the emperor in Star Wars. Revealing more of him would have taken away the twist at the end. A twist I actually love.
I don't know if I agree with that either; the performance had some really strange parts to it that were over the top; the parts if he smiles or stares intensely he looks demented as f'ck. The character I don't take problem with, he was effective in a Hannibal Lecture sort of way; but the character nor the appearance I would consider restrained. I will say though, his line delivery and tone of voice did come across as restrained; just not the emoting, facial expressions or body language.
The emperor does eventually get fleshed out though; and Ras had more potential. Imagine if it was revealed that Liam Neeson was NOT the first Ras al Guhl but it was more like a title (an identity) the head of the league of shadows adopts. Almost like a twisted inverse of the Batman identity. Instead of Ras laughing as the theatrics of the batman identity there should have been a more 2 sides of the same coin kind of dynamic between them. They touched on this idea extremely briefly right before the train crashes but it just sort of felt (idk) empty. This goes along with my entire critic of Begins; the whole film just left something to be desired.
In Rises I kind of wish they would have explored more with the hallucinations of Ras Al Guhl and maybe done something more with Talia; which is another reason Rises was a disappointing film.
Bringing up Anton Chirguh as a comparison to Ras al Ghul does not help his argument at all. Anton is delightfully creepy and sinister in every second of his screentime and many aspects of his character are over the top (in a good way). But the comparison fails anyway as No Country for Old Men is not a comic book movie and much more grounded in reality.
I think you would have to be pretty deluded to argue that Ras was not the dullest villain out of the Nolan/Burton movies. There was just nothing really to him and no memorable/iconic scenes to speak of.
So now it is a rule that a comic book movie can not be more grounded in reality? Doesn't matter if no country is a comic book movie the comparison still fits. Anton and joker from tdk are actually quite similar. No back story but both a terrifying force of nature. Both agents of chaos and anarchy.
I think you have to be deluded go say Batman Begins had no cultural impact at all but you know...
Lmao at 'is it a rule'. You keep writing your rulebook buddy because you sure as hell don't know how to debate. Even if I allow the comparison, it still fails. Anton Chirguh is infinitely more sinister and memorable as a villain than freakin' Ras al Ghul lol. It's not even close.
Again, you're trying to change the subject to Batman Begins as a movie because you're getting destroyed in this debate. So sad lol.
Where did I say Ras was as memorable as Anton? Quit using a straw man you deluded ignorant person.
Nope I'm proving that your logic is stupid. Comic book films are films. They don't have to be fantasy they can be grounded also.
What was the comparison then? That he's not over the top? The comparison fails there too.
Nope I'm proving that your logic is stupid. Comic book films are films.
I want to help you with this but FYI you are not making a clear argument. I think I get your meaning and I agree with you but you are not explaining it well.
Because first you say that a reserved character can be iconic and brought in Anton as a comparison but we all agree he is not a reserved comparison. But now you are changing the argument and saying that Anton is as iconic as joker; which we all agree are not reserved and are over the top villains.
with comic book film vs regular film; you both have a point; fantastical over the top is more easily accepted in comic book films but it is not required for it to be iconic. Ras was not an iconic character because he was underused but he could have been even with him being a more realistic and grounded character
Lmao ran away like the coward you are. Your arguments make NO sense. You don't even know why you made the comparison yourself lol.
shareHe already admitted it was a bad comparison, no need to bite his head off; you might disagree heavily but I think they are trying to be intellectually honest, that is to be appreciated.
I agree with him that a character does not need to be over the top to be iconic but I also agree with you that Ras is not Iconic. I think he had potential to be especially if they explored or exposed the contrast between Batman's and Ras's ideology about crime a little more. I appreciate the reserved and 'more real' character Liam Neeson delivered in Begins but the problem is it was not enough exposure and was over too quickly leaving no potential for the character to really shine. Begins as a whole felt like wasted potential.
He only admitted it to you, he will continue trying to argue the same point to me even when he's proven wrong as seen by his next reply -
Doesn't matter if no country is a comic book movie the comparison still fits.
I agree with him that a character does not need to be over the top to be iconic but I also agree with you that Ras is not Iconic.
"He only admitted it to you, he will continue trying to argue the same point to me even when he's proven wrong as seen by his next reply"
Maybe the hostility between you two is making it difficult to discuss the disagreement reasonably?
"Doesn't matter if no country is a comic book movie the comparison still fits."
I am not sure at what point this comment came up; but I think what he is trying to say is that he is trying to compare examples of movie villains that are restrained yet iconic/entertaining. Anton and No Country is a bad example but I think I agree with the idea. Maybe better example of a restrained yet great villain is Viktor from Underworld series(first one that came to mind).
"It's not about being over the top, just be entertaining and memorable. Ras was neither."
I disagree; Ras was entertaining and I wanted more; the memorability was negatively impacted by him being underused. The fact that I (and others I think) wanted more of him means he was a good and entertaining character that was frightfully under used.
I am not sure at what point this comment came up; but I think what he is trying to say is that he is trying to compare examples of movie villains that are restrained yet iconic/entertaining.
I disagree; Ras was entertaining and I wanted more; the memorability was negatively impacted by him being underused.
No he is not iconic; but he had potential to be; I do not agree that he was dull but underused which robbed him of the chance to be Iconic.
"Ok fair enough that's your opinion, but to call him iconic is quite a stretch. And he's the least memorable villain of the Nolan/Burton movies."
I think i agree with this; calling him iconic IS a stretch. but scarecrow and Talia are by far less memorable villains than Ras. Bane gets more screen time and iconic moments (Breaking the bat) that Ras did not even get a chance to show off. The only character that I would say was outright more memorable was Joker. If Ras and Bane has equal screen time and Ras was given at least one Iconic scene or speech he would be on par with Bane. As I said wasted potential.
Okay then his line delivery. My point is a restrained character can be great also. Not every performance needs to be exaggerated I r over the top to be good. As I said maybe Anton wasn't the best example.
I believe they did that. It just wasn't touched on or expanded on as much as you wanted. How you feel about Batman Begins is how I feel about Batman 1989. Visually good and immersive. Lots of the plot points I don't like. I also am just not that into Keaton as Batman.
Rises is another story.
True; I agree that a character does not need to be over the top to be good. I am glad you admit Anton was not a great example to make your point, very intellectually honest of you. I think I get your meaning overall though and I agree.
"It just wasn't touched on or expanded on as much as you wanted."
Yes, that is is; it was too brief and I felt like there was potential for more but they had already focused so much on Batman 'getting started' there was not enough time to develop an interesting conflict between Batman's ideology and Ras's so it flew by too quick leaving something to be desired. That is my biggest complaint with Begins; it feels like a build up film with no real pay off (like a pilot episode almost). if you get my meaning.
"I also am just not that into Keaton as Batman."
To each there own; I don't like Keaton's performance much as Bruce Wayne but I felt he was much more reserved and intimidating as Batman than Bale was. I mean keaton barely talks as Batman in the 1989 (and only a little more in Returns) version and when he does it is very short and to the point. Bale's version just talks too damn much, which is especially problematic because of the annoying throat cancer voice.
Hey I'm human I make mistakes. I can at least admit to being wrong unlike liquidocelot. Show me one time he ever admitted to being wrong. How about Harrelson from war for the planet of the apes. I think he was a very good villain but not nearly as over the top as Koba. More realistic and subdued to me. Or another would be Gus from breaking bad as opposed to Tuco. Tuco is far more over the top but Gus is a better villain.
I get it but to me it does everything else so good I'm willing to forgive some missteps.
Okay let me give the best reasoning I can here. With Keaton it's more just not liking his Bruce Wayne. I just find him uninteresting. It's not awful just flat for me. Now actually.i like his Batman. More reserved quiet and no throat cancer voice. With Bale I like his Wayne way more. Far more interesting and relatable. Now his Batman I think could be solid if it just wasn't for the over the top voice. Like okay let me say this when he's speaking to Rachael in the cave the voice is perfect. In begins it has scenes where it works. When it's like that I think Bale strikes a better balance than Keaton at being good at both. However can we reach a middle ground and say Bale is the better Wayne and Keaton the better Batman?
I don't follow him enough to know for sure; I would have to do a more thorough analysis; I agree with a lot of liquidocelot's opinions but I think you both are allowing prior disagreements to cause you to be a bit unreasonable with each other. Which is a shame because I think you both contribute valuable points and incite. Yes, McCullough is a great villain; good example of a subdued realistic yet iconic villain. I am not sure who I prefer Koba or McCullough; Koba is more over the top and epic but McCullough is more real and thought provoking; you can almost fully agree with his motives and goals.
With begins I have a hard time forgiving it just because I was so underwhelmed by it. It serves as a good set up film for Dark Knight but on its own it is just a 'meh' movie.
I agree that Bale's Batman voice was at its in Begins and they should have stuck with that.
"However can we reach a middle ground and say Bale is the better Wayne and Keaton the better Batman?"
I agree with this, in fact that was one of my first points when I answered the OP in my own post. See below for my explanation of that.
I can't agree with meh movie. It honestly is such a great way to reboot a franchise. It gets right what so many get wrong. Man of steel, amazing Spiderman, the live action Disney remakes all fail where Batman Begins succeeds. Sorry but because of that flaw I don't mark it down as far as you. Even I don't mark down Batman 1989 that far because of my flaws and I honestly don't love that film. I like it I don't love it.
We can agree here. It's why though even though it's animation I like Conroy the most. The animated series depicts Wayne good and Batman. Which is why I love it.
my 'meh' reaction is mostly because of my subjective underwhelmed feeling about the film. Objectively it is better than I like it. I think there are some pacing issues; the camera works leaves something to be desired; heavy exposition dialogue (not as bad as rises but noticeable) in many ways it fails the show don't tell test. Now it does make up with that in terms of character development, and showing the evolution of Bruce into batman, there was an effective twist with Liam Neeson turning out to be Ras, the side character get much better characterization (Alfred and Gordon especially). There is alot that it gets right for sure; but the feeling of it leaving something to be desired and way it seems more like a set up film (or a long prologue) makes it hard for me to say it is more than 'meh'.
I am not very familiar with the animated series so I can't say too much about it. but I did see Mask of the Phantasm long ago and the voice acting of Conroy is good; but it is very difficult to rate it along side the live action adaptations. Voice acting is just to different from the actual physical performance along with the delivery of the dialogue.
Taking away mystery doesn't automatically make something bad as I demonstrated with Joker.
Yes it is iconic. Do you know the definition of the word iconic?
Batman doesn't need mystery to be a good character. Where is that in a rule book somewhere? The hero being known from top to bottom is not a new concept. This happened in Batman the animated series also and Conroy is considered a great Batman. It is simply a preference you are trying to apply everywhere. I get it you prefer a mystery to Batman but it is not a requirement, only by you is that a requirement.
I do know the meaning. That is anecdotal why am I supposed to take your word for that? I know plenty myself included that love the villains of Batman Begins.
Nope the villains were fantastic. As I said I take Ras over Penguin. So nope.
You're so frustratingly bad at debating it feels like a waste of time talking to you.
Batman doesn't need mystery to be a good character. Where is that in a rule book somewhere? The hero being known from top to bottom is not a new concept. This happened in Batman the animated series also and Conroy is considered a great Batman. It is simply a preference you are trying to apply everywhere.
I do know the meaning. That is anecdotal why am I supposed to take your word for that? I know plenty myself included that love the villains of Batman Begins.
You constantly say there is no mystery to Bale's Batman. He is dissected from top to bottom. You are implying that the lack of mystery is bad. So I ask if that is a rule because you act as if it is. You are actually bad at debating because you deny blatant facts. Your claim that Batman Begins had no cultural impact was disproven.
Batman mask of the Phantasm is a feature film. Just because it's animated does not disqualify it from being a film. It is different but it is still my favorite depiction of Batman. Also why does Conroy's opinion mean anything to me? Simply because I like his Batman portrayal I will blindly accept his view as truth? Nope sorry I disagree with him.
Batman Begins is iconic as noted by it's cultural impact. I proved that as a fact you tried to so badly deny. You gave no evidence that no one refers to the villains of the film only your word. I'm not taking your word for it I want proof.
Your opinion nothing more.
You constantly say there is no mystery to Bale's Batman. He is dissected from top to bottom. You are implying that the lack of mystery is bad.
Your claim that Batman Begins had no cultural impact was disproven.
Also why does Conroy's opinion mean anything to me?
Batman Begins is iconic as noted by it's cultural impact. I proved that as a fact you tried to so badly deny. You gave no evidence that no one refers to the villains of the film only your word.
You implied that it was negative to have no mystery. You are now backpedaling. It is different to Jack's joker but that still doesn't make it bad.
Guess what you denying Begins having cultural impact is up also. Glad your humiliation is up on display.
Where did I ever say Conroy's opinion meant something to me? I said I like his Batman nothing more. Your strawman is dismissed. Couldn't care less what he thinks.
Lol comical irony alert. You said the villains to begins are dull. All you offered was your opinion.
You implied that it was negative to have no mystery. You are now backpedaling.
Guess what you denying Begins having cultural impact is up also. Glad your humiliation is up on display.
Your exact words were with Bale's Batman there is no mystery. He is dissected from top to bottom. Your words. You backpedaling?
Lol right. With that logic why do you continue to debate moviechatuser497? So you lost a debate with him since you still reply to him right? As stupid as I think you are I will give you more credit than that clown.
Bad logic your concession is noted again.
Since you're repeating yourself, I will do the same -
Nope, nothing was stated in absolute terms. Again, you're awful at debating so you have to make these nonsensical leaps in logic to make it seem like you've made a decent point. It's laughable.
Lol right. With that logic why do you continue to debate moviechatuser497?
Bad logic your concession is noted again.
Your words not mine. Don't say stupid things and then backpedal.
Oh yes you do. That is a lie and you know it.
I'm beginning to wonder if you have any intelligence at all. Good to know you aren't in charge of making a Batman film. You have trash taste.
No one is backpedaling numb-nuts, you're trying to twist my comments into an absolute statement that a lack of mystery is always bad regardless of context. It's dishonest and nonsensical and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You want to talk about taste when you're a fan of Bale's Batman, that says it all. He sounds like he throated a donkey dick before each take.
Nope I took your exact words. You said there is no mystery to Bale's Batman. You said this as a negative. How is that twisting it? It isn't you are simply too ignorant to realize you made a stupid claim.
Says the fan of Burton's trash Batman films. Thankfully he never got to make a third film he was trash.
Nope I took your exact words. You said there is no mystery to Bale's Batman. You said this as a negative. How is that twisting it?
Says the fan of Burton's trash Batman films. Thankfully he never got to make a third film he was trash.
You said it as if it were a rule. You implied that there being no mystery to Batman is bad.
That would be you. Nolan's films cream Burton's any day of the week.
Nope, I never implied it was a rule. We've been over this already so now you're boring me.
Lol the ultimate proof that you lost the debate is when you veer off into irrelevant territory. Please continue jackass.
Bologna. You got called on it and you know that saying there was no mystery was a dumb point. Concession is noted.
Lol kind of like how you will blatantly lie about facts huh? You do that constantly.
You lost bud, that's why you're trying to turn this into a Nolan vs. Burton argument.
Failure at life and a failure at debating. Good day sir.
No, Bale hands down.
shareFor the Live Action films, yes, He was definitely the best batman (and it is not even close). But I would argue he was not the best Bruce Wayne; Bale might have been better as Bruce Wayne (but he was a shit batman with the voice and the over use of full out fighting, just to show off the martial arts techniques, instead of relying on shadows, surprise, intimidation, and gadgets).
shareWhile Keaton didn't look like Bruce Wayne on a superficial level, he came across as way more unhinged and you can feel that this man is psychologically disturbed enough to become something like the Batman. He would also be the last person you'd suspect to be Batman (from Gotham's point of view), Bale's Bruce Wayne is suspect from the very beginning. The way he leaves Gotham and returns the same time as Batman does a disappearing act wasn't well thought out either. So many people would've caught on to him. This wouldn't have been an issue if Nolan was more playful with the material, but if you're going to do a realistic depiction than stuff like this sticks out like a sore thumb.
share"Bale's Bruce Wayne is suspect from the very beginning. The way he leaves Gotham and returns the same time as Batman does a disappearing act wasn't well thought out either. So many people would've caught on to him"
That is true about the writing around Bale's batman but that has nothing to do with the actor's depiction of the character. Bale in his 'acting' fit the bill better as Bruce Wayne with the phony interactions with people, the delivery made it pretty convincing he was a superficial party Billionaire; where as, as you point out, he came across as unhinged. (now that might be because of the writing as well but it seemed more about his delivery).
"if you're going to do a realistic depiction than stuff like this sticks out like a sore thumb."
That is true, Burton's Bruce Wayne was NOT going for realism in the same way Nolan. Realism makes anomalies stand out much more.
Keaton was a terrible Batman. Confused and Distracted. Batman is supposed to be a super intelligent detective who kicks ass. Keaton was a tortured soul who was in a continuous state of being torn between his identities. He would lurch about striking poses, making horrible decisions like a damn fool. Though his Bruce was not much different, I give him credit.
Bale's Batman was embarrassing voice-wise. He did OK in the role though. The dumb parts of Nolan's movies were not his fault. I think Bale was the best Bruce. His playboy act was perfect. The way he was an asshole to everyone at his party played to the role very well. I have nothing good to say about him nor the movie in its entirety as regards TDKR.
I like the action scenes of Affleck's Batman the best but have a problem with his acting (could just be the script or even my dislike of Affleck himself) and his Bruce is the worst of them all.
I give credit to West and Kilmer for their Bruce portrayals even though I hate the vehicles they are within.
The worst Batman? I skipped Batman 4 so I don't know about Clooney. I want to say West.
Best to me will always be Conroy.
Keaton and Conroy are the best.
shareOne suggestion that I read is that despite the protests beforehand, Michael Keaton actually fit the role more than fanboys would give Tim Burton and company credit for. Keaton with all do respect, not being a traditionally attractive guy when compared to say, Val Kilmer or George Clooney, it made the transition between Bruce Wayne and Batman more palpable.
share