Yes, but Tim Burton hadn't done that many movies at that point, and Micheal Keaton had done mainly comedies, so it was a fair point to make. We didn't know how Micheal Keaton would do until we saw him in the part. After that it became apparent that he was a good choice, but that wasn't a given beforehand.Tigermegatron wrote:Micheal Keaton was perfect for the part because the 1989 & 1992 Batman movies had a even mixture 50/50 of comedy & seriousness thrown in the mixture. The bulk of Tim burton's movies consist of that clown/goth/nightmarish type comedy/humor.
As I said, the whole brouhaha over Affleck is history repeating itself in a lot of ways. It really is.
Batman went through a lot of changes in his history, but the "campy" era in the comics was during the 50s and early 60s. Then we had the "new look" Batman for awhile until the show took off, then the comics reflected the tone of the show briefly, then we thankfully got the O'Neil/Adams/Giordano Batman that took him back to his roots and probably saved the character. Or saved him again, since he was on the verge of cancellation before Schwartz and the new look. In many ways, the tv show was behind the times when it came to depicting Batman.andersonh1 wrote:Then those fans needed to seriously brush up on their DC Batman comics reading. Because during the late 1960's through early 1970's the DC Batman comics became less serious,more campy to be modeled after the Batman 1966-1968 Show that had become so popular.
To the general public in the late 80s, the predominant image they had of Batman was Adam West. Those of us who read comics knew that he had gone back to his roots and was more serious, but the non-comic book reading public, who only knew the character from tv, didn't know that. The fans wanted their dark, serious Batman from the comics and were worried that Keaton's casting meant we'd get something more comic. Again, at the time, it was a reasonable fear.
But you're absolutely right, Keaton brought a good mix and humor and drama to the part. Whoever cast him, probably Tim Burton, knew what he was capable of. The rest of us didn't until the move came out.
Not at all. They wanted the character treated seriously. They wanted a departure from the silliness of those other depictions. The comics had left that behind, and the fans wanted the movie to do the same.Even the 1970's & early 1980's super heroes cartoons were more comedy/less serious,more clown humor,campy,that all seemed to be modeled after the 1966-1968 Batman show. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069641/ ----> So these fans that demanded a more serious actor with muscles play Batman in the 1989 movie,Were either clueless,did no back reading/watching on the comics/cartoons from the late 1960's through early 1980's.
Eh... yes and no. Batman's skill and "unbeatableness" (the Bat-God portrayal) is certainly a problem with how the character has been written in recent years. But Batman has always been shown to be a skilled hand to hand combatant, even if he was far from unbeatable.andersonh1 wrote:1- The Batman comics/shows/movies/cartoons have been around since 1939 through 2013. Batman in his earlier years & thru the decades was not a extremely skilled fighter nor did he have the muscles he has today.
It's a mix of both, and always has been. He goes undercover and does detective work, but you won't find many issues where he isn't in a fist fight with the villains.1a- It's possible Tim burton for the 1989 Batman movie was modeling his batman after the 1939/earlier Batman years,where batman was portrayed as a ordinary guy with almost no muscles & his fighting only consisted of the "basics-street fighting skills",with gadgets thrown in to assist him. Batman in his earlier years was more about his detective brain,his gadgets & less about his muscles.
I largely agree. Batman should be stronger, smarter and faster than the average criminal and opponent, but on a human level. I don't mind the idea that he comes up with plans to stop the others, but making plans is one thing. Having the ability to carry them out is another entirely.I'm not a fan of the Batman versions that are pumped out to the max with muscles & had ninja fighting skills that can take down a super hero like superman----> These versions I view as extreme exaggerations. I much rather prefer the Tim burton Batman where his Batman has no extreme muscles,isn't ninja trained & barely knows the "basics street fighting skills,with gadgets thrown into the fight to assist him.
