I must be the only one who prefers this to TDK

Christopher's 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise that tells the origins of how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Posts: 299
Joined: June 2009
ChristopherNolanFan wrote:
What I hate about Burton is that he is solely style over substance. He creates films that are dark for the sake of them being dark; it's ridiculous.

I agree. I think he is talented but he really needs to branch out. His two best films (Ed Wood and Big Fish) are big departures fro his usual style. It's impeccable but overused (and in some cases, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it backfires horribly).

User avatar
Posts: 236
Joined: June 2009
Location: Brazil

Posts: 299
Joined: June 2009
ek79 wrote:There is a BIG difference between Dark and Gothic... Just my prisma about THE difference between Nolan´s Batman and Burton´s Batman...

Nolan's is very much set in a world of heightened realism. Burton's is far more dream-like.

User avatar
Posts: 236
Joined: June 2009
Location: Brazil

User avatar
Posts: 4056
Joined: January 2009
Location: Cupertino, CA
ek79 wrote:Reality could be very dark.
and often is.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
tim burton's movies and characters exist in a world of fantasy


i think it works for him...i liked Sweeney Todd a lot

but obviously, the realistic take on Batman is by far a more suitable take on the comic.

User avatar
Posts: 3402
Joined: January 2009
We can say that Batman is one of the most realistic superheroes in the comic-book history. It's the best that could happened to the Batman-story that a director makes a realistic film about it.

User avatar
Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are really two completely separate films, and as a commenter already said, you can't really compare them.

I agree that Gotham City in Batman Begins did feel very enclosed, we didn't get a very immersive look into it. The Dark Knight opens up Gotham a lot more and makes it feel tangible to relate to. The shots of the city are beautiful and let us see Gotham as a whole rather than small segments such as in Batman Begins.

The narrows weren't in The Dark Knight because of the natural progression of the story. Gotham in The Dark Knight is far less cluttered as Batman has been cracking down on crime and cleaning up the city. The narrows would naturally not be as important as the story progresses. But, if you're seriously complaining about the narrows then you really are just nitpicking.

Batman Begins is about Bruce Wayne and Batman, The Dark Knight is about four characters - Batman, Harvey Dent, Gordon and The Joker. The emphasis is placed less on the character of Batman itself and more on the impacts he has had on the city and it's citizens and this is one of the strengths of the film over other comic book films. If you have ever read many of the more acclaimed Batman graphic novels you will readily see that Batman is usually more of a supporting character in his own stories.

Comparing the films is like comparing apples and oranges. Batman Begins redefined the psychology and motivations of film superheroes and The Dark Knight redefined the dynamics of superheroes in relation to their villains and the people they affect.

Posts: 827
Joined: July 2009
Location: Cardiff, UK
Well I thought Batman Begins was much better than The Dark Knight. I felt The Dark Knight was too long and needed to be trimmed down in certain parts.

Spoilers below


I didn't like it when we are trying to watch Harvey and the Joker in the hospital, and we kept getting cut to a scene that felt completely flat and the music score changes to add to it.
I didn't care if Bruce crashed the car or the cop was gonna shoot the guy who knew Batman's identity. I cared about what was going on between Harvey and the Joker.
It was the same thing at the end with the boat, we didn't need to see what was going on in the boat and it would have added to that moment where they didn’t blow each other up and the Joker is proceed wrong by Batman's optimism of people.
Because we knew the convicts had already thrown their remote away and the bald man wasn't gonna press the button.

I still think Nolan should have cut out the parts where we see what’s going on in the boat and not interrupting the scene with the Joker and Harvey in the hospital.
I also felt it was a bit "Cops and robbers" there was no real story to the film, which works with some films like Pulp Fiction, Sin City and David Lynch films but not this one.

I liked the parts where they took bits from the Long Halloween series Like where they pretend Gordon is dead, but it's Harvey in the comic.
I was also surprised when reading on the internet that people say Harvey is dead end of argument, when it's not clear in the film and left a bit ambiguous tbh like the original Blade Runner film, with Harrison Ford possibly being a replicant.
I have been told that in the script for The Dark Knight that it is typed "DEAD" but in the Batman Begins script it says the Tumbler is blown up, but it doesn’t in the film Batman Begins.
Also that the filmmakers have said that he's DEAD, but if you play poker and you have a good hand, would you tell the person next to you.

I felt Batman Begins was a far better film than The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne was more interesting, his batman voice was better. I felt an emotional attachment to the characters in the film and it never interrupted a scene unless it was really required.
The main weakness of Batman Begins was Katie Holmes, who can't act at all.

User avatar
Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
rbevanx wrote:I didn't like it when we are trying to watch Harvey and the Joker in the hospital, and we kept getting cut to a scene that felt completely flat and the music score changes to add to it.
I didn't care if Bruce crashed the car or the cop was gonna shoot the guy who knew Batman's identity. I cared about what was going on between Harvey and the Joker.
It was the same thing at the end with the boat, we didn't need to see what was going on in the boat and it would have added to that moment where they didn’t blow each other up and the Joker is proceed wrong by Batman's optimism of people.
Because we knew the convicts had already thrown their remote away and the bald man wasn't gonna press the button.

I still think Nolan should have cut out the parts where we see what’s going on in the boat and not interrupting the scene with the Joker and Harvey in the hospital.
I also felt it was a bit "Cops and robbers" there was no real story to the film, which works with some films like Pulp Fiction, Sin City and David Lynch films but not this one.

I completely disagree. If Nolan didn't show the scenes with Bruce and Mr. Reese it would have been an unresolved plot point. Plus, it allowed the entire confrontation between The Joker and Harvey to occur in the first place. The confrontation wasn't being interrupted, it was running parallel to another plot line, it also made The Joker's scenes more impactful as he wasn't overexposed.

Also, to assert that the film had no story is downright ridiculous.

The reason Nolan doesn't show everything to the audience is because he doesn't need to. The best filmmakers let the audience fill in the gaps themselves and add their own interpretation. You don't need to be spoon-fed.

The boat scene is also far less optimistic than most believe. 3/4 of the people on the civilians' boat voted to blow-up the other boat. 75% of the people, who more or less represent Gotham City, condoned such action, it's just that none were able to put it into action when push came to shove.

Post Reply