Man of Steel vs Batman Begins

[Shikamaru]

I'd like to request all threads comparing any superhero origin film to Batman Begins be deleted until such a time comes when we actually get one as good as Batman Begins.

This is exactly how I feel. I feel like at this point, people do threads to compare other superhero origin films to Batman Begins just to make that other origin film look bad.

Batman Begins is an origin film on a whole different level. Regardless of tastes, I feel that most people would at least understand why it is considered the best superhero origin film to date from an objective point of view. Heck, even if they think that there is another origin film that is objectively better than BB, I think they would still understand the reason why most people consider it to be objectively the best origin film (even if they don't necessarily agree with that reason).

Regardless of which film a person thought was better or enjoyed more, that person knows damn well before clicking on this thread that the other origin film will get utterly destroyed in the poll (unless the origin film is objectively on par with BB but like you said, we haven't gotten that yet).

I remember people doing this when The Amazing Spider-Man came out. I saw people in a BB vs. TASM comparison thread that tried to argue that TASM not being as good as BB is somehow evidence of the film being bad and of it not being a successful reboot. Anno even tried to rub it in my face once that BB was murdering TASM in the poll (which didn't make sense since I voted for BB in that poll plus I've always openly stated that I like BB a lot more than TASM but whatever). I see people doing the same thing now with MOS and not just on this site.

People do this with The Dark Knight too. They make threads (or go to threads) in which other CBM's are being compared with TDK and then they try to argue that, because TDK is better, the CBM it is being compared to is bad. The only difference is that BB is often restricted to only other origin films while you can use TDK to make any comic book movie look bad.

Just because an origin film is not as good as another origin film does not mean that the not-as-good origin film is automatically a disaster. Sure that it would be nice for every origin film to be on the same level as BB but that is simply not how films work. Much like life, Hollywood has its up and downs. Same thing goes for the TDK comparisons.

As a side note, I find it a bit interesting that you can make other comic book films look bad in front of a mixed bag of people (we are not in a Batman forum right now) by comparing them to BB & TDK while you can't do the same thing by comparing them to TDKR unless you're maybe in a Batman/TDKR forum. It is almost as if TDKR is not as good.

 

[Skrilla31]

But those lines are very much in character of Bruce Wayne. The point he is not like every other person and is that driven. And just saying "Fear..." is as unimaginative as something out of a Punisher movie.

I am sorry you don't appreciate my take at the dialogue.

But can't you at least admit my approach to that same scene would have been just a bit more effective? Substitute the line with the same one they used in the movie even... you know... "shared my dread". Doesn't the scene work better that way?

And I don't claim to be a Grade-A filmmaker. I'm sure there are ways to do it even better than mine, but almost ANY way would have been better than the way Nolan did it. That's what I'm saying.

 

[DACrowe]

I am sorry you don't appreciate my take at the dialogue.

But can't you at least admit my approach to that same scene would have been just a bit more effective? Substitute the line with the same one they used in the movie even... you know... "shared my dread". Doesn't the scene work better that way?

And I don't claim to be a Grade-A filmmaker. I'm sure there are ways to do it even better than mine, but almost ANY way would have been better than the way Nolan did it. That's what I'm saying.

Fair enough. Though I still think those lines were perfectly fine and in-character. Though I would agree there were clunkers that were wisely removed from the sequels. Yet, they show up in MOS. I do see a pattern in that regard.

 

[DACrowe]

The tone was radically different. You can throw a one-liner like that and it's not out of place in a movie like Iron Man. So the same in a movie that pretends to be all serious and deep and it's a no-no.M Like the "Nice coat" batman delivers immediately after his epic introduction apparently with the only purpose of ruining that very moment.



Not equally.



Batman Begins wanted to go all depth and thoughtfulness, but it only reached the mark of preachy and informative. Things among the lines of 'Revenge is bad because of this and that,' 'Fear make criminals afraid and fearful.' That is just speeches, just actual depth. An even worse case is when little Bruce is with his father and mute mother talking about the monorail, it was painful how unnatural and incoherent it was just for the sake of giving as much information as possible.

Iron Man and many movies can be influenced by Batman Begins tone (which was a great promise) but at least IM surpasses it because it didn't pretend to be more than it was.

I agree there were bad one-liners. I'd also include "I gotta' get me one of those" and "Can you drive stick." But they don't ruin the movie for me. Indeed, almost every superhero movie has them, which is why I enjoy TDK and TDKR so much for avoiding forced "humor."

Nolan's need to speechify bothers me no less than Favreau channelling Howard Hawks in the first two Iron Mans. Unnatural dialogue that works in the confines of the worlds they create on screen. It's the same reason I never mind that all characters in Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet and even Kevin Smith movies sound like their writers. If it works for the film, it works.

And for me BB works far better than IM1. Batman Begins got me invested in Bruce's journey and the plight of Gotham. IM1 made me laugh at how funny RDJ is and how fun his chemistry is with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges. The rest I could leave. And I have, hence not being able to rewatch it really since theaters.

 

[Skrilla31]

Shikamaru the only reason the films are being compared to one another is because that is the nature of this debate. If we were just having a discussion as it pertained to the strengths and weaknesses of Batman Begins, I wouldn't even find a need to bring up Iron Man unless I was citing it as an example. But since we're being asked to compare the two, and since I chose to make an argument for one over the other... it's only fair that I explain why I believe one is superior and one is inferior.

The fact is no matter how much s*** I talk in this thread, I still love Batman Begins and chances are I'll probably watch it many more times before I die. It's still a guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[DACrowe]

This is exactly how I feel. I feel like at this point, people do threads to compare other superhero origin films to Batman Begins just to make that other origin film look bad.

Batman Begins is an origin film on a whole different level. Regardless of tastes, I feel that most people would at least understand why it is considered the best superhero origin film to date from an objective point of view. Heck, even if they think that there is another origin film that is objectively better than BB, I think they would still understand the reason why most people consider it to be objectively the best origin film (even if they don't necessarily agree with that reason).

Regardless of which film a person thought was better or enjoyed more, that person knows damn well before clicking on this thread that the other origin film will get utterly destroyed in the poll (unless the origin film is objectively on par with BB but like you said, we haven't gotten that yet).

I remember people doing this when The Amazing Spider-Man came out. I saw people in a BB vs. TASM comparison thread that tried to argue that TASM not being as good as BB is somehow evidence of the film being bad and of it not being a successful reboot. Anno even tried to rub it in my face once that BB was murdering TASM in the poll (which didn't make sense since I voted for BB in that poll plus I've always openly stated that I like BB a lot more than TASM but whatever). I see people doing the same thing now with MOS and not just on this site.

People do this with The Dark Knight too. They make threads (or go to threads) in which other CBM's are being compared with TDK and then they try to argue that, because TDK is better, the CBM it is being compared to is bad. The only difference is that BB is often restricted to only other origin films while you can use TDK to make any comic book movie look bad.

Just because an origin film is not as good as another origin film does not mean that the not-as-good origin film is automatically a disaster. Sure that it would be nice for every origin film to be on the same level as BB but that is simply not how films work. Much like life, Hollywood has its up and downs. Same thing goes for the TDK comparisons.

As a side note, I find it a bit interesting that you can make other comic book films look bad in front of a mixed bag of people (we are not in a Batman forum right now) by comparing them to BB & TDK while you can't do the same thing by comparing them to TDKR unless you're maybe in a Batman/TDKR forum. It is almost as if TDKR is not as good.

Agreed until you took the dig at TDKR. I actually prefer it to BB. The writing is better, the villain is surprisingly better and it does something totally new with the character, while BB followed a tried and true formula.

And if I recall, TDKR beat the Avengers in all polls last year beyond that board. Then again, The Avengers would win in a poll today (though no MCU sequel would). I will be interested to see about in ten years, because I have a sneaking hunch TDKR will be remembered more fondly as time passes, not unlike Return of the Jedi. Most of these others will fade away.

And for the record, I think Spider-Man 2 is actually better than either BB or TDKR. Just wanted to throw that out there lest I be called a Nolanite or some such critique.

 

[shauner111]

Ill try not to talk about IM again after this post...

Iron Man doesn't even hold the jock of Batman Begins. It's a solid comic book movie origin but nothing more, nothing less. Robert Downey Jr carries that movie. Jeff Bridges does very well but if it wasn't for Downey's charisma, a lot of us would be looking at the movie/story and saying "meh, nothing special here".

Batman Begins has so many cast members that equally carry the film, even if Bale is the standout. What's on the page counts quite a bit. It's a great story and script. I would probably stop reading the script for Iron Man fairly quickly, to be honest.

Iron Man and S:TM are in my opinion solid movies for the genre itself. You place them outside of the genre and theyre nothing but jokey movies. Im only saying this because I personally hate comic book movies 90 percent of the time. You isolate Begins and just watch it as a film, and it's incredibly earnest, it's different, it could pass as a crime film. It could stand on its own two feet (as the rest of the trilogy can) in other genres outside of "comic book movies".

Man Of Steel, I think is much more of a comic book film but it's also a great sci-fi movie even if one doesn't enjoy the superhero stuff.

That's why I don't think Iron Man qualifies. It's just another CBM origin. It's well made for what it is. But let's be honest, you can put MOS next to a lot of sci-fi action films and put Begins next to a lot of crime/martial arts/journey films and it holds up. Iron Man stands up well within the genre its in....but you compare to anything else and it falls flat. It KNOWS what it is and serves it well. But there's nothing unique about it or special.

 

[Shikamaru]

Agreed until you took the dig at TDKR. I actually prefer it to BB. The writing is better, the villain is surprisingly better and it does something totally new with the character, while BB followed a tried and true formula.

And if I recall, TDKR beat the Avengers in all polls last year beyond that board. Then again, The Avengers would win in a poll today (though no MCU sequel would). I will be interested to see about in ten years, because I have a sneaking hunch TDKR will be remembered more fondly as time passes, not unlike Return of the Jedi. Most of these others will fade away.

And for the record, I think Spider-Man 2 is actually better than either BB or TDKR. Just wanted to throw that out there lest I be called a Nolanite or some such critique.

I never stated any of the following:
1) That one cannot prefer TDKR over BB or TDK.
2) That one cannot prefer another origin film to BB or another CBM in general to TDK.
3) That those who like TDKR more than BB/TDK or more than another film, or just like TDKR in general, have a wrong or invalid opinion.
4) That TDKR cannot ever win a poll.

You are misinterpreting the type of people I was referencing with the dig I took at TDKR. Perhaps I am a bit guilty for that because I wasn't specific enough. I was talking about Nolanites. If you are not a Nolanite (and it doesn't seem that you are one), then what I am about to say does not apply to you.

As I said in my last post, the people who often make these threads and/or go to them to state the other film is bad because it is not as good as BB and/or TDK are people who know damn well that Batman Begins or The Dark Knight will utterly destroy the other film in the poll. When they make or go to a thread that compares Batman Begins to another origin film, they know that BB will be winning by a vast difference. When they make or go to a thread that compares The Dark Knight to another comic book film, they know that TDK will be winning by a vast difference. They are fully confident about this and are eager to see the (expected) results. For the record, the OP of this thread is not a Nolanite. Not every person that makes a thread like this is a Nolanite but a large chunk is. In the same way, not every person going to these threads to leave a post is a Nolanite (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but a large chunk is. Then everything changes with TDKR. That entire confidence and "Mah movie is so much better than urs! It obliterates it! Muahahahahaha!" is either gone or very underplayed, unless the pole is comparing TDKR to far worse third movies like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3. The same Nolanites often claim that they like TDKR just as much as the first two films or more, so we know that the drop in confidence is not due to liking the movie less in their case. We also know that critics and the general audience loved the film for the most part, giving them the hollow "Everyone likes it but you!" argument on their side. What seems to cause that drop in confidence then? No one can really give a concrete answer to this but could it be that maybe there are certain criticisms of the film that they want to avoid at all costs? Just throwing that out there. That's not to say that TDKR cannot possibly win a poll against a film like The Avengers but the Nolanites lose confidence in TDKR beating Avengers by a vast majority in the poll to the point that Avengers cannot make a comeback, which is something more common to happen in threads like this one (not necessarily with Avengers since it isn't an origin film like BB but you get the point).

For the record, I also don't care whether or not a film wins a poll. I never form my opinions around what the majority of people think. Can't say the same thing for the Nolanites I'm describing though.

Return of the Jedi doesn't have that bad of a rep, and fans of Star Wars are not as split on it as Batman fans are on TDKR. If anything, the film has a far better image now than it did when it came out. I thank the prequel trilogy for that. I don't know how TDKR will be remembered as. My gut feeling tells me that it will become the "Batman Returns" of the Nolan trilogy (though it arguably already is that). However, I do think that BB and TDK will be seen less fondly by future generations, even when viewed as a product of their time, due to TDKR .

Since we have encountered one another in this thread and TDKR was brought up, I would like to inform you that I have read your response to one of my posts in that John Blake thread yesterday. On top of time being an issue, I was also too lazy and too tired to type that long of a post. I haven't forgotten about it though. Just letting you know.

 

[shauner111]

I don't see what the big deal is with being a Nolanite lol. Im a Nolanite, im proud to say it. So what?? He's one of my favorite directors (some days he IS my fav).

I don't even know how a person can compare a Christopher Nolan film to a film by that doofus John Favreau or even Zack Snyder who is just a visual man who got lucky with a more emotive story than he normally gets.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ill try not to talk about IM again after this post...

Iron Man doesn't even hold the jock of Batman Begins. It's a solid comic book movie origin but nothing more, nothing less. Robert Downey Jr carries that movie. Jeff Bridges does very well but if it wasn't for Downey's charisma, a lot of us would be looking at the movie/story and saying "meh, nothing special here".

Batman Begins has so many cast members that equally carry the film, even if Bale is the standout. What's on the page counts quite a bit. It's a great story and script. I would probably stop reading the script for Iron Man fairly quickly, to be honest.

Iron Man and S:TM are in my opinion solid movies for the genre itself. You place them outside of the genre and theyre nothing but jokey movies. Im only saying this because I personally hate comic book movies 90 percent of the time. You isolate Begins and just watch it as a film, and it's incredibly earnest, it's different, it could pass as a crime film. It could stand on its own two feet (as the rest of the trilogy can) in other genres outside of "comic book movies".

Man Of Steel, I think is much more of a comic book film but it's also a great sci-fi movie even if one doesn't enjoy the superhero stuff.

That's why I don't think Iron Man qualifies. It's just another CBM origin. It's well made for what it is. But let's be honest, you can put MOS next to a lot of sci-fi action films and put Begins next to a lot of crime/martial arts/journey films and it holds up. Iron Man stands up well within the genre its in....but you compare to anything else and it falls flat. It KNOWS what it is and serves it well. But there's nothing unique about it or special.

No offense, but I am not fond of the mentality you (and other people) have of comic book movies.

The biggest problem with this post is the idea that comic book movies are a genre. They are not. There is no such thing as a comic book movie. There are only movies based on stories found in comic books. The closest thing there is to a "comic book movie" would technically be Ang Lee's Hulk, which featured split-screen filmmaking that made certain scenes somewhat resemble a comic book.

That being established, Iron Man and S:TM cannot be placed outside of the "comic book genre" because that genre does not exist. Iron Man stands as a fun film about a rich genius playboy who built himself a suit of armor. It has a fun tone but there is also a lot of depth and great themes in there (mostly in the character development of the protagonist). Superman ('78) stands as a fun 1970's sci-fi film of an alien sent to Earth to protect humanity.

I also love how you treat Batman Begins and Man of Steel as if they're revolutionary ideas that Nolan and Snyder respectively came up with. They're not. Batman Begins is a great crime drama because, for the most part, the stories found in Batman comics are crime dramas. Man of Steel is a great sci-fi story because, for the most part, the stories found in Superman comics are sci-fi stories. I've been saying the following about Nolan's movies for years: The crime drama tone is not something Nolan invented for Batman but something Nolan adapted from Batman. Same thing applies to Snyder and what he did with MOS.

What you are doing is a classic example of simplifying comic books and comic book movies to stories about superheroes and more specifically, to lighthearted stories about superheroes in colorful costumes. You are closing comics off to a genre despite them being a medium. I sometimes wonder why the general public should bother to accept the fact that comic book movies can be just as diverse as all other movies if the apparent fans are not willing to accept that in the first place.

I don't see what the big deal is with being a Nolanite lol. Im a Nolanite, im proud to say it. So what?? He's one of my favorite directors (some days he IS my fav).

 

[Hammer!]

Not only Begins, but I'd also take Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man's origin film over MOS. MOS was alright in the Transformers/Pirates of the Caribbean extravaganza mold, but I was severely let down by the film's lack of a cerebral presence.

 

[shauner111]

Did you just compare MOS to transformers and say lack of cerebral presence but then mention Captain America and Thor as being better?

 

[Hammer!]

Did you just compare MOS to transformers and say lack of cerebral presence but then mention Captain America and Thor as being better?

Yup.

 

[shauner111]

No offense, but I am not fond of the mentality you (and other people) have of comic book movies.

The biggest problem with this post is the idea that comic book movies are a genre. They are not. There is no such thing as a comic book movie. There are only movies based on stories found in comic books. The closest thing there is to a "comic book movie" would technically be Ang Lee's Hulk, which featured split-screen filmmaking that made certain scenes somewhat resemble a comic book.

That being established, Iron Man and S:TM cannot be placed outside of the "comic book genre" because that genre does not exist. Iron Man stands as a fun film about a rich genius playboy who built himself a suit of armor. It has a fun tone but there is also a lot of depth and great themes in there (mostly in the character development of the protagonist). Superman ('78) stands as a fun 1970's sci-fi film of an alien sent to Earth to protect humanity.

I also love how you treat Batman Begins and Man of Steel as if they're revolutionary ideas that Nolan and Snyder respectively came up with. They're not. Batman Begins is a great crime drama because, for the most part, the stories found in Batman comics are crime dramas. Man of Steel is a great sci-fi story because, for the most part, the stories found in Superman comics are sci-fi stories. I've been saying the following about Nolan's movies for years: The crime drama tone is not something Nolan invented for Batman but something Nolan adapted from Batman. Same thing applies to Snyder and what he did with MOS.

What you are doing is a classic example of simplifying comic books and comic book movies to stories about superheroes and more specifically, to lighthearted stories about superheroes in colorful costumes. You are closing comics off to a genre despite them being a medium. I sometimes wonder why the general public should bother to accept the fact that comic book movies can be just as diverse as all other movies if the apparent fans are not willing to accept that in the first place.

Of course Nolan didn't invent the style. I never said that. I said they can fit in other genres like crime films, disaster, civil war, martial arts. The majority of CBM's (Iron Man included) feel like they exist in their own genre. It's not its own genre technically but it may as well be because they all have the same premise, over the top jokes flying around, super-powered heroes who fight monsters, get the girl, and are made as popcorn blockbusters. Heck, maybe MOS even falls into that category. You know what, I guess it does. But I never felt that way about Nolans films.

I stand by my personal opinion of not enjoying comic book movies 90 percent of the time. With certain characters like Batman you can push the boundaries of the typical elements that I mentioned in the above paragraph. But for the most part? They could exist as its own genre. And I don't blame the general public for just seeing them as one-dimensional or "corny". Because quite frankly from what ive seen most of the time, they are.

 

[shauner111]

Yup.

Nice contradiction then.

 

[flickchick85]

It's not condescending, it's about being objective.

The condescension comes in acting as if you're the only one capable of an objective opinion. I'm being no less objective in my posts as you. Objectively, I believe BB is superior to MoS and TASM from a technical standpoint (though, subjectively, I do tend to enjoy both of those more), but is about equal in quality to IM. And the critics - the people paid to be objective about these things - seem to agree with that assessment, both in the percentage of positive reviews (in which IM is higher) AND average scores (in which the two are even). So whether or not you agree with that assessment, acting like others are being unreasonable or unable to be objective for putting IM at an equal level of comparison to BB is, well, the more unreasonable stance, imo.

 

[Hammer!]

Nice contradiction then.

 

[shauner111]

I liked Thor, but MOS had more cerebral presence. Captain America on the other hand, I thought that was terrible.

 

[The Batman]

I find it absolutely laughable that STM supposedly can't stand on its own outside of a "CBM" label, but MOS could.

MOS has more of the tropes of a conventional CBM than STM does. The only thing that's truly comic book about STM is the intro and the main character's costume. STM is essentially a fantasy film with some sci fi elements.

 

[shauner111]

I MAY take those comments back about MOS but I felt that way about it in comparison to S:TM because of its execution without the need to hit you over the head with the humor. There was emotional stuff going on that made it a little more meaningful than the original and even a lot of classic sci-fi movies like Star Wars, etc. But you know, theyre simple comic book movies. But MOS feels much more sci-fi throughout.

Still, you're right The Batman. However, I stand by what I said about Nolan's films.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I prefer all of the Nolan Batman films over MOS.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I MAY take those comments back about MOS but I felt that way about it in comparison to S:TM because of its execution without the need to hit you over the head with the humor.

Of course it didn't hit you over the head with humor. It forgot to include any.

 

[Shikamaru]

I fail to see how Cap's first film had a cerebral presence. This is the same film that toned down the Red Skull's racism and fascism in favor of being more family friendly. The Red Skull in the film is done poorly and watered down in comparison to the Red Skull of the comics.

Of course Nolan didn't invent the style. I never said that. I said they can fit in other genres like crime films, disaster, civil war, martial arts. The majority of CBM's (Iron Man included) feel like they exist in their own genre. It's not its own genre technically but it may as well be because they all have the same premise, over the top jokes flying around, super-powered heroes who fight monsters, get the girl, and are made as popcorn blockbusters. Heck, maybe MOS even falls into that category. You know what, I guess it does. But I never felt that way about Nolans films.

I stand by my personal opinion of not enjoying comic book movies 90 percent of the time. With certain characters like Batman you can push the boundaries of the typical elements that I mentioned in the above paragraph. But for the most part? They could exist as its own genre. And I don't blame the general public for just seeing them as one-dimensional or "corny". Because quite frankly from what ive seen most of the time, they are.

There is barely any action in Iron Man and Pepper is by no means a damsel in distress. It had a fun tone but the film overall is a character study of Tony Stark. The funniest over-the-top moments in the film are not even jokes but physical comedy.

Having a film follow a formula similar to the one you listed does not equate to the film not being able to stand on its own if separated from films similar to it. Many films of various genres follow a formula of their particular genre that has been used many times but are still considered to be solid cinematic pieces that can stand on their own and have withstood the test of time. Heck, Batman Begins has a lot of the formula you are sourcing incorporated into it. There is an entire scene where Batman goes to save Rachel from Scarecrow (AKA "get the girl") and features a ninja society trying to infect the water supply to then spread it over the city with a water vaporizer strong enough to drain the water from metal pipes but not the water found in your body. On paper, that sounds as something you would find in a popcorn blockbuster.

It depends on what you've seen. A good chunk of comic book films are indeed bad or just "meh" but the solution to that is to make more that are not. We have been moving in the right direction for a while now, especially since 2008. The whole point of good adaptations is to bring the best of a character on the big screen. If a character is portrayed as corny on the big screen when he is not in other mediums, then the character should be made to represent his/her true self. Batman specifically had some very corny films in the last century.

 

[The Batman]

Of course it didn't hit you over the head with humor. It forgot to include any.

And BOOM goes the dynamite.

 

[dru-zod2501]

MOS > BB in size, scope, pacing, casting, action & more. But I'm sure when we look back at this time in the genre history will show BB having the greater impact