"Batman Begins" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Foggle]

That's lunacy.

Indeed. It was utterly fantastic, though. An amazing start to one of the finest trilogies IMO.

[talonmalon333]

Really guys?

I mean, TDKR was great, but it wasn't that good.

[Foggle]

Really guys?

I mean, TDKR was great, but it wasn't that good.

For me it was.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Really guys?

I mean, TDKR was great, but it wasn't that good.

And that's why you're not a mod.

[gunswordfist]

I thought he said TDK. I actually agree with him on this one.

[Foggle]

I thought he said TDK. I actually agree with him on this one.

That's lunacy.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Really guys?

I mean, TDKR was great, but it wasn't that good.

The same can be said about BB. If anything, I'd say that it has more problems than TDKR. Once again, I'd point you to James Rolfe's review to highlight the main points of what I also find to hinder the movie from being as great as everyone else makes it out to be. You may not agree with his viewpoint on the movie, but most of his points are pretty sound, and they bothered me even before I saw his review on it, so its not like I was just influenced by his opinion.

Really, TDK is the only movie in the trilogy that I'd consider to be great. I think that Batman Begins is a good superhero movie but far from a great one, and I find TDKR to be a very good film that's close to being great but is hindered by its numerous flaws and plot-holes.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Eh, whatever. I still think The Dark Knight Saga makes it mark as the first solid superhero trilogy.

[Foggle]

Eh, whatever. I still think The Dark Knight Saga makes it mark as the first solid superhero trilogy.

Agreed. And I think all three movies are exceptional.

[gunswordfist]

Eh, whatever. I still think The Dark Knight Saga makes it mark as the first solid superhero trilogy.

[talonmalon333]

And that's why you're not a mod.

DARK KNIGHT RISES IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER.

The same can be said about BB. If anything, I'd say that it has more problems than TDKR. Once again, I'd point you to James Rolfe's review to highlight the main points of what I also find to hinder the movie from being as great as everyone else makes it out to be. You may not agree with his viewpoint on the movie, but most of his points are pretty sound, and they bothered me even before I saw his review on it, so its not like I was just influenced by his opinion.

Really, TDK is the only movie in the trilogy that I'd consider to be great. I think that Batman Begins is a good superhero movie but far from a great one, and I find TDKR to be a very good film that's close to being great but is hindered by its numerous flaws and plot-holes.

From James Rolfe's review, I honestly don't remember much besides him saying "I'm not fond of this" or "I think they took these emotions too far", which is completely fair, of course. But I struggle to call them real points. I do remember him complaining about the editing, which I could never disagree on.

Eh, whatever. I still think The Dark Knight Saga makes it mark as the first solid superhero trilogy.

I totally agree. I think I gave them all a 9/10 on Rotten Tomatoes. It was just a bit fanboyish for people to respond to me slightly prefering BB by saying stuff like "that's lunacy"... And I know you guys were probably trolling a bit. But hey, I can too.

[Foggle]

I know you guys were probably trolling

Mmmmmmmaaaaaayyyyyyyybeeeeeeee.

Also, the editing in Begins really isn't that bad IMO. Yeah, it could definitely be a lot better, but I think it gets way too much flack.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

From James Rolfe's review, I honestly don't remember much besides him saying "I'm not fond of this" or "I think they took these emotions too far", which is completely fair, of course. But I struggle to call them real points. I do remember him complaining about the editing, which I could never disagree on.

He made plenty of points. here is video evidence.

Points he made, which I agree with:

-The origin story is way too long and drawn out
-The pacing of the movie is all over the place. I don't mind so much that it feels like it has 2 completely different stories to tell (one being Batman's origin, and the 2nd being his first major crime to stop in Gotham), but it all feels so disjointed and not cohesively put together. Some might say that this was intentional on Nolan's part, but it certainly doesn't follow-suit with the more straightforward plots of the next 2 movies in the trilogy (which I say were much better off for it), and I just flat-out don't like that kind of story-telling in a movie of this sort
-The editing is garbage
-The dialogue and tone of the movie is downright pretentious, which is to say that a lot of people call the movie smart, which it is, but not quite as smart as everyone thinks; I mean, at the end of the day we're talking about a guy fighting crime in a bat-suit here, and no matter how seriously you try to make people take it, its still a ridiculous concept (and in that regard, I find Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy in general to have this common issue, or at least its an issue with me)
-The villains in this movie are weak and forgettable: Ra's Al Ghul is expressionless and boring (though maybe that could be blamed more on Liam Neeson's general acting than on the character himself) and Scarecrow is way too underused, especially considering how much they built him up throughout the entire film, only for him to come off as a joke and be zapped by Rachel after only a couple of minutes of being the actual Scarecrow
-Why the hell is Alfred so easily accepting of Bruce deciding to become Batman? Now here's where the movie's push for such a realistic tone comes to bite it in the ass. For a movie that's trying to be so real, Alfred's immediate acceptance of Bruce undertaking what should seem like such a crazy idea sure as hell isn't a realistic reaction (especially considering how in TDKR he talks all that crap about promising Bruce's parents that he'd protect him, and then all of a sudden being against Bruce becoming Batman again)

[gunswordfist]

I know you guys were probably trolling

Mmmmmmmaaaaaayyyyyyyybeeeeeeee.

Also, the editing in Begins really isn't that bad IMO. Yeah, it could definitely be a lot better, but I think it gets way too much flack.

Batman's first fight was so horribly edited in that movie. The one where he takes out all of Falcone's men and then headbutts him afterwards. The editing for the fights is pretty bad. All the other action was done well though.

From James Rolfe's review, I honestly don't remember much besides him saying "I'm not fond of this" or "I think they took these emotions too far", which is completely fair, of course. But I struggle to call them real points. I do remember him complaining about the editing, which I could never disagree on.

He made plenty of points. here is video evidence.

Points he made, which I agree with:

-The origin story is way too long and drawn out
-The pacing of the movie is all over the place. I don't mind so much that it feels like it has 2 completely different stories to tell (one being Batman's origin, and the 2nd being his first major crime to stop in Gotham), but it all feels so disjointed and not cohesively put together. Some might say that this was intentional on Nolan's part, but it certainly doesn't follow-suit with the more straightforward plots of the next 2 movies in the trilogy (which I say were much better off for it), and I just flat-out don't like that kind of story-telling in a movie of this sort
-The editing is garbage
-The dialogue and tone of the movie is downright pretentious, which is to say that a lot of people call the movie smart, which it is, but not quite as smart as everyone thinks; I mean, at the end of the day we're talking about a guy fighting crime in a bat-suit here, and no matter how seriously you try to make people take it, its still a ridiculous concept (and in that regard, I find Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy in general to have this common issue, or at least its an issue with me)
-The villains in this movie are weak and forgettable: Ra's Al Ghul is expressionless and boring (though maybe that could be blamed more on Liam Neeson's general acting than on the character himself) and Scarecrow is way too underused, especially considering how much they built him up throughout the entire film, only for him to come off as a joke and be zapped by Rachel after only a couple of minutes of being the actual Scarecrow
-Why the hell is Alfred so easily accepting of Bruce deciding to become Batman? Now here's where the movie's push for such a realistic tone comes to bite it in the ass. For a movie that's trying to be so real, Alfred's immediate acceptance of Bruce undertaking what should seem like such a crazy idea sure as hell isn't a realistic reaction (especially considering how in TDKR he talks all that crap about promising Bruce's parents that he'd protect him, and then all of a sudden being against Bruce becoming Batman again)

I do think that Bruce's transition into Batman isn't that smooth, not sure whether it was too short or too long but it felt like he put on the suit out of nowhere.

But that's where I stop being understanding. Alfred didn't completely get along with Bruce being Batman. He was pretty upset when he saw the chase on the news. Either way, Alfred was meant to help Bruce be Batman. If it was me, the only realistic reaction would be keen to how Fred Flintstone went into future shock in Billy & Mandy but that wouldn't make much of a movie now would it.

Ra's is better than Bane. At least Ra's intentions were clear throughout the movie and how the hell can one not like Liam Neeson's acting?

At least Scarecrow wasn't as bad as he was in TDKR. He played a good side villain in BB, something TDK nor TDKR had.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Ra's is better than Bane. At least Ra's intentions were clear throughout the movie and how the hell can one not like Liam Neeson's acting?

Liam Neeson uses his boring monotone voice in every single movie that he's ever been in, and while Ra's Al Ghul is supposed to come off as highly intellectual and also threatening as a villain, he just comes off as straight-up dull the way that Neeson plays him. Maybe you would call that good acting, but then you and I clearly have very different definitions of what should be considered as "good" acting.

At least Scarecrow wasn't as bad as he was in TDKR. He played a good side villain in BB, something TDK nor TDKR had.

He just had a cameo in TDKR in that scene where he was presuming the work of a judge in the isolated Gotham City after Bane's complete takeover of it. He was meant to have a really small part in that. In Batman Begins, he was meant to be a major villain yet his character was barely explored and he was basically treated as a joke when he became a villain. I hold that against that movie because it was clearly trying to build him up to become another huge threat to Batman but his character ended up going nowhere.

Also, Two-Face was a perfect side-villain for TDK, so I don't agree with you on that point. Harvey Dent's character was fully explored, and even though he only became Two-Face towards the end of the movie much like how Dr. Crane only truly became Scarecrow at the end of Batman Begins, his character at least wasn't treated like a joke and he had some truly memorable moments in the film, IMO.