Today I found an article online called “5 Ways Iron Man Was Better Than Batman Begins,” and of course I had to read the poster’s argument. But based off of the article, which really is better: Batman Begins or Iron Man?

As a comic book fan, I love both Iron Man and Batman, but Batman is definitely my favorite of the two heroes. So it was only natural for me to dive into this article and form my own opinion—but with as honest an assessment as possible. Here we go. Let’s take a closer look at this five-point argument and see how it stands up.

Batman Begins is not only a great comic book movie, nor is it merely a great movie overall… it’s also a very important film. It took the comic book genre film into a darker more serious tone (while still being quite fun) that previously hadn’t really been done with mainstream comic movie fare. It opened the doors for further diversity in the genre that had previously been only dreamed about by comic geeks, but thought unrealistic by much of Hollywood.

However, I think there is also a tendency in some people (me included) to confuse “darker” with “deeper”. Following my viewing of Iron Man (which I really enjoyed) I got involved in some discussions with people where comparisons were made between Iron and Bat. And in most of those conversations at least one person would usually mention “Yes, but Batman Begins was a deeper film”. And at first, I just agreed with that without thinking about it… but upon further reflection, I don’t agree with that statement at all. Yes Batman Begins was a darker more serious movie… but I disagree that it was intrinsically a deeper movie. When you really look at all the elements, I think an argument could be made that the story in the Iron Man movie was every bit as deep as Batman Begins… it just clearly wasn’t as dark.

Well put. Batman Begins brought a lot of prestige back into the Batman movies and was very revolutionary to comic book movies themselves. It was proof that you could actually adapt comic books to the silver screen not only believably but successfully; not to mention the long list of notable actors in Batman Begins (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman …) made it even more credible. When you have talented actors taking their work seriously—disregarding any previously conceived notions of what a comic book is and implies—then there’s no reason for them not to treat it like they would any other film.

I don’t consider Batman Begins nor Iron Man to be the “deeper” of the two, either, as both deal with heavy issues that are applicable to their respective comics. The settings and mood might be different (Begins is physically darker and more solemn while Iron is both light-hearted yet serious).

1) MINIMAL LOVE INTEREST STORY LINE

“You’re just way too high-maintenance for me, silly.”

If you inquired all Batman Begins fans around the world about what one thing they DIDN’T like about the movie, almost universally (with exceptions) the answer coming back with be “The damn love story with the wooden walking Tom Cruise baby incubator”. It felt like every time Rachel Dawes was on screen the pace and motion of the movie ground to a complete halt… and the love interest was never sold. It felt forced and unnatural. Iron Man on the other hand had a very minimalist approach to the love interest story line… the two never even kiss. Not to mention, Gwyneth Paltrow fit in with the movie much better and never got in the way. She, and her relationship with Tony Stark actually HELPED the story as opposed to hinder it.

Agreed. As much as I liked Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes—she did a good job at being a sassy, independent woman who didn’t play the damsel in distress but somehow ended up as one—and will miss her in The Dark Knight (although Maggie Gyllenhaal’s a good actress and she’ll bring something different, in a good way, to the table), the only point to having her was to satisfy non-comic book fans with the typical Hollywood love interest. In other words, to attract more people to the theaters. There’s not even a Rachel Dawes in the comics!

I guess they had to have someone, because Nolan’s not interested in bringing in Robin (thank God) and it would pretty much be boring if Bruce didn’t have anyone (sans Alfred, but whatever) to worry about—if there wasn’t anyone for him to lose.

“Iron? Don’t these people know anything?”

So Iron Man does have the edge on this one, even though Gwyneth Paltrow was just kind of … out-of-place somehow as Pepper Potts. I mean, she was cute and provided some fun humor, but she was just kind of there. And there were some moments where it was just like, “Uhm … was that side track even necessary, Pepper?” At any rate, I did like that they they never even kissed—it was kind of like the movie itself was saying, “Look, I don’t need to prove anything. I don’t need to pretend to be something I’m not. I already rock.” Which it does.

Meanwhile, Rachel and Bruce were just … meh. While Rachel was thinking, “Ugh, I can’t go out with you, you act like an arrogant playboy by day and you dress up like a freaking bat by night. Issues, much?”—although we all love Bats for his wonderful issues sparked by childhood trauma—Bruce was thinking, “‘This is your real mask’? Are you serious?! That’s the only excuse you can give me as to why we can’t be together? Come ON.”

2) YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN ACTION

Iron Man Shrugged

My one critique of Christopher Nolan’s direction when it came to Batman Begins was how he choose to shoot the action sequences. Whenever Batman was going to do something really cool (like beat the hell out of the henchmen at the docks), Nolan either choose to have the camera cut away to something else so you only HEAR Batman doing his thing, or committed the heinous sin of shaking the bloody camera around like an German midget having an epileptic seizure to create a fake and artificial sense of “action” or “intensity”. This drove me nuts. Iron Man on the other had generally always had him in frame, in the shot allowing us to see what he was doing. Thank you Mr. Favreau!

Disagree. Okay, so I’ve heard this complaint before, but frankly, I don’t get it. Batman and Iron Man are very different characters (though they have a lot of basic similarities, too), and I think both directors’ camera movements and positioning suited each film very well. Nolan’s technique worked with the fact that Batman heavily relies on stealth and sneak attacks (a la ninja), so he strikes fast and can take out his enemies before they even realize anything is wrong. The camera work also helps strengthen the fear/intimidation tactic that Batman is infamous for.

“Boo.”

On the other hand, Iron Man the movie has a much more bold, fun flavor to it, so it would be ridiculous if they didn’t show him in frame. Besides, even Tony Stark goes public as Iron Man at the end, so why would they hide that? Simply put, each director made the best choices in order to enhance his film’s desired effect. And both work.

3) IRON MAN HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD

“Have you tried the Almighty … Fireball candy?”

There’s something about brining the fantastic into the mundane that makes the fantastic all the more awe inspiring. Prior to Jurassic Park, I had seen lots of movies with Dinosaurs, but they were usually back in time (where you would expect to see Dinosaurs). But when Jurassic Park brought those creatures into the the world and time we live in, there was something far more magical and awe inspiring about it. Batman Begins doesn’t really exist in our world totally. The styles, technology (better and worse) and atmosphere of “Gotham City” (which is also fictional) are all slightly off from the real world. And so, when the environment is a fictional world, the fictional characters dwelling in it seem a TOUCH less fantastic because they’re not in the world we inhabit. Iron Man on the other hand takes place in the context of our world… which for me personally, made it engage my imagination all the more. Some people won’t agree with this point, and that’s fair since it is subjective.

Disagree. And for good reason, as that doesn’t even make a whole lot of sense. Both Batman and Iron Man come from comic books—which are, obviously, fictional. But if I had to pick which movie I found more “realistic,” I would have to say Batman Begins.

“And this … well, I have no idea what the hell that does.”

So Gotham isn’t a real place. So what? It could be. All someone would have to do would be to name a city “Gotham” and there you go. Iron Man is more futuristic and therefore is, well, “slightly off from the real world.” But let’s face it. Both are realistic enough. Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are just two guys with no special powers, and the problems accompanying the settings of each movie are believable in today’s world (problems with crime and the prominent division between the rich and the poor with Begins; Middle Eastern affairs and glamorizing patriotism versus grim reality with Iron). Still, both take place in the United States; both heroes have suits that give them advantages they wouldn’t normally have. There’s nothing really outrageously unbelievable about either of them. The two movies were adapted very well to the big screen, which explains their success and popularity.

4) TONY STARK IS A MORE ENTERTAINING CHARACTER THAN BRUCE WAYNE

I’d like to thank the Academy.

Please note I’m not saying Tony Stark is a BETTER character than Bruce Wayne. I don’t think he is… but there’s no denying that when sitting in a movie theater, the moments that Tony Stark is on screen are more entertaining to watch than Bruce Wayne. In Iron Man, Stark is a funny, quick tonged character who almost always said or did something on screen that made you laugh or love him even more. His quick one liners and general disposition made watching him on screen almost as fun as watching Iron Man on screen. Same can’t really be said for Bruce.

Agreed. Not judging them character-wise, Tony is just more entertaining. Duh. Bruce Wayne aka Batman is naturally brooding because he had a traumatic childhood and Gotham’s not a fun place to grow up (okay, so the rich part helps some, but not when you have a conscience) or live in, for that matter. There’s nothing happy about murder, corruption, or a dangerous city like Gotham.

Would the real Bruce Wayne please stand up.

Robert Downey Jr. is hilarious as Tony Stark/Iron Man, there’s no doubt about it. His snarky humor is just one reason it’s worth seeing the movie another time. Bruce and Tony are simply different characters—it doesn’t mean one’s better than the other. They’re both superheroes, for crap’s sake, and that’s not easy. Hence the “super” part. The two characters—and the comics—just have to deal with different things, so it’s not a flaw of either.

5) IRON MAN HAD BETTER DIALOG

“I don’t care what you say, Henri, it’s pronounced ‘car-mel.’”

Say what you will, but man… that little speech Rachel Dawes gives Bruce as they’re driving in the car in front of Falcone’s was nauseating. “Who will stand for justice… yadda yadda yadda”. There were actually several monologues in the film that had a high cheese factor to them… some awesome ones too. Iron Man just seemed to have tighter dialog. Sillier sometimes for certain… but rarely diving into the deep blue cheese. It was usually witty and with the wink of an Iron eye at times… but for what it was it was pretty tight.

Hmm, I really don’t know whether I agree or disagree with this one (and coincidentally that makes this a tie, which makes sense considering I thought both films were excellent). Dialogue means conversation, and while Tony Stark does indeed have some great quotes …. those are just one-liners, that’s not true dialogue—thus what the poster is arguing here doesn’t truly hold. I think Batman Begins’ dialogue had a lot more intellectual depth to it; while Iron Man did have a lot of great moments, no doubt, there wasn’t necessarily as much craft to it as the conversation found in Begins. On the other hand, it did switch from clever one-liners to intense confrontations nicely (and with powerful effect), so I’m not sure.

Go ahead, push my buttons.

I’m also conflicted because although Iron Man’s dialogue was indeed wittier, I don’t think either movie had major “cheesy” parts (both movies, however, had some minor ones). Rachel’s lecture was annoying, yes, but not really cheesy per say—cheesy to me is just embarrassing or sentimental, like Darth Vader’s “Nooooooo!” at the end of Star Wars Episode III.

At any rate, whether or not you’re being technical, Begins and Iron both have good dialogue, just in different ways. This topic largely depends on how you’re defining it and what you prefer.

Once again, I’m not here saying Iron Man was a BETTER movie that Batman Begins (although I might later). Both are fantastic movies, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. These are just some of the areas where I though Iron Man was superior.

All in all, it’s true that Iron Man made about double the money of Batman Begins in its opening weekend, but since both films are well-done comic book movies, it’s purely a matter of opinion which of the two you liked better. Both have advantages over the other in different respects, but that’s just because they’re similar but vastly different styles of movies. And you can’t say that it’s just Iron Man is more popular than Batman, because both are well-known comic book characters (and to put it simply, which do you think people are more familiar with?); it won’t be surprising, considering all the momentum of its hype, if The Dark Knight does just as well as Iron Man did this summer.

Now it’s your turn. Which movie do you personally like better? What else did you notice about the two movies—do you think one really is better than the other, aside from individual taste? Do you agree or disagree with me? Feel free to discuss it in the comments.