Loading...
Christopher's 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise that tells the origins of how Bruce Wayne became Batman.

Batman Begins was mediocre compared to Dark Knight

Posts: 2099
Location: Budapest, Hungary
George wrote:I've found TDK to be less rewarding on re-watch than Batman Begins was.


Luckily I don't have this "problem" :-D What really interesting is that I had to watch The Dark Knight for at least 5 times for it to really grow on me. Now TDK is definitely my favorite movie of all time, without a doubt. But for the first 5 times I "only" thought it was amazingly mind-blowingly good. And I saw Batman Begins way many more times than TDK. Still, the latter became my absolute favorite - after a while.
Posts: 1027
Location: Indiana
It's hard for me to say I truly prefer Begins over TDK or TDK over Begins, as I have a hard time separating the films of sequels/trilogies/franchises when they work so well together and are made so much better simply by the other films existing. Begins makes TDK damn rewarding and TDK makes Begins retroactively better in the sense that I can now watch Begins with the knowledge of what it's setting up and appreciate how well it sets it up.

I suck at analogies, but I guess it is sorta like trying to decide in football if the perfect pass or the resulting tip-toe catch in the endzone is the better part of the play. Like, sure, that tip-toe catch is gorgeous on it's own, and it's what the highlight shows talk about, but watching isn't the same without seeing the quarterback's pass. But at the same time that pass doesn't mean much if the receiver doesn't haul it in. Ya dig?
Posts: 1
Tristy wrote:I've recently been wondering why Batman Begins wasn't seemingly as good as TDK. I realize now that it was the atmosphere Mr. Nolan created in TDK that really set it apart from its predecessor. Whereas the first film used a fair amount of CGI (for the monorail, downtown Gotham, etc.), the second set itself apart in its realism with the practical effects and such. Because the latter felt more grounded in reality, it therefore felt grittier and darker than before. Throw in a remarkable - though annoyingly overrated - performance by Heath Ledger, and you have a movie that draws you in as well as unsettles you.

It was a positive change, IMO. To me, it was all something that made TDK much more...Nolan-esque.


I'm not sure what CGI you are actually referring to in BB. The mono rail and the majority of action sequences (the tumbler scaling the rooftops during the cop chase) were not CGI but scaled models. Nolan hates CGI and this is evident in BB through his deployment of scaled models in sequences where other directors would taken the easier, 'Michael Bay' option of filling the screen full of animated pixels.

It was actually TDK that utilised more CGI (although it was used sparingly and to full effect) with the scene where Batman flies through the sky and into Lau's office and Dent's burnt face being carefully constructed graphical imagery. When I compare both movies (which I love), it is the lack of emotional impact in The Dark Knight, so prevalent in BB, that dissapoints most in the sequel. The slow, deliberate narrative in BB allowed for greater character development to the extent that it was possible to develop more of an emotional connection with the main characters (and partiulcarly Wayne). The Dark Knight, spectacular though it is, sacrifices character development for the sake of a tight script that relegates the emotional state of Bruce Wayne to an almost forgotten sub plot. Even when potentially dramatic events such as the death of Dawes and the murder of the Commissioner take place, it is portrayed with such mechanic emotionally devoid precision, that their departure from the movie has no emotional impact whatsoever - there was too little invested in the development of these characters to even warrant a reaction.

I love TDK but have to admit that the 3rd act is not handled as gracefully as you would usually expect with a Nolan movie. Even the menace of the Joker is belittled by implausible plot turns and a narrative that sometimes just steamrolls through events with little or no character involvement. BB allowed time in the narrative for the viewer to absorb the magitude of Wayne's journey and most characters were allowed sufficient 'airtime' to gain more of a perspective into their presonality.

The Dark Knight, especially the first two thirds of the movie, represent some of the best cinema I have ever seen, but I am hoping Nolan is going to focus on the characters as much as the quick, tight plot narrative of the TDK - which in some ways proved to be its own downfall. From what I have seen and read so far, TDKR seems to focus on the character of Wayne much more than the predecessor yet it looks to still retain the visceral excitement and magnitude of TDK. A combination of BB and TDK is what I'm looking for - a carbon copy of either will dissapoint.
Posts: 434
Location: Where the snow falls
quiggers wrote:
Tristy wrote:I've recently been wondering why Batman Begins wasn't seemingly as good as TDK. I realize now that it was the atmosphere Mr. Nolan created in TDK that really set it apart from its predecessor. Whereas the first film used a fair amount of CGI (for the monorail, downtown Gotham, etc.), the second set itself apart in its realism with the practical effects and such. Because the latter felt more grounded in reality, it therefore felt grittier and darker than before. Throw in a remarkable - though annoyingly overrated - performance by Heath Ledger, and you have a movie that draws you in as well as unsettles you.

It was a positive change, IMO. To me, it was all something that made TDK much more...Nolan-esque.


I'm not sure what CGI you are actually referring to in BB. The mono rail and the majority of action sequences (the tumbler scaling the rooftops during the cop chase) were not CGI but scaled models. Nolan hates CGI and this is evident in BB through his deployment of scaled models in sequences where other directors would taken the easier, 'Michael Bay' option of filling the screen full of animated pixels.

It was actually TDK that utilised more CGI (although it was used sparingly and to full effect) with the scene where Batman flies through the sky and into Lau's office and Dent's burnt face being carefully constructed graphical imagery. When I compare both movies (which I love), it is the lack of emotional impact in The Dark Knight, so prevalent in BB, that dissapoints most in the sequel. The slow, deliberate narrative in BB allowed for greater character development to the extent that it was possible to develop more of an emotional connection with the main characters (and partiulcarly Wayne). The Dark Knight, spectacular though it is, sacrifices character development for the sake of a tight script that relegates the emotional state of Bruce Wayne to an almost forgotten sub plot. Even when potentially dramatic events such as the death of Dawes and the murder of the Commissioner take place, it is portrayed with such mechanic emotionally devoid precision, that their departure from the movie has no emotional impact whatsoever - there was too little invested in the development of these characters to even warrant a reaction.

I love TDK but have to admit that the 3rd act is not handled as gracefully as you would usually expect with a Nolan movie. Even the menace of the Joker is belittled by implausible plot turns and a narrative that sometimes just steamrolls through events with little or no character involvement. BB allowed time in the narrative for the viewer to absorb the magitude of Wayne's journey and most characters were allowed sufficient 'airtime' to gain more of a perspective into their presonality.

The Dark Knight, especially the first two thirds of the movie, represent some of the best cinema I have ever seen, but I am hoping Nolan is going to focus on the characters as much as the quick, tight plot narrative of the TDK - which in some ways proved to be its own downfall. From what I have seen and read so far, TDKR seems to focus on the character of Wayne much more than the predecessor yet it looks to still retain the visceral excitement and magnitude of TDK. A combination of BB and TDK is what I'm looking for - a carbon copy of either will dissapoint.


Hmm...valid points, I must say. I always perceived the monorail to be CGI...

...and if Harvey Dent had those burns for real, I'm sure he would've died from complications before his rampage.
Posts: 50501
BB is nothing like mediocre but compared to TDK... Probably. But without BB there wouldn't be TDK.
Posts: 3
Hello,

Loved Batman Begins but think it's the weakest Nolan movie.

Good-bye
← Previous page
← Return to Batman Begins
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Metager [Bot] and 1 guest.