Man of Steel vs Batman Begins

[Shikamaru]

Of course it didn't hit you over the head with humor. It forgot to include any.

It didn't forget any. It just remembered the fact that Superman is not a corny character and that you can actually tell mature serious stories with a character like him (and for the record, I don't think the Donner film hit me over the head with humor either).

 

[The Batman]

MOS > BB in size, scope, pacing, casting, action & more. But I'm sure when we look back at this time in the genre history will show BB having the greater impact

That's happening now. BB already has a greater impact. BB is the reason you have reboot mania. MOS is the new "Amazing Spider-Man".

 

[PacificBoy]

Batman Begins, by a mile. The better crafted movie and more enjoyable romp, in my book. Also, a more self-contained movie - we don't have to wait for the sequel to see certain themes realized or expanded on.

 

[shauner111]

Of course it didn't hit you over the head with humor. It forgot to include any.

There were funny moments in the film. The bar scene with the truck outside of it. The end with the General + Superman. The scene in the interrogation room with Lois and the General. The odd Perry White moment. There's very small amounts of it but it's there but in comparison yes you're right. You can say "oh they forgot to put any in there!". But for me I don't think humor is needed in these movies that are trying to tell a more serious story. As long as there's a few moments once in a while. That way it feels more natural like when something funny happens in real life and it's not like most of the other CBM's where it's beaten over your head with a comic relief character or a one-liner/punchline every minute. I felt that way with Avengers and most of those movies. The more humor they throw in, the less I laugh because it's too much.

 

[shauner111]

There is barely any action in Iron Man and Pepper is by no means a damsel in distress. It had a fun tone but the film overall is a character study of Tony Stark. The funniest over-the-top moments in the film are not even jokes but physical comedy.

Having a film follow a formula similar to the one you listed does not equate to the film not being able to stand on its own if separated from films similar to it. Many films of various genres follow a formula of their particular genre that has been used many times but are still considered to be solid cinematic pieces that can stand on their own and have withstood the test of time. Heck, Batman Begins has a lot of the formula you are sourcing incorporated into it. There is an entire scene where Batman goes to save Rachel from Scarecrow (AKA "get the girl") and features a ninja society trying to infect the water supply to then spread it over the city with a water vaporizer strong enough to drain the water from metal pipes but not the water found in your body. On paper, that sounds as something you would find in a popcorn blockbuster.

It depends on what you've seen. A good chunk of comic book films are indeed bad or just "meh" but the solution to that is to make more that are not. We have been moving in the right direction for a while now, especially since 2008. The whole point of good adaptations is to bring the best of a character on the big screen. If a character is portrayed as corny on the big screen when he is not in other mediums, then the character should be made to represent his/her true self. Batman specifically had some very corny films in the last century.

I need to watch Iron man again, im going by memory and it's been a LONG time since ive seen it.

But that's not what I meant when I said "get the girl".

All of those elements are there of course but what im trying to say is that there's also so much more added. And there's twists on it. Bruce doesn't really get the girl at the end, there's a swerve at the end of that scene with what Rachel tells him. Above all else it's really earnest and feels like a crime film. Nolan's Bat movies attract people like P.T Anderson, or fans who rather watch crime films, martial arts movies, James Bond/Die Hard type of action movies. Ive seen it. I never get that vibe with other movies in the "invisible genre of CBM's ".

It's always a reaction from the people who don't like watching superhero movies who don't want to see them or see it and go "meh" because it's like another fluffy, super-powered popcorn comedy action saving the day, getting the good girl damsel in distress movie. Most people I talk to are like "ughhh ive seen 1, ive seen them all but those Batman movies were really different..it was like I wasn't even watching a superhero movie".

That's A) Batman's doing as a character because he doesn't have those superpowers B) Nolan's doing as a filmmaker.

 

[jonathancrane]

Man of Steel.

Begins had an excellent script, score, and cast listing, but there are three variables that dragged it down immensely. First on the list is Katie Holmes, who is a walking black hole: she drains vitality out of every scene she is in...which is problematic, as she is one of the leads, and had the part written for her (why, I have no idea.) Secondly is the lighting and color correction: Arkham Island/the Narrows are terrible for the eyes. The golds and browns were grossly overdone; they should have used a better color selection.

At last, but not least is Goyer's dialogue. It's popcorn dialogue, at its worst ("Gotta get me one of those," and so on.) If the cheesy lines had been omitted, the dramatic tension would not have been disrupted as many times as it is in the film.

Out of the three flaws, the first two are the largest; the last one is not a deal-breaker, but is detrimental to the film, though. If they had been corrected before a frame was shot (namely, casting someone else and selecting a better set of colors,) Begins would have been a flawless film.



Now, looking at Man of Steel, we notice that the chief problem with it is the same as Begins: the overuse of a visually displeasing color. However, while the grays were over-used (like they were in On Stranger Tides,) they are not as bad as that in Begins. Aside from that, I have no other problems with the film.

 

[jmc]

Right, and objectively speaking Iron Man is a better made movie.

More engaging main character? Check. A more gripping journey? Check. Better writing? Check. Better directing? Check. Better acting? Check. A better paced narrative? Check. More fun to watch just in terms of pure superhero escapism? Check. There's a reason why Iron Man went from being a lesser known property to one of the most popular superheros in the world in just the span of a few short years. Because the first Iron Man movie was that damn good. Practically all of Marvel's recent momentum as of late is rooted in that movie.

Batman Begins is hugely ambitious in it's approach to the genre and I give Nolan points for originality but at the same time the movie falls flat on it's own face in more ways than it succeeds. I wouldn't call it an absolute mess (ahem, Man Of Steel) but there are too many things holding it back from being a truly gripping experience. As it stands it will always be remembered as the film which set the stage for it's vastly improved sequel.

Mate, you've done nothing to back up your claim other than say 'check'. The better writing one is especially hilarious considering a chunk of what RDJ said in the film was him ad libing.

 

[jmc]

The condescension comes in acting as if you're the only one capable of an objective opinion. I'm being no less objective in my posts as you. Objectively, I believe BB is superior to MoS and TASM from a technical standpoint (though, subjectively, I do tend to enjoy both of those more), but is about equal in quality to IM. And the critics - the people paid to be objective about these things - seem to agree with that assessment, both in the percentage of positive reviews (in which IM is higher) AND average scores (in which the two are even). So whether or not you agree with that assessment, acting like others are being unreasonable or unable to be objective for putting IM at an equal level of comparison to BB is, well, the more unreasonable stance, imo.

C'mon flickchick, the reason it's loved by critics is down to its lead actor. You cannot honestly tell me that if it's anyone other than RDJ playing Tony Stark the film is just as good. That's what I'm talking about in terms of IM being a weaker film, it's a film that's built around the lead actor not the story.

 

[Bren]

So casting the right person for the film is now a negative against the film or film-maker?

 

[jmc]

Where the **** did I say that?

 

[Skrilla31]

Mate, you've done nothing to back up your claim other than say 'check'. The better writing one is especially hilarious considering a chunk of what RDJ said in the film was him ad libing.

Writing as in writing. Getting from Point A to Point B. Building to an emotional climax, Constructing a tight narrative. Coming up with scenes that serve the story and it's characters. If I had to criticize Iron Man, it's the final 20-30 minutes. Turning Stane into a cackling villain in an Iron Man suit did NOT serve the story, it served the studio. Because god knows you can't have a superhero movie without some of type of big dumb fight.

But Begins is worse. Scarecrow doesn't really need to be that movie at all seeing as how he was used. As it stands all his character does is overcomplicate things and it feels like he was shoehorned into the story simply for the fact that he was the most well known Batman villain that hadn't been used yet.

 

[DACrowe]

I never stated any of the following:
1) That one cannot prefer TDKR over BB or TDK.
2) That one cannot prefer another origin film to BB or another CBM in general to TDK.
3) That those who like TDKR more than BB/TDK or more than another film, or just like TDKR in general, have a wrong or invalid opinion.
4) That TDKR cannot ever win a poll.

You are misinterpreting the type of people I was referencing with the dig I took at TDKR. Perhaps I am a bit guilty for that because I wasn't specific enough. I was talking about Nolanites. If you are not a Nolanite (and it doesn't seem that you are one), then what I am about to say does not apply to you.

It was more a broad response to you taking a swipe at TDKR at the end. And I did construe your saying that it wins in the TDKR forums means you view it could not do as well out here. And honestly, I think it can.

As I said in my last post, the people who often make these threads and/or go to them to state the other film is bad because it is not as good as BB and/or TDK are people who know damn well that Batman Begins or The Dark Knight will utterly destroy the other film in the poll. When they make or go to a thread that compares Batman Begins to another origin film, they know that BB will be winning by a vast difference. When they make or go to a thread that compares The Dark Knight to another comic book film, they know that TDK will be winning by a vast difference. They are fully confident about this and are eager to see the (expected) results. For the record, the OP of this thread is not a Nolanite. Not every person that makes a thread like this is a Nolanite but a large chunk is. In the same way, not every person going to these threads to leave a post is a Nolanite (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but a large chunk is. Then everything changes with TDKR. That entire confidence and "Mah movie is so much better than urs! It obliterates it! Muahahahahaha!" is either gone or very underplayed, unless the pole is comparing TDKR to far worse third movies like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3. The same Nolanites often claim that they like TDKR just as much as the first two films or more, so we know that the drop in confidence is not due to liking the movie less in their case. We also know that critics and the general audience loved the film for the most part, giving them the hollow "Everyone likes it but you!" argument on their side. What seems to cause that drop in confidence then? No one can really give a concrete answer to this but could it be that maybe there are certain criticisms of the film that they want to avoid at all costs? Just throwing that out there. That's not to say that TDKR cannot possibly win a poll against a film like The Avengers but the Nolanites lose confidence in TDKR beating Avengers by a vast majority in the poll to the point that Avengers cannot make a comeback, which is something more common to happen in threads like this one (not necessarily with Avengers since it isn't an origin film like BB but you get the point).

For the record, I also don't care whether or not a film wins a poll. I never form my opinions around what the majority of people think. Can't say the same thing for the Nolanites I'm describing though.

Return of the Jedi doesn't have that bad of a rep, and fans of Star Wars are not as split on it as Batman fans are on TDKR. If anything, the film has a far better image now than it did when it came out. I thank the prequel trilogy for that. I don't know how TDKR will be remembered as. My gut feeling tells me that it will become the "Batman Returns" of the Nolan trilogy (though it arguably already is that). However, I do think that BB and TDK will be seen less fondly by future generations, even when viewed as a product of their time, due to TDKR .

Since we have encountered one another in this thread and TDKR was brought up, I would like to inform you that I have read your response to one of my posts in that John Blake thread yesterday. On top of time being an issue, I was also too lazy and too tired to type that long of a post. I haven't forgotten about it though. Just letting you know.

I think as time passes the Nolan trilogy will be viewed as a peak for the superhero genre--unless that changes with an as of yet unreleased film--and TDKR will be part of that, even for those who are angry it made Batman retire and/or Robin was named John Blake and didn't have a costume (yes I see that you may respond to that ).

Fans hated on Return of the Jedi until the prequels while the GA lumped in with the other two as just as good. I expect the same will happen here as time passes.

 

[shauner111]

C'mon flickchick, the reason it's loved by critics is down to its lead actor. You cannot honestly tell me that if it's anyone other than RDJ playing Tony Stark the film is just as good. That's what I'm talking about in terms of IM being a weaker film, it's a film that's built around the lead actor not the story.

 

[Tequilla]

Begins.

 

[flickchick85]

C'mon flickchick, the reason it's loved by critics is down to its lead actor. You cannot honestly tell me that if it's anyone other than RDJ playing Tony Stark the film is just as good. That's what I'm talking about in terms of IM being a weaker film, it's a film that's built around the lead actor not the story.

And yet they consistently praised the screenplay, the effects, and the confident, laid-back tone Favreau brought to the table that took the character seriously but wasn't afraid to be funny, without being camp - the tone that set the stage for the entire MCU to come (minus TIH, since that was made during the same period and its more serious tone failed to strike such a chord). IM had a strong screenplay, strong direction, and strong production design and technical aspects to back up its sensational lead actor. And again, I don't agree that the lead character being more replaceable in Begins argues its merits as a better movie.

 

[Skrilla31]

C'mon flickchick, the reason it's loved by critics is down to its lead actor. You cannot honestly tell me that if it's anyone other than RDJ playing Tony Stark the film is just as good. That's what I'm talking about in terms of IM being a weaker film, it's a film that's built around the lead actor not the story.

Who cares how things would have turned out with another actor? Are we talking about a movie that exists in a parallel universe where Downey wasn't cast? Or are we talking about Iron Man?

What's The Dark Knight without Heath Ledger? What's Scarface without Al Pacino? WHO CARES? A great actor can help create a great character and a great character can help make a great movie.

 

[DACrowe]

Well, I would personally argue that the Joker is not the only great thing about TDK, though he is certainly the biggest highlight in an all around astounding film. I would agree that IM1 is closer to Scarface in concept (though Scarface is a bonafide classic) because the whole project is rather by-the-numbers except for the stunning charisma (and humor) of the lead performance. RDJ elevates the material single-handidly, as did, IMO, Pacino in Scarface.

To keep in on Pacino, it would be similar to what The Godfather would be without Brando in TDK's case (though The Godfather is a MUCH better movie, do not get me wrong). That movie would not have been as good if another actor played an elderly Vito Corleone. However, the screenplay, direction and rest of the cast and story were strong enough that that was an epic in the making no matter what. Fortune just smiled that the right castings were made. On a funny aside, Paramount Pictures wanted Robert Redford to play Michael! Can you believe that?

I believe that I am rambling now.

 

[Green Goblin]

begins

 

[Steamteck]

Fans hated on Return of the Jedi until the prequels while the GA lumped in with the other two as just as good. I expect the same will happen here as time passes.

I still hate on Return of the Jedi. In fact ,I rewatched it recently as my son wanted to see it and it was even worse than I remember.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

BB was probably technically a better movie but I prefer MOS.

My thoughts as well.

 

[jmc]

Writing as in writing. Getting from Point A to Point B. Building to an emotional climax, Constructing a tight narrative. Coming up with scenes that serve the story and it's characters. If I had to criticize Iron Man, it's the final 20-30 minutes. Turning Stane into a cackling villain in an Iron Man suit did NOT serve the story, it served the studio. Because god knows you can't have a superhero movie without some of type of big dumb fight.

But Begins is worse. Scarecrow doesn't really need to be that movie at all seeing as how he was used. As it stands all his character does is overcomplicate things and it feels like he was shoehorned into the story simply for the fact that he was the most well known Batman villain that hadn't been used yet.

WTF are talking about? Without Scarecrow there is no story, Ra's Al Ghul doesn't get his weaponized toxin and his plan is screwed. Scarecrow was there for a reason. I find it hilarious you say it has better writing and yet admit it's climax is crappy. Begins is worse? Bull ****, Begins has more emotional weight in its first 45 mins than Iron Man has in its entire 2 hour run time. On top of that it is superior in every technical aspect to Iron Man. If you enjoy IM more then that's fine, but don't act like it's the equal of Batman Begins from a pure film making perspective, especially when the lead actor is the one carrying the entire movie.

 

[jmc]

Who cares how things would have turned out with another actor? Are we talking about a movie that exists in a parallel universe where Downey wasn't cast? Or are we talking about Iron Man?

What's The Dark Knight without Heath Ledger? What's Scarface without Al Pacino? WHO CARES? A great actor can help create a great character and a great character can help make a great movie.

Because it's about how strong the foundations of the movie are. That's the point, a good film is about strong foundations. You want to compare films that are similar, you compare them as a whole. What's the Dark Knight with out Ledgers Joker? A film with strong foundations. When I say IM is nothing without RDJ it's because the film is a standard piece of story telling that's hasn't got much else going for it other than the main character which is elevated by the lead actor. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, Pirates of the Caribbean is in the exact same boat with Johnny Depp, it's perfectly fine to have an actor be the reason for the films success, sometimes those are the most enjoyable films, but that doesn't mean they are quality pieces of cinema when you break it down.

 

[Skrilla31]

WTF are talking about? Without Scarecrow there is no story, Ra's Al Ghul doesn't get his weaponized toxin and his plan is screwed. Scarecrow was there for a reason.

Scarecrow is there because he's a recognizable Batman villain. He exists solely to be the baddie in the second act and nothing more. Other than that he serves no narrative function. None of the main characters are further developed through their interactions with him. He scares Falcone, he drugs Rachel, and he burns Batman. That's about all he's good for in this movie. Other than that the story can do without him.

But nah... the League Of Shadows - an ancient society notorious for bringing down every major empire over the course of centuries - needed this random cooky doctor in order to carry out their devious plot. Nope, that's not contrived at all. Not. At. All.

I find it hilarious you say it has better writing and yet admit it's climax is crappy. Begins is worse? Bull ****, Begins has more emotional weight in its first 45 mins than Iron Man has in its entire 2 hour run time.

Oh yea? You find it hilarious? Was it more hilarious than Katie Holmes?

The first 45 minutes of Iron Man consist of a Tony's kidnapping, him building the suit, and his climactic escape. The first 45 minutes of Begins is flashbacks, exposition, and Bruce training in the mountains. If you thought Bruce escaping from the League Of Shadows headquarters provided more excitement and more of a thrill than Tony escaping from his captivity in the cave... then I guess my first question would be how does it feel to work for Chris Nolan?

but don't act like it's the equal of Batman Begins from a pure film making perspective, especially when the lead actor is the one carrying the entire movie.

You're right man. Acting was never really an important part of the filmmaking process. Who needs great performances when you can just have the SCRIPT try and hammer down the movie's emotional beats instead, right?

 

[DACrowe]

I actually do prefer Batman's escape from the LOS more.

Mostly because I am invested in the story. Then again, maybe I was when I first saw IM1? The first two times in theater I recall loving. But I cannot get into that movie since the DVD. It is just dry.

 

[jmc]

Scarecrow is there because he's a recognizable Batman villain. He exists solely to be the baddie in the second act and nothing more. Other than that he serves no narrative function. None of the main characters are further developed through their interactions with him. He scares Falcone, he drugs Rachel, and he burns Batman. That's about all he's good for in this movie. Other than that the story can do without him.

But nah... the League Of Shadows - an ancient society notorious for bringing down every major empire over the course of centuries - needed this random cooky doctor in order to carry out their devious plot. Nope, that's not contrived at all. Not. At. All.



Oh yea? You find it hilarious? Was it more hilarious than Katie Holmes?

The first 45 minutes of Iron Man consist of a Tony's kidnapping, him building the suit, and his climactic escape. The first 45 minutes of Begins is flashbacks, exposition, and Bruce training in the mountains. If you thought Bruce escaping from the League Of Shadows headquarters provided more excitement and more of a thrill than Tony escaping from his captivity in the cave... then I guess my first question would be how does it feel to work for Chris Nolan?



You're right man. Acting was never really an important part of the filmmaking process. Who needs great performances when you can just have the SCRIPT try and hammer down the movie's emotional beats instead, right?

You are either not comprehending what I've been writing or you're choosing to ignore it simply because you like Iron Man more.