MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Is it me…

or does Batman Begins look f-ing great?

Be Sociable, Share!

29 Responses to “Is it me…”

  1. RP says:

    The new trailer is ten times better than the original teasers. Highlighting the Liam Neeson involvement in Batman’s training excites expectations, while simultaneously piling on to how horrible Episode I turned out (with Neeson in a different mentor role). There seems to be a lot of backstory involved that could bring the movie down, but hopefully they are saving the actual Batman highlights and action scenes for the latter part of the movie without advertising. This could be everything that anti-spoiler boy from THB every wanted. 🙂

  2. Blake Falls says:

    You a right, to see Neeson again in a mentor role is a real downer because of that horrible star wars crap. But there is one thing that realy makes me even more nervous: Isn`t the back-story as told in the trailer exactly the same as what alec baldmin have to go through at the beginning of “the shadow”?

  3. Joe S. says:

    You know, Blake, I was thinking the same thing. But Christopher Nolan is not Russell Mulcahy, so I will cut him some slack. Plus, the scenes in Gotham City looked excellent, save the last shot in the trailer, which reminded me of the alley kiss from Spider-Man for all the wrong reasons.

  4. CHM says:

    It’s just you. It looks bland and boring.

  5. teambanzai says:

    It looked great to me, Christian Bale is usually pretty good at picking his projects plus I read an interview with him where he said that he sought the role and was ready to back out at anytime if the project started to degrade into the past two Batman movies.

  6. bicycle bob says:

    its not u. the cast in great. director is great.

  7. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    You know why geeks are a bunch of ruttin aholes?
    They mention Episode 1 when no else brought it up.
    Dumb Dumb. He was a great mentor in Ep 1. If you
    sort of missed that, then I guess the obvious can
    be lost on you rather easily.
    But yes, this movie looks great, but I have no faith
    in Nolan. None what so bloody ever. I hope he
    pulls it out, but Bale should save this flick.

  8. EntryNmbrV says:

    Ok, can someone please tell me in what we have seen so far (the poster, the teaser, the trailer), what looks great? I haven’t made up my mind totally, but what I see is utterly underwhelming.
    Perhaps it’s because I’m rather young (20) and the frist film expierance I had was the original Batman (my dad got a ticket, so we were late walking in and the first moment I ever laid eyes on a movie screen was to see Batman fall through the glass in the art museum– talk about good timing). I grew up with these movies– they are everything to me that Star Wars was for so many others. Batman Returns remains one of my favorite movies of all time.
    So, ok, I’m a bit of a fan. And I was holding out hope that they would really make a good Batman film for the first time in over a decade. But this? This looks so unoriginal. It reminds me of any other action movie (and, call me crazy, but the Burton films were anything but ordinary).
    I keep hearing great comments about the cast and director, but the Coen Bros. and Tom Hanks made The Ladykillers and how was that?
    So what are you pointing at in the footage that gets you so rieled up? I want to be excited. I want to think Nolan can do it. But I just don’t see it.

  9. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    Here’s the deal number 5; those movies you love
    are not really ‘Batman’ movies in relation to
    the comics. They are adaptations by two directors
    who really did not get the world in which Bats
    lives. Unlike those two; Nolan and his team or Goyer
    and his script actually paid attention to the comic.
    Bats goes on really big adventures or fights in
    Gotham. One or the two, but the Batman animated
    series captured this very well.
    So glad you like those movies but they are about
    as Batman as me in a Batman outfit on Halloween
    This film might be the closest thing outside of
    the Batman animated series and subsequent spin-offs
    to actually get Bats and his world right.

  10. Dan R% says:

    L&DB sums it up perfectly in his last post.
    I do enjoy ‘Batman Returns’ but it has little or nothing to do with the legend of Batman. It’s weird and eccentric, which goes a long way.
    This ‘Batman Begins’ trailer looks great. I’m glad they’re hiding the main villains for the most part. It looks like a gritty street film, which is what the Batman should be to me. I love the original Batman Animated Series. It’s one of my alltime favorite series.
    Go Chris Nolan! Go Dave Goyer! Go Christian Bale! Go Liam Neeson! Go Michael Caine! Go Gary Oldman! Go Ken Watanabe! Go Cillian Murphy! Go everyone!

  11. Scott Mendelson says:

    Nope, nope nope… the Batman films, all four of them, are in fact true adaptations of the Batman comics. Let me explain…
    Batman (1989) – Batman comics from 1939-1942… the beginning… Batman was dark, scary, and a murderer. The villains were over the top, calculating, and obscenely murderous (hence the sky-high body count in the first film). The decor is neo-deco, but drab and colorless, just like the first stories.
    Batman Returns (1992) – this is Batman from the late 80s, to early 1990s (before Knightfall). Batman was still dark and scary, but not out and out murderous (yes, he does cause one death, but even some graphic novels of the time had that too). The villains were psychologically damaged, often twisted souls. While they were murderous, the body count was lower while the violence was bloodier (check and check). The stories were more about inner turmoil than wam-bam action.
    Batman Forever (1995) – With a few exceptions (namely the absurd characterization of Two-Face), this is pretty much Batman in the 1970s. If you recall, this decade returned Batman to his dark knight roots, but not all the way there. He is dark, scary, and a brutal warrior and a keen detective. He is not a murderer and preaches against killing. He is also, for those unfamiliar with the period, surprisingly chummy with the cops and willing to crack a joke and show compassion for his fellow citizens. He is a protector. The villains are murderous, but not terribly deep or twisted. They are evil, but not terribly 3 dimensional and not presented in a way to scare kids. Basically the Batman of the 70s was a dark adventurer and protector, as he is in Batman Forever.
    Batman & Robin (1997) – A terrible movie? Yup. But an accurate adaptation of the comics’ lowpoint – late 1950s and early 1960s. The villains were over the top, non threatening, and campy as all get out. Batman and Robin were chummy, goofy, deputized cops and goodness knows what else. It’s not, however, like the TV show. The TV show was like the late 1960s, campy, but more earthbound (no one ever traveled through time, exploded giant rockets, or what have you).
    So the question is, what period of Batman comics will Batman Begins be, if any?
    Scott Mendelson

  12. entrynmbrv says:

    Thanks Scott, I was getting to think I was the only one who saw that. Yes, I did read the comics as a child. The only flaw I’ve ever had with the first two movies was that they didn’t make Batman out to be the crack detective he is (more in the second though).
    If I was holding out hope for anything, it was that Begins would do this.
    It doesn’t look like it so far.
    I do have to clarify one thing, however, I revile the second two movies. In fact, I’m usually alone in that I think Forever is the worst of the four.
    And yet, you can see how the comics lended themselves to different styles. It’s only that, well, some of the comics sucked too…
    But so far, no one has answered my question: what in this trailer has gotten you so excited?

  13. bicycle bob says:

    what from the trailer got us excited? the mood, the training sequences, bale, the prototype suit. what more do u need from a trailer?

  14. jesse says:

    The Batman Begins trailer has me excited because it looks like it will accomplish what only one of the previous live-action films really did: intelligently and excitingly explore an interesting aspect of the Batman character. It looks we’re going to get a young, driven Batman, obsessed with fighting crime, learning the ropes. I’m interested in seeing how he is trained in this version– I’m interested in any movie that will likely wait at least 30-40 minutes before he dons the cape & cowl, and do more with the Bruce Wayne character. The fact that we see these moody, mysterious images *without* a reliance on “the costume”– that alone is exciting to me. I think at this point, any footage that doesn’t indicate a campy botch job is going to raise excitement levels.
    The first Batman film has its moments, but there are so many “off” elements about it– Kim Basinger, Prince songs, Nicholson doing Nicholson instead of the Joker– that it’s less than satisfying for me.
    Batman Returns is the one true success so far, exploring the duality of Batman/Bruce Wayne and the strange, twisted relationship with Catwoman. To me, it is the perfect marriage of Burton and Batman sensibilities.
    Batman Forever is entertaining but silly– this should’ve been as far as they went with the “camp” element. Two-Face is done terribly, and the themes are essentially a happier rehashing of Batman Returns… but as pointed out above, it’s not unfaithful to the comics. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed it as a fourteen-year-old Batman fan. (The previous films actually got me to read the comics.)
    Batman & Robin is a misguided attempt at camp spectacle. This take on Batman should be treated as a last resort. Save Arnold, the casting in B&R is potentially great, which makes the movie all the more depressing.
    I would recommend to anyone hasn’t seen it Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, the theatrical release based on Batman: The Animated Series. It’s up there with Batman Returns in terms of best cinematic treatments (even if they do insist on a lamer Joker origin, like the first live-action film).
    I am a little concerned that Gotham will look too European. But otherwise I think the material so far looks very cool.

  15. GdB says:

    The difference between this movie and the older films is pretty clear. In all the older films the villians were given much more story time and as the films progressed, became more and more the main characters. While the most interesting character Batman/Bruce Wayne (and that duality) became more and more secondary. This movie looks to fix that and put the story’s emotional focus focus back on primary character of Batman (as it should have always been).

  16. Mark says:

    Its about time they brought it back to the dark, graphic novel type roots. When we cheered for Batman to do his thing and not some clown villian. Make the villians scary and tough and Batman equally as badass. I think Nolan is going to pull it off.

  17. TS says:

    Looks like Crouching Tiger Flying Bat to me!

  18. PeppersDad says:

    The comparisons to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace are obvious and downright scary. That is because both films squarely place Liam Neeson in the key role of mentor to the chief protagonist. I count myself among those who found Neeson’s character in Phantom Menace to be the only remotely interesting one. In that light, the new Batman trailer is quite worrisome because it is all too conveniently narrated by Neeson and is, once again, focused almost entirely around the student-mentor relationship. After so many disappointing attempts, isn’t it time to give Batman fans a film where, at last, the most interesting character is Batman?

  19. Ali Kryton says:

    It does look f-ing great. The “boring” comments have me totally dumbfounded. I just don’t understand people’s priorities, sometimes. Everyone’s been vouching for a serious, focused Batfilm since the last disaster, and now Chris Nolan et al serve us up what’s looking to be a wonderful character study of Bruce Wayne, how his motives are shaped, what makes him tick, and all that fascinating jazz… and people go “wahh, not enough Batman, it looks boring”?
    It sort of blows the mind, really.

  20. Eric says:

    On a character level, it’s an almost foregone conclusion that this will be the best Batman movie so far. But…
    Playing devil’s advocate here, I’m not feeling anything special for the Batman footage we’ve seen. The only action I’m really able to make out of this trailer of the man in the costume is him soaring down a shaft or chasm or somesuch… and it looks EXACTLY like the museum skylight bit from the first Burton film, its most memorable moment. Show me something new, please.
    I can’t wait for this movie, I really do hope it’s something special. Right now my fingers are crossed that they’re not showing all the best bits.

  21. Martin says:

    Everything I’ve seen from the movie so far has only brought my expectations down. I love the casting, Nolan as director, the set pics, hell even the title. But the footage so far has done very little for me. And the Liam Neeson mentor thing is so fucking bad it almost makes me want to not see the movie at all. What kind of a lame ass studio decision is that? How about a fucking Batman movie about Batman. This gay ass mentor shit didnt work in Star Wars, and it certainly wont work in a Batman story.

  22. joe says:

    This is not about anything but the direction. It all depends on Mr. Nolan, but this is not a bad thing because the movie looks great and if it IS great it is thanks to Mr. Nolan.

  23. GdB says:

    Martin, What’s wrong with a mentor story? What’s wrong with finding out how Batman became to be as badass as he is?

  24. Martin says:

    Of course there’s nothing wrong with finding out how he became Batman. Which is why, as I said, I like the title. The whole idea of Batman having a mentor seems absolutely ridiculous to me. It feels like a very eastern/asian idea that has no place in my ideal Batman movie. I see Batman as a sole entity. Having a daddy around to teach him shit just makes him a lame duck and basically ruins my expectations for this franchise. They didnt have the balls to go with it, IMO.

  25. Ali Kryton says:

    Uh… where do you think Wayne got all his knowledge and skills? He had to be taught somewhere along the line. By many “masters of the trade(s)” – not just Ducard (Neeson’s character) – and they’re going to cover that in this flick. I think the only reason they stuck Ducard’s monologue in there is because it had a few choice lines that perfectly summed up the Batman character and where this movie was taking it (“what you really fear is inside you” / “if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely”). It’s a teaser trailer. It’s introducing the audience to the concept. Neeson’s lines did a very good job of that. It doesn’t mean the movie is going to be focused around Ducard teaching Bruce – come on. It’s an *introduction*.

  26. PeppersDad says:

    Ali Kryton – Superb answer!
    Still, this whole thread got started with the question of whether the teaser makes the movie look “f-ing great.” And on that issue, I still feel the teaser accomplishes nothing more than preaching to the choir. Don’t get me wrong – I’m in that choir. I’m a Batman fan and, come hell or high water, I intend to see the movie. But if I wasn’t already so inclined, I cannot imagine getting any kind of a charge from this commonplace teaser.

  27. Stella's Boy says:

    PeppersDad, we agree. How about that? Unless you are already looking forward to this movie and plan on seeing it, I can’t imagine you getting hot and bothered by this teaser. I imagine a big “so what” from those viewers.

  28. Martin says:

    I’ve got no clue who this guy Ducard is. I was never really into the comics so maybe I missed his introduction. For me the best superheroes are the ones that become super of their own accord. Having some gay mentor-type to help Bats along just seems really lame to me, and indicative of some really bad story ideas.

  29. Stella's Boy says:

    Not quite as lame as people who continually use “gay” in their posts. Read a dictionary. Expand that vocabulary. Please.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon