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....
Why are directors not allowed to put their stamp and interpretation to the character? There is no one interpretation, so Nolan and Burton have a right to express themselves.
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!
I'm thankful we finally have a director who wants to give a realistic interpretation of Batman and I'm willing to take the 'sacrifice' of Nolan preferring to use more realistic and credible villains in favor of the fantastic, semi-mutant, magical ones. Burton and Schumacher pretty much covered all the fantastic and farfetched angles of Batman without venturing into pure camp, and its refreshing to see Nolan take Batman to the basic. Batman has always appealed to people because he's the most realistic superhero who trains and pushes himself to amount outstanding feats. I think Burton and Schumacher overlooked that aspect which resonates very well with the audience (triumph over adversity) in order to emphasize their favorite comedic or gothic expressions and emotions that they relate to with Batman. I'd rather see realistic interpretatoins of Joker, Riddler, Two-face, Penguin, than going down the road of Clayface and Mr. Freeze again.
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.
Fair, but who cares...I don't care to see Matrix-like fight scenes from Batman flicks anyway. I'll grant that Nolan could improve in the action.
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.
I'll grant that Goyer used too much comic-booky dialogue and I'll concede that Burton's dialogue was bit better than this film. However, Nolan wasn't writing the script, he can write good screenplays, he just wasn't in control of the entire dialogue. If you wanted better dialogue, you might as well have gotten rid of Goyer altogether. Nolan did the best he could to work with and I think he did well.
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....
So what? Comic books are a domino of coincidences. So he saw a theater with bats. It fit with the rest of the theme. Nolan made an interesting rational for Bruce's fascination with bats.
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.
This film was Batman Begins, he had to do what pretty much neither Burton or Schumacher did in their franchise....explore Bruce Wayne's motivation and character! The purpose was to explain why a rich man would want to become a grim superhero. Sadly Nolan was the first one to give Bruce Wayne and Batman and sense of purpose in his night expeditions through Gotham City. If he didn't, the Batman franchise would flop because it would be the stale old 'stupid villains' 'fast-car' nonsense of the last franchise.
I quite frankly thought Burton made Wayne too much of a mystery. Sure, I'll could overlook 1989 Batman and give Burton the benefit of the doubt, since this is an introduction. But what did Burton do when he was given MORE creative freedom in Batman Returns? He KEPT Batman a mystery. He overlooked Batman in favor of developing these magical Catwoman and mutant Penguin. I never felt Batman grew or developed anywhere in Batman Returns than he did from the previous Batman. Furthermore, in Batman Returns, Batman is pretty much a hypocritical Punisher who has a thing for woman in latex. The fact that Burton had more creative freedom and choose not to develop the character in favor of creating a more expressionistic nightmare of Gotham City and Penguin/Catwoman shows that he didn't really have any idea where to take Batman or explore his mind or challenge the character. I never felt Batman was a 'superhero' in a sense when watching the Burton films. I felt Batman was just a bitter old man who wanted to exercise violence and show disdain for society. In fact, I thought Schumacher got the whole superhero aspect of Batman down much better than Burton did. Schumacher actually presents Batman in a more admirable perspective than Burton ever did.
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."
That's the problem....Burton never told you why...and that's why the old franchise was doomed to fail. I don't even know if Burton ever wanted to tell you why. He was more interested in putting more gargoyles on buildings and have much spewing out of Penguin's mouth.
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!
That's where I gotta disagree fully. Caine's Alfred had smarts and heart. He was Bruce's step father, moral compass, and family historian for Bruce. Burton's Alfred just served drinks and made wise dialogue such as "I decided to tell Vicki Vale,...you know that news reporter you were dating, that you were Batman,...I hope you don't mind"....or "trust the Penguin, Bruce." Burton's Alfred pretty much was resorted to comic relief and in B&R was a damsel-in-distress. Caine's Alfred was a refreshing spin on a character that nearly served no purpose in the old franchise.
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.
Well, as someone already mentioned, there are many interpretations of Gotham City and most interpretatoins are closer to Nolan's than Burtons.
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.
??? Bal
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.
At least you admit that your point of reference is the movie you're comparing it to. Since this is Batman Begins, I think I understand why Nolan wanted to make him more aggressive and emotional than previous incarnations. I like how Bale actually got in the face of the criminals he was interrogating as opposed to whispering to them like in Batman Returns.
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.
What college did you get your Phd in psychology? I could just as easily argue that people who have traumatic things happen to but has lots of money and freedom try to develop a defense mechanism to become more disobedient and wreckless (ala Bale's Batman) than Keaton who is well-respected in the community, cerebral, but nobody knows anything about him, despite throwing lavish parties in his mansion.
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....
Keaton had everything at his disposal
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.
I don't understand this paragraph. Only Burton is allowed to portray Batman as killing people? The difference betwen Bale's and Burton's Batman is the question as to whether Batman kills is ambigious in Nolan's film whereas as its direct and straightforward in Burton's. In Batman Returns, Batman straps a bomb to a guys chest. He shoots flamethrower at the midget clowns. I haven't read too many of Kane's early comics, but Kane's Batman had guns, so by that argument Burton should have also had Batman carrying guns. Furthermore, Kane's Batman seemed to show more restraint even when carrying weapons. Burton's Batman was unforgiving in his use of fatal techniques against criminals. Anotehr thing that bothered me is that Burton's Batman never seemed to face any consequences from the police or Gordon for using fatal and wreckless tactics to bring down the Joker, Catwoman, or the Penguin. Gordon sees Batman throw a man in a bucket of chemicals, sees the Bat plane fire shots at a parade of people, and sees the Joker being thrown off a building. In Batman Returns, criminals get blown up in the street and there are NO consequences for Batman.
That's what I didn't like about Burton's films so much is that they were essentially the Punisher in a batman costume and that gets boring quick. Furthermore, the treatment Batman gets after using drastic and vile tactics and his aloof attitude seems inconsistent with the way police would behave if they had a vigilante in their midst. There is no question in the police force as to why Gordon should team up with Batman. That was explored significantly in Nolan's Batman Begins.
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.
t:
