xwolverine2 said:
i agree... the action needs to be better..im not saying MORE...just better.
I totally agree. Everybody who defends Nolan's directing and editing of the fight scenes always talks (and talks and talks and talks) about how the choppiness is "justified" because Nolan wants to give us the impression the bad guys have when Batman's destroying them. The problem is that once the audience gets the point, the director/editor should vary the style from scene to scene, or within a single scene. The choppiness worked for the docks scene because that was Batman's debut. But the choppiness
continuing on and on throughout the rest of the movie was well beyond making the point.
Now supposedly some very intricate and realistic fight choreography went into the creation of those scenes on the set. The problem is that the final product seen by the audience
fails to show us enough of that choreography to truly appreciate it. If I were the choreographer I'd have been offended that my work was chopped up and virtually unseeable. Based on what we see in the final edit of
Begins, we have to take Nolan's word for it that there was any actual choreography. So what's the difference between that and
crappy choreography? I mean, if you can't actually get a good look at it so as to be able to discern the choreography, then what's the point of having it?
they prob. didnt look right because the suit is too hard to move in .... maybe put a stunt guy in like spandex or a material so he could move then digitally make it look like the bat suit material.
You know, that's actually not a bad idea. Like in
X-Men 3, when they digitally de-aged Xavier and Magneto in the opening scene. Why couldn't they have Bale or stuntmen performing some action in a minimal, half-done Batsuit, then add CGI elements to the suit in postproduction?
However, I don't buy that the suit was a problem for Bale or the stuntmen to move around in. Even if you go back to the somewhat heavier suits worn by Clooney and Kilmer in the mid-90s, those suits were still very flexible and you could see it all on-screen because the editing wasn't choppy. I mean, really, aside from the infamous suit-nipples, those were otherwise pretty good-looking suits, and they still conveyed the realistic notion of body armour. Personally I think I might've gone with something almost exactly like Kilmer's suit, minus the nipples and with some bronze colourization of the bat symbol to match the bronze of the utility belt.
TheDarkKnight said:
I liked the "choppy" action sequences, it gives the illusion of a real struggle between the fighters. Plus, I think Nolan probably planned to use clearer action shots, but they just didn't look right.
That sounds ridiculous. "Didn't look right"?? In today's filmmaking world there's no excuse for failing to get action scenes that "look right." No, Nolan definitely planned the fight scenes that way; it's just that his planning wasn't very good (although I still love BB, overall).
And how does choppiness = "a real struggle between the fighters"? That doesn't make sense. If you're walking down the street or if you cross a school yard and happen to witness a real fight, does it look choppy? No. Because you're standing back and getting a good view of everything. It still looks like a "real struggle" though, doesn't it? If you want a movie fight that looks like "a real struggle," then that comes down to choreography, not choppy editing.
xxshady said:
they are "choppy" because Nolan wanted to give the illusion that you cant see what hes doing
El Payaso said:
It's not an illusion, you actually can't see what's happening.
Yeah, where's the "illusion" in that???
I don't know how a director's explanation can justify anything. If Schumacher would have explained that it was his idea to have terrible acting in B&R on purpose that doesn't change a thing.
Well put. To add to what you said there, choppy editing is an excuse when you're too lazy to shoot better scenes. Now I don't believe that Nolan in general is a "lazy" director. However, think of other action movies where the action is lousy because of choppy editing and too-close camera angles. How can we tell the difference between a film like that and the fight scenes in
Begins? We can't. Nolan's shooting and editing choices had the unfortunate result of making the fight scenes in
Begins indistinguishable from
bad fight scenes in other films (e.g.,
Elektra).
JLBats said:
If anything, I'd prefer less action. The second movement of a symphony should always be more subdued than the first.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I just don't understand it. If you want a noirish drama with little action, then, I dunno, watch some mafia-related movies or something. Batman at his best has always been pretty much equal parts action and drama.
Begins struck all the right notes in terms of mood and pacing, so I don't see why there should be
less action in the sequels.
I Am The Knight said:
Batman is not someone that you should see much anyway, or the effect is lost. I mean he IS in a rubber suit you know.
xwolverine2 said:
so what have comics been showing all this time?...lol
I had the same thought exactly. When has anyone ever written to a comic-book publisher to complain that the action is "too visible" or some such thing? To make that kind of comment about a Batman movie seems ridiculous. Besides, while Batman is stealthy from the criminals' point of view, the audience members aren't the criminals. To the
audience, Batman should be largely visible.
I Am The Knight said:
Well there's a huge difference between what works in film and what works in a comic book.
In terms of costuming and physiques and poses, I'd largely agree with you. But not in terms of visibility, because they are both visual media. So if the visuals
aren't very good, then in either a comic-book or a movie what was the point of the drawing or the filming? If there isn't supposed to be much visibility, then don't use visual media; produce a novel instead.
BatMatt said:
I'll defend Nolan's choice on zooming in on the action forever. I liked it, thought it puts the audience in the fight, the experience Batman as a thug would experience him.
There is a fundamental difference between actually being in a fight and watching one on film. If you're actually in a fight you both feel it and see the action from various angles at once, through your peripheral vision. Your senses are fully engaged and the adrenalin is pumping. This sensation explosion
cannot be duplicated on film merely by choppy editing. So on an artistic level, use a bit of choppiness to make your point, but then show us different angles so that we can
also appreciate other aspects of the fight scenes, not just the bad guys' viewpoint. (Besides, if we were really seeing the bad guys' viewpoint, then we'd see Batman's punches or kicks coming right at the camera all the time.)
xwolverine2 said:
well bruce has trained for years to learn martial arts and id like to see it......or it just looks like hes wrestling mindlessly
xxshady said:
the only part where it looks like wrestling is in the jail part, and thats cuz he wasnt trained. and.... they wanted to give him a very rugged and fierce fighting style so they found one that these two guys made but they tweaked it a little to make it better for the movie...
So how am I supposed to appreciate the realism and the choreography IF I CAN'T SEE IT??? (And why do so many people fail to get that point? You can talk all you want about realistic fight choreography, but if you can't SEE the final result, then what was the point?)
StorminNorman said:
I loved the first Batman Begins, it had a fantastic story that did not rely on great action (which it did have) to make for an enjoyable experience. I hope the same is true with BB2.
I'm doubting the sequel will be called
Batman Begins 2.
antmanx68 said:
I think the second one should have better action, not more acton. I know a lot of you say "oh well the reason for the fighting in the first one was because of Keysi and they wanted to show how brutal Batman is." Well there are ways of doing that and actually SHOWING what he is doing.
Antman is totally bang-on here; couldn't've said it better myself.
Some of you mention that if you watch the special features you'd understand. Well, I think that the fighting actually looked great when the stunt men were doing it because you could actually see it. All of the work and choreography Bale talks about doing isnt really evident in the fight scenes because they were shot in a way that obscured a lot of what was going on.
I was thinking the same thing when I watched the special features. I enjoyed the footage precisely because I got a better look at the choreography. And I remembered feeling cheated by the final edit of the movie after seeing the choreography footage in the special feature.
XCharlieX said:
I wouldnt change a thing about the fighting editing.
Charlie, tell me something: What did you appreciate about the fight choreography?
GEDRedemption said:
Let's say they pull back and show you the full package. Do you really want to see 6 guys waiting in line to get the snot beat out of them like in Reloaded or Kill Bill?
DV8 said:
but that's the thing . . . they weren't 'waiting in line' . . . the scenes were realistically choreographed so that everyone was attacking Bats all at once
Precisely. Wasn't that the whole point of the choreography? It's ironic that Nolan could've saved a few bucks on the production by simply not having a fight choreographer. The final edit rendered a choreographer useless.
fabman said:
I HAD TO LOL WHEN YOU SAID NOLAN SHOULD LEARN FROM THE FANS!? Lol, who do you think you/we are? Filmmakers? Nope.
If a non-filmmaker can't comment on various aspects of a movie, then how can any of us distinguish between good movies and bad ones? Your comment is irrational.
Batty Belfry said:
So far I've loved Nolan's style of action sequences.....It reminds me more of "The French Connection" and less of Michale Bay's popcorn flick style....It's a tough balance for a movie like Batman to keep it enthralling and less of the obligatory hollywood action scene.
So in other words - either we have choppy editing or an obligatory Hollywood action scene? There's no third alternative? Here's a third alternative for you: believable choreography that we can actually see. How's that for a mind-blowing concept?
7Hells said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by antmanx68
The audience should get to SEE why Batman is so superior in combat, SEE why he can jump through the ceiling of a room with 12 guys in it and just wipe the floor with them.
I thought they covered that well enough in the origin story. I like that we dont see Batman fighting clearly.
Do you realize you contradicted yourself there? Antman said he wanted to see better what was going on, and you said BB "covered that well enough," but then you said "we don't see Batman fighting clearly." So which do you mean to say? That we
do see Batman fighting clearly, or that we
don't?
It gives us an idea of what his enemies see and feel while fighting him.
Man, I am just so tired of that lame defense of badly shot and edited fight scenes.
7Hells said:
Saint Sinner why do you need so bad to see all of that? You know how bad-ass he is and so does the audience because we saw how bad-ass he is when he was training.
That's like saying about a Bruce Lee movie: "You already know how bad-ass Bruce Lee is, so why do we need to see it in his movies?" Well, duh, we want to
enjoy watching the amazing choreography and the man's athleticism. Supposedly there was amazing choreography in
Batman Begins too, but you wouldn't know it from the final edit. You don't enjoy someone's athleticism by just knowing about it; you enjoy it by
seeing it. Otherwise why watch a sports event? Just read about it, if you don't need the visuals.
Question for anybody: Why the repeated knocks on
The Matrix? Remember that the
Matrix fight scenes don't take place in the real world; they take place in virtual-reality, which means that they're
supposed to have a fantasylike quality to them. Those scenes were very creative on the part of the Wachowski Bros.; the problem is that filmmaking hacks too often mimicked
The Matrix in different story contexts where it wasn't appropriate or was over-indulgent.
NOLAN; DO YA THING...
