Batman Begins redefines the word cliché.SPOILERS!!

[coconut84]

///SPOILER ALERT!! If you haven't seen this movie you better not read this thread!!///





Yes, i know this topic is childish but I was so shocked after I watched that movie that I have to get this baggage off my shoulders!
Let's start, what went terribly wrong with the movie:

1) It was overlong. Clip 1 hour and there you have almost a decent movie.

2) The beginning
" Bla, bla, bla... I have issues and I generally suck. Yes. Bla, bla, bla...
*insert wise master here*
You have issues, let me teach you... Bla, bla, bla...
I shall teach you with this sword...
*insert sword fight borrowed from Zorro*...
*insert protagonist not quite mastering his sword* ..and.. *insert protagonist beating his coach*
Yes, now you're ready"

- Ok, please. Stop using that cliché beginning!! Or is this the comeback of the 80ies theme?

3) Flashbacks
There should be only 1 flashback if any allowed in the Batman movies. We know that
a) Bruce Wayne lost his parents.
b) His parents were good and lovely
c) Bruce didn't quite handle his parent's death.
You don't have to rub it 10 times. Yet again, we live in 2000 century, not in the 80ies. Cliché, cliché...
Plus, none other than Joker killed his parents! And Christopher Nolan had to change that, had he.

4) Bale's face looked funny on batsuit.
That's, of course, my opinion but at least I got some laughs out of it :p

5) The car
C'mon. TUMBLER?!? (or something alike)
I know, that the car is not ready yet but... I would like to see the developement from the tumbler to the real batmobile.
And at this point, Oldman's onliner
- I've gotta get one of those -Cliché again.

6) The "apostrophe" Ra's Al Ghul and Henry -bad guys
Was the plot so thin that you had to bring them back alive by some superneat "ok, where out of ideas" twist and make them the ultimate baddies? I got suprised by it only 'cos I hade FForwarded the beginning and wasn't paying attention to their names.


*Sight!* Now the most of it is off my shoulder :D ! Thanks for listening (and probably nailing my ass).
Maybe I'm just tooo old ;) or the kids are too small to remember the good ol' days of Tim Burton
**better buy myself the original se dvd and stop being irritated by Batman begins** :cool:
(and secretly hope that somebody else hates that movie too)

[jackson13]

Funny, Batman Begins followed the comic books a LOT more closely than any other Batman movie/tv show ever made. Including Burtons. While Burtons Batman's are visually stunning and good movies, they borderline with Schumachers on not following the comics and not telling the TRUE Batman story.

Batman Begins does this, and you rant about it, saying Burtons is better.

First person I've ever heard say that. Honestly.

[coconut84]

Gotta be first at something :D!
I rather watch 1st class -altered from original & made improvements in the script to make this comic movie work- movie than "follows the original script & does nothing else" film.
I generally hate that people mess with the original play/comic/book but sometimes it works. And Tim Burton's does just that.

[Scorpio24]

Yea I agree with Jackson on this.

While I'm no comic book fan or Batman fanatic from what I've read it follows the actual events of the comics pretty good. If you feel that there are to many cliches in the story then your problemn seems to be more with the source material than the flm.

Saying that I did enjoy this film and yes there were occasions when it was cheesy and cliched but we are talking about a comic book adaption here. I wasn't fussed on the tumbler car myself but it didn't bother me much. As for Oldman's one liner, C'mon man you can watch any great film and find one line you thought was cheesy in the film.

I loved the 1st Burton Batman and disliked the rest. But for me this was a better version than any of the others.

[bigred760]

I respect your opinion - but I still loved this movie. The movie brought character, background, and emotion to the story which was somewhat lacking in the previous installments. Flashbacks bring more to the story in my opinion. And if you have just the one flashback on Batman Begins - you start drawing more comparisons to Burton's first - which had ONE flashback.

C'mon - the tumbler rocked. And who knows? Maybe we'll see how they come up with a new Batmobile in the second. And Oldman's line was just showing what every guy was thinking in the audience. I know I wouldn't mind taking one of those things for a spin.

If you compare the two, you're going to dislike one of them. So don't. I don't, and I love both. In fact, I have both on DVD, and they're the only Batman movies I own.

[bourahioro]

First off, I have to say, I am a HUGE comic fan, been reading comics for about 23 years, so I know Batman's history pretty damned good:

This Batman movie was the most faithful to it's book, more faithful than the first 4 Batman movies, and while my only gripe about it was Batman's gravelly sounding voice, I thought it was about THE best comic book movie made, at least in the top 3.

The Tumbler: This is a more practical vehicle, almost like a Hummer of sorts, at least it didn't look like a gay pride float ride (as the first 4 Batman movies Batmobiles did).

as far as the other cliches mentioned, you would have to expect a one liner such as "man, I gotta get me one of those", because if you saw a car that looked like that, driving down your road, you would likely say the same thing, I know I would.:D

Oh, and for the record, the reason they showed all of those flashbacks of Wayne's parents getting murdered, was to show you as much of the origin of Batman, as possible, hence the title "Batman Begins". Would you not be tortured internally, if your parents were murdered right in front of you?

last and not least, the training bit: how did you think Batman learned all of his skills, such as combat, stealth, and the like? I didn't know, and I have been reading comics all of my life, so, I thought it was very interesting, likely the most complete origin story in a long time.

[coconut84]

There are directors who can direct cliched plots without cliches (QT) and Oldman's onliner was just too much at that point.
*Sniff, no mercy for me then* ;)

[RustyRazor]

I respect everyone's opinion, but look at it like this.
Thanks to assholes like Joel Schumacher, a franchise like Batman couldn't go on.
It had to be remade before Schumacher threw the Teletubbies into tight fitting Batsuits and grilled our corneas out with radioactive color schemes.
Tim Burton = f**king genius!
But Batman Begins is a very good start over.
Cliche is a very difficult word. Any Schmoe could agree that practically every movie you've seen over the last twenty years (or further back) had SOME influence, feel, or similarity to another movie you've seen.

Hence the "cliche" reference.

But despite what may be seen as cliche in Batman Begins, it's a different story, some characters are retooled while other new characters are brought to life.

I liked Batman Begins and think it outshined being just another "cliched" superhero film.

[jeo4]

While you make some valid points, coconut, I thought this film was excellent compared to the last two films, or that crappy 60's series with Adam West. The plot was solid and the acting was pretty much dead on for each character. My one bitch about this film was a lack of screen time for Ken Watanabe. And even then, I don't have much to support that complaint.

[Mr-Blonde]

What's that you say? A superhero film that's cliche? No way. :rolleyes:

I'd argue that the entire sub-genre is cliched and I'd like you name me one that isn't. How exactly were Burton's films any less formulamaic? If you look at comic book action hero films as a whole you will find that all of them are formulamaic to an extent. What was superb about BB was in it's execution and in it's faithfulness to the source material. As a longtime Dark Knight fan I was delighted that they finally managed to make a film that got it right.

[Servo]

Originally posted by coconut84



1) It was overlong. Clip 1 hour and there you have almost a decent movie.

Clip one hour and you lose just about everything that explains who Batman really is and probably turning it into a rapid-fire editing Michael Bay movie.

Originally posted by coconut84

2) The beginning
" Bla, bla, bla... I have issues and I generally suck. Yes. Bla, bla, bla...
*insert wise master here*
You have issues, let me teach you... Bla, bla, bla...
I shall teach you with this sword...
*insert sword fight borrowed from Zorro*...
*insert protagonist not quite mastering his sword* ..and.. *insert protagonist beating his coach*
Yes, now you're ready"
- Ok, please. Stop using that cliché beginning!! Or is this the comeback of the 80ies theme?


Borrowed from Zorro? I assume you're referring to the 1998 film, if that's the case then how in the hell was this swordfight anything like that one? Because he was being mentored? God forbid we have a movie where a guy has a mentor that guides him through his issues so he can become the person he is. That's life, man. It happens all the time. I've had mentors and I can relate to this scene, only replace the swords with film cameras.



Originally posted by coconut84


3) Flashbacks
There should be only 1 flashback if any allowed in the Batman movies. We know that
a) Bruce Wayne lost his parents.
b) His parents were good and lovely
c) Bruce didn't quite handle his parent's death.
You don't have to rub it 10 times. Yet again, we live in 2000 century, not in the 80ies. Cliché, cliché...
Plus, none other than Joker killed his parents! And Christopher Nolan had to change that, had he.

Yes we know all of those things, but it's never been shown the same way it was shown in this film. The scene with Bruce's parents death has never gone beginning-middle-end, and Nolan did it perfectly. Oh, and Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents. That was Tim Burton's Batman.

Originally posted by coconut84

5) The car
C'mon. TUMBLER?!? (or something alike)
I know, that the car is not ready yet but... I would like to see the developement from the tumbler to the real batmobile.
And at this point, Oldman's onliner
- I've gotta get one of those -Cliché again.


Like stated before, The Tumbler was practical. Far more practical then the car that had stupid tacky Batwings above the wheels in the first two Batman films (don't get me started on the Schumacher films). And the line is cliche...but it was meant to be. Gordon would say that.

Originally posted by coconut84

6) The "apostrophe" Ra's Al Ghul and Henry -bad guys
Was the plot so thin that you had to bring them back alive by some superneat "ok, where out of ideas" twist and make them the ultimate baddies? I got suprised by it only 'cos I hade FForwarded the beginning and wasn't paying attention to their names.

It works. Things come full circle, which is usually what happens in stories and films alike. It makes the story more dynamic and brings more truth to any dangling ideas in the story.

Originally posted by coconut84

Maybe I'm just tooo old ;) or the kids are too small to remember the good ol' days of Tim Burton
**better buy myself the original se dvd and stop being irritated by Batman begins** :cool:
(and secretly hope that somebody else hates that movie too)

I practically grew up with Tim Burton's Batman, and Batman Begins is far superior. In fact, the older I get, the more I can't stand Tim Burton and his pretentious themes that he keeps preaching and reiterating in every single movie. "I'm twisted and misunderstood but I'm unique and going to save the day! Yay for the misfits!" Tim Burton's Batman is just that...Tim Burton's Batman. Once everything's said and done it's just another Tim Burton movie "ohh look at how twisted and goth I can be! I'm so different and unique!" Chris Nolan made Batman into something REAL. That shot of Batman on top of the skyscraper in Batman Begins, that's an actual building in an actual city, not in front of some tacky looking matte painting or pretentious gothic style buildings. Christopher Nolan made Gotham City a real place, and that's what made this movie so great.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by coconut84
[B]
Plus, none other than Joker killed his parents! And Christopher Nolan had to change that, had he.


Like someone said -- that's all Tim Burton. In Batman canon, a hood called Joe Chill killed Bruce's parents -- as in BATMAN BEGINS. Tim Burton, much as I love him, is the one who changed that for BATMAN to wrap up the "did the criminals like the Joker make Batman, or did Batman make criminals like the Joker?" symbolized by the young Joker killing Bruce's folks and then Bats dropping Napier into a vat of acid and turning him accidentally into the Joker.

I do agree on one thing -- yes, BEGINS was packed with cliches. The story cliches bothered me more (the training thing and so on) than this and the Tumbler (the Tumbler is a brilliant idea, I think, not to be used in every Batman movie, but made sense here).

Oh, and, yes, the suit makes Bale's face look funny. It happened to all Bats actors except Keaton -- Keaton looked wicked in the suit. But I think that's because Michael Keaton had a very thin face, one you couldn't model around much, whereas the latex mask kind of twists faces like Val Kilmer's, George Clooney's, or Bales, that have more, well, cheek.

It didn't help that Bale put on that weird-overacted-snare in every shot he's in as Batman, either.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by coconut84
[B]1) It was overlong. Clip 1 hour and there you have almost a decent movie.


That would have made the movie just over an hour and 15 minutes.

You could have stopped there, because obviously no matter what had happened, you weren't digging the movie.





2) The beginning
" Bla, bla, bla... I have issues and I generally suck. Yes. Bla, bla, bla...
*insert wise master here*
You have issues, let me teach you... Bla, bla, bla...
I shall teach you with this sword...
*insert sword fight borrowed from Zorro*...
*insert protagonist not quite mastering his sword* ..and.. *insert protagonist beating his coach*
Yes, now you're ready"

- Ok, please. Stop using that cliché beginning!! Or is this the comeback of the 80ies theme?


Yes - How cliche to have a billionare playboy living in a forign prison so he could get fighting practice against criminals.

And we all remember how Zorro came along and invinted the samuri sword fighting segment. I hear it's 'reinvinted' in the new sequel and has for ever changed how we look at sword fighting yet again.




3) Flashbacks
There should be only 1 flashback if any allowed in the Batman movies. We know that
a) Bruce Wayne lost his parents.
b) His parents were good and lovely
c) Bruce didn't quite handle his parent's death.


Are you sure those are three seperate things?


You don't have to rub it 10 times. Yet again, we live in 2000 century, not in the 80ies. Cliché, cliché...
Plus, none other than Joker killed his parents! And Christopher Nolan had to change that, had he.


So, your complaint is that the movie used 80s cliches, and the way you think they could have fixed that was by making it the same as... the... 80's version?

Besides - we all know that Joker really didn't kill Wayne's parents, and that this new movie was meant to be a retelling to start the franchise fresh.

They are doing that with the new Superman movie -- So, if you are looking forward to seeing the antics of Lex Luther's delinquent nephew played by Jon Cryer, or looking for Richard Pryor to update his role as a computer hacker -- You may be in for a disappointing shocker.



5) The car
C'mon. TUMBLER?!? (or something alike)
I know, that the car is not ready yet but... I would like to see the developement from the tumbler to the real batmobile.
And at this point, Oldman's onliner
- I've gotta get one of those -Cliché again.


You would have prefered that he told Batman, "Nice outfit."?




6) The "apostrophe" Ra's Al Ghul and Henry -bad guys
Was the plot so thin that you had to bring them back alive by some superneat "ok, where out of ideas" twist and make them the ultimate baddies? I got suprised by it only 'cos I hade FForwarded the beginning and wasn't paying attention to their names.


Um. The *question mark*....

No one came back to life. You obviously missed a pretty major plot twist, and I'm a bit disappointed none of the other fans haven't mentioned it. There was also a lot of character development in regards to Batman here, and you seemed to have missed that to.

I'm surprised your complaint wasn't that the conversation between Bruce and Henri at Wayne's birthday party didn't make any sense. Based on your actual complain, it should have.




*Sight!* Now the most of it is off my shoulder :D ! Thanks for listening (and probably nailing my ass).
Maybe I'm just tooo old ;) or the kids are too small to remember the good ol' days of Tim Burton
**better buy myself the original se dvd and stop being irritated by Batman begins** :cool:
(and secretly hope that somebody else hates that movie too)


I was 14 when the 89 Batman came out -- me and all of the people I know who are my age all think Batman Begins was a really good movie.

Of course we all have a habit to paying attention to a movie, and not spending the 2 hours comparing to an 80's movie.

:D

[ak]

I completely agree with more or less all the comments made in above posts. We should be thankful of such a superb Batman film.

Batman Begins isn't just a great superhero film, but it's a bloody good film in general.

Roll on Batman 2...

[coconut84]

*Smack! Pang!..* :D
Where to start... gosh! I've been out only half a day ;)

What's that you say? A superhero film that's cliche? No way.'d argue that the entire sub-genre is cliched and I'd like you name me one that isn't.

No arguing to that but you can always try to direct so that it's not that obvious.

Borrowed from Zorro?
Well, I start to see red when these mentor-pupil scenes tend to look all alike. The Count of Monte Cristo had same kind of thingy also. I would enjoy those scenes if they weren't so tacky.

Like someone said -- that's all Tim Burton. In Batman canon, a hood called Joe Chill killed Bruce's parents -- as in BATMAN BEGINS.
I don't argue that. I've read the comic but I just happen to like Burton's version more. However...

"did the criminals like the Joker make Batman, or did Batman make criminals like the Joker?"
now that I read that I'm starting to appreciate this point in BB-version! I never really thought about it before.

No one came back to life.You obviously missed a pretty major plot twist, and I'm a bit disappointed none of the other fans haven't mentioned it.
Really? Nobody really died. Nooo way... ;)


As a conclusion,I guess I'm the kid here! :eek:

[Scorpio24]

The most shocking thing about all this to me is that people are critisizing certain aspects of the movie yet no-one has mentioned Katie Holmes.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
The most shocking thing about all this to me is that people are critisizing certain aspects of the movie yet no-one has mentioned Katie Holmes.


<puts finger over mouth>
SHHHHHH!!! Don't bring her up now!! :D

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
The most shocking thing about all this to me is that people are critisizing certain aspects of the movie yet no-one has mentioned Katie Holmes.


Oh, a lot has been mentioned about that untalented, big nose Scientology impregnated, should've never left Dawson's Creek hack.

She should stick to receiving Cruise's sperm via a turkey baster and stay from ruining decent movie franchises.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by coconut84
Really? Nobody really died. Nooo way... ;)




Do you seriously think my point was to tell you that Liam Neeson didn't die? All of the sarcasm, and I'm still not convinved you understand what happened in this scene that you derail as being cliche. The sarcasm doesn't work when you missed my point - you genuinely don't seem to understand what happened when Liam Neeson showed back up - why and how.

The events were vastly different from:

"Ra's Al Ghul and Henry -bad guys
Was the plot so thin that you had to bring them back alive by some superneat "ok, where out of ideas" twist and make them the ultimate baddies?"

But yeah - You were able to figure out that a character who showed up later in the movie wasn't dead. Great observation! (Applaudes) Though, you may have gotten more out of the movie if you had figured that much out from the scene where the character is saved from death, and the savior is told by a witness, "I'll tell him you saved his life." -- this would have also made later events more important.

Of course you didn't, and apparently it took another hour for you to figure out the character was still alive. And I am assuming that this was the same hour you think needed to be trimmed from the movie.

I only assume though, that these plot details would have been more obvious to you had Liam Neeson did the Bat Dance. :p

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
Oh, a lot has been mentioned about that untalented, big nose Scientology impregnated, should've never left Dawson's Creek hack.

She should stick to receiving Cruise's sperm via a turkey baster and stay from ruining decent movie franchises.

I should add at this point that my comment about nobody mentioning Katie was with tounge firmly in cheek.;)

[coconut84]

Of course you didn't, and apparently it took another hour for you to figure out the character was still alive. And I am assuming that this was the same hour you think needed to be trimmed from the movie.
I only assume though, that these plot details would have been more obvious to you had Liam Neeson did the Bat Dance.
:D

As I said, i FFed the beginning 'cos it was a bit.. booring, tacky & filled with too many corny flashbacks that made me feel sick. Evidently now it seems to me that I missed something that was crucial for making this BB so outstanding a film. Then again, had Neeson done the Bat Dance, the beginning would've been worth watching ;) .

[The Postmaster General]

Oh, please give it another chance, and try to forget about '89's Batman, which I think is a wonderful movie, but seperate unto itself. Really try to watch BB as if you are watching the Batman mythos for the first time. Remember it's also a comic book, so there WILL be cliched happenings, but also remember that if it weren't for comic books to begin with, many of the things wouldn't seem as cliche. There's a lot more nuance and mood in this Batman, than the '89 one, IMO, but where one was produced to be a huge exciting blockbuster, I believe that BB was produced in order to bring the Batman character back to his roots in comics first, and it just happened to work out that it became such a huge blockbuster. All-in-all, I was a bit shocked that given the themes in this one, that it became such a big money maker, but with the '89 Batman - we all knew it was going to be big at the box office.

Also - Thanks for keeping with the sense of humor. :)

[coconut84]

Ok, I promise to watch it again sometime, without FFing the beginning and trying not to think about Burton's movie :)
But what I hope (since there will certainly be a sequel) is that in the next Batman movie the director will not be the same!

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by coconut84
Ok, I promise to watch it again sometime, without FFing the beginning and trying not to think about Burton's movie :)
But what I hope (since there will certainly be a sequel) is that in the next Batman movie the director will not be the same!

Too bad Nolan's on board to direct the sequel-- thank baby Jesus.

[SpongeBod]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Too bad Nolan's on board to direct the sequel-- thank baby Jesus.
Yay verily.

[coconut84]

Too bad Nolan's on board to direct the sequel
Darn..

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by coconut84
///SPOILER ALERT!! If you haven't seen this movie you better not read this thread!!///


Yes, i know this topic is childish but I was so shocked after I watched that movie that I have to get this baggage off my shoulders!
Let's start, what went terribly wrong with the movie:

1) It was overlong. Clip 1 hour and there you have almost a decent movie.

2) The beginning
" Bla, bla, bla... I have issues and I generally suck. Yes. Bla, bla, bla...
*insert wise master here*
You have issues, let me teach you... Bla, bla, bla...
I shall teach you with this sword...
*insert sword fight borrowed from Zorro*...
*insert protagonist not quite mastering his sword* ..and.. *insert protagonist beating his coach*
Yes, now you're ready"

- Ok, please. Stop using that cliché beginning!! Or is this the comeback of the 80ies theme?

3) Flashbacks
There should be only 1 flashback if any allowed in the Batman movies. We know that
a) Bruce Wayne lost his parents.
b) His parents were good and lovely
c) Bruce didn't quite handle his parent's death.
You don't have to rub it 10 times. Yet again, we live in 2000 century, not in the 80ies. Cliché, cliché...
Plus, none other than Joker killed his parents! And Christopher Nolan had to change that, had he.

4) Bale's face looked funny on batsuit.
That's, of course, my opinion but at least I got some laughs out of it :p

5) The car
C'mon. TUMBLER?!? (or something alike)
I know, that the car is not ready yet but... I would like to see the developement from the tumbler to the real batmobile.
And at this point, Oldman's onliner
- I've gotta get one of those -Cliché again.

6) The "apostrophe" Ra's Al Ghul and Henry -bad guys
Was the plot so thin that you had to bring them back alive by some superneat "ok, where out of ideas" twist and make them the ultimate baddies? I got suprised by it only 'cos I hade FForwarded the beginning and wasn't paying attention to their names.

*Sight!* Now the most of it is off my shoulder :D ! Thanks for listening (and probably nailing my ass).
Maybe I'm just tooo old ;) or the kids are too small to remember the good ol' days of Tim Burton
**better buy myself the original se dvd and stop being irritated by Batman begins** :cool:
(and secretly hope that somebody else hates that movie too)

1) It was 2:20, to cut it an hour would not only cripple it entirely but make it too short to tell the story at hand even if it was re-structured entirely.

2) Neeson't character didn't train Wayne 'cause he got issues' this beginning may be cliche but it works and you obviously didn't pay attention to it.

3) Burton changed this entire piece of chronology, Joker DID NOT kill Wayne's parents, and also, one flashback would make this movie stupid, Burton's film didn't give you any reason Wayne loved his parents other then the fact they were his parent,s his parent had no emotion, Nolan gave them what they needed.

4) Have you seen Batman Forever?
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/2127/kilmer3cb.jpg

5) And your opinion has what balance on the quality of the movie?

6) You obviously got none of the secret society undertones that were the backbone of the entire villain plot. Being a lazt viewer doesn't made the movie bad.

The good ol' days of Burton? How about the good ol' days of Fellini? Bergman? Tarkovsky? Hell, Hitchcock? Burton is just as a bad director (and beloved by teeny boppers) NOW then he ever was.

[coconut84]

Sorry, it's been a weekend and no net-connection available :)

1) It was 2:20, to cut it an hour would not only cripple it entirely but make it too short to tell the story at hand even if it was re-structured entirely.
- Yes it would make it too short but what I meant is that by clipping the cliches etc. corny stuff the movie would be better.

2) Neeson't character didn't train Wayne 'cause he got issues' this beginning may be cliche but it works and you obviously didn't pay attention to it.
- As I already mentioned: I FFed the beginning (Oh, it was so hilarious to hear them talking fast forwarded.. ;) . But as I said: I shall watch BB again & keep my fingers out of the FF button & my thoughts away from the 1989 Batman :cool:

3) Burton changed this entire piece of chronology, Joker DID NOT kill Wayne's parents...
- Yes yes. It fits the Burton version and I like it but I also appreciate BB's (original) version.

Burton's film didn't give you any reason Wayne loved his parents other then the fact they were his parent,s his parent had no emotion, Nolan gave them what they needed.
- To me it's enough that you love your parents because they are your parents (unless you parents abuse you etc. then it would be a good idea to give tons of flashbacks to make sure that he loved them nevertheless :D)

4) Have you seen Batman Forever?
- Yes. His face don't fit either ;)

5) And your opinion has what balance on the quality of the movie?
- Some of us like the old batmobile better. To those of us the new tumbler was a bit.. not that good. Of course, it could have been more MadMax-like so gotta be glad for the outcome.

6) You obviously got none of the secret society undertones that were the backbone of the entire villain plot. Being a lazt viewer doesn't made the movie bad.
- I shall watch the BB again and try to follow the plot without getting bored.


The good ol' days of Burton? How about the good ol' days of Fellini? Bergman? Tarkovsky? Hell, Hitchcock? Burton is just as a bad director (and beloved by teeny boppers) NOW then he ever was.
- Strictly your opinion. What is your opinion of good directors then?
I personally like Burton, Finch, QT, Romero, Kubrick.. and not so much for example Spielberg (even though he has made masterpieces). About Burton I totally love his visual eye.

[Badbird]

To everyone who says "This is the closest version to the comic books," which incarnation of the comic do you mean? You do know at one point Batman was all like Flash Gordon and fighting martians, right?

If it's going to follow the comic, the Robin must figure in at some point. He's been there almost since the begining, yet no one wants anything to do with Robin.

I also didn't like the way Bale's face looked in the costume.

And I'll say this. When someone adapts a story from one form to another (book to movie, play to movie, movie to TV show, etc), often they may change things. Sometimes the changes make things bad in one way or another. SOmetimes the changes have little effect. And sometimes the changes can dramaticly improve on the original. I think the Joker killing Batman's parents is one of those examples. If it's just some random thug, then Batman is no different than the Punisher. But if it's the Joker - it unites those characters perfectly. The whole "I made you, but you made me first" stuff from Batman 89 is brilliant.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Badbird
To everyone who says "This is the closest version to the comic books," which incarnation of the comic do you mean? You do know at one point Batman was all like Flash Gordon and fighting martians, right?

I'd guess that most folks are thinking of the modern era of Batman post circa 1970's, when Batman did a 180 from it's campy sci-fi/fantasy stories of the 50's and 60's and went back to it's noir detective story roots. After the Joel Schumacher debaucles nobody wants to see another campy adaptation of Batman.

If it's going to follow the comic, the Robin must figure in at some point. He's been there almost since the begining, yet no one wants anything to do with Robin.

Agreed. However BB was Batman's orgins and Robin didn't come into the fold several years after in the Batman continuity. But I agree that Robin is an essential part of the Batman mythos.

And I'll say this. When someone adapts a story from one form to another (book to movie, play to movie, movie to TV show, etc), often they may change things. Sometimes the changes make things bad in one way or another. SOmetimes the changes have little effect. And sometimes the changes can dramaticly improve on the original. I think the Joker killing Batman's parents is one of those examples. If it's just some random thug, then Batman is no different than the Punisher. But if it's the Joker - it unites those characters perfectly. The whole "I made you, but you made me first" stuff from Batman 89 is brilliant.

I'd have to strongly disagree with you. It came off as contrived IMO and it didn't seem right that the Joker was the one who created Batman. In fact the biggest single problem I have with Burton's Batman is that he makes the Joker seem more important than the Bats himself. I don't know if this was intentional or just by virtue of Jack Nicholson's uber-charisma. Call me old fashioned, but when I go see a film called Batman I think that it should focus more on him and not his nemesis.

[JohnTheHenchman]

This was easily the greatest comic book film of all time.

Definitely better than all the garbage Batman's previously released. They all sucked. This had a real story. I was emotionally involved in Batman's plight rather than just watching Jack Nicholson chew up scenery.

[coconut84]

In fact the biggest single problem I have with Burton's Batman is that he makes the Joker seem more important than the Bats himself.
But Joker & Nicholson just rock :D

[JohnTheHenchman]

No, no, no, no, no.

Totally disregarding the source material does not ever make an adaptation better. Having Joker kill the Waynes is stupid. The whole point is that they were killed by exactly the kind of person they wanted to help out, a poor lowly thug who robs people on the street.

Having the joker kill them makes NO sense, in any way shape or form. Even if you want to consider him Batman's greatest foil, he is simply not supposed to kill the Waynes.

Batman Begins set things up perfectly. It did not make a cartoon of what is supposed to be a very dark character and Bale is without a doubt the best man to ever watch over Gotham.

And the comparison to the Punisher makes absolutely no sense, whether you're comparing the movies or the books. In the movie he killed John Travolta's son who was bad, and Travolta killed Frank Castle's family...who were all good people. It's a story of revenge. Batman goes much, much deeper than revenge.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by coconut84
But Joker & Nicholson just rock :D

That is very true. I liked Nicholson's Joker - it was funny, dark, psychotic, etc.

But I also agree with JohnTheHenchman in that Batman Begins set up Bruce Wayne's rise to Batman perfectly. I also like his description of his parent's death by the thug.

I don't know about The Punisher since I didn't see it, but if you remember in Batman Begins, Wayne was ready to kill his parent's murderer, but somebody beat him to it. After his confrontation with Rachel and Falcone, he decides to go a different route to stop injustice. And the story goes from there.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't even compare Batman (89) and Batman Begins. They are too different, and I think both work. It's like trying to compare Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy The Movie, with HGTTG the BBC-series. They are just different.

[JohnTheHenchman]

They're comparable. They both try to introduce Batman to moviegoers. Burton failed miserably.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
They're comparable. They both try to introduce Batman to moviegoers. Burton failed miserably.


I didn't feel that Batman (89) tried to introduce the character in the same way Batman Begins did. It seemed more like just a big blockbuster gradiose film, where Batman Begins actually did seem like an introduction to the mythos -- hence the title. The themes in the both movies were drastically different and far seperated.

Most everyone knows about Batman -- Just like you are comparing Batman Begins to Batman (89) saying how the more recent succeeding in portraying Batman --- When Batman (89) came out, people were saying the same thing, except comparing it to the 60s TV show -- and yes, just as many people applauded it for "getting it right".

To me, it's like comparing Zorro The Gay Blade to Zorro -- movies that were made with totally different goals in mind. Batman (89) was mostly about Burton, Nicholson, the set designs, Kim Bassenger, and comic action. Batman Begins was about introducing the real story of Batman.

It's no different than Steven Speilberg remaking War of the Worlds, or Jackson doing King Kong -- they weren't trying to 'indroduce' the stories to movie-goers, they were just trying to make a big blockbuster that was done in their applauded style. This is the reverse as it happened with the Batman character.

[Patrick Bateman]

Well said, Bubba.

I agree, Burton's Batman, and Nolan's Batman Begins are just two very different type of films to ever really compare with one another. Like Bubba mentioned above, both films had different goals in mind. And overall, both were two films that had different themes as well.

Positives with Burton's Batman?

It gave us Keaton as Batman, Nicholson as The Joker, and Danny Elfman's now-classic, but awesome score. Prince soundtrack aside, I appreciate Tim Burton's version as it finally gave us a Batman that was dark, and one that finally revealed to the public that Adam West's 60's television show wasnt the end all, be all.

Positives with Nolan's Batman Begins?

Nolan's version finally gave us a Batman that is a bit more intune with the current comic book counterpart. Although not 100% faithful, it is at this moment, the best realized live action Batman movie to date. Katie Holmes aside, Nolan's version arguably had the best cast that any Batman film has ever had the privilage of having. Which only helped, I'm sure. Also, I applaud Nolan for keeping the film dark, and not too kid friendly. And rightfully so.

Like I said, I appreciate both films for what they set out to do in their time and place. And I believe both films accomplished the tasks that they set out to do as well. Both films are awesome, IMO.

[underwhere]

My question is how can you make a film starring a classic type hero and not have it be at least a LITTLE cliche?

I mean it's following a template that's been established for hundreds of years, etc.

In any case I have to say I really loved Batman Begins. I had basically given up on Batman until Begins came out. Doesn't make those other (bad) Batman movies any better, but does make me really hopeful for the future of the franchise.

If it's cliched, then I guess I loves me some cliches...