Batman Begins Best Origin Movie ever ?

[DarthDaveBanner]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

You know, I gotta see Capt. America. I've heard so many good comments in here and I have such a hunch that it's nothing special, that it makes me curious as hell.

Do watch it. The first 2 acts are absolutely perfect. The third is kind of formulaic but still pretty fun.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

You know, I gotta see Capt. America. I've heard so many good comments in here and I have such a hunch that it's nothing special, that it makes me curious as hell.

Honestly? It isn't anything special. It's no Raiders of the Lost Ark, or even The Dark Knight. As DDB said, the plot and characters can be very formulaic at times.

That said, for some reason it's just a ridiculously fun movie to watch. It does great justice to Cap, and there's just something about it that makes it extremely rewatchable.

Oh, and Tommy Lee is balls awesome in it.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by DarthDaveBanner

Do watch it. The first 2 acts are absolutely perfect. The third is kind of formulaic but still pretty fun.

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly? It isn't anything special. It's no Raiders of the Lost Ark, or even The Dark Knight. As DDB said, the plot and characters can be very formulaic at times.

That said, for some reason it's just a ridiculously fun movie to watch. It does great justice to Cap, and there's just something about it that makes it extremely rewatchable.

Oh, and Tommy Lee is balls awesome in it.

Thanks for the comments.

I enjoyed Iron Man tremendously and it was what I call a 'fun movie.' I wouldn't mind anything close to that. I rate IM above BB any day of the week. I just haven 't seen anything Joe Johnstone's that's that good.

Thanks again.

[ALP]

I love both Iron Man and Begins but I vote Begins because of sentiment. It's the movie that got me into the comics. For that I will always love it

[CConn]

Honestly, the biggest disappointment with BB for me was, strangely, the direction. The news of a new Batman movie and the BB script got me back into Batman and comics for the first time since I was 9, and when I read the script, I imagined this sweeping epic, with rich scenery and vast landscapes and incredibly cool action scenes. Honestly, I kind of imagined it to look like Inception or even The Dark Knight.

But Nolan hadn't developed his skill as a director at that point, and BB ended up looking a lot smaller-scale than I would have liked. The cinematography and general feel of the film was more akin to Nolan's low budget Insomnia than his later epics.

And it's really a shame, as I honestly believe BB if remade today (and of course rewritten by Jonathan Nolan) could be an incredibly expensive and epic film that would have people leaving the theater in awe like TDK did.

[SmellTheWeird]

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly, the biggest disappointment with BB for me was, strangely, the direction. The news of a new Batman movie and the BB script got me back into Batman and comics for the first time since I was 9, and when I read the script, I imagined this sweeping epic, with rich scenery and vast landscapes and incredibly cool action scenes. Honestly, I kind of imagined it to look like Inception or even The Dark Knight.

But Nolan hadn't developed his skill as a director at that point, and BB ended up looking a lot smaller-scale than I would have liked. The cinematography and general feel of the film was more akin to Nolan's low budget Insomnia than his later epics.

And it's really a shame, as I honestly believe BB if remade today (and of course rewritten by Jonathan Nolan) could be an incredibly expensive and epic film that would have people leaving the theater in awe like TDK did.

While IMO still easily the best adaptation or view of the origin of Batman comics or otherwise, and still a very ... very good movie, I agree. I do however think the scenery is pretty rich and had some vast landscapes at the start of the film, even in retrospect. We got the more broad, epic, sweeping view of Gotham City in The Dark Knight.

Goyer's stuff is kind of insulting at times, and Nolan hadn't hit his prime yet as a film maker. He was on the cusp of greatness, as was the film. As of now it's just an elite genre "comic book film" ... but it could've been more. The dialogue and nuances would've been much better if fine tuned by Jonah Nolan instead of Goyer. I wonder if Chris didn't feel confidant yet in his younger brother's abilities and didn't choose him to do it.

I also felt, you could've dove even more into the psychology of Bruce Wayne. Not that the film wasn't a total character piece, because it was, but I felt it could've been even more intimate and personal story about the creation of a urban vigilante, and ultimately ... hero.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

While IMO still easily the best adaptation or view of the origin of Batman comics or otherwise, and still a very ... very good movie, I agree. I do however think the scenery is pretty rich and had some vast landscapes at the start of the film, even in retrospect. We got the more broad, epic, sweeping view of Gotham City in The Dark Knight.

Goyer's stuff is kind of insulting at times, and Nolan hadn't hit his prime yet as a film maker. He was on the cusp of greatness, as was the film. As of now it's just an elite genre "comic book film" ... but it could've been more. The dialogue and nuances would've been much better if fine tuned by Jonah Nolan instead of Goyer. I wonder if Chris didn't feel confidant yet in his younger brother's abilities and didn't choose him to do it.

I also felt, you could've dove even more into the psychology of Bruce Wayne. Not that the film wasn't a total character piece, because it was, but I felt it could've been even more intimate and personal story about the creation of a urban vigilante, and ultimately ... hero.

I agree with many things here. But to me Nolan had reached a very high point with Memento, so I don't buy this thing that he was merely learning the ropes about directing in BB.

But yes, Goyer's dialogues and one-liners sucked many times. And add to that the half baked love interest and the fact that you have to wait one hour for Batman to appear so you can...not see him, and then I have many thing BUT the best origin movie ever.

[SmellTheWeird]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I agree with many thuings here. But to em Nolan had reached a very high point with memento, so I don't buy this thing that he was merely learning the ropes about directing.

Not so much that he was some sort of bumbling, rookie film maker. Just that he hadn't reached his peak, yet. As of right now, from I'd say from The Dark Knight onwards, I would say Nolan is at his peak in terms of film making. Much the same way Burton peaked in the late 80's, early 90's, the way Scorcese peaked in the late 70's, early 80's, etc.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

But yes, Goyer's dialogues and one-liners sucked many times. And add to that the half baked love interest and the fact that you have to wait one hour for Batman to appear so you can...not see him, and then I have many thing BUT the best origin movie ever.

Goyer's one liners at times, almost killed entire scenes. Specifically, the almost un-forgiveable "nice coat" line to me. It was SO forced, and out of place. I can't believe Nolan let that cap to an otherwise great scene, slip. It was like the ALIEN debut, but with Batman ... and then he says "nice coat" to coincidentally the same hobo he met 8 years earlier before he left Gotham. I didn't buy it, and didn't really see the purpose.

I'm pretty sure the half backed love interest was still studio enforced, and I still feel it has more logic and believability (how the characters are written) as being more believable than other comic book movies where characters instantly fall in love with people they just met. It's just Katie Holmes can't act, and Bale is notoriously horrible playing someone who is in love with another character.

I don't mind the quick cuts, and edit, making the character of Batman appear mysterious, monsterous, and very ninja like ... I get what Nolan was going for there.

I can excuse some of these things, but I kinf of get that sense that you really didn't like this film, so I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be on the whole.

I absolutely think it's the best origin movie, for me. Batman Begins and Iron Man is right at it's heels. Mainly for RDJ and his character arc. But BEGINS cliched 3rd act (which defines almost all "comic book film") is still better than Iron Man's ATROCIOUSLY corny 3rd act.

The lines of dialogue in the 3rd act, make the at times off putting corny lines from BEGINS look like child's play. haha

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Not so much that he was some sort of bumbling, rookie film maker. Just that he hadn't reached his peak, yet. As of right now, from I'd say from The Dark Knight onwards, I would say Nolan is at his peak in terms of film making. Much the same way Burton peaked in the late 80's, early 90's, the way Scorcese peaked in the late 70's, early 80's, etc.

I get the impression that by 'peak' you mean 'peak of popularity.' Memento was so much better than Batman Begins. I mean, Nolan was a better director by 2005 than he showed in BB.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Goyer's one liners at times, almost killed entire scenes. Specifically, the almost un-forgiveable "nice coat" line to me. It was SO forced, and out of place. I can't believe Nolan let that cap to an otherwise great scene, slip. It was like the ALIEN debut, but with Batman ... and then he says "nice coat" to coincidentally the same hobo he met 8 years earlier before he left Gotham. I didn't buy it, and didn't really see the purpose.

Goyer was really obssessed with 3 things. Having characters preaching, repeat the word fear and make jokes whenever he could.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I'm pretty sure the half backed love interest was still studio enforced, and I still feel it has more logic and believability (how the characters are written) as being more believable than other comic book movies where characters instantly fall in love with people they just met. It's just Katie Holmes can't act, and Bale is notoriously horrible playing someone who is in love with another character.

Sure, Holmes can't act and all, and Bale and her had 0 chemistry. But I don't see Rachel any more believable than most of other superhero movies' love interests.

She and Bruce were childhood friends. Then he comes back from Tibet and BAM! they were in love. And by the end she kisses him... just to explain him that that was not love.

I mean, not only was the character bad, but her relationship with Bruce didn't make any sense. It was a blur. Was it love? She just cared about him as a sister?

I know Lois wins as a love interest for Superman far above Rachel and Bruce.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I don't mind the quick cuts, and edit, making the character of Batman appear mysterious, monsterous, and very ninja like ... I get what Nolan was going for there.

Everybody got the purpose of it. In fact everybody did the very first time it was used. Which is why repeating the same thing again and again was pointless. And even sadder because Batman was barely seen in a Batman origin movie.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I can excuse some of these things, but I kinf of get that sense that you really didn't like this film, so I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be on the whole.

I assure you that I liked BB more than Spiderman 1, X-Men 2, Thor and many others that are popularly regarded as great.

But when we're talking origin movies, it's far from being the best.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I absolutely think it's the best origin movie, for me. Batman Begins and Iron Man is right at it's heels. Mainly for RDJ and his character arc. But BEGINS cliched 3rd act (which defines almost all "comic book film") is still better than Iron Man's ATROCIOUSLY corny 3rd act.

The lines of dialogue in the 3rd act, make the at times off putting corny lines from BEGINS look like child's play. haha

I don't remember the bad dialogue in Iron Man - which I think is a much better superhero movie than BB - but if there's some in the third act, BB has it all over the three acts. Now the tone of Iron Man was considerably different than that of BB's. When you play the serious realistic tone and you run free with bad dialogue then it shows much more than when you have RDJ in the lead role in a movie that doesn't pretend to be more than good fun.

And then again, Pepper Potts is the first great love interest that I've seen in years and years. Forced by the studios or not.

[El Payaso]

double post

[SmellTheWeird]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I get the impression that by 'peak' you mean 'peak of popularity.' Memento was so much better than Batman Begins. I mean, Nolan was a better director by 2005 than he showed in BB.

And peak in terms of skill. Sure Memento was a better movie, I can agree with that, but it was his second film. You don't peak skill wise in your 2nd film.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Having characters preaching

These actually made sense, given the story was about a lost, confused, angry man who needed guidance.

And the characters that do preach make sense as well. Alfred, Ducard, Falcone ... it didn't put a damper on things at all.

You can't go for subtle dialogue when the point of the film is building up a grand ideology for a mythic character, in such a short time frame while also having to "service" the typical blockbuster / comic book movie cliches (hello, 3rd act) ... that's why the first 2/3 of the movie are absolutely brillaint. If they got rid of the whole blockbuster perspective, the film could've been even more intensly personal, and as a result, better.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

But I don't see Rachel any more believable than most of other superhero movies' love interests.

I do ... through context you know they have spent a life time knowing each other intimately.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Everybody got the purpose of it. In fact everybody did the very first time it was used. Which is why repeating the same thing again and again was pointless. And even sadder because Batman was barely seen in a Batman origin movie.

I saw plenty of Batman. Maybe I just have quicker eyes than you, or others? Not to mention there were numerous money shots of Batman crouching, or surverying the city. It was all there in spades. I can post screen caps if you'd like.

I didn't need the camera lingering on him during fight scenes. It dilutes the impact in what they were going for ...

Then it becomes action movie cliche, becomes as Ra's says "a dance" ... the violence loses it's threat.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

But when we're talking origin movies, it's far from being the best.

Far from the best? Please. Even with it's flaws ...

At worst it's right there with the best of them ... Superman:TM, etc.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I don't remember the bad dialogue in Iron Man - which I think is a much better superhero movie than BB - but if there's some in the third act, BB has it all over the three acts.

BEGINS has corny-ness sprinkled here and there through three acts.

Iron Man turns into all out crap-fest verbally in act number 3.

It's so condensed and at the film's climax, it makes things way worse.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly, the biggest disappointment with BB for me was, strangely, the direction. The news of a new Batman movie and the BB script got me back into Batman and comics for the first time since I was 9, and when I read the script, I imagined this sweeping epic, with rich scenery and vast landscapes and incredibly cool action scenes. Honestly, I kind of imagined it to look like Inception or even The Dark Knight.

But Nolan hadn't developed his skill as a director at that point, and BB ended up looking a lot smaller-scale than I would have liked. The cinematography and general feel of the film was more akin to Nolan's low budget Insomnia than his later epics.

And it's really a shame, as I honestly believe BB if remade today (and of course rewritten by Jonathan Nolan) could be an incredibly expensive and epic film that would have people leaving the theater in awe like TDK did.

I don't think Begins needed to be more epic. I thought the atmosphere and environment was perfect. The scenery, landscape, I loved in all. In fact I preferred it more in Begins than in TDK. I understand some people like things more epic though.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

And peak in terms of skill. Sure Memento was a better movie, I can agree with that, but it was his second film. You don't peak skill wise in your 2nd film.

Ever heard of George Lucas, M Night, or the Wachowskis? I'd even argue Cameron Crowe too.

It actually happens often. Directors bring in a fresh perspective on their first few films but after receiving so many accolades, they begin to believe their own hype and they continue their career trying to propagate the myths of what they feel made them famous in the first place.

Nolan certainly doesn't fit that, but there are many who do.

[MessiahDecoy123]

The Smallville scenes of Superman the Movie perfectly explain where Superman's morals come from and is the perfect build up for Superman's big reveal and quick progression to being the public's heroic phenomena.

Batman Begins loses major points for narrowing Batman's training to ninjitsu instead of a wide range of many crime fighting specialties since childhood like escape artistry, detective work, tracking, bomb disposal, etc. What makes Batman so good is the fact that he mastered these things as a teen while his peers were playing video games. Without showing the depth and reach of Bruce's training the audience doesn't understand why Batman is ready for every crime fighting situation and the ultimate crime fighter. To them he's just some ninja in a Batsuit. Unacceptable.

Spider-man feels kind of forced to me. It doesn't have the heart of the Smallville scenes in Superman the Movie.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

And peak in terms of skill. Sure Memento was a better movie, I can agree with that, but it was his second film. You don't peak skill wise in your 2nd film.

There are actually no rules for this. Orson Wells peaked at his first film, go figure.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

These actually made sense, given the story was about a lost, confused, angry man who needed guidance.

A man needing guidance is probably given a lot of speeches. A movie about a man needing guidance doesn't have to give lots of speeches though. Rule number one of any good screenwriter: show, don't tell.

Just like a movie about fear doesn't have to have all characters saying "fear" at the slightest excuse.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

And the characters that do preach make sense as well. Alfred, Ducard, Falcone ... it didn't put a damper on things at all.

It certainly did. It's not that the speeches make sense or not, it is about making a movie, not a book. Again, show, don't tell.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

You can't go for subtle dialogue when the point of the film is building up a grand ideology for a mythic character, in such a short time frame while also having to "service" the typical blockbuster / comic book movie cliches (hello, 3rd act) ... that's why the first 2/3 of the movie are absolutely brillaint. If they got rid of the whole blockbuster perspective, the film could've been even more intensly personal, and as a result, better.

Again, when you make an ideology, big speeches. When you make a movie about an ideology, no.

The first act of the movie was great because of Bruce's motivations and actions, not because of Ra's's pompous metaphors of death as a dance.

Part of the 'blockbuster perspective' for me is having, for example, to put a joke everywhere. Or inform the audience that the movie is about 'fear' by repeating the word 'fear' to no end. Or to create scenes that makes absolute no sense, like little Bruce talking to his father on that monorail, just to give the public a lot of necessary information.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I do ... through context you know they have spent a life time knowing each other intimately.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Childhood friend =/= Love, you know.

I mean, not necessarily one leads to the other. And for the love of God, I cannot see where did that love come from. It looks wrong from every perspective (I love her because she was like my sister as a child; I love her because she slapped me twice; I love her because she lectured me on revenge and social injustice).

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I saw plenty of Batman. Maybe I just have quicker eyes than you, or others?

Or you're a fan of the frame-by-frame button.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Not to mention there were numerous money shots of Batman crouching, or surverying the city. It was all there in spades. I can post screen caps if you'd like.

Those shots - two at most - never lasted more than 2-3 seconds. The famous poster of Batman spreading wings was specially sad because it was not even in the actual movie.

Posting caps would confirm what's necessary to do to get some Batman out of BB. In fact I've seen production and official Batman pictures much better than anything Batman i got from BB.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I didn't need the camera lingering on him during fight scenes. It dilutes the impact in what they were going for ...

Then it becomes action movie cliche, becomes as Ra's says "a dance" ... the violence loses it's threat.

I assure you, there are toins of movies with great fights, that don't abuse of the choppy editing and that doesn't make them cliché. Imagine, you get to see Batman fighting in a Batman movie!

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Far from the best? Please. Even with it's flaws ...

At worst it's right there with the best of them ... Superman:TM, etc.

No, since Superman had better dialogue, better love interest and better action.

But again, I think it's better than many other superhero origin movies that are considered gold, like Thor and Spiderman 1. You could tell Nolan had something fresh to show about the genre. But TDK was the promise fulfilled.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

BEGINS has corny-ness sprinkled here and there through three acts.

Iron Man turns into all out crap-fest verbally in act number 3.

It's so condensed and at the film's climax, it makes things way worse.

Not necessarily, as the tone of Iron Man allowed comedy - thanks to RDJ specially - that BB's tone did not. I'm sure the 'nice coat' joke could have worked in Iron Man whereas in BB was a lesson on how to ruin your best scene with only two words.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by CConn

Honestly, the biggest disappointment with BB for me was, strangely, the direction. The news of a new Batman movie and the BB script got me back into Batman and comics for the first time since I was 9, and when I read the script, I imagined this sweeping epic, with rich scenery and vast landscapes and incredibly cool action scenes. Honestly, I kind of imagined it to look like Inception or even The Dark Knight.

But Nolan hadn't developed his skill as a director at that point, and BB ended up looking a lot smaller-scale than I would have liked. The cinematography and general feel of the film was more akin to Nolan's low budget Insomnia than his later epics.

And it's really a shame, as I honestly believe BB if remade today (and of course rewritten by Jonathan Nolan) could be an incredibly expensive and epic film that would have people leaving the theater in awe like TDK did.

I actually dig the intimacy that it has, especially in its first act which plays almost like an indie character study of Bruce Wayne. It's not something you see very often in films like these. But towards the end of the movie it does kind of devolves into a derivative popcorn flick, not entirely congruent with its beginning.

[The Morningstar]

I find it hilarious that people criticise Iron Man's third act, and at the same time defend Begins'.

"If the train reaches Wayne Tower, it's gonna blooooowwww!" And of course you have Batman letting Ra's die whilst spouting off a one liner and being all smug about it. Just terrible.

Iron Man had Jeff Bridges going all crazy and Tony Stark revealing to the world he is Iron Man at the very end, which was awesome and original. It wins by default.

As for Captain America? The actual origin part is great. I'd say the first hour or so of Captain America is right up there in terms of great comic book movies. But it does fall apart towards the end. And i didn't like the blatant green screen backgrounds.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by ALP

I don't think Begins needed to be more epic. I thought the atmosphere and environment was perfect. The scenery, landscape, I loved in all. In fact I preferred it more in Begins than in TDK. I understand some people like things more epic though.

At the bare minimum, you have to admit the cinematography left a lot to be desired. Nolan filmed in pretty breathtaking and exotic locations, and had a really visually innovative fighting style integrated into the film, and in both cases, the cinematography simply did not do them justice.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I actually dig the intimacy that it has, especially in its first act which plays almost like an indie character study of Bruce Wayne. It's not something you see very often in films like these. But towards the end of the movie it does kind of devolves into a derivative popcorn flick, not entirely congruent with its beginning.

The script had that exact same intimacy, but in my mind's eye I always saw it presented in a much better way.

I thought I was just being a dick about it until I saw TDK, and then Inception. I'm not usually one to say my opinion is the unarguable truth, but as good as most of BB is, Christopher Nolan simply had not yet reached his full potential as a director at that point.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I find it hilarious that people criticise Iron Man's third act, and at the same time defend Begins'.

"If the train reaches Wayne Tower, it's gonna blooooowwww!" And of course you have Batman letting Ra's die whilst spouting off a one liner and being all smug about it. Just terrible.

Iron Man had Jeff Bridges going all crazy and Tony Stark revealing to the world he is Iron Man at the very end, which was awesome and original. It wins by default.

As for Captain America? The actual origin part is great. I'd say the first hour or so of Captain America is right up there in terms of great comic book movies. But it does fall apart towards the end. And i didn't like the blatant green screen backgrounds.

You seem extremely critical of everything.

Your post kinda bummed me out.

[The Morningstar]

lol na not of everything. Just things that deserve to be criticised

I mean come on, the old man at Wayne Tower? Batman seeming to find some pleasure out of Ra's death? Captain America's horrible green screen backgrounds? They are all terrible things that ruin good movies.

[CConn]

It's odd though. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but I want to dislike you for saying it anyway.

[The Morningstar]

Fair enough

[CConn]

Hm. "Ruin" is a foolishly strong word to describe those things.

[The Morningstar]

Well yea maybe hyperbolic. But i dunno, that thing with Ra's at the end of Begins really annoys me.

"I won't kill you, but i don't have to save you!"

Errrr... yea, you kinda do. You're Batman. And he says it all smug, like he's really satisfied with himself or something.