Recently compared BB to TB to see which was a better opener for a franchise.
BB has some good things that I still love from childhood, but man, it didn't age well.
The dialogue fucking sucks. I don't remember it sucking so hard. Bale is fun as Wayne, but his Batman (besides having a solid suit), is pretty boring. The voice is pretty silly, plus Bale's fucked up teeth and mouth ruin any believability as Batman.
Ra's is a shit villain, so is Falcone, and Cillian is the best actor in the whole flick alongside Oldman. Sadly they fuck Scarecrow's ending.
Gotham looked like some wooden African city. I get they were modeling it after what happens when cities go under, but it made it look like a Mr. Rodger's episode in terms of quality.
Plus, the worst part is, the themes are way more unstructured then I remember them being.
First it's about fear, then guilt, then it's about anger, then it's about justice, then it's back on fear again, and by the time the fucking chink villa explodes, Bruce is a perfect character.
TB has problems, but holy shit BB is pretty soulless.
TB has a more coherent theme that's balanced well throughout the story. BB can't seem to stick on one damn thing.
BB is Pretty Soulless
Other urls found in this thread:
ok shill
>ok shill
I didn’t think you were a shill until you posted that now I realize he was right
>I didn’t think you were a shill until you posted that now I realize he was right
keep digging
>keep digging
I disagree op. the batman was good but begins is kino too.
>The dialogue fucking sucks. I don't remember it sucking so hard.
The Batman dialogue is worse than the lowest MCU movies.
OP here. Thanks for the reply. I can understand why people like Begins, but it felt really off to me after seeing it all these years later.
Maybe I'm missing something?
The Begins Suit looks like a Schumacher-verse leftover, like it was designed for Batman Triumphant
I’m not one to criticize someone else’s bait but shouldn’t you not be doing the soijak spam, your post was high effort bait just to ruin it with terrible old soijak spam
OP here.
Example?
For my point, I'd cite the fact that nearly every scene featuring dialogue rambles into poorly written cringe poetry that ends with a light joke for the audience to giggle at.
The Batman's diaogue gets straight to the point and doesn't fuck around. Even the jokes are used to strengthen the characters.
>Maybe I'm missing something?
You're a midwit that needs to be spoonfed. You need exposition, info-dumps, and clear cut themes straight out of a picture book.
>I’m not one to criticize someone else’s bait but shouldn’t you not be doing the soijak spam, your post was high effort bait just to ruin it with terrible old soijak spam
>The Batman's diaogue gets straight to the point and doesn't fuck around.
The characters don't talk like humans, they talk like robots that exist to make everything that is happening or being shown clearer for the audience. Several characters exist either to make obvious questions so the audience can remember what happened 5 seconds ago or to explain things so the audience isn't lost. The rest is just cringe tier monologue that rambles on and meander like some dyslexic motherfucker trying to remember what the fuck he is talking about.
OP here.
Begins is far more childish, but it fumbles it themes.
Nolan hands the life changing ideas that characters are supposed to take to heart right to them through terribly unsubtle dialogue.
Take the scene with Rachel showing Bruce around The Narrows.
That dialogue is horrendous. Every line is a slam against the head of the audience to sink the point in that vengeance is selfish.
Whereas in The Batman, the consequences of Bruce's selfishness is shown very well throughout the film.
It’s cringe dude. Whether you saved all the soijaks to use ironically it’s sort of just cringe. I’m telling you the bait would’ve been better all around if you didn’t disgrace yourself by posting cringe
OP here.
That's exactly how I feel about Nolan's writing.
Every character other than Bruce is there to quip, talk about how shitty Gotham is and who is involved, and shove morals down people's throats without proper construction.
The monologues are one per character unlike in Nolan's, where Rachel gives fifty fucking monologues while Bruce sits and listens like to every single one like he's in a college course.
pretty much sums up your average Pattman fanboy. retarded 14 year olds that try way too hard to fit in.
>It’s cringe dude. Whether you saved all the soijaks to use ironically it’s sort of just cringe. I’m telling you the bait would’ve been better all around if you didn’t disgrace yourself by posting cringe
>i like le nolan
>i am a grown sophisticate who knows my way around an imageboard
Jesus...
yes
Liking Nolanshit shows you're no more than twelve.
Why did Nolan jump through so many writing hoops to include sci-fi characters like Bane and Ra's A Ghul instead of characters that would better fit that world like Riddler or Penguin?
whatever you say
becuz nolan only wanted to do The Man Who Falls and Year One as one movie. he then wanted to do Inception, but got roped into doing TDK, and you can see his love for the franchise falter in the sequels.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. BB actually establishes a great foundation that allows TDK to be what it is.
The Batman has the stupidest story where Batman barely sees any development, he’s just sort of passive the entire movie as a character and is also an emo unlivable retard. In what way was this a good opener? No wonder people have been rating it under BB and TDK.
Damn...really funny user...you sure got me...
>millennials thought this was better than The Godfather
BTAS > Batman Begins ≥ Batman Returns > everything else
OP here. Maybe you should read the whole thing before replying, but I'll indulge.
BB sets up one thing and one thing only: Joker
Bruce has no arc after BB, and those who argue that he has one in TDK don't seem to understand that TDK isn't about Bruce suddenly learning that vigilantism is not helping Gotham.
People cite the copycats, Joker's insistence to unmask Batman, and the final monologue as proof of an arc, but much like BB, Nolan can't keep it up throughout the film.
The Batman presents a character with a flawed ideology, and slowly replaces it until the end.
>fucked up teeth
he always looked like he had a cold in that mask
big goose nose
That's it? How many files you saved pussy?
I sure did. savor it, for I will not indulge in your buffonery any further.
> user is unaware what a normal set of teeth look like due to years of worsening his own dental hygiene
>Who the hell are you supposed to be?
>That's it? How many files you saved pussy?
Damn. Oh well. Bye.
No it never is. All of Bruce's development in The Batman is TOLD through monologues.
OP here.
That's it? That's bad dialogue in your eyes? A simple sentence that I heard constantly during high school football?
Okay.
Liking Reevesshit means you're just a fanboy.
The Godfather sucks though. What's special about it?
He had a pointy nose like the character should have. Patterson's cowl had a pig nose.
>t. fucked up teeth like Patterson
what the fuck is the point of those retarded stitches? makes him look like a gimp.
Nobody talks like that in real life. If you want longer dialogues to criticize consider The Batman's dumb monologues.
SOUL FACTOR:
BB > TB > BR > B66 > TDK > B89 > B&R > BF >>>>> TDKR
Completely wrong. BB is solid throughout. Beautiful, comic booky but also realistic. TB is a rip off of past movies, with cringe original ideas.
This scene is so fucking sick
youtube.com
>It's all told through monologues
Bruce's transformation begins right after the opening fight where he states his motivation: Vengeance.
His binary, vengeful view of crime is shown through his interactions with Catwoman, especially by his stares with her, where he at first sees her not as a possible romantic partner, but merely as a criminal he'd never relate to emotionally.
His staunch obsession with vengeance and not human interaction shows him literally rebuking Alfred physically by turning his back on him, and his inability to allow himself to mature beyond that anger is shown through his misplacement of his cufflinks.
Then, he visibly cannot interact with the media outside the Mayor's funeral, showing just how involved he is with his mission.
The film then continues to deconstruct his worldview visually by paralleling him with The Riddler and showing his hidden vulnerability break free after being hidden behind his vengeance for so long. This is shown through most of the silent scenes of him nearly losing Alfred. The acting and the scenes clearly illustrate the turning point in his arc.
Plus, the fucking stares Pattinson gives aid the themes so well.
Nolan's evolution of Bruce was all dialogue besides the scene of him throwing the gun away. If you dislike telling and not showing, what are you doing batting for Nolan's work?
Rises has way more soul than you're giving it credit for. Bruce and Alfred's relationship, and Bruce and Robin's relationship for example are more sovl than anything in The Batman.
Because most of The Batman is about the crime story not Bruce's development. Whereas the first half of Begins is all about Bruce. The Alfred relationship just makes no sense. He trained Bruce, but Bruce doesn't respect him or heed his advice?
Bruce's development is within the crime story. The stepping stones of his evolution is laid out within each crime, each killing, and each moment.
The Alfred relationship makes perfect sense. Alfred taught Bruce to fight, but he wasn't a father in Bruce's eyes. Bruce's reason for vengeance was to avenge his father, whom he viewed as a pure man defeated by crime.
Alfred taught him, but no man but his father can live up to the image of a guardian that Bruce has created.
It's only when Alfred nearly dies that he understands just how much Alfred has meant to him, and it's only when he discusses his father in depth with Alfred that he understands just how much of a guardian Alfred really was.
It's very well executed.
You're a midtwit who couldn't understand the Nolan trilogy.
You're praising a movie that can be easily defined by a single word. It's a McDonalds. It's easily digested. It is one-note. Everything is told through exposition and monologues.
Well, you can hurl insults, but until you've explained it, you're no smarter to me than a rock.
If I don't know it, then by all means, correct me. You must know what it means if I don't, so explain.
BB is exactly the same, even moreso.
There is no depth. They spend the first half spilling out line after line rushing through Bruce's feelings and then spend the rest of the movie on some silly air chemical plot.
Nolanshit is "cinema" for normies. BB is the most normie superhero flick outside of Marvel.
You're really going to unironically defend it?
This movie "executed" so much of it's plot with fakeout deaths. The emotional scene with Alfred as a result of one of many fakeout deaths in the film. I could not take it seriously after he was shown alive still. The plot armor for the main characters was shoved down the audiences throat.
Alfred character makes no sense.
Who raise Bruce after his parents death if not Alfred? Alfred just taught him to fight and nothing else? The same Alfred that is against his vigilantism? Alfred also kept secret about the Waynes lives, something anyone could find about it just by check the family history, just because.
Alfred in this movie is literally that dumb butler from Spider-Man 3 that made Harry go crazy because he kept how Norman died just because the movie demanded for Harry to go crazy, because they needed a second villain for the third movie.
Dumb characters acting idiotic for plot contrivances.
> childhood
zoomer zoomer zoomer reddit reddit reddit
both movies are good
>Alfred should have died
He throws the bomb, ducks under a table, and covers his face.
He's clearly shown recovering in a hospital for multiple days, which is accurate to the injuries he received.
>Batman gets shot and blown up but a puny shotgun blast nearly kills him
He has full body armor and covers his face from the blast. The body armor gets shit on repeatedly by bullets as the film goes on, and you can clearly see it begin to fall apart.
What's your point about plot armor again?
It doesn't make sense to me because he was reckless on the road with civilians in a batmobile chase that was unnecessary in the first place that he cause to happen. Then he becomes all virtuous perfect Batman when convincing Selina not to kill. How did that development happen? At least in Begins, you know how it happened: Rachel shamed Bruce and told him his parents would be disappointed.
He taught him how to fight to try and connect with him. It's clear that he and Bruce never formed a solid bond even though Alfred took care of him.
One can not be close with their caretaker. It happens.
Alfred isn't against his vigilantism. He's against it consuming his entire life. There's a difference.
The Wayne family history was buried. That's what was clearly explained in the film, and Bruce had no idea anything was even out there. Once again, his selfishness is shown.
Batman Begins is about the difference ways tragedy can affect an individual and how one can address the problems ailing society. Bruce Wayne thought that to change things for the better you needed more just enact vengeance and kill/destroy. Ra's al Ghul thought that to change things for the better you needed to enact righteous vengeance and kill/destroy. The whole trilogy is a discussion about what can be done to fix society. Can it be fixed? How? Do you escalate or deescalate?
It's far more complex than just "vengeance is bad, mkay, donate money to dem programs, mkay".
He was reckless due to his uncontrolled handle on his vengeful feelings. But he killed no one, so that has absolutely no logical impact on him telling someone not to kill.
Batman isn't against dodging cars in his car, but he's strictly against guns, unlike BB's Bruce who waltzed into a fucking trial with the same kind of weapon that was involved in the most traumatizing event in his life.
But the movie acted like he died for a minute there. The aftermath of the explosion, Batman raging in the car, Bruce in street clothes listening to cops in the house, the maid apologizing, the intense music. They made it seem like he was dead just to make audiences feel that emotion. If Reeves had balls he would have actually killed Alfred, AND that could be a turning point for Bruce. Instead they wanted their cake and ate it too.
>and you can clearly see it begin to fall apart.
>What's your point about plot armor again?
Dude gets shot in the head by a rifle and survives. Get the fuck out.
>He throws the bomb, ducks under a table, and covers his face.
His insides should have blown up.
>He has full body armor and covers his face from the blast.
He does, but after he gets a face full first.
So...what you're saying is that BB is about vengeance is bad, and that society may not be able to be fixed.
And The Batman is about vengeance being bad, and that society may not be able to be fixed.
But whereas BB's Bruce barely struggles with his need for vengeance which renders his standoff with Ra's completely unemotional, Pattinson's Batman is linked to the very emotion behind Riddler's creation, which creates an even more layered deconstruction on vengeance instead of - The Good Guy and The Bad Guy are Opposites.
This happens before the batmobile chase. Do I need to post a pic of the machine gun hallway scene that happened after?
>Batman gets shot and survives
So, Nolanshit is bad then?
Not really.
You see, those are called sparks. They may fly in front of his face, but it doesn't mean it directly hit him.
Clearly a fakeout. How did you not pick up on that? He made it seem like he was down so he could get to the Batmobile quicker and unnoticed, leading Penguin to a false location under the pretense of finding him.
People would have undoubtedly died during that chase. There was plenty of traffic. The movie just chooses not to show it and glosses over it.