Tuesday, December 15th, 2009
POLL: Batman Begins vs. The Dark Knight
An important topic, I know. The Dark Knight made more than twice as much as Batman Begins at the box office and TDK received 100% approval from top critics on Rotten Tomatoes where BB received a ‘mere’ 83%. But, while in several aspects, The Dark Knight was superior, re-watching Batman Begins last week made me think that maybe the first film was actually the more complete, solid story.
Sequels generally gain bigger audiences as more people find themselves drawn to the bandwagon. Equally, the more popular something becomes the more alluring the backlash bandwagon becomes as well. When a film is not actually the best thing in the world ever, as some critics seemed to claim, then it’s easy to feel let down - even if it’s because a film turns out to be a four-star film rather than a five-star film.
From a nerdy writer point of view, I think Batman Begins had a more cohesive story but with clunkier moments of dialogue whereas The Dark Knight had a much livelier, funnier and more emotive script but with a story that struggled to do too much. But let’s get down to brass tacks…
I’m sure a number of people reading this will argue that surely Heath Ledger steals the show in The Dark Knight. I agree - however, you could also argue that this is to the detriment of the film. Batman Begins villains Ra’s a’ Ghul and the Scarecrow might be lesser known to non-comic fans but I think their use in the film really served the story - story that was very much Bruce Wayne/Batman’s.
So fresh, scary and eye-catching was Nolan/Ledger’s take on the Joker, that he couldn’t help but dominate the film - but beyond what was needed from the role. Would Harvey Dent’s evolution into Two-Face have had more of an impact if a slightly less iconic villain had been the catalyst and saved the Joker as sole villain for film three?
Nolan is not the greatest action director but I look forward to his evolution. Having said that, comparing the Batmobile chase of the first film (a masterful sequence in terms of plot, visuals, sound and editing in my opinion) is far more impressive than the Batpod truck chase in the sequel. While it was impressive to hear that they really did flip that massive truck in real life, it didn’t feel that impressive when I saw it on the big screen.
But this is intended as a debate rather than me telling you why one film is better than the other. I really like them both. But my general thought is that Batman Begins is better than the sum of its parts whereas The Dark Knight’s core concept buckles under lofty intentions and amazing moments.
So please vote below. In the event of a tie, I am willing to concede that Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as the character of Rachel might be a deciding factor 
Loading ...
December 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Lucy V said:
John, I would like you to know you are BEYOND INSANE - how can you call yourself a script reader when both these movies are HORRIBLY FLAWED in SO MANY WAYS? Batman Begins becomes the HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER at one point FFS and TDK is just so up its own arse it makes my BLOOD BOIL. I am SO spanking you in my mind right now. With a plank of wood with nails in.
Kthxbye : D
December 15th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
john said:
I like Hunt for Red October too!
December 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Unpremeditated said:
For me the big problem with TDK was the multiple endings. It really felt like the Joker’s capture by Batman following the exhilarating-but-lengthy chase sequence should have ended the movie, rather than having the multiple-plot-hole-creating escape by the Joker and yet more chasing, fighting, blah-blah-blah-yakkety-schmakkety for another hour. This seems to be increasingly common in Hollywood movies - a mid-2nd-/end-of-2nd-act turning point/climax that is so big the 3rd-act climax feels like a let-down in comparison.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Nick said:
Bah, of course TDK is superior. The villains have ALWAYS been more interesting than Batman! He’s the dark, miserable ANTI-HERO.
He’s not a wise-cracking lead man - that’s the villain’s job!
The first film is only his so they can establish that he’s got virtually no personality, and likes violence.
Virtually all of Batman’s villains are more interesting than he is!
What would a Batman film be if there were no interesting bad people?
He’d just be a ridiculous over the top nutjob who likes dressing up in a cape and beating the crap out of people.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Clark said:
I believe that although TDK was the better “success”, that Begins was a better written film. TDK is a middle story, like any trilogy, yes, there will be a 3rd film. Just like Empire Strikes Back…a necessary film for the overall story arc, but not the final, best film.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Tom Urro said:
Begins gets my vote. I found it to be more enjoyable, more fun, I suppose. It has been said that ‘revenge’ stories are the most powerful in cinema and BB is essentially that, as well as a rights-of-passage origin story. There is much to identify with here. I do conceed, however, that TDK somehow feels like a superior film. Perhaps it’s the cityscapes, the vistas, the casting or score, who knows. I enojoyed rewatching both muchly.
I’m gonna take issue with what Nick says above though. I simply don’t think it’s the case that the first film establishes that Batman has no personality - in fact it goes out of it’s way to do the opposite. This is where BB differs from much of the Batman canon we’ve seen thus far & perhaps why it feels it a little easier to actually invest in.
Both films have noticable stuctural kinks in the final act but TDK’s are the most jarring - multiple endings an all.
I wrote about 5 more paragraphs but deleted them ‘cos I got bored of the sight of my words. G’night.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:48 am
Tom Urro said:
Bloody hell! Just read that comment by Lucy V at the top! Did you criticise her scribblings or something? lol.
So, I clicked onLucy V & read her X-Factor post….
Classic case of projection right there…
December 16th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Tom Urro said:
NEW TOPIC IDEA for discussion in the Nigh Journal:
How often do you say, ‘as a writer’, despite that the fact that writing is not your main source of income?
I may have done this…
It is, of course, suggestive of an authority far too easy to come by and perhaps, too hard to resist. Words, the very utterance of which could qualify anything from an opinion on last night’s Casualty to what one feels about the Trafigura scandal. Just so long as anyone who is not technically a ‘writer’ is forced to think twice about showing their hand for fear that it might be made entirely of jelly.
Anyhoo,
I’ve decided it’s time for a wee. As a writer, this interests me because:
I enjoy the narrative construct of water galloping into my mouth, tumbling along the canyon of my digestive tract and then being dashed against oppressive porcalain in an explosion of catharsis.
Harumph!
December 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
john said:
Tom - Ha. I wasn’t intending to be any kind of authority. I actually go out of my way to try and ensure my posts are asking questions rather than *telling* people the way things are - which is why I do polls asking people their thoughts rather than just telling them mine.
I try to use ‘as a writer’ only to define the angle I’m commenting from. I try my hardest to keep my ‘writer hat’ separate from my ‘likes watching film and telly hat’, otherwise this blog would be a lot more embittered, bemoaning everything that appears on screen.
Plus, for the first year ever (and despite my scary bank balance), my writing work HAS actually been my primary income.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
john said:
Clark - I agree. For a lot of the build-up to Dark Knight, I thought we were going to be left with an ‘Empire’ style cliff-hanger about Harvey becoming Two-Face, setting up the third film. It’s hard to say, but maybe I would have preferred that.
As it is, I like the final scenes of both films immensely (possibly just because of the score going to 11): Batman and Gordon on the GCPD roof and then Gordon narrating Batman becoming The Dark Knight. I think Gordon’s VO is a little too expositional though and that’s because the film didn’t quite earn Batman’s ‘growth’. Still… nice codas!
Nick - I disagree too. To an extent, is ‘the straight man’ to the insanity around him, but I think he’s the one who restrains his madness and channels it whereas the Bat-villains let themselves run wild. I think the best heroes and villains are always ‘two sides of the same coin’, if you’ll excuse the cliche. You do raise and interesting point though - Villains, in and out of Batman, always seem to have the reputation of being more colourful than the hero.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Nick said:
John - Well, let me put it this way - when Batman and the Joker fighting, or meeting, talking or just in someway interacting - who are you rooting for?
Are you really rooting for Batman?
Can you identify with his dark, moody soulless restrained misery? No. Your life just isn’t that depressing, and he’s just not that interesting.
Can you identify with a nutjob criminal psychopath? No, probably not, but the Joker is undeniably interesting, and he drives the story forward.
Wait! Isn’t driving the story forward the job of the main protagonist (i.e., the one we care about)?
Batman is, if you will excuse the lame comparison, the white shadow to the dark light of the villains. But he’s just that, a shadow.
December 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
john said:
Hey Nick - thanks for the response. I kinda feel like we’re arguing the same point from slightly different angles. Batman definitely has the best rogues gallery in - well quite a lot of genre fiction really. The villains are definitely captivating and interesting psychological aspects.
But I think I disgree with how little you think Batman plays in that. In order for the Joker (or whoever) to seem so anarchic and chaotic, you need somone like Batman who lives equally outside society’s law but still holds himself back.
I don’t know if you read the comics at all, but there was an original Joker-centric graphic novel just called ‘Joker’ but even that had to be told from the point of view of one of his goons. You need the straight man for the Joker to appear funny. Being as carefree/homicidal as the Joker is the more interesting/appealing path - but Batman always makes the more noble/difficult/boringly mature choice. But that’s what heroes have to do, really.
But you like The Dark Knight more than Batman Begins because you were dazzled by the Joker? Fine by me!