Man of Steel vs Batman Begins

[Steamteck]

I'd like to request all threads comparing any superhero origin film to Batman Begins be deleted until such a time comes when we actually get one as good as Batman Begins.

Too late I think MOS was actually superior and I think Begins was pretty good.

 

[Skrilla31]

I'm sorry, but from a pure film making and story telling perspective Iron Man is a far weaker film where its flaws are covered up by its charismatic leads great performance. Batman Begin has a solid foundation throughout (mostly), Iron Man's is a lot shakier. Yes they have similarities but that's because Begins helped influence Iron Man, in the end Iron Man is still a lesser mans Batman Begins.

What flaws? Iron Man is a character story. The plot comes second. That movie was about the transformation of Tony Stark.

I dunno, I just thought Batman Begins was absolutely plagued by Nolanisms. More tell than show, more show than feel, a jerky narrative, failing to hold your interest, never quite hitting the right emotional beats... and there's more. There's so much more. There were so many things off about Batman Begins that quite frankly I'm not sure where to start. Because if I did, it would imply that there was some chief complaint that took precedence over all other complaints and that's not the case. It was a combination of so many things. Nolan is not a bad director but he definitely shares a lot of the characteristics commonly found in bad directors.

I love Batman. In fact I love Batman wayyyy more than Iron Man. But I'm sorry, I'd rather watch a movie about Favreau's Tony Stark than Nolan's Bruce Wayne any day of the week. Batman even looked off in those movies. His cowl, his voice... it was all so off.

Look I've seen all three Nolan Bat-films COUNTLESS times. If they're on TV then I'm probably not gonna change the channel. Why? Because it's f****n' Batman. That's why. I love these movies no matter what but I love them the same way a parent might love their special needs child. You just... love them. Flaws and all.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Eh, not really, take away RDJ and it's not much of a film.

The story is great, RDJ isn't the best thing about it

 

[jmc]

Guys c'mon, if you enjoy Iron Man more that's one thing, but if you're telling me it's a better piece of overall film making then I think you're deluding yourselves. You take away RDJ from Iron Man and a replace him with someone else you're got a much weaker film because the film centres around RDJ not the character of Tony Stark, RDJ is what takes an otherwise standard piece of superhero story telling to a higher level. You take away Christian Bale from Batman Begins and the foundations in that film are strong enough that any decent actor could have done the role equal justice. The reason IM is great to watch is not because of the story, it's because of the actor.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

No one can imitate the voice of Batman

 

[DACrowe]

This thread is actually kind of hilarious. In essence:

Which is better, Batman Begins or the movie that attempted to REMAKE Batman Begins?

I will go with the one that carved its own path and did not leave half the audience stunned at the level of carnage inflicted by the hero. Just my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

What flaws? Iron Man is a character story. The plot comes second. That movie was about the transformation of Tony Stark.

I dunno, I just thought Batman Begins was absolutely plagued by Nolanisms. More tell than show, more show than feel, a jerky narrative, failing to hold your interest, never quite hitting the right emotional beats... and there's more. There's so much more. There were so many things off about Batman Begins that quite frankly I'm not sure where to start. Because if I did, it would imply that there was some chief complaint that took precedence over all other complaints and that's not the case. It was a combination of so many things. Nolan is not a bad director but he definitely shares a lot of the characteristics commonly found in bad directors.

I love Batman. In fact I love Batman wayyyy more than Iron Man. But I'm sorry, I'd rather watch a movie about Favreau's Tony Stark than Nolan's Bruce Wayne any day of the week. Batman even looked off in those movies. His cowl, his voice... it was all so off.

Look I've seen all three Nolan Bat-films COUNTLESS times. If they're on TV then I'm probably not gonna change the channel. Why? Because it's f****n' Batman. That's why. I love these movies no matter what but I love them the same way a parent might love their special needs child. You just... love them. Flaws and all.

Again, Iron Man borrowed heavily FROM Batman Begins. Many of the same beats, the tonal "grounding" of at least the first two acts, the father figure turning out to be a villain and betrayer, etc.

But if you would rather watch IM2 over any of TDKT more power to you, I suppose. I just disagree.

 

[Brother Jack]

This thread is actually kind of hilarious. In essence:

Which is better, Batman Begins or the movie that attempted to REMAKE Batman Begins?

I will go with the one that carved its own path and did not leave half the audience stunned at the level of carnage inflicted by the hero. Just my opinion.

Actually the destruction Batman causes in Nolan's trilogy has been a point of contention, but nothing like the controversy surrounding MOS.

But yeah, Begins is better without question.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I don't think we have to look at this like one film is good the other is trash. I both enjoyed them greatly, however I feel Begins was superior in what it achieved.

Man of Steel was great but there are elements I hope are improved upon in the sequel.

 

[Skrilla31]

Again, Iron Man borrowed heavily FROM Batman Begins. Many of the same beats, the tonal "grounding" of at least the first two acts, the father figure turning out to be a villain and betrayer, etc.

You're just talking about story elements. I'm talking about the movie as a whole. No doubt Iron Man borrows heavily from Batman Begins because Tony Stark borrows a lot from Bruce Wayne. But Iron Man turned out to be the better movie. It's main character was more engaging. We we more involved in his story. We felt more emotionally attached. We liked him better.

Even his journey was better. Tony's captivity in the cave is more thrilling than Bruce's training in the mountains and we learn more about Tony in those scenes than we do about Bruce throughout the entire movie. The scene where Tony finally escapes in the prototype suit provides a huge payoff because the tension had been building to that point, whereas you don't really feel anything at all when Bruce burns down the League Of Shadows headquarters. It's entirely plot driven in contrast to Tony's escape which was both plot driven and emotionally driven.

His relationship with Pepper is better. The two actors had a real chemistry and you could see these two were real friends. In Begins, we're supposed to believe that Bruce cares about Rachel so much that he would consider not being Batman for her and yet we don't FEEL anything when the two are on screen together. Why? Because the dialogue is AWFUL. Because Katie Holmes CAN'T ACT. Because she had ZERO chemistry with Christian Bale. Christian Bale looked LOST. Because Nolan isn't a GREAT director. These things take you OUT of the story.

You talk about tone. Iron Man knows exactly what type of approach is necessary to tell it's story. It's grounded but it doesn't forget to have a little fun too. Batman is a naturally darker character so I expect a more somber tone but how far EXACTLY into the realm of realism are you willing to take a story about a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime? "Yea, yea we get it everything is super realistic... okay now about that scene where Scarecrow's fear toxin is pumped into the water supply and the people of the city think they see a flying demon in the sky..."

And let's talk about one of the most important things as it pertains to the superhero medium, seeing as how they originated in COMIC BOOKS... the visuals. Iron Man is more of a visual feast than Batman Begins can even hope to be. Nolan's world is very boring and pedestrian. Even Batman's costume makes him look like a f****g idiot because of that fat and ridiculous cowl. That scene of him kneeling above Gordon as he's taking out his garbage ("storm's coming") borders on laughable. And one of the coolest things about Batman - his hand to hand fighting - is completely lost in this movie. I've heard that perhaps Nolan wanted to capture the stealth and quickness of his strikes but good god man you're telling me this is a Batman movie and we don't get to see Batman whoop some bad guys? WTF? Meanwhile we get to see Iron Man in all his glory. The colors are nice and bright and the movie isn't afraid to embrace the world this character came from, and yet it still manages to stay as far away from camp as humanly possible.

Iron Man is just a more entertaining movie. It introduces it's characters better. It's characters feel more real. It's narrative is more cohesive. It has more satisfying moments. Better looking. Better acted. Better paced. Better written. Better directed. Better movie.

 

[BH/HHH]

This thread is actually kind of hilarious. In essence:

Which is better, Batman Begins or the movie that attempted to REMAKE Batman Begins?

I will go with the one that carved its own path and did not leave half the audience stunned at the level of carnage inflicted by the hero. Just my opinion.

So by that is Batman Begins a remake of Superman the Movie? Cause it used pretty much the same structure bar the flashbacks. Or maybe it was a remake of its other influence Blade Runner? What a stupid comment. Man of Steel may have used the flashback structure but other than that its not the same at all. Batman Begins didn't have a prologue that Man of Steel did on Krypton now did it? Also the final hour of each film couldn't be anymore different. Seriously somethings a remake of something because it uses a similar structure? Give me a break!

 

[DACrowe]

So by that is Batman Begins a remake of Superman the Movie? Cause it used pretty much the same structure bar the flashbacks. Or maybe it was a remake of its other influence Blade Runner? What a stupid comment. Man of Steel may have used the flashback structure but other than that its not the same at all. Batman Begins didn't have a prologue that Man of Steel did on Krypton now did it? Also the final hour of each film couldn't be anymore different. Seriously somethings a remake of something because it uses a similar structure? Give me a break!

Woah, there. Let's calm this down a little.

Yes, Batman Begins is very much influenced by Superman: The Movie. It uses the same basic three-act Campbellian hero structure (as does Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc.) and has a "birth to destiny" story. It also relies on heavily "established" casting to fill out its roster to lend the film with some credibility (Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkenson, Morgan Freeman, Ken Watanabe, etc.). So, it is clearly influenced. However, Nolan did structure it in his own style. He used non-linear, flashback narration to make a well-known origin fresh and twisty in its ability to keep audiences on its toes. He also, much more than Donner, sought to ground it in a very "dark" and somber tone that's contemplative nature can be mistaken for "realistic."

Man of Steel was very much made to resemble Batman Begins. Why else slap Nolan's name all over the trailers, along with "The Dark Knight Trilogy?" Why else even bring Nolan and Goyer on to shepherd the project? And while I like MOS just fine, as flawed as it is, it feels at odds with this approach. I never felt like Snyder got the non-linear pacing down and it at times felt shoehorned in. Beyond that the dark somber colors and a heavy emphasis on "explaining the world building" sometimes seems at odds with a filmmaker who likes massive spectacle.

This comes most to play in the third act. Batman Begins began Nolan's interest in tying the superhero archetypes into 21st century, post-9/11 imagery. I.E. Ra's Al Ghul becomes a bearded man, essentially living in a cave, who specifically wants to destroy a great American city to teach a lesson to the world. How does he plan to destroy an American civilization? By having its citizens tear itself apart through mindless fear. Nolan would smooth out these parallels to much more sobering and successful effect in The Dark Knight with his take on The Joker.

In Man of Steel, Snyder also pulls from 9/11 shorthand imagery...in a much clunkier and ultimately repulsive way. He has Zod's "World Machine" destroys DOZENS of buildings with likely hundreds of thousands of people in them. Then, he has Superman and Zod's little fistfight level a few more skyscrapers. He literally shows planes crashing into buildings and collapsing metal fall onto Daily Planet workers running for their lives.

This all in an attempt to claim some of the seriousness and allegorical gravitas of the Nolan films, but it feels dumb and tacked on in Man of Steel because Snyder does not seem really that interested in real world ramifications. After all, he has Superman and Lois Lane make out over the smouldering ruins of the countless dead and dying and then offers an epilogue on this carnage with the staff of the DP acting like nothing ever happened and getting tickets for "the game."

So yes, structurally it mirrors BB to a very intentional degree and tonally it reaches for the same style and subtexts of TDKT. Except, it comes off as very forced when it does it.

So, I stand by that MOS copied BB, and while a decent film, failed to live up to that intentional self-made comparison. Just my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

You're just talking about story elements. I'm talking about the movie as a whole. No doubt Iron Man borrows heavily from Batman Begins because Tony Stark borrows a lot from Bruce Wayne. But Iron Man turned out to be the better movie. It's main character was more engaging. We we more involved in his story. We felt more emotionally attached. We liked him better.

Even his journey was better. Tony's captivity in the cave is more thrilling than Bruce's training in the mountains and we learn more about Tony in those scenes than we do about Bruce throughout the entire movie. The scene where Tony finally escapes in the prototype suit provides a huge payoff because the tension had been building to that point, whereas you don't really feel anything at all when Bruce burns down the League Of Shadows headquarters. It's entirely plot driven in contrast to Tony's escape which was both plot driven and emotionally driven.

His relationship with Pepper is better. The two actors had a real chemistry and you could see these two were real friends. In Begins, we're supposed to believe that Bruce cares about Rachel so much that he would consider not being Batman for her and yet we don't FEEL anything when the two are on screen together. Why? Because the dialogue is AWFUL. Because Katie Holmes CAN'T ACT. Because she had ZERO chemistry with Christian Bale. Christian Bale looked LOST. Because Nolan isn't a GREAT director. These things take you OUT of the story.

You talk about tone. Iron Man knows exactly what type of approach is necessary to tell it's story. It's grounded but it doesn't forget to have a little fun too. Batman is a naturally darker character so I expect a more somber tone but how far EXACTLY into the realm of realism are you willing to take a story about a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime? "Yea, yea we get it everything is super realistic... okay now about that scene where Scarecrow's fear toxin is pumped into the water supply and the people of the city think they see a flying demon in the sky..."

And let's talk about one of the most important things as it pertains to the superhero medium, seeing as how they originated in COMIC BOOKS... the visuals. Iron Man is more of a visual feast than Batman Begins can even hope to be. Nolan's world is very boring and pedestrian. Even Batman's costume makes him look like a f****g idiot because of that fat and ridiculous cowl. That scene of him kneeling above Gordon as he's taking out his garbage ("storm's coming") borders on laughable. And one of the coolest things about Batman - his hand to hand fighting - is completely lost in this movie. I've heard that perhaps Nolan wanted to capture the stealth and quickness of his strikes but good god man you're telling me this is a Batman movie and we don't get to see Batman whoop some bad guys? WTF? Meanwhile we get to see Iron Man in all his glory. The colors are nice and bright and the movie isn't afraid to embrace the world this character came from, and yet it still manages to stay as far away from camp as humanly possible.

Iron Man is just a more entertaining movie. It introduces it's characters better. It's characters feel more real. It's narrative is more cohesive. It has more satisfying moments. Better looking. Better acted. Better paced. Better written. Better directed. Better movie.

Well other than Pepper/the always-underrated Gwyneth Paltrow, I disagree with every single thing you wrote. Especially saying the director of Memento, The Prestige and Inception is not a great director.

I personally find Iron Man very hard to rewatch after the first few viewings because it is all about how great RDJ is in the role. He is amazing. And he is a lot of fun to watch bounce off Paltrow and Bridges, as well (not so much with Howard). But otherwise, it is pretty generic storytelling and a lot of the twists, especially involving Stane becoming so evil that he is hiring Afghani terrorists to murder a business partner, feel tacked on for a poor third act heavy. And yes, the third act of BB has problems, so that is saying something when it looks worse in IM1.

But we look for different things. Iron Man to me is all surface level entertainment and while very entertaining for the first few viewings, it does not hold my interest to return to it. Nolan's dialogue may not be natural (but neither is Favreau channeling his inner-Howard Hawks for "His Girl Pepper"), but I appreciate the attempt to find a deeper story and meaning to the character than just "doesn't this look cool?"

And in terms of visuals, I strongly disagree. All three of Nolan's Batman pictures are stunning. I believe the first two were nominated for Oscars for cinematography (Inception won for it) and have stunning ability to immerse the viewer into his world. It is not so much about realism, as world-building. When I watch those films I believe Gotham is a place the characters are actually inhabiting instead of a set, so it works for me. To each their own. But, I do not know how you cannot think his world his comic booky when it has, as you mentioned, fear toxins, as well as men walking around with half-burned off faces and secret ninja societies blowing up trains.

But agree to disagree.

 

[flickchick85]

Guys c'mon, if you enjoy Iron Man more that's one thing, but if you're telling me it's a better piece of overall film making then I think you're deluding yourselves. You take away RDJ from Iron Man and a replace him with someone else you're got a much weaker film because the film centres around RDJ not the character of Tony Stark, RDJ is what takes an otherwise standard piece of superhero story telling to a higher level. You take away Christian Bale from Batman Begins and the foundations in that film are strong enough that any decent actor could have done the role equal justice. The reason IM is great to watch is not because of the story, it's because of the actor.

I don't think the lead actor being less essential necessarily speaks to a movie being better, tbh. A more memorable lead character is usually what these things are going for, as the actual stories for all of these origins are all quite similar.

BB has plenty of weaknesses to balance out its good editing, music and cinematography. Its "foundations" aren't nearly as impeccable as you're making them out to be, as the script is still it's biggest weak spot, imo. The themes are handled like anvils and NONE of the dialogue in IM is as groan-worthy as some of those Goyer clunkers in BB. The filming of the action scenes was underwhelming, and Nolan continues to allow for the worst acting from some of his bit-players for some inexplicable reason. Then of course there's the failure known as Rachel Dawes. Just because IM has a more comic-book-ish tone doesn't automatically make it a "lesser" work. It has, as has been pointed out, the more memorable lead actor/character, a FAR more engaging female lead and central relationship, a rock solid character arc for its main protagonist, a few of scenes of pure superheroic joy, and one hell of a satisfying game-changer of an ending. It does what it's attempting to do with fewer missteps than BB does, imo. And that, to me, makes it a stronger film, even if it is a much lighter, less showy film.

For the record, I love both movies. I think they're two of the best in the genre, and Chris Nolan is one of my absolute favorite filmmakers (while Jon Favreau is not). I just think BB is still one of his weakest films, as much as like it. It's great that you're so convinced BB is the better film - that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. But there's no need to act like those of us who think IM is stronger are just kidding ourselves, or are somehow in denial about BB's greatness or something. Thinking IM is a stronger film is just as legitimate an opinion as yours.

 

[Lily Adler]

Don't get me started on Martha Wayne not getting any dialogue.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I don't think the lead actor being less essential necessarily speaks to a movie being better, tbh. A more memorable lead character is usually what these things are going for, as the actual stories for all of these origins are all quite similar.

BB has plenty of weaknesses to balance out its good editing, music and cinematography. Its "foundations" aren't nearly as impeccable as you're making them out to be, as the script is still it's biggest weak spot, imo. The themes are handled like anvils and NONE of the dialogue in IM is as groan-worthy as some of those Goyer clunkers in BB. The filming of the action scenes was underwhelming, and Nolan continues to allow for the worst acting from some of his bit-players for some inexplicable reason. Then of course there's the failure known as Rachel Dawes. Just because IM has a more comic-book-ish tone doesn't automatically make it a "lesser" work. It has, as has been pointed out, the more memorable lead actor/character, a FAR more engaging female lead and central relationship, a rock solid character arc for its main protagonist, a few of scenes of pure superheroic joy, and one hell of a satisfying game-changer of an ending. It does what it's attempting to do with fewer missteps than BB does, imo. And that, to me, makes it a stronger film, even if it is a much lighter film.

For the record, I love both movies. I think they're two of the best in the genre. It's great that you're so convinced BB is the better film - that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. But there's no need to act like those of us who think IM is stronger are just kidding ourselves, or are somehow in denial about BB's greatness or something. Thinking IM is a stronger film is just as legitimate an opinion as yours.

I agree with everything you've just said. Specially regarding Batman Begins.

 

[Snow Queen]

Don't get me started on Martha Wayne not getting any dialogue.

Most underused character in the Batman mythos.

 

[BH/HHH]

Woah, there. Let's calm this down a little.

Yes, Batman Begins is very much influenced by Superman: The Movie. It uses the same basic three-act Campbellian hero structure (as does Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc.) and has a "birth to destiny" story. It also relies on heavily "established" casting to fill out its roster to lend the film with some credibility (Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkenson, Morgan Freeman, Ken Watanabe, etc.). So, it is clearly influenced. However, Nolan did structure it in his own style. He used non-linear, flashback narration to make a well-known origin fresh and twisty in its ability to keep audiences on its toes. He also, much more than Donner, sought to ground it in a very "dark" and somber tone that's contemplative nature can be mistaken for "realistic."

Man of Steel was very much made to resemble Batman Begins. Why else slap Nolan's name all over the trailers, along with "The Dark Knight Trilogy?" Why else even bring Nolan and Goyer on to shepherd the project? And while I like MOS just fine, as flawed as it is, it feels at odds with this approach. I never felt like Snyder got the non-linear pacing down and it at times felt shoehorned in. Beyond that the dark somber colors and a heavy emphasis on "explaining the world building" sometimes seems at odds with a filmmaker who likes massive spectacle.

This comes most to play in the third act. Batman Begins began Nolan's interest in tying the superhero archetypes into 21st century, post-9/11 imagery. I.E. Ra's Al Ghul becomes a bearded man, essentially living in a cave, who specifically wants to destroy a great American city to teach a lesson to the world. How does he plan to destroy an American civilization? By having its citizens tear itself apart through mindless fear. Nolan would smooth out these parallels to much more sobering and successful effect in The Dark Knight with his take on The Joker.

In Man of Steel, Snyder also pulls from 9/11 shorthand imagery...in a much clunkier and ultimately repulsive way. He has Zod's "World Machine" destroys DOZENS of buildings with likely hundreds of thousands of people in them. Then, he has Superman and Zod's little fistfight level a few more skyscrapers. He literally shows planes crashing into buildings and collapsing metal fall onto Daily Planet workers running for their lives.

This all in an attempt to claim some of the seriousness and allegorical gravitas of the Nolan films, but it feels dumb and tacked on in Man of Steel because Snyder does not seem really that interested in real world ramifications. After all, he has Superman and Lois Lane make out over the smouldering ruins of the countless dead and dying and then offers an epilogue on this carnage with the staff of the DP acting like nothing ever happened and getting tickets for "the game."

So yes, structurally it mirrors BB to a very intentional degree and tonally it reaches for the same style and subtexts of TDKT. Except, it comes off as very forced when it does it.

So, I stand by that MOS copied BB, and while a decent film, failed to live up to that intentional self-made comparison. Just my opinion.

Firstly I apolgise I may have come over as a *****e infact I did. Sorry about that.

I'm not disagreeing that the structure isn't the same but its in no way a remake whatsoever. Its only as much a remake as BB is STM with the 3 act structure but yes Nolan did go the non linear route etc as did MOS. However, Goyer himself stated this was how he saw Nolan doing Superman so its gonna have a similar structure right from there.

Yes both are taken very seriously but tonally they're different. If anything I think MOS looks more documentary styled whereas Batman Begins looks cleaner and more polished.

As for the films themselves, they couldn't be more different aside from the non linear structure between Krypton and the Alien Invasion.

Also Nolan's name was all over it cause people love his films. It was a selling point. Its no different than the way Marlon Brando's name was used to promote STM.

The ending after the Zod fight obviously takes place sometime later and why shouldn't Superman kiss Lois. Its a we survived this kiss, that kind of thing can easily happen. I also am happy that by the end this guy wants to be the hero unlike Nolan's Batman whose just waiting to quit.

Each to their own as I always say but MOS was in no way a remake of BB.

 

[jmc]

I don't think the lead actor being less essential necessarily speaks to a movie being better, tbh. A more memorable lead character is usually what these things are going for, as the actual stories for all of these origins are all quite similar.

BB has plenty of weaknesses to balance out its good editing, music and cinematography. Its "foundations" aren't nearly as impeccable as you're making them out to be, as the script is still it's biggest weak spot, imo. The themes are handled like anvils and NONE of the dialogue in IM is as groan-worthy as some of those Goyer clunkers in BB. The filming of the action scenes was underwhelming, and Nolan continues to allow for the worst acting from some of his bit-players for some inexplicable reason. Then of course there's the failure known as Rachel Dawes. Just because IM has a more comic-book-ish tone doesn't automatically make it a "lesser" work. It has, as has been pointed out, the more memorable lead actor/character, a FAR more engaging female lead and central relationship, a rock solid character arc for its main protagonist, a few of scenes of pure superheroic joy, and one hell of a satisfying game-changer of an ending. It does what it's attempting to do with fewer missteps than BB does, imo. And that, to me, makes it a stronger film, even if it is a much lighter, less showy film.

For the record, I love both movies. I think they're two of the best in the genre, and Chris Nolan is one of my absolute favorite filmmakers (while Jon Favreau is not). I just think BB is still one of his weakest films, as much as like it. It's great that you're so convinced BB is the better film - that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. But there's no need to act like those of us who think IM is stronger are just kidding ourselves, or are somehow in denial about BB's greatness or something. Thinking IM is a stronger film is just as legitimate an opinion as yours.

Not once did I bring up the tone or how 'comic booky' the films were, I'm talking purely from a film making perspective.I'm not saying Begins in the best film ever, and I actually agree with you it's in the lower half of Nolan's filmography, but Begins set a standard in it's depiction of what it means to be someone who dons a strange costume and goes out to fight the good fight that hasn't been equaled. And it's not just the story foundations that are stronger, it's the all round execution of the movie, the cinematography, the pacing, the score, the design, it's a film that is technically superior to every other superhero origin film. Iron Man may have an edge action wise and in it's lead actor but other than that it's a very stock, standard piece of film, I mean does anyone know what the bloody score of the film sounds like? Like I said if you like Iron Man more than Begin than I've got no problem with that, I can understand why some would prefer it, but I can't in good conscious take anyone seriously who thinks Iron Man is a technically superior film, especially when it takes a large chunk of its ques from Begins.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I didn't like either that much.

But out of the two, I enjoyed MOS more.

 

[jmc]

Getting back to Man of Steel the great irony I noticed in the films universe is how much it doesn't allow other characters to fit into its world all that well. Iron Man was very much neutral in it depiction of the world Stark inhabited making room for expansion of other characters much easier. MoS is far more science fiction in its depiction of the world Clark inhabits, the reactions and psychology going on in the movie are very much what you would expect to happen in real life which is a staple of many science fiction movies. The problem I see now is that I find it very difficult to suddenly have characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman appear because those characters don't really suit the science fiction type of world established. The thing about the DC film universe (which hasn't even been confirmed yet) is that they've started in the worst possible way in order to expand it.

 

[Ipodman]

Love both movies, but I'll have to vote for Batman Begins.

 

[Skrilla31]

Well other than Pepper/the always-underrated Gwyneth Paltrow, I disagree with every single thing you wrote. Especially saying the director of Memento, The Prestige and Inception is not a great director.

He is a decent director but he's not a great director. I think he he has his fair share of strengths but a lot of his movies suffer from the same things.

I personally find Iron Man very hard to rewatch after the first few viewings because it is all about how great RDJ is in the role. He is amazing. And he is a lot of fun to watch bounce off Paltrow and Bridges, as well (not so much with Howard). But otherwise, it is pretty generic storytelling and a lot of the twists, especially involving Stane becoming so evil that he is hiring Afghani terrorists to murder a business partner, feel tacked on for a poor third act heavy. And yes, the third act of BB has problems, so that is saying something when it looks worse in IM1.

Wow, I don't think that twist was farfetched at all. Businesses do all sorts of shady s*** behind closed doors. It's not unreasonable to assume that the manager of a weapon manufacturing company is secretly a POS who would cross his best friend in the name of greed.

But we look for different things. Iron Man to me is all surface level entertainment and while very entertaining for the first few viewings, it does not hold my interest to return to it. Nolan's dialogue may not be natural (but neither is Favreau channeling his inner-Howard Hawks for "His Girl Pepper"), but I appreciate the attempt to find a deeper story and meaning to the character than just "doesn't this look cool?"

Yes, movies can work both as entertainment and as art. I'm just not wowed by what Begins had to offer.

And in terms of visuals, I strongly disagree. All three of Nolan's Batman pictures are stunning. I believe the first two were nominated for Oscars for cinematography (Inception won for it) and have stunning ability to immerse the viewer into his world. It is not so much about realism, as world-building. When I watch those films I believe Gotham is a place the characters are actually inhabiting instead of a set, so it works for me. To each their own. But, I do not know how you cannot think his world his comic booky when it has, as you mentioned, fear toxins, as well as men walking around with half-burned off faces and secret ninja societies blowing up trains.

Well I imagine Nolan had more freedom - and money - with the sequels because they do look and feel a lot better. The city feels wide open as opposed to Begins's tight, close up framing. The images were so much more rich too. We couldn't tell in 2005 but now that we've seen the follow ups, you could see just how restrained Nolan was at the time and how much more ambition was left in the tank. Not just in scope but in terms of everything. Begins looks clunky in comparison.

 

[DChero]

I love Batman Begins and all of TDKT, but I didn't even have to think about this.

 

[Milu]

Batman Begins. MOS is good, but like a lot of movies it's being compared to around these parts, it falters in comparison because the script, pacing, and other technical aspects simply don't add up to a spectacular finished product.

Spoiler

Iron Man beats them both, however.