View Full Version : Zah new teevee spot
Just checked out the brand new tv spot. The *last* one was great, set tone, pace, gave a sense of story and characters, and *finally* some of that, "gee, wow" punch. And best of all, it hid the rubber nature of Batman fairly well, focusing on visuals that invoked the fluid element to the costume.
This time, we're back to Batman in profile driving, closeup of Batman in the rain, more yammering about being a legend or whatever. I also don't feel that at the end of the spot Batman being dismissed by Gordon as "just some nut" when asked who "that" (Batman) was strikes the right tone. Is it funny? Yeah, it is. But it can also be funny for the wrong reasons, as in, "this figure is just dismissible."
The most troublesome part for me (aside from the Gordon line and the bland nature of the spot overall) is the train sequence. Look, *last* summer we had the superheroics on an elevated board train in the middle of the city sequence for all times. This was Oscar worthy FX here, *the* "wow" sequence of summer '04. You can't just jump into that again the next summer and expect pull it off with audiences the same way. That right there is a mistake. But it's worse than that.
If you're going to copy something, or if you're just going to follow something up with the same thing, you have to do it *better* than the first time around. And I have to say, this sequence looks *phoney.* It looks like a cut-rate version of what we had in Spider-Man 2. This one just doesn't measure up. To my thinking, it's just a huge mistake to draw attention to the similitude, and then to show how much *weaker* the FX come across. (To be fair, the sequence *may* look better on the big screen, as the Spider-Man 2 bit does)
So, here we have the spot ending with Batman being dismissible, and the "showy" section in the middle being a subpar version of Spider-Man, making the movie seem all the more dismissible.
Now, none of this is as bad as Fox releasing early FF. spots with unfinished FX sequences, early versions of scenes that don't even end up in the finished film, and the awful "One will be bad, four will be Fantastic" scroll. But WB's spots have really been uneven.
05-16-2005, 04:37 PM
I think this was the best spot yet!
I don't see how Gordon's line isn't right, as that was pretty much his attitude in the comics when he was first exposed to Batman.
I LOVED the pacing of this spot and Bruce's monologue was different enough this time to make it interesting. Some of the shots of Batman were just beautiful, especially the one where he looks deeply into the camera with that scowl on his face. Gorgeous.
And hey, if anybody wants to see you bitch about the train sequence, they can read it in your other thread. How about just finally shutting up about it? When is it going to sink in that your analysis of this film is inane?
Okay, recalling it again, there's a couple elements to the spot that are just right. The shot of Wayne walking across the ice is good, because it serves to show the audience he's not stuck in some overly stylized set, as in all the films prior. That right there gives it a different feel.
Another thing I liked was that shot of Batman scowling in the rain. It feels very raw, and unlike anything we've been given in the earlier films, so, again, it helps divorce the new movie from them. And these are major selling points for this movie, pointing out the distinction between then and now.
Anyway, if people want to read me bitch about the train sequence, it IS in the other thread. But the fact that it's been dropped into the tv spot makes it worthy of a different *kind* of observation. As in it doesn't help the spot IMO for this movie to look like a second banana with a knock off, subpar train piece. Because that's exactly what it *looks* like in this spot. It isn't just that they knocked it off from Spider-Man 2, it's that it looks far *worse.* Jurassic Park, meet Carnosaur...
05-17-2005, 10:55 AM
I disagree again. I think the train sequence nails down for the audience how different this film is from other superhero films. Yes, Spider-Man 2 had an elevated train sequence, but you'll recall that Spider-Man saved the day and everybody on board lived happily ever after. This spot shows the train derailing and crashing to the ground disastrously. If there ARE any comparisons made (but I am not convinced there will be), then I think people will take note that this is a far different take on superheroics.
Remember, the train in Spider-Man 2 is *also* derailed. In both films, each are derailed, and this just makes both sequences all the more alike. If they wanted a different take on superheroics, they could've had Batman keep it on the tracks, or better yet, pose an entirely different sort of threat (like a blimp crashing or about to explode)
The Spider-Man film of '02 featured a *tram* crashing, women and children about to be killed. You know, so yet again we have an elevated transport crashing. Spider-Man 2 upped the whole deal in terms of action and FX with the train (from the tram). It's just *so* important that if you're going to follow something, you go it one better. Having it *crash* doesn't establish that IMO. And the FX aren't up to the challenge either from that spot.
But thank God they're keeping that rubber costume covered up in these ads! Those new photos today have this one of Batman standing at the edge of a roof, cape blowing, and that rubber costume looks like an Austin Powers style rubber fat-suit! I'm not being snarky there, that's what it recalls to me. In some shots, the cloth cape just amazes, so I hope that can make up some difference on screen for this atrocity they have him in. That photo with Batman jumping down the stairwell is the most "Batman" looking an image from any film bar none. But that rubber.....
If they're really keeping Batman in the shadows mostly for sequences where he's giving any somewhat extended dialog, I'll be happier. But don't you think by this point with all the technology we have, making dinosaurs come alive realistically, or nearly *anything* Spider-Man does, we should be able to see a Batman film where they don't have to *hide* his costume in the shadows because it looks so rubbery and fake? I mean, it's almost like this is the good old days of Swamp Thing movies where they keep him in the bushes so you don't see his zippers.
05-17-2005, 02:57 PM
Um...apparently you missed my point. My point (which I thought I made very clear) was that the Batman spot shows a much more devastating conclusion to a runaway train scene than anything that's seen in Spider-Man. You are so focused on the similarities that you can't even acknowledge any of the differences. As a side note, I wouldn't even say the train in Spider-Man was derailed, considering the train as a whole was kept on the tracks when Spider-Man saved the day.
They should have had Batman keep it on the tracks? Wow, what a shocking conclusion to an action scene! Uh huh....
I still can really not even comprehend your costume complaints...They're keeping Batman in the shadows because he's Batman....er...not to allegedly hide the costume, as you say. I certainly have no problem with it and I doubt Chris Nolan does. Do you honestly believe he would have settled on a costume he didn't like because he believed he'd later have the luxury of concealing it? Please. Those types of images of Batman have been used since his creation.
05-17-2005, 05:30 PM
I agree with Essex about the costume. Batman is a creature of Darkness and shadow. He thrives in the darkness. He stays in the shodow to give him a more ominous tone. What's creepier: a man fighting a Bat-man, or a man being sucked up by a shadow? <My point. The costume is both effective and practical. In reality, a man in spandex (except Superman and Spider-man) would be dead in minutes if he went in the middle of a fight. He'd be vulnerable to ANYTHiNG. This latex/kevlar type suit provides protection, yet provides the flexibility missing in the previous movies. At least agree with me on this point: this suit is better than the previous movies' suits (aka can turn head and NO NIPPLES!)
On the whole train thing, I don't remember anyone dying on the tram... and I wouldn't exactly call the train in Spider-Man 2 derailed. He was able to stop it from completely derailing; only the front comes off a bit. From the TV spots and trailers, you clearly see the ENTIRE train go flying off the tracks.
But, I digress. Batman will have a darker feeling to it. And, being one that actually read the script, I can tell you that this movie is unlike anything Superhero movie, or most any movie before.
And If you don't think that the version that came out is legit (even if it may be an early draft), then you'll have to explain how I remember reading from that script almost every scene that I've seen on TV and on the Big screen.
Okay, so people are expected to watch this teaser and go, "Oh, in *this* one the superhero battles to save an elevated train...and it actually crashes! You know, as oppossed to the train just going off the rails for the first car, or the elevated tram falling but not crashing."
Oh, come on now!
It's like Galactica and Star Wars. "In this one, the last remaining fighter and his roguish buddy (who *also* shows up to help him at the last minute) attack the huge space station, but with a huge difference! See, in THIS one they shoot THE PLANET and IT blows up and causes the space station approaching it to explode too! I mean, suuuure it looks nowhere as good and seems like a cheaper version, but it was more devestating because the planet AND the huge space station BOTH blew up!"
I think this is also why *we* *here* and on other baords aren't all going, "Man, did you see the AWESOME train sequence in Batman Begins, man? Dude, whoa." Because we've already witnessed this in another film of the same genre *twice over* in just the last couple of years. We're interested in *other* things about this movie, the big showstopper is hardly even a shrug to us. And if that's how *this* audience feels, picture how the *general* audience must feel.
Probably like this-> ::eyes glaze over:::
As for Batman in the shadows, yes, he's always been in the shadows, but they're taking this a bit farther this time. Remember, Batman '89 only had him so swallowed in darkness in the final sequences (the tower fight) because it was required to *hide* the imperfections of the costume and his inability to move well.
This time out, Nolan was saying that the rubber suit was gone. He clearly wanted to go another way. But the rubber suit *returned.* If that was something WB *forced* on the production, because of theme park attractions and so many other things they're invested in with regard to the character, I could see him being unhappy with it. The suit he settled on may just be the best of what he had to work with (as in he didn't want a rubber costume at all, but had to pick one, picked one, but isn't happy about it).
There's good reason to conceal this abomination. First of all, in one of the new photos, it bunches up on his shoulder like some rubbery tumor. Man, he could wear a *thong* on that set of lumps. It just looks terrible. Seriously, picture somebody renting a rubber Batman mask from Party City, then putting it on with a skin diver's black wet suit! That's what this thing looks like. Man, it even has these "ring" things on the abdomen recalling air bladders from a tire! Just horrible.
Sonic, this costume allows Batman to turn his neck, yet, time and again we're seeing sequences where he's turning his entire upper portion of his body, not his neck. What's that about? Also, this "flexible" neck produces this enormous "goiter." He's got this huge back under his neck. Man, he could wear a thong on each shoulder and a codpiece on his neck. This is *not* a good design. They could've pulled this off in totally other ways. It amazes me when I hear people saying they haven't seen *any* misteps in the production or design of this movie. That's like someone with a missing eye saying, "That was the best 3D movie I ever saw!"
When I was a kid, and I hoped for a Batman movie, the costume I always pictured him in was having thong-worthy shoulders, a goiter on his neck, air bladders for bike tires on the stomach of a rubber fat suit, and a black parasail for a cape. I mean, hey, didn't you?
Let's hope he keeps out of the light.
05-17-2005, 09:27 PM
You're unbelievable, man. Either people are analyzing the trailers and spots or they're not. You can't have it both ways.
Your "ability" to interpolate people's intentions into your own bizarre opinions is astounding. You're the type of person who feeds the stereotypes given to fanboys.
I honestly can't believe you claim that Nolan is using shadows to hide the supposed imperfections in Batman's costume. He is BATMAN! Batman and shadows go hand-in-hand and always have. That's how it SHOULD be. Gee, it's not like they've released several well-lit images of the costume in full. I suppose those are doctored to hide the imperfections, because that's certainly easier than developing a costume Nolan was happy with from the beginning.
You are seriously hilarious, and there is no part of that statement that I say in compliment.
05-18-2005, 05:33 AM
Actually, Tom is right. They are hiding the costume in the shadows, but it's far more serious than a rubber suit or bad neck turning. The shadows hide a more hideous old foe... THE BAT-NIPPLES!
Or not. We shall see, old chum.
I'm not saying that he *is* hiding Batman in the shadows to hide imperfections in the costume, just that he *should* do it as much as possible. And that I could see why he *would* want to do that. I mean, given that at the start of things he told the fans first up that the rubber costume was gone, only to have it come back, it was possibly forced on him by the studio (and he picked the version he wanted out of the rubber line-up). If he really is unhappy with the rubber gear, that could be one more reason for him to hide the costume.
Notice that I've been saying I *hope* Nolan *does* hide the suit. And just from what's been described thus far, Batman seems more shrouded in darkness than ever. And that's a good thing.
BTW, I am analyzing the trailers in that I'm *pleased* that they're nicely hiding the rubbery nature of the get-up largely. Yes, they have released well lit pictures of the costume in full. I remember the very first of them, and the *dismal* reaction they provoked from the fans. Good reason right there to manage things in these tv spots as they have.
As for finding my response to be hilarious, I guess that doesn't translate to my last comments on the train sequence utterly failing to gather excitement from fans here, or elsewhere. We've seen nary a comment on the train, unless it's some debate centered around a comment I've seeded to the board. And there's a reason for that. The great showstopping train sequence is a total dud with fans, at least thus far. It provokes little comment, because it makes little impression, and for exactly the reason I provided. It's total "been there done that over that twice over." You know, that's been one of my main concerns with this film, that it's going to invoke that reaction. And at least with *this* section of the film, and not a small one, but the cheif action sequence, it has.
And hey, what's worse, a goiter...or nipples? I still gotta go with nipples, but the goiter may be worse than the thong.
05-18-2005, 12:00 PM
Well, I think Batman, filmed in Chicago where Nolan spent some time growing up, is more apropriate to have an elevated thrain than Spider-man.
Tell me, where in New York City is the elevated train?! Nowhere! I know it's a comic book movie, but that just alienates New Yorkers from the movie of their New York hero. My friends from New York and the area started laughing. A friend from Brooklyn instantly said that there was no elecated train in NYC when he saw that.
Also, the entire tone of this movie is different from Spider-man. There's no tentacled mecha monster stabbing the train and it is not a fun Sam Rami live cartoon. Nolan is saying it's more like The French Connection in interviews. There were elevated train scenes in that vigilante cop taking on a corrupt city too, I don't hear you comparing it to that. I think that movie deserves more of a comparison with Begins. Even Miller and Aronofsky's all too dark and different try was compared to it.
Actually, I think their script had Bruce living in a auto shop under a elevated train. Then agian they also had Alfred being an African American mechanic that took Bruce in. Not sure if they had an action scene with the train, but it certainly might have played a part as they were comparing it to The French Connection too.
Well, there are elevated trains, but not in Manhattan. And this is *Marvel* New York. In the real Manhattan, there's no major Oscorp plant, though there are plants in the area.
Still, it isn't a question of the appropriate really Xenos. I mean, Gotham doesn't exist at all, so you can put Zeppelin hangers in midtown if need be. The question is, has this train sequence in Batman Begins followed something else of the same sort, in the same genre that was out just last summer? Of course. Will people be going, "Wow, I can be thrilled by this because it makes so much MORE sense being dropped into THIS movie than in *both* Spider-Man films!" Of course *not.* This doesn't *help* Batman Begins, you see what I mean?
You're right that the tone is different, as is the look. And that gets back to what I was saying about all of us really not paying any attention to the train stuff, because we're interested in *other* things in this film. The train is just a shrug to us, but shouldn't we have been given something to EXCITE us instead? Something to make us go "Whoa, THAT'S new!" Given that we've seen rubber Batman so many times before, we really should've gotten something really fresh for the major action sequence.
I'm worried this is going to be the WB version of Daredevil, with the writer from Blade writing it the same way he did Blade Trinity with trains and trams "By Spider-Man." The trailers really *need* to not give the impression of that. I hope they drop the train from ads, and put the attention on things we're more invested in.
Lots of action pictures use trains, Money Train, Under Seig 2: Dark Territory to throw a few more names out there (and Silver Streak to squeeze even a comedy in) Hey, Terror Train had a masked maniac on a train. And superheroes and villains met up at a train station (and even tussled on one) in the first X-Men movie. But you know, when you're trying to create a film in a certain genre, you're ideally trying to break new ground, not just with the character, but with the genre. At the minimum, you're trying to be fresh, avoid being too much like what other things in that genre have *just* done. And what we're doing here is either explaining how and why that *didn't* happen, pointing out that it didn't happen, or excusing it *for* happening.
There's a reason none of us are excited about the train sequence. There's a reason we're either down on it, or letting it slide rather than clapping our hands over it. And this is the reason they should've done something else. We've got precious little time with Batman in this movie, how much of that is taken up on thise sequence we don't care about? Shouldn't it have happened another way, a way we *would* be excited with?
05-18-2005, 04:36 PM
Waaaitaminute. Who exactly is this "us" you keep referring to...? You sure as hell don't speak for me, or even the majority of Batman fans, for that matter. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the train sequence.
Your rationale is ridiculously specious. If fans aren't publicly raving about the scene then there exists no excitement anywhere? I don't think so.
It astounds me how you feel you can just speak for a wide group of people with nothing to back it up.
It's one thing to whine about the movie while speaking for yourself. It's another to claim you can speak for anybody else.
05-18-2005, 06:01 PM
Careful Essex! ToM has gone to a LOT of trouble trying to convince everyone that he is misunderstood genius and that I am the lone nutcase who disagrees with him. If you come out exposing the flaws in his argument he will only turn around in a panic and start blowing you kisses(as he did with Xenos) to re-establish his 'wedge strategy'.
Again, Tom, where is this "rubber Batman" you keep talking about? Can you give us a link to the polls that show that fans are losing sleep over the train sequence in Batman Begins?
Oh that's right...you CAN'T! Because you have an allegedly crappy browser that cannot handle BBCode. What about HTML? Can your browser handle HTML? If so then I can show you how to use html codes to post links and to italicise quoted portions and then direct you to a board that allows HTML posting(I believe these boards do not allow HTML).
Of if you want to make it REALLY simple, skip the code altogether and simply copy/past the relevant links and portions of people's posts you are quoting(enclosed by some symbols in place of tags such as "***Quote from Captain*** and followed by "***end of quote***). That will eliminate the false attributions, misquotes, etc.
How about it?
05-18-2005, 07:47 PM
Ok, has anyone here seen the movie? Has anyone here seen the all of a sudden much debated ~train sequence~? I don't think so. Wait for June 15, see the thing in its entirety, the sequence and the movie, then we can debate on the merits of the scene.
As for the suit, I am really not getting your hang up. It is rather different. Now i too was wishing more for a Year One design, though definately not quite an Alex Ross / Batman: Dead End . That was a little too armor less, but I would have liked a simpler armor covered in cloth.
Then again this is just me shooting ideas as a fan. I'm not working with materials. I've done some minor costuming and have friends and know people who do it alot more than I do. Initial plans can suddenly change once you get down and working with the material.
In the newest Premeire magazine with Bale on the cover glaring at you, there's a big article about the many things that it took to bring this film to life. It seems Goyer and Nolan would idea shoot back and forth. Often Nolan would go for realism while Goyer would often throw in comic cannon and often shift things into more like what was in the books.
I have grown to understand the need for this body armor as this is a more modern update to Year One and his origins. Nolan was very keen on using real world tech and things that actually work. He wanted a sporty tank for a Bat-mobile, one that actually worked with stunts and was not just a set piece they would CG later. He was debating on even a grappling gun early on, if it was too unrealistic for the film. I'm sure this more futurisitc armor came out of this use of modern cutting edge tech.
05-19-2005, 12:42 PM
Have you read a copy of the script? Do you know the significance, the gravity of the train sequence?
If you had, you wouldn't be complaining. So if you haven't--and I bet you haven't--then you should, well, stop complaining. (Funny how that works?) I'm not going to spoil anything but the el train will make perfect sense and stand out in the movie. It's more elaborate than you think.
In the meantime... I don't think they're trying to sell the film on "the train scene"; they're selling it on its tone and it's gritty real-world atmosphere. And doing a good job.
In the meantime, as Essex has said, I suggest you stop speaking on behalf of other Batman fans because you're clearly in the minority here. If there's a majority some place else that agrees with you, perhaps you should be complaining there? :roll:
Essex, I'm speaking from what I've observed, and from what we've *all* observed. There simply hasn't been any conversation on "Oh, How awesome" with regard to the train bit as there has with *other* *material* in this film.
Where is it? Can you tell me?
Nobody is "losing sleep" over the train sequence, people just don't seem to care about it. There hasn't been anything much commented about the bit aside from excusing it in these threads from "Spider-Manism."
Hey Thom, you're right that they're not selling it on the train sequence, as they *nicely* left it out of the eleven minute preview the other night for one thing. Oh, BTW, did anybody notice how when Batman confronts Rachelhe's completely covering his rubbery body with the cape pulled straight across his abdomen and chest? You'll notice they were doing an awful *lot* of that in those eleven minutes they showed.
Am I speaking on behalf of the majority here, or the minority? Here's a clue for you detective, *I'm* the only one who brings up the train sequence for either good or ill here. I can't be *wrong* when saying there hasn't been much interest in the piece on this board (or say, Superherohype) if that's the case, can I? Notice again that you yourself are only commenting on it because *I* did first. And that's the same with all the rest of you.
Skeptic, why don't you link us into all the posts you have up, or any that you've read in the past six or more months, where people produce froth at the lips or even a smile across them over their excitment or "gee whiz" factor with regard to the train?
Didn't think so. I guess I *am* speaking for everybody when it comes to this, since I'm the only one bringing it up at all.
05-19-2005, 06:12 PM
Oh, BTW, did anybody notice how when Batman confronts Rachelhe's completely covering his rubbery body with the cape pulled straight across his abdomen and chest? You'll notice they were doing an awful *lot* of that in those eleven minutes they showed.
So how should he have been standing? Arms akimbo, chest thrown out, with a big S eating grin on his face and bright yellow sign that says? It's Batman! He's supposed to be dark and hard to get a good look at. Having the cape wrapped around his body achieves that, and it's something taken directly from the books. I've seen Batman depicted with his cape hiding his body many times.
I think most of us have gotten your point. You don't like the costume. Fine, I'm sure there are other people who agree with you just as there are those who don't. I one of those that don't agree, I like the costume.
The train, you're not thrilled with the train. Fine. I don't have a lot to say about the train, I'm not looking forward to this movie because of a train and at the same time I'm not going to be deterred from seeing the movie because of a train. Maybe the reason no one is going on and on about the train is because there are other things about the movie that people want to talk about. It's a Batman movie, not a train movie.
It seems to me that you have a lot of problems with this movie, and those problems are going to keep you from finding any enjoyment in watching it. So why bother? Just skip it and go watch something else. You'll probably be happier.
Finally, if you're planning on getting into another snipe-a-thon with Skeptic could you do it off the boards? It just brings the mood down around here.
05-19-2005, 08:39 PM
Yeah, since you're finding so many problems and comparing it with Marvel films so much, why don't you just skip this one and go watch Spider-man 2 and wait for Fantastic Four. I can't even tell if you read Batman comics from your posts because if you did you'd show at aleast some excitement of what they got right instead of all these nitpicks of things that might seem off.
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.