Help me understand why people dont like Batman Begins

[Larryw7]

I'm just the opposite. I thought this movie had more of a realistic feeling to it than, say the X-men movies and Burton's goofy Batman.

 

Spidey 2 however I thought was done very very well. I'd rate that one above all the Batman's.

 

I'm just the opposite. I thought this movie had more of a realistic feeling to it than, say the X-men movies and Burton's goofy Batman.

 

 

 

It certainly had more realism than any of the other Batman films, all of which looked like they were filmed on soundstages and had no character development or plot at all(and that includes the Burton films).

[BassGMan]

One other thing that occured to me about this flick is that IMO it was not a "feast for the eyes". Batman may have gone over the top with the Joker colors, but the Joker himself was very visually exciting, so were the Batman action scenes and general cinematography. Batman Returns had the sexy Catwoman and more visually stunning scenes although the Penguin scenes were a little over the top. The Batman Begins action was mostly too close up, could not really see what was going on at times and this is not fun to watch. Batmobile was an eyesore, and the Scarecrow was apalling to look at, and I like ugly when it is cool, but not ugly for ugly's sake.

 

I can understand why a non-comic fan would like the two Burton flicks but I believe far fewer would rate this current one as high. From what I am reading it appears to me that many are basing their opinions at least partially on how well Batman's story was portraid in relation to the comics moreso than how it stands on it's own, and this is why I believe the uninformed may not view the film as highly.

[Rip]

BTW Batman Begins has the most critical success so far, at 83%

 

Batman 78%

Batman Returns 80%

Batman Forever 51%

Batman & Robin (Super Turkey) at 13%

 

FF 25%

[BassGMan]

BTW Batman Begins has the most critical success so far, at 83%

 

Batman 78%

Batman Returns 80%

Batman Forever 51%

Batman & Robin (Super Turkey) at 13%

 

FF 25%

 

But which of the five Batman movies will rake in the most dough? Not this one for sure.

[skybolt]

BTW Batman Begins has the most critical success so far, at 83%

 

Batman 78%

Batman Returns 80%

Batman Forever 51%

Batman & Robin (Super Turkey) at 13%

 

FF 25%

 

80% for Batman Returns.

[Rip]

This one's a lock a 2nd place among the Batman movies

[october]

BTW Batman Begins has the most critical success so far, at 83%

 

Batman 78%

Batman Returns 80%

Batman Forever 51%

Batman & Robin (Super Turkey) at 13%

 

FF 25%

 

80% for Batman Returns.

 

Yeah, I don't get that at all. Did anyone like Batman Returns better than the original? I sure as hell didn't...

[sterlingcomics]

BTW Batman Begins has the most critical success so far, at 83%

 

Batman 78%

Batman Returns 80%

Batman Forever 51%

Batman & Robin (Super Turkey) at 13%

 

FF 25%

 

80% for Batman Returns.

 

Yeah, I don't get that at all. Did anyone like Batman Returns better than the original? I sure as hell didn't...

 

me neither. Each one went further down ... and down... and down.

[Kevin Boyd]

I thought Batman Begins worked because it was essentially a thinking man's Batman movie, as opposed to a visual feast, which I will agree the Burton film's were.

 

Burton's Bat-films were about art direction over story, costumes over acting, music and sound over dialogue. Batman himself is a prop in those films - just like the old tv shows these films were about the villains, with only a minor nod to the backstory. The first film was about the Joker... Batman was just his foil. Batman Returns was even worse... Catwoman's and the Penguin's tales dovetail together with the annoying Max Shreck's...

 

Batman Begins is firmly Bruce Wayne's story - and I liked that the villains were actually quite subdued... this was a human story, so the villains were reflections of paths that Bruce could have taken but didn't. Crane is the agent Ra's wanted Bruce to be in Gotham City... Ra's represents the choice between honouring a dead father or a man who he grew to trust as a father figure. This was also an adult telling of the Dark Knight's origins... not a loud "comic book movie". This has a lot more in common with movies like The Mask of Zorro, where the hero must find his purpose and then shape himself into the weapon that will ultimately defeat evil. Batman Begins was about foundations... the promise of the second film is that the threats are now moulding themselves in his image... reacting to the symbol Bruce created to strike fear in the hearts of criminals, the psychopaths are going in a different direction entirely... mimicking without understanding.

 

I also liked that they made Batman a creature of the night. You shouldn't know where he is... darkness is his weapon. He shouldn't just drive up, open his car door and start punching out the bad guys. He's supposed to terrify them into never doing this again, not just give them new bruises. In the Burton films he sort of drops in, does a couple of things, cracks a joke or two and then disappears as the music swells. Very Wagnerian, but also helping to maintain the ludicrous nature of the character... it's a darker Adam West world.... and one Shumacher was able to twist very easily into a 90's version of the 60's show by the time the fourth film rolled in. The Batman of Batman Begins isn't heading in that direction... he would be completely out of place in a day-glo & neon world of giant statues and elevated roads of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

 

All of the "regular" people I know who have seen the film really enjoyed it. I haven't heard a negative peep... except that it really isn't a good movie for young children. It's very dark and has some disturbing themes for children under 12.

[Artboy99]

Batman doesn't really save the day. It's Gordon who stops the train with the fear machine in it. Batman chooses to face Ra's head on when he doesn't have to. He could just as easily taken out the train and then gone in afterwards for clean up. While it leads to future possibilities - isn't Gotham worse off at the end of BB with an Asylum full of homicidal psych patients on the loose? Granted, their release wasn't necessarily his fault. But Gordon contained the situation with some help from Batman. Heck, Batman couldn't even save his own house from being destroyed...

 

One thing that many people miss about this scene is that Batman has to use/ sacrifice almost everything his father built to save the day in the end. He would rather destroy his Father's train to defeat the bad guy instead of seeing something his Father made as an instrument of doom. The burning of the house is a cleansing. Just like in nature, fire is a cleansing; the old is destroyed and from it's ashes is born a new beginning. The destruction of his Father's home allows him to create a new beginning...and continue the legacy all in the same.

I think it is wonderfully written.

As to the love interest..well she really isnt a love interest anyways. She is his friend. ( though yes, they each might want more it never even comes close to materializing. )

 

Artboy99

[Artboy99]

One other thing that occured to me about this flick is that IMO it was not a "feast for the eyes". Batman may have gone over the top with the Joker colors, but the Joker himself was very visually exciting, so were the Batman action scenes and general cinematography. Batman Returns had the sexy Catwoman and more visually stunning scenes although the Penguin scenes were a little over the top. The Batman Begins action was mostly too close up, could not really see what was going on at times and this is not fun to watch. Batmobile was an eyesore.

 

To me the stuff you are referring to as being a "feast for the eyes" is the hollywood machine in overdrive pushing special effects and loopy gimicks at us. May as well put rubber genitals on all the costumes to.

As to the batmobile in the new movie: well I loved it. It was far far above the lame vehicle in the Burton movies that cant even corner on the road without shooting a grappling hook, but it can drive up the walls of a building. it looked cool, but was implemented so badly. This new vehicle is almost believeable, and actually is very similar to the batmobile as designed in the Frank Miller series the Dark Knight returns. The vehicle that Kent disables bears a striking resemblance to this nw movie one.

 

Artboy99

[Artboy99]

I thought Batman Begins worked because it was essentially a thinking man's Batman movie, as opposed to a visual feast, which I will agree the Burton film's were.

 

Burton's Bat-films were about art direction over story, costumes over acting, music and sound over dialogue. Batman himself is a prop in those films - just like the old tv shows these films were about the villains, with only a minor nod to the backstory. The first film was about the Joker... Batman was just his foil. Batman Returns was even worse... Catwoman's and the Penguin's tales dovetail together with the annoying Max Shreck's...

 

Batman Begins is firmly Bruce Wayne's story - and I liked that the villains were actually quite subdued... this was a human story, so the villains were reflections of paths that Bruce could have taken but didn't. Crane is the agent Ra's wanted Bruce to be in Gotham City... Ra's represents the choice between honouring a dead father or a man who he grew to trust as a father figure. This was also an adult telling of the Dark Knight's origins... not a loud "comic book movie". This has a lot more in common with movies like The Mask of Zorro, where the hero must find his purpose and then shape himself into the weapon that will ultimately defeat evil. Batman Begins was about foundations... the promise of the second film is that the threats are now moulding themselves in his image... reacting to the symbol Bruce created to strike fear in the hearts of criminals, the psychopaths are going in a different direction entirely... mimicking without understanding.

 

I also liked that they made Batman a creature of the night. You shouldn't know where he is... darkness is his weapon. He shouldn't just drive up, open his car door and start punching out the bad guys. He's supposed to terrify them into never doing this again, not just give them new bruises. In the Burton films he sort of drops in, does a couple of things, cracks a joke or two and then disappears as the music swells. Very Wagnerian, but also helping to maintain the ludicrous nature of the character... it's a darker Adam West world.... and one Shumacher was able to twist very easily into a 90's version of the 60's show by the time the fourth film rolled in. The Batman of Batman Begins isn't heading in that direction... he would be completely out of place in a day-glo & neon world of giant statues and elevated roads of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

 

All of the "regular" people I know who have seen the film really enjoyed it. I haven't heard a negative peep... except that it really isn't a good movie for young children. It's very dark and has some disturbing themes for children under 12.

 

Thanks, I completely agree with this.

By the way, did anyone else out there think that as Batman was making his way out of Arkham Asylum ( just bfoe he blows open the door with his little bombs ) that the guy in the cell that you see very briefly really resembled the Joker? hrmmmm....

 

Artboy99

[Rip]

It reminded me of the vehicle Batman used against Swamp Thing but without the blades. Issue 50? I can't remember without pulling them all out.

[Aman619]

Batman Begins was a great Batman movie. A bit slow here and there, sure, but what film isnt? Im actually surprised that normal people are actually liking a serious story movie of a rich kid who grows up to fight crime in a bat suit and taking it seriously. Its flattering to us comic fans that so many "normal" people can "get it" when its done right for them. They'd die before picking up and reading a comic book about Batman, or a graphic novel, or even a novelization about the same character ... but here they are, thousands of grown men and women actually LIKING a movie about Bruce Wayne, Wayne Manor, Alfred, Ras Al Gul!, Scarecrow etc etc.

 

Weve come a long way baby!

 

And that guy that didnt like it? whatever. Not for everyone and some people like to be contrarians...and, as good as it was, heck, its still a silly movie with no redeeming social values to speak of... just Showbiz, babeeeee.

[shrunkenhead]

 

and, as good as it was, heck, its still a silly movie with no redeeming social values to speak of... just Showbiz, babeeeee.

 

Yeah, but Plato said the same thing in The Repblic about the circulated "myths"

of Ajax, Hercules, etc. All too often the culture-binding myths seem only to be popular distractions of "no redeeming social value;" tinctured through time, however, the popular becomes classical.

[Aman619]

I hear ya. But werent those exaggerations about real people? Not entirely fictional heroes? You know taking real events and layering in the Gods as players in the actions?

[shrunkenhead]

I hear ya. But werent those exaggerations about real people? Not entirely fictional heroes? You know taking real events and layering in the Gods as players in the actions?

 

Kinda sorta, but not really. At least in most cases we can't prove whether or not there was a "real" Hercules or Odysseus (or some historical prototype) anymore than there was a "real" Aeneas, King Arthur, or a Beowulf (I know it was in vogue a few years back to talk about the "real" Arthur, but I could bend your ear for about two hours talking about why most of that pseudo-scholarship is bunk. But I'll spare ya!)

 

The hero-myths of antiquity are more like elaborate wish-fullfilment fantasies than they are a layered blend of historical fiction. Seems kinda "Antique geek," if ya ask me.

 

And shoot, Homer was very likely not a real dude, either. So even the myth-maker is a myth.

[BachelorOfComix]

One other thing that occured to me about this flick is that IMO it was not a "feast for the eyes". Batman may have gone over the top with the Joker colors, but the Joker himself was very visually exciting, so were the Batman action scenes and general cinematography. Batman Returns had the sexy Catwoman and more visually stunning scenes although the Penguin scenes were a little over the top. The Batman Begins action was mostly too close up, could not really see what was going on at times and this is not fun to watch. Batmobile was an eyesore.

 

To me the stuff you are referring to as being a "feast for the eyes" is the hollywood machine in overdrive pushing special effects and loopy gimicks at us. May as well put rubber genitals on all the costumes to.

You forget who you're talking too. Sid doesn't buy comics to read, he buys them for the covers. That's the type of mentality you're dealing with & I guess it carries over to movies too. Not right or wrong, just different.

[Aman619]

I hear ya. But werent those exaggerations about real people? Not entirely fictional heroes? You know taking real events and layering in the Gods as players in the actions?

 

Kinda sorta, but not really. At least in most cases we can't prove whether or not there was a "real" Hercules or Odysseus (or some historical prototype) anymore than there was a "real" Aeneas, King Arthur, or a Beowulf (I know it was in vogue a few years back to talk about the "real" Arthur, but I could bend your ear for about two hours talking about why most of that pseudo-scholarship is bunk. But I'll spare ya!)

 

The hero-myths of antiquity are more like elaborate wish-fullfilment fantasies than they are a layered blend of historical fiction. Seems kinda "Antique geek," if ya ask me.

 

And shoot, Homer was very likely not a real dude, either. So even the myth-maker is a myth.

 

Ive havent done any rela research or even read teh Iliad, Aeneid or any of those accounts or wars passed, but my understanding was that there were real battles of Troy vs Greece and certain kings and warriors were proven to have existed. Their exploits were embroidered with meaning and powers relating to the gods etc, thats all. I dont really think King Arthur, the Grail or the Round Table existed, mostly due to the presence of Merlin and other magical subplots... But perhaps my argument above works against me on that! Real king: embroidered backstory..

[toro]

I just saw it last weekend at the drive-in. It was paired with War of the Worlds! Well after seeing those two together, I was entertained very much by Batman Begins, while I want those 2 hours back of my life for War of the Worlds. Did Batman have flaws, yes, but what movie doesn't. What I figured is that although I liked Burton's Batman better, this one did fine. While War of the Worlds wasn't even as good as the original B Movie.

 

Anyways for me I'd grade Batman Begins as an 8.0.