Originally Posted by Shikamaru
I do have to give credit to The Amazing Spider-Man over Batman Begins in one area, which is the portrayal of the character. Even though Batman Begins is far better film than The Amazing Spider-Man, TASM is a better portrayal of the character of Spider-Man than Batman Begins is a portrayal of the character of Batman.
Now don't get wrong. I am not saying that BB is an inaccurate portrayal. In fact, I think both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both great adaptations that really do justice to Batman, more than any other live-action portrayal of Batman so far. However, there is more to an adaptation than just the protagonist alone. The main reasons why I consider BB and TDK to be great Batman movies are because of the messages and statements made about Batman, the themes addressed, the depiction of the villains, the depiction of the supporting cast, Batman's relationship with his villains and with his supporting cast, the portrayal of Gotham, the story influences from the comics, etc. When it comes to the Batman character himself, he is arguably the weakest thing about the films out of all the things they adapted. He is not the world's greatest detective nor is he anywhere on par with some of comic book Batman's other skills, including Batman's overall intelligence. Bale's performance was also not an ideal performance of Batman. He did a great job but he is not to Batman what RDJ is to Iron Man or what Christopher Reeves is to Superman or what Andrew Garfield is to Spider-Man. These are all examples of perfect castings that nailed it all the way done to the core while Bale almost made it there but never fully crossed the finish line (something true about all the actors that played Batman in live-action so far). One of the aspects that Bale could've captured better was Batman's intimidating presence and the intelligent calculative vibe you're supposed to get by hearing Batman's voice. Batman's fighting skills could have also been better. People often say that Nolan's Batman is a very watered down Batman and to an extent, that is true. Does this mean Nolan's version of Batman was bad? No. He still had many important aspects of the Batman character incorporated into him. However, that was always the thing that separated the Nolan films from Batman TAS: the Nolan films (at least the first two) were very well done adaptation of Batman while Batman TAS was a perfect-or-at-least-as-close-to-perfect-as-possible adaptation of Batman.
On the other hand, The Amazing Spider-Man was by no means the ideal Spider-Man movie for me but it gave me a spot-on portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his supporting cast even though it does have a few script issues and pacing issues. It set the potential for future films really high.
To sum it all up....
Chris Nolan gave me the Batman movies I always wanted but did not give me the Batman that I always wanted.
Marc Webb gave me the Spider-Man I always wanted but has yet to give me the Spider-Man movie that I always wanted.
I strongly disagree with the entirety of this.
I will concede that Nolan did not craft a "Bat-God" by any stretch of the imagination. But he stayed true, especially in the first two, to the idea of Batman. He is a brilliant mind who is driven by anger, vengeance and a sense of injustice (with a dash of crazy) to fight crime. And he does so in a very calculated way. Especially in the first one. The way he lays out his plan is very brilliant and Count of Monte Cristo esque, where he is spying on all his enemies and allies for potentially months before he reveals himself as either Bruce Wayne or Batman.
Is he the perfect man in every conceivable field of study and physical performance under the sun? No. Because beyond being a bit simple that does not gel with the cinematic universe that Nolan is establishing. But within the confines of this adapted universe it is all there. Just as the Joker is there, even if it is make-up instead of permawhite skin.
I will go so far to say that Bale in all three
Batman movies (yes even TDKR) is closer to the Batman's spirit than Garfield ever was to Spider-Man.
I say this is as a lifelong Spidey fan. Garfield may be great casting. He COULD play a great Spider-Man. But at least in TASM, it wasn't there. His Peter Parker never learned "with great power" (and I mean more than the turn of phrase, though cutting that was dumb too), he never learned to not be selfish and he was far too much of a jerk to everyone around him. Yes, he made some puns in the costume, but Garfield's take is just as off as Maguire's, but for different reasons.
To even put Garfield's take on the character, which verges on homicidal in some scenes and pseudo-intellectual hipster in others, on the same level as Christopher Reeve's Superman or Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is inconceivable to me.
I did not list Downey, because he made the character wholly his own. His Stark is more RDJ than pre-2008 IM from the comics.