Batman Begins Now it's my turn: Doc's problems with Begins...

[DocLathropBrown]

Okay, the time has come. Some of you knew this was coming. But first, let me give a little preface: those who might remember last year when Begins came out, I loved it. I was one of the only people praising both Burton and Nolan's films. But when the BB DVD came out, and I got a chance to more readily compare the two, I found that I just prefurred what Burton had done, and found I loved some aspects of what he did all the more.

I waited until now to do this because now there's more of a chance of me getting to speak my mind without being flamed from here to Kingdom Come. And if you're prepared to see me bashing BB, don't expect it. Even though I'm talking about what I disliked about it, I'm not trying to start a fight. So don't any of you dare to try it yourselves. I'm stating my opinion, and if you can't comment back without bashing me or my views, then just leave this thread now. I express my opinions strongly and little changes my opinions as a result. I sound like a jackass, but I'm rarely trying to actually insult someone through my opinions, so take it in stride.

That said, I'll get into it....

I remember opening night for BB. I went with my friends, I had been eagerly anticipating it. Honestly, I was practically drooling for the film. After it was done, I was silent and brooding. The film didn't feel right. I didn't like it, but then, I felt torn. I was supposed to like it, right? I mean, I'm a Batman diehard.... this is the Batman film we should have gotten all along, right? So I eventually convinced myself to like it with a second viewing.... little did I know my gut instinct from opening night was right....

All BB amounts to is another director putting too much of his stamp onto a certain character. Just like Burton did. People just like this stamp at the moment because it's accurate to the modern version of Batman. Back before the 'net (and especially before BB), people loved Burton's films as well. It'll be a few years, but you'll probably soon see a dropoff in admiration for BB just as B89 did. 'Course, I've been wrong before....

I don't like Christopher Nolan's film. I'm not sure I like the man, either. He shouldn't be doing Batman films. He's actually very similar to Tim Burton. Both are offbeat directors who got the job because they were semi-outsiders. The only difference is in how they tweak the source material. Burton's sensibilities appeal to me more than Nolan's. And then the guy tells us that as long as he's around, there'll be no sidekicks, and some of the best villains aren't even up for appearing the films? Clayface is the example he used. If you use Clayface's origin from TAS, you have a fantastic character. And no matter how outlandish the character seems, a good director can make it work. Especially with an origin that comes from TAS!

The guy's fight scenes are terrible. I apprecite the idea behind it, though. Helping us see Batman through the villains' eyes is not a new idea. Burton did it by keeping Batman almost as mysterious to us as he is to the crooks he takes down. But it should have only been that way for one fight sequence. After the docks, we should have been able to see Batman whipping ass. Like I said, nice idea, bad execution.

I hate David Goyer's script. And Nolan doesn't have the best sense when it comes to editing a script either, it seems. The material within the script was great, don't get me wrong. But Goyer can't write lines to save his life! The more I saw BB, the more I began to realize that the dialogue didn't always feel natural, half of it felt like tired, pre-written stuff that was perhaps too eloquent for some characters. I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head... the best example probably being Ra's Al Guhl's material. However, Liam Neeson transcends the poor dialogue and make it work: he's that great.

Most of the film felt too contrived and convienient as well. Bruce suddenly having a moment of weakness after Wayne Manor goes up in flames just felt lame. I didn't buy it at all, and I could sense the obligatory "You haven't given up on me?" bit coming a mile away. It just felt too trite and there wasn't any heart in it. It felt like we were supposed to empathize just because we were supposed to... And another thing.... his parents die after seeing a play (a play, what the Hell?) about Bats? No, that's not convienient.... It's supposed to be a movie theater! So much for Nolan being 100% more accurate than Burton's film....

As a result of having to be accurate to every detail of the comics, the film often feels overloaded with minuta. He don't need to know where Bruce got everything. Leave a little bit of mystery for Batman, for God's sake! That's one of the things Burton captured better than Nolan (Yes, I'm actually saying it...). Burton captured the romanticism and mystery of Batman. It could have been done with more detail, sure, but I'll take being kept in the dark with subtle hints over TMI any day.

Batman is a very romantic character (And I don't mean in the traditional sense), and Nolan's film had none of that. He just felt like he was cool because he was supposed to be, like Nolan had to justify it. Burton didn't. He put Batman up there and told us: "Batman's cool. So much so that we don't have to tell you why."

I don't hate the one-liners as much as some people here, but I do admit it was just more from that terrible script. Along those lines.... Alfred was a disgusting jackass. Yes, Alfred makes trite comments and is worth a chuckle now and again. He's the voice that makes Bruce sometimes step back and think. Alfred was perfect in Burton's films, only hampered by a lack of screen time. He was a moral voice ("I have no wish to fill my few remaining years greiving for the loss of old friends... or their sons"), and made smartalec-y comments ("Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?"), but wasn't an annoying jerk. If Caine's Alfred was my butler, I'd have fired him, friend or not. He bordered on obnoxious by the film's end. Not all of his material was bad, but I'd have cut his smartassery. In the video game, there was a better balance struck, and I loved Caine in the game. Once again, it comes down to Goyer's terrible script. And the cockney accent is atrocious. Alfred's supposed to be a respectful, proper British gentleman, not a Brit from the streets!

The suit: hate it. Not enough to boycott it, but it needs heavy revisions. No problem with rubber, but it was too damn puffy. And I hate the robotic look... ruins the whole "giant bat" look, unless he wants to be mistaken for a robotic bat? And a minor nitpick that I don't count against the film: why, since Forever, does Batman have to have a utility belt that droops toward his crotch? Why? He's never worn one like that in the comics.... what gives?

Love the Batmobile, though a bat fin would be nice....

Hate Gotham. Gotham is supposed to be gothic, not a modern American city. We're supposed to have gargoyles everywhere and such. A cathedral.... yet another thing that Burton did right.

Bale: don't like his Batman, but I chalk that up to Nolan more than anything else. With a better script and better direction, he has a very good Batman voice, evidenced by his performance in the game. I'll say the same thing many people have said: fix the voice. I don't like the playboy act, never have. At least, not the ones that disgrace the family name. You don't have to be an absolute ass to dissuade people from thinking you're Batman. I would never be able to do what he did and disgrace my father's name. I know he had to be drastic in the context of the scene (Getting the guests out), but it still bugs me.

Bale played Batman far too vengefully. He's too angry, not calm and collected like Batman should be. And Batman's never acted animalistic, at least not to the degree that BB did. I know my point of reference (and preference) is Burton's films, and since some people will write me off just for that, I'll just say this: is Bale's Batman anything like the Batman of TAS? And no, BB is far from being better or even matching TAS. MOTP runs circles around BB with it's greatness. TAS is how Batman should be, Bale was so far from that it wasn't funny. Except for the final scene. THAT was pitch-perfect. I would say I look forward to the sequel, but with all of the factors (Nolan, Goyer), I'm more scared than anything. But if it's closer to the feel of TAS (which the rooftop scene in BB was), then I'll be pleased.

Burton gave us a more psychologically realistic portrayal of Batman. The playboy facade was created back in the day and wasn't totally believeable even then. If someone witnesses the trauma that Bruce has, they're going to be more like Keaton's Wayne than Bale's. At least, Bruce would be. For some others, they'd go the Bale route and be an angry guy. But in the end, Keaton's Wayne is the route my brain would have gone, so I'm more partial to it.

BB made Wayne too dependant on WE and Fox. It's not a bad idea, but it was carried too far. Bale's Wayne doesn't come off as stupid or inept, but he doesn't seem as 'smart' as he should. I could go on for hours on how that ties into how much more natural it all felt from Keaton, but that would take entirely too long and this is long enough as it is... maybe later....

The score: as long as we get a "theme" in the next film, I'll let it slide, but overall, there wasn't enough variation and it mostly felt like one droning piece. The best bit of scoring in the film was the Batmobile sequence, actually. It actually stood out and made me take notice.

I liked Rachael Dawes.... that was one of the few aspects that felt right. Oldman as Gordon was great, despite being used for bad comedy relief.

And Batman killing Ra's..... that's NOT Batman. In any way, shape or form. Batman doesn't "let" people die if he can prevent it. And if Goyer/Nolan are actual hypocrites and let Ra's die when they denounced Burton killing the Joker, I'll laugh. And to those fans who are content with them having killed Ra's and denouncing the Lazuarus Pits: That's Ra's Al Ghul. If you don't like it, then go suck a lemon, the Lazarus Pits are part of Ra's and if it gets ignored for the sake of 'realism,' I'll be very unhappy. At least Burton's films have an excuse for all the killing: they're based on the era where Batman did kill, so I can let that slide and even applaud it as an accurate adaptation of the Kane years.

If I think of any more stuff, I'll post it, but that's the gist of it. And once again, don't bother trying to fight me, because I'm not going to. Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got one, including me. And the same to everyone who disagrees with me.

 

[Fenrir]

I'm not reading all that crap, especially when it's written by someone who thinks himself to be too important to post a new thread for something we already have a thread (or perhaps a gazillion threads) for.

 

[Abe Rush]

I think you bring some interesting and valid points... of course these are all subjective, but I have to admit that I agree with a lot of the things you say.

Probably the biggest complain I have about Batman Begins is similar, if not identical to yours, in the sense that the simple fact that I often hear that this or that, him or her "doesn't fit in Nolan's world" is completely unacceptable. If they really did make the most accurate Batman, then there should be no reason to say that certain things don't "fit".

Like I've said before, I feel as though Nolan is trying to bend Batman's reality to fit ours, while I think he should be trying to bend our reality to fit Batman's instead, if you get what I'm trying to say...

Anyway, I'm still uncertain that you should've made a new thread for this...
We'll see how the mods react. I'll pass by later on.

 

[The Chairman]

Well, I adore both the Burton films and BB, but I do agree with a few of the points Doc makes. But for the most part, I overall disagree. I view both films as legitimately acceptable portrayals of the character. They differ drastically from each other storywise as wll as stylistically, but I felt both captured the essence of Batman himself. I do agree that there was more of a sense of mystery to Burton's portrayal, but that's a subjective matter.

 

[Cryogenic]

Nice to have your thoughts, Doc.

One thing in particular jumped out at me. I'll start with that and go from there:

The guy's fight scenes are terrible. I apprecite the idea behind it, though. Helping us see Batman through the villains' eyes is not a new idea. Burton did it by keeping Batman almost as mysterious to us as he is to the crooks he takes down. But it should have only been that way for one fight sequence. After the docks, we should have been able to see Batman whipping ass. Like I said, nice idea, bad execution.

Right on the button.

It's OK and even intriguing to have one fight that is almost completely incomprehensible, putting us in the criminals' shoes, so to speak, but to have *all* the fights play out that way is lazy, clumsy, uninvolving and even painful. I think the first Spider-Man got it right. When Parker chases the murderer of his uncle down and basically traps him in that derelict building, Raimi skillfully cuts between the criminal's bewilderment and fear over where his mysterious pursuer is, the criminal's POV, and Parker momentarily sliding down from the ceiling, the audience's POV. But all the fights in BB are a jolting, random blur. It doesn't end there. I want to get onto something that few people seem to talk about now.

While I have heard people defend all the fights on the grounds that Batman is essentially a ninja crime fighter here, I have never heard a good rebuttal for the tumbler chase sequence, which is five minutes of agonising cut after cut. Now, true, you can tell what is transpiring, but it's an effort, and I personally got no vicarious thrill from the entire sequence whatsoever. The chase sequence is up on YouTube (just put in "Batman", "tumbler" and "chase") for quick access. I challenge *anyone* to the following: once the chase actually begins (i.e. after Gordon has delivered his obligatory quips), start counting each and every time the shot changes. I guarantee that you will not find a *single* shot in excess of four seconds. In fact, when you begin counting, you'll be surprised how often the shot changes before you even get to "two" in your head. I am deadly serious. Go and watch it. Give my challenge a whirl. It's a horrible piece of filmmaking. While rapid cuts are to be expected in an action sequence, especially a chase, the load has to be softened with bigger breaks and establishing shots. You get neither in BB. Criticise their weaker films all you like, but talented directors like James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas know how to choreograph, frame and edit action sequences, and they have all turned in fabulous results time and time again. Their films are also aided by great sound design and music. I don't get anything from the tumbler sequence (or any other part of the film) on this level, either. You say the music is decent here, Doc, but I disagree. It's only decent to the extent that it's a professional recording. That's it. That's honestly all I can give it. It has no synergy with the visual aspect at all. Even trying to single it out above the din carries no reward whatsoever. It's bland. It sounds like a temp score. The entire chase sequence plays like a bad trailer for the real thing. From the horrible cuts, to the awful quips, to the gas-guzzling tank that serves as a Batmobile, to the carnal and savage driving, it feels designed with the xXx generation in mind. I really feel like I'm being treated as a meathead. The tumbler was a major coup in terms of marketing. They ****ed that thing out to the nines. People objected to the "Drive Thru" quip in BF, but this is far worse: this is mass market commercialism aggressively planted into what is meant to be a serious and thoughtful film. The film wants to be seen as a high-minded treatment of Batman, but then it goes and serves up the most crass and unimaginative five minute action sequence conceivable.

Let's stick with the chase sequence for a minute. I know this is turning into an essay, but considering it's a major setpiece in the film, featuring what is meant to be an iconic element of the Batman mythos, I think it says a *lot* about Nolan and about the kind of film BB actually is. I wrote a review of this film on IMDb and called it "The Emperor's New Clothes". I simply cannot read any profundity or depth into a film that offers such a hideous setpiece and carries it on for five minutes and mutilates an essential piece of iconography in the process. It's criminal. What's more, the film wants to be seen as a "real world" interpretation of Batman, where people behave realistically and actions have consequences, but just how realistic and morally consistent is this film to make an issue of Batman not wanting to take lives (Bruce's own words), yet have him speeding over rooftops, trashing property, crushing police cars, flipping them over and generally being a tank-driving tyrant? He shows no regret or remorse for these actions. He doesn't even ponder them at all. Moreover, why are the police so stupid? If all it takes for Batman to evade them in a 10-ton killing machine that's being marked by a dozen cars and a helicopter is to turn off his lights on a narrow freeway, I'm not surprised that Gotham was overrun with criminals till he showed up! It's bloody ridiculous. Gordon himself has no backbone. I don't care how flustered he is by the corruption and how grateful he is to Batman for cleaning it up, he should still rebuke him for the damage. Harshly. A whole bunch of his own boys potentially got maimed and killed. Oldman plays Gordon as a spineless nitwit. I've got no idea what he's like in the comics that BB is based on (Oldman certainly *looks* like his ink and paper counterpart), but the storytelling comes off as hopelessly thin. That Oldman is just used for quips, at least here, only adds insult to injury. While I have said *some* positive things about BB in another thread, and elsewhere, contemplating this sequence makes me want to take them all bad. It's one of the most wretched things I've seen in an acclaimed film. Ebert *liked* this...? I actually dont mind him liking the film, nor anyone else, but I'm surprised he didn't heave at this part, given his tendency for looking down his nose at cult entertainments like Star Wars and more obscure comic adaptations like TMNT.

That went on longer than I expected or wanted it to, but film is a precious medium, and when one is crafting a film, one should treat it with the utmost respect. It's art. It's magic. It's a portal. The only thing I will give the tumbler sequence is that it seems to be dominated by practical effects and not visual ones. That's a step back to quality filmmaking of old. CG has infested filmmaking, and if there's one thing BB gets right, it's a welcome return to old values and old ways. But only as far as craftmanship goes. Everything else about the tumbler sequence is everything *wrong* with filmmaking today. This whole sequence is as stupid and insulting as anything in B&R. It only lacks the neon. That's very controversial, but merely an opinion. I framed a load of that as fact and I didn't mean to. But I can't get anything positive from the way this sequence I've been blathering on about was finally assembled. My issues with the film don't end there, but the chase sequence basically sums the real tone of the film up. It's a microscopic summary of the phoney macrocosm it exists within. There is absolutely no style and no originality at all. The *only* thing that remotely resembles a cool and interesting idea that is neither offensive nor incongruous is when the tumbler goes crashing through the waterfall. That's it. See, the film needs an aesthetic all of its own and doesn't get one. There are different degrees of fantasy and reality in comic movies, but BB wants to be exceedingly literal all the way. "Jung archetype"? That is the kind of thing you leave outside of a film like this. It's what a viewer or analyst may or may not apply when examining the art itself. But when the art *is* the explanation, or some flimsy attempt at one, you're left with nothing. Art is meant to be an abstraction of the world and of human experience. (You can't spell "abstraction" without it!). This is why the Burton films, and even the Schumacher films to some extent, are qualitatively better pictures to me. They create these spaces for you to play in. I'm back to framing things as fact, but once again, that's all my opinion. The best analogy I can draw is of something like a "Whacky Warehouse"-type play pen. With the Burton and Schumacher films, they *are* the play pen, but they are beckoning you to enter and go wild. Nolan's picture is both the play pen and the kid who goes round for you. You just get to watch from the outside. You cannot partake. Someone else is having all the fun and doing all the work for you.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I'm not reading all that crap, especially when it's written by someone who thinks himself to be too important to post a new thread for something we already have a thread (or perhaps a gazillion threads) for.

I saw no sticky or designated thread for everyone's disapproval of the film, others have gotten to make their own threads and the topics there are for thier qualms with the film, and then the search function for the forum will not work for me at all.

I'm no more important than anybody else. I'm no saint.

And if you're too good to read my crap, then why bother replying? What makes you think I want to read your unconstructive comments that add nothing to the topic at hand?

Don't like the thread, don't view it. Simple as that, man.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

It's OK and even intriguing to have one fight that is almost completely incomprehensible, putting us in the criminals' shoes, so to speak, but to have *all* the fights play out that way is lazy, clumsy, uninvolving and even painful. I think the first Spider-Man got it right. When Parker chases the murderer of his uncle down and basically traps him in that derelict building, Raimi skillfully cuts between the criminal's bewilderment and fear over where his mysterious pursuer is, the criminal's POV, and Parker momentarily sliding down from the ceiling, the audience's POV. But all the fights in BB are a jolting, random blur. It doesn't end there. I want to get onto something that few people seem to talk about now.

While I have heard people defend all the fights on the grounds that Batman is essentially a ninja crime fighter here, I have never heard a good rebuttal for the tumbler chase sequence, which is five minutes of agonising cut after cut. Now, true, you can tell what is transpiring, but it's an effort, and I personally got no vicarious thrill from the entire sequence whatsoever. The chase sequence is up on YouTube (just put in "Batman", "tumbler" and "chase") for quick access. I challenge *anyone* to the following: once the chase actually begins (i.e. after Gordon has delivered his obligatory quips), start counting each and every time the shot changes. I guarantee that you will not find a *single* shot in excess of four seconds. In fact, when you begin counting, you'll be surprised how often the shot changes before you even get to "two" in your head. I am deadly serious. Go and watch it. Give my challenge a whirl. It's a horrible piece of filmmaking. While rapid cuts are to be expected in an action sequence, especially a chase, the load has to be softened with bigger breaks and establishing shots. You get neither in BB. Criticise their weaker films all you like, but talented directors like James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas know how to choreograph, frame and edit action sequences, and they have all turned in fabulous results time and time again. Their films are also aided by great sound design and music. I don't get anything from the tumbler sequence (or any other part of the film) on this level, either. You say the music is decent here, Doc, but I disagree. It's only decent to the extent that it's a professional recording. That's it. That's honestly all I can give it. It has no synergy with the visual aspect at all. Even trying to single it out above the din carries no reward whatsoever. It's bland. It sounds like a temp score. The entire chase sequence plays like a bad trailer for the real thing. From the horrible cuts, to the awful quips, to the gas-guzzling tank that serves as a Batmobile, to the carnal and savage driving, it feels designed with the xXx generation in mind. I really feel like I'm being treated as a meathead. The tumbler was a major coup in terms of marketing. They ****ed that thing out to the nines. People objected to the "Drive Thru" quip in BF, but this is far worse: this is mass market commercialism aggressively planted into what is meant to be a serious and thoughtful film. The film wants to be seen as a high-minded treatment of Batman, but then it goes and serves up the most crass and unimaginative five minute action sequence conceivable.

Let's stick with the chase sequence for a minute. I know this is turning into an essay, but considering it's a major setpiece in the film, featuring what is meant to be an iconic element of the Batman mythos, I think it says a *lot* about Nolan and about the kind of film BB actually is. I wrote a review of this film on IMDb and called it "The Emperor's New Clothes". I simply cannot read any profundity or depth into a film that offers such a hideous setpiece and carries it on for five minutes and mutilates an essential piece of iconography in the process. It's criminal. What's more, the film wants to be seen as a "real world" interpretation of Batman, where people behave realistically and actions have consequences, but just how realistic and morally consistent is this film to make an issue of Batman not wanting to take lives (Bruce's own words), yet have him speeding over rooftops, trashing property, crushing police cars, flipping them over and generally being a tank-driving tyrant? He shows no regret or remorse for these actions. He doesn't even ponder them at all. Moreover, why are the police so stupid? If all it takes for Batman to evade them in a 10-ton killing machine that's being marked by a dozen cars and a helicopter is to turn off his lights on a narrow freeway, I'm not surprised that Gotham was overrun with criminals till he showed up! It's bloody ridiculous. Gordon himself has no backbone. I don't care how flustered he is by the corruption and how grateful he is to Batman for cleaning it up, he should still rebuke him for the damage. Harshly. A whole bunch of his own boys potentially got maimed and killed. Oldman plays Gordon as a spineless nitwit. I've got no idea what he's like in the comics that BB is based on (Oldman certainly *looks* like his ink and paper counterpart), but the storytelling comes off as hopelessly thin. That Oldman is just used for quips, at least here, only adds insult to injury. While I have said *some* positive things about BB in another thread, and elsewhere, contemplating this sequence makes me want to take them all bad. It's one of the most wretched things I've seen in an acclaimed film. Ebert *liked* this...? I actually dont mind him liking the film, nor anyone else, but I'm surprised he didn't heave at this part, given his tendency for looking down his nose at cult entertainments like Star Wars and more obscure comic adaptations like TMNT.

That went on longer than I expected or wanted it to, but film is a precious medium, and when one is crafting a film, one should treat it with the utmost respect. It's art. It's magic. It's a portal. The only thing I will give the tumbler sequence is that it seems to be dominated by practical effects and not visual ones. That's a step back to quality filmmaking of old. CG has infested filmmaking, and if there's one thing BB gets right, it's a welcome return to old values and old ways. But only as far as craftmanship goes. Everything else about the tumbler sequence is everything *wrong* with filmmaking today. This whole sequence is as stupid and insulting as anything in B&R. It only lacks the neon. That's very controversial, but merely an opinion. I framed a load of that as fact and I didn't mean to. But I can't get anything positive from the way this sequence I've been blathering on about was finally assembled. My issues with the film don't end there, but the chase sequence basically sums the real tone of the film up. It's a microscopic summary of the phoney macrocosm it exists within. There is absolutely no style and no originality at all. The *only* thing that remotely resembles a cool and interesting idea that is neither offensive nor incongruous is when the tumbler goes crashing through the waterfall. That's it. See, the film needs an aesthetic all of its own and doesn't get one. There are different degrees of fantasy and reality in comic movies, but BB wants to be exceedingly literal all the way. "Jung archetype"? That is the kind of thing you leave outside of a film like this. It's what a viewer or analyst may or may not apply when examining the art itself. But when the art *is* the explanation, or some flimsy attempt at one, you're left with nothing. Art is meant to be an abstraction of the world and of human experience. (You can't spell "abstraction" without it!). This is why the Burton films, and even the Schumacher films to some extent, are qualitatively better pictures to me. They create these spaces for you to play in. I'm back to framing things as fact, but once again, that's all my opinion. The best analogy I can draw is of something like a "Whacky Warehouse"-type play pen. With the Burton and Schumacher films, they *are* the play pen, but they are beckoning you to enter and go wild. Nolan's picture is both the play pen and the kid who goes round for you. You just get to watch from the outside. You cannot partake. Someone else is having all the fun and doing all the work for you.

Incredible points you raise there, man. I never thought of the Tumbler sequence that way before, now I can only look down upon it. The score for that sequence is still fantastic though, not on a filmic level as you said, because it's not very synchronic to the film's events. But it works on a "classical" music level, like a piece of music that was written to be neither here-nor-there, something from Beethoven or Mozart.

You've also opened my eyes on Gordon. Although heads and shoulders above Pat Hingle's barely-there portrayal, he's still only half the man that Gordon is from the comics. At least Hingle's Gordon was sufficiently no-nonsense from his few scenes that I can only guess he was as shrwed as Gordon truly is. Again, a perfect example is the Gordon from TAS. He would have reprimanded Batman for risking the lives of so many officers, half of which probably weren't even corrupt. And you brought up yet another fine point: Batman played Hell with the lives of humans all for the sake of a "cool" sequence. I think I'm going to be sick.....

Be forewarned, though. Even with your incredible ability to reason, if you're pro-Burton in the least around here, you're put on the "public enemies" list, for all intents and purposes. People write you off because you like the "inferior" adaptation. The only way to triumph in the face of that is to be cock-sure of your correctness. Something I never seem to be able to do.

 

[Cryogenic]

Thank you, Doc!

Speaking generally: As far as the Internet goes, it's like a wall has gone up against this film. Anyone who criticises it generally gets attacked. Not confronted, attacked. Yet the opposite is true for other films. Well, one set of films. If someone says something positive about the Star Wars prequels, it's again normal to be insulted. In my experience. I seem to have the fringe opinion in both cases. I just wish people could show more respect for differing points of view. I realise my wording was very harsh there, as was my general assessment, but it's *still* just one guy's opinion. The issue is not whether one likes a film or not. You cannot learn anything about a person or the world using binary. What's important is *why* a person thinks and feels as they do. You were being very respectful, even if you did create your own thread, and even if that move is somewhat egotistical. It sometimes makes it easier if everyone can create their own little space and give others extra places to either venture into or not.

P.S. I've not heard the music out of the context of the film. Maybe it comes off far better. I don't know. And I don't care. That sounds incredibly arrogant, but since the film did nothing for me, and as far as being able to watch bits and pieces on YouTube, still doesn't, I have not the tiniest bit of incentive for hearing the soundtrack. If the music doesn't fit at all, and if it sounds flat, with no clever motifs or affectations, why would I want to listen to it?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Thank you, Doc!

Speaking generally: As far as the Internet goes, it's like a wall has gone up against this film. Anyone who criticises it generally gets attacked. Not confronted, attacked. Yet the opposite is true for other films. Well, one set of films. If someone says something positive about the Star Wars prequels, it's again normal to be insulted. In my experience. I seem to have the fringe opinion in both cases. I just wish people could show more respect for differing points of view. I realise my wording was very harsh there, as was my general assessment, but it's *still* just one guy's opinion. The issue is not whether one likes a film or not. You cannot learn anything about a person or the world using binary. What's important is *why* a person thinks and feels as they do. You were being very respectful, even if you did create your own thread, and even if that move is somewhat egotistical. It sometimes makes it easier if everyone can create their own little space and give others extra places to either venture into or not.

True. I think it's because of the influx of youth on the 'net. Of course, there's also an inherent immaturity that's rising. With the acceptance of a "geek" culture, it's almost an okay to be a repugnant, geeky fellow, because you'll be accepted somewhere, so why change? Why learn things and mature? Everything's in black and white around here. It's the rare few who don't take a differing opinion as an attack on theirs or themselves. I must admit I fall prey to this now and again, more than I should.

I love it. There are at least two other threads about people's misgivings on BB in this forum in the three pages I checked alone, each not a generalized thread for "post what you hated about BB in here," all specific, either to one aspect of the film (the detective work, or lack thereof), or one person's own problems with the flick. Therefore, since none of them were attacked, I figured it wouldn't hurt for me to make one of my own. Little did I know, someone would go out of their way to accuse me of being egotistical, and no one else. I was trying to strike a balance. My qualms are broader than just one area (the specific aspect threads) and it's wrong to change the subject in another, so what was I going to do, go into Assasin32's thread and post what I hated about the film? No, in that thread I'm supposed to comment on his misgivings. Not hijack his thread.

I know what I'm about to say reeks of egotism, but you can ask anyone I know... I don't have an ego. I was raised to be a humble guy and to respect others; put them ahead of myself, and I do. Who knows, maybe I was attacked because I was anti-BB, so the guy decided to attack me in a way that didn't reek of him being a Nolanite? That makes the most sense to me, anyway.

 

[Cryogenic]

I was more passionate and fiery a few years ago. I've calmed down a tad since then. But only a tad. That long post is all me. It's virtually the old me talking from beginning to end. But that's the way I get when I really become involved in a subject. The problem is that it's easier to destroy than create. That applies to me and you here, for being wannabe film critics, of a sort, but also, and especially, to the bashers; the bashers of other people's opinions, that is. It's tough to work your argument out and write a long answer, but rewarding. However, there is nothing that stops a basher from dismissing your entire effort in a single word. That is how some people work. That's how they *choose* to work. No matter what you say, there are some people that will turn it around for the sake of it. For example, if no one actually criticised a film -- not just Begins, but any film -- then the people who loved those films would think they were universally admired and flawless. Yet when you *do* make criticisms, those same people then try and reduce not just your opinion, but your whole vantage point, to rubble. The same works in reverse (if a film is endlessly trashed, the people trashing it believe that no one loves it or is intelligent enough to say why, which is just as false). I hope it isn't true of anyone here. I just left a message board over that. Well, that and a whole host of other issues. That's a shame, cos this month marks a pivotal event in that board's history. And Doc, you should know which one...

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I was more passionate and fiery a few years ago. I've calmed down a tad since then. But only a tad. That long post is all me. It's virtually the old me talking from beginning to end. But that's the way I get when I really become involved in a subject. The problem is that it's easier to destroy than create. That applies to me and you here, for being wannabe film critics, of a sort, but also, and especially, to the bashers; the bashers of other people's opinions, that is. It's tough to work your argument out and write a long answer, but rewarding. However, there is nothing that stops a basher from dismissing your entire effort in a single word. That is how some people work. That's how they *choose* to work. No matter what you say, there are some people that will turn it around for the sake of it. For example, if no one actually criticised a film -- not just Begins, but any film -- then the people who loved those films would think they were universally admired and flawless. Yet when you *do* make criticisms, those same people then try and reduce not just your opinion, but your whole vantage point, to rubble. I hope it isn't true of anyone here. I just left a message board over that. Well, that and a whole host of other issues. That's a shame, cos this month marks a pivotal event in that board's history. And Doc, you should know which one...

Well, you'll find plenty of that here, as well.

And yeah, that forum is atrocious in some ways. The administration I consider to be practically corrupt. If you share the administrator's opinion, you're in the clear, no matter what you do or say. Still the only decent place to talk about that particular film series, JB (If I guess your identity right, that is).

 

[Cryogenic]

Well, you'll find plenty of that here, as well.

And yeah, that forum is atrocious in some ways. The administration I consider to be practically corrupt. If you share the administrator's opinion, you're in the clear, no matter what you do or say. Still the only decent place to talk about that particular film series, JB (If I guess your identity right, that is).

*Obi Wan mode*

Your insight serves you well.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

*Obi Wan mode*

Your insight serves you well.

The entire thing which led to your departure was really very deplorable. I left another forum once over the exact same thing. And I really don't think that I'll stay on that forum much longer. The climate over there against anyone with differing opinions is intolerable. I think Drew and ATP's CGI humor are the only things keeping me over there for the moment.

At least the administration is top-fight here. They always do their job. Just keep your nose clean and you'll be okay. I had to screw up and get in fairly big trouble a couple of times here to realize just how good the mods and admins here are. I didn't mean to slip up, and boy is it embarrassing to get reprimanded if you're someone who actually cares, but it's a learning experience, like everything else in life.

 

[Cryogenic]

I've been formally warned and even banned for 48 hours on another board, and even clashed with mods and admins on a handful of occasions, but it's been plain sailing mostly. Oh, wait... I did get into a right ol' scuffle at this one board where I was elected head admin by the site owners, but the site owners eventually had a personality change, which irked me, so I irked 'em back, and they threw me off. t:

I've been at this Internet game for six years. Superman Cinema is the first board I've walked away from. And it took me many attempts. I said I was leaving before, but always had a change of heart, naively thinking things would be better, if only I could get more into the spirit, but people would always behave like cretins again, and it got to be a joke. So I finally told Dharmesh to delete my account. I still lurk for ATP's humour and Donner Cut snippets. Plus, there are some good guys there; they're just in the minority. Thanks for your words regarding my suspension (which obviously preceded my deletion request, and also catalysed it). I can't believe people objected to my little quip at someone's accidental death and Dharmesh booted me -- only for some of those same people and Dharmesh himself to mock a suicide the following week. Integrity? There is none there. Notice, too, how Dharmesh ain't spilling the beans on The Donner Cut? He's been asked for his review, and he won't say anything, except that he needs to watch it a few more times. HAHA! If it was all peaches and cream, he'd have made an ecstatic review without hesitation. But he obviously found it bad. I am sure he is effectively bought off, by the way. Notice how he said he was in LA and mingling with all the Donner people recently? Do you think *he* paid for that or do you think WB maybe treated him? Remember: he's not talking. That says he was invited to LA for free. I'd say being the webmaster has paid off. But that site was built out of a collective effort. Most of the articles and material came from other sources, not Dharmesh (unlike Caped Wonder, which Jim Bowers furnished almost exclusively with his own material, as far as I know). So he got a lot out of it for himself. Don't ever forget that.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I've been formally warned and even banned for 48 hours on another board, and even clashed with mods and admins on a handful of occasions, but it's been plain sailing mostly. Oh, wait... I did get into a right ol' scuffle at this one board where I was elected head admin by the site owners, but the site owners eventually had a personality change, which irked me, so I irked 'em back, and they threw me off. t:

I've been at this Internet game for six years. Superman Cinema is the first board I've walked away from. And it took me many attempts. I said I was leaving before, but always had a change of heart, naively thinking things would be better, if only I could get more into the spirit, but people would always behave like cretins again, and it got to be a joke. So I finally told Dharmesh to delete my account. I still lurk for ATP's humour and Donner Cut snippets. Plus, there are some good guys there; they're just in the minority. Thanks for your words regarding my suspension (which obviously preceded my deletion request, and also catalysed it). I can't believe people objected to my little quip at someone's accidental death and Dharmesh booted me -- only for some of those same people and Dharmesh himself to mock a suicide the following week. Integrity? There is none there. Notice, too, how Dharmesh ain't spilling the beans on The Donner Cut? He's been asked for his review, and he won't say anything, except that he needs to watch it a few more times. HAHA! If it was all peaches and cream, he'd have made an ecstatic review without hesitation. But he obviously found it bad. I am sure he is effectively bought off, by the way. Notice how he said he was in LA and mingling with all the Donner people recently? Do you think *he* paid for that or do you think WB maybe treated him? Remember: he's not talking. That says he was invited to LA for free. I'd say being the webmaster has paid off. But that site was built out of a collective effort. Most of the articles and material came from other sources, not Dharmesh (unlike Caped Wonder, which Jim Bowers furnished almost exclusively with his own material, as far as I know). So he got a lot out of it for himself. Don't ever forget that.

Exactly. Dharmesh really disgusts me. He has no integrity and not an ounce of professionalism in his body. So many of those people were expecting the Donner Cut to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. So did I, but I know how to take it in stride. Maybe he's having an internal crisis.... if the Donner Cut wasn't so hot, maybe he was too quick to judge SR? But then, since he started rubbing elbows with Ilya Salkind, he fell under Ilya's spell, and goes so far as to lie for him to make him seem like a great guy. I don't see being there much longer.

 

[Fenrir]

I saw no sticky or designated thread for everyone's disapproval of the film, others have gotten to make their own threads and the topics there are for thier qualms with the film, and then the search function for the forum will not work for me at all.

Really? Last I remember, there's a thread titled "Overrated?" sitting right on top of the first page. That's pretty self-explainatory.

I'm no more important than anybody else. I'm no saint.

Then post your criticism in an already existing thread just like everyone else is doing.

And if you're too good to read my crap, then why bother replying?

Actually, I didn't read your crap. And my reply was not pertaining to the content of your post, but rather the fact that it could've gone into another thread and that I wasn't going to read all that crap that's already been stated countless number of times before.

What makes you think I want to read your unconstructive comments that add nothing to the topic at hand?

Uhh, you just did.

Don't like the thread, don't view it. Simple as that, man.

Unfortunately you seem unable to grasp the logical paradox in that. I'll only be able to decide whether or not I like the thread after I view it, no?

And this is a freakin' message board for crying out loud - asking posters not to post in threads or view them is like stopping people from taking a leak in public bathrooms.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree on one thing that was the one that prevented me to put this movie as high as I was waiting for. The editing. Yes, we should have been able to see Batman after the excellent docks scene. I thank god for the movie's pictures because some of them are terrific but hardly seen IN the movie itself. Like the one with bats going down in glider cape after delivering Rachel to Gordon. Batman and his cape are hardly seen.

My only other problems were the one liners and Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy's characters and acting.

Other than that BB is exceptional.

 

[Beelze]

I saw no sticky or designated thread for everyone's disapproval of the film

Here you go, off the first page: Those who disliked Begins - Why?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

All right, fine: I screwed up. But I already opened the thread, so it'll be for the mods to deal with.

 

[kenellard]

Really? Last I remember, there's a thread titled "Overrated?" sitting right on top of the first page. That's pretty self-explainatory.



Then post your criticism in an already existing thread just like everyone else is doing.

I think you need to read his post before deciding whether it deserves its own thread, you certainly sound like a militant-nolanite, which would explain your refusal to read his essey. And incidentally I made the "Overrated?" thread to discuss fan reaction to BB, not the merits of the film itself, so try not to be such a jackass in future, there's more to life than batman begins

 

[Fenrir]

I think you need to read his post before deciding whether it deserves its own thread...

I just skimmed through it. And nothing met my eye from his post that warrants having it's own thread.

...you certainly sound like a militant-nolanite, which would explain your refusal to read his essey.

I've acknowledged the faults with this film which immediately renders useless your slapstick "militant nolanite" label. So please, do refrain from indulging yourself in such juvenile activities without having a proper grasp of what you're talking about.

And incidentally I made the "Overrated?" thread to discuss fan reaction to BB, not the merits of the film itself...

Everyone is posting their qualms with the film in that thread or even the "Those who disliked Begins - why?" thread, and appropriately so, including posters like Cryogenic and Morgoth. And there was nothing in Doc's essay that was so radically different from Cryogenic's own criticisms that Doc had to make a new thread for it.

so try not to be such a jackass in future, there's more to life than batman begins

So says the "jackass" who's dedicated an entire thread to discuss how "overrated" Batman Begins is. Teh LOL. :

 

[Fenrir]

All right, fine: I screwed up. But I already opened the thread, so it'll be for the mods to deal with.

No problem, at least you were man enough to acknowledge a mistake, unlike clueless "jackasses" like kenellard.

 

[Beelze]

so try not to be such a jackass in future, there's more to life than batman begins

You do realize, of course, how tacky the "get a life" quip and every derivative of it is. This is a Batman Begins forum, so let people be passionate about it, for good or worse. Comments like "it's only a movie", etc. are just d'uh-inducing.

 

[~†~§iX~†~]

You have put your points across very well, and they have been an interesting read. I shall put BB on later in the background and keep an eye out for some of those things. With regards to the dialogue, if you can see any examples of it being poor then I'd love to hear them. Just quoting Liam Nesson's monologue's didn't do it for me, because as you said it's Liam Neeson making it work.

I agree with you on the fight scenes too. These could have been better, and the first time I saw the docks fight I felt like I was taken out of the movie for a minute. However, the effect work beautifully in the opening prison fight.


The one thing you did say that stood out to me the most that I felt I had to address it was this:

I'll just say this: is Bale's Batman anything like the Batman of TAS?

Of course the answer is no, and if they had been the same, I would have felt robbed because it wouldn't have been Batman Begins, it would have been Batman Already Knows What He's Doing. I enjoyed watching Batman learn his craft. Example; he went to prison and learned how to fight criminals, he lived among them for years, he was trained by the finest martial artists on the planet, he single handedly takes down the biggest crime boss in Gotham and then....he gets floored for days by a weed in a suit weilding a hallucinogen. If that was me, I would have been dragged off of my high horse pretty damn quickly.

I think this could possibly also relate to the problems you have with some of Bale's acting. If this Batman is on a learning curve things may change. You said he was animalistic, but I can only see that during the Flass interrogation, because it was intimidating. As time goes on Batman may learn how to be more majestic and subtle in striking fear into people, but that's purely speculation on my part!......

 

[FaT_tONle]

Excellent post Doc... ignore Fenrir if he can't respect your opinions...