Superman/Dark Knight Crossover in 2016

Keeanu Reeves would cross the "cheesy guy" limit as the Batman.

He's not any worse than Bale in Constantine and The Matrix WITHOUT a mask covering his face. Well okay, maybe he is in The Matrix, but he's basically already Batman in the former.

And there isn't that evil vibe in Weisz. She only has the beauty side.

Catwoman isn't evil, and Hathaway's Catwoman certainly wasn't evil in the least, just naive and dumb.

But when you focus on Bale as Batman and all those who played Batman before, you just can see the perfect combo of Bruce Wayne & Batman that Bale brings to the table. Nobody played both sides equally good.

Except Keaton and Kilmer.

As funny as it sounds, playing Bruce Wayne is easy.

No, it isn't. That's the hardest fucking part because you have to equally portray all his personas. As Batman you just have to show off your pre-planning and listen to the villain diatribe while not being able to move your neck very well.

beats the shit out of Joker at the interrogation room?

Here we go, pointing to one of the worst acted scenes by Bale he's ever done as some kind of hallmark of acting about sums it up.

As for Catwoman, the character is supposed to have the mixture of universal beauty & street smartness.

Nothing says street smartness like getting conned by everyone man she runs across and then rather than escape rushing back with a complete change of heart and motivation to help her to be lover who just she met and then didn't see for months. (Maybe I should rethink Hathaway playing her as a dullard being completely accurate as written much like Oldman!)

Halle Berry's film has nothing to do with the Batman franchise.

As for Catwoman, the character is supposed to have the mixture of universal beauty & street smartness. I didn't find that Pfeiifer or Halle Berry.

You just lost all of your credence in the argument by mentioning Halle Berry's Catwoman.

It never happened, same as Jordan playing for the Wizards, it's not true like the moon landing.

Catwoman isn't evil, and Hathaway's Catwoman certainly wasn't evil in the least, just naive and dumb.

That's the way it's supposed to be with... What is your problem with this? You statistical feminist.

wtf, batman is not even top 5 of bales performances. it will be what people remember him for though simply because the movies themselves were so good.

american psycho
fighter
machinist
prestige
american hustle
3:10
out of the furnace

the batman movies may be better than these but his performance in each was far better than his portrayal of the bat

Who cares if batshit is top 5 Bale's performance or not. He was a great batman. This kinda superhero movies are forgettable anyway. You watch for eye pleasure, and forget everything else as soon as you walk out of cinema. Only thing I remember is Bale limping like Kobe, and Hathaway's mmmMm bike scene. I just got lectured by benji with 3 pages long essay, but I don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Just because you apparently have some kind of brain disorder that causes you to easily lose your memory doesn't mean other people can't remember simple things.

Just because Nolan's trilogy is forgettable incoherent schlock doesn't condemn all superhero movies to it, or any other "type" of film to "forgettable" status. Batman Returns is a good movie regardless of its type, X3 is a horrible disgusting movie regardless of its type. Wrath of Khan isn't just a good Star Trek movie, it's one of the greatest movies of all time. Star Trek Generations isn't just a bad Star Trek movie, it's the worst thing to ever involve Malcom McDowell including Wing Commander III and The Book of Eli. The Incredibles isn't just a good kids movie, animated movie or superhero movie, so on and so forth.

He was a shitty Batman, good Bruce Wayne. End of.

People are throwing and going to keep throwing shit fits about Affleck just because they're in some kind of Nolan/Bale cult for no clear reason other than trying to justify the stupid hype the frothed themselves into, even if Affleck delivers a greater performance than Ricardo Montalban in Wrath of Khan, even if Affleck tops Ledger in subtly tweaking an existing character into a fun new category and performs it at a high level AND THEN DIES before it comes out people are still going to circle jerk over Bale while being completely unable to explain why he was so great in the first place. (Let alone why he was better than Keaton or Kilmer.)

this is a great post with much truth

Personally I find movies like machinist, american psycho, and such more memorable. A lot of superhero movies rely on visual gimmicks. People had mind blowing seizures when Matrix came out, then Avatar 3D, Spidey man, transgender formers, stuff like that, your kids aren't gonna to watch them in the future. If they do, they will say it's stupid and boring. But the movies like Godfather, gone with the wind, benhur are different. you buy them on laser disc, dvd, then bluray. You don't buy them for Batman movies from 80-90s.

Bella from Twilight was a great vampire, a shitty human. End of.

But Bale and Nolan's batman series worked pretty good for its genre. Begins was great, DK was pretty good, Rises was solid. Give Bale his shares of credit. He pulled it off. I can't think of anyone else that could have created Batman character in the way he did, unless you teenie fans want to argue Robert Pattinson or Taylor Lautner was a better fit for the role, I have nothing else to add then. Brad Pitt? Nic Cage? Tatum? Dicaprio? Tom Cruise? Naw... not even Depp.

Brad Pitt? Nic Cage? Tatum? Dicaprio? Tom Cruise? Naw... not even Depp.

If those are your standards for actors of the current generation no wonder you think Bale is god as Batman.

I like Cage and Leo but even that script-changing maniac Edward Norton can act better behind a mask than Bale.

Michael Fassbender could probably do it better than Bale.

Then there's Daniel Day-Lewis who's crazy to surpass Keaton in being the GODDAMN BATMAN but Lewis is probably too expensive to hire or so intent on his method acting that he would have his parents killed.

Last edited by shadowgrin on Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Of course something like American Psycho is more memorable, it's only the greatest movie ever made.

And it's not just superhero movies that rely on "visual gimmicks" it's movies in general. How many movies are horror porn, how many movies rely on action sequences (including comedies, as every slapstick sequence is action) to chew time, and so on.

The Spider-Man and X-Men films are pretty good examples to look to. Because the critical reaction among them is quite disparate. X3 and Spider-Man 3 probably have better action sequences than X2 and Spider-Man 2, but the latter have much more favorable reputations entirely because of the fact that they have characterization arcs. The love of The Joker in TDK is because he's an actual character, even if his arc is pretty dumb. One of the incredibly valid criticisms of most franchise films is that they don't have characters but instead interchangeable avatars, but this doesn't mean they HAVE to have these. I think you're justifying bad things because "that's just how they are, bad" when this isn't necessarily true. The Star Trek reboot is a pretty decent example where the answer to the question of why are these characters in these roles the answer is more "because it's Star Trek" than "because the plot put them there" or "because that's where such a character would wind up" and many licenses adopt this method which is why it seems common. (One odd aspect being how much the avatars then want to talk about their motivations, which are non-existent.) But just because something is common is no reason to believe that all things must be common.

The avatar thing really illustrates the weirdness of the origin story fetish within Hollywood, why must you constantly show the origin story when the characters are already known and you aren't going to do anything different or creative with them anyway?

You don't buy them for Batman movies from 80-90s.

Of course you do. You get Batman for Nicholson's Joker, who is arguably more terrifying than Ledger's. And you get Batman Returns because it's far and away the best live action adaption of the Batman mythos with a brilliant take on the main characters that provides them with a great story arc along with Christopher Walken hamming it up as the villain.

The problem with Batman Forever is that there's too much not involving Kilmer and all of it is either bad or goofy. So you just rip the bank robbery scene out and watch that and you're good to go.

Now, the interesting thing about your critique is the "they'll find it boring" which is quite pacing related but then you go on to point to The Godfather, Gone with the Wind and so on which are all painfully slow (AND CHARACTER BASED) in comparison to the Burton Batmans let alone the ADHD films of today. (The fun part being that Returns is slightly over two hours, while all three Nolan films start at about two hours and twenty minutes and add ten minutes with each successive one, so if you get bored by the sequences you want to slit your wrists so it'll end.) So it's a little incoherent of a position to take.

I can't think of anyone else that could have created Batman character in the way he did

Which was?

Stop dorking, benji. Every single thing you said is subjective to what makes a movie great. Character and story arcs aren't everything to a success. What Nolan succeeded with was the world/atmosphere he created for the plot and audience, interesting and convincing. You still need decent likable actors, same, that need to be able to act interesting and convincing. Bale was a hit. So was that mmMmmm Hathaway. They kept your ass on the seat throughout entire 3 hours.

It's "dorking" to actually discuss the components that make up a film rather than blindly praising someones acting and the character portrayal based on them bending over on a motorcycle? I'm okay with this.

Every single thing you said is subjective

Wait...what? Since when?

What Nolan succeeded with was the world/atmosphere he created for the plot and audience, interesting and convincing

Nothing says convincing like an endless series of improbable coincidences padded out with incoherence set in a generic metropolis. (Not that one!) At least Schumaker did something compelling with his portrayal of Gotham to explain why people live there at all. (And to addendum to what I said above about Forever, it would have been great to get the Directors Cut of that.)

They kept your ass on the seat throughout entire 3 hours.

Dear god no, if you can get through any one of the Nolan slogs (especially the last two) with nothing else to distract you in one sitting you're a stronger man than I. Especially a rewatching of any of them as the collapsing plot bores through your eyeballs into your brain and the movie just won't ever end despite having lost momentum.

And still wondering about what Bale created that nobody else could or has, I'm really starting to wonder if there's even an answer to be found here. But, I guess, what can you expect from someone who dismisses the value of

Character and story arcs

in a story.

People would be less questioning of Affleck's casting if the Director's Cut of Daredevil was the one used originally* (apparently the Blu-Ray now only comes with this version) and instead of the Elektra movie they had done the sequel that was going to adapt Born Again.

*Of course, then we would have missed out on one of the best RiffTrax's, but alas.

I'm not arguing the movies were great but it goes same for most of hero movies anyway. The Bale's Batman sequel was decent in my standard. Beats Iron Man, Spidey man, silly stuff like that. You may argue they had better story overall but Bale's just more fun to watch than either Downey or Maguire. Note I am no fan of any of these comic characters.

updated thread title and first post, enjoy ye banter

I'm not arguing the movies were great but it goes same for most of hero movies anyway. The Bale's Batman sequel was decent in my standard. Beats Iron Man, Spidey man, silly stuff like that. You may argue they had better story overall but Bale's just more fun to watch than either Downey or Maguire. Note I am no fan of any of these comic characters.

the batman movies were fun but not because of bale. the iron man movies were ok at best but robert downey killed it as tony stark. my point is bale will be remembered for batman when it was not even close to his best work

Old thing benji is doing here, just keep blaming the scripts & throw some catchy terms like brain dead & stuff and say Bale sucked. But as Bale was so fucking awesome as Batman, that it would be unfair if somebody didn't oppose him.

He's not any worse than Bale in Constantine and The Matrix WITHOUT a mask covering his face. Well okay, maybe he is in The Matrix, but he's basically already Batman in the former.

How can you compare Constantine with any Bale shit? Every actor could play the character Reeves played in Constantine. On the other side, Bale would have played a better Neo.

Catwoman isn't evil, and Hathaway's Catwoman certainly wasn't evil in the least, just naive and dumb.

So, you bought the act.

Except Keaton and Kilmer.

Or not. You are biased when it comes to the 90s.

No, it isn't. That's the hardest fucking part because you have to equally portray all his personas. As Batman you just have to show off your pre-planning and listen to the villain diatribe while not being able to move your neck very well.

You minimized the 2nd part. Even so, the 1st part is harder to portray? Playing a billionaire playboy?

Here we go, pointing to one of the worst acted scenes by Bale he's ever done as some kind of hallmark of acting about sums it up.

omfg

Nothing says street smartness like getting conned by everyone man she runs across and then rather than escape rushing back with a complete change of heart and motivation to help her to be lover who just she met and then didn't see for months. (Maybe I should rethink Hathaway playing her as a dullard being completely accurate as written much like Oldman!)

Halle Berry's film has nothing to do with the Batman franchise.

You are going with the script, again. I can't debate anything here.

You just lost all of your credence in the argument by mentioning Halle Berry's Catwoman.

It never happened, same as Jordan playing for the Wizards, it's not true like the moon landing.

Well, she did play Catwoman whether it was related to the Batman franchise or not. And we were talking about that character & all those who portrayed it.

And I don't find it weird that you don't believe in Armstrong.

People are throwing and going to keep throwing shit fits about Affleck just because they're in some kind of Nolan/Bale cult for no clear reason other than trying to justify the stupid hype the frothed themselves into, even if Affleck delivers a greater performance than Ricardo Montalban in Wrath of Khan, even if Affleck tops Ledger in subtly tweaking an existing character into a fun new category and performs it at a high level AND THEN DIES before it comes out people are still going to circle jerk over Bale while being completely unable to explain why he was so great in the first place. (Let alone why he was better than Keaton or Kilmer.)

Now you bring Affleck to the conversation? A much weaker actor than Bale, who can in NO WAY outdo Bale or even get close? No matter, what the fucking script is. I'm feeling that you will bring that into play(if it's a good one) when the time comes.

Then there's Daniel Day-Lewis who's crazy to surpass Keaton in being the GODDAMN BATMAN but Lewis is probably too expensive to hire or so intent on his method acting that he would have his parents killed.

Imagine him playing Bruce Wayne, not only would he lose the coolness that Bale brought, he would make Bruce Wayne BORING. Only him and a few others like Clooney can do that to such a fucking awesome character.

Now, the interesting thing about your critique is the "they'll find it boring" which is quite pacing related but then you go on to point to The Godfather, Gone with the Wind and so on which are all painfully slow (AND CHARACTER BASED) in comparison to the Burton Batmans let alone the ADHD films of today. (The fun part being that Returns is slightly over two hours, while all three Nolan films start at about two hours and twenty minutes and add ten minutes with each successive one, so if you get bored by the sequences you want to slit your wrists so it'll end.) So it's a little incoherent of a position to take.

"ADHD films", I like that. So, now you are blaming brain dulness as a reason for people liking Bale? Not any logic here again, blaming Nolan all over.

Of course you do. You get Batman for Nicholson's Joker, who is arguably more terrifying than Ledger's. And you get Batman Returns because it's far and away the best live action adaption of the Batman mythos with a brilliant take on the main characters that provides them with a great story arc along with Christopher Walken hamming it up as the villain.

Who would want to see anybody other as Joker after Ledger motherfucking raped the role? Anybody else, even Nicholson couldn't be taken seriously after Dark Knight.

And the 2nd part you mentioned here about Returns is completely script based. Nothing to do with Bale whatsoever.

And it's not just superhero movies that rely on "visual gimmicks" it's movies in general. How many movies are horror porn, how many movies rely on action sequences (including comedies, as every slapstick sequence is action) to chew time, and so on.

It's not the same visual effect. You don't see buildings collapse or people breaking shit in the other genres you mentioned.

Dear god no, if you can get through any one of the Nolan slogs (especially the last two) with nothing else to distract you in one sitting you're a stronger man than I. Especially a rewatching of any of them as the collapsing plot bores through your eyeballs into your brain and the movie just won't ever end despite having lost momentum.

If you deny that you have watched Dark Knight less than 3 times, you are just LYING.

It's "dorking" to actually discuss the components that make up a film rather than blindly praising someones acting and the character portrayal

What you are doing with all the old Batman movies?

the iron man movies were ok at best but robert downey killed it as tony stark.

Iron Man 3 sucked. Even Tony Stark couldn't make it good. And it was great and all, but Robert Downey kinda mixed up his Sherlock & Tony Stark act. And I think you are discrediting the Batman series just because it was a superhero movie trilogy & PG-14 unlike most other Bale movies.

Wonder what WB knows about May 6, 2016. There's been a Marvel film scheduled for that date for a while.

Now you bring Affleck to the conversation? A much weaker actor than Bale, who can in NO WAY outdo Bale or even get close?

See what I was talking about guys?

Who would want to see anybody other as Joker after Ledger motherfucking raped the role?

That's certainly one way of putting it, but I thought Ledger did a fine job. A mostly non-frightening Joker who combined a number of smart pieces from his predecessors. One of the things that's so encouraging about Arkham Origins (along with Roger Craig Smith killing it as Batman) is Troy Baker showing he can potentially match Mark Hamill as perfectly encapsulating the range of emotions the Joker should express.

It's not the same visual effect. You don't see buildings collapse or people breaking shit in the other genres you mentioned.

It is. It's a period of time in which the plot stops and the characters stop as some sort of spectacle sequence plays out on screen. Sometimes this gets out of control and you wind up with 2012.

If you deny that you have watched Dark Knight less than 3 times, you are just LYING.

The whole thing? Counting once with RiffTrax, it would be three times total. Theatrical version, GLORIOUS HD because I love me some scenery porn and I wanted to see if it wasn't as bad as I thought, RiffTrax. I've watched bits and pieces otherwise, like the other night when it was on AMC (?) I watched the police station scenes because Ledger's so good that even Bale can't ruin it.

I've long had TDKR to see in GLORIOUS HD, but I can't do it, it's too oppressive. Maybe I should just watch the very good first half and pretend it ends there. But then I'd only have Star Trek Into Darkness left lying around and that's just too far.

What you are doing with all the old Batman movies?

Not truncating quotes, that's for sure.

And "all" is quite the stretch considering I haven't said anything about Batman and Robin or Batman (1966) and limited discussing Batman (1989) and Batman Forever to three actors (and dogged on the latter as a film) but I'd be more than happy to once again sing the praises of Batman Returns at length but everybody's heard it.

EDIT:

How can you compare Constantine with any Bale shit? Every actor could play the character Reeves played in Constantine.

Shadow's semi-joking about this was actually, after thinking about it, a great point (for once in his life) in that Reeves' acting method contributed to his portrayal of Constantine as detached and condemned while also not even phased by ALL THE CRAZY SHIT THAT'S GOING ON.

Wonder if there's a RiffTrax for that movie. It's a great movie, but it's still got plenty of work with. (Like Master and Commander.)

Last edited by benji on Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bale's just more fun to watch than either Downey or Maguire.

False. Maguire as Parker and especially Downey as Stark both surpass Bale by lightyears as Wayne, which was the strength of his entire performance as Batman. RDJ as Stark couldn't be better, regardless of opinion on the movies themselves.

Then there's Daniel Day-Lewis who's crazy to surpass Keaton in being the GODDAMN BATMAN but Lewis is probably too expensive to hire or so intent on his method acting that he would have his parents killed.

Imagine him playing Bruce Wayne, not only would he lose the coolness that Bale brought, he would make Bruce Wayne BORING. Only him and a few others like Clooney can do that to such a fucking awesome character.

lol at you.
You blame benji for putting too much weight on the script instead of the actor's performance and yet you think of Lewis as being boring just because of the story of the movies he was in instead of his performance.
What, you were disappointed that his portrayal in Lincoln didn't include his vampire killing background?

I'm also guessing you haven't watched many of his films or were too bored with it quickly to even finish it, not the actor's fault, blame the script or the director. Sounds familiar?

If you can watch Bale mumble angrily his way through Rises as Batman without laughing then I guess you can endure watching There Will Be Blood and see Lewis' performance.
Also Gangs of New York where Lewis who had a hat killed Ra's Al Ghul just because he was hatless and Irish.

Last edited by shadowgrin on Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

At the end of the day, it is all "subjective". You may think Bale was the best Batman, you may not. But to say Bale sucked as Batman/Wayne, that's just not right. No matter which era you were born in.

lol at you.
You blame benji for putting too much weight on the script instead of the actor's performance and yet you think of Lewis as being boring just because of the story of the movies he was in instead of his performance.
What, you were disappointed that his portrayal in Lincoln didn't include his vampire killing background?

I'm also guessing you haven't watched many of his films or were too bored with it quickly to even finish it, not the actor's fault, blame the script or the director. Sounds familiar?

If you can watch Bale mumble angrily his way through Rises as Batman without laughing then I guess you can endure watching There Will Be Blood and see Lewis' performance.
Also Gangsters of New York where Lewis who had a hat killed Ra's Al Ghul just because he was hatless and Irish.

I'm not saying he is a bad actor, he's fine. But he isn't just Batman material, that's all. I don't know how you imagined him as Bruce Wayne, I yawned just at trying to picture in in the Batmobile. And he isn't that good looking IMO unlike Reeves, Keaton & all the others who were mentioned in this discussion.

BUT, he would make a good Riddler.

And one name I totally forgot, Ryan Gosling. Even he would make a better batman than all those benji is mumbling about.

False. Maguire as Parker and especially Downey as Stark both surpass Bale by lightyears as Wayne, which was the strength of his entire performance as Batman. RDJ as Stark couldn't be better, regardless of opinion on the movies themselves.

Yeah, it sure was great when Downey was flying around the city fighting overpowered villains while Bale was lurking around the earth getting beaten to death by normal gangsta wannabees. And it sure was great to see Downey playing same ole personality to perfection once again when not in a suit. Not to mention his funny lines, they never get old, don't they?

At the end of the day, it is all "subjective". You may think Bale was the best Batman, you may not. But to say Bale sucked as Batman/Wayne, that's just not right. No matter which era you were born in.

I'm not saying he is a bad actor, he's fine. But he isn't just Batman material, that's all. I don't know how you imagined him as Bruce Wayne, I yawned just at trying to picture in in the Batmobile. And he isn't that good looking IMO unlike Reeves, Keaton & all the others who were mentioned in this discussion.

BUT, he would make a good Riddler.

And one name I totally forgot, Ryan Gosling. Even he would make a better batman than all those benji is mumbling about.

Batman material? Then what is Batman material?

lol good looking and yet you mention Keaton as being good looking than Lewis? Just take a side by side look of Keaton then as Bruce Wayne and Lewis today, no homo.

Of course taste and preference is subjective that's why the portrayal of the character in relation to the source material and logical development and presence of the character is a way of hopefully discussing it objectively and that is what that duck rider benji has been trying to do but instead he gets a cop out of "IT'S SUBJECTIVE" replies when the discussion is being steered to something that's less subjective and closer to being objective.

Ryan Gosling just reminds me of a younger Val Kilmer, so I guess Gosling could be a good Batman.

Batman material? Then what is Batman material?

lol good looking and yet you mention Keaton as being good looking than Lewis? Just take a side by side look of Keaton then as Bruce Wayne and Lewis today, no homo.

Of course taste and preference is subjective that's why the portrayal of the character in relation to the source material and logical development and presence of the character is a way of hopefully discussing it objectively and that is what that duck rider benji has been trying to do but instead he gets a cop out of "IT'S SUBJECTIVE" replies when the discussion is being steered to something that's less subjective and closer to being objective.

Ryan Gosling just reminds me of a younger Val Kilmer, so I guess Gosling could be a good Batman.

I can't explain in words what "Batman material" is to me. To you, it's something different. To me, it's having the perfect mixtures of charm, smartness & the ability to be scary as fuck. I don't see all of those in Lewis.

I don't know what you expected me to find out comparing young Keaton Vs. old Lewis.

"Source material, logical development"-- these things are pre-written. It's not how silly that is or how lame the script is, but it's how & if the actor did what was asked of him.

"Duck rider"-- I like that. Nobody is copping out, this isn't math where there is only one correct answer. He has his opinion. I think his are illogical & he thinks the same of mine. He thinks the interrogation room scene was the worst scene ever acted by Bale while I think it was one of the best. How can you debate on this? Nothing objective here, only subjective

I can't explain in words what "Batman material" is to me. To you, it's something different. To me, it's having the perfect mixtures of charm, smartness & the ability to be scary as fuck. I don't see all of those in Lewis.

You just did.
Mixture of that? Gangs of New York. Even the scenes without his hat.
Bale stopped being scary as Batman after Begins.

I don't know what you expected me to find out comparing young Keaton Vs. old Lewis.

And he isn't that good looking IMO unlike Reeves, Keaton

"Source material, logical development"-- these things are pre-written. It's not how silly that is or how lame the script is, but it's how & if the actor did what was asked of him.

Then Keaton is the best Batman because he did what was asked of him and Keaton did it so well that the comics even adopted an aspect of his portrayal and that is of Wayne being a loner who hides behind the image of a playboy, as benji once stated.

Nobody is copping out, this isn't math where there is only one correct answer.

Wrong. 5 divided by 2. Answer can either be 2.5 or 2 1/2. Two correct answers but still the same value.

interrogation room scene was the worst scene ever acted by Bale while I think it was one of the best. How can you debate on this?

Because Ledger carried Bale's ass in that scene.
You can remove Batman in that scene to make it look like Joker was talking and hurting himself and it will still look good.
Now remove Joker from that scene and replace him with an ordinary dirtbag being assaulted by Batman and it just looks normal and nothing special.
Like how Jon Arbuckle is really the most interesting character in the Garfield comic strips and not Garfield.

For one thing you and NovU could actually try to explain why Bale and Hathaway and whoever else was so great, and/or why the others weren't.

And I have to say it again, actors have tremendous leeway in their portrayals. Almost everything good about Ledger's Joker wasn't on the page, one of the most well regarded parts of his portrayal wasn't even fully scripted and he directed himself. Same with Nicholson's. And Baker's and Hamill's. Keaton defied popular expectations by playing both Wayne and Batman as a reserved and mourning hurt soul who dresses up as a bat and fucks around on rooftops out of his guilty and broken psyche that demands others are also introduced to his fear. (Kilmer's follows in this and he's probably a better actor in general.) Bale's mouth-breathing Batman loses his shit at the slightest provocation as he growls unintelligibly and smashes his way through life. There's almost no subtly to his attempts at intimidation or his engagement with his foes, Bale is a wrecking ball, he wants to break your walls, he meant to start a war.

The reason this ties into the script, and the plot and the character development, as important to the discussion is that the Nolanverse ultimately has no interest in anything more than the physical characteristics of the Batman mythos which is exposed by any of the motivation lectures. Batman Returns works, and was decried at the time, because it was willingly to accept the insanity involved within, well, every fucking person in the Batman mythos. (Also, Catwoman's outfit.) Now why does this matter in our evaluation of the performances? Because we need all the factors, separating them is nearly impossible.

I can't speak to Hathaway and Pfeiffer really, so I'll stick to our Batmen. I have no problem with saying that Bale is the best actor out of them if we take all his movies into account, then it'd probably be something like pre-fat Kilmer, then Keaton, then Clooney. Now why was he so terrible in the Nolan films? I claim he was given garbage and threw his own on top. You're accepting for the sake of argument my first claim and saying that he then did well with what he was given. But at the same time, we have Keaton and Pfeiffer given much more complex, difficult and superior material and either pulling it off or going beyond (which I think Pfeiffer more than did) which would logically make their performances superior within their own standards.

The reason I brought Affleck in was because the original genesis of this discussion was on the idea that Affleck CAN play Batman even post-Bale. And we pointed to both Keaton and Ledger as examples within the franchise of people going "no way that'll work" and it did. Then the claim was brought in that Bale was just too amazing, did something unique that only he can do (which we still haven't be told what it is) and thus Affleck will absolutely fail.