*** Official BATMAN BEGINS Discussion Thread - Page 8

Kevin P,
some of what you wrote i agree with (absolutely loathed the "i gotta get me one of those" line), but as for the film 'not being realistic'.
i think it's grounded in realism.
the film may spin off with some fantastical elements later on, but the film makes a point of trying to make them logical, believable within its context.
same goes double for things like a characters motivation.
to me, in selling a fantasy film- in making me believe in the story, that last point is the most fundemental.

once a film has established its boundaries as being believable, logical, and relatable- then the 'fantasy' aspects can get a little more of a pass- as long as they don't violate priciples that have been so far established.
i didn't see much in this movie that violates the pact that Nolan makes with the viewer early on.

i think very highly of the film, as not just a superhero movie, but as a good solid film- however i do think its flawed (just like Hulk is-which is another film i have no problem championing) and i'm very curious to see how well a second viewing will go next week.

as for the fights, its been covered enough and much better by others. one of my favorite lines in the film is "this is not a dance" and with that in mind, seeing the choreographed clarity of most other movie fights now seems somewhat silly in retrospect because thats exactly what they are. in this film, yeah i think they could have been better, but if the alternative would have been wire-fu then i would happily take what is here and ask for seconds.

I didn't like how Oldman piloted the batmobile at the end.

But my main complaint was that the fight scenes weren't more zoomed out. I agree that it was probably the inhibiting nature of the suit.

I think you got just enough of the fighting to understand B's fierceness and tactics. Like when he confronts the four ninjas and seperates them by simply tackling one of them off the platform.

The part about the business was essential, Wayne is using Art of War against Earl. Every scene they share, he is trying to make Earl think him an idiot so he can obscure his repurchase of the company. This shows just how smart Wayne really is.

Another thing: a lot of ppl think Al'Gul taught Wayne *combat*. He did no such thing. You can't "engage 600 men" with combat techniques. What Al'Gul "taught" him was terrorist strategy, pure and simple. Using fear to achieve your political goals.

And BTW, for all these ppl who think that BB is recalling Miller's Dark Knight Returns version of Batman: HARDLY. The Batman in this movie wants to become a symbol of hope to others, that is his stated purpose. The Batman in Miller's is clearly portrayed as having a psychotic obsession and perhaps is a masochist and sado-masochist.

This version of Batman's stated reason for not killing others is COMPASSION, what his FATHER taught him. Frank Miller's version of Batman has no such compassion whatsoever. The only thing that keeps him from killing is his sense of honor or even elitism over the criminals. Those who say Miller's Batman was a hero must also think that feudal lords and Japanese samurai, brutal leaders, were heroes, b/c Miller's batman is BRUTAL, and this Batman NEVER is.

Not that I didn't like BOTH versions I just hate the misconception that this Nolan batman is "DARK." Maybe for the first hour he is, but after he rejects vengeance he is no longer the Batman from the comics, who is DEFINITEly out for vengeance as a stated goal.

Mark Hamill sure does a great Joker voice - I wonder if he could pull off playing him....

I agree. This film is definitely more in the mold of the O'Neal/Adams Batman from the seventies, though there are some "Millerisms".

I really enjoyed BB. Since Batman was kind of the original superhero with no actual superpowers I think they did an excellent job establishing the force of will needed for him to become a successful superhero. Many of the other vigilante types (Punisher, Electra, etc) are much more Nihilistic in origin and execution. I think they did a great job establishing Batman outside that cadre without diminishing his power or effectiveness.

Kenneth

just got back from BB and it absolutely rocks.

Bale is brilliant in both roles.

It does look like Liam Neeson does get to sword fight and does it really well.

Oldman as Gordon is a stroke of genius.

I think that there are traces of both Memento & Insomnia to be found throughout the film.

My choice for The Joker is Robin Williams

Anybody know any possible sequel names? Batman Continues? My friend suggested a funny one : "More Batman".

BB is looking so much like the Hulk now, cept that out of the gate Hulk was a lot more impressive. WOM is much better, but Hulk had novelty factor where this one doesn't.

i can easily see WB suits pointing to both and saying "see...what do these two films have in common...too damn serious"

but even more than BO gross, this film is looking to be even more of a merchandising flop, and like theaters make more money on the popcorn and sodas, studios are making more off a lot of these films on their merchandising attributes.

if it only makes 1.5x its budget domestically, and doesn't have any significant merchandising revenue associated, then the bottom line for the studio is, this experiment was not a success.

fwiw, i loved Hulk, but for me that felt more like a complete experience unto itself. if i never get another Hulk film, i'm happy with the one sitting on my shelf. In Batmans case, however, this film as good as it is, in many ways feels like just a first couple chapters in a larger book.
that's why it's really going to suck if WB goes back to form on future installments. that this particular film got made is really a minor miracle.

and since all this really is a concern because we want to see a sequel get made with the same sensibilities as this one, if the Joker were the antagonist, they honestly wouldn't need the budget they had here.
a good Joker film, as has been pointed out to me earlier in this thread, could be fairly low key, action-wise.
i don't want to see batjets and big balloons and batman fighting a hundred hench men in Joker Gang jackets.
a second installment could be made on the cheap with just one or two involved set pieces and if these filmmakers know the budgetary restrictions going in, i think they can brainstorm creative ways of getting around that effectively and providing a different and entertaining movie.

at least that's my hope in all of this.

as far as a title, i wouldn't mind something less terse and more illustrative than the earlier films.
like Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm.
Batman: The Long Halloween
Batman: The Night Of The Reaper

Batman: The Killing Joke

Mainly because I keep hearing that the movie will be loosely based on this particular trade. Then again, I seriously doubt WB would go with a title with 'Killing' in the middle of it.

I saw it again on Imax, and the only downside was that the projected image was so large that Bale's bb-sized mole/growth/whatever just in between his right eye and the bridge of his nose was a little distracting. Otherwise, yet another great viewing experience. Katie Holmes needs to wear more silk blouses.

The print was really pristine and clear, and it helped in the fight sequences too, which I think are fine, as they played out, plus, many of them are in close quarters, so wide shots would have to be artificially manufactured otherwise. I think people were used to such wide angles with the fights in the bell tower (and alleyway) in Batman (1989).

On my way out of the Imax auditorium, a father, with his entire family (the wife, 2 teenage sons, and a daughter), was pretty positive and giddy with his comments "That was a really excellent movie!" and his family agreed. In the 2 showings I've attended, the crowd leaves in a happy mood, mainly because the film never sags, and it is so good in sucking the viewer into this world of Batman that shows us a glimpse of how Bruce came to be Batman without ever wearing out its welcome.

Oh, I still think Quentin Tarantino has the jawline to be the Joker, too bad he can't act. Hugo Weaving would be a fun Joker, not quite sold on Adrien Brody, though.

Either Ralph Fiennes or Clive Owens for Two-Face.

And yes, the first inmate they showed as Batman was going though Arkham Asylum did look a bit like Oswalt Cobblepot (The Penguin).

I thought it was a bit interesting that Bale was probably mostly known for either being the kid in "Empire of the Sun" or as Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho" as a badguy (plus a turn in Shaft), and Gary Oldman has had so many turns as a bad guy, a manian, just flat out evil, but both guys are cast in these heroic parts, and none of their baggage means much because of how their characters were written (in terms of how the audience views them in the framework of the film). Casting against type worked for this film because, well, the principals actors are very good at their craft.

Hear, hear.

Saw the movie yesterday. They took an awful long time getting to Bruce Wayne in the batsuit. And I agree with other posts that the fight scenes were lame. This really bothered me. I can understand that the filmmakers were taking a different approach with Batman but come on, he's still a superhero. The movie takes a lot of time on Bruce's training, so when we finally get to see him fight it's shot like mass chaos in close-ups and then you see a bunch of guys on the ground in pain. I would have liked to see more of Bruce's fighting skills. Here's how I would grade comparisons to Tim Burtons first attempt. X marks my preferences. I also thought the music was weak for a Batman movie.

BATMAN BATMAN BEGINS

Michael Keaton Christian Bale x
Joker x Scarecrow
Burton Nolan x
D. Elfman's music x James N. Howard's
batmobile x tumbler (sorry guys, Batman in a ATV?)
batsuit batsuit x
fight scenes x fight scenes
story story x
cinematography cinematography x (tough call here.)

I have a general question for anyone who would like to answer.

Im going to see the film this weekend, am I to expect Bourne Supremacy style editing when it comes to Batman's martial arts sequences? If so Im going to be very disappointed.

Based on some of the posts I've been reading the fight scenes seem hard to view.

Thanks for the reply from anyone.

Bourne Supremacy style is a GREAT way to describe the fight scenes. I remember seeing that and being pissed off at those fight scenes too. Very good description.

i had a much harder time with BS
the microsecond strobe editing was just as annoying to me as the shaky cam.

Batman is only excessive in some of the fight scenes and these are fairly brief.
the fights in BB struck me as impressionistic.
you get the impression of whats occuring without pornographic clarity.

Hey, if you want overchoreographed action sequences, Jet Li (and Morgan Freeman) have a great film out. Go see it. It's quite good. It's just not how Batman fights.

This is way more than that, and has action scenes designed to suit the lead character...shadows and brutality. It is filmed from the victim's perspective, not the Batman's. Makes a big difference.

YMMV,
Chuck

i'm copying over the post that I made on AVS..I don't want to retype the whole thing and sorry if i'm repeating anything that has already been stated.

This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time....I love all things Batman and this just blew me away. I saw it on the IMAX screen in Springdale, OH...The screen appeared to be 16:9, but none of the shots looked cropped, at least to my eye.

I was underwhelmed by the screen when I sat down in my seat initiallly, but they played the preview for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I almost crapped my pants..The picture is HUGE. I love the fact that you don't have to sit through 20 minutes of BS at the IMAX theater..Just the preview for Charlie and then the movie started right away.

As for the movie itself, again, it was awesome...I loved the fact that they showed a glimpse of Tsaz. I was reminded of the Knightfall storyline in the comic books when --

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I only had one gripe, story-wise and that was --

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I also have to agree that the fight scenes *could* have been better, because the shaky cam and ultra close up shots didn't really give you a good view of the action.

I really hope they can get more fresh villains in during the next few movies..Some rumors going around that(spoils the end of Batman Begins) --

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

one more minor animated series related gripe regarding one of the villains(possibly a spoiler) --

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Actually, two of the fight scenes are very clearly imitating the opening scene of the film when the bats swarm young Bruce.

That's how I looked at it. Nolan wanted the enemies to feel what young Bruce felt when he was being swarmed by the bats in the beginning.

I recall they sidestepped Bruce with the raccoon eyes makeup when he takes off his cowl after sedating Rachel in the Batcave. I think it would have been a little comical looking had they not used the shot from the backside of Bruce taking off the cowl, and instead used a frontal shot of the cowl coming off.

Nobody's saying they want a more choreographed fight. We just want to be able to see what's going on more clearly.



Wrong. The fight in the beginning with the prisoners, before he ever becomes Batman, in probably the worst as far as being shot too close and shaky cam.

I totally agree, thanks for that comment Anthony_De.

All Im asking is to see the hero who has trained his mind and body to physical perfection (without the super-soldier serum)execute his martial arts move in a well photographed scene/scenes

Can anybody tell me what the last exchange between Gordon and Batman was? I couldn't make out what Gordon said and can't recall Batman's reply.

I enjoyed rhe movie quite a bit. The acting was topnotch, and the writing was very good, except for a few one liners. Bale is easily the best Batman ever, both from an acting standpoint and from a physicality standpoint (seeing him with his shirt off makes you think "yeah, he could easily kick ass". I HATED it when Burton said "the suit makes him Batman. No Tim, not by light years). The film achieves an excellent depth of characterization that makes it quite engaging. Micharl Caine is a superb "anchor" for the Wayne character. I didn't have a problem with the fight scenes. To me, it gave a good feel for the chaos that people would feel during such a fight. This is the most plausible superhero film I've ever seen. Not the usual cardboard "I enjoyed it when I turned off my brain" summer stuff.

I did have a few problems with the film. I didn't find the score very interesting or at all memorable. Also, it bothered me a bit that so much of the Batman technology was just stuff he took off the shelf of Wayne Enterprises. I prefer to have his costume, vehicle, etc. be the unique result of the genius of one man, not just an adaptation of someone else's work.

This was my first time seeing a "regular" film in IMAX. Everything was topnotch, except the screen filled too much of my vision.

Gordon: I never thanked you.
Batman: You'll never have to.

several sites are reporting that there is talk about Lacy Hulme being eyed for Joker



he was Sparks in The Matrix and is reportedly 6'3".

i'm not familiar with his work, and i know this is all premature, but going by the head shots i've seen, he looks very intimidating to me- even without make-up. if he can act, i'd look forward to seeing it.
some of the usual suspect getting named (Adrien Brody, Johnny Depp, and others) don't really work for me.
Crispen Glover maybe, but i would prefer someone totally fresh.

I saw this wed night in a fairly packed theater. I told myself "its only wed, the crowd this weekend better be huge"

Then i went friday night at 7pm, primetime showing.....and the theater was almost empty. My heart sank. If a damn good movie such as this doesnt get an audience, then what hope do us comic book fans have for REAL movies being made anymore? This film is astounding. I hope word of mouth makes this a slow build, but I am afraid that a low weekend will make the studio tighten their grip and take the team of Nolan and Goyer off the next one.

And Mark Hammil as Joker in a live action movie would be geek heaven. GEEK HEAVEN I SAY!

They way the box office has been going, are we likely to get a sequel? Man I hope so!

The best line I've read on this forum for a while!!

I really liked this movie, although I need to see it again to form a final opinion. It got my mind off of ROTS for a little while and that's saying alot!

One question I did have thinking about the movie, should they have used Ra's al Ghul? I mean, the traditional Ra's is a nearly-immortal supreme environmentalist who is more trying to seduce Batman. The latter part happened in the first portion of the movie, but then they became full adversaries. From what little I know in the comics Ra's never gives up on that seduction. But the big thing was, this wasn't really an environmentalist, it was a targeted check on human corruption instead of Ra's comic book plan to wipe out most of humanity and then be the dictator of the remnant. It just seems to me that with the direction they took the movie, an original villain might have worked just as well. The vibe I more got was that they only went with Ra's because of the pre-established name and not for the character himself.

Throw me on the stack of people who were totally floored by this the first real incarnation of Batman on the silver screen. heres hoping for a few more like this one.

as far as the future of the joker goes he needs to be portrayed by someone who can really be psychotic and creepy...personally I think Steve Buscemi would make an excellent joker....especially if they explore his loser like origins.

there was a picture in the 2004 photo issue of Entertainment weekly of him in a dark ally and the lighting gave him a pure white faced appearance, green the hair and youve got one menacing looking joker. (looked and looked for a link to this photo...to no avail)