Batman Begins Best Origin Movie ever ?

[CConn]

To me, they're like a tattoo on a girl's crotch.

Do I like it? No. Do I wish it wasn't there? Kinda. Does it make her crotch any less appealing as a whole? God no.

[Brother Jack]

Originally Posted by CConn

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.

I do think he's definitely grown as a director since then.

[El Payaso]

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.

I agree with everyhting, except Capt. America which I haven't seen yet.

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree again. What happened with:

RA'S: Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share.
BRUCE: That's why it's so important. It separates us from them.

I guess Bruce learned his lesson. Ra's won.

[The Morningstar]

Check out Cpt America man. It is a good film. I think Chris Evans reeeeeally nailed it. Great performance, which i honestly didn't expect. There is a few instances where he tells a story with his eyes/facial expressions. Which i love from an actor.

[SmellTheWeird]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Batman seeming to find some pleasure out of Ra's death?

I must have missed that part ...

The only things remotely negative about Batman Begins is that a) it's 3rd act was rushed, and pigeon holed into the stupid genre limitations of comic book movies (TDK, shot that to hell though) b) the sprinkled in one liners, and cheesy dialogue from time to time: "nice coat", "excuse me", "take a seat ... have a drink" ... those are the worst of them c) Katie Holmes acting and d) the excessive use of the word fear

The rest is fantastic. Easily in the elite echelon of comic book movies. Whether you rate it as best, or among the best. You would be hard pressed to find someone that would deny, in their right minds, being one of the best of the genre. It's better scripted, more intelligent and has more pathos than any of the previous Batman movies ... and doesn't have one performance that screams HAMMY comic book shtick the way Returns, Forever, and Robin showed us. Katie Holmes isn't very good, but she's at the very least servicable in the film.

I personally would have kept it more intimate, maybe not have had Scarecrow ... maybe not even Ra's Al Ghul. But it needed to be an action movie too, so I see why they were in there. My idea of a Batman franchise would've seen the first movie be totally just about Batman taking on what he was originally intended to ... the mob, corrupt policemen, street level crime. And the sequels, after Batman's appearance in Gotham would deal with the emergence of the "freaks" and new level villains.

I mean, not that it dilutes the Joker in TDK, but having Scarecrow in BEGINS kind of defeats the purpose of Joker being the first evil spawned ispiration of the Batman. He's not a total freak in the film, he's twisted, but his motivations on monetary in nature ... but him being there I think could've been saved for a sequel.

But all in all, BEGINS is easily there with Iron Man (the narrative structure alone for Iron Man owes a lot to BEGINS what with the origin being told through flash backs, and it was cited by the director as being a MAJOR influence on his film), Superman:TM, Sam Raimi's whiny Spider-Man movie (featuring random Power Ranger villain) ... the performances from the actors alone in BEGINS spank the original Spider-Man movie.

As I said, BEGINS is a very, very good movie. Like it's director, just has a few flaws, and was right on the CUSP of true greatness. Nolan redeemed himself and capitalized FULLY on his next Batman movie, so all is forgiven.

[The Morningstar]

I think Begins is better than TDK, so no.

And how could you miss Batmans smug, smarmy "I don't have to save you!" He may aswell have been laughing as he jumped out of the train.

Batman 89 has pathos and underlying themes. But it doesn't have characters talking about them. You don't have characters start talking about how Joker is using peoples vanity against them with the make up plot. Or using the poors desperation for money against them at the parade. It's left for us in the audience to figure thoses things out. Batman 89 was basically a satire of the culture in the 80s/90s. But isn't spoon fed to us with dialogue. Unlike Begins with "fear" being mentioned all the ****ing time. Or in TDK where characters actually break the fourth wall to explain the movies themes to the idiots in the audience.

[CConn]

While everything you said about TDK is dumb, I will say your observations about B89 are very astute; and the ironic thing is, 95% of the people here don't understand the full complexity of B89.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I must have missed that part ...

Then check it. Because if you were able to spot Batman in those messy choppy-edited fights then you couldn't have possibly missed that part.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

The only things remotely negative about Batman Begins is that a) it's 3rd act was rushed, and pigeon holed into the stupid genre limitations of comic book movies (TDK, shot that to hell though) b) the sprinkled in one liners, and cheesy dialogue from time to time: "nice coat", "excuse me", "take a seat ... have a drink" ... those are the worst of them c) Katie Holmes acting and d) the excessive use of the word fear

e) The bad editing of the fights, which Nolan corrected in TDK.
f) Scarecrow, an underused character that took the whole movie to fully become the comic book villiain, with a grandiose speech about how he is fear itself, just to be tazed by a young woman and leave the movie screaming like a school girl.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Easily in the elite echelon of comic book movies. Whether you rate it as best, or among the best. You would be hard pressed to find someone that would deny, in their right minds, being one of the best of the genre. It's better scripted, more intelligent and has more pathos than any of the previous Batman movies ... and doesn't have one performance that screams HAMMY comic book shtick the way Returns, Forever, and Robin showed us. Katie Holmes isn't very good, but she's at the very least servicable in the film.

Some of BB's dialogue is pretty subpar, and I'm not even talking about the subpar one-liners.

Again, the monorail scene. Terribly bad written.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

I personally would have kept it more intimate, maybe not have had Scarecrow ... maybe not even Ra's Al Ghul. But it needed to be an action movie too, so I see why they were in there. My idea of a Batman franchise would've seen the first movie be totally just about Batman taking on what he was originally intended to ... the mob, corrupt policemen, street level crime. And the sequels, after Batman's appearance in Gotham would deal with the emergence of the "freaks" and new level villains.

I mean, not that it dilutes the Joker in TDK, but having Scarecrow in BEGINS kind of defeats the purpose of Joker being the first evil spawned ispiration of the Batman. He's not a total freak in the film, he's twisted, but his motivations on monetary in nature ... but him being there I think could've been saved for a sequel.

I agree with you in that even when Batman fighting corruption would have been enough, it needed the more 'action movie' approach.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

But all in all, BEGINS is easily there with Iron Man (the narrative structure alone for Iron Man owes a lot to BEGINS what with the origin being told through flash backs, and it was cited by the director as being a MAJOR influence on his film)

What if Iron Man was influenced by BB's structure? Good, BB's structure was great. That alone doesn't make BB immediately as good as Iron Man. IM was set as a fun action movie and achieved its full potential. BB was set as a serious realistic-toned movie and it failed in many ways. IM mastered the comedy parts (mainly thanks to RDJ whereas BB didn't even need comedy in it, had too much unnecessary comedy, and failed almost in every single attempt).

My point is, it's very hard to compare both movies. I myself prefer the BB approach for a superhero movie, but Iron Man achieved a better product. The action was much better - yes, you could actually see Iron Man in the movie - the love interest was much better, the comedy was much better.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Superman:TM

STM was the first of its kind and it succeeded. Its groundbreaking-ness can't be compared to that from BB, which many times felt just the average action movie.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

Sam Raimi's whiny Spider-Man movie (featuring random Power Ranger villain) ... the performances from the actors alone in BEGINS spank the original Spider-Man movie.

I'd say everything in BB spank Spiderman 1. Except the comedy, both fail there.

Originally Posted by SmellTheWeird

As I said, BEGINS is a very, very good movie. Like it's director, just has a few flaws, and was right on the CUSP of true greatness. Nolan redeemed himself and capitalized FULLY on his next Batman movie, so all is forgiven.

Well, you said it. Nolan redeemed himself. That alone implies he needed redemption after BB.

And what a redemption we had. TDK was truly groundbreaking. A masterpiece of the genre, and it you put it next to STM, I can fully agree for it has deserved that position.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I think Begins is better than TDK, so no.

And how could you miss Batmans smug, smarmy "I don't have to save you!" He may aswell have been laughing as he jumped out of the train.

Batman 89 has pathos and underlying themes. But it doesn't have characters talking about them. You don't have characters start talking about how Joker is using peoples vanity against them with the make up plot. Or using the poors desperation for money against them at the parade. It's left for us in the audience to figure thoses things out. Batman 89 was basically a satire of the culture in the 80s/90s. But isn't spoon fed to us with dialogue. Unlike Begins with "fear" being mentioned all the ****ing time. Or in TDK where characters actually break the fourth wall to explain the movies themes to the idiots in the audience.

I love TDK. If the characters were preachy like that I haven't noticed in the many times I've seen the mvoie. But you're right about B89. What I like the most about Burton's movies is that he'd refuse to spoonfeeding you with anything.

He shows and doesn't tell.

[ALP]

Can B'89 really count as an origin film?

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by ALP

Can B'89 really count as an origin film?

Absolutely.

[ALP]

What about Batman Forever?

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by ALP

What about Batman Forever?

Absolutely not.

[CConn]

B89 is an origin film, but the plot structure is different from any listed in this poll (personally, I kind of prefer it).

[Blue Sugar]

Well Superman the Movie is the overall better movie but as far as an origin story BB works better.

The other ones are not even close.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by CConn

B89 is an origin film, but the plot structure is different from any listed in this poll (personally, I kind of prefer it).

Yes. It was absolutely groundbreaking.

[ALP]

And it's still actually pretty rare structure. Since S:TM I believe it has been the norm to spend the first hour of the film telling us how the superhero got to be. It's not a bad formula, but I do get a bit tired of it here and there.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

I love TDK. If the characters were preachy like that I haven't noticed in the many times I've seen the mvoie. But you're right about B89. What I like the most about Burton's movies is that he'd refuse to spoonfeeding you with anything.

He shows and doesn't tell.

That's what i dislike about Nolan's Bat movies, and his movies in general. Spoon feeding. Too much exposition heavy dialogue. He's like the anti- Mamet or Sorkin. Dialogue that has characters explaining their feelings or the themes of the movie is probably my biggest pet peeve. Gordon's speech at the end is unbearable for me. He is literally breaking the fourth wall.

I mean i'll use a recent example. The movie Drive. Ryan Gosling's character has barely any dialogue. He says a lot with his eyes and facial expressions. I get the feeling if Nolan directed it and wrote it, he'd be going on long monologues about his feelings or whatever.

[CConn]

Eh, I don't see it being that big of a deal. I enjoy it when directors are vague and ambiguous, but at the same time, its cool when Nolan lays things out a bit. I think the type of films he makes kind of dictates it.

[WingedFreak]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I get the feeling if Nolan directed it and wrote it, he'd be going on long monologues about his feelings or whatever.

Nolan is more a story teller than a film maker. He is a fantastic story teller. Maybe that's why you struggle with his dialogue / narrative heavy films. There is usually a lot of ground to cover in his films. The dialogue isn't remedial or corny in anyway, like say from Batman Returns - Batman and Robin. It can be dialogue heavy at times, but it isn't bad dialogue. So it's all winning.

Drive was an awesome movie, by the way. But I also know people, specifically my girlfriend who went to it with me couldn't stand it ... it was almost too quite for her.

[OutRiddled]

Batman Begins became very overrated to me after I saw the animated Batman: Year One.

So Superman: The Movie wins, because I watched it recently and his origin with that great score by John Williams is the most epic telling of a superhero I have ever seen.

Spiderman and Iron Man I never really gave a **** about. But I did like the Iron Man movie.

[Spider-Aziz]

When it comes to origins:
1. Iron Man
2. Batman Begins
3. Spider-Man
4. Superman: The Movie
5. Captain America

As films:
1. Batman begins
2. Spider-Man
3. Superman
4. Iron Man
5. Captain America

[humbdrumb]

The first hour of Begins is the best comic book movie ever made, so yes, it's the best origin story.

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Batman: Mask Of Phantasm. Wonderful movie.

[Micromind]

Originally Posted by Why Are You Crouching Spock?

Batman: Mask Of Phantasm. Wonderful movie.

See thread about Animated Batman movies, here -

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=371981

[CConn]

Plus, do flashbacks really count as an origin?

I counted B89 as an origin due to the fact it chronicled the earliest adventure of Batman and by the end had established him to his comic-accurate status quo in Gotham.

MOTP really didn't do any of that. It was about Andrea. The flashbacks just served to enrich that - separate - story.