Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 2339613" data-attributes="member: 4049">Hands down, Batman Begins.In all respects, its more faithful to the concept of The Batman.  It doesn't become burdened under the "refit bug" that a lot of directors seem burdened by, their attempt to make their mark.  This is probably the single greatest flaw in Batman from 1989.  Burton's take on The Batman in that film was the best at the time it came out.  It wouldn't be until Batman: The Animated Series debuted that anything would come close to matching the comics on the big or small screen.  However, Burton was, from the start, dedicated to redefining the character to meet his own interests rather than making sure there was a faithful transition.  Burton's Batman does kill.  There's no doubt about this, particularly in Batman Returns.  Burton's Gotham City, while visually impressive, is clearly a fantasy land that isn't meant to be remotely real.  While I don't mind fantasy in comics (afterall, that's what superhero comics are), I think that Batman at his best in the comics has always been shown as relatively realistic in a romantic sort of way rather than in some sort of phantasmagorical, operatic way.  The depiction of the city in the '89 film reflects that the Batman isn't supposed to exist in any "real world" and, as a result, not to be taken as a serious, dramatic character.  The supporting cast, from Gordon (especially) to Alfred to Vicki Vale, are utterly worthless in that film.  They're just sort of there and offer very little.  The Joker completely dominates the film...  We shouldn't be surprised considering that the marquee has Nicholson's name before Keaton's.  Again, this is a reflection of the fact that there's no intent to treat The Batman as a serious, dramatic persona.  Finally, Keaton himself, while doing an admirable job, couldn't carry the Batman character.  Again, this reflects Burton's desire to place his mark... He wanted an ordinary looking guy who just happened to be rich and bored and perhaps a little mad that his parents were killed.  Keaton had the voice and nothing else.  He didn't possess the physicality and certainly not the face.  All of these factors, aside from the Batman voice, were rectified in Batman Begins.First, Nolan isn't out to make his mark...  Or, if he is, his desire to do so is overriden by by his dedication to hold true to the core nature of The Batman and his world.  As any decent cross-genre adaptation, some sacrifices are made, but Batman Begins maintains the integrity and essence of the comics.  We have a Batman in whom we can understand his motivations.  He's a living, breathing person that we can identify with, with whom we can at least sympathize if not empathize.  We understand how learns to fight, where he "gets those wonderful toys," and why he does what he does.  While the whole "fear theme" goes a little too far (because the actual word is said to many times), this underlying aspect drives the entire film... making it not only a great adaptation of a comic book character (and arguably the best such adaptation to date), but a great movie.  Nolan also does an excellent job with the supporting cast.  Gordon, who has relatively little screen time, is extremely memorable and surprisingly strong as a character.  Alfred has presence and impact, his role as a mentor and father figure (recall how he echos Thomas Wayne's comments about falling down towards the end of the film?) essential to grounding The Batman.  If the weakest character/actor is Rachel Dawes/Katie Holmes (which is debatable and I suspect a reaction to her Dawson's Creek days not to mention the asinine hype surrounding her and Cruise more so than Holmes' own performance), she still stands heads and shoulders over the vapid Vicki Vale who's nothing more than meaningless eye candy whose motivations are non-existent with her being nothing more than a damsel-in-distress.  And the music...  Yes, Elfman's score was seminal and the theme extremely memorable; however, the Zimmer and Howard score captures the character's darkness, anger, sadness, and fear to far greater degree.  This new score is far closer to a horror/suspense score than a "superhero" score and does the character far more justice.Although I respect that people may simply prefer one movie over another, I believe that from a purely objective perspective that Batman Begins is better.  It's a better movie with a better story, plot, characterizations, cinematography, and (yes) fights (because the fights in this make sense...  Not a single thug lasts more than a few seconds with Bats in this film in contrast to the '89 film).  And, for comic fans, particularly Batman fans, I can't see how anyone can find preference to any previous Batman movie's portrayal of the character (unless we talk about Batman: Mask of the Phantasm... but that's for another time).Batman Begins is not only a better adaptation, it's a better movie...  It's a good movie that some critics are already suggesting will end up with some Oscar nods.  That's high praise for a "comic book" film never once uttered for any of the previous films.  No, Oscar nominations may not mean much to all of us, but such a thing would ensure more seriously created comic book adaptations and that's always a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification