RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Batman Begins -- there be spoilers in here!

Great movie. Good, but still not a Spider-man 2 beater in my eyes. X2 didnt even rank with me, entertaining and I like the X-men, but a fat old man as the main antagonist and a skinny little wimp as Magneto never did it for me


GOOD

Ra's Al Ghul switch. At first I was totally against a Ra's who is out on the front lines kicking ass himself, but it grew on me. I didnt guess because I saw footage of Bruce sword fighting with Ken Watanabe on some small indoor wooden bridge on the UK advert with the fast paced scenes

Dark Batman kicking ass and implying he is God

Scarecrow. The Crow didnt deserve a bigger part, it was perfectly played out and hopefully he'll appear in a similar role down in the line in a movie or 2's time

Batman using the Bat's to distract all the SWAT and Cops after him. This was aboslutely fuckin' awesome. Im not saying I want him to start wearing a helmet thats connects with Bats like Ant-Man, but more use of this where it can be conveyed well, like in movies and animation would gone down very well with me

Car. Did it actually turn invisible when the Copter was chasing it?

Lucius in on the secret

Batman not saving Ra's at the end. Bats risking his life to save people like Ra's and the Joker just isnt right. Saving lifes is one thing, but it borders on stupidity some times


BAD

Kaz was right about the action, it was really messed up. I was watching it late at night and thought I was falling asleep with all the blocked and awkward fight angles, like I was blinking for too long and missing the real action

Lousy last fight with Batman and Ra's

Ra's lousy motives of purpously trying to bribe cities then destroying them if they accepted. The implied involvement in the Wayne murders was un-needed and shabby aswell

Falcone as some second string loser. He's the only guy who's ever set up shop in Gotham as a real mob-boss instead of some psycho-fruitcake, right? if they were going for a real life approach, a mob boss employing psycho's and corrupt cops would have made a good movie, just so long as theres some Bat-psycho rivalry in there somewhere

No detective skills what-so-ever

Katie Holmes. Not particularly her acting, but her role seemed un-needed and useless. Would have preffered an actual love scene or nothing at all instead of the shit that happens at the end. Should have used Harvey Dent from the begginning and it would have made his demented turn that much more compelling and he would have had a much stronger connecting with Bruce/Batman. Harvey should have been his childhood friend and they should have played him out as both Bruce's friend and Batmans ally, like in TAS


Isnt Ra's name pronounced as RAY-SH instead of RAAZ? I've always gone with the latter and how they did it in the movie, but TAS was all about the RAY-SH



As per the origin. It didnt bug me, but Bruce being driven by a murder he could never solve is what the character is to me. Then again, this is Hollywood, and you know without them rapping it all up, critics and viewers would be on about it all the time complaining if they're not already familiar with the post crisis Batman origin

Insulting him is just giving him exactly what he wants, PJP. He craves attention.

I hope they don't fuck up Two-Face this time, if they use him in a future movie (anyone read about this being a trilogy?). I was hoping Boobies' boss turned out to be Dent, so they could play out his relationship with Bats prior to the accident, like in Year One and BTAS.

I'm kind of wondering why they didn't introduce him in this film. He was a sizeable character in Year One.

I want to see Clayface!!! As he was in BTAS!! That would be awesome , they'd use CGI!

Clayface might be too "superpowery" for the Bat movie franchise. I think they should keep with the evil mastermind style badguys for a while(Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Riddler, etc). Batman should outthink his villains, not outmuscle them, as in all the other comic book franchises.

bale's signed on for 3, possibly a fourth if they do the Batman VS Superman movie.

I'd watch ALL the Batman movies in the future if they were of the same quality as Batman Begins.

It was good. Not Spider-Man good. But good. I feel, however, that Superman Begins will suck.

Superman will be dope. Will be as classic as the X-Films with a John Williams score. I also think theyve got the special FX house that did the matrix films. Superman, Neo flying through whirlwinded clouds with that goddamned music. Are you fucking kidding me? Gotta be a jaded motherfucker to not have a boner for that.

In addition to that, I am also right.

I know Singer and his crew will deliver on his end, but I'm worried the new guy filling the boots. And Lois. I just feel... leery about it.

I'm not a old dude in the slightest, but I remember a time when people used to ACT in movies. These days, it seems to be all about flash. Reeve and Kidder and Hackman... all good actors with stage experience. Barely any of the new bloods have that. Today's kids get Kutcher, William Scott, KNOXVILLE, Duff and Lohan. Sad, man.

Margot Kidder can't act.
Gene Hackman can act, but didn't in the Superman movies. He hated being Lex Luthor, it was just a paycheck to him. The 3 TV Luthors we had since did much better jobs. And I'm sure Kevin Spacey (who is a fan) will actually put some of his acting skills into the role.

I will agree that Reeve did a good job in the movies, he was the only one to turn in a good performance.

Hackman might've hated the role, but he did put in the effort to be the most morose sad sack of "criminal mastermind" Donner wanted him to play.

Kidder vs. any other incarnation of Lois. Think about it. Teri Hatcher beats her?

There's just so much riding on that franchise. We all know it's gonna make in two or three hundred mil, but will it be as good as Batman Begins? I saw it again... it got better.

Teri Hatcher does. She's better looking and wasn't as whiny.

I think what'll hurt this new Superman is that Singer wants to tie it so heavily to the older films. He seems to forget that the last two films were horrible.

I gotta say that Singer's web blogs are getting much better!

http://www.bluetights.net/video_large.php?id=17

wow!

Saw Batman Begins last night. Damn. I really dug this movie.

I'm fine with Rachel and Lucius being in on the secret. I like the idea that it takes a small network of friends to help Bruce on his path to being Batman.

I don't think Dent should have been in it. One more major character to build on top of Bruce, Rachel, Alfred, Lucius, Gordon, Ra's, Ducard and Scarecrow would have weighed the film down. Anyone remember Daredevil?

Loved the twist with Ra's Gon Jinn. Fantastic.

Loved the scene with Bruce meeting Gordon at the station. The "you're just one man", "now we're two" bit. THAT'S Batman and Gordon, muthafuckas.

Batmobile rocked.

Loved Thomas Wayne. The flashbacks were perfect. Seeing the pearl necklace for the first time gave me a shiver.

Favourite moment: "I'm Batman. Nice coat".

So Batman Begins has been in theatres for 2 weeks now.

It's already grossed over 100 million.

It was the #1 film 2 weeks in a row.

It's increased it's viewership in it's second week, not decresed!

So.......

WHY THE FUCK HAS EVERY STORY I'VE SEEN SO FAR ON THE BOX OFFICE FOR BATMAN BEGINS HAVE A NEGATIVE TINT TO IT???!!!!!!!

Last week they tried to pin the dismal overall box office to this movie as if Batman had anything to do with any other film.

ok, 1 week.....

this week. THEY FUCKING DID IT AGAIN!!!!!!!

It's as if they don't want to admit that this movie is a fucking hit! For 2 weeks straight, instead of simply mentioning the # 1 film of the week and total box office, they instead print an article that not only fails to acknowledge this, they instead print a dour article about the sorry state of movie attendance in general.

Shit, what really set me off is that this week, in the Times, they didn't even bother to print the column that they normally print year in, year out week , in week out that simply states box office figures and the movie rankings. They (UNPRECEDENTALLY) chucked that and then printed some snide comments about Batman failing to ignite box office FOR OTHER FILMS!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK???!!!!

So, let me get this straight, the Times thinks that Batman Begins should cause people to go see other films? Because I thought that you go to see the movie you want to see, and don't see the movies you don't want see. And obviously, people want to see Batman Begins, because they are going to see that instead of the other movies in the theatre. So, that makes Batman Begins the movie everyone wants to right now.

Some people just don't want to see a small time director like Nolan succeed in the business. They would rather he stick to small, independant films. The kind of films the critics can't stop talking about, and no one wants to listen about. They are scared that if the small time director succeeds, as Nolan has with this film, then he won't make the movies that make them happy. So they blast the small time director's big hit, because they can't stand to see someone succeed in the business.

To sum it all up. They are fucktards. Ignore them, or write in.

Movie attendance has been slipping the past several years. The box office is drawing in less and less money overall. Though BB is the #1 movie right now, it's not raking in as much money as the #1 movie this time last year. I think that instead of examining the disinterest in movie goers to pay the high ticket prices, unruley crowds, astounding concession prices, and the freedom that DVD's give audiences, the industry and industry reporters are trying to unearth some missing element of the blockbuster formula in films like BB. The market is drastically changing with current technology and accessibility, and I don't think that Hollywood fully understands it.

It's cheaper to buy the DVD and own it forever, than it is to take yourself and a date out to a movie.

The obvious solution: Leave the fucking woman at home.

If you have a fucking woman, why would you leave her?

I'm sorry. You do not pass Go, and you do not collect $200. Thanks for playing.






















I think the DVD sales are going to show Hollywood that Batman Begins is A-grade material if they can't understand that by the current outpouring of fans to see it in the theaters. Besides, DVD sales have matched, if not surpased, box office receipts. Batman Begins and films like it are still going to make the big buck Hollywood wants to see rolling in.

I don't mind previews, but the TV commercials piss me off. I paid $7.50 for the 10am show and had to watch Fanta/Coke and car commercials.

Also, its like $10 minimum to get snacks. When I watch at home I can get the same ammount of popcorn and soda for half the price.

less than half the price.

now i've seen it 3 times!

first in an imax theater on opening night, then twice in a regular theater. and i bought the bootleg dvd. ... and i might even see it again!

frickin awesome

fantastic!

(also accepted: "i bought it from a family on the street!")

I wish it was playing at an IMAX near here.