Jump to content

Batman Begins

Alexander
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alexander Newbie

Alexander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just show me the bad guys and kick their ass.  That's what we all want to see.  50 year old nerd males clutching comic books care about your silly backstories...the rest of us just want to see Batman punch a guy.

Gotta say, that's the kind of attitude that gave us the last couple of (horrible) Batman flicks... :w;)

Yeah, but isn't that what comic book charactors should be doing? Kicking interesting criminals asses. I see nothing wrong with that. This one does the same thing, except it's buried in bat-istory. I'm not sure what makes this Batman a good one and the others bad. The special effects are better and you have some good supporting actors true. But I thought the story itself was pretty lame although well executed. Actually though the Batman with Michael Keaton was the best one.

But the ass-kicking, however much fun it may be, should be in the service of a good movie. The Burton-Keaton film is not without merit, but as a Batman film it left much to be desired. I guess what it comes down to is this: Whenever a movie that's based on a book or a comic book sees fit to deviate from its source material, I always wonder, "Why did they want to make this movie at all?" If Warner Brothers liked the idea of a superhero battling the guy who killed his parents, why didn't they create a NEW superhero and a NEW bad guy and leave the Batman the hell alone?

sheldonm Newbie

sheldonm

Posted
Posted

I mentioned this on the other board, and I hate being a buzzkill, but the filmmakers did WAY TOO LITTLE to make the setting of the film look like Gotham City. This movie, folks, is a Batman movie that takes place in Chicago, except with three "L" train tracks instead of just one, and a small ghetto CGI-ed into where Navy Pier would be. This was IMO the only real fault of the film, but its a BIG one when the viewer doesn't feel like they are in Gotham City. I envy those of you who didn't notice this, but when you live in a place all your life, its hard to not notice. The Sears Tower and the cars with Illinois license plates didn't help much either.

[/quo

:beee: ....buzz killer!!!

jazzbo Grand Master

jazzbo

Posted
Posted

Mike, yeah I think the youngest comic book readers really want to see the cool costumed heroes kick superbaddie butt.

Then they get a little older, and they want to see that, and they want to see some continuity from month to month and some character consistency. And some well drawn women.

Then they get even older and they want to see that, and some character development because heck they're getting older and they want substance, something solid in their reading. AND the well drawn women, for sure.

Then they get even older and they flip through the book quickly at first looking for the well drawn women and then settle down to read the charcter development, history and think about what motivates the hero and why he doesn't get to date as many well drawn women as one might think a hero would.

So. . . see there's a distinct need for character history and development in the movies. The fans need to see it.

Soul Stream Newbie

Soul Stream

Posted
Posted (edited)

To me, and I dare say 99% of America for which these movies are made, Batman was a T.V. show based on a comic book nobody ever REALLY read. So to us, that means all you have to do to make an authentic Batman movie is put a guy in a Batman suit, drive some sort of Batcar, have a Batcave, Alfred and another persona called Bruce Wayne...and defeat some silly criminal trying to do in Gothan City. By that criteria ALL the Batman movies fit the bill of a REAL Batman movie. For those few grown men who read comic books, I guess it won't do. :g (sorry, low blow but I had to do it!) :P

Edited by Soul Stream
jazzbo Grand Master

jazzbo

Posted
Posted

I think you're way overestimating; there are lots of moviegoers who have read the comic book as a kid. In fact of all the people I personally know who have gone to see the show, they read the comic books as kids and only vaguely remember the tv show. It isn't Adam West they are expecting to see!

RDK Newbie

RDK

Posted
Posted

I mentioned this on the other board, and I hate being a buzzkill, but the filmmakers did WAY TOO LITTLE to make the setting of the film look like Gotham City. This movie, folks, is a Batman movie that takes place in Chicago, except with three "L" train tracks instead of just one, and a small ghetto CGI-ed into where Navy Pier would be. This was IMO the only real fault of the film, but its a BIG one when the viewer doesn't feel like they are in Gotham City. I envy those of you who didn't notice this, but when you live in a place all your life, its hard to not notice. The Sears Tower and the cars with Illinois license plates didn't help much either.

[/quo

:beee: ....buzz killer!!!

Now I realize I'm not one of the most traveled guys around here, but just what is "Gotham City" supposed to look like anyway? I thought Chicago filled in quite nicely... :rolleyes:

Jad Newbie

Jad

Posted
Posted

My only gripe was with the fight scenes, esp in the temple at the beginning.Why the need to shoot it close up? Pull the camera back, let's see what's going on. It felt too claustrophobic.

Up til now, the Burton Batman was my personel fave, but thinking back on it now, the best thing about it was Jack Nicholson. I really didn't buy Keaton as the Batman, and he wasn't enough of a playboy as Bruce Wayne either.

Come to think of it, the best thing in ALL of Burton's films are the visuals. I've seen a lot of his films, and I'll be damned if I can remember what any of them are about.

Alexander Newbie

Alexander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Come to think of it, the best thing in ALL of Burton's films are the visuals.  I've seen a lot of his films, and I'll be damned if I can remember what any of them are about.

I'm sure that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will be exactly the same way...but I'm gonna go see it anyway! :g

Alexander Newbie

Alexander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

...hmmm...I feel like a guy who just walked into a Star Trek convention....guess I'll show my way out... :blush:

One excellent book on the subject of Batman, his history, and his place in popular culture is British professor Will Brooker's "Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon." In one of the later chapters, Brooker deals with the release of the Burton film and how the die-hard comics fans saw "their" character compromised in that film. Essentially, Brooker sees the world divided into two camps: Those who read the comic books, watch the movies, and generally care about the character and how he is portrayed, and those who vaguely remember the Adam West TV series as part of their childhood. The first four Batman films were aimed at the latter group, this most recent film was aimed at the former.

Alexander Newbie

Alexander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I guess I'll skip that book; anyone who thinks the first (Michael Keaton) Batman film was aimed at the television show crowd must be a few bricks shy of a full load.

Well, it certainly wasn't aimed at the comic book fans. Who do you think was the Burton film's target audience?

Kevin Bresnahan Mentor

Kevin Bresnahan

Posted
Posted

My only gripe was with the fight scenes, esp in the temple at the beginning.Why the need to shoot it close up?  Pull the camera back, let's see what's going on. It felt too claustrophobic.

How do you think I felt? I saw it at an IMax theater! The fight scenes made me nauseous. Really not well done at all and made worse when staring at a 45 foot tall screen. And another thing... Katie Holmes has crooked bottom teeth and her complextion isn't that good. I believe she had a cold during the filming of the movie, at least from what I could see up her left nostril. I believe I saw some spit on her lip... Gaaaaaahhh too close!!! Too close!!!!

All in all, I liked this movie more than any of the others. I do think it dragged a bit though. By the end of the movie, I was wishing there had been an intermission. make sure you visit the bathroom before going in to see this one. :)

Kevin

P.L.M Newbie

P.L.M

Posted
Posted (edited)

All in all, I liked this movie more than any of the others. I do think it dragged a bit though. By the end of the movie, I was wishing there had been an intermission. make sure you visit the bathroom before going in to see this one. :)

Kevin

IMO, I think it dragged a lot.

I find this BATMAN BEGINS completely ridiculous.

To treat this comic book character in a "realistic" way is comple non-sens.

Both TIM BURTON movies are (and stay) superior in every aspect, and particularly in the way it was directed, than this sinister prequel.

Edited by P.L.M
Jad Newbie

Jad

Posted
Posted

Come to think of it, the best thing in ALL of Burton's films are the visuals.  I've seen a lot of his films, and I'll be damned if I can remember what any of them are about.

I'm sure that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will be exactly the same way...but I'm gonna go see it anyway! :g

Yeah, I'll probably end up seeing it to. My son is almost done with the book, so we're both looking forward to it.

sal Newbie

sal

Posted
Posted (edited)

Now I realize I'm not one of the most traveled guys around here, but just what is "Gotham City" supposed to look like anyway? :rolleyes:

Edited by sal
RDK Newbie

RDK

Posted
Posted

If the only thing keeping you from enjoying a movie is the familiarity of its *fictitious* setting, then you're pretty damn lucky. I'm ususually more concerned about credible characterizations, engaging storylines, and competent cinematic execution...

sal Newbie

sal

Posted
Posted

Its difficult to explain, but the idea of Batman running around in your own backyard takes away from the feel of the film tremendously. Tim Burton had no problem in this dept. Otherwise, I thought Batman Begins was a pretty decent flick. It wasn't much fun, but I don't think that is what they were going for, especially after the travesty of Joel Schumaker's vision. As far as comic book movies go, its one of the standouts, but that's not really saying much.

chris olivarez Newbie

chris olivarez

Posted
Posted

I thought the movie was the best of the Batman flicks. I thought Michael Keaton did a good job in the first Batman flick and after that the performances just seemed to go steadily downhill. Christian Bale did a great job as Batman and I enjoyed his take on Bruce Wayne. I also enjoyed the performances of Michael Caine,Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman as well as that the dude who was the Scarecrow(he brought the requisite creepiness to the role)and Liam Neeson.

I didn't mind the portrayal of Gotham City. The perpetual darkness of the City in the other flicks became an increasing drag to me.

I felt that the writers failed Rutger Hauer and to a lesser extent Morgan Freeman and I really couldn't believe Katie Holmes as a DA but I also found myself saying-Who cares? The movie did start off slowly but I felt it was necessary to establish the Bruce Wayne/Batman character and once the movie started rolling the pace really picked up.

For two plus hours I was entertained. As I was exiting the theatre I heard someone remark "Never a dull moment!". I agree.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...