Batman Begins or Iron Man

[DoomRulz]

Maybe the reporter that slept with Tony in the beginning; I just found her annoying after a while.

 

[Iceman]

Equal in quality.

 

[Bubonic]

Maybe the reporter that slept with Tony in the beginning; I just found her annoying after a while.

Perhaps but she was a tertiary character at best, whereas the serious love interest of the protagonist is usually crafter as a important part of the franchise.

 

[Obi-Wan]

Iron Man

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Well obviously, Iron Man is practically a kid's movie next to BB. BB is intended for a mature audience; everyone can watch IM and get into it.

"Nice Coat"....Nope, sorry it isn't. I feel like comic fans still miss this subtle problem time and again. Tone does not determine substance. By all rights, Batman Begins is written for an immature audience. It spells out it's theme and context in exposition, using very one dimensional characters and often resorts to sarcastic, campy humor to break tension...that's a teenagers/early twenties film if I ever saw one.

Watch The Godfather and then watch Batman Begins. Which one uses minimalist dialogue? Which one never actually verbalizes it's own theme? Which tries to use the camera, and not the script, to tell the story? Which one has characters that actually talk and act like real human beings? If you answered Batman Begins in any of these categories, you're wrong.

It's like people who say "Oh, The Matrix is so smart"...well, actually, no it isn't. It's pop philosophy. It takes things that are typically discussed in highbrow art and literature, and boils them down to where "da masses" can access them...and ultimately renders them into simple, often generalized terms. "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" for example sounds smart, but in fact it's bullsh**, it's back up with nothing, it's never expanded upon, and in a movie like Begins it's verbalized and repeated so many times it actually starts to lose the little meaning it had.

While Batman takes itself quite seriously, it isn't any more serious than Spider-Man, and still lacks the subtly of X2 which was able to develop it's themes without making them so transparent.

 

[The Navigator]

Question:
Is there any acting in Iron Man bad enough to compare to the tripe delivered by Katie Holmes?

Didn't think so t:

Trump card.

 

[Sentinel X]

"Nice Coat"....Nope, sorry it isn't. I feel like comic fans still miss this subtle problem time and again. Tone does not determine substance. By all rights, Batman Begins is written for an immature audience. It spells out it's theme and context in exposition, using very one dimensional characters and often resorts to sarcastic, campy humor to break tension...that's a teenagers/early twenties film if I ever saw one.

Watch The Godfather and then watch Batman Begins. Which one uses minimalist dialogue? Which one never actually verbalizes it's own theme? Which tries to use the camera, and not the script, to tell the story? Which one has characters that actually talk and act like real human beings? If you answered Batman Begins in any of these categories, you're wrong.

It's like people who say "Oh, The Matrix is so smart"...well, actually, no it isn't. It's pop philosophy. It takes things that are typically discussed in highbrow art and literature, and boils them down to where "da masses" can access them...and ultimately renders them into simple, often generalized terms. "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" for example sounds smart, but in fact it's bullsh**, it's back up with nothing, it's never expanded upon, and in a movie like Begins it's verbalized and repeated so many times it actually starts to lose the little meaning it had.

While Batman takes itself quite seriously, it isn't any more serious than Spider-Man, and still lacks the subtly of X2 which was able to develop it's themes without making them so transparent.

I think Batman Begins presented its themes perfectly
Sure it isn't rich and profound as some oscar contenders or classic masterpieces such as The Godfather but than again its a superhero film based on subject material that is not literature by any means so who expected it to be? Thats how 'deep' its going to get for a comic book film. Also, a film's quality is not only determined by its theme but by numerous other factors which I felt Batman Begins delivered. I also can't believe you just said that X2's themes were subtle ( )but thats for another thread.

 

[mongoose-mania]

I love them both, they're both great.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I think Batman Begins presented its themes perfectly
Sure it isn't rich and profound as some oscar contenders or classic masterpieces such as The Godfather but than again its a superhero film based on subject material that is not literature by any means so who expected it to be? Thats how 'deep' its going to get for a comic book film. Also, a film's quality is not only determined by its theme but by numerous other factors which I felt Batman Begins delivered.

That's not true. Watchman is as deep and profound as most modern literature gets, as for Batman...true, his ongoing usually isn't amazing writing (at least when Grant Morrison isn't writing him), but he's certainly had his fair share of amazing stories. "Arkham Asylum", "The Killing Joke", "The Demon's Head", and "Dark Knight Returns" are all fairly weighted stories, some of them as well written as Oscar winning films.

I also can't believe you just said that X2's themes were subtle ( )but thats for another thread.

It's not as subtle as The Godfather, but it was able to advance it's plot and theme with the character's actions rather than their words. You had Bobby sit down and "come out" to his parents, without it seeming out of step with the story. You had Logan's relationship with Stryker handled quite well, and it managed to remain relatively light on the philosophical dialogue, certainly when compared to it's predecessor. I'd say if you can give X2 any crap, it's Halle Berry, who sucks ass no matter what she does...

 

[Sentinel X]

That's not true. Watchman is as deep and profound as most modern literature gets, as for Batman...true, his ongoing usually isn't amazing writing (at least when Grant Morrison isn't writing him), but he's certainly had his fair share of amazing stories. "Arkham Asylum", "The Killing Joke", "The Demon's Head", and "Dark Knight Returns" are all fairly weighted stories, some of them as well written as Oscar winning films.

I've never read Watchmen (I really want to) so I can't comment on that but I've read The Killing Joke and I wouldn't say its as well written as oscar winning films but to each his own.

It's not as subtle as The Godfather, but it was able to advance it's plot and theme with the character's actions rather than their words. You had Bobby sit down and "come out" to his parents, without it seeming out of step with the story. You had Logan's relationship with Stryker handled quite well, and it managed to remain relatively light on the philosophical dialogue, certainly when compared to it's predecessor. I'd say if you can give X2 any crap, it's Halle Berry, who sucks ass no matter what she does...

Charecterization is key for these kind of films because as I've mentioned I don't think these films are able to hold heavily thematic plots. That being said I think BB delivered in terms of charecterization
and its themes were decent, though as you've mentioned, its dialogue did seem forced in a few scenes but in my opinion that hardly hampers the movie as a whole.
Although I would like to make it clear that I don't hail BB as a masterpiece as some people do around these parts, I simply see it as an enjoyable and 'smarter' comic-book film. Same as Iron man.


P.S
I agree with the Halle Berry bit.

 

[Omega Wizard]

Iron Man is the next big franchise, Batman is in trouble after TDK with Nolan threatening to leave. Iron Man did better for what it was.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

BB is much better movie, Iron Man was good, but not special, and after repeat viewings, i think its hype will die down, and this is coming from someone who is more of a Marvel fan than a DC one.

 

[bullets]

Iron Man is the next big franchise, Batman is in trouble after TDK with Nolan threatening to leave. Iron Man did better for what it was.

I thought he was going to do three .

 

[MattBearPig]

Daaaaamn, tough question. Both represent the pinnacle of comic book movies, IMHO. But I have to give it to Iron Man because there really are no weak links as far as casting is concerned.

 

[TankerX]

I would say BB since it set the trend for how to make AWESOME superhero movies but remain in a gritty, reality based style.

 

[Conebone69]

You cant even compare a great movie like BB to Iron Man. IM was nothing but an average superhero movie with mindless fun. BB actually had depth and meaning, and a great story

 

[Two-Face]

Batman Begins.

 

[MrHeavySilence]

"Nice Coat"....Nope, sorry it isn't. I feel like comic fans still miss this subtle problem time and again. Tone does not determine substance. By all rights, Batman Begins is written for an immature audience. It spells out it's theme and context in exposition, using very one dimensional characters and often resorts to sarcastic, campy humor to break tension...that's a teenagers/early twenties film if I ever saw one.

Watch The Godfather and then watch Batman Begins. Which one uses minimalist dialogue? Which one never actually verbalizes it's own theme? Which tries to use the camera, and not the script, to tell the story? Which one has characters that actually talk and act like real human beings? If you answered Batman Begins in any of these categories, you're wrong.

It's like people who say "Oh, The Matrix is so smart"...well, actually, no it isn't. It's pop philosophy. It takes things that are typically discussed in highbrow art and literature, and boils them down to where "da masses" can access them...and ultimately renders them into simple, often generalized terms. "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" for example sounds smart, but in fact it's bullsh**, it's back up with nothing, it's never expanded upon, and in a movie like Begins it's verbalized and repeated so many times it actually starts to lose the little meaning it had.

While Batman takes itself quite seriously, it isn't any more serious than Spider-Man, and still lacks the subtly of X2 which was able to develop it's themes without making them so transparent.

Interesting analysis, but I disagree with your opinions.

1) I don't understand why "explaining theme and context through pictures and not exposition" is criteria for being a better film. That's like saying a photobook is better than a novel. Films need both: visual art and mental art. Godfather just happened to have more cinematography than dialogue. But not all films have to be like the Godfather to be great.

2) I don't think the characters were one-dimensional. Take Ras Al Ghul for example. He's got a very interesting philosophy on justice. He's not your average "I want a lot of power/money" supervillain like Iron Monger or Lex Luthor. He wants to do what's best for mankind. But he's willing to kill innocent people to make that happen. When your consider the levels of corruption in bureacracy, the police, the people, and the legal/justice system, Ras's idea of rebuilding Gotham is almost justified. I think the only supervillain with an equal level of sophistication may be Doc Ock.

3) As for Batman Begins being dumbed down for the audience, meh. I guess if you wanted super way-over-the-head depth/philosophy, you would watch an arthouse film or read hard sci-fi. For a friggin' comic book movie, I wouldn't have expected Batman Begins to have ANY depth. I rather liked that extra level of depth. It made me appreciate Batman Begins more.

4) As for that "what's underneath" quote, I think it encapsulates Bruce Wayne's journey rather nicely. Bruce had to go through this whole duality issue: guns vs. butter. Batman solved things by opening a can of whoopass; if Bruce Wayne were to fight crime, he would solve things through philanthropy like his father. What method was better? Keeping the peace with military force or giving people the necessities like education and food? Bruce chose the guns because his father went the butter route and failed to save Gotham. He was swayed to choose the military stance because of Ras, but in the end, he realized that his dad's way of doing things was able to stop men like Ras from burning Gotham to the ground. He learned his lesson in the end and decided he could be both; he could be Batman and rebuild his family legacy at the same time (hence taking over the company again and appointing Lucius Fux to do some good).



That's my 2 cents anyway..


BTW, Iron Man? Also a very good comic book movie imo.

 

[Cinemaman]

Although I really loved Iron Man, it still wasn't as great as Batman Begins, just very close to it.

 

[HailtotheKing]

Iron Man by far. Saw Begins in the theater and own it on dvd but it almost fells like a chore to watch now. And as much as I like Christian Bale, his "voice" when he is Batman is just terrible.

 

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

I think they're both great movies, so you can't really go wrong either way. I chose Begins because I'm a lifelong Batman fanatic, so I anticipated it a bit more.

 

[The_Vision]

Iron Man

 

[Milu]

Iron Man.

I found very little wrong with it compared to BB.

 

[dodgers2213]

I'm a bigger Batman fan.

But personally i found Iron Man to be the better film.

Iron Man hadn't been on my radar until this movie, so I was a bigger Batman fan.

And, like you, I came out LOVING Iron Man and I am forced to move batman begins to 2nd on my all-time comic book movie list while Iron Man leaps to no.1

sorry bats t:

 

[wolfboy]

Iron Man is a franchise starter, Batman Begins is a franchise restarter. I don't think it's a fair comparison.