The Long Road

06/21/2005 Archived Entry: "Are you ready to begin?"

Batman Begins is pretty good. It is truer to the characters of Bruce Wayne and Batman than any other previous film ever was and is finally a purely serious take on the franchise. We FINALLY get to see that he does in fact have a dual identity – the foppish Bruce that’s maintained to facilitate Batman’s existence. It made me happy to know that the filmmakers realized that Bruce Wayne was now the mask. (see this entry)

A lot has been made about how the movie tries to make everything as believable as possible, from all the bat-gear to the crazy kind of person that would be needed to put on a batsuit. And it does succeed for the most part, almost everything has a logical explanation that only requires the littlest bit of suspension of disbelief on your part to make it work. But I wonder how necessary that is. In Batman 1, Joker wondered where Batman got all this wonderful toys, but it didn’t make a difference to the movie at all – I can easily accept that an ultra rich and ultra smart guy could get his hands of this kind of thing. Seeing him acquire all his stuff, however, is fun fun fun.

As with any adaptation, I have gripes with what was changed and made inferior to the original. My biggest complaint is the character of Ra’s Al Ghul. In the comics, Ra’s is an immortal man who is bent on cleansing the world of 90% of the human population since he sees man as the biggest threat to itself and the planet. I honestly think that that makes a far more interesting goal than what we were presented with. But, overpopulation isn’t really a problem that we acknowledge in real life.

The entire cast, especially Bale, is amazing (the batvoice is corny). Never in the Batman movies have so many of the supporting characters even been this close to interesting. The only exception is Katie Holmes who’s in the movie because they need some kind of love story and female character to attract the female demographic. Would it be so wrong to have a superhero movie that doesn’t involve a love story of some kind? Also, movie-Batman has got to stop revealing his secret identity to every leading actress in his movies. It’s dumb. I think Holmes’ role should have been filled by a man and his name changed to Harvey Dent. That way, they could eventually turn the incorruptible D.A. into Two-Face. But maybe they’ve thought of this already and are planning on making Katie Holmes Two-Face, that would be…interesting.

What I would eventually like to see is a Batman movie focusing on the fact that he’s smarter and more clever than anyone on Earth. I want to see him going around solving crimes since he’s the World’s Greatest Detective. I want him to eventually become the ultra-prepared, super-paranoid, emotionally aloof nutjob who decides that Bruce Wayne is unnecessary. But that’s such a pipedream, that kind of superhero movie doesn’t get made when they all cost +100M$.

And now for something mildly different…

Internet reaction to the movie has been really positive, and deservedly so. What really bugs me though is when people declare excitedly that this isn’t a “comicbook movie”. Yes, this movie is trying harder than any of the other superhero films before it (maybe except Hulk) to be taken seriously but Fuck! Off! “comicbook movie” is not a genre, nor does such a self-deprecating and inane comparison speak favourably of one’s own interest in the medium. To say that it’s not a “comicbook movie” is like trying to take away the fact that this movie is indeed based on the Batman character, created by Bob Kane in the 30s to be syndicated in comic books, and who has become one of the oldest, most recognizable, and most profitable fictional characters ever. Not to mention that after 60+ years, he still has new stories told about him every month.

Anyways, “Superhero movie” would be the correct terminology, “comicbook movie” would include such dramas as Road to Perdition, Ghost World, and From Hell. To be based on a comic book does not have to mean brightly coloured good guy clashes with brightly coloured bad guy. Comic books can deliver characters as complex, emotions as vivid, and plots as intricate as any other medium out there. Reading them does not have to lead to an inferiority complex damnit!!!

Replies: 15 comments

I agree about the term superhero film and I think Unbreakable was interesting as an extent to how the genre can surpass its formulaic "limitations". Also, comic books are simply a medium as any other (film, novel, play...) and anyone could probably find one that suits him/her entirely. I guess I'm pretty much re-stating your point lol.

On the other hand, I think it's alright that Bruce Wayne's intelligence wasn't pushed forward more. It'd be hard to show a character's psychological weaknesses and evolution as much as was done in the movie while showcasing his intelligence and rationality.

Posted by Étienne @ 06/21/2005 01:57 AM EST

Hmm...I really like Ra's Al Ghul's objective that you presented from the comics...a lot deeper than what was presented in the movie.

Posted by dAN @ 06/21/2005 01:11 PM EST

I like Katie Holmes. In fact, she is the only reason why I plan to see. (Does that make me incredibly strange?) So she does serve some purpose, even if her role is only worth the $10 I'm shelling out to watch the film!

Posted by Spiky Joh @ 06/21/2005 04:52 PM EST

zOMG... you paid to watch a batman movie not because of THE batman, but because of katie holmes?!

..zomg.. =P

Posted by Dave @ 06/22/2005 10:53 AM EST

Holmes isnt really attractive...have you seen how wide apart her eyes are? EW!!

At least she's nipply throughout the last 1/3 of the movie

Posted by Rayne @ 06/22/2005 05:00 PM EST

What, Holmes unattractive?!?...Thai, you can never again make the claim that I'm too picky...:P

Posted by dAN @ 06/22/2005 05:21 PM EST

she's not.

Posted by Rayne @ 06/22/2005 05:43 PM EST

I agree she isn't attractive in the stereotypical sense, because her face just isn't symmetrical. Her lips are weird and she smiles crooked, and she has big ears. Kinda reminds me of me and probably a lot of the population. That's why I like it that she made it so big on being cute (which she is after all...her smile may be crooked but she's adorable!)

Posted by slippery gym @ 06/22/2005 07:53 PM EST

Because Zamir pointed this picture out...

k1m, you're using way too many different nicknames. I hadnt realized they were all you until just now =)

Posted by Rayne @ 06/23/2005 01:38 AM EST

*L* so you think she's not hot because she's human?

..dude..

but bah, she's cute, I wouldn't say she's hot. She looks like a little girl (in the linked pics anyway).

Posted by Arshwana @ 06/23/2005 07:17 AM EST

symmetry is one of the determinants of beauty, instinctually at least.

she does have the cute thing going on though, which is wonderful. i think cuteness is way underrated. being hot is too intimidating. being cute you're still attractive and yet approachable. it's a win-win situation!

Posted by melpie @ 06/23/2005 12:35 PM EST

Even in the pic Zamir sent you, you can still tell she's pretty...

Posted by k1m @ 06/24/2005 12:30 AM EST

For the record I like Katie Holmes, and think she's attractive :)

Don't see why she's getting so much flak for her performance in Begins.. she was more than adequate for the role. I think it's the Tom Cruise effect :(

Posted by Zamir @ 06/24/2005 11:02 PM EST

I think she's a really poor actress when put up against all those amazing actors in BB. We all know that she wasn't in the movie for her acting abilities =P

Posted by Rayne @ 06/25/2005 04:21 PM EST

was it for her ability to withstand the cold for long periods of time?

Posted by melpie @ 06/27/2005 11:31 AM EST