We didn't have to sit through fifty minutes until he's Batman, it's up and running, we didn't have to see how he trained to be Batman it's left up to interpretation. We don't see his first outing, it's more he's been operating awhile as an urban legend but something causes him to be publicly known like Joker's reign of terror.
I thought it was a good way to expose the audience to the character. We get to see how he appears to the criminals and dont have to lose time going through his origin but are given enough to know what happened without it taking up the entire film. Making Joker his parents killer was still a mistake.
shareYes, Batman begins was the only film where we Saw how Batman begins.
shareCons doing origin films like Batman Begins or Man Of Steel is that your writing a history lesson than a story.
There were times the Nolan films explained too much that it zapped the fun out of the film.
I thought this film handled it well.
shareIt's like skipping Krypton and Superman's teenage years in Smallville, just start with him recently arrived in Metropolis.
It's a mistake in modern origin stories where they feel they have to tell the whole backstory, show the hero where he was born, him as a little boy and go into great detail in where his powers and suit come from, but in a normal story you tell the most interesting aspects on what's going on.
Yeah but… franchise! 💵💵💵
shareOrigin stories about famous characters are boring.
Many generations of people know who Batman is since the character has been around for almost a hundred years. So, what people want is a Batman action story, not to watch him workout, etc.
For instance, people like Dark Knight more than Batman Begins because DK was as fairly high quality mystery and action movie about Batman. People who are 90 and 5 already know who the character is and want to see a fun and exciting story.
Explaining the character's origin for fifty minutes or so can take up a lot of screen time and in a normal story you tell the most interesting aspects on what's happening.
It's like skipping Krypton and Superman's teenage years in Smallville, just start with him recently arrived in Metropolis.
It's okay with little known characters or if the story is really interesting.
I didn't mind that the first Captain America movie was an origin story. It's a good story by itself that a small guy with good values got turned into a superbeing.
However, if they reboot the story in the near future they do not have to tell it again. Enough people have seen the marvel movies to get it. Wolverine is another character that I would watch an origin story about. It was sort of in one of the X-Men films but it was mixed in with other plots.
It all depends on how famous the character is, for me.
^Agreed^
shareI agree.
However, the Blue Beetle came out and I had ZERO knowledge about that character and so an origin story is okay. He is pretty obscure for the general population so if they want to make a series an origin is okay.
However, I thought that movie was dull. So, it might have been smarter to make an all out action film to get people excited and then have an origin story.
Marvel has had a lot of losers lately and that's because they are using characters who are not famous. To sell them they need to have awesome and energizing stories first.
Yes. For lesser known characters, the origin story doesn't need to come first. Make a good movie about the character that people can care about, then come back with the origin later on.
I know some backstory must be given, but do it in small exposition and not make it a large part of beginning the movie. Most people won't care about the "normal" part of the character's life when they don't know anything about the superhero part.
I want to see an all out science fiction Batman movie, like he is in the comics.
I think it's crazy that Nick Fury has his flying car from the comics in the movies but Batman is typically low tech in movies.
I live in Philadelphia and the traffic is so heinous, night and day, you couldn't get anywhere in the Batmobile. Also, police helicopters mean that Batman couldn't escape from them. He needs a flying vehicle, which I have seen in comics.
My point is that I'm interested in nonstop Batman action film. I don't need Bruce Wayne psychology and whatnot. I do like that in scenes but too much as we all get who Batman is.
Yes, it didn't need to be.
Also, as much as I like Batman Begins, it turned out to be a pointless origin story anyway because in The Dark Knight/Rises, all of that ninja quality Batman was supposed to have, was gone. The sequels just reduced him to a brawler who could hardly move.
I love that about the film. Maybe it's because I was a kid in the 90s, but I much prefer when a movie uses flashbacks throughout a film to give us the origin story in parts than when the whole movie is centred on that from the get-go.
shareIt's like showing the origin of Superman or Spiderman in flashbacks. People tend to make mistakes when doing an origin story for a superhero film is that they feel they need to tell the whole story, like you got to show where the hero grew up, got to show him as a little boy, got to show how he got his powers and costume, in a normal movie you don't do that, in a normal movie you tell the most interesting aspects of the story, 89 Batman shows him already established as an urban legend for a few months.
shareI really feel like this only works in tv format, when you have the time to flesh out the hero's past and the audience is knowingly signing on for that and are along for the ride. In film, if we're talking superheroes, I'd say only Spider-Man 2002 did this well, but even then it almost didn't work because they had to use an actor that could convincingly play a teen and an adult and, well, I love Tobey Maquire, but my dude was not convincing anyone he was a teenager.
shareSpiderman 2002 did the origin on film very well, didn't show his whole life before the spider bite or go into great detail on where he gets his costume from it's left to the imagination.
On TV the Lois & Clark pilot, TAS and a flashback episode of Superman & Lois did Superman's origin very well.
Telling the whole backstory can take up most of the film.
'I much prefer when a movie uses flashbacks throughout a film to give us the origin story in parts than when the whole movie is centred on that from the get-go.'
Ditto.
Like if a Superman movie used the template of 89 Batman, showing already established Superman saving people as a mysterious protector, Clark Kent and Lois Lane taking on the role Knox and Vicki Vale, Lex Luthor taking on the role of Jack Napier or evil version of Bruce Wayne, Clark/Superman and Lois' relationship be like Bruce and Vicki's, Lois not meeting Superman until the second act like Batman saving Vicki at the museum, may take from Lois & Clark of Lois being the object of obsession for Lex.
Have Lois wear clothes like Vicki.
Metropolis be timeless art deco.
It would be pretty strange for Michael Keaton to be playing a rookie Batman at 37-38 years old but the movie seemed slightly contradictory on the issue. Keaton's Batman definitely comes across as very experienced, like he had been doing it for years, but I seem to recall at the beginning of the movie, the crooks & the police seemed to have no idea who Batman was.
shareIt's was implied he's been Batman for like a month or so as Knox said "That's eight sightings now just under a month". The police didn't think Batman was real until the Axis Chemicals incident.
share