This is topic Batman Begins in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=035606

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
I haven't gone to see the movie yet (many have in LA and New York, where it's already premiered), and, to be honest, I'm still a little bit shaky about the whole deal, but after looking at recent reviews I'm feeling quite excited.

Ebert

rotten tomatoes

Some reviewers, like the New Yorker and Time, simply don't like the concept, I notice. They complain about lack of cartoon fun and too much emphasis on sober drama, which makes me ask, do you really want to go back to what these stupid movies used to be? I thought everyone agreed they were terrible! Which is why they're trying it this new, darker, psychological way. I don't care for someone going into a movie with a predetermined idea of the character and then snubbing it when it doesn't conform to their concept.

Others have legitimate complaints, such as the action is being done in a very quick, up close, realistic fashion, a la Bourne Identity, which makes it hard to follow. But frankly, I thought that movie was great, so I guess I'll have to see it. Others don't care for his voice at all. Others don't like Katie Holmes, which is perfectly understandable. Putting lil Katie in amongst all of this acting royalty might not've been such a great idea.

Coolest thing I've read so far? They compare Batman's first appearance to a scene from Alien. There's some monster out in the darkness, but you never actually SEE it. Some shadow reaches out and drags a thug into the night as he utters a short, piercing cry. You only get brief flashes... was that an arm? A leg? And did that thing have horns?

Neato.

[ June 14, 2005, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
 

---

Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
 
I just hope that the new batman is actually good compared to past attempts.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I think with the cast and crew assembled for this one, it will be. Movies with this kind of talent top to bottom generally seem to be either terrific or terrible and the previews don't bode for terrible.

Then again, I was very excited about Hitchhiker's, too...
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Aww, I liked Hitchhiker's...

I guess for that movie you could claim that the weak spot was the director. Nolan certainly seems to have barrelfulls of talent.
 

---

Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
 
I can't wait. I'm actually looking forward to it more than I did Star Wars. Going to see it Thurs. I'll let you know what I think then.

I thought Chris Nolan did a good job with Memento. His dark approach is just what Batman (dark knight) needs. If I want a cartoon, I'll watch Teen Titans.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Also, from what I understand, it's a very, very adult movie. Not only does it deal with heavily adult and morally abstract issues, such as grief, rage, and the difference between justice and revenge, but if Batman is scary, then the Scarecrow is plain terrifying. The first half is very psychological, the second half is action packed but frequently disturbing.

Whereas I think this is the perfect take for Batman (I mean, we ARE talking about a story that begins with a young child seeing his parents murdered before his eyes - essentially Harry Potter gone nuts), it might not be too okay for kiddos. Although I went to go see Batman Returns when I was seven, and I turned out okay.

...sort've.

EDIT: Here is the review I tend to trust the most... It's fairly mainstream, doesn't tend to have that superhero bias that Ebert does, is open to the overall concept of the movie, and, from what I understand, the reviewer usually doesn't like superhero films at all.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I liked Hitchhiker's, too, but was also very disappointed in it as it seemed to completely fail to capture the manic spirit of the books.

But WRT Batman, I was ecstatic with the directorial choice as well as the casting, and look forward to seeing a properly dark Dark Knight.

I also dig Teen Titans, especially a couple of early ones that focused on Raven.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Some of the Batman movies were okay. Michelle Pfeiffer played a great catwoman, Michael Keaton was a great batman, and mixed in there were some good villains and good movies. It only fell apart in the most recent movies. I get more angry when they screw up good villains (Mr. Freeze), than when they screw up Batman himself.

That being said, I'm going into Batman Begins with an open mind. IF they screw up Ra's Al Ghul I will be annoyed, but I can get over it. If they change too much, and leave all the fun stuff out for the darker side of Batman, I will also be annoyed.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Can someone give me a crash course on Ra's Al Ghul? I don't really know much about this villain. I think the only times I've seen him were 1 episode of the animated series and the small appearance in Kingdom Come (which may have been his successor or something, actually).

What, in short, is his deal?

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I'm going to the first showing tonight. I hope I understand what happens, I've never seen any of the Batman movies or read any of the comics.

At least I can't be upset if they screw it up.
 

---

Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Can someone give me a crash course on Ra's Al Ghul? I don't really know much about this villain. I think the only times I've seen him were 1 episode of the animated series and the small appearance in Kingdom Come (which may have been his successor or something, actually).

What, in short, is his deal?

--Enigmatic

---

Well, in the animated series, he was a guy who has been alive for 600+ years through the use of Lazarus Pits that rejuvenate the body. His dream was to jumpstart humanity (by killing most of them) and brining peace to the Earth (or something like that).

He had a daughter named Talia with whom Batman had brief affairs with. Ra's wanted for Batman to marry Talia and take over his operations when he died, but Batman turned him down...

Yep...

That's not how Ra's is handled in the movie, as I understand. There is no Talia, and Ra's isn't 600 years old..

But he still looks pretty cool (can't beat Ken Watanabe).
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
In the movie, he's rumored to be 600 or whatever, or at the very least unkillable.

I always explain him as "The Keyser Soze of the Batman world." Vast corporation, borderline-mythic, rich, brilliant, utterly ruthless, etc.
 

---

Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
 
Is Jonathan Crane's Scarecrow costume just a Scarecrow mask and a suit? Cause if it is I will be very dissapointed
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Could someone direct me to a site that describes, clearly and succinctly the world of Batman? I've just gotten back from the movie and am intensely curious.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You don't need to know about Ra's for the movie, don't worry-he's treated very little like he is in the comics.

The movie freakin' rawked.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well darn, Blackwolve, this means I don't get to expound all geek-like about Batman?

http://www.dcuguide.com/profile.php?name=Batman

is one site, but it's not very 'current'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Thank you! Those are both great.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
That was a movie that really requires seeing twice. They pack SO much into 2+ hours, sometimes the film moves very quickly. I'd like to see it again to catch more details.

I loved it. It was definitely something I would advise any movie fan to see, because it's NOT just a superhero or a comic book movie. It's very adult, and the evolution of Batman is handled with depth, attention, and care. You really care about the character, and you really understand how twisted he has become, and rather than fearing him, like so many do, you pity him. As he says at one point in the film, "I don't have the luxury of friends," and you believe him. There's one shot I remember very well: Bruce Wayne in full Batman regalia minus the cowl, turned away from the camera with his head bowed, sitting next to his sleeping childhood friend. The camera simply holds that shot and pulls back, and you begin to understand Wayne's intense loneliness and alienation.

The first half is all exposition. "Who I Am and How I Came to Be," as Frank Miller so expertly wrote, and we watch out of character-driven fascination as we wonder how a man who seems to have everything becomes a wandering, self-destructive lost soul wandering the muddy hells of the earth. We see him grow from a man who lacks purpose into a man whose life is given a slow clarity, and he begins to take control of his life and differentiate between revenge and justice, good and evil, rage and determination, and himself from the rest of the world.

The second half grabs you, holds you, and simply will not let go. From there on in it's action packed and every single scene counts. Nolan sets up so much sometimes it's breathtaking, from establishing the intense corruption of Gotham to the sinister plot being slowly hatched to what Bruce does, how he does it, and why he does it. Nolan makes the most of his time, and each scene with a character adds more to their depth and persona. For example, Cillian Murphy as Doctor Crane aka the Scarecrow is given probably 10 or so minutes of screentime, maybe more, maybe less. But his character, played with such creepy, calm, and intensely malicious amusement simply burns itself into your mind. Michael Caine and Katie Holmes become Bruce's conscience, and I found lil Katie to be suprisingly bearable. Oldman as Gordon is immediately likeable, as is Morgan Freeman. Liam Neeson again plays the father/tutor role, which he should probably have trademarked, but he brings a focused savagery to the part that makes him much more different, much more real. All of these people play second fiddle to Bale as Bruce Wayne, but they still carry much resonance. Lucas could've learned a thing or two. He had three movies and still left his primary characters muddy and half-hearted.

Batman is terrifying. His first appearance is monstrous. You never truly see him until the end. Until then, he's a ghost, a shadow that leaps out of nowhere and drags criminals into the darkness. Even when he pummels five thugs, it's done with such blazing speed and riotous confusion that it's impossible to catch a glimpse of him. Bale's voice is demonic. His most memorable scene is when he drags a crooked cop up fifteen stories and hangs him upside down, interrogating him. The cop knows nothing, and says "I swear to God!" Batman seizes his hair, pulls his head close, and bellows "Swear to ME!"

It's not all sober and angsty torture, however. Alfred and Bruce's relationship and verbal sparring often bring much humor to the role, as do Freeman and Oldman, who are clearly enjoying themselves. And there's enough edge-of-your-seat action (the Batmobile chase and climax) to put the "fantasy" into what Bale called "believable fantasy," which was the goal of the movie.

It was a lot of fun, and it wasn't stupid fun, either. At the heart of the idea of Batman, like all noir, lies moral amiguity, which this movie brings out in spades. Bruce's constant questions about what a good man's options are in a city gone to hell form the central core of the movie. He is torn between his parents and his rage, his city and himself. It's intersting to watch.

And the action is cool, too.

EDIT: And although, yes, the Scarecrow begins as a perverse psychologist who enjoys experimenting upon his patients, he is made terrifying not by a simple costume, a strategy other Batman films have relied on, but by well-acted and well-written characterization. And, if you're really that worried about it, later in the film he rides a horse (a la Long Halloween) wearing a strait jacket like a long, billowing coat, along with the mask. He's a pretty creepy guy.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Shazam! What an awesome review, I can't WAIT to see it! *rubs hands together gleefully*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Tomorrow night! Tomorrow night!

Great review. This looks to compete with Spider-man. Maybe.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's a very different feel for a movie, Dag, but I'd have to say it does compete.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
While I really liked Spiderman, it lacked the depth that Batman Begins has, which drew me much deeper into this movie and will definitely make it one I will own.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I like Spider-man and Batman as heroes precisely because of the similarities in motivation combined with almost completely different way both respond (with the one obvious similarity that both fight crime).

Spider-man captured a lot of the emotional depth of the Spider-man myth. If Batman Begins really surpasses that, I'll be thrilled.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
How stuff works' take on the Batman's gadgets in the movie.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Spider-man lacked the depth I'll agree, fugu...but I liked Spider-Man (1&2) better than BB (barely) probably because I can imagine myself in Peter's place much more easily than I can in Bruce's place.

After all, the latter requires imagining your parents being brutally gunned down in front of you.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course, Spider-man requires imagining your father figure was killed by a criminal you let get away

I do see your point, and the second spider man movie added a fair bit of depth to the arc. If the next batman movie adds to Begins as well as the second spider man added to the first, it'll be amazing.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yes, but Spider-Man requires you imagine that happened unintentionally due to a careless, selfish mistake you made-that I can imagine.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I think the comparisons are interesting between the two: Batman is motivated largely by unearned guilt plus anger/desire for vengeance, in response to which he spends enormous time acquiring the skills he needs to conduct his work.

Spider-man is far more culpable in the death of his ur-father, but that culpability arises precisely because he already had the skills needed but didn't use them. If he was not-yet-bitten Peter Parker in that hallway, he'd have no blame for what happened later.

Both seek redemption by acting out again and again what they wish they could/should have done when their loved one died.

There's a fascinating thesis or dissertation in there somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Batman Begins was like a cross between Batman and the Shadow. But I thought the movie had good depth and dramatic appeal. It is about time they made a Batman movie that was not all campy and tongue-in-cheek. There was a fair amount of action. I really liked the batmobile!
 

---

Posted by Brave Sir Robin (Member # 8230) on :
 
so - you can imagine being responsible for the death of your father figure after getting powers from a genetically altered spider biting you -

but you can't imagine getting your wealthy parents killed and inheriting a fortune 'cause you're 8 years old and some stuffy old opera's creeping you out?

hmm. come to think of it they made the origins a tad bit more similar. in the comics the reasoning behind Bruce's guilt over his parents death was not nearly so clear, and told and retold again and again - latest telling in a collection of Batman Comics called Broken City - the storyline what came after Hush, if anyone heard of that one. Brian Azzarello.

and there seems to be a misconception here about superhero comics since, oh, around 1978.

superhero comics essentially have silly premises, yes. there's a certain need for a suspension of disbelief. but before you go cracking off about how silly these comic books are about strange alien heroes from other planets fighting crime or billionaire playboys getting off on beating the daylights out of homicidal clowns, consider this.

you're posting on a website essentially dedicated to a writer of fantasy and science fiction, who calls us to - each time we read his books - assume that a boy could be put in such a position as to commit Xenocide - or that the seventh son of a seventh son would have such miraculous powers that he could essentially bring about a messianic age for his nation and avert bloody wars.

suspension of disbelief. please don't laugh about the works of these writers who believe so much in their craft before you at least stop by your newsstand and take a look, and read these serial stories. Just as books were published serially back in the 1800s, take a look at these ongoing stories and see that the themes and the stories do mean something.

And all of this psychological reasoning from Batman Begins? it's been done for 20 some years in the so called "funny pages."

geez. sorry for the long rant, folks.

and doubly sorry for being a jerk.
 

---

Posted by Brave Sir Robin (Member # 8230) on :
 
ok. ignoring my previous rant - it seemed to me, that at least by the end of the movie, if not before - being Batman for Bruce stopped being about revenge, stopped being about apologizing for what happened to his parents - and started to be about honoring his mother and father and what they did for his city, what they gave to him and all of Gotham.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm pretty sure it's not that Rakeesh can't believe it as a story element, but rather that it's too painful to actually imagine it happening to him.

In other words - it's not about suspension of disbelief but emotional trauma.
 

---

Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
I'm...stunned. Those previously have summed up some of the greatness but their words, despite being the greatest description I've read of the movie so far, fall so short.

This is the greatest movie I have ever seen. No hyperbole. It is the greatest movie I have ever seen.

I'm going back tomorrow (bought my tickets as I exited) and the only reason I didn't turn around for the 10:30 was that I have a summative tomorrow.

Light scene spoilers:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


Top Three Images:
1. The bat crawling out of Scarecrow's mouth.
2. Fire breathing horse.
3. The card.

Worst Three Images:
1. Only about five seconds of fire breathing horse.
2. Only about five seconds of Ken Watanabe.
3. ...That's all I've got. I even thought Katie Holmes (sp?) was great.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Hmm... I'd say the real difference between Bats and Spidey is the ages at which the traumas occurred and HOW they occurred.

Spider-man: indirectly responsible for the death of his uncle, which occurred at, say, the age of 17, and not before his eyes.

Batman: parents graphically gunned down before his eyes at the age of 8 by a totally random thug (that's the original version).

Spider-man acts, I think, mostly out of guilt and the sense of responsibility his uncle gave him. Batman acts partially out of guilt, partially out of responsiblity from his father, but MOSTLY out of sheer rage. The utter randomness of his trauma gave him far more confusion and anger, I think, than Spider-man. Certain quotes spring to mind, mostly from Frank Miller:

"I have waited since the walk. That night. And the man with frightened, hollow eyes and a voice like glass being crushed... since all sense left my life." (Year One)

"The war... it did not begin THEN... no... it was... two years later... when her necklace caught on his wrist... when he shoved his pistol to her jaw and pulled the trigger... and everything my mother was struck the pavements as a bloody wad... that night began thirty years of hunting thieves and murderers..." (DKR)

"My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on the street, shaking in deep shock- dying for no reason at all -- they showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to..." (DKR)

Clearly, Begins taps into this existential rage that powers Batman, but it did it in a somewhat watered down fashion. (No soliloquies on loved one's brains splattering on the pavements - thankfully (?) they both took it in the chest, and it's relatively bloodless - though we're to assume it isn't) Spider-man's guilt and purpose comes from the death of his unlce. Batman, however, is also driven by the chaos of the world itself, and (in Begins) seeks to restore harmony. It's the meaningless death of his parents that truly wounds him, I believe. He becomes a man obsessively organized and single-mindedly driven in reaction to this chaos. In Begins, however, he feels unable to make a difference and attempts to join that chaos in a sort of self-destruction and a sort of search for purpose. We only see his utter determination later.

At least, that's how it functions in the comics, and it may be coloring my interpretation of Begins.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 
Spoilers

-

-

-

Holy awsome movie, Batman! This movie rocked so very mcuh. May be my favorite movie of the year, depends how much I like Serenity.

Finally a live action Batman movie that was done right. I was afriad that I'd have to stick with the animated Batman movies for the Bat goodness.

I completly agree with others on the first scene with Batman in all his terror. It was like a horror movie and Batman was the monster. All the actors did great and hopefully this means the next Batman movie will actually have the same cast. That thought boggles my mind. Although the villans didn't get that big of screen time, they were still better than basically all of the original villans from the live action movies.

I loved how dark this movie was. Perfect for Gotham.

The restaurant scene with Bruce and the Gangster was great. "There's a judge over there and two police officers over there, and if I shoot you now, nothing will happen to me." Or something like that.
and
"My boss has been gone for four days, and in this town it normally means it's time to start looking for him down stream."

I can't wait to see this movie again.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Why did Bruce Wayne's parents decide to sneak out the back door of the concert hall, anyway? Rich people are supposed be smart enough to avoid situations where they would likely be mugged.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
Gonna see it in about two hours! Yey me!

Edit: Resume discussion.
 

---

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
I need to see it! Maybe later today!
 

---

Posted by alath (Member # 6150) on :
 
I'm going to see the IMAX of it on saturday night. And from you all have said, it sounds like it'll be well worth it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Show starts in two hours. I printed out the tickets already, and bunbun will pick me up in an hour.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
I've heard imax is great, there's not one around here showing it, though.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Awesome. I haven't processed it enough to decide if I like it better than Spider-man yet. It did some things much better, but not others.

Awesome movie though. I'm glad another superhero movie has gotten it right.

SPOILER: I would like to see one Batman movie where someone doesn't find out his secret identity. Just one.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Awesome. I haven't processed it enough to decide if I like it better than Spider-man yet. It did some things much better, but not others.

Awesome movie though. I'm glad another superhero movie has gotten it right.

SPOILER: I would like to see one Batman movie where someone doesn't find out his secret identity. Just one.

---

quote:

---

In Batman Begins there wasn't away around Fox or Reis learning who he was, and there was enough sense with Holmes' character. Bruce hated how she thought of him and there was a chance he could die, well sort of anyway I guess, and so he wanted her to know. But, if in the next movie a new love intrest comes and she finds out,I will be peeved. They should just keep Holme's, unless they bring in Catwoman, but even Catwoman shouldn't find out who he is.

---

One thing I liked is that we got to see some of the cost Bruce bears by maintaining his playboy disguise - something absolutely missing from the previous films. Letting him off the hook too soon takes that out of play.

As for Lucius, one of the best things about their relationship was Lucius not knowing and getting exasperated with Bruce's irresponsibility. I'm sure they could have come up with a way to get Bruce the gear without Lucius figuring it out.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
I really loved this movie! and yes by my name I am a bit of a fanboy here

** spoiler**
*
*
*
I really enjoyed how Bruce went from seeing criminals as just bad people to him 'becoming' one and seeing how it can happen.
I did like that Lucius was getting exasperated with Bruce's irresponsibility but then I was happy that Lucius was not an idiot and that he figured out what the true purpose of Bruce's hang gliding/spelunking trips were all about. I've always like the Lucius Fox character and I was happy to see that they treated him as a brillant man (Morgan Freeman is EXACTLY who I have always pictured as Lucius)
 

---

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
I did indeed end up seeing it the day I said, "Maybe later today!" I liked it a lot.

SPOILER:

I thought it was funny when Scarecrow, Crane, was riding around on the horse. You know Crane....Crane from Sleepy Hollow. Headless horseman. I just made that connection, and I loved it.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
You know, if I had to list my favorite genres of movies, I'd say:

Noir
Dramatic Thriller
Fantasy
Comic Book
Action/Adventure/Epic

I guess you can see why I like this movie. Also, after checkin out Nolan on imdb, I read that his favorite flicks are:

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), The Black Hole (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Chinatown (1974), The Hitcher (1986), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), Star Wars (1977), The Man Who Would Be King (1975) and Topkapi (1964), as well as anything by Stanley Kubrick.

Dude! Chinatown? Blade runner? Lawrence of Arabia? The Man Who Would Be King?!?! I thought I was the only one who even knew that movie EXISTED! There's nothing better than seeing Michael freakin' Caine and Sean freakin' Connery getting up to all sorts of rougish high jinks while serving Her Majesty's empire in 19th Century India.

"No one's crossed those mountains since Alexander the Great!"
"Who's that?"
"Why, he was the leader of the Grecian empire..."
"Well, if a Greek can do it, we can do it."

Classic.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Hey, big "Man Who Would Be King" fan here.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
A lot of the people on this board love "The Man Who Would Be King." I remember a conversation about it around four years ago.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Cillian Murphy may be the first live action "insane" Bat-villain who truly seemed scary and disturbing.
 

---

Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
 
Just saw it. Thought it was great. Definitely the best Batman, and a better movie than Star Wars. Tim Burton's Batman comes close.

(Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Star Wars, it just wasn't a great movie. Bad acting, ridiculous script, great action and fighting = fun movie not great movie.)

I really like the way they tapped into how Batman uses fear to intimidate his enemies, something that was missing from the older movies.

Some of the scenes through the eyes of the people on drugs were down right scary. Not for little kids, but cool in a creepy way.

I also like the way they set up a bunch of criminals for the bat to fight in the future. Take a bunch criminally insane people bust them out and expose them to mind altering drugs. You should be able to get a few good criminal master minds out of that crowd.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SC Carver:
I also like the way they set up a bunch of criminals for the bat to fight in the future. Take a bunch criminally insane people bust them out and expose them to mind altering drugs. You should be able to get a few good criminal master minds out of that crowd.

---

We have at least three confirmed.

Four, if the Lazarus Pit exists in the film reality.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
SPOILERS

While I liked the movie mostly, I do have a couple plot problems.

1) Did nobody involved in the making of this movie realize that the human body is 85% water? Theres no reason why the water in your body is fine while water in pipes vaporizes.

2) Couldn't the evil plot have been accomplished with a half dozen crop dusters?

Theres more, but those are my quibbles that hurt my suspension of disbelief.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
That bothered your suspension of disbelief, while a 600 year old leader of a secret order didn't?

EDIT: To be fair, upon reflection only the novelization mentions Ra's Al Ghul's incredible age.

[ June 18, 2005, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
 

---

Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
 
X makes a good point. I was wondering why the microwave thing didn't hurt anything else. Ever put something metal inside the microwave by accident? Of course by that point I just went with it and enjoyed the movie.
 

---

Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 

quote:

---

Four, if the Lazarus Pit exists in the film reality.

---

SPOILER:

Notice that serene look on his face before the train went boom? Hopefully he'll be back.

Also, I remember hearing someone say that a microwave needs a metal to bounce off to do any extreme molecular excitation (ie. being exposed to one will give you a lot of discomfort and a good stab at cancer)...but that doesn't make a whole lotta' sense to me anyway (Why wouldn't Bats and Ra's be fried on the train?). By that point in the film, I was willing to except that it didn't make perfect sense, the rest had just been so good.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Yeah, a microwave beam of that strength would cook anyone around... and I paused to note that... and then just shrugged and went on with the movie. Normally things like that bother me a lot, but I just blew this one off... testimony to how well done the rest of the movie was...

so much was right about this movie I can't begin to list things off... just go see it.
 

---

Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Just got back from the movie about an hour ago, it is great! I went in with zero expectations and was floored with how well they did everything. Suspensful, action packed, at times even a bit funny(but good funny not ridiculous funny) Great ending, great story, great everything, I have no complaints I loved it. Hopefully Land of The Dead(Final Night of The Living Dead movie) which comes out on the 24th is done half as well as this.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Yeah the microwave beam...I had to work hard to ignore that. I couldn't ignore it. *sigh*

But aside from that, the movie was a great piece of work. I finally understand Batman now and all of his little gadgets make sense.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I went and saw the movie on Friday with my dad.

While there are a few minor quibbles to be had with it, we pretty much both agreed that it was the best Batman yet. In fact, I think that it is the very first good Batman; the other four, while mildly entertaining, were all just failed attempts.
 

---

Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
 
Good flick. The only movie I've seen recently (past year or so) that I wanted to watch again, immediately. Curiously, also an appropriate Father's Day release.

It's slow to build, though. (technical concerns: the car chase coulda been cut in half, and the logic behind the motives of the "league of shadows" is shadowy at best, apparently hate-filled confusion at worst).

my reckoning of the film is this - 3. Batman Begins is the best of any incarnation of the, "dead-horse beaten", batman idea, and 2. Complex characters and plot are more interesting than standard fare, and 1. Christopher Nolan's got it - IT -like in Johnny Depp's got "IT" - only Chris Nolan's got it as a director. Good on him!

goddamn!
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
I went to go see this movie again and it's true, it really is a movie you have to see twice. Lots of details slip by you, some of which are small but turn out to have great effect upon the film, most noticeably upon characterization.

I agree that the ME was a stretch - I actually didn't think about it til after the movie. I know little to nothing about science, and I suppose it's probably impossible to find a frequency that ONLY effects tap water and NOT blood. But when there's only one thing unrealistic in a comic book movie, it's a good thing. Even if it's a large part of the plot.

Just a few questions:

Who here laughed when Rachel started slapping Bruce? Several people in my audience did, I wish they would've shut up.

Who here laughed during the "I'd like to thank you all for... showing up and drinking all of my booze" speech? I was choking.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
The drug scenes terrified me. Save for that, the movie was standard quality.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Saw it again yesterday -- never mind the symbolism of taking your son to see a movie on father's Day that deals with the violent death of a father -- and it still holds together well. My only real beefs?

SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The constant flashbacks, while arguably necessary, started getting annoying. And the death scene seemed really fake. If it's the child's sanitized memory, as has been suggested, I'd have liked to have seen something to emphasize that.
The fact that every Wayne ancestor was a paragon of virtue. Again, not a big thing at all, but after hearing about the family of endles saints I was starting to wish for a Wayne that was a real bastard, just for variety.
The microwave thing.
The inconsistent drug. A shot drove a mob boss completely insane and made Batman fling himself out a window and pass out for two days, but a "concentrated dose" made a young woman kinda dizzy even though she was in a car chase next to a big black bat in a situation that would have been terrifying without the drug. And the crowd scenes didn't look like too many terrified people. A couple here and there, but the kid held together pretty well and the inmates didn't seem fazed at all.
The car chase. I liked most of it, but it could have been shorter and the caltrops scene really bothered me. Batman doesn't kill, he especially doesn't kill cops, and he had to know that causing cop cars to flip could easily have been fatal. Seemed out of place to me.

If you've ever heard me discuss the other Batman movies, you'll see that this is not terribly critical.

I loved the movie. If only this had come out instead of the Burton one, we could have had decades of excellent Batman movies all along...
 

---

Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The car chase. I liked most of it, but it could have been shorter and the caltrops scene really bothered me. Batman doesn't kill, he especially doesn't kill cops, and he had to know that causing cop cars to flip could easily

---

quote:

---

so what's the odds that the little boy is the future Robin?

---

I was waiting for him to tell Batman his name was Jason (the second Robin). Batman discovered him trying to rob the tires from the Batmobile. He ended up getting killed by the Joker.
 

---

Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
 
I thought the plot was brilliant. Sure, there's a lot of oppressive ominous aspects to da Batman (and the pacing is slow and tedious) - an unreachable, unegageable aspect for some critics. But, I kinda digged the confusion of the plot. Confusion born of complexity is NOT a flaw in storytelling, it's a good reason to revisit and explore.

The tedious "wating for batman" aspect of the front-end development of this film was a stroke of genius for Nolan.
 

---

Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
 
Okay, now admittedly I'm kind of tired and may have missed some details having just come home from watching it now, but did anyone else wonder where the heck all the lush green miles and miles of countryside in the middle of the city came from that surrounded the Wayne mansion at the very end of the film? I mean I know he's rich, but that's getting ridiculous. And wasn't it in the middle of a city before?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I always thought Wayne Manor was a little outside of Gotham City.
 

---

Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
 
Is it? I don't know the comic books, so I may well have just placed it inside the city in my head. It did seem like it was in the city (or at least much closer to it) for the earlier half of the movie though. Eh, you're probably right. It might just have been that it wasn't made out so green and bright at any other point so it seemed very different to me at the end.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Astaril, just like most major metropolis settings, the rich people that support the downtown rarely live there (except maybe in NYC, just maybe). All the richest city-builders in Cleveland where I live only visit it. Wayne was no different, only that he really seemed to be invested in the city's future (like Peter B. Lewis here...bless him...I wonder if he fights crime?).

Great flick. I loved the explanation of supervillians in this. Best movie explanation ever. Just from this movie, who are the possible bad guys?

Spoilers...
.
.
.
.
.
.


We have the Joker, of course (please be Mark Hamill, please be Mark Hamill). We have Ras Al Ghul (if pit exists). Zsasz was prominent. Crane didn't die. In fact, this was a huge positive in my book...I loved that the bad guys live. They ALWAYS do in the comics...why feel the need to kill them off as they did in the Burton movies? Those are four for sure ones. Anyone pick up on others? No sign of Catwoman (will she be a) rich philanthropist lady from comics or b) prosititute from comics or c) other). I am assuming in this franchise they won't want to repeat most of the original run so maybe Joker only but no Bane, Poison Ivy, Penguin or Riddler. Also, hopefully not Hush (worst Loeb comic ever...didn't like it, no I didn't). Maybe a better stab at Two-Face (Mr. Jones mugging for two hours didn't count).

My only "issue" with it was the loss of Ducard. I loved Henri Ducard in the comic. He was a French detective that Wayne studied with in Paris. A nasty but exceedingly clever one who eventually figures out Waynes identity and almost sells it to the highest bidder. Having him as a "front" was clever but a waste of a potentially cool subplot in the future.

Great film, though. Worth the wait. Are we seeing the turn for DC...taking the superhero movie mantle away from Marvel (who, after Electra, Daredevil, Punisher and soon Fantastic Four (which, I know, MIGHT not suck) with this movie and the ringer from Singer with Superman Returns next summer? Now all we need is Joss Whedon to do Wonderwoman as rumored and the triumverate will be complete.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I liked this movie a lot more than either of the Spider-Man movies. Good stuff.
 

---

Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
 
The scene featuring Michael Cain and Morgan Freeman was so precious and subtle. That's the touch of a good director giving thorough consideration to all his characters.

That was a "sweet spot" for me.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
Batman is one cool cat.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I still think Batman would work better as a television show, with individual episodes that usually advance the story arc:

Season 1: Batman Year One/Long Halloween. Introduce Robin toward end to show his training.

Season 2: Gordon gets appointed commissioner. Not sure of the best long arc to use - maybe The Cult. Establish Robin as competent crime fighter. Introduce Batgirl midseason.

Season 3: Kill Robin and have the "Killing Joke" events occur toward end of season. Batgirl becomes Oracle. Joker is main villain for arc. Joker attempts to set off earthquake machine that will destroy Gotham. Stopped mid-quake to end season showing devastation and announcement of No Man's Land.

Season 4: No Man's Land.

Season 5: Knightfall (Basic story w/ Bane crippling Batman, but changed up. A lot.)

It would have to be done by someone with good capabilities to manage long arcs. Wheedon at his best, for example.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Season 6 - The Dark Knight Returns?

I *SO* want to see that made well...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
More like Season 20.

I'd like to see it done, too. It could fill a whole season well, but they would insist on adding a love interest and, worse, making a second season if it were popular.
 

---

Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
 
I think it would work better if they included all the Robins... The Dick Grayson Robin could leave as Nightwing either in the end of season two or the beginning of season three. Then Jason Todd could be introduced and killed by the end of season three. Season four would introduce Tim Drake (No Man's Land and Knightfall would both move to seasons five and six). There could be some other story arc for season four...

Then Stephanie Brown could be introduced maybe during season six as Spoiler with Tom leaving and her becoming Robin, being fired, and getting killed in season seven...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
True. I thought three robins in four seasons might be too much - not for batman fans, but for the necessary broader audience. But it could definitely work.
 

---

Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
 
I edited it for Stephanie Brown, although she could be easily cut out.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
I went to the Alamo drafthouse to see it recently. It's a liberal indie Austin sorta place, where you can order food and eat and drink as you watch the movie. They find a whole lot of old kitchy movies and movie trailers. For instance, before Sin City they showed a whole lot of pulpy martial arts films and a song and dance number from the sixties about how "female of the species is the most dangerous of the sex."

For Begins, though, they showed episodes from the Animated Series, and boy howdy, there's not a lot cooler than seeing that on the big screen. They showed the first one with the Scarecrow, called "The Smell of Fear," I believe.

EDIT: they also screened a short film of Homestarrunner telling the audience to be quiet and shut up. "Sewiouswy."

[ June 22, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
http://www.zakorner.com/images/joker.jpg

someone sent this to me .. i dont think its real though
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So, the question is, who should play the Joker in the sequel?

I think Mark Hamill should do the voice, but that probably wouldn't be practical

I definitely do not want to see whatever standup comic is currently hot to get it, nor should it be an actor with so much iconic screen time that he can't disappear into the character.

So who'd be good?
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The only Batman villian that comes to mind that hasn't been done is Clayface, which they could totally CGI into doing these days.

Mark Hamill as the Joker is incredibly intriguing. The voice would be...mind bendingly awesome, but could he actually act it? Questionable.

The thing about the Joker is that he was menacing in his own way, but he also had a sinister comedy about him. We need an actor that fits that role.

As far as villians already done? I'd love to see Mr. Freeze revisited and entirely redone. The Mr. Freeze from the other movie done by Ahhnold was a horrible parody of the Mr. Freeze I've come to know and love. He's one of my favorite bad guys ever, and they made him into a campy joke. I want to see him redone, Animated Series style.


Side Note: Christian Bale gave me chills as Batman. He actually scared the crap out of people, which The Bat is supposed to do. Still, I'll have to rewatch the first two to see how he compared with Michael Keaton, my favorite Batman. I like Michelle Pfiefer's interpretation of Catwoman, Tim Burton did a good job with that. I also liked Keaton's Batman, but the villains left something wanting. However he made Gotham very dark, and comic book like. I wpuldn't be so quick to put down a movie made more than a decade ago. It won an Oscar, and in general was very, very good.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd like to see it done, too. It could fill a whole season well, but they would insist on adding a love interest and, worse, making a second season if it were popular.

---

Re: Dark Knight Returns. There IS a love interest, if you recall, in the DKR comic. He and Selina, though not on the best terms at that point, are clearly old lovers.

Clayface would be cool but I think he lacks the psychological underpinning that makes the other villians so great. IMHO, anyway. I do like the idea of a REAL Dr. Freeze (ala the animated series) remake.

I say give Hamill the Joker. It could be his "Pulp Fiction" and make him a star again. Then again, his physical features don't match the voice as well as the animated version. Maybe they should CG the Joker?

But oh yeah, I like the idea of an ongoing series. Just don't let the Millar/Gough guys near it (from "Smallville" fame...Smallville is cute but then they tried to do Gotham...(shudder)).
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Joker - Hamill would be fun. I'd like to see Crispin Glover get it (it's rumored that they want a bigger name, but he'd be awesome).
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

Clayface would be cool but I think he lacks the psychological underpinning that makes the other villians so great.

---

I don't know, the Clayface as done in the original Animated Series where he was all sorts of mixed up with Thorne because he was desperate to rekindle his career...that was a pretty compelling backstory to me.

Mark Hamill's voicing of the Joker in that series was incredible. I also liked the Joker's theme music
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
The Michael Keaton Batman, and the ones after it, were the very best remakes of the Adam West Batman possible. I honor them for that.

Batman Begins is the Batman from the comics I loved.
 

---

Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
Apparently Glover's agent tried pushing him on the WB and they told him no. They've already short listed a bunch of big names they'd like (think Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Edward Norton big), but I hope Nolan is allowed to choose who he wants.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

I still think Batman would work better as a television show, with individual episodes that usually advance the story arc

---

One of the things that I found very disappointing about the movie was that it sanitized Batman and the controlled violence that he is. This film might as well have been made for television.

Batman is filled with rage from his parents' death. He is rage. That is what he is. He hates criminals. The film turned his rage into sadness and that killed the character, I think. I think that Nolan got the angry, rage-filled voice of Batman perfectly whenever he spoke to criminals, but I think the movie fell short of really potraying Batman, the image of Batman it was trying to shoot for, accurately by not using the fight scenes to keep Batman in character. Wayne/Batman should have enjoyed beating the pulp out of the criminals. We should have seen the violence depicted in a more in your face fashion: snapping of bones, contusions, screams of pain. That kind of thing. Batman is violent rage. When Wayne is Batman, he ceases to be Wayne. He becomes Batman, the avenger. It's a shame the movie couldn't show that.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Whoa. I completely forgot that Mark Hamill had done the voice of the Joker in the cartoon. I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around that.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I think Hamill would do a great job in a live action movie.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
ummm, StormSaxon, where did you get that rather odd interpretation of Batman?
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
aspectre, I think that is some of the Frank Miller interpretation of the character. In his versions, Batman is snapping arms, legs, and spines some of the time. Not every scene, but it is far from gentle. He shot a guy (not to kill, of course), cut a guy's arteries using broken glass (and used his bleeding to death to get information...he said give the info or the bleeding won't be stopped) as well as the usual hanging people from great heights hijinx. He is a nasty good guy, one that the other goody goody heroes in the DC pantheon at most tolerate and at the very least try to bring down.

That was one thing I wanted a wee bit more of in the movie, too. Gordon wasn't always a big supporter of Batman. His cops were fighting with the Bat initially until he realized he was an asset. In this one, Gordon (already an outsider) was quick to think the Bats was the real deal. We did get one good cop on bat fight scene so I should be happy but still.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
compared to previous on screen intepretations I'd hardly call this sanitized... though it's not Sin City, either (thank goodness).
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
The movie borrows not a few things from The Dark Knight Returns: the young Bruce Wayne confronting the primeval bats/id in the cave, the burning of the mansion, for example. The movie just didn't do a very good job of weaving the symbolic significance of those things into an easilly appreciated whole.

Frank Miller's 'version' is closest to what Batman would have to be in reality. Look, the Batman hurts people, hurts them badly, in the name of vengeance. Not justice, vengeance. He doesn't do it from afar with ranged weapons or with his mind or with super powers, he hurts them with his hands, his flesh meeting theirs in a very intimate way where he is fully part and parcel of their pain.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
(I think Crispin Glover would be a better Riddler, should they ever choose to revive that character. I love Johnny Depp, but I hope he's never in a Batman movie.)
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think Batman is probably always crossing that line back and forth, it's a constant battle he fights with himself. Is he fighting for justice, or for vengeance, or both? Certainly in the comics, both takes have had their day many times.

However I should say that when he can avoid it, Batman hurts and incapacitates them from afar, rather than in melee.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Imagining that superheroes of the Batman stripe did exist, I'd imagine that their formation would share a lot with that of serial killers.

One of the many, many thing I really liked about Watchmen was the (I think unintened) presentation of the two sides of Batman in the teaming of Nite Owl and Rorschach.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 
I think it'd be great if in the sequel Bruce starts getting consumed by the criminal world and grows darker. Like, he continually goes into the Narrows to look for the inmates who escaped and sees something horrific stuff, though that may be hard to pull off in a PG-13 movie, and I doubt the studio would want to make an R rated Batman movie. The kiddys love him.

Watched Mask of the Phantasm recently and I can't decide if Begins truly is my favorite Batman movie. If the creators of the animated series were able to make it without having to worry about it being basically "for kids," (Sorry, had to pause to laugh) then there's no doubt in my mind they could make a movie that was twice as good as Begins. Just look at all the differences between Batman Beyond:Return of the Joker cut and uncut.

Kevin Conroy will always be the best Batman to me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There's an uncut version of "Batman Beyond:Return of the Joker." Oh my, I have to find that.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
Speaking as somebody who hasn't read any Batman ... well, anything, I loved this movie. Michael Cain, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, MORGAN FREEMAN! Heck, this movie had everybody, and everybody was good.

I don't know what the rest of you were expecting, but I was pleased. A trip to this movie made my birthday so much better!
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
One of the many, many thing I really liked about Watchmen was the (I think unintened) presentation of the two sides of Batman in the teaming of Nite Owl and Rorschach.

---

It was intended to be Blue Beetle II and the Question, though more has said that Rorshach was also his commentary on the many popular "obsessed psychotic" heroes of the early-to-mid 80s.
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 
::does the Happy Watchmen mention dance::

I finally saw it a week or so ago and loved it. My friend suggested Christian Bale made such a good Batman because he most resembled Michael Keaton.

I guess I don't have much to add to the discussion, though. I haven't read all that much Batman - just Year One and Long Halloween at the behest of my roommate, and those were read in line for Star Wars
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'd like to see Dick Grayson introduced in the next movie. Not as Robin, but as the younger kid that Bruce Wayne finds and adopts and later becomes Robin. That way it's set up for the third movie, and makes a nice little character development sub plot.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
You guys heard that the Watchment movie got cancelled, right?

...thank goodness.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Here's a thought:

After seeing Begins for the fourth time (with me parents) I stated that Ra's was a good guy who fundamentally lacked hope.

I just watched the Incredibles. Would you consider Batman himself to be a good guy without hope, a vicious avenger of the night fighting a war he cannot win because he is driven to fight it, or a bad guy with too much hope in the right place, in comparison with what the Incredibles presents as the American standard of superheroism: expecting perfection and heroism when, at times, it is humanly impossible. Should we expect a man to fulfill the wishes of a public needing an animate gargoyle, or should we wish something more... human, and American? Because, I feel, that the truly American superhero is Superman, a living god, whereas Batman is more a psychological and existential statement, vulnerable and finite.

[ July 01, 2005, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
"You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish then live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill

Actually, I guess it's ultimately a Norse sentiment. I'm reminded also Theoden's words-- "No... we cannot win... but we will FIGHT."

I don't see Batman as without hope, but as someone who recognizes that being on the right side of the battle does not necessarily mean being on the winning side.

In fact, though, the movie shows Batman as very hopeful-- he has a plan and a purpose. He wants to make himself a symbol for the city... the way his father was.

But you may be on to something with Superman... America of today seems to worship the most powerful and successful... the winners.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Neither Batman nor Superman could truly be considered 'true American superheroes', because either their background, their methods, or their motivations are too different from 'the American Dream'.

Superman had no choice in the matter of his abilities. He was essentially born 'super' (yes, he had to move, first). Batman was also born with vast wealth-and although he built Batman from nothing, his methods certainly don't truck with the American Dream-that if you follow the rules, do things right, work hard, then you will achieve success. His motivations aren't a sense of honorable civic duty, even though that plays a part.

America of 'today' 'worships' the most powerful and successful...just like America of the past, humanity of the past.

Batman undeniably has hope, although depending on which comic you're reading it's alternated with bouts of different durations of hardcore cynicism. Batman believes he can win his War on Crime-although whether he forces himself to believe it so he'll keep fighting, or he genuinely believes it, I don't know. But he's not like Superman. He sticks to Gotham almost to a fault.

Ra's is a good guy only in the sense that we're all good guys-he doesn't see himself as evil.

The thing is that like most comics, Batman's motivations and even the more tangible things like his biography change from writer to writer. Unlike many other comics, though, Batman's psyche (for lack of a better word) can arguably be said to be so warped and injured due to his childhood trauma-repeated referenes to constant nightly, agonizing, terrifying nightmares about his parents' murders-that this makes some sense, even though it's really because of changing writers
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Check out this interview with Christopher Nolan, where he speaks of the vague sense of hopelessness you get from the movie.

It's a great interview, regardless of what I'm trying to prove.
 

---

Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
There's an uncut version of "Batman Beyond:Return of the Joker." Oh my, I have to find that.

---

quote:

---

It's really good. If you saw the first time CN showed the movie, then you basically saw the uncut version, except for the major thing that was taken out that basically changes the entire movie. Well, sort of. Also, if you watch the commentaries on it, they say that there was other stuff that they wanted to do, but weren't allowed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Book:
Yeah, how does it happen in the edited version?

---