Batman Begins Best Origin Movie ever ?

[CConn]

Hm. You're right about Thor.

But I disagree with Spider-Man. Spider-Man was really no different than Superman: The Movie structurally. And, on top of that, it really didn't add anything new or inventive in terms of sub plotting or character progression. If anything, it was merely STM's paradigm simplified.

Although it has it's flaws, and still uses STM's plot stucture, BB at least did something new and partially inventive with his deep introspection and progression of Bruce Wayne as a character. I watched it recently, and the thing that really stood out to me was how, by the end of the film, you really could see Bruce transform into a different, more mature character altogether.

Having also watched Spider-Man recently, I didn't see character progression anywhere near that deep. Well, except for Harry. His character in general was probably the highlight of the film.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Falcone

I liked Thor. It takes the superhero origin formula and puts it into a unique environment. I think Spiderman is, by itself, a better film than BB. It really set the paradigm for origin stories in the 21st century.

But if you look at BB as in the first chapter of TDK saga, it makes much more sense has merit by that standard. The themes aren't as deep in Spiderman, but it's engaging, well-cast, and the action is tops. Also, despite a lighthearted atmosphere, it still does have a little substance.

Batman Begins is far superior to Spider-Man, because it has an actual throughline from origin to first adventure, a much stronger plot, much better villain(s), and it does a far better job of exploring its protagonist.

[Paulette]

I think Batman Begins was a very good surprise (I saw it after TDK) and it is a pity that it should be generally so underrated.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2014

Batman Begins is far superior to Spider-Man, because it has an actual throughline from origin to first adventure, a much stronger plot, much better villain(s), and it does a far better job of exploring its protagonist.

This. This is actually a problem with most origin films, where the origin is just something that needs to be gotten out of the way before the actual movie can start. Batman Begins kept you invested in the story from the getco, long before Bruce donned the suit and made what had come before that moment relevant to the overall story.

[Spideyisthelaw9]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

This. This is actually a problem with most origin films, where the origin is just something that needs to be gotten out of the way before the actual movie can start. Batman Begins kept you invested in the story from the getco, long before Bruce donned the suit and made what had come before that moment relevant to the overall story.

Agree.
However I think Batman Begin's origin is the best one, because it shows you how the hero progresses. At first Batman is not invincible, but he steadily becomes better. Instead in Spider-Man, he soon learns how to webswing and how to do things his powers let him to. I have to admit it, this is one of the weak point of the Raimi's trilogy.

[MarvelKnight]

Batman Begins and Spider-Man 1 are a tie for me.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Paulette

I think Batman Begins was a very good surprise (I saw it after TDK) and it is a pity that it should be generally so underrated.

It's not underrated though. It's always been given it's well deserved credit and proved influential to movie franchises outside of the superhero movie subgenre. It's often considered the best of the post-X-Men superhero movie resurgence.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Cain

It's not underrated though. It's always been given it's well deserved credit and proved influential to movie franchises outside of the superhero movie subgenre. It's often considered the best of the post-X-Men superhero movie resurgence.

What non-superhero movie was influenced by BB?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

What non-superhero movie was influenced by BB?

The James Bond franchise famously took the route it did in 2006 because of the producer's admiration of BB's success as a reboot. Prior to that they were even considering making CR a looser adaptation still starring Brosnan. Conversely the older James Bond movies have also been highly influential to Nolan's Batman series.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Cain

The James Bond franchise famously took the route it did in 2006 because of the producer's admiration of BB's success as a reboot. Prior to that they were even considering making CR a looser adaptation still starring Brosnan. Conversely the older James Bond movies have also been highly influential to Nolan's Batman series.

I didn't know that. But action and dialogue-wise I choose Casino Royale over BB easily.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I didn't know that. But action and dialogue-wise I choose Casino Royale over BB easily.

Oh yeah me too.

[CConn]

Eh, Casino Royale and BB work on different levels for me. BB definitely has more depth and inherent complexity, whereas Casino Royale thrives on action and the brutality of Craig's performance.

But yeah, they definitely influenced each other in a lot of ways. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of Nolan's favorite movies, and you could even see how it influenced him in Inception.

[Britains Finest]

Just read on Empire magazine's website that Guy Pearce was originally up for the role of Ra's Al Ghul, but after discussing it with Nolan they both felt he was too young for the role.

Piers M says: Huge fan! Thanks for Memento, L.A. Confidential and Animal Kingdom (to name a few). My question is: with Christopher Nolan continually using many of the same cast members from his films did he ever talk to you about a role in any of the Batman films?

We did have a discussion about one of the roles in the first film, but we both decided and agreed that I was too young, so Liam Neeson played the role.

I've not not heard this mentioned before, is this common knowledge?

http://www.empireonline.com/intervie...w.asp?IID=1487

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by CConn

BB definitely has more depth and inherent complexity,

Or it wanted to have.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Or it wanted to have.

No, it legitimately did.

It just conveyed it in an overstated and obvious way.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by CConn

No, it legitimately did.

It just conveyed it in an overstated and obvious way.

In other words, it (verbally) explained to death that it had depth and complexity.

[CConn]

Exactly.

[Mr. Immortal]

I think Batman Begins, out of all those choices, is actually the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story.

From all that, you'd probably think I didn't like BB. But I actually do, a lot. I just can't bring myself to see it as a Superhero movie or even a Batman movie because of how completely different it is than the source material.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Mr. Immortal

I think Batman Begins, out of all those choices, is actually the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story.

From all that, you'd probably think I didn't like BB. But I actually do, a lot. I just can't bring myself to see it as a Superhero movie or even a Batman movie because of how completely different it is than the source material.

I don't hear that much. But well, Goyer felt like he needed to verbally explain everything through speeches or very informative dialogues. My favourite worst is the monorail conversation between Bruce and his father. That's the pinnacle of unnatural dialogue.

Another thing that left me 'huh' was the fact that Joe Chill was immediately captured. Traditionally it's the killer going unpunished what makes Bruce thinki 'this gotta change,' but here he sees that police and institutions work. He just changes hius mind later on when he's in his 20's and Chill is released.

[Elevator Man]

Originally Posted by Mr. Immortal

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story.

This is probably the biggest problem of the many problems I have with BB. You summed it up perfectly in that paragraph.

[CConn]

Ugh. No he didn't. It was cursory summation of Bruce Wayne's characterization that totally ignored the more subtle and defining points of his character arc in BB.

I have no problem with people dissing BB - old Payaso does a decent job of that - but that paragraph's just irritatingly low on intellect.

[CLARKY]

Originally Posted by Mr. Immortal

I think Batman Begins, out of all those choices, is actually the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story.
I just can't bring myself to see it as a Superhero movie or even a Batman movie because of how completely different it is than the source material.

I find your comment a bit simplistic, but in general, yeah, I agree with all this. It is something that I found weird. Bruce was not so clever and always needed someone to show him the next step. I didnot see the character as a superhero at all, nor really a batman story, just a guy who is lucky enough to have all the stuff he needs.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

But well, Goyer felt like he needed to verbally explain everything through speeches or very informative dialogues. My favourite worst is the monorail conversation between Bruce and his father. That's the pinnacle of unnatural dialogue.

Yes indeed. I completely agree with this. Too much useless symbolism maybe?

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

What non-superhero movie was influenced by BB?

Originally Posted by Cain

The James Bond franchise famously took the route it did in 2006 because of the producer's admiration of BB's success as a reboot. Prior to that they were even considering making CR a looser adaptation still starring Brosnan. Conversely the older James Bond movies have also been highly influential to Nolan's Batman series.

The directors of Casino Royale, Terminator Salvation, Rise of The Planet Of The Apes, Sherlock Holmes, and GI Joe all mentioned BB as a big influence. In the super hero genre, its influence is obvious. Oh yeah, the new Robocop film in development has mentioned BB as an influence as well.

[Elevator Man]

And Nolan used S:TM as an influence for BB not just "Blade Runner".

[CConn]

Well, obvious. STM's plot structure has been used now on BB, SM1, Iron Man, Captain America, and more.