Batman Begins

[Mycroft]

There were elements of Batman Begins that were disappointing to me.

Alan Rickman's portrayal of Gordon was Ned Flanders in live-action form and Liam Neeson's performance was only different to Qui Gon Jin in that Batman Begins featured him with short hair...

Michael Cain was probably the most disappointing character. I have been a devoted fan of Cain for years and think of him as one of the greatest actors alive, however as Alfred he was simply "the Butler with an obligation." There was no strong relationship between the two of them like you see in Burton's Batman.

Also, as a writer, I was very disappointed in the script and small creative decisions. For instance: Burton's Batman features a man killing Bruce's parents for his mother's pearl necklace. (pearls are a symbol of purity) the necklace breaks apart (Bruce's purity shattering) and the husband defends his wife and is killed, then the wife is executed leaving Bruce with his dead parents and a murderer who doesn't even bother to pick up the pieces of "purity." He points the gun at young Bruce, is summoned by an un seen presence (his friend in the darkness) and walks away, purposely and ruthlessly leaving Bruce with his "shattered purity." The father is strong and protective (like Batman), the mother is pure and innocent (like the people Batman defends) and young Bruce witnesses his purity being shattered and the cold-bloodedness of Gotham.

Burton emphasized cold-blooded murder.

In Nolan's version this same scene featured a very weak husband who was shot while trying to pull out his wallet by a man who seems to be drunk or high (being under the influence of an external substance; therefore diminishing his cold-bloodedness) His wife was shot because the man panics then runs away leaving Bruce with two dead people. So we have: a weak husband who quickly gives in to oppression (not an example to Batman) a drugged up bum with a gun (a weak, demonized drunk not a cold-blooded Gothamite) and a little boy stuck with two corpses.

Burton emphasized the evil that is bread in Gotham far more effectively than Nolan. The scene with the Joker giving away money illustrating the intensity of greed in the city is a perfect definition of evil.

Nolan emphasized one bad guy and then showed that he isn't as powerful as the next guy who isn't as powerful as the next guy who isn't as powerful as Qui Gon... um Liam Neeson; who happens to be the "metaphorical" father of Batman ... yet he's evil, or is it that he's just misunderstood? Because he believes in destorying... evil. So is this a social commentary? or a $10 summer movie?

The real cold-blooded killer in the film was Scarecrow, briliantly portrayed and brilliantly written.

Now... Christian Bale's performance as Bruce Wayne and Batman are... hands down, a perfect performance by an underrated actor. He purposely sounded like a tough guy when he was Batman because he had never been a "super hero" before and that was brilliant. He made the film worth $10 to me, but that was the only strong element, of this blotchy summer flick, that stood out to me.

Regards,

Simon Cowell.... uh Daniel Riser

P.S. And Morgan Freeman was the token black guy. Very poorly written character, they robbed Morgan of a good opportunity.

I agree with you on the lack of symbolism, but Morgan's character in the comicbook is very important. Michael Cain was poorly cast (just for star power, if you catch my drift). The movie messes-up the whole point of the story of Batman: Year One, which enphisies Gordon over Batman and Gordon's problems and fight curruption in Gotham's finest.

 

[Daniel Riser]

Right, yeah I thought Nolan could have done a lot more with Freeman, that's why I think Freeman was robbed of a character with a lot of potential but the flaw was in the writing... or lack of writing.

 

[Mycroft]

Right, yeah I thought Nolan could have done a lot more with Freeman, that's why I think Freeman was robbed of a character with a lot of potential but the flaw was in the writing... or lack of writing.

Lack of, the comic book (Batman: Year One) is so much better.

 

[Daniel Riser]

Batman has always been my favorite comic book hero and I have to say I'm a much bigger fan of the animated series than the movies (and don't even get me started on Spiderman)

 

[Mycroft]

Batman has always been my favorite comic book hero and I have to say I'm a much bigger fan of the animated series than the movies (and don't even get me started on Spiderman)

Here Here man, have you seen the reruns on Boomerrang at Midnight or so.

 

[Daniel Riser]

No! I had no idea they still aired! I'm not much for television, unless a classic film is on, but if that's playing! I've got to tape them. Thanks for the info

 

[Mycroft]

No! I had no idea they still aired! I'm not much for television, unless a classic film is on, but if that's playing! I've got to tape them. Thanks for the info

No prob, for a fellow fan of the Greatest Batman Rendition since the comics came out.

 

[Mycroft]

Hey, I just watched it again and say alot more then when I first say it.

1) Jim Gordon, was extremely well cast
2) Bruce Wayne's parent's killer was properly named (as in the comic)
3) Wayne Manor is propbelly Blenum (SP) Palace, where Sir Winston Churchill grew up.
4) The master bedroom in Wayne Manor is all Art Deco
5) Ra's Al Ghul represnent Hobbs(th phylocipher) that men are inharentlly and always evil and need a powerful leader to keep them in line. While, Batman is like Locke, that society can be cured of its ills.

 

[Captain America]

If you are basing your take on this film on Miller's Year One that is a mistake. Some elements were taken from Miller but for the most part only the parts other writers kept in the mainstream mythos. It was never intended to be Year One. I actually feel that Caine did a good job of playing Alfred, he is supposed to be Bruce's friend and Batman's confidante. Not Bruce's foster father as he was portrayed in the earlier films. If you look at the early Finger/Kane stories then you will realize that this film just got soo much right. Neeson's performance is dead on for Denny O'Neil's character from the eighties. As for the killer of Bruce's parents--sorry Dan I gotta disagree, Burton did put some great symbolism into that scene but what Nolan was trying to emphasize is the aspect of criminals that served as the basis for Bruce's decision to become a large half man half bat creature of vengence.
To quote from the original story--"Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot."


Please if anyone is offended by my disagreement that was not my intent. I am only trying to express the views of a guy who has been reading Batman since he first learned to read.

 

[Mycroft]

If you are basing your take on this film on Miller's Year One that is a mistake. Some elements were taken from Miller but for the most part only the parts other writers kept in the mainstream mythos. It was never intended to be Year One. I actually feel that Caine did a good job of playing Alfred, he is supposed to be Bruce's friend and Batman's confidante. Not Bruce's foster father as he was portrayed in the earlier films. If you look at the early Finger/Kane stories then you will realize that this film just got soo much right. Neeson's performance is dead on for Denny O'Neil's character from the eighties. As for the killer of Bruce's parents--sorry Dan I gotta disagree, Burton did put some great symbolism into that scene but what Nolan was trying to emphasize is the aspect of criminals that served as the basis for Bruce's decision to become a large half man half bat creature of vengence.
To quote from the original story--"Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot."


Please if anyone is offended by my disagreement that was not my intent. I am only trying to express the views of a guy who has been reading Batman since he first learned to read.

Your are right it wasn't Year One, but they did quote it. I beleve they both (the movie and Year One) must be read to get the whole story.