THe Collora Batman Begins reveiw

[ToM]

Get this from the new Batman Begins "review"

Copy/paste:

" Following in what was called by a WB executive, “The Spiderman Model”,

Thank you! I trust now, between this, and the new rip off DC Comics feature film logo we've established that yes, indeed, Warner Brothers/DC is all about imitating the Marvel film content.

I'm not a big admirer of the Sandy Collora review of this film personally. To begin with, nothing said couldn't have been said *without* seeing the movie. Collora starts off by saying this movie would be great because of all the talent involved, the first indication of this being Nolan as director who did Momento (blagh, blab) just as any knee jerk fanboy has said since he was selected. You don't need to see the movie to say this, *everybody* has been saying this, I'm reading this thing to hear what people *haven't* yet said (because they haven't yet seen the movie). Yet, I get the same blather we've been reading for more than a year EVERY DAY.

Then Collora goes on about the great choices, the palate, everything, without telling us *why* these things *are* great choices. All I know from reading this tripe is that he made *choices* and Collora thinks them great...just because he does. How are they great? Do the costumes compliment the set design to perfection, does the score enhance character and character journey or symbolism? What *themes* does Nolan choose to use the characters to explore? No word.

Okay, so the performances are "phenomenal." Um, how exactly? For example, I can remember this one sequence in a film where Debra Winger orders a small child upstairs by chomping the end off a carrot and pointing the broken end at the kid for each word she uses. This was a very naturalistic performance. So, what was "phenomenal" here. Look, solid is one thing, phenomenal requires comment.

Oh, then he gives us non-statements like, "Part of the reason this movie is so good is because of the incredible group of actors.." Oh, you think so? You mean if they went and plundred the casts of World's Finest and Batman: Dead End it wouldn't have been, you know, as good? Great actors can be in terrible movies, but few terrible movies have great casts, duh.

He says this is a brilliant psychological study. Okay, tell me how, riddle me that Collora. I mean, I was kinda sorta hoping for a review of this movie, not a catalog of all the things *about* the movie we've all known for about a year now (and some even longer).

Then he says something about how he's mentioning one thing or another because "other people who already saw the film have said the exact same thing" (paraphrasing). You know, as in maybe the rest of the stuff he's saying is made up from comments pronounced by, I don't know, those self same OTHER people who saw the movie? Largely this "review" is commentary on the history of the production. And then a good portion of it looks like things that could've been said TO him about the movie. This whole thing reads for me like it was written by some kid who was sent to bed by Mommy before he could see the end of the movie, then spent the bus ride to school listening to all the kids who got to stay up talking about it, then repeated everything he heard at recess, as if he hadn't been sleeping in his bat-jammies by act three.

ToM

[imported_Thom]

"Following in what was called by a WB executive, 'The Spiderman Model'..."

Thank you! I trust now, between this, and the new rip off DC Comics feature film logo we've established that yes, indeed, Warner Brothers/DC is all about imitating the Marvel film content.
Collora was referring specifically to the notion of using the first film to "test the water" before going on to release two more "larger" films in the franchise. It's misleading to call this the "Spider-Man formula" as pretty much any trilogy in the history of cinema has followed this pattern. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LOTR, Matrix, etc...

[Sonic1002]

O, I saw the Spider-Man Model to mean starting the movie with the origins and build up from that.

[imported_Thom]

O, I saw the Spider-Man Model to mean starting the movie with the origins and build up from that.

That's possible, but even still, is it really that far-fetched or new for the first film to be the "origin" film? For that matter, it could just as easily be called the Superman Model.

[ToM]

Thom, you're right, it could just as easily be called "the Superman model." Don't you understand that it's significant that in *spite* of that they're calling it the Spider-Man model? See, this strongly indicates exactly how focused WB is on the Marvel train of success, those films, the way they managed things and won success. Even though you could look to other things, even though *they* could look to their prior successes, they're *not* thinking about that. They're focused on what Marvel Entertainment has been doing, and copying *that.*

I mean, do we really need much more than this when looking at DC's new insipid faux Marvel movie logo? WB/DC isn't invested in creating a distinctive brand, they want to knock off the success of others.

They *know* everybody sitting in Batman Begins is going to point at that logo and say, "Oh, look, that's just like Marvel's." That's the point. It's shameless. They aren't even worried about looking like pale imitators.

ToM

[Zac]

ToM, while your points about the new DC logo can be valid, I think you're taking it too far with the contrast of this whole "Spider-Man Model" statement. Keep in mind that Sandy Collora is not a representative of DC or Marvel, he's just a fan, and he probably just refered to it as the "Spider-Man model" because it's more recent than the Superman films, and being a superhero film it just bears more relation to "Batman Begins". Sure, he could have said "Indiana Jones model" or "Star Wars model" but then would people have comprehended what he was trying to illustrate? The simple point is: He said "Spider-Man model" just to infer that 'Batman Begins' is like the first Spider-Man in that it is an origin story. We're all just reading too much into this.

[ToM]

Zac, Collora commented on how the *executives at WB* are calling it "The Spider-Man mode." *He* himself isn't calling it that. He's bringing up how the studio is seeing things. And I mean, it should be obvious the way WB/DC has been going after one person upon another associated with Marvel material on screen to work on *their* products. There are thousands of people in the industry. That a few in a handful keep turning up in these things...I mean, let's be serious.

People turned their noses up at this notion around here, that this is a conspiracy theory that would leave Deep Throat himself blushing. But with this attitude revealed, with the new logo, there's simply no denying it anymore. Besides, the big laugh is, all these boosters around here don't want to accept it, want to deny it, but DC/WB *clearly* *want* that image, aren't ashamed of it, want to proclaim it, don't have the embarrassment over it that these fans do. The logo is proof of that. So, you guys are embarrassed for them, and they-don't-care.

Batman Begins is an origin story, as was Batman in '89 (via flashbacks). Hey, even Batman Forever did that as well. They're just telling more details than most people who went to *those* movies cared to hear. Those movies did fine with what was told of his origins. This is a different take on the start of it all, that's fine. But to say those others didn't have origin stories different is splitting hairs IMO.

ToM

[easy D]

ToMmy, I think your misunderstanding the meaning of an origin story. Spider-Man is an origin story. Hulk was an origin story. As was The Punsiher. Those movies had a bulk of the story explaining how the characters became their alter egos. Batman wasn't an origin story, since Batman was already established as an urban legend. As did Batman Forever. In this movie, however, we get to see how, exactly, Bruce Wayne became Batman, like how Peter Parker became Spider-Man, how Bruce Banner became the Hulk, and Frank Castle became the Punsiher.

[ToM]

The *focus* of the '89 Batman film was *who* Batman was, and *why* he was Batman, and how he resolves these issues. That's an origin story.

The entire point to the story, as dissconnected as it gets at times, was Wayne trying to promote the Batman persona, get the word out, get Batman established (awarding Knox a grant for his reporting, getting crooks to tell everyone they know about him). Batman isn't established yet, and that doesn't happen till the end when he gives the police the Bat-Signal.

The mystery of who Batman is, that's the entire point of telling so much of it through the Knox character and through the (hopeless) Vale character. Do you realize how much of the running time is dealing with the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents? Of course, the origin is different to tie it in with The Joker origins and his association with the movie incarnation of Batman, but you take my meaning.

Even secondary characters like Knox are getting pulled into examining the origins of Batman. And we have Vale following Wayne around, seeing him place the roses outside the theater, all that. And you know, that stuff (most of it) was all there was to the origin of Batman for more than half a century.

I'd point out that BYO doesn't invoke ninja, or any of that stuff. Neither is any of this stuff over how he got all of his arsenal together. You don't need to have this stuff there to have an origin tale. Batman '89 *is* an origin movie, it just plays with time and the explanation process. I may add here that Tim Burton chose that direction, because he believed very strongly that doing it *this* way (the way Nolan has largely gone) would bore audiences. Having Bruce Wayne swear at night by the graves of his parents to avenge their deaths, going from there to how he becomes Batman, would, in his opinion, take too long to get him on the screen. It takes an hour in the Nolan film.

Now, to be sure, Nolan jumps back and forth with time too, just as Burton did. It's what gets said that makes both an origin movie, not *how* they say it.

ToM

[easy D]

Ok, well, according to the movie, Batman, how did Bruce Wayne develop his fighting style (if he had one)? How did he get the Batmobile? (To quote the Joker) "Where did he get those wonderful toys?" Those are the things that are addressed in Batman Begins. In BB, we see his parents getting killed, Bruce finding the Batcave, go to Japan and learn ninjitsu, pick up skills from Ducard, and all the other things that make Batman, well, Batman. The '89 Batman still shows Bruce early in his career as Batman, but it was established that he was a force to be reckoned with. Remember the opening scene, where Batsy jumped two muggers after they robbed that family? One guy was scared that Batman would come out and get him, thus his reputation was built. Thus, Batman is not an origin movie, Batman Begins is.

[ToM]

How he got the Batmobile isn't part of his origins, neither is how he got his fighting style. The origin given in the original Detective Comics was just that he worked and studied and trained himself to feats both physical and mental from childhood. The idea that his story wasn't an origin story because it lacked these things is....well, a flawed observation. For example, Batman Year One doens't cover ANY of these details, at all (no matter how often fans say this movie amounts to BYO onscreen). Batman just shows up with a hang glider, a bat-caller, a costume, you name it.

If they wnat to show me how he got the Batmobile, and it makes sense, and it doesn't take, I dunno, AN HOUR out of the film, I'm good. But that isn't what makes it an origin story, and it isn't what'll bring the general audience in. What he does when Batman finally shows up is what'll get them in (if he's interesting).

If Batman actually being shown to "find" the Batcave, learning Ninjitsu in Japan, all that, are things needed to allow Batman to have an origin, then how did he exist in comics for generations BEFORE these elements were invented? Is Batman Year One an origin story? Naturally. And you know I'm sure that none of these details you bring up take place in that series. Hey, we even had UNTOLD LEGENDS OF THE BATMAN back in the seventies. What was Batman before this series of details, nothing? Of course not, he was Batman. We don't need these things to accept him. They're modern inventions for the character.

In Batman '89, the cops have no idea what Batman is, if he's a hero or a mob enforcer. They're hunting him early on. All of these details are from Batman Year One. And that's of course an origin story.

ToM

[Essex]

Everytime I read one of your posts, I regret it. It's really inconvenient to clean up the awful mess after my brain has begun to bleed out my ears through utter frustration and bafflement.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to you in this case...I feel like maybe I should fight fire with fire and respond with a nonsensical rambling written without much sincere thought, but I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to do it. Instead, I am going to roll my eyes and go to bed, with the hope that I will be smarter next time and just ignore any of your posts.

[easy D]

I think you are not really getting my point, so I'll break it into Star Wars-esque episodes. Batman is like episode 4, it came out first and introduced us to the central characters and to Gotham City. Begins would be like episode 2, episode 1 would've been a movie about Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot, and this one is about Bruce's training. I hope I made it simple enough.

[ToM]

Wait a second, Batman Begins is *not* like Episode Two, because the point is to *ignore* *all* the earlier films with this outing, begin a new continuity. Now, it *could* be made to seem that way, and maybe this is why they elected to go with a rubber get up like in the other ones. You know, so it can be an "episode two" if needs be to some, not alienating fans of the first film, and being a restart for others. But that would be really messy, not a good way to relaunch the concept.

Anyway, my point about an origin story is that, simply put, the simplistic 1939 origin explanation *is* an origin story, and so is the '89 film. Batman Begins is a more *detailed* origin story, more obsessed with minutia than the Burton picture. You don't need to show how Batman gained a Bat-Belt or a Batmobile, a Bat-Glider, you name it, to do a story about how and why he became Batman.

Personally, I think something *like* Batman Begins is what they should've done in the first place. Yet, the downside is what Burton suspected, it would be too slow and cumbersome to keep an audience either growing, or coming back for more (too boring). I just read that Variety review, the first one I've yet read, and it speaks to my exact fears I've held all this time. It's too talky, slow and dark for repeat viewing. And getting people to come back three times is the *only* way to hit three hundred million, the money needed at the domestic release to ensure a success. Both Burton and NOlan have valid points, and we'll just have to wait and see who was right.

ToM

[The Xenos]

The trouble is Tom is that you want another Spider-man. Batman, this Batman, has more substance. It's more of a serious movie. Will people line up and return more for a good drama about Batman than a somewhat campy or oever the top action fest? I hope so. If not the state of film goers saddens me.

This is a serious take on superheros. Nothing too flashy. It's more akin to The Godfather than Spider-man. Now I freaking love it. I wish Daredevil was more like this. Yet, no, it went for generic superhero action flick. Catwoman did this even worse and Elektra did this almost as bad. If anything Elektra should have been like Kill Bill. Hollywood is trying to crunch many comics and definately superheros into one generic genre of action films. Yet if you look at the books they're not.

Batman is more like a detective story, or a crime drama, with vigilantism, (not quite superheroics) tossed in. If this is too slow and combersome for audiences, then something's wrong with this country. There was an article about more mature R-Rated movies and how they can do well. While it was focusing on the R-Rating, it was mentioning Taxi Driver and The Godfather. BOth excellent movies, but compared to SPider-man, some may think they're a bore fest. They need help. Serious. If this origin of Bamtan is too slow for poeple, why don't they go watch the pinball machine that was Star Wars Episode III or play a twitchy video game and stay out of thearters. Hey, kids, here's a quarter. Go shine this in the sun. You like shiny things, don't you?

This Batman isn't quite an action film, though it does have action and action scenes in it. So did Godfather or French Connection. It's not an over the top gothic fantasy movie in an urban setting. It's not an over the top campfest. It's a drama, a vigilante crime drama. If you've read Batman in the last 25 years, this should be familiar to you. Finally we get a modern take on the character in a realistic film. I'm pretty damn happy. If people don't like this film. It's not the film's fault. Screw marketing. This film looks like it gets things right. I just hope there is an audience for a good Batman film.

-Xenos

[imported_Thom]

I dunno, X, I think ToM just just doesn't want to see a DC movie succeed or something. All its flaws and failings seem to be something that Spidey or another Marvel property did right, and yet in whatever respects WB has tried to emulate Marvel's success, they're simply being "unoriginal".

I can't comprehend somebody railroading a movie with such promise like Batman Begins while simultaneously cheerleading a sorta-lame, possible stinker like Fantastic Four... Unless it was out of some fanboyish Marvel-as-House-of-Ideas loyalty.

[easy D]

Hey, Fantastic Four looks great! Like a cross between X-Men and Spider-Man. Yeah, I'm a Marvel fanboy, so what!

I'm sure whatever anyone says about the film, we can can be sure of one thing about Begins, ToM's gonna hate it. (Dude has no idea on how an origin story works anyway.)

[imported_Thom]

Well, I've always been loyal to Marvel... not fanatical, but loyal, because while I was growing up and DC titles sucked hard, Marvel printed the type of shit I was interested in. But Marvel's had plenty of misfires, and DC has had a few unqualified successes, especially with standalone stories (graphic novels, TPBs, etc.) and nearly half of their movies. Maybe not quite Half. The first Supes, Bats I & II, and Constantine, at least.

That's the difference. Despite my disinterest in what I've seen, I haven't written off Fantastic Four. I've felt better about it in recent weeks, expect it to at least be a fun movie, even if it's as nutritious as cotton candy, and I'll go see it hoping for the best.

I don't think ToM could ever do that. I doubt he'd allow himself to be proven wrong, nor admit that he's wasted the last three months of his life vehemently trying to rip apart Batman Begins. No... He might go see it, and he'll surely hate it, and any of us who like it simply have no taste or standards or... whatever.

[Sonic1002]

Anyway, my point about an origin story is that, simply put, the simplistic 1939 origin explanation *is* an origin story, and so is the '89 film.
Please tell me you did not say that.... '89 was NOT an origin film. It started with Batman already established. We got one glimpse at his past (which was slightly skewed). And that was it.
Begins is a full out origin story. How he got his car and his fighting style are indeed part of his origins. Even in the 1939 version, though it didn't show him getting his car, it did show him honing his body and skills.
Tommy, tommy, tommy.... I think that you are thinking this is a traditional comic book movie. It isn't...
Chris Nolan brings a sense of realism that Burton or Shumacher were never able to bring. Realism is gives Batman his appeal. I warn you now: Do not go into this movie thinking "OOOO, Comic book movie!!" Don't do that. This is an action/drama movie featuring a Comic icon. I emphasize drama here. From all that I have read (both the reviews and the SCRIPT ITSELF), this is heavily a character study, delving into the mind of Bruce Wayne.
So... yeah.

PS: I think that Fantastic Four has potential. But, I do not beleive it will surpass Begins.