Batman Year One movie more comic book than Batman Begins

[ironman29758]

Fincher would have BEEN AWSOME. I mean he did Alien and Fight Club but still Awnoskofy still might have been awsome if he did one or two redrafts.

might I recomend reading more comics

 

[The Guard]

And in terms of studying it in an analytical way, it's a dog. If I handed that in for part of my Uni course i'd fail.

Explain. It was pretty solid structurally, and had fantastic, yet subtle, character development.

The YEAR ONE script was very well written. It featured a far more interesting and relevant portrayal of Bruce and Gordon than any version I've yet to see on film (though BEGINS comes close). Batman's "homemade" nature was great, and really spoke to the self-made nature of the character. It was great to see him putting his crusade together. I think it would have made a fantastic movie with a few tweaks, and you know there would have been those tweaks had WB moved forward with it. There are very few things about it that I didn't like. A combination of BATMAN BEGINS and YEAR ONE would have been absolutely amazing.

 

[RobC]

I'll break it down like this.

The script is supposed to be for a Batman movie right, which has tonnes of history and relevance and all sorts of mythos and all that. Y1 basically ignored most of this. It ignored major parts of the character, background, subplot and so on. It made major changes to important characters, and in an adaptive screenplay that is a big no-no. If you're using source material, *use it* that's what my lecturers say. (One of them won a BAFTA four years ago so he knows his stuff)

Secondly, the dialogue is atrocious in certain places, it has cliche lines and racial sub-stereotypes in it and even hen taken as a whole, it isn't a good piece of creative writing.

Finally, the voice-over scenes reek of self-indulgence and inability to tell a story. Using a voiceover in a narrative form is extremely lazy, and it's worse when done to shows a character's emotive state.

This is all based on my University teachings, you can obviously disagree, lots of people have said they like the voice-over stuff, but in terms of creative script-writing in an analytical way, the script is a dog.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

Well, Frank Miller's Robocop scripts sucked, too.

It just proves he can't write movies.

 

[RobC]

I dunno, Sin City was pretty awsome, and from what I hear The Spirit is gonna be good as well.

He's an extremely creative writer, just some things in the script were awful.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

He's an extremely creative writer[...]

No. He is a one-trick pony.

 

[RobC]

I disagree, all of his work is differing, I think he's extremely creative.

Plus he gave us the 'goddamn' Batman!

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Rob C, you say you're not into the voiceover stuff... That it's lazy... IT IS A CONVENTIONAL WAY TO GET INSIDE CERTAIN CHARACTER's MINDS...

they've been doing it for years... it's a miracle called FILM NOIR! ! ! !

it shows the thinking side of a man who is about to go crazy & put on a batsuit!

 

[RobC]

Film Noir is so much more then voice-overs. You clearly don't understand that genre if you think it's defined by voice-over. Seriously.

I understand what it showed, but IMO it sucked, and i've always been taught that it's a lazy way to characterize. By a guy who won a BAFTA for his screenwriting, in terms of a league table that's one below an Oscar. Seriously, he's had his stuff made into major television shows in Britain. I think he may know...

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I didn't say that's all there was! That's only one convention of NOIR!

i was trying to point out that that is what Miller was trying to do with his script!

I agree with you though! IT HAD MANY PROBLEMS

 

[The Guard]

A voiceover, in this case, is not cliche, but rather the only real way to take a very un-cliche look at Bruce Wayne's psyche via his letters to his father. I loved it, and it formed a fantastic reflection of his evolution into The Batman.

The script is supposed to be for a Batman movie right, which has tonnes of history and relevance and all sorts of mythos and all that. Y1 basically ignored most of this. It ignored major parts of the character, background, subplot and so on.

What specifically do you think it ignored that should have been included?

It made major changes to important characters, and in an adaptive screenplay that is a big no-no.

So did BATMAN BEGINS.

If you're using source material, *use it* that's what my lecturers say. (One of them won a BAFTA four years ago so he knows his stuff)

They did use the source material. They just took an interesting approach to it.

Secondly, the dialogue is atrocious in certain places, it has cliche lines and racial sub-stereotypes in it and even hen taken as a whole, it isn't a good piece of creative writing.

Interesting observation. Please elaborate.

Finally, the voice-over scenes reek of self-indulgence and inability to tell a story.

What? The voiceovers are used to provide a link to Bruce's father and they show us a lot about Bruce's psyche. It's no lazier than using say, flashbacks every five minutes to show what happened in the past, or extreme amounts of exposition.

Using a voiceover in a narrative form is extremely lazy, and it's worse when done to shows a character's emotive state.

Where the hell is this written? And it wouldn't matter, because the movie also shows Bruce's emotive states.

This is all based on my University teachings, you can obviously disagree, lots of people have said they like the voice-over stuff, but in terms of creative script-writing in an analytical way, the script is a dog.

Because your professors told you that voiceovers are lazy? I'm sorry, I don't see how that works. It's lazy to take a more involved approach in developing and showing a character's psyche that has several metaphorical and story implications?

 

[RobC]

1 - What specifically do you think it ignored that should have been included?

2 - So did BATMAN BEGINS.

3 - They did use the source material. They just took an interesting approach to it.

4 - Interesting observation. Please elaborate.

5 - What? The voiceovers are used to provide a link to Bruce's father and they show us a lot about Bruce's psyche. It's no lazier than using say, flashbacks every five minutes to show what happened in the past, or extreme amounts of exposition.

6 - Where the hell is this written? And it wouldn't matter, because the movie also shows Bruce's emotive states.

7 - Because your professors told you that voiceovers are lazy? I'm sorry, I don't see how that works. It's lazy to take a more involved approach in developing and showing a character's psyche that has several metaphorical and story implications?

Ok, here goes... BTW - I'm not looking for an argument here, just giving my views from what i've been taught. I mean... REven though I now have 1000 posts (Just drop that right in there) I still consider myself a n00b and I don't wanna act like on. But anyways, on with the show!

1 - Mainly Wayne Mansion, the real Batmobile, the suit, Alfred, the cave, and the villians.

2 - I know, the Begins script sucks as well, I never said it didn't.

3 - Then that means they didn't use it. It's like using the Jurrasic Park book to make a movie about helicoptors. Sure, Jurassic Park has helicoptors in it, but that's not the story. They didn't use the source material at all, no story has ever had Bruce living in a garage with a fat mechanic.

4 - The dialogue is bad, that's typical Frank Miller scriptwriting. The black people talk like rappers, Gordon doesn't sound like a Vietnam Vet. at all. The gangster may as well be watching Godfather like in The Sopranos.

5 - Voice-overs, when used as a narrative device to look inside a character's mind, is lazy. It's the easiest possible way to do it. Yeah he misses his father, So why not have him visit his grave, or look at a picture of him, but to have him verbalize it? Too easy. And again, you're using some arguments against me that make me sound like I praise the BB script. I don't, that sucks as well.

6 - It's written in film book. Of which I have many. They're leather bound, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. But I digress.

7 - Finally, yes, because they told me it was lazy. Voice-over is a good way to tell the story, like a narrator, Fight Club is an amazing example of this. Voice-over to show emotions is awful. It's like a guy getting dumped by his girlfriend and then a voice-over saying 'I am sad' you don't need it.

It's not lazy to show his emotional and psychological state, but using voice-over is. Show it. Film is first and foremost a visual medium. If he misses his father, show him visiting the grave, if he's on a knife-edge show him snap at someone in the street.

Look, seriously, i'm not trying to argue here, this is just from what i've been taught. But bottom line, IMO the script is a beast.

Just on another note, how do you feel about the script? Do you like it? I enjoyed the basic story, and I liked certain elements, but analytically I didn't like it. But what did you think?

 

[The Guard]

1 - Mainly Wayne Mansion, the real Batmobile, the suit, Alfred, the cave, and the villians.

Ok, that I can understand, although The Batmobile felt enough like The Batmobile to work for me. The suit at first clearly isn't the Batsuit we know and love, but as the movie progresses it becomes so. The script makes a point of mentioning this.

2 - I know, the Begins script sucks as well, I never said it didn't.

Heh.

3 - Then that means they didn't use it. It's like using the Jurrasic Park book to make a movie about helicoptors. Sure, Jurassic Park has helicoptors in it, but that's not the story. They didn't use the source material at all, no story has ever had Bruce living in a garage with a fat mechanic.

They did use the source material, since the source material was YEAR ONE. They just didn't use all of it. They made Bruce earn his place at Wayne Manor, and in his parent's legacy. Not my favorite part of the story, but it was interesting to see Bruce Wayne make himself into Batman without those things, and it provided an interesting "twist" on the Wayne legacy, if a somewhat forced one, with all the TV reports and so forth and the "reveal" that he is heir to the Wayne fortune.

4 - The dialogue is bad, that's typical Frank Miller scriptwriting. The black people talk like rappers, Gordon doesn't sound like a Vietnam Vet. at all. The gangster may as well be watching Godfather like in The Sopranos.

I don't know about "bad", it was just pretty standard. And I don't know that every bit of dialogue was Frank Miller's. I'm not sure Gordon's ever really sounded "like" a Vietnam Vet in the comics. He's supposed to sound like a cop, and he does. As for the black people talking like rappers, Miller's dialogue for the criminals was a blend of gangster, noir, and a bit of real life. Didn't sound any better or any worse than any "stock thug" dialogue I've ever heard. The gangster character was supposed to be a gangster, and was. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't utilize Falcone, but since Loeb became the main villain, I sort of understand the choice to create a new subvillain.

5 - Voice-overs, when used as a narrative device to look inside a character's mind, is lazy. It's the easiest possible way to do it. Yeah he misses his father, So why not have him visit his grave, or look at a picture of him, but to have him verbalize it? Too easy. And again, you're using some arguments against me that make me sound like I praise the BB script. I don't, that sucks as well.

Again, I fail to see how something more involved is lazy. "Show, don't tell", is one thing, but they do show these elements. Bruce's voiceover provides an emotional connection to his father that simply would not be brought out without them.

[6 - It's written in film book. Of which I have many. They're leather bound, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. But I digress.

Heh.

7 - Finally, yes, because they told me it was lazy. Voice-over is a good way to tell the story, like a narrator, Fight Club is an amazing example of this. Voice-over to show emotions is awful. It's like a guy getting dumped by his girlfriend and then a voice-over saying 'I am sad' you don't need it.[

It's not lazy to show his emotional and psychological state, but using voice-over is. Show it. Film is first and foremost a visual medium. If he misses his father, show him visiting the grave, if he's on a knife-edge show him snap at someone in the street.

To a point I can see this, but it goes beyond "this is how I feel". Those letters show a clear devolution of his mindset, and a very clear picture into what's happening with his pysche. And frankly, they provide a kind of connection to Thomas Wayne that is generally missed in the Batman mythology.

Look, seriously, i'm not trying to argue here, this is just from what i've been taught. But bottom line, IMO the script is a beast.

It's not the best script ever written, I just found it fairly unique for a superhero effort. I enjoyed it as an ELSEWORLDS style take on The Batman.

Just on another note, how do you feel about the script? Do you like it? I enjoyed the basic story, and I liked certain elements, but analytically I didn't like it. But what did you think?

I liked it overall. It's definitely not uber faithful, but I thought it had much better character development and a more relevant exploration of the mythology than BATMAN BEGINS did. I recognize some of the "cheap" gimmicks used but when it was right, it was very right. I would very much have liked to have seen the themes brought to the more mainstream/faithful approach of BATMAN BEGINS.

 

[RobC]

Hmmm, I think this is an agree to disagree moment, we seem to be stuck on the voice-over thing, meh, you like it, I don't. Sorted.

I really agree with your one statement though, how it's an Elseworlds style take, that's really good and I hadn't really thought of it like that.

All in all I think it's very typical of Miller's work, there's some incredible stuff in there, amazing visuals, uber-violence and such, but on the flipside there's some serious problems with it.