Batman Begins or Iron Man

[Mr. Credible]

Just stating it doesn't really bring anything to the depth of discussion. Care to elaborate as to how or why the film doesn't suffer from any of the allegations I bring against it?

you're the one that made the damn accusation. the proof of burden is yours.

there was nothing wrong with the story in Iron Man.

go over to the iron man boards, even with the thousands of geeks and over-analytical nerds on this site, hardly anyone can find a plot hole to speak of. the same can very much not be said for batman begins.

iron man was the better movie in every single way, in my opinion.

 

[Agentsands77]

the proof of burden is yours.

I make a statement of personal reaction, which should be fine - nobody needs to write an essay to state what they think in an opinion thread like this. But if someone's going to bother to challenge it, they better do more than just state a trite statement. Otherwise the discussion devolves into "This is right!" "No, this is right!" spirit, and we can at least try for a little more depth and detail despite the inherent subjectivity of this discussion.

there was nothing wrong with the story in Iron Man.

I disagree. But putting that aside, what was great about the story in IRON MAN?

Aside from Stark, the characters aren't handled in a particularly exciting way (a lot of potential went nowhere, especially in regards to Pepper Potts). Nor does it provide Stark with a really interesting threat to respond to (both the terrorists and Obadiah are prime examples of bland cinematic villainy without depth or unique characteristics). Even Stark's character arc is fairly standard stuff.

go over to the iron man boards, even with the thousands of geeks and over-analytical on this site, hardly anyone can find a plot hole to speak of.

I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm speaking of plot mis-steps.

Obadiah is a forgettable character, very weakly drawn in terms of motivation, with a very cliche and obvious background conspiracy (his badness was predictable, as were the ways in which he was bad - I called the "He got Stark into the terrorist hands" a long way off). And when the driving villain behind your storyline is that weak, it inevitably effects the whole story. The stakes just aren't that interesting anymore.

Now, the tension between Obadiah and Stark does begin to amount to something, despite Obadiah's rather uninteresting nature... but just as we're starting to get there, the movie throws them into two metal suits and goes into action mode, undercutting any real character interaction between the two of them. Obadiah starts muttering awful "villain" lines, and still expects to get away with running the company (really?!).

Not to mention the fight itself is just forgettable. No really interesting staging (aside from the moment where they both fly into the stratosphere), no interesting drama... just generic hero versus villain shtick as presented by two warring robot suits that doesn't even have the thrill of TRANSFORMERS' robot battles.

the same can very much not be said for batman begins.

BATMAN BEGINS and IRON MAN share a lot of the same issues. Both have problematic third acts. It's just that, I believe, IRON MAN has them to a worse degree.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Iron Man started the whole Marvel Universe franchise, not just IM's.

 

[Agentsands77]

Iron Man started the whole Marvel Universe franchise, not just IM's.

True... but I have to say I, for one, was rather disheartened by the tacky Samuel L. Jackson cameo at the end.

 

[Obi-Ron]

"I am sick of these mother-@#%#$ Hydra on my mother-@#%#$ helicarrier!"

 

[CWP]

BEGINS definitely has the edge here. It's just the better package overall, which a much more consistent story and development. Not that BEGINS has a perfect structure (far from it, actually), but in IRON MAN, the story really is all over the place.

The only really distinctive element about IRON MAN are the performances from Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, and they elevate everything around them. The rest of it is just "ok." We have some forgettable action, an execrable villain, one of the worst climaxes in recent superhero memory... it just doesn't all come together. It's probably the best of the MARVEL films, but that's not saying much.

Well said. I don't think Iron Man was all that bad, but I agree with you for the most part.

 

[M.O.Steel]

BB. more becuase of what it had to overcome. so i think it's the bigger accomplishment.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Batman Begins is too much of a diamond in the rough. I feel it gets overrated because it followed two very horrible reiterations of the character, so it took a wildly different approach and gets near universial praise for it. Though the end result is nothing too spectacular. Batman Begins is like a great pitch meeting, a TON of good ideas are thrown out, but the end product ends up being an inconsistent mess of jumbled plot ideas.

Batman Begins in very much a different film in it's first act than it is in it's last. Due to the fact the movie lacks truly engaging villains, it attempts to make up for this by including an absolutely dreadful show down on a microwave emitting monorail. It totally abandons it's tone of realism for a cliche' comic book ending, complete with exposition so bad it would make infomercial writers groan. Combine that with a script that is marred by awful dialogue that doesn't even resemble the way people actually talk, and what you have left is one big mess.

Granted the film's saving grace is the admireale acting jobs by Liam Nesson, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bale and Cillian Murphy; and the direction by Christopher Nolan (fights scenes notwithstanding). Unfortunately none of their characters are written well enough for this movie to really stand out for me. The movie is about as subtle and nuanced as a sledgehammer.

Iron Man on the other hand might seem like your run of the mill blockbuster, but packs enough in to actually make it a very smart, comic "accurate" and savvy film. The character of Tony Stark is developed with a lot less dialogue, and the characters of Yinsen and Stane are used to incredible effect. The villain, ironically, is very interesting and compelling (considering all of the Iron Man villains typically suck wind). Also Jon Faveuru had a more daunting task: make a GOOD IRON MAN MOVIE.

Batman's story is compelling as it is. Even marred with bad dialogue it's so engrained in the public conscious that people already know it's greatness. It's had years upon years or revision to make it thoroughly convincing and compelling. Iron Man, in the eyes of the public, is a C-lister at best. In the comic world, Thor, Captain America (sans it's main character), all the X-Men titles, 6 titles featuring Wolverine, Spider-Man(s), Hulk(s) and even Punisher tend to outsell him...and that's only in his own company. He's not that popular.

This is due, in large part, to the fact that Iron Man is seriously not all that interesting. For years his only story that he is noted for is "Demon in a bottle", and perhaps the "Armor Wars I and II". He typically has a craptastic rogues gallery, all of which has currently died off (not kidding). The fact that any movie writer could look at this character and do a film that amazing, and do something that embodied the Marvel spirit that well just floors me.

 

[Bren]

I go watch films to enjoy them. Can't be arsed to critically analyse them. IM for me, simply because it was more fun to watch.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well said. I don't think Iron Man was all that bad, but I agree with you for the most part.

I never said IRON MAN was bad. I actually really liked it. Great popcorn flick. But I just don't think it's as good as BATMAN BEGINS for the reasons I've cited.

 

[M.O.Steel]

i think iron man was great...and i do think it is more than a popcorn flick. it's one the mature ones. i definitely put it high up there. but i guess i'll wait for a couple of years to really see if it was that great.

 

[Agentsands77]

i think iron man was great...and i do think it is more than a popcorn flick. it's one the mature ones. i definitely put it high up there. but i guess i'll wait for a couple of years to really see if it was that great.

I don't get the references to IRON MAN being particularly "mature." It certainly strikes me as less mature than, say, X2.

 

[Tony Stark]

Just stating it doesn't really bring anything to the depth of discussion. Care to elaborate as to how or why the film doesn't suffer from any of the allegations I bring against it?

Because there is one singular story through the whole movie. It's about a guy standing up and taking responsibility for his life and his own actions. You said the story was all over the place, it wasn't, it never deviated from the single story line.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I don't get the references to IRON MAN being particularly "mature." It certainly strikes me as less mature than, say, X2.

oh yeah definitely, but i think it's more mature than the spiderman series. i didn't say it was the most mature movie

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't get the references to IRON MAN being particularly "mature." It certainly strikes me as less mature than, say, X2.

It was "lighter" than X2, but I wouldn't say it's less mature. The characters are fairly mature, and are smartly written. Some of the humor and message is subversive (certainly a few cracks at American policy in there). X2 is probably the best "film" (not the best comic adaptation) we've seen done about a comic. In terms of the script, performances and execution, it's pretty top notch. Iron Man though managed to be the best of both worlds: being a excellent adaptation of the comics, that has a comic book "feel" but also is able to work on levels beyond that of a mere action film.

 

[Raiden]

Batman Begins is too much of a diamond in the rough. I feel it gets overrated because it followed two very horrible reiterations of the character, so it took a wildly different approach and gets near universial praise for it. Though the end result is nothing too spectacular. Batman Begins is like a great pitch meeting, a TON of good ideas are thrown out, but the end product ends up being an inconsistent mess of jumbled plot ideas.

Batman Begins in very much a different film in it's first act than it is in it's last. Due to the fact the movie lacks truly engaging villains, it attempts to make up for this by including an absolutely dreadful show down on a microwave emitting monorail. It totally abandons it's tone of realism for a cliche' comic book ending, complete with exposition so bad it would make infomercial writers groan. Combine that with a script that is marred by awful dialogue that doesn't even resemble the way people actually talk, and what you have left is one big mess.

Granted the film's saving grace is the admireale acting jobs by Liam Nesson, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bale and Cillian Murphy; and the direction by Christopher Nolan (fights scenes notwithstanding). Unfortunately none of their characters are written well enough for this movie to really stand out for me. The movie is about as subtle and nuanced as a sledgehammer.

Iron Man on the other hand might seem like your run of the mill blockbuster, but packs enough in to actually make it a very smart, comic "accurate" and savvy film. The character of Tony Stark is developed with a lot less dialogue, and the characters of Yinsen and Stane are used to incredible effect. The villain, ironically, is very interesting and compelling (considering all of the Iron Man villains typically suck wind). Also Jon Faveuru had a more daunting task: make a GOOD IRON MAN MOVIE.

Batman's story is compelling as it is. Even marred with bad dialogue it's so engrained in the public conscious that people already know it's greatness. It's had years upon years or revision to make it thoroughly convincing and compelling. Iron Man, in the eyes of the public, is a C-lister at best. In the comic world, Thor, Captain America (sans it's main character), all the X-Men titles, 6 titles featuring Wolverine, Spider-Man(s), Hulk(s) and even Punisher tend to outsell him...and that's only in his own company. He's not that popular.

This is due, in large part, to the fact that Iron Man is seriously not all that interesting. For years his only story that he is noted for is "Demon in a bottle", and perhaps the "Armor Wars I and II". He typically has a craptastic rogues gallery, all of which has currently died off (not kidding). The fact that any movie writer could look at this character and do a film that amazing, and do something that embodied the Marvel spirit that well just floors me.

Agreed. I do hope Marvel will see IM, and start to put better writers for the Iron Man comic series. I think Shellhead deserve better storylines and rogue gallery than what he has.

 

[The Navigator]

Huge fan of both characters but despite being a bigger Batman fan I thought Iron Man was much better. I have so many bones to pick with Batman Begins (Suit, Tumbler, Dialogue, Rachael, Scarecrow, Ra Al Ghoul, finale) though very few with Iron Man. The cast in Iron Man contain some of my favourite actors same can't be said for Batman Begins minus Gary Oldman. Iron Man in my opinion is definitely the best comic book film since 1992 while Batman Begins is good its a bigger disappointment everytime I rewatch it since I find more things to nit pick at. And forget about all this nonsense about Batman Begins set in a real world & Iron Man set in a totally unrealistic one, neither of these things matter in film & especially not in a comic book film, & I personally feel Batman Begins isn't set in a realistic world.

But when it comes down to it both are great movies, I just so happen to think Iron Man is the better film, sue me.

Thank you.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

In addition, Iron Man is more of the self-made superhero I was hoping to see in Batman. I'm willing to watch three different stages of armor transformation because we see Tony himself perfect them by trial and error. But watching Lucius/Alfred explain the nuances of Waynetech gear and basically just handing him everything in the same amount of time gets tedious and drags the movie down.

In all, a stronger start and therefore a better foundation to build on.

Didn't a certain billionaire almost fall to his death and get caught attempting to recruit Lt. Gordon?

I like Iron Man too but come on. I liked both executions. Bruce actually thought out his return to help Gotham instead of rushing in guns blazing into Afghanistan.

 

[The Navigator]

Didn't a certain billionaire almost fall to his death and get caught attempting to recruit Lt. Gordon?

I like Iron Man too but come on. I liked both executions. Bruce actually thought out his return to help Gotham instead of rushing in guns blazing into Afghanistan.

I wasn't debating whether Bruce was more thought-out in his approach. I was disappoined how much he relied on other people to help him craft his image, which detracted from those scenes. I don't need to be told that the Batmobile was really a river-jumping bridge-builder or that the cowl is made from two elements and needs to be ordered in parts upward of 10,000. It's not information that is necessary to impart, and in fact actually creates a superfluous scene later with the baseball bat. When Bruce is a neutral observer by and large in these scenes, it just gets excessive and long.

But you make a fair point with the nearly jumping to his death.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I wasn't debating whether Bruce was more thought-out in his approach. I was disappoined how much he relied on other people to help him craft his image, which detracted from those scenes. I don't need to be told that the Batmobile was really a river-jumping bridge-builder or that the cowl is made from two elements and needs to be ordered in parts upward of 10,000. It's not information that is necessary to impart, and in fact actually creates a superfluous scene later with the baseball bat. When Bruce is a neutral observer by and large in these scenes, it just gets excessive and long.

In defense of Batman Begins I liked the costume building scene, especially viewed in contrast to everything else. It's one of the few times Bruce didn't come off as needy. The "we could put it together ourselves" idea was great because it incorporated Bruce's genius and ingenuity with his obvious, real world limitations. I don't mind Bruce not being able to do some things, like sew together a bullet proof costume. I do like him getting a costume from all points of the globe. In contrast to this getting a wholesale Tumbler, that had been viewed by everyone in the military just was stupid, and less realistic than simply having Bruce know how to build a car from scratch.

I hated the fact that "realism" in Batman Begins ultimately meant Bruce had to spend 10 or 15 of his supposed training years mopping around like some sad sack wanting revenge on Joe Chill and being a wash-out. Like it's somehow more "realistic" for someone to be a brooding, lazy, good for nothing waste of space than a dedicated, overly obsessed, goal oriented person. In the end that took away from the character.

 

[stargazer]

Duh, Iron Man.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Definately, definately Batman Begins for me, i'm not a particular fan of either character, but IMO, Iron Man was good, but BB was FANTASTIC.

 

[stargazer]

But according to the general public, IM is the favorite.

I actually think that IM is stealing TDK's thunder. Let's see what happens.

Go DC!

 

[deathshead2]

I liked BB, but it has some of the worst writing ever. Really Goyer is a horrible writer, if it wasn't for Chris's direction and the cast this movie most likely wouldn't have done all that well.

 

[Tony Stark]

But according to the general public, IM is the favorite.

I actually think that IM is stealing TDK's thunder. Let's see what happens.

Go DC!

That's mainly because Downy carried the movie, which is something no other actor in a Superhero movie has done. Christopher Reeve was close, but really performances by veterans like Glenn Ford and Marlon Brando somewhat upstaged him. This isn't to say he didn't deliver a great performance, which he did, but he didn't carry the weight of the movie.