Batman Begins

[DonTadow]

Huh? So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?

Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.

I liked the fight scenes in borne identity (where they say this trend started). But i will say that sometmes it was hard to follow what was going on in some action scenes (I"nm thinking of the dock scene) .

 

[Wayside]

Keaton seamed a bit pouty throughout hte movie and he was 38 years old when he did the batman movies (very close to 40 ). I know the regular movie goer wants a good movie and I"m sure you guys loved the first two movies and the kids loved the second two movies. But it's an insult to comic book fans for the role not to have been done right. Most people are lemmings, you tell them something enough they'll believe it. But the first time I saw someone really act like batman was Kilmer and Bale, moreso Bale because he had better material. For the true batman fan that was the best moment. These people who vote at imdb are the same people who say spiderman is the best comic book movie. Well if Batman had been so right how did some new comer take its mantal? I'll tell you because the first one failed.

Surely the circularity of what you're saying here didn't escape you? I mean about the "true Batman" and the "true Batman fan," and the "true Batman" is the one the "true Batman fan" knows, and the way we know the "true Batman fan" is by his knowing the "true Batman"--?

As to the lemmings comment: sorry, but the fact that you've read some comics and watched some cartoons doesn't qualify your judgments or make them in any way more valid. You aren't the authority, or as you say, "the true batman fan," who decides which Batman is the real and accurate Batman. We're talking about a character here who's seen any number of incarnations, many of which have very little to do with one another, none of which is the authentic, undisputed Batman. If you're going to keep telling the same stories about the same character for decades, that character has to be capable of an amazing variety of transformations, none of which are any more or less "correct" than the others. Keaton's turn wasn't an insult or a failure in any way, least of all because it was new and different.

Well if Batman had been so right how did some new comer take its mantal? I'll tell you because the first one failed.

So now the fact that they're still making James Bond movies means that all the previosu Bond films flopped? Right you are, Ken.

He was less than two years from forty. You call that "well before"? His take Batman's voice was basically the same cop-out most folks would resort to--a nearly inaudible hiss of a whisper. And you simply chose not to address his lack of physical fitness.

I gather it was more like 3 when the movie was actually filmed, so yes, I call that "well before," as opposed to, say, him being 39 and change, which would be "just shy of." And I didn't choose not to address anything; Keaton simply never struck me as being physically unfit, and Batman simply never struck as needing to be particularly muscular. But by all means continue being smug and mistaken, it's really no problem for me that your statements here make up in volume what they lack in substance.

So yeah, your position is impossible to defend.

So what you're saying is I've achieved the impossible here. I thank you for the compliment kind sir.

Your problem is that you apparently never saw that Python skit about a guy who's looking for an arguement and all he gets is disagreement.

Of course I have. The irony here is that I'm doing the arguing and you're doing the disagreeing.

Well, your blissful ignorance is all well and good

And your rhetorically charged pose is just as all well and good, bravo to this "argument."

but there is probably some book out there that you've read and are fond of.

I'm afraid there is no such book. Of course I'm exaggerating when I talk about comics and cartoons, since I've read and seen plenty of both; the point is I certainly don't approach them religiously, the way you seem to, and this holds for every book. Fight Club, Trainspotting, A Clockwork Orange, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,*GASP* Troy, all good books. Do I care that in the Iliad Achilleus doesn't actually die, that the myth of his heel actually postdates the poem? Nope. Changing the story comes with retelling it. I'm happy to have eluded this modern obsession with authenticity, which in this case magically provides you a way of criticizing Batman without actually criticizing it in itself!

People liked Burton's Batman because it was cute and silly and offered them lots of bright colors to look at.

Ah, and now you propose to tell other people why they like something. Another excellent "argument." Lucky for me you know me better than I know myself and are here to help me out with these things. By the way, I was thinking of going shopping for some new underwear later, mind telling me what bright colors I want? It would save me a lot of time trying things on. Thanks in advance.

 

[Captain Tagon]

Huh? So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?

Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.

I don't know what it is really. The more I watch older fight scenes and newer ones like the ones in RotS, the more I realize the big long 15 minute fights where it doesn't seem either guy is actually trying to win a fight. And none of the "shaky-cam" fight scenes that I've seen ever really had me confused as to what was going on.

 

[DonTadow]

Surely the circularity of what you're saying here didn't escape you? I mean about the "true Batman" and the "true Batman fan," and the "true Batman" is the one the "true Batman fan" knows, and the way we know the "true Batman fan" is by his knowing the "true Batman"--?

As to the lemmings comment: sorry, but the fact that you've read some comics and watched some cartoons doesn't qualify your judgments or make them in any way more valid. You aren't the authority, or as you say, "the true batman fan," who decides which Batman is the real and accurate Batman. We're talking about a character here who's seen any number of incarnations, many of which have very little to do with one another, none of which is the authentic, undisputed Batman. If you're going to keep telling the same stories about the same character for decades, that character has to be capable of an amazing variety of transformations, none of which are any more or less "correct" than the others. Keaton's turn wasn't an insult or a failure in any way, least of all because it was new and different.


So now the fact that they're still making James Bond movies means that all the previosu Bond films flopped? Right you are, Ken.


I gather it was more like 3 when the movie was actually filmed, so yes, I call that "well before," as opposed to, say, him being 39 and change, which would be "just shy of." And I didn't choose not to address anything; Keaton simply never struck me as being physically unfit, and Batman simply never struck as needing to be particularly muscular. But by all means continue being smug and mistaken, it's really no problem for me that your statements here make up in volume what they lack in substance.


So what you're saying is I've achieved the impossible here. I thank you for the compliment kind sir.


Of course I have. The irony here is that I'm doing the arguing and you're doing the disagreeing.


And your rhetorically charged pose is just as all well and good, bravo to this "argument."


I'm afraid there is no such book. Of course I'm exaggerating when I talk about comics and cartoons, since I've read and seen plenty of both; the point is I certainly don't approach them religiously, the way you seem to, and this holds for every book. Fight Club, Trainspotting, A Clockwork Orange, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,*GASP* Troy, all good books. Do I care that in the Iliad Achilleus doesn't actually die, that the myth of his heel actually postdates the poem? Nope. Changing the story comes with retelling it. I'm happy to have eluded this modern obsession with authenticity, which in this case magically provides you a way of criticizing Batman without actually criticizing it in itself!


Ah, and now you propose to tell other people why they like something. Another excellent "argument." Lucky for me you know me better than I know myself and are here to help me out with these things. By the way, I was thinking of going shopping for some new underwear later, mind telling me what bright colors I want? It would save me a lot of time trying things on. Thanks in advance.

I'm not in no way saying i am authoring the book on the true batman. And when i say the true batman, and the true batman fan, Im talking about maintaining the integrity of the source material. I'm sure there are 100s who can argue that they are the "bigger fan" and i have no fault with them. But I'm pretty sure I've read enough comics to understand this archtype for batman.

Yes my friend, The source material has an archtype for batman. Early 30s, young vibrant, genious, confident. Batman is obviously broody. He fights crime not because its his duty but because he feels he has to. Most importantly batman doesnt kill because then he'd be no better than the bad guy. For anyone whose read half a comic book, this is important. YOu don't walk away from this notion of batman. It's part of what makes the mythos.

I've never read a comic book (and hopefully you can provide me some issues so i can catch up ) who was pouty and by no means does Batman EVER EVER EVER kill a villian. That's where the first one broke the rule and why it took two or three times for me to actually like it.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Huh? So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?

Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.

In this we are like BROTHERS.

Exhibit A: The fight between John Mclaine and Karl near the end of DIE HARD. Basically two guys really trying to kill each other as best as they can.

Exhibit B: The fight in the apt in France near the half way mark in THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Two skilled fighters, really brutal. No fancy wire work.

Exhibit C: Tony Jaa in pretty much every fight scene in ONG BAK. Brutal no nonsense muy Thai, knees, shins, elbows to the face, chest and head.

BATMAN BEGINS had fight scenes that well...sucked.

And really at the end of the day you can give me all the character development that you want, but if it isnt accompanied by Batman copiously kicking people in the teeth, then it's not worth it.

I really wanted to like this movie and there were parts of it I did like but part of the summer action movie experience is, well the action. And on that front Batman Begins failed miserably.

 

[nikolai]

I really don't get all the Burton/Keaton hate. I thought those films were remarkable. They were certainly much more visually interesting than "Begins". Keaton's "distracted" persona may not have been the mental image of how many fans would have imagined the part, but it was perfect for the film.

I thought Bale was terrible as Batman (as opposed to Wayne). I thought the costume didn't work, the bottom half of Bale's face looked really strange against the mask, and I thought the deep-voiced growling he did was silly. Despite all this, I thought the film really worked, particularly at the begining and during the more "psychological" parts. You could really see Nolans influence.

 

[The Serge]

I suspect that those who didn't like Bale will find that they're in a serious minority. The only thing I think Keaton did better than Bale (and anyone else for that matter) was Batman's voice... Otherwise, Bale whips up everyone else on Wayne or The Batman.

Frankly, I don't think the first movie was terrible. However, it was not particularly faithful to the character. It was a simple fantasy that did not try to rationalize The Batman's motivations, didn't attempt to clarify how he learned to fight or became a detective, and didn't focus much on any of the characters except The Joker. This doesn't mean that it didn't come closer than any other previous rendition of the character on screen (big or small), it just means that it was not as faithful as a lot people supporting it want to claim.

 

[DonTadow]

I really don't get all the Burton/Keaton hate. I thought those films were remarkable. They were certainly much more visually interesting than "Begins". Keaton's "distracted" persona may not have been the mental image of how many fans would have imagined the part, but it was perfect for the film.

I thought Bale was terrible as Batman (as opposed to Wayne). I thought the costume didn't work, the bottom half of Bale's face looked really strange against the mask, and I thought the deep-voiced growling he did was silly. Despite all this, I thought the film really worked, particularly at the begining and during the more "psychological" parts. You could really see Nolans influence.

It's not as much hate, again I think Batman 89 was a good film, but even as a teenager i walked away with a bad taste in my mouth. Batman's a peak physical speciimen and genious, none of which reflected Keaton. Again the number one rule is batman never kills. THat's the major aspect of his character and Burton decimated that for "his" vision. I even liked part 3 somewhat better than part 2 just becase batman didn't kill anyone.

 

[Wayside]

I suspect that those who didn't like Bale will find that they're in a serious minority. The only thing I think Keaton did better than Bale (and anyone else for that matter) was Batman's voice... Otherwise, Bale whips up everyone else on Wayne or The Batman.

I think Bale was in the better movie, made a better Bruce Wayne and made a very good Batman, I just don't think that disqualifies Keaton in any way (and most people apparently agree, if you go by the "Your favorite live-action Batman movie" poll in this forum, where it has the second most votes, event counting the nostalgia votes for the 1966 Batman). I definitely think Felon is having a shouting match instead of an argument, hasn't really made any good points, and is trying to intimidate with rhetoric instead of persuade or convince anyone.

It was a simple fantasy that did not try to rationalize The Batman's motivations, didn't attempt to clarify how he learned to fight or became a detective, and didn't focus much on any of the characters except The Joker.

Perhaps because it was titled Batman, not Batman Begins? Batman Begins is far from flawless, but the exposition was effective partially because the villain was a piece of Batman's origin. If they'd laid it out the same way, then had a totally different villain, it wouldn't have worked. To the extent that the Joker was part of Batman's origin in the 1989 version, that origin was included in the movie. Anything more than that probably wouldn't have worked very well narratively.

This doesn't mean that it didn't come closer than any other previous rendition of the character on screen (big or small), it just means that it was not as faithful as a lot people supporting it want to claim.

None of what you said above really has any bearing on whether or not it was faithful, unless you're saying every Batman movie has to rationalize his motivations, tell all the backstory, include all the villains and so on. These are things the 1989 Batman simply skipped over for the most part, so it doesn't make sense to call it unfaithful on that account. Or do you mean the two different ways Bruce's parents are killed? If so I didn't realize there was only one version of that in the comics.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

... Batman's a peak physical speciimen and genious, none of which reflected Keaton...

I don't know, I think the Keaton Batman was a lot more cerebral than the Bale version. When he's not doing his "Bruce Wayne, Millionaire Playboy" role, he's seen carefully investigating the Joker's origins and motivations. He's the one who pieces together the chemical-additive plot, and puts together an anti-reagent for the city to use to foil the plot. He was much more the detective than the Bale Batman in B-Begins.

Two different Batmen, two different movies, two different takes.

Then again, I liked them both, so...