"Batman Begins" Talkback (Spoilers)

[gunswordfist]

Scarecrow was clearly a side villain. He was working for Ra's for Christ's sake.

Two-Face was watered down into some side revenge story. That all turned out well in TDKR but in TDK, all he had was one scene with Batman after all the best stuff happened in the movie.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Scarecrow was clearly a side villain. He was working for Ra's for Christ's sake.

I never said that he wasn't a side villain. My point was that he was clearly meant to be threatening and have a significant role in the movie, but basically just became a joke at the end. Its also a shame because he was a FAR more interesting character than Ra's in the movie. Name just one interesting or unique thing about Ra's in Batman Begins (that is of course not counting his added back-story which was revealed in TDKR since that wasn't part of BB as a stand-alone film). Ra's in Batman Begins is one of the most boring iterations of a Batman villain that I have ever seen.

Two-Face was watered down into some side revenge story. That all turned out well in TDKR but in TDK, all he had was one scene with Batman after all the best stuff happened in the movie.

He wasn't watered down just because he only became Two-Face at the end. His character was actually built up and wasn't cast aside as a joke villain at the end like Scarecrow was. The scenes with him killing off people associated with the mob and that last scene where he held Gordon's son hostage were short but memorable, and could actually be taken seriously.

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.

Its mostly the action scenes that people refer to when they say that the editing in the movie sucks. Just try watching any single action scene in the movie by itself and try to tell what's going on. I mean, yeah, you can clearly tell that Batman is beating up bad guys, but you just see a lot of close-ups and a ton of cut-away shots which just feels like complete mess and lack the coherency of a properly edited action scene.

The actual story-line sequences of the movie itself have decent enough editing.

[talonmalon333]

I actually really liked Ra's in Batman Begins. I enjoyed his story and thought he carried a presence. And I like how his presence could still be felt in The Dark Knight Rises. Also, besides Batman's questionable logic in the end ("I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."), I think Ra's was possibly the only villain in the trilogy to get an ending that wasn't poorly done (though I try to let the Joker off the hook here, for obvious reason).

Also, Harvey Dent was easily better than the Scarecrow in this trilogy. Whatcha talking about, GSF?

[gunswordfist]

I never said that he wasn't a side villain. My point was that he was clearly meant to be threatening and have a significant role in the movie, but basically just became a joke at the end. Its also a shame because he was a FAR more interesting character than Ra's in the movie. Name just one interesting or unique thing about Ra's in Batman Begins (that is of course not counting his added back-story which was revealed in TDKR since that wasn't part of BB as a stand-alone film). Ra's in Batman Begins is one of the most boring iterations of a Batman villain that I have ever seen.

He did look like a joke when he got Rachel'd but he did you know, help create the threat to the city during the climax. The interesting thing that Ra's did was have a contrast to Batman's goal that effected the 1st and 3rd movie. Bruce wanted to save the city while Ra's wanted to destroy it because he believed it couldn't be saved. Now what unique or interesting thing did Bane do besides wear a mask or have the voice of a guy that's about to sell some cereal?

He wasn't watered down just because he only became Two-Face at the end. His character was actually built up and wasn't cast aside as a joke villain at the end like Scarecrow was. The scenes with him killing off people associated with the mob and that last scene where he held Gordon's son hostage were short but memorable, and could actually be taken seriously.

Yeah, because shooting the driver of the car you're in and taking one of your best friend's son hostage because someone else blew up your girlfriend can actually be taken seriously.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The shaky cam in the action scenes is terrible. It's not a problem exclusive to this movie most non-Marvel action movies seem to excessively use it), but that doesn't excuse how outside of Batman's first appearance (where it makes sense for the reveal) it is used terribly throughout.

Shaky cam needs to go away already.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

He did look like a joke when he got Rachel'd but he did you know, help create the threat to the city during the climax. The interesting thing that Ra's did was have a contrast to Batman's goal that effected the 1st and 3rd movie. Bruce wanted to save the city while Ra's wanted to destroy it because he believed it couldn't be saved. Now what unique or interesting thing did Bane do besides wear a mask or have the voice of a guy that's about to sell some cereal?

You can't use the 3rd movie to justify anything from the 1st movie as a stand-alone feature. As for Bane, the guy was actually intimidating and he actually accomplished things rather than just spend most of the movie talking about what he would do to Gotham like Ra's did.

And Crane was responsible for creating the the chemical that drove people insane which Ra's could use on Gotham. Just because he did that, it doesn't mean that his characterization was better for it. That's a completely separate thing. Of course I wouldn't expect a moron with your 13-year old action-junkie level logic to understand what makes good characterization.

Yeah, because shooting the driver of the car you're in

You do realize that Harvey didn't care whether he lived or died at that point anymore, do you? Oh, that's right, you flat-out suck at reading characters unless its flat-out explained to you with heavy exposition.

and taking one of your best friend's son hostage because someone else blew up your girlfriend can actually be taken seriously.

Since when were Dent and Gordon "best friends?" Obviously I missed that part, especially seeing as how they had only first met at the beginning of the fucking movie. Also, he took his son hostage because he was pissed at Gordon for keeping corrupt officers on his team, which allowed the Joker to carry out his trap leading to Rachel's death. So, yeah, it makes perfect sense, dumb-shit.

[gunswordfist]

Accomplished things? Like what? Stealing Ra's Al Ghul's plan to destroy Gotham?

Yeah, because getting tasered means everything you did before that is bunk. That makes perfect sense!

Oh, so that's why Dent buckled his seat belt...because he didn't care about living so he could see his plan go through. You can't even watch a movie right.

I didn't know Gordon could take corrupt officers off the force when he wanted to...oh wait, he couldn't. Now you rewrote the movie and Jim suddenly doesn't care about stopping corruption. Brilliant.

[talonmalon333]

He did look like a joke when he got Rachel'd but he did you know, help create the threat to the city during the climax. The interesting thing that Ra's did was have a contrast to Batman's goal that effected the 1st and 3rd movie. Bruce wanted to save the city while Ra's wanted to destroy it because he believed it couldn't be saved. Now what unique or interesting thing did Bane do besides wear a mask or have the voice of a guy that's about to sell some cereal?

Yeah, because shooting the driver of the car you're in and taking one of your best friend's son hostage because someone else blew up your girlfriend can actually be taken seriously.

You probably made some Ra's points in here that I agree with. But I just can't get over how poorly your quoting was here. So nevermind.

[gunswordfist]

He did look like a joke when he got Rachel'd but he did you know, help create the threat to the city during the climax. The interesting thing that Ra's did was have a contrast to Batman's goal that effected the 1st and 3rd movie. Bruce wanted to save the city while Ra's wanted to destroy it because he believed it couldn't be saved. Now what unique or interesting thing did Bane do besides wear a mask or have the voice of a guy that's about to sell some cereal?

Yeah, because shooting the driver of the car you're in and taking one of your best friend's son hostage because someone else blew up your girlfriend can actually be taken seriously.

You probably made some Ra's points in here that I agree with. But I just can't get over how poorly your quoting was here. So nevermind.

That's lunacy.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Accomplished things? Like what? Stealing Ra's Al Ghul's plan to destroy Gotham?

Stealing his plan? Tell me, in what part of TDKR did Bane fill up Gotham with a fear toxin? Yeah, he set out to sack Gotham (basically) like Ra's did, but his plan was completely different and unlike Ra's, he actually....you know, did it.

Yeah, because getting tasered means everything you did before that is bunk. That makes perfect sense!

And this is why you will forever be a fucking idiot. My point was that Crane/Scarecrow had poor characterization, plane and simple. Yes, he created that toxin. No, that doesn't mean his character is better just because he created something off-screen. Go back to marathoning DBZ episodes, you clearly aren't mean to be analyzing movies (even comic book movies, of all things).

Oh, so that's why Dent buckled his seat belt...because he didn't care about living so he could see his plan go through. You can't even watch a movie right.

You can't even fucking think right, let alone watch a movie. Dent buckled his seatbelt because he knew he'd shoot the driver. It doesn't mean he had to be certain that he would live. The guy was going crazy after his girlfriend died, he wasn't thinking straight. He may not have lived through the crash either way, but at that point he was so furious that he didn't care. If you knew anything about characters on the end of their rope you'd be able to see that people like that don't follow any sort of reasonable logic that a normal person would. But of course its impossible for you to tell that when you're own logic is way out of order.

I didn't know Gordon could take corrupt officers off the force when he wanted to...oh wait, he couldn't. Now you rewrote the movie and Jim suddenly doesn't care about stopping corruption. Brilliant.

He was a higher level officer to them, so he at least had influence on who stayed on his team and who didn't. And the point is that he put his full trust in them and convinced Harvey to do the same even though he knew that they had dirty records, and that lead to bad results, hence Harvey wanting to seek revenge on Gordon. Once again, you are too much of a fucking dumb-ass to analyze characters at all.

Seriously, GSF, I always knew you were an idiot, but I never knew you could sink this low as to come up with a post full of completely broken points. You're just making this shit way too easy.

[Foggle]

Shaky cam needs to go away already.

Shaky cam can be fine if it's used in moderation or to good effect. But very few people actually bother even attempting to do it well.

[gunswordfist]

I am GSF. Whenever I get into an argument with someone I have to flat-out deny whenever I'm wrong because I can't admit how incredibly stupid my logic is when I'm clearly wrong. I love to yammer on about how someone else is wrong even though I clearly haven't read or understood their points and have no idea of just how useless my arguments are. I do this because I know that can't really hold a proper argument for my life, because I have the intelligence level of a below-average 3rd grader.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Shaky cam needs to go away already.

Shaky cam can be fine if it's used in moderation or to good effect. But very few people actually bother even attempting to do it well.

"Good effect" to me is in a single crucial moment. Not "every action scene in the film" like it tends to be now.

Heck look at the Hunger Games, the entire first twenty minutes is in Shaky Cam.

There are no action scenes in the first twenty minutes.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I fixed your post for you, GSF. You had just sunk to such a low level of illogical nonsense in your response that it was impossible for me to take it as a serious argument and respond to it in any other manner than a complete joke.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The best use of shaky cam that I've ever seen was in the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan. It actually made sense there, and even at that point it was still good cinematography because you could still tell what was going on, but the shakiness had a real impact on the scene as you could get a feel of how hectic and gruesome the battle was.

The way shaky cam is used in most movies today just comes off as poorly shot and downright lazy, IMO.