The Story.

[DKDetective]

In celebrated incarnations we find Batman has 2 identities. The facade of Wayne, a character, had he lead his normal life, one would still find somewhat improbable mainly due to the lengths he goes to discredit himself(year one comments on this). And his true face, that of the astutely silent revenge minded rage monster archetype. It's very simple, when he's around people in his circle of crime and crime fighters, he's batman and when he's around anyone else he's the clown. Begins presents this blurring of the line that I can only guess pays service Hollywood. You find the character of Bruce Wayne stepping outside his true face when he's alone. For example all the seemingly out of character jokes he makes to his keeper Alfred. Or the rather tersh conversations he has while in the clown role. Of course there are moments when Nolan wakes up and get's it right, such as the dinner scene. But I would hope he'd explore this fundamental concept with more commitment. What I find is more in line with the classic Zorro portrayal. In conclusion, like a lot of bat aspects, I find the exquisite duality of Batman is ill presented in Begins. He talks of his anger outweighing his guilt yet he never misses an opportunity to shares genuine laugh with one of his "friends." One finds in other adaptations, his "friends" full stop when "Batman" smiles. That's not to say Batman doesn't have a sense of humor, but one would find that it's almost painfully cynical, especially in Waynes old age. More of Nolans subtle commitment. What's really interesting to me, is all this and with the Equillibrium/American Psycho guy.

Now one need only look at the presentation of a another rage monster to see said concept respected. Zack Snyder's own Rorschach. Like I mentioned earlier Superman has a similar duality though much more result of choice and study as opposed to a condition, I have hopes that the matter is broached.

I can't disagree with you more on this point. I find a perfect distinction between the two personas, especially in Batman's early years, to unrealistic and unconvincing. I like the fact that each persona came out during the other occasionally. To me, it was indicative of a Batman still learning. It takes times to build up those mental walls which is why it is appropriate that a young Bruce learning to be Batman might slip up a little. I actually think it was also a deft piece of acting on Bale's part. It shows that he was playing Batman playing Bruce Wayne.

 

[Marvin]

I can't disagree with you more on this point. I find a perfect distinction between the two personas, especially in Batman's early years, to unrealistic and unconvincing. I like the fact that each persona came out during the other occasionally. To me, it was indicative of a Batman still learning. It takes times to build up those mental walls which is why it is appropriate that a young Bruce learning to be Batman might slip up a little. I actually think it was also a deft piece of acting on Bale's part. It shows that he was playing Batman playing Bruce Wayne.

I'm more incline to see batman slip through then Wayne. But I'm very curious at which point the "still early in game" excuse will bale Nolan/bats out.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I can see why people would have issues with that; Heck I would as well if it wasn't done in a certain way.

IF they do go that route, I'd only be mildly okay with it IF:

1. It was shown beforehand that Clark had intended on stepping out into the light to become a symbol of hope and that Zod's invasion provided him the right opportunity

OR

2. He was actively going around to stop crime but doing so without being seen.

Agreed completely.

I wish they'd let us write a Superman movie, I recon we'd make a good one

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I think it's pretty much confirmed that it's an oil rig and, given the political visibility of drilling in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska, it makes perfect sense for Clark to go to their rescue while living in the fishing village. It might even be the explanation for why Lois is there. She is covering some controversial new oil rig off the coast.

I would love for that to happen.

I really hope they stay away from making any political statements or pushing environmental "messages" in the movie. let the movie be a movie that can be enjoyed by everyone.

I think at least what with the way superhero films are going these days, a simple political undertone will actually enhance the film's quality. I'm still wondering how Clark Kent is portrayed in this; how can one have an investigative journalist and not tackle on at least a few political ideas? I do hope they don't overdo it though. Snyder has, so far in his movies, always told stories that does have an ideological core to them. I wouldn't mind if he made one with Superman.

I wouldn't mind if the film addressed some contemporary issues, provided they don't overshadow the main story. They should always be in the background. For one thing, it allows people to immerse themselves more in the film, and it adds a touch of realism rather than having a story set in a totally fictional, detached Superman universe where there are no issues like we are currently facing. Personally, I would find it more interesting to have Superman not only having to face off against a villain, but also having to deal with some less tangible issues which he can't just defeat with his superpowers.

Other Superman films have done it also, some less subtly than others. Superman IV's references to the ongoing nuclear arms race at that time were very, very obvious to the point that almost the entire storyline was based on that issue.

The first 2 X-Men films also had a great impact because of the mutant storyline allegory being a great metaphor for differences in people, and acceptance of those differences.

Exactly, wonderfully said. Those movies are still some the best because of the themes, but they can also be enjoyed without them. The balance is achievable in Hollywood blockbusters, why not go for it? Superman's always faced political / ideological threats in the comics, and the element of his powerlessness as Superman against intangible issues makes his role as an investigative journalist all the more viable. At least for a superhero.

This is gonna be awesome. I think an "oil rig" sploshin is a perfect thing for Superman to help out with. I mean, how many people actually wished Superman was real when we had that Real "oil leak" in the Gulf of Mehico?

YES!

That's because the environmental tech was used as a macguffin, at one point with the intention of taking over the world. You can always get away with being preachy if you play the devil's advocate at the same time.

I for one think that the whole idea of Tony in Afghanistan, Tony making the suit, etc, were all sort of McGuffins. But it worked. It played an integral part of the first film which people loved and embraced - not having that element in the second story ruined it for some. Of course, there were other issues too.

You don't even have to be specifically political or anything, but a good movie should have strong emotional themes. At least those which the audience can relate to. Watchmen still works as a story because the idea of change and circumstance is a powerful one, not necessarily a superheroic one.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I appreciate your responses Marvin, but I'm afraid I still cannot see where some of your points stem from. Perhaps it is subjective, at least that's what I believe it to be. But anyway, let's talk about it.

You're saying that the reason why Batman Begins comes short as an origin story is because it does not present the "common knowledge that Bruce Wayne is an inhumanely skilled individual." But here's the thing, the entire concept of Batman falls under not his inhumane skills, but his human struggle to attain those skills. Granted, that the training themselves could have been further explored, but what would be the point? The movie collects the entirety of his training by showing us the last place he trains, and then uses flashbacks to cover the rest of it. It isn't as underwhelming as you're making it out to be because we do see a man, desperate to fight crime, having lost his objectivity throughout this training and then has found it once again before he moves back to Gotham City. It's the hero's quest around foreign lands, preparing, and redeeming himself, for the waste land of criminality that is Gotham City. And all of this is told with precision where we not only see Bruce's convictions, his fears, and his driven rage through his skills. One thing I love about these Nolan stories is that this is still a young Batman learning his craft - even in TDK. That's Batman for you: a human being. The idea of him being a monster is a construction. It retells the myth of Batman from his own eyes - it removes the fantasy and the glamour and the gothic because at the end of the day, Bruce's parents were gunned down with the same level of rapid-fire editing that we see in the movie - it's instantaneous, and sudden. Everything else ever since is a slow and speculative pace into the journey that his Batman.

What's more, the very fragile and complex psyche of the character readers have come to identify over the (more recent)years. Not so much because of the content of the story but more so because of the directional choices of Nolan.

Begins may have explored his past more than other films, but it wasn't his "best" origin story.

Actually the fragile and complex psyche of Bruce Wayne started a long time before Nolan came on board. But you already know that. It's the best origin story because it tells his origin more thoroughly, it makes us a part of it. Year One didn't do that - it simply painted a world that needed Batman. We see Bruce Wayne, from his traumas, his trainings, to his triumphs, in a way that other origin tales were too monolithic to tackle. Even in the comics. Here, you actually see the dynamics of the character.

In celebrated incarnations we find Batman has 2 identities. The facade of Wayne, a character, had he lead his normal life, one would still find somewhat improbable mainly due to the lengths he goes to discredit himself(year one comments on this). And his true face, that of the astutely silent revenge minded rage monster archetype.

That's more to do with James Gordon's characterisation though, not Bruce Wayne's. In Year One the entire thing is implied, in Batman Begins we're actually with Bruce along the way as he develops that personality.

For example all the seemingly out of character jokes he makes to his keeper Alfred. Or the rather tersh conversations he has while in the clown role. [...] In conclusion, like a lot of bat aspects, I find the exquisite duality of Batman is ill presented in Begins. He talks of his anger outweighing his guilt yet he never misses an opportunity to shares genuine laugh with one of his "friends." One finds in other adaptations, his "friends" full stop when "Batman" smiles. That's not to say Batman doesn't have a sense of humor, but one would find that it's almost painfully cynical, especially in Waynes old age. More of Nolans subtle commitment. What's really interesting to me, is all this and with the Equillibrium/American Psycho guy.

Not at all, just look at BTAS and you know that Bruce has always made those small jokes with Alfred. In fact, the original seasons had some bizarre exchanges with others as well, but that doesn't deride the charactersiation, it makes it more authentic and believable. He isn't grim every single time. What I like about Christian Bale's interpretation is that you actually see that isolation, depression, and anger, bottled up. He smiles yes, but god have you seen him smile? It's like he's doing it out of decorum; it still comes off as forced. And we never see him laugh, not even once. The American Psycho guy isn't there - this was Bruce Wayne, the repressed man of the mind and body. I think I see him smiling most with Lucius Fox, but again, they're inside jokes. He isn't the completely caved in Dark Knight until both the movies come to an end.

Now one need only look at the presentation of a another rage monster to see said concept respected. Zack Snyder's own Rorschach. Like I mentioned earlier Superman has a similar duality though much more result of choice and study as opposed to a condition, I have hopes that the matter is broached.

I love Rorshach, but the character works because he is one-dimensional. He is the creation of his time - the dark hero of a waste land which spews out decadence and disease. Batman has that as well, but in Nolan's movies the point is to show why and how, not what. And you're interpretations keep focusing on the what.

I hope that unlike Begins, MoS presents all the aspects I've seen in prior superman incarnations with as much commitment and appeal to cinema as I've seen in those very incarnations.

My brother recently watched the YearOne animation. And I told him that, that was were a lot of begins came from. He asked, where was flass, I said he was there. He asked where was the uneasy and overwhelming corruption, I told him it was there. Where was the Swat team scene, it was there...etc. I appreciate that begins presents this aspects of a great story. In fact I think that why it's so "loved." What I personally hate about it is that it presents so many and in a less then memorable way, relatively speaking. What's more the clumsy appeal to cinema that Nolan presents(in begins mind you), just kills the film for me. I find myself cringing during the escape from arkham scene(and many others.

Now Snyder is an entirely different beast. In some ways stronger in others weaker. I am very keen see what Snyder does with a Goyer script. So far I've been very pleased with his direction.

It seems a bit odd that you would want a thorough portrayal of every single element of a character with the same commitment that was done in other stories, and then again want a story that is beyond the scope of those older narratives. Especially when you didn't like how it was done in Batman Begins. Now yes, I do believe it's possible to tell a better origin story, but with BB even the minute of character-history from older incarnations was hinted at. Even in his love-life with Rachel (but that's something else). To me it's much more desirable to ask for some aspects from prior incarnations, but at the same time offer something new. It all comes back to the story. Is this a Kal-El story or a Clark Kent story? If the answer is 'both', why not focus on elements that work? Smallville will continue to be a better Clark Kent story because they infused so much time to that, but expecting the same thing here is unreasonable. What would be reasonable is what Nolan did with Batman - the suggestion of those more exquisite portrayals are there, as it is in Year One, but we're at times more clearly invested with the central idea of the story: Bruce's fears and his trials to become Batman. I'd like to see something similar with Kal. Maybe not his fears, but certainly his trials.

And ... seriously, they weren't as cringe worthy as you make it out to be. It sounds almost hyperbolic. I loved the allusion to YO in that scene, I simply adored the sight of it.

Snyder really is a different beast - he's much more committed, to use your own word, to the source material. What I'm scared about is Goyer. He's the unpredictable beast. I do share your love of Snyder though.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Agreed completely.

I wish they'd let us write a Superman movie, I recon we'd make a good one

Definitely!

 

[DKDetective]

I appreciate your responses Marvin, but I'm afraid I still cannot see where some of your points stem from. Perhaps it is subjective, at least that's what I believe it to be. But anyway, let's talk about it.

You're saying that the reason why Batman Begins comes short as an origin story is because it does not present the "common knowledge that Bruce Wayne is an inhumanely skilled individual." But here's the thing, the entire concept of Batman falls under not his inhumane skills, but his human struggle to attain those skills. Granted, that the training themselves could have been further explored, but what would be the point? The movie collects the entirety of his training by showing us the last place he trains, and then uses flashbacks to cover the rest of it. It isn't as underwhelming as you're making it out to be because we do see a man, desperate to fight crime, having lost his objectivity throughout this training and then has found it once again before he moves back to Gotham City. It's the hero's quest around foreign lands, preparing, and redeeming himself, for the waste land of criminality that is Gotham City. And all of this is told with precision where we not only see Bruce's convictions, his fears, and his driven rage through his skills. One thing I love about these Nolan stories is that this is still a young Batman learning his craft - even in TDK. That's Batman for you: a human being. The idea of him being a monster is a construction. It retells the myth of Batman from his own eyes - it removes the fantasy and the glamour and the gothic because at the end of the day, Bruce's parents were gunned down with the same level of rapid-fire editing that we see in the movie - it's instantaneous, and sudden. Everything else ever since is a slow and speculative pace into the journey that his Batman.



Actually the fragile and complex psyche of Bruce Wayne started a long time before Nolan came on board. But you already know that. It's the best origin story because it tells his origin more thoroughly, it makes us a part of it. Year One didn't do that - it simply painted a world that needed Batman. We see Bruce Wayne, from his traumas, his trainings, to his triumphs, in a way that other origin tales were too monolithic to tackle. Even in the comics. Here, you actually see the dynamics of the character.

That's more to do with James Gordon's characterisation though, not Bruce Wayne's. In Year One the entire thing is implied, in Batman Begins we're actually with Bruce along the way as he develops that personality.



Not at all, just look at BTAS and you know that Bruce has always made those small jokes with Alfred. In fact, the original seasons had some bizarre exchanges with others as well, but that doesn't deride the charactersiation, it makes it more authentic and believable. He isn't grim every single time. What I like about Christian Bale's interpretation is that you actually see that isolation, depression, and anger, bottled up. He smiles yes, but god have you seen him smile? It's like he's doing it out of decorum; it still comes off as forced. And we never see him laugh, not even once. The American Psycho guy isn't there - this was Bruce Wayne, the repressed man of the mind and body. I think I see him smiling most with Lucius Fox, but again, they're inside jokes. He isn't the completely caved in Dark Knight until both the movies come to an end.

I love Rorshach, but the character works because he is one-dimensional. He is the creation of his time - the dark hero of a waste land which spews out decadence and disease. Batman has that as well, but in Nolan's movies the point is to show why and how, not what. And you're interpretations keep focusing on the what.



It seems a bit odd that you would want a thorough portrayal of every single element of a character with the same commitment that was done in other stories, and then again want a story that is beyond the scope of those older narratives. Especially when you didn't like how it was done in Batman Begins. Now yes, I do believe it's possible to tell a better origin story, but with BB even the minute of character-history from older incarnations was hinted at. Even in his love-life with Rachel (but that's something else). To me it's much more desirable to ask for some aspects from prior incarnations, but at the same time offer something new. It all comes back to the story. Is this a Kal-El story or a Clark Kent story? If the answer is 'both', why not focus on elements that work? Smallville will continue to be a better Clark Kent story because they infused so much time to that, but expecting the same thing here is unreasonable. What would be reasonable is what Nolan did with Batman - the suggestion of those more exquisite portrayals are there, as it is in Year One, but we're at times more clearly invested with the central idea of the story: Bruce's fears and his trials to become Batman. I'd like to see something similar with Kal. Maybe not his fears, but certainly his trials.

And ... seriously, they weren't as cringe worthy as you make it out to be. It sounds almost hyperbolic. I loved the allusion to YO in that scene, I simply adored the sight of it.

Snyder really is a different beast - he's much more committed, to use your own word, to the source material. What I'm scared about is Goyer. He's the unpredictable beast. I do share your love of Snyder though.

Totally agree. The other problem with Marvin's analysis is that he seems to think there is a correct, definitive Batman and that it is present in Year One. The distinction between Bruce and Batman wasn't as clear cut in the 70s and Denny O'Neil's runs with the character are very highly regarded. I'm fine with Bruce having an ironic/sarcastic sense of humor even while Batman, he's human after all. B:TAS is an excellent example of it as mentioned. No one can be grim 24/7. I love Year One as much as anyone, but it is FAR from perfect itself. Some of the Frank Miller-isms are freaking laughable. The corruption is over the top. Having the Mayor, Police Commissioner, Falcone, etc. all meet together for dinner is cheesy. All the references to "gestapo", "fascists", "soldiers", "war" is also over the top for me. Same with Miller's take on Selina Kyle and her origin. Not the biggest fan.

Or what has been said about the escape from the police/SWAT. Of Mask of the Phantasm, Begins, and Year One, I think Year One's take is the weakest. Police helicopters dropping bombs in the middle of a city is just ridiculous. I love the Arkham escape in Begins. The way he drops the remote, glides down, and then proceeds to grimly march down the hall is one of my favourite Batman moments ever. The way Batman lands crouching is just perfectly stylized.

Once again, I think Marvin's criticisms are subjective and come down to preferred take on the character. I get the sense that he is a big fan of 80s psycho Batman. I'm not. I prefer the Denny O'Neil stories and B:TAS. I like a dark and serious Batman, but a heroic one who is noble at heart.

Back to MOS, Nave, I'm not as worried about Goyer as you. I'm moreso worried about the combination of Goyer and Snyder. Goyer is great when he has the Nolans to polish his ideas and add a certain non-comic book fan perspective to the creative process. They give his story and the scripts more gravitas, seriousness, and broad appeal. My worry is what happens when you have Goyer left to his own devices and then pair that with Snyder's over the top, stylized direction. Snyder concentrates too much on the visuals to detriment of everything else I find. For instance, the majority of the performances in his films are uninspired. While I am cautiously optimistic about this movie based on Nolan's involvement and the inspired casting thus far, I have to admit I fear the combination of Goyer's cheesy, comic booky dialogue and Snyder's preoccupation with visuals without someone like Christopher Nolan to give the film gravitas and seriousness.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Agreed completely.

I wish they'd let us write a Superman movie, I recon we'd make a good one

I hope your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek as you wrote that. Because it would be nothing short of a disaster.

 

[moviedoors]

I hope your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek as you wrote that. Because it would be nothing short of a disaster.

For sure.

 

[Marvin]

Totally agree. The other problem with Marvin's analysis is that he seems to think there is a correct, definitive Batman and that it is present in Year One. The distinction between Bruce and Batman wasn't as clear cut in the 70s and Denny O'Neil's runs with the character are very highly regarded. I'm fine with Bruce having an ironic/sarcastic sense of humor even while Batman, he's human after all. B:TAS is an excellent example of it as mentioned. No one can be grim 24/7. I love Year One as much as anyone, but it is FAR from perfect itself. Some of the Frank Miller-isms are freaking laughable. The corruption is over the top. Having the Mayor, Police Commissioner, Falcone, etc. all meet together for dinner is cheesy. All the references to "gestapo", "fascists", "soldiers", "war" is also over the top for me. Same with Miller's take on Selina Kyle and her origin. Not the biggest fan.

The corruption is "over the top?" Reading the many good reviews to the story that's maybe never come up in my experience. It's a comic book Batman is over the top, he's the response to his environment. I see OCP Detroit(robocop) as being over the top(and satirical). I see begins as a film that acts like it's something it's not that goes on to get praise as if it is. Now TDK had some strong levels of corruption and it payed off. Begins supposedly had "Flass" and some northern Italians. Joe Chill got let off the hook for a plea bargin deal, call in the superheroes already this is so messy.

I agree it's a subjective matter the handling of bat's personalities. However I see you referenced BTAS. I would ask you to note how that series started and where it has gone as the series evolved and improved over the years. Look at him now compared to the 90's when it started. I believe there is a reason for that. Simply put, an intense characterization is more engaging and resonates stronger. He's not just a rich guy in a suit with a job to do. He's a really wound up character who's hard to be friends with ala Justice League. In those early episodes the character could have literally be replaced with the animated tony stark and that ilk and no one would have been the wiser. Sadly that's what I'm finding traces of in Nolans take on the character.

I wouldn't be the first to say Bruce Wayne is slowly not being seen as the star of these films(something Nolan said would never happen). Joker showed up(without an origin in the mountains no less) and was simply a lot more interesting. This really doesn't need to be the case, batman can be twice as interesting as joker with the right direction. That interrogation scene was between Joker and a moral guy with a silly voice. If only Batman had shown up. If only Superman shows up, one has to hope.

Or what has been said about the escape from the police/SWAT. Of Mask of the Phantasm, Begins, and Year One, I think Year One's take is the weakest. Police helicopters dropping bombs in the middle of a city is just ridiculous. I love the Arkham escape in Begins. The way he drops the remote, glides down, and then proceeds to grimly march down the hall is one of my favourite Batman moments ever. The way Batman lands crouching is just perfectly stylized.

This I firmly disagree with. The scene in Year one you have a man saving his pursuers(classic device with heroes), only to get shot (in the leg), end up in an apartment building that get's the ok to be firebombed. The implications alone are more entertaining than begins. Again the ideas the Begins so proudly parades around are actually executed in stories such as year one. As I've said from the start, the problem with begins isn't that it doesn't cover almost everything important to an origin film. It's that the direction is all tell and no show to the point of being lame and inert. What legislative body(out side that of the middle east) would ok firebombing an abandoned residential building. Even if it was Bin Laden and not batman. What do they have to hide. The sheer level of palpable corruption is very much effective on an audience told they are entering a world that needs a Hero Like Batman.

Spoiler

Next he looses his belt due to operating error(he's a rookie and we can tell), just about all his gear is gone he's injured he's surrounded and he's still saving lives. Most important you witness just how amazing and driven the man has become. Kicking over supports with injured legs and breaking down his enemy without Morgan Freeman telling him how. If nolan put even a shred of this on screen I'd be the first to applaud. Instead the scenario presented is another inert damsel rescue with awkward exposition, clumsy action and corny pay offs.
[YT]SjBxLfii3B0[/YT]
OK sure you like it, and hey it makes sense given the plot. But I'll be damned if I champion this work over the better direction of previous story tellers. No way jose. The "march" though the bright halls of Arkham is hilarious and the rubber suit impaired tosses of bombs... I'm also not so sure if that's a very batman thing to say to criminals but then again he's young right.

Once again, I think Marvin's criticisms are subjective and come down to preferred take on the character. I get the sense that he is a big fan of 80s psycho Batman. I'm not. I prefer the Denny O'Neil stories and B:TAS. I like a dark and serious Batman, but a heroic one who is noble at heart.

Quite the opposite actually, I got into the character by way of 90's JLA and then some branching off from there. DKR is I believe what people think of when they hear Miller and his psycho fascist cheese. I prefer the modern iterations such as Morrison, Waid and Loeb (when he's not sucking). Year one was Miller in this vain. So much so that TLH and Dark Victory are said to be directly tied to it. His Salina Kyle is a bit much but you can't win the all...ie gordan and the rest.

 

[Marvin]

I appreciate your responses Marvin, but I'm afraid I still cannot see where some of your points stem from. Perhaps it is subjective, at least that's what I believe it to be. But anyway, let's talk about it.

sure why not, that's why we're here

You're saying that the reason why Batman Begins comes short as an origin story is because it does not present the "common knowledge that Bruce Wayne is an inhumanely skilled individual." But here's the thing, the entire concept of Batman falls under not his inhumane skills, but his human struggle to attain those skills.

No, what I'm saying is ONE of the reasons why it falls short compared to other incarnations of the story is that it fails in portraying a well known and loved character aspect. I agree batman is not simply his prowess. But I would argue that the best batman story would be fool hardy to avoid such things. That would be like a young Sherlock homes movie featuring his struggle to become a "hero" but not featuring his analytical skills. It's what he's known for. It would be like an Iron Man film about Tony's struggles but not featuring his "super human" engineering skills. It actually works for Spiderman because his scientific mind is ancillary to other things he's known for. But batman is his drive, his means and his Skills. I would go on to argue that all things being equal, the better Sherlock film is the one that presents his prowess best, in this case Begins falls short.

I'd be open to accepting it's about the struggle Bruce takes to get said skills but again Begins tends to fall on the subtle side of dramatizing this in favor of just presenting ideas for apologists to point out on the check list. Yes, he was in a eastern jail for example, but let's explore that a bit the trauma the "struggle"...What kinda man can survive 8 months in solitary confinement. If this were a comic book it would be a panel of a over head shot of Bruce in jail, and I'd be saying the same thing. Lets see him in jail, Bruce is no ordinary man so don't just tell us. At the very least it was crank up the drama and impact for haters such as myself lol. Rather we get a brief looney toons short and some showy chat. This I find is Nolans game, grandiose presentation without the work.

The scene starts out with Wayne keeping to himself against the fence, no "friends" to crack wise with. A new guy with a large frame and a lot to prove, seeking to make a name for himself musters up his frightened crew. Wayne breaks all their bones and when the "guards" finally stop placing their bets against outsider and decide do their jobs, Wayne's "rage" takes over and he get himself in real trouble. A couple shots are fired and Wayne is dragged away "for every ones protection." 2 months in the infirmary, he removed early and spends the next 4 months in solitary and starved. Ducard visits telling the audience Wayne's there of his own free will and what not, offers him an alternative. Wayne leaves another 4 months later...and scene. I just find the choices made in begins could either be stronger in terms of the source material or simply use more commitment to the drama. I respect that that Prison scene tries to do for the property but I find it lacking and I strongly believe this played a large part in Begins moderate success.

Granted, that the training themselves could have been further explored, but what would be the point? The movie collects the entirety of his training by showing us the last place he trains, and then uses flashbacks to cover the rest of it. It isn't as underwhelming as you're making it out to be because we do see a man, desperate to fight crime, having lost his objectivity throughout this training and then has found it once again before he moves back to Gotham City. It's the hero's quest around foreign lands, preparing, and redeeming himself, for the waste land of criminality that is Gotham City. And all of this is told with precision where we not only see Bruce's convictions, his fears, and his driven rage through his skills. One thing I love about these Nolan stories is that this is still a young Batman learning his craft - even in TDK.

For a movie that's about such things, it sure enjoys flying though them. I do however appreciate the issue of his objective morality, I admit that was handled fairly well and is a staple of the character. The waste land of "criminality" that is Gotham(like I've been harping) was more tell then show. I never felt that it was any sort of difficult place to live in, in desperate need of a hero. It literally seemed to have comparable corruption to Chicago. Fine for some, not for me.

As for the young inexperienced batman argument. Like I said a young Sherlock would no doubt show signs of his inexperience, perhaps through his arrogance, but they would be fool hardy to diminish the presence of his prowess. In year one you see batman making mistakes left and right. But he shows up day one with the exquisitely keen mind that he's known for. Begins I find takes every opportunity to miss out on this. Then the Joker shows up to drive the point home.

That's Batman for you: a human being. The idea of him being a monster is a construction. It retells the myth of Batman from his own eyes - it removes the fantasy and the glamour and the gothic because at the end of the day, Bruce's parents were gunned down with the same level of rapid-fire editing that we see in the movie - it's instantaneous, and sudden. Everything else ever since is a slow and speculative pace into the journey that his Batman.

For me it's the guided rage that molds the characterization. You have a man driven to make himself physically and mentally "perfect" on a mission of revenge disguised as justice. The fuel here is rage. The levels should be in the atmosphere and its that foundation that guides the characterization. Bruce Wayne is mad as hell, and he's had to be to survive the hell he put him self though. I believe if a story teller commits to that, then you yield two things.
1: An environment that facilitates the possibility of a "batman" (considering it's really hard for the average person to achieve bats fictional prowess)
2: A Bruce Wayne that never smiles in an organic way. That's the damage. "wah bats are nocturnal alfred, close the blinds.." pass.

What I see instead is something like Ben Affleck's Dare Devil, "dark gritty and wanting to kill criminals for "justice," yet skipping down the street falling over himself when a pretty lady walks by..etc. That's compromise. I'm asking for commitment. And I personally don't see it in this characterization.

Not at all, just look at BTAS and you know that Bruce has always made those small jokes with Alfred. In fact, the original seasons had some bizarre exchanges with others as well, but that doesn't deride the charactersiation, it makes it more authentic and believable. He isn't grim every single time.

Yea, like I said above, the producers quickly got their **** together and strengthened the show in as many aspects as they could. But to each his own. I think the more believable batman is the one obsessively committed to being batman. I don't look for normality to that degree in this character, that's what spider man's for and that's what robin strives for. That's why, try as they may none of the robins will ever be Batman. To take a character that's known for one thing and make him another for the purposes of relatability is a tricky thing.

What I like about Christian Bale's interpretation is that you actually see that isolation, depression, and anger, bottled up. He smiles yes, but god have you seen him smile? It's like he's doing it out of decorum; it still comes off as forced. And we never see him laugh, not even once. The American Psycho guy isn't there - this was Bruce Wayne, the repressed man of the mind and body. I think I see him smiling most with Lucius Fox, but again, they're inside jokes. He isn't the completely caved in Dark Knight until both the movies come to an end.

I think we're coming from the same place on this. I personally would just prefer it to be stronger. To the point where it's what the audience talks about. I can see you prefer it as it is. That's fine. I'm coming from a world of extremes and perhaps that's my upbringing(I also see the more celebrated takes on the character using this paradigm). I literally see Equillibrium(lack of emotion) and American Psycho(public persona) as the two extreme aspects of the character and Bale is capable of achieving both. There is a middle ground but like in those movies it would be good if bats was the most interesting character in presence and was later talked about after the films done. I blame the subtle direction(again).

I love Rorshach, but the character works because he is one-dimensional. He is the creation of his time - the dark hero of a waste land which spews out decadence and disease. Batman has that as well, but in Nolan's movies the point is to show why and how, not what. And you're interpretations keep focusing on the what.

Unfortunately, Nolans movies don't have it. Not enough anyways. I get that the first one makes an effort to show how(i suppose), but that doesn't excuse the fact that it never get's to the "what" in all it's glory.

It seems a bit odd that you would want a thorough portrayal of every single element of a character with the same commitment that was done in other stories, and then again want a story that is beyond the scope of those older narratives. Especially when you didn't like how it was done in Batman Begins. Now yes, I do believe it's possible to tell a better origin story, but with BB even the minute of character-history from older incarnations was hinted at. Even in his love-life with Rachel (but that's something else). To me it's much more desirable to ask for some aspects from prior incarnations, but at the same time offer something new.

I agree, it's not practical to achieve this. That's often why I ask people why they claim it does. Flass was a joke in begins and that's fine, but that fact remains. And this trickles down to many aspects of Nolans interpretation. It's probably because of this attempt that I see it as a failure. However in TDK he takes the joker and makes him every bit the extreme "character" he is in the books. The police system is wonderfully corrupt, and batman shows (some semblance) of prowess. And the audience reacted appropriately. Batman lands on a van and it's cinematic all of a sudden...I was surprised.

It all comes back to the story. Is this a Kal-El story or a Clark Kent story? If the answer is 'both', why not focus on elements that work? Smallville will continue to be a better Clark Kent story because they infused so much time to that, but expecting the same thing here is unreasonable. What would be reasonable is what Nolan did with Batman - the suggestion of those more exquisite portrayals are there, as it is in Year One, but we're at times more clearly invested with the central idea of the story: Bruce's fears and his trials to become Batman. I'd like to see something similar with Kal. Maybe not his fears, but certainly his trials.

I agree, the storyteller needs to find the best path to the character and he needs to present that to the audience. Superman is tricky because we've seen a few different formulas, even in live action. The the toned down human approach seems to work wonders for Marvel but I fear DC works best when they present an Greek style approach. Batman's protrayal in Year One vs the early TAS for example. All Star Superman vs the Lois&Clark.
I do think Waid was on the right track with Birthright however.

Snyder really is a different beast - he's much more committed, to use your own word, to the source material. What I'm scared about is Goyer. He's the unpredictable beast. I do share your love of Snyder though.

Yes Goyer is very hit and miss. This is no more present than in his Blade work. And it tends to come down to his filter.

All things going right then I think it will be a success like no other.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I hope your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek as you wrote that. Because it would be nothing short of a disaster.

While the '' made it quite clear that my tongue was in my cheek, that still produced a little defensive 'hey!'

I'm going to assume that was based on the idea that fans in general trying to write a Superman script would be a disaster, and not take it personally

 

[Herolee10]

lol; well I've always thought that it would still be hard to create a great Superman story even if fans were the ones in charge of writing it since the character has been around for so long and gone through revisions as a character throughout the decades that there's bound to be endless amounts of fans having a different interpretation of how they see the character as.

Heck, it'd almost be like a Christian trying to make a biblical movie that would appease Catholics, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, and Islam believers.lol


If anything, I would think that one of the best recipes towards making a great Superman film would be:

1. Pay respect to the source material

2. Have the ability to tell a great general story

I mean, one could make a great Superman movie, but would that equate to a great movie in a whole for a average viewer?lol

 

[hopefuldreamer]

lol; well I've always thought that it would still be hard to create a great Superman story even if fans were the ones in charge of writing it since the character has been around for so long and gone through revisions as a character throughout the decades that there's bound to be endless amounts of fans having a different interpretation of how they see the character as.

Heck, it'd almost be like a Christian trying to make a biblical movie that would appease Catholics, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, and Islam believers.lol


If anything, I would think that one of the best recipes towards making a great Superman film would be:

1. Pay respect to the source material

2. Have the ability to tell a great general story

I mean, one could make a great Superman movie, but would that equate to a great movie in a whole for a average viewer?lol

Yes it would certainly be difficult to make EVERYONE happy.

I think your right, and I also think a third ingredient is an understanding of the trends in popular films at the moment, knowing what direction a modern audience is going to connect with.

 

[Herolee10]

Yes it would certainly be difficult to make EVERYONE happy.

I think your right, and I also think a third ingredient is an understanding of the trends in popular films at the moment, knowing what direction a modern audience is going to connect with.

lol, Agreed.


If anything, I think this film's biggest task is getting the general audience to care about Superman's character again. Based on what I've seen in my interactions with fans of the genre in Hawaii, a lot of people don't care as much for Superman simply because they have the wrong interpretation of him.

And like I've said before; they don't need to angst up the character like Batman or Spiderman, they just need to explore the character in a way that previous films haven't done before; peel back the layers and see the character for who he truly is underneath.

Heck, Superman didn't even feel like the main character for SR; it felt as though Lois and Lex were the main characters instead, in particular, Lex.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

lol, Agreed.

If anything, I think this film's biggest task is getting the general audience to care about Superman's character again. Based on what I've seen in my interactions with fans of the genre in Hawaii, a lot of people don't care as much for Superman simply because they have the wrong interpretation of him.

And like I've said before; they don't need to angst up the character like Batman or Spiderman, they just need to explore the character in a way that previous films haven't done before; peel back the layers and see the character for who he truly is underneath.

Heck, Superman didn't even feel like the main character for SR; it felt as though Lois and Lex were the main characters instead, in particular, Lex.

Definitely.

It's the same over here. I tell people Superman's my favourite character and they ask me 'why' or comment 'how boring'.

And there is no point even trying to explain what it is they are missing, what they have never seen of the character that makes me love him so much.

All I've ever wanted is a Superman movie that gives me the chance to say: 'See, THAT'S why I love Superman!'

SR did the opposite of that TBH.

It made things worse, really cemented that one conception of the character from the Donner film in the eyes of the GA.

Now we are hopefully, FINALLY going to have a film that changes that. That makes people see that there is more to the character than they thought.

 

[Herolee10]

Definitely.

It's the same over here. I tell people Superman's my favourite character and they ask me 'why' or comment 'how boring'.

And there is no point even trying to explain what it is they are missing, what they have never seen of the character that makes me love him so much.

All I've ever wanted is a Superman movie that gives me the chance to say: 'See, THAT'S why I love Superman!'

SR did the opposite of that TBH.

It made things worse, really cemented that one conception of the character from the Donner film in the eyes of the GA.

Now we are hopefully, FINALLY going to have a film that changes that. That makes people see that there is more to the character than they thought.

Agreed; I mean no disrespect to Donner's film, it's still a classic and was revolutionary for the genre at the time, but it can't be standing crutch for Superman's film franchise (let alone all other media outlets) for too long.

It's time to move on with a new interpretation for today's audiences. I'm fine with moving on to something new, just as long as they don't tarnish on the qualities that makes the character unique.

Heck, if they could make a character like Captain America (that was created for propaganda at the time of World War 2) relevant in film today, then they shouldn't have too much trouble doing the same for Superman.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Agreed; I mean no disrespect to Donner's film, it's still a classic and was revolutionary for the genre at the time, but it can't be standing crutch for Superman's film franchise (let alone all other media outlets) for too long.

It's time to move on with a new interpretation for today's audiences. I'm fine with moving on to something new, just as long as they don't tarnish on the qualities that makes the character unique.

Heck, if they could make a character like Captain America (that was created for propaganda at the time of World War 2) relevant in film today, then they shouldn't have too much trouble doing the same for Superman.

Yeah they did a spectacular job with Captain America IMO.

Donners interpretation of Superman just comes from a different time.

He hit the mark of my assertion that a successful Superman movie needs to understand trends and what the audience will connect to.

Singer didn't.

He didn't make a Superhero film that any modern viewer could really connect to, and he completely ignored most modern trends in film, and misinterpreted others.

He made a Superman film that Donner fans could connect to, and THOUGHT he was appealing to woman by focusing on the romantic aspects.

But IMO Singer is TERRIBLE at romance. I never felt he got it right in X-Men, and he certainly didn't here.

I'm curious to see how they handle the romantic aspects this time around.

I don't know how most people feel about it, but with someone with as much sex appeal as Cavill, I'm hoping that the chemistry will be great.

 

[Dr.]

...I mean, one could make a great Superman movie, but would that equate to a great movie in a whole for a average viewer?

Or vice versa.

You raise an interesting point. I think the key to making a good superhero movie is to first make a good movie. I resist the notion that the genre is so "special" that it operates under different rules when it comes to drama, character arcs and story plausibilities. Imagining that a kind of “exceptionalism” applies to superheroes (and, particularly, to Superman) strikes me as a recipe for problems.

 

[Herolee10]

I'm still wondering; IF Lois does encounter Clark during his time in Alaska without glasses and whatnot; unless he uses his technology that will blur her mind of him in some way to conceal his identity, would it be reasonable to say then that Lois may most likely know the secret by the end of the film?

 

[Nevaratoiel]

True. But hey, I don't really want another Donner-verse film. There can always be a different interpretation, I'd like to see that. Reboots are overrated, true, but remakes are worse.

I'm not a specific Donner fan. Seriously, I can't name one director from another, because I don't know enough about the movies they make. So, I'm not sure about another Donner-made film. I enjoyed Superman Returns, and I might be in the minority. I thought even the storyline was pretty good to me.

But anyways, to the point I wanted to make. They're doing so many reboots these days that's it's so hard to keep up with all these movies. The X-films came out and I've heard talk about a complete reboot. There's a new Spiderman being made, Batman has been redone many times. What is it all coming to?

Anyways, sort of back to topic; This film must have a damn good storyline for me to go see it.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm still wondering; IF Lois does encounter Clark during his time in Alaska without glasses and whatnot; unless he uses his technology that will blur her mind of him in some way to conceal his identity, would it be reasonable to say then that Lois may most likely know the secret by the end of the film?

Well i'm assuming if she does encounter him in Alaska, she won't know him as Clark, but just as the guy who saved a bunch of people.

I'm assuming he's not giving out the name Clark Kent to anyone when he's in this exile.

So it's basically just her encountering Superman without the suit on.

And then we can have one of those fun lines like 'Nice suit' when he comes to Metropolis as Superman

 

[Tacit Ronin]

To take a character that's known for one thing and make him another for the purposes of relatability is a tricking thing.

Both the verging on psychotic Batman and the more emotionally balanced (but still extremely driven) Batman are valid interpretations though. It is not for the sake of relatability.

Psychotic Batman with a solid divide between personas = Frank Miller and Tim Burton's Batman

Heroic Batman who is driven but not borderline mad = BTAS, Denny O Neil's Batman and Nolan's Batman.

I mostly agree with you on Batman Begins' mediocre-ness though.

 

[Herolee10]

I hope MOS does a better job than BB did when it comes to emphasizing the importance of the moment when Clark is about to put on the Superman Suit for the very first time. In my honest opinion, I think that pivotal moment should really be shown and treated as such on screen. Truth be told, we’ve never really had that “special” moment where we see Clark looking at the costume for the first time and putting it on for the first time on the big screen.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I hope MOS does a better job than BB did when it comes to emphasizing the importance of the moment when Clark is about to put on the Superman Suit for the very first time. In my honest opinion, I think that pivotal moment should really be shown and treated as such on screen. Truth be told, we’ve never really had that “special” moment where we see Clark looking at the costume for the first time and putting it on for the first time on the big screen.

I think that's because it's probably hard to pull it off without it feeling weird or cheesy.

I mean, what do you do? Have him standing in front of a mirror giving himself a thumbs up? Or have him reveal it to a friend and then go 'I know, right?'

It's either that, or you see him holding the suit, and then you see him in the suit before flying off.

Seriously, how do you handle it?

I totally get where your coming from, and I want the suit to be more important too. I think having the suit be Kryptonian, having it basically be all that he has left of the world he comes from, will help. Especially if he puts on the suit after coming to terms with the truth of what happened on Krypton and embracing it.

But you can get a sense of how important it is to him from the script, not neccesarily from a scene in which he stares at it looking all broody.