The problem is that in the movies, with that voice, you can't understand him. Yeah sure you can say it's used for intimidation reasons, and that's perfectly true. However, in a movie, where we are supposed to be listening to what the characters are saying, and you can't understand the lead character....well, that is a practical problem that should be addressed. If he had kept it at the level of Begins, there wouldn't have been an issue IMO. You could understand what he was saying just fine in Begins, and it still was altered enough to not be "Wait, aren't you Bruce Wayne?", and it was also intimidating.josemlopes said:
I watched the movies with subtitles and even though I dont usually look at them as I understand english I guess they did complement my understanding of what he was saying even if they were at the corner of my eye. I can see now how that could be a problem without anything to help.Happyninja42 said:
I could get that, except the whole concept of a real Batman is ridiculous. The voice fits it so well that I never questioned it, never even thought to think it was odd until the internet rose up in a rage.The.Bard said:
Yeah, at times it was ok, but other times, the sound quality, and ambient noises, and soundtrack in the scene, made what he said come out completely garbled. I remember when I saw Dark Knight in the theater, at several points in the movie, other people in the theater with me, all said "what did he say?!" It wasn't an isolated issue, it would be like, 6 or 7 people at once would all go "huh?!" I don't have any problem with that level of gravely to his voice, for intimidation purposes. My one and only issue with the voice, was it got in the way of understanding the lead character/protagonist's words. (^_^)josemlopes said:
It really was fitting, and you're right. If it was a little easier to understand what he was saying, I wouldn't have a problem with it.Sarge034 said:
IMO it worked with Rorschach because unlike Batman, the film didn't try to sell him as the hero. He's supposed to be questionable, morally ambiguous and completely nuts. Also I think it was a bit self-aware, being just over the top enough to not be totally grating.Jumwa said:
I find the change between films 1 and 2 strange as well. In the first it sounded a little gravelly, but still human. But in the second film he's growling like a bear. I will admit though, that it works remarkably in the bank scene at the beginning where he appears out of nowhere and vanishes just as quickly. IMO it really sells Batman as something not quite human. But when it goes on for the whole movie, it just feels off.Hazy992 said:
Kevin Conroy is the best VOICE for Batman, but getting him into a live-action thing when he's getting as old as Batman Beyond Bruce? Hard sell, unless you want him to voice-over Bats a la James Earl Jones for Darth Vader. Not impossible, just very odd.Hazy992 said:
Actually agree on all points. I didn't mind it so much in Batman Begins. There were a couple of points where I thought it sounded off, like maybe he'd strained his voice a little too much doing the voice, but mostly, I was okay with it. Then in Dark Knight, it went too far and became unintelligible.Hazy992 said:
