Im a fanboy, i admit it. From star wars to comic books, to babylon 5 and even star trek, i was raised on sci fi/fantasy, and have always loved it. I loved the first batman film. I even loved the second one. Both to me were very true to the story, the lore and the feel of batman. Gothic, gritty, dark, etc. The characters in those movies played the parts great. Michael Keaton was a perfect Bruce Wayne if i ever saw one, he had the part down perfect. Tonight i went to see Batman Begins, and i was less than thrilled.
This sort of stuff matters to me. Continuity in stories like this to me is the most important thing. Dont get me wrong, there was alot done with this new film that was very good. I think christian bale was the 2nd best batman that has been on the big screen. My problem revolves around 1 part of the movie, however, it is one of the largest parts in regards to batman lore.
It was set up that Jack Napier was the one to kill the wayne family after leaving the opera. jack Napier who then became the joker, so well played by Nicholson in the original 1988 film. Batman and the Joker are 2 hero/villain pairs that everyone will always remember. That relationship was set up at that point to show the history between batman/wayne and his nemisis. Now, in the new film. they make it some random thief who had minimal ties to some crime boss. That to me pretty much took a dump on the entire set up of the reason why wayne was so driven to fight crime. The "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight" line was something to haunt him and make him to who he is. This movie tried to make him more noble, have more of a care for gotham, where his real drive to fight crime came from truly personal reasons.
I was fine with the backstory of him going to asia to learn about criminals. Im fine with the entire tibetan/liam neeson situation. But for the sake of the story, and dear old bob kane, why did they have to shred the single incident who made batman who he was. Changing it just so that they could turn it into a plot device for their NEW film took everything that was done before and simply tossed it aside. Tim Burton used that story in a perfect way. Showed gotham for what it was for batman, merely a venue to take down those who did wrong. Batman is not like other superheroes, where he feels compelled to do good because of the powers he has, he trains and becomes who he is FOR REVENGE. Napier/Joker is what he focused on to become the superhero. Once he was dealt with, that left him to change his MO to assist gotham, but in this new film, they turned it around.
Also, detective(the future commissioner) grissom played by gary oldman was way too noble of a character as well. In the original films, he was a flawed character as well. Doing good, but definately tortured due to the state of the city, and knowing how volitile the situations were. Caine was good as alfred, doing almost as good of a job as michael gough did in that part. The addition of Morgan Freeman as Fox was a welcomed one, definately showing where batman "got all his wonderful toys". Like i said, this movie isnt completely flawed, i think it just focused on making batman more real and more noble than the character really was. Batmans motives were originally selfish. He was obsessed.
Go watch the 1988 movie. Id love to hear some other viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I couldn't disagree more about the back story on the death of Bruce's parents. Yes, it's not true to the original, but this movie was not meant to meld with those stories.
The way I see it, Bruce has just as much, if not more reason to don the cape and fight crime, and the movie does a great job of setting that up. Throughout Batman Begins, we learn how noble of a person Bruce's father was, and how dedicated to saving Gotham he was. What greater reason could Bruce have than to carry on the fight his late father first started? Yes it's noble, but it's not nobility just for the sake of nobility.
"From star wars to comic books, to babylon 5 and even star trek, i was raised on sci fi/fantasy, and have always loved it."
Then my work here is done.
- stimps
I believe it was the original movie that has twisted the backstory, not this re-telling. Check the wiki entry and you will see that the idea that the joker killed his parents was introduced by the original movie, but not by the comics it was based on (of which, many portray it the same as the movie, a worthless thug named Joe Chill).
Beyond that, I think this makes more sense. It wasn't Joe Chill that killed his parents as much as it was the poverty that had washed over the city as a result of others' tyranny. That being the case, Chill is a good choice to stand as a representation of that evil.
Post a Comment