Flaws from "bad" comic book movies that appear in "respected" comic book movies.

[The PhantaZm]

Lets be honest people! Some comic book movies take more heat than others for commiting the same crimes. So lets examine:

1. Crime: Having too many villains

Batman 2, 3 and 4

Same offense generally ignored in BB


2. Crime: Fast edit fight scenes.

Daredevil

Same offense ignored in BB

note: Daredevil only applied this technique once and there was a reason for it, bb did it several times for no reason other than to hide ChristianBales lack of fighting skills.

3. Crime: Dialogue is cheesy

Fantastic Four

Same offense ignored in Spiderman

 

[cerealkiller182]

Lets be honest people! Some comic book movies take more heat than others for commiting the same crimes. So lets examine:

1. Crime: Having too many villains

Batman 2, 3 and 4

Same offense generally ignored in BB


2. Crime: Fast edit fight scenes.

Daredevil

Same offense ignored in BB

note: Daredevil only applied this technique once and there was a reason for it, bb did it several times for no reason other than to hide ChristianBales lack of fighting skills.

Your flaws are not increidbly out there but the thing about the Batman world involves multiple villains at the same time most of the time. I think Nolan was able to handle more than one story wise. Also I dont blame Bales lack of fighting skill since Equilibrium is one of my fave movies. If you have seen this movie you would agree. the reasoning for the fast editing during fight scenes are more due to Nolans inexperience with action movies IMO.

 

[blind_fury]

Lets be honest people! Some comic book movies take more heat than others for commiting the same crimes. So lets examine:

1. Crime: Having too many villains

Batman 2, 3 and 4

Same offense generally ignored in BB


2. Crime: Fast edit fight scenes.

Daredevil

Same offense ignored in BB

note: Daredevil only applied this technique once and there was a reason for it, bb did it several times for no reason other than to hide ChristianBales lack of fighting skills.

3. Crime: Dialogue is cheesy

Fantastic Four

Same offense ignored in Spiderman

Good points.

I wonder why I like the campiness in Superman the Movie but I can't tolerate any of it in Spider-man 1 or 2. Maybe we judge movies based on expectations/bias rather than quality.

 

[Ben Urich]

I think the multiple villain angle worked in Begins because they presented different threats; they all weren't costumed criminals, per se. Ra's was a ninja/terrorist, Falcone was a crime boss, Scarecrow was a costumed lunatic and Mr. Earle was a corrupt businessman. In the previous Batfilms, the villains were generally all costumed and outrageous (the exception being Max Schreck in Batman Returns).

 

[The PhantaZm]

I think the multiple villain angle worked in Begins because they presented different threats; they all weren't costumed criminals, per se. Ra's was a ninja/terrorist, Falcone was a crime boss, Scarecrow was a costumed lunatic and Mr. Earle was a corrupt businessman. In the previous Batfilms, the villains were generally all costumed and outrageous (the exception being Max Schreck in Batman Returns).

Thats the thing. There were too many different threats! Is that necessary? Xmen 3 did the same thing as well. Why do we need the threat of the phoenix just thrown in there? Spiderman 3 is bound to do that. Honestly why do filmakers feel it necessary to cram in as many villains as possible? Is that what they think the fans want?

Any of the badguys in bb could have carried their own movie. Why not just have that one threat or use some much lamer villains as filler (villains like croc). But scarecrow as a lackey? Thats almost as crazy as Phoenix as a lackey.

 

[The PhantaZm]

Good points.

I wonder why I like the campiness in Superman the Movie but I can't tolerate any of it in Spider-man 1 or 2. Maybe we judge movies based on expectations/bias rather than quality.

Expectations have a lot to do with it.

My expectations for BB were too high. Which is why I fear I might not like superman even though I think it looks magnificent. Too many people saying its the greatest thing thats ever been put on film. My expectations will be through the roof on June 28.

My expectations for Daredevil and FF were zero (less than zero for FF). I ended up really liking one and being entertained by the other. The only time I've gone into a movie with ridiculously high expectations and walked out satisfied is spiderman 2.

Bias has a lot to do with why I liked the X-men movie so much. At the time it was the first real marvel comic book movie (blade doesn't count). They were my favorite team and I was just happy to see them on the big screen. In retrospect the movie wasn't that great. Good but not as great as I originally percieved it to be.

 

[Ben Urich]

Thats the thing. There were too many different threats! Is that necessary? Xmen 3 did the same thing as well. Why do we need the threat of the phoenix just thrown in there? Spiderman 3 is bound to do that. Honestly why do filmakers feel it necessary to cram in as many villains as possible? Is that what they think the fans want?

Any of the badguys in bb could have carried their own movie. Why not just have that one threat or use some much lamer villains as filler (villains like croc). But scarecrow as a lackey? Thats almost as crazy as Phoenix as a lackey.

I think if you cut out the terrorist angle (Ra's), the crime angle (Falcone), and the corruption angle (Earle), you're left with Batman facing a threat that's really, well, not much of one. Scarecrow is a joke in the books, IMO. Hell, he wasn't even cool in the Animated Series until they redesigned him to look actually scary. He's not smarter than Batman (maybe a better chemist), nor does he pose a physical threat. The reason he works in the comics is because he's often part of a larger threat - like in Long Halloween and Dark Victory, where he's played as a pawn in a larger scheme. I think the movie used him wisely.
I think it was wise to include Falcone and Earle if only to show that Batman/Bruce doesn't only face threats from costumed wackjobs - there are oridinary guys out there (well, Falcone is a bit extraordinary, what with controlling Gotham's crime and all) who sometimes pose an even greater threat to Gotham and Batman's mission. I'd argue that Begins could have just used Falcone has a villain and maybe another 2nd or 3rd tier villain as a mob enforcer and it would have been just as good.
Ra's was great because he had been modernized a bit. In the comics, he's an ecoterrorist hellbent on remaking Earth into his own paradise... eliminating the riffraff, you might say. I liked the idea of his using the League of Shadows to destroy cities that become too powerful; not only is it in keeping with Ra's' character, but it changes him into a threat that an audience can relate to more.
Begins handled its villains and subplots well. The same can't be said for X3, where the Powers That Be decided it'd be okay to reduce a cosmic-level threat like Phoenix to... a zombie-like possessed Jean Grey who really gets nothing to do. X3 should've been Magneto's army assaulting Worthington Labs OR the X-Men Phoenix; not both. I suppose Ratner, Fox Studios and co wanted to make the biggest, loudest trilogy finale ever made. Sure, I suppose they did, but it turned out to be mediocre at best.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Thats the thing. There were too many different threats! Is that necessary? Xmen 3 did the same thing as well. Why do we need the threat of the phoenix just thrown in there? Spiderman 3 is bound to do that. Honestly why do filmakers feel it necessary to cram in as many villains as possible? Is that what they think the fans want?

Any of the badguys in bb could have carried their own movie. Why not just have that one threat or use some much lamer villains as filler (villains like croc). But scarecrow as a lackey? Thats almost as crazy as Phoenix as a lackey.

You cant just throw threats into a movie like Xmen 3 did. You have to integrate them and Nolan and Goyer did a great job of that. They were all kinda connected to each other also except for Mr. Earle who was the bizarro Thomas Wayne. And because he is a detective there are always people needing investigation even if they didnt do anything. Its a corrupt city. It wouldnt make sense if there was only one bad guy everyone and a while not counting the average purse snatcher.

As for Scarecrow, he was les a lackey, and more like an independant contractor. He had his own agenda with his fear experiments in the asylum, but he owed favors to Ras for the plant. Theres definately a difference between lackey and hired help. You would never call Bane or Cain (hey that rhymes!), who are hired assassins, lackeys because they do someone elses dirty work. Its the same idea. Someone like croc would be the dim-witted enforcer/bodyguard who is constantly taking orders.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think the multiple villain angle worked in Begins because they presented different threats; they all weren't costumed criminals, per se. Ra's was a ninja/terrorist, Falcone was a crime boss, Scarecrow was a costumed lunatic and Mr. Earle was a corrupt businessman. In the previous Batfilms, the villains were generally all costumed and outrageous (the exception being Max Schreck in Batman Returns).

There was more to it than that; Ra's needed Scarecrow & Falcone to carry out his plan. They didn't run over each other, & the focus of the film remained on Batman. That's the real reason why people complain about the multiple villains in the previous Bat-films; he'd become a supporting character in what was supposed to be HIS movie, & with the exception of Riddler & Two-Face, there was no logical reason for the villains to hook up.
"You hate Batman? I hate him, too. Let's team up even though our agendas are in total conflict with each other!"
"Yeah, that's a great idea!"

 

[The PhantaZm]

I'll concede that BB did a better job of explaining/introducing the threats than previous bat films or X3, but I still feel that some of those villains were wasted. None of them got enough screen time.

Ra's is the only villain that I felt was atleast decent... but he's only a villain for about ten minutes. Sure anyone could have predicted that he would end up being the main villain but the reality of it is he didn't become a villain until the end. I didn't like the interpretations of any of the other villains. Falcone was supposed to be controlling all the crime in gotham so why did he act like an idiot and talk like a street thug? MCD may have sucked as the Kingpin but atleast the lines which he was given were befitting of someone that actually controls a criminal empire. And scarecrows paper bag costume just didn't do it for me. It smelled like lack of creativity.

This new bat franchise has a lot of potential, they got the tone right and there are many places they can go from here but the flaws in the movie need to be addressed! I hate spiderman 1 with a passion but Spiderman 2 is my favorite comic book movie ever so there is a very good chance that I'll end up liking the new bat franchise but they really need to fix their mistakes.

 

[Warhammer]

I think the multiple villain angle worked in Begins because they presented different threats; they all weren't costumed criminals, per se. Ra's was a ninja/terrorist, Falcone was a crime boss, Scarecrow was a costumed lunatic and Mr. Earle was a corrupt businessman. In the previous Batfilms, the villains were generally all costumed and outrageous (the exception being Max Schreck in Batman Returns).

 

[Ben Urich]

Falcone was supposed to be controlling all the crime in gotham so why did he act like an idiot and talk like a street thug?

Mob bosses aren't exactly English professors.

MCD may have sucked as the Kingpin but atleast the lines which he was given were befitting of someone that actually controls a criminal empire.

True, but MCD was about as intimidating as a puppy; Falcone, although not imposing physically, talked a tough game and backed it up, too.

And scarecrows paper bag costume just didn't do it for me. It smelled like lack of creativity.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Scarecrow's costume, either. He looks pretty lame in the comics, too, so I wasn't really expecting brilliance.

Gotta give credit where credit is due. Chris Walken was awesome. It's so weird to think of him as a Batman villain.
I'm pretty sure that his character was originally intended to be Harvey Dent (played by Billy Dee Williams, who essentially cameoed in the first film), but it was changed for some reason or another.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

In Batman Begins, the villains took a backseat. It was about the origin of Batman, and developing Bruce Wayne into a three dimensional character. That is why people are more than okay with having three villains in BB, because they weren't really the focus of the movie anyway.

 

[Manic]

Crime: Underdeveloped villains
X-Men: The Last Stand

Ignored in the previous two X-Men movies. Everyone was so quick to complain about people like Callisto & Multiple Man getting no development, while somehow forgetting all about Sabretooth, Deathstrike, Toad, and Mystique.


Crime: Miscasting a main character
Too many movies to name.

Ignored in the old Superman movies. I'm sorry, but I just think Margot Kidder was a piss-poor Lois Lane. It's mostly that damn voice. I like Lois Lane when she doesn't sound like she's choking all the time, thank you.

 

[mister Lennon]

The lack of fighting skills of Chris Bale is false. Chris Bale is a good fighter. he trained very hard to get a body as batman should be, and he trained some martial arts and fighting styles.

 

[Manic]

The lack of fighting skills of Chris Bale is false. Chris Bale is a good fighter. he trained very hard to get a body as batman should be, and he trained some martial arts and fighting styles.

Yeah. Nolan just doesn't know how to film a fight scene, and I hear he doesn't like the fights in Hong Kong action films.

 

[cerealkiller182]

He could at least zoom out and stand still with the camera

 

[Flexo]

Yeah. Nolan just doesn't know how to film a fight scene, and I hear he doesn't like the fights in Hong Kong action films.

While he may not be the greatest at filming action, the fights were that way for a reason.

1. To give the point of view of Batman's enemies

2. To emphasize the action. (Such as the sliding camera during the Ducard & Bruce fight.)

 

[Manic]

It also served to make fight scenes too chaotic for the audience to know what they're doing. You forgot that part.

There's a reason people like The PhantaZm think Bale couldn't fight, and that's because Nolan didn't let us know what was happening. On the other hand, Kurt Wimmer let us (the audience) see Bale's skills in all their glory in Equilibrium.

When I see a fight scene in a movie, I like to actually see the fight, not just feel its urgency. Nolan let me feel how dangerous and urgent the fights were, but that's about it.

 

[Flexo]

It also served to make fight scenes too chaotic for the audience to know what they're doing. You forgot that part.

There's a reason people like The PhantaZm think Bale couldn't fight, and that's because Nolan didn't let us know what was happening. On the other hand, Kurt Wimmer let us (the audience) see Bale's skills in all their glory in Equilibrium.

When I see a fight scene in a movie, I like to actually see the fight, not just feel its urgency. Nolan let me feel how dangerous and urgent the fights were, but that's about it.

Eh, to each their own. I was able to tell what was going on fairly well.

 

[BizarroAids]

I liked the fight scenes in BB, and I think the reason many people thought they were so bad was because the camera was pretty close to the actors. Most fight scenes have a little distance from the actor and the camera and it doesn't seem like the actors just all over the screen. But like cerealkiller said, this might have been from Nolans lack of straight action sequences.

 

[The PhantaZm]

Mob bosses aren't exactly English professors.

But they aren't stupid. And they need to exude power.

True, but MCD was about as intimidating as a puppy; Falcone, although not imposing physically, talked a tough game and backed it up, too.

MCD is intimidating no matter what. Even in the green mile he was intimidating. If you can't be psychologically intimidating then you need to be physically intimidating. Falcone was neither.

 

[The PhantaZm]

Yeah. Nolan just doesn't know how to film a fight scene, and I hear he doesn't like the fights in Hong Kong action films.

He needs to be studying Hong Kong action films the way Tarantino did!

Tarantino also utilized quick cuts in KB but he didn't film it like he was having a siezure which made for some great fight scenes.

I actually don't even remember any of the fight scenes in BB, all I remember is a blur. I remember gg vs spidey, dd vs kingpin, wolverine vs sabretooth/deathstrike but nothing really stands out in any of the batman fights... too quick too sloppy.

 

[Warhammer]

I am glad that fight scenes kinda sucked in Batman Begins.
I loved the whole story>action.

But the sequel better up the ante, big time.

 

[cerealkiller182]

But they aren't stupid. And they need to exude power.



MCD is intimidating no matter what. Even in the green mile he was intimidating. If you can't be psychologically intimidating then you need to be physically intimidating. Falcone was neither.

I have to agree with Urich on the voice of Falcone. I thought it was good the way it was. You are correct in saying they arnt stupid but its a different kind of intellect. He probably grew up on the street and has lots of street smarts, but the guy must have started out as either a steet thug or a gangster prince. Theres a good chance he would have a street thug accent.