geek strut: Batman Begins vs The Dark Knight

staxwaxstaxwax 1,474 Posts
edited September 2011 in Strut Central
Hungover chill session viewing Batman Begins.

While I enjoyed the Dark Knight, I LOVED Batman Begins.

To me its a much more even, well written and enjoyable flick, and it flows more - the action scenes fit the movie that much better.

Repeat viewing only confirms this for me. I dont understand - apart from the few standout action sequences- why people across the board are so on TDK's dick.
My main problem with TDK was that I really didnt enjoy the heath ledger scenes and found the whole finale squirm worthy.
The two face strand, the overlong sequence with the hostages on the boat, the wire cutting baloney and terrorism metaphors annoyed the hell out of me. Soooo........

Anyone else prefer BB to TDK?

bw

Inception... :hated_it:





goosebumps from 3:21

Gordon: I never said thank you.

Batman: And you'll never have to.???
«1

  Comments


  • its like comparing a new hope to empire strikes back. they are of the same storyline, just a continuation. i enjoyed them both. joker was great and anyone that tells you otherwise is crazy. lets hope bane can do the same thing.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Empire Strikes Back.

    The Hong Kong abduction is the best scene in both flicks.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    If you didn't like the Joker than there's not much to say to convince you that the Dark Knight is far superior. To me Batman Begins was a really good adaptation of a comic book, Dark Knight was a classic. Everything about DK took it to another level for me. I thought the action scenes were far more memorable from the opening bank heist to the HK abduction, to the convoy scene, etc. DK really used Chicago as a great backdrop for the movie. Plus I thought the Joker was one of the greatest performances I'd seen in a while. I didn't even know who the actor was at first. It's just a role that everyone can remember. Finally, for me DK went far beyond a comic book movie because of the symbolism and message. To me the movie was not really about terrorism, but the intimate relation between good and evil. There were a lot of scenes where they talked about the relationship between Batman and the Joker and how one could not exist without the other, etc. It seems simple but they really explored this duality.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    motown67 said:
    There were a lot of scenes where they talked about the relationship between Batman and the Joker and how one could not exist without the other, etc. It seems simple but they really explored this duality.
    .

    Two-Face

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
    I think both movies are great. Much like Russell Crowe, Christian Bale's off-screen behaviour isn't enough to alter the fact that he's one of the more compelling leading men in Hollywood right now. Also, Christopher Nolan continues to prove that it's possible to make intelligent, visually stimulating movies with broad popular appeal which don't treat the audience like idiots.

    Although I thought Batman Begins was terrific, The Dark Knight is my favourite of the two. It took me a while to get past that growl Bale adopted when he was in costume, but it didn't really matter in the end; although he's the best big-screen Batman to date imo, he had the film so comprehensively stolen from him by Heath Ledger, he could have delivered his lines in a Pee Wee Herman voice for all the difference it would have made. The Joker's sardonic humour set the tone of the movie more effectively than the quasi-mystical aspect of Wayne/Batman's first encounter with Ras al Ghul in the earlier flick. Maggie Gyllenhaal made for an infinitely more engaging Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes, and Aaron Eckhart was good, too.

    Whether Heath Ledger's performance will ever be viewed purely as the amazing, utterly convincing display it was is anyone's guess, but his Joker is one of the great screen villains of modern times, if not of all time. He takes a massive dump all over Jack Nicholson's scenery-chewing turn in the first Tim Burton joint, and acts everyone else off the screen. It's completely his movie, and would have been regardless.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    The villian in any good Batman story always outshines the protagonist.

    Weve broken down the flicks before and i just cant see an arguement on how the first one is better than the sequel.

    Faux feels like TDK was much too long and i can see that, but it still made BB look like an intro track.

  • staxwaxstaxwax 1,474 Posts
    popular opinion + oscar wins = bad taste.

    heath ledgers part as the joker is a shallow caricature and riding the hype wave of his death is nagl. Greatest movie villain ever gtfoohwt - sappy - bs.

    TDK is a dope flick and the hk abduct is ill. still its a lumbering, unbalanced and dumber movie than BB imo. gravel voice and lame terror analogies and all.

    oh. and esb > anh

  • AlmondAlmond 1,427 Posts
    I enjoyed Batman Begins considerably more than The Dark Knight. The scenes when he was training in Bhutan, and before he made it back to Gotham City, were fun to watch. I also liked the Lucious Fox/Morgan Freeman Scenes a lot. However, Katy Holmes as Rachel Dawes was weaksauce, and the Dr. Crane scenes bordered on corny, but got the pass since, well, it's a comic-based action film.

    Heath Ledger really stole the spotlight in The Dark Knight, and although his performance was great, I think it made me realize how much Christian Bale was relying on that ridiculously gruff voice rather than on his acting ability. Maggie Gyllenhaal was a better Rachel Dawes as she was a better actress than Katy (so they upped that ante), but she still failed to look like Rachel from the comics. Both were good films, but I though that TDK was a lot of hype, whereas BB was a really pleasant surprise for me. I watched BB at a free outdoor showing for my university's freshman (2005) and wasn't expecting to even watch the whole thing. Really loved it and it was one of my favorites for a while. TDK didn't live up to the hype and failed to catch me off guard the way BB did.

    Edit/PS: I agree with Batman that BB felt a bit like an intro track, but as someone who doesn't follow comic book-related stuff, I needed the intro track, and felt that the background really allowed for the story to develop cohesively. An issue I've had with other comic-based films is that many are scripted with the assumption that the viewer knows the back-story, which oftentimes leads to storylines that feel a bit incomplete. I guess this goes for any movies based on popular fiction novels, etc.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    staxwax said:
    popular opinion + oscar wins = bad taste.

    heath ledgers part as the joker is a shallow caricature and riding the hype wave of his death is nagl.

    Feel free to go against the grain but since you said shallow caricature give me some examples of a better Joker on film?

    Only Mark Hamill's run knocks out Ledgers take. After that give some examples that show more depth on camera?

    Im no Ledger dick rider but dudes performance was ridiculous. And he also managed to stretch the idea of how The Joker can be portrayed.

    U can prefer BB but to use Ledgers passing and Hollywood hype as an excuse is doodookaka.

  • rachel has never been in a comic. strictly a movie character.

  • staxwaxstaxwax 1,474 Posts
    batmon said:
    staxwax said:
    popular opinion + oscar wins = bad taste.

    heath ledgers part as the joker is a shallow caricature and riding the hype wave of his death is nagl.

    Feel free to go against the grain but since you said shallow caricature give me some examples of a better Joker on film?

    Im no Ledger dick rider but dudes performance was ridiculous. And he also managed to stretch the idea of how The Joker can be portrayed.

    U can prefer BB but to use Ledgers passing and Hollywood hype as an excuse is doodookaka.

    First of all, i never said his death or the hype were the reasons i prefer BB to TDK. So, whatever.

    Secondly, i meant a shallow caricature, generally speaking - dude played a babbling, depraved violent freak, covered in make up, a wildly unbelievable schizophrenic.

    I mean, im a comic book fan, but if were going to take it to high art and greatest villain ever levels of pretention, face the brutal truth, 'The Joker', by definition, is a puerile character. As a result, all his on screen depictions are basically, kinda dumb.
    Same can be said for many of the batman bad guys (penguin? mr freeze? the riddler? high camp, all)
    Theyre not in heart of darkness territory, lets just leave it at that.

    Ledgers Joker performance is so far off of the perception the public had of ledger, that, following his untimely death, it became a highly overrated part. And plz be real - oscar nods aint shit. or is anyone going to make the case for jeff bridges' true grit character as THE GREATEST WESTERN PART EVER OMG OMG

    Anyway, while im a fan of all things pulp, Ledgers Joker didnt 'do it' for me.

    Ive already said i like both flicks, but like almond, tdk's major flaws make it less enjoyable than BB for me.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    So Ledgers Joker is as dumb as Caesar Romero and Jack Nicholson's?

    Yes or No?

  • staxwaxstaxwax 1,474 Posts
    batmon said:
    So Ledgers Joker is as dumb as Caesar Romero and Jack Nicholson's?

    Yes or No?

    YES OR NO? YES OR NO?

    I didnt particularly enjoy any of these parts. Caesar Romero is beyond Rocky Horror Picture show territory, Jack Nicholsons joker is trash, and as for Ledgerino, i think ive said enough about his joker.

    IMO, as a batman fan, you should enjoy the idea that, perhaps, the best, most enjoyable, nail on the head, Joker-the-comic-book-villain-in-the-movies part is still waiting to happen.


    Sacrilege!

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
    staxwax said:
    oscar nods aint shit.

    Dude, I couldn't give a fuck about the Oscar. Neither that nor Ledger's death alter a single thing about his performance. The guy was already nice with his, so it's hardly as if nobody would have been talking about it if he hadn't died.

  • i believed the 1989 joker was jack nicholson in makeup. i believe the 2008 joker was the joker.

  • SPlDEYSPlDEY Vegas 3,375 Posts
    batmon said:
    So Ledgers Joker is as dumb as Caesar Romero and Jack Nicholson's?

    Was I the only one who felt like Heath Ledger was channeling Peter Falk?



    I didn't like this Joker at all. I actually prefer Mark Hamill's.



    - spidey

  • staxwaxstaxwax 1,474 Posts
    DocMcCoy said:
    staxwax said:
    oscar nods aint shit.

    Dude, I couldn't give a fuck about the Oscar.

    And rightly so.

    DocMcCoy said:
    Neither that nor Ledger's death alter a single thing about his performance. The guy was already nice with his, so it's hardly as if nobody would have been talking about it if he hadn't died.

    Ummmmm. Im not knocking you jonesing for him and his joker but I do think youre understating the impact his dying had on the appreciation for the part here. Personally i dont rate him. couldnt give a shit about any of his films prior to TDK and never saw brokeback.

    btw gary oldman and michael caine and morgan freeman are all really great in their batman parts, they are all bigger dogs than heath ledger and nobody talks about their parts in BB or TDK.

    bw

    its not too hard to 'steal' a movie from other cast members if you have 5 times the screen time they have, and your main contender is a chin talking through a voice box.

    ps say what you will about katie holmes but she is smoking hot in BB. gyllenhaal in tdk, not so much.

  • Because of the hype surrounding Ledger leading up to its release, I went into TDK expecting not to like the film as much as BB(I was caught off-guard by BB too).
    Ledger was brilliant in that role.

    I love both films and had never thought of pitting them against each other. Hard to choose.

    I am eagerly awaiting TDKR and really hope it isn't the last Nolan makes.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    staxwax wrote:

    "Secondly, i meant a shallow caricature, generally speaking - dude played a babbling, depraved violent freak, covered in make up, a wildly unbelievable schizophrenic. "

    Here's where we wildly disagree. I think Ledger's Joker was full of powerful symbolism. He represented the chaos that Batman had created. There was no schizophrenia at all, he was an agent of chaos, which is what I think he called himself when he talked with Dent in the hospital. Rather than babbling I think his speeches were quite calculating.

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    While I enjoyed Begins at the time it still feels a bit all over the place to me as a film, lots of good ideas but lacking in focus. TDK is, to me, undoubtedly a superior film though when I rewatched it fairly recently I did have to concede that it severely runs out of steam after the birth of Two Face at the hospital and the following explosions. After that, the subtext about moral rights and wrongs and duality of the human character becomes sledgehammer like with its referencing and almost capsizes the whole film.

    So, has to be TDK but would happily end the film at the the three quarters mark.

    I'm intrigued to see how the new one pans out even if I find it harder to deal with Bale's growly lisp with each picture and the films that Nolan makes in between each Batman kind of make me want to give up on him entirely.


  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Holy Parrot Batman!

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    speakmumbles said:
    joker was great and anyone that tells you otherwise is crazy. lets hope bane can do the same thing.

    Spoilers......










    Bane pulled off in terms of plans what The Joker couldnt despite not being as "charismatic" as Joker.

  • volumenvolumen 2,532 Posts
    I have to say DK is better specifically due to Heath L giving a great performance. The truth is that the Joker is a big bag of crazy psychopath who loves to kill and it was about time someone played him well. In the past Jokers been pretty hammed up to balance the crazy killer or people would probably be too uncomfortable with a character like that. (Not so much now, but you have to think about how long Batman has been around). I agree the ending is a little corny but it is a movie after all.

    I re-watched BB and DK in preparation for Rise and I was surprised how much less I liked BB. It's still a great movie but Christian Bale is one of the worst parts. He's best when he's giving a sarcastic delivery, but when he's trying to be super serious he's bad. Check the airplane talk with Alfred on the way back from Asia and the "there is more" speech to Rachel. Pretty corny. And it's not the words, it's the delivery.

    In Rise Bale was really getting on my nerves with the open mouth dumb look on his face while in the Batman custom. Batman could look surprised but he wouldn't stand their all slack jawed looking like he wanted to blow you before a fight.

    And commending Bane's plan is to commend stupid story lines. (your talking as if they are real people committing real crimes) A major city gets all it's police trapped under ground and no one helps because the bomb will go off. I realize there would be an initial standoff, but the movie seems to imply several weeks while Wayne does push ups to climb a stupid wall. No country is going to sacrifice a major city while citizens suffer at the hands of terrorists. We'll let everyone be homeless, hungry and broke while the wealthy horde the money.......but that's another thread.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    volumen said:

    And commending Bane's plan is to commend stupid story lines. (your talking as if they are real people committing real crimes) A major city gets all it's police trapped under ground and no one helps because the bomb will go off. I realize there would be an initial standoff, but the movie seems to imply several weeks while Wayne does push ups to climb a stupid wall. No country is going to sacrifice a major city while citizens suffer at the hands of terrorists. We'll let everyone be homeless, hungry and broke while the wealthy horde the money.......but that's another thread.

    Like New Orleans?

    In the Batman story, No Mans Land, Gotham was hit by an earthquake. Because it has a high crime rate the Government took its time with relief efforts. Gotham in the DC universe isnt a major city like Metropolis, and IIRC correctly they address your gripe w/ the president shit.
    Batman left for a long minute and Commishioner Gordon assemble whomever he could to "police" what was left of the city.
    TDKRises mimics that story to a degree. And this wasnt a natural disaster but a well thought out plan by the League of Assassins.
    They had a nuke bomb which is way different from terrorists walking around with guns threatening folks. They had the National guard working for them out of fear, which also throws a monkey wrench into the save the city gung ho idea.

    I didnt find that storyline far fetched.

  • discos_almadiscos_alma discos_alma 2,164 Posts
    batmon said:
    volumen said:

    And commending Bane's plan is to commend stupid story lines. (your talking as if they are real people committing real crimes) A major city gets all it's police trapped under ground and no one helps because the bomb will go off. I realize there would be an initial standoff, but the movie seems to imply several weeks while Wayne does push ups to climb a stupid wall. No country is going to sacrifice a major city while citizens suffer at the hands of terrorists. We'll let everyone be homeless, hungry and broke while the wealthy horde the money.......but that's another thread.

    Like New Orleans?

    In the Batman story, No Mans Land, Gotham was hit by an earthquake. Because it has a high crime rate the Government took its time with relief efforts. Gotham in the DC universe isnt a major city like Metropolis, and IIRC correctly they address your gripe w/ the president shit.
    Batman left for a long minute and Commishioner Gordon assemble whomever he could to "police" what was left of the city.
    TDKRises mimics that story to a degree. And this wasnt a natural disaster but a well thought out plan by the League of Assassins.
    They had a nuke bomb which is way different from terrorists walking around with guns threatening folks. They had the National guard working for them out of fear, which also throws a monkey wrench into the save the city gung ho idea.

    I didnt find that storyline far fetched.

    Gotta agree with Batmon here, but the rest of your comments were on point.

    Now, I was somewhat let down with the execution of the Miranda plot-twist at the end. Marion Cotillard really dropped the ball with her acting there. One of the single worst death scenes in recent memory. Yikes.

  • volumenvolumen 2,532 Posts
    batmon said:
    volumen said:

    And commending Bane's plan is to commend stupid story lines. (your talking as if they are real people committing real crimes) A major city gets all it's police trapped under ground and no one helps because the bomb will go off. I realize there would be an initial standoff, but the movie seems to imply several weeks while Wayne does push ups to climb a stupid wall. No country is going to sacrifice a major city while citizens suffer at the hands of terrorists. We'll let everyone be homeless, hungry and broke while the wealthy horde the money.......but that's another thread.

    Like New Orleans?

    In the Batman story, No Mans Land, Gotham was hit by an earthquake. Because it has a high crime rate the Government took its time with relief efforts. Gotham in the DC universe isnt a major city like Metropolis, and IIRC correctly they address your gripe w/ the president shit.
    Batman left for a long minute and Commishioner Gordon assemble whomever he could to "police" what was left of the city.
    TDKRises mimics that story to a degree. And this wasnt a natural disaster but a well thought out plan by the League of Assassins.
    They had a nuke bomb which is way different from terrorists walking around with guns threatening folks. They had the National guard working for them out of fear, which also throws a monkey wrench into the save the city gung ho idea.

    I didnt find that storyline far fetched.

    Bush hates black people. That explains New Orleans. Plus after a couple days the Gov finally tried to help NO even if they screwed it up.

    In Rise it would seem that they let it go for weeks and that's not as believable. Though the government sucks and just might let every die in that circumstance. But if that's the case then the criminals can just march through the country with a bomb like the Ark of the Covenant and do what ever they want. You really think that's happening?

    Ultimately it's a fantasy world and anything goes. I also realize they comic tries to mirror real life with a twist. The real issue is that it had to go on for a long time so Wayne could do his prison work out. They just should have adjust the time line of those two stories so the city take over wasn't so long.

    Also I realize in the comic Gotham may not be major, but in the movie it's basically New York City size. There is a reason the League is targeting Gotham, because it's a major city ripe for example.

    It's obvious you know way more than me about the comic, I'm just talking about the movie and what it presents.

  • volumenvolumen 2,532 Posts
    BTW, I didn't think the city take over plan was un-believable, it was just the fact that it had to go on so long in order to allow Wayne to get his energy back.

    It's a story about a millionaire dressed as a bat who fights crime, so I'm pretty lenient. I just thought the prison section was drawn out for no real reason. The Bane origin and Wayne escape could have happened faster and the prisoners constantly chanting up a hole was just silly. The prison section could have been shorter which would have made the city take over shorter. But then you have the issue of Wayne was pretty beat up and needed time to heal....blah blah

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    The prison scene was not only long because Wayne had to rebuild his strength, but more importantly it was part of the message/symbolism in the story. Not to go into much detail, but the message was about doing the right thing and working for the right motivations. Wayne failed until he figured that out, and then was able to escape. If he'd failed the first time and then got out the second it would have missed all that symbolism about struggle.

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    I thought the governmental reaction to what has happening in Gotham was realistic. I don't think IRL that they would do a Failsafe ala Dr. Strangelove, nor would they invade and risk annihilation of all the citizens in a 6 mile radius.

    It's also Batman.
Sign In or Register to comment.