A Few Words About A few words about... Batman Begins (1 Viewer)

[dailW]

thank you mr. harris for the review of batman returns i cant wait to get my copy. when i saw it in the theaters it was very loud. great but very loud. thanks again for the review and every review you have done. you are the only one i listen to when it comes to picture quality.again thanks.

 

[Tim Hoover]

I'm looking at all the specs, and I certainly don't see anything mentioning a 10-15Hz bass response. In fact, the specs I quoted (35-45Hz) are the only thing I found at all, apart from the dispersion angles, which were only measured down to 300Hz. Even the Klipsch speakers mentioned in your reply post are only rated down to 45Hz at a -3db point. Sure, they'll drop down to 34Hz, but that was measured at -10db. This is a huge step away from 10-15Hz...

I'm not trying to attack you - I'm just wondering if my eyes are going to hell because, from the specs that were quoted, it doesn't appear that particular model of speaker can troll that deep...

 

[Kevin M]

You're not blind, I am, I misunderstood the specs and also misunderstood what you were saying, I assumed that the horn amplification (and general power) affected the overall response (bass as well).

 

[Eric F]

BB appears to be Super35, so hopefully sometime next year we'll get an open matte version on HBO-HD. Yes, not OAR, but better than nothing.

 

[WillG]

Actually, B.B. was filmed Anamorphic. So we're looking at Pan and Scan in High Def if it is not shown at 2.35:1

 

[Kevin M]

Didn't the director tell a story of how he had to justify it not being Super-35 to the studio before they would let him film it that way? Or was that another director/film?

 

[WillG]

I think that was the "The Sisterhood of Travelling Pants" you are refering to. He said something to the effect of "It's about four girls, shouldn't we be able to seem them all in the same frame?" (I don't know how that makes the case for Panavision over Super 35. It seems like it should be the opposite if you have home video/tv in mind, but maybe there are details I am forgetting). I know I saw that story in one of the Various Super 35 threads here. Maybe it happened on B.B. as well as it does seem there are some accounts that studios like to push the use of Super 35 over Panavision.

 

[PeterTHX]

"Batman Begins" is anamorphic scope. You can see the oval lights and background highlights in nearly every shot!

I LOVE 'scope photography. Death to Super35! Directors, if you want to shoot "flat" widescreen then shoot 70MM!

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Yes, and no digital intermediate. The resulting print was one of the nicest I have seen in the last 2 years. No dreadful grain reduction, just film.

 

[Rakesh.S]

Hopefully sometime next year, we can all cancel our HBO-HD subscriptions and watch movies as they were meant to be seen.

Blu-ray should be out by then.

 

[Tim Hoover]

It's cool, bro...and thanks. Guess I can throw these antipsychotics away

 

[Jonny P]

I think a lot of you read "too much" into Robert's comments.

To me, his statements on sound weren't a statement about the perceived strengths and weaknesses of home sound systems, but rather just a statement that the sound he heard in the theater was so good that it seemed that no home system would ever do it "justice."

Personally, the sound in the theater I saw it in wasn't that great, so I really didn't have that notion.

On the movie itself...

First of all, I think that Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" is probably the "best" on-screen adapation of the comic book. Obviously, no adaptation is perfect, but that movie ushered in an era chock full of comic book movie "imitators."

In some respects, all of the movies that were similar (and even a TV show like "The Flash") tarnishes the greatness of the 1989 movie.

The music, set design and acting in that film were all top notch. At the time, "Batman" was unlike anything we'd ever seen before. It had a beautiful and timeless quality. The look of the movie was hard to peg down -- was it modern day, or did it take place now, or in the future?

In the interim, we had "Batman Returns" which Burton and Keaton returned for, but they allowed too much of Burton's "weirdness" to seep into the film.

"Batman Forever" saw the departure of Burton and Keaton and substituted Schumacher and Kilmer. Schumacher opted for the "colorful" look a la "Dick Tracy." It was a decent flick, one that many people liked (which I think had a lot to do with the fact that Jim Carrey had reached his zenith in popularity around that time).

Let's just skip "Batman & Robin" for now.

So..."Batman Begins"...

First of all, it is a different take on the Batman mythos. In my mind, that is why it was such an enjoyable film. It wasn't something we had seen before.

The film takes a more standard approach -- it is obviously modern day in the film -- and substituted Schumacher's day-glo "on set" look for more actual location shots and a "grittier" look.

There was quite a bit of humor in the film. That humor helped to make this film for me. We learn in the film what a flawed character Bruce Wayne/Batman is.

It isn't a "perfect" movie, but rather more flawed. In some respects, I think that is what helps this film.

I didn't think the Katie Holmes character -- or her storyline -- was particularly interesting and to me was one of the weaker points of the film.

Christian Bale had his odd "spookiness" thing going, and it worked. He created a likable character that was somewhat disturbed.

Michael Caine -- in my opinion -- is the ultimate Alfred...the best seen in any Batman adaptation.

Also good was Morgan Freeman. Of course, you could have Freeman read the phone book and he'd be good.

Gary Oldman offers a new take on the Gordman character, and he is weirdly intriguing (as tends to be the case with him as an actor).

The film had a chance to shine in a summer of very, very mediocre movies. It stood out as one of only a couple films that I will consider purchasing on DVD.

As people left the screening I was at, they seemed a bit "confused" about where this fit in. Most thought it was done as a prequel to 1989's "Batman" and that it would end there. What they didn't realize is that this is a "retelling" -- a fresh start if you will -- for the series.

Some didn't care that much for the training backstory at the beginning of the film. They thought it dragged a little. I didn't mind it because I thought it helped to set this incarnation of Batman apart from the others.

Here is the big thing about this movie that I tought was very effective: IT WAS NOT A CGI "ORGY"

So many movies of this nature go "way too far" with the CGI these days. This wasn't a film where I said, "Oh...that was done in Photoshop on a Macintosh."

The effects really blended in well with the live-action and didn't detract from the film at all. To be honest, the film had an overall very realistic look.

I think that is what helped it soooo much. It was one of the things that stuck out in my mind at the time I saw it.

In some respects, films were better (in my opinion) when budgets and technology "limited" the number of fx shots that could be done in the computer. There are too many times I feel like I am watching some Photoshop nightmare in movies these days.

This movie achieved the right balance. For that, the film's creators (Christopher Nolan) ought to be commended.

Anyhow...sorry for the long-winded post...

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread and just learned today they are releasing 2 version, Basic & Deluxe. I also heard the Deluxe is touted as a Director;s Edition, but the actual films seem the same.

Can someone please point me to a link, (or post # in this thread), that will detail the differences in the 2 versions?

Thanks!

 

[Keith I]

DVD Empire has a back cover screenshots of the Basic version (strangely no back cover screenshot of Deluxe). It seems as if the Basic versions have only the movie. Either that or they aren't advertising any extras. But if there are no extras, paying a few dollars less than the Deluxe version isn't worth it. If the Basic version was, let's say, $5-10 less, then it might be worth buying it if you don't care about extras.

Basic:



Herb Kane's review of the Deluxe Edition includes all the extras.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=243407

 

[William DAnnucci]

I thought I'd chime in here, as you seem to be focusing on Batman Begins and all things in audio geek-land, and I am a massive fan of Maestro Harris. Any thoughts as to why a DTS track was not an option for BB? The new Burton/Schummacher DVDs have DTS. I am guessing it may have something to do with the movie disc being the same in both 1 disc and 2 disc versions, and it wouldn't work out with so many discs being produced for home rentals, etc etc. But I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks, because I am really disappointed everytime I get to the bat swarm sequences, as they would have been benefited so much from DTS. And we'd get so much closer to the theatrical sound under discussion.

Seeing Batman Begins a few times in the theaters, including the Sony IMAX presentation at the 68th and Broadway Loews in NYC, I never thought it was overly loud.

The extras are informative and entertaining, but I really hate the menu system. It's a DVD animated comic you have to click through to find every feature, all the way to the end of the story. Sometimes you have to look for the feature as an Easter Egg. This is an overly flashy and incredibly inconvenient way to get to some rather nice extras. Warner Bros, if I want to find out how they designed the Batmobile, I don't want to have to click through a whole comic book story page by page to access the extra. Ugh.

Not to bitch too much, though. I agree that this DVD looks fab and sounds great, even if sans DTS.

 

[Keith I]

Ebert & Roeper on their show this week mentioned how they want their DVDs to be DVDs, not "video games." This was in reference to Batman Begins, one of their Video Picks.
-

 

[John Alderson]

I don't think WB has ever done a DTS track, have they?

 

[Ted Kontos]

Yes, they have. At least The Fugitive and Twister reissues have dts tracks.

 

[Member 323668]

BB was shot anamorphically according to the ASC. There won't be any open matte versions....

TECHNICAL SPECS

Anamorphic 2.40:1

Panaflex Platinum,
Millennium XL; PanArri 435

E- and C-Series lenses

Kodak Vision2 500T 5218,
Vision 250D 5246

Printed on
Kodak Vision 2383


Interesting article:

theasc.com/magazine/june05/batman/page2.html

 

[ZacharyTait]

Roeper was complaining about the menus on Disc 2, specifically having to click through a bunch of stuff to get to the features. Maybe he was referring to video games circa 1982?

EDIT: Read William's post above for specific details.