So, which is better and why... BB or TDK???

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The Dark Knight seems to have taken the crown, but I've spoken to a lot of people that like BB better. It really got into the psyche of the character...his whole method of inspiring fear, and somehow this wasn't used well enough in the sequel. I loved the sequel a lot for personal reasons but it moved oddly from scene to scene. (what happened after bats saves Rachel during the penthouse scene). I thought that the first film had a lot of flow to it.

Opinions?

 

[A Clockwork Lim]

I love Christian Bale in almost everything he does. But I don't care for his Batman. He doesn't fit the role very well and every time he's on screen and speaking, I get jarred.

While I don't know if it's actually true, he seems to have a lot more screen time in Batman Begins than The Dark Knight. Sadly, that makes TDK the better movie for me. I love the stories, I love the attempt to keep it within the realm of possibility. But Bale is the weakest part of the movies. So the more he's on screen, the less I like it.

 

[captcalhoun]

Dark Knight

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I must admit that i enjoyed TDK very much, very enjoyable movie, that's not to say that BB is not also a very enjoyable movie, because it is, its just that TDK seems to have everything that made the first movie great, an then adds more.

 

[S. Gomez]

I don't see why one has to be better than the other. I enjoyed them both immensely and I have every confidence (provided the same people are involved) that I will do the same with the third movie.

 

[Christopher]

TDK is a much better movie. BB is highly flawed by its overblown action sequences, especially the ludicrous climax with the magical water-boily microwave gizmo and the monorail. (Even if it were physically possible for a microwave generator to vaporize water instantly from such a great distance -- which it isn't -- it would kill everyone within range just as instantly, because the human body is mostly water.) It's a smart, character-driven indie movie that periodically gets a dumbed-down, blockbuster-action set piece awkwardly stapled onto it. TDK is far more consistent and unified, more sure of its identity. Ironically for a film featuring Two-Face, it has much less of a split personality than its predecessor.

It's also a richer story because it doesn't have to deal with origins and basic exposition. All that was laid out in the first film, so it can go beyond laying the foundations and really get into the meat of the concept.

 

[MyCylon]

For me, it's easily Batman Begins. At it's core, it's really a character piece that moves confidently and organically. It's action pieces are skillfully counterpointed by the quieter parts of the movie where the characters are actually allowed to unfold. The music and the design are exquisite and help create a beautiful if rundown Gotham city and an atmosphere that just draws you in. The inexplicability of the microwave weapon doesn't bother me in the slightest since it's a comic movie anyway and it doesn't interfere with the story or the characters but rather serves as an effective tool.

I found TDK, on the other hand, to be enjoyable but far more ineffective than its predecessor. It's like a set of rigged explosions with no breaks inbetween. As a consequence, everybody just seems to be on the run all the time.
And while I appreciate how radically Nolan realizes the concept of the Joker literally keeping everyone on their toes at all times, it's just not that much fun to watch, really. The characters are lost in a frenzy of action and fast cuts. The quieter parts of Batman Begins are missing here, and it really shows.

I suppose the simplest way to explain it would be to say that Batman Begins truely had a heart and a soul that was felt throughout. TDK did not. In my humble opinion, anyway.

 

[Christopher]

The inexplicability of the microwave weapon doesn't bother me in the slightest since it's a comic movie anyway...

But that's just it -- for the most part, it isn't a "comic movie." In most respects, it approaches the story with extreme realism, just about the most grounded take on a superhero film that's ever been done. So this element of pure, inane fantasy just seems out of place.

Besides, even a fantasy concept should be consistent within itself. The plan with the microwave generator doesn't make much internal sense. They develop a toxin that's only harmful if inhaled as a gas, then they spike the water supply with it and steal an experimental prototype device in order to vaporize the water? Who came up with that plan, Rube Goldberg? Why not just have the McGuffin be a device that sprays the gaseous toxin into the air directly? Or why not develop a form of the toxin that's effective in liquid form, so that spiking the water supply is sufficient by itself? The whole microwave-generator thing is stupid not only from a scientific standpoint, but from a logistical standpoint and a plot standpoint. It's an unnecessary and nonsensical complication. It only exists as a way for Wayne to be tipped off to an element of the bad guys' plan because the device was stolen from his own company, and there surely could've been a simpler way of getting to that point.

 

[MyCylon]

^
I agree that it's a substantially more realistic approach to a superhero movie but it still is a superhero movie. Let's face it: At least some of the falls Bruce takes would be lethal in real life yet here they're not.

I understand the misgivings you're having with the device but I think you're placing to much emphasis on it. The movie doesn't spend much time explaining it which means it never interferes with the development of the story or the characters.
If you will, it's a technobabble device but without the technobabble. If you simply accept that it works in that universe everything else becomes far less problematic.
Logistically, I think the main idea was to a) have a setup nobody would notice (i.e. spiking the water) and b) have an execution that would pervade the entire city (i.e. the water pipes).
If you look at Buron's first Batman, that's a possible alternative, I suppose - have toxic gas in ballons and release that gas into the air. The solution is that Batman grabs snaps the lines holding them and they fly away. Yes, something similar or different could have been done here.
But, again, that's not what it's about. Batman's / Bruce's final confrontation with Ra's Al Ghul is far more important than what's going on around them. "I won't kill you - but I don't have to save you either", that's far more relevant than just HOW Ra's Al Ghul was going to destroy the city. It becomes a minor detail IMHO.

 

[Christopher]

You're right, the character confrontation is more important, which is precisely why it annoys me that this big overcomplicated noisy nonsense with the microwave thingy and the monorail crash and Jim Gordon firing missiles from the Batmobile and all that got stuck on top of it. It's a distraction that isn't particularly well-executed and that pulls me out of the story. And I have the same problem with the other huge action set pieces that just seem like they were forced onto the story by studio dictates. Like the part in the flashbacks to the temple where Bruce refuses to become a killer, and then ten seconds later throws a hot poker into a munitions dump and causes a huge explosion that apparently kills dozens. And the Tumbler-Batmobile chase sequence is also an overdone, ludicrous distraction from what really matters. They just don't seem to fit into the rest of the movie. They feel like Nolan and the studio execs were trying too hard to turn a smart indie film into a huge summer blockbuster and not doing it very well. The action sequences in TDK are better-integrated and better-executed. It feels like a single movie with a consistent tone, rather than a small, smart movie with pieces of a big, dumb movie spliced into it at key moments.

 

[MyCylon]

^
Interesting. The action scenes in BB never bothered me in the slightest. I also never felt they were stuck on top of it, but I can see why you might perceive it that way.
It also never crossed my mind to even remotely think of BB as an indie film. It has an epic feel to it throughout IMHO, it's always clear that it's a big Hollywood movie in my mind.

I think my problem with TDK is that I felt like the whole movie was more or less reduced to actoin sequences. So, in a sense I agree that it was more consistent. But I feel it is also less interesting as a consequence since it just seems to overrun everything else (certainly most of what I found really interesting about this Batman and the other characters in BB).

 

[Small White Car]

They both had their flaws. And by that I mean they were both 95% awesome and 5% a bit confusing and strange.

For BB the 5% was "Gordon blows up the train with a microwave thing that's doing something bad."

For TDK the 5% was the ill-defined "Batman has to be a villain because that's the theme for the movie so Gordon's gonna come up with the idea out of nowhere just because that's how we want the movie to end."

Hmm...come to think of it, maybe Gordon should just stop doing stuff. (As much as I love the character and the actor.)

I dunno, it's hard to choose. They're both great. I'm gonna pick BB just because the odd TDK ending bugs me more.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I've only seen bits of BB, but have seen all of TDK. Based on this, all I can say is that like an earlier poster, I have little time for either Bale's interpretation of Batman or Nolan's real life interpretation of the Batman universe. After nearly 20 years, I feel Keaton was far superior in the role while I much prefered Tim Burton's more candy coloured universe. If that makes me a philistine, so be it.

TDK wasn't a bad film, but it was too self-important and overblown in terms of running time, Bale speaking in that stupid gravelly voice as Batman was laughable, and not to piss on Heath Ledger but after all the fuss, I watched his performance as the Joker and was hugely underwhelmed. Expecting a chilling portrayal of a cruel and evil psychopath, I don't feel that he delivered on any count. After all the rumours of him having gone nuts from months of living in character and doing that ever so thespian-like what is my motivation?, I ended up wondering what character he injected in to the role. . . hmmm, lots of licking his lips, making sticky salivary noises, and talking in a silly voice doesn't make a character or a meaningful performance.

Maybe I'm being harsh, but I found TDK distinctly dull.

 

[Broccoli]

I have to say that I liked BB better than TDK. I really wanted to like TDK, but I just can't bring myself to it. I felt that TDK while they had some good suspenseful sequences in there, the longer the film went on and the Joker hatched a new plan, the less and less my suspension of disbelief was sustained.

The inexplicability of the microwave weapon doesn't bother me in the slightest since it's a comic movie anyway...

But that's just it -- for the most part, it isn't a "comic movie." In most respects, it approaches the story with extreme realism, just about the most grounded take on a superhero film that's ever been done. So this element of pure, inane fantasy just seems out of place.

Besides, even a fantasy concept should be consistent within itself. The plan with the microwave generator doesn't make much internal sense. They develop a toxin that's only harmful if inhaled as a gas, then they spike the water supply with it and steal an experimental prototype device in order to vaporize the water? Who came up with that plan, Rube Goldberg? Why not just have the McGuffin be a device that sprays the gaseous toxin into the air directly? Or why not develop a form of the toxin that's effective in liquid form, so that spiking the water supply is sufficient by itself? The whole microwave-generator thing is stupid not only from a scientific standpoint, but from a logistical standpoint and a plot standpoint. It's an unnecessary and nonsensical complication. It only exists as a way for Wayne to be tipped off to an element of the bad guys' plan because the device was stolen from his own company, and there surely could've been a simpler way of getting to that point.

All excellent points and I agree. However, I think the Cell Phone Sonar trumps Magic Water Gas machine in the realm of stupid gadgets that don't make sense in the context of the film.

 

[Christopher]

While the Cell Phone Sonar had problems in execution, I think the idea behind it was very interesting and somewhat plausible. Basically, the world we live in is permeated with microphones and speakers. I can see how it could be possible in theory to tap into those as a means of acoustical detection or espionage. The problems with the idea are merely logistical and practical; it doesn't defy physical law or directly contradict itself. So it required far less suspension of disbelief.

 

[RandyS]

I must admit that i enjoyed TDK very much, very enjoyable movie, that's not to say that BB is not also a very enjoyable movie, because it is, its just that TDK seems to have everything that made the first movie great, an then adds more.

Well, not really. Begins went into Bruce's psyche in a way that was never done before. I loved that part of the film. The Dark Knight didn't do this. Begins then had Batman fight Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghoul, two of the stupidest villans the writers ever came up with.

Conversely, Dark Knight gave us another look at the Joker (the BEST villan in the Batman cannon), and killed of Rachel Dawes, who, in spite of being played by a superior actress this time, was a moronic character.

So, while, The Dark Knight had the better Villan, Batman Begins told the better story.

 

[crouteru]

They're both excellent, but I always like a good origin story, which Begins has. My vote goes there.

 

[Harvey]

I have to vote for Batman Begins, despite the microwave generator problem and the lesser actress playing the character of Rachel Dawes.

The Dark Knight runs into problems when it comes to Two-Face. The impetus for his character's obsession with the randomness of fate isn't on-screen. Basically, Harvey Dent is vengeful over the death of Rachel Dawes, but goes around flipping a coin so... The Joker lives? The iconic comic book imagery is preserved?

I also found the ending problematic. I don't expect even a half-assed investigation to believe the lie that Batman was responsible for Harvey's murders. And that doesn't even get into debating the veracity of the film's conclusion that holding up heroes for the public is more important than telling them the truth and demystifing supposed heroes.

It's still a very good movie. The Joker is a fantasticly realized villain. But I enjoy the way Batman Begins explores the creations of the Batman mythos more.

 

[Christopher]

And that doesn't even get into debating the veracity of the film's conclusion that holding up heroes for the public is more important than telling them the truth and demystifing supposed heroes.

But that's a direct continuation of the theme established in BB, that a symbol can achieve more than a solitary man. Just as Bruce Wayne could do more good for Gotham as the larger-than-life Batman, so Harvey Dent can do more for Gotham as the symbol of purity and justice that they believed him to be. In both cases, what matters isn't just the man himself, but what he inspires in the people of Gotham. Both Batman and the iconic Harvey Dent give Gothamites hope and inspire them to work toward a better, more just society.

That's the irony and the triumph in TDK -- that even though the Joker succeeds in destroying the man Harvey Dent, he fails to destroy the goodness Harvey inspired in the people of Gotham. Because that's a property of their belief, their faith in what Harvey symbolized. And that's why Batman needs to become the villain -- because that's his role, to be the symbol of what Gotham needs to redeem itself from the darkness. At first, they needed him as a symbol of hope and justice to set them on the right path. But that was a stopgap, a rough, frontier kind of justice to tide them over until something better came along. Harvey offered a purer, more civilized form of justice, and in order for Gotham to mature to that level, it needed to outgrow its previous symbolic hero, Batman.

 

[Harvey]

That's the irony and the triumph in TDK -- that even though the Joker succeeds in destroying the man Harvey Dent, he fails to destroy the goodness Harvey inspired in the people of Gotham. Because that's a property of their belief, their faith in what Harvey symbolized.

No need to quote the entirety of your post, for its all true. I still find it problematic that Bruce Wayne and Gordon seem to agree that the good Harvey inspired will immediately be erased once people find out that he was human and fallible. Furthermore, I doubt that they will be able to keep it a secret that he was human and fallible, and especially the insanity that was Two-Face, so the whole deception for Gotham's sake seems to be bound for failure. It could very well cause more harm than good in the end.