Man of Steel vs Batman Begins

[DACrowe]

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.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. As for the "quitting" we'll see. It seems to appear in nearly every superhero sequel, so who knows on that count.

Also, I did not think about it, but both have a final flashback to their father from their boyhood after the climax. I do not know why that just popped out, but it was kind of interesting.

 

[DACrowe]

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.



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.

Betray his partner? Yes. Team up with a fictional version of al-Qaeda? Seems a bit extreme and only makes sense because it serves the plot.

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.

True, the sequels have a more refined look. But BB is still stunning in its own way and deserved its Oscar nomination. And I do think it is visually (as in style not just fight sequences) more immersive than any of the MCU films. However, I would agree that the fight sequences leave a lot to be desired. Luckily, it did not really hurt the movie for me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't particularly care for either But BB, slightly, for whatever that is worth. Iron Man mops the floor with all the others (bar STM) however.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I don't particularly care for either But BB, slightly, for whatever that is worth. Iron Man mops the floor with all the others (bar STM) however.

I agree about Iron Man.

 

[shauner111]

Begins didn't require that kind of fighting or CG action like MOS, which is about a super-powered alien who flies and has to fight other aliens. So even though on the surface, the fighting in MOS is the best ive seen in any comic book movie....you just can't compare.

MOS had a bigger scope. More CG for the action. It was bigger and louder and faster. This makes it an amazing movie but not better. I hold MOS above any other comic book movie outside of TDK trilogy films though.

Begins was more original with the non-linear structure which tends to get repeated nowadays. It's not only influenced MOS and Amazing Spider-Man in trying to reboot a franchise to tell a more serious origin story. But it's also influenced the reboots or origin films for Star Trek, Iron Man, James Bond (Casino Royale) and others. This makes BB more groundbreaking. But as a movie? It's technically better in its cinematography, acting, direction, editing and pacing.

MOS was good in all those departments but not on the level of BB. There's a fine line between Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder and it shows.

Also Batman's "my guy".

I absolutely agree, although I still prefere BB.

Lois Lane > Rachel Dawes
Martha Kent > Martha Wayne

Faora > all

I agree with this. But to be fair, Lois Lane is an iconic character that called for a big actress to give it even more credibility for the modern age. Rachel was an original character used to show Bruce's progression. Katie, for what she was given, was actually solid in the role.

Martha and Jonathan just had more to work with because they really needed to establish that way of life and how Clark grows up with Jonathan up until his teens. Martha, like Aunt May for Peter, is there when Clark is Superman in his adulthood. It just calls for a bigger actress with a bigger part. Enter Diane Lane. While Martha/Thomas Wayne can be delved into more, it's not necessary for the story. Bruce loses them at age 8/9. The point just needs to be there that they die in an alley in front of young Bruce. It doesn't require a big name actress or a big part at all.

So I don't think that stuff should be compared. It's not exactly fair. But I see what you mean.

I don't particularly care for either But BB, slightly, for whatever that is worth. Iron Man mops the floor with all the others (bar STM) however.

Iron Man is one of the best CBM's certainly. But it doesn't even come close to these films in my opinion. I may be able to understand if somebody likes it more than MOS though. Whether that be because of pacing or simply enjoyment. But BB? Never.

Superman: The Movie was groundbreaking for its time. It's a good one, but it's overrated by a mile. It has an incredible amount of cheese, the effects don't hold up well at all compared to some of the stuff seen in the the late 60s - late 70s (Star Wars, 2001). There's no great villain. It's an exercise in just showing the world a Superman movie. Reeve and Kidder are great but that's about it in my opinion. It doesn't touch MOS, Tim Burton's Batman, Iron Man, TDK Trilogy or some of the Spider-Man movies.

Batman Begins will more than likely ALWAYS be the greatest origin film ever made.

 

[flickchick85]

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.

I don't know how it can be clearly technically superior when technically, it has such an often-amateurish screenplay. I agree that the music and cinematography are better, but the story really isn't as special as you're making it out to be. Iron Man's story arc itself is just as strong, and it's lead characters are stronger. Favreau's laid-back tone and Matthew Libatique's cinematography may not have been as dramatic or unique as the look/tone of Nolan and Pfister, but they were still strong technical elements, utterly perfect for the story they were telling and really set the stage for the colorful-yet-naturalistic look and laid-back, more light-hearted tone of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I can't in good conscious take anyone seriously who doesn't take anyone else seriously for having a different opinion on something that is so clearly subjective despite you treating it as a "technical" fact. It's not like I'm arguing the merits of Fantastic Four. Iron Man is a widely acclaimed film beloved by audiences and critics alike. Just like BB. Both films had excellent, Oscar-nominated technical teams behind them from the cinematography to the FX to the production design. And while both films have different flaws, the only major difference between them is their tone/approach (which is why I made that apparently wrongful assumption about IM's "comic-book-y" tone being the aspect that made it seem so inferior to you). Sure, BB had a more talented director at the helm, but IM had more talented writers crafting the story. BB's screenwriter had not a single great piece of work to his name prior to that film, while IM's had Children of Men, arguably one of the best films ever made. BB and IM's strengths and weaknesses behind the scenes balanced each other out quite a bit, so it's not ridiculous to to hold them up on equal footing to where either one could be superior no matter how much you feel that may be the case.

And yes, IM took cues from BB, which took cues from S:TM. But they all forged unique identities of their own, and coming first doesn't automatically make it better. I have no problem with people who believe who BB is better - that's great, it's a great movie, and I can see why someone would feel that way. But I do have a problem with the condescending attitudes that those who hold it up on a pedestal take toward those who'd dare to believe another widely acclaimed film could be better.

 

[BH/HHH]

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. As for the "quitting" we'll see. It seems to appear in nearly every superhero sequel, so who knows on that count.

Also, I did not think about it, but both have a final flashback to their father from their boyhood after the climax. I do not know why that just popped out, but it was kind of interesting.

Well that's true, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Spider-man 2, Iron Man 2, does he in IM3? I haven't seen it yet.

 

[BH/HHH]

Dowse think we could get back on topic this isn't Iron Man vs Batman Begins,

 

[BlackFox]

Yeah Batman Begins for me but MoS certainly tried hard and has epic scenes and action, but in terms of character development, an actual message to the audience and just overall gravitas BB wins fairly straight forward.

Maybe they set out to be different types of movies but BB just did it that bit better at what it was trying to be.

Not sure IM really comes into this topic but it would be on par with MoS probably. Very good but with some issues.

 

[kvz5]

MoS has better action and better female characters but BB was better in all other aspects for me especially with emotional resonance with the lead character.

 

[BH/HHH]

I just want to point out I didn't create this with the sole intention that MOS would win. I just wanted to get the opinions of everyone. I seem to have been accused of thinking otherwise and that is not the case.

There is no right or wring answer here it's simply opinion.

 

[jmc]

I don't know how it can be clearly technically superior when technically, it has such an often-amateurish screenplay. I agree that the music and cinematography are better, but the story really isn't as special as you're making it out to be. Iron Man's story arc itself is just as strong, and it's lead characters are stronger. Favreau's laid-back tone and Matthew Libatique's cinematography may not have been as dramatic or unique as the look/tone of Nolan and Pfister, but they were still strong technical elements, utterly perfect for the story they were telling and really set the stage for the colorful-yet-naturalistic look and laid-back, more light-hearted tone of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I can't in good conscious take anyone seriously who doesn't take anyone else seriously for having a different opinion on something that is so clearly subjective despite you treating it as a "technical" fact. It's not like I'm arguing the merits of Fantastic Four. Iron Man is a widely acclaimed film beloved by audiences and critics alike. Just like BB. Both films had excellent, Oscar-nominated technical teams behind them from the cinematography to the FX to the production design. And while both films have different flaws, the only major difference between them is their tone/approach (which is why I made that apparently wrongful assumption about IM's "comic-book-y" tone being the aspect that made it seem so inferior to you). Sure, BB had a more talented director at the helm, but IM had more talented writers crafting the story. BB's screenwriter had not a single great piece of work to his name prior to that film, while IM's had Children of Men, arguably one of the best films ever made. BB and IM's strengths and weaknesses behind the scenes balanced each other out quite a bit, so it's not ridiculous to to hold them up on equal footing to where either one could be superior no matter how much you feel that may be the case.

And yes, IM took cues from BB, which took cues from S:TM. But they all forged unique identities of their own, and coming first doesn't automatically make it better. I have no problem with people who believe who BB is better - that's great, it's a great movie, and I can see why someone would feel that way. But I do have a problem with the condescending attitudes that those who hold it up on a pedestal take toward those who'd dare to believe another widely acclaimed film could be better.

It's not condescending, it's about being objective.

 

[Skrilla31]

It's not condescending, it's about being objective.

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.

 

[CConn]

Personally, I'd say Batman Begins is superior in directing, writing, and "gripping journey" (which is really little more than a fantasy of a category invented by yourself to prove a point you couldn't even begin to make on its own merits).

While I could easily see why someone would prefer IM to BB, your manner of deduction and reasoning is wholly inadequate and juvenile.

 

[Skrilla31]

Personally, I'd say Batman Begins is superior in directing, writing, and "gripping journey" (which is really little more than a fantasy of a category invented by yourself to prove a point you couldn't even begin to make on its own merits).

While I could easily see why someone would prefer IM to BB, your manner of deduction and reasoning is wholly inadequate and juvenile.

I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of a debate. I've already went to great lengths in this thread to spell out what exactly it is that makes Iron Man a better movie. I've made my case. You can either agree or you can take the opposing side.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Personally, I'd say Batman Begins is superior in directing, writing, and "gripping journey" (which is really little more than a fantasy of a category invented by yourself to prove a point you couldn't even begin to make on its own merits).

While I could easily see why someone would prefer IM to BB, your manner of deduction and reasoning is wholly inadequate and juvenile.

I have to disagree here. Batman begins was plagued with truly horrendous dialogue, feeling the need to name and repeat over and over the very themes of the movie to make them clear and going down to long explanatory scenes where one character would say something only to allow the other to throw long informative speeches.

 

[Skrilla31]

I have to disagree here. Batman begins was plagued with truly horrendous dialogue, feeling the need to name and repeat over and over the very themes of the movie to make them clear and going down to long explanatory scenes where one character would say something only to allow the other to throw long informative speeches.

"I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear against those who fear on the fearful..."

CLANK!!!!!

There's nothing inherently wrong with dialogue like that, but it can only work if the tone of the movie provides the proper backdrop for it. Characters might talk like that in a comic book or in a movie that's more embracing of a fantasy-like tone. But when a movie is doing it's best to embrace some semblance of a grounded reality, dialogue like that becomes cringe inducing. Why? Because no one talks anything remotely like that in the real world. It's just one of the many things about Nolan's Batman movies that make it difficult for the audience to identify with it's characters. They don't feel or act human.

And then you combine that with Nolan's basic and unimaginative directing.

"Bats frighten me. It's time my enemies shared my dread..."

Again, hokey dialogue. But look at the way Nolan shoots this scene. This is supposed to be a crucial moment in helping us understand why Bruce does what he does, but the scene doesn't make us feel anything. Cut to Bruce fashioning a bat-a-rang, cut back to Alfred, Alfred asks question, cut back to Bruce, Bruce churns out dialogue, Bruce chucks bat-a-rang.

Let's try that scene a little differently.

--------------------------------------------------

An eye level shot from a distance of Bruce fashioning a bat-a-rang. Then a closeup on his face. He looks determined, obsessed almost. Then an extreme closeup on just his eyes.

Then we pull back again. Alfred makes his way into the frame but he's just seen behind in the distance. The focus is still on Bruce's face. He still hasn't taken his eyes off his work. Alfred speaks.

"Why bats, Master Wayne?"

A closeup on Bruce's eyes again, then a nightmarish flashback to that moment as a child he was trapped down in the cave. Images of bats all around him. He could still hear their shriek.

Back on Bruce's face, with Alfred behind him... still blurry in the distance.

"Fear..."

:: tosses bat-a-rang::

End scene.

 

[redfirebird2008]

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.

Completely agree.

 

[Bren]

I'm no critic, and I generally leave most of my brain at the door, especially for superhero films. So I judge a film purely based on how much I enjoyed it.

So I didn't get the amazing genius spinning kicking Batman I wanted. Doesn't make the film bad, just not as much what I wanted.

While there were some aspects of MOS I feel should have been improved on, the experience was the comic book action sprawl with some hectic emotional scenes that I was hoping for.

For all I know, there's some directors Bible you could use to prove Batman Begins was a better-MADE film. But MOS was the better comic book movie for me.

And as much as I am a Superman fanboy, I do believe I still enjoyed IM the most out of the lot.

 

[DACrowe]

I have to disagree here. Batman begins was plagued with truly horrendous dialogue, feeling the need to name and repeat over and over the very themes of the movie to make them clear and going down to long explanatory scenes where one character would say something only to allow the other to throw long informative speeches.

And IM1 has some clunky story developments, like the aforementioned Stane working with al-Qeada...er, excuse, me "The Ten Rings." And lines like "Next time, you're riding with me" or "Training exercise" aren't exactly winners either.

Both are flawed in the writing department. However, BB goes for a level of depth and thoughtfulness that no other superhero ORIGIN movie has achieved. Though IM1 certainly attempted it in scenes. Hence, Jon Favreau openly admitting he was inspired by Nolan while making that movie.

 

[DACrowe]

"I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear against those who fear on the fearful..."

CLANK!!!!!

There's nothing inherently wrong with dialogue like that, but it can only work if the tone of the movie provides the proper backdrop for it. Characters might talk like that in a comic book or in a movie that's more embracing of a fantasy-like tone. But when a movie is doing it's best to embrace some semblance of a grounded reality, dialogue like that becomes cringe inducing. Why? Because no one talks anything remotely like that in the real world. It's just one of the many things about Nolan's Batman movies that make it difficult for the audience to identify with it's characters. They don't feel or act human.

And then you combine that with Nolan's basic and unimaginative directing.

"Bats frighten me. It's time my enemies shared my dread..."

Again, hokey dialogue. But look at the way Nolan shoots this scene. This is supposed to be a crucial moment in helping us understand why Bruce does what he does, but the scene doesn't make us feel anything. Cut to Bruce fashioning a bat-a-rang, cut back to Alfred, Alfred asks question, cut back to Bruce, Bruce churns out dialogue, Bruce chucks bat-a-rang.

Let's try that scene a little differently.

--------------------------------------------------

An eye level shot from a distance of Bruce fashioning a bat-a-rang. Then a closeup on his face. He looks determined, obsessed almost. Then an extreme closeup on just his eyes.

Then we pull back again. Alfred makes his way into the frame but he's just seen behind in the distance. The focus is still on Bruce's face. He still hasn't taken his eyes off his work. Alfred speaks.

"Why bats, Master Wayne?"

A closeup on Bruce's eyes again, then a nightmarish flashback to that moment as a child he was trapped down in the cave. Images of bats all around him. He could still hear their shriek.

Back on Bruce's face, with Alfred behind him... still blurry in the distance.

"Fear..."

:: tosses bat-a-rang::

End scene.

Really. THOSE were the two lines you singled out? Don't get me wrong, BB has some bad dialogue that is often too-on-the-nose "Nice coat," "Can you drive stick," the overabundance of the word "fear" like Goyer got a backend point every time it was uttered (it was "hope" in MOS), etc.

But those lines are very much in character of Bruce Wayne. The point he is not like every other person and is that driven. And just saying "Fear..." is as unimaginative as something out of a Punisher movie.

I'm not picking on it, it's just it was more the clunky speechifying in a few scenes and weak attempts at one-liners that held BB back in the scripting department (something in the latter's case that was wisely rectified in the sequels).

Just out of curiosity how do you feel about ANY Marvel film that is not IM1 or The Avengers? Because, those are not screenplays to write home about either.

 

[Skrilla31]

And IM1 has some clunky story developments, like the aforementioned Stane working with al-Qeada...

You mean like how the Bush family were business partners with the Bin Ladens?

 

[DACrowe]

You do realize that the Saudi Arabian bin Laden family disowned Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, who wanted to overthrow the Saudi Arabian government (that his parents are entrenched in) just as much as he wanted to overthrow any Middle Eastern government that was cozy with the West.

I would never defend the Bush family but that is hugely different from a businessman plotting with militant terrorists in an Afghani cave the murder of his business partner. There are ways of doing that without getting into bed with people who...I don't know...could use your weapons-making partner to build them a massive weapon. Just an idea.

 

[Skrilla31]

Just out of curiosity how do you feel about ANY Marvel film that is not IM1 or The Avengers? Because, those are not screenplays to write home about either.

You're right, they're not. Iron Man 2 was awful. Thor was awful. Captain America was kinda decent for about 45 minutes but then it turns into formulaic crap. Iron Man 3 wasn't my cup of tea either. It wasn't Iron Man 2 levels of bad but there's plenty for me to dissect there too.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

And IM1 has some clunky story developments, like the aforementioned Stane working with al-Qeada...er, excuse, me "The Ten Rings." And lines like "Next time, you're riding with me" or "Training exercise" aren't exactly winners either.

The tone was radically different. You can throw a one-liner like that and it's not out of place in a movie like Iron Man. So the same in a movie that pretends to be all serious and deep and it's a no-no.M Like the "Nice coat" batman delivers immediately after his epic introduction apparently with the only purpose of ruining that very moment.

Both are flawed in the writing department.

Not equally.

However, BB goes for a level of depth and thoughtfulness that no other superhero ORIGIN movie has achieved. Though IM1 certainly attempted it in scenes. Hence, Jon Favreau openly admitting he was inspired by Nolan while making that movie.

Batman Begins wanted to go all depth and thoughtfulness, but it only reached the mark of preachy and informative. Things among the lines of 'Revenge is bad because of this and that,' 'Fear make criminals afraid and fearful.' That is just speeches, just actual depth. An even worse case is when little Bruce is with his father and mute mother talking about the monorail, it was painful how unnatural and incoherent it was just for the sake of giving as much information as possible.

Iron Man and many movies can be influenced by Batman Begins tone (which was a great promise) but at least IM surpasses it because it didn't pretend to be more than it was.