Well that certainly got the old juices flowing, by Jove what a response.
Xeall:
Quote:
no i would not press the button as i would probably blow up my own boat
Heh.
Interestingly, thats exactly what Debe said to me in the cinema while we were watching the film, it didn't occur to me, but i did smile and say you could be right, thats the sort of thing a twisted individual would do, and how rewarding, should both explode simultaneously.
I sat and watched BB again this evening, just to remind me exactly why i thought that it was the better film, and after watching it i still feel its the better of the two, scarecrow, (when Bats gives him a taste of his own medicine, awesome) Ras a Gaul, (i liked the way his identity wasn't truly revealed until later, Hiding in plain sight) Gordon driving the Bat Mobile in true Stig fashion, the banging up of Wayne, not for his protection, but theirs, the use of the Bats to mask his escape, the burning down of Wayne Manor, "Prehaps now would be good time to make some adjustments to the foundations Master Bruce" the entrance to the Bat Cave, the first glimpse of the new savage and brutal Batmobile, and all of those other little gems that for me, made Batman Begins my favorite of all Batman Movies, even surpassing the 1967 version
OK, i know, DK had some stunning dialogue too, some of the Joker lines were bordering on psychotic, no not bordering, were psychotic.
Some complain about the Harvey Dent, but it was instrumental to the story, as the Joker was out to get him, not Batman, and we get to see Gordon get Commissioner, the "You Missed" Batcycle sequence was king Batcycle sequence, when that truck flipped it looked incredible.
all in all, and without completely putting my finger on it, i think i enjoyed BB more because it worked as a film in its own right as well as a comic book film.
DK was a comic book film pure and simple, nothing more and nothing less.
And if that is to be its merit, then, and it pains me to say it, Iron Man did it better.
Shit, i can almost feel the bottles being hurled at me _________________
thats cos im emptying some now. iron man better.......betrayal
Its OK, The Iron Man Movie doesn't count, so calm down, you see its like Hollywood doing a movie about Batman, its not real, not like the comics anyway, so its OK, i mean its not like stark is in control of everything in the movie like he is in real life is it?
Everything but the true believers that is _________________
It's interesting that you say it works as a standalone film just as well as it does a comic book film because I thought the same of DK. For me it ran practically like a Crime Thriller with a couple of guys in costume. _________________ Pro Massacre Boy!
all in all, and without completely putting my finger on it, i think i enjoyed BB more because it worked as a film in its own right as well as a comic book film.
I tend to agree with Reaper on this assertion although I felt The Dark Knight worked better as a standalone film than Batman Begins.
One of the problems I had with Batman Begins, just as I do with, say Spider-Man, is the director's compulsion to tell the origin story from scratch (OK, that's why its called Batman Begins - I know, I know but bear with me).
Iconic characters such as Superman, Batman and Spider-Man are all widely accepted beyond the comic book reading audience. A large percentage of the mainstream audience know their origins and aren't really going to the cinema to watch their origin story. After an hour is spent with the character's origin story, we then have a rushed final hour to tell the story we all went to see.
That's why, in super hero films at least, the sequel tends to be a better movie than the first. Take X-Men. Take Spider-Man. Take Superman. Take Tim Burton's Batman. I felt in all these cases that the second film was better than the first because they didn't have to tell the origin story; they could concentrate wholly on the story between hero and villain, focussing on the characters with a greater sense of purpose rather than a 'Here be the Villain!'. And I felt exactly the same about Christopher Nolan's Batman.
I feel the first films are more in keepnig as working as a comic book film with the sequel working far, far better as a standalone one. Personally, I can't wait for the Iron Man sequel - we thought the first was good, the second should all kinds of arse.
I do understand those who support Batman Begins as being the better film but I have to disagree.
And Waffle - what the fuck were you smoking on Lord of the Rings. The films are near fucking perfect. No one, and I mean no one, could have done better in adapting three of the greatest books ever told. Or one, depending on what volume you read. Or even six. Feh. Confusing.
Heath Ledger was amazing. And that's got nothing to do with his death; I'dve said that anyway.
Watched it again last night and it did lose a little of the initial impact having seen it once already but it was still as good second time round. Also watched Batman Begins yesterday, they're very different films but they work very nicely in series, one moving into the other. _________________ Pro Massacre Boy!
And Waffle - what the fuck were you smoking on Lord of the Rings. The films are near fucking perfect. No one, and I mean no one, could have done better in adapting three of the greatest books ever told. Or one, depending on what volume you read. Or even six. Feh. Confusing.
Heath Ledger was amazing. And that's got nothing to do with his death; I'dve said that anyway.
Nada. Hugs not drugs my friend.
All the LOTR are really overrated. I'm not going to go all Kevin Smith and say they were shit, cos they weren't - but the greatest films ever they most certainly weren't.
It's interesting that the people who are most vocal about the films are people who loved the books - and in the past any niggles or complaints I've had about the films have been met with 'well, you wouldn't think that if you'd read the books.' ... which is just the most infuriating and redundant argument possible - I didn't read the books, I watched the film. Appreciation of the film should not be dependant on whether you've read the books or not dammit! They're two completely seperate art forms and should stand alone as such.
Anyway - that's neither here nor there. This is a thread where we can discuss how TDK wasn't as good as Warner Bros. wanted us all to think it was _________________ "I thought your damn ninja was supposed to take care of Robocop"
Last edited by waffle on Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
I don't think they're wrong to prefer it as such but I think do think appreciation of TDK can from having watched BB. They're like a two part episode in his life (except for the time between them). The first part sets up Batman and his reasons for becoming, how he got there and his first real struggle. The second film then moves onto him coming into his own and doing things he wouldn't have considered a year ago while bringing in a new enemy or two and developing the roles of other people in that universe.
I've always been someone who thinks of the original Star Wars Trilogy not as three separate films but one film split into three. This view is something I'm beginning to aim at the two new Batman movies as they work in a similar way, which is quite different to the effectively standalone four movies from the 80's and 90's. _________________ Pro Massacre Boy!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
