Batman Begins "Batman Begins": The only film where Batman wasn't overshadowed by the villain(s)

[Drizzle]

Let's face it. In every film in the franchise (everything excluding the '66 "Batman") save for "Batman Begins", the title character himself has always been overshadowed (and out-acted, in some cases) by the villain of that particular movie. The villain almost always ends up stealing the movie. Let's recap.

Batman (1989)
They could have called this movie "The Joker". Nicholson did get top billing, after all. And when it comes right down to it, Joker did get just as much screentime as Batman did, if not more.

Batman Returns
Poor Keaton couldn't catch a break in the sequel, either. The main focus was on the Penguin, followed by Selina Kyle's breakdown and transformation into Catwoman. Christopher Walken was also in the mix chewing up scenery. Again, there was not enough focus on Bruce/Batman.

Batman Forever
This one came close. Out of the first four films, this one came closest to exploring Bruce's inner conflicts. However, there was still something standing in the way. The Riddler. Jim Carrey was huge when BF came out, and as a result, he was given a lot of screentime and enough leeway for the villain to steal the show from Batman once again.

Batman and Robin
Arnold Schwarzenegger's horrible Mr. Freeze stood out so much that it almost made you forget about the nipples on the batsuit. Oh, and Schwarzenegger got top billing over George Clooney, too.

But here we have the exception to the rule...

Batman Begins
Finally, a movie where Batman wasn't overshadowed by his villains. Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan really brought us a definitive version of the character in a story where Batman was the major focus of the story, not the villains (in this case, Ra's Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Falcone).


As for "The Dark Knight", as great as Heath's performance as the Joker will be, I'm hoping Christopher Nolan will equalize it and give Bruce/Batman's story in the film as solid as Joker's, Harvey's, etc.

 

[sasquatchs]

Why talk about overshadowing in terms of screentime? It's just not how it works. All of Batman Returns is about Batman, and the lack of Bruce is the whole point.

Batman wasn't overshadowed in Begins because the villains were fairly bland

Giving Batman more screentime in TDK won't prevent the Joker stealing the show

 

[El Payaso]

Why talk about overshadowing in terms of screentime? It's just not how it works. All of Batman Returns is about Batman, and the lack of Bruce is the whole point.

Absolutely. Screentime doesn't mean crap. We have traditionally more Jack and Ann's screentime (or Jack and Dwan's) but King Kong is still the star.

Batman wasn't overshadowed in Begins because the villains were fairly bland

We had little Ra's and a whole movie before knowing who Ra's really was (now Liam was absolutely solid in his part). But Scarecrow (Dr. Crane with a mask that was hardly on his head) was unscary, bland and unintentionally funny.

Giving Batman more screentime in TDK won't prevent the Joker stealing the show

 

[ronny]

Why do you hate the Scarcrow in Begins? I thought that Murphy's role was one of the greatest things about that film.

 

[obiwan]

ok, so it concetrated on batman more. but in a way that kinda kills the movie just a littlee, because batmans villians just happen to be way more interesting to a degree then batman himself, at least for me. i find the joker, penguin (movie penguin) much more interesting then batman. sure, begins finally took the time to explain him, but that meant the villians had to be sidetracked and that was pretty lame. not to mention scarecrow.......who IMHO was wasted in Begins. i wish burton got the chance to do him because i believe we would have gotten a more creepy, iconic version of scarecrow then the bland, tweeny one that got tazored bya girl in Begins.

 

[ronny]

Bland? What the hell man? Cillian Murphy was anything but bland. I feel like I'm watching a different film to you. He was so subtle and understated that it leant the character a lot of credibility. He had clearly been commiting all kinds of atrocities on his patients and yet never dropped his curt demeanour.

 

[November Rain]

first four films weren't origin films, get over it...

batman honestly doesn't need so much focus, you get to learn from him in the way he reacts to his criminals or how anxious he gets with the lack of criminal activity occurring.

It doesn't have to be all about him, he has arguably the greatest rogue's gallery (even though alot of them seem to be rip offs of dick tracy villains) in the genre, let the public get to know this.

 

[Eggyman]

I would have preferred if the villains in Begins got a lil more attention than they did.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Yeah, I would love to know how Scarecrow and ra's got together. How did Ra find Crane and vice versa and why is Crane the way he is? Surely they could have caught the scene of Bruce and Alfred ordering masks from a catalouge to tell us that.

 

[Microchip]

Ras says something about infilitrating every level of Gothem's society. I'm sure that his people met up with Scarecrow at some point. And Burton=Bad. That's why they both start with a B. Batman's gotten a nice taste of serious mainstream fanfare because of Begins, and it's dragged him out of the world Burton built with silly, over-the-top villains. Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul were great, but apparently too subtle for you to notice. Go watch Tommy Lee Jones and Danny Devito all you want. I'll take Begins's actors any day.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Ras says something about infilitrating every level of Gothem's society. I'm sure that his people met up with Scarecrow at some point. And Burton=Bad. That's why they both start with a B. Batman's gotten a nice taste of serious mainstream fanfare because of Begins, and it's dragged him out of the world Burton built with silly, over-the-top villains. Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul were great, but apparently too subtle for you to notice. Go watch Tommy Lee Jones and Danny Devito all you want. I'll take Begins's actors any day.

Batman Begins is far from subtle.

So they've infilitrated every level of Gotham Society, how does that explain that he can weaponise a flower that gives off a fear toxin? How was that knowledge exchanged?

 

[Mandalore464]

first four films weren't origin films, get over it...

Exactly. You have to remember that in all the other films, Bruce's past was given at most 5 minutes of screen-time through flashbacks scenes.

Batman Begins was actually the first film to tell the whole story of how he became Batman. The focus could not have been on someone else.

As people come to realize, now that this story was told in Begins, TDK gives more importance to villains (Harvey Dent, Joker). Why? Because, once you got to the point where Bruce has become Batman, well... what happens? Nothing. He goes out and beats random thugs. Highly uninteresting. Until the villains come in. And that's when the show begins, that's when Batman faces character-making decisions. That's when he becomes interesting.

Batman is defined by the villains he faces. It's what they do, and how he reacts to that, that allows us to know what's going on in Batman's head.

Villains are bound to have a high importance in the Batman stories, that is at least as much importance as Batman himself, and that's for the best.

 

[Microchip]

how does that explain that he can weaponise a flower that gives off a fear toxin?

Who, the movie itself, or why they chose Crane? In the movie, it has the microwave emitter. I'm pretty sure they explained that pretty well. They dumped it into the water supply, but it has to be enhaled. There you go.

And Crane is an expert in psycho-pharmacy, and also a criminal psychopath who works closely to the mob. Thus, he's got ties to the mob, so he can bring the stuff in, and he knows enough about it to not screw it all up. That's why they chose him.

 

[keithnoir]

If a villain is not interesting and fun to watch, they get old really quick.
Just because a villains self-life 98% of the time is one movie does not give them the right to focus on there actions at all times...
I loved the scarecrow in the last film, he was done perfectly and was not over used.
From what i have read they say it is a perfect balanced between hero and villain.
Any film that is 2 and 1/2 hours and people say it leaves them wanting more, has done a great job.

I Rewatched the first batman film really got me thinking. It played a huge part of my childhood and I think this new version of batman is perfect for the same kids that loved the original. It was much more song a dance, this one is a lot more mature. I can't help but think what little kids think of this new batman.

 

[sasquatchs]

Ras says something about infilitrating every level of Gothem's society. I'm sure that his people met up with Scarecrow at some point. And Burton=Bad. That's why they both start with a B. Batman's gotten a nice taste of serious mainstream fanfare because of Begins, and it's dragged him out of the world Burton built with silly, over-the-top villains. Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul were great, but apparently too subtle for you to notice. Go watch Tommy Lee Jones and Danny Devito all you want. I'll take Begins's actors any day.

I'd hardly call Ra's subtle. He belongs to a 1000+ yearold organisation, he has no connection to Gotham, his goal is to bring an arbitrary notion of balance to an arbitrarily corrupt society, somehow gassing the population with a doomsday device will do the trick, and nevermind he caused the city's problems in the first place. Nolan referenced James Bond in interviews and this clearly rubbed off on his villain

Devito's motivation was an understandable desire for revenge on a city that abandoned him

 

[The Joker]

I applaud Nolan for shifting more focus onto Batman, but he didn't have to do that at the expense of the villains, who were really lacking with screen time.

If there's one thing Begins is missing it's a central villain figure. And I do agree with others that Scarecrow was a bit lacking. It took the few brief moments under the influence of fear gas to make him seem any way impressive. Murphy is a fine actor, but his performance as Crane was very low key.

 

[Cain]

...and the insecurity continues.

 

[MysterioMenace]

I’d agree with this. For as much as I do love Batman (1989)…it was much more of a Joker movie. I can openly admit that. He definitely stole the show. Its always been bizarre to me that literally the title role wasn’t billed first. So I’d say that if Batman Begins did one thing right, it was putting the focus on Batman himself. Batman was finally the main character of a Batman film.

OH! Begins also accomplished something no other Batman film's done. It successfully pulled off more then one villain.

 

[Microchip]

Devito's motivation was an understandable desire for revenge on a city that abandoned him

By nuking it with rocket-totting penguins and ninja-like clowns and mimes. That's just not my kind of movie. The execution of it is something that Burton fans and kids can appreciate, but really, really takes away from the darkness and semi-realism that Begins revived the Batman character with.

 

[sasquatchs]

The motivations of the characters are what makes a film feel real to me, not the setting. Same with the "darkness"

Plus I disagree that Begins was dark, it was serious yet idealistic

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Batman is the only hero that has villains just as interesting as him, so what else would you expect?

 

[MysterioMenace]

The motivations of the characters are what makes a film feel real to me, not the setting. Same with the "darkness"

Plus I disagree that Begins was dark, it was serious yet idealistic

The way I always put it; Batman had the right balance of Burton and Batman elements. They meshed very well. Batman Returns was too much Burton and not enough Batman. He ran too far with his own stuff. Plus I too don’t feel Batman Begins was all that dark. It’s more psychological then anything else.

 

[El Payaso]

Why do you hate the Scarcrow in Begins? I thought that Murphy's role was one of the greatest things about that film.

Nah, the movie was so much better than that.

Bland? What the hell man? Cillian Murphy was anything but bland. I feel like I'm watching a different film to you. He was so subtle and understated that it leant the character a lot of credibility. He had clearly been commiting all kinds of atrocities on his patients and yet never dropped his curt demeanour.

He was far from subtle. He tried to be self-satisfied and a smug and ended up being effeminate. He tried to be scary and ended up being a cariocatuire (you know opening your eyes, moving your head like a chicken and dragging the syllables don't work as scary... "theeeeeeeeeeeeeee baaaaaaaaaat maaaaaaaaaaaaaan"). And the scene where he's shamefully defeated by an average woman with a tazer ended up being unwillingly funny and quite disgraceful. On top of that the effects of the fear was were inconsistent.

But Neeson's Ra's was excellent.

I don't mind muich how much focus we get on Batman or the villiains as long as the movie's good.

 

[El Payaso]

By nuking it with rocket-totting penguins and ninja-like clowns and mimes. That's just not my kind of movie. The execution of it is something that Burton fans and kids can appreciate, but really, really takes away from the darkness and semi-realism that Begins revived the Batman character with.

What if BR takes away the Nolan's realism? It is not a Nolan movie so what obligation did it have to preserve an element of a movie that's done 13 years into the future?

Goyer's one-liners and some of his dialogue did take away from Nolan's realism too.

 

[ross2287]