Batman Begins Why do people dislike the 3rd act so much?

[The Joker]

One of the common criticisms for Begins is that people found the 3rd act to be weak. What specifically did people dislike about it? Was it just the whole microwave emitter plot?

 

[Hound55]

Personally I thought the pacing of Batman Begins was better than that of The Dark Knight... so the third act isn't really a problem to me.

 

[Brother Jack]

I don't dislike it, I just think compared to the rest of the movie its too formulaic and typical of other superhero movies. There always has to be a deus ex machina plot device that the villain is using and that the hero must stop/destroy. Goyer does this in practically every movie he's ever written.

 

[El Payaso]

Basically at that point the fights became something truly nauseating for me. Yes, they still were as shaky and unfollowable as before but after two hours it was truly unbearable. Add to that a number of explosions (of the train) and it was a cheap fest of cheap action.

The fear gas induced hallucinations keep being inconsistent. At one pont you see bat-demons at some others you see merely blurry images. They never achieve to look like that nightmareous world depicted in many comics.

Then we have Scarecrow who after being introduced throughout more than half of the movie ends up beaten in a most disgraceful way that made me think if that was yet another stupid Goyer joke or what. This has no worthy explanation for me.

Add to that the unnecessary annoying kid that, even when fear-gassed, never sees Batman as a demon. He's only there to repeat lame sentences like 'he will come' and 'I knew he was coming.' Usually people like Spielberg take 2 hours of movie to depict such an annoying kid but Nolan and Goyer took a couple of short scenes. Terrible.

And of course Batman who spends the whole movie sanctifying human life just to come with a last minute semantic trick to get rid of his enemy.

Then we have a big load of final morals and hollow speeches from Rachel - THE character whom deep speeches shouldn't be given to - and some other characters - Ra's, and Batman giving one of the corniest ways of revealing your secret identity by repeating another hollow mini-speech (with that DOOOOOOOOOO thing he does). Rachel's final speech to Bruce was the worst; her bottomline (slowly revealed) is 'we can't be together' yet while her speech still seems to be a love declaration she even kisses him, just to give a step back when the speech starts pointing the other way. It's like a masterclass for bad acting.

When the magistral scene with Batman and Gordon on the rooftop comes it's too late to fix the third act.

 

[david icke]

I think the movie is strong and consistent all the way through, until they get to the final sequence with the micro-wave emitter being released.

I don't have a problem with the id reveal, I thought it was pretty good. Better than the one in SM2 and Batman89, and i would say that was because he chooses to do it here. The fact it was revealed against his wishes worked well in Suprman II because Lois had been trying to reveal it.
edit: As for the speech/resolution to that in the Manor rubble, eh, I don't particularly like it or dislike it, it's ok, but I agree that Holmes is not that great in it.

I did have a problem with the 'I don't have to save you,' thing at first, but now I look at it thus...if he had tried to save Ras, Ras would have seen it as a weakness and tried to kill Bruce, he would not have had his guard up if he had tried to save him ala Rachel in TDK. They were both warriors of equal stature caught in a situation Ras brought about, one of them brought some memroy cloth, one of them didn't, tough crap for the one who didn't, he had to fend for himself there.

My main problem with it is the fact there is all this action going on and it's just not very thrilling.
The Scarecrow is wasted, we could have had some great imagery with a fear gas Batman swooping down on fear gas Scarecrow.
Batman tied to an out of control train, should be thrilling, but it isn't, the fight with Ras is not that great a watch. All action but no thrills, or very little, that's why it's weaker than the rest of the movie, which was not all about action.

edit: and yeah, it does feel like just any other superhero film when it boils down to some big machine that is going to destroy the city, I agree that goes against it too, when we have had an interesting character study throughout the movie beforehand.
I would have maybe just made the resolution a more personal one between BM and Ras.

 

[The Joker]

Basically at that point the fights became something truly nauseating for me. Yes, they still were as shaky and unfollowable as before but after two hours it was truly unbearable. Add to that a number of explosions (of the train) and it was a cheap fest of cheap action.

The fear gas induced hallucinations keep being inconsistent. At one pont you see bat-demons at some others you see merely blurry images. They never achieve to look like that nightmareous world depicted in many comics.

Then we have Scarecrow who after being introduced throughout more than half of the movie ends up beaten in a most disgraceful way that made me think if that was yet another stupid Goyer joke or what. This has no worthy explanation for me.

Add to that the unnecessary annoying kid that, even when fear-gassed, never sees Batman as a demon. He's only there to repeat lame sentences like 'he will come' and 'I knew he was coming.' Usually people like Spielberg take 2 hours of movie to depict such an annoying kid but Nolan and Goyer took a couple of short scenes. Terrible.

And of course Batman who spends the whole movie sanctifying human life just to come with a last minute semantic trick to get rid of his enemy.

Then we have a big load of final morals and hollow speeches from Rachel - THE character whom deep speeches shouldn't be given to - and some other characters - Ra's, and Batman giving one of the corniest ways of revealing your secret identity by repeating another hollow mini-speech (with that DOOOOOOOOOO thing he does). Rachel's final speech to Bruce was the worst; her bottomline (slowly revealed) is 'we can't be together' yet while her speech still seems to be a love declaration she even kisses him, just to give a step back when the speech starts pointing the other way. It's like a masterclass for bad acting.

When the magistral scene with Batman and Gordon on the rooftop comes it's too late to fix the third act.

Nice explanations, guys, especially yours, Payaso

 

[Travesty]

The only thing I have a problem with, is the water-engineer guy, who keeps talking about how it's gonna blow every 2-3 seconds. Haha, that was a bit to much for me.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

I have no problems with it...

 

[El Payaso]

The only thing I have a problem with, is the water-engineer guy, who keeps talking about how it's gonna blow every 2-3 seconds. Haha, that was a bit to much for me.

I forgot that.

 

[Travesty]

I forgot that.

I wish I did.

 

[C. Lee]

As someone who worked in the municipal water business for over 20 years....I have to say the drug in the water plan would not have worked as they explained it....but it really didn't keep me from enjoying the movie.

 

[Doc Samson]

As Happy Jack pointed out, to me, it kind of played to regular Superhero movie cliche' conventions, where as the rest of the film didn't. It would be tantamount to having Spiderman pulling out a shotgun in the third act, it just kind of went against everything they had built up prior to that point.

Likewise, TDK's ending was alot more in tune with the vibe of the whole movie, which is really the only reason I consider it better. Playing devil's advocate, the ending in TDK was just as ludicrous IMO, but it stayed in step with the progressive buildup throughout the film, BB just seemed to veer back into any number of action movie climaxes, not to mention Spiderman 2 just had a train sequence

 

[returntovoid]

There's nothing I hate about Batman Begins, the only thing I hate is the Rachel Dawes character (though I can easily ignore this characters existence while watching the film) and I it was a bit longer, but wait a minute, that's more of a compliment than a complaint.

 

[david icke]

BB just seemed to veer back into any number of action movie climaxes, not to mention Spiderman 2 just had a train sequence

I heard/read somewhere that the original plan was to have Batman and Ras fighting on top of the train but they changed it to inside as it was too similar to SM2.

 

[The Joker]

I heard/read somewhere that the original plan was to have Batman and Ras fighting on top of the train but they changed it to inside as it was too similar to SM2.

With SM-2 having just come out the year before Begins, too, I think they made the right decision.

 

[Travesty]

Likewise, TDK's ending was alot more in tune with the vibe of the whole movie, which is really the only reason I consider it better. Playing devil's advocate, the ending in TDK was just as ludicrous IMO, but it stayed in step with the progressive buildup throughout the film, BB just seemed to veer back into any number of action movie climaxes, not to mention Spiderman 2 just had a train sequence

While I see with what you're saying about the "vibe" towards TDK, it still wasn't as "original" as most people keep saying, when in fact, it has just as much superhero cliches as other movies. Jokers ultimatum/deathtrap of Rachel and Harvey, was similar to what Riddler used on Batman, with Chase and Robin. Batman has a choice to save either/or, which, was also used in Spiderman. And then Joker's ferry deathtrap/ultimatum, was basically the same exact thing, except it included a group of people, instead of just certain individuals. Oh, how clever of you, Joker! You came up with almost the exact same scenario, but this time, it's a boat filled with gasoline, instead of a warehouse.

And I know this really isn't "cliche", but the way Two-Face died in TDK, was kinda similar to how he died in Forever. They both just fell to their death.

Now, like I said above, the vibe of TDK made it seem much differently, but really, it's almost the exact same situations. Just because one movie is a little more "serious" then the others, doesn't mean it's void of the same superhero cliches.

 

[The Joker]

While I see with what you're saying about the "vibe" towards TDK, it still wasn't as "original" as most people keep saying, when in fact, it has just as much superhero cliches as other movies. Jokers ultimatum/deathtrap of Rachel and Harvey, was similar to what Riddler used on Batman, with Chase and Robin. Batman has a choice to save either or, which, was also used in Spiderman.

Not really, since in Forever and Spider-Man, the hero had a fair chance to save both parties in both circumstances (and did). Whereas in TDK, Joker deliberately lied to Batman so he couldn't save Rachel.

 

[Travesty]

Not really, since in Forever and Spider-Man, the hero had a fair chance to save both parties in both circumstances (and did). Whereas in TDK, Joker deliberately lied to Batman so he couldn't save Rachel.

I have to disagree, as it was the entire reasoning, that those villains did it in those movies. Their plan, was to get them to go after one or the other, it's just in Forever and Spiderman, the villains didn't know of the hero's abilities. Riddler had no clue Batman had a prototype suit that can shoot out multiple lines, in order to save both. The concept around the deathtrap, was to go after one or the other. Just because Joker lied to Batman, as to who he was going after, isn't breaking the cliche, it's just adding onto it.

 

[The Joker]

I have to disagree, as it was the entire reasoning, that those villains did it in those movies. Their plan, was to get them to go after one or the other, it's just in Forever and Spiderman, the villains didn't know of the hero's abilities. Riddler had no clue Batman had a prototype suit that can shoot out multiple lines, in order to save both. The concept around the deathtrap, was to go after one or the other. Just because Joker lied to Batman, as to who he was going after, isn't breaking the cliche, it's just adding onto it.

That's exactly why it's different. Spider-Man and Forever had the villain dangling both parties in front of the hero and dropping them (The exact same scenario).

Joker was never giving Batman a choice to pick one or the other to save like Riddler and Green Goblin were in their scenarios. Nothing was inhibiting Batman from picking either Dick or Chase to save, likewise Spidey could have picked either MJ or the kids in the tram.

Batman never had the choice, and was never in the position to save both parties. Completely different scenario altogether.

 

[Travesty]

Joker was never giving Batman a choice to pick one or the other to save like Riddler and Green Goblin were in their scenarios.

Yes he did. The entire reason why Batman and Gordon were interrogating Joker, was to find out where Dent was. Then, Joker says, "you're going to have to play my little game, if you wanna save one of them". Just like when Riddler told Batman, "Just one little touch, and you're two friends are *gull feed* on the rocks below. Not enough time to save them both. Which will it be, Batman? Bruce's love or the Dark Knight's junior partner?". The Riddler and Joker clearly say that the lives of one of those individuals is going to die, and Batman has to choose which one he will save.

Batman never had the choice, and was never in the position to save both parties. Completely different scenario altogether.

That's not the point, as the main purpose around the deathtraps, is that he had to choose which one to save. That was the point! It's cliche, in that it's a similar trap/situation, which, is the very definition of the word. No, it's not the exact same "dangling from a rope" scenario, but it's a pick and choose situation. It still makes it cliche, as much as when you guys were complaining about Ra's using a microwave emitter. No other movie has used a microwave emitter, but you're saying it's cliche, cause it's a machine that the hero has to stop or destroy. The only thing that wasn't cliche about TDK-deathtrap, is that a girl died(thankfully), other then that, the deathtrap is still a tried and true formula, that is used in other movies. Just because the outcome is different, doesn't stop it from being a cliched device used in other superhero movies.

 

[The Joker]

Yes he did. The entire reason why Batman and Gordon were interrogating Joker, was to find out where Dent was. Then, Joker says, "you're going to have to play my little game, if you wanna save one of them".

And he was lying his ass off. He told Batman the wrong addresses for each person, so Batman never had the choice of who to save. Whoever he chose, he was not going to that person because Joker gave him the wrong address.

"I'm going to tell you where they are, both of them. And that's the point, you'll have to choose".

Batman chose Rachel, and who did he get? Harvey. He had NO choice in who to save. Joker lied to him. He never really gave Batman a choice at all. Spidey and Batman in Forever did have a choice.

That's not the point, as the main purpose around the deathtraps, is that he had to choose which one to save. That was the point! It's cliche, in that it's a similar trap/situation, which, is the very definition of the word. No, it's not the exact same "dangling from a rope" scenario, but it's a pick and choose situation. It still makes it cliche, as much as when you guys were complaining about Ra's using a microwave emitter. No other movie has used a microwave emitter, but you're saying it's cliche, cause it's a machine that the hero has to stop or destroy. The only thing that wasn't cliche about TDK-deathtrap, is that a girl died(thankfully), other then that, the deathtrap is still a tried and true formula, that is used in other movies. Just because the outcome is different, doesn't stop it from being a cliched device used in other superhero movies.

Well that's splitting hairs, mate. Ra's microwave emitter is just BB's version of Doc Ock's fusion machine, or Mr Freeze's giant freezing gun, or Riddler's brain draining device etc. It was the machine/weapon the villain uses to wreak chaos and destruction.

Same as with the multiple death traps scenario. How it was done is what makes it unique.

 

[Travesty]

Same as with the multiple death traps scenario. How it was done is what makes it unique.

Again, I disagree, as it's a pick and choose situation. See, I view this, as splitting hairs, as Riddler had a deathrap, Doc Ock had a death trap, and Joker had a death trap. They both had to pick who to go for, but the situation was to still save A or B.

The Saw movies use a pretty cliche formula, even though the scenarios aren't exactly alike. Same with the superhero-deathtraps we are talking about above.

But anyways, I can see you'll defend this to your death, so we can just agree to disagree, cause I still find it to be a pretty cliche formula.

 

[The Joker]

Again, I disagree, as it's a pick and choose situation. See, I view this, as splitting hairs, as Riddler had a deathrap, Doc Ock had a death trap, and Joker had a death trap. They both had to pick who to go for, but the situation was to still save A or B.

Actually it was Green Goblin, not Doc Ock who had the death trap

The Saw movies use a pretty cliche formula, even though the scenarios aren't exactly alike. Same with the superhero-deathtraps we are talking about above.

But anyways, I can see you'll defend this to your death, so we can just agree to disagree, cause I still find it to be a pretty cliche formula.

Hey, I'm not that stubborn

Yes, the multiple death trap thing as an umbrella heading is cliche, and you're right, Joker's antics in TDK would fall under that heading for sure. But I feel the execution of it was more unique.

Usually with these multiple death traps the hero saves everyone. And get a fair chance to do it, too. It was good to see Joker remove Batman's choice on who he could save, and see someone die in the process.

That's all I'm saying. You'd be hard pushed to find something in a superhero movie that is not some kind of cliche.

 

[Travesty]

But I feel the execution of it was more unique.

Usually with these multiple death traps the hero saves everyone. And get a fair chance to do it, too. It was good to see Joker remove Batman's choice on who he could save, and see someone die in the process.

Having Rachel die, was one of my favorite things about TDK. Not only because I'm not a fan of the character, but because I was truley surprised when I saw it in the theater.

That's all I'm saying. You'd be hard pushed to find something in a superhero movie that is not some kind of cliche.

Oh, I'm sure we can all agree with that.

 

[Doc Samson]

While I see with what you're saying about the "vibe" towards TDK, it still wasn't as "original" as most people keep saying, when in fact, it has just as much superhero cliches as other movies. Jokers ultimatum/deathtrap of Rachel and Harvey, was similar to what Riddler used on Batman, with Chase and Robin. Batman has a choice to save either/or, which, was also used in Spiderman. And then Joker's ferry deathtrap/ultimatum, was basically the same exact thing, except it included a group of people, instead of just certain individuals. Oh, how clever of you, Joker! You came up with almost the exact same scenario, but this time, it's a boat filled with gasoline, instead of a warehouse.

And I know this really isn't "cliche", but the way Two-Face died in TDK, was kinda similar to how he died in Forever. They both just fell to their death.

Now, like I said above, the vibe of TDK made it seem much differently, but really, it's almost the exact same situations. Just because one movie is a little more "serious" then the others, doesn't mean it's void of the same superhero cliches.

I think your missing the gist of my original post. When I say "vibe" I'm not just talking about the plot itself, but also the execution. All the cheese they pretty much avoided the entire movie came rearing it's head in that final climax.

"Can you drive stick?"

"He'y, nice ride!"

"It's gonna blow!!"

Gordon acting like a giddy school girl when he finally shoots the pillars on the bridge, just the whole sequence seemed like a whole different movie in comparison to what came before. TDK kept a steady tone throughout, while still having light moments here and there. Like I said in my first post, the ending in that wasn't any less ridiculous, it was just handled better IMO