geek strut: Batman Begins vs The Dark Knight
staxwax
1,474 Posts
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
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.???
Comments
The Hong Kong abduction is the best scene in both flicks.
Two-Face
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And rightly so.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Spoilers......
Bane pulled off in terms of plans what The Joker couldnt despite not being as "charismatic" as Joker.
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.
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.
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.
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
It's also Batman.