Batman Begins: The Thread

I didn't find it especially compelliing, but I did find it exactlty what you do not -- necessary. Backstory is something that, even in the Burton movies, Batman lacked.

Burton, for all his talents, made not only cartoons, but fairly boring ones, when the day was all over with.

It's driving me crazy! In 2005, after some good and bad Batman films, after X-men and Spiderman, post-Matrix and a billion other by-the-numbers "dark & gritty" sci-fi movies, is this Batman movie really that much of an achievement? Is this really the best they can come up with? The jump between Superman and other previous superhero films and the first Burton Batman was immense! Plus Burton managed to find a middle ground between the darkness and the camp (which, you know, some people actually like). And to return to this discussion about the back story, the Burton movie managed to convey who Batman was and what motivates him just fine while still managing to be fun.

All of the dialog about conquering your fears was necessary? Because, you know, I got the point perfectly well when all of the bats flew at him as a kid. But I felt like I was being reminded about it every 10 minutes for the next hour.

1. Denny O'Neill/Neal Adams
2. Frank Miller (and sometimes David Mazzuchelli)
3. Alan Moore/Brian Bolland
4. Matt Wagner

All told, pretty slim pickins from the history of the character, true, but it's what I've liked and it ain't hardly fun.

Let's assume, as I do, that a superhero needs a cultural context in order to be super. And when they get updated, they need an updated context in order to work properly.

X-Men -- Loved the gay subtext. Best and cleanest update ever. Spiderman -- the message about "responsibility" is a little muddled, and the second movie was wise to keep everything firmly in the ridiculous, even though the reason people read comic books is not to feel ridiculous. Matrix -- ok, whatever. A great potential myth that pissed on its own fire. Quickly, no less. Matrix doesn't belong in this conversation. Not that you really put it there.

But Batman can still work. There is real potential in Batman, like I said before, in the fear of urbanization. The crime and density and alienation and the feeling of being alone and weird and friendless -- these are HUGE themes, and Batman can conceivably cover all of them very well, if written properly.

Superheroes are us, or they are nothing.

ok back up here... despite my love for burtonbatman and stuff, superman i & ii are still WAAYYY better movies. supes 1 is still my favourite superhero movie of all time, i think.

Also, sweet jeebus, I have no idea what you folks are bitching about wrt the origin cross-cutting. It seemed pretty clear that the scenes in Asia and the scenes in Gotham were happening at two different times, and the script was pretty explicit on when these transitions between Asia and Gotham were going to happen (cf. Qui-Gon asking "well, what do you fear?" and then, hey, kiddie bat flashback, or "well, why can't you exact your revenge?", and then hey, Jack Ruby flashback). Yeah, bitching about the few misgivings folks are having for a flick that they're generally impressed w/ might be nitpickery of the worst kind, but COME ON PEOPLE.

If you're gonna bitch, bitch about the convenient action-movie tropes that the overall excellence of the movie managed to disguise - "hey, there's Officer Gordon chatting w/ Commissioner Loeb right at the spot where the Batmobile lands after jumping the bridge into The Narrows!" Or, "Wow, it sure was convenient for Batman to get gangtackled by those tweaked civilians right under the train line just as the train was passing!" Or, "Gee, it's a good thing Alfred was able to take out that League of Shadows thug w/ one swing of his driver!"

(PS Ned: you are completely, totally, utterly wrong about the death scene. XOXOXO.)

But oughtn't the utter silliness of the whole concept be played for fun rather more, as done with "Dr Who", say. Rather than treated so portentously. They were laughs, certainly, but I'm not sure how intentional they were. But this should only be done very carefully, as wasn't in the post-Burton Batman films.

Certainly much more to my taste than "Star Wars", though I'm not sure it would measure up against "Spiderman II", which of this sort sounds the most I'd like (need to see that urgently). But seriously, a genuine sense of the absurd would have made it all even more palatable.

- establishing a credible origin for Batman in terms of moral center, skill set and equipment
- establishing Batman's allies within the system
- establishing the origins of Batman's Rogue's Gallery and escalating the criminal core of Gotham to its costumed insanity point

It delivers very well on all three, all the while telling you a complete story but leaving you wishing the second installment was just around the corner AND putting these plot points forward with well-realized characterization.

Also, playing the concept for fun kind of undercuts the inherent trauma of an 8-year-old watching a thug gun down his parents in a dark alley.

I agree that the approach is difficult to pull off, but maybe I'm just feeling something of a residual fondness for the old TV series, which used to be on when i were a kid, so like. The very first Batman movie, from 1966 lest we forget, ought not to be considered a completely invalid approach to the franchise.

Yes, there were a few chuckle-worthy lines and bits (Wayne. "A guy who dresses up as a bat... has to have issues"), but there could have been more without detracting from the overall mood. Yet, it certainly stands as way better than "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin", must be said.

And I was certainly never suggesting they play the actual trauma for laughs, though I actually found that the Opera scene rather successfully tread that line between silly and dark.

(i was responding to this. i agree & i really reject the idea that nolan's batman invalidates anything!)

And, yeah, s1ocki OTM re: the strength of comic characters (and "pulp" characters in general) being their malleability and adaptability. It's not dissimilar from how Shakespeare's plays can "survive" being performed in different costumes / settings (thinking more of stagings of plays circa WWII or in a corporate setting more than the Baz Lur. Romeo), or adapted to fit a certain story (cf. Ten Things...). (Hey, look at me going for the canonical comparison point to validate funny books! I'm such a goof.)

I WUV YOU TOO.

I R pleased that you lurv the film, but I am also not surprised either. ;-)

Somebody told me/I read somewhere that somebody was rumoured to be playing the Joker in the next one, but I can't remember who it was - anybody heard anything?

Mark Hammill, astonishingly.

The goggles, they do nothing (because they weren't on Batman's ass)

That was it! Imagine!

Hammill does the voice on the animated series and has kind of become the definitive Joker voice because of that. I kind of can't imagine him prancing around in a real-life Joker outfit, though.

(also, both myself and the folks I went with wanted to see the Batman Begins movie again almost immediately - Spiderman I *did* see several times in rapid succession and each time I thought it got worse).

Read upthread. ;-)

jocelyn, he looks like Jim Gordon!