Batman Begins Things Batman Begins got Right/Wrong

Getting back on-topic, when I was re-reading the Total Film review of "Batman Begins", I thought they did a good job of highlighting a flaw others on here have expressed with the film:

"The director is less comfortable with the third act’s pre-requisite set-pieces, which suffer slightly, unusually, because of the strength of character and story that precede them. Most summer blockbusters expect spectacular action sequences to distract and amuse an audience bored by the ‘talky bits’. Bale’s Batman is so compelling and the supporting cast (Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer) so emotionally engaging that no effects-laden high-speed smackdown can quite equal the frisson of two people talking. Similarly, an increase in flippancy – making Gary Oldman’s world-weary Sergeant Gordon ultimately a touch clownish – feels like a forced concession to blockbuster rules."

I think the wording of this criticism does a good job of alluding to one problem with the film - the fact that it sits somewhat uncomfortably with its summer blockbuster status. Some elements fit better than others, and I'm glad they picked out the Gordon comedy stuff, which I think felt especially tacked on. It was like "I'm no rat" Gordon and Batmobile-driving Gordon were two different characters.
I just saw BB in its entirety for the first time in about a year (I've seen it many, many times before, though) and I see his points.

Actually, my favorite parts were with Bruce putting together Batman, and early Batman, when he's got a purpose. (And any Gordon-Batman conversations are :up: ) Lost college-age Bruce was not as convincing for me, and some of the lines that mentioned "fear" could have been cut without a huge effect on the film, especially since I didn't quite follow their reasoning either. It seemed that fear was related to everything in that film, and I didn't agree exactly.

The characterization of Gordon didn't stick out badly for me - when he's driving the Tumbler, he acts as if he's gotten himself a bit over his head, and that's a reaction that I totally buy from even a world-weary Gordon. It could have come off a lot worse, but Gary Oldman does what Gary Oldman does best. :up:

It's hard to tell when the third act unravels, at least for me. I loved the Year One reference with the bat swarm, but then somewhere between the Tumbler chase and the Ra's reveal, it gets lost in the "summer blockbuster" genre. It's like they had to bring the giant explosions back and not explain some of the little holes in Bruce's actions. I wasn't really convinced that Batman would depend wholly on Gordon for his plan to work. And why not turn off that damn microwave emitter before you launch yourself into a fight? Plus, what's with destroying that toll booth at the end of the Tumbler chase? :oldrazz: Those kinds of things bring it down into "brainless summer blockbuster" genre, IMO. It could have been a lot smarter while keeping the explodey. The good bits are so good though, that they outweigh any of the eh moments.

I guess I'm just weird though, in favoring the second act over the first and the third. :oldrazz: Hopefully TDK will be like BB's second act, when Batman's doing his thing. :up:
 
mach.jpg


i think bale pushes himself....just not with every role. i havent seen the machinist but i believe that is a movie where you can obviously see bales transformation as an actor. and i still think american phsycho is his best movie EVA! but i just didnt think he did as good as batman is all.
 
Inspired by GoogleMe's well-written piece on the last page, I rewatched "Batman Begins" today, and plan on revisiting my thoughts on the film with an in-depth review. Should be up either later today, or over the weekend.
 
Just because something makes money doesn't mean it's quality and just because something doesn't make money, that doesn't mean it sucks. Thats a golden rule of the entertainment industry. Look at music, The Backstreet Boys made an assload of money, does that mean they're on the same level as Mozart? No it doesn't.

How do you explain Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, LOTR movies, T2, ET, Star Wars Ep.4-6, Back to the Future,etc. All those which takes a crap on Bateman Begins money. I haven't even inflated the money from those movies yet. Also if you inflate the first three Batman movies and first two Reeve Superman movies it would make more than BB. Even Wedding Crashers, the recent Willy Wonka movie made more than BB did in america and worldwide and both of those movies had to compete against the sixth Harry Potter book that came out that weekend as well as eachother and both didn't have two extra days like BB did. Back to the older movies above those are classics to some and they made a lot of dough more than BB. So I guess those movies suck then eventhough they made a lot of money.

And I know that just because a movie flops doesn't mean the movie sucks look at Blade Runner, Wizard of Oz, Heat, Shawshank Redemption, etc. all flopped and all great movies.That's the point I was trying to make about a certain CB movie that was released in 2004, I won't say the title of the movie because I told everyone I'd stop talking about it. Hint wears a SKULL shirt and uses guns to fight crime.

The point I'm making is that if BB was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD
then how come it didn't make a CRAPLOAD of money. King Kong (2005) flopped it made more than BB. Superman Returns made more than BB worldwide. Face it the only reason why TDK got greenlit was because it was in the list of the top ten selling DVDS of 2005.
 
Face it the only reason why TDK got greenlit was because it was in the list of the top ten selling DVDS of 2005.
I'm going to unbold your post cause it's annoying. :oldrazz:

If that's really the case, I don't care. Obviously people liked it and it got them revved up for a possible sequel. Doesn't matter if it was from the BO or from DVD sales.

Even though lots of movies made more money, not all of them spawned sequels because they didn't have the same kind of anticipation. Even last night, after I saw BB with my housemate, after it ended he was all, "Aaaargh I want to see the second one!" Not every blockbuster leaves you with that kind of feeling.

For example, SR made more money worldwide, but what can they do for a sequel, especially in dealing with the kid? To me, the most obvious choices are either kill him off or make him a sidekick, and I'm not exactly looking forward to either choice in a sequel.
 
Well, "Batman Begins" didn't do Spider-Man numbers, but still performed very respectably at the box office (I could mention that it trounced The Punisher at the box office, but we're not talking about that film anymore). But you're right, critics aren't the defintive indicator of quality. Neither is box office, as lots of people can go to see a movie, and hate it. The real indicator is the response of filmgoers. And what bigger gathering of film fans is there on the net than over at iMDB? 8.3/10 for "Begins", #102 on their all-time Top 250. Pretty respectable, I'd say.

As for the Mr Parker/bakerboy thing, don't feel the need to deny it. I'm not going to snitch you or anything. I don't think they deserved to be banned in the first place. It doesn't really matter if you are one of them or not, it was just an observation I was making.


When you use IMDB top 250 as proof to why BB is a MASTERPIECE or whatever. That just sums it up right there. Everybody knows that that list is a popularity contest. That website is full of haters of anything anyway. Everytime a new movie is going in production and they check the cast,trailer, etc. they've automatically made their mind that the movie sucks. Eventhough they haven't seen the movie yet.

BTW, the magazines that you say PRAISE BB ,Total Film and Empire I believe, are foreign magazines. So what do you expect them to say about about a cast that's mostly foreign (even Batman himself).
I don't remember Ebert and Roeper putting it in there list in 2005. Eventhough Ebert thought it was the best movie of the year at the time it open. It didn't last as long as one of the best movies of 2005 as Spidey 2 did in 2004 for Ebert. Leah Rosen from People Magazine didn't have it in her list that year. Claudia Puig and Mike Clark from USA Today didn't have BB in there list that year. Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly didn't have BB in their list that year. Thelma Adams from Us Weekly didn't have BB in her list that year. Peter Travers from the Rolling Stones didn't have BB in his list that year. Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal didn't have BB in his list that year. He didn't even like it. That was the best review I read from that movie that year. Finally, someone who didn't fall for that REALISM BS and "that thay got it right" bandwagon. BTW, he's not a fan of the other Batman movies either in case you were wondering. I know you were.

Only list I can think of that BB made it on is either the CRAPLIST on IMDb and the Top Ten Highest Selling DVDs of 2005 list. The point I'm making is not a lot of critics LOVE BB as you think they do. It's just you, these Begins lovers, and some of the fanboys.
 
I'm going to unbold your post cause it's annoying. :oldrazz:

If that's really the case, I don't care. Obviously people liked it and it got them revved up for a possible sequel. Doesn't matter if it was from the BO or from DVD sales.

Even though lots of movies made more money, not all of them spawned sequels because they didn't have the same kind of anticipation. Even last night, after I saw BB with my housemate, after it ended he was all, "Aaaargh I want to see the second one!" Not every blockbuster leaves you with that kind of feeling.

For example, SR made more money worldwide, but what can they do for a sequel, especially in dealing with the kid? To me, the most obvious choices are either kill him off or make him a sidekick, and I'm not exactly looking forward to either choice in a sequel.

Actually SR did leave a lot of doors open than BB wish it could. The chunk of krytonite in space not to mention the Crystals that were left on it by Kitty , what actually happen in those five years while Superman was gone he had to run into something, Luthor knows that Jason is Superman's son even a deleted on the dvd went more into that, Luthor also knows some secrets about Superman evidence in the Jorel "Tell me Everything" scene, Richard and Lois's relationship might either go up or down, Luthor escaping off the island and he will,etc. All Bateman Begins left open was Joker is going to be in the sequel which didn't get me pumped at all for TDK. You're hearing this from a HUGE Batman fan BTW.
 
Actually SR did leave a lot of doors open than BB wish it could. The chunk of krytonite in space not to mention the Crystals that were left on it by Kitty , what actually happen in those five years while Superman was gone he had to run into something, Luthor knows that Jason is Superman's son even a deleted on the dvd went more into that, Luthor also knows some secrets about Superman evidence in the Jorel "Tell me Everything" scene, Richard and Lois's relationship might either go up or down, Luthor escaping off the island and he will,etc. All Bateman Begins left open was Joker is going to be in the sequel which didn't get me pumped at all for TDK. You're hearing this from a HUGE Batman fan BTW.
Actually most people I know who saw BB were totally pumped to see the Joker in the second one. :cwink: All of the Arkham inmates are still loose running around, and Falcone is gone, leaving a power vacuum, which is something TDK's ARG is definitely alluding to. For me, BB didn't exactly end at all, but the film did a wonderful job in having a conclusion while leaving so many possibilities open.

I think the points you bring up about SR are valid, but they didn't exactly leave it open as BB did. In the last minute of BB, Gordon mentions about all of the work they have yet to do, and in SR, he gives that speech to Jason and that's the last thing in the movie. So obviously people are going to wonder what they're going to do with the kid.
 
This thread and forum sure proves it's not just the Superman fans that can be divided on films pre and post 2000. 'Cos I think most people like "Batman Begins" generally. I'll admit it's surprising to read differently here. By the way I like both series (early films). I love Batman and Superman. Also the animated stuff (I haven't seen "The Batman").

Angeloz
 
Actually most people I know who saw BB were totally pumped to see the Joker in the second one. :cwink: All of the Arkham inmates are still loose running around, and Falcone is gone, leaving a power vacuum, which is something TDK's ARG is definitely alluding to. For me, BB didn't exactly end at all, but the film did a wonderful job in having a conclusion while leaving so many possibilities open.

I think the points you bring up about SR are valid, but they didn't exactly leave it open as BB did. In the last minute of BB, Gordon mentions about all of the work they have yet to do, and in SR, he gives that speech to Jason and that's the last thing in the movie. So obviously people are going to wonder what they're going to do with the kid.

That's just showed how well Batman did his job in that movie.I'm still amazed at how he's allowed to get his own signal from a guy who's a LT. and not a Commissioner. To me the BB ending was similar to Daredevil's ending. It was a typical comic book movie ending where the hero goes on his crusade and flys in front of the camera. SR ending had a similar ending to the REEVE films but I felt that film didn't end either. Lois didn't even know what to say to him when he came back. They didn't really talk. Superman only came to her house to see Jason and to let Lois know that he's alive and he's always around and will continue to be from now on. That movie didn't do what BB did when he talked to Rachel at whats seems to be left of his house on where there relationship stands now that she knows he's Batman. That scene, btw was a ripoff of Spiderman's ending with Peter and MJ at Osborn's funeral. BB had a generic superhero ending IMO. And didn't add anything NEW to Batman or Comic Book Superhero movies. IMO, of course.
 
i watched Begins again this week, not a TERRIBLE film, but i did have some issues with it.

- first, gotham city wasnt cool, it looked like just any normal city and had none of the amazing design or archetecture(sp?) of the past films, notably the burton films.

- the Realism. it was too realistic for its own good. it overdid it with how he made/got everything, how he trained for this and that, and his batman didnt do anything super fantastic. it was rather dull because of it. seemed like everytime batman was about to do something super, nolan kept stepping on batmans cape. not only that, but it really does limit the kind of stories you can tell. and this is supposed to be a medium that transends logic, not embracing it. im not saying to go schumacher crazy, but damn, entertain me! dont put me to sleep!

- falcone. he was hysterical, and not like what i was expecting. in the comics (yes, i have read some), he is this very rough, classy gangster who is very deadly and demanding, even to batman. but in the movie he was a complete joke of a mobster, talking like a common hood from brooklyn. his character would have fit better in a movie like "analyse this" or any other mob spoof movie. and he made me laugh, especially his "yeah, bagged.....lika TOG!", LOL. but this was not the falcone i was expecting.

- Flass. he got turned into a fat hobo lookin loser. in year 1, which this movie looks to base itself off of greatly, flass is a very big, well built green beret who actually beats up gordon at one point. here, hes a joke. one of the reasons it was so cool when flass was taken down in the comic is becayse he totally deserved it, but in this movie hes simply a fat slob who eats falafels and is no threat to anyone whatsoever. pretty poor characterization if you ask me, it could have worked out soo much better if flass was a threat instead of just another lame thug.

- the batmobile. that thing is the ugliest turd ever to be labeled as a batmobile. the new batpod looks cooler, but the batmobile, i'll be happy to see that POS go in the next non-nolan films. i want them to bring back the BAT mobile, fins and all. realistic or not, thats not a batmobile, thats a friggin lame SUV tank more suitable for a GI Joe toy then batman.

- that little kid, who some dumbass fans think is robin, LOL. hes not, and he annoyed me, like many kids in movies do. "dont worry, batman will save us!!" OMGZZ i wish that mr. zazz killed youuu!! but he didnt and im pissed!!

- scarecrow. i dont think there is much more to say, he didnt look like the comics character at all and he looked like a little pretty boy kid instead of a creepy older arkham dweller mad scientist type from the comics or BTAS. yet another pathetic characterization, but its more his looks that were the problem, and yes, in movies looks and easthetic do matter because, uh, its a movie. a visual medium. this was one of those big major "missed oppurtunites" in films that im already dieing to see redone, because i believe scarecrow could be done sooooo well but in this film he was the equivlant of watching my dog crap, boring!!

- the batsuit. it was 'teh puffy'. it also had that giganto forehead with the tiny ears and made batman look more like rat-man then batman. and the cape was a big blanket. i know in the comics he has a cloth cape but in a movie, it just doesnt work. as heavy as the rubber ones were, they really looked so much cooler and sleeker.

- Luscious Fox is just playing Q to bales Bond. his character was such a ripoff of Q it was almost laughable. i was half expecting fox to go "now listen up 007, bring this grapple back in pristine condition!". he probably should have, since that all he was playing.


- Poor Villian(s). Ras seemed like a promising villian, but then......hes ditched. in the begining of the movie. then all of a sudden her turns up at the VERY end and starts the total destruction of the city. its like, where were you the whole time? i actually thought liam neeson was terrific, but he ws hardly in the movie! i liked the way Ras was done in BTAS better, and they totally left out the lazerus pits! thats what made ras cooler to begin with! all for the sake of realism. yawn!


-Weak Score. yep, danny elfman has not been beaten as far as batman scores are considered. and with a film that is trying to be as low key as possible, i wasnt expoecting anything truly great. no main theme, no rcognizable heroic theme, no nothing. just typical action movie music with no heart or soul to it. ive even heard some begins music used as "trailer" music for other cliche action films. thats because the music WAS cliche film trailer music. sad. again, so much potential, wasted.

-Bale. whats my problem with bale? he was wooden. he didnt emote at all. he just had that stony face half the time with that superficial "playboy" act that personally annoyed the piss outta me. didnt make me laugh, and his intense scenes were laughable. i loved bale in american psycho, but here he was just plain as anything, and i never felt for his character or cared for him at all. keaton may not have been a muscleman, but his bruce/batman felt more real to me. as far as faithfullness, i can see where bale would win. but as far as just haveing genuinly good acting as this character, keaton wins hands down. his down to earth charm, perfect humouress timeing and offbeat loner attitude was engrossing, but bale had no charm, no charisma, no nothing. just a bunch of ninja fighting moves that i could hardly make out.

i know these are issues that most fans may not like to hear or agree with, but they are important factors that for me led to my dislike of the film in general. heres to hopeing TDK will take a step up.

The ones that are in BOLD is what I strongly agree with. Good points.Keep it up.
 
Fox was just a glorified Q in BB but Morgan Freeman was, for me, the best actor in the movie.
 
That's just showed how well Batman did his job in that movie.I'm still amazed at how he's allowed to get his own signal from a guy who's a LT. and not a Commissioner. To me the BB ending was similar to Daredevil's ending. It was a typical comic book movie ending where the hero goes on his crusade and flys in front of the camera. SR ending had a similar ending to the REEVE films but I felt that film didn't end either. Lois didn't even know what to say to him when he came back. They didn't really talk. Superman only came to her house to see Jason and to let Lois know that he's alive and he's always around and will continue to be from now on. That movie didn't do what BB did when he talked to Rachel at whats seems to be left of his house on where there relationship stands now that she knows he's Batman. That scene, btw was a ripoff of Spiderman's ending with Peter and MJ at Osborn's funeral. BB had a generic superhero ending IMO. And didn't add anything NEW to Batman or Comic Book Superhero movies. IMO, of course.

It's an origin flick. It was new to Batman but it's not new generally. How is it supposed to be? With "Superman Returns" it hoped to be the start of a trilogy (I hope so. NB - hope). I also thought Rachel broke it off at the end not the hero.

Angeloz
 
Here's some, not all, the things that BB got wrong. It would takes years to finish writing I think BB got wrong.

Interrogation scene with Batman and Flass. Way too much overacting from Bale who looked constipated in that scene when he made those so called menacing faces. There was no need to shout and yell at him if the guy is being held upside down 50 -70 ft. in the air with a rope tied around one of his legs. The guy was a coward anyways he would've talked if you put him in the dark by himself. The was Flass was in this movie was it doesn't take much to scare this guy. He wasn't a threatening menacing guy. Some of the things he did like take the money out in public came off cartoony than realistic. Batman should've gave the money back to the "Fulafel" (sp?)guy. Like after he dropped Flass the next shot show the cash that Flass took drop on the counter.

Batman and Gordon shouldn't have made eye contact with each other.Especially if you're going to put REALISM in a movie where a guy who dresses up as a bat and is given police evidence from another cop. He should've been talking to him behind his back the way he did when he first spoke to him when he had that stapler pointed at the back of Gordon's neck.The RedClaw/Catwoman first part episode from TAS had a scene like that where batman was talking to Gordon from behind him. Oldman was even laughing when he was shooting the scene where Bale was talking a mile a minute about Ra's Al Ducard's plan to destroy Chicagotham. According to a wizard interview back before the movie open. That's proof there that that can't work in reality. The last scene in BB should've had batman talking to Gordon in the dark. Gordon would turn over to where Batman was after Batman turned
off the signal. Instead of Batman tapping the signal and saying "Nice!" Batman also talked too much in that scene. Saying "And" "Yes" "But" etc. Btw, I know the comics has Gordon and Batman talking to eachother eye to eye. If you're trying to be realistic their relationship should've been kept secretive until he's Commish. Now everyone knows that when the signal comes on it must be the Lt. giving Batman police evidence so he help with a case.

I'll state more flaws later. I'm outta time. Keep it up with the flaws this movie has guys.
 
Here's some, not all, the things that BB got. It would takes years to finish writing I think BB got wrong.

Interrogation scene with Batman and Flass. Way too much overacting from Bale who looked constipated in that scene when he made those so called menacing faces. There was no need to shout and yell at him if the guy is being held upside down 50 -70 ft. in the air with a rope tied around one of his legs. The guy was a coward anyways he would've talked if you put him in the dark by himself. The was Flass was in this movie was it doesn't take much to scare this guy. He wasn't a threatening menacing guy. Some of the things he did like take the money out in public came off cartoony than realistic. Batman should've gave the money back to the "Fulafel" (sp?)guy. Like after he dropped Flass the next shot show the cash that Flass took drop on the counter.

Batman and Gordon shouldn't have made eye contact with each other.Especially if you're going to put REALISM in a movie where a guy who dresses up as a bat and is given police evidence from another cop. He should've been talking to him behind his back the way he did when he first spoke to him when he had that stapler pointed at the back of Gordon's neck.The RedClaw/Catwoman first part episode from TAS had a scene like that where batman was talking to Gordon from behind him. Oldman was even laughing when he was shooting the scene where Bale was talking a mile a minute about Ra's Al Ducard's plan to destroy Chicagotham. According to a wizard interview back before the movie open. That's proof there that that can't work in reality. The last scene in BB should've had batman talking to Gordon in the dark. Gordon would turn over to where Batman was after Batman turned
off the signal. Instead of Batman tapping the signal and saying "Nice!" Batman also talked too much in that scene. Saying "And" "Yes" "But" etc. Btw, I know the comics has Gordon and Batman talking to eachother eye to eye. If you're trying to be realistic their relationship should've been kept secretive until he's Commish. Now everyone knows that when the signal comes on it must be the Lt. giving Batman police evidence so he help with a case.

I'll state more flaws later. I'm outta time. Keep it up with the flaws this movie has guys.


If those are your biggest problems with BB, then you've not even scratched the surface....
 
Here's some, not all, the things that BB got. It would takes years to finish writing I think BB got wrong.

Interrogation scene with Batman and Flass. Way too much overacting from Bale who looked constipated in that scene when he made those so called menacing faces. There was no need to shout and yell at him if the guy is being held upside down 50 -70 ft. in the air with a rope tied around one of his legs. The guy was a coward anyways he would've talked if you put him in the dark by himself. The was Flass was in this movie was it doesn't take much to scare this guy. He wasn't a threatening menacing guy. Some of the things he did like take the money out in public came off cartoony than realistic. Batman should've gave the money back to the "Fulafel" (sp?)guy. Like after he dropped Flass the next shot show the cash that Flass took drop on the counter.

Wouldn't he just take it again? Also it's been awhile but could Batman see and hear what happened? Sorry I've only see it a few times (once last year).

Batman and Gordon shouldn't have made eye contact with each other.Especially if you're going to put REALISM in a movie where a guy who dresses up as a bat and is given police evidence from another cop. He should've been talking to him behind his back the way he did when he first spoke to him when he had that stapler pointed at the back of Gordon's neck.The RedClaw/Catwoman first part episode from TAS had a scene like that where batman was talking to Gordon from behind him. Oldman was even laughing when he was shooting the scene where Bale was talking a mile a minute about Ra's Al Ducard's plan to destroy Chicagotham. According to a wizard interview back before the movie open. That's proof there that that can't work in reality. The last scene in BB should've had batman talking to Gordon in the dark. Gordon would turn over to where Batman was after Batman turned
off the signal. Instead of Batman tapping the signal and saying "Nice!" Batman also talked too much in that scene. Saying "And" "Yes" "But" etc. Btw, I know the comics has Gordon and Batman talking to eachother eye to eye. If you're trying to be realistic their relationship should've been kept secretive until he's Commish. Now everyone knows that when the signal comes on it must be the Lt. giving Batman police evidence so he help with a case.

I'll state more flaws later. I'm outta time. Keep it up with the flaws this movie has guys.

No Bat Signal? Man that's a tough ask. Also do they know he went there (Gordon)? If so, can't he say he was testing it? But really I don't analyse these things as hard or harsh as you. Because one could ask how can people not recognise Clark as Superman. Or both Bruce and Clark showed up in their cities and then superheroes also did about the time they returned. Plus Batman needs to be rich to afford his toys. So not really hard to work it out I say. But you accept the premise or you watch/read something else. 'Cos it gets ridiculous if you question everything. There are such things as plot holes or stupid writing. But if you can't accept the premise then it's a waste of time.

Angeloz
 
But really I don't analyse these things as hard or harsh as you. Because one could ask how can people not recognise Clark as Superman. Or both Bruce and Clark showed up in their cities and then superheroes also did about the time they returned. Plus Batman needs to be rich to afford his toys. So not really hard to work it out I say. But you accept the premise or you watch/read something else. 'Cos it gets ridiculous if you question everything. There are such things as plot holes or stupid writing. But if you can't accept the premise then it's a waste of time.

Angeloz
I think it's pretty obvious in lonzoe's tone of voice in his posting that he doesn't want to like BB. So I'll save my mental energy for other things. :oldrazz:
 
I think it's pretty obvious in lonzoe's tone of voice in his posting that he doesn't want to like BB. So I'll save my mental energy for other things. :oldrazz:

Licking Batman ice creams on a stick? :D

Too bad I don't have a photo (also you have your tongue sticking out). ;)

Angeloz
 
When you use IMDB top 250 as proof to why BB is a MASTERPIECE or whatever. That just sums it up right there. Everybody knows that that list is a popularity contest. That website is full of haters of anything anyway. Everytime a new movie is going in production and they check the cast,trailer, etc. they've automatically made their mind that the movie sucks. Eventhough they haven't seen the movie yet.

BTW, the magazines that you say PRAISE BB ,Total Film and Empire I believe, are foreign magazines. So what do you expect them to say about about a cast that's mostly foreign (even Batman himself).
I don't remember Ebert and Roeper putting it in there list in 2005. Eventhough Ebert thought it was the best movie of the year at the time it open. It didn't last as long as one of the best movies of 2005 as Spidey 2 did in 2004 for Ebert. Leah Rosen from People Magazine didn't have it in her list that year. Claudia Puig and Mike Clark from USA Today didn't have BB in there list that year. Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly didn't have BB in their list that year. Thelma Adams from Us Weekly didn't have BB in her list that year. Peter Travers from the Rolling Stones didn't have BB in his list that year. Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal didn't have BB in his list that year. He didn't even like it. That was the best review I read from that movie that year. Finally, someone who didn't fall for that REALISM BS and "that thay got it right" bandwagon. BTW, he's not a fan of the other Batman movies either in case you were wondering. I know you were.

Only list I can think of that BB made it on is either the CRAPLIST on IMDb and the Top Ten Highest Selling DVDs of 2005 list. The point I'm making is not a lot of critics LOVE BB as you think they do. It's just you, these Begins lovers, and some of the fanboys.

Okay. Nobody in the UK counts, because they're "foreign". The dozens of glowing reviews for "Batman Begins" (from UK and USA) don't count, because "they don't get it". The thousands of voters on iMDB don't count because you don't like iMDB. The millions of people who bought the film on DVD don't count because.....well, just because.

Yet two critics who didn't rank it in their Best Films, and one single critic you can find that didn't like it, is conclusive proof that only fanboys like "Begins"?
 
Review update - two pages in, and a long way to go. This is gonna take a while. :wow:
 
Then what does box office justify? All the good movies that were blockbusters shoots that theory out of the water. It's purely objective.

Simply justifies the studio did a well done job on advertisement and promotion, and a lot of people saw the film. Good films can make good money, good films can make bad money. Bad films can make good money, bad films can make bad money. Box Office has never been a standard for how good a movie is.

Review update - two pages in, and a long way to go. This is gonna take a while. :wow:


Nice, I'll definitely give it a read Keyser:up:
 
How well the film was marketed.

Yep. Spider-Man 3 was extremely overhyped & many fans along with critics hate it. But it still made $300 millions. It was the marketing that help despite being a so-so movie.

How do you explain Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, LOTR movies, T2, ET, Star Wars Ep.4-6, Back to the Future,etc. All those which takes a crap on Bateman Begins money.

What are you trying to say there? They made more or something? You're comparing those movies that are quite decades old than BB. Weak comparsion there.

Also if you inflate the first three Batman movies and first two Reeve Superman movies it would make more than BB. Even Wedding Crashers, the recent Willy Wonka movie made more than BB did in america and worldwide and both of those movies had to compete against the sixth Harry Potter book that came out that weekend as well as eachother and both didn't have two extra days like BB did.

LOL! You're still using the old "making more, mean it better", when that isn't the case there. You never heard of "marketing". BB don't need to make $300 millions to be good. It how the film is. Beside, lot of people weren't sure about a new Batman after the awful Batman & Robin. But now since BB has become popular & show folks that Batman is dark & serious again (along with a good story & such), it going to help the sequel. I'm sure TDK is going to make more.

Back to the older movies above those are classics to some and they made a lot of dough more than BB. So I guess those movies suck then eventhough they made a lot of money.

And you're thinking BB suck because it didn't made more than some others. Not to mention you're comparing BB to few old classics, which is another weak excuse there. Especially when BB hasn't been out that long as those you mention. :whatever:

The point I'm making is that if BB was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD
then how come it didn't make a CRAPLOAD of money.

I could ask you the same about why 2004 Punisher didn't made a crapload of money if it was so good, or at least to you. And funny you mention the flims that were good & a flop, but fail to point why it didn't make plenty of money either. Again, good movies don't always make crapload of money. Period. Even bad films made more than good movies. More money don't always mean it good. It all on people being curious, the marketing, etc. That why SM3 was successful, because it was hyped. It wasn't because people love it. :oldrazz:

King Kong (2005) flopped it made more than BB.

Doesn't mean BB is a flop. It cost a lot of money to make KK & they almost didn't make their money back, where BB was cheaper & got their money back.

Face it the only reason why TDK got greenlit was because it was in the list of the top ten selling DVDS of 2005.

Bullcrap. I like you to give us hard proof to back it up. TDK was greenlight, 'cause BB was good & it made money. You forgot DVD wasn't the only thing that made them do TDK. It was how successful BB was in theater & such. Didn't WB plan to greenlit TDK after BB made $200 millions & more in theater before DVD? Stop using your hate to make up excuses & lies.
 
This box office argument might have some shred of merit if "Batman Begins" was a flop. But it wasn't. It didn't do record-breaking "Spider-Man" numbers, but made good money and had legs, so it was deemed a cinematic success, even before the DVD went on to become a big hot-seller. The sequel to the film was never in any doubt. As someone who was around here at the time, I can never remember any point where we were anxiously waiting for part 2 to be greenlit.
 
This box office argument might have some shred of merit if "Batman Begins" was a flop. But it wasn't. It didn't do record-breaking "Spider-Man" numbers, but made good money and had legs, so it was deemed a cinematic success, even before the DVD went on to become a big hot-seller. The sequel to the film was never in any doubt. As someone who was around here at the time, I can never remember any point where we were anxiously waiting for part 2 to be greenlit.

I remember shock around here at the opening BO numbers, but yes after that there was no question.........and there were very few films that summer that had legs like BB had.....the word of mouth was probably better for BB than any other movie that summer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"