Batman Begins or The Dark Knight?

  • Help support The Comic Board :

Batman Begins or The Dark Knight?


  • Total voters
    26

Planet-man

Well-Known Member
I like Batman Begins considerably more. First as a matter of preference for its more classic, adventure-filled story and the way it portrays "the Batman" as a mysterious, possibly supernatural creature. Second, The Dark Knight has a bunch of truly bizarre directoral flaws that I just don't understand, and they happen often enough that it brings the momentum and impact of the film down for me. Like, stuff awkwardly happening off-camera all the time.
 

Planet-man

Well-Known Member
What happens off-screen?
A lot of this has been discussed on the board before. Off the top of my head, stuff that was directed in a weird way where you either don't see what happened or it doesn't seem to make sense: The Joker killing Gambol with no blood or scream, apparently with a knife to the edge of his mouth; at least two or three of the "five" Two-Face murders(even if you assume Maroni died in the car accident); a cellphone bomb going off in the police station apparently kills or knocks everybody in the station unconscious except for the Joker, despite many of them being in the same room as him, long enough for him to leisurely stroll through the now empty-looking station, find the keys to the asian guy's cell, kidnap him, go downstairs and steal a police car; who the hell is driving that police car.... that's all I can think of right now.

There's also stuff like the Chechen being marked for getting cut up and fed to his dogs which was just not shown and he's never seen again, but I guess that's more of a plot point. Same with the asian guy being left at the top of the pile of money which is set on fire later while you can't see him, but even then, no screaming or anything? Meh.
 

Bass

Nexus of the World
I thought you meant "key scenes happen off-screen" not "I don't care for his choice of camera angles and editing".
 

Planet-man

Well-Known Member
I thought you meant "key scenes happen off-screen" not "I don't care for his choice of camera angles and editing".
But I never claimed "key scenes happen off-screen", I said the film had "bizarre directoral flaws" and "stuff awkwardly happening off-camera".

And it's not that I didn't care for those choices of camera angle and editing, it's that they caused chunks of the film to make no sense. So.... does anyone want to address that stuff?
 
Last edited:

Bass

Nexus of the World
I know you didn't claim that, that's why I said "I thought you meant...". I misunderstood.

As for addressing that stuff - The film makes sense. Those edits and choices didn't cause it to be confusing. Even you don't think it's confusing because your criticism of them shows complete comprehension of what happened. The visual style of TDK is identical to BEGINS, and perhaps even less choppy than BEGINS which had so many people saying it was confusing when Batman was fighting that Nolan had to explain his directorial choices. The criticism is weak sauce.
 

Captain Canuck

The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
Last edited by a moderator:

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
Dark Knight, although I've only seen Begins once and I feel like I don't have a proper appreciation for it. I did like it a lot.
 

Planet-man

Well-Known Member
I know you didn't claim that, that's why I said "I thought you meant...". I misunderstood.
Okay. It seemed sarcastic, etc. Sorry for being snide.

As for addressing that stuff - The film makes sense. Those edits and choices didn't cause it to be confusing. Even you don't think it's confusing because your criticism of them shows complete comprehension of what happened.
With the exception of the Chechen and money-fire parts which I set aside from the rest, the stuff I described doesn't make sense. I comprehended and described the way they appeared to happen, but they couldn't have actually happened that way, so I've given the film the benefit of the doubt and attributed them to awkward direction rather than bad writing.

So before someone inevitably posts a link to the Chewbacca defense - what happened there? How did a knife to the mouth instantly kill Gambol with no scream or blood? The way it happened is very anticlimactic for an otherwise great, suspenseful scene either way. What happened to all the cops in the same room as the Joker, and the rest of the building? How was the Joker driving a police car while leaning out its back window, or who was the driver conveniently cut-off by the shot? I have seen the film at least five times and these still don't make sense to me, although it could just be bad writing.... which is worse.

The visual style of TDK is identical to BEGINS, and perhaps even less choppy than BEGINS which had so many people saying it was confusing when Batman was fighting that Nolan had to explain his directorial choices. The criticism is weak sauce.
Although I have the same problem about the shaky-cam fights in BB, they never in any way hindered the plot or momentum of the film for me because they're just individual fight scenes and not complex twists that affect the course of the story. It doesn't have anything like the three unexplained Two-Face murders or stuff that disappoints me as a matter of preference(like important characters being killed off-screen) either.
 

DARKKNIGHT

Well-Known Member
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.

The universe does not contain the words to express how wrong you all are.

So very wrong.

It boggles the mind.
As much as I loved what they did with the Joker, and thought the Harvey Dent/Two-Face storyline was well done until they killed him, I couldn't help but feel that the plot was just all over the place. While I still think it's a good movie, Batman Begins is better. Here are just a few issues that come to mind. Beware, rant below:

1. There are major scenes that just feel like they are there for action, not necessarily to advance the plot all that much. The scene in Hong Kong comes to mind, as does the scene with Mr. Reese on that Talk Show. On the topic of Mr. Reese, he is just not needed at all...unless they are doing something with him in the next reason.

2. There are little, stupid things throughout the movie that just don't make sense. These are nitpicks, but there are enough of them that it becomes a distraction. I don't want to have to actually watch it to list them all, but the scene where they are transporting Dent in the armored van comes to mind. How would they not have police surveillance ahead of the convoy to see the road blocks? I mean, it can't be hard to notice a burning firetruck neatly places to that it blocks half the road. Also, the firetruck only blocks half of the road, instead of going below the street, why didn't they drive on the other side since traffic is stopped. Doesn't make sense.

3. The Nolan Batman series was shaping up to be the quintessential telling of Batman's first years on screen. After this, even if Nolan moved on, they could use these stories as a basis on which to base future movies. Hooray, no reboot!! But then they decided to kill Two-Face, which leaves the Batman film franchise in an awkward position. Now, you have three options. 1. Continue the Batman film franchise as is without one of Batman's top three most important villains, Two-Face. 2. Ignore the killing of Two-Face and use him anyway, thus confusing the mainstream audience. 3. Reboot. All of this is even worse because they didn't even have to kill Two-Face. Have Dent turning Two-Face be the metaphorical death of Dent, leaving all of the meaning of the Dent plot line intact.

4. Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like Droopy, the cartoon dog.

5. There are other reasons too, but I'm tired now.
 
Last edited:

Langsta

Well-Known Member
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.

Batman begins > the dark knight
I don't know if I would say that Begins is better, but I do prefer it to TDK for a lot of reasons. Begins felt like it was told from Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon's POVs, while TDK felt like it was told from The Joker and the Gotham PD's POVs.

Your reasoning has persuaded me.
:lol:

The Nolan Batman series was shaping up to be the quintessential telling of Batman's first years on screen. After this, even if Nolan moved on, they could use these stories as a basis on which to base future movies. Hooray, no reboot!! But then they decided to kill Two-Face, which leaves the Batman film franchise in an awkward position. Now, you have three options. 1. Continue the Batman film franchise as is without one of Batman's top three most important villains, Two-Face. 2. Ignore the killing of Two-Face and use him anyway, thus confusing the mainstream audience. 3. Reboot. All of this is even worse because they didn't even have to kill Two-Face. Have Dent turning Two-Face be the metaphorical death of Dent, leaving all of the meaning of the Dent plot line intact.
I don't think Two-Face is so important that the Batman franchise can't go on without him.

Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like Droopy, the cartoon dog.
:lol:

I don't understand why people prefer Katie Holmes. Katie Holmes was terrible. Her delivery when she said "It's what you do that defines you..." and the scene when she has the taser and is trying to fight some thugs.
 
Last edited:

Bass

Nexus of the World
One of the reasons I think TDK is so much better is that it has so much more story. BATMAN BEGINS has (to my recollection) three storylines (the central plot, Wayne's training, and, the Rachel love story) and I think three or four acts. THE DARK KNIGHT has five storylines (the central plot, the love triangle, Dent's descent into Two-Face, the Lao sub-plot, and the people of Gotham have a sub-plot) and four or five acts. (I think. I have to double check.)

I think this makes it much more dense and substantive, but I'm sure to others it makes it feel too disjointed and messy.

1. There are major scenes that just feel like they are there for action, not necessarily to advance the plot all that much. The scene in Hong Kong comes to mind, as does the scene with Mr. Reese on that Talk Show. On the topic of Mr. Reese, he is just not needed at all...unless they are doing something with him in the next reason.
I hadn't considered, but yes, it kinda seems Reese is superfluous.

3. The Nolan Batman series was shaping up to be the quintessential telling of Batman's first years on screen. After this, even if Nolan moved on, they could use these stories as a basis on which to base future movies. Hooray, no reboot!! But then they decided to kill Two-Face, which leaves the Batman film franchise in an awkward position. Now, you have three options. 1. Continue the Batman film franchise as is without one of Batman's top three most important villains, Two-Face. 2. Ignore the killing of Two-Face and use him anyway, thus confusing the mainstream audience. 3. Reboot. All of this is even worse because they didn't even have to kill Two-Face. Have Dent turning Two-Face be the metaphorical death of Dent, leaving all of the meaning of the Dent plot line intact.
The problem I have with the "they wasted Two-Face" criticism is that it's nonsense. Joker hasn't been "wasted" and he's not coming back. Would Two-Face dying be okay if Aaron Eckhart had passed away? If no Two-Face in RISES means Two-Face has been wasted, then so has Joker, and that's silly.

Not only that, but the idea of THE DARK KNIGHT's Dent surviving the events of that movie make no internal sense.

4. Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like Droopy, the cartoon dog.
She is so much hotter than Katie Holmes. And so much better an actress.
 

Dr.Strangefate

He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.

Batman begins > the dark knight
Batman Begins is a better Batman film, because it's actually about Batman... But I don't think you can argue that Begins was technically a better movie than TDK. From the cinematography, to the plotting, to the performances, I think TDK wins.

But this last movie needs to be more about Batman than it should be about Gotham, all the while carrying over the sense of Gotham we were given in TDK. So making it more of a followup to Begins makes perfect sense to me.
 
Top