The Best DC Comics Movie Ever (Final Round, Possible Spoilers)

[S.C.B]

I think it's fair to say that nothing's going to be knocking Batman Begins from from the top spot of Round 2, and since I'm bored, I thought I'd post the final round now rather than tomorrow.

So, it's down to Batman and Batman Begins. Micheal Keaton and Christian Bale. Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan. Jack Nicholson and... Liam Neeson.

For me, Batman Begins. A recent re-watching reminded me why I loved this film so much when it came out. It loses none of its strength on repeat viewings, and even gains some when I notice things I didn't before, like just how heartbreaking the scene between Gordon and young Bruce really is, and with such sparse dialogue.

And it's still fun, too, mostly thanks to Micheal Caine ("What is the use of all those push ups if you can't even move a bloody log?") and Morgan Freeman ("The tumbler? ...oh, don't think you'd be interested in that..." - his expression for that line is perfect - it makes me laugh every time).

Let the Burton/Nolan debate begin (even though there was one back on Round 2...)!

Note: This thread may contain spoilers about the films being discussed. Read at your own risk.

[A.J]

Batman Begins makes it for me. No doubt about it.

[DR.MID-NITE]

While I enjoy Batman(89). What irked me was the constant use of the same 2 streets on the studio set for Gotham. And while it had some interesting looks. The complete overuse of strange gothic statues and buildings was ridiculous. What I love about Batman Begins is that it made you think how it would really look if someone became Bats in the real world. Also, for the first time you see how Bruce became Batman beyond just the killing of his parents. Little things like the mob bosses lecture to Bruce about not knowing what its like to be a criminal and be hurt. To the mundane things like how he got his mask.

[DisneyBoy]

I don't see why Batman Begins is so beloved...for me it will always be the film that just gave people exactly what they wanted, but failed to have a real soul all it's own. That's what Burton's had, and that's the way I voted.

[BonyT]

Opinions vary wildly, and as we discussed in the previous round, much of it ultimately comes down to personal tastes.

Having said that, for me, this one isn't even close.

Batman Begins sensitively honors the very finest from the comic/graphic novel heritage of Batman; and in so doing, it devotes a great deal of time to fleshing out the title character by exploring the underpinnings of his motivations to do what he does, to be Batman. As a result, Bruce/Batman means something to us as a character, we have an investment in him -- he's not just the guy in the costume.

In addition, as DR.MID-NITE touched on, one thing that really impresses about Begins is that it brings something new to Batman in the way it addresses his costume -- not the look per se (since WB mandated to Nolan that his Batsuit had to be reminiscent of the Burton/Schumacher costumes), but rather in terms of taking great pains to ground the Batsuit in reality (as much as is possible in a superhero fantasy film) as no other comic or film work before ever had by assigning practical functions to literally every element of it: The cowl is a light protective helmet; the ears house Batman's eavesdropping and communications antennae; and even the cape -- the traditionally least practical, most purely aesthetic part of the costume -- becomes an essential tool as a practical parachute and glider. And all of this was based on real world technology to boot (or at least plausibly imaginable extensions of it) -- the "memory cloth" of the cape, for example, has the EXACT properties of the "liquid armor" which will go into US military service in, IIRC, 2010: Liquid armor involves metal filings in a special suspension, and when it's struck by a ballistic round -- OR when a mild electic or magnetic current is passed through it (ala Begins) -- it becomes instantaneously rigid.

Besides all of this, the casting overall is SUPERB. People may quibble about Katie Holmes; but Morgan Freeman is great as Fox, Michael Cain is a fantastic Alfred, the villains are great, Gary Oldman was an absoutely INSPIRED choice as Jim Gordon, and Christian Bale (who looks the part moreso than anyone else previously cast in the role) had a pre-existing love for the character that clearly shines through in his performance.

Batman Begins all the way.

[Young Justice]

I don't see why Batman Begins is so beloved...for me it will always be the film that just gave people exactly what they wanted, but failed to have a real soul all it's own. That's what Burton's had, and that's the way I voted.

The real soul of Batman Begins is the "grounded in reality" thing. Based on that concept they have made changes in the Batman origin with such a strenght that I couldn't see without it, in any reboot of Batman in any media:

- Lucius Fox helps Bruce Wayne to develop all Batman gadgets and vehicles.
- The cape of Batman serves as a glider helping him to "fly" around the buildings.
- Bruce tried to avenge his parents but, since the murderer died before it, he is confronted with the idea of revenge vs. justice and decides to do something useful with his anger.

Those ideas are as revolutionary to the character as the one's by Frank Miller in Year One. After that comic book we couldn't imagine Gotham City without corrupt cops and the origin of Batman linked to a younger Jim Gordon.

Tim Burton's Batman has a very sofisticated look, but lacks real substance. The screenplay idea is good (I like the Joker killing the Wayne's idea, for instance) but I think it was poorly executed.

The other fault of Tim Burton was not to pay attention to the "civilian" characters. In any Batman story, Gordon has to be, if not the second most important role, at least the third, behind Batman and sometimes the main villain. Alfred has to have an important role either. Tim Burton just love to deal with the idea of freakish characters. That's why his universe of Batman is so fantastic and the "costumed" characters, especially the villains get all the atention.

My only complains about Batman Begins are:

1. The look of Gotham. Without being unrealistic it should have been more stylized. More like New York, with American Gothic architecture, less like Chicago.

2. The score. Altough I've liked the non-melody, non-score idea of Batman Begins music, the Danny Elfman's theme is a masterpiece. In my opinion is the best score for any movie I've seen so far.

[S.C.B]

Mods, it occured to me that posters might want to talk about particular plot points, but I can't add a spoiler warning to the title. Could I ask for an assist?

Now the big question is why I didn't think of that for the other polls...

Edit: A kind thank you to James Harvey!

[BonyT]

I like the Joker killing the Wayne's parents idea, for instance.You know, I actually HATE that idea, because it makes the ending of the film with Batman killing Joker absolutely inevitable. How could Batman simply turn Joker over to the authorities, and continue to have Joker escape and be his greatest ongoing nemesis under those circumstances? It's untenable. Joker HAS to die in that scenario (which, I suppose, is fine for a one-shot film with no real interest in honoring the comic/graphic novel roots of the character). But I think Batman's a much richer and more interesting character -- much more soul-full, DB -- when he has that fascinating wedding of opposites at his core, of which this is one example: Batman is in some ways inexorably linked to violence, because the power of the psychology of violence (a profoundly fundamental mythic force and theme) transformed him from Bruce Wayne into Batman in that filthy patch of Crime Alley at the age of 8; and as the creation of that overwhelming archetypal power, Batman employs a certain level of violence to "kill" the criminal in a man while allowing the man himself to live on; and yet, in the grandest of ironies, this same Batman is one of those rare persons who is psychologically unable to KILL. The tension between these kinds of opposites wed in the core of a character (or a story) is almost always where the interest comes from -- because life exists in the tension of opposites. So I find Batman a much richer character when he WON'T (and indeed can't) kill.

[Spider-Man]

I found Batman (1989) to be pretty boring overall. I wasn't engaged in the characters and by the time I saw Batman (1989) I grew out of the gothic look that Tim Burton puts on all his films. While it does bring a dark tone to Gotham I found it was overdone and something Burton rammed down our throats. It felt a bit tacked on and needless. Batman Begins gave us a great approach to Batman and it was one that I could 100% believe in.

[Michael24]

Batman. Just watched it a few nights ago, actually, and I find it still holds up. (Though I never doubted that to begin with.)

Batman Begins was just too overstuffed in my opinion, the story was all over the place, and I didn't care for the "real world" approach. The only highlight for me was Michael Caine as Alfred. Gary Oldman could have been really good, but they barely even used him.

[Azrael24]

What happened to V for Vandetta? that was an amazing movie but i dont remember it being in the polls. It is a DC movie, plus you included Constantine

[James]

Batman. Just watched it a few nights ago, actually, and I find it still holds up. (Though I never doubted that to begin with.)

Batman Begins was just too overstuffed in my opinion, the story was all over the place, and I didn't care for the "real world" approach. The only highlight for me was Michael Caine as Alfred. Gary Oldman could have been really good, but they barely even used him.

Funny, I just rewatched Batman Begins a few nights ago and I must say I enjoyed it more this time round than previous occasions. If we were arguing on the basis of which remains the most faithful, Batman Begins wins. However, I just feel Batman is a more timeless and individual response to the Batman legacy. It's not totally conformist to the books or the fans whims, but it doesn't try to be, and I feel that's where it succeeds. Just as Dark Knight Returns is one of the best bat books while remaining utterly non canonical to the actual official storyline, "Batman" does the same for me in cinematic form. It pulls the basic iconograhy, dynamics and motivation for the Batman mythos and takes it into a fairy tale format. The result is as introspective into the asthetics and drive behind Gotham city as the other ground breaking angles that the eighties and early nineties explored around the character.

Afterall, it has to be taken into context of it's period. It didn't have the confident superhero market that floated the superhero Franchise in the 21st Century. There were no real expectations from the audience for a superhero movie of any quality since Superman 2 and of course, Batman was considered to be a ridiculous character from a silly TV show. It's unsurprising the film overstepped the typical Batman into a more extreme character - the film had many audience preconceptions it had to dispell if they were again to believe in credible superhero films AND Batman as a serious character.

But anyway, I agree the characters aren't as rich as in Batman Begins, but they aren't meant to be, driven by archetypal roles found in myths and legends than contempoary dynamics. Again, one shouldn't look for things in the movie that aren't intended. You can't slam it for having characters that don't seem very deep when the film never intended that in the first place.

I do like Batman Begins. A lot more than I originally did. I still feel the ending slips into Hollywood formula by the end, with some silly science and predictable plot movements. The last third lets the film down, but overall it's a good rendition of Batman that sits happily on my shelf. I agree that it's overfed on mythos to the point where it feels cluttered. Less is sometimes more.

The bottomline for me is that I feel Batman succeeds in what it was trying to do and remains a fairly timeless and well paced outing, while Batman Begins tries to do too much and suffers from feeling overstuffed and a little predictable on it's wrap - therefore I'd say it doesn't totally succeed as a picture for me. Still a fine film.

Now my big question with Batman Begins: Why would they spend so much time and money to hide the sourcing for the ears of the suit, then simply borrow a premade vehicle from his own company with merely a lick of black to disguise it? Not a very balanced secret if you ask me!

[Cortez2301]

Batman (1989) is a movie which I prefer watching over and over again,more than batman begins.But batman Begins got it right.In Batman,He would have no hesitation to kill people.Tim burton's batman is only one step below Batman begins in my opinion.I chose Batman begins.

[Noukon]

Burton's film has an interesting personality, but Nolan's captures the character on a level far above it.

[The Penguin]

What happened to V for Vandetta? that was an amazing movie but i dont remember it being in the polls. It is a DC movie, plus you included ConstantineNobody reads, nobody listens...

Both from Part 2 (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=182844)...


V For Vendetta is a big complicated broo-ha-ha as far as the publisher is concerned, so I thought it simpler to include it in the independent comics poll later. It's the same situation as A History of Violence, which has a lot of technicalities involved.


Can't we just vote in the damn polls, people? S.C.B has tried to offer something interesting and fun to foster discussion and just about every other post is varying degrees of whining about where another movie is or how a movie isn't in this particular poll! I'm tired of looking at it. Can't we just vote in the poll and discuss the choices in it?!

[Azrael24]

Sorry :sweat::ack::(:D But still

[Frank Castle]

'89 was great, but Begins was superior.

[CyborgRex]

As much as I loved Batman growing up and still love it today, Batman Begins made my love for Batman stronger than it ever was. I've actually gone out and bought numerous graphic novels and collected books like Year One, which is something I thought I would never do.

I remember going into this movie with almost no expectations at all. I never reall read much stuff about it on the internet because what I did read confused me. All I really knew was who the villians were and that it was not related to the movies I grew up with which at the time bothered me. To make things worse I could not get excited for a new Batman movie because I was all about Star Wars. But when I went to see the movie it just amazed me. Especially when you finally see Batman.

[Bones Justice]

I loved Batman. Batman Begins, on the other hand, was okay but nothing amazing. In fact, I was bored with much of it. The origin story was nothing new and made it a chore to get through before they could get to the present day story. Also, any superhero fantasy that tries to explain everything (or, as others posted, "grounded in reality") is nothing more than fan-fiction with a budget.

Batman also had a more interesting villain. I never really got how The Joker could be a real threat until I saw that film. The film was also instrumental in the creation of Batman: TAS.

Speaking of instruments, Batman's music pwns the music in Batman Begins.

Most importantly, the action was a lot more fun in Batman and the story more entertaining.

[Michael24]

I loved Batman. Batman Begins, on the other hand, was okay but nothing amazing. In fact, I was bored with much of it. The origin story was nothing new and made it a chore to get through before they could get to the present day story.

I agree. I saw the film with my mom, who is nowhere near the Batman fan that I am yet still likes the character, and her only complaint was the origin half of the film. She said, "We already know how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. If they had just skipped that like the other one ('89 Batman), it would have been better." Otherwise, she liked the rest of the film, which surprised me.

On the other hand, I was bored silly. By the halfway mark, I was really wanting to leave, and if I'd been alone, I would have.

[Young Justice]

I agree. I saw the film with my mom, who is nowhere near the Batman fan that I am yet still likes the character, and her only complaint was the origin half of the film. She said, "We already know how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. If they had just skipped that like the other one ('89 Batman), it would have been better." Otherwise, she liked the rest of the film, which surprised me.

That's interesting. All the people who whatched Batman Begins and were not fans or comic book readres enjoyed more the first half than the last half. I think the fist half has more personality, and deepness. The second half is more like a action superhero movie per se.


You know, I actually HATE that idea, because it makes the ending of the film with Batman killing Joker absolutely inevitable. How could Batman simply turn Joker over to the authorities, and continue to have Joker escape and be his greatest ongoing nemesis under those circumstances? It's untenable. Joker HAS to die in that scenario (which, I suppose, is fine for a one-shot film with no real interest in honoring the comic/graphic novel roots of the character).

Let's get things straight first.

Batman *did not* kill Joker in the end of 1989 Batman movie. Batman was hanging by the edge on the tower of Gotham Cathedral when Joker was about to escape with the Helicopter ladder. Batman used one of this gadgets to trap Joker's legs to one of the Gargoyle statues. It was the persistence of the Joker not to let go the ladder that killed him. If he had released the ladder he would be trapped, just it.

Of course someone could ever argue that Batman would kill Joker after that nevertheless. Or even, he got in the top of the tower to kill the Joker. But that motivation was never really clear out in full words. Even though, Batman has killed some criminals during the movie, I'm not entirely sure that he was going to kill the Joker.

I think if you think of 1989 Batman as a one shot movie, it's nice that the villain dies in the end. That's the way movies normally do. 1989 Batman was the first comic book movie in such a while, so I think they are thinking more "movie" than "comic book". My only regret is that the Batman revealing for Joker that he was Bruce Wayne and the clown has murdered his parents was not grandiloquent and important in the end. The scene was somewhat dull.

About Batman killing people in the Tim Burton movie, I think they did so because of the first 40's comics whenf Batman killed people. The clothing of the movie was based on the 40's among other visual details. It's logical, then, to use some parts of the character back in the golden age. I don't like very much this approach because Batman has evolved so much since then, and I think it was a fault of Tim Burton not giving importance to this fact.


But I think Batman's a much richer and more interesting character -- much more soul-full, DB -- when he has that fascinating wedding of opposites at his core, of which this is one example: Batman is in some ways inexorably linked to violence, because the power of the psychology of violence (a profoundly fundamental mythic force and theme) transformed him from Bruce Wayne into Batman in that filthy patch of Crime Alley at the age of 8; and as the creation of that overwhelming archetypal power, Batman employs a certain level of violence to "kill" the criminal in a man while allowing the man himself to live on; and yet, in the grandest of ironies, this same Batman is one of those rare persons who is psychologically unable to KILL. The tension between these kinds of opposites wed in the core of a character (or a story) is almost always where the interest comes from -- because life exists in the tension of opposites. So I find Batman a much richer character when he WON'T (and indeed can't) kill.

Excellent analisys of the Batman personality. It's very interisting this inside antagonism.

[DarkAngel]

I agree that it's overfed on mythos to the point where it feels cluttered. Less is sometimes more.
Unless it's too much less. I appreciate, and agree, with a lot of the positives you mention regarding "Batman", but I feel they came across much better in "Returns", largely because there was a better plot for the villains. For me, it was more interesting and better showcased the strength's Burton brought to the series.

"Batman" had a great opening and an ending that got the job done, but in between those two, I didn't see a lot to appreciate. Not only did I not care about Joker's chemical scheme, but Batman didn't seem to particularly, either. It wasn't until the the discovery that Joker killed his parents that we saw a fire lit under him. It was great to finally see and feel some urgency, but it felt a little late (and I found the payoff a little lacking).

IMO, it's "Begins" that comes across better as a film and which will better stand the test of time. Yes, there's a lot going on and there were some minor issues with the editing, but I found the pace to be excellent and feel there's more to appreciate with the plot and the character motivations/development.


Now my big question with Batman Begins: Why would they spend so much time and money to hide the sourcing for the ears of the suit, then simply borrow a premade vehicle from his own company with merely a lick of black to disguise it? Not a very balanced secret if you ask me!
The vehicle came from his company and a department that was a "dead end" with, if I remember right, nothing in production at any level. Most of that stuff, including the car, was long forgotten by anyone in the company. The one man (Fox) who does know about Wayne using it will be keeping his secret.

[BatKid]

I agree. I saw the film with my mom, who is nowhere near the Batman fan that I am yet still likes the character, and her only complaint was the origin half of the film. She said, "We already know how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. If they had just skipped that like the other one ('89 Batman), it would have been better."
When she said 'we', if she meant comic book fans, then yea of course. But if she's referring to the average joe, then no, I think that's completely false. Prior to BB, people only knew that Bruce's parents were killed. THAT'S IT. Hardly a means of going out of your way to devote your life to crimefighting, no less in a batsuit.



The vehicle came from his company and a department that was a "dead end" with, if I remember right, nothing in production at any level. Most of that stuff, including the car, was long forgotten by anyone in the company. The one man (Fox) who does know about Wayne using it will be keeping his secret.
I'll have to disagree there. It takes tons of people to work on a prototype military vehicle, and years of development. Even if you're off the project, you don't just "forget" something you've been working so hard on. I'd have preferred if Bruce took several mechanical parts from different places and assembled the vehicle himself, just as he did with the suit.

[DarkAngel]

Even if you're off the project, you don't just "forget" something you've been working so hard on. I'd have preferred if Bruce took several mechanical parts from different places and assembled the vehicle himself, just as he did with the suit.
I'm not talking about the individuals that actually worked on it, but the upper level members who might not be aware of its existence. In the Applied Sciences division, it was pretty much just Fox, and he won't be saying anything to anyone. Bruce and Fox are in a good position to control who knows what in regard to the vehicle.

For this movie, and with the time table we're looking at, it wouldn't have been believable for Bruce to put a car together. Gaining a vehicle from his own company that's been sitting in a warehouse, never put into use, I think is the best situation he could have hoped for. Not a perfect one, but one that's workable for him.

[Young Justice]

For this movie, and with the time table we're looking at, it wouldn't have been believable for Bruce to put a car together. Gaining a vehicle from his own company that's been sitting in a warehouse, never put into use, I think is the best situation he could have hoped for. Not a perfect one, but one that's workable for him.

There are some minor logic flaws in Batman Begins. Nothing that will bring the film down, but since we start nipticking we can find a thing or two that was not completely logic or real. The Batman Begins imdb page had some of that flaws and it was kind of interesting. I don't know why they aren't there anymore. But setting this problems aside, the fact is that nothing of those destroyed the credibility of the movie.

[James]

I'm not talking about the individuals that actually worked on it, but the upper level members who might not be aware of its existence. In the Applied Sciences division, it was pretty much just Fox, and he won't be saying anything to anyone. Bruce and Fox are in a good position to control who knows what in regard to the vehicle.

For this movie, and with the time table we're looking at, it wouldn't have been believable for Bruce to put a car together. Gaining a vehicle from his own company that's been sitting in a warehouse, never put into use, I think is the best situation he could have hoped for. Not a perfect one, but one that's workable for him.

I just feel - if I was nitpicky - that it was a disproportionate amount of care for security in relation to people finding bits of his ears! Inevitably, it would not be just Fox who worked on the vehicle and given CCTV footage of the Gotham chase, it wouldn't be too long for someone to pipe up who had involvement in the building of the vehicle.

To use a vehicle that has already been designed and built (thus been seen and cleared by people pre and post production) which was exclusive (we presume) to the very company you own, seems a little slack compared to ordering 10,000 items that you would use to make the ears for your suit!

So how could it be excused? Silliest way would be that all the people on the prototype production and design of the vehicle died in some ridiculous accident.

Perhaps a better excuse would be that the vehicle was so top secret that each element was designed seperately and systematically regulated by an overall body... all of which died in a ridiculous acident.

Another idea would be the idea was shelved and sold off internationally, meaning that access to the vehicle beyond Wayne Enterprises and thereby recoginition would not necessarily tie back to WE.

Though while we disagree on balance of preference (and which will stand up to the eddies of time), I must say I have far more respect for BB than I used to. Throw away some of the silly formula from the ending (for a film that looks for realism in an unrealistic concept, the train and microwave scenario just feels a little out of place as well as far too "video game" in construct), it is very good on all levels from casting down to the visual details.

I think I would have prefered the film to have perhaps moved the story plot and focus to the narrows for the ending. Given the loss of the Narrows is vital to the epilogue and probably the next film, I just feel a finale that focused on the that confining the outbreak in the Narrows would have been far more fitting to the films atmosphere than the "race against time fight out on a train thats about to destroy the city with it's deadly water plot etc".

But that's me. :) All I know is I can watch "Batman" and enjoy the experience over 15 years later.. I do wonder if "Batman Begins" will manage to remain as fresh over such a period.

[DisneyBoy]

The real soul of Batman Begins is the "grounded in reality" thing. Based on that concept they have made changes in the Batman origin with such a strenght that I couldn't see without it, in any reboot of Batman in any media:

- Lucius Fox helps Bruce Wayne to develop all Batman gadgets and vehicles.
- The cape of Batman serves as a glider helping him to "fly" around the buildings.
- Bruce tried to avenge his parents but, since the murderer died before it, he is confronted with the idea of revenge vs. justice and decides to do something useful with his anger.

Okay...I see now what you're getting at. And I agree - my favorite parts of the film were those touches...from Lucius to the development of the costume, to the twist with the killer. That was good stuff. But it still comes down to a technical approach I don't find necessary to the character. Batman is about spectacle to a large degree, for me. Operatic emotions suggested by visuals and sounds. The "real people dealing with problems in a real world" thing isn't clicking for me with regards to Batman.

But still, thanks to what you've written I will give Begins another look and see if I come to appreciate it more.

[FireWarrior]

The real soul of Batman Begins is the "grounded in reality" thing. Based on that concept they have made changes in the Batman origin with such a strenght that I couldn't see without it, in any reboot of Batman in any media:

- Lucius Fox helps Bruce Wayne to develop all Batman gadgets and vehicles.
- The cape of Batman serves as a glider helping him to "fly" around the buildings.
- Bruce tried to avenge his parents but, since the murderer died before it, he is confronted with the idea of revenge vs. justice and decides to do something useful with his anger.

Those ideas are as revolutionary to the character as the one's by Frank Miller in Year One. After that comic book we couldn't imagine Gotham City without corrupt cops and the origin of Batman linked to a younger Jim Gordon.

Tim Burton's Batman has a very sofisticated look, but lacks real substance. The screenplay idea is good (I like the Joker killing the Wayne's idea, for instance) but I think it was poorly executed.

The other fault of Tim Burton was not to pay attention to the "civilian" characters. In any Batman story, Gordon has to be, if not the second most important role, at least the third, behind Batman and sometimes the main villain. Alfred has to have an important role either. Tim Burton just love to deal with the idea of freakish characters. That's why his universe of Batman is so fantastic and the "costumed" characters, especially the villains get all the atention.

My only complains about Batman Begins are:

1. The look of Gotham. Without being unrealistic it should have been more stylized. More like New York, with American Gothic architecture, less like Chicago.

2. The score. Altough I've liked the non-melody, non-score idea of Batman Begins music, the Danny Elfman's theme is a masterpiece. In my opinion is the best score for any movie I've seen so far.

In addition to that, Begins is actually ABOUT the story of Batman , unlike Burton's Batman which was more of the Joker than Bats himself. One of the things that I can not stand about Batman 89, plus it just doesn't age all that well in my opinion. Always viewed it as a lot flash, but very little to no substance. Begins wins this easily, 89 had no chance in my book.

[Young Justice]

[B]Okay...I see now what you're getting at. And I agree - my favorite parts of the film were those touches...from Lucius to the development of the costume, to the twist with the killer. That was good stuff. But it still comes down to a technical approach I don't find necessary to the character. Batman is about spectacle to a large degree, for me. Operatic emotions suggested by visuals and sounds. The "real people dealing with problems in a real world" thing isn't clicking for me with regards to Batman.

But still, thanks to what you've written I will give Begins another look and see if I come to appreciate it more.

I hope you enjoy BB more in this new watch session that you will have.

[Justice League 2000]

Batman 1989 was the best Batman movie ever. I enjoyed Batman Begins but the fight scenes were too fast. I vote it Batman 1989. :)