Best Movie Batman

[Mr. Smith]

With Batman vs. Superman now out, I think it's time to ask this:

Who donned the cape and cowl and played the socialite best?

I would've asked this for Superman, but I think Christopher Reeve would win this unanimously. But Batsy, well that's different.

So who shall it be?

The campy one with white eyebrows on the cowl?

The one that has the dumbest growl and looks like a bobble-head in the suit?

The only one that actually could be freaking creepy when smiling,  but looked so average as Bruce Wayne?

The forgettable one?

The one with huge nipples, and a silver suit?

Or Ben Affleck?

Which shall it be?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Michael Keaton is my favorite movie Batman, but Ben Afflefk amazed me with his aggressive take on him in BvS. George Clooney also holds a special place in my heart as he could've been a great Batman if he hadn't been in Joel Schumacher's movie.

[Mike Thick]

Adam West, by a country mile. Campiness FTW

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The real Batman, Adam West.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm going with Keaton.


Kilmer's the second best Batman, and West is the second best Bruce.

[DINGO Joe]

Adam West #1 Keaton #2

Nice work on the poll format, btw.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Keaton.

I just can't get over Bale's ridiculous voice.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Keaton, easily.

[Clark Kent]

I'm not actually a fan of Bale's Batman. Kilmer was forgettable, Clooney was in a bad movie so we don't have much good material to work with, and West is too campy. It's a tossup between Keaton and Affleck, so I guess I'll go with Affleck.

[Dancing with Myself]

Let's see here.

Kilmer was the first Batman I ever watched at the age of 3. I seen B&R at the movies when I was 4 and then got into Keaton. Bale came when I was in middle/high school. Affleck's gonna be interesting (going to see it Tuesday.)

Bale's arcs were my fav for the last few years but he has fallen out of favor lately. I got a few problems with his version. 1 was the voice. Begins's voice was okay but TDK was overboard and ruined it.   2. His obsession with relationships drug down the movies, and 3. I never found him to be a truely freighting Batman. He had his own bad-a quality but he never gave that freaky and crazy vibe that Keaton did but Bale did work in his own element. Bale's strengths were his element of surprise and his fighting.

Keaton was much more dark and crazier but he was kind of freaky in a way, you knew not to mess with him or else you'd get hurt or killed. He when it came down to it didn't care. He gave no overlong speeches stuff got done.

Kilmer still had the darkness but he talked more but was witty about it. The back and forth with Riddler at the end was perfect. He was also a solid fighter and he had his own freighting side to him (that gang ran from him once he showed up to save Dick.) Kilmer deserved a much better follow up film.  Clooney's problem was when it came down to it he had no clue about Batman and just wasn't a right fit. He didn't change himself at all; he talked like usual and acted like himself as Wayne. He didn't like Wayne being "woe is me," all the time but he didn't get that point of the role right. Wayne has to be that way in order to make Batman possible. If he wasn't pissed about his folks he'd have no reason to be Batman. Plus he didn't try that much either. Part of me thinks he regretted doing it when it came down to it but maybe he thought it would be easy. Either way a lot of the film's failures was due to him.

West in his defense tried and enjoyed what he was doing and he was at least fun to watch.



So for best Batman I go with Keaton with Kilmer 2nd and Bale 3rd. Keaton was genuine in the role and added a sense of epicness to it. Plus with the crazy side it would make sense he would do that. Kilmer felt perfect in the suit and got how it worked. He wasn't overtly scary but he had a hard side to him which worked. He could hold his own. Bale's was smart because of the fighting and his mind games made his version interesting.


Bruce Wayne wise Kilmer was probably my favorite. He had to deal with the mental aspects of the role and he did that well; but he also was a suave MF and played the rich playboy parts well plus he looked killer in a tux. 2nd was Keaton. Sure he was a shut-in but he played the secretive millionaire well and his Wayne was relateable especially in Returns. 3rd place would be Bale. He sold the tragedy parts of it well as well his out of costume scenes but the Rachel arc drained a lot of momentum out.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Christian Bale was great (no one else qualified as even a meh Bruce Wayne), Keaton was passable albeit a bit too campy, the rest were pretty awful (haven't seen Batman v Superman, but it looks pretty bad and Ben Affleck seems like a terrible choice for the role).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ben Affleck is definitely the worst Batman now. The actor is fine, but the character he plays is a disgrace.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Keaton
Bale
Affeleck
Kilmer
Clooney

Not seen west

[dead0man]

There are reasons to like Keaton and Bale (and maybe Ben, don't know yet), but I'm going with Bale because the reasons are better.  Batman should be dark, Bale was darker.  Bale wins.

[Mr. Smith]

There are reasons to like Keaton and Bale (and maybe Ben, don't know yet), but I'm going with Bale because the reasons are better.  Batman should be dark, Bale was darker.  Bale wins.

No, Bale was easily lighter than Keaton's in tone. It's a huge plot point in Batman Begins that Batman will not kill in cold blood, and he doesn't smirk either like he enjoys the fights he takes. And as Bruce, he's cold and calculating and painstaking efforts are made to show that becoming Batman was rational.

Keaton's Batman could easily have been a villain in the other Batman movies. He murders in cold blood quite a lot of times, smirks quite a bit, and the second half of Batman '89 was pretty much a revenge story on The Joker...and he succeeds at it. He turns around the Batmobile to set a guy on fire for crying out loud. And as for Bruce, he's utterly broken.

[dead0man]

Well that was a compelling argument.  I guess it's been a long time since I've seen the "early" ones.  ty

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There are reasons to like Keaton and Bale (and maybe Ben, don't know yet), but I'm going with Bale because the reasons are better.  Batman should be dark, Bale was darker.  Bale wins.

No, Bale was easily lighter than Keaton's in tone. It's a huge plot point in Batman Begins that Batman will not kill in cold blood, and he doesn't smirk either like he enjoys the fights he takes. And as Bruce, he's cold and calculating and painstaking efforts are made to show that becoming Batman was rational.

Keaton's Batman could easily have been a villain in the other Batman movies. He murders in cold blood quite a lot of times, smirks quite a bit, and the second half of Batman '89 was pretty much a revenge story on The Joker...and he succeeds at it. He turns around the Batmobile to set a guy on fire for crying out loud. And as for Bruce, he's utterly broken.

It speaks volumes about just how light the tone of Batman (1989) was that a movie where Batman kills people still feels like a campy children's cartoon in almost every way.  No offense, but by your logic the Tom & Jerry cartoons were dark because of all the cartoon slapstick "violence."

[dead0man]

Tom and Jerry was kind of dark.  Not as dark as the Road Runner and Coyote cartoons though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tom and Jerry was kind of dark.  Not as dark as the Road Runner and Coyote cartoons though.

I disagree, but to each his own

[Mr. Smith]

There are reasons to like Keaton and Bale (and maybe Ben, don't know yet), but I'm going with Bale because the reasons are better.  Batman should be dark, Bale was darker.  Bale wins.

No, Bale was easily lighter than Keaton's in tone. It's a huge plot point in Batman Begins that Batman will not kill in cold blood, and he doesn't smirk either like he enjoys the fights he takes. And as Bruce, he's cold and calculating and painstaking efforts are made to show that becoming Batman was rational.

Keaton's Batman could easily have been a villain in the other Batman movies. He murders in cold blood quite a lot of times, smirks quite a bit, and the second half of Batman '89 was pretty much a revenge story on The Joker...and he succeeds at it. He turns around the Batmobile to set a guy on fire for crying out loud. And as for Bruce, he's utterly broken.

It speaks volumes about just how light the tone of Batman (1989) was that a movie where Batman kills people still feels like a campy children's cartoon in almost every way.  No offense, but by your logic the Tom & Jerry cartoons were dark because of all the cartoon slapstick "violence."

Counterpoint: Would you consider Dr. Strangelove to be "light"? Because it sure as heck is campy despite the subject material.

Also, I think you forgot how graphic they were before Schumacher took over, there's actually a decent amount of blood and charred skeletons in there, and you forgot the rather cynical and nihilistic underbelly in there

Contrast TDK's astounding lack of blood or gore when the situation clearly called for it and quite a bit of idealism [which is quite justified considering it's trying to be "realistic"].

[Gass3268]

Bale and then Keaton were the best. Affleck was okay. West is iconic in a non-serious way. The other two really don't count.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There are reasons to like Keaton and Bale (and maybe Ben, don't know yet), but I'm going with Bale because the reasons are better.  Batman should be dark, Bale was darker.  Bale wins.

No, Bale was easily lighter than Keaton's in tone. It's a huge plot point in Batman Begins that Batman will not kill in cold blood, and he doesn't smirk either like he enjoys the fights he takes. And as Bruce, he's cold and calculating and painstaking efforts are made to show that becoming Batman was rational.

Keaton's Batman could easily have been a villain in the other Batman movies. He murders in cold blood quite a lot of times, smirks quite a bit, and the second half of Batman '89 was pretty much a revenge story on The Joker...and he succeeds at it. He turns around the Batmobile to set a guy on fire for crying out loud. And as for Bruce, he's utterly broken.

It speaks volumes about just how light the tone of Batman (1989) was that a movie where Batman kills people still feels like a campy children's cartoon in almost every way.  No offense, but by your logic the Tom & Jerry cartoons were dark because of all the cartoon slapstick "violence."

Counterpoint: Would you consider Dr. Strangelove to be "light"? Because it sure as heck is campy despite the subject material.

Also, I think you forgot how graphic they were before Schumacher took over, there's actually a decent amount of blood and charred skeletons in there, and you forgot the rather cynical and nihilistic underbelly in there

Contrast TDK's astounding lack of blood or gore when the situation clearly called for it and quite a bit of idealism [which is quite justified considering it's trying to be "realistic"].

I'd say the rules and standards are different for satires, but you could argue that the tone of Dr. Strangelove was light even if the movie wasn't.

[dead0man]

Tom and Jerry was kind of dark.  Not as dark as the Road Runner and Coyote cartoons though.

I disagree, but to each his own

this is pretty freaking dark....especially for a show aimed at little kids

and Coyote always.starves.to.death.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tom and Jerry was kind of dark.  Not as dark as the Road Runner and Coyote cartoons though.

I disagree, but to each his own

this is pretty freaking dark....especially for a show aimed at little kids

and Coyote always.starves.to.death.

How was that dark?

[dead0man]

suicide isn't dark?