Batman Begins Those who disliked Begins - Why?

[MacLeod]

Well put CyrusBales

 

[Cyrusbales]

Well put CyrusBales

Your own comment was also pleasant to read!

 

[Bathead]

Quite frankly, I could care less what anyone else thinks about the movie.
I liked it, and that's all that matters to me.
The only time I might argue about it, if someone says things about it that are untrue or mistaken, or that they criticize aspects of the movie that they would have forgiven if it had been done by someone else, or if they come across as arrogant know it alls who think their opinions are facts, and anyone who doesn't agree with them either doesn't understand movies or Batman , or is an ignorant noob.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Quite frankly, I could care less what anyone else thinks about the movie.
I liked it, and that's all that matters to me.
The only time I might argue about it, if someone says things about it that are untrue or mistaken, or that they criticize aspects of the movie that they would have forgiven if it had been done by someone else, or if they come across as arrogant know it alls who think their opinions are facts, and anyone who doesn't agree with them either doesn't understand movies or Batman , or is an ignorant noob.

I respect your opinion. A lot of people think their opinions are fact.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

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.

See, I think that's where the problem lies.

If a film that adapts a novel, or a classic play, fails to adapt it correctly....it shows, and many of the people who know of the works will point it out.

The reason I think that following the source material is an entirely valid point is b/c the material has been around for far longer than the film. That is....without the book, there would never even be a chance for a film. I think the films owe it to the books, the material it is borrowing from, to atleast keep the spirit and themes. Obviously, with Batman....it's not as narrow b/c there's so much. But.....when you change things drastically, you do run the risk of alienating the fans that were there for you in the beginning. And that's not good.

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.

Batman Begins never claimed to be full realism either. You just assumed it did.

It's not a documentary. It's a piece of fantasy with a scope of realism, in giving us reason and logic behind the basic plot and characters.

If being a "full real thing" went out the window with the Microwave Emitter, then where were you when Batman was jumping rooftops in his car?

It's alot like Spider-Man and X-Men, where realism is an aspect that helps keep the material serious. But, it's still fantasy. Fantastical stuff still happens.

Btw, if the water in our bodies had the same properties as water outside.....wouldn't we have all evaporated years ago?

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 it is in the movie as well.

Btw, I have to ask. Which Batman books have you read? It may have something to do with your pov on this.

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!

That's the thing. IT'S NOT A CARBON COPY. It blends all the right things, and doesn't hold itself to any one aspect of the comics. Go ahead, try and tell me which comic it copies, because it doesn't do so. Instead it blends all the aspects of many of his best stories.

Keeping close to the source material is important, b/c your staying true to what has made the character last this long.

I mean, if the comics didn't "get it right", the character would have disappeared decades ago...and there would never have been a Batman, Batman Returns or even Batman Begins.

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!

The car chase was awesome. No, I don't watch BMW films....last I heard, they were still in the car business.

It turned stealthy to lose the helicopter that was following it, and give Batman a breather to check on Rachel's status. When he made sure she was still okay, the cops noticed the car (watch the movie, the cop points out the car then the lights turn on).

Again....I have a hard time beliving that you can easily accept a car jumping rooftops as reality, but when it comes to a science project test....that's where things go too wild for you.

If you want a purpose behind the chase, there is one. It served to show how violitile Batman can be. How far to the limits he can take it. And, as a a film....it served to be ****ing cool. I think it worked.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

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.

I think being a fan of the character holds much weight in these boards, b/c it tells how much your willing to dig and learn more about the character and his history.

But, when you say that Batman and Batman Returns was more true to the character than Batman Begins....it speaks volumes in that person's lack of knowledge.

Technically, Batman Forever was a bit more true to the soruce material than Batman Retruns actually. Not by much, but by a little.

Being true to the source is important. It's one of the things that bothers many Spidey fans about the Spidey films, and it's a valid point. True....that films shoudl do they're own thing and not be a live action cartoon. But, there's something to be said about a film that does capture the spirit of the character. Atleast, at the time of it's release. Things do change.

 

[Cyrusbales]

See, I think that's where the problem lies.

If a film that adapts a novel, or a classic play, fails to adapt it correctly....it shows, and many of the people who know of the works will point it out.

The reason I think that following the source material is an entirely valid point is b/c the material has been around for far longer than the film. That is....without the book, there would never even be a chance for a film. I think the films owe it to the books, the material it is borrowing from, to atleast keep the spirit and themes. Obviously, with Batman....it's not as narrow b/c there's so much. But.....when you change things drastically, you do run the risk of alienating the fans that were there for you in the beginning. And that's not good.



Batman Begins never claimed to be full realism either. You just assumed it did.

It's not a documentary. It's a piece of fantasy with a scope of realism, in giving us reason and logic behind the basic plot and characters.

If being a "full real thing" went out the window with the Microwave Emitter, then where were you when Batman was jumping rooftops in his car?

It's alot like Spider-Man and X-Men, where realism is an aspect that helps keep the material serious. But, it's still fantasy. Fantastical stuff still happens.

Btw, if the water in our bodies had the same properties as water outside.....wouldn't we have all evaporated years ago?



As it is in the movie as well.

Btw, I have to ask. Which Batman books have you read? It may have something to do with your pov on this.




That's the thing. IT'S NOT A CARBON COPY. It blends all the right things, and doesn't hold itself to any one aspect of the comics. Go ahead, try and tell me which comic it copies, because it doesn't do so. Instead it blends all the aspects of many of his best stories.

Keeping close to the source material is important, b/c your staying true to what has made the character last this long.

I mean, if the comics didn't "get it right", the character would have disappeared decades ago...and there would never have been a Batman, Batman Returns or even Batman Begins.



The car chase was awesome. No, I don't watch BMW films....last I heard, they were still in the car business.

It turned stealthy to lose the helicopter that was following it, and give Batman a breather to check on Rachel's status. When he made sure she was still okay, the cops noticed the car (watch the movie, the cop points out the car then the lights turn on).

Again....I have a hard time beliving that you can easily accept a car jumping rooftops as reality, but when it comes to a science project test....that's where things go too wild for you.

If you want a purpose behind the chase, there is one. It served to show how violitile Batman can be. How far to the limits he can take it. And, as a a film....it served to be ****ing cool. I think it worked.

The reason that our bodies don't evaporate is due to our skin etc, if you microwave flesh/animal, you'll see what happens!

The BMW films were a series of about 8 short films directed by top directors, starring Clive Owen, the directors had to use BMW cars for the good guys car, other than that, there was no other requirements. Each film cost about 5 million. Directors who made a film: Kar Wai Won, John Woo, Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, Pedro Alejandro(sp?), Tony Scott and some others that I can't think of right now...

Back to Batman, lol. The idea of adapting a book doesn't need to be accurate, look at Clockwork Orange, It's a great film, regardless of the liberties it takes with the book.

BB established a cinematic world of realism, where things that happened were unlikely, but phsyically possible, until the magic microwave, so it contradicts the cinematic world it's set for itself. The car could technically jump, it's not impossible, it doesn't go against the laws of physics, it's just very unlikely to happen.

 

[Stupify_me]

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

Ahh so you prefer cartoons because that is basically all that Returns and 89 were just a another Burton Cartoon. Burton has the same style and tone for every film he does and it is very obvious there is nothing orginal about the man. I personally though 89 was watchable but not very good and Returns was just a joke. Those were art and action there was no really story to Batman it was simply his parents died and now he fights crime. There was no emotion behind them really I loved 89 with I was a child but can't watch it now with out rolling my eyes. The style and most of the scenes were very cheesy and made for kids.

 

[Stupify_me]

(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!

This is the part that bothers me the most

"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."

Did you even watch the movie? This movie was all about the character there was a strong lack of action most of it was about his journey and personal struggle for what needs to be done.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Ahh so you prefer cartoons because that is basically all that Returns and 89 were just a another Burton Cartoon. Burton has the same style and tone for every film he does and it is very obvious there is nothing orginal about the man. I personally though 89 was watchable but not very good and Returns was just a joke. Those were art and action there was no really story to Batman it was simply his parents died and now he fights crime. There was no emotion behind them really I loved 89 with I was a child but can't watch it now with out rolling my eyes. The style and most of the scenes were very cheesy and made for kids.

I'd disagree and see his massive acknowldge of expressionist film, to which all film owes something. Each film he made (out of his earlier films) was a tribute to a diff expressionist film, Batman-metropolis, Edward scissorhand-cabinet of dr caligari, sleepy hollow-nosferatu. I wouldn't say all his films are the same, mars attacks and big fish aren't exactly much like corpse bride.

I liked the story in B89 and BReturns, although it was very convoluted and complex, and some say it was like many story's, but isn't that fitting for the worlds greatest detective?

And BB was just action and no art, so it would clasified as less 'worthy' by yor above definition.

 

[Stupify_me]

I'd disagree and see his massive acknowldge of expressionist film, to which all film owes something. Each film he made (out of his earlier films) was a tribute to a diff expressionist film, Batman-metropolis, Edward scissorhand-cabinet of dr caligari, sleepy hollow-nosferatu. I wouldn't say all his films are the same, mars attacks and big fish aren't exactly much like corpse bride.

I liked the story in B89 and BReturns, although it was very convoluted and complex, and some say it was like many story's, but isn't that fitting for the worlds greatest detective?

And BB was just action and no art, so it would clasified as less 'worthy' by yor above definition.

BB had less action in it than Returns did so I fail to understand how it was Just action. Once again I ask have you even seen this movie?

There was nothing compelx about Returns or 89 they were very simple easy to follow storys and there was absolutley nothing to the characters they were simple.

So you prefer the look of the buildings and trees to the actual story ? Because that is all that Tim really brought art wise to his films. See for me the development and story are the most important things I don't really care what the buildings or trees look like, well unless they look like a cartoon like in the Burton films that bothers me.

 

[Sandman138]

1. To Stupify_me and ChrisBaleBatman: I will not comment on your evaluations of Burton's films other than to say I would be happy to debate their merits with the both of you in another thread. However, your assertion that art is somehow a seperate entity from substance is absurd. As art is a mode of expression, there must always be something being expressed. You may not agree with said substance, but that hardly negates its existance as an inextricable element of art. You should rephrase, as your current wording severely hinders your argument. I believe you are trying to say one of the following: Burton's films focused too much on aesthetic techniques at the expense of the underlying structure, or Burton's films focused too much on aesthetic techniques at the expense of diegisis; but your statements as they stand are both too vague and ill concieved.

2. To Cyrusbales and MacLeod: Expressing opinions is well and good, but it is also boring and an easy cop-out for what is generally a poorly thought out positions justified by the false pretense that subjectivity alone legitimizes an opinion. The point of debate, is not to prove yourself right, nor to prove the other wrong; it is to formulate an argument, respond to counterarguments by reexamining your position and examining the position of others and questioning your original position, thus gaining a better understanding of all views and having a more sturdy position overall. So don't raise a fuss over people being argumentitive, it would be a really boring forum if we weren't, besides, I have hardly seen anything I would call malicious.

3. To all: This is a debate over the merits of the film, not who's the better Batman fan. Disect their arguments, not their "geek cred".

 

[Sandman138]

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.

I didn't spend a good chunk of time writing this to see it buried under bickering.

 

[Stupify_me]

I didn't spend a good chunk of time writing this to see it buried under bickering.

Please do us all a favor and try to get over your self. We are having a discussion and it seems to be going just fine to me. I don't see bickering as you put it don't think your post is more important than it actually is. Now if you are done *****ing about people not replying to you enough and going off on their own conversations you are free to join in.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

1. To Stupify_me and ChrisBaleBatman: I will not comment on your evaluations of Burton's films other than to say I would be happy to debate their merits with the both of you in another thread. However, your assertion that art is somehow a seperate entity from substance is absurd. As art is a mode of expression, there must always be something being expressed. You may not agree with said substance, but that hardly negates its existance as an inextricable element of art. You should rephrase, as your current wording severely hinders your argument. I believe you are trying to say one of the following: Burton's films focused too much on aesthetic techniques at the expense of the underlying structure, or Burton's films focused too much on aesthetic techniques at the expense of diegisis; but your statements as they stand are both too vague and ill concieved.

Pretty simple, me thinks.

The art style seemed to just take over in Batman Returns. I feel the script was just lacking, and it seems more like style over substance. It was artistic, but the story failed. It meshed, but I feel whatever artistic style your going for......it needs to be backed up with the story.

I do have to ask Cyrusbales again....which Batman books have you read?

 

[Stupify_me]

Pretty simple, me thinks.

The art style seemed to just take over in Batman Returns. I feel the script was just lacking, and it seems more like style over substance. It was artistic, but the story failed. It meshed, but I feel whatever artistic style your going for......it needs to be backed up with the story.

I do have to ask Cyrusbales again....which Batman books have you read?

My thoughts exactly complete agreement. Though I would have to add also that I just did not like the art of it the look of the movie was very cartoony and childish to me. It looked like a live action set of halloween town.

 

[Sandman138]

Pretty simple, me thinks.

The art style seemed to just take over in Batman Returns. I feel the script was just lacking, and it seems more like style over substance. It was artistic, but the story failed. It meshed, but I feel whatever artistic style your going for......it needs to be backed up with the story.

I do have to ask Cyrusbales again....which Batman books have you read?

The point was that storytelling is both an art unto itself and, on the reverse, art conveys messages, often stories.

Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Asthetic: 1. Giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance. 2. A set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or artistic movement.

Diegesis: noun ( pl. -ses |-sēz|) a narrative or plot, typically in a movie.

I'm sorry for being a MENSA troll, but it just makes your post more clear.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

My thoughts exactly complete agreement. Though I would have to add also that I just did not like the art of it the look of the movie was very cartoony and childish to me. It looked like a live action set of halloween town.

It's odd, really......it had a very dark, brooding look.....which scared kids....yet it didn't feel as serious as it probably should have. I think I feel that way b/c the first film seemed to have what BR was lacking. The very strong gothic style also did things, that honestly, I didn't dig. I prefered the the first film's style, where there was gothic tones....but there was still a very real city feel.

And, believe it or not......Gothic style doesn't equate Gotham. Many people think that with the name, Gotham City, it means there's supposed to be gothic.....which is actually very untrue.

The point was that storytelling is both an art unto itself and, on the reverse, art conveys messages, often stories.

Yeah, I see what your saying.....that it meshed and worked together. But, I think overall...the story was what failed.....and it kinda brought the style with it b/c they were so throughly tied together.

Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Yes, which I feel would describe Gotham City in BR, and overall the style used. Very very creative, maybe so much so that it bothered more people than it should have.

Asthetic: Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty

Diegesis: noun ( pl. -ses |-sēz|) a narrative or plot, typically in a movie.

I dunno, beauty and the appreciation of it doesn't actually mean it is what it is. It's really in the eye of the beholder, I think. I know people felt Gotham was beautiful in BR. While, I felt it was actually beautiful in B89. So, astehtically.....maybe Batman Forever is something that went to that extreme, rather than the artistic style that we were used to.

But, I just feel that that stuff is so subjective...it's tough to really say it's exactly as so.

Btw,.......you seem like a smart dude. College teacher?

I'm sorry for being a MENSA troll, but it just makes your post more clear.

Nah, your all right I think. I've seen lots and lots worse.

 

[Sandman138]

Misunderstanding, I'm not specifically talking about the film, that is for another thread. I was merely saying that art was perhaps the wrong word to use for what you were trying to say. Art carries with it history, philosophy, theory, asthetics, etc. Asthetics is concerned with appearence and design principles. In the case of BR, the visual asthetic was one of German Expressionism.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But, it had a very artsy feel. Burton is a director that is pretty well known for the style his films have, which I think kinda leans him into that Art-feel category. Which, is really Burton's m.o. Usually, you can pick out a Burton film alone on what you see.

 

[Crooklyn]

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.

I think his initial problem was your choice of your words: "you could have placed any character in a suit in it". You may be knowledgeable about the character, but saying that you could have put any other person in that suit, and get the same movie...well, let's just say it doesn't very well thought-out.

If your statement was true, then that would've meant Bruce Wayne's arc in the first half of the movie was completely generic, no story whatsoever, and indistinguishable from the many male characters of cinema. But that's incredibly false imo. Maybe you could explain your position more thoroughly, so we can better understand where you're coming from.

 

[MacLeod]

I'm glad you asked, and I'm glad you stated it was your opinion. The reason I didn't go nuts over the movie as a Batman movie was because it was missing what I was hoping for. It has nothing to do with my knowledge because I know the same amount of Batman material as anyone reading this, I've been a hardcore fan for more than 20 years with so many books and memorabilia that I've run out of space. I was hoping for better fight scenes, more martial arts training in the mountains and no cape clips. I also didn't like how everything Bruce/Batman used was already built for him by someone else. I know he obtains everything from Wayne industries but I just would have liked a little more creativity on his part besides just makinga Batarang. I know these are minute problems but they bugged me. I also know there was a deeper story here than in 89 which is why it was a good movie but I personally don't get drawn into it like I do when I watch 89. I'm glad they restarted the franchise and I'm glad it's this over anything Schumacher did but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have made things a little different. I think it all is based on taste, even though this may be a better representation of Batman (yes I said it because I agree with it) I still like the art and style of 89 and Returns. I felt more connected with the characters in those two than in this one. Granted, those were perfect either but I found less at fault visually than with Begins. Just my opinion, if you can take it at that than you are ahead of those who cannot.

 

[MacLeod]

But, when you say that Batman and Batman Returns was more true to the character than Batman Begins....it speaks volumes in that person's lack of knowledge.

Again, having an opinion does not mean someone knows or does not know about the character. The fact is someone may be able to outsmart you but it doesn't mean you'll agree with them on something. If I like one movie over the other, and I've stated why in my opinion, it shows nothing of my volume of knowledge. I wont' go into what I know because I won't go down to that level of childish thinking, just like I wouldn't doubt what others know because that is childish as well. I like the art deco material, darker films (as in visually dark and psychologically dark) as well as martial arts. For me it is more enjoyable to watch 89 over Begins because of these factors. I know Begins is a more comprehensive Batman story but that doesn't mean I enjoyed it as much. If you can't say your opinion without resorting to inmature antics I suggest you stop and think before trying to call someone's opinions wrong. Like as.holes everyone has one.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

Focusing all on the actual main character, Batman, was a a very original thing...I think. .

lol to be fair, Superman The Movie did it 30 years ago

 

[MacLeod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisBaleBatman
Focusing all on the actual main character, Batman, was a a very original thing...I think. .


Doesn't almost every superhero movie focus on the actual character? I know 89 may not have because the Joker was used more but the other Batman movies had Batman as a main character. Spiderman and The Punisher were the main characters too and they were focused on well in my opinion.