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

[lujho]

I rewatched BB last night with a view to judging it as a movie in itself rather than a bat-movie, and oh my god, does it fall flat. Many of the flaws which have been pointed out on here so eloquently by some posters become achingly apparent when viewing the film purely as a piece of cinema. Cornball dialogue barely fit for an after school special, about 20 minutes total of entirely unecisary exposition, one dimensional "action movie" characterization, dreadfully contrived action sequences and pseudo-intellectual pretentions to boot? forget about it. If I wasn't a Bat-fan I'd have zero interest in TDK at this point

What about the meaningless, cliched Hollywood "call-backs"... you know, when a line or something from early in the film is repeated later, supposedly with a new relevance or a twist of meaning, often with the line coming now from teh one it was originally said to?

There are 3 in begins... the bit about "watching your surroundings" or whatever, the "why do we fall" thing, and the arrowhead/"finders keepers" one. The first two are okay, in fact the "why do we fall" one is really the only one that I like and woud keep, but really it's such a lazy and hackneyed screenwriting cliche by now. The arrowhead one is utterly pointless... it just does nothing. It just says "I, David Goyer, can do a call-back".

1 such call-back in a film (like the "why do we fall" one) wouldn't even stand out to me as a flaw, but having 3 just highlights that it's a standard writer's tic that Goyer is falling back on.

Edit - I just remembered another... the "it's what I do" bit. That's 4. Jesus.

 

[El Payaso]

What about the meaningless, cliched Hollywood "call-backs"... you know, when a line or something from early in the film is repeated later, supposedly with a new relevance or a twist of meaning, often with the line coming now from teh one it was originally said to?

There are 3 in begins... the bit about "watching your surroundings" or whatever, the "why do we fall" thing, and the arrowhead/"finders keepers" one. The first two are okay, in fact the "why do we fall" one is really the only one that I like and woud keep, but really it's such a lazy and hackneyed screenwriting cliche by now. The arrowhead one is utterly pointless... it just does nothing. It just says "I, David Goyer, can do a call-back".

1 such call-back in a film (like the "why do we fall" one) wouldn't even stand out to me as a flaw, but having 3 just highlights that it's a standard writer's tic that Goyer is falling back on.

Edit - I just remembered another... the "it's what I do" bit. That's 4. Jesus.

I was about to say that.

I agree with you. Since the whole 'with great powers'-Spiderman thing, now superhero flicks started to make their own collection of Great Trascendental Teaching-about-Life Lines. And almost no one of them actually work.

 

[Buttman]

I can respect your opinons, but I don't have to agree with them. Subsiquently, I didn't, at all.

 

[dude stannis]

Why? Since when? 1989? Says who? Furst and Burton?

I'm sorry... agree with a lot of what you say in your post, but this is just plain wrong. There's no "supposed to" about it.

Akham Asylum did it in 1986, TDKR had it's share of Gargoyles. Burton/Furst just gave it a massive push in the direction.

 

[Tojo]

I totally agree with lujho, the pacing was annoying. I always bring this up with people and they say it was perfect. For me, it was a bit of a mess. I didn't really give a damn about any of the characters, even Bruce.

Another main gripe i had was the convenience factor. Despite Bruce's parents dying, he didn't appear to struggle for ANYTHING. It all came so easily to him. His training was over in a flash, he came back and everything was handed on a plate to him. I did not see Bruce conflicted about the nature of what he was doing, and Alfred just seemed to accept Bruce dressing up as a Bat and becoming a vigilante like so easily. There was no questioning in the beggining, no look of,'what the hell are you doing?'.

I watched it on DVD after i saw in 3 times in the cinema, and i couldn't really watch it. I thought it was just cliched drivel, with nothing new to say. Nolan talked about maiking it more gritty and dirty.....it was not. It was made for kids. Why did we not see the brutality of what he does?

I suspect alot had to do with time limitation, but if boring-ass LOTR can be 3hrs, then this could have atleast let us take certain things in more.

ugh....my interest in TDK is pretty low, but i hold hope that it may be better than this

 

[Tojo]

When i say i did not see Bruce conflicted, i mean truthfully conflicted. There's a difference between what people try to do, and what comes across on screen. Bale had a duff script imo. There's npot much even a great actor like him can do with such cliched dialogue.

However, i liked the story, i thought it was necessary and was a good concept.

 

[Nepenthes]

Nice post Doc. Very eloquent, but please........paragraphs dude!

My main agreement there is on the dialogue. Alot of it was downright atrocious, and 90% was either lame quips or 'subtle' thematic statements.

"It's not who you are underneath, but what you do-ooo that blah" when Batman said that the movie stopped being fun for me. He started hanging off that train while bloody Gordon was driving the Batmobile!

 

[Ben Urich]

Okay, I'm jumping into the discussion late and only really read the first page in this thread, so forgive me if it appears as though I'm behind, because I am.

I think Doc's criticisms are fair, and I agree with the poster who said that it appears as though a wall has been built around Batman Begins; those who are critical of it are often bashed or denounced as trolls. What those people fail to realize is that one can be critical of a film from an objective point-of-view.

That said, I loved Batman Begins. It's still my favorite superhero comic book movie, but even that doesn't blind me to its faults. The action scenes were poorly edited, although I like the idea of showing Batman from a criminal's point-of-view, making him look like more of a force of nature than a man. The idea was executed poorly, however, and the movie suffers for it.

I also agree with the criticism of Batman killing Ra's... or, rather, leaving him to die. I made a thread in this forum a few months ago about that infamous line ("I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you") and it sparked a lot of discussion. At the time, I didn't think of that scene as a bad one, but after watching the film again today, I realized that it really contradicts what Batman stands for, both in the comics and in the film itself. The scene in which a young Bruce Wayne throws his gun into the ocean is supposed to show us that Bruce has moved beyond killing. Then, of course, there's his refusal to execute the prisoner. I don't remember what the exact line is, but it's something along the lines of "If we kill him, we are no better than he is." Why, then, does Batman leave Ra's to die at the end? It's possible that he saw Ra's' point earlier, about a corrupt justice system, but that's unlikely. It was not in keeping with the character at all.

Where I disagree with Doc is on the issue of Batman's anger and ferocity. If this had taken place, say, 5 years into Batman's career, then I would agree with that criticism. However, Batman is basically in his infancy. Although it's been 20 years since the murder, he still has plenty of pent-up anger and frustration to vent. I like the mercilessness he displays toward Flass especially; the voice and facial expressions reinforce the terror conveyed in that scene. Had he delivered those lines ("Do I look like a cop?!" "Swear to me!") in the manner of Keaton ("I'm Batman") the impact would be lessened greatly.

I also disagree with Doc on his criticism of Alfred. He wasn't the charming Alfred of the original tetralogy, and I like that. Alfred can't be sweet all the time, especially when he sees the boy who grew up before his eyes turn toward anger and sully his best friend's name. In the end, he's just looking out for Bruce, just like he should.

I also have to contest Doc's criticism of Bruce Wayne. The film is set in the present day, a day in which it would be fairly easy to determine who Batman is... or at least who's backing him. The resources necessary to engage in vigilantism on that scale or vast, and there are only so many billionaires in Gotham. To that end, Bruce has to do anything he can to shield himself from suspicion. The headline in the paper - "Drunken Billionaire Burns Down Home" - is a perfect example of the publicity that effectively removed Bruce Wayne's name from possible candidates for Batman. Yes, he ruined his name a bit with his speech at the party, but that is easily remedied; just throw in a scene in The Dark Knight where Bruce donates the money necessary to repair the railway system, etc. As Bruce matures, I'd like to see him be more philanthropic.

Finally, I want to touch on Gotham a bit. Doc mentioned that it should have been Gothic, with gargoyles and cathedrals, etc. I'll concede that Anton Furst's Gotham was great, and by no means am I arguing that the Gotham in Begins is necessarily better. What I am arguing is that the Gotham of the Burton films is simply not suited to the modern day sensibilities of Begins. I don't believe that Furst's Gotham would have made Begins any better; actually, it would have made the film a bit more jumbled, as no other element in the film has those fantastically grotesque sensibilities.

 

[The Kid]

Except scarecrow and batman. And later Joker.

It's fantasy so i'm all for making Gotham look like a fantasy city. It looked like chicago in the movie with some parts looking like a movie set.

Anyway this is an interesting topic that kinda echoes my own gripes with the movie that I hope nolan sees were necessary to fix for next time. You got raped for your thoughts a little and that's to be expected.

Here's one that might get me e-raped a little. I've always wanted after seenig Begins to see more of Batman, not Ninja Man and I hope we get that next time.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Except scarecrow and batman. And later Joker.

It's fantasy so i'm all for making Gotham look like a fantasy city. It looked like chicago in the movie with some parts looking like a movie set.

Anyway this is an interesting topic that kinda echoes my own gripes with the movie that I hope nolan sees were necessary to fix for next time. You got raped for your thoughts a little and that's to be expected.

Here's one that might get me e-raped a little. I've always wanted after seenig Begins to see more of Batman, not Ninja Man and I hope we get that next time.

I won't rape you, I agree! Unless you want to be raped?.........

 

[kenellard]

is it rape if the other person consents?

 

[Cyrusbales]

there's always surprise sex, or give sex as a present, but how were you supposed to know they didn't want it? lol

 

[kenellard]

who rapes the rapemen?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Thankyou for starting this thread, I don't like talking about the movie because when I point out one thing that I don't like it's well you like the Spider-Man movies, Spider-Man sucks blah blah blah, so don't state your opinion. Excpet for the Burton love, which I don't get, I pretty much agree with Doc's asessment of Batman Begins. I liked the film but the laughably bad voice that Bale created makes me down right irrate whenever I hear it and the action scenes are out of this world bad. I hated not being able to see anything in Daredevil and so I couldn't possibly let BB off the hook, can I? Hell no.

 

[Tojo]

who rapes the rapemen?

I do.

As for Batman, i hated it, but all my criticism's have been echoed in this thread already. However, i liked the fight editing. It was a fine way of showing the brutality and quickness of Batman. If we saw everything i'm almost positive it would have been laughable, because no-one can do Krav Maga/Ju-Jitsu in that suit. Sure it has progressed alot from the Days of Michael Keaton, but it was unnecesarily protected. I could have suspended disbelief if his under armour was knife-proof and fire proof yet as flexible as a wetsuit, while maybe his chest was protected like Roman Warriors were. I't'd be cool if he took the best armour techniques from history and made his suit, instead of having EVERYTHING laid on a plate for him.

Same with the Tumbler. Ok, i don't expect him to make a stealth vehicle from scratch, but to just have that thing all ready and waiting for Bruce was too convenient. I know this convenience factor was useful because the film was so fast-paced and it helped quicken it up, but i think it would have been best served if the film lingered abit longer, to establish Batman amongst the criminal of the underworld, trying to find a route to Falcone. As it is everything was just too easy. I thought Batman could have tried tackling drug-runners and murderes first, inflicting his rage on their asses, and THEN realising this is futile and he needs to destroy crime at the source. This would serve as a useful tool to see how Batman evolves, how he becomes more refined in his pyschology and methods, and he supresses his rage(which was an emotion not once shown in the film). But alas, Batman was just good at everything from the start. He knew everything from the start. Yes he had trained years with Ra's, but even that couldn't have completley set him up for a city like Gotham.

 

[CConn]

Thankyou for starting this thread, I don't like talking about the movie because when I point out one thing that I don't like it's well you like the Spider-Man movies, Spider-Man sucks blah blah blah, so don't state your opinion. Excpet for the Burton love, which I don't get, I pretty much agree with Doc's asessment of Batman Begins. I liked the film but the laughably bad voice that Bale created makes me down right irrate whenever I hear it and the action scenes are out of this world bad. I hated not being able to see anything in Daredevil and so I couldn't possibly let BB off the hook, can I? Hell no.

That's a cynical way to put it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's a cynical way to put it.

Please explain your position sir.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

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.

you make it sound as your opinion is the most important one ever and that your review is the only one that matters. its my turn. wtf. your opinion isnt gonna change anyone elses so just stop bein cocky and actin like youve been crowned king for a day.

 

[The Kid]

The whole "ninja are super fast that you can't see them fight" was done much better in Ninja Turtles 1 and to some extent 2. Plus you could still clearly see them fight nicely later against the foot and then shredder. That and daredevil did the whole super fast fighting very well while begins is like a music video from hell especially when there's a really juicy fight you're dying to see but it's edited unfortunately so you can't get a good idea of what's happening. This was a problem I had with resident evil and I think many movies i watched back in the 90s made for cable tv. They'd try to overcome budgetary shortcomings with quickie editing.

 

[Cyrusbales]

you make it sound as your opinion is the most important one ever and that your review is the only one that matters. its my turn. wtf. your opinion isnt gonna change anyone elses so just stop bein cocky and actin like youve been crowned king for a day.

Well I agree with most of his opinion, so try not being so mean next time, not good, especially for a noob. Try some consideration, you didn't have to read it. Try respecting other's opinions more, especially when they're mostly right!

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Well I agree with most of his opinion, so try not being so mean next time, not good, especially for a noob. Try some consideration, you didn't have to read it. Try respecting other's opinions more, especially when they're mostly right!

yea it was a little ruthless lol and i hate the word noob

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The whole "ninja are super fast that you can't see them fight" was done much better in Ninja Turtles 1 and to some extent 2. Plus you could still clearly see them fight nicely later against the foot and then shredder. That and daredevil did the whole super fast fighting very well while begins is like a music video from hell especially when there's a really juicy fight you're dying to see but it's edited unfortunately so you can't get a good idea of what's happening. This was a problem I had with resident evil and I think many movies i watched back in the 90s made for cable tv. They'd try to overcome budgetary shortcomings with quickie editing.

My god.

Learn to put some commas in there. I have nothing against you personally, Wesyeed, because you have some things to say that make points...

but god.

 

[kenellard]

yea it was a little ruthless lol and i hate the word noob

If you replace the words "a little ruthless" with "made no sense whatsoever" then I'd have to agree with you

 

[Cyrusbales]

If you replace the words "a little ruthless" with "made no sense whatsoever" then I'd have to agree with you

lol, a nice breakdown there, lol

 

[Eternalzero]

Honestly Doc, you bring up a lot of unecessarily negative points.

I grew up watching the Batman Animated Series when I was a kid, I saw the old Tim Burton Batman films several times and own about half of them.

....but like BB, the animated series was a SPIN and adaptation from the comic books, it had some bias towards it and is some aspects represented him in another light entirely. Batman is the Dark Knight, he was very tame in the show, I can only remember a couple scenes where he was coughing up blood or going over the edge.

Is gotham city the gotham city we were all used to? No, but its pretty cool and believeable. Is the batmobile what we're used to, or the batcave w/ the super computer? no, but its a more realistic spin on the character. Why should batman himself have to be a nuclear scientist where he can slowly transition into that character through morgan freeman's character? His bat suit? Please, he's a ninja but he's not neo, he is/should get shot once in a while and a bulletproof/robotic suit is in order for today's modern society. He's got a jumping tank (which you like) why can't he have a modern battle suit?

Bruce Wayne = no stable love life, genius, master melee fighter, billionaire, troubled/haunted by his past.

That's a lot to hold up to realistically for a character and we have to remember that he BEGINS, the legend. He can't, nor should he start out knowing everything and living up to what we know of as batman.

We were merely shown the brute strength of batman in this movie, (the most important part) the ninja. We were shown were all his gadgets come from (realistically, I don't care how smart bruce is, but an already made tank for weapons testing purposes makes more sense to me than bruce building it from scratch). We are given a hint at his degree of intelligence back in his college days because he was attending Princeton university.

Don't bash the movie, the endearing score was beautiful, and from what I've heard you will hear the music/score evolve into the batman theme depending on the mood of the film. The lines were a little over-the-top, but they throw the philisophical questions into play of right/wrong/ and justice. Adds a more seriouse tone instead of one liners.

What I REALLY liked about the film, is that it IS GORDON that helps console the young bruce after the murder of his parents. I absolutley loved that attention to detail. You can see that that is where Bruce/Batman makes the connection w/ Gordon on a very personal level.

Is it the batman we all know? No, but its much better than the summarized version of batman in Justice League. A great adaptation of batman that many fans are proud to have seen on the big screen.

My worry is how they are going to make such a good sequel after the first. BB had flashbacks, sad moments, and moments where the audience could really connect to the character emotionally. You saw the tragic event that shaped batman. You saw incredible character development really emphasizing the Bruce Wayne/Batman persona. The old Batman films each has at least a 5 min. segment each, re-exploring that tragic event when he was a kid, in hopes of keeping it fresh and allowing for the same effect (which started to get old). We'll just have to see how it goes.