Batman Begins is not only a great comic book movie, nor is it merely a great movie overall… it’s also a very important film. It took the comic book genre film into a darker more serious tone (while still being quite fun) that previously hadn’t really been done with mainstream comic movie fare. It opened the doors for further diversity in the genre that had previously been only dreamed about by comic geeks, but thought unrealistic by much of Hollywood.
However, I think there is also a tendency in some people (me included) to confuse “darker” with “deeper”. Following my viewing of Iron Man (which I really enjoyed) I got involved in some discussions with people where comparisons were made between Iron and Bat. And in most of those conversations at least one person would usually mention “Yes, but Batman Begins was a deeper film”. And at first, I just agreed with that without thinking about it… but upon further reflection, I don’t agree with that statement at all. Yes Batman Begins was a darker more serious movie… but I disagree that it was intrinsically a deeper movie. When you really look at all the elements, I think an argument could be made that the story in the Iron Man movie was every bit as deep as Batman Begins… it just clearly wasn’t as dark.
That got me thinking about both of these movies that I enjoyed so much. There was a starting assumption (by me as well) that the Iron Man movie, no matter how good, wouldn’t be as good as Batman Begins. I think there is a worth while debate to be had on that creative and subjective issue… but for now I would just like to propose 5 ways that Iron Man was actually better than Batman Begins (yes, there are ways Batman was better, but that’s for another conversation).
1) MINIMAL LOVE INTEREST STORY LINE
If you inquired all Batman Begins fans around the world about what one thing they DIDN’T like about the movie, almost universally (with exceptions) the answer coming back with be “The damn love story with the wooden walking Tom Cruise baby incubator”. It felt like every time Rachel Dawes was on screen the pace and motion of the movie ground to a complete halt… and the love interest was never sold. It felt forced and unnatural. Iron Man on the other hand had a very minimalist approach to the love interest story line… the two never even kiss. Not to mention, Gwyneth Paltrow fit in with the movie much better and never got in the way. She, and her relationship with Tony Stark actually HELPED the story as opposed to hinder it.
2) YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN ACTION
My one critique of Christopher Nolan’s direction when it came to Batman Begins was how he choose to shoot the action sequences. Whenever Batman was going to do something really cool (like beat the hell out of the henchmen at the docks), Nolan either choose to have the camera cut away to something else so you only HEAR Batman doing his thing, or committed the heinous sin of shaking the bloody camera around like an German midget having an epileptic seizure to create a fake and artificial sense of “action” or “intensity”. This drove me nuts. Iron Man on the other had generally always had him in frame, in the shot allowing us to see what he was doing. Thank you Mr. Favreau!
3) IRON MAN HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD
There’s something about brining the fantastic into the mundane that makes the fantastic all the more awe inspiring. Prior to Jurassic Park, I had seen lots of movies with Dinosaurs, but they were usually back in time (where you would expect to see Dinosaurs). But when Jurassic Park brought those creatures into the the world and time we live in, there was something far more magical and awe inspiring about it. Batman Begins doesn’t really exist in our world totally. The styles, technology (better and worse) and atmosphere of “Gotham City” (which is also fictional) are all slightly off from the real world. And so, when the environment is a fictional world, the fictional characters dwelling in it seem a TOUCH less fantastic because they’re not in the world we inhabit. Iron Man on the other hand takes place in the context of our world… which for me personally, made it engage my imagination all the more. Some people won’t agree with this point, and that’s fair since it is subjective.
4) TONY STARK IS A MORE ENTERTAINING CHARACTER THAN BRUCE WAYNE
Please note I’m not saying Tony Stark is a BETTER character than Bruce Wayne. I don’t think he is… but there’s no denying that when sitting in a movie theater, the moments that Tony Stark is on screen are more entertaining to watch than Bruce Wayne. In Iron Man, Stark is a funny, quick tonged character who almost always said or did something on screen that made you laugh or love him even more. His quick one liners and general disposition made watching him on screen almost as fun as watching Iron Man on screen. Same can’t really be said for Bruce.
5) IRON MAN HAD BETTER DIALOG
Say what you will, but man… that little speech Rachel Dawes gives Bruce as they’re driving in the car in front of Falcone’s was nauseating. “Who will stand for justice… yadda yadda yadda”. There were actually several monologues in the film that had a high cheese factor to them… some awesome ones too. Iron Man just seemed to have tighter dialog. Sillier sometimes for certain… but rarely diving into the deep blue cheese. It was usually witty and with the wink of an Iron eye at times… but for what it was it was pretty tight.
Once again, I’m not here saying Iron Man was a BETTER movie that Batman Begins (although I might later). Both are fantastic movies, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. These are just some of the areas where I though Iron Man was superior. Are there other ways in which you thought Iron Man had the upper hand?
revia sale discount
Nice points but i think me and my friends still prefer batman begins over iron man & IMO the dark knight topped every super hero movie out there.
Hi all! Hot picture alert! If Paris Hilton is your fave, then I have a website for you to see. Who wants it?
I agree Iron Man is a better film than Batman Begins, i also agree with the point that Iron man does not have as many Villans as Batman does BUT are we forgetting the many cross overs in the marvel universe, most recent being in the new incredibale hulk film where Tony provides the means to take down the hulk and apears in it personaly at the end. Instantly here we have a potential new iron man film. Also the leader of the ten rings strikes me as a potential Madarin candidate, 1) He leads the ten rings 2) how he seems to like his ring and play with it throughout the film (like the mandarin played with his rings in the cartoon). Again here we have another potential Iron Man film.
As for Batman having so many villans, i think we've established that to many superhero films can kill it, Spiderman being a prime example, after the first 2 films i felt it was begining to go downhill and the X-men films, they were good but i felt after the third film the justice had been done and another would kill it. To much of a good thing is a bad thing and i fear that this will happen with Batman but not Iron Man although granted the new batman film (The Dark Knight) is a true masterpiece played out perfectly, but give it a few more batman films and the air will become stail and we will be sat here discusing how it all failed and new comic book films coming out soon.
i believe iron man was agood film but kind of overated.i think it borrowed alot from batman begins but it had a lame villan and very few actin scenes with stark in the iron man suit.
BB was way more enjoyable and realistic.can't wait for the dark knight
I think that the original poster has some very good points.
But I also think there are many points to be made i favor of Batman Begins over Iron Man, and I'm inclined to agree with a lot of Joe's points.
There are so many good things to Iron Man, and I must admit that while watching it at the theater, there were many moments in which I felt that this was going to be the superhero movie to beat from this point. But I have to judge the movies in their totality.
The most glaring weakness of Iron Man is the climax between the hero and villain. When we reach this point, Iron Man succumbs to that obligatory, cgi-driven, "clash-of-the-titans"-setting which is present in every single Marvel I have ever seen. I was disappointed, because I felt what had come before was so special, and expected the conflict between hero and villain would be solved differently as well.
We both agree that Rachel was undoubtedly a horribly miscast and weak link of Batman Begins. She induced embarrassing moments. But to be honest, so did the "clash of the titans" in Iron Man as well... Perhaps even to a bigger extent. None of the two movies are perfect, it's just a matter of picking out which one is most "perfect", and that's a completely subjective process, I think...
My List: Top Comic Book Movies(superHero)
so doesn't include Incredibles,300,Road to Perdition or Sin City
1A. Batman Begins -slight edge over Iron Man
1B. Iron Man - but barely beating...
2. X2: Xmen United
3. Spider-Man 2
4. Spider-Man
5. Batman 1989
6. Superman II richard donner cut
7. Blade
8A. Batman Returns
8B. Superman Returns
9. Daredevil Director's Cut
10A. Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
10B. Spider-Man 3
10C. X3: the last stand
I disagree, but such is film.
(Type your comment here. Make sure you've read the commenting rules before doing so)
I don't understand all the hype about Iron Man. When I saw Iron Man, I was checking my watch in the theater, whereas Batman actually had pathos. I liked a lot of things about Iron Man but to me it was just "check," another good comic movie, nothing quite like this post is hyping it up to be.
I also couldn't shake how unrealistic the military scenes were and the way the military officers behaved (I've worked at some of the most important military locations), and it really effected the whole movie for me.
My response to your post. Check it out. :]
John,
Having carefully considered your article, here is my rebuttal to your argument.
1) MINIMAL LOVE INTEREST STORY LINE
You state that:
‘It felt like every time Rachel Dawes was on screen the pace and motion of the movie ground to a complete halt… and the love interest was never sold. It felt forced and unnatural.’
Rachel Dawes, as an Assistant District Attorney, acts as a parallel to Batman. She has dedicated her life to ridding Gotham of crime by legitimate means, while Batman acts as a vigilante. As such rather than grinding the film to a halt, she is essential to it. That Rachel is unable to succeed in stopping crime and is targeted by Falcone and later Crane, illustrates why Wayne choose not to become a police officer or a D.A. and why he had to become Batman.
As Bruce Wayne’s childhood friend, she is the one person, with whom he could share a relationship that knows the real Bruce, the frightened boy who lies beneath the playboy image and behind the cowl. The tragedy is that so long as that façade remains in place and he continues to lead a double life, Rachel cannot be with Bruce.
At the end of the film, despite Rachel knowing Bruce’s secret and despite their mutual affection for one another they still go their separate ways because so long as Bruce is Batman they cannot be together and Bruce will always be Batman.
Certainly there is a similarity between Rachel Dawes and Pepper Potts, both of whom are the only women who get close enough to the heroes to truly understand them, but the connection between Rachel Dawes and Bruce Wayne is considerably more complex and developed at the end of Batman Begins than the rather one-note will-they-won’t they relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts established by the end of Iron Man. While you cite this as a good thing, it adds an important layer to the hero, a loner status and emotional turmoil.
2) YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN ACTION
I can see where you’re coming from. Personally, I enjoyed the action sequences in Batman Begins and liked what Nolan was trying to achieve with his frenetic, brutal, and deliberately disorienting fight scenes. And contrary to what some critics believe this WAS Nolan’s intention and not simply the result of a lack of experience in staging action, as he discusses roughly 9 minutes into this interview: http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt050615christopher_nolan.
However, I do think the action sequences in Iron Man are far superior. The Iron Man vs. Fighter Jets sequence in particular is one of the most beautifully staged action scenes I’ve seen in a long time and was truly thrilling to watch.
3) IRON MAN HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD
I’m not entirely sure I understand your reasoning here. You argue that since Iron Man is set in a world which more closely resembles our own, that this makes Iron Man ‘all the more awe inspiring’ and suggest that the ‘style, technology and atmosphere’ of the fictional Gotham City somehow make Batman less fantastical.
However, stylistically, Batman Begins had a very naturalistic look. And with regard to the technology, the film was universally praised for its grounded and realistic approach to Batman’s arsenal of gadgets.
Gotham City itself is clearly a composite of many modern cities, the skyscrapers of New York, the monorails of Tokyo, the now-demolished slums of Kowloon. Gotham is clearly an exaggeration of the modern city but nonetheless very much grounded in reality. The Afghani village of Gulmira in Iron Man is fictitious, the terrorist cave-base a stereotype but, nevertheless, you accepted it as reality.
Ultimately, even if you can’t move beyond the fact that Gotham is a fictional city, I fail to see why this makes Batman any less fantastical. Is Gandalf any less ‘fantastical’ because the Lord of the Rings is set in Middle Earth? Is Superman any less ‘awe-inspiring’ because Superman Returns is set in the Metropolis? So long as you buy into the world that the film creates for its characters, what does it matter whether it’s set it Gotham City or New York City?
4) TONY STARK IS A MORE ENTERTAINING CHARACTER THAN BRUCE WAYNE
Your argument here seems to hinge on the notion that humour is the sole prerequisite to entertainment. You argue that Tony Stark is ‘funny, quick tonged[sic]’ and cite his ‘quick one liners’ as the reason why the character is more entertaining than Bruce Wayne. However humour isn’t the sole prerequisite to entertainment. I found the internal struggle of the Wayne character to be highly entertaining.
You praised Iron Man for being set in the ‘real world’ but Bruce Wayne is a far more nuanced, fully realised and ‘real’ character than Tony Stark, and real emotionally engaging characters ARE entertaining.
5) IRON MAN HAD BETTER DIALOG
Your argument again seems to hinge on Iron Man being funnier and therefore better. You argue that the monologues in Batman Begins are cheesy, while the dialogue in Iron Man is ‘usually witty and with the wink of an Iron eye’. However Iron Man was not without its own naff monologues, Jeff Bridges ‘Tony Stark is a golden goose’ speech immediately springs to mind. Furthermore, while Batman Begins wasn’t entirely bereft of witty one-liners, the darker tone of the film means that it was never intended to be as frequently funny as Iron Man. Ultimately both films have very strong scripts and pointing out the odd weakness in either seems a fairly pointless exercise.
The main reason i would say begins is 'deeper' than iron man is the themes in begins were caked on much more than in iron man.
begins focuses on fear in humanity and examines it on every level, through the hero, the villain, the criminal, the philanthropist, and in general the average joe. like Ducard says "feel its power to distort." The film focuses on how corruptible we all are due to our own fears and how the defining characteristics of someone can be judged by their courage over their own fear, not just over some maniac nemesis...
fear can distort justice to vengeance, give you an empty feeling when you lose something/someone but it is the essence of all humanity...in a way, Batman seperates himself from humanity on the level that he seems fearless and also EVOKES fear in others but this is all because of his own fears that he his this drive.talk about Iron man being heavy on the existentialism...batman truely is his own worst enemy...it is this OTHER villian inside him that makes it so much more interesting to watch him take on the physical criminals outside...
All of this is irrelevant, in two months movie blog is going to have to make a new article....title:
"30 WAYS WHY THE DARK KNIGHT IS BETTER THAN IRON MAN AND IS THE BEST COMIC-BOOK MOVIE/FILM EVER MADE."
Iron Man was a fantasy at levels which doesn't really appeal to some. An iron willed millionaire ridding evil at the street level is may SEEM more digestible than a lone alcoholic inventor fighting terrorism. Terrorism but its a much bigger and complicated situation. A lot of times I found it stupid but then I realized Tony Stark IS stupid! Okay, so he's a genius inventor, graduated from MIT at 17 blah blah, but many mathematical intellectuals in real life lack a stable social outlook. Stark was oblivious to the damage he was causing for so long. He thinks he can. But he's equally blind to the gravity of his venture. So yeah, Iron Man was deep.
But if I had to pick I'd say Batman Begins.
If something is "almost universally" doesn't it automatically mean there are exceptions?
Anyway good read, the reasons are a bit flakey but it's cool. It's funny how many people are putting in their top Comic Book movies and even including Graphic Novels. Yet no one mentioned what could be THE best comic book / Graphic Novel of all time..
Road To Perdition
It's surprising how many don't realize that movie is a Graphic Novel. It's a great flick and it's usually over looked. Sad, not every comic book movie needs a costume..
This is absolutely ludicrous. IRON MAN was the typical generic superhero film - nothing more. The only thing about that it could have possibly made it better than average was Downey's performance. BATMAN BEGINS was infinitely stronger; capturing the dark universe of Batman without a reliance on CGI and popcorn, stock-room cut-outs.
BATMAN BEGINS is miles ahead of IRON MAN. This is insulting.
I think JOHN is absolutely right here. Nobody even read his article. Please people, skip reading the comments section until AFTER you read his article. This is important, start at the top.
Iron Man was good, but not better than BB.
1) MINIMAL LOVE INTEREST STORY LINE
I don't think that the relationship between Rachel and Bruce can be called a "love" story. Actually i never thought that either feel love about each other. In the film their relationship is a childhood affection that becomes a fixation (maybe eventually an obsession). Wayne is haunted by memories and trauma, Rachel is one of the things close to the memory of his life before the tragic events that changed his life.
2) YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN ACTION
Every time i see a fight in BB i feel being beaten by the bat. I'm sure many people were dissapointed by this, hoping to see "action" (which is given by certain standards and conventions of american filmmaking) . The idea behind is giving the feeling of confusion under attack.
3) IRON MAN HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD
IM's world is at least (to not say MORE) as "fantastic" as BB. There are many examples of devices that don't belong to "our world" (Tony's generator, for instance) which are just as fantastic as the microwave weapon in BB.
4) TONY STARK IS A MORE ENTERTAINING CHARACTER THAN BRUCE WAYNE
It's more "entretaining" because it's more shallow and frivolous, like the cliché of "billionaire playboys".
5) IRON MAN HAD BETTER DIALOG
I agree with the fact that some lines in BB sounded cheessy, but that was because of the interpretation. I couldn't stand Holmes' performance. You can see that sometimes she doesn't even understand the lines she's supposed to say ("you enjoy the reversal", for example). The whole articulating subject in BB (which is - in short - fear as a weapon that can be used either for good or evil) is much deeper than iron man's "morality" (which is : "technical progress can deliver us from the problems technical progress has created") and closer to our societies. The whole Wayne's quest is much substantious than Stark's "epiphany"and Nolan and Co. translated it very well to the screen.
I believe Iron Man is a good superhero film, well cast, very well acted, well made and all, but most of its success is owed to the fact that it keeps closer to certain standards (actually it has more in common with Spiderman, which was a very conventional superhero movie). BB is more ambitious and philosophical, and that's why it's superior.
Best comic book movies.
1. Spider-Man 2 (Obvious)
2. X2 (Hell yeah!)
3. Iron Man (Definitely a good use of my $7)
4. Batman Begins (Nolan brought back this franchise after Joel Schumander, or whatever the hell his name is, fucked it up, dumbshit)
5. 300 (Okay, maybe I shoulda put Batman at #5 instead of 4)
6. Superman Returns (Not a Superman fan, but this is definitely a good movie)
7. Spider-Man (I can compare Iron Man to this favorably)
8. X-men (Which brought back that the superhero franchise after Batman turned it into shit)
9. Hulk (I thought this was good)
10. The Incredibles (Look, up in the sky! Is it Dreamworks? Is it Blue Sky? No, it's Pixar!)
Also, I agree with Servant of Krom. Robert is a fucking Idiot fucktard. Oh and Joel Schumander, Fuck your momma, bitch.
Well all i know is that Dark Knight will whoop Iron Man.
The one debate I have is the realistic world thing. Iron Man can just fly around doing these tests and nobody is noticing or caring that a random object flew around the city today. There is only the one scene with the military. What about the times at night?
Gotham is realistic. It's basically a beat down city. Have you ever seen one of those? Probably not. If anything, Nolan's universe has been praised for being realistic. Everything from how he gets his bat-equipment to Scarecrow not actually being a scarecrow. Both movies have their fantastical world issues, so I can't say Iron Man is more realistic at all.
THE BIGGEST FLAW:
You're telling me that these terrorists, who were getting suspicious of what Stark was doing, didn't eventually decide - Hey, let's put someone IN the room with him watching him with a gun, instead of some camera. I mean he is the best weapons maker in the world. You don't think he MIGHT make something to kill you? But I forgot, it's an American movie where Arabs or terrorists are made to look like idiots. Aren't these the terrorists threats the likes of people who sent two airplanes into two buildings? Why do movies make terrorists always look like idiots instead of actual threats to be afraid of. It's just weak storytelling and not believable at all. I mean really, why are you watching a camera. He knows he's a prisoner.
i love dick
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You think that iron man had better dialog than what movie!!!!!! Come on, name one movie. Even Fantastic Four had better dialog. A witty, smart-ass script does not make a movie good. I think the excessive comedy put the movie out of the real world and into the comic book world. But hey, that's good. I really enjoyed this movie for being a good comic book adaption, one of the best yet. But dude, your article is hurting iron man real bad. It's trying to make it a serious, thoughtful, hardcore drama/action insted of what it really is : A fun loving, terrorist smashing, great summer action flick, and one for the books too. Iron Man and Batman belong in two different categories, don't try to compare them. (By the way, the action in Batman Begins was perfect if you don't have lazy eyes.)
The acting is much better as a whole in Iron Man simply because Rachel Dawes is miscast in Batman Begins. I won't judge Katie Holmes acting but she was not right for this part- Maggie Gylenhall will be better at this character.
The Microwave Emitter was a little too much in suspension of belief especially since this Batman trilogy is cemented in realism.
Yes Tony Stark is much more interesting than Bruce Wayne- there were moments like when he had to get rid of his party guests for their own safety but Bruce Wayne is so tortured that it is sometimes hard to watch.
Iron Man hints at an entire Marvel Universe with Nick Fury and the Avenger Initiative and the shield of Captain America easter egg.
With Batman you get the feeling he is the only hero in his universe- not even a mention of Metropolis even though Warners knew Superman Returns was next up in the theaters...thats why Justice League isn't coming soon and the Avengers are.
This will all flip flop though because Nolan will have touched up anything 'off' from Begins and The Dark Knight will be the all time best Comic Book film until Iron Man 2 or Avengers. Hulk looks good but its a wait and see- Wolverine Origins has potential if it admits to being part of Marvel Universe like Iron Man and Hulk. Superman Man of Steel will only be as good as the script- Singer created a great movie with X2 so there is hope although I liked the 'homage' Superman Returns.
If WB will just take the voice of the fans to heart they have the potential to knock Marvel around at the Box Office because Batman,Superman,Wonder Woman,Flash,Green Lantern and Hawkgirl vs Grod,Parasite,Shade,Sinestro,Luthor and Toyman just feels like a Mega Movie if set up properly,cast properly and with a die hard fan of a director like Favreau. They already have Batman and Superman cast- now find the rest.
well I agree with the action sequence....but i Disagree with everything else....
First of all....maybe Tony Stark is entertaining...but that's his character...
Bruce Wayne is a different man....and we can't say someone is better than someone else if they are different...
about the reality thing.,...man u screwed up.....u saying that Batman is unreal......and the arc reaktor...and the flying Titanium suit is???i disagree with that...
I never felt the love though in Batman Begins...maybe because Katie Holmes wasn't in love with bruce...this kinda relation....old ones...only seems like that......in my opinion it was perfect...it was a mixture of love and a brother sister thing.......
Man....u say Iron Man had better Dialogue.....well it was funnier...but was Batman Begins near to funny???
and there were some Silly Dialogue....in Iron Man...but once again Batman Begins Dialog...was....as dark as it had to be....it wasn't Bla Bla Bla.....it came from the depths of the characters....That why Rasz Al'gul...was talkin in a sophisticated way!! Falconi also did in a way...
that's all
Minimal Love Interest Storyline: In itself not an advantage, but the Katie 'wooden' Holmes gone and Maggie in this should get better. Therefore the problem rests with Mrs Cruise, not the plot.
You Can See The Damn Action: A thought it was more the editing than the camera work which was annoying in Begins, but yeah, I basically agree.
Iron Man Happens In The Real World: This sat uneasily for me, I honestly felt more comfortable watching Begins in this respect, but as you said, subjective. Though Iron Man kicking Talib- sorry, 'Ten Rings' arse was very fun.
Tony Stark Is A More Entertaining Character Than Bruce Wayne: As someone else has said: apples and oranges. They are way too different to compare for me. Wayne's purpose isn't to be entertaining in Begins, generally speaking.
Iron Men Had Better Dialogue: Without a doubt. Some of the stuff in the action scenes was annoying, as was most of the polemical stuff in the monologues. Alfred is just Mr Exposition for the most part. And there's all the repetition because Goyer clearly doesn't do originality. Not Star Wars Episode II bad by an stretch of the imagination but poor compared to Iron Man (and most of the other elements of Begins).
Hey Ian,
You really need to learn how to read man. I never said Iron Man himself was realistic. On the contrary, Iron Man is the "Fantastic in the Mundane". In other words, the world in which Iron Man lives is the real world. He himself, and the things he does are not "realisitc", but rather the world in which he lives is more true to our real world.
Gotham is something out of fiction. Not just because it's not a real city.. but as you look at it, you see it's a reality all it's own.
John,
Yeah building an arc reactor in a cave is completely realistic, gotta hate the water vaporizing thing in Batman, but you're cool with his character building an arc reactor in a cave..... riight..... oh and one thing that made Iron Man so much better was the Afghanistan part, gotta love showing the audience our A typical terrorist, very scary. GO AMERICA! Stupid terrorists would never figure out he is building a leg, then an arm, how bout a chest piece, good ol' tony stark, so clever.
And last point, Jeff Bridges played a GREAT Lex Luthor, I mean probably the best Lex Luthor in history, I mean he wasnt trying to take over some real-estate, but still he played a great LEx Lut....... "what.... what was that? His name wasn't Lex..... it was obadiah?? Damn, coulda fooled me....."
So again John, Iron Man was based in reality, with a minimal love interest, with realistic elements to the stories, and the character creation/development came up with some truly ORIGINAL character design.
There is no way Iron Man was better, all of you have to get off the Iron Man high horse, it was good, but not the best.
peace.
My only real gripe with Batman Begins is that the return of Neeson and the Ra's story felt really tacked on because Scarecrow obviously was not large enough of an antagonist to deliver the movie's final conflict. Iron Man's relationship/conflict with Stane was not a huge part of the film until the end but it was present from the beginning.
and why is BB more "believable"?
There is aboslutely no way that a rich gym rat who subscribes to "kung Fu Today" can jump off buildings (in a fictional city), have radar targeting gadgets that the 20-trillion or whatever American free enterpruise economy can not come up with before him, because he's kinda smart and kinda rich. Now of course this is comic book stuff, but ONCE AGAIN, u speak of BB like "welllll, this actually happened or something"....the science behind Iron Man is actually way more believable than Steve Forbes learning karate and kicking but because of daddy issues. I'll take a Davinci (which comes every few hundred years and leaps science by the same century mark) who's self centered and capricious nature, staying in character inside the mask rather than juggling mental energy with silly false personalities, with a weaponized, mechanized suit (that logically can perform functions that a human body cannot, ala' BB) anyday.
SO....IRON MAN is the pitcher....BB is the catcher.
lol
"Buster"-Buster
Buster, not that I am a fat dude sitting around (between dungeon and dragon get togethers or something) I would like to tell u why your subjective logic is flawed, in my subjective superior opinion.
You discount Iron Man's more believable "gadgetry" as unimportant - later in your novella u suggest that BB is more believable because Iron Man just "came up with the idea of a suit?".
Actually, u dissprove your own point. I personally think that a "Davinci of weapons of death" is far more likely to be able to turn trash can lids and napalm into a mechanized battle armor to save his own self absorbed a@@! then a rich playboy whio studies with monk/ninjas in Tibet or whatever (who, in REAL life are not living in monestaries studying combat and eating rice but in reality currently selling fighting-monk bobble-head dolls to tourists...and sneaking Plumper hot-dogs with a Big Gulp....lol)
Another point....once again u have dropped the "gritty" argument. You know what, anyone can take the musical "Annie", stick her in a pair of stilleto heels and make her a street walker and some goof-ball, low rank critics will say "Wow, Genius!".
Iron man keeps the roots, combines it with a little swing (which was always there in the real comic) without degenrating into let's put lipstick on a pig mentality.
Buster, you're dead wrong.
Batman Begins and Iron Man own. End of story.
(Type your comment here. Make sure you've read the commenting rules before doing so)
I will agree with you on all these points. I loved that Robert Downey Jr. played Tony Stark. I think he did a very good job! The dialog was quick and funny. It was a more realistic type of movie.
I would say "Iron Man" is probably my favorite superhero movie to come out.
I just think that Batman Begins was a better film overall. The characters were deeper, Bruce Wayne/Batman faces a few tough decisions, and has more of an internal suggle than Tony Stark/Iron Man did. Not to say that Iron Man was a bad film, because i really did enjoy it, but the characters were just too shallow for me.
I think that #4 really had a good point. Tony Stark is a more ENTERTAINING character. He's witty character whose going to make you laugh, which i thought was great; but I also found it refreshing to have a character in a comic book movie that made you THINK. I always thought that Tony Stark, in reality was just Marvel's answer to DC's Batman. Both wealthy industrialists, born through tragedy, and their only powers stem from their devotion and wealth. Of course, to me, Tony Stark is basically that guy that Bruce Wayne pretends he is in front of other people. This brings me to another reason that u enjoyed BB more than Iron Man: Bruce Wayne is effectively 3 different characters; the playboy public persona, the dark and disturbed Bruce Wayne who made a promise to his parents, and then the brooding terror of the night, Batman. Tony Stark seems to maintain his one persona throughout the entire film, even when he is Iron Man. This is not a knock on Robert Downey, Jr., this is just the way the character was conceived. In fact, i loved RDJ in the role, and i am not sure that any other actor would fill the role nearly as well as he did, so here's hoping that he comes back for the next few Iron Man films (not to mention the Aveners pic).
Another major reason that i felt that Iron Man was a weaker film (although, not by much) was that the villain was simply not fleshed out enough. Obadiah Staine, a very personal friend of Tony's, and they faced off as if they had just met. Batman also had a personal villain in Ra's Al Ghul, and the writers had more fun with that and it certainly showed in the final product.
Further, Batman just made more sense to me. Forget the microwave emitter, in a movie based on a comic book, it's understood that a few liberties are going to be taken when it comes to the gritty realness of it, but i think that despite that, and despite the fact that BB took place in a fictional city, it still maintained more of a sense of realism than Iron Man. I'm not even talking about gadgets and technology, I'm talking about things like what made Tony do the things that he did in the movie? Everything Batman did in BB was motivated, but Iron Man lacked that at some points, some things were not explained, and just jumped into. Sure, we know that he wants to rid the world of the weapons that his company created, that's the general idea of the plot. But how about all the other things? He just decided to build a suit while terrorists were holding him captive? Niow, where in the hell did he get that idea from? Obadiah using his suit, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way he could have operated that Iron Monger suit as well as he did with so little actual practice.
In my opinion, both of these movies transcended from great comic book movies to great movies, period. Obviously, to me at least, Batman Begins was the groundbreaking, landmark film in the genre, and set the stage for films like Iron Man. I want it to be clear that I am not taking anything away from Iron Man, it was a very, very entertaining movie, but for my personal taste, Batman Begins just had more substance to it, and was just a better movie.
HEY "MARVEL GUY"
Last note ... i swear before sleep
You said:
"i'ts just ma movie about Iron man with some cheesy lines."
Yes it is....uh, so is BB
"At least Batman has a real villain in all his movies."
yyyyeah, the Joker...etc...the ARE REAL. lol.
"Iron man just has another verson of himself."
You mean like he wears a metal shell ....ummm...kinda like Batman wears a MASK and a blue body stocking?
"I rate this movie rental. I wouldnt buy it.
Its just some Cheesy Kid movie."
Unlike the weighty Citizen Kane-like value of Batman Begins, right? It's BATMAN, lol. There are no pearls of wisdom or pithy insights into the universe nesteled behind the caped crusaders point rubber ears. Batman IS for kids. Real kids and the KID in all of us.
One more note...all the Batman Begins zombie seem to think is that more gritty, darker, more violent, nastier, edgier is somehow better. To tell the truth, I'd probably argue that one of the first two Superman movies was probably the best of all time - they were very soda pop and bubblegum, but they were probably the most fun of any given time to the widest audience and probably represent the true spirit of a superhero better than any other. Now, I liked Iron Man a lot a few days ago - way more than BB, but the "pleasure-jolt" I can faintly remember getting from Superman II at the age of seven years old or whatever, when it came out in theaters was bigger than Iron Man. Now part of that is the fact that I was a kid, but part of it also was that Superman was real clean fun and really well done also. But if I had to choose a movie that my 1 1/2 year old daughter would love, I'd choose Superman not the others. There was more built into the fiber of the characters in early 1980's. There was a more serious, less serious, genuine quality to it. And I am sorry, I understand that comic books have "grown up" but let's face it - if you are 30 years old and reading comic books every day - you may have a more grown up appetite for story line and theme; but if u were any real genius you might just check out some books by guys like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Doestovsky or what have you. The person who grows from childhood comic addict to adult comic addict - is a bit - just a bit - like the kid who gows from popeye cartoons addict to pornography addict. Fantasy is fun for all of us; but it is a kid/teens game and an adult's occasional luxury of rememberence.
Iron Man, for those of us grown up enough to type in these blogs - is a better cross between what a comic hero is truly meant to be (fun and straightforward) and should be - with enough smarts and theme to make an adult enjoy twists, tech, and story.
But it is not mired in the "tragic darkness" "grief" yada yada yada that works a lot better for undeveloped adults than the grown up who likes a bit of kink and fun, but remembers the heart of what a super hero is and what such a film should encompass.
So I'll take my cocky fun loving, slightly boozy Tony starcks who is not a metaphor for dark yada (ala The Cure lyrics or something) with better story, more class, sharper corners and simply more fun ....over the continually downhill racing Batman direction which appears headed towards Grand Theft Auto 3 mentality (hey, i'm no puritan ... i got a kick of seeing naked gals in a video game and running over people too ...for about 15 minutes ... but then it lost it's thrill)...ala edgier means better. Truth is, I'll take the state of the USA's mentality in 1984 over it's current mentality any time.
Oh and not to mention that Marval is fantasy.
Real time an boring.
I think Iron man really sucked, through my perspective anyway.
Its just ma movie about Iron man with some cheesy lines.
At least Batman has a real villain in all his movies.
Iron man just has another verson of himself.
I rate this movie rental. I wouldnt buy it.
Its just some Cheesy Kid movie.
You know what, Batman Begins was not that good. BB's "darkness" and "deepness" is one of the psuedo-hip clicko, non-thinking man's wannabee thinking man type. Like buying an Ipod for a hundred bucks more because it's SUPPOSED to be techier, hipper, whatever - fact is there is a lesser known model out there for less with three times the features. And they were both mass produced on the same sweaty assembly line, same parts, somewhere in Hung Fat China.
Batman is the story of a rich guy in leotards jumping off buildings in a cape and whispering hushy goth-phrases. Barf! Unless yer a twit, you realize that it's a super hero flick and has about as much depth as a bag of peanuts. DC was always less sophisticated than Marvel heroes.
Iron man is not "deep" either. It's about a guy in a metal suit flying off buildings. But it is smarter, better written, far more charming - and much better acted.
I think that Iron Man is receiving to much praise. It was certainly not darker (given) and it was not even close to being as deep or intricate. Also the actions scenes were not emotionally gripping, we were not set up for them like in begins. Yes, at the docks you could not see the action but that was meant to exemplify the way batman fights. Also not every fight was even like that.
I have to agree with the article that Dark does not equal Deeper. Dark is easy.
I can come up with make believe super dark, scary, violent stories in my sleep... not enough to be movie worthy :) but interesting. Coming up with a story that has comedy, drama, emotion (other than anger) is almost always far more deeply creative and inspiring than those that rely on major elements of shock factor scary or deeply dark brooding acting. One of the EASIEST emotions to portray is anger and tends to get the attention from those viewing it, unlike trying to get a desired response from someone using witty elements or good storytelling - it's too easy to just rely on one or two angry moments to keep someone's attention - you should have to keep it interesting over the lengh of your story.
I've never been a Batman fan (maybe you can tell) but I've never been a Spiderman fan either, and I would put Spiderman 2 way ahead of Batman Begins, Iron Man then ranks somewhere near the top.
My biggest issue with some superheroes Batman in particular has always been... anger and darkness are way too easy and not deep enough to keep my attention for the long haul.
Insanity
Iron Man was good, but people are exagerating about it in a big way. We went a year or two with mostly bad superhero movies and as soon as one comes out that doesn't suck, everyone gets carried away.
IMO I thought BB was not that good...couldn't see the fascination others had with it. My biggest beef with it was Batman is supposed to be Batman, not hi im Bruce Wayne oh by the way i dress up as a freak and fight crime. Even in the comics it was always Batman even when hiding behind Bruce Wayne. And dont even get me started on the tank (batmobile) that drives on top of houses?!?!?!
With that said i am anxious to see TDK to see if the sequel can fix the mistakes i felt they made. Personally when i watch movies im looking for character, its what i watch for, and in this way Iron Man more than destroyed BB. Other than Freeman, Caine, & Neeson (sp?) no chacters worth watching in BB. But im repeating self again so...
Just wanted to say John keep u[p the good work. Your the only critic i seem to agree with with just a few differences aside. But have to say thanks for being here to keep the fans informed on all entertainment aspects and being willing to mix it up with the webers, even the ones that are complete morons and ya have to wonder how they can use a keyboard.
Keep it up laters man
for sure man.
i guess it boils down too sometimes us hardcore-bat-fans dont like our bubble being burst lol
either way its a good summer to be a comic book geek :)
oh btw..heres the link to the leaked Two-Face concept art. It must be close to being the real thing...WB has asked some sites to take it down....pretty cool
http://www.66batman.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1210037795/14
Hey Goodbar1979
Thanks for the kind words man.
So... are you saying that being balanced is a bad thing?
Look at Transformers. Everyone knows how much I love that movie... but if you read my stuff and listen to the Transformer Commentary we did, I'll always point out the faults and the "buts" for that as well.
I think you can like something, and still be honest about the shortcomings or possible downsides.
maybe shitting was the wrong word....id say more along the lines of it always being:
"Batman looks/sounds/feels good....BUT....."
always seems to be a but
like Heath looks great but....
Batman Begins was good but.....
Dark Knight will be awesome but....
I have no doubt John likes Begins and isnt saying it sucks..but just looking over all the post-Begins stuff its seems to be a trend....
But good call on the Post John...sure have alot of discussions.....which is always good :)
I liked Iron man, but seriously, every time I watch a movie from Marvel,including Iron man, I feel like a little kid. Maybe that's not such a bad thing all the time, but Batman is more adult, and feels like an actual movie, not a cartoon. I think the dialouge in BM was actually better, and more mature, and more clever. The characters felt more real,and authentic, especially the villians. The action was also very authentic, including the fight scenes, which makes it look like an actual fight, not glorified by people flying back 5 feet from a punch. There's no flying, no leaping 15 feet in the air, no huge CGI explosions. No this isn't Superman. It feels like your actually watching a man. Just a man in a cool suit with cool gadgets, and elite fighting skills. And Christian Bale is just Bad ass, come one. Robert Downey Jr is a brilliant, but who would you rather face in a dark alley, Tony, or Bruce. Yeah... I mean were talking about the guy from American Pshyco here. Robert brings more comedy to the character, where Bale brings more grit to his. And ofcourse it's written and made by the guy behind Memento, and Prestige. (As opposed to Elf, and Made. LOL. ) No , I think Batman outdoes this one.
@ Robert - Oh, and TMB was the first site to post the new TwoFace picture but WB told them to take it down moron. "Do some research"
Oh, and everyone knows Nolan shook the camera on purpose. Just because you do something on purpose doesn't mean it was right or good. If he raped your grandma in the ass on purpose would that make it ok?
Idiot.
@Robert - What kind of retarded moron are you? Seriously?
You said John is shitting on Batman. Do you know how to read? In this blog he said
- "Batman Begins is not only a great comic book movie, nor is it merely a great movie overall… it’s also a very important film."
- "It opened the doors for further diversity in the genre that had previously been only dreamed about by comic geeks, but thought unrealistic by much of Hollywood."
- "I’m not here saying Iron Man was a BETTER movie that Batman"
- "Both are fantastic movies"
You're a fucking idiot fucktard. Learn to read.
New trailer! New two-face picture! The movieblog posted neither.........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....