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

[DocLathropBrown]

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 wouldn't be able to tell you, as I don't wish to sit through BB again, but pay very close attention to the dialogue on your way through.... there's a lot of it that feels wooden. Mostly anything that's supposed to feel emotional.

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!......

You raise a good point. But I'm not so-far-gone that I think Batman beginning has no place on film, though. Quite the opposite. But if you look at "Year One", Batman doesn't feel as amatuerish in that as he does in BB. Overall, he's right, but there's many spots where it rubs me the wrong way. Not in being a newbie.... just not cool and calculated. I mean, if you go look at Keaton or Conroy's Batman, you could watch them stand still, silent, and just get a feeling like a million things were going through their heads, like they think first. Not that Bale feels like a neanderthal.... it's hard to explain. In a word, Bale's Batman feels vengeful (Which Batman isn't supposed to be), young and impetuous. And Batman was never that way, even starting out. Even in YO, he has a certain sense of professionalism and a cool demeanor.

Unfortunately, it seems Nolan made Bruce impetuous and vengeful to make him more appealing to today's audience.... terrible. Nobody should be able to totally relate to Batman. If you want to totally relate to a character, go read a Marvel comic book. Batman's supposed to be more stoic and have a greater sense of granduer. You're supposed to look up to him, to want to be rescued by him than feel like he's "one of the guys".

I think the best example of what's wrong with Nolan's Batman is in the teaser, Bruce's quote. He speaks of getting revenge. Batman is 100% NOT about revenge. It's about saving Gotham from the crime that took his parents' lives, so that anything remotely like what happened to him would never happen to anyone else ever again.

 

[Cryogenic]

Actually, Doc, I think Batman *is* about vengeance, but not *all* about vengeance. It's an elemental aspect of his being, but it's not the *only* aspect. Bruce is a creature of the night. Hence BATMAN. He can better hide his inadequacies and play to his strengths in the shadows. The death of his parents left him bereft and alone. I think some part of his being not only seeks perpetual vegeance, but perpetual identity. A reason for living. Perversely, he lost his identity when his parents were killed, and he regains it by fighting criminals; they, in effect, the very people he hates, are his extended family. There is a great deal of subtext in Burton's films and little to none in Nolan's.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Actually, Doc, I think Batman *is* about vengeance, but not *all* about vengeance. It's an elemental aspect of his being, but it's not the *only* aspect. Bruce is a creature of the night. Hence BATMAN. He can better hide his inadequacies and play to his strengths in the shadows. The death of his parents left him bereft and alone. I think some part of his being not only seeks perpetual vegeance, but perpetual identity. A reason for living. Perversely, he lost his identity when his parents were killed, and he regains it by fighting criminals; they, in effect, the very people he hates, are his extended family. There is a great deal of subtext in Burton's films and little to none in Nolan's.

Well, I mean vengeful as in "trying to seek revenge in a sadistic way." Batman is about saving the city, not getting personal satisfaction from doing so.

 

[Fenrir]

I think the best example of what's wrong with Nolan's Batman is in the teaser, Bruce's quote. He speaks of getting revenge. Batman is 100% NOT about revenge. It's about saving Gotham from the crime that took his parents' lives, so that anything remotely like what happened to him would never happen to anyone else ever again.

Uh, no. Vengeance has been shown to be the core motivation of the character in many a Batman stories. It's his MEANS of avenging his parents' death and his examination of the idea of revenge is what makes it different from your run-of-the-mill revenge stories. Sure, there are many other interpretations of the character that conflict with that portrayal, but ultimately it's still valid. Besides, what greater irony than a lover of Keaton's Batman who made it a point to kill the killer of his parents claiming "Batman 100% is not about revenge".

You raise a good point. But I'm not so-far-gone that I think Batman beginning has no place on film, though. Quite the opposite. But if you look at "Year One", Batman doesn't feel as amatuerish in that as he does in BB.

You're kidding me right? Did you even read Year One? Because of his error in judgement, a couple of young street thugs stealing televisions almost had his number, and he even admitted it after taking them down - "lucky...lucky amateur". Then there's the part where he foolishly walks the streets of Gotham, unnecessarily gets involved with the hookers, the pimp and is shot by the police. And let's not forget his blunders during the SWAT team raid.

Overall, he's right, but there's many spots where it rubs me the wrong way. Not in being a newbie.... just not cool and calculated.

That's just the way he was in Year One. Just because he didn't talk as much as Bale's Batman doesn't mean he didn't screw up as much.

I mean, if you go look at Keaton or Conroy's Batman, you could watch them stand still, silent, and just get a feeling like a million things were going through their heads, like they think first.

That's because both of them give off a vibe that they've been doing this for quite some time, whereas in Batman Begins we only see Bruce's first few nights out as Batman. And it was refreshing to see him make mistakes, being more headstrong and occassionally even rushing into things - just like Year One. It highlights the human aspect of the character. If Bale's Batman had been anything like Keaton's or even Conroy's, it would have come off as very one-dimensional.

Not that Bale feels like a neanderthal.... it's hard to explain. In a word, Bale's Batman feels vengeful (Which Batman isn't supposed to be), young and impetuous. And Batman was never that way, even starting out. Even in YO, he has a certain sense of professionalism and a cool demeanor.

That's where you couldn't be more wrong. Bale's Bruce Wayne prior to meeting Ra's felt vengeful. He was full of rage and anger. But by the time he comes back to Gotham, he is more focused, more determined and knows what he wants. In fact, the way the film presented it's distinction between justice and revenge, it would be asinine to say that Bale's Batman felt more vengeful. Perhaps you're confusing it with his more aggressive, animalistic attitude or your perception of what is or is not "vengeful" is what's screwed up here. It should be blatantly clear to anyone who's paid the slightest attention to the film that Bale's Batman is solely motivated by his sense of justice and responsibility. I mean, what could be more absurd than stating Bale's Batman felt more "vengeful" yet the only guy he could have exacted bloody revenge on was already dead since long back?

 

[Fenrir]

Well, I mean vengeful as in "trying to seek revenge in a sadistic way." Batman is about saving the city, not getting personal satisfaction from doing so.

Yeah, tell that to Burton who had Batman come right out and say it "I'm gonna kill you!". I mean, yeah, there is absolutely NO WAY he could gain any kind of personal satisfaction by killing the man who killed his parents, right?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Fenrir, why does it feel like you're trying to fight with me? It would help if you didn't stoop to indicating my my love of Keaton's performance somehow "blinds" me.

Keaton's Batman didn't become Batman for revenge. Batman never has been about revenge. He resigns himself to the fact that he'll never catch his parents' killer. It's beyond that. His plan is to free Gotham from the crime that was a catalyst in getting his parents killed. Keaton's Batman only takes revenge because the opportunity is presented to him (He literally stumbles onto his parents' killers' identity), and he takes revenge when, as BR reveals, he shouldn't have. And even then, Keaton's Batman was based on the early stories where Batman wasn't against killing people.

And all of my statements still stand. What I'm talking about is subjective, the vibes I get from reading YO and seeing BB. Nothing you say can change that.

 

[Fenrir]

Fenrir, why does it feel like you're trying to fight with me? It would help if you didn't stoop to indicating my my love of Keaton's performance somehow "blinds" me.

It certainly shows the inherent bias in your arguments. Perhaps it's because of my confrontational nature, but I can't stand wannabe critics who write lengthy essays pretending to know what they're talking about yet can't recognize the logical fallacies of their own viewpoints.

Keaton's Batman didn't become Batman for revenge. Batman never has been about revenge. He resigns himself to the fact that he'll never catch his parents' killer. It's beyond that. His plan is to free Gotham from the crime that was a catalyst in getting his parents killed. Keaton's Batman only takes revenge because the opportunity is presented to him (He literally stumbles onto his parents' killers' identity), and he takes revenge when, as BR reveals, he shouldn't have. And even then, Keaton's Batman was based on the early stories where Batman wasn't against killing people.

Actually, Bruce motivation to become Batman is never properly explained in the film to begin with, which leaves the audience open to all sorts of possibilities for speculation. Your theory is but one of such possibilities, but it's nowhere near being the definite one. My theory is that like in many other Batman stories, Bruce had no idea of the whereabouts of his parents' killer and so, he decides to declare war on the entire criminal element of Gotham in the hopes that *someday*, even though he won't realize it, he'll get the murderer of his parents eventually. To him, every criminal, every scumbag prowling the streets of Gotham is just another face of his parents' murderer.

And all of my statements still stand. What I'm talking about is subjective, the vibes I get from reading YO and seeing BB. Nothing you say can change that.

Then the "vibes" you're getting from watching BB and reading YO are all wrong, seeing as they blatantly contradict what is shown in the frames of the film and what is written and illustrated in the comic book.

 

[Cosmic]

Okay, the time has come.
...

Was that supposed to be a critique of Batman Begins? Or are you just venting your frustration here, because the movie disappointed you so much, and made you feel so uncomfortable?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Was that supposed to be a critique of Batman Begins? Or are you just venting your frustration here, because the movie disappointed you so much, and made you feel so uncomfortable?

A little of both, actually.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

It certainly shows the inherent bias in your arguments. Perhaps it's because of my confrontational nature, but I can't stand wannabe critics who write lengthy essays pretending to know what they're talking about yet can't recognize the logical fallacies of their own viewpoints.

I admit I have a bias, but I make sure that it doesn't influence my arguments.... that would be unprofessional. This whole thread is based on my subjective arguments on why I dislike certain aspects of the film, and it is, of course, open for discussion.

Actually, Bruce motivation to become Batman is never properly explained in the film to begin with, which leaves the audience open to all sorts of possibilities for speculation. Your theory is but one of such possibilities, but it's nowhere near being the definite one. My theory is that like in many other Batman stories, Bruce had no idea of the whereabouts of his parents' killer and so, he decides to declare war on the entire criminal element of Gotham in the hopes that *someday*, even though he won't realize it, he'll get the murderer of his parents eventually. To him, every criminal, every scumbag prowling the streets of Gotham is just another face of his parents' murderer.

Interesting. I can't say I disagree with the way you see it, either.

Then the "vibes" you're getting from watching BB and reading YO are all wrong, seeing as they blatantly contradict what is shown in the frames of the film and what is written and illustrated in the comic book.

That's the great thing about opinions.... they're never wrong. All I'm doing is saying how BB feels to me, what it does for me, etc... etc...

 

[Cosmic]

Fair enough. And, anyways, it wouldn't be any fun if we all liked the same stuff.

 

[kenellard]

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



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.



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

At a time when practically no news on TDK is available to discuss I would've thought it natural for people like doc to be allowed to analyse specific points of interest/personal gripes with begins without getting flamed in such a crass and obvious manner. Making a thread to prompt a detailed discussion of the chase scene etc. seems like a valid thing to do, so I take exception to your post about not reading "all that crap" that he wrote.

Also I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the thread I made, it seems to be doing ok, people discussing whether or not it was overrated, to whom it's considered overrated and such, crazy I know, but hey, it's a crazy world.

 

[Cobblepot]

In some ways BB dissapointed me too, you descriped it wonderfully.
I really really liked it the first and the second time I watched it. But more viewings made me see more and more character flaws storywise and "historic" wise.
Like you I hated that the murder of his parent doesn't accure after "The Mark Of Zorro" but after a visit to an opera!
And the Tumbler on the rooftops (with all those dump cops) was unforgivable.
I too must agree that the fight scenes we're poorly cut, the only fight scene I liked was the first.
The suit is okay I guess, but like you said he's too much depending on Luicius and withing a couple of weeks Luicius has figured out who the mysterious Batman is. Bruce also tells it to Rachel, so within his first month as Batman already 4 people know his identity!

 

[Boom]

Very good analysis. I enjoyed Batman Begins for what is was worth, but you covered many aspects of the film that I too felt were lacking.

 

[CConn]

Like you I hated that the murder of his parent doesn't accure after "The Mark Of Zorro" but after a visit to an opera!

I've heard that that couldn't be helped as Paramount owns/owned the rights to Zorro and, obviously, wouldn't let DC use it.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I've heard that that couldn't be helped as Paramount owns/owned the rights to Zorro and, obviously, wouldn't let DC use it.

That's true, but, they could have done what Burton did and just made it a theater. It doesn't matter too much what he was seeing there, as it doesn't particularly evoke the fate of the Waynes.

 

[CConn]

If it doesn't matter too much what he was seeing, why's it matter that they changed it to an Opera?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

If it doesn't matter too much what he was seeing, why's it matter that they changed it to an Opera?

It's not that, it's the fact that it was all so trite. Him seeing a play about Bats.... the whole thing just felt contrived and too convieniant to me.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Personally I think you were giving BB more credit than it's due. The love for BB on the hype is a constant mystery to me, having seen it quite a few times, the DVD will now just collect dust. Good points you raised, but I fell you forgot about the 'anti-realsim' of trying to base it in our world, then defying the laws of physics here and there, and such like. Also the film didn't feel like a batmna film, it felt like an action film.

As much as I love Bale(all the little animals is a masterful piece of work), i didn't think he was a great batman, my expectations for TDK aren't very high, but I think the third film will deliver, as two face is quite likely to be done justice, as Nolan deals with psychology reasonably well(insomnia in particular).

 

[CConn]

It's not that, it's the fact that it was all so trite. Him seeing a play about Bats.... the whole thing just felt contrived and too convieniant to me.

Eh, seems like a sort of minor quibble to me.

I mean, it wasn't overtly obvious the opera was about Bats - only that it reminded Bruce of bats. Which, in the end, is no more trite than Bruce seeing a movie about a masked vigilante dressed in black.

 

[Tojo]

i agree about Gotham, partly.

The way i would have done it is simple-and can also act as a metaphor. I would have All the decaying Gothic buildings that were built at the turn of the 19th century in the centre of the city, and then as we delved into the 20th century they obviously started building brand new sky scrapers, and these kind of shoot throigh the Gothic building's. So essentially we have both-Old Gotham and new Gotham, as if the people are trying to cover up the decay of the city without actually tackling it's core problem.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

The way i would have done it is simple-and can also act as a metaphor. I would have All the decaying Gothic buildings that were built at the turn of the 19th century in the centre of the city, and then as we delved into the 20th century they obviously started building brand new sky scrapers, and these kind of shoot throigh the Gothic building's. So essentially we have both-Old Gotham and new Gotham, as if the people are trying to cover up the decay of the city without actually tackling it's core problem.

I agree.... that's a fantastic idea, one I'd love to see. Burton had similar ideas, but it was clashing architecture instead of a haphazard way of changing the look of the a city like you suggested.

That would be a fantastically interesting take.

 

[kenellard]

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

 

[lujho]

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.

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.

A "modern American city" is exactly what Gotham has been portrayed as most of its history. Anything else is usually directly influenced by Bruton's expressionistic nightmare city.

I'd have liked to see a lot more older buildings (which modern American cities still have), and yes, that includes buildings in the Gothic style (arches, butresses, spires, gargoyles etc... there is such a thing as a Gothic skyscraper in the real world)... but what Nolan presented did not really deviate from what Gotham has usually been.

We didn't even see all of Gotham. We saw the central business district with all the new steel and glass and stuff, and The Narrows. Who says other parts of that huge city don't have a lot of older buildings? I sure hope they do anyway, and I hope we see more of it. But I still want it presented in as realistic a way as it was in Begins (actually, the Narrows were a little too un-real)... I don't want some whimsical fantasy metropolis. It should still look real.

But anyway, apart from that, like I said I agree with most of what you said. Begins was... underwhelming.

 

[lujho]

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.

Spot on. The bit I bolded especially. And it applies to ALL the bloody film too, not just action. Shots are too short (or even missing) in the drama scenes too. It doesn't flow. It doesn't breath. It doesn't linger when it needs to.

Agree with the rest of your points too. "Emperor's New Clothes" indeed.