Who's the worst Batman?

[Wolf Kanno]

To be honest I think the "Animated Series" represented the Batman franchise the best but Burton's work are not so terrible. I agree Batman Begins is a superior movie to the others. Of course I'm a Tim Burton fan so I am a little bias about his way of doing things. Of anything, I think Burton portrayed Gotham the best and I do enjoy his work on Bruce Wayne's character in the first film.

Agreed on the Animated Series. I also am a huge Burton fan believe it or not. I just can't stand his Batman movies. They were too campy for me, and I just feel he didn't really understand any of the characters.

To each their own I guess I personally feel Burton put enough humor and camp to make the films special and not fall into being too melodramatic. But glad to hear there is anothor Tim Burton fan on the forums.

George Clooney was pretty bad but I blame Joel Schumacher and his inabilty to direct as the fault. To be honest Joel makes a similiar mistake that the Ceej brought up about Clooney's portrayel. Tim Burton pretty much established what the Batman movies should be like and though Tim had quite a bit of humor in the films, it never felt too campy or out of place. Joel sorta tried to meld what Tim did with the old 60's sitcom to disasterous results. I demand new Batman films with Two Face and Mr. Freeze portrayed in a darker and grimer setting (Batman the Animated Series FTW!)

Schumacher did ruin Burton's Batman franchise. That's true. But Schumacher directed Val Kilmer and he was still able to play Keaton's Batman. One can hardly blame Schumacher for Clooney's acting abilities. Yes, he can act. He just can't play a role previously defined as I stated earlier that most actors can't. Maybe if Clooney were able to play Keaton's Batman, then the movie might actually have been quasi-watchable.

No, I believe Schumacher's vision was way too off. Even if Clooney did pull it off it wouldn't have saved the terrible characterizations of Bat Girl, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane... All of these characters were two dimensional jokes of what they should have been. Which is a shame cause I feel Uma and Arnold could have pulled off their characters if the script and director were better. Bane and Bat Girl would have to be completely rewritten or just plain removed. I also feel it's a shame that the script and director were terrible in Batman Forever since both Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones were perfect choices for their roles.

As for Val, I just never felt like he did a good job of portraying Keaton's Batman. Then again, I never felt Val should have been chosen to play the role cause it doesn't fit him as an actor (consequently, he did a rather fine job of the Saint). Val has too many emotions and I felt he pushed Batman's grief too much into the forefront of his character.

Also, for those who hate The Batman, thank you! I thought I was the only person who couldn't stand that show...

[The Ceej]

Okay Wolf, I guess I'll concede that even if Clooney could pull of Keaton's Batman, the movie would have still been pretty bad because of script and directing. However, there's no way I can justify Arnold Schwarzenegger in the role of Mr. Freeze. At this point, they were just getting big names rather than the people who would best fit these roles. Schwarzenegger can't act and the only good roles he ever played were the Terminators from The Terminator and Terminator 2 because acting is not required (and strongly frowned upon) for these roles. I'd get into that, but it's a completely different argument altogether. I'm not so sure about the others' acting abilities as I hadn't seen them in much else, and the dialogue didn't give them much to work with.

Val Kilmer didn't pull off a perfect Keaton's Batman, but considering that that's something hardly any actors can do, I believe he did very well. I'm always against replacing an actor for the same character, but Keaton to Kilmer in the role of Batman is the best replacement I've ever seen. This will pretty much show you how rare it is when someone can pull it off and how good they are when they do it.

[XxSephirothxX]

Batman Begins was a better comeback movie than Superman Returns.

I don't think many people understand this, but Batman Begins is not part of the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise. It was originally intended to be the beginning of a new Batman franchise. They signed Christian Bale for three films, but only one got made. The fact that no more were made furthers the illusion that it's part of the same franchise. And if it were, it would suck because there are hundreds of continuity problems. But alas no. It's a separate entity in its own. I can't speak for Superman Returns because I never saw Superman III or IV and it's been a long time since I saw the first two. It was a terrible movie, but the scene with the plane was worth the price of admission alone. I won't buy the DVD but I don't regret seeing it in the theaters.

I think anybody who has ever seen a Batman movie understands that. It's called "Batman Begins," and it's pretty obviously a retelling of how Batman, well, began. And how does "no more being made" further any sort of illusion? The Dark Knight has pretty much been in production since Batman Begins came out.

[Wolf Kanno]

Okay Wolf, I guess I'll concede that even if Clooney could pull of Keaton's Batman, the movie would have still been pretty bad because of script and directing. However, there's no way I can justify Arnold Schwarzenegger in the role of Mr. Freeze. At this point, they were just getting big names rather than the people who would best fit these roles. Schwarzenegger can't act and the only good roles he ever played were the Terminators from The Terminator and Terminator 2 because acting is not required (and strongly frowned upon) for these roles. I'd get into that, but it's a completely different argument altogether. I'm not so sure about the others' acting abilities as I hadn't seen them in much else, and the dialogue didn't give them much to work with.

Val Kilmer didn't pull off a perfect Keaton's Batman, but considering that that's something hardly any actors can do, I believe he did very well. I'm always against replacing an actor for the same character, but Keaton to Kilmer in the role of Batman is the best replacement I've ever seen. This will pretty much show you how rare it is when someone can pull it off and how good they are when they do it.

Alright, I'll concede that Arnold was a bad choice overall but no one can pull off monotone like he can But Uma, Lee, and even Carey have all proven they can diversify and a wide range of acting ability so I feel they could have done a good job with their respected roles.

As for Val, I just don't like him as an actor and I don't really feel he is Batman material. I still feel he was chosen to be a "handsome and hurt"
Bruce Wayne so woman would swoon over him. Bruce, though handsome never shows his hurt side to anyone really. I doubt he would ever speak to a psychiatrist anyway.

[The Ceej]

The Dark Knight has pretty much been in production since Batman Begins came out.

I'm sorry. I've been looking for a sequel to Batman Begins on IMDB for some time. Unfortunately, I've been looking with the keyword "Batman." I would have assumed it would have had Batman in the title. I looked it up and realized that I was wrong and that The Dark Knight will be the sequel to Batman Begins and I'm looking forward to it.

[Kossage]

My choice would be George Clooney. He just never really looked comfortable in that role and took it to the wrong direction, although Schumacher and some others should be blamed for that as well.