There is a huge problem with Batman Begins...

I'm going to have to stop humming that Danny Elfman theme.

There have been some interesting movies made from "graphic novels." The material is generally more literary and less comic book and the filmmakers they attract are often art house types. Bravo. Ghost World kills.

But Batman Begins is the first comic book movie that is a truly a movie first and a comic book second. And with it, Christopher Nolan announces that he is a made man in the family of the very top filmmakers in the world today.

The thing that is most remarkable about Batman Begins is that it has so much goofy comic stuff to show off... but you never feel like it's about the stuff. This movie is loaded with really fine actors, like Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine and Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson and Rutger Hauer.... but you never feel like they are chewing scenery, which is often what they are called on to do in other films. It's not exactly Shakespeare either... but they bring what Nolan & Goyer & Company are clearly trying to bring to the genre... stable, solid grounding.

Batman Begins is the kind of movie that will have fans arguing about their favorite sections. Are they into the first act of training and flashback? Do they get goosebumps thinking about the process of Batman's development in Gotham? Or is it the relentless action of the third act?

The bat cowl is a little funny on Christian Bale's face, but he is the most serious Batman ever. And Katie Holmes is very Dr. Claire Lewicki... if you know what I mean... in almost every way.

It is a bit of an art and commerce clash... this film will thrill the base of fans, but will it be as accessible as Spidey? Unlikely. And some journos will likely crap all over the movie if it only does $600 million worldwide. And that sucks. Warner Bros. did the right thing... they made a terrific movie first... a movie that redefines the genre in its own way... which makes the nostalgia for Tim Burton's take even stronger, while allowing us to enjoy this one every bit as much. Like the comics, it is a real rethink by a fresh-eyed artist. But I don't think my mom is going to make it to this one... and that's good. Batman Begins is a very commercial film that isn't emasculating itself to find every marketing quadrant. Hallelujah.

Poland calls it the best comic book adaptation to a movie. That is high praise and raises my expectation. :grin:

Hopefully this will be the first where Batman is the king and the rest are pawns.

you don't have to worry about that one. the movie is actually even more about bruce wayne, even while hes dressed up as the bat. the villains take a second seat.

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/index.html

Sounds great, redefining the genre? Doest sound like a been there done that type movie that some people were screaming it was gonna be * cough BKB & Andaroo cough * :razz:

Good thing he still thinks its a commerical movie, so it'll probably do very well with the general audience.

I really start to think that Burtons Batman will hurt Batman Begins. Everyone still thinks that Burton made the real Bat but he didnt.
For example Gotham: When I saw the 3 Island Gotham in the BB Trailer I knew Nolan was reading the important stuff and I had a little tear in my eye :wink:
Gotham is only meant to be a city with high corruption and some really bad slums. BB shows that all in the trailers.

Warner Bros. did the right thing... they made a terrific movie first

Now if someone even decides to come and shout their mouth off about how gotham in this movie doesn't look like gotham, i swear i'll .. i'll .. i'll just ban them...yea .. i'll just ban them!!

What is Gotham?

This map was not drawn by Bob Kane.

It was drawn as someone else's interpretation of Gotham.

So why is Tim Burton's Gotham any less authentic.

Stop trying to play the authentiticy card with this.

To me it does NOT look the 1930s Gotham of the early comic book series, and it is not the Gothic Gotham of 90% of the comics. That is a photoshopped New York skyline.

Ban me, I dare ya mothafucka! ](*,) =D> :wink: :razz: :razz: :razz:

this is more than an interpretation. It is generally accepted to look like it.

The comics today

when areas are defined follow the look and feel of whats defined on those maps. So there!

Then it's an interpretation.


But not the comics 10, 20, 30, 60 years ago.


You can't win this argument. Do NOT try to play the authenticity argument with me bABA, it's absolutely futile.

Batman Begins is a different interpretation of Batman that is much in line with what's in vogue at the moment.

Do not come in here saying that Burton's Gotham "is not Gotham because they created this sketch of Gotham city after Tim Burton single handledly brought Batman as a franchise back to life".

OWNED.

OKAY!

But Majestic is an opinion.

I have no problems with any interpretations of Gotham.. since there's never been any consistancy to Gotham.

What you showed is not proof of authenticity though, because the source is questionable, even if it's printed from D.C.

Now if someone even decides to come and shout their mouth off about how gotham in this movie doesn't look like gotham, i swear i'll .. i'll .. i'll just ban them...yea .. i'll just ban them!!


Map Of Gotham:


Pic of Gotham from the movie


Superimpose


Complete GOtham map


Finally, Gotham is NOT a majestic city. It's a decaying city.