# Batman Begins



## Fiery James (Jun 9, 2005)

I saw Batman Begins last night.

I'm so happy!

And the Scarecrow is ... Scary.

Now to go work on my costume...



- James


----------



## Morrus (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm jealous!  I'll be seeing it next week, though!


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm really looking forward to this one.
The first Batman movies were just a little too ... artistic for my vision of the Dark Knight.  This version looks to be much closer to my personal preference.


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 9, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm jealous!  I'll be seeing it next week, though!





I'll be seeing it next week as well!  'Cause I just can't get enough.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 9, 2005)

Batman is really the only comic book super hero I follow.  The first Batman movie with the Joker was pretty cool to me.  I hope they keep with the history of Batman.  From the previews it looks like they do mostly.

 And I don't care what anybody says I think the new Batmobile looks sweet.


----------



## Ambrus (Jun 9, 2005)

I caught a sneak preview of the movie last night as well. Very nice.  



> The first Batman movie with the Joker was pretty cool to me. I hope they keep with the history of Batman.




Some parts do conflict with the other movies somewhat I'm afraid. :\


----------



## Morrus (Jun 9, 2005)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> I'll be seeing it next week as well!  'Cause I just can't get enough.




So how does the much-criticised costume actually come across?

And I've heard some really bad things about the fight scenes.  Are they as bad as they say?


----------



## Klaus (Jun 9, 2005)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> I saw Batman Begins last night.
> 
> I'm so happy!
> 
> ...



 A plague! A plague on BOTH YO' HOUSES!!!!!!!!!!111111oneoneone1111!!!!!!!!

*mumblemumbleluckybastichworkingontheentertainmentindustrymumblemumble*


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 9, 2005)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Some parts do conflict with the other movies somewhat I'm afraid. :\



That's not likely to be a problem for me, anymore than conflicting with the old Adam West movie would.  I didn't particularly like the older movies, even the Tim Burton ones.


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 9, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> So how does the much-criticised costume actually come across?
> 
> And I've heard some really bad things about the fight scenes.  Are they as bad as they say?




I had no problems with the costume in the movie whatsoever.  And, I think the main reason is because this movie is so about the *characters* as oppsed to the *costumes* (like the previous movies were, with bat-nipples, etc.)  In this movie, the costume is just a tool that Bruce Wayne used to scare evil-doers, and it totally works.  All the bits are explained, and it makes sense in the movie.

The fights -- well, these aren't lightsaber battles that were coreographed for 3 months and *should have had* medium- and long-shots to show the give-and take.  These are brutal, quick bouts where Batman tries to take guys out as quickly as possible.  They get this across quickly, in the beginning of Bruce Wayne's training... after trying to take on his instructor with his moves of various fighting styles, he's told, "It's not a dance!" -- and that's it with Batman.  No need to be fancy, just get the job done.

You get the feeling that *this* Batman is a much more competent fighter than in any of the previous Batman movies, where the character relied more on technology than physical power.  This Batman can kick ass.  He does it quick, close and then fades back into the shadows.  It's more like the kinetic close-up camera work of Bourne Identity than something like The Matrix, if that makes sense.

If you were a fan of BATMAN: YEAR ONE, you'll probably like the direction they've gone with this.  There are a few Year One references, and one scene lifted right out of the book.

And if you've been hit by the Scarecrow's fear gas... DON'T LOOK AT BATMAN!!



- JB


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm looking forward to the preview that SciFi channel is doing on the movie.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 11, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to the preview that SciFi channel is doing on the movie.



When's this coming out?

I saw a 15 minute preview on HBO last night and they addressed the whole fight issue.  It's designed, as someone here already said, to be swift and brutal.  In the previous movies, when Bats did fight, it was your standard fare that didn't seem particularly good or bad.  This stuff looks very practical with the goal of putting someone down swiftly and permanently.  Sounds like Batman to me.

So far, what I've seen has me very, very excited.  I've also listened to tracks from the score.  This is a big departure from Danny Elfman's work which possessed more of a leit-motif set up than this score, composed by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard.  It's far more brooding, though, and -- although I would have liked a traditional theme format (there is a theme, it's just not as formal as earlier version) -- it's more appropriate to the character than Elfman (or Goldenthaal's) earlier material.


----------



## Andre La Roche (Jun 11, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's not likely to be a problem for me, anymore than conflicting with the old Adam West movie would.  I didn't particularly like the older movies, even the Tim Burton ones.




Same here.  From day one I was always under the impression that this is an entirely fresh view of the franchise, not meant to be an extension of the earlier Bat flicks.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 12, 2005)

And so it is.

A complete reboot, disregarding the Burton operaesque movies and Schumacher's fiascoes.

Thankfully, I might add!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 12, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> When's this coming out?



Here's the info you want.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 12, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Here's the info you want.



Thanks!

Kinda silly to show this the night before the movie premieres...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 12, 2005)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> Some parts do conflict with the other movies somewhat I'm afraid. :\




No issue here.   Actually its a great relief to know that they did reboot it completely instead if trying o keep some of it around.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 12, 2005)

Sounds awesome! I didn't care for the other Batman movies. I rate the first one as mediocre with some good moments, and the rest as garbage. Joel Schumacher in particular has my eternal enmity for turning the entire series into a cartoonish joke.

Finally, a serious and gritty Batman movie the way it was meant to be. I like the notion of quick and brutal fight scenes rather than it being like every other unrealistic overchereographed wire-fu Hollywood junk.

The only thing that bothers me is that from the posts above it sounds like they have too much of that close-up MTV style camera work for the fight scenes. I HATE that! I like to actually see what's happening in a fight scene rather than have some herky-jerky camera capturing nothing more than a blur of movement.


----------



## kirinke (Jun 12, 2005)

I have noticed a trend in fantasy/sci-fi movies/tv shows, especially superhero movies within the last 5 years or so. They seem to be getting grittier/more realistic with a great deal more emphasis on character development. Which is a nice change from the FX 'spectaculars' of the 90's. Heh. They are starting to now have an actual plot.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 12, 2005)

I hope they amp the "detective" side in later movies...


----------



## kirinke (Jun 13, 2005)

Now, if only they could do another shadow movie with the same gritty feel to it.


----------



## KenM (Jun 13, 2005)

For those that have seen it one question, about how long of a movie is it? I hope its over 2 hours. I'm really excited about this as well.  I'm glad they are going more into why Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and his orgin. I also like how they are taking something from Batman, year one: Gordon is not police commisiner yet, just a detective.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 13, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Here's the info you want.




Thanks for the heads-up on this. The newspaper's tv guide does not have it listed. And neither does Yahoo's tv schedule. I'm going on Wednesday night, so this will be good to get me into it before I go.

KenM,  review in my local paper indicates the movie is 2 hours 20 minutes.


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 13, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I hope they amp the "detective" side in later movies...




Amen.  Actually, there are a couple of scenes in this one -- brief, but there -- of him investigating stuff.  Imagine that!

- JB


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 13, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> For those that have seen it one question, about how long of a movie is it? I hope its over 2 hours. I'm really excited about this as well.  I'm glad they are going more into why Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and his orgin. I also like how they are taking something from Batman, year one: Gordon is not police commisiner yet, just a detective.




It's over 2 hours.


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 13, 2005)

kirinke said:
			
		

> Now, if only they could do another shadow movie with the same gritty feel to it.




That movie broke my heart.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 13, 2005)

Here's a very positive review from IGN.


----------



## kirinke (Jun 14, 2005)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> That movie broke my heart.




Lol The Shadow movie wasn't that bad. I liked it, but it was a popcorn flick. Fun, but without depth, you know?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 15, 2005)

People keep talking about "other" Batman movies. After tonight, all I can say is:

_What_ other Batman movies?

Sure, we've seen movies with a guy named Bruce Wayne, dressed in a bat-suit. But they weren't Batman movies. This is, IMHO, the first time we've ever _really_ seen Batman on screen. (Well, non-animated, anyway.)

Bravo to all involved. Not a flawless movie, but a damn good one, and a truly accurate and effective translation of the Dark Knight.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 15, 2005)

I liked most parts of the movie. Liberties were taken, but Brutal & Effective fighting is ALWAYS good.

Scarecrow looked too much like  a Johhny Depp / Micheal Jackson Hybrid and didn't kill as much as he should have. 



Spoiler



He should have been weilding a scythe, cutting people down like wheat once he went nuts & riding in the street.



Wantanabe played the Ra's Al Ghul i was hoping he was going to play. 



Spoiler



A DECOY Ra's Al Ghul 


 I had some issues at first, but the idea of a deathless chinese assasin cult had that olde Cthuliod vibe to it, which caused it to grow on me. 



Spoiler



And after i had thought, oh look, Ra's is back and younger, well he sure acts like the comic book Demon's head at least. And then BAM!, they give me the ra's i wanted.  Best thing is they killed the batman villian that is designed to recieve such treatment...and to come back for more.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> So how does the much-criticised costume actually come across?
> 
> And I've heard some really bad things about the fight scenes.  Are they as bad as they say?



I saw the movie last night and thought it was pretty good.  So far its the best one in my mind.  Nothing's over done and it stuck to true batman unlike any of the others.  I still say Val Kilmer was a better batman but Bale handled his.  

As for your question the suit was interesting to me.  It ws not overdone and looked like something someone put together or redid.  I liked that.  It gave some authenticity to this guy doing this thing.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 15, 2005)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> That movie broke my heart.




Mine as well.

I wish I didn't already hate Baldwin, so I could use the Shadow movie to start hating him.  

Back on topic: the new Bats looks teh kewl.


----------



## Henry (Jun 15, 2005)

Based on what I've read in this thread and heard from a movie critic on the radio today, it's changed my mind from "I'll pass and wait for video" to "hmm, wonder if I should go see this in the theater?" I'm torn, because I was really planning my next movie to be Serenity, but this may pique my interest enough to check it out.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Based on what I've read in this thread and heard from a movie critic on the radio today, it's changed my mind from "I'll pass and wait for video" to "hmm, wonder if I should go see this in the theater?" I'm torn, because I was really planning my next movie to be Serenity, but this may pique my interest enough to check it out.



I was really dreading this movie before the reviews and the interviews started changing my mind.  At first when I heard this movie would showcase three villians, I swore that this was going to be horrible.  But this really showed how you do three villians the right way without making it campy, silly and stupid.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 15, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I still say Val Kilmer was a better batman but Bale handled his.




Wow. You and I must look for very different things in our Batman actors. Ranking the four actors to portray Batman on the big screen in the past two decades, I'd put Val Kilmer at number 3.

For the record, my personal order from worst to best:

4) Clooney. Like the guy, totally wrong for Batman. (The fact that his movie had no redeeming value whatsoever doesn't help.) If they wanted to make George Clooney play a superhero, he really should have been Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic.

3) Kilmer. Better than Clooney, but he just didn't do it for me.

2) Keaton. Can't do the physical stuff, but I thought he captured the persona better than either of the previous two.

1) Bale. Got _everything_ right. The first person able to do the persona _and_ the physicality with equal ability.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow. You and I must look for very different things in our Batman actors. Ranking the four actors to portray Batman on the big screen in the past two decades, I'd put Val Kilmer at number 3.
> 
> For the record, my personal order from worst to best:
> 
> ...




You didn't really givea  good reason outside of the fact that you personally didn't like Kilmer???

Keaton was too old to play the part and it showed on the screen.  I think we both agree on Clooney.  So it comes down between Kilmer and Bale.  I loved Bale, don't get me wrong, but Bale played a first year batman wheras Kilmer had the mannerisms, the broodiness and the assertiveness of the current batman down packed.  He reminded me more of the comic book batman.    The script, direction and villians hurt hte movie.  If you watch it, it looks as if  Kilmer is in a different movie altogether because he is takign the role seriously.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 15, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> You didn't really givea  good reason outside of the fact that you personally didn't like Kilmer???




Well, to clarify, I like Val Kilmer as an actor. I just wasn't fond of him in the role. Ultimately, I'm not sure there's anything more to it than that. He didn't _fit_, in my eyes. I think...

Honestly, I think, at least in part, he came across as too _young_ for the role. If he _had_ been doing a Year One, he might have worked better.

I'll be the first to admit, though, that part of my reaction may indeed be the movie dragging him down. It wasn't as bad as the fourth, but man, was it not good. Especially bringing in Robin. I pray on my knees that the current franchise never even considers a Robin character.

But all that said, I thought Bale had the mannerisms down, too. I mean, come on. There has never been a more iconically Batman scene filmed, ever, than the scene in Batman Begins where he's questioning Detective Flass. That whole scene--mannerisms included--just screamed Batman more than anything in either of the last two movies of the previous incarnation.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, to clarify, I like Val Kilmer as an actor. I just wasn't fond of him in the role. Ultimately, I'm not sure there's anything more to it than that. He didn't _fit_, in my eyes. I think...
> 
> Honestly, I think, at least in part, he came across as too _young_ for the role. If he _had_ been doing a Year One, he might have worked better.
> 
> ...





I wouldn't have minded robin if it were have been a young teen (and much better scripts)  I think that the way they're going with these next few batman they could still bring in a time drake style robin (which wouldn't surprise me considering the popularity of Robin and Teen Titans) 

I think Bale was excellent.  I was kinda lof down because I see Bale playing a 23 or 25 year old batman and in some ports a 19 year old batman, I would have liked if (at least for the late teens) they would have hired another actor.   but I wouldn't count out Kilmer out.  I think if the movie would have been better the acting he did in that movie as batman would have shown more.  I've heard he was too stiff but that's how i picture batman in the later years.  A very stern, detective straight laced guy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 16, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Keaton was too old to play the part and it showed on the screen.



Too old?!?!?!!! Based on what? The next leading actor play to play _Batman,_ Val "I coulda been a _21 Jumpstreet_ cop" Kilmer?

Sorry, bro, but director Tim Burton casted Keaton right in the first place.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 16, 2005)

Keaton as Batman was bad. Pouting lips do not an intimidating expression make. Plus the script had Batman killing, which isn't a very Batman thing to do.

As Bruce Wayne he wasn't much better either. He looked to distracted, too bumbling (even when he was alone with Alfred).

And theres the phisique du role. He just didn't look the part, and it hurt his performance.


----------



## Mark (Jun 16, 2005)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> I'm really looking forward to this one.





Me, too!  I haven't minded any of the actors who have played Batman but. at the same time, none of them have struck me as the ultimate Batman portrayal yet.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Too old?!?!?!!! Based on what? The next leading actor play to play _Batman,_ Val "I coulda been a _21 Jumpstreet_ cop" Kilmer?
> 
> 
> Sorry, bro, but director Tim Burton casted Keaton right in the first place.






UM... based off of the comic book   , batmans not some 40 year old geaser.  HE's a freaking built like a house genious .  The closer you get to that the more accurate you are.  

Keaton was balding with the physique of a 45 year old whom jogs every now and then.  Sure he acted well but visually  i never bought him in the part.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jun 16, 2005)

Ditto on Keaton not working. IMO Tim Burton was the worst thing to happen to Batman...Schumacher just took what he started and ran it into the ground 

I was really dissapointed with Clooney. When he was announced, I had visions of Seth from From Dusk til Dawn. He was a convincing badass and  Clooney already showed how charming he could be in movies like Out of Sight.

Then I saw the movie. The horror. At least I didn't pay to see it.

Not his fault IMO, I think he got screwed over by Shumacher and co. He had the potential to easily be the best Batman.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 16, 2005)

I liked the Burton/Keaton films; was so-so on the Kilmer one, and was extremely disappointed in the Clooney one.  Looking forward to viewing this new film.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

"I didnt need some molded chest... that was all West... and what ever happened to the battootsy"- Adam West


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 16, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Keaton as Batman was bad. Pouting lips do not an intimidating expression make. Plus the script had Batman killing, which isn't a very Batman thing to do.
> 
> As Bruce Wayne he wasn't much better either. He looked to distracted, too bumbling (even when he was alone with Alfred).
> 
> And theres the phisique du role. He just didn't look the part, and it hurt his performance.



Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, Keaton was spot on, Kilmer was too young, and Clooney had the chin (so's Patrick Warburton but he's _The Tick_) but Jim Carrey as Riddler (not Ahnold as Mr. Freeze) mangled that third film.

-- not a Jim Carrey fan.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 16, 2005)

Agreeing to Disagreeing here. 

And let's not forget Tommy Lee Jones totally unappropriate portrayal of Two-Face!


----------



## Felon (Jun 16, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, Keaton was spot on.




Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend. 

"Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.

A lot of folks really have their blinders on when it comes to the Burton's Batman. We had Keaton running around in a stiff-necked outfit as Batman for a few minutes, with the majority of his scenes in his Bruce Wayne alter ego, where he portrayed that side of the character as a Bob-Newhartesque bumbling, stammering socially-retarded twit. Then we had Nicholson's fat, frumpy Joker, wearing some cool outfits but not saying anything particularly witty or doing anything particularly humorous. 

A very goofy movie, with way too much winking at the camera.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.
> 
> "Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.
> 
> ...




I'd have to agree to agree  

I think it was the less of 4 evils but evil none the less.  I enjoyed the first two films but it wasn't the batman I had read.  OH my, I disagree with whomever said the quips about mr. freeze and riddler (both were terrible but not hte worst).  The worst was man in black as two faced.  Two faced is such a great character and a great character for a movie and it was totally destroyed.  The makeup was horrible (his face is not evenly divided in the comic) and there was no sense of humanity vs. monster that hte comic portrays.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 16, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.
> 
> "Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.
> 
> A lot of folks really have their blinders on when it comes to the Burton's Batman.



Is that an attack against me?  A *Felon* wants to attack me?


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 16, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Two faced is such a great character and a great character for a movie and it was totally destroyed.  The makeup was horrible (his face is not evenly divided in the comic) ...



It isn't?  It sure was when I was a kid.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 16, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then we're going to have to agree to disagree.



It would help if you'd explain your reasons before it just stops with "agree to disagree."  I mean, quite likely, that'll happen anyway, but you haven't addressed his concerns, which I happen to have always shared as well, nor offered up any idea of _why_ you thought Keaton was spot on.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

Dingleberry said:
			
		

> It isn't?  It sure was when I was a kid.




It's jaggedy at best, i'm nto sure aobut the earlier comics but when iread him in the late 80s and 90s his face was always jagged.  That's what i liked about him.  It showed credibility.  i never bought the fact that acid burns exactly one half of your face.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jun 16, 2005)

Well, the only thing that I felt was "spot on" from the previous movies was Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Meow.

Surely, at least we can all agree on that?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2005)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Well, the only thing that I felt was "spot on" from the previous movies was Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Meow.
> 
> Surely, at least we can all agree on that?



Best Cat woman since earth kitt.  Yummy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It would help if you'd explain your reasons before it just stops with "agree to disagree."  I mean, quite likely, that'll happen anyway, but you haven't addressed his concerns, which I happen to have always shared as well, nor offered up any idea of _why_ you thought Keaton was spot on.



Nope. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 17, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.
> 
> "Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.



Neither are impossible positions to defend. Keaton doesn't have pouty lips (Adriana Lima has pouty lips), Keaton doesn't have a weak voice (certainly no weaker than Bale's), he's 5'10'' (cetainly not short, just not tall), and he was well before 40 at the time _Batman_ was released. See, that wasn't so hard was it?

You seem to be basing your _opinion_ on a bunch of comics and cartoons most of the people who will see any Batman movie, including me, have never paid much attention to. We don't care about fidelity to earlier incarnations of Batman, we just want a good movie. After Bale, Keaton starred in, from where I'm standing, easily the second best Batman movie. Most people seem to agree to that, if you believe the tens of thousands of voters on IMDB. I'm actually surprised there was any room for debate about who was the best, before Bale's turn.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 17, 2005)

Michael Keaton had an intensity to his Batman that the others lacked. I could see the darkness simmering in his eyes, lurking in his voice. That's something the other actors lacked. Granted, though, they appeared in progressively worse movies. Kilmer was too sunny for me, though.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Neither are impossible positions to defend. Keaton doesn't have pouty lips (Adriana Lima has pouty lips), Keaton doesn't have a weak voice (certainly no weaker than Bale's), he's 5'10'' (cetainly not short, just not tall), and he was well before 40 at the time _Batman_ was released. See, that wasn't so hard was it?
> 
> You seem to be basing your _opinion_ on a bunch of comics and cartoons most of the people who will see any Batman movie, including me, have never paid much attention to. We don't care about fidelity to earlier incarnations of Batman, we just want a good movie. After Bale, Keaton starred in, from where I'm standing, easily the second best Batman movie. Most people seem to agree to that, if you believe the tens of thousands of voters on IMDB. I'm actually surprised there was any room for debate about who was the best, before Bale's turn.



Keaton seamed a bit pouty throughout hte movie and he was 38 years old when he did the batman movies (very close to 40 ).  I know the regular movie goer wants a good movie and I"m sure you guys loved the first two movies and the kids loved the second two movies.  But it's an insult to comic book fans for the role not to have been done right.  Most people are lemmings, you tell them something enough they'll believe it.  But the first time I saw someone really act like batman was Kilmer and Bale, moreso Bale because he had better material.  For the true batman fan that was the best moment.  These people who vote at imdb are the same people who  say spiderman is the best comic book movie.  Well if Batman had been so right how did some new comer take its mantal?  I'll tell you because the first one failed.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 17, 2005)

For me, the only acid test is whether or not I enjoyed the movie.  I haven't seen the latest one yet (going tonight) but regarding the previous four - irrespective of accurate protrayals of characters, closeness to the comic book source, etc., I _enjoyed_ the first Batman movie the most (then the second, third and fourth in that order).


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 17, 2005)

Lucius Fox: "Okay Bruce, we've got a magnetic grappling gun, explosive flash and smoke pellets, radiosensitive eavesdropping tools, and a GPS tracking dart."

Batman: "Alright, I like it. What else?"

Lucius Fox: "Electroreactive hang-gliding cloak, cowl-inset satellite phone, and tactile monofibrile tread on the soles of your boots, allowing you to hang from ceilings."

Batman (pointing): "What's that?"

Lucius Fox: "Oh that? Well that's shark repellant, but I mean, when will you ever need that?"


----------



## Felon (Jun 17, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Is that an attack against me?  A *Felon* wants to attack me?




That's right! What you gonna do about it? Gonna let me push you around? Poke! Poke! Poke!

/sigh  

Not taking the bait, huh? Well, that's OK hehe...



			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> Neither are impossible positions to defend. Keaton doesn't have pouty lips (Adriana Lima has pouty lips), Keaton doesn't have a weak voice (certainly no weaker than Bale's), he's 5'10'' (cetainly not short, just not tall), and he was well before 40 at the time _Batman_ was released. See, that wasn't so hard was it?




He was less than two years from forty. You call that "well before"? His take Batman's voice was basically the same cop-out most folks would resort to--a nearly inaudible hiss of a whisper. And you simply chose not to address his lack of physical fitness. 

So yeah, your position is impossible to defend. Your problem is that you apparently never saw that Python skit about a guy who's looking for an arguement and all he gets is disagreement. 



> You seem to be basing your _opinion_ on a bunch of comics and cartoons most of the people who will see any Batman movie, including me, have never paid much attention to. We don't care about fidelity to earlier incarnations of Batman, we just want a good
> movie.




Well, your blissful ignorance is all well and good, but there is probably some book out there that you've read and are fond of. I suspect if they made a movie out of it you'd be disappointed if the director was unfaithful to major elements of the source material. Batman is a 6-foot-plus fighting machine. Keaton is a pantywaist. That's not a trivial element to disregard. 

People liked Burton's Batman because it was cute and silly and offered them lots of bright colors to look at.


----------



## reveal (Jun 17, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Lucius Fox: "Okay Bruce, we've got a magnetic grappling gun, explosive flash and smoke pellets, radiosensitive eavesdropping tools, and a GPS tracking dart."
> 
> Batman: "Alright, I like it. What else?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> It's more like the kinetic close-up camera work of Bourne Identity than something like The Matrix, if that makes sense.



My only complaint with the otherwise brilliant film.  I _loathe_ that style of hand-held, up close, intercut fight scene photography.  I don't need to see Batman doing Jet Li like wuxia maneuvers, but I don't want to have a brief epileptic seizure and then come out of it to see that Batman won.


----------



## reveal (Jun 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> My only complaint with the otherwise brilliant film.  I _loathe_ that style of hand-held, up close, intercut fight scene photography.  I don't need to see Batman doing Jet Li like wuxia maneuvers, but I don't want to have a brief epileptic seizure and then come out of it to see that Batman won.




From http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/batmanbegins.html:



> Was the cameraman being chased by a bear? That's how chaotic the action scenes are.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nope. Let's leave it at that.



Well, if you didn't even want to talk about _why_ you thought Keaton was spot on, why did you even bring it up?  Surely there's an interesting conversation to be had there?  Why assume that it's going to go down in flames?  That's the whole reason to talk about movies in the first place, isn't it?


----------



## Jarrod (Jun 17, 2005)

A bit of a hijack..

"I'm.... Batthumb!"

And man do I need to see this movie...


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> My only complaint with the otherwise brilliant film.  I _loathe_ that style of hand-held, up close, intercut fight scene photography.  I don't need to see Batman doing Jet Li like wuxia maneuvers, but I don't want to have a brief epileptic seizure and then come out of it to see that Batman won.





Blah. I like this recent trend in action scenes. Like it a lot. If I want to watch orchestrated fights clearly I'll watch pro wrestling.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 17, 2005)

I don't mind Batman cutting down mooks with the help of shaky-camera (tm), but I do want to see major fight scenes in detail. I mean, it's possible to make complex cool fights without them appearing overly choreographed.

I liked the movie. Sure, I've got some small complaints in that they could have made a few of the characters more meaningful, and how just because Batman jumps from rooftop to rooftop doesn't mean his car has to too, but all in all it was very well acted and fun to watch.  I think I realized I loved the movie when I got my first look at Dr. Crane.  Man I love recurring villains.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Blah. I like this recent trend in action scenes. Like it a lot. If I want to watch orchestrated fights clearly I'll watch pro wrestling.



Huh?  So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?

Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?  So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?
> 
> Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.



I liked the fight scenes in borne identity (where they say this trend started).  But i will say that sometmes it was hard to follow what was going on in some action scenes (I"nm thinking of the dock scene) .


----------



## Wayside (Jun 18, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Keaton seamed a bit pouty throughout hte movie and he was 38 years old when he did the batman movies (very close to 40 ).  I know the regular movie goer wants a good movie and I"m sure you guys loved the first two movies and the kids loved the second two movies.  But it's an insult to comic book fans for the role not to have been done right.  Most people are lemmings, you tell them something enough they'll believe it.  But the first time I saw someone really act like batman was Kilmer and Bale, moreso Bale because he had better material.  For the true batman fan that was the best moment.  These people who vote at imdb are the same people who  say spiderman is the best comic book movie.  Well if Batman had been so right how did some new comer take its mantal?  I'll tell you because the first one failed.



Surely the circularity of what you're saying here didn't escape you? I mean about the "true Batman" and the "true Batman fan," and the "true Batman" is the one the "true Batman fan" knows, and the way we know the "true Batman fan" is by his knowing the "true Batman"--?

As to the lemmings comment: sorry, but the fact that you've read some comics and watched some cartoons doesn't qualify your judgments or make them in any way more valid. You aren't the authority, or as you say, "the true batman fan," who decides which Batman is the real and accurate Batman. We're talking about a character here who's seen any number of incarnations, many of which have very little to do with one another, none of which is _the_ authentic, undisputed Batman. If you're going to keep telling the same stories about the same character for decades, that character has to be capable of an amazing variety of transformations, none of which are any more or less "correct" than the others. Keaton's turn wasn't an insult or a failure in any way, least of all because it was new and different.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Well if Batman had been so right how did some new comer take its mantal?  I'll tell you because the first one failed.



So now the fact that they're still making James Bond movies means that all the previosu Bond films flopped? Right you are, Ken.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> He was less than two years from forty. You call that "well before"? His take Batman's voice was basically the same cop-out most folks would resort to--a nearly inaudible hiss of a whisper. And you simply chose not to address his lack of physical fitness.



I gather it was more like 3 when the movie was actually filmed, so yes, I call that "well before," as opposed to, say, him being 39 and change, which would be "just shy of." And I didn't choose not to address anything; Keaton simply never struck me as being physically unfit, and Batman simply never struck as needing to be particularly muscular. But by all means continue being smug and mistaken, it's really no problem for me that your statements here make up in volume what they lack in substance.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> So yeah, your position is impossible to defend.



So what you're saying is I've achieved the impossible here. I thank you for the compliment kind sir.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Your problem is that you apparently never saw that Python skit about a guy who's looking for an arguement and all he gets is disagreement.



Of course I have. The irony here is that I'm doing the arguing and you're doing the disagreeing.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Well, your blissful ignorance is all well and good



And your rhetorically charged pose is just as all well and good, bravo to this "argument."



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> but there is probably some book out there that you've read and are fond of.



I'm afraid there is no such book. Of course I'm exaggerating when I talk about comics and cartoons, since I've read and seen plenty of both; the point is I certainly don't approach them religiously, the way you seem to, and this holds for every book. _Fight Club_, _Trainspotting_, _A Clockwork Orange_, _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_,*GASP* _Troy_, all good books. Do I care that in the Iliad Achilleus doesn't actually die, that the myth of his heel actually postdates the poem? Nope. Changing the story comes with retelling it. I'm happy to have eluded this modern obsession with authenticity, which in this case magically provides you a way of criticizing _Batman_ without actually criticizing it in itself!



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> People liked Burton's Batman because it was cute and silly and offered them lots of bright colors to look at.



Ah, and now you propose to tell other people why they like something. Another excellent "argument." Lucky for me you know me better than I know myself and are here to help me out with these things. By the way, I was thinking of going shopping for some new underwear later, mind telling me what bright colors I want? It would save me a lot of time trying things on. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?  So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?
> 
> Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.





I don't know what it is really. The more I watch older fight scenes and newer ones like the ones in RotS, the more I realize the big long 15 minute fights where it doesn't seem either guy is actually trying to win a fight. And none of the "shaky-cam" fight scenes that I've seen ever really had me confused as to what was going on.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 18, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Surely the circularity of what you're saying here didn't escape you? I mean about the "true Batman" and the "true Batman fan," and the "true Batman" is the one the "true Batman fan" knows, and the way we know the "true Batman fan" is by his knowing the "true Batman"--?
> 
> As to the lemmings comment: sorry, but the fact that you've read some comics and watched some cartoons doesn't qualify your judgments or make them in any way more valid. You aren't the authority, or as you say, "the true batman fan," who decides which Batman is the real and accurate Batman. We're talking about a character here who's seen any number of incarnations, many of which have very little to do with one another, none of which is _the_ authentic, undisputed Batman. If you're going to keep telling the same stories about the same character for decades, that character has to be capable of an amazing variety of transformations, none of which are any more or less "correct" than the others. Keaton's turn wasn't an insult or a failure in any way, least of all because it was new and different.
> 
> ...





I'm not in no way saying i am authoring the book on the true batman.  And when i say the true batman, and the true batman fan, Im talking about maintaining the integrity of the source material.  I'm sure there are 100s who can argue that they are the "bigger fan" and i have no fault with them.  But I'm pretty sure I've read enough comics to understand this archtype for batman.  

Yes my friend, The source material has an archtype for batman.  Early 30s, young vibrant,  genious, confident.  Batman is obviously broody.  He fights crime not because its his duty but because he feels he has to.  Most importantly batman doesnt kill because then he'd be no better than the bad guy.  For anyone whose read half a comic book, this is important.  YOu don't walk away from this notion of batman.   It's part of what makes the mythos. 

I've never read a comic book (and hopefully you can provide me some issues so i can catch up   ) who was pouty and by no means does Batman EVER EVER EVER kill a villian.  That's where the first one broke the rule and why it took two or three times for me to actually like it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?  So there's no where in between the camp fakeness of pro wrestling and a camerman who was fumbling to not drop his camera during every action scene while some people who may or may not have actually been the main actors kinda sorta moved in a vague way?
> 
> Fight scenes can be nasty, brutish, quick and realistic and still actually give the audience the respect of showing them what's happening.





In this we are like BROTHERS. 

Exhibit A: The fight between John Mclaine and Karl near the end of DIE HARD. Basically two guys really trying to kill each other as best as they can.

Exhibit B: The fight in the apt in France near the half way mark in THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Two skilled fighters, really brutal. No fancy wire work. 

Exhibit C: Tony Jaa in pretty much every fight scene in ONG BAK. Brutal no nonsense muy Thai, knees, shins, elbows to the face, chest and head. 

BATMAN BEGINS had fight scenes that well...sucked. 

And really at the end of the day you can give me all the character development that you want, but if it isnt accompanied by Batman copiously kicking people in the teeth, then it's not worth it. 

I really wanted to like this movie and there were parts of it I did like but part of the summer action movie experience is, well the action. And on that front Batman Begins failed miserably.


----------



## nikolai (Jun 18, 2005)

I really don't get all the Burton/Keaton hate. I thought those films were remarkable. They were certainly much more visually interesting than "Begins". Keaton's "distracted" persona may not have been the mental image of how many fans would have imagined the part, but it was perfect for the film.

I thought Bale was terrible as Batman (as opposed to Wayne). I thought the costume didn't work, the bottom half of Bale's face looked really strange against the mask, and I thought the deep-voiced growling he did was silly. Despite all this, I thought the film really worked, particularly at the begining and during the more "psychological" parts. You could really see Nolans influence.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 18, 2005)

I suspect that those who didn't like Bale will find that they're in a serious minority.  The _only_ thing I think Keaton did better than Bale (and anyone else for that matter) was Batman's voice...  Otherwise, Bale whips up everyone else on Wayne or The Batman.

Frankly, I don't think the first movie was terrible.  However, it was not particularly faithful to the character.  It was a simple fantasy that did not try to rationalize The Batman's motivations, didn't attempt to clarify how he learned to fight or became a detective, and didn't focus much on any of the characters except The Joker.  This doesn't mean that it didn't come closer than any other previous rendition of the character on screen (big or small), it just means that it was not as faithful as a lot people supporting it want to claim.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 18, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I really don't get all the Burton/Keaton hate. I thought those films were remarkable. They were certainly much more visually interesting than "Begins". Keaton's "distracted" persona may not have been the mental image of how many fans would have imagined the part, but it was perfect for the film.
> 
> I thought Bale was terrible as Batman (as opposed to Wayne). I thought the costume didn't work, the bottom half of Bale's face looked really strange against the mask, and I thought the deep-voiced growling he did was silly. Despite all this, I thought the film really worked, particularly at the begining and during the more "psychological" parts. You could really see Nolans influence.



It's not as much hate, again I think Batman 89 was a good film, but even as a teenager i walked away with a bad taste in my mouth.  Batman's a peak physical speciimen and genious, none of which reflected Keaton.  Again the number one rule is batman never kills.  THat's the major aspect of his character and Burton decimated that for "his" vision.  I even liked part 3 somewhat better than part 2 just becase batman didn't kill anyone.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 19, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I suspect that those who didn't like Bale will find that they're in a serious minority.  The _only_ thing I think Keaton did better than Bale (and anyone else for that matter) was Batman's voice...  Otherwise, Bale whips up everyone else on Wayne or The Batman.



I think Bale was in the better movie, made a better Bruce Wayne and made a very good Batman, I just don't think that disqualifies Keaton in any way (and most people apparently agree, if you go by the "Your favorite live-action Batman movie" poll in this forum, where it has the second most votes, event counting the nostalgia votes for the 1966 Batman). I definitely think Felon is having a shouting match instead of an argument, hasn't really made any good points, and is trying to intimidate with rhetoric instead of persuade or convince anyone.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> It was a simple fantasy that did not try to rationalize The Batman's motivations, didn't attempt to clarify how he learned to fight or became a detective, and didn't focus much on any of the characters except The Joker.



Perhaps because it was titled Batman, not Batman Begins? Batman Begins is far from flawless, but the exposition was effective partially because the villain was a piece of Batman's origin. If they'd laid it out the same way, then had a totally different villain, it wouldn't have worked. To the extent that the Joker was part of Batman's origin in the 1989 version, that origin was included in the movie. Anything more than that probably wouldn't have worked very well narratively.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> This doesn't mean that it didn't come closer than any other previous rendition of the character on screen (big or small), it just means that it was not as faithful as a lot people supporting it want to claim.



None of what you said above really has any bearing on whether or not it was faithful, unless you're saying every Batman movie has to rationalize his motivations, tell all the backstory, include all the villains and so on. These are things the 1989 Batman simply skipped over for the most part, so it doesn't make sense to call it unfaithful on that account. Or do you mean the two different ways Bruce's parents are killed? If so I didn't realize there was only one version of that in the comics.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 19, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> ... Batman's a peak physical speciimen and genious, none of which reflected Keaton...




I don't know, I think the Keaton Batman was a lot more cerebral than the Bale version. When he's not doing his "Bruce Wayne, Millionaire Playboy" role, he's seen carefully investigating the Joker's origins and motivations. He's the one who pieces together the chemical-additive plot, and puts together an anti-reagent for the city to use to foil the plot. He was much more the detective than the Bale Batman in B-Begins.

Two different Batmen, two different movies, two different takes.

Then again, I liked them both, so...


----------



## thalmin (Jun 19, 2005)

Just saw Batman Begins today. It is now my favorite Batman to date.
To enter the discussion about Keaton. Batman '89 was my favorite. While I questioned the choice of Keaton as Batman, and physically he didn't measure up, I really enjoyed his portrayal of the Dark Knight as a bit of a psycho. I only knew Batman from the silver age comics, and the Adam West (ghakk) series, and I found Keaton's portrayal to be refreshing and more reasonable. Jack Nicholson was even better as the Joker.

That said, Batman Begins was, in my opinion, the best Batman yet. Good story, good action (I hate Matrirx-style fight scenes) and finally (for me) an exposition of where Batman gets all his marvelous toys. Not just why Bruce Wayne becomes the Batman, but how he gets there. Good acting. Good effects. Good story. Good Evil villians. Nearly everything I could ask for in a comic hero movie.
YMMV


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 19, 2005)

As much as I did like Burton's Batman I later really reallized that I liked it so much for the atmosphere, and Burton's weird designs. Burton pretty much lost me when he said that the reason for the armored suit was that if someone had the real physuqie to pull off those stunts, he wouldn't use the costume and weapons, he'd just beat people with a baseball bat. (See, to me, if I'd been the money guy on that film and heard that, I'd have sent him packing. But that's just me). But it was good, and certainly better than nothing. If anything, it served to put a stake in the heart of the 60's series in the minds of Joe Public.

Begins is now my favorite Batman film; I can only hope they continue to be this good.


----------



## dagger (Jun 19, 2005)

> Exhibit B: The fight in the apt in France near the half way mark in THE BOURNE IDENTITY




Best fight scene ever...*no shaky cam *, quick and brutal.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 19, 2005)

Just saw it today... lots of fun!


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 20, 2005)

I'm not allowed to link to it, but I would suggest anyone interested in a harsh but truthful review of this movie Google 'The Filthy Critic'.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 20, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> Best fight scene ever...*no shaky cam *, quick and brutal.



Huh?  Bourne Identity had shaky cam all over the place.  Granted, it wasn't as bad as Bourne Supremacy (I wanted to like that movie so much, but I left the theater with a headache) but it was still there.


----------

