Batman Begins

[Brandi]

Saw it tonight at a midnight screening.

Probably the best live-action Batman movie to date.

And the Scarecrow-induced hallucinations are effective and unsettling.

[AdamGarou]

All right, for anyone who has seen the movie or has just read up on it...

No spoilers, but please tell me there's no campy crap in it like there was with "Batman and Robin" (Clooney and O'Donnell). From the trailer, it looks pretty dark and serious, and I've got some pretty high hopes for it.

Especially considering the cast--Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe, Michael Caine, etc.

PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THERE'S NO CAMPINESS!!!

[Gemathustra]

PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THERE'S NO CAMPINESS!!!

Um, you do realize that asking for no campiness in a movie where Batman is the subject/main protagonist is akin to asking for an intelligent, articulate conversation about Drosophilia fruit flies with Paris Hilton, right?

[frandelgearslip]

Um, you do realize that asking for no campiness in a movie where Batman is the subject/main protagonist is akin to asking for an intelligent, articulate conversation about Drosophilia fruit flies with Paris Hilton, right?

Curse Adam West, Curse the television show. Though seriously only the third and 4th batman movies, the television show and related movie are the only campy batman media. The tim burton movies were not campy (though they had other problems) and the comic books have rarely been campy (the two biggest batman comics the dark night returns and batman year one are the farthest thing from camp).

Hell the Joker alone beat the second Robin to an inch of his life and then blew him and his mother up, killed commisioner gordon's wife, and paralyzed the original batgirl from the waste down.

I hate it when people who know nothing about batman claim that it is all camp based solely on the television show.

for adamgorou's question: there is no camp whatsoever.

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... S/50525003

[AdamGarou]

PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THERE'S NO CAMPINESS!!!

Um, you do realize that asking for no campiness in a movie where Batman is the subject/main protagonist is akin to asking for an intelligent, articulate conversation about Drosophilia fruit flies with Paris Hilton, right?

Um... wrong, actually. Although that's some creative phrasing on your part, "Professor."

As frandalgearslip mentions, "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Batman: Year One" are not at all campy. Neither is the "Broken Bat" series, or the "Killing Joke" series (in which the Joker paralyzes Barbara Gordon and tries to drive Commissioner Gordon insane--very intense). Nor is the first movie with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson--when you mix campiness with mass murder and violence as the Joker does, it's a lot more creepy than campy. The second Michael-Keaton-as-Batman movie also falls short of campiness, although it's a nearer thing than the first one.

Batman is a brooding, borderline-insane vigilante who has dedicated his life to intimidating (and beating the crap out of) those who would use violence or intimidation to prey on others. Not a "POW", "WHAM", "ZAP" or "OOF" among them--it's dark, it's gritty, and it's quite serious (in the best stories at least).

The whole reason I asked this was because I like the idea of studios bringing the Batman character to the screen, and I think that when they turn him into a joke they're basically destroying the character--taking away all the tragic appeal that Bruce Wayne/Batman has and making him just another idiot wandering around in tights. The Val Kilmer version was nothing but melodrama as far as I could see--I just couldn't take it seriously, even though it seemed to want me to. With the George Clooney version, it was like they just gave up all seriousness completely, with Clooney's Batman only overshadowed by Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl and the Governator's "Mr. Freeze" with his groan-worthy cold puns.

The Batman at his best is dark, gritty, and dangerous--very much like the criminals he preys upon. That's the appeal of the character--that's why he's still around after 50 years. I'd just like to see some of that translate to the big screen, but I wouldn't have wasted my money if they'd gone in another direction. Now I'll probably see it and enjoy it.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I'm gearing up for BB with the Batman/Judge Dredd files. I just got the compilation that has Judgement on Gotham, The Ultimate Riddle and Die Laughing in.

The Joker's always going to have some campiness, however. After all, he is a big, screaming queen.

[Brandi]

Actually this film borders on the humorless (though mercifully, it isn't-- the humor tends to be odd little touches or wry quips from Michael Caine's Alfred).

As for the Adam West era... when I'm in the right mood, I like it. Ever *read* some of the 50s Silver Age Batmans? There's a reason the 60s show is what it is. It's sort of like Freakazoid's Toby Danger to Jonny Quest.

ETA: Notably, in interviews Alan Moore has actually regretted writing The Killing Joke and mentioned a fondness for the Silver Age Batman and the wacky deathtraps and giant props...

[Jester of the FoS]

Yes, but Alan Moore is also a crazy man with a beard you could lose a badger in known for writing slash-fiction comics in his spare time.
I love the man but we all have our guilty little pleasures, super-heroes and Batman fall into that category for him.

Batman Begins... no campiness there. It's dark, it's brooding, it's Jungian. There are some funny scenes, mostly with Alfred and Bruce does make the occasion dry remark but it's hardly a laugh-fest.

Review wise I'd even place it a notch above the Burton films. Even the first one, that was really a Joker movie. This is all about the Bat from his training, the founding of the cave, establishing the 'Bruce Wayne' mask, etc. All about facing fears and finding one's place in the world.

It's also a crowded movie with the Fox subplot, Crane, the Wayne stocks going public, the DA, Gordon, the League of Shadows, Falcone the crime boss, etc. Alot of the plots overlap and tie together but it's still a dense-ass movie.

One complaint is Ken Watanabe is wasted as Ra's al Ghul. I know for the important role he plays they couldn't have just cast a nobody but the role is so small as to just be a cameo.

[Gemathustra]

I hate it when people who know nothing about batman claim that it is all camp based solely on the television show.

I never said, nor did I EVEN IMPLIED that the COMICS were campy, I ONLY said that the MOVIES were campy.
First off, please do not put words in my mouth EVER EVER again, and second, please explain to me how having penguin pall-bearers escort Danny DeVito's corpse into the water, or how Catwoman was making 9-lives' jokes while being shot to death were somehow not corny.

PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THERE'S NO CAMPINESS!!!

Um, you do realize that asking for no campiness in a movie where Batman is the subject/main protagonist is akin to asking for an intelligent, articulate conversation about Drosophilia fruit flies with Paris Hilton, right?

Um... wrong, actually. Although that's some creative phrasing on your part, "Professor."

As frandalgearslip mentions, "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Batman: Year One" are not at all campy. Neither is the "Broken Bat" series, or the "Killing Joke" series (in which the Joker paralyzes Barbara Gordon and tries to drive Commissioner Gordon insane--very intense). Nor is the first movie with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson--when you mix campiness with mass murder and violence as the Joker does, it's a lot more creepy than campy. The second Michael-Keaton-as-Batman movie also falls short of campiness, although it's a nearer thing than the first one.

No, you and frandelgearslip were wrong...
I wasn't talking about the comics being campy, my fussy-wuzziest Professor...
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MOVIES: I NEVER SO MUCH AS MENTIONED A SINGLE LETTER, LET ALONE SINGLE WORD IMPLYING OR INFERRING THAT I THOUGHT THE COMICS WERE CAMPY.
(Unless it was that one issue back in the 50's about Joker's "Boner," but that's besides the point)
I like reading the comics when I get the opportunity to do so. That one issue where it turns out that Two-Face framed the Joker, in that he, not the Joker, killed Bruce Wayne's doctor friend, and thus, nearly caused Batman to beat the Joker to death, I thought it was a marvelous piece of work.
I'm just saying that I strongly suspect that this movie will at least have some campy elements to it.

[Jester of the FoS]

Okay, don't make me lock what should otherwise be a perfectly reasonable thread and discussion or heavily edit posts.
Personal attacks are a "no-no"!
Keep it restrained and keep it civil and please no dragging up old disagreements from over a year and a half ago and an entirely different website.

[Brandi]

I'm just saying that I strongly suspect that this movie will at least have some campy elements to it.

Two things:

1) Having seen it, I can safely say it doesn't;

2) Calm the eff down.

[Gemathustra]

Calm the eff down.

Who said I'm upset about the movie being campy?
I was upset because I was falsely accused of claiming that the comic was campy.

[Jester of the FoS]

Okay, remind people again this forum is for discussing horror not personal problems. Unless said personal problems involve the walking dead.
Let's keep the topic of each post firmly on the subject, which I belive was men in black tights and shirts that reveal nipples. Or something to that effect.

The campiness or lack thereof of a movie is on topic and a valid subject if everyone keeps the topic on that and treats each other with respect. For example: wondering what was camping about the first Keaton/Burton movie. Everything else should be dropped like Joel Shumacher and never, ever mentioned again

[JinnTolser]

Even if BB is terrible, it could not possibly be worse than Batman & Robin. Such is not within the realm of possibility.

That said, it looks very good, although the fact that Roger Ebert likes it makes me worry, as he is wrong more than half the time...

[Dominique]

I loved it. Absolutely loved it. This is the Batman movie I've been waiting for all these years . . . and I really loved the way they brought in all the Batman: Year One references. Yes, I'm a squealy fangirl. Also, massive kudos for tying the ridiculous number of plot threads together.

MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT! MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT!

One complaint is Ken Watanabe is wasted as Ra's al Ghul. I know for the important role he plays they couldn't have just cast a nobody but the role is so small as to just be a cameo.

I really had no problem with that, although part of that is because I'm a Liam Neeson fangirl . . . But another part is that I don't think that Watanabe played the part very charismatically. Granted, maybe he was supposed to in order to tip us off that it wasn't really al Ghul, but for a villain as charismatic as that, I thought that Neeson was a much better pick. (It's also just nice to see him in a part where he doesn't train the young hero and then die in the first twenty minutes for once . . .) And given how much that plot twist left me reeling, I'm not going to complain about anything pertaining to it.