Chris Nolan needs to step up the action.

[saint sinner x]

Seriously I hope the Batman Begins sequel doesn't have choppy action like in the first and I hope they don't talk as much like in the first one I'm not saying I want to see a mindless action movie with no substance but he really does need to learn how to give the whole package does anyone agrees with me?

[theShape]

No, no, no.

The great thing about BB was that there wasn't something blowing up every scene after characters had a conversation. The movie had some serious depth to it, with a sprinkly of action, and the action was BADASS.

Certain films, like X3, seem almost embarassed to have serious dialogue. For instance, once characters started having conversations that related to the story, something would come crashing through a wall, or an explosion would take place, and the moment of storytelling would lost.


Don't do that. Keep up the good work, Nolan.

[DA Harvey Dent]

The shots of the action sequences were fine. Although I could see why people would want them shot clearer and that's fine with me. I thought the action was enough in the first one, pacing was fine, it was a perfect movie. More action would make it a mindless popcorn flick.

[saint sinner x]

I guess your right on some point of views but I would of preffer as much action and substance as terminator 2 judgement day, terminator 2 judgement day was very wellpaced with the substance and the action put together it's a Batman film I mean Batman Begins is revolutionary and all because it's a story that has never been told before I really don't know how chris nolan and his brother are going to top Batman Begins in terms of revolutionize.

[7Hells]

For the first one, exactly.
This was an introduction to Batman not Batman in his full glory.
Personally, and let the flames begin, I feel anyone that didnt enjoy having the long origin backstory of Wayne/Batman isnt really a comic book Batman fan.
I would consider them more of a movie Batman fan.

[saint sinner x]

No I really like the introduction of Batman Begins but all I'm saying is for the second one I hope he steps it up and the action scene is a bit choppy besides I'm both a movie fan and a batman fan.

[xwolverine2]

i agree... the action needs to be better..im not saying MORE...just better.

[I Am The Knight]

By definition there should be more action, Bats will be around the whole time and The Narrows is a mess. It's also a sequel so they'll want to bring the goodies in terms of action. But the amount of action in Begins was fine, and very cool.

[TheDarkKnight]

I liked the "choppy" action sequences, it gives the illusion of a real struggle between the fighters. Plus, I think Nolan probably planned to use clearer action shots, but they just didn't look right. I thought they were great, they always made me want to see more.

[superkong 500]

Thw sequel doesn't need more action, but more visible action. And not all the action, just the fight scenes,begins had the perfect amount of fight scenes batman in costume had 4 fight scenes including the small tussle with scarecrow's thugs before he got lit on fire. and bruce had some cool fights too(jail fight which was awesome and the fight at the temple which rocked,bruce in ninja outfit fighting the fake ra's was super cool.

My worry is that nolan doesn't change the way he shots and cuts the fights in the sequel. other than that I think that even though its part 2, we should still see bruce have some fights without the suit and not just batman doing the fights all of the time.But Iam sure nolan will come with some new great locations for the fights to take place,I would love to see a fight in a rooftop in the rain and lightning going off while batman fights a bunch of joker's thugs or joker himself too,of course with the camera pulled back so we can see batman moving and what's he's doing.

[Batman2008]

The first movie has got to set it all up, then BOOM!!!!!!!!

[xwolverine2]

they prob. didnt look right because the suit is too hard to move in....

they need to find a way to make him move

[Batman2008]

CGI? haha

[xwolverine2]

CGI? haha
oh hell no!.... maybe put a stunt guy in like spandex or a material so he could move then digitally make it look like the bat suit material.

[TheDarkKnight]

they prob. didnt look right because the suit is too hard to move in....

they need to find a way to make him move

That's true. But I think this is as good as it's going to get concerning his movement. I'm sure that if they could make him move better without the use of CGI, they would have done it. I guess Nolan chose to work around it using camera tricks and quick shots.

[7Hells]

.oO( Christian Bale in spandex...)

[xxshady]

have you guys even watched the special features??


they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing.... like a horror film..

[JLBats]

If anything, I'd prefer less action. The second movement of a symphony should always be more subdued than the first.

[I Am The Knight]

have you guys even watched the special features??


they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing.... like a horror film..

That's right. Batman is not someone that you should see much anyway, or the effect is lost. I mean he IS in a rubber suit you know.

[xwolverine2]

That's right. Batman is not someone that you should see much anyway, or the effect is lost. I mean he IS in a rubber suit you know.
so what have comics been showing all this time?...lol

[I Am The Knight]

so what have comics been showing all this time?...lol

Well there's a huge difference between what works in film and what works in a comic book. You can get away with a lot of stuff on a comic book, that just doesn't translates so well to the screen, especially with Nolan's kind of approach.

[Raj Mahtaj]

No, not at all. It had just the right amount of action.

[BatMatt]

I'll defend Nolans choice on zooming in on the action forever. I liked it, thought it puts the audience in the fight, the experience Batman as a thug would experience him. I dont think it was the suit's immobility because the suit was quite flexible, something that demonstrated many times on various film

[xwolverine2]

well bruce has trained for years to learn martial arts and id like to see it......or it just looks like hes wrestling mindlessly

[CConn]

Honestly, as odd as it sounds, I really don't care. I don't care how much action is in the film, and how close or far the camera is zoomed to capture that action. I just...don't go to a Batman film for action - I don't go to many films just action - and as long as BB2 is written well overall, and is a good Batman movie overall, the action scenes are rather inconsequential. To me, at least.

[batman7289]

this batman will have a lot more action.
the first one was to tell the story

like fantastic 4 and the silver sufer will have more action also

[StorminNorman]

I loved the first Batman Begins, it had a fantastic story that did not rely on great action (which it did have) to make for an enjoyable experience. I hope the same is true with BB2.

[xxshady]

well bruce has trained for years to learn martial arts and id like to see it......or it just looks like hes wrestling mindlessly


disagree.

the only part where it looks like wrestling is in the jail part, and thats cuz he wasnt trained.

and.... they wanted to give him a very rugged and fierce fighting style so they found one that these two guys made but they tweaked it a little to make it better for the movie... so all in all

Choppy Scenes = gives the illusion that you cant see what hes doing and he can subdue many enemies in a short period of time due to his training

Fighting Style = wanted to give a rugged and fierce fighting style

watch the special features people... its their for a reason...

[Tangled Web]

Does anyone remember when in Batman: Year One when those guys are stealing the TV? I think that would be a really good scene. Especially with Bruce talking over the scene commentating.
For instance: "That was a strong kick, untrained though."

That was a cool scene in the book that I think could translate well on screen, especially when Batman is trying to save one of the thugs that falls off the fire escape and while holding his leg the other one hits him with a TV but Batman manages to do it all.

[FCEEVIPER]

No, no, no.

The great thing about BB was that there wasn't something blowing up every scene after characters had a conversation. The movie had some serious depth to it, with a sprinkly of action, and the action was BADASS.

Certain films, like X3, seem almost embarassed to have serious dialogue. For instance, once characters started having conversations that related to the story, something would come crashing through a wall, or an explosion would take place, and the moment of storytelling would lost.


Don't do that. Keep up the good work, Nolan.
Bingo!

[mcflytrap]

Seriously I hope the Batman Begins sequel doesn't have choppy action like in the first and I hope they don't talk as much like in the first one I'm not saying I want to see a mindless action movie with no substance but he really does need to learn how to give the whole package does anyone agrees with me?

??

"I hope they don't talk as much"

??

All this stupid talk is what made BB great.

[mcflytrap]

I guess your right on some point of views but I would of preffer as much action and substance as terminator 2 judgement day, terminator 2 judgement day was very wellpaced with the substance and the action put together it's a Batman film I mean Batman Begins is revolutionary and all because it's a story that has never been told before I really don't know how chris nolan and his brother are going to top Batman Begins in terms of revolutionize.

Please use periods when necessary.

[mcflytrap]

The first movie has got to set it all up, then BOOM!!!!!!!!

That's ****ing ridiculous. The first movie isn't just a setup then BOOM...the first movie is a film that tells a story and is just as important, if not, more important than the 2nd one. This whole bull**** about the 1st movie never being as good because it has to "setup all the characters" is ludicrious. That's what a filmmaker does. If he can't setup a character, then he's not a filmmaker.

[Two-Face]

this batman will have a lot more action.
the first one was to tell the story

like fantastic 4 and the silver sufer will have more action also


FF was crap and don't ever compare BB to that crap.

[Excel]

the sequels usually have bigger action then original due to the whole "bigger is better" concept of hollywood. plus nolan said the first 2 would be like superman 1 and 2, and 2 had TONS of action,so well probably get some good stuff.

[El Payaso]

have you guys even watched the special features??


they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing.... like a horror film..

It's not an illusion, you actually can't see what's happening. I don't know how a director's explanation can justify anything. If Schumacher would have explained that it was his idea to have terrible acting in B&R on purpose that doesn't change a thing.

Oh and Batman is not a horror film.

[Gabroni]

they prob. didnt look right because the suit is too hard to move in....

they need to find a way to make him move



It does seem a shame, and a bit of a waste, in that they finally have an actor in Bale with the physique and athletic ability to do justice to Batman, yet its largely undone by the continuing use of the rubber body armor suit.

This whole suit thing is a bit of a mystery to me. I mean, one of the costume designers said that Nolan had mandated before filming began on Begins that the new suit allow head/neck turn, and thus do away with the infamous 'Bat-turn' (you know, where the entire upper body must turn with the head), yet it was still there in almost all of its glory! He still couldn't turn his head independent of his upper body. Either its very difficult to make a decent suit that looks good on camera, or even Nolan's team is stuck in a mindset that refuses to give something else a real chance.

I wonder if they have considered some sort of hybrid; with armor for the torso, but a more form-fitting material for the arms, legs, and neck?

Maybe they could learn from the new Superman suit, which looked good and allowed Routh to prove that he had actually bothered to get in shape; something Bale actually would not have to do again unless there are shirtless scenes of Bruce again.


Ultimately, I dont' expect any improvement on the suit. The general public is accustomed to the body-armor now, and I doubt that the little gripes from fans will every filter through to Nolan past the overall much-deserved praise he got for BB.

[Gabroni]

have you guys even watched the special features??


they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing.... like a horror film..


That style worked well when Batman fought thugs, who would be terrified and confused, but it wasn't as effective for his fight against Ras. I still like the Ras fight, but its much easier to justify that style there because of the cramped space in which they fought. It was okay for the fight with the ninjas, but generally speaking, when Batman is fighting worth opponents, perhaps Nolan could at least mix it up a bit so that we could behold the skill on display.

[antmanx68]

I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing. It makes total sense for Batman to dismantle some thugs without us seeing it, but Batman FIGHTS too... always has always will. There needs to be some badass fighting in the next one... not wire-fu, or overly choreographed nonesense but the same hard nosed fighting- Just let us see it better this time.

The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them. Batman (even without being flashly) should be able to do some very impressive fight stuff and we need to see it (in addition to the 'whoa, what the crap is going on?' stuff).

None of the fighting in the first one had me thinking to myself "whoa, this is one of the coolest fights i've seen in a while". Brutal and stealthy doesnt mean "edit the hell out of it to the point where we just see glimpses of fists and shoulders and cant really get a good idea of whats happening."

Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.

[kn32]

Absolutely not. What fascinates me about Batman is why he puts on the suit, not what he does when it's on. He is a tragic hero, and to forego his inner struggle (which can only be conveyed to the audience through dialogue) for the sake of more action would cheapen the character considerably.

[XCharlieX]

I wouldnt change a thing about the fighting editing.

The only problem was a continuity problem. In 2 different takes Ras Al Ghul is standing at different angles and so him stabbing the control panel of the train in the next scene wasnt as apparent as it shouldve been. If he was standing at the exact same spot it wouldve been more easier to spot as oppose to mistaking it for batman.

[saint sinner x]

Absolutely not. What fascinates me about Batman is why he puts on the suit, not what he does when it's on. He is a tragic hero, and to forego his inner struggle (which can only be conveyed to the audience through dialogue) for the sake of more action would cheapen the character considerably.

Batman is a superhero/vigilante the fighting in the next one should be atleast viewable I mean I don't know how Nolan deals with sequels because this is probably going to be his first sequel. I hope Nolan listens to his fans he really does need to learn how to emphasize on theatrics in terms of action I don't want to see Batman fighting with the camera being too close and all. Those scenes gave me a headache and the monorail sequence could of been better although Batman Begins is my favorite superhero film of all time I enjoyed the fighting in the Bourne Identity better. Nolan Listen to my Prayer please enhance the fighting in the next Batman movie PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

Or else I'm going to have to start an online petition...

[DV8]

I don't think there was really anything lacking in Begins . . . but the choppy action sequences get a bit confusing, and by that I feel that it takes away from the enjoyment of the film . . . . I don't think Nolan by any means should "Matrix-i-fy" Batman . . . but I agree that some shots could be clearer

Also, I WOULD like a little more action as long as it doesn't take away from the classic cinematic quality of the film . . . . I mean, he IS Batman now . . .

But what would really add more to this film is seeing the detective at work . . . and as clues lead us deeper into the story, that could pave the way to more action . . . . but WARRANTED action; not gratuitous bs

[XCharlieX]

But what would really add more to this film is seeing the detective at work . . . and as clues lead us deeper into the story, that could pave the way to more action . . . . but WARRANTED action; not gratuitous bs

YES... i thought so too. The detective element is perfect for Nolans Batman.

[GEDRedemption]

The shots of the action sequences were fine. Although I could see why people would want them shot clearer and that's fine with me. I thought the action was enough in the first one, pacing was fine, it was a perfect movie. More action would make it a mindless popcorn flick.

I can't speak for everyone else, but when Batman first showed up at the dock's to fight. It was more about the first apperance of him to the thugs themselves. Like a holy crap, what is that being the ever living snot out of us. It was to show that he could take down multiple enemies at once.

And now a year later. I can make out the fight scenes just fine. Seeing them enough has made it to where I know what he's doing. I'm not going to say it has taken away from the essence of the thugs seeing him for the first time. But it does in fact feel like someone has "turned on the lights" of the suspence.

[GEDRedemption]

I hope Nolan listens to his fans he really does need to learn how to emphasize on theatrics in terms of action.


If you get theatrics, you'll get pointless action scenes. But hey maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get something as eye-popping as the vault lifting scene in Batman Forever. That was really.....quite lame actually. I hope for none of that. The action will be bigger and better, but it will serve a point.

[Mr. Thing]

The amount of action in BB was just right. I don't want anymore.

[Mr. Thing]

But what would really add more to this film is seeing the detective at work . .

:up:

[The Watchman]

I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing. It makes total sense for Batman to dismantle some thugs without us seeing it, but Batman FIGHTS too... always has always will. There needs to be some badass fighting in the next one... not wire-fu, or overly choreographed nonesense but the same hard nosed fighting- Just let us see it better this time.

The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them. Batman (even without being flashly) should be able to do some very impressive fight stuff and we need to see it (in addition to the 'whoa, what the crap is going on?' stuff).

None of the fighting in the first one had me thinking to myself "whoa, this is one of the coolest fights i've seen in a while". Brutal and stealthy doesnt mean "edit the hell out of it to the point where we just see glimpses of fists and shoulders and cant really get a good idea of whats happening."

Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.


Co-sign. Nail...head...direct hit.:up:

[GEDRedemption]

Let's say they pull back and show you the full package. Do you really want to see 6 guys waiting in line to get the snot beat out of them like in Reloaded or Kill Bill?

[XCharlieX]

Let's say they pull back and show you the full package. Do you really want to see 6 guys waiting in line to get the snot beat out of them like in Reloaded or Kill Bill?

Exactly. The fighting style of Batman is faster than anybody knows in real life, so some alterations are needed while filming. I personally enjoyed the montage of punches and kicks hitting enemies in a rapid fire manner. That was quite cool.

[fabman]

I hope Nolan listens to his fans he really does need to learn how to emphasize on theatrics in terms of action.

I HAD TO LOL WHEN YOU SAID NOLAN SHOULD LEARN FROM THE FANS!? Lol, who do you think you/we are? Filmmakers? Nope. It's Nolan ;) NOLAN; DO YA THING...

[Octoberist]

The action in Begins was ehh.. A flaw that can be fixed by the seque. I think that Nolan tried to experiiment with a new style that didn't reall work in my opinion. But I still love the movie.

[GEDRedemption]

the sequels usually have bigger action then original due to the whole "bigger is better" concept of hollywood. plus nolan said the first 2 would be like superman 1 and 2, and 2 had TONS of action,so well probably get some good stuff.

I've never heard Nolan say anything that resembles that.

[fabman]

He NEVER said that. he just wanted a great cast like in superman, wake up pal!

[Batty Belfry]

So far I've loved Nolan's style of action sequences.....It reminds me more of "The French Connection" and less of Michale Bay's popcorn flick style....It's a tough balance for a movie like Batman to keep it enthralling and less of the obligatory hollywood action scene. I'm sure he'll be refining his techniques to fit within the theme of the new movie.

[Two-Face]

Yeah Nolan wanted great cast for BB just like Donner's Superman movie.

[XCharlieX]

I HAD TO LOL WHEN YOU SAID NOLAN SHOULD LEARN FROM THE FANS!? Lol, who do you think you/we are? Filmmakers? Nope. It's Nolan ;) NOLAN; DO YA THING...

Yeah really.. if ever theres a film maker that the complaining fans should learn from its nolan heh :up:

Him and Cameron imo.

[DV8]

Let's say they pull back and show you the full package. Do you really want to see 6 guys waiting in line to get the snot beat out of them like in Reloaded or Kill Bill?

but that's the thing . . . they weren't 'waiting in line' . . . the scenes were realistically choreographed so that everyone was attacking Bats all at once

[xwolverine2]

Yeah Nolan wanted great cast for BB just like Donner's Superman movie.
cough

[GEDRedemption]

but that's the thing . . . they weren't 'waiting in line' . . . the scenes were realistically choreographed so that everyone was attacking Bats all at once

From seeing the bonus features on the second disc, you are in fact right. I meant it only as an insult towards what the big fight scenes in those other movies represent. Ducard refered to it as being a dance.

When he's fighting as soon as he walks in the door, there's only about two-three camra angles and it sticks with those throught out the fight.

Honestly that fight reminded me of the brawl in the playground in Daredevil.

[7Hells]

I can't speak for everyone else, but when Batman first showed up at the dock's to fight. It was more about the first apperance of him to the thugs themselves. Like a holy crap, what is that being the ever living snot out of us. It was to show that he could take down multiple enemies at once.
Exactly how I felt. The mystique of Batman was very strong in that one. The fear of being ass kicked (or dying is what I felt) by some creature instead of by a man is what made us believe he could actually strike fear into his enemies by being BAT man.
The script even reinforced that idea with ..
"what the hell are you!?"
CRASH!
"I'm Batman."
The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them.
I thought they covered that well enough in the origin story.

I like that we dont see Batman fighting clearly. It gives us an idea of what his enemies see and feel while fighting him. I would be scared ****less if I was fighting someone and all I could see is a black figure moving so fast I had no time to breathe.
I think he did a good job of portraying that VERY important part of the mystique of Batman to us. And that is in all of the comics.
That being said I also see the comic fans wanting to actually see Batman fight as being a valid wish.
Batman is a very elegant fighter in the comics. His style is a Batman style that no other superhero really comes close to. So I can understand why some fans are upset because to them thats what Batman comic fighting scenes were all about.

[DV8]

I meant it only as an insult towards what the big fight scenes in those other movies represent. Ducard refered to it as being a dance.

When he's fighting as soon as he walks in the door, there's only about two-three camra angles and it sticks with those throught out the fight.

Honestly that fight reminded me of the brawl in the playground in Daredevil.

ahhhh . . . I see your point; I liked that scene in Daredevil . . . I think it was just about the only worthwhile scene in the movie

[Galactical]

I would love to see batman's martial arts skills on display rather than hidden in fog or shadow or shredded in the editing room.

The first film's fights were so overly edited like many of hollywood's bad action movies. Batman deserves better than quick mtv cuts. If it's the suit that's too difficult for bale to maneuver in as the reason the editing's so chop-chop then change it for the sake of some amazing theatrics.

Oh and in nolan I trust. see I'm on the good team... I just want better shot action that's all. Can't go wrong with that. But even if god himself, Nolan does not do it and continues the same choppy impossible to see stuff then so be it. he is god. I will love it unquestioningly.

[Cinemaman]

Well, they really need put a bit more action in sequel and make it better :up:

But I was fine with BB's action :)

[The Riddler]

not more action.

better action.

my main gripe in begins was how poorly shot the action sequences were.

it's a main reason why i like spidey 2 a bit more than begins.

[xwolverine2]

were not talking about slow motion fighting...

think the intro scene in Elektra, she was like a super fast ghost when killing(dead on, then got sloppy through the rest of the movie).

or the fight scene in equilibrium with the dog(a bit fake but didnt depend on slow motion)

[xxshady]

It's not an illusion, you actually can't see what's happening. I don't know how a director's explanation can justify anything. If Schumacher would have explained that it was his idea to have terrible acting in B&R on purpose that doesn't change a thing.

Oh and Batman is not a horror film.


Your very ignorant.

Just wanted to say that :up:

Now, let me own you.

1. Your not supposed to see whats happening.

2. Batman Begins can also be classified as a horror film. Dont believe me? Its in Spike TV's Horror Movie Awards (dont know what they are claledd.

[xwolverine2]

1. Your not supposed to see whats happening.

i dont see why not

[saint sinner x]

If you get theatrics, you'll get pointless action scenes. But hey maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get something as eye-popping as the vault lifting scene in Batman Forever. That was really.....quite lame actually. I hope for none of that. The action will be bigger and better, but it will serve a point.

Your getting me all wrong I don't want to see any stupid bullet-time dodging matrix cgi bullcrap or any slowmotion punches just for kicks. When I said theatrics I meant fighting scenes that the audience can see the brutality and how skilled Batman really is and how superior he is in terms of fighting and skill. The bourne identity captured that essence very perfectly in terms of fighting and terminator 2 judgement day had realistic action that was very entertaining in a theatrical way. If Nolan is not going to concentrate on action sequence then at least when the action comes on screen it should want to make people go "WOW" Batman is a true bad ass.Like in V for Vendetta which I like the action in that movie better then Batman Begins but I like Batman Begins in general better then V for Vendetta.

Wouldn't be awesome to see Batman fighting 12thugs and he takes them out by breaking all of they're arms You know something brutal and realistic just like the fighting in The Bourne Identity or hell even in collateral.

[7Hells]

Saint Sinner why do you need so bad to see all of that? You know how bad-ass he is and so does the audience because we saw how bad-ass he is when he was training.

[xwolverine2]

Saint Sinner why do you need so bad to see all of that? You know how bad-ass he is and so does the audience because we saw how bad-ass he is when he was training.
im sorry your asking WHY we would want to see batman be a badass?:confused:

[chintai80]

Wouldn't be awesome to see Batman fighting 12thugs and he takes them out by breaking all of they're arms You know something brutal and realistic just like the fighting in The Bourne Identity or hell even in collateral.

Serious, the sequel should have better edited fighting sequences. Like Bourne Identity and Collateral.

Or Jamie Foxx's Miami Vice ass kicking. That would owns...even though Miami Vice sucked in general.

[ad101867]

i agree... the action needs to be better..im not saying MORE...just better.

I totally agree. Everybody who defends Nolan's directing and editing of the fight scenes always talks (and talks and talks and talks) about how the choppiness is "justified" because Nolan wants to give us the impression the bad guys have when Batman's destroying them. The problem is that once the audience gets the point, the director/editor should vary the style from scene to scene, or within a single scene. The choppiness worked for the docks scene because that was Batman's debut. But the choppiness continuing on and on throughout the rest of the movie was well beyond making the point.

Now supposedly some very intricate and realistic fight choreography went into the creation of those scenes on the set. The problem is that the final product seen by the audience fails to show us enough of that choreography to truly appreciate it. If I were the choreographer I'd have been offended that my work was chopped up and virtually unseeable. Based on what we see in the final edit of Begins, we have to take Nolan's word for it that there was any actual choreography. So what's the difference between that and crappy choreography? I mean, if you can't actually get a good look at it so as to be able to discern the choreography, then what's the point of having it?

they prob. didnt look right because the suit is too hard to move in .... maybe put a stunt guy in like spandex or a material so he could move then digitally make it look like the bat suit material.

You know, that's actually not a bad idea. Like in X-Men 3, when they digitally de-aged Xavier and Magneto in the opening scene. Why couldn't they have Bale or stuntmen performing some action in a minimal, half-done Batsuit, then add CGI elements to the suit in postproduction?

However, I don't buy that the suit was a problem for Bale or the stuntmen to move around in. Even if you go back to the somewhat heavier suits worn by Clooney and Kilmer in the mid-90s, those suits were still very flexible and you could see it all on-screen because the editing wasn't choppy. I mean, really, aside from the infamous suit-nipples, those were otherwise pretty good-looking suits, and they still conveyed the realistic notion of body armour. Personally I think I might've gone with something almost exactly like Kilmer's suit, minus the nipples and with some bronze colourization of the bat symbol to match the bronze of the utility belt.

I liked the "choppy" action sequences, it gives the illusion of a real struggle between the fighters. Plus, I think Nolan probably planned to use clearer action shots, but they just didn't look right.

That sounds ridiculous. "Didn't look right"?? In today's filmmaking world there's no excuse for failing to get action scenes that "look right." No, Nolan definitely planned the fight scenes that way; it's just that his planning wasn't very good (although I still love BB, overall).

And how does choppiness = "a real struggle between the fighters"? That doesn't make sense. If you're walking down the street or if you cross a school yard and happen to witness a real fight, does it look choppy? No. Because you're standing back and getting a good view of everything. It still looks like a "real struggle" though, doesn't it? If you want a movie fight that looks like "a real struggle," then that comes down to choreography, not choppy editing.

they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing

It's not an illusion, you actually can't see what's happening.

:D Yeah, where's the "illusion" in that???

I don't know how a director's explanation can justify anything. If Schumacher would have explained that it was his idea to have terrible acting in B&R on purpose that doesn't change a thing.

Well put. To add to what you said there, choppy editing is an excuse when you're too lazy to shoot better scenes. Now I don't believe that Nolan in general is a "lazy" director. However, think of other action movies where the action is lousy because of choppy editing and too-close camera angles. How can we tell the difference between a film like that and the fight scenes in Begins? We can't. Nolan's shooting and editing choices had the unfortunate result of making the fight scenes in Begins indistinguishable from bad fight scenes in other films (e.g., Elektra).

If anything, I'd prefer less action. The second movement of a symphony should always be more subdued than the first.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I just don't understand it. If you want a noirish drama with little action, then, I dunno, watch some mafia-related movies or something. Batman at his best has always been pretty much equal parts action and drama. Begins struck all the right notes in terms of mood and pacing, so I don't see why there should be less action in the sequels.

Batman is not someone that you should see much anyway, or the effect is lost. I mean he IS in a rubber suit you know.

so what have comics been showing all this time?...lol

I had the same thought exactly. When has anyone ever written to a comic-book publisher to complain that the action is "too visible" or some such thing? To make that kind of comment about a Batman movie seems ridiculous. Besides, while Batman is stealthy from the criminals' point of view, the audience members aren't the criminals. To the audience, Batman should be largely visible.

Well there's a huge difference between what works in film and what works in a comic book.

In terms of costuming and physiques and poses, I'd largely agree with you. But not in terms of visibility, because they are both visual media. So if the visuals aren't very good, then in either a comic-book or a movie what was the point of the drawing or the filming? If there isn't supposed to be much visibility, then don't use visual media; produce a novel instead.

I'll defend Nolan's choice on zooming in on the action forever. I liked it, thought it puts the audience in the fight, the experience Batman as a thug would experience him.

There is a fundamental difference between actually being in a fight and watching one on film. If you're actually in a fight you both feel it and see the action from various angles at once, through your peripheral vision. Your senses are fully engaged and the adrenalin is pumping. This sensation explosion cannot be duplicated on film merely by choppy editing. So on an artistic level, use a bit of choppiness to make your point, but then show us different angles so that we can also appreciate other aspects of the fight scenes, not just the bad guys' viewpoint. (Besides, if we were really seeing the bad guys' viewpoint, then we'd see Batman's punches or kicks coming right at the camera all the time.)

well bruce has trained for years to learn martial arts and id like to see it......or it just looks like hes wrestling mindlessly

the only part where it looks like wrestling is in the jail part, and thats cuz he wasnt trained. and.... they wanted to give him a very rugged and fierce fighting style so they found one that these two guys made but they tweaked it a little to make it better for the movie...

So how am I supposed to appreciate the realism and the choreography IF I CAN'T SEE IT??? (And why do so many people fail to get that point? You can talk all you want about realistic fight choreography, but if you can't SEE the final result, then what was the point?)

I loved the first Batman Begins, it had a fantastic story that did not rely on great action (which it did have) to make for an enjoyable experience. I hope the same is true with BB2.

I'm doubting the sequel will be called Batman Begins 2.

I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing.

Antman is totally bang-on here; couldn't've said it better myself. :up:

Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.

I was thinking the same thing when I watched the special features. I enjoyed the footage precisely because I got a better look at the choreography. And I remembered feeling cheated by the final edit of the movie after seeing the choreography footage in the special feature.

I wouldnt change a thing about the fighting editing.

Charlie, tell me something: What did you appreciate about the fight choreography?

Let's say they pull back and show you the full package. Do you really want to see 6 guys waiting in line to get the snot beat out of them like in Reloaded or Kill Bill?

but that's the thing . . . they weren't 'waiting in line' . . . the scenes were realistically choreographed so that everyone was attacking Bats all at once

Precisely. Wasn't that the whole point of the choreography? It's ironic that Nolan could've saved a few bucks on the production by simply not having a fight choreographer. The final edit rendered a choreographer useless.

I HAD TO LOL WHEN YOU SAID NOLAN SHOULD LEARN FROM THE FANS!? Lol, who do you think you/we are? Filmmakers? Nope.

If a non-filmmaker can't comment on various aspects of a movie, then how can any of us distinguish between good movies and bad ones? Your comment is irrational.

So far I've loved Nolan's style of action sequences.....It reminds me more of "The French Connection" and less of Michale Bay's popcorn flick style....It's a tough balance for a movie like Batman to keep it enthralling and less of the obligatory hollywood action scene.

So in other words - either we have choppy editing or an obligatory Hollywood action scene? There's no third alternative? Here's a third alternative for you: believable choreography that we can actually see. How's that for a mind-blowing concept?


Quote:
Originally Posted by antmanx68
The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them.

I thought they covered that well enough in the origin story. I like that we dont see Batman fighting clearly.

Do you realize you contradicted yourself there? Antman said he wanted to see better what was going on, and you said BB "covered that well enough," but then you said "we don't see Batman fighting clearly." So which do you mean to say? That we do see Batman fighting clearly, or that we don't?

It gives us an idea of what his enemies see and feel while fighting him.

Man, I am just so tired of that lame defense of badly shot and edited fight scenes.

Saint Sinner why do you need so bad to see all of that? You know how bad-ass he is and so does the audience because we saw how bad-ass he is when he was training.

:rolleyes: That's like saying about a Bruce Lee movie: "You already know how bad-ass Bruce Lee is, so why do we need to see it in his movies?" Well, duh, we want to enjoy watching the amazing choreography and the man's athleticism. Supposedly there was amazing choreography in Batman Begins too, but you wouldn't know it from the final edit. You don't enjoy someone's athleticism by just knowing about it; you enjoy it by seeing it. Otherwise why watch a sports event? Just read about it, if you don't need the visuals.

Question for anybody: Why the repeated knocks on The Matrix? Remember that the Matrix fight scenes don't take place in the real world; they take place in virtual-reality, which means that they're supposed to have a fantasylike quality to them. Those scenes were very creative on the part of the Wachowski Bros.; the problem is that filmmaking hacks too often mimicked The Matrix in different story contexts where it wasn't appropriate or was over-indulgent.

[xxshady]

Now supposedly some very intricate and realistic fight choreography went into the creation of those scenes on the set. The problem is that the final product seen by the audience fails to show us enough of that choreography to truly appreciate it. If I were the choreographer I'd have been offended that my work was chopped up and virtually unseeable. Based on what we see in the final edit of Begins, we have to take Nolan's word for it that there was any actual choreography. So what's the difference between that and crappy choreography? I mean, if you can't actually get a good look at it so as to be able to discern the choreography, then what's the point of having it?


you cant see whats happening? you should check that with the doctor, because i could see fine.

[7Hells]

im sorry your asking WHY we would want to see batman be a badass?:confused:
No, I'm asking WHY you missed the first half of the movie showing him be a badass.

[xxshady]

No, I'm asking WHY you missed the first half of the movie showing him be a badass.

exactly.

[7Hells]

I didn't miss it, but that was Bruce Wayne being a badass, not Batman.
That wasnt his/her point.
His/her point in their previous post was that we dont know if Batman is a badass fighter because we never saw him fight.

[xwolverine2]

No, I'm asking WHY you missed the first half of the movie showing him be a badass.
what?...i dont understand you...

you mean when hes bruce?.....
that was before his training...he was just mindless rage.

when hes batman all you see are quick ***** slap shots.... i like the keysi(or w/e) fighting style that was on the special features.HELL i didnt even KNOW they were fighting like that until i saw the special features.mix it up a bit and show it...

[7Hells]

Before, during and when he fought the supposed Ra's.

[xwolverine2]

Before, during and when he fought the supposed Ra's.
1.thats bruce

2.that was a sword fight.

3.i prefer the actual ras fight at the end....

my point is they could have done the fight scene with the thugs alot better and clearer....i hope they improve it for BB2

[heypapajinx]

i do not agree.
maybe they could actually step DOWN all the action and just make it a romance. ooo!! a romantic comedy!! yeah!!

[xwolverine2]

i do not agree.
maybe they could actually step DOWN all the action and just make it a romance. ooo!! a romantic comedy!! yeah!!
joel schumacher?...is that you?

:eek: HES COME BACK FOR REVENGE!!:eek:

[Jack Napier]

Does anyone think they'll slow down the pace for BB2? In BB, the story sometimes was being told too fast, and I didn't like it at first but through repeat viewings I got used to it. They had a whole origin story to tell, so that's understandable. But there were scenes where Bruce gets hurdled out of a truck immediately after Ducard talks to him, the training montage was pretty quick, and where Rachel veers off the road to take Bruce to Falcone's. Did anyone else get the feeling that the story was moving way too fast sometimes?

I'm wondering if they'll take their time with the sequel, knowing that it's been set up already.

[heypapajinx]

joel schumacher?...is that you?

:eek: HES COME BACK FOR REVENGE!!:eek:

oh, you've got me!
*slaps some rubber nipples on you*
now dance for me puppet! DANCE!

[XCharlieX]

And how does choppiness = "a real struggle between the fighters"? That doesn't make sense.

...When has anyone ever written to a comic-book publisher to complain that the action is "too visible" or some such thing? To make that kind of comment about a Batman movie seems ridiculous.

There is a fundamental difference between actually being in a fight and watching one on film. If you're actually in a fight you both feel it and see the action from various angles at once, through your peripheral vision. Your senses are fully engaged and the adrenalin is pumping. This sensation explosion cannot be duplicated on film merely by choppy editing.

Charlie, tell me something: What did you appreciate about the fight choreography?


I can understand folks not liking the fight sequence style, as it is one that isnt common in films and folks may just want the regular fashion. However there is one issue that i found Nolan avoided by doing this in the film and it has to do with the setup of this particular mysterious fighting style and a creative reaction to previous fight sequences in a batman film.

First of all, when Bruce Wayne enters the League of Shadows secret cottage in the mountains, Ras Al Ghul made it apparent that all of what Bruce was taught before he got there was nonsense in comparison to the secret form they knew up there. It was a mixture of all fighting styles that could take on a multitude of people at once. Not only this, but the style evolves for the individual based on the opponents tendencies.

"You can take on 6 men. We can teach you how to engage 600."

"Looks familiar, dont you have anything new?"

Nolans reasoning was that in order for this fighting style to be believed, there needed to be a technique used that nobody has ever seen before.

...Bringing me to the previous films. Burtons films are great, but even there you can see that the fighting is obviously choreographed. Especially in Batman Returns, some folks bend over, throw a slow punch or jump into the proper position to be grabbed by batman, in particular the sword swallower. Chris Nolan bypassed these issues of choreography filmed almost non stop and created a style in which the fighting looked like hes hitting 3 people at once.

And finally, the fighting of Keaton would be classified as martial arts mainly it looks like. And to this day most of the fighting in Batman Begins doesnt look the slightest choreographed now does it? Can you identify the fighting style as simple karate? It works for me. Not only this, but he used the camera to make it look like something from a live camera or such... something people correlate to visceral and actually happening, like from the news or such. There are small mind tricks directors like this use to sell the ideas and while it may not make sense to you, this type of instinct is necessary.

This is why i know some folks who said Batman Begins batman would kick the stuffings out of Keatons, which i dont compare but seems to me the editing style with the setup for Begins worked like a charm.

[Galactical]

Anybody see Ong Bak? I want that, but with batman doing it.

[kytrigger]

Anybody see Ong Bak? I want that, but with batman doing it.

Tony Jaa for Robin...

[Galactical]

Tony Jaa could beat Chuck Norris

[thedarks0ldier]

The dialogue in the first movie and the story is what made it great. The best action was in the beginning and during the chase. More action doesnt mean less story, and making the fight scene's more enjoyable to watch does not dumb down a film. Fight Club had great fight scenes, (which i wouldnt mind having some slow-mo in the next flim) As long as they don't do Wire-fu and or Matrix Bullet time slow-mo.

But the fights in a movie should not leave you wanting more. On the reverse they should not overkill it. They should not tease you and then not fulfil.

I find nothing wrong in having more enjoyable action, but if the choppy quick fighting is what we have to live with then i'll accept it (which if you've ever been in a fight you would know that it is really boring to see)

[XCharlieX]

(which if you've ever been in a fight you would know that it is really boring to see)

I would think overchoreographed type of scenes would be quite phoney in this respect. Thats how I see it.

[thedarks0ldier]

I would think overchoreographed type of scenes would be quite phoney in this respect. Thats how I see it.Those are too. Fights like in Kill Bill are fun to watch (Which i dont want for a Batman Film)


PS. POST 900!!!

[GEDRedemption]

Does anyone think they'll slow down the pace for BB2? In BB, the story sometimes was being told too fast, and I didn't like it at first but through repeat viewings I got used to it. They had a whole origin story to tell, so that's understandable. But there were scenes where Bruce gets hurdled out of a truck immediately after Ducard talks to him, the training montage was pretty quick, and where Rachel veers off the road to take Bruce to Falcone's. Did anyone else get the feeling that the story was moving way too fast sometimes?

I'm wondering if they'll take their time with the sequel, knowing that it's been set up already.

Did you really want to see him wake up, get his bag, be escourted out of the prison guided into a truck, drive several miles and then be pushed out?

[saint sinner x]

The fighting in kill bill vol.2 had alot of impact it made me say "DANM" that was crazy I really hope Nolan fixes this problem. I had no problem with the batmobile chase scene but I believed he could of done it better like make a helicopter blow up or something.The batchase scene that I hated the most was the part where Batman turned off his lights on the batmobile and the helicopter lost visual I said to myself "What kind of police helicopter doesn't have nightvision". Seriously that part was lame, Batman Begins is bad ass and is the best superhero movie ever but in terms of action and logic in some cases it fails in comparison to x-men 2 or hell even spiderman.

[XCharlieX]

The batchase scene that I hated the most was the part where Batman turned off his lights on the batmobile and the helicopter lost visual I said to myself "What kind of police helicopter doesn't have nightvision".

That pretty much is the part where they cant just state every detail about the car imo. So they just use the general concept which i think some folks find a screw up because its a movie: The idea was brand new technology where cammouflaging was possible like shown, and if that means nightvision is useless then thats what it is.. what you see is what you get. imo if the guy lost him, then he tried everything.

Stealth mode can mean it covers many things. IMO its a perfect approach to it, not painting it into a corner by fleshing it out too far.

[explode7]

Why does most of the members on this forum has the letter x in their name???

[XCharlieX]

X-men ;)

[explode7]

Oh by the way Bale lost on Celeb Death Match Friday. :(

[Sharkboy]

^that sucks who did he lose too? adam west? ah i can live with that.

i totally agree with the action thing, i completly understand what nolan was going for, and it felt brutal and ass-kicking. but i do agree that they need to tone it down a bit to let us see whats going on. I fully realised that when i didnt understand what was happening during the Ra's vs bats final fight on train.

[The Only Woj]

the action was fine, it was the cinematography that was the problem. and it wasn't really a problem. they were going for the "bad guy" perspective of this, being right up next to Batman and being helpless because he's so fast and strong. in the sequel, I don't think Nolan will revisit that same style, if only because he's already done it and may want to try something new. I wouldn't mind it being from Batman's perspective. we're with him as he's in the shadows and going after the guys. give us a better angle on the action so we can see that there are actually blows being thrown and landed, and not just the camera shaking all over the place an inch from someone's shoulder.

[explode7]

Yes Bale lost to Adam West. That sucks. Bale got squashed by overhead lights.

[Jack Napier]

Did you really want to see him wake up, get his bag, be escourted out of the prison guided into a truck, drive several miles and then be pushed out?

No, but some of the scenery changes were really abrupt like that. It feels stilted sometimes.

[xxshady]

No, but some of the scenery changes were really abrupt like that. It feels stilted sometimes.


Not really. :o

[GEDRedemption]

The fighting in kill bill vol.2 had alot of impact it made me say "DANM" that was crazy I really hope Nolan fixes this problem. I had no problem with the batmobile chase scene but I believed he could of done it better like make a helicopter blow up or something.The batchase scene that I hated the most was the part where Batman turned off his lights on the batmobile and the helicopter lost visual I said to myself "What kind of police helicopter doesn't have nightvision". Seriously that part was lame, Batman Begins is bad ass and is the best superhero movie ever but in terms of action and logic in some cases it fails in comparison to x-men 2 or hell even spiderman.


It's the Batmobile that's why, made by Wayne Industries. Intended for use with the military. It's pretty logical to assume with night vision it'd be impossible to see.

[FVD]

Is Celebrity Deathmatch still going?

Anyway I like the action just as it is. But if the editing can be touched up a little then that'll be fine.

[Eros]

im still not sure how Batman beat Razz on the train. Nolan films the fight scene like some kind of big confuseing orge. I can't enjoy Batman, unless i see him fight. Batman and Robin had superior fight scene. If a kid goes to see the sequel, they won't know what the hell is going on.

[ad101867]

FOR THE RECORD: I love Batman Begins; one of my fave all-time films. That doesn't mean, however, that the sequels couldn't stand some improvements. I get a kick out of how a number of BB fans continue to defend poor shooting and editing when it comes to the fight scenes. All you're doing is justifying it after the fact. If comic-books were drawn that way, nobody would buy them.

you cant see whats happening? you should check that with the doctor, because i could see fine.

No, you couldn't. I flat-out do not believe you were able to discern particular keysi fight-moves in those scenes, other than the odd kick or chop - but nothing that really gave you any clear idea of the work that went into the keysi fight-method choreography.

And even if you could see it, that's no help to the overwhelming majority of viewers who could not see enough of the choreography to appreciate it.

I'm asking WHY you missed the first half of the movie showing him be a badass.

What Batman fan is going to be satisfied with any fight scenes involving Bruce Wayne when he's still in training to become the Bat? Whatever happened in the first half of BB, that's hardly an excuse for lousy fight scenes thereafter. That's like saying, "Well, the first half of my screenplay is good, so I won't bother writing a good plotline for the second half."

[Majik1387's] point in their previous post was that we dont know if Batman is a badass fighter because we never saw him fight.

Well, of course we know he's a great fighter. But knowing it in your mind isn't the same as seeing it and being entertained by it. That's like saying, "Well, we know Superman can fly, so who cares if the flying scenes are lousy." You still want to see superb special effects on the flying scenes in a Superman flick. Same goes for Batman's fighting prowess; you already know he has it, but you want to see it, not just know about it.

In BB, the story sometimes was being told too fast, and I didn't like it at first but through repeat viewings I got used to it.

It was indeed very fast-paced, but they had a lot of ground to cover. I imagine TDK won't be as fast-paced, because it won't cover as long a timespan.

I can understand folks not liking the fight sequence style, as it is one that isn't common in films and folks may just want the regular fashion.

On the contrary - it is increasingly common in action movies nowadays. Most filmmakers currently are too lazy to showcase superb fight choreography, and most fight scenes in most action flicks now are closely shot and choppily edited.

Nolan's reasoning was that in order for this fighting style to be believed, there needed to be a technique used that nobody has ever seen before.

No problem with that reasoning. The problem is that the audience was never given a good look at the Keysi Fighting Method. Any choreography at all - or no choreography - could have been used in BB, and we never would have known the difference because of the way it was shot and edited.

Chris Nolan bypassed these issues of choreography filmed almost non stop and created a style in which the fighting looked like hes hitting 3 people at once.

If that's the case, then this effect required only close camera angles and fast editing. It didn't require Keysi choreography. So what was the point of hiring Keysi fighters to create the choreography? If you're a filmmaker and you select a particular form of fighting to be in your movie, then how about letting your audience see the uniqueness of that fight form?

And to this day most of the fighting in Batman Begins doesnt look the slightest choreographed now does it?

Nobody can tell because nobody can get a good look at it.

he used the camera to make it look like something from a live camera or such

No he didn't. A live view could still have been a farther-back and wider view. Having it closeup and choppy doesn't make it look more "live." In fact, mimicking a live view would require having virtually no editing at all. Instead, the BB fight scenes were over-edited. That's not like a live view whatsoever.

There are small mind tricks directors like this use to sell the ideas and while it may not make sense to you, this type of instinct is necessary.

:rolleyes: "Small mind tricks." Yeah, whatever, dude. You can't tell me there's any difference between the fight scenes in BB and the fight scenes in films where most people criticize the director as a lousy action director. I guess you must praise the fight scenes in Elektra, then, right? Riiiiiight.

I have made this point repeatedly: you cannot justify the poor fight scenes in BB, for the simple reason that they don't look any different from crappy fight scenes in other films that most viewers admit look lousy. You're only justifying it cuz you like BB for other reasons and you want to always defend it rather than be objective. If you took these same fight scenes and substituted Catwoman for Batman, and put them in the Catwoman movie, you'd be criticizing them along with everyone else. It wouldn't even occur to you to defend them.

I would think overchoreographed type of scenes would be quite phoney in this respect. Thats how I see it.

Buddy, we can't even see if these fights were choreographed at all. The shooting and editing style do not allow us to judge the choreography because we can't get a good enough look at it. What this means is that even if they were "over"choreographed, you wouldn't be able to tell.

I had no problem with the batmobile chase scene

This is a good comparison because it shows that Nolan can direct good action scenes - just not fight scenes, apparently. (Or maybe he can but hasn't shown it yet; maybe he'll show it in the sequel.) The Tumbler scenes were perfect.

they were going for the "bad guy" perspective of this, being right up next to Batman and being helpless because he's so fast and strong.

I didn't see any bad guy's perspective. If we were going to be shown the bad guys' perspective, we'd see all of Batman's kicks and punches coming right at the camera. The camera would have acted as the bad guys' eyes. But that's not what we saw; most shots were from the side. So that wasn't the bad guys' perspective.

[xxshady]

FOR THE RECORD: I love Batman Begins; one of my fave all-time films. That doesn't mean, however, that the sequels couldn't stand some improvements. I get a kick out of how a number of BB fans continue to defend poor shooting and editing when it comes to the fight scenes. All you're doing is justifying it after the fact. If comic-books were drawn that way, nobody would buy them.



No, you couldn't. I flat-out do not believe you were able to discern particular keysi fight-moves in those scenes, other than the odd kick or chop - but nothing that really gave you any clear idea of the work that went into the keysi fight-method choreography.

And even if you could see it, that's no help to the overwhelming majority of viewers who could not see enough of the choreography to appreciate it.



What Batman fan is going to be satisfied with any fight scenes involving Bruce Wayne when he's still in training to become the Bat? Whatever happened in the first half of BB, that's hardly an excuse for lousy fight scenes thereafter. That's like saying, "Well, the first half of my screenplay is good, so I won't bother writing a good plotline for the second half."



Well, of course we know he's a great fighter. But knowing it in your mind isn't the same as seeing it and being entertained by it. That's like saying, "Well, we know Superman can fly, so who cares if the flying scenes are lousy." You still want to see superb special effects on the flying scenes in a Superman flick. Same goes for Batman's fighting prowess; you already know he has it, but you want to see it, not just know about it.



It was indeed very fast-paced, but they had a lot of ground to cover. I imagine TDK won't be as fast-paced, because it won't cover as long a timespan.



On the contrary - it is increasingly common in action movies nowadays. Most filmmakers currently are too lazy to showcase superb fight choreography, and most fight scenes in most action flicks now are closely shot and choppily edited.



No problem with that reasoning. The problem is that the audience was never given a good look at the Keysi Fighting Method. Any choreography at all - or no choreography - could have been used in BB, and we never would have known the difference because of the way it was shot and edited.



If that's the case, then this effect required only close camera angles and fast editing. It didn't require Keysi choreography. So what was the point of hiring Keysi fighters to create the choreography? If you're a filmmaker and you select a particular form of fighting to be in your movie, then how about letting your audience see the uniqueness of that fight form?



Nobody can tell because nobody can get a good look at it.



No he didn't. A live view could still have been a farther-back and wider view. Having it closeup and choppy doesn't make it look more "live." In fact, mimicking a live view would require having virtually no editing at all. Instead, the BB fight scenes were over-edited. That's not like a live view whatsoever.



:rolleyes: "Small mind tricks." Yeah, whatever, dude. You can't tell me there's any difference between the fight scenes in BB and the fight scenes in films where most people criticize the director as a lousy action director. I guess you must praise the fight scenes in Elektra, then, right? Riiiiiight.

I have made this point repeatedly: you cannot justify the poor fight scenes in BB, for the simple reason that they don't look any different from crappy fight scenes in other films that most viewers admit look lousy. You're only justifying it cuz you like BB for other reasons and you want to always defend it rather than be objective. If you took these same fight scenes and substituted Catwoman for Batman, and put them in the Catwoman movie, you'd be criticizing them along with everyone else. It wouldn't even occur to you to defend them.



Buddy, we can't even see if these fights were choreographed at all. The shooting and editing style do not allow us to judge the choreography because we can't get a good enough look at it. What this means is that even if they were "over"choreographed, you wouldn't be able to tell.



This is a good comparison because it shows that Nolan can direct good action scenes - just not fight scenes, apparently. (Or maybe he can but hasn't shown it yet; maybe he'll show it in the sequel.) The Tumbler scenes were perfect.



I didn't see any bad guy's perspective. If we were going to be shown the bad guys' perspective, we'd see all of Batman's kicks and punches coming right at the camera. The camera would have acted as the bad guys' eyes. But that's not what we saw; most shots were from the side. So that wasn't the bad guys' perspective.


You sir, are an ignoramus. :joker:

Please tell me how the fighting scenes are poor? Batman was much stealthier in BB. Just cuz he doesnt go up front and smacks people in the head it doesnt mean its a bad fight scene. I dont see the problem with him engulfing people in his cape and owning them? And the fight scene that was chopped up was intended. It doesnt matter if you think it was poorly edited because it was MEANT to be that way, they OBVIOUSLY could have edited another way. It shows that Batman is pantherlike and strikes at different times.

[E-Mack]

You sir, are an ignoramus. :joker:

Please tell me how the fighting scenes are poor? Batman was much stealthier in BB. Just cuz he doesnt go up front and smacks people in the head it doesnt mean its a bad fight scene.
Well I don't really see how anyone can watch BB, and leave out of there saying, "man those were some great fight scenes!" :o

That was his point. By the way it was edited, intentional or not, there was nothing there to judge. It's like going to a rap concert and all you hear are love songs. There's just nothing to base your opinions on.

Nolan should pan the camera out more. And imo, ditch the Keysi style. It sounded good on paper, but Bats looked horrible doing the moves from the behind-the-scenes look. All it had Bats do is put his hands on his head and start twisting with a lil' bit of punches and kicks here and there, lol. Gritty is what we're looking for here. Realistic, but also visually appealing. Bourne Identity took that style to a T. :up:

[Darknightnomis]

No, no, no.

The great thing about BB was that there wasn't something blowing up every scene after characters had a conversation. The movie had some serious depth to it, with a sprinkly of action, and the action was BADASS.

Certain films, like X3, seem almost embarassed to have serious dialogue. For instance, once characters started having conversations that related to the story, something would come crashing through a wall, or an explosion would take place, and the moment of storytelling would lost.


Don't do that. Keep up the good work, Nolan.

Amen. You save me the time from writing this.

[Ronny Shade]

God, not this again.

The action in Begins was perfect.

Also, I don't see Nolan changing his style because some fanboys whined about it, so I doubt he will change it, which is good.

Now silencize yourself

[Ronny Shade]

Well I don't really see how anyone can watch BB, and leave out of there saying, "man those were some great fight scenes!" :o

That was his point. By the way it was edited, intentional or not, there was nothing there to judge. It's like going to a rap concert and all you hear are love songs. There's just nothing to base your opinions on.

Nolan should pan the camera out more. And imo, ditch the Keysi style. It sounded good on paper, but Bats looked horrible doing the moves from the behind-the-scenes look. All it had Bats do is put his hands on his head and start twisting with a lil' bit of punches and kicks here and there, lol. Gritty is what we're looking for here. Realistic, but also visually appealing. Bourne Identity took that style to a T. :up:
You know what I did after I saw Batman Begins?


I left the theater saying "man, those were some great fight scenes"

[Darknightnomis]

I just saw 'Batman Begins' again last night for the.....I don't know how many times now, but It's in the high 100s but I digress... but the one thing that always amazed me why I LOVE this movie (now my favorite) is becasue it's not an over the top "action packed" superhero movie.

Not that I don't love those type movies every now and then, but what makes 'Batman Begins' so special is that when there is action it's dosen't feel like it's rushed or forced, it feels like It belongs in the scenes where Nolan used it.

And the reason I think that is so is becasue the majority of the movie is so intelligently . It is really is one smartly made movie. it' stimulate your mind and intrigues moreso than just blowing things up for no other reason thatn to do so.

You want mindless "over the top action" in a Batman movie go see 'Batman and Robin'.

[The Sage]

I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing. It makes total sense for Batman to dismantle some thugs without us seeing it, but Batman FIGHTS too... always has always will. There needs to be some badass fighting in the next one... not wire-fu, or overly choreographed nonesense but the same hard nosed fighting- Just let us see it better this time.

The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them. Batman (even without being flashly) should be able to do some very impressive fight stuff and we need to see it (in addition to the 'whoa, what the crap is going on?' stuff).

None of the fighting in the first one had me thinking to myself "whoa, this is one of the coolest fights i've seen in a while". Brutal and stealthy doesnt mean "edit the hell out of it to the point where we just see glimpses of fists and shoulders and cant really get a good idea of whats happening."

Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.

:up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

[blind_fury]

You know what I did after I saw Batman Begins?


I left the theater saying "man, those were some great fight scenes"
So when you watch the fight scenes on dvd you rewind them to watch them over and over again? I seriously doubt it.

Admit it, they sucked. You can't tell if someone is getting puched in the face or kicked in the gut. It's actually fustrating to watch..

[Christopher Nolan]

I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing. It makes total sense for Batman to dismantle some thugs without us seeing it, but Batman FIGHTS too... always has always will. There needs to be some badass fighting in the next one... not wire-fu, or overly choreographed nonesense but the same hard nosed fighting- Just let us see it better this time.

The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them. Batman (even without being flashly) should be able to do some very impressive fight stuff and we need to see it (in addition to the 'whoa, what the crap is going on?' stuff).

None of the fighting in the first one had me thinking to myself "whoa, this is one of the coolest fights i've seen in a while". Brutal and stealthy doesnt mean "edit the hell out of it to the point where we just see glimpses of fists and shoulders and cant really get a good idea of whats happening."

Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.
Jep, you're right.;)

[Substance D]

why didn't you make this a poll?

and yes, i agree. TDK needs better action scenes. Come on people, it is possible for TDK to retain the great character interaction and drama and have clear, thrilling action scenes at the same time. Get your psuedointellectual heads out of your asses.

[XCharlieX]

No he didn't.

Yes he did :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: "Small mind tricks." Yeah, whatever, dude.

Pretty much how i feel about this conversation now. I really am tired of debating. If youre right, so am I :down:

[fabman]

blind fury: yes, i've enjoyed the fight scenes in batman begins and watch them over and over again! I admit it, they are GREAT!

SMACK! (into ya face)

why can't ya respect other opinions - if ronny enjoyed them like i did, he enjoyed them. there's nothing to discuss about opinions...

[Hunter Rider]

The fight scene's in BB were ok but to fast and the camera needs pulling back IMO,i want to see a fight not just body parts

As far as the action in TDK goes,there will be more as he is Batman from the start and he's in the middle of a crime war,what i want though is for the action to serve the narrative and not just be there for the sake of it

[Cinemaman]

The fight scene's in BB were ok but to fast and the camera needs pulling back IMO,i want to see a fight not just body parts

As far as the action in TDK goes,there will be more as he is Batman from the start and he's in the middle of a crime war,what i want though is for the action to serve the narrative and not just be there for the sake of it

You are totaly right.

I think this time there will be mopre action and Batman's scenes.

We will see more Batman, because there is Gang War stuff.

[The Sage]

The fight scene's in BB were ok but to fast and the camera needs pulling back IMO,i want to see a fight not just body parts

As far as the action in TDK goes,there will be more as he is Batman from the start and he's in the middle of a crime war,what i want though is for the action to serve the narrative and not just be there for the sake of it

My question is how will they choreograph the Batman/Joker showdown, if there is one. I doubt Joker will fear Batman, and Joker's not an expert fighter. Might end up being a new method.

[fabman]

the action serves the narrative in batman begins...

[Hunter Rider]

the action serves the narrative in batman begins...

I never said it didn't:confused:

[Hunter Rider]

My question is how will they choreograph the Batman/Joker showdown, if there is one. I doubt Joker will fear Batman, and Joker's not an expert fighter. Might end up being a new method.

That's an interesting point,physically Joker has never been a threat to batman he has to outsmart him,i like the idea of luring Batman into a fun house at an abandoned fairground for the showdown,with Batman having to avoid traps to get to The Joker while he taunts him,the fight itself should be short and sweet atop a moving rollercoaster with Joker armed with a knife and Batman disarming him and taking him out with precision

[ChickenScratch]

I loved the amount of action and how it was used in BB. Personally I would love for them to pour on more dialouge, more character study, more detective stuff so when the action comes up it's even more dramatic. Think James Bond, the action serves a purpose but he's got to do the legwork, investigating and hanging out with chicks first.

[XCharlieX]

I agree.. i always thought they could really make it interesting if Wayne and Fox were doing some detective work with DNA etc. Theres a perfect opportunity there for twists.

[Cinemaman]

I think Joker is faster in fights and more crazy. Besides, he has gun, what Batman doesn't have.

[kirbyfan]

Heck yeah there should be more action, and hopefully this time around we'll be able to see it, you certainly couldn't in the first one! I want Batman to kick some serious butt in the next one.

[superkong 500]

First if there is a batman joker showdown in this one(maybe batman will just fight joker's thugs in part 2 and the showdown with joker will be in part 3)I think that the joker should aproach batman in an unexpected way or somehow trick bats into thinking that he's hurt and then he come with a crow bar or something and slams bats. We're forgetting that he could still have some weapons of his own,it would be cool if this time he actualy sprays bats near the face and in the arm with his acid flower. This could actually then make for a great reason to update the suit with a stronger material. As the fights go BB's fights could have been much better,for TDK nolan absolutely needs to pull the camera back and cut the fights in a more traditional way. Let the fight develop in front of the camera and not take away from it.Nolan said that he used that editing style to convey the point of view of hte criminals, well begins was his introduction,now we should see more of him in the fights, at least see full body shots and torso shots not just an arm or a fist.

Besides a lot of my friends(which just casual moviegoers and not fans like me)told me that they loved BB in terms of the story and characters, but really didn't like the fights, and thta since it was the first movie people could let it go expecting that in the second movie the fights would be different, but if they weren't then many people would be bummed. Because after all regular movie goers are the ones who bring in the mayority of the cash and ultimately decide the franchise's fate also lets be honest guys,we wanna see batman do some damage and be able to see it and enjoy it, those cool kicks in the face those elbows to the jaw, we want to see those moves its part of the experience.

[El Payaso]

the action serves the narrative in batman begins...

How? it didn't allow you to follow a thing. All I wanted sometimes was the fight was over so I could see at least who punched who. I am still not sure who blocked the Wayne train controls.

[Hunter Rider]

How? it didn't allow you to follow a thing. All I wanted sometimes was the fight was over so I could see at least who punched who. I am still not sure who blocked the Wayne train controls.

Thats not what i meant

[El Payaso]

^ That's why I didn't quote you. That's not what you meant, that what I mean according to fabman statement.

[Hunter Rider]

^ That's why I didn't quote you. That's not what you meant, that what I mean according to fabman statement.

He took his statement from my comment about action serving the narrative,in BB the action did serve the narrative as that isn't about how well it is shot it's about if the action sequences make sense in the story and aren;t just thrown for the sake of it they actualy happen b/c the plot calls for them

[Stringer]

Better action? I agree. More action? not necessary.

[Substance D]

i don't understand, why can't they please fans that like a good narrative and those who like good action? is that really so hard? i mean both spider-mans have done it, the first matrix did it, the terminators did it. Is Nolan's range really that limited?

[Eros]

Begins had enough aciton, it just that it was badly filmed and edited like a student film. The fight between Batman and Razz in the train was stupid, and made no sense.

[Ronny Shade]

So when you watch the fight scenes on dvd you rewind them to watch them over and over again? I seriously doubt it.
There are very few things I rewind and watch over and over again that are not a certain scene in a certain David Cronenberg film named Scanners.
Admit it, they sucked. You can't tell if someone is getting puched in the face or kicked in the gut. It's actually fustrating to watch..
It's also frustrating to get punched in the face or kicked in the gut.

Good filmmakers make the audience feel the intensity of the moment. They aren't the kind of thing that you want to rewind and watch over and over again because they give you the feeling of actually being in the middle of a fight. Being in the middle of a beatdown is intense and emotional, not exactly fun. The fact that you feel the pain of it is what makes it so good.

I suppose you'd rather Bale shoots his bat-grapple into the wall behind a guy and there's a big lag while the guy says "you missed" and then Bale yanks out a brick and hits him in the back of the head with it.

[XCharlieX]

Good filmmakers make the audience feel the intensity of the moment. They aren't the kind of thing that you want to rewind and watch over and over again because they give you the feeling of actually being in the middle of a fight.

The irony of that statement.

Anyway either way i wouldnt mind, all i know is nolan needs to have some outstanding choreography for it to be filmed from a farther perspective where we see all. That could be a downfall of the film if done sloppy. Like someone else says i dont want to see a line of baddies lining up to get socked as if they took a ticket and waited in line.

[Substance D]

There are very few things I rewind and watch over and over again that are not a certain scene in a certain David Cronenberg film named Scanners.

It's also frustrating to get punched in the face or kicked in the gut.

Good filmmakers make the audience feel the intensity of the moment. They aren't the kind of thing that you want to rewind and watch over and over again because they give you the feeling of actually being in the middle of a fight. Being in the middle of a beatdown is intense and emotional, not exactly fun. The fact that you feel the pain of it is what makes it so good.

I suppose you'd rather Bale shoots his bat-grapple into the wall behind a guy and there's a big lag while the guy says "you missed" and then Bale yanks out a brick and hits him in the back of the head with it.

Quit being so shortsighted. You felt Spider-man's pain when the Goblin threw the grenade at him, then proceeded to pummel him into submission, before threatening to rape his girlfriend and you weren't "in the middle of the beatdown". You felt for Neo when Agent Smith was punching him at superspeed at the end of the Matrix, and you could clearly see what was happening. Nolan's style of filming fights is the cheap route to go to make you feel the turbulance of a scene. More experienced and skilled action directors can make you feel the emotional and physically effects of a fight without resorting to such cheap tactics.

[xxshady]

Quit being so shortsighted. You felt Spider-man's pain when the Goblin threw the grenade at him, then proceeded to pummel him into submission, before threatening to rape his girlfriend and you weren't "in the middle of the beatdown". You felt for Neo when Agent Smith was punching him at superspeed at the end of the Matrix, and you could clearly see what was happening. Nolan's style of filming fights is the cheap route to go to make you feel the turbulance of a scene. More experienced and skilled action directors can make you feel the emotional and physically effects of a fight without resorting to such cheap tactics.

I have a question... why are you on these forums :confused:

[Fanticon]

i want less hangliding and more grappling gun swing action.:mad:
...and then i'll be calm:)
...more fights...more explosions...more car chases...more of what every sequel to every action movie ever made already has...there is a formula and they will follow it...we've seen his introduction...we know who everyone is from the first one...its easier to make this one action heavy...but they really gotta explore Joker like burton did with his Batman...back then, was anyone really expecting to see Joker have that much screen time...while years later I have more than a few complaints with Burtons take...i have to say that was absolutely brilliant tho.:up:

[E-Mack]

I have a question... why are you on these forums :confused:
What kind of retarded question is that? :confused:

[xxshady]

What kind of retarded question is that? :confused:


Well you seem to hate batman so.... F off or get used to the action plz.

[E-Mack]

Well you seem to hate batman so.... F off or get used to the action plz.
You do know I'm not the person you were asking the question to, right?

And there was nothing wrong with what he said. If it's you that can't accept other people's opinions on a DISCUSSION FORUM, then it is you who needs to "F off or get used to it".

kcoolthxbai :o

[ad101867]

Please tell me how the fighting scenes are poor? Batman was much stealthier in BB.

Please tell me what stealth has to do with fight choreography. Stealth is what you use to stalk your enemies. Once you've engaged them, stealth is out the window. There was no problem in BB with Batman going stealth; the problem came when he got into fights and we couldn't get a good look at the choreography.

And the fight scene that was chopped up was intended.

How can anyone tell from viewing the final cut whether the choppiness was intended or simply the result of an editor and director who don't know how to craft good fight scenes? Too many viewers like you don't get the point. The point is that you can't tell from the final cut whether the scenes are intended that way or are just bad scenes by somebody who isn't good at fight scenes.

Question: How do you think the fight scenes would have looked in the hands of a director/editor who is lousy at fight scenes?

they OBVIOUSLY could have edited another way.

Then how do you explain the fact that those particular scenes looked no different from crappy, choppy fight scenes in lots of other movies? Are you saying all those other films were intentionally shot that way because of the artistic brilliance of their directors?

By the way it was edited, intentional or not, there was nothing there to judge.

:up: Bingo. You see, people, E-Mack is a guy with his head on straight, and everybody should listen to him - especially when he agrees with me. :) Seriously, though, Nolan has explained how he made sure the fights were realistically choreographed, based on the Keysi Fight Method. Well, so what? What good is the choreography if the audience can't friggin' get a good look at it? That's the point. If Nolan intentionally made those scenes choppy and closeup - then there was no need for any special choreography.

Gritty is what we're looking for here. Realistic, but also visually appealing. Bourne Identity took that style to a T.

Again, I'm in full agreement with E-Mack. I loved the fight scenes in Bourne Identity, but not the ones in Bourne Supremacy. Both were choreographed realistically, but in Identity the director (Doug Liman) gave us a good look at the moves, whereas in Supremacy the director (Paul Greengrass) did NOT give us a good look at the moves. Same as with Nolan's fight scenes in BB. (Unfortunately for the Bourne series, Greengrass is also doing the upcoming Bourne Ultimatum.)

You know what I did after I saw Batman Begins? I left the theater saying "man, those were some great fight scenes"

All that means is that you're a lousy judge of good and bad fight scenes. Watch Bourne Identity, Ong Back, Fight Club and similar films for truly good fight scenes.

You want mindless "over the top action" in a Batman movie go see 'Batman and Robin'.

Okay, so let me get this straight: EITHER we have closeup choppy fight scenes, OR we have "mindless over-the-top action"? You mean there's no third option? How about action that suits the story but is also shot and edited well? Why can't both coexist? I (and E-Mack and others) haven't said we necessarily need "more" or "mindless" action scenes - just better quality action scenes. Get the difference?

QUESTION for all those who think the BB fights are "good": What is the point of having choreography if the audience cannot follow the choreography and pick out the moves? Nobody has yet provided a good answer to that basic question.

[greenlantern530]

That's an interesting point,physically Joker has never been a threat to batman he has to outsmart him,i like the idea of luring Batman into a fun house at an abandoned fairground for the showdown,with Batman having to avoid traps to get to The Joker while he taunts him,the fight itself should be short and sweet atop a moving rollercoaster with Joker armed with a knife and Batman disarming him and taking him out with precision


Mad Love FTW. I Love it.

[Agentsands77]

I loved the fight scenes in Bourne Identity, but not the ones in Bourne Supremacy. Both were choreographed realistically, but in Identity the director (Doug Liman) gave us a good look at the moves, whereas in Supremacy the director (Paul Greengrass) did NOT give us a good look at the moves. Same as with Nolan's fight scenes in BB. (Unfortunately for the Bourne series, Greengrass is also doing the upcoming Bourne Ultimatum.)
I thought the fight scenes in SUPREMACY were infinitely more exciting and intense than the ones in IDENTITY. The car chase in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY alone was one of the best action scenes from the past decade.

QUESTION for all those who think the BB fights are "good": What is the point of having choreography if the audience cannot follow the choreography and pick out the moves? Nobody has yet provided a good answer to that basic question.
Well, there was really only one fight where I couldn't really ascertain the choreography, and that was the Ra's/Batman fight in the finale. That fight was a misstep - it should have been climactic, but it was edited in such a way that it lost all impact.

That said, I thought the fight on the docks was executed flawlessly, and I loved how the fight in Arkham was done as well.

[E-Mack]

I thought the fight scenes in SUPREMACY were infinitely more exciting and intense than the ones in IDENTITY. The car chase in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY alone was one of the best action scenes from the past decade.
Car chases are not what the topic is about though, so that's irrelevant. Hand-to-hand combat which I think Bourne Identity nailed perfectly, is what imo this franchise needs. If in all the interviews you're going to boast the added mobility of the suit, then please....show us.

Well, there was really only one fight where I couldn't really ascertain the choreography, and that was the Ra's/Batman fight in the finale. That fight was a misstep - it should have been climactic, but it was edited in such a way that it lost all impact.
The fact that there's a large thread discussing this style of editing, tells me it is an issue that isn't just minor.

That said, I thought the fight on the docks was executed flawlessly, and I loved how the fight in Arkham was done as well.
Film is a visual medium, and while the dock scene was FINE to show us how hectic Batman's fights can be, you cannot do that for the other scenes. We need to see just how good he is during the combat, not just see bodies on the floor.

[CristiMAN]

I really hope it keeps the unique point of view/editing in the fighting scenes. The quick editing with the claustrophobic feel of close camera made it stand out in style apeal comparing with the boring/normal we saw in Spiderman 1/2, X trilogy, hulk or Superman. Stop to think about. We must support that kind of artistic aproach to the Batman mythos. It works so well in BB and I want it back in TDK.

[Agentsands77]

Car chases are not what the topic is about though, so that's irrelevant. Hand-to-hand combat which I think Bourne Identity nailed perfectly, is what imo this franchise needs.
I think hand-to-hand combat was nailed in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY as well. It's a great style and fits the film. Still, I don't necessarily think that style was executed anywhere near as well for Batman, or was necessarily as fitting for Batman.

The fact that there's a large thread discussing this style of editing, tells me it is an issue that isn't just minor.
Eh. I think fans often exaggerate a minor issue into a big one. Is it something that needs to be remedied for THE DARK KNIGHT? Yeah. I think the whole "ultra-quick edit" style of fight felt tired by the end of BATMAN BEGINS. But I didn't think it was any epic flaw, and for the most part, I felt the action in BEGINS worked pretty well and had some very bad-ass moments.

Film is a visual medium, and while the dock scene was FINE to show us how hectic Batman's fights can be, you cannot do that for the other scenes.
I think it worked in the Arkham Asylum scene, and worked really well, because the aim was much the same as the dock fight - to be scary and disorienting.

The fights where it didn't work were those where the "fear" emphasis wasn't there. The fight with Ra's or the ninjas - those things didn't need that disorienting feel, and while they could still have been tightly edited, they needed to be a little clearer.

[E-Mack]

The fights where it didn't work were those where the "fear" emphasis wasn't there. The fight with Ra's or the ninjas - those things didn't need that disorienting feel, and while they could still have been tightly edited, they needed to be a little clearer.
Ah, there ya go. I think you've the nailed the point right there. Use the tight editing when Bats uses the shadows and attacks very quick and abrubtly, but draw the camera back when Batman gets into a fight scene with others.

Best of both worlds. :up:

[Hunter Rider]

I just hope Nolan pulls the camera back,the style is ok but like Bourne Supremacy at times they might have just fastworwarded to the next seen as you couldn't see anything

[ad101867]

I thought the fight scenes in SUPREMACY were infinitely more exciting and intense than the ones in IDENTITY.

Just so I'm clear - I don't want to misunderstand you - you prefer fight scenes in which you mostly can't tell what moves are being made?

So in other words, because most action flicks nowadays cheat by closeups and choppy editing so that they don't have to bother with intricate choreography - you think that's a good thing?

And you also think it's a good thing that Nolan basically imitated all the bad fight-scene directors in Hollywood?

Well, there was really only one fight where I couldn't really ascertain the choreography, and that was the Ra's/Batman fight in the finale.

I'm sorry, but no. While some viewers didn't find it to be a very dramatic fight, it makes no sense to say that it was less clear than the previous fight scenes. Stylistically it was more along the lines of Bruce's training with the League of Shadows. But the in-between Batman fights were much less clear than the final Ra's fight.

I think fans often exaggerate a minor issue into a big one.

I would think the best way to identify a "major" -vs- "minor" issue is simply to observe how many people it affects. Quite clearly, the BB fight scenes annoyed a significant number of viewers, both critics and fans. That makes it a "major" issue.

I think it worked in the Arkham Asylum scene, and worked really well, because the aim was much the same as the dock fight - to be scary and disorienting.

You're just parroting what others have said; that's not a new argument, and it's a bad one. Batman is (and should be) "scary and disorienting" to the bad guys - but what excuse is that for being "scary and disorienting" to the audience? Sure, I get that it's legitimate to sometimes give the audience a taste of the bad guys' experience - but all the time, the same perspective? Why the same perspective all the time? Why not Batman's perspective sometimes? Obviously he's not scary and disorienting to himself, so why don't we ever get his viewpoint? Or why don't we ever get the viewpoint of a witness who is standing at a bit of a distance and can take in the whole scene?

If in all the interviews you're going to boast the added mobility of the suit, then please....show us.

Exactly. Same goes for the Keysi choreography. Who gives a frig if the suit's flexible and the choreography is "realistic" - if in the final cut we can't really tell anyway? Just being told that by the director when he gives interviews doesn't make the film itself more satisfying.

I really hope it keeps the unique point of view/editing in the fighting scenes.

That's rich. What's "unique" about it? Those scenes were most certainly not unique when compared to action movies where most people agree that the fight scenes are bad because they're unwatchable.

The quick editing with the claustrophobic feel of close camera made it stand out in style apeal comparing with the boring/normal we saw in Spiderman 1/2, X trilogy, hulk or Superman. Stop to think about.

Maybe you should take that advice yourself. The fights in those other movies were creative and accomplished a variety of goals - they weren't all unwatchable because they were too close or too choppy. (Well, Superman Returns didn't have "fights," but the action that was there was well done.) Spider-Man, for example, is one of the more acrobatic and entertaining of superheroes, and the way his fights were shot by Raimi were perfect. Those scenes "felt real" because of the abilities we know Spidey has. And we got a good look at him using those abilities. By contrast, we did not get a good look at Batman's abilities. (And all the action scenes in all the X-films were outstanding.)

We must support that kind of artistic aproach to the Batman mythos.

How is it "artistic" to look just like other action movies that have crap fight scenes?

Here's the thing: A movie isn't good simply because it has action scenes. If it's meant to be a simple action picture, then the action had better be phenomenal in order for the film to achieve its goal (good example: Face Off). If a movie is meant to be more than just an action flick, then it should also have good story and characters (BB had that in spades) - BUT, if it includes action scenes, then they should be high-quality action scenes.

BB's non-fight action was fine (kudos to Nolan for the whole Batmobile sequence), but the fight scenes just were not well-shot or edited. It's that simple. If we're going to say those were "good" fight scenes - then what basis do we have for criticizing any fight scene in any movie? The thing is, even action films that most people agree are bad action films (e.g., Elektra) have fight scenes that look no different from the ones in Batman Begins!

Question to all BB fight-scene defenders: What distinguishes the fight scenes in BB from bad fight scenes in other movies? (And give specific examples from other films.)

[Agentsands77]

Just so I'm clear - I don't want to misunderstand you - you prefer fight scenes in which you mostly can't tell what moves are being made?
All I said is that I think THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a masterful piece of action filmmaking. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the action scenes in that work beautifully and are done in an awesome matter. In fact, I'd say that's one of the best action films the cinema has had in the past decade.

Just because I said I liked the action in SUPREMACY does not, by default, mean that I think all fight scenes should adopt that same style.

So in other words, because most action flicks nowadays cheat by closeups and choppy editing so that they don't have to bother with intricate choreography - you think that's a good thing?
It depends on the use. Nolan himself addressed this, and I'll post his comments because they're good for the discussion:
BOM: One of the trends in action movies is that you can't tell what's happening on screen—even in Batman Begins, the action scene at the waterfront is unclear, though that's to create the sense of Batman's mystery—in which one's perception is deliberately distorted.
Nolan: It's all about subjectivity and the point of view you're trying to express. If you're trying to express the point of view of somebody who's in prison , there's not any clarity, and there shouldn't be any clarity there—just enough to know. The camera's not objective; the camera can never be objective. All cinema is manipulation. But you can explain to me exactly what's happening and you know exactly who's doing what to whom. The essence of what's going on in the scene is entirely clear.
BOM: But you've seen these action pictures where you can't tell what's happening. Does that drive you bananas?
Nolan: It depends on the reason for it. If it's being done to obscure unimaginative or poor action, it can be irritating. But [it's not] when I see it in a film that's trying to express the kinetic energy of a fistfight, which is, in real life, an absolutely baffling, horrific thing to ever see or experience that can never be captured. My choice is to use the camera as subjectively as possible. The truth is you're using all the tools at your disposal, in editing as well as camera placement to try and create a feeling and experience of a character's point of view in a fight. Actually, I think the trend is the other way [toward greater clarity], and one of the things that made [B]The Bourne Identity (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bourneidentity.htm) succeed is that they were going back to an old rhythm. You look at The Matrix (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrix.htm) and there's a lot of long, no-cut shots with intense choreography, and that's become more prevalent. You also have to take into account the changing rhythm of the way films are shot. Films are much more complex than they used to be—it's kind of a demand from the audience; they're fractured. But I genuinely believe it's not audiences—it's people who make films, critics, people in the media and in the industry discussing films. Audiences are led by them. I believe in the audience.

And you also think it's a good thing that Nolan basically imitated all the bad fight-scene directors in Hollywood?
Do you consider Paul Greengrass a bad fight-scene director? I don't. There are many places where the shaky cam is used very poorly, but THE BOURNE SUPREMACY did some great work with it.

That is not to say that Nolan's use of it was flawless (it wasn't, and I've cited examples of that), but I don't think that innately the shaky-cam is an evil thing.

I'm sorry, but no. While some viewers didn't find it to be a very dramatic fight, it makes no sense to say that it was less clear than the previous fight scenes. Stylistically it was more along the lines of Bruce's training with the League of Shadows. But the in-between Batman fights were much less clear than the final Ra's fight.
It makes plenty of sense to say it was less clear th an the previous fight scenes. I was able to tell what was going on in most of the earlier fight scenes, not so with this one.

I would think the best way to identify a "major" -vs- "minor" issue is simply to observe how many people it affects. Quite clearly, the BB fight scenes annoyed a significant number of viewers, both critics and fans. That makes it a "major" issue.
It's not a major issue if most people really loved the film anyways, which they did. In fact, I think the average joe probably really dug the action in BEGINS - I know the people I talked to did.

And at the end of the day, the only reaction I care about is my own. If other people don't like it, screw 'em, because that's irrelevant.

You're just parroting what others have said; that's not a new argument, and it's a bad one. Batman is (and should be) "scary and disorienting" to the bad guys - but what excuse is that for being "scary and disorienting" to the audience? Sure, I get that it's legitimate to sometimes give the audience a taste of the bad guys' experience - but all the time, the same perspective? Why the same perspective all the time? Why not Batman's perspective sometimes? Obviously he's not scary and disorienting to himself, so why don't we ever get his viewpoint? Or why don't we ever get the viewpoint of a witness who is standing at a bit of a distance and can take in the whole scene?
I think we should see his viewpoint in THE DARK KNIGHT, but for BEGINS, it was fine to see the docks fight and the Arkham fight from the perspective of those he was preying upon.

Maybe you should take that advice yourself. The fights in those other movies were creative and accomplished a variety of goals - they weren't all unwatchable because they were too close or too choppy. (Well, Superman Returns didn't have "fights," but the action that was there was well done.) Spider-Man, for example, is one of the more acrobatic and entertaining of superheroes, and the way his fights were shot by Raimi were perfect. Those scenes "felt real" because of the abilities we know Spidey has. And we got a good look at him using those abilities. By contrast, we did not get a good look at Batman's abilities. (And all the action scenes in all the X-films were outstanding.)
Your claim that the Spider-man fights felt real doesn't ring true to me - I always thought I was looking at a cartoon any time Spider-man was talking on the Green Goblin or Doc Ock.

But anyway, I don't like highly-polished action scenes. I like down-and-dirty action with a hard edge (ala COLLATERAL). BEGINS tried that - didn't execute it absolutely flawlessly - but it gets applause from me for going in that direction. For me, the point of a fight scene in a Batman film shouldn't be to marvel at the choreography.

Here's the thing: A movie isn't good simply because it has action scenes. If it's meant to be a simple action picture, then the action had better be phenomenal in order for the film to achieve its goal (good example: Face Off).
Uh, I think the action in FACE/OFF sucks. If you think that's a great action film, no wonder we disagree.

[ad101867]

Just because I said I liked the action in SUPREMACY does not, by default, mean that I think all fight scenes should adopt that same style.
Well, then you've just hit on the key question of this whole discussion: Why does every fight scene in Batman Begins employ this style? Some of those scenes are less choppy than others, but still, there's no scene in that movie where the camera simply stands back and gives you a long, uncut view of the choreography. Why can't Nolan do that some of the time?

(Quoting Nolan himself) "It's all about subjectivity and the point of view you're trying to express. . . . The essence of what's going on in the scene is entirely clear."
Okay, I get that - but why does it have to be that way for every fight scene? I've never said that a director should never use shaky-cam or closeups or quick editing. Nor have I ever said that the director should always have wide, uncut views. Mix it up. Have some impressionistic stuff, but also have some clear, uncut stuff. Let us appreciate all possible perspectives (at least over the course of the movie as a whole, if not in every individual fight).

(Quoting Nolan) "If it's being done to obscure unimaginative or poor action, it can be irritating."
There's a problem with that statement. When we're watching Begins, how do we know the choppy fights aren't an excuse for unimaginative or poor action? We can't tell just by watching the scenes themselves. We only have Nolan's word on what his motive was. But why should an audience have to depend on the director's word to know what he's intending? If Nolan had never commented on the fight scenes, we wouldn't be able to tell - just by watching them - the difference between the Begins fights and crappy fights in other movies.

(Quoting Nolan) "But [it's not] when I see it in a film that's trying to express the kinetic energy of a fistfight, which is, in real life, an absolutely baffling, horrific thing to ever see or experience that can never be captured."
It is horrific, but here's my point: if you're on the street or a schoolyard or back alley and you become a witness to a fight, are you right in the middle of it with all the action nothing but a blur in your eyes? No. You're standing back and getting a wide, uninterrupted view of the event. So why can't a film director ever give us the perspective of the witness?

(Quoting Nolan) "Actually, I think the trend is the other way [toward greater clarity], and one of the things that made The Bourne Identity (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bourneidentity.htm) succeed is that they were going back to an old rhythm."
Well, Nolan's in the business, so I'm not claiming more authority on the subject than him. Still, as a viewer, I've watched a lot of movies with fights in the storyline (at least the higher-profile movies). Contrary to what Nolan claims here, I have definitely seen a trend away from wide, uncut shots and toward closer, choppier scenes.

For e.g., Jackie Chan is a fun martial-artist to watch, but compare his earlier films, where he had more creative control (e.g., Rumble in the Bronx), to his more recent films. The guy has been Hollywoodized, meaning that we no longer get uninterrupted choreography; we get typical quick cuts that some directors apparently think are "more exciting." The problem with that is when Jackie's fight scenes are shot/edited that way, you get no sense of the guy's level of talent.

The same goes for Batman Begins: because of how the fights are shot and edited, we get no sense of the choreographer's or stuntmen's talent. If you're going to shoot a film that way, then you simply don't need choreographers and stunt-fighters. They're a waste, and there's no sense on Nolan's part bragging to film-goers that he "made the fights realistic." The viewer can't tell anyway. It's really too bad we don't get a good look at the Keysi Fighting Method.

The ironic thing about Nolan's statement is that I liked the action scenes in The Bourne Identity far more than those in Bourne Supremacy. Yet the fights in Begins are like the ones in Supremacy, not the ones in Identity. If Begins had been like Identity, I'd have had no problem with that.

(Quoting Nolan) "You look at The Matrix (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrix.htm) and there's a lot of long, no-cut shots with intense choreography, and that's become more prevalent."
He's got a point there. But the problem with those movies is not that they give the audience a good look at the choreography. The problem is that they mimic the Matrix films rather than be original. That doesn't give Nolan an excuse to keep the audience from seeing Batman's fight moves.

(Quoting Nolan) "You also have to take into account the changing rhythm of the way films are shot. Films are much more complex than they used to be—it's kind of a demand from the audience; they're fractured. But I genuinely believe it's not audiences—it's people who make films, critics, people in the media and in the industry discussing films. Audiences are led by them. I believe in the audience."
That's seems like a copout to me. After all, here we are discussing the issue ourselves, and we're not in the industry - so shouldn't Nolan "trust" us, since we're part of the audience? It seems there are enough people talking about this aspect of Begins that he ought to pay attention to it.

And I don't think the "complexity" of movie-making is any kind of excuse. Complexity is not the problem; again, it's shooting and editing style that's the problem. Choppiness does not equal "complexity." Why can't we see complex choreography? Apparently there actually was some on the Begins set - it's just that the audience never got to see it in the final cut.

Do you consider Paul Greengrass a bad fight-scene director? I don't. There are many places where the shaky cam is used very poorly, but THE BOURNE SUPREMACY did some great work with it.
As I've said, it's appropriate some of the time, for the sake of variety. My main question still has not been answered: Why does the shakiness/choppiness have to be there all the time? Greengrass simply did not handle the action scenes in Supremacy as well as Doug Liman did in Identity. By the way, if you go to IMDb and check the Bourne Identity page, on the message boards near the bottom there's a thread called "Identity or Supremacy?" and most of the respondents easily picked Identity as the superior instalment.

That is not to say that Nolan's use of it was flawless (it wasn't, and I've cited examples of that), but I don't think that innately the shaky-cam is an evil thing.
Never said it was. I've always said it's imbalance that's the "innately evil thing."

[Re. the Ra's fight at the end]It makes plenty of sense to say it was less clear th an the previous fight scenes. I was able to tell what was going on in most of the earlier fight scenes, not so with this one.
Sorry, man, I just don't get this one. That scene was very obviously not as closely shot and not as choppily edited, so I can't understand how someone could fail to catch the moves in that one as compared to earlier fights.

Your claim that the Spider-man fights felt real doesn't ring true to me - I always thought I was looking at a cartoon any time Spider-man was talking on the Green Goblin or Doc Ock.
Yes and no. They "felt real" in the sense that (a) the backdrop of the city and other characters had a real-life feel to them, and (b) it was true to the way Spidey fights in the comics. It would've been interesting, though, to see what could've been done for Spider-Man I if they'd only used stuntmen and wire work. Spider-Man II was far less cartoony because they drastically improved on the CGI, and this trend will only continue in Spidey III.

Stylistically, the point is that Raimi made an honest attempt, given the state of technology, to showcase Spider-Man's talents as we are familiar with them from the comics. While I really did enjoy Batman Begins (hey, I've watched it umpteen times), the fight scenes did not accomplish what Spidey's fight scenes did: they did not showcase Batman's fighting skill.

But anyway, I don't like highly-polished action scenes. I like down-and-dirty action with a hard edge (ala COLLATERAL).
See, here again you've used an argument that simply doesn't apply to the point I'm making, and this is the same kind of argument I've heard from others and it makes no sense. "Down and dirty" does not have to mean unclear and choppy (i.e., all the time). The "down and dirty" element should be conveyed in the fight choreography itself. (Why is this not obvious?) I'm glad you used Collateral as an example, because I love that movie. Yeah, it definitely has an edge, but guess what - you can clearly follow every move of the action. It doesn't achieve the "hard edge" by choppy editing and all-closeup camera work.

For me, the point of a fight scene in a Batman film shouldn't be to marvel at the choreography.
Not the only point, no - but it should be one of the goals of that kind of scene. This is because Batman is the world's most skilled hand-to-hand fighter, just as he is the world's greatest detective. The logic of your argument, if applied to Batman's detective skills, would be that we don't actually need to see him solve a crime; we just need to see the outcome. That would be ridiculous. But if we should see his detective skills (and we should), then why shouldn't we see his hand-to-hand skills? Why shouldn't all of this character's skills be showcased at the right place and time?

Uh, I think the action in FACE/OFF sucks. If you think that's a great action film, no wonder we disagree.
It's well-shot and well-edited; that's my point. You get a good look at how they choreographed each scene. Again (and again and again!), choreography does not equal shooting-and-editing. If you don't like the style of the fights in Face/Off, that's fine. But there's no arguing that we could see it better. And that's the point.

[DJ Kornphlake]

2. Batman Begins can also be classified as a horror film. Dont believe me? Its in Spike TV's Horror Movie Awards (dont know what they are claledd.

The day SpikeTV becomes a credible voice on films is the day Al Sharpton becomes the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

[explode7]

We need to see exactly how batman is fighting 10 to 20 people next time more clearly rather than the flashy fighting scenes.

[Agentsands77]

Well, then you've just hit on the key question of this whole discussion: Why does every fight scene in Batman Begins employ this style?
Because Nolan likes it is the simplest answer.

Some of those scenes are less choppy than others, but still, there's no scene in that movie where the camera simply stands back and gives you a long, uncut view of the choreography. Why can't Nolan do that some of the time?
He could, but he doesn't want to, obviously. And there's also the matter of there not always being some guy just standing in the corner looking straight-on in most of those sequences, and he wants to give the camera perspectives.

No. You're standing back and getting a wide, uninterrupted view of the event. So why can't a film director ever give us the perspective of the witness?
Perhaps because there wasn't a witness that was just standing there looking on. And he did do some slow camera work with the swordfight on the lake, so it's not as if Nolan just entirely relied on shaky camerawork.

Greengrass simply did not handle the action scenes in Supremacy as well as Doug Liman did in Identity.
That would be opinion, not fact.

By the way, if you go to IMDb and check the Bourne Identity page, on the message boards near the bottom there's a thread called "Identity or Supremacy?" and most of the respondents easily picked Identity as the superior instalment.
Well firstly, why is that at all relevant? I don't honestly give a damn about the public consensus - I care about my own opinion. But even so, I'd say THE BOURNE IDENTITY is the more coherent film on the whole, but found THE BOURNE SUPREMACY to be more entertaining and contain superior action.

Sorry, man, I just don't get this one. That scene was very obviously not as closely shot and not as choppily edited, so I can't understand how someone could fail to catch the moves in that one as compared to earlier fights.
It's definitely edited even quicker and even more closely shot than a lot of the film (the constraining space likely contributed a lot to that).

While I really did enjoy Batman Begins (hey, I've watched it umpteen times), the fight scenes did not accomplish what Spidey's fight scenes did: they did not showcase Batman's fighting skill.
Actually, I disagree. I was amazed at Batman's speed, efficiency, and maneuvers (case-in-point, Batman using the gun to shoot the thug in the foot during his assault in Arkham). That's what I really care about - I don't need to see his martial arts prowess (though I was able to get a good sense of that), and I honestly find those scenes full of much more impact than if there was just a still camera watching martial arts maneuevers.

That said, as I've said, he could have loosened up on the camera maneuvers during two sequences that I felt such camera work either went overboard or hurt the sequences in question - namely the fight with Ra's at the end (and to a lesser extent, the fight in the jail, but that was made mostly hard to follow because everyone was thrown in mud and thus made indistinguishable from one another). It robbed the Ra's sequence of real impact because we couldn't see the drama of the fight unfold.

The logic of your argument, if applied to Batman's detective skills, would be that we don't actually need to see him solve a crime; we just need to see the outcome. That would be ridiculous. But if we should see his detective skills (and we should), then why shouldn't we see his hand-to-hand skills?
We see his detective skills when doing so serves the story. We don't always see Batman's detective skills all the time - we do so when the creator feels it brings something to the story. And even still, we generally don't see all the details of his detective maneuevers - we get general ideas (ala him typing on a computer or something like that).

Why shouldn't all of this character's skills be showcased at the right place and time?
Well, because it's up to what the director wants. It's all about desire - the director values feeling the freneticism of a fight over seeing the choreography, and I can understand that. It's not right or wrong, it's a matter of like or dislike.