"Live Action Dragon Ball Z Movie"

[jjgp1112]

Sure is a lot of hate for Zack Snyder here. I can't really think of anyone else who would be capable of making a live action dragonball movie.

There are plenty of directors with experience directing kung fu movies.

Visual wise, he would nail the look of dragonball.

I’ve seen nothing of his past work that indicates he would get the look of Dragon Ball. He can’t even get Superman right.

Is that why The CW superman show keeps copying him then and why so many other shows like Wandavision copying his fight scenes? Can you please tell me who has nailed a flying fight scene that can top that, thats even remotely close to dragonball I would love to know.

There's more to movies than just good effects and fight choreography.

[NitroEX]

Look at a movie like Deadpool 1, which had plenty of high-octane action but actually had a pretty modest budget of just under $60 million. If we're talking Dragon Ball, it doesn't have to be excessive.

I realize, but Deadpool is an R-rated film. Dragon Ball wouldn't have the shock value of the R-rating, so it has to impress in other ways. Maybe they could execute it well without heavy effects but they would also have to attract a very good cast and director to make up for it, and they wouldn't have the luxury of a passionate Ryan Reynolds to commit to their project like Deadpool did. It's a tough sell to actors and directors with a lower budget.

Mortal Kombat's director didn't have a resume of feature films beforehand, he came from commercials, and the cast are likewise not very well known actors. They had to rely on the shock factor of the R-rating and the strength of the brand. For Dragon Ball there is no shock factor and the brand alone didn't do much for Evolution.

But as I've stressed in this subject before (and Kunzait in the past): Why do you guys approach these subjects like the most testicle-deficient Hollywood executives? And even then, if a DB movie is going out to a wide audience that isn't quite initiated with Dragon Ball in the past, the early part of DB was already a MASSIVE hit to begin with and only has the stigma it has in the US because we skipped straight to Z and effectively rendered it prequel status. But if you're trying to hook a new audience, it's okay to start slow and simply bank on the characters and action hooking fans. As far as a vocal minority of "WEN SAIYAN?!" people? Fuck them. They can wait. Marvel has proven that entertaining worlds will make people willing to wait for the good stuff, while DC proved that just rushing to the good stuff is a good way to fall on your ass.

As far as Marvel goes, they have an established cinematic universe. They can afford to be as slow as they want.
Other film adaptations tend to sink or swim based on their first film and I'd prefer to see a different approach taken this time around, particularly since it's so obvious that there's a vocal audience who want to see Z in live-action. And I don't agree that they're a minority.

You can blame me for Funimation's failures but I'm just working with the reality of the situation that they gave us and providing what I believe is a more pragmatic approach that would please both die-hards and casual moviegoers. There's no point in being emotional about it, at the end of the day I don't personally want or need a live-action film, but if it was to be attempted (again) I'd prefer it to have a fighting chance and not fail right out the gate by not understanding the audience. For better or worse the casual moviegoer is just more familiar with Z material, even if it's just zoomers watching Abridged content. Rather than complaining about that you can capitalize on it and try a strategy that hasn't been tested in the box office yet. It's a much easier sell to executives to try Z than going back to the Goku origin for a second time (at least for the first film).

There's also nothing wrong with having spin-offs or a prequel once the franchise is proven. If anything, the film's quality will probably be better off for it.

[MasenkoHA]

I realize, but Deadpool is an R-rated film. Dragon Ball wouldn't have the shock value of the R-rating, so it has to impress in other ways. Maybe they could execute it well without heavy effects but they would also have to attract a very good cast and director to make up for it, and they wouldn't have the luxury of a passionate Ryan Reynolds to commit to their project like Deadpool did. It's a tough sell to actors and directors with a lower budget.

I feel like you’re just straight up ignoring what he saying. He said it’s possible to do a movie with plenty of action with a modest budget. It has nothing to do with its R rating.

As far as Marvel goes, they have an established cinematic universe. They can afford to be as slow as they want.

You realize there wasn’t an established cinematic universe when Iron Man came out right? There was a 5 movie build up to The Avengers.

Other film adaptations tend to sink or swim based on their first film and I'd prefer to see a different approach taken this time around, particularly since it's so obvious that there's a vocal audience who want to see Z in live-action. And I don't agree that they're a minority.

And Iron Man a movie based on one of Marvel’s C listers meant to kick off the entire MCU and came out the same summer as the hype to hell The Dark Knight did gang busters so….

You can blame me for Funimation's failures but I'm just working with the reality of the situation that they gave us and providing what I believe is a more pragmatic approach that would please both die-hards and casual moviegoers. There's no point in being emotional about it, at the end of the day I don't personally want or need a live-action film, but if it was to be attempted (again) I'd prefer it to have a fighting chance and not fail right out the gate by not understanding the audience. For better or worse the casual moviegoer is just more familiar with Z material, even if it's just zoomers watching Abridged content. Rather than complaining about that you can capitalize on it and try a strategy that hasn't been tested in the box office yet. It's a much easier sell to executives to try Z than going back to the Goku origin for a second time (at least for the first film).

Okay and? Dragon Ball and Z are not two completely separate series. People know who Goku and Kuririn and Roshi and Piccolo and Bulma are. It’s not like audiences won’t have any idea who those characters are unless the main guy is glowing yellow.

[precita]

Most modern superhero movies are basically cookie-cutter "safe" movies made by a committee. They're made for the lowest common denominator for people who know nothing of these characters in either comics or cartoons. Marvel has found their audience but outside their very best movies they're "popcorn flicks" at best.

Dragon Ball should never be live action. It would either be flanderized and Americanized or would be like the Mortal Kombat movie with almost all fighting and dumbed down story.

[NitroEX]

I feel like you’re just straight up ignoring what he saying. He said it’s possible to do a movie with plenty of action with a modest budget. It has nothing to do with its R rating.

There's more to consider than just action though. Comparing the situation of an R-rated film to a film for general audiences is comparing apples to oranges in more than a few ways and I think that's a whole discussion unto itself. Certain films can do well on lower budgets (R-rated films being an example) but it doesn't mean all general audience films should have lean budgets, particularly if they need the extra polish a higher budget brings.

If you think the first film having modest martial arts fights are acceptable then fine, but I think that version would struggle to impress casual viewers and meet the expectations they have from the anime, especially if you're heading straight into the bigger fights in the series (which is the scenario I was basically thinking of).

You realize there wasn’t an established cinematic universe when Iron Man came out right? There was a 5 movie build up to The Avengers.

Yes, I wasn't born yesterday. Not exactly relevant here since you're talking about an anticipated Marvel film with a 140 million budget while he was talking about lower budget films.

And Iron Man a movie based on one of Marvel’s C listers meant to kick off the entire MCU and came out the same summer as the hype to hell The Dark Knight did gang busters so….

Okay. I know Iron-Man was successful, and that also doesn't contradict what I said before.

Okay and? Dragon Ball and Z are not two completely separate series. People know who Goku and Kuririn and Roshi and Piccolo and Bulma are. It’s not like audiences won’t have any idea who those characters are unless the main guy is glowing yellow.

Yes, people do already know who Goku, Piccolo, and Krillin are... Hence why you aren't required to start at an origin story when introducing them. MCU Spider-Man is an example of that in fact.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

Just because the characters are known to the general public doesn't mean you can skip doing basic storytelling work.

[ABED]

The amount of detail he goes into making a universe is unheard of.

Lord of the Rings trilogy was a more impressive and detailed world. Zack's work isn't anything all that great. DB is a colorful quirky world that typically doesn't take itself too seriously. The thing that allows us to buy into the darker and serious moments is because it has a sense of humor and it's self aware. Zack's approach is to suck all the fun and joy out of things because to him that undercuts the seriousness of it. The irony is that by sucking the humor out of it, it's unintentionally funny, but not in the good way.

If you like a movie and universe of just walking.

There's more to it than that, way more. Unlike Snyder's take which has one color - gun metal grey. He has no meaningful contrast. I can't buy into the drama because he insists on everything being so damn serious and mopey. DB has better drama than his take on DC's superheroes. DB needs a director that can give DB color and humor and warmth more than one that gives us worldbuilding.

Most modern superhero movies are basically cookie-cutter "safe" movies made by a committee. They're made for the lowest common denominator for people who know nothing of these characters in either comics or cartoons. Marvel has found their audience but outside their very best movies they're "popcorn flicks" at best.

They shouldn't be made for people who do know the comics and the cartoons. They should be made for people who aren't familiar with them. The audience will get to know them if the movie does its job. And who gives the remotest crap if these films are "just popcorn" movies? This hypothetical movie is DRAGON BALL.

Hence why you aren't required to start at an origin story when introducing them. MCU Spider-Man is an example of that in fact.

Not a great example as mainstream mass audiences have two big budget live action film series that did the origin story and Spider-Man has been a fixture of pop culture for at least twice as long as DB. People know the Spider-man story. Films can let that knowledge do some legwork. DB is super popular but it's characters, their histories and motivations aren't as well established in pop culture. We aren't as inundated with those characters. My mother has heard of Goku but beyond that she doesn't really know who he is. She knows who Uncle Ben is and why he's significant to Spider-Man's story. She's never read a comic book in her life or seen the cartoons.

[MyVisionity]

Most modern superhero movies are basically cookie-cutter "safe" movies made by a committee. They're made for the lowest common denominator for people who know nothing of these characters in either comics or cartoons. Marvel has found their audience but outside their very best movies they're "popcorn flicks" at best.

They shouldn't be made for people who do know the comics and the cartoons. They should be made for people who aren't familiar with them. The audience will get to know them if the movie does its job. And who gives the remotest crap if these films are "just popcorn" movies? This hypothetical movie is DRAGON BALL.

I agree that they should be made for newcomers, but I think that the argument here is that the movies are dumbed down and watered down versions of the comic books for the sake of a safer "popcorn flick" for unfamiliar audiences. Ideally you should create something new while respecting and remaining faithful to the source material.

Also, the cartoons shouldn't be lumped together with the comic books. Like the movies they are also adaptations of the comics.

Hence why you aren't required to start at an origin story when introducing them. MCU Spider-Man is an example of that in fact.

Not a great example as mainstream mass audiences have two big budget live action film series that did the origin story and Spider-Man has been a fixture of pop culture for at least twice as long as DB. People know the Spider-man story. Films can let that knowledge do some legwork. DB is super popular but it's characters, their histories and motivations aren't as well established in pop culture. We aren't as inundated with those characters. My mother has heard of Goku but beyond that she doesn't really know who he is. She knows who Uncle Ben is and why he's significant to Spider-Man's story. She's never read a comic book in her life or seen the cartoons.

People know bits and pieces of the Spider-Man story, but I wouldn't say they have a solid knowledge of it. Same with Supes Bats etc. I think that the films not doing the origin stories is less about what audiences are aware of and more about trusting audiences to jump into the story and just go with it. And also more about not repeating the same plots over and over again.

As for Dragon Ball, it's not even really the same thing because the characters don't have "origin stories" like comic book superheroes. The beginning of the story is just the beginning of the story. The characters are introduced as the story develops and the details are revealed naturally.

[MasenkoHA]

People know bits and pieces of the Spider-Man story, but I wouldn't say they have a solid knowledge of it. Same with Supes Bats etc. I think that the films not doing the origin stories is less about what audiences are aware of and more about trusting audiences to jump into the story and just go with it. And also more about not repeating the same plots over and over again.

I can assure you the average Joe Schmoe knows about Uncle Ben. After being bitten by a spider it’s probably the second most well known thing about Spider-man.

It’s why Batman Begins was so tedious because even in 2005 people knew of Batman’s dead parents.

As for Dragon Ball, it's not even really the same thing because the characters don't have "origin stories" like comic book superheroes. The beginning of the story is just the beginning of the story. The characters are introduced as the story develops and the details are revealed naturally.

Agreed. Which is why it’s absolutely asinine to just jump straight ahead to the Saiyan arc. Most of the pathos of the Saiyan arc is predicated on knowing who the fuck Tenshinhan and Chaozu and Yamucha are and knowing Piccolo’s story.


And people can throw in the whole “Funimation skipped to Z most people in English speaking countries started with Z” but there’s a world of difference between little Jimmy in 1996 watching Dragon Ball Z and not caring who any of these people are he just wants to watch cartoon characters punch each other in the face and expecting a wider audience to care.

[NitroEX]

As for Dragon Ball, it's not even really the same thing because the characters don't have "origin stories" like comic book superheroes. The beginning of the story is just the beginning of the story. The characters are introduced as the story develops and the details are revealed naturally.

Agreed. Which is why it’s absolutely asinine to just jump straight ahead to the Saiyan arc. Most of the pathos of the Saiyan arc is predicated on knowing who the fuck Tenshinhan and Chaozu and Yamucha are and knowing Piccolo’s story.

A movie starting at the Saiyan conflict wouldn't bother putting great importance on Tenshinhan, Chaozu and Yamcha. They would be working to condense as many story elements as possible to cover the entire conflict in one movie. A character like Chaozu would probably end up being cut from the script altogether because it's simply not the same version of the story as the manga, it's a loose adaptation that's designed to serve the needs of the movie first. I hate going back to this example but we've seen this countless times with the superhero genre cutting characters who were given great importance in their source material.

I actually think MyVisionity was onto something. I agree that Dragon Ball characters don't have an "origin story" like comic book characters, but unlike you, I actually think that's part of why starting an adaptation on page 1 of the manga isn't as necessary for them as it might be for many superhero characters. It's similar to how we didn't have to know the detailed backstory of Star Wars characters when they were first introduced. As long as the characters are introduced the right way, we know what the Dragon balls are, and understand the current conflicts and relationships, it should still work in theory.

I'll also add that most characters aren't introduced to us as children, most general audiences wouldn't be expecting that as a mandatory requirement for Goku. A capable scriptwriter could take Goku: the Father (being one example) and make that work as a movie's introduction to their hypothetical version of the character. The most important thing to them wouldn't be telling the manga's story 100% faithfully from top to bottom, that's an unreasonable expectation to have for a film adaptation. They're going to tell the story they feel is the most compelling for an entry point (and sells the most tickets) and work from there.

The main point is that I do think audiences can be trusted to jump into the lives of these characters as they are happening and not be spoonfed all the backstory right away. As long as the movie is well written, compelling and an entertaining thrill ride, the general audience will be on board and figure things out as they go along, and double-dip for the earlier story adaptations or check out the source material themselves.

[ABED]

They know the fundamentals and they get the spider-man origin story with uncle Ben. Even if you've never seen it, you likely know it through sheer pop culture osmosis.

I think that the films not doing the origin stories is less about what audiences are aware of and more about trusting audiences to jump into the story and just go with it. And also more about not repeating the same plots over and over again.

They don't want to do the same plots over and over because people are aware of it. It's all the above. Feige and co. have stated exactly this.

This isn't about backstory, NitroEX. It's just story. The reason Piccolo and the other's deaths have any emotional impact on the audience is because we know them and care because we've experienced the story with them. This isn't about plot. Piccolo's death works well because we've seen the relationship with Gohan build over time. It doesn't land as hard because we don't see where Piccolo started.

It's similar to how we didn't have to know the detailed backstory of Star Wars characters when they were first introduced.

Star Wars was the beginning of the story, not episode 1.

[NitroEX]

This isn't about backstory, NitroEX. It's just story. The reason Piccolo and the other's deaths have any emotional impact on the audience is because we know them and care because we've experienced the story with them. This isn't about plot. Piccolo's death works well because we've seen the relationship with Gohan build over time. It doesn't land as hard because we don't see where Piccolo started.

You can still get an audience to care about a character and mourn their death in the space of one film. Léon: The Professional is just one example of that archetypal story among many (Terminator 2 also comes to mind). It obviously needs a good director and writing team to make it work effectively, but it can be done without having seen every event in their life beforehand.

Star Wars was the beginning of the story, not episode 1.

I like to think most people here are aware of that which is why I used the example.

We didn't know the details of Ben Kenobi's past in the OT but it wasn't totally necessary for the story that was being told at the time. His story was later fleshed out in prequels which is an acceptable workaround.

[MasenkoHA]

A movie starting at the Saiyan conflict wouldn't bother putting great importance on Tenshinhan, Chaozu and Yamcha. They would be working to condense as many story elements as possible to cover the entire conflict in one movie. A character like Chaozu would probably end up being cut from the script altogether because it's simply not the same version of the story as the manga, it's a loose adaptation that's designed to serve the needs of the movie first.

It’s not about giving them importance it’s about giving a shit when they die. I agree that Chaozu probably should be cut since unless you’re completely embracing Dragon Ball’s Chinese Martial Arts flavor he just doesn’t work.

More importantly Piccolo. You can’t include him in a movie without properly explaining who the hell he is so if you start with the Saiyans you have to cut Piccolo out. And omitting the most beloved non-Saiyan Dragon Ball character would be incredibly stupid.

Nobody is asking for a 1:1 adaptation to the manga. But starting with a story that requires backstory is just bad writing.

I hate going back to this example but we've seen this countless times with the superhero genre cutting characters who were given great importance in their source material.

Right, which is why I’m all for cutting characters like Oolong and Pu’erh.

I actually think MyVisionity was onto something. I agree that Dragon Ball characters don't have an "origin story" like comic book characters, but unlike you, I actually think that's part of why starting an adaptation on page 1 of the manga isn't as necessary for them as it might be for many superhero characters. It's similar to how we didn't have to know the detailed backstory of Star Wars characters when they were first introduced. As long as the characters are introduced the right way, we know what the Dragon balls are, and understand the current conflicts and relationships, it should still work in theory.

And that brings up another point. Having your first movie called Dragon Ball where the titular Dragon Balls have no proper entry point….they just exist and barely factor into the story is fucking dumb.

This is why Path to Power as a base makes the most sense. You can introduce most of the characters, properly explain what the dragon balls are, and still have plenty of action and explosions and fighting that the first manga arc lacks.


ETA: Hell if Evolution hadn’t fucked it up I would say it had the right idea. Combining the first arc with the Daimao arc.

I'll also add that most characters aren't introduced to us as children, most general audiences wouldn't be expecting that as a mandatory requirement for Goku. A capable scriptwriter could take Goku: the Father (being one example) and make that work as a movie's introduction to their hypothetical version of the character.

I’m not even against aging Goku up. You can start the story with him as a young man living in seclusion (mostly to avoid bad child actors and retain the same actor when he becomes a father) I’d prefer to start with Goku as a child because he’s far more interesting as a kid but immediately starting with adult Goku can work.

The main point is that I do think audiences can be trusted to jump into the lives of these characters as they are happening and not be spoonfed all the backstory right away. As long as the movie is well written, compelling and an entertaining thrill ride, the general audience will be on board and figure things out as they go along, and double-dip for the earlier story adaptations or check out the source material themselves.

It’s not about being spoonfed. It’s about proper set up and pacing and establishing who the characters are.

[jjgp1112]

You said everything I wanted to say, Masenko. Dragon Ball is not a Marvel or DC property whose backstory is damn mear baked into the fabric of American society. Spider-Man Homecoming was a bad example because preceding that movie was not one, but two movie series that explored Spider-Man's ubiquitous backstory, one that had come out 5 years before it, even. Everybody knows that.

Jumping into a live action Dragon Ball movie franchise, a sight unseen in faithful form, and just skipping all the lore and expecting people to simply know everything is dumb. This hypothetical movie wouldn't just be a thing for Dragon Ball fans - the audience needs to get to know these characters, why the Dragon Balls are significant. Blindly following the money and rushing the story is how you won't make money. An all-new live action movie that just skips straight to Z would have the vast majority of viewers going "Who are these people? Why should I care about their relationships? Why is Piccolo and Goku teaming up so important? Why should I be so shocked about Goku having a brother and being an alien? And why do the Dragon Balls not even really matter?"

Those type of plot twists need emotional resonance to actually matter, and that resonance comes from getting to know the characters for a while. Ben Kenobi isn't really a great example, as not only are the crucial details of his importance to the plot already established, but his character is actually built up before his introduction. He's a reclusive Jedi Master that Luke needs to learn the force from and an old friend of his dead father. Boom. Like ABED said, Episode IV actually starts the story, the prequels are just that - prequels. You don't actually need to see them to understand what's happening, or more importantly, care about what's happening in the original trilogy. They're bonus context.

The Saiyan saga is dead in the middle of the story and a lot of its significance hinges on you already knowing these guys. To skip all that? Won't work. Won't matter. You're not really establishing a world for viewers to immerse themselves in.

And then critics would shred it and apply the usual "Only hardcore fans will even understand what's happening" label, crippling the word of mouth factor that's crucial for a new franchise to get off the road.

Hook the audience with the characters, and THEN get to the "big stuff." The "big stuff" doesn't just exist in a vacuum. It needs proper set-up.

[WittyUsername]

People know bits and pieces of the Spider-Man story, but I wouldn't say they have a solid knowledge of it. Same with Supes Bats etc. I think that the films not doing the origin stories is less about what audiences are aware of and more about trusting audiences to jump into the story and just go with it. And also more about not repeating the same plots over and over again.

I can assure you the average Joe Schmoe knows about Uncle Ben. After being bitten by a spider it’s probably the second most well known thing about Spider-man.

It’s why Batman Begins was so tedious because even in 2005 people knew of Batman’s dead parents.

I wouldn’t use Batman Begins as an example. Yes, people knew that Batman had dead parents, but none of the films before that really tackled his origin in-depth. He’s already Batman at the beginning of the 89 film, and the only information of how he got to that point is a flashback of the Joker killing his parents. BB goes into much more detail than any of the previous films. Plus, it covers the death of the Wayne’s more faithfully, since the Joker is no longer their killer.

A better example of a superhero origin story that feels redundant and tedious would be Man of Steel, which not only spends the first 15-20 minutes focusing on the last moments of Krypton, but also reuses much of the same beats as the first two Christopher Reeve movies, and I say that as someone who doesn’t even dislike the movie.

Anyway, I do agree with the opinion that starting off a Dragon Ball adaptation with the Saiyans would be dumb.

[ABED]

Also, starting off more terrestrial allows things to escalate.

[jjgp1112]

And besides, don't the origins of Batman and Superman exist mostly in flashback form in the original comic serials, anyway? It's backstory. In Dragon Ball, the events before the Saiyans arrive aren't backstory, but the actual story.

[MasenkoHA]

I wouldn’t use Batman Begins as an example. Yes, people knew that Batman had dead parents, but none of the films before that really tackled his origin in-depth.

He’s a rich kid who used his money to train around the world and built his fursona based on fear. That’s it. There’s not much depth to it. Batman Begins idea of “depth” is going into completely superfluous detail of where he got his bat suit, where he got his cape, blah blah. We didn’t need any of that.

Incidentally this is why Mask of the Phantasm is 1000x better than Begins at doing an origin story because it frames his beginnings around the love story angle showing Bruce Wayne’s last chance at a normal life. Just seeing little things like the car at the World Fair inspiring the Batmobile’s design or the swarm of bats frightening Bruce and Andrea after his proposed.

He’s already Batman at the beginning of the 89 film, and the only information of how he got to that point is a flashback of the Joker killing his parents. BB goes into much more detail than any of the previous films

Completely needless detail. Batman 89 did just as much by reducing his origin to a simple flashback. Where does he get all those wonderful toys? Because he’s filthy rich and it’s an escapist fantasy story. Hell, even the bit where he tells Vicki and Knox he bought the tribal war stuff directly from Japan was enough to indicate he’s been around the world. We don’t need 20 minutes of it. The hand holding Begins does was pointless.

. Plus, it covers the death of the Wayne’s more faithfully, since the Joker is no longer their killer.

It makes it more faithful it doesn’t make it better. The main point is that his parents were shot right in front of him as a child. Begins is hardly the first adaptation to accurately portray his parents murder.

[WittyUsername]

I wouldn’t use Batman Begins as an example. Yes, people knew that Batman had dead parents, but none of the films before that really tackled his origin in-depth.

He’s a rich kid who used his money to train around the world and built his fursona based on fear. That’s it. There’s not much depth to it. Batman Begins idea of “depth” is going into completely superfluous detail of where he got his bat suit, where he got his cape, blah blah. We didn’t need any of that.

Incidentally this is why Mask of the Phantasm is 1000x better than Begins at doing an origin story because it frames his beginnings around the love story angle showing Bruce Wayne’s last chance at a normal life. Just seeing little things like the car at the World Fair inspiring the Batmobile’s design or the swarm of bats frightening Bruce and Andrea after his proposed.

He’s already Batman at the beginning of the 89 film, and the only information of how he got to that point is a flashback of the Joker killing his parents. BB goes into much more detail than any of the previous films

Completely needless detail. Batman 89 did just as much by reducing his origin to a simple flashback. Where does he get all those wonderful toys? Because he’s filthy rich and it’s an escapist fantasy story. Hell, even the bit where he tells Vicki and Knox he bought the tribal war stuff directly from Japan was enough to indicate he’s been around the world. We don’t need 20 minutes of it. The hand holding Begins does was pointless.

. Plus, it covers the death of the Wayne’s more faithfully, since the Joker is no longer their killer.

It makes it more faithful it doesn’t make it better. The main point is that his parents were shot right in front of him as a child. Begins is hardly the first adaptation to accurately portray his parents murder.

BB was well received by both critics and audiences and was praised specifically for focusing more on what makes Batman tick, while the Tim Burton films had him play second fiddle to the villains. You can say the movie isn’t for you, but it’s pretty distinct from the films that came before.

[MasenkoHA]

BB was well received by both critics and audiences and was praised specifically for focusing more on what makes Batman tick, while the Tim Burton films had him play second fiddle to the villains. You can say the movie isn’t for you, but it’s pretty distinct from the films that came before.

It’s not about Begins being distinct it’s about it covering ground that didn’t need to be covered.

I don’t care about it’s critical appraisal. Critics acting like they couldn’t figure out Batman was traumatized from his parents murder by watching Batman 89 or Batman Forever (which also had a way more interesting angle for Batman’s origin before the final product cut it to shreds! ) or the 90s cartoon or that one Super Friends episode….that’s on them.


Also Batman is way less interesting than his villains so there’s that.