Batman Begins or Iron Man

[El Payaso]

Batman Begins had a more intriguing and in-depth look at Bruce Wayne's psyche and far richer character development. IRon Man was far more rushed in that regard.

Well, Iron Man didn't need all that psyche description as his character is a playboy who has everything, not some tormented soul as Bruce Wayne is.

And then again, thank God Iron Man didn't take that much time explaining every single weapon Tony decided to include in his suit. But most important: when our hero is out there in Iron Man it's pure fun. When Batman was ready for action, you could mostly see blurry shots of him moving quickly.

Also, having a more memorable and interesting villain in Ras al Ghul as opposed to generic "Greedy businessman" helps, as well as NOT having the dull-as-dishwater Rhodey character.

Well, Ra's was well acted but so was Obediah. But the character was mostly speech after speech, and it's only in the end that we know he's the villiain. Now, if for uninteresting generic villiain, I got one of the most poor characterization of a great character with Murphy's Scarecrow, the one bad guy that takes a girl with a tazer to be defeated.

Now I'll take Rhodey any day of the week in any movie over that mistake called Rachel Dawes character.

I disagree, Bale's performance was superior because you could feel the anguish and determination in his pursuit to do more for the city.

And you copuld feel Tony's joy and then regret for what his company has been doing and then determination for right his wrongs. It's just that, as I said, they were different characters. Anguish itself doesn't determine what character should be considered better, let alone what movie.

Bale has no reason to be self aware and have a good time; his parents were shot in front of him as a child. He is a tragically dark character and conveys this perfectly. He takes the role very seriously because the movie takes itself very seriously. His portrayl of Wayne is perfect, far better than any live action incarnation. Downey was simply being Downey.

Downey was the perfect incarnation of a playboy who enjoys life, which is what his character is. Your argument sounds like Downey wasn't as good as Bale because Downey wasn't Bruce Wayne.

Also, Bale is superior to Downey in the area of acting, he simply has more range and immerses himself more into roles. He's really just a younger, equally talented version of Daniel Day-Lewis.

Even if I agreed that Bale's the better actor, Iron Man is still the better movie.

 

[Fudgie]

Iron Man

 

[The Morningstar]

RDJs Stark had just as much development as Bale's Bruce Wayne.

There is some great, heartfelt scenes amidst all the fun and games. And RDJ delivers perfectly. That's why Iron Man works. Because Tony Stark IS a *****e bag. He's an *******. But RDJ makes him likable and gives him heart. I really loved this scene in Iron Man, when Pepper and Tony are arguing. It's better than any dialogue in a Nolan Batman movie because it sounds like a natural conversation/argument between two people and it sums up Stark's change in character perfectly.

"I'm not crazy Pepper, I just finally know what i have to do. And I know in my heart, it's right."

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Downey seems very good at the self-confident type character.I don't think Bale is anywere near the level of acting skill as Downey. Watch him in Chaplin for example. fantastic performence. I think it would be fair to say Downey carries Iron Man. He's kind of the earths core of the movie. Without him specifically (the actor not the character) the movie would probably be fairly average at best.

 

[El Payaso]

RDJs Stark had just as much development as Bale's Bruce Wayne.

There is some great, heartfelt scenes amidst all the fun and games. And RDJ delivers perfectly. That's why Iron Man works. Because Tony Stark IS a *****e bag. He's an *******. But RDJ makes him likable and gives him heart. I really loved this scene in Iron Man, when Pepper and Tony are arguing. It's better than any dialogue in a Nolan Batman movie because it sounds like a natural conversation/argument between two people and it sums up Stark's change in character perfectly.

"I'm not crazy Pepper, I just finally know what i have to do. And I know in my heart, it's right."

That's true. Iron Man has one oif the finest love ineterest subplots among supoerhero movies. Certainly much better than that blurry Bruce-Rachel romantic relationship, if you could call that a relationship.

Downey seems very good at the self-confident type character.I don't think Bale is anywere near the level of acting skill as Downey. Watch him in Chaplin for example. fantastic performence. I think it would be fair to say Downey carries Iron Man. He's kind of the eaths core of the movie. Without him specifically (the actor not the character) the movie would probably be fairly average at best.

Well, Downey has excelled in both drama and comedy, if we talk of range here, I haven't seen Bale doing comedy, has he? And if so, how good has he been?

 

[The Morningstar]

I guess you could say his role in The Fighter was kinda comedic. In a tragic way.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Well, Iron Man didn't need all that psyche description as his character is a playboy who has everything, not some tormented soul as Bruce Wayne is.

And then again, thank God Iron Man didn't take that much time explaining every single weapon Tony decided to include in his suit. But most important: when our hero is out there in Iron Man it's pure fun. When Batman was ready for action, you could mostly see blurry shots of him moving quickly.

Just because Iron Man doesn't take itself as seriously doesn't mean he's a better written character. The Iron Man character itself just doesn't lend itself to very meaty source material.

Say what you want about the Bourne style editing, but it had me more engaged with the action than seeing Iron Man just flying everywhere. I never felt any sense of true urgency during his action scenes.

Well, Ra's was well acted but so was Obediah. But the character was mostly speech after speech, and it's only in the end that we know he's the villiain. Now, if for uninteresting generic villiain, I got one of the most poor characterization of a great character with Murphy's Scarecrow, the one bad guy that takes a girl with a tazer to be defeated.

Now I'll take Rhodey any day of the week in any movie over that mistake called Rachel Dawes character.

The twist where Ras reveals himself is far more effective of a twist than Stane's.

Nolan got Scarecrow's character down perfectly. Some complain about the way he was dispatched, but the simple fact is that the Scarecrow, in general, is one of the most overrated villains in Batman's rogue's gallery.

Here's the Scarecrow:

When he was a kid, he was bullied. He used his knowledge of biology to make a fear toxin to make the bullies scared of him. He then used this toxin to start robbing banks. The End.

There is nothing deeper to the character; he is literally nothing beyond the fear toxin. He has a creepy demeanor at times, but that's it. He is physically incapable of holding himself in a fight, which was the whole point behind making the toxin to begin with. With the Toxin, he's scary; without it, he's a posturing, pathetic wimp. In any of the so called "team ups" he's had throughout the decades, he's come off as nothing more than a glorified henchman, as he should. Nolan knew this and made sure to limit his screen time for the more menacing, interesting and complex Ghul.

The Demony voice he projected and the fire-breathing horse were all illusions seen from the POV of the child; Rachel was cured earlier on, so all she saw was a skinny dork with an annoying voice shouting, as shown when his voice changed just before she zapped him. If we viewed him from Rachel's perspective during his ranting, we would have been begging for the tazer.

Rhodey came off as nothing more than the token sidekick and given precious little to do, at least Rachel was actually proactive and got involved with the situation.

And you copuld feel Tony's joy and then regret for what his company has been doing and then determination for right his wrongs. It's just that, as I said, they were different characters. Anguish itself doesn't determine what character should be considered better, let alone what movie.

Tony's regret doesn't come off half as effective as it should have. In the film's desperation to have more fun, they detracted the time he should have spent in self reflection so that we'd feel more for his character.

Plus, they really rushed his developing crush on Pepper; and by rushed, I mean came out totally out of left field. I find it hard to believe that a guy would literally go from being a womanizing drunkard who sleeps with anything and everything with a vagina to a "One woman guy who doesn't wanna dance for nobody but her." The developing humanitarian aspect I could buy, but not this.

Downey was the perfect incarnation of a playboy who enjoys life, which is what his character is. Your argument sounds like Downey wasn't as good as Bale because Downey wasn't Bruce Wayne.

Downey was perfect as the womanizing playboy, he just didn't convey his regret of the damage he caused as effectively as Bruce's guilt over inadvertently being a cog in the events that lead to his parent's shooting, as well as his journey into what makes a criminal tick.

Even if I agreed that Bale's the better actor, Iron Man is still the better movie.

BB's stronger cast, more effective screenplay, and better plot twists make It a superior product for me.

 

[The Morningstar]

You clearly don't understand the Tony/Pepper relationship at all.

And Tony's regret was done well. It's just that his regret and change of character was typified in one piece of dialogue, as i mentioned above.

Whereas in Nolan's Bat movies any change of character or a character feelings has to be explained in some long winded monologue... or a series of them.

 

[K'Prime]

I'm gonna have to go iron man in this debate.thought the pacing was a better then BB

 

[Squaremaster316]

You clearly don't understand the Tony/Pepper relationship at all.

And Tony's regret was done well. It's just that his regret and change of character was typified in one piece of dialogue, as i mentioned above.

Whereas in Nolan's Bat movies any change of character or a character feelings has to be explained in some long winded monologue... or a series of them.

Yes, one piece of dialogue. An oversimplified, shallow piece of dialogue that just seems like an attempt to get the point out of the way as soon as possible.

Compared to, say, No Country for Old Men, a film loaded with long, detailed speeches about things that are practically insignificant (coin toss scene) but give such rich detail to a person because it's what they say and how they convey it that allows us to push a story along. Just because a person says less to get a point across doesn't mean that it's conveyed as well.

Tony's regret just doesn't come off as genuine as Bruce's.

 

[WalkingDeadMike]

BB was a good movie, but Iron Man was clearly the better film, IMO.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yes, one piece of dialogue. An oversimplified, shallow piece of dialogue that just seems like an attempt to get the point out of the way as soon as possible.

Compared to, say, No Country for Old Men, a film loaded with long, detailed speeches about things that are practically insignificant (coin toss scene) but give such rich detail to a person because it's what they say and how they convey it that allows us to push a story along. Just because a person says less to get a point across doesn't mean that it's conveyed as well.

Tony's regret just doesn't come off as genuine as Bruce's.

One piece of natural dialogue that a real human being would use. Unlike pretty much every character in Nolan's Bat movies who go on long winded speeches talking about their feelings.

And the way RDJ delivers it is heartfelt and genuine. It's not always about what they say, but how they say it. Their tone of voice, facial expression etc. It's called acting. I mean, are you gonna tell me Gosling's character in Drive is shallow because he barely says anything?

See, Iron Man would rather SHOW you the characters feelings... rather than TELL you them. That's probably the biggest reason i dislike Nolan's Bat movies. Too much telling, not enough showing.

The scene in No Country was natural as well. A back and forth between Chigurgh and the guy in the store.

 

[El Payaso]

Just because Iron Man doesn't take itself as seriously doesn't mean he's a better written character.

Just because Batan is written in a serious tone doesn't mean he's a better written character.

My point is that Iron Man the mvoie makes its best with the tone it ahd. BB does not.

The Iron Man character itself just doesn't lend itself to very meaty source material.

More power to him, it made a very good movie.

Say what you want about the Bourne style editing, but it had me more engaged with the action than seeing Iron Man just flying everywhere. I never felt any sense of true urgency during his action scenes.

Heh. I wish BB had the Bourne style editing style. BB crappy action editing was one of the things that disengaged me from the story. Iron Man on the other hand was exciting enough, and you could certainly see what was happening. That helps.

The twist where Ras reveals himself is far more effective of a twist than Stane's.

It was exactly the same, friend of our hero turns out to be the villiain. Only Ra's needed those extended speeches to make it sound like something truly important.

Nolan got Scarecrow's character down perfectly. Some complain about the way he was dispatched, but the simple fact is that the Scarecrow, in general, is one of the most overrated villains in Batman's rogue's gallery.

Here's the Scarecrow:

When he was a kid, he was bullied. He used his knowledge of biology to make a fear toxin to make the bullies scared of him. He then used this toxin to start robbing banks. The End.

There is nothing deeper to the character; he is literally nothing beyond the fear toxin. He has a creepy demeanor at times, but that's it. He is physically incapable of holding himself in a fight, which was the whole point behind making the toxin to begin with. With the Toxin, he's scary; without it, he's a posturing, pathetic wimp. In any of the so called "team ups" he's had throughout the decades, he's come off as nothing more than a glorified henchman, as he should. Nolan knew this and made sure to limit his screen time for the more menacing, interesting and complex Ghul.

The Demony voice he projected and the fire-breathing horse were all illusions seen from the POV of the child; Rachel was cured earlier on, so all she saw was a skinny dork with an annoying voice shouting, as shown when his voice changed just before she zapped him. If we viewed him from Rachel's perspective during his ranting, we would have been begging for the tazer.

So Nolan either thought: well this character seems lame, I'll just put it in the movie, but I'll make sure it will be really lame in the movie. No way I'll let him turn into an interesting challenging character. That's what good villiains are made of: lameness.

When you make a movie and you have lots to choose from you'd better choose the best. If not, at least make your so-so character a good one.

Rhodey came off as nothing more than the token sidekick and given precious little to do, at least Rachel was actually proactive and got involved with the situation.

When the character ahs no personality and sounds like a mere bunch of information the writer needs to give, no proactivity can save you.

Tony's regret doesn't come off half as effective as it should have. In the film's desperation to have more fun, they detracted the time he should have spent in self reflection so that we'd feel more for his character.

Again, what is "effective" for you. It worked for the movie, it showed that both RDJ and Tony Stark were not all comedy, it triggered the action for the second part of the movie and it widened the light tone of the film with something less 'pure fuin.' Now, not enough self reflection; they didn't throw us a long speech about war in modern times (or more than one speech), that's true, but that doesn't make it less "effective" or serious.

Plus, they really rushed his developing crush on Pepper; and by rushed, I mean came out totally out of left field. I find it hard to believe that a guy would literally go from being a womanizing drunkard who sleeps with anything and everything with a vagina to a "One woman guy who doesn't wanna dance for nobody but her." The developing humanitarian aspect I could buy, but not this.

So you don't think that Bruce and Rachel are childhood friends and, all of a sudden, she kisses him for no reason, just so she can explain that they cannot be together. That didn't come out of the blue for you, am I getting this right?

Pepper was by far the better love interest and one of the best ever in a superhero movie. not to mention that Katie Holmes chemistry with Bale - and with anything in BB - was close to zero.

And, as far as I remember, the feeling was there underneath, and Stark didn't go from womanizer to a one-woman guy just like that. Stark was far from quitting his lifestyle after he and Pepper had their moment.

And it's not like love hasn't changed men like Stark in the real world. They're partying one night and then they just fall in love. that's life.

Downey was perfect as the womanizing playboy, he just didn't convey his regret of the damage he caused as effectively as Bruce's guilt over inadvertently being a cog in the events that lead to his parent's shooting, as well as his journey into what makes a criminal tick.

Both did a good work, but in different tones. It's not any less convincing just because it didn't have violins underlining the tragedy.

BB's stronger cast, more effective screenplay, and better plot twists make It a superior product for me.

BB's cast had two big flaws, Holmes and Murphy. BB's screenplay was peppered with corny dialogues, the word fear repeated to boredsom to make us 'understand' what the movie was about, and awful one-liners. Although I'll admit that B's story structure was solid. And the plot twists were similar in both: hero regrets his ways, friend was the foe.

Yes, one piece of dialogue. An oversimplified, shallow piece of dialogue that just seems like an attempt to get the point out of the way as soon as possible.

Compared to, say, No Country for Old Men, a film loaded with long, detailed speeches about things that are practically insignificant (coin toss scene) but give such rich detail to a person because it's what they say and how they convey it that allows us to push a story along. Just because a person says less to get a point across doesn't mean that it's conveyed as well.

Tony's regret just doesn't come off as genuine as Bruce's.

Show, don't tell. You won't convey things on movies as much by talking about them as much as showing them.

 

[The Morningstar]

Someone who says that the Iron Man character doesn't lend itself to meaty material just hasn't got a scooby doo about the Iron Man character.

 

[kashchei2003]

Batman Begins all the way. Iron Man was great, but BB was superior!

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Iron Man

 

[Squaremaster316]

Just because Batan is written in a serious tone doesn't mean he's a better written character.

Not necessarily, but the more seriously one takes a role and the situations within the plot, the more invested the viewer will be. Why should I care about the final fight in Iron Man if they're going to splice goofy nonsense such as getting trapped under a soccer mom's car into it?

My point is that Iron Man the mvoie makes its best with the tone it ahd. BB does not.

Batman's shifts in tone aren't nearly as jarring as the one's in Iron Man, such as the previously mentioned moment.

Heh. I wish BB had the Bourne style editing style.

It did, and succeeded brilliantly. Feel free to dislike the style if you want.

Iron Man on the other hand was exciting enough, and you could certainly see what was happening. That helps.

If playing a dull version or Rock 'em Sock 'em robots is your bag, all the power to ya.

It was exactly the same, friend of our hero turns out to be the villiain. Only Ra's needed those extended speeches to make it sound like something truly important.

Bruce figuring out that Ducard was a cover for Ras' true identity and using minions as a small scale version of the 10000 Persian immortals was a brilliant twist, certainly more so than Stane being in league with the terrorists, which was a twist so antiquated that Schwarzenegger was mocking it almost 2 decades ago.

So Nolan either thought: well this character seems lame, I'll just put it in the movie, but I'll make sure it will be really lame in the movie. No way I'll let him turn into an interesting challenging character. That's what good villiains are made of: lameness.

If he had been the criminal mastermind the whole time, yes, the film would have suffered, but Ras using him as a pawn in his game was an effective way of using him. Nolan knew when to reign Scarecrow's actions in.

In a way, the Scarecrow is a lot like the Wizard of OZ, his fear toxin being the smoke and mirrors. Batman simply pulled back the curtain.

When you make a movie and you have lots to choose from you'd better choose the best. If not, at least make your so-so character a good one.

Stane is hardly the best villain in Iron Man's rogue's gallery, and he certainly doesn't come across as an effective main villain in this film. He seems more like the kind of guy who would be associated with or a representative of a stronger villain, a.k.a. Scarecrow to Ras or Skudd to Damaskinos.

When the character ahs no personality and sounds like a mere bunch of information the writer needs to give, no proactivity can save you.

She is a weak link in BB, I'll admit. But she's also shown to be a brave individual who isn't worried about getting to the heart of a case, even if it is detrimental to her health. Sure, Pepper can, uh, download information off a computer, and she can be told step by step by Tony on how to push a button to create a Deux es Machina to save the day, but what exactly is her personality except for being slightly awkward like Phoebe from Friends?

Rhodey, what does he do aside from saying "Tony, you're incorrigible" on a couple of occasions? He's clearly given the least to do out of any character from either film.

Again, what is "effective" for you. It worked for the movie, it showed that both RDJ and Tony Stark were not all comedy, it triggered the action for the second part of the movie and it widened the light tone of the film with something less 'pure fuin.' Now, not enough self reflection; they didn't throw us a long speech about war in modern times (or more than one speech), that's true, but that doesn't make it less "effective" or serious.

While it worked for that particular movie, it also highlighted the difference in urgency between the problems presented in both films. Tony goes back to America and casually builds a suit, then flies off to Pakistan or wherever he was previously held, and deals with the terrorists in 3 minutes.

Bruce, on the other hand, is in the middle of the Warzone 24/7. The constant threat is always present in various instances. It's simply more engaging for me to see someone have to consistently be at the ready to deal with the threats that are present right in their backyard.

So you don't think that Bruce and Rachel are childhood friends and, all of a sudden, she kisses him for no reason, just so she can explain that they cannot be together. That didn't come out of the blue for you, am I getting this right?

It was clear that Bruce has lingering feelings for her, the way he tried to defend himself when she saw him with the two escorts. Not to mention that after realizing that he and Batman were one in the same, she realizes just how important he is to her life (He rescued her mind from being lost and prevented her from making the same mistake he almost did years ago, killing the criminal) They've been through a lot more together than many other pairings. Chemistry is subjective, but you can't say that there wasn't some sort of buildup.

Pepper was by far the better love interest and one of the best ever in a superhero movie.

I didn't see any more romantic chemistry b/w these two than for many other low level romances. Considering Tony's behavior during the first 10 minutes of the film, I'd say his attempted coupling with Pepper comes FAR more out of left field.

And it's not like love hasn't changed men like Stark in the real world. They're partying one night and then they just fall in love. that's life.

Then it's very shallow, poorly written and developed 'life.'

Both did a good work, but in different tones. It's not any less convincing just because it didn't have violins underlining the tragedy.

I simply stated that Iron Man didn't explore its central character's transition and evolution as well as Batman Begins did.

BB's cast had two big flaws, Holmes and Murphy. BB's screenplay was peppered with corny dialogues, the word fear repeated to boredsom to make us 'understand' what the movie was about, and awful one-liners. Although I'll admit that B's story structure was solid. And the plot twists were similar in both: hero regrets his ways, friend was the foe.

As far as Scarecrow is concerned, I fail to see how Murphy was bad "casting". Rachel wasn't the meatiest character, but she wasn't as bland as someone like Rhodey, who would have been better served being played by someone like Michael Jai White.

Iron Man used Batman Begins as a template but didn't do as good of a job with the story elements. As I stated above, Ras' reveal was done far more effectively and subtly than Stane's. Plus Bruce's transition from revenge to justice was handled better because the transition wasn't just "Got it!" and then move on.

Also, how were any one liners in BB as bad as the one's that Stane spouted in the 3rd act, or the corny "Proof that Tony Stark has a Heart" pepper sketched into the first model.

Show, don't tell. You won't convey things on movies as much by talking about them as much as showing them.

Except Iron Man didn't seem to show much either. He escapes, shuts down the weapons division, then builds a robot.

Bruce only talked to anybody when he needed assistance with something, and the only one he seemed to have any speeches with was Alfred.

 

[Donut]

Maybe you two should just agree to disagree at this point ?

 

[uniqueweasel]

I have to admit, i'm a big Batman fan, but comparing the two movies, i'd have to say Iron Man as it renewed my interest in the character as a whole. I'm not gonna bash BB though, that potrayed the Batman story brilliantly. I just think as a whole Iron Man entertained me that bit more.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Wow, in other forums, Batman Begins wins via landslide (6:1 ratio), but not here. It is certainly different and a bit refreshing, yet I still gotta place my vote for Batman Begins.

BB had the better villain(s)[in Ra's al Ghul, The League of Shadows, Scarecrow, and Falcone], origin story, acting (with the exception of Katie Holmes), cinematography, and theme/subtext. While IM was fun and exciting, it didn't strike a cord with me on a personal level. I believe it came down to which character was more relatable and complex to me, and Tony Stark was not that character.

On a similar note, it's a huge reason why I want Chris Evans' Captain America to b***hslap RDJ's Iron Man back in line at one point during The Avengers.

 

[T"Challa]

Iron Man. RDJ puts it over the top. As great an actor as Bale is, his portrayal of Bats hasn't been as awesome as i thought it would be. RDJ completely owns the Tony Stark persona.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Batman Begins. I felt it did a better job of exploring its protagonist and justifying its superhero tropes beyond the simple expectation of their presence, and I was more dramatically invested in Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne than I was in Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark. Iron Man was a lot of fun, but it was sometimes too tongue-in-cheek for its own good.

 

[Rylvan]

Batman Begins < Iron Man
The Dark Knight > Iron Man 2

 

[The Morningstar]

Problem with Begins as an origin story is, it barely scratches the surface of Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman. There is a lot of important and cool details left out, like how he travels the world learning all different things from different masters. The fact that he began his training as a child, not a 20/30 something.

Whereas Iron Man basically got pretty much all of the important parts of his origin in there, and his character development, the way it was his own epiphany that led him on the road to redemption, is unique really, and very well done.