The Dark Knight Chris Nolan needs to step up the action.

[Agentsands77]

Car chases are not what the topic is about though, so that's irrelevant. Hand-to-hand combat which I think Bourne Identity nailed perfectly, is what imo this franchise needs.

I think hand-to-hand combat was nailed in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY as well. It's a great style and fits the film. Still, I don't necessarily think that style was executed anywhere near as well for Batman, or was necessarily as fitting for Batman.

The fact that there's a large thread discussing this style of editing, tells me it is an issue that isn't just minor.

Eh. I think fans often exaggerate a minor issue into a big one. Is it something that needs to be remedied for THE DARK KNIGHT? Yeah. I think the whole "ultra-quick edit" style of fight felt tired by the end of BATMAN BEGINS. But I didn't think it was any epic flaw, and for the most part, I felt the action in BEGINS worked pretty well and had some very bad-ass moments.

Film is a visual medium, and while the dock scene was FINE to show us how hectic Batman's fights can be, you cannot do that for the other scenes.

I think it worked in the Arkham Asylum scene, and worked really well, because the aim was much the same as the dock fight - to be scary and disorienting.

The fights where it didn't work were those where the "fear" emphasis wasn't there. The fight with Ra's or the ninjas - those things didn't need that disorienting feel, and while they could still have been tightly edited, they needed to be a little clearer.

 

[E-Mack]

The fights where it didn't work were those where the "fear" emphasis wasn't there. The fight with Ra's or the ninjas - those things didn't need that disorienting feel, and while they could still have been tightly edited, they needed to be a little clearer.

Ah, there ya go. I think you've the nailed the point right there. Use the tight editing when Bats uses the shadows and attacks very quick and abrubtly, but draw the camera back when Batman gets into a fight scene with others.

Best of both worlds.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I just hope Nolan pulls the camera back,the style is ok but like Bourne Supremacy at times they might have just fastworwarded to the next seen as you couldn't see anything

 

[ad101867]

I thought the fight scenes in SUPREMACY were infinitely more exciting and intense than the ones in IDENTITY.

Just so I'm clear - I don't want to misunderstand you - you prefer fight scenes in which you mostly can't tell what moves are being made?

So in other words, because most action flicks nowadays cheat by closeups and choppy editing so that they don't have to bother with intricate choreography - you think that's a good thing?

And you also think it's a good thing that Nolan basically imitated all the bad fight-scene directors in Hollywood?

Well, there was really only one fight where I couldn't really ascertain the choreography, and that was the Ra's/Batman fight in the finale.

I'm sorry, but no. While some viewers didn't find it to be a very dramatic fight, it makes no sense to say that it was less clear than the previous fight scenes. Stylistically it was more along the lines of Bruce's training with the League of Shadows. But the in-between Batman fights were much less clear than the final Ra's fight.

I think fans often exaggerate a minor issue into a big one.

I would think the best way to identify a "major" -vs- "minor" issue is simply to observe how many people it affects. Quite clearly, the BB fight scenes annoyed a significant number of viewers, both critics and fans. That makes it a "major" issue.

I think it worked in the Arkham Asylum scene, and worked really well, because the aim was much the same as the dock fight - to be scary and disorienting.

You're just parroting what others have said; that's not a new argument, and it's a bad one. Batman is (and should be) "scary and disorienting" to the bad guys - but what excuse is that for being "scary and disorienting" to the audience? Sure, I get that it's legitimate to sometimes give the audience a taste of the bad guys' experience - but all the time, the same perspective? Why the same perspective all the time? Why not Batman's perspective sometimes? Obviously he's not scary and disorienting to himself, so why don't we ever get his viewpoint? Or why don't we ever get the viewpoint of a witness who is standing at a bit of a distance and can take in the whole scene?

If in all the interviews you're going to boast the added mobility of the suit, then please....show us.

Exactly. Same goes for the Keysi choreography. Who gives a frig if the suit's flexible and the choreography is "realistic" - if in the final cut we can't really tell anyway? Just being told that by the director when he gives interviews doesn't make the film itself more satisfying.

I really hope it keeps the unique point of view/editing in the fighting scenes.

That's rich. What's "unique" about it? Those scenes were most certainly not unique when compared to action movies where most people agree that the fight scenes are bad because they're unwatchable.

The quick editing with the claustrophobic feel of close camera made it stand out in style apeal comparing with the boring/normal we saw in Spiderman 1/2, X trilogy, hulk or Superman. Stop to think about.

Maybe you should take that advice yourself. The fights in those other movies were creative and accomplished a variety of goals - they weren't all unwatchable because they were too close or too choppy. (Well, Superman Returns didn't have "fights," but the action that was there was well done.) Spider-Man, for example, is one of the more acrobatic and entertaining of superheroes, and the way his fights were shot by Raimi were perfect. Those scenes "felt real" because of the abilities we know Spidey has. And we got a good look at him using those abilities. By contrast, we did not get a good look at Batman's abilities. (And all the action scenes in all the X-films were outstanding.)

We must support that kind of artistic aproach to the Batman mythos.

How is it "artistic" to look just like other action movies that have crap fight scenes?

Here's the thing: A movie isn't good simply because it has action scenes. If it's meant to be a simple action picture, then the action had better be phenomenal in order for the film to achieve its goal (good example: Face Off). If a movie is meant to be more than just an action flick, then it should also have good story and characters (BB had that in spades) - BUT, if it includes action scenes, then they should be high-quality action scenes.

BB's non-fight action was fine (kudos to Nolan for the whole Batmobile sequence), but the fight scenes just were not well-shot or edited. It's that simple. If we're going to say those were "good" fight scenes - then what basis do we have for criticizing any fight scene in any movie? The thing is, even action films that most people agree are bad action films (e.g., Elektra) have fight scenes that look no different from the ones in Batman Begins!

Question to all BB fight-scene defenders: What distinguishes the fight scenes in BB from bad fight scenes in other movies? (And give specific examples from other films.)

 

[Agentsands77]

Just so I'm clear - I don't want to misunderstand you - you prefer fight scenes in which you mostly can't tell what moves are being made?

All I said is that I think THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a masterful piece of action filmmaking. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the action scenes in that work beautifully and are done in an awesome matter. In fact, I'd say that's one of the best action films the cinema has had in the past decade.

Just because I said I liked the action in SUPREMACY does not, by default, mean that I think all fight scenes should adopt that same style.

So in other words, because most action flicks nowadays cheat by closeups and choppy editing so that they don't have to bother with intricate choreography - you think that's a good thing?

It depends on the use. Nolan himself addressed this, and I'll post his comments because they're good for the discussion:
BOM: One of the trends in action movies is that you can't tell what's happening on screen—even in Batman Begins, the action scene at the waterfront is unclear, though that's to create the sense of Batman's mystery—in which one's perception is deliberately distorted.
Nolan: It's all about subjectivity and the point of view you're trying to express. If you're trying to express the point of view of somebody who's in prison [being beaten], there's not any clarity, and there shouldn't be any clarity there—just enough to know. The camera's not objective; the camera can never be objective. All cinema is manipulation. But you can explain to me exactly what's happening and you know exactly who's doing what to whom. The essence of what's going on in the scene is entirely clear.
BOM: But you've seen these action pictures where you can't tell what's happening. Does that drive you bananas?
Nolan: It depends on the reason for it. If it's being done to obscure unimaginative or poor action, it can be irritating. But [it's not] when I see it in a film that's trying to express the kinetic energy of a fistfight, which is, in real life, an absolutely baffling, horrific thing to ever see or experience that can never be captured. My choice is to use the camera as subjectively as possible. The truth is you're using all the tools at your disposal, in editing as well as camera placement to try and create a feeling and experience of a character's point of view in a fight. Actually, I think the trend is the other way [toward greater clarity], and one of the things that made The Bourne Identity succeed is that they were going back to an old rhythm. You look at The Matrix and there's a lot of long, no-cut shots with intense choreography, and that's become more prevalent. You also have to take into account the changing rhythm of the way films are shot. Films are much more complex than they used to be—it's kind of a demand from the audience; they're fractured. But I genuinely believe it's not audiences—it's people who make films, critics, people in the media and in the industry discussing films. Audiences are led by them. I believe in the audience.

And you also think it's a good thing that Nolan basically imitated all the bad fight-scene directors in Hollywood?

Do you consider Paul Greengrass a bad fight-scene director? I don't. There are many places where the shaky cam is used very poorly, but THE BOURNE SUPREMACY did some great work with it.

That is not to say that Nolan's use of it was flawless (it wasn't, and I've cited examples of that), but I don't think that innately the shaky-cam is an evil thing.

I'm sorry, but no. While some viewers didn't find it to be a very dramatic fight, it makes no sense to say that it was less clear than the previous fight scenes. Stylistically it was more along the lines of Bruce's training with the League of Shadows. But the in-between Batman fights were much less clear than the final Ra's fight.

It makes plenty of sense to say it was less clear th an the previous fight scenes. I was able to tell what was going on in most of the earlier fight scenes, not so with this one.

I would think the best way to identify a "major" -vs- "minor" issue is simply to observe how many people it affects. Quite clearly, the BB fight scenes annoyed a significant number of viewers, both critics and fans. That makes it a "major" issue.

It's not a major issue if most people really loved the film anyways, which they did. In fact, I think the average joe probably really dug the action in BEGINS - I know the people I talked to did.

And at the end of the day, the only reaction I care about is my own. If other people don't like it, screw 'em, because that's irrelevant.

You're just parroting what others have said; that's not a new argument, and it's a bad one. Batman is (and should be) "scary and disorienting" to the bad guys - but what excuse is that for being "scary and disorienting" to the audience? Sure, I get that it's legitimate to sometimes give the audience a taste of the bad guys' experience - but all the time, the same perspective? Why the same perspective all the time? Why not Batman's perspective sometimes? Obviously he's not scary and disorienting to himself, so why don't we ever get his viewpoint? Or why don't we ever get the viewpoint of a witness who is standing at a bit of a distance and can take in the whole scene?

I think we should see his viewpoint in THE DARK KNIGHT, but for BEGINS, it was fine to see the docks fight and the Arkham fight from the perspective of those he was preying upon.

Maybe you should take that advice yourself. The fights in those other movies were creative and accomplished a variety of goals - they weren't all unwatchable because they were too close or too choppy. (Well, Superman Returns didn't have "fights," but the action that was there was well done.) Spider-Man, for example, is one of the more acrobatic and entertaining of superheroes, and the way his fights were shot by Raimi were perfect. Those scenes "felt real" because of the abilities we know Spidey has. And we got a good look at him using those abilities. By contrast, we did not get a good look at Batman's abilities. (And all the action scenes in all the X-films were outstanding.)

Your claim that the Spider-man fights felt real doesn't ring true to me - I always thought I was looking at a cartoon any time Spider-man was talking on the Green Goblin or Doc Ock.

But anyway, I don't like highly-polished action scenes. I like down-and-dirty action with a hard edge (ala COLLATERAL). BEGINS tried that - didn't execute it absolutely flawlessly - but it gets applause from me for going in that direction. For me, the point of a fight scene in a Batman film shouldn't be to marvel at the choreography.

Here's the thing: A movie isn't good simply because it has action scenes. If it's meant to be a simple action picture, then the action had better be phenomenal in order for the film to achieve its goal (good example: Face Off).

Uh, I think the action in FACE/OFF sucks. If you think that's a great action film, no wonder we disagree.

 

[ad101867]

Just because I said I liked the action in SUPREMACY does not, by default, mean that I think all fight scenes should adopt that same style.

Well, then you've just hit on the key question of this whole discussion: Why does every fight scene in Batman Begins employ this style? Some of those scenes are less choppy than others, but still, there's no scene in that movie where the camera simply stands back and gives you a long, uncut view of the choreography. Why can't Nolan do that some of the time?

(Quoting Nolan himself) "It's all about subjectivity and the point of view you're trying to express. . . . The essence of what's going on in the scene is entirely clear."

Okay, I get that - but why does it have to be that way for every fight scene? I've never said that a director should never use shaky-cam or closeups or quick editing. Nor have I ever said that the director should always have wide, uncut views. Mix it up. Have some impressionistic stuff, but also have some clear, uncut stuff. Let us appreciate all possible perspectives (at least over the course of the movie as a whole, if not in every individual fight).

(Quoting Nolan) "If it's being done to obscure unimaginative or poor action, it can be irritating."

There's a problem with that statement. When we're watching Begins, how do we know the choppy fights aren't an excuse for unimaginative or poor action? We can't tell just by watching the scenes themselves. We only have Nolan's word on what his motive was. But why should an audience have to depend on the director's word to know what he's intending? If Nolan had never commented on the fight scenes, we wouldn't be able to tell - just by watching them - the difference between the Begins fights and crappy fights in other movies.

(Quoting Nolan) "But [it's not] when I see it in a film that's trying to express the kinetic energy of a fistfight, which is, in real life, an absolutely baffling, horrific thing to ever see or experience that can never be captured."

It is horrific, but here's my point: if you're on the street or a schoolyard or back alley and you become a witness to a fight, are you right in the middle of it with all the action nothing but a blur in your eyes? No. You're standing back and getting a wide, uninterrupted view of the event. So why can't a film director ever give us the perspective of the witness?

(Quoting Nolan) "Actually, I think the trend is the other way [toward greater clarity], and one of the things that made The Bourne Identity succeed is that they were going back to an old rhythm."

Well, Nolan's in the business, so I'm not claiming more authority on the subject than him. Still, as a viewer, I've watched a lot of movies with fights in the storyline (at least the higher-profile movies). Contrary to what Nolan claims here, I have definitely seen a trend away from wide, uncut shots and toward closer, choppier scenes.

For e.g., Jackie Chan is a fun martial-artist to watch, but compare his earlier films, where he had more creative control (e.g., Rumble in the Bronx), to his more recent films. The guy has been Hollywoodized, meaning that we no longer get uninterrupted choreography; we get typical quick cuts that some directors apparently think are "more exciting." The problem with that is when Jackie's fight scenes are shot/edited that way, you get no sense of the guy's level of talent.

The same goes for Batman Begins: because of how the fights are shot and edited, we get no sense of the choreographer's or stuntmen's talent. If you're going to shoot a film that way, then you simply don't need choreographers and stunt-fighters. They're a waste, and there's no sense on Nolan's part bragging to film-goers that he "made the fights realistic." The viewer can't tell anyway. It's really too bad we don't get a good look at the Keysi Fighting Method.

The ironic thing about Nolan's statement is that I liked the action scenes in The Bourne Identity far more than those in Bourne Supremacy. Yet the fights in Begins are like the ones in Supremacy, not the ones in Identity. If Begins had been like Identity, I'd have had no problem with that.

(Quoting Nolan) "You look at The Matrix and there's a lot of long, no-cut shots with intense choreography, and that's become more prevalent."

He's got a point there. But the problem with those movies is not that they give the audience a good look at the choreography. The problem is that they mimic the Matrix films rather than be original. That doesn't give Nolan an excuse to keep the audience from seeing Batman's fight moves.

(Quoting Nolan) "You also have to take into account the changing rhythm of the way films are shot. Films are much more complex than they used to be—it's kind of a demand from the audience; they're fractured. But I genuinely believe it's not audiences—it's people who make films, critics, people in the media and in the industry discussing films. Audiences are led by them. I believe in the audience."

That's seems like a copout to me. After all, here we are discussing the issue ourselves, and we're not in the industry - so shouldn't Nolan "trust" us, since we're part of the audience? It seems there are enough people talking about this aspect of Begins that he ought to pay attention to it.

And I don't think the "complexity" of movie-making is any kind of excuse. Complexity is not the problem; again, it's shooting and editing style that's the problem. Choppiness does not equal "complexity." Why can't we see complex choreography? Apparently there actually was some on the Begins set - it's just that the audience never got to see it in the final cut.

Do you consider Paul Greengrass a bad fight-scene director? I don't. There are many places where the shaky cam is used very poorly, but THE BOURNE SUPREMACY did some great work with it.

As I've said, it's appropriate some of the time, for the sake of variety. My main question still has not been answered: Why does the shakiness/choppiness have to be there all the time? Greengrass simply did not handle the action scenes in Supremacy as well as Doug Liman did in Identity. By the way, if you go to IMDb and check the Bourne Identity page, on the message boards near the bottom there's a thread called "Identity or Supremacy?" and most of the respondents easily picked Identity as the superior instalment.

That is not to say that Nolan's use of it was flawless (it wasn't, and I've cited examples of that), but I don't think that innately the shaky-cam is an evil thing.

Never said it was. I've always said it's imbalance that's the "innately evil thing."

[Re. the Ra's fight at the end]It makes plenty of sense to say it was less clear th an the previous fight scenes. I was able to tell what was going on in most of the earlier fight scenes, not so with this one.

Sorry, man, I just don't get this one. That scene was very obviously not as closely shot and not as choppily edited, so I can't understand how someone could fail to catch the moves in that one as compared to earlier fights.

Your claim that the Spider-man fights felt real doesn't ring true to me - I always thought I was looking at a cartoon any time Spider-man was talking on the Green Goblin or Doc Ock.

Yes and no. They "felt real" in the sense that (a) the backdrop of the city and other characters had a real-life feel to them, and (b) it was true to the way Spidey fights in the comics. It would've been interesting, though, to see what could've been done for Spider-Man I if they'd only used stuntmen and wire work. Spider-Man II was far less cartoony because they drastically improved on the CGI, and this trend will only continue in Spidey III.

Stylistically, the point is that Raimi made an honest attempt, given the state of technology, to showcase Spider-Man's talents as we are familiar with them from the comics. While I really did enjoy Batman Begins (hey, I've watched it umpteen times), the fight scenes did not accomplish what Spidey's fight scenes did: they did not showcase Batman's fighting skill.

But anyway, I don't like highly-polished action scenes. I like down-and-dirty action with a hard edge (ala COLLATERAL).

See, here again you've used an argument that simply doesn't apply to the point I'm making, and this is the same kind of argument I've heard from others and it makes no sense. "Down and dirty" does not have to mean unclear and choppy (i.e., all the time). The "down and dirty" element should be conveyed in the fight choreography itself. (Why is this not obvious?) I'm glad you used Collateral as an example, because I love that movie. Yeah, it definitely has an edge, but guess what - you can clearly follow every move of the action. It doesn't achieve the "hard edge" by choppy editing and all-closeup camera work.

For me, the point of a fight scene in a Batman film shouldn't be to marvel at the choreography.

Not the only point, no - but it should be one of the goals of that kind of scene. This is because Batman is the world's most skilled hand-to-hand fighter, just as he is the world's greatest detective. The logic of your argument, if applied to Batman's detective skills, would be that we don't actually need to see him solve a crime; we just need to see the outcome. That would be ridiculous. But if we should see his detective skills (and we should), then why shouldn't we see his hand-to-hand skills? Why shouldn't all of this character's skills be showcased at the right place and time?

Uh, I think the action in FACE/OFF sucks. If you think that's a great action film, no wonder we disagree.

It's well-shot and well-edited; that's my point. You get a good look at how they choreographed each scene. Again (and again and again!), choreography does not equal shooting-and-editing. If you don't like the style of the fights in Face/Off, that's fine. But there's no arguing that we could see it better. And that's the point.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

2. Batman Begins can also be classified as a horror film. Dont believe me? Its in Spike TV's Horror Movie Awards (dont know what they are claledd.

The day SpikeTV becomes a credible voice on films is the day Al Sharpton becomes the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

 

[explode7]

We need to see exactly how batman is fighting 10 to 20 people next time more clearly rather than the flashy fighting scenes.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well, then you've just hit on the key question of this whole discussion: Why does every fight scene in Batman Begins employ this style?

Because Nolan likes it is the simplest answer.

Some of those scenes are less choppy than others, but still, there's no scene in that movie where the camera simply stands back and gives you a long, uncut view of the choreography. Why can't Nolan do that some of the time?

He could, but he doesn't want to, obviously. And there's also the matter of there not always being some guy just standing in the corner looking straight-on in most of those sequences, and he wants to give the camera perspectives.

No. You're standing back and getting a wide, uninterrupted view of the event. So why can't a film director ever give us the perspective of the witness?

Perhaps because there wasn't a witness that was just standing there looking on. And he did do some slow camera work with the swordfight on the lake, so it's not as if Nolan just entirely relied on shaky camerawork.

Greengrass simply did not handle the action scenes in Supremacy as well as Doug Liman did in Identity.

That would be opinion, not fact.

By the way, if you go to IMDb and check the Bourne Identity page, on the message boards near the bottom there's a thread called "Identity or Supremacy?" and most of the respondents easily picked Identity as the superior instalment.

Well firstly, why is that at all relevant? I don't honestly give a damn about the public consensus - I care about my own opinion. But even so, I'd say THE BOURNE IDENTITY is the more coherent film on the whole, but found THE BOURNE SUPREMACY to be more entertaining and contain superior action.

Sorry, man, I just don't get this one. That scene was very obviously not as closely shot and not as choppily edited, so I can't understand how someone could fail to catch the moves in that one as compared to earlier fights.

It's definitely edited even quicker and even more closely shot than a lot of the film (the constraining space likely contributed a lot to that).

While I really did enjoy Batman Begins (hey, I've watched it umpteen times), the fight scenes did not accomplish what Spidey's fight scenes did: they did not showcase Batman's fighting skill.

Actually, I disagree. I was amazed at Batman's speed, efficiency, and maneuvers (case-in-point, Batman using the gun to shoot the thug in the foot during his assault in Arkham). That's what I really care about - I don't need to see his martial arts prowess (though I was able to get a good sense of that), and I honestly find those scenes full of much more impact than if there was just a still camera watching martial arts maneuevers.

That said, as I've said, he could have loosened up on the camera maneuvers during two sequences that I felt such camera work either went overboard or hurt the sequences in question - namely the fight with Ra's at the end (and to a lesser extent, the fight in the jail, but that was made mostly hard to follow because everyone was thrown in mud and thus made indistinguishable from one another). It robbed the Ra's sequence of real impact because we couldn't see the drama of the fight unfold.

The logic of your argument, if applied to Batman's detective skills, would be that we don't actually need to see him solve a crime; we just need to see the outcome. That would be ridiculous. But if we should see his detective skills (and we should), then why shouldn't we see his hand-to-hand skills?

We see his detective skills when doing so serves the story. We don't always see Batman's detective skills all the time - we do so when the creator feels it brings something to the story. And even still, we generally don't see all the details of his detective maneuevers - we get general ideas (ala him typing on a computer or something like that).

Why shouldn't all of this character's skills be showcased at the right place and time?

Well, because it's up to what the director wants. It's all about desire - the director values feeling the freneticism of a fight over seeing the choreography, and I can understand that. It's not right or wrong, it's a matter of like or dislike.