*** Official BATMAN BEGINS Discussion Thread - Page 5

A few comments to add to this conversation:

- Chuck, "Now, we are two," is also my favorite line!

- I know this is Batman's first year and all...but, I have a minor complaint - WHERE IS THE DETECTIVE?! Lucius Fox figures everything out: the antidote, and then the plan to distribute the gas. I realize he has the information...but, I would have liked to see Batman piece it together.

- Rutger Hauer (I love him) could have been completely excised from the film. That whole storyline was unneeded.

- I am also excited to see the Joker coming. It WILL have to be a great script. But, also take into account that NO LIVING ACTOR will attempt ANYTHING remotely over-the-top or silly. No one wants to be compared to Nicholson, so whomever plays the role will play it dark, and quiet. He will be menacing and evil and quiet. And, I'll love it!

Doug, i absolutely understand.
some people Loathe Gene Hackmans Lex Luthor.
i saw it as a kid and i still love him in the role.
to me that will always be the ideal Luthor.
and i do understand peoples complaints that the tone of the film changes radically at that point.
for years i never really was conscious of it, but now i can see it, but i don't care. it was a film i bonded with in a simpler time and that i fondly look back on, and that trumps a lot of (legitimate) criticisms i could make now.

whenever i read someone praising the Burton film(s), i immediately think to myself 'they must have seen it as a kid', because i have a hard time believing that an adult, with a much larger frame of reference would have found the material satisfying on a dramatic/emotional level.
i was in my early 20s when it opened and, i am not exaggerating when i say it was one of the most anticipated films i ever saw.

upon leaving the theater after the midnight show my reaction was "well, i guess i liked it. i must have- everything i've been waiting all my life to see was there."

it wasn't until a second viewing several weeks later (i didn't even pay to see it, i snuck in after catching another film- the fact that i didn't feel a desire to see it again soon should have clued me in) that i realized the film, despite all the great stuff it apparently had, left me flat and disinterested.

if i had been 11 or 12, and had been inundated by all the ancilliary marketing (toys, collectors cups, notebooks, school binders, stickers, etc), and had never seen a comic book superhero realized on the screen before with such awesome technology and production value, i'm sure i would have a much more favorable inclination to it now.

and to be perfectly honest, i can actually feel my reaction to the Burton films, especially the first, changing as i type this.
for years now, i've resented them simply for the fact that so many fans have inexplicably held them up as a gold standard by which to bash the Schumacher ones.
B&R was complete and utter S#it, but i never understood why that made the Burton films the ideal to which all others to come should have aspired.
But now that i've finally got that ideal to look to with BB, i think i can just simply appreciate the Burton films for the good qualities they do possess, and not hate them for what they don't.

Not me.

I agree that for many people (including me), seeing the 1989 film is an experience that probably won't be beaten by another Batman film. More anticipation, more hype, more mystery. All fueled a unique theater experience. It also had been more than 20 years since the previous Batman on film (1966).

This time, there was only a gap of 8 years since the last film, and there had been 3 in less than 10 years previous to that.

And Burton's film has some production greatness to it: his Gotham certainly matched a lot of fans' ideas (limited set space notwithstanding). It took Batman fairly seriously, which was a first for many moviegoers.

But I think any comparisons of the films themselves (disregarding marketing and hype) will show that Batman Begins is a far superior film. The writing, acting, characterization are all better. The emotional investment in the main character is much more powerful. The classic question "Is the main character different at the end than from beginning?" is a resounding YES for BB, and a flat NO for the 1989 film.

As many (including myself) have remarked, we have a fondness for the 1989 Batman simply for the role it played in getting us to where we are with comic-to-film projects. But Burton did not ever really "get" Batman, and he essentially transformed a powerful, rage-filled icon into a brooding, neurotic freak. Nolan and Bale dared to make the film actually about BATMAN, not about the villains, and showed us that there's a richness to the character untouched by 8 hours+ of film done before.

How about a 2-year old? A mom with her two kids, around 2 and 6 were at the 7:30 screeing I was at last night. Of course they had to leave after the 2 year old kept walking around in the aisles singing and playing.

As for the Joker reference: if they make the Joker the main villain in the second movie, I think they should try and highlight the "Batman as detective" angle, and have him cooperate with Gordon in trying to catch the Joker. I don't want the Joker to be a crazed high-profile crime lord (like someone pointed out earlier, that would be hard to believe in the reality they created in this movie), but I don't want him to be a simple maniac either.
I'm thinking it would have to be something like in "Se7en", an insane killer with an agenda and a twisted purpose. In fact "Se7en" would have been the perfect Joker/Batman/Gordon movie blueprint if they wanted to make it more realistic. Something like that is what I hope they shoot for. Of course, the intensity and subject matter of the Joker movie I'd want is going to require an R-rating, which will never happen. But the PG-13 is being streched wider and wider these days, and with clever writing and filming they might be able to pull it off at that level too.

Which brings me to the reason for the majority of the complaints about this movie: the editing of the fight sequences. It was obvious to me that the editing was done to preserve the PG-13 rating (but I haven't seen anyone point that out, maybe I missed it). I didn't find the fights incomprehensible or badly staged, but they were edited to remove the emotional impact they would have had if we would have been allowed to see more of the action. I can live with that caveat, since the movie would not have gotten done if it had been R.

i keep forgetting about Se7en, but i've seen that suggested by other fans before as the perfect Joker template.
and i agree.

the problem is, what i am hearing is the studio wants a 'name' for the Joker, and if they get a name they are going to want to give that name screen time.
how much screen time did Spacey get in the first two acts of Se7en?
actually since the identity of the killer here is not the mystery, that last bit may be a moot point.
a creative, guresome murder spree, yes- that's definitely warrented.
i could see tweaking that formula a little by channeling a film like No Way To Treat A Lady, where you see the killer setting up his various 'marks' and then cutting away back to the detective as he arrives on the scene.

and that is also, coincidentally enough, the structure of the O'Neil/Adams story i referenced earlier (I believe its issue 251 of Batman- "the Jokers 5 way revenge").

i can see that working, but again, to be effective i would treat the Joker's screen time like seasoning or spice- a little is usually more effective than a lot.

Yeah, that's why I think a dark serial-killer movie would work with the Joker as the killer, it is not really a whodunnit in the true sense, but more of a "will they find him before he kills again" type of deal, mixed with some horror.


That makes, sense, it must have been used for the Joker before. But like Ebert says "a movie is not about what it is about, but how it is about it"

Of course, i realize that the usual "super hero movie" conventions must get their fair share of exposure in this movie too (big set pieces, chase scenes, some comic relief and so on), but I think the team behind BB is talented enough to come up with something that would work

www.boxofficemojo.com is reporting about 15 million for its opening day on Wednesday.

For a comparison of other Wednesday openings, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime...age=wed&p=.htm . BB ranks #11.

i think BB is going to underwhelm with its openings (first day, first weekend, etc) but i think (hope) that because of its high quality and almost overwhelmingly positive WOM, its going to keep chuggin along with less preciptious drops from week to week.

at least thats what i would like to see.
this is an intelligent movie crafted with care that respects adults. i want to see more genre movies like this, not less.

I completely agree. My biggest fear is that if it does underperform this weekend, people will be coming out saying that "dark" and "too serious" comic book movies don't work and class it with "Hulk". I definitely hope word of mouth spreads on this one and the franchise comes back in a big way. The last thing I want is the studio to make a "lighter" more "family friendly" sequel.

BATMAN BEGINS first day tally is $15,068,368. Not too bad for a mid-week gross. Word of mouth is definately good, so grosses will be good.

I was certainly at an impressionable age for Tim Burton's 1989 Batman. 1989 was my first year as a real movie fan, driven largely by the summer fare. Which was of course driven by the monolith that was Batman. And Tim Burton made a decent film. But I was struck more by the hype (that great poster) and promise than the actual film. What it did introduce me to was the comic Batman. I had been a Marvel boy from 1985 onward. The film tempted me to check out some Batman issues and graphic novels. While some of them went above my head (DKR) at the time, it started my love affair with the character, beyond the TV show and Superfriends.

In watching this film (or Returns) now, I am struck by what they actually are: a Tim Burton film. A fairy tale that has sort-of recognizables in it. An Elseworlds tale. But he never got Batman right. I reread DKR and Year One a few years later, when I had matured a bit in my tastes, and started to see them for what they were. Comics, thanks to Marvel and Marvel Lite (Image), were dropping into the shitter pretty quickly, and I recognized how brilliant Miller's take (and quite a few others, but mostly him) really was.

While the experience of the Batman film in 1989 can't be duplicated, the film itself is tangential to that experience. This new film is not.

Take care,
Chuck

I definitely want to see the classic villians, as I am sure most of the "general" populace does. And I see no reason why they can't crate stories that work for them in this world.

Seconded. The movie will make a profit, when you combine domestic box office, international box office, and video sales and rental.

I just hope it makes enough for WB to make the next picture even better, like Sony did for Spider-man. I also hope WB is NOT expecting Spider-man like numbers for this; Batman's appeal just isn't that wide, especially when it's more "grown up" version like BB.

the more i think about it, the more foolish i feel about not seeing how the Joker could work.
a serial killer story structure would definitely mandate detective skills,
and if the film focused on Bruce Wayne, Batman, and i would think, the (potential) victims all moreso than the Joker himself, and maybe with the Joker setting up death traps along the way for Batman to stumble into as he follows the clues, i can see how the character could work splendidly.

i feel like such a dunce for not realizing that earlier.

I'm not worried about the $15M. I do believe this film will have enough reasonable WOM to make a longer run than some. But summers are cruel. And WotW isn't far away. Again, if WB is expected Spidey numbers, they are crazy. but they saw the film. They know the reaction. Hulk had a much more mixed reaction, and it opened HUGE and died. I don't think BB will die. Besides, we'll see how the weekend works out. They are trying to overcome Batman and Robin, plus a fairly understated ad campaign.

I'd rather no sequel than one with no teeth. Why on earth would you put Bale in the background? Why would you repeat the mistakes of the last franchise so soon? I don't believe that, because the decisions so far have been sound from the group that makes them.

Besides, the alternative sucks, so I refuse to consider it

Take care,
Chuck

I agree that WB, with regards to BB, made extraordinarily wise decisions.

But it's money that makes the wheels go round. If BB fares poorly, and the feedback is that it's too dark and too serious, then we could easily see the sins of the past come to haunt us again.

Much as I would like to trust the WB suits, too much crap comes out of Hollywood every year for me to rest securely in their ability to either let the film sit alone or make a sequel worthy of it.

But let's focus on the now: we can justly celebrate a GREAT Batman film, we can heartily recommend it to friends, family, and online strangers, and we can go see it a few times in the theater.

i can drink to that

cheers!

I wonder if an adaptation of the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers arc (way back in the early 1980s, around Detective Comics #470-ish) featuring the Joker as the baddie, and also Silver St. Cloud as the love interest could be molded as part of the next Batman film. Also, that arc extended into the Hugo Strange storyline as well.

Lots of great comments in this thread. I'm seeing this again tomorrow, I can't wait.

Chuck, I agree that a loved one could have helped Ras escape from death. And Catherine Zeta-Jones would be perfect for the role.

"seeing the 1989 film is an experience that probably won't be beaten by another Batman film"

Not me. Even back then it was a disappointment. I had read the novel before but didnt feel Burton had captured it on film.

I kept thinking Burton got it wrong and "this isnt how Batman should be".

I cant wait to see BB again.

Just came back from a second viewing this afternoon....and it's even better than the first time.

I mean, there's just so much that's so damn right. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, this is the best film of this genre. I had a hard time thinking about it after my first viewing and thinking about all the films in this genre but after this afternoon, I have no problems making that statement.

I get the sense on this forum that people are worried about the reaction of WB. I can say after seeing it a second time, I'm scared beyong almost reason. This film as it stands could potentially create the mother of series in this genre. As much as I don't like Spiderman but really like Spiderman 2, WB really, really needs to take a hard look at what Sony did with the Spiderman franchise and just basically rip off on how they're handling Spidery.

But with what they've done with this film and what they've started, they could eaaily pass every franchise in this genre to where it would be unreachable for any franchise to touch this new series.

This film sets up so much potential that it's making me nuts trying to figure out what the hell they're going to do next. And I know it's early but WB has the pieces in place for something great.

Just don't be scared by the numbers WB.

After seeing the TV version of Batman on Superfriends and Adam West's series, I was blown away by seeing a darker, grittier version on the big screen with Burton's movie. I was in middle school at the time. But seeing it again a few years later made me realize how empty and straight-forward it was, though Returns was my favorite of the four movies (even if Batman/Bruce was barely in the first act, which is telling of the last movies). Without hesitation, I will preach the praises of Begins as the definitive Batman movie.

Some thoughts on the Joker as the villian for the next film.

Onc again, reminding myself that in the world of comic books there are NO OFFICAL canon, and that many writers chnage things or start over at their convenience, I decided to do a little research on the origin of the Joker. Remeber, I have never read a comic book in my life.

I found this page http://www.answers.com/topic/joker-comics , and was surprised to discover that there is NO clear origin story for the Joker, and furthermore there is no concensus on who his ture identity is. Thereofore the writers would be able to make the joker anyone they want, and I am sure they would go for the evil serial killer version over the leader of a gang of jokster thugs version.

When you watch (or recall) the film, just remember that WB was seriously considering Ashton Kutcher at one point.

Bale, Kutcher...I actually don't have the problem with Kutcher that some do. He has a limited appeal. But WTF...

Thank goodness Nolan was chosen as director.

Take care,
Chuck

The first half of the film was brilliant, and the 2nd half would have been just as good were it not for the lamest Bat Suit ever! General observations about the costume:

1) It makes Bale's face look fat. He generally has a thin face but they made the mask so tight around his face that Batman looks heavy. I don't want my favorite superhero looking fat when he's fighting crime.

2) The body armor makes Bale also look stocky. No wonder they had to resort to tricks in the fight scenes. He probably couldn't move in that suit.

3) I realized that part of what made Keaton so effective in the suit is that he didn't talk outside of "hold on" and "I'm Batman." Seeing Bale carry out long line of dialogue in the Batman mask simply looked ridiculous.

4) The Suit was more navy blue than Black. Big mistake, as it looks a lot like the Clooney suit from Batman & Robin. I would have much preferred an all black costume.

5) The ears are too short.

6) I don't like the Bat logo or the fact that's it's not surrounded by the trademark yellow. Why do costume designers have to insist on being different? What works, works. Stick with it!

Net, net, this is probably the worst costume of the five films and ruined, for me, what was otherwise a brilliant movie. How could they have missed the mark on the costume? It's the most important friggin thing! I'm so upset right now.

people say "better this than grey pajamas."

but how would you guys feel about black pajamas?
seriously ,i think they missed the opportunity of just giving us the "its a super advanced fabric..." yadda yadda yadda, that didn't need to be rigid and kept the "but cost per unit made it unacceptable for gov't contracts" rationale as to why it is not used by anyone.

i don't think an all black fabric suit would have been a problem for many people- especially with some mild padding underneath it.

also, i wouldn't mind a redesign of the cowl. i was just looking at art from Detective 27 and the cowl there, with the ears coming out from the side more (more like a bats- or a devil) looks nicely freaky.
i think a radical redesign in that direction (with the emphasis on creating a more demonic look) would work well

i've already voiced my concerns witht he suit in the earlier thread, and while i don't think i had the same degree of dislike for it that Ali did, it was a diappointment for me, that they couldn't get farther away from the design of the suit from the earlier films

" it was a diappointment for me, that they couldn't get farther away from the design of the suit from the earlier films"

I was disappointed in this as well but seeing the movie I think the suit works pretty well(though Paul and I both would have liked to have seen a fabric over the armor).I mean lets face it, the armor is a necessity. And the scene in the apt with Scarecrow plainly shows why the suit need to be all black in a film based in reality.

Personally,I would have been overjoyed to see the cowl gloves and boots match the black of the cape(since the body is actually more gray looking)

I dont think its the lamest suit ever.Not even close. I remember seeing stills of the suits for Forever and especially B&R and shaking my head in disgust.The B&R ones were freaking disgusting. Those were horrible.

All of the cowls had their problems when looking at them at certain angles.

This one looks bad....
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya...manbegins7.jpg
This looks excellent....
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya...n_murphy15.jpg


You can see good pics of all the suits here....
http://www.outnow.ch/ (just type batman in the search bar)

Compared to Schumacher Bat Nipples and Burton Iron Lungs?!? C'mon! The BB suit is way ahead of the previous suits in form and function. Bale definitely did not look "rigid". the full shots of him on the ladder, jumping off buildings, and fighting ninjas looked pretty fluid to me. If you want rigid, take a look at B89. Keaton could barely turn his head without moving the rest of his torso.

the cowl in this film reminds me so much of the way Nick Cardy used to draw Batmans ears (for those not in the loop, Cardy was given the plum assignment of drawing most of DC covers back in the early 70s, so he had a take on just about every character at one time or another).