52 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

Potential Batmen:

Collin Farrel
Heath Ledger
Guy Pierce
Mathew Mchonoghay
Josh Hartnett
Eric Bana
Aaron Eckhart
Mark Walberg
James Franco
The guy from Amerian beauty...?
The guy who played The human Torch...?

Ok, I'm not saying they would have been as good or better than Bale but they could have worked in the role as Batman.

Maybe it's just that you're not that familiar with the character, but I don't think one any one of the people you mentioned would have worked. Come on - the guy who played THE HUMAN TORCH!?! They are either entirely inappropriate for the role or inadequate actors for the part (for example, Franco and Wahlberg are two of the worst working actors today, and if they can't handle their own smaller parts in films that are much less demanding, there's no way they can handle a part as demanding as Batman).

Ok they aren't as solid as Christian Bale but none of these cats have any chance of being Superman and the Batman role has more lattitude...I think Farrel was a serious candidate at one point and I don't see why he wouldn't have been a good Bat, hence he was my # 1 non Bale choice. The thing about Batman is he wears a mask...the human torch guy could dissapear in that costume...


anyways, I look forward to more fun DC movies...Marvel seems to be slipping...

[Harmsway]

Ok they aren't as solid as Christian Bale but none of these cats have any chance of being Superman and the Batman role has more lattitude...

The Batman role has slightly more latitude, just because visually it allows for a little more change. But it's also more demanding on the actor than that role of Superman is, and does have very specific requirements.

I think Farrel was a serious candidate at one point and I don't see why he wouldn't have been a good Bat, hence he was my # 1 non Bale choice.

Firstly, he's an overrated actor. Secondly, he's got a very greasy feel to him, no matter what he's in. Batman/Bruce Wayne does not feel greasy.

The thing about Batman is he wears a mask...the human torch guy could dissapear in that costume...

Not if he can't act behind it. That guy *isn't* a good actor. Furthermore, he does have to spend half of the movie screentime outside of the suit as well, and the Bruce Wayne persona is just as important as the Dark Knight himself.

anyways, I look forward to more fun DC movies...Marvel seems to be slipping...

Marvel has had some poor execution of their films. Frankly, I think what it is is that they don't give their projects over to the right people, or when they do, they've hampered them in the process. For example, when they got Ang Lee to do THE HULK, but wouldn't let him make the version he wanted to, and thus his film was somewhat confused and hindered. The only one that was really given free reign is Raimi, and he is doing a pretty good job of it.

DC has been fortunate to have their projects done by good people, and thus they have recently had BATMAN BEGINS, V FOR VENDETTA, and SUPERMAN RETURNS. Not at all a bad line-up, if you ask me.

[Gobi-1]

This is a tough for me as I like both characters almost equally. Almost. Superman wins because he can fly, and because I can identify with Clark. Batman has the better villains, though. Batman and Superman are night and day, darkness and light, they're two sides of the same coin, they're both equally cool.

As for the films. Batman Begins is the better made film. Save for Katie Holmes it's almost flawless. The uber-Batfilm. Superman Return being a quasi-sequel reboot was bound to have some flaws, which it does, but I have enjoy it greatly, even more then Batman Begins. It returns Superman to the big screen after a much too long absence. It captures the magic of the originals and lays the ground work for the future.

As for Routh and Bale, I gave my vote for Routh only because he had much larger tights to fill. Bale while giving us the best Batman/Bruce Wayne to date didn't have to worry about what came before as his was a fresh start for the character. He had much more room to work with and delivered an incredible performance.

Routh on the other hand not only had to embodied the very essence of Superman he had to live up to the standard set by the late Christopher Reeve. For an unknown actor in his first film role Routh pulls off the job magnificently. He IS Superman. It's just magic seeing him float down onto the roof of the Daily Planet.

Batman Begins was cool but it wasn't magical. Wonder always trumps darkness in my book. Hopefully we'll get to see them together on screen in Batman vs Superman or a Justice League movie years from now.

Right now I'm looking foward to seeing Superman Returns for a 3rd time.

[SecretAgent007]

For me Superman wins hands down. When the theme started playing (after 30 min. of commercials and previews ) and the titles swooped across the screen, I had goose bumps for 2 hours and 35 minutes. I went in with the notion that it would not be as good as Superman I, and possibly a disaster. But to my relief it was a joy. The feel of the film was of a movie from 20 years ago (A plus for me), with better visual effects. Routh was a fantastic choice to replace Reeves and I thought was extremely confident as Superman and slightly bumbling as Kent. A good rendition/impression of Reeves take on the role. I also enjoyed all of the nods to events from I and II and the comics. They were done much better than what they did with DAD for example. I did miss Hackman as Luthor, but thought that Kevin Spacey did a great job. Just couldn't get used to him saying Kitty. I kept thinking "Ms. Teschmacher!!" in my head. The only thing that I found disappointing was the relationship between Superman/Kent and Lois Lane. I thought Margot Kidder's not quite all there/unorganized/rush in without thinking traits meshed better with Reeves than Kate Bosworth Pulitzer Prize winning/lives in a mansion/drives an SUV take. She was too successful and not interested enough in Superman. The only other thing that bugged me was the darker tones of the costume. Is there a precedent for that? And as was stated earlier, the ending kind of feel apart. But, it was the most fun I have had going to a movie since....I can't remember the last movie I saw that was fun the whole way through. I've been humming the theme in my head for the past few days, and will be seeing it in the theater again.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 04 July 2006 - 04:46 AM.

[Righty007]

Right now I'm looking foward to seeing Superman Returns for a 3rd time.

It didn't have the same effect on me when I saw it a second time. It's a great movie to watch every once in a while but not one to see multiple times within a short period of time. I'll be ready to watch it again when it comes out on DVD.

[Gobi-1]

I enjoyed it more then second time then I did the first. I saw each of the Star Wars Prequels five times each in theaters so I'm use to seeing someting over and over again. Films of this nature are, to me, like roller coasters, when the ride over you get back in line and ride it again.

[Athena007]

I love Batman, but Superman Returns was AWESOME. And totally better, imo, than Batman Begins. I really really liked the new Superman movie and it's making my want to turn my loyalty from Batman to Superman. Ah, I can't decide!

Anywho... see Superman if you haven't. This was one of the best movie going experiences since... since... um, I don't even know when. I heart Superman.

[Righty007]

I enjoyed it more then second time then I did the first. I saw each of the Star Wars Prequels five times each in theaters so I'm use to seeing someting over and over again. Films of this nature are, to me, like roller coasters, when the ride over you get back in line and ride it again.

I saw Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith three times in theater. I got it on DVD for Christmas and have yet to watch it. I watched it so many times in theater that now I can't watch it again for a while.

[K1Bond007]

Batman across the board.

Superman is too one-dimensional for me. I liked Returns and as hysterical as the Reeve films were, I don't mind them that much, I also dug Lois and Clark, and I love Smallville, but Batman is far more interesting. This isn't a superhero per se. He has no "super" powers. He's just an awesome regular human detective out to clean up a city.

Returns was good, but it was no Begins. Much better and still the reigning superhero flick of the lot.

[Mr. Somerset]

For me it's extremely close. Superman is my prefered character, but I felt Batman Begins was the slightly better film. As for who played their role's better? Bale to me was the best cinematic interpretation of Batman (I also like Adam West, but wouldn't compare the two).
Routh, though I feel he did an excellent job for a newcomer, didn't define Superman the way Christopher Reeve did.
I must say that both Bale and Routh had disappointing costumes.

[DanMan]

Superman all across the board. Superman Returns was just amazing. BB was great too though.

[OVERLORD]

Batman Begins was better, probably helped due to the great comic book story by Frank Miller. Superman Returns just felt like watching a slicker update of the original Reeve film, nothing new was really added to the storyline by way of background or anything. The sequel will be interesting though, with the little one.

[Robinson]

I'll look at both films as separate entities (one's a re-boot/origin story) the other's a continuation (admittedly after a long layoff).

Batman Begins was one of my favorite films of any genre from last year. I thought it was well acted with a great story. It's only failing was that I felt it was too serious at times. I thought Bale was good and was really great at playing a brooding Bruce Wayne.

I thought Superman Returns was a bit uneven. It seemed it couldn't decide wether to be a true continuation or a big-budget homage to Donner's first film. I didn't especially care for Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor. I thought the character could be more diabolical, as he is in the comics. I thought Brandon Routh was great, especially as Clark Kent. I thought the plot twist was an intersting one and I hope it's built up in the inevitable sequels. While there were a couple of effective action sequences, I just expected so much more; especially since Singer was involved.

Again, I'd rather not compare Batman Begins to Superman Returns. I'd say Begins is superior to the Batman flicks of the 90's (except Batman: Mask of the Phantasm). Whereas Superman Returns falls short of Superman: The Movie and Superman II.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I go with Batman Begins over Superman Returns, probably mostly because I like Batman over Superman. Both were great films though (Superman Returns surprisingly so). I have to give the acting honours to Routh, he was dead on. Bale

[Harmsway]

I go with Batman Begins over Superman Returns, probably mostly because I like Batman over Superman.

Yeah... that's largely why I prefer BATMAN BEGINS, too. Stuff like the fight at the docks in BEGINS is unspeakably cooler than anything Superman could ever put together. Christian Bale put it this way, "Superman is cool, but Batman is the badass." How true.

Superman, while a character I really do love, just didn't strike the right chord for me in the films (he has struck the chord in the comics, though). And for me, there's not enough emphasis in the films of the young boy from Smallville just being daunted with this task of saving the world - which is what I think is the strongest area for Superman to focus on. Superman, at heart, is just a young boy from Smallville, Kansas, and I would like that to be drawn out more.

[ThunderhearT]

Batman - all across the board

[zencat]

Superman on all counts.

[Agent 76]

Batman rules.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I gather that Warners could just as easily have made BB as BATMAN 5 (the working title of BB for quite a while, as I understand it), but decided in favour of a reboot instead of a straight sequel (after apparently toying with the idea of "elderly Batman", starring Clint Eastwood)...

Really? I was under the impression that even though it was under the working title of Batman 5, WB was always intent on making it almost verbatim from Miller's Year One book. Could be wrong, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had indeed toyed with the idea of doing something closer to Dark Knight Returns.

Anyway, whilst I enjoyed Superman Returns, I'm still inclined to go with Batman Begins as the better of the two, simply because I thought that Bale did a better job with both identities of the charcter (and because I've always favoured Batman over Superman). Routh, I thought, seemed to be slightly uncomfortable playing Superman; whilst Reeve was so charming and outgoing as the Man of Steel, Routh is just sorta...there. I loved him as the shy, dorky Clark Kent, but I thought he was somewhat disappointing as Supes. Bale, OTOH, did a superb job with both Bruce Wayne and Batman, which was the biggest problem of the Burton and Schumacher films: Keaton was good as Batman, but kinda crap as Wayne. On the flipside of the coin, Kilmer* and Clooney were good as Wayne, but average to poor as Batman. Despite that, I'm sure Routh will improve in the next one.

And aside from that, the villain's plan in Superman Returns was just underwhelming, considering the scope of the rest of the film.

*who, IMO, had the potential to be the best Bruce Wayne and Batman, if it weren't for...well, the rest of the film.

[Harmsway]

I gather that Warners could just as easily have made BB as BATMAN 5 (the working title of BB for quite a while, as I understand it), but decided in favour of a reboot instead of a straight sequel (after apparently toying with the idea of "elderly Batman", starring Clint Eastwood)...

Really? I was under the impression that even though it was under the working title of Batman 5, WB was always intent on making it almost verbatim from Miller's Year One book. Could be wrong, tough, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had indeed toyed with the idea of doing something closer to Dark Knight Returns.

BATMAN 5 went through many stages. When it was in pre-production during BATMAN & ROBIN, it was called BATMAN: DARKNIGHT and even had a published logo (I saw it). The villain was to be the Scarecrow. Following that, it was dropped.

BATMAN 5 sat in development hell for many years, and one of the ideas tossed around was Darren Aronofsky doing a DARK KNIGHT RETURNS with Clint Eastwood. At a certain point, though, ASYLUM (a Batman & Superman flick) was brought into the mix, putting a hold on BATMAN 5 development.

The BATMAN 5 named was dropped, however, when the BATMAN: YEAR ONE proposal was being seriously considered. However, the film was far too dark and gritty for any sort of mainstream audience (Miller took it far away from what he originally did with it and turned his work into a piece of ), and the project was dropped.

Then came Christopher Nolan, with a pre-existing vision for the film, and now we have BATMAN BEGINS.

[Loomis]

Then came Christopher Nolan, with a pre-existing vision for the film, and now we have BATMAN BEGINS.

I gather (sorry, no sources to cite) that Nolan has said that he approached Batman as he would a Bond film. Is this correct, Harmsway?

[phantom_shaddow]

batman.

they could have done a better job with superman, being an alien and with a new actor. but the idiots didnt. they should have rebooted the franchise rather than continuing the with the crap.

[Harmsway]

Then came Christopher Nolan, with a pre-existing vision for the film, and now we have BATMAN BEGINS.

I gather (sorry, no sources to cite) that Nolan has said that he approached Batman as he would a Bond film. Is this correct, Harmsway?

I don't remember a quote precisely to that effect. I do know, however, he cited loving to do a James Bond film, with ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE being his favorite Bond film. He also cited loving the novels, stating that "What I like in the books is that there's a selfishness to the character, a vanity, just a little, at times." If there is a high-profile man to get to do a Bond film in the future, I'd say it indeed is Christopher Nolan.

Nolan cited some James Bond influence on BATMAN BEGINS, especially in the choosing of the villain and the persona Wayne creates for himself. However, that stuff was already in the comics to begin with (Ra's Al Ghul was even created as a sort of "Bond villain" when he was added to the rogues' gallery in the 70s).

His vision for BATMAN BEGINS was primarily motivated by the concept of a "real world feel" which previous comic book adaptations had somewhat disregarded. I believe in his approach - I don't like an outright fantasy setting, because it always feels false and fake and like we're looking at sets. But if you go for heightened reality, it clicks. Nolan explained his approach:

Because we're doing a Batman film, something new, fresh and different, they were looking for a re-invention. No one's done one of these movies in years. The closest to it, for me, is probably the 1978 SUPERMAN, [Richard] Donner's film, which had locations and shooting in New York. It had this great cast, and it treated its subject with a real degree of respect, not selling it short as just a comic book movie. To me, that's what comic books are. It sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?

I would get asked all the time about Batman as a comic book and I would say, well, it's not a comic book, it's just a movie, the way that STAR WARS wasn't just science fiction and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK wasn't just a cartoon serial.