Batman Begins Those who disliked Begins - Why?

[Stupify_me]

C'mon.....when BTAS shaved his head, gave him no eyebrows and made it look like he was wearing eye shadow....you didn't think "queer" even for a second?

Plus....the Riddler has always been kinda fruity, but....whatever.

He still gives off that vibe in THE BATMAN, but....more like Marilyn Manson instead.

I think them looking like 8 year olds is on purpose. Connection for the kids watching and all.

But, if I had my way....there'd be a strict NO SIDEKICK rule on everything Batman.

I couldn't agree more on the no sidekick rule especially Robin

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno, I'd say more no to Batgirl.....Robin kinda serves a purpose, being the son of Batman and all....but Batgirl.....she just seems so tacked on.

But, they make him softer....I prefer harder edge Batman. Solo.

 

[Stupify_me]

I dunno, I'd say more no to Batgirl.....Robin kinda serves a purpose, being the son of Batman and all....but Batgirl.....she just seems so tacked on.

But, they make him softer....I prefer harder edge Batman. Solo.

I prefer the harder edge Bat as well.

The reason I said robin is just because I think he is easily the cheesyiest and lamiest one. LOl but as long as we agree no sidekicks doesn't matter lol

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.....he's just the kid brother that CAN be annoying. But, he can be funny at times.

 

[Stupify_me]

Yeah.....he's just the kid brother that CAN be annoying. But, he can be funny at times.

Yea I like the people like Dick or Tim but I just hate the idea of Robin.

 

[Bathead]

Funny enough, when I first started reading Batman, Robin was constantly at his side, in every story, and I guess like many others, I got used to it being Batman and Robin, instead of just Batman. It was when I started watching the Adam West TV show I started to hate the character, Burt Ward played him as a really annoying twerp, and the character severely started to grate on me. Ever since then, I really could care less about Robin, and prefer Batman without a constant sidekick.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm kinda in the same boat. As a kid, I grew up watching the West re-runs. And, yeah...that show should have been called BATMAN AND ROBIN....b/c Robin was ALWAYS there. Always.

I don't even think I could imagine Batman alone....until BATMAN came out in 89. Blew my tiny childish mind away. I think that's when I really realized that a solo Batman is something different all together.

 

[Sandman138]

first of all when fox shows up after bruce is gassed he is clearly trying to play up the dumb playboy act. and the day after he jumps from the gpd he should sit around and mope instead of finding a solution to his problem?
this is batman and he is a very driven and focused character.

yeah having bats run down and kill a pedestrian would be really heroic and would have really helped the plot along.

his connection to his house and his legacy was touched on multiple times in the movie. and again would bruce just give up and mope because his house was on fire? i mean he was crying until alfred reminded him of his fathers words. what more did you want to see?

again bruce wayne/batman is a superhero. he is very driven and is on a mission. driven and focused people dont tend to get all emo when things dont go as planned. i think it is unlikely that much would slow him down for very long.

he's batman. should he reply: "****, your right gordon we are really screwed. i dont know how we are ever going to fix this!" ?? he came back to gotham to be an positive example and to "shake people from their apathy" not be apathetic himself.

it seems to me you wanted every setback to put bruce/bats into some kind of depressed emotional state. im sorry, thats just not batman to me. he channels his anger, sadness, and selfdoubt into action. he doesnt let these things slow him down. he doest sit around and mope and ponder his existence and the meaning of life and death to a degree that hinders his ability to act.
i think im beginning to understand your screen name.
remember we are talking about BATMAN.
not SANDMAN.

Rather than pick this apart piece by piece, it occurs to me that it would be better to explain what I wanted out of this film a bit more. While I desperatly want to see a Sandman movie, that is not what I wanted from Batman. What I wanted from Batman was something with the air of a good Sherlock Holmes novel, a touch of the macabre from The Shadow's old radio shows, and the moral ambiguity that defines the character in general.

You say that Batman is a superhero. Right here, I think we find the biggest discord between our interpertations of the character; Batman will never be a superhero to me. Superheroes are, at their core, ideological paragons; if Superman stands for the American way, it is because the man-who-is-more-than-man understands that way, and by extension those who implement it, to be inherently right. Likewise, Captian America not only legitimizes the ideology of America, but of militray supperiority, while Captain Marvel legitimizes the supperiority of Western Civilization. They are designed, from their appearence to their motives, to be infallible, thus making what they stand for unimpeachable as well. Captian America's costume is the American flag, and his indistructable shield protects him from all that would threaten it. Superman fights for truth, justice, and the American way because he understands these things to be inherently right. Batman is much more complex.

Let's start with his costume. Sure, it fits the general blueprint for a superhero costume, but it's of a bat. He doesn't dress the way he does to inspire veneration, but rather to strike terror. More to the point, he assumes the role of a monster and phantom to accomplish his ends. His totemistic representation carries with it connotations of malevolence within Occidental mythology. Now, most argue that he only does this to scare criminals, but there are three things wrong with this argument: the first is what he represents regardless of his motives, the seconed is that I will argue his motives themselves are far from righteous, and the third is its context within the film.

To start with the first problem, regardless of who he intends to terrorize, his entire identity is a horrific one. His macabre nature disturbs even those who trust him. So it doesn't matter who he wants to be a monster to, because in the end he is a monster to everybody.

Batman's motives, however, are what seperate him most from the definition of a superhero. While Superman does what he does because it's the right thing to do, and Spider-Man does it out of a sense of repentance, Batman does it for retribution.

He is driven by a desire for vengeance. He couldn't find retribution from the man who killed his parents, so every night he becomes a monster and preys on criminals who take that man's place. Like The Shadow, it's not only about stopping criminals, it is about giving them nightmares for the rest of their lives. On another level, it's psychosexual. Batman is more or less a man-child. His obbsession with his mission took away a chance for him to develop into a fully functioning adult. He may be rationally intelligent without peer, but emotionally he is incredibly unstable. So he creates a routine that includes a variety of expressions for what he can't do as himself: dress up/role play/fetish (and the role he chooses hides in the dark; his fetish, the object that he siphons his desires into is the icon of a bat), and domination (otherwise known as control). Such motivations are selfish ones, and though he may protect the innocent and accomplish heroic deeds, I don't believe that is the reason why he goes out every night to hide in the shadows among the depraved.

The film tried to rationalize what he was doing by making him an "uncorruptable symbol" that would "shake the people of Gotham out of their apathy". I don't buy this because he chose a symbol that inspires fear. His rationalization for what he did in the film was in line with the idea of the superhero as ideological paragon, which, as I have argued, is incongruent with Batman's nature.

So, if Batman is not a superhero, what is he? First and foremost, he is a detective, and, as Sherlock Holmes was, a testament to the rational mind (I should also point out that though Holmes's intellect was marvelous and his mission just, he was also an opium addict). He also has a great deal in common with the heroes of the pulp serializations and the Western "hero in a black hat". For most of this response, I will focus on Sherlock Holmes because it best illustrates what I meant when I said in the previous post that I wanted to see more reflection.

You say that Batman is a man of action, I agree. However, he is not a man who acts rashly. He contemplates issues, examines them, thinks them through, and comes to a conclusion, based on which, he acts. Sherlock Holmes did the same, and between each exploit or encounter, he would reflect on it with Watson. These reflections were about more than simple exposition, they were an invitation into the mind of the great detective and they were not to shy away from an occasional look at the philisophical implications of what was happening and his choices. Now, Begins had two great characters who could have been Batman's Watson: Alfred (who is exactly that in the comics, as is Robin) and Fox. However, Fox is wasted on typical humor and needless exposition, and even though Alfred played the role, they never had Batman play the counterpart. Now, this is Batman Begins, so he should make mistakes, and he should act rashly, but he shouldn't be able to get away with it to the extent that he does in this film. I would rather see him learn to become the rational detective through his mistakes, but he doesn't.

While we are on the subject of Holmes, I feel they wasted the oppertunity for a Moriarty figure by tying up Ra's story in this film. Remember that though Moriarty, Holmes's equal, was always behind whatever mystery Holmes was embroiled in, they met only once, for a climactic confrontation late into the series. This, I feel, would have been a far more memorable style of confrontation for Batman and Ra's. It would have also left more space to deal with the reflection, given Scarecrow more time to be explored and juxtaposed to Batman, and made Batman's first triumph a little less of a spectacle which would have been nice considering he is just starting out. Most importantly, however, it would have set up a fantastic path for the movies, as each mystery within a single installment, would be part of a larger conspiracy slowly being picked apart and that would be a fantastic way to write a trilogy.

 

[MacLeod]

Holy crap I thought I wrote a lot at times. If I'm not mistaken the topic of the category was why didn't you like Begins. Now, if we can all get off of our college educated $9 word horses maybe we can get down to basics. Here are mine, the movie was good but I don't like the fighting scenes, the costume color (it's all black and you can't see the emblem), the cape clips, and the car is a tank not a batmobile. This is just my opinion, others be view it as wrong, but that is what I don't like about the movie.

 

[Bathead]

It's not about vengeance. A few years ago there was a scene in one of the books between Alfred and Dick where Alfred told him that Batman's mission was not about revenge, perhaps in the beginning it was, but no longer. Batman kept his mission alive in order to keep
the innocent from experiencing the horror and heartbreak that he did as a child. It's about protecting the innocent, not revenge against the criminal. Not anymore. It's about compassion.

 

[Sandman138]

It's not about vengeance. A few years ago there was a scene in one of the books between Alfred and Dick where Alfred told him that Batman's mission was not about revenge, perhaps in the beginning it was, but no longer. Batman kept his mission alive in order to keep
the innocent from experiencing the horror and heartbreak that he did as a child. It's about protecting the innocent, not revenge against the criminal. Not anymore. It's about compassion.

Which is why he goes out of his way to scare the crap out of those he preys on. They can say that all they want, it doesn't change what his entire method indicates.

 

[Bathead]

Which is why he goes out of his way to scare the crap out of those he preys on. They can say that all they want, it doesn't change what his entire method indicates.

Well, let's put it this way, he has compassion for the victims, but not for the victimizers.
That's one thing Begins DID get right, they made sure to show this compasssionate side to his personality.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Why i didn't like BB? I thought it was OK, but it was little bland, there wasn't much substance to it. It felt very unoriginal and I'd seen the same sorta films before. Also, it was an action film, rather than a Batman film. It felt like Batman was just thrown in there, and the badguy's plot was poorly constructed, not to mention the 'dismissal' of scarecrow(who was the best bit of the whole film), also the car chase was rubbish!

 

[MacLeod]

Why i didn't like BB? I thought it was OK, but it was little bland, there wasn't much substance to it. It felt very unoriginal and I'd seen the same sorta films before. Also, it was an action film, rather than a Batman film. It felt like Batman was just thrown in there, and the badguy's plot was poorly constructed, not to mention the 'dismissal' of scarecrow(who was the best bit of the whole film), also the car chase was rubbish!

That's what I thought. I liked the movie as a movie, but you could have placed any character in a suit in it. It was a great movie and only a good Batman movie.

 

[Cyrusbales]

That's what I thought. I liked the movie as a movie, but you could have placed any character in a suit in it. It was a great movie and only a good Batman movie.

Both B89 and batman returns were superior, as they felt unlike other films, they were more artistic and the surrealism worked, after all, film is a surreal medium, just look at fellini! lol

 

[zer00]

Both B89 and batman returns were superior, as they felt unlike other films, they were more artistic and the surrealism worked, after all, film is a surreal medium, just look at fellini! lol

stop making people read your posts. They're only hurting themselves

 

[Cyrusbales]

stop making people read your posts. They're only hurting themselves

You really don't understand the idea of discussion, or voicing an opinion, I'm sure I'm not the only person here who feels this way, at least try to be constructive instead of insulting, it doesn't say a lot about your character as a person, and makes the Hype a generally unpleasant place. Thanks

 

[MacLeod]

You really don't understand the idea of discussion, or voicing an opinion, I'm sure I'm not the only person here who feels this way, at least try to be constructive instead of insulting, it doesn't say a lot about your character as a person, and makes the Hype a generally unpleasant place. Thanks

Well put. This occurs in a lot of the boards which is why I don't check in that often. The point to all the boards is to state opinions, if I liked his answers about 89 or Returns is besides the point, he has the right to give it. I do however agree, I would watch 89 anyday over Begins. That doesn' make me wrong, it is just my opinion.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Zer00 often times makes no sense.

 

[zer00]

Yet I'm right 101% of the time.

Isn't this thread better now?

 

[CConn]

Why is it people immediately assume it's their opinion that's being bashed? It's not about what your opinions are but how you form, process, and state them.

And as for what "makes the Hype a generally unpleasant place", Cyrusbales, you don't think reading posts by you saying "I don't like BB" 20 times in a single thread isn't unpleasent?

It's not because I have a problem with you disliking BB, but rather than you say the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again. You never really add all that much to the conversation - besides the obvious fact that you don't like BB, and you can't fathom how anyone else could.

And while I admit you've been better as of late, when you first joined, you were extremely condesending to anyone and everyone who didn't share your feelings on any given subject. That's simply annoying. And certainly just as "unpleasant" as a random jab at someone's intelligence.

 

[MacLeod]

What is a problem and this goes for anyone, is how they write what they believe. Stating that your way is the only way, if you believe it or not, comes across as very harsh. If I were to say that 89 is the best movie ever and everyone should bow down to me then I would be just as guilty of writing poorly. I do believe that 89 is better but I have no problem with those that believe there is another Batman movie in their own top slot. It's all in the delivery. I was checking another thread where someone wrote that Nolan gets it. Here's the problem, that statement came after a facts that the person was trying to prove. All that is needed there is the "In my opinion Nolan gets it." That way we know what he's trying to say without our backs being pushed against the wall trying to defend why Nolan doesn't get it. This is a place to speak about being fans of Batman stuff, unless you want to be perceived as a jerk be smarter about how you state your opinion.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Why i didn't like BB? I thought it was OK, but it was little bland, there wasn't much substance to it. It felt very unoriginal and I'd seen the same sorta films before. Also, it was an action film, rather than a Batman film. It felt like Batman was just thrown in there, and the badguy's plot was poorly constructed, not to mention the 'dismissal' of scarecrow(who was the best bit of the whole film), also the car chase was rubbish!

What do you mean? I think it changes the way a superhero film should shift it's focus. Focusing all on the actual main character, Batman, was a a very original thing...I think. And, if it's not.....it's certainly a rare thing to see.

Batman......has......action. Read the comics, it's in there. He's not some sunday rider, looking for trees to water. He's a very active, action-orientated character.....while still mixing other aspects, which Batman Begins did.

I thought the villian plot was nicely done, with the twist near the end. Scarecrow served his purpose. I'm happy he didn't become a "freak of the week" type of character, stealing the film like every other villian did before.

The car chase rocked ass.

That's what I thought. I liked the movie as a movie, but you could have placed any character in a suit in it. It was a great movie and only a good Batman movie.

Do you know anything about Batman?

Both B89 and batman returns were superior, as they felt unlike other films, they were more artistic and the surrealism worked, after all, film is a surreal medium, just look at fellini! lol

I think those films, it was just art over substance, whereas Batman Begins.....it's substance over style.

You really don't understand the idea of discussion, or voicing an opinion, I'm sure I'm not the only person here who feels this way, at least try to be constructive instead of insulting, it doesn't say a lot about your character as a person, and makes the Hype a generally unpleasant place. Thanks

But, you need to understand....when you say it's not "Batman"....then it's clear you don't know much about the character. It was very true to the soruce material, so....saying some of the things you have....you'll get some comments like his.

Well put. This occurs in a lot of the boards which is why I don't check in that often. The point to all the boards is to state opinions, if I liked his answers about 89 or Returns is besides the point, he has the right to give it. I do however agree, I would watch 89 anyday over Begins. That doesn' make me wrong, it is just my opinion.

Welcome to the Hype, rook....keep your head down and you may just live to tell about it......

I think, everyone that knows enough about the character.....will agree, Batman Begins is the better BATMAN film. Doesn't mean it's the greatest thing ever (although, I'd say it is...) but, when it comes to being a BATMAN film....c'mon, this the rest would have to be elseworlds compared to BB, simply by how it treats the material.

 

[Cyrusbales]

What do you mean? I think it changes the way a superhero film should shift it's focus. Focusing all on the actual main character, Batman, was a a very original thing...I think. And, if it's not.....it's certainly a rare thing to see.

Batman......has......action. Read the comics, it's in there. He's not some sunday rider, looking for trees to water. He's a very active, action-orientated character.....while still mixing other aspects, which Batman Begins did.

I thought the villian plot was nicely done, with the twist near the end. Scarecrow served his purpose. I'm happy he didn't become a "freak of the week" type of character, stealing the film like every other villian did before.

The car chase rocked ass.



Do you know anything about Batman?



I think those films, it was just art over substance, whereas Batman Begins.....it's substance over style.



But, you need to understand....when you say it's not "Batman"....then it's clear you don't know much about the character. It was very true to the soruce material, so....saying some of the things you have....you'll get some comments like his.



Welcome to the Hype, rook....keep your head down and you may just live to tell about it......

I think, everyone that knows enough about the character.....will agree, Batman Begins is the better BATMAN film. Doesn't mean it's the greatest thing ever (although, I'd say it is...) but, when it comes to being a BATMAN film....c'mon, this the rest would have to be elseworlds compared to BB, simply by how it treats the material.

(Quickly, I'll apologize for any repetition poreviously in this thread, and will go on into further discussion now, Although I never said I disliked BB, I just said I thought it was OK)


First and foremost I'm a film fan, so I rate each batman film as a film, whilst still noting the adaptation element, I think they should be able to work independantly of the comics. Fair enough B89 wasn't entirely accurate, but did that make it a worse film? No, it has become one of the classic pieces of modern cinema.

About the BB villain plot, consideing the idea was realism, they didn't much look into science did they? If you microwave all water molecules in a set radius, every human being there dies, being made of 90% water and all, so the idea of realism is quickly discarded, then re-assumed at other points, making it inconsistant. B89 never claimed to be full realism, it was a surrealist fantasy piece, so it never contradicted itself in that respect.

With the comics, yes there is action in the Batman comics, but the character is the centre peice, It's not an action comic with a character, it's a character who engages in action from time to time.

As for the comment that Fellini's work is style over substance, I do not understand that in the slightest. Fair enought they are abstract in their substance, but there are always VERY clear stories in his work, he uses his style to further the narrative, for instance 8 1/2, is a story about a director who is going mad through his work, deeply personal to Fellini as the main character is in many respects himself, so there's a lot more substance there than and Batman film, And anyone who understands the nature of cinema would not contest Fellini for 'not having substance'.

BB may be the best accurate depiction of Batman from the comics(although batman did change greatly throughout his lifespan in the comics), but that doesn't mean it's the best film. AS A FILM, we should rate BB, not as a translation, as if Nolan wanted to make a direct translation, people wouldn't be going 'this is the closest batman yet', they'd be going, 'it's batman', and he'd just use arc's from the comics etc, no-one wants that, they want to see something new and exciting, and different from the character, whilst still being the same character, it doesn't need to be a carbon copy!

As for the car chase, have you seen 'the hire' films by BMW? They were far better car chases, and these were just short films, so surely a feature film would get us something of at least this quality? But instead we get a rooftop jumping car, that turns it lights out to be stealthy(what about the choper's searchlight? lol), and then turns them back on again, that was pointful!

 

[MacLeod]

Do you know anything about Batman?

See, here's the thing that will piss people off. Where do you get off asking if I know anything about Batman just because I'm voicing an opinion other than yours. I could go on to tell you how much of a fan I am but that would be childish. The only thing your post does is make your comments less believable and more annoying. I'm a huge Batman fan and like any fan of anything views can be different. You may like Begins as much as I like 89 but that doesn't give me the right to go around thinking your not a fan or that you have no knowledge. I have my reasons just as you have yours, if you wanted me to believe what you're saying you better have a better approach other than trying to knock me down. If I were you I would get off the high horse of tying to make everyone feel small and realize that people have their own opinions, voice yours in a better, smarter way. Whatever our knowledge is of the topic doesn't mean we're wrong or right, it just means we have our own taste as to what we would want to see. I'm into art and the martial arts which is why I liked seeing the fight scenese in 89 over Begins and I liked the city in 89 over Begins. There are other things that I prefer but that is just an example of why my opinion goes with 89. That does make me wrong, no, and it shouldn't give you something to try to rip apart. If I feel that the psychological perspective was handled better in 89 and you thought it was handled better in Begins that is fine, we're both wired differently but again I'm not going to ask you if you know anything about psychology just because you chose Begins. Be smarter in your defense, this isn't a court room, and maybe you'll get your point across without sounding mean or annoying.