Originally posted by Knightfall93
AAAAAAHHHHH! if anyone ever tries to write a god damn TOME in this thread again I'm gonna slit my wrists! How can anyone say Batman Begins is not The Best Comic Movie of All Time and probably one of the best films of all time! Burton's a f***king wa**er and should be shot!
F**k off, Burton lovers, you don't care about Batman, you're too busy watching Burton's weird comedic stuff like Nightmare Before Chrimbo to care that he's done similar weird stuff to a franchise that isn't just his and isn't like that! Die, Burton, die! Peace out
Whoooaaaaa there Knightfall. Hey I love Batman Begins is much as the next guy but I still think superman is the best comicbook movie ever.are you going to get all upset with me for that? 😉 Yeah Burton is a moron when it comes to batman movies,thats obvious to people who read the comics and have logic,and yeah he should be shot for how he raped to death Batmans character.But calm down,just because the burton batman lovers like watching crappy movies,thats no excuse to act like that with them.settle down dude.
Originally posted by Cascador
Well, I guess Tim Burton wanted to skip the whole introduction part, cause you miss then a whole big deal of the movie itself...but he didnt't want to keep it a mystery either, so that's where you are wrong! Batman explained why he wanted to be the bat, because you see flashbacks and you see Batman saying himself why he started off as the bat to the Joker. I also personally thought the murder scene of Bruce parents was better in batman '89, cause come on...one of the coolest lines ever "Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" That was really cool...and the atmosphere, the fog gave it a lot more darkness than in Batman Begins. And yeah in Batman returns it shows you that Bruce did built all the things himself cause he was repairing the Batmobile. So there is a big explenation in Burton's version why he is Batman.
Uh no he's not wrong because he never explained why he wanted to be the bat,your thinking of batman forever when he actually DID explain why he became the bat,all those flashbacks ever indicated was that he was in remorse and seriously depressed over his parents death,it had no explanation though for why he fought crime or why he dressed like a bat,all he ever said to the joker was-you lkilled my parents you made me,for all that,that tells you NOTHING other than him killing his parents made him severly depressed.It doesnt explain his motivations for wanting to fight crime,looking like a bat ect,get real.
Originally posted by roughrider
Another example of what was refered to earlier.
What one person perceives as slow-moving scenes with nothing happening, others perceive as intelligent character development.
I have no problem with slow-moving scenes enhancing character development I just felt that many scenes or plotlines were not put together with any recognisable rhythm and the film suffered slightly.
From a movie point of view, it was gold. It had everything. It was about Bruce Wayne's psychological growing with everything he's dealt with in his life.
Sorry if some people have the attention span of a gnat and need hours of villains running around doing bad stuff, but thats what the old series was for. Shit, for me, they could have not even had a villain, and still had a good movie. Of course I was expecting more from Scarescrow, but what they had was enough and I was happy.
I dont see why all the fuss over 'oh it was a crappy redo' etc, is needed. This was a much more mature film, and you have to see it as a mature film or you're missing the point entirely and shouldnt have even bothered going to see it. I hope you dont watch the next movie and b!tch on about the Joker. I'd rather see him as a slower, more Hannibal Lector pyschological type of character, built up with a good strong background, than a schizo like the first movie. Of course for me, Jack N. is the Joker, as much as other people have said Keaton is Batman for them, but thats not going to make me go 'Ew, Joker sucks'. Im looking forward to how Nolan pulls off Joker, because I know he'll do it properly for this type of movie.
But of course, if you want to watch crap like Batman Forever, then by all means go to the videostore and rent it. Just dont b!tch when a good movie is made because it doesnt exceed your expectations.
👆
[/rant]
Originally posted by Mišt
From a movie point of view, it was gold. It had everything. It was about Bruce Wayne's psychological growing with everything he's dealt with in his life.Sorry if some people have the attention span of a gnat and need hours of villains running around doing bad stuff, but thats what the old series was for. Shit, for me, they could have not even had a villain, and still had a good movie. Of course I was expecting more from Scarescrow, but what they had was enough and I was happy.
I dont see why all the fuss over 'oh it was a crappy redo' etc, is needed. This was a much more mature film, and you have to see it as a mature film or you're missing the point entirely and shouldnt have even bothered going to see it. I hope you dont watch the next movie and b!tch on about the Joker. I'd rather see him as a slower, more Hannibal Lector pyschological type of character, built up with a good strong background, than a schizo like the first movie. Of course for me, Jack N. is the Joker, as much as other people have said Keaton is Batman for them, but thats not going to make me go 'Ew, Joker sucks'. Im looking forward to how Nolan pulls off Joker, because I know he'll do it properly for this type of movie.
But of course, if you want to watch crap like Batman Forever, then by all means go to the videostore and rent it. Just dont b!tch when a good movie is made because it doesnt exceed your expectations.
👆
[/rant]
Just because it was, as you say, written as a more mature film doesn't make up for the absence of suspense, drama and those little tools that can connect a film with its audience (if you found such a connection then fair enough). I stated before it was a brilliant adaption of Bruce Wayne and Batman but not much else.
My post was to the thread starter, I just didnt want to quote all that crap.
But carrying on, the purpose was for the adaption of Bruce/Batman, and as you said, it was a brilliant adaption. Job done. Im sure they'll have a bit more on the other characters in future movies, but this is why the movie was called Batman Begins.
I agree with your previous comment about how some things werent put together well though, it was let down in some parts. Im trying to think back to parts where suspense/drama might have been put into play, but I cant really pinpoint any.....most parts that should have had a bit more emphasis, just...lacked. This doesnt mean the film sucked ass.
I dont see how the thread starter thought it was rubbish though. The original films arent concrete facts as to what should happen in the Batman universe, the thread starter doesnt seem to realise that. Producers gave the director the right to make a Batman movie, and it was made. Same thing with this movie. Would you argue that Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is utter crap, just because some things were left out of the books? No, that is his vision of how it looks. And Batman Begins is Nolan's vision of how it looks.
A lot of people who view these movies, especially franchise movies, are looking far too much into the franchise side of the movie, rather than the movie side of it.
If anyone thought I was slagging off all other hero movies with my earlier rant, I wasn't. Yeah, I actually love the first 2 Superman movies AND the Spiderman and X Men ones, it's just I really can't stand Joel's mockery! I think I went a little bit too far... oh, and I reckon the BB sequel will have much more action and stuff... anyone agree, now that Bruce is past his origin and all that...