Batman Begins Who still likes/thinks Begins is better than TDK?

[Dark Guardian]

Ok, I know I'm gonna get this massive wave of TDK hyperfans attacking me, but I honestly want to know how many people here honestly like Batman Begins better than The Dark Knight and why?

My reasons are as follows:

- Story
While I love a good twisty turney suspense film as much as the next guy, I don't like it when a movie like that takes over my Batman flick. And when watching TDK, I get that distinct impression too often. Its like Batman Begins got mashed up with The Departed. The Joker's 'put them in two seperate buildings and tell people where they are so they can watch them die' scheme felt like something from that movie, rather than a Joker scheme. There are other examples.

Batman Begins on the other hand has a very strong storyline that doesn't seem like it should have ended halfway in the middle (when Rachel died in TDK, it really felt like the movie should have stopped there). It wasn't confusing, it was in fact a very logical progression of events and the characters all seemed very much a part of the process.

- Lack of actual Batmanness
Batmanness n: the attribute of acting like the Batman known universally.
Yes I made that up, but I think you get my point.
Tell me honestly, can you really imagine the comic book Batman listening to The Joker tell him those two addresses and just take it on faith that he's telling the truth about them? Whenever I try to picture say, Kevin Conroy's Batman of the Animated Series, in that situation, I cannot see Batman doing that. Gordon would ask, which one are you going after and he'd say "Rachel. She's at [insert the first address]." Gordon would call after him, "What makes you say that?" and Batman would yell back as he's getting on the Batpod, "Its the Joker, it can't be that easy!"

Another case in point, the end hostage scene.
Again, I put Kevin Conroy's awesome Batman in that situation, and what springs to mind is not "You're the one pointing the gun Harvey, so point it at the people responsible." but "You're the one pointing the gun Harvey. Not the Joker. Its your choice now. You told me 'You can't give in.' So why are you?" or something to that effect. Batman seemed altogether too weak and without inspiration in that scene, like he wasn't even really trying.

Batman Begins on the other hand, never has a moment where you turn to the person next to you and say "That...doesn't really seem like something Batman would do..." Instead we get awesome scenes like Arkham Asylum, from start to finish which screams Batman all the way.

-The Joker
I will never say that Heath Ledger did a bad job. His acting was amazing. He embodied the character that he was told to portray.
But that character is not the Joker to me. It just isn't, it can't be. I don't even care about the permawhite/makeup debate. Its not just one thing, its the whole character that I look at and go... "That should be... Elseworlds or something." It just is not The Joker. The Joker is not grungy, the Joker is not dirty. The Joker does not look like he just swam through a dirty river and then rolled in trash.
I could have accepted many of the pieces that made up Nolan's version of the Joker. I could have accepted the scars, I could even have accepted the make up. But all together, these things just make me look at that and go, I do not see The Joker.

Batman Begins features Ra's Al Ghul as its title villain and despite never once mentioning The Lazerus Pits I absolutely loved this interpertration of the character. He's next to perfect so far in my opinion and the essence of the character is transfered right out of the comic.

-Gotham
Gotham City does not feel the same in The Dark Knight. All the buildings have changed, none of the locations are the same. While this usually wouldn't faze me, put together with all the other things, it really sticks out to me that The Dark Knight does not feel like it takes place in the same city we see in Begins. It irks me that the Wayne Enterprises building is gone (despite the huge amount of effort Batman put into saving it in the last film, and for those of you who say "No! Its right there in behind Batman and the Joker when they duke it out!" Sorry guys, watch that scene again, its lit similarly but the building is completely different.) It irks me that the monorail is visible only in the background, and it irks me that the streets and buildings are all different. We don't see the Gotham we got to know in Begins, not even a little bit.

Those are my main reasons for still liking Batman Begins over the Dark Knight. What are yours?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

While I do technically think The Dark Knight is a better and more expertly constructed film than Batman Begins... I will say this...

Once again they lost Batman admist the chaos. It could be considered even more disappointing because Nolan worked so hard to build him up in the first movie and did an astonishing job.

Now perhaps Nolan had a third movie planned all along where the focus will shift back to the character and then I would need to re-evaluate. Chrsitian Bale was wasted in the movie, arguably.

They never gave the Batman character room to breathe or grow throughout the movie.

It is still arguably one of my favourtie movies of all time but I can't over look this completely.

This is the only reason Batman Begins could be considered better than The Dark Knight. Oh... and I kinda liked the actiony, big drama/ train, huge music stuff at the end of Begins too.

 

[Two-Face]

It is possible to like both films.

 

[metalhead_dave]

- Lack of actual Batmanness
Batmanness n: the attribute of acting like the Batman known universally.
Yes I made that up, but I think you get my point.
Tell me honestly, can you really imagine the comic book Batman listening to The Joker tell him those two addresses and just take it on faith that he's telling the truth about them? Whenever I try to picture say, Kevin Conroy's Batman of the Animated Series, in that situation, I cannot see Batman doing that. Gordon would ask, which one are you going after and he'd say "Rachel. She's at [insert the first address]." Gordon would call after him, "What makes you say that?" and Batman would yell back as he's getting on the Batpod, "Its the Joker, it can't be that easy!"

Well, technically, this Batman is still pretty new at this. While Conroy's Batman was already doing his thing at LEAST seven years when we were first introduced to him. And Batman DID wise up in the third act, "It's not that simple, with the Joker it never is."

Batman Begins on the other hand, never has a moment where you turn to the person next to you and say "That...doesn't really seem like something Batman would do..." Instead we get awesome scenes like Arkham Asylum, from start to finish which screams Batman all the way.

Well a lot of people who bash Begins say that he had to be hand held into being Batman and that he was pretty much given everything and couldn't actually figure out Ra's plot any other way because he wasn't much of a detective. I've countered those with my own points before but they still say "That doesn't seem like something Batman would do."

-The Joker
I will never say that Heath Ledger did a bad job. His acting was amazing. He embodied the character that he was told to portray.
But that character is not the Joker to me. It just isn't, it can't be. I don't even care about the permawhite/makeup debate. Its not just one thing, its the whole character that I look at and go... "That should be... Elseworlds or something." It just is not The Joker. The Joker is not grungy, the Joker is not dirty. The Joker does not look like he just swam through a dirty river and then rolled in trash.

I could have accepted many of the pieces that made up Nolan's version of the Joker. I could have accepted the scars, I could even have accepted the make up. But all together, these things just make me look at that and go, I do not see The Joker.

Personally, I think if his hair was shorter, it would have asthetically looked a bit better, and I think it would shut everybody up who doesn't see Ledger's Joker as The Joker. I don't mean to diss you with that line. But honestly the hair is the only reason I don't completely fall into the belief that he's the Joker.

But... purple suit, white face, green hair, laughs maniacally. He thinks of Batman as a counterpart, and his eyes remind me so much of the Joker's from The Killing Joke. He's still the Joker to me.

Batman Begins features Ra's Al Ghul as its title villain and despite never once mentioning The Lazerus Pits I absolutely loved this interpertration of the character. He's next to perfect so far in my opinion and the essence of the character is transfered right out of the comic.

Eh, Liam Neeson had a David Warner like voice going for him... and I do love his representation of Ras Al Ghul... but I kind of feel the same way about him that you do about Joker. Just a black suit, his hair isn't the same as Ras's. He was good, I like his portrayl... but I didn't yell out in the theater "HOLY **** THAT'S RAS AL GHUL!" But I bet you didn't either.t:

-Gotham
Gotham City does not feel the same in The Dark Knight. All the buildings have changed, none of the locations are the same. While this usually wouldn't faze me, put together with all the other things, it really sticks out to me that The Dark Knight does not feel like it takes place in the same city we see in Begins. It irks me that the Wayne Enterprises building is gone (despite the huge amount of effort Batman put into saving it in the last film, and for those of you who say "No! Its right there in behind Batman and the Joker when they duke it out!" Sorry guys, watch that scene again, its lit similarly but the building is completely different.) It irks me that the monorail is visible only in the background, and it irks me that the streets and buildings are all different. We don't see the Gotham we got to know in Begins, not even a little bit.

Eh, the way I see it. BB shows Gothan from the ground up, TDK shows Gotham from the top down. Same city, just put in a different light and different parts are focused for the story.

Gotham City is a character itself, it just didn't get much screen time in TDK.

Those are my main reasons for still liking Batman Begins over the Dark Knight. What are yours?

Well now that I've countered some of your points, I do have a big reason of liking BB over TDK.

The MAJOR thing I liked about BB over TDK was Batman's overall presence. In the suit, Bale looked like an intimidating feral BEAST. He looked so badass he made Keaton look like a pencil necked geek. And it's still the reason why I say Bale is the best live action Batman and totally DESTROYS Keaton's portrayl. Yeah, he DESTROYS it.

The best part about it was the cowl and Bale was able to emote through it. With it on, when he was scowling, he looked big... he looked intimidating. Every angry face he made just looked so AWESOME. Even in The Dark Knight when he had the Begins suit on, you could see him scowl before he hit the fake Batman, and when he was staring at the captured Scarecrow and you saw that beast there.

With the Dark Knight, the new suit (plus the slimmer physique) took that intimidating presence away from him. I love the new suit, I do... and I wouldn't want it changed... but I hate the cowl. Maybe it's the way it makes his head look big, maybe it's the small jaw opening, or the (what appears to be) bigger nose, but it doesn't go well with Bale's "Batman faces." It doesn't make him look big anymore... he almost looks like a crotchity old man, reminds me a little bit of Clooney in the suit. Sorry.

There were times in TDK when Bale didn't have the suit on, but had his Batman face on that showed that feral side much better than the new cowl could. When he was watching the Joker's videotape or questioning the tied up gaurds at Loeb's funeral, he put the face on and he looked totally badass. The cowl just seemed to cover that up. The only time he ever looked big and feral in the TDK cowl is when he had the Joker up on the wall and there was a closeup on his face.

 

[Dark Guardian]

The MAJOR thing I liked about BB over TDK was Batman's overall presence. In the suit, Bale looked like an intimidating feral BEAST. He looked so badass he made Keaton look like a pencil necked geek. And it's still the reason why I say Bale is the best live action Batman and totally DESTROYS Keaton's portrayl. Yeah, he DESTROYS it.

The best part about it was the cowl and Bale was able to emote through it. With it on, when he was scowling, he looked big... he looked intimidating. Every angry face he made just looked so AWESOME. Even in The Dark Knight when he had the Begins suit on, you could see him scowl before he hit the fake Batman, and when he was staring at the captured Scarecrow and you saw that beast there.

With the Dark Knight, the new suit (plus the slimmer physique) took that intimidating presence away from him. I love the new suit, I do... and I wouldn't want it changed... but I hate the cowl. Maybe it's the way it makes his head look big, maybe it's the small jaw opening, or the (what appears to be) bigger nose, but it doesn't go well with Bale's "Batman faces." It doesn't make him look big anymore... he almost looks like a crotchity old man, reminds me a little bit of Clooney in the suit. Sorry.

There were times in TDK when Bale didn't have the suit on, but had his Batman face on that showed that feral side much better than the new cowl could. When he was watching the Joker's videotape or questioning the tied up gaurds at Loeb's funeral, he put the face on and he looked totally badass. The cowl just seemed to cover that up. The only time he ever looked big and feral in the TDK cowl is when he had the Joker up on the wall and there was a closeup on his face.

I knew I forgot to mention something in my little Batmanness paragraph. I agree with you completely. I really liked the Begin's suit. The way that neck looked like a panther ready to strike, and just the cowl itself suited Bale so well. Now, being a costumer, and somebody who owns a cowl where I can't move my neck in, I know how frustrating it must be for Bale to act in that thing, but they really did lose something by making that neck and cowl the way it is in The Dark Knight.
Plus, I miss the old symbol. I thought that the one on the TDK suit should have stuck on the Batarangs and on the posters.

 

[Ryan]

Dark Guardian love your post and this thread. I agree with pretty well everything you said and all the things I disagreed with were said by metalhead_dave (who also did an excellent post!). I simply enjoyed BB over TDK because it reminded me of why I have liked the Batman character for so long. In all honestly, I never enjoyed ANY of the previous films as much as I enjoy BB. In fact, I was hugely disappointed with Batman 89. I wouldn't say I was disappointed with TDK. I've watched it a million times. I do however think that Nolan himself was entranced by the Joker character and thus all focus was on him. Right to the end the Joker "wins' all the scenes he is in while Batman can't even scare mob boss Maroni. Hell, Maroni even lips off to Batman at the end of the scene! How bad is that? As much as I enjoyed the movie, I was really disappointed in Nolan's disregard for the Batman character he had so succesfully reenergized in BB. I took my father, (who is not a comic book fan or into the genre but does enjoy Batman movies,) to see TDK and as much as he enjoyed the movie he remarked "there wasn't alot of Batman in the film". Batman might have had as much screen time or more then the Joker but they definately weren't as memorable to the average fan. Hopefully B3 gets us back on track.

 

[Kane52630]

for me Batman Begins and TDK are completely different films
the style, story, and picture
i cant say that i like one or the other more but what i can say is they both are always great to watch

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that TDK is by far the better film because I very much disliked Batman
Begins 3rd act and Kaite Holmes acting was a disaster. However I do agree with the assessment that Batman got lost in his own film. I know the Joker is a powerful character but Batman should never get lost in his own film. It seems that the filmmakers have not found a way to make Batman and the Joker feel equally important when they are together in a film.

Though I do have to admit that I haven't been as happy with Bale's performances in these movies as everyone else... as a matter of fact I've been disappointed. He was so overpowered in the TDK that I found myself wishing that a more interesting actor was playing the title role.

The two weak links in the cast were Maggie G and Bale. I think that with a better written character Maggie would have did a very good job. Also I can't leave out the fact that Bale too was let down down by the script but that doesn't change my slight detachement with him in Batman Begins because there was plenty of Batman there.

I like Bale but he isn't even near my ideal Batman.

 

[dude stannis]

I prefer BB to TDK. It was more visually interesting, the Begins suit was better, the Tumbler is cooler than the Batpod, Ducard is a complex and sympathetic villain who arguably has noble motivations (Let's face it Joker was a bad guy. End of.), Bale had a presence here, there was a strong amount of action, even with the Microwave Emitter the story throughout the film was believable and quite plot hole free, Gotham had a unique look to it and wasn't just Chicago, Rachel was less annoying and all the characters where well used and not wasted.

IMO of course.

 

[The Joker]

I love Batman Begins, but TDK is the better movie overall, IMO.

However I do agree with a couple of points the thread starter made. Batman was not as prominent in TDK as he was in Begins. Harvey Dent and the Joker were bigger presences than Batman himself. But his scenes when dealing with these characters were excellent.

I also missed the Narrows. I think Nolan's Gotham looks too clean overall. The Narrows felt very Gotham City like. It was dark, gritty, dirty, grungy. I loved it.

 

[Travesty]

I have a lot of complaints about TDK, and I'll try my best to not be rude about anything.

-Batman: Sure, he was there, but it didn't feel like Batman to me. There was little to nothing iconic about his entire presentation throughout the entire film. He would just walk around in well lit areas, exposing himself for anybody to see(and no, I'm not talking about his junk). Where did all of his Ninja training go? He rarely used any iconic gadgets that most people associate themselves to Batman with. I didn't like how he was all buddy-buddy with the entire police force, and didn't really have to sneak around to visit Gordon. He basically had a badge, and the cops let him do as he pleased, and that annoyed the hell out of me. I also hated the look of the new suit, and never liked it from day-one.

-Gotham: I despised TDK version of Gotham City, but loved Begins. It didn't even feel like the same city, and was to brightly lit and clean for Gotham. The lack of the Bat-Cave/Manor, and Arkham was just icing on the cake to an already disastrous version of Gotham. I didn't feel any despair, or need for a Bat-Man, when the city looks clean, thriving, and moving in a great direction city-wise. The people of Gotham didn't show any kind hopelessness or a need for a helpful protector.

-The Joker: I liked the look of him, and I thought Heath did a great job that was asked about him, but it didn't feel like the classic Joker to me. People will argue with me that this version was centered around his first appearances, but then would argue against a Bat-Man that would kill people with guns(Batmans first few appearances). Nobody wants to see Batman kill anybody, cause that is how the character has been portrayed for years now, and would just be going backwards, so why is The Joker different? Where was his prank-gadgets, where were his slap-stick side? I HATED all of his ultimatums/death traps(Save either Rachel or Dent, Save the good people or the criminals, I'll burn my HALF and you get to keep yours, I'll blow up a building or take off your mask). All of his ultimatums were un-Joker like, and should have been given to Two-Face, seeing as how everything was a 50/50 chance.

-The acting: I HATED Bales Bat-voice. Sorry if you guys liked it, but I felt it worked beautifully in Begins, but was just a mess in TDK. Micheal J Whites performance as Gambol was laughable, and showed little to any enthusiasm/emotion devoted to his character. Some of you guys complain about Katie Holmes, but never mention Whites performance? HA! All of the SWAT actors I thought were horrible, and I also thought all of the actors on both Ferries did a horrible job. And not to disrespect Oldman's performance, but his accent was so apparent on the rooftop scene, that I was amazed they didn't do a voice-over for it.

-The pacing of the movie: I hated the pacing of the movie, and I feel it left out any time to setup any emotion or Iconic shots. It was just next scene, next scene, next scene, next scene, until the credits rolled. There was wayyy to much going on in the story, for what time was allotted for the movie. TDK should have been split up into 2 different films, and had more emphasis on certain villains per Flick(ie. Joker in one and Two-Face in the other). There was no time to let any kind of emotion in, when it was like, "Bruce is sad over Rachel, next scene, Harvey is scarred, next scene, Joker has pile of cash, next scene, Gordon is getting ready to apprehend Joker, next scene, Joker burns cash, next scene, people evacuate Hospital, next scene, Jokers in hospital, next scene, etc etc". Sure, the story was pretty good, but whats the use of a good story, when its all over the place? Its like listening to a "Valley Girl" tell you about her day, "oh my god, I met up with Stacy today at the Mall, and oh my god, we went shopping, and oh my god, some guy was staring at us, and oh my god, this dress was so cute, oh my god, but the guy looking at us was busted, and oh my god, the dress was 50% off, and oh my god, there was a sale on some cute shoes, and oh my god, I saw someone who looked JUST like your brother, oh my god, but the shoes were amazing, though". Its just a jumbled mess, and highly annoying

I have more problems with it then just that, but those are the ones that stick out to me, and make me think Begins is far superior to TDK as far as Batman movies go. Now, let me say this: TDK is a good movie, but it falls short on what makes a good Batman movie, and thats important when he is the main protagonist of the movie. To me, TDK felt like 50% Bourne Identity, 48% James Bond, and 2% Batman, which equals TDK. I felt like a warning should have been at the beginning like in Dragnet, "The Story you're about to see is real, but the names have been changed to Batman character to protect the innocent"t:

Oh, I forgot to add "IMO" at the end of my rant.

 

[Wedge A.]

I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that The Dark Knight is very much a Batman movie. Everything that occurs, including new characters such as Joker and the rise of Dent, are repercussions of Batman's arrival. It's still very much his story, and it has a lot more to offer than Begins did in terms of story, acting, themes, etc. Love them both, though.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Two of the reasons I like Begins so much, is its themes and its feel.

The themes are paramount in that film. Fear, getting up after you've fallen down(or in this case been beaten). They are there very much in a way to show us that Bruce is learning. He's working. Which is why, by the time you get to the Dark Knight, I somewhat expected him to be a bit more knowledgeable. I wanted to see him making decisions like the Batman we see in the comics does. I wanted to see him look at a situation, analyze it, and know exactly what to do. Too much of the Dark Knight I see him just... letting things happen. Just kind of standing there awestruck and having no real clue. If we were going to see a Batman who is less experienced, than he should have had some development in the film, showing him getting more knowledgeable, more tactical. The only piece of that I saw was, as metalhead dave pointed out, he got a little smarter by the end with the Joker's habits. While I still don't think that initial mistake would be one that Batman would make, even a young Batman (c'mon, Joker's a criminal. Clark Kent might take their word for it, but Batman?)

The feel of Begins is always present. You're enveloped in this world, you're with Bruce as he's climbing through the snow to the League of Shadow's headquarters, you're with him in that alley when his parents are shot etc etc. I never felt detached from Batman Begins, where I was outside the film looking in. I was always inside it, I was experiencing it. There was none of that with the Dark Knight. Not once. I was always outside, watching it through a screen. I just couldn't get the same experience from the film.

 

[El Payaso]

For me it's very easy to compare both movies. They have the same ingredients about the story, actors, screenplay, etc.

And in every single case, TDK is much better.

Yes, the TDK new bat-cowl sucks and Bale's bat-voice in TDK is terrible. But everyhting else is just miles better than anything in BB.

BB's action sequences were crap. Many dialogues are horrible, repetitive, over-explainative. The one-liners are not only unfunny and bad but scene-ruiners. Scarecrow was for me horribly portrayed by Murphy and his last scene was pathetic. Katie Holmes was a movie ruiner in terms of acting.

BB was a good promise that only got fulfilled in TDK.

Sure, it's great to have a Batman-centered movie, but that mere fact doesn't make a movie better, or even good.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

It seems that the filmmakers have not found a way to make Batman and the Joker feel equally important when they are together in a film.

The DCAU!!

The Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill Batman/Joker... have always been able too find that balance.

Nolan could have done it too... but he let his Batman character slip in this a bit.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

For me it's very easy to compare both movies. They have the same ingredients about the story, actors, screenplay, etc.

And in every single case, TDK is much better.

Yes, the TDK new bat-cowl sucks and Bale's bat-voice in TDK is terrible. But everyhting else is just miles better than anything in BB.
BB's action sequences were crap. Many dialogues are horrible, repetitive, over-explainative. The one-liners are not only unfunny and bad but scene-ruiners. Scarecrow was for me horribly portrayed by Murphy and his last scene was pathetic. Katie Holmes was a movie ruiner in terms of acting.

BB was a good promise that only got fulfilled in TDK.

Sure, it's great to have a Batman-centered movie, but that mere fact doesn't make a movie better, or even good.

Overall I share your complaints about BB and thats why, although I liked it, it just isn't as good as TDK to me. Good post. We agree on very little but I think that we pretty much had the same complaints about BB.

*wipes tear away* I felt like I was the only one on these boards who hated Murphy's out of place performance.

The DCAU!!

The Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill Batman/Joker... have always been able too find that balance.

Nolan could have done it too... but he let his Batman character slip in this a bit.

The animated series did do excellent job balancing the characters. And I'm pushing it farther and saying that he did a terrible job of balancing the characters. The movie is still great mind you but I seriously hope he fixes that in the next film because if he does I will probably be raving about it just as much as people rave about TDK.

 

[Dark Guardian]

For me it's very easy to compare both movies. They have the same ingredients about the story, actors, screenplay, etc.

And in every single case, TDK is much better.

Yes, the TDK new bat-cowl sucks and Bale's bat-voice in TDK is terrible. But everyhting else is just miles better than anything in BB.

BB's action sequences were crap. Many dialogues are horrible, repetitive, over-explainative. The one-liners are not only unfunny and bad but scene-ruiners. Scarecrow was for me horribly portrayed by Murphy and his last scene was pathetic. Katie Holmes was a movie ruiner in terms of acting.

BB was a good promise that only got fulfilled in TDK.

Sure, it's great to have a Batman-centered movie, but that mere fact doesn't make a movie better, or even good.

The two main problems everyone else seems to have with Begins that are constantly touted are the action scenes and the fact that Katie Holmes was Rachel Dawes.
Neither of which have I seen to be a problem. Whenever anyone brings up those two, I re-watch the film and honestly try to see fault with the either one... and come up with nothing. I found Katie Holmes' acting to be... on par. It wasn't spectacular but I really didn't see any problem with it, and the action sequences were great as far as I'm concerned... I particularly enjoyed the first scene we see Batman fighting in, where you just catch little glimpses of him. Many people hated it, I loved it. It showed the swiftness and effectiveness of Batman, almost making you watch it as though you were a thug he was beating down. You don't have a chance to get a full glimpse of him before you're on the ground.

As for the dialogue and Cillian Murphy's performance, I find that even harder to understand. The dialogue flowed naturally and I find myself quoting and remembering it much more often than anything out of The Dark Knight (except perhaps Fox's monologue to Mr. Reese after Reese finds the batmobile blueprints, that I will admit sticks in my head far more often). I found no problem with it whatsoever.

As for Cillian Murphy, I was thrilled by his performance as The Scarecrow. He really played the quintessential, I-Can't-Be-Strong-But-I-Can-Still-Beat-You-By-Using-Whats-In-My-Head type of villain. Ordinarily very weak, but utilizing his fear toxin, extremely strong. I loved it, and wished very much that he'd had a bigger part in TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

The two main problems everyone else seems to have with Begins that are constantly touted are the action scenes and the fact that Katie Holmes was Rachel Dawes.
Neither of which have I seen to be a problem. Whenever anyone brings up those two, I re-watch the film and honestly try to see fault with the either one... and come up with nothing. I found Katie Holmes' acting to be... on par. It wasn't spectacular but I really didn't see any problem with it,

On par with what? Not the rest of the cast certainly (with the exception of Murphy).

But for sure Bale, Freeman, Neeson, Caine and Oldman were far superior than she was. She couldn't shake the whole Dawson's Creek vibe off. And that was even more painful when she was supposed to act mature enough to give the future Batman crucial advice about his vision on justice and revenge.

and the action sequences were great as far as I'm concerned...

It is beyond your concern that there seems to be problems. The shaking camera became tiring very soon and by the final fight the action was a tiresome experience, not an exciting one.

When you can't see the fight in a fight scene there are something wrong going on.

I particularly enjoyed the first scene we see Batman fighting in, where you just catch little glimpses of him. Many people hated it, I loved it. It showed the swiftness and effectiveness of Batman, almost making you watch it as though you were a thug he was beating down. You don't have a chance to get a full glimpse of him before you're on the ground.

The first fight scene was brilliant. It showed the point of view of criminals. The way they see and experience Batman.

But once we got it, that's it. The surprise is over for us (not for the criminals though but that's another story; whereas they will have the same first experience with Batman, we already know it and therefore we can move on). We know now how Batman's perceived and will be perceived by other criminals in the movie. Going back to the same formula after that is as redundant as Goyer's dialogues. Nolan got it and improved it for TDK.

Not to mention that the same filming/editing style was used when Bruce fought those prisoners at the beginning and when Batman fought Ra's at the end. And Bruce at the beginning fo the film wasn't trained yet to be "invisible" for criminals. And Ra's al Ghul is as trained as Batman, so it doesn't apply at that fight either. So the whole fight scenes style was just a way to do it. In the end I felt it to be an easy way to avoid having a good and prepared fight sequence.

We had to wait a long time watching Batman training to fight 600 men with some ancient ninja traditions and when he's in full costume we get nothing.

As for the dialogue and Cillian Murphy's performance, I find that even harder to understand. The dialogue flowed naturally and I find myself quoting and remembering it much more often than anything out of The Dark Knight (except perhaps Fox's monologue to Mr. Reese after Reese finds the batmobile blueprints, that I will admit sticks in my head far more often). I found no problem with it whatsoever.

Most of the dialogues were repetitive and redunadant. The amount of repetitiveness is anything but natural. Fear, fear, fear. Legend. Back up. Back up. We spend one hour learning that Bruce is afraid of bats and that hje wants to use that fear against criminals. And then Goyer gives us the scene with Alfred and Bruce:

Alfred: Why bats, Master Wayne?
Bruce: Bats frighten me. It's time my enemies shared my dread.

Yes, we didn't get that during the first 60 minutes. After the whole initial sequence, after 50 times repeating the word "fear," after the bats in the opera scene, after the Bruce's bats hallucination after inhaling the blue flower smoke, after the bats surrounding Bruce scene, after knowing he's making a bat-suit to scare criminals, we still don't get he's afraid of bats and he wants to use that so Goyer needed to include that informative scene.

Another awfully written scene was the monorail one, with little Bruce and his father. We're told that little Bruce and his dad are extremely close. Dad can't give his wife a present without consulting little Bruce about it first, and yet in the next scene bruce asks "Did you build this train dad?" Excuse me? A train like that takes like 4 to 5 years to be built and it looks like Thomas never ever mentioned at home he was building that train, so Bruce had to ask because apparently he wasn't sure. Then dad explains the train leads to Wayne Tower (which he pioints with his finger because apparently Bruce doesn't even know where it is) and Bruce asks "Is that where you work?" Excuse me again??? Little Bruce, the one who's consulted about the presents his father wants to give to his wife, doesn't even know where his father works? Dad never got him to his work place? It surely looks that that monorail trip was the first time the Waynes took Bruce out of the house. But even that is not convincing since they seems to go out to the opera too.

Awful dialogues. Much of the rest is good, but at many points in the movie it gets really wrong.

Then we have the one-liners. Only Goyer could think it was a great idea to follow the iconic first Batman apparition with the "I'm Batman" line by a cheap one-liner (Nice coat). Yes, it was a great moment to show us that Batman can throw a joke too. Scene-ruiner.

Now, we all know Luicius Fox ended up knowing Bruce's identity. But when Bruce and Fox tested the Tumbler it was supposed to be a secret. But Bruce had no problem throwing another cool joke: "Does it come in black?" (so, you know if you watch this very car but in black, you know it's me, wink wink). Yes, great way to hide your identity. Had it been at least a good joke, it could have worth it.

Awful one-liners.

And with all due respect the "Huh? there must be something in my coffee" gag can't be used again pretending it's going to work (the toll booth guy after watching the Tumbler). It simply too old.

As for Cillian Murphy, I was thrilled by his performance as The Scarecrow. He really played the quintessential, I-Can't-Be-Strong-But-I-Can-Still-Beat-You-By-Using-Whats-In-My-Head type of villain. Ordinarily very weak, but utilizing his fear toxin, extremely strong. I loved it, and wished very much that he'd had a bigger part in TDK.

I was hoping a bigger part in TDK too so the cringe-worthing last scene of him in BB could be erased.

Murphy really needed some acting notions. Being a scary character doesn't equal to drag syllables ("Theeee baaat maaan") or to act effeminate opening your eyes. In the end his character was so lame even the writer felt not even Batman eas needed to defeat him.

 

[El Payaso]

Overall I share your complaints about BB and thats why, although I liked it, it just isn't as good as TDK to me. Good post. We agree on very little but I think that we pretty much had the same complaints about BB.

Yes, but it's not that we disagree too much (just SR). It's just that you feel I only post to annoy people. And more sympathetic I couldn't be.

*wipes tear away* I felt like I was the only one on these boards who hated Murphy's out of place performance.

 

[Wedge A.]

Two of the reasons I like Begins so much, is its themes and its feel.

The themes are paramount in that film. Fear, getting up after you've fallen down(or in this case been beaten). They are there very much in a way to show us that Bruce is learning. He's working.

The feel of Begins is always present. You're enveloped in this world, you're with Bruce as he's climbing through the snow to the League of Shadow's headquarters, you're with him in that alley when his parents are shot etc etc. I never felt detached from Batman Begins, where I was outside the film looking in. I was always inside it, I was experiencing it. There was none of that with the Dark Knight. Not once. I was always outside, watching it through a screen. I just couldn't get the same experience from the film.

That's the thing with Begins, though. The only real theme it has is fear. And it pounds fear into the viewers head excessively, until it grows very tired. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, has themes of extremism, betrayal, liberalism vs. conservatism, and many more. Also, one of the more important themes: is it better to lie to the public for their own good and safety? Not only are there more themes to chew on, they leave you thinking. After seeing The Dark Knight, I was amazed at the questions it proposed. After seeing Batman Begins, I knew that one must conquer their fears. But, I also knew this beforehand.

Which is why, by the time you get to the Dark Knight, I somewhat expected him to be a bit more knowledgeable. I wanted to see him making decisions like the Batman we see in the comics does. I wanted to see him look at a situation, analyze it, and know exactly what to do. Too much of the Dark Knight I see him just... letting things happen. Just kind of standing there awestruck and having no real clue. If we were going to see a Batman who is less experienced, than he should have had some development in the film, showing him getting more knowledgeable, more tactical. The only piece of that I saw was, as metalhead dave pointed out, he got a little smarter by the end with the Joker's habits. While I still don't think that initial mistake would be one that Batman would make, even a young Batman (c'mon, Joker's a criminal. Clark Kent might take their word for it, but Batman?)

As I think we all know, Batman is still at an early point in his career. He's still learning, and when The Dark Knight begins, he is not prepared for the Joker at all. He starts off dismissing the Joker, then takes notice. He underestimates him, but way before the film's end, recognizes him as a true threat and brings him down. But other than that, he seems prepared for multiple events. Melvin White, The fingerprints off the bullet, etc. So, aside from not knowing how to handle the Joker (which is logical), I don't see how he just let things happen.

Batman does have incredible growth in this film. I thought him exploring when killing is necessary as development, as well as taking the blame for five deaths. He has matured greatly from a rumored hero of the city, to "a Dark Knight".

And I believe you're referring to Joker telling him the adresses, correct me if I'm wrong. If so, Batman is desparate at this point in the film. He's in love with Rachel, so any grain of salt Joker will throw his way, he's going to take it and run. As un-Batman this is, we have to remember this is his first time dealing with someone like this.

It should also be noted that Batman already finds what Joker is doing pretty atrocious. It probably doesn't cross his mind that there will be even more foulplay going on, as there already is a tremendous amount. He looks over this, and pays the price for it. However, he knows what do to by the film's end.

The point is, it's still the beginning of Batman. These two films, and presumably the third, are just showing us his road to becoming the Batman we all know and love. He'll make some faults on his way, sure, but that's what makes him a great character. If I want a flawless superhero, I'll watch Superman. I also won't be able to relate to the character at all.

 

[Dark Guardian]

On par with what? Not the rest of the cast certainly (with the exception of Murphy).

But for sure Bale, Freeman, Neeson, Caine and Oldman were far superior than she was. She couldn't shake the whole Dawson's Creek vibe off. And that was even more painful when she was supposed to act mature enough to give the future Batman crucial advice about his vision on justice and revenge.

Again, no matter how many people say that she acted poorly in that film, it doesn't change the fact that I can enjoy the film and honestly see no problem with her acting. I never saw Dawson's Creek, and I don't need to. She is playing Rachel Dawes and that is the character I'm going to evaluate her acting upon. Her acting was fine for the character and did not detract from the film. Obviously others have differing opinions on this.

It is beyond your concern that there seems to be problems. The shaking camera became tiring very soon and by the final fight the action was a tiresome experience, not an exciting one.

When you can't see the fight in a fight scene there are something wrong going on.



The first fight scene was brilliant. It showed the point of view of criminals. The way they see and experience Batman.

But once we got it, that's it. The surprise is over for us (not for the criminals though but that's another story; whereas they will have the same first experience with Batman, we already know it and therefore we can move on). We know now how Batman's perceived and will be perceived by other criminals in the movie. Going back to the same formula after that is as redundant as Goyer's dialogues. Nolan got it and improved it for TDK.

Not to mention that the same filming/editing style was used when Bruce fought those prisoners at the beginning and when Batman fought Ra's at the end. And Bruce at the beginning fo the film wasn't trained yet to be "invisible" for criminals. And Ra's al Ghul is as trained as Batman, so it doesn't apply at that fight either. So the whole fight scenes style was just a way to do it. In the end I felt it to be an easy way to avoid having a good and prepared fight sequence.

We had to wait a long time watching Batman training to fight 600 men with some ancient ninja traditions and when he's in full costume we get nothing.

The first (Batman) fight scene is radically different from all the other fight scenes in the film. That same editing style was not used ever again. This is rather obvious, considering in all the other fight scenes we get full shots of Batman, case in point the scene after Batman saves Rachel and the boy, jumps off the roof and confront's Ra's. He jumps on the first ninja and throughout that scene we get complete shots of him striking his opponents, as well as their retaliatory strikes. This seems to be the same editing style used in pretty much any action film these days during fight sequences... And I don't find any problem with it.

Most of the dialogues were repetitive and redunadant. The amount of repetitiveness is anything but natural. Fear, fear, fear. Legend. Back up. Back up. We spend one hour learning that Bruce is afraid of bats and that he wants to use that fear against criminals. And then Goyer gives us the scene with Alfred and Bruce:

Alfred: Why bats, Master Wayne?
Bruce: Bats frighten me. It's time my enemies shared my dread.

Yes, we didn't get that during the first 60 minutes. After the whole initial sequence, after 50 times repeating the word "fear," after the bats in the opera scene, after the Bruce's bats hallucination after inhaling the blue flower smoke, after the bats surrounding Bruce scene, after knowing he's making a bat-suit to scare criminals, we still don't get he's afraid of bats and he wants to use that so Goyer needed to include that informative scene.

Ok, first of all. Bruce never states that he want's to use that fear against his opponents. He's trying to muddle his way through exactly what to do against criminals. He knows after his training with Ra's that it has to be something to make them afraid first. Because he alone can't make them be afraid. Now I've got arachnophobia. Its understandable that Bruce hesitates a bit before using the very thing he fears every day against other people. I certainly wouldn't want to use my fear of spiders against others, because guess what, I'm afraid of them too!

Now I suppose some people might be upset by the fact that the film allows you to see the evolution of Bruce's ideas and his plans. How he goes from knowing he wants to fight criminals, to realizing that he can't do it just as he is, to putting on ninja armor, to realizing that he needs something more to really make it work and finally to realizing that the perfect weapon is exactly what makes, or at least at one time made him, afraid. And whether you like it or not, that scene with Alfred was rather necessary because unlike the moviegoing audience, poor Alfred is not a mind reader, and needs a little explanation. Guess what, he asks the question "Why Bats?" because he actually wants to know Why? He is probably thinking "Ok...this guy is scared by bats when he was a kid, I wanna know why he's now going to use them against other people." and in a deeper sense, he wants to know if Bruce is really thinking all of this through and making the right choices.

As for the supposed repetitivness of dialogue. I don't see much. Ducard says 'Legend' once, and only once. Yes, fear is prevalent in the film, people say it alot. But guess what, they aren't just saying it to say it. When Falcone says he has the power of fear, he means it. He's proving a point. Its worth the screentime to show that he's got enough power to kill Bruce in front of union officials, judges and police officers.
When Crane says it, guess what, he's the frikken Scarecrow. That's his business, fear.
When Ra's says it, oh wait... he's using a toxin that's going to induce fear. He uses other words as well, panic, horror, etc because he doesn't want to just say fear, but when a chemical induces fear in someone there really isn't much else you can use to describe it.

Another awfully written scene was the monorail one, with little Bruce and his father. We're told that little Bruce and his dad are extremely close. Dad can't give his wife a present without consulting little Bruce about it first, and yet in the next scene bruce asks "Did you build this train dad?" Excuse me? A train like that takes like 4 to 5 years to be built and it looks like Thomas never ever mentioned at home he was building that train, so Bruce had to ask because apparently he wasn't sure. Then dad explains the train leads to Wayne Tower (which he pioints with his finger because apparently Bruce doesn't even know where it is) and Bruce asks "Is that where you work?" Excuse me again??? Little Bruce, the one who's consulted about the presents his father wants to give to his wife, doesn't even know where his father works? Dad never got him to his work place? It surely looks that that monorail trip was the first time the Waynes took Bruce out of the house. But even that is not convincing since they seems to go out to the opera too.

Ok, here we are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Before it was dialogue that was meant to give the characters some information that they didn't already have. This scene is the opposite one, its to give us, the people who haven't watched little Bruce at home, possibly maybe hearing about the train, or possibly not, the information about a monorail in the center of Gotham. Because if they didn't have that scene, how are we ever going to know that the monorail was built by Wayne Enterprises, and that it runs through Wayne Tower. For that matter, if we didn't have that scene, it would mess up the subsequent scene with Fox when Bruce is questioning him about his time on the board. We would turn to each other and say "What? The monorail was his dad's idea? Where did that come from?" Again, a necessary piece of the plot and not in the least bit awkward. Bruce and his parents are going on their first trip on the monorail, there are bound to be questions from a little kid, just like when a kid first goes on an Airplane (how does the engine work? What are the wings for, etc)

Then we have the one-liners. Only Goyer could think it was a great idea to follow the iconic first Batman apparition with the "I'm Batman" line by a cheap one-liner (Nice coat). Yes, it was a great moment to show us that Batman can throw a joke too. Scene-ruiner.

Scene ruiner huh... I didn't mind it at all, thought it was just fine... but... ok.

Now, we all know Luicius Fox ended up knowing Bruce's identity. But when Bruce and Fox tested the Tumbler it was supposed to be a secret. But Bruce had no problem throwing another cool joke: "Does it come in black?" (so, you know if you watch this very car but in black, you know it's me, wink wink). Yes, great way to hide your identity. Had it been at least a good joke, it could have worth it.

Sorry to say it, but... it was actually a pretty good joke. Now obviously the question of what exactly makes up a good joke rears its ugly head, but I rather enjoyed it and as that is the purpose of the film...

And with all due respect the "Huh? there must be something in my coffee" gag can't be used again pretending it's going to work (the toll booth guy after watching the Tumbler). It simply too old.

Congratulations, this is the first statement I can completely agree with. I thought it was a bit out of place myself.

I was hoping a bigger part in TDK too so the cringe-worthing last scene of him in BB could be erased.

Murphy really needed some acting notions. Being a scary character doesn't equal to drag syllables ("Theeee baaat maaan") or to act effeminate opening your eyes. In the end his character was so lame even the writer felt not even Batman eas needed to defeat him.

And now we're back to the not-agreeing part. I really just have no idea how to address this.
Let me show you what I see.
Its the Scarecrow. No matter what you do with him in a film, he's always going to be a skinny guy with a gas that make people afraid. Period. Unless you completely mess with the source material, thats what you've got to work with. So when Cillian Murphy plays him just like that, a guy who's skinny and needs his gas to make people afraid of him, I think it worked out just fine. I don't see any of this 'effeminate opening of the eyes' or dragged out syllables. Instead I see... a good actor...playing the character of Scarecrow. And for the record I believe he was making a jest at the name "Bat-Man" thus why it may have seemed a little drawn out. C'mon now, remember that even though we're used to the name, criminals are still getting used to it.

 

[Batman137]

I think Begins Is the Best. It just has an amazing story, a story of Batman that has never been told before. And just more NERDGASIM moments (Bruce and the bats) .

 

[-Arya-]

I honostly liked Begins a little bit more. If it was July 08' I would say TDK since my inner fanboy ascended to the surface. Upon more viewings of TDK I noticed many problems that have already been mentioned.

Gotham City didnt look like the Gotham from Begins. The narrows and the gritty, filthy nature of it was gone. Gotham was too clean looking in TDK. Actually it looked more like Metropolis.

I felt Batman once again took a back seat in the film and allowed the villians to completely overshadow him. In Begins he was the main attraction and I was sad to see Batman once again become a "bystander."

Also, I really disliked how easily Bruce fell into the Joker's traps. Almost too easily imo.

Overall I felt a significant portion of the atmosphere that Begins assembled was missing, and TDK was more like watching HEAT with a guy in a bat suit and another guy dressed like a clown. Both mannerisms of their respected characters were there, however the atmosphere simply wasnt.

 

[El Payaso]

Again, no matter how many people say that she acted poorly in that film, it doesn't change the fact that I can enjoy the film and honestly see no problem with her acting. I never saw Dawson's Creek, and I don't need to. She is playing Rachel Dawes and that is the character I'm going to evaluate her acting upon. Her acting was fine for the character and did not detract from the film. Obviously others have differing opinions on this.

They even had no problem replacing her.

And no one missed her.

No worries about not having seen Dawson’s Creek. She did the same old thing in BB. That’s her only range.

In any case, Maggie did better, so point for TDK.

The first (Batman) fight scene is radically different from all the other fight scenes in the film. That same editing style was not used ever again. This is rather obvious, considering in all the other fight scenes we get full shots of Batman, case in point the scene after Batman saves Rachel and the boy, jumps off the roof and confront's Ra's. He jumps on the first ninja and throughout that scene we get complete shots of him striking his opponents, as well as their retaliatory strikes.

If you iuse the frame-by-frame button, you might spot those differences. In any case, if there were differences on style, they were not radical. The same “what the hell is going on, can’t see it” thing was all over.

The big difference between the first fight scene and the rest is that the first one actually worked and built some excitement.

This seems to be the same editing style used in pretty much any action film these days during fight sequences...

I know.

It was average.

Let alone it didn’t show action in an action movie.

But then again, in most average action movies you can still see the action.

And I don't find any problem with it.

Average you wanted, average you got. Now, I still can’t see how you not having a problem with BB’s flaws is of any help.

Ok, first of all. Bruce never states that he want's to use that fear against his opponents. He's trying to muddle his way through exactly what to do against criminals.

Weird. The movie is insistent and clear that Bruce finds pout that fear is the key. By the time he decides to be Batman, no verbal statement is needed since practically every scene in the movie (for like an hour now) has stated that powerfully.

He knows after his training with Ra's that it has to be something to make them afraid first. Because he alone can't make them be afraid.

See how the movie states that clearly?

Now I've got arachnophobia. Its understandable that Bruce hesitates a bit before using the very thing he fears every day against other people. I certainly wouldn't want to use my fear of spiders against others, because guess what, I'm afraid of them too!

Exactly.

Now I have to ask, what does any of that has to do with the dialogues being over-informative and repetitive

Now I suppose some people might be upset by the fact that the film allows you to see the evolution of Bruce's ideas and his plans. How he goes from knowing he wants to fight criminals, to realizing that he can't do it just as he is, to putting on ninja armor, to realizing that he needs something more to really make it work and finally to realizing that the perfect weapon is exactly what makes, or at least at one time made him, afraid.

I guess some people might be upset at that.

But not me certainly. As I have never said such thing, have I?

What I said is that even when the movie insists in showing the story clearly step-by-step, Goyer feels like he has to verbalize multiple times what has been so obviously stated by the images. And that’s bad writing, or even worse, amateur writing. Any writer with some experience knows that he shouldn’t repeat what’s already said (even when it has been non verbally stated).

And whether you like it or not, that scene with Alfred was rather necessary because unlike the moviegoing audience, poor Alfred is not a mind reader, and needs a little explanation.

Sure, Alfred hasn’t had one hour of explanation as to why bats.

But we had. And the movie is directed to us, not to him.

I bet if that Bruce puts on the costume and keeps bringing armored cars and weird weapons, we would be certain that Alfred knows the details. When and where is absolutely irrelevant. Unless Goyer had second intentions with that scene. But it’s not the case. The scene merely states verbally what has been fully explained already. Nothing else happens.

To use an hour to explain the reason for the bats and then have a scene explaining the same thing verbally is redundant. And unnecessarily so.

It looks like it was done with for fan-gasms purposes only.

Guess what, he asks the question "Why Bats?" because he actually wants to know Why? He is probably thinking "Ok...this guy is scared by bats when he was a kid, I wanna know why he's now going to use them against other people." and in a deeper sense, he wants to know if Bruce is really thinking all of this through and making the right choices.

There’s nothing in the scene about inquiring on the right choice or the good thinking of Bruce.

I wish Bruce gave extra information you couldn’t get from other scenes. That’d have enrichened the scene a little. But no, it says what has already said multiple times through the first part of the movie.

As for the supposed repetitivness of dialogue. I don't see much. Ducard says 'Legend' once, and only once. Yes, fear is prevalent in the film, people say it alot. But guess what, they aren't just saying it to say it. When Falcone says he has the power of fear, he means it. He's proving a point. Its worth the screentime to show that he's got enough power to kill Bruce in front of union officials, judges and police officers.

Oh, sure. The actors made wonders with some of Goyer’s poor dialogue. Even with the stinky one-liners. But the word fear is repeated too much for no other reason that to state the obvious once again.

Any of those dialogues could have been equally meaningful without that word. Specially when every scene in the movie has been about fear.

Again, saying verbally what has been said cinematically.

When Crane says it, guess what, he's the frikken Scarecrow. That's his business, fear.

So?

Does he have to state he wears a mask because he’s wearing it? Or that his suit is brown because his suit is brown?

When Ra's says it, oh wait... he's using a toxin that's going to induce fear. He uses other words as well, panic, horror, etc because he doesn't want to just say fear, but when a chemical induces fear in someone there really isn't much else you can use to describe it.

As a filmmaker, yes, you have lots of ways, other than words, to describe it.

And Ra’s used the word “fear” a lot not because he was refering to the toxin. He said it to boredom before we even know about the toxin. Just while talking to Bruce at the beginning.

Ok, here we are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Before it was dialogue that was meant to give the characters some information that they didn't already have. This scene is the opposite one, its to give us, the people who haven't watched little Bruce at home, possibly maybe hearing about the train, or possibly not, the information about a monorail in the center of Gotham. Because if they didn't have that scene, how are we ever going to know that the monorail was built by Wayne Enterprises, and that it runs through Wayne Tower. For that matter, if we didn't have that scene, it would mess up the subsequent scene with Fox when Bruce is questioning him about his time on the board. We would turn to each other and say "What? The monorail was his dad's idea? Where did that come from?" Again, a necessary piece of the plot and not in the least bit awkward. Bruce and his parents are going on their first trip on the monorail, there are bound to be questions from a little kid, just like when a kid first goes on an Airplane (how does the engine work? What are the wings for, etc)

Yes. I agree, the information was necessary. That’s not the problem.

The way the info is given, that’s the problem. For any writer.

But you cannot make up any scene with characters giving information just like that. Specially if it contradicts what has been shown before. Or if it’s plain incoherent.

In NO way Bruce could have ignored his father was building that monorail.
In NO way Thomas would have kept that a secret, specially from his son.
In NO way Bruce could have ignored where the Wayne Tower is.
In NO way Thomas would not have take Bruce to Wayne Tower.
In NO way Bruce could ignore where his father actually works.
In NO way Thomas could have not informed Bruce where he works.

There’s simply no way that scene was convincing.

It is simply bad writing because Goyer couldn’t even think a decent excuse to give the necessary information.

We could have a scene with Bruce going to the Wayne Tower as an adult after his “tarining.” Alfred goes, “you know why did your father build the monorail, master Bruce?” Bruce, “He told me to get faster to work” and smiles. “No,” says Alfred, “He thought Gotham had given him too much and felt the urge to give a little back.”

See? No need for incoherence.

Scene ruiner huh... I didn't mind it at all, thought it was just fine... but... ok.

There was no need at all – from any point of view - of trying to be funny at that moment. Not even if they had a good joke instead of the “nice coat” (if that could be considered an actual joke).

Sorry to say it, but... it was actually a pretty good joke. Now obviously the question of what exactly makes up a good joke rears its ugly head, but I rather enjoyed it and as that is the purpose of the film...

The purpose of any film is to entertain.

That doesn’t mean it will make it happen.

I can get the purpose of the joke. Doesn’t make it any funnier though.

Congratulations, this is the first statement I can completely agree with. I thought it was a bit out of place myself.

And now we're back to the not-agreeing part. I really just have no idea how to address this.
Let me show you what I see.
Its the Scarecrow. No matter what you do with him in a film, he's always going to be a skinny guy with a gas that make people afraid. Period. Unless you completely mess with the source material, thats what you've got to work with. So when Cillian Murphy plays him just like that, a guy who's skinny and needs his gas to make people afraid of him, I think it worked out just fine. I don't see any of this 'effeminate opening of the eyes' or dragged out syllables. Instead I see... a good actor...playing the character of Scarecrow. And for the record I believe he was making a jest at the name "Bat-Man" thus why it may have seemed a little drawn out. C'mon now, remember that even though we're used to the name, criminals are still getting used to it.

The Baaaaat-maaan thing was just an example.

Scarecrow has traditionally been an ugly guy with a lot of resentment. In comics he has fought with Batman. I mean, physically.

Murphy was just an effeminate pretty face (with a weird hatred for women).

 

[mclay18]

In some ways I do. The cinematography, for one, and the fact that BB felt like an actual Batman movie. (The story in TDK and acting are much better here than in BB, for one.)

In terms of the cinematography and production design, I felt TDK was much too different than BB and that it was taking place in a different city other than Gotham. Understandably that's due to story and the crew wanting to keep "their images clean," but I felt that I really couldn't connect the two, visually. (And I wasn't fond of some of the hand-held work, like the Joker's scene with the pile of money.)

And the lack of Batman-ish traits in TDK. I feel that TDK is both not a Batman film but is one, regardless. In story and characters, yes but the feel of it -- no. I think for a third film it'd be nice to see a mix of the styles from BB and TDK rather than something different from the other two.