The One and Only Batman Begins thread

[Guest El Satanico]

I'm sick of hack entertainment reporters using Batman as a segue to start talking about her "relationship" with Tom Cruise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If such things bother you to such a degree, then why would you even watch those type of shows?

 

People who claim to hate that stuff, always seems to be talking about the shit. If they hate it so much, they should turn off those garbage entertainment "news" shows and shut the fuck up.

[Secret Agent 0]

^^Thank you.

 

I'm still waiting to get a free chance to go see this one. You guys make it sound like the best Batman yet, which is a good sign.

[Guest Evolution]

LOVED it.

 

Not gonna bother with spoilers, but it's worth seeing in the theaters (try a matinee showing, maybe?) for the excellent sound alone. One of my friends said that he overheard another person saying they wanted their money back, but that just seems to be because they weren't expecting the slow build. I loved it, though, and it's not only a fresh breath of air, but a full god damn tank of fresh air compared to Batman Forever and the DREADFUL Batman & Robin.

[Slickster 0]

The most fun I've had at the movies in a good 2-3 years. There were so many markout moments throughout this film I can scarcely remember them all.

 

-The slow build/training sequences were a more plausible explanation for Batman's creation than any of the other movies had tried to do. I mean, a multi-billionaire crimefighter who has ninja-like moves is ordinarily a tough premise to swallow, but this script made it all make sense.

 

-I am VERY happy that so many characters from the comics/TAS were retained. Mr. Zsasz, Falcone, Lucious Fox, Joe Chill...I'm glad they only did the revisionist history on Batman's creation.

 

-I think this movie was very heavily influenced by Batman:TAS in that there is no clear time period in which it is set. You've got quaint 20s-40s architecture and costume among the wealthy (not to mention the vintage monorail system), yet you've got super-advanced military technology. It really gives the film a sense of timelessness that Batman 89 clearly does not have.

 

-Like someone said before, this movie shows a gritty, dirty Gotham City, complete with Kowloon-like slums. The only people who look clean and polished are the aforementioned members of high society. The gloom and depression of the city isn't just dialogue; you can believe it.

 

-The Scarecrow was played to perfection, plain and simple. No full-body spandex costume, no elaborate secret hideout, no kung-fu fighting skills; it was just an ordinary guy in a mask that manifested people's fears. I seriously think they must have had to cut out some of the more disturbing apparitions so as to not totally freak out the audience.

 

-Another thing I liked is that nearly every line *meant* something. There were few throwaway lines in this movie: they were either echoed or referenced later in the film or they further explained some part of the Batman philosophy. The best example I can think of is when Bruce is told that most of the shares were bought by foundations and other organizations. The way that scene is set up I barely even thought about that line (I was too busy watching him to see what he would do next). When it turns out that that line is integral to the ending, I marked out. However, if you miss some of those lines, you don't really lose too much of the film, either.

 

-I seriously got chills when Batman turned over the card at the end. THAT's how you prepare your audience for a sequel without shoving it in their face.

[AndrewTS 0]

"-I think this movie was very heavily influenced by Batman:TAS in that there is no clear time period in which it is set. You've got quaint 20s-40s architecture and costume among the wealthy (not to mention the vintage monorail system), yet you've got super-advanced military technology. It really gives the film a sense of timelessness that Batman 89 clearly does not have."

 

Don't forget "the Depression" being a fairly recent event.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The second Batman movie was on the other night and they could do a whole lot better with the Penquin if they'd ever use him in any future movies.

[Dandy 0]

I saw it the night it came out (if you don't count the midnight showing, which there was only one within 30 miles of me doing that) and it was easily the movie of the year and easily the best superhero movie for me.

 

Spiderman 2 was excellent, but I have always loved Batman more than any other comic figure.

 

I agreed wholeheartedly with every minor change they made to the backstory as it made for a kick ass movie, but did not disrespect comic fans at all. Loved the realism and hope the trend continues.

 

By the way, I picked up the video game and it rocks as well (I have the PS2 version for reference). You can unlock movie scenes, alternate Batman costumes from different eras, etc. It loosely follows the movie storyline, and there is a lot of stealthy Splinter Cell moves you have to do. When you buy the game, it comes with a free ticket to the movie!

[AmericanDragon 0]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=...atmanbegins.htm

[Guest JMA]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=...atmanbegins.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a good sign, right?

[AmericanDragon 0]

We won't know until we get the Sunday numbers.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Saw it, dug it.

 

But it was missing something. I refer to it as the "Spidey Syndrome" in that the movie did not have a credible heel.

 

I am 100% opposed to the idea of The Joker being in the sequel. Jack's performance was untouchable and should be treated as such.

[pochorenella 0]

Doesn't seem to be a good sign. ROTS made more money on the midnight showings than Batman Begins made all wednesday. And that dreadful Batman & Robin made more on its first wednesday and thursday, although it plummeted on the weeked. If the movie does good business on the weekend (I expect $55-$60 million) then it could go all the way to at least $200 when it's all said and done.

[AmericanDragon 0]

Doesn't seem to be a good sign. ROTS made more money on the midnight showings than Batman Begins made all wednesday. And that dreadful Batman & Robin made more on its first wednesday and thursday, although it plummeted on the weeked. If the movie does good business on the weekend (I expect $55-$60 million) then it could go all the way to at least $200 when it's all said and done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where are you getting your numbers for Batman & Robin from? It opened on a Friday and it made 42 million on its first three days. Its first Wednesday and Thursday would be the one from the next week.

[Guest SP-1]

Saw it, dug it.

 

But it was missing something. I refer to it as the "Spidey Syndrome" in that the movie did not have a credible heel.

 

I am 100% opposed to the idea of The Joker being in the sequel. Jack's performance was untouchable and should be treated as such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jack's performance was flawed and not the Joker from the comics. Too silly, not deadly enough in a truly malicious and demented way.

[AndrewTS 0]

There were things like the Joybuzzer and the ol' Smilex that were vintage Joker.

 

And the character's traditionally been both ways in the comics, depending on the era. You could just as easily complain that the Animated Series' Joker was too silly, since he was a *lot* of the time. They tried to mesh the silly and sadistic takes on him as best they could.

 

If they go with Mark Hamill, likely they'll make him a bit silly like on TAS. If they go with Glover, they'll probably make him much darker.

[Guest JMA]

Hamill's portrayal was the best in my view. His Joker had just the right mix of humor and insanity. Despite that, I wouldn't want Hamill to play the character. I don't really want to see anyone from the previous movies or shows in the film franchise; it needs to stand on it own without relying on elements from the past.

 

In any case, it makes sense for the Joker to be in this franchise. He's Batman's most well known villain and will draw people in.

[pochorenella 0]

Doesn't seem to be a good sign. ROTS made more money on the midnight showings than Batman Begins made all wednesday. And that dreadful Batman & Robin made more on its first wednesday and thursday, although it plummeted on the weeked. If the movie does good business on the weekend (I expect $55-$60 million) then it could go all the way to at least $200 when it's all said and done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where are you getting your numbers for Batman & Robin from? It opened on a Friday and it made 42 million on its first three days. Its first Wednesday and Thursday would be the one from the next week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Man, I fucked up, sorry. I thought the B&R opened on a wednesday. Still, the numbers aren't that spectacular for BB but that could change come this weekend. I remember Shrek 2 opened on a wednesday in non-spectacular fashion (doing only $21 million in two days) and ended up with $440 million overall.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I am 100% opposed to the idea of The Joker being in the sequel. Jack's performance was untouchable and should be treated as such.

 

Please.

 

Jack Nicholson was cool, but it was hardly some definitive faithful portrayal of the Joker.

 

 

They definetly should go the opposite direction and choose a no-name or little-known-name, and preferably someone with a longer thinner face, to differentiate it from jack and also would make it more faithful.

[Guest El Satanico]

Joker will always have a demented silly side, that's who he is. Jack played up the silly side too much, and I'd like to see a portrayal that keeps the silly side toned down.

[Slickster 0]

I really hope they go with Glover and make his Joker the antithesis of Nicholson's. This restart of the series has so far been the antithesis of the first four slick, brightly colored films and I hope they keep it up and retain the 'mature' theme that this first one had.

[Guest El Satanico]

I like Glover, but I don't really want them to cast someone that's known.

 

An unknown would make it easier for people to get less caught up on Joker not being played by Jack.

[Downhome 0]

"-I think this movie was very heavily influenced by Batman:TAS in that there is no clear time period in which it is set. You've got quaint 20s-40s architecture and costume among the wealthy (not to mention the vintage monorail system), yet you've got super-advanced military technology. It really gives the film a sense of timelessness that Batman 89 clearly does not have."

 

Don't forget "the Depression" being a fairly recent event.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You need to remember that it's a totally different universe also..

 

I'd post my thoughts on the flick, but I'd just be mocked as always, so it's not really worth it. I'll just say three words...

 

"SWEAR TO ME!!!!!!!!!!"

 

I like Glover, but I don't really want them to cast someone that's known.

 

An unknown would make it easier for people to get less caught up on Joker not being played by Jack.

 

Well Glover isn't the most well known actor out there. To most casual filmgoers, he's pretty much still an unknown name. Most people more than likely just know him from Back to the Future.

[Guest El Satanico]

Marty McFly is exactly what I'm afriad of. Endless bitching consisting of "omg how can marty mcfly be joker, that's so gay".

[Downhome 0]

I don't think it would be a problem, even though he is known for that by most people. I think Glover could go into the role and actually do so to the extent that whoever watches it, just sees "The Joker", I have that much faith in Glover as an actor. Heck, he might go into the role and most casual filmgoers don't even realize it's him.

 

All of that said though, I'm not even saying he's the best choics, it's just an interesting possibility.

[AndrewTS 0]

I think most people would recognize Glover from Willard more than they would BttF. That was a LONG time ago. =P

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Fantastic fucking movie in every way.

[CBright7831 0]

So when should expect the sequel out?

 

2007 or 2008?

 

I know Batman Begins came out relatively fast. It was greenlight in November of 2003, they began filming in May of 2004, and it was released in June 15, 2005.

 

Only a year and a half.

[Guest Askewniverse]

I'd post my thoughts on the flick, but I'd just be mocked as always, so it's not really worth it.

Mocked for what? Praising the movie? Screw those people. Batman Begins kicked 37 different kinds of ass. It's easily the best Batman movie. I'd even say that it's the best comic book/superhero movie. Batman Begins deserves all the love it gets.

 

 

I think most people would recognize Glover from Willard more than they would BttF.  That was a LONG time ago. =P

How many people would remember Willard?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Hamill's portrayal was the best in my view. His Joker had just the right mix of humor and insanity. Despite that, I wouldn't want Hamill to play the character. I don't really want to see anyone from the previous movies or shows in the film franchise; it needs to stand on it own without relying on elements from the past.

 

In any case, it makes sense for the Joker to be in this franchise. He's Batman's most well known villain and will draw people in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

More like Hamill's voice was the best protrayer of the Joker.

 

I tend to agree about not bringing actors back, however Jim Carey given a good script good make the Riddler a great villain.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm going to see this tomorrow, but in preparation I watched the other 4 today in a big festival of Batman. Let's just say that this movie won't have to try that hard to top them. Only the first 1989 film is any good really, and it's got problems of its own (namely focusing entirely too much on the Joker to appease Nicholson). The first two I guess are the strongest, though I quite liked Forever when it came out. That said, man does that movie not hold up for shit now. Jones and Carrey was flat out embarrassing in their insane overacting...hell I think Arnold fared better as Mr. Freeze.

 

Batman Returns is one I remember hating when I was about 13, but I think it is slightly better now. There are still a lot of really stupid ideas in it (penguins trying to bomb Gotham for instance) that rank among the worst things in the series, but Pfeiffer was good as Catwoman and De Vito had his moments.

 

I should think the main problem with all 4 movies is that none of them are about fucking BATMAN. The first film is more about The Joker, the 2nd is mostly about the Penguin, Catwoman, and even Max Schreck. By the Schumacher films you have Robin and even Batgirl added to the mix, and poor Bruce Wayne is all but a bit player in things.

 

Thankfully from what I've heard this film is pretty much all about Batman. Which is good since Ra's Al Ghul and The Scarecrow are both jobbers.