Langsta
Well-Known Member
What was wrong with Begins?
Original Batman Quadrillogy Discussion Thread
What was wrong with Begins?
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
According to Kalicki, the only reason it was better than Superman Returns is because Batman didn't lift anything. However, this isn't true. I counted at least four instances of Batman/Bruce Wayne using his hands to lift inanimate objects from their static states. More on this as I find it.
ourchair
Well-Known Member
Hulk is better than both movies then.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
Hulk is better than both movies then.
No. Using Kalickalogic, Hulk is the worst movie ever made.
ourchair
Well-Known Member
But Hulk lifts lots of stuff.
Big stuff.
He could lift the entire plot if he wanted to.
And still get Betty to make him a sammich.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
Hulk is worse than either Begins or Returns.
There's a lot wrong with Begins, from Bale as Batman, to shaky camera fight scenes, to Batman killing the villain, to yellow Gotham, to a too long origin sequence, to Rachel, just a bunch of crappy, crappy things.
There's a lot wrong with Begins, from Bale as Batman, to shaky camera fight scenes, to Batman killing the villain, to yellow Gotham, to a too long origin sequence, to Rachel, just a bunch of crappy, crappy things.
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Well really the whole movie is the origin. It's letting you know how Batman came to be, and who he is....and tries to explain how Batman flies, how he gets all the Batsuits, etc. And it's setting up this new franchise. I don't see what was wrong with Bale, the fight scenes, "yellow Gotham," or Batman killing Ra's. The only thing I agree with you on is Rachel. But that's something we can all agree on. But other than that, the movie's fuhlaweless. It's really the first Batman movie where I really feel for the characters - Bruce, Alfred, Gotham....
Last edited:
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Why is Harvey Dent black in the original Batman, and then white in Batman Forever?
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
Why is the Batmobile filled with Neon lights? Cause Schumacher ****ed up
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
It's only the same as asking why Bruce Wayne is a short, skinny, middle-aged man with thinning hair in the first two films and a tall, imposing, handsome young man in the third film.
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Things I don't like about Tim Burton's Batman:
>The Joker killed Bruce's parents.
>The Joker is fat.
>Prince.
>Most of the environment looks like it takes place in the '20s. The cars are old-fashioned, everyone dresses in tuxedos, and the guns make PIONG! noises.
>They don't explain why Batman dresses up as a bat. They don't say that he has a fear of bats. This leaves me asking the question, "Why the **** is he dressing up as a bat?"
>Tim Burton's Batman is told from the point of view of the citizens of Gotham, really. Batman Begins is told from Bruce Wayne's point of view.
>Kid Bruce Wayne looks nothing like adult Bruce Wayne. He's short and chubby.
>The Joker killed Bruce's parents.
>The Joker is fat.
>Prince.
>Most of the environment looks like it takes place in the '20s. The cars are old-fashioned, everyone dresses in tuxedos, and the guns make PIONG! noises.
>They don't explain why Batman dresses up as a bat. They don't say that he has a fear of bats. This leaves me asking the question, "Why the **** is he dressing up as a bat?"
>Tim Burton's Batman is told from the point of view of the citizens of Gotham, really. Batman Begins is told from Bruce Wayne's point of view.
>Kid Bruce Wayne looks nothing like adult Bruce Wayne. He's short and chubby.
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
It's this thing they do between movies where they "change actors". Why should that matter any more than eye colour or hair colour?
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
These sort of work in the context of the movie. He's supposed to be older; therefore it makes sense that he wouldn't be a skinny-melinks. Also, Burton was trying to establish a plausible rivalry between the two, so he made the Joker the killer.
Completely agree on this one. Dates the film enormously; turning it from a timeless piece of cinema into an 80s Summer movie.
What? All of the cars look like you could probably still buy them if you tried hard enough and the tuxedoes are badass, because they make the whole thing look like classic Film Noir. What can be wrong about that?
This is something that I never really noticed about the film until the last couple of years. They never address it at all.
A lot more of it is shown from the p.o.v. of Gotham, but obviously there's still plenty of scenes that aren't. Burton was obviously trying to emulate DKR and Year One.
Never noticed this. I'll take your word for it.
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Because it's a lot more noticeable when someone just up and changes their skin color.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
And it's not noticeable when their age reduces by nearly ten years?!
Last edited:
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Not as noticeable. Michael Keaton looks more like Val Kilmer than Billy Dee Williams looks like Tommy Lee Jones. Also, Michael Keaton was 38 when he first played Batman. Val Kilmer was 36 when he first played Batman.
Last edited:
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
Or when they're an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON in general?
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Maggie Gyllenhaal is replacing Katie Holmes. I'm fine with that. Sometimes it's okay to change an actor when it's necessary. Take James Bond for example. He couldn't possibly be playing a young bond when Goldeneye came around. My problem is, if you're going to find a replacement for Billy Dee Williams, why not choose a black actor? It's simple logic.
I mean, if Bruce Wayne suddenly turned black in the next Batman movie, wouldn't you be fine with the eye color?
Last edited:
Ice
Teh Sexy Monkey Queen
Seriously, what is it with you and race in movies?!
Langsta
Well-Known Member
It doesn't make sense that Tommy Lee Jones, a white man, played Harvey Dent, who was established in the first Batman movie as a black man, Billy Dee Williams. That's all I'm saying.
