knapplc wrote:I seem to recall George Clooney's version of Batman in some similar circumstances, I believe.
he doesn't count. just like dalton doesn't count against bond.
So then you're counting Kilmer? Or Keaton? Because you're running out of bad Bonds if you keep one of those two.
Not that it really matters. Batman or Bond - either is going to clean the floor with Bauer.
what was wrong with michael keaton as batman? other than it's michael keaton and doesn't make sense. he wasn't a bad batman. kilmer was ok. clooney's movie sucked. but that was mainly because of, well, it just all around sucked. not his fault. just a crappy movie with a crapy director.
moonhead
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 15994
(Past Year: 15)
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Yards this season: 0
Home Cafe: Football
Location: questioning your fanhood...funk o'meter: funkalicious
knapplc wrote:I seem to recall George Clooney's version of Batman in some similar circumstances, I believe.
he doesn't count. just like dalton doesn't count against bond.
So then you're counting Kilmer? Or Keaton? Because you're running out of bad Bonds if you keep one of those two.
Not that it really matters. Batman or Bond - either is going to clean the floor with Bauer.
Keaton is still the best Batman. Bale is a much better Bruce Wayne, but Keaton owned at playing the bat. Kilmer was neither good nor bad, he didn't ruin the movie, but he got the show stolen by Carey as the Riddler.
As for Bonds, well Connery, is the best actor amongst both groups, and simply classic. I never really cared for Roger Moore myself, and Dalton was just as atrocious as Bond as Clooney playing Batman. Pierce gets a lot of flak it seems, though I personally thought it was the plots for most of his Bond films that made the movies bad, not how he acted in them.
In the end, I'd give the edge to Bond. He is the best assassin-type character we've got on screen, though this should be close, as Batman deals with much higher powered villains, despite having no super-powers and I think Q makes his normal gadget advantage equal with Bond.
FWIW, Azrael would kill both their asses. When he took over the Batman mantle after Bane broke Bruce's back, he destroyed everything in his path. Don't nobody want to mess with the post Knightfall Batman.
Bale made the best Batman I think. He carried that dark knight mantra that DC evolved Batman into the last 10-15 years. Keaton's Batman was close but he still had that good guy feel to him.
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 8276
(Past Year: 21)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Yards this season: 1
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight
Azrael wrote:FWIW, Azrael would kill both their asses. When he took over the Batman mantle after Bane broke Bruce's back, he destroyed everything in his path. Don't nobody want to mess with the post Knightfall Batman.
Bale made the best Batman I think. He carried that dark knight mantra that DC evolved Batman into the last 10-15 years. Keaton's Batman was close but he still had that good guy feel to him.
agreed on bale. bane was a bad dude. but doomsday was badder.
moonhead
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 15994
(Past Year: 15)
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Yards this season: 0
Home Cafe: Football
Location: questioning your fanhood...funk o'meter: funkalicious
This one is tough, as it should be. I can see both sides of this argument and have gone back and forth myself. Bond is a clever guy who makes what he does look easy while it isn't. Batman does the same thing, with possibly similar gadgets. I was going to vote for Batman because I love his vigilante style, but I also appreciate Bond's dedication to ridding the world of terrorists, etc. Batman's a pretty angry guy, while Bond falls helplessly in love every 5 minutes. Batman's foes are certainly more eccentric, but I wouldn't consider them necessarily more dangerous. So, after much consideration, I have decided to reluctantly vote for Bond. ... But I hope Batman wins.