*** Official BATMAN BEGINS Discussion Thread - Page 4

Darn good movie...It will defenitely revive the franchise.

I too give it 3-1/2 out of 4 stars.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Some specific other thoughts. I very much like how the scipt, Nolan, and Bale conveyed lots of information in small scenes.

1) Bruce's effect on women, with the quick scene with Earl's secretary.

2) Bruce's intelligence, his takeover of his own company

3) Bruce's mistakes, because it's so early in his career...he's clearly making it up as he goes, but he's a quick learner, and again, quite intelligent - they never go overt on this (and can really [should really] pursue the detective angle later in the series), but show it in small meaningful ways. Bruce clearly does his homework.

Cillian Murphy did a great job, making this Scarecrow as realized as he could be with such limited screentime. I actually paused during the scene between he and Dawes after they've looked in on Falcone to marvel at the economy. She sums up the Scarecrow in a sentence or two, thanks to previous scenes by Cillian. He clearly is obsessed with fear...his own, and manipulating it. He loves his job because it gives him power inside on those who have power over him on the outside. Subtle, quick, effective characterization.

Very aggressive track. Very loud, but didn't overwhelm. Some muscular bass.

I liked the hand in hand, because it wasn't romantic...it was mutual respect and shared history between the two.

I *do* think one-on-one fights with Batman should be shot more standard, such as the "Ducard" fight at the end. But for the standard thug...ehh, more effective this way.

Take care,
Chuck

interesting suggestion Chuck (about the casting for a future Joker).

i may be the only one not overly excited at the prospect of Joker being the big villian of the next film.
i like the character from an iconic standpoint, but apart from one issue where Neil Adams and Denny O Neil did him, i don't think he's all that interesting- apart from the surface asthetic quality.

maybe its just that my imagination is bankrupt at the moment, but i'm having a hard time imagining how the character can be used that wouldn't be at odds with the world they have created here.
is he going to have a lot of muscle behind him?
and if so, why on earth would we believe anyone would follow someone who would exhibit poor managment skills?
a crime boss like Falcone knew how to run an organization and was disciplined to do that well.
the Joker's main appeal is that he is an unpredictable wild card. that is at odds with discipline and anything that would need discipline (like organizational skills).
this is another area where i dismiss the Burton film.
if the Joker could pull out a gun at the drop of a hat and whack one of his aides for any nonsensical reason, why on earth would anyone continue to serve him?

and if he doesn't have a Joker gang (and i really hope not) then there will have to be some very plausible reasons reasons why Batman won't be able to take him down quickly the first time they are face to face- unless the whole film builds up to the moment where they actually first meet.
the joker i know isn't someone skilled in hand to hand combat.
the script would probably need to keep him one step ahead of batman almost the whole film, and that would reduce Batman to merely showing up after the crime and being not much more than a cataloger of evidence for the first 2 acts.

i'm rambling. i know better than to say it can't be done,
but i'm having a hard time seeing the character being used well in a two hour film, unless he is just sparsely used.

"Thought it was great storytelling that the city ends up in immediately worse shape than when Batman first arrived. I get the long-term good, but a lot of property destruction as well as the escpaped inmates do not bode well for Gotham."

I also liked Gordons comments at the end about Batman wearing a maskand how it might encourage others to follow.Nice touch!

About the fighting, I understand the comments about being disoriented but have to admit I would have preferred a more medium, pulled back shots for these scenes. May play better on a smaller screen.

I also loved how this film showed how this character could" exist.How practical it was.Ive always said the best superhero movies are those based in reality.Instead of having Bruce Wayne whos also a chemist, master mechanic, etc - we find out where he gets all his gadgets from.A Batmobile that is completely practical for what he needs it for. Seeing this machine on film completely worked.(And is also the reason why I gave a creation of my own "a tank" to get around in).

Paul,There were some recent articles stating the idea right now is to not have the Joker story end in the next film, but to actually have a cliffhanger ending going into film 3, which will also have Harvey TwoFace.

I'd be perfectly happy with them saving the Joker for another film (not the next one). And I agree he needs a great script to work as a Batman villain. The key to Joker is his insanity and intelligence. Maybe they could meet early and Joker could get lucky, giving him a healthy respect for not letting Batman near him.

EDIT: Frankly, Two-Face alone would be a better villain for this direction. Jude Law, maybe? Joker is more popular, but Two-Face done right has always been a perfect foil for Batman.

Frankly, let Nolan direct a smaller picture while others work on a script. Let him refresh himself, as he clearly wants to do. Then hand over a script, watch as actors LINE UP, and go from there. I welcome any villain they choose, and would frankly prefer a smaller one. I also think Falcone will come back, wiser himself to the new Gotham.

Gordon's speech at the end has several meanings. He was essentially saying that the new weapon was Batman...but it WILL get countered. Smarter criminals as one element. Truly psychotic monsters as the "bigger stick", so to speak. It was a great analysis by Gordon of the future of Gotham.

But Batman will evolve with them.

My favorite line in the film, as a Batman geek: "Now we are two."

Take care,
Chuck

One think that made me enjoy the movie much more than Burtons. Is the fact that they used a real city for the street scenes. In 1989 Bats. It was the same 3 streets. It took something away when all you kept seeing was the theater the Waynes were killed near.

One minor,minor nitpick....In the movie he becomes Bats at 30....He should have been around 25.

One of the best scenes in the film, Michael.

DO I LOOK LIKE A COP TO YOU

Bale's best scene as the Batman. Like you, I love DKR. Some of the best dialogue (inner and otherwise) that really defines a Batman on the edge, though the core is the same.

I think Batman is best defined by one inner monologue by Batman in DKR:



Bruce: My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on the street, shaking in deep shock, dying for no reason at all. They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to.

It's cynical and hard, but it makes Batman what he is. He's NOT an anti-hero. This movie showed his STRONG moral core. But he's not Superman either.

Frankly, if you liked the film and haven't read Year One...do it. I think they actually complement each other quite well. DKR is a tougher nut. It really is this Batman (darwn by Nolan and Bale), many years down the road and on the razor's edge. I think the story is a bit unfair to Big Blue, but it's so good, so epic, that it transcends the genre. It's the Wagnerian endtimes for the DC Universe. If they could bottle a fraction of the power of DKR and make a movie out of it, it would power a large city But Clint is too old now Seriously, audiences would go berzerk during the last act of DKR.

This movie just gets everything right about Batman. Distilled into two hours. Well, Gordon needs a tweak, but he's close

Take care,
Chuck

Yea that was great, and I loved the scenes of Batman clinging onto the sides of buildings, with the cape flapping in the wind and rain.

Just great.

Another thing I think they need to do in the sequels is actually have Batman cross that line that Alfred alluded to. And the best way to do that is to kill the Rachel character and have him feel responsible for it.

Clearly this film sets up that line that Batman could cross one day and we've never seen that. If this team is so committed to really trying to portray Batman in these films and not the villians, having Batman cross that line would bring more depth to his character throughout this series. There is potential there for something dramatic in that area because of how Batman/Bruce Wayne is....

Cory,
They'll have to create dramatic tension in the future films. Batman Begins is all that this one is. There is still much growing to do. There will be strains between Batman and the police, therefore Gordon. I cannot imagine how upset Alfred will be when Bruce first considers using a sidekick (this will be very tough on the screenwriters...making that make sense). The richness of the character and his supporting cast allow for plenty of opportunities to investigate the volution of Batman. Frankly, a rich white guy fighting crime and criminals may often seem rather ironic. The end of Begins (heh, heh, heh) shows that Bruce recognizes his wealth can do a lot for the city. Maybe he doesn't spend enough time as Bruce doing this in the future, because he'd rather be Batman. The casting of Michael Caine looks smarter and smarter and smarter. Here is a man who can be a real Jiminy Cricket, who can stand up to Batman/Bruce, who can remind him that Batman is merely a symbol...Bruce is his father's son. Tons of dramatic possibilities. How would Batman respond to more brutal vigilantes? More importantly, what if they were more effective (at first) than he?

We could go on and on, but Batman has good examples of what a comic sequel can be (Spidey 2 and X2 both carried the themes of the first film further in their runtime, not satisfied with merely showing the hero fighting a new villain on a great new set) in the biz.

They have to maintain the integrity of the cast. Caine and Oldman are a must. Freeman is almost a must. I'd be happy to see Holmes, Wilkinson, and Bruce's parents again (with a few scenes with his mother perhaps).

I just want them to maintain the quality of the film. The storylines can go lots of places.

Take care,
Chuck

Chuck,

Same here with maintain the integrity that they've established with this film.

Personally, I don't see Goyer and Nolan introducing the sidekick in this series. It might be mandated by WB to do it or Goyer might have a love for Robin but I personally don't see the sidekick making into this series, especially not in the next one.

And you're definitely right about the themes and character arcs evolving in the next film. They definitely have to go the Spiderman 2 and X2 route but because of this character, it's going to be far more engrossing mainly because of who this character is.

The cast has to come back, even Holmes. Even if it's just a small cameo role but important, she should come back. If anything else, just to break the mold that of having a new female character with each film. If Spiderman and X-Men can do it, I see no reason why Batman can't. And despite what critics have said, she really is important.

I will say this. WB needs to let Nolan and the cast do what they want for a while before getting them back on board. And when they do, I personally wouldn't wait. I'd shoot two and three at the same time and have a major cliffhanger of an ending in 2. I know it's been done before but if you don't do it this way, you risk the chance of the cast not wanting to come back to do a third if they wait awhile.

My personal fear is that WB will destroy what greatness they've done here by pushing for the sequels now. I mean, the set up to the sequels is almost too perfect. Let's all cross our fingers on this franchise.

Holme's character really has served her purpose - playing Batman's moral compass. The love story story was secondary to that function. By the end of the movie Batman has his shit together so to speak making her primary function redundant.

I believe the intent with the closein fight scenes was to mimic the swarming bat flight scenes - a whirling mass of bodies and wings.

Is anyone else frustrated by the critics who complain that this movie isn't "fun" or colorful enough. I saw Gene Shalit's review on Today and he said that it was too dark (meaning black) that he had trouble seeing. He ended his review by saying that if Batman Begins had been the first Batman movie, it also would have been the last.

Over at the Washington Post, Ann Hornaday praises the cast but then writes,

Didn't Nolan or Goyer confirm about how they'd like a trilogy of films to play out? Or was it a rumour at Batman On Film. Either way, the rumour was...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I didn't even see a love story in the film. I saw a glimmer of attraction, but an unrealistic possibility. I think Katie should return. She's ideally placed for a Two-Face storyline, with tragic results perhaps. Does the film need her? No. But it could use her.

Oddly enough, if I knew the film we could get was of this caliber, three years is just fine. Nolan expressed interest in a smaller non-related project, and he should do that. SIGN HIM NOW, but let him go for a while. Same with the cast. I'd rather a great film in 3 years than a good one in 2.

Pixar polishes the story for a long time. Spidey 2 did the same. So do labours of love. They should do the same here. Don't overwrite it or anything. Just revisit and tweak, ad nauseum. 99% perspiration and all that. Shooting two in a row next time might be a good idea, if the cast can stand it. But make TWO movies, not a four hour one, that are connected. I just don't want WB to turn their magic property into a quick cash cow. I don't want them to drive Nolan's interest down, or Bale's, etc.

It's a weird alchemy. But there is so much promise in future installments.

Take care,
Chuck

EDIT: Chris, that quote is mind-boggling. It's a standard PG-13 film. Nothing as physically brutal as a lot of crap we see in PG-13. It's definitely scary, and I wouldn't take a kid under 10. As for her determination of who the film is for: I don't know...maybe PEOPLE?!? Batman has endured for over 60 years because the character works. The film captures that.

*raises hand*

I think this came up before the thread was transformed into the official discussion thread.

The critic complaining that



has me shaking my head. Did the parents NOT see the PG-13 rating? It's not a movie for 7 year olds.

Yeah, agreed, I just don't wanna wait that long!

Another raised hand here.

Does anyone have an issue with Ra's fate on the train? Some are saying that Batman effectively rescinded his previous position about not being a vigilante. He left Ra on the train with the controls locked and the track destroyed. By not saving him, he effectively did kill him.

I can agree with that analysis but I also feel that they had positioned themselves where Ra would have refused Batman's offer to save him. A small additional moment where Ra refuses to be helped or Batman tried to save him and failed should have been included.

Chuck,

I definitely agree with your post.

And that rumor plotline for the next two films, I've heard was right. Supposedly, that website batman-on-film.com, WB watched it closely and actually used it to judge what people were looking for in this film and the franchise as a whole. The plotline rumor came directly from that site,supposedly through contacts.

that's exactly what i was thinking too, Chuck!
if they have to go for one of the bigger name villians from the earlier series, Two-Face would seem to me to have the richest dramatic possibilites.
i would be perfectly happy if they just went for lesser known villians (Hugo Strange?) if they feel that they will get more milage from them and not have to stray to far from the milieu they created.
but i think a 'plausible' Two-Face on screen would have the chance to make that character as indelible as the Joker in the mass consciousness, not just in fanboys minds.
but (theres always a but)
the character would be served even better if there was a previous film that did a good job of setting up Dent himself as a strong and sympathetic character.
(my head is suddenly spinning with the potentials here)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

in any case, the Dawes character in this(these) films is not about romance to me- its about affection, a peer relationship for Bruce, a connection-besides Alfred- to his childhood ideal life, and she's another important, and trustworthy resource for his alter ego. and that's what i saw in the hand holding at the end.
i would be fully on board with having her back and having the 'relationship' aspects be nothing more than some wistful glances.
Besides, it would be cool to see in one of these films the hero having a relationship with a female character that is something other than girlfriend or jeopardy-bait.


also, someone commented on the scene with Bruce on the floor going over the notes he's taken on Gordon and others- I LOVED that scene.
i'm going to sound like a real tool, but i had tears running down my face for much of this film and it was mainly because of scenes like that- scenes that showed me that these guys GOT it. they got the appeal of the character and it was in the quiet moments, just as much if not more than, in the bombastic ones. and they were paying respect to it with intelligence and wit.
that definitely affects me.


and man, was this film loud. i think thats one reason i was so fatigued after it was over.
great sound design and great use of surround effects, but a little too hot for me.

I think that sounds like a GREAT plan.

Of course they've also hinted that the Penguin could make an appearance.

as far as Batman breaking character in regards to Ra's fate- i was also thinking about how morally(ethically?) dubious Gordon is for merely looking the other way.
he says "i'm not a rat" as if facilitating corruption by not doing anything is a virtue.
he makes the comment that "in a town like this who would i go to?" and i guess that gives him a bit of a pass (for now), but i see this this being a morally murky area.
and while i absolutely do not want to see Batman killing the villian in every film, i do want Batman to be a flesh and blood character, and as such i have to admit that in extreme circumstances people just don't always act consistent with their more noble nature.

and again, he gets something of a pass because he is learning in this film to be the iconic character. he isn't fully formed yet.

Paul,
I understand your emotional response. I only teared up for the scenes involving his parents and their deaths. But I remained constantly moved by the events in the film. Certain beats would return Bruce to that place (and not their death, but their life) and time, again and again in the film.

The film means a lot to me because they got what I love about the character right. Which isn't the darkness, or the gadgets, or the cool car, or the cave, or the fight training, or even the genius. It was the promise the boy made ("My parents deserve justice" - though he was still figuring out what justice was), it was the dedication he shows. Batman is special NOT because he doesn't have powers...but because it doesn't matter whether he does or not. He is driven by love, not fear. He is angry, not hateful. In short, he's deeply moral but not perfect. Batman achieves his ends through intelligence and willpower. And they captured that. Over and over in the film, they got the character right. Just like Raimi and company did with Spider-Man. I simply like (and believe in) Batman more.

That the filmmakers thought enough of his character to showcase that was a treat beyond my imagining. I thought they'd respect him and make a good film. But they understood and loved him, and made a great film.

As for Gordon, I agree. But as you point out, the second statement explains why he might express himself that way. I hope they use Gordon more in the sequels.

I agree regarding Two-Face. Harvey Dent should be a friend and confidante of Bruce. Wayne should support his campaign, because he believes in Dent. And Dent believes in the law and justice.

Take care,
Chuck

Couple of things to chip in:

- Liked how "dirty" everything felt, but in a more realistic way than the over stylized Batman's by Burton.

- "Swear to ME" is the best f&@!ing line ever. Bale did a terrific job as Batman. I loved when Scarecrow was choking on Fear and Batman was demon-looking. It reminded me of Batman: The Cult

So far I'm in the minority, but I have a hard time calling BB better than Burton's first Batman. For me, that movie was so much about the experience and the hype, and the merchandise, and my age at the time, that it will never be replaced. That said, I absolutely loved BB -- and, in fact, will watch the Burton Batman again today to see if I change my mind. Awesome movie that I'll see again tomorrow.

Doug