Which is your favorite Christoper Nolan Batman movie?

[wautd]

(because I recently saw TDK for a second time...)

Between my friends I seem to be the only one who found Batman Begins a better movie and I was wondering if this board shares the same opinion or not.

I find Batman Begins not only one of the best superhero movies, but one of the best movies tout court. I've seen it like 5 times already and it'll probably won't be the last time. I just find it a movie where everything was done right. The music, the atmosphere, the actors, the story, the gadgets... it all just fits and I can't name a single thing that bugged me.

The Dark Knight however, while still a good movie, had some things that bugged me:
- The Joker: Yes, Heath Ledger was great. Nothing bad about him. It was just that he was borderline omnipotent. OK, I can dig overly complicated plans, but when there are a bazillion of external factors that you simply can't predict, I'll have a hard time taking it seriously.
- Harvey Dent: I liked how they done his transformation to Twoface, but for rest of the last 20 minutes or so of the movie we just have him walking around with a pussy gun. With the possibility he's already dead at the end of TDK (I'm not completely sure), I rather liked him that they kept Twoface for the sequel. Also, how the hell did he get into a (supposidly well guarded) mob boss limo without anyone noticing? He stands out like a Christmas tree on the south pole.
- The Scarecrow: Yay, they let him come back for the sequel... as a lowlife drug dealer.
- Gotham City was orgasmic in Batman Begins. It just oozed with atmosphere. However, the Gotham in The Dark... didn't. It was too much Chicago, too little Gotham.

[Metahive]

While I agree that the Joker in TDK carried traces of Villain Sue, I still prefer that over a lame, non-immortal pseudo-Al Ghul hatching a plot so stupid and pretentious it could have been ripped straight out of the 60's Batman show. Combine that with my dislike of superhero origin stories in general and my choice's obvious.

[Karza]

I loved TDK when I first saw it in the theater. Later when I watched it from DVD, just about the only time I wasn't yawning or rolling my eyes was when Joker or Lucius was on screen. I don't think I've ever before or since changed my mind so completely about a movie.

So Batman Begins is my answer.

[Crazedwraith]

I've always preferred Batman Begins. It feels much more like a movie about Batman whereas TDK is just a movie with Batman in it.

Ra's is a much better villain than The Joker at least in respect to his connection to Bruce Wayne and Batman. I love the interplay between them. I'm also a sucker for ironic echoes, which BB had in spades.

[Stofsk]

TDK but only because of Heath Ledger's performance. Otherwise it would be BB (it had an interesting take on the origins side of things, it had Liam Neeson, it had Ken Watanabe who was criminally underused, it had ninjas etc). Also the plot in TDK was pretty convoluted, but it also seemed more epic.

The problem with the Nolan films is that Bale sounds like he's got throat cancer. Yeah yeah - 'shut up stofsk that's a tired internet cliche' - but it's true. And it is really noticeable in TDK (BB to a lesser extent - since it was the first film I'm prepared to give it leeway).

[Twoyboy]

Batman Begins. Sure the plot was was a bit fantastic, but it held together better with more realism in people's actions and reactions. And the performances were great.

TDK was awesome, but mostly for Heath Ledger. Like wautd I found it annoying that both he and Harvey Dent were able to predict things like where people were or what they would do. And some people made some odd choices, like at the end when the cop opens the box in front of all the criminals. Why not do it somewhere else?

I did like both movies though.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Dark Knight, though it was a tough choice for me.

[Korgeta]

Batman begins for me, TDK was a great film to watch at first but re-watching it and you see some of the plot faults, I think the joker's capabilities were being pushed a tad far fetched, not as much as batman's track every mobile phone and other communications equipment in the city though. The realisim was a bit faulted by the joker himself at times. He is a twisted villain and intimidating but to have a bunch of thugs to do your bidding to the point where they watch their boss burn away over several million dollars? Given the cut-throat world these criminals reside in I think the blind obedience from the joker's henchmen was overplayed.

As far fetched that water plot Ra had in mind in batman begins was sometimes it was still good action, his goons were loyalty were justified by idealogy they were taught in and not just simply hired. I liked how elements of conflict resided between batman and alfred as well as between batman and gotham.

[Lord Relvenous]

Batman begins for me, TDK was a great film to watch at first but re-watching it and you see some of the plot faults, I think the joker's capabilities were being pushed a tad far fetched, not as much as batman's track every mobile phone and other communications equipment in the city though. The realisim was a bit faulted by the joker himself at times. He is a twisted villain and intimidating but to have a bunch of thugs to do your bidding to the point where they watch their boss burn away over several million dollars? Given the cut-throat world these criminals reside in I think the blind obedience from the joker's henchmen was overplayed.

As far fetched that water plot Ra had in mind in batman begins was sometimes it was still good action, his goons were loyalty were justified by idealogy they were taught in and not just simply hired. I liked how elements of conflict resided between batman and alfred as well as between batman and gotham.

About the Joker's goons, it seemed to me that the movie indicated he attracted other mentally unhinged individuals to him, earning their loyalty by offering them the chance to wreak havoc and whatnot. I might also lean towards a pseudo cult of personality. However, that might be thinking too much into it.

Although, when he works with "regular" criminals (beginning of the movie) we can see that cut throat nature in their willing execution of each other for a larger share. Just a thought.

[TC Pilot]

Personally I preferred Batman Begins to Dark Knight, if only because I found the Joker nauseating to look at and listen to. I also found it annoying that he manages to pull off some utterly ludicrous plots, like rigging an entire hospital to go up in a synchronized series of explosions, filling the entire bottom decks of two prison ferries with explosives, and, most of all, his break out from the prison (in which he just happens to be the only person in an entire room full of policeman not to be stunned or harmed by a bomb inside one of his henchmen). In fairness, it's a much deeper, more complex movie than Batman Begins even attempts to be, but that just makes it all the more grating at times. When it's good, it's really good, but there was just too much of it that I found unpleasant.

Of course, Batman Begins had flaws. Al-Ghul's plan was ridiculous (though he's hardly built up like the Joker was), Scarecrow was a complete joke (lol, I put a moldly burlap sack over my head! Oh no, a taser! Bye!), Gotham (particularly that slum) looked like something out of steampunk. Though that's not to say Dark Knight didn't have its share of silliness (Batvision!)

Gimme Burton's Batman any day!

[Shroom Man 777]

While I agree that the Joker in TDK carried traces of Villain Sue, I still prefer that over a lame, non-immortal pseudo-Al Ghul hatching a plot so stupid and pretentious it could have been ripped straight out of the 60's Batman show. Combine that with my dislike of superhero origin stories in general and my choice's obvious.

Getting two boats to blow up just to show that... uhh... people baaaaad dynamite goooood >>>> act of bioterrorism to destroy a major world city and key financial center?

I liked Begins better. Liam Neeson works, and the duality of his mentor figure and primary antagonist was pretty damn good. There was more emotional resonance to his character, and thus more interplay between him and Christian Bale, than some super psycho killer with lots of dynamite and shit. Oh, Heath was great, as was Aaron Eckhart - Dent was by far my favorite character in TDK, just by the way he carried his rage and stuff, yeah it was good stuff. But still. Batman Begins was a wonderful superhero origin story and, to think, after four pre-Nolan Batman movies made over more than a decade, this was actually the first big screen depiction of Batman's origins and it was done masterfully.

But for the definitive word, we should ask the man himself.



Master Bruce, which do you think was Mister Nolan's best depiction of your alter ego's exploits?

[Metahive]

Getting two boats to blow up just to show that... uhh... people baaaaad dynamite goooood

How did you get this interpretation when the movie itself spelled out aloud several times what the Joker's point was? It was to simply show that people will do absolutely anything if frightened enough and that there's no such thing as a decent, upstanding human being. That isn't even all that far out and gels better with the whole "gritty realism" thing that the reboot series is supposedly going for. Pseudo-Ghul's plan in contrast was ridiculously stupid and contrived to the extreme. Step one, pour a gazillion gallons of fear fluid into the local water supply. Step Two steal magical microwave cannon that vaporises water except that within meatbags. Step three put magical microwave cannon on train and rush it through the city evaporating fear-fluid tainted water supply of the city. Step Four everyone goes mad. Step Five THIS'LL SHOW THE WORLD THAT USING PSYCHOTROPICAL DRUGS ON MASSES OF PEOPLE WILL RESULT IN RIOTS! Step six civilizations will see the wisdom in this act and become more rigidly black and white in their application of justice or something, just as the society of shadows approves.
Yeah, 60's Batman all the way, except GRRRRRRRRRIMDARK!

[Shroom Man 777]

Uh, their purpose was to collapse the economy and destroy Gotham, which was precisely what a gas that makes people go nuts will do.

Bombing shit to make people turn into grimdrakstraks and evil gritty assholes instead of smarmy ones, what the fuck kind of objective is that? What's the point? To turn people into assholes? That's a pretty bullshit point. Well, he did succeed in turning Dent into a totally compelling bad guy, so I guess if his master plan was "make aaron eckhart test his acting chops by turning from an upstanding square-chinned hero into a brooding wounded hurt and hateful psycho", then I'd agree that that's a good plan.

Otherwise, it's a totally bullshit sociology experiment shit wherein the Joker just prattles some psycho-babble and some philosophical bullshit that sounds "deep" and "compelling" and "grimdark" to fellate the same pretentious crowd of people who dove into the Matrix movies' deep crap, except the pool was pretty shallow, so they ended up hitting their heads.

Batman Begins, IMO, also benefits from having a much cleaner story structure with simple beginning > middle > end bits. Yeah, yeah, TDK was "complex" and such and such, but there's something to be said about simplicity. Begins was tighter, and since Liam Neeson's interplay with Bale was awesome, his whole supervillain "justice vengeance kill everyone" shtick actually touches on the relevant themes on why Batman became Batman.

Yes, TDK expounds on these themes and shtick, but the Joker was just laying it on too thickly. He's basically spouting his philoso-babble. His evil plan and his objective is the philosobabble craps. At least Liam Neeson had the decency to wrap the movie's themes in a supervillain plot to "destroy gotham, ruin the economy, cackle" rather than beat us over the head with more obvious philosophizing.

"Bioweapons + water + drive people crazy = achieve goal of fucking city" is probably just as, or maybe a bit less, shitty than "bomb shit up, make people go crazy... do half-assed attempt at 'sociology experiment'... because... philosophical messages!" Except the former is actually a workable objective, the latter is just pretentious prattling.

Also, there was more dimension to Liam Neeson's character. The duality of the mentor/antagonist thing was well done. What do we get out of the Joker? Some philo-babble, and a lot of scenes to emphasize just how bad he is, and how he's doing evil bad stuff just for the sake of doing evil bad stuff, so that he will make other people become evil and bad and so they will do evil bad stuff just like him? What a compelling character! His interplays and emotional range and story and resonance astounds me. Truly he is an evil bad guy, for the badness and evilness of his stuff is communicated through such grimdrakstrak philosophizing, in such an unsubtle way like a pencil through the eyesocket! Cackle! Muhahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

[Metahive]

Nope, pseudo-Ghul went into the whole spiel about how his society of shadows was responsible for "slapping down uppity civilizations so they sober up", he came right out and said so in Wayne Manor. "Whenever a civilisation gets arrogant we are there to put them in their place! We burned Rome, we spread the Black Death, WE MADE FOX CANCEL FIREFLY, AIN'T WE STINKERS?!" That is pretentiousness in its most undiluted form.

Joker's goal in TDK was more or less the same he had in The Killing Joke, only aimed at the whole of Gotham instead of just Batman and Gordon, so it's in character and since it's rather "mundane" as opposed to RIDICULOUS WORLD-CHANGING TERROR PLOT OF DOOM! it's in line with the "realism" they were trying to insert into the story. Stripping Al-Ghul of his immortality, removing Thalia and Ubu and changing his eco-terrorist shtick into some overblown, pompous yet oddly vague TOUGH LOVE GUARDIANS OF CIVILISATION nonsense and making him a dishonorable prick was just bullshit. Why did they even make any allusions to comics Al-Ghul when he took every single thing away that was essential to the character in the first place? Also, what mentor-teacher relationship is there when Wayne is able to just shrug off all of pseudo-Ghul's teachings out of hand quickly and without any sort of conflict? "Strike this evil-doer down for justice" "Nu-uh, I've decided I'd rather blow y'all to kingdom come. CYA in Hell gais"

ETA:
If worldwide economic chaos was pseudo-Ghul's goal he could have just blown up the NY stock exchange instead of hatching this unnecessarily convoluted mass-psychosis plot.

[wautd]

Scarecrow was a complete joke

I actually loved Scarecrow. I didn't know much about the character and I assumed the doctor was just some kind of corrupt schmuck. So when he suddenly took out his mask to have a chat with the mob boss I was pleasantly surprised.

[Crazedwraith]

Also, what mentor-teacher relationship is there when Wayne is able to just shrug off all of pseudo-Ghul's teachings out of hand quickly and without any sort of conflict? "Strike this evil-doer down for justice" "Nu-uh, I've decided I'd rather blow y'all to kingdom come. CYA in Hell gais

Did you miss how Ducard's teaching and techniques, were origin of the entire Batman persona? Use of fear? 'Theatricality and Deception are powerful weapons'? Just because Wayne ultimately held onto his own moral code doesn't mean he didn't learn anything from Ghul.

[Shroom Man 777]

Bluh, I still say the way Begins presented Ra's scheme was way better than Joker prattling lame ass philo-babble.

The mentor/antagonist relationship is just that. You see Ra's teach Wayne how to fight, you see him act as a surrogate father, he actually gives a helpless purposeless Wayne his direction in life. Sure, later on Wayne forgoes all of Ra's motives and kills him, but still. It adds dramatic personal tension, and displays versatility of acting on part of both Liam Neeson and Christian Bale, and we thus see the creation of Batman and the duality of Batman and Bruce Wayne, and to me it entertains - far moreso than some corpse-painted asshole acting hard to be evil for the sake of evil and trying to make people just as evil as he is... just because!

The most emotionally resonant bits of TDK was actually Harvey Dent's, and Bruce Wayne/Batman was relegated to a side-character. The Joker was actually a non-character. Since people like to describe him as a force of anarchy, or a force of nature or some shit, then I guess he has about as much characterization as one of those giant tidal waves Emmerich likes to put in his disaster movies.

When Two Face is the most compelling character in your Batman movie, then something has gone wrong with your movie about Batman.

This is why I also think that Begins is an awesome hero origin movie.

EDIT:

Who gives a fuck that Ra's isn't immortal? I don't really want to see him dive into Lazarus' armpits, or anyone else's armpits for that matter.

[TC Pilot]

I actually loved Scarecrow. I didn't know much about the character and I assumed the doctor was just some kind of corrupt schmuck. So when he suddenly took out his mask to have a chat with the mob boss I was pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, there was a certain amount of satisfaction to be gotten out of that scene. For me, looking back on the movie, the only things that stand out to me about his character were the burlap sack face and "run away after being tased." That, plus the actor looked a lot like my high school physics teacher, so...

[Stofsk]

Oh mang, I completely forgot to mention Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent. That's another reason I really like TDK. Although Shroom makes a good point, but on the other hand isn't this the same accusation we can make on Burton's Batman? When you watch that movie, Nicholson steals the show away from Keaton. Although I think Keaton makes the best Batman by far with the only exception being physicality. (Bale's good except when he's got the mask on; Keaton's good all-around)

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, I admit that TDK's themes and depiction were really damn good, but it was a big epic sprawling movie. I prefer Begins' simpler, more basic and focused narrative focusing on Bruce Wayne, his struggles and his becoming Batman. Think of it as comparing and contrasting ANH and TDK. There's a sense of dark wonder with Begins, when you first enter Nolan's Gotham and when we first see his Batman become. TDK is an even bigger, darker ambiguous work that follows it up and dives deeper into the themes and shit, becoming grimmer and edgier and sombre in tone as the villain takes away a part of Batman and makes him lose... everything.

But still, the characterization of Batman in Begins just wins it for me. From his interplay with Ra's, to the quiet moments when he remembers his mother and father. Watching Bruce Wayne find himself was part of what made Begins work so well. That's why origin stories are so powerful, that's why they have such emotional resonance, because characters like Batman or Spiderman must be made out of tragedy - their characters emerge from loss and grief with renewed purpose, and watching Begins' depiction of that process was just great. There were no high handed philosophical whatevers, there were no unsubtle sociological experiments. We just see quiet moments with Bruce and his dying family, Alfred holding the crying child, Gordon telling him that it will be okay, and flash forward we have a grown up Bruce still feeling the pain, still feeling so much hurt, and he's there in the ice mountain talking to Ducard, the man who will also become Ra's al-Ghul and who will be his nemesis later, and this man also shares with Bruce how he once felt pain just like him, how he had lost his family too. It's the quiet moments of sympathy, where there are no explosions or mad cackles, but just these lines delivered by these characters - the emotions, the tragedy, guilt and regret, the bittersweet memories Liam Neeson, Christian Bale, Michael Caine et al. express and convey so masterfully.

That's what made Batman Begins for me.

[TC Pilot]

Although Shroom makes a good point, but on the other hand isn't this the same accusation we can make on Burton's Batman? When you watch that movie, Nicholson steals the show away from Keaton.

Though, I think it's worth considering intent. Batman vs. Joker in TDK was supposed to be as much a battle of philosophy as brains and brawn. Batman could have just killed Joker a half dozen times in TDK but Joker would have still "won" because of it. In "Batman," it's just Joker being a loon and Batman struggling to foil him. Just look at their willingness to kill people: Bale won't kill anyone, but Keaten bloody strafes Joker's goons in a jet without a second thought.

[JME2]

Batman did feel like a supporting character at times in TDK, but that's fine. I came to that film primarily to see Harvey Dent's transformation into my favorite Batman villain. Taking cues from The Long Halloween didn't hurt either.

So, I liked BB, but prefer TDK.

[wautd]

but Keaten bloody strafes Joker's goons in a jet without a second thought.

In Batman Returns he even used his batmobile to burn a poor, harmless clown alive. That's just mean

[Elfdart]

Shouldn't there be a third option in this poll? Something like "Suddenly a stool and a rope doesn't look that bad right now."

In other words, I hated both movies.

[Big Orange]

Shouldn't there be a third option in this poll? Something like "Suddenly a stool and a rope doesn't look that bad right now."

In other words, I hated both movies.

Oh come on, what about Joel Schumacher's two anal discharges that look like they've been filmed in a early 1990s night club that had a paint truck crash into it!?

Nolan got the fantasy/gritty drama balance right in Batman Begins (which I voted for), went kinda overboard with the grim melodrama in The Dark Knight, yet even TDK still blew the two atrocious Schumacher movies out of the water. Tim Burton's Batman also got the fantasy/gritty drama right, Batman Returns was OK but more unhinged and removed from reality (in a good way, and a younger Micheller Pfeiffer clad in shiny latex helped).