ST Alpha - "Sure, but Keaton made more sense for Batman at the time (a little goofy). Just don't get Affleck. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

In response to "Michael Keaton's 1986-1988: Gung Ho, Touch and Go, The Squeeze, Beetlejuice (which was not as big a hit as you think), Clean and Sober" by Reagen

Sure, but Keaton made more sense for Batman at the time (a little goofy). Just don't get Affleck. -- nm

Posted by colin (aka colinski) Aug 22 '13, 21:06

(No message)

Responses:

Ummm, actually no. Not according to the fans at that time - JD Aug 22, 21:12 10
- Right. People are giving in to revisionist history. - Reagen Aug 22, 21:24 9
  - Like I said, it is a different animal though. All the way around. - The Ruiner Aug 22, 21:30 7
    - Clooney was "the ER guy". And was, in fact, a good Batman in a terrible Batman movie. -- nm - Reagen Aug 22, 21:32 6
      - Clooney was a great Bruce Wayne, an okay Batman, in a horrible Batman movie. -- nm - The Ruiner Aug 22, 21:34 2
        
        Right. So I will give you that you're right to be concerned about the Zach Snyder part - Reagen Aug 22, 21:36 1
        
        And when you get right down to it, the real reason that 60 mil was not enough to get Bale back. - The Ruiner Aug 22, 21:41
      - I thought kilmer was alright. O'donnell ... not so much. - Beryllium Aug 22, 21:34 2
        
        O'Donnell is wrong for everything that requires more than two emotions. -- nm - Reagen Aug 22, 21:34 1
        
        He finally found his niche in NCIS:LA. -- nm - the liioulu with pizza Aug 22, 21:42
  - Just like they do with Ledger -- nm - Beryllium Aug 22, 21:26
I guess if you could pick a reason and stick with it, it'd be helpful. -- nm - Reagen Aug 22, 21:07

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.