Batman doesn't use guns because Rachel slaps him?

[blind_fury]

Shouldn't it be because because his parents were killed by a gun?

[lujho]

Yes. It should.

I hate what they did with this part of the story and Chill (catching Chill the night of the murder etc).

Basically, the only reason Bruce doesn't commit murder is that someone else happens to beat him to it.

[BatMatt]

I think the reason goes deeper than that, Rachel just slapped some sense back into him

[DocLathropBrown]

Funny, I always saw the scene as Rachael gets him to realize that he was no better than Chill was for even considering it. Which is symbolized in the scene where he sees the gun and throws it into the river in disgust.

Probably one of the best scenes in the film; one of the few that I like.

But yes, I agree that it should have never been a question. If you're going to go the modern route and have Batman hate guns, then he shouldn't fall far enough that he gets that messed up. Bruce was never so disallusioned in the comic books. If anything, he had a clear, singular focus ever since his parents hit the ground.

Dammit, I just realized something I like about BB even less. Making Batman a beginner is all well and fine, but Nolan made him TOO much of a amatuer. Slipping up on his first night in the suit is fine, it was in YO. But wandering the world, adrift like some kind of scatterbrained fool? That's something I'd only expect to see Keaton's Wayne do, if at all! Bruce didn't plan on Batman from the get-go, but he travelled the world and trained with several instructors (not just one source; Ra's), quite sure in what he was doing. Determined and focused.

Man, Nolan just messed up on so many tiny levels, so many that it all adds up to one big screw-up as a whole.

[zer00]

So I guess you guys missed the scene with Bruce holding the gun and the flashing scenes of Chill's gun, and then Bruce throwing it into the river?

oh yeah it's convenient to forget to ***** for no reason:up:

[blind_fury]

Bruce was never so disallusioned in the comic books. If anything, he had a clear, singular focus ever since his parents hit the ground.
Exactly!!! :up: :up:

I was begining to fear everyone on the Bat forums had been blinded by Nolan's popularity. It was like invasion of the body snatchers.

Nolan missed a prime opportunity to show just what it takes to become the worlds greatest detective/crimefighter. People have no idea how deep Bruce's knowledge and commitment goes.

Dammit, I just realized something I like about BB even less. Making Batman a beginner is all well and fine, but Nolan made him TOO much of a amatuer. Slipping up on his first night in the suit is fine, it was in YO. But wandering the world, adrift like some kind of scatterbrained fool? That's something I'd only expect to see Keaton's Wayne do, if at all! Bruce didn't plan on Batman from the get-go, but he travelled the world and trained with several instructors (not just one source; Ra's), quite sure in what he was doing. Determined and focused.

Man, Nolan just messed up on so many tiny levels, so many that it all adds up to one big screw-up as a whole.

Replace Bruce's time with Ras with flashbacks to his training in escape artistry(14 years old), lock picking(10 years old), forensics(19 years old), military tactics/counter-terrorism(19 years old), ninjitsu(19 years old), jujitsu(14 years old), advanced psychology(14 years old), etc etc. People will understand why this guy is so good at fighting crime. He had dozens of genius mentors and he trained his ass off since he was 9. It will be explained why this guy reaches legendary status.

Save Ras for the end of the trilogy when Batman is worthy of such an adversary and Ras can refer to him as "detective". :up:

I don't understand the hype surrounding Batman Begins. Bruce is a moron compared to Year One or The Animated Series. He doesn't even seem like he was the potential to become the world greatest detective. He needs a girl to realize that he shouldn't use guns and he needs Ras for most of his Batman skills. :down

[blind_fury]

So I guess you guys missed the scene with Bruce holding the gun and the flashing scenes of Chill's gun, and then Bruce throwing it into the river?

oh yeah it's convenient to forget to ***** for no reason:up:

Why did Bruce Wayne train in gunless combat his whole life?

Oh that's right because he knew he hated guns from the moment his parents were murdered and understood he had to find ways to fight crime without killing.

Nolan just made Bruce Wayne a lost fool who traveled the world because he was confused. Dude that's not Batman! :down

[DocLathropBrown]

Nolan missed a prime opportunity to show just what it takes to become the worlds greatest detective/crimefighter. People have no idea how deep Bruce's knowledge and commitment goes.

Replace Bruce's time with Ras with flashbacks to his training in escape artistry(14 years old), lock picking(10 years old), forensics(19 years old), military tactics/counter-terrorism(19 years old), ninjitsu(19 years old), jujitsu(14 years old), advanced psychology(14 years old), etc etc. People will understand why this guy is so good at fighting crime. He had dozens of genius mentors and he trained his ass off since he was 9. It will be explained why this guy reaches legendary status.

Save Ras for the end of the trilogy when Batman is worthy of such an adversary and Ras can refer to him as "detective". :up:

Exactly. THAT's how you make a Batman movie. I guess deep down, Nolan thought that maybe that wouldn't be realistic? That seems to be his driving force behind what he does. I guess he didn't think it would be realistic to the audience if the lead character was so determined and so dedicated? I don't blame him if so, since nobody in the world is even close to that anymore.

Ra's is technically Batman's greatest foe. The Joker's up there, yes, but he gets tied up in his own insanity enough to hinder any Earth-shattering success like actually defeating Batman or destroying the world (even though his interests don't lie in such, it was only an example).

I don't understand the hype surrounding Batman Begins. Bruce is a moron compared to Year One or The Animated Series. He doesn't even seem like he was the potential to become the world greatest detective. He needs a girl to realize that he shouldn't use guns and he needs Ras for most of his Batman skills. :down

I'll tell you what it is, and I expect to be bombarded with hate mail for this, but this is how I honestly feel about the Batman fandom. Everybody likes Batman Begins because it's all out there. Laid out, no room for interpretation, easy to understand.... it's simplistic and superficial, which most people are these days. If you look at a great deal of the major, major BB fanatics, they really seem to be immature. And nerdy people tend to be immature. Like the people who say that the Joker must be R-rated to be done right... that speaks of immaturity, that to be mature, something must be over-the-top adult. The Joker doesn't need to be Freddy Kruger to be done right.

People like Batman Begins because it helped them believe in Batman. Nobody has any suspension of disbelief anymore, and no imagination, it seems. When the fanbase can shun a highly intelligent and interpretive spin like what Burton gave us, in the face of Batman painting his suit black and beating us over the head with a theme of fear, that's when you know that a staggering level of the Batman fanbase lacks any kind of sufficient depth to them. A lot of the people who bash the Burton films gives reasons that are indicative of, to me, a lack of comprehension skills. Just because we didn't see Bruce perchase the Batmobile, we can't believe in it. And then, an even greater majority just bashes it for the sake of bashing, which is also a sign of immaturity.

Batman Begins is all well and fine, but excuse me if I want a Batman movie to engage me more on a psychological level, and I mean really engage me, not just present me with emotion and thematic elements and just expect me to appreciate them. Burton's films have been described as particularly "art house," and that couldn't be a better term. Burton was perhaps the best guy for the material, because he kept the material's mythic qualities and really played with it on a subtextual level. Nothing of which is in Batman Begins to parallel anything Burton did. And because most people can't pick up on the subtextual elements from Burton's material, they denounce it. If it doesn't slap them in the face with information, they cannot pick up on any of it. It's the same reasons why films like The Hulk and Superman Returns were disliked. They, along with Burton's Batman films, were too mature for a vast audience.

On another level, the faction of fans that are just content for Nolan to further alter the source material aren't fans. If you can't believe in Clayface on film, if you think the Joker has to carve in his smile, or put makeup on himself.... have no business calling themselves fans of the material. You suspend your disbelief when you crack open a Batman comic book, so you should do the same when you buy that ticket. The films are supposed to adapt the material, not heavily alter it and only resemble the source in name only. Just because Michael Keaton was a few inches shorter than Batman should be, and Jack Naiper killed his parents, they forgo everything else Burton did, ignore the wonderful adaptation of the material. I can't argue with those who dislike Burton's Penguin, among other things, because they're valid points, but if you're going to alter the material, at least make it a worthy alteration, as Nolan failed to do.

Unfortunately, I cannot discuss what I dislike about Batman Begins without praising Burton's material. This gives the appearance of a blinding bias, I know, but it all ends up as a comparison anyhow. Probably goes over the heads of most people as well. You never see me going into a Pro-Bale thread and breaking it up to sing the praises of Burton/Keaton. It never happens. Whereas, the Nolanites do this frequently on the other side. And there's that fact again; the immaturity. I'm content for people to enjoy BB. But B89? Anybody who likes that needs to be set straight, and I'm right, you're wrong. Keaton was short, so everything's invalidated, etc... whereas the Burtonites never do any such thing. In essence, with rare exceptions, if you "get" Burton's films, you're probably an adult. If you don't, chances are you have no depth whatsoever.

Let the hate notes roll in.

[blind_fury]

I think you can do a realistic version of Batman without distorting the character. Frank Miller did it with Year One.

Imagine a page for page adaptation of Year One directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club).

[DocLathropBrown]

I think you can do a realistic version of Batman without distorting the character. Frank Miller did it with Year One.

Imagine a page for page adaptation of Year One directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club).

What people don't get is that you have to twist our reality to fit Batman's, not the other way around. Burton did it. Richard Donner did it for the first Superman.

Bryan Singer twisted the X-Men to fit us. He failed. Nolan makes Batman fit our world, the average man's sensibilities, which it isn't in the comics.

[blind_fury]

You don't think Year One was a decent realistic take on Batman? :huh:

But yeah I totally support surrealsim in comic book movies. Donner's Superman is my favorite movie of all time. :up:

[Streeter1981]

I hate Rachel. And that's that.

[DocLathropBrown]

You don't think Year One was a decent realistic take on Batman? :huh:

No no, "Year One" was incredible. And for as much as I dislike Begins, I liked little bits of it. The "Backup" bit taken from "Year One" was spectacular. Just glorious.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He doesn't use guns b/c of his parents death. EVEN IN BATMAN BEGINS.

Am I the only one who remembers him being at the docks staring into the horizon and remembering when his parents were killed....and how his mind's eye focused on the gun.....and then he tossed it.

****....maybe I'm just crazy and made that whole little scene up.

Yeah, yeah.....Rachel convinced Bruce to never use a gun simply by slapping him......

[HalloweenRes]

While I understand that Batman Begins was NOT perfect, I got to say I was really surprised to see so many people on here complaining about the film. I know, everyone is intitled to their opinion, but I have to say, Batman Begins was the movie I was waiting for.

According to DocLathropBrown's post, people who like Batman Begins are immature.. Immature??? I fail to see how anyone who likes the film could be immature, because the film is NOT that bad. Everyone loves Tim Burton's interpretations (as do I), but no one is going to be totally happy about the film. I just fail to see how someone could be deemed immature for likeing it. I'm 24, and I love the film; I thought it was better than Tim Burton's first Batman. While I love Tim Burton's movies (especially his Batman movies) he didn't stick close to the source material AT ALL. I know, I know, we have been over this a thousand times, but I have to say it. The JOKER should NOT be the central character in BATMAN'S first major motion picture appearance; NOR should the JOKER have been the killer of Bruce Wayne's PARENTS.. I think people's problems with the film stem from the fact that it takes SO LONG for Batman to come onto the screen; while I know no one would admit to that, I am betting that is part of the problem. And yes, I know people want a more Psychological Batman; in my opinion, we GOT that TOO.. Yes, Tim Burton's film was more Psychological baised (on a different level; the tourtured Bruce Wayne), but Batman Begins did have Psychological elements. Bruce DOES have the need to want to KILL in this movie (when Bob Kane originally created Batman, he DID KILL), but he ultimately chooses to fight for justice.
To me, Burton's movies are excellent movies. Batman Returns, at least to me, was not as much of a "Batman" film, as it was a fun Tim Burton film, but as someone said in a post on Jett's Batman on Film website (giving credit where it is due), the characters of Max Shreck, The Penguin, and the Catwomen are all personas that Batman could have EASILY turned towards. You have the crim boss (Max) who is trying to suck Gotham's power for his own personal gain, you have the Penquin, a freak that is shunned by society (which Bruce Wayne could have easily been seen as) and Catwomen, a vigilanty who does what she has to do to get what she wants (something that Bruce Wayne/Batman can easily become). However, in Batman Begins, the focus is on BATMAN himself, and that was the point of making this movie. There are some small gilmpses from the comics (examples: as mentioned, when Batman calls the bats using the eco location device he devised, as well as when the bats swarm around the Gotham City Police Force, and the scene were Bruce hears the bat flying around his study).

It is safe to say that everyone has the right to their opinion on the movie; I guess I was just surprised that there was this much dis-like for the film. I just got so use to people on these boards praising the film, and yes, I am biased when it comes to Nolan's film. I found it refreshing and a much needed revival to a franchise that went down in flames (thanks Schumacher!!!) However, everyone is entitled to their opinions and I respect that.

[DocLathropBrown]

According to DocLathropBrown's post, people who like Batman Begins are immature.

I didn't say everybody... but a great majority, yeah. Just going by my personal analysis of the fandom.

Everyone loves Tim Burton's interpretations

I dunno what fanbase you've been a part of. A great deal of people (particularly Nolanites) would kick Tim Burton in the balls, given the chance.

[DocLathropBrown]

Yeah, yeah.....Rachel convinced Bruce to never use a gun simply by slapping him......

But you cannot deny that he didn't think of how much he hated guns UNTIL Rachael slapped him. Bruce from the books NEVER got that far off course.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno Doc.....saying that a great majority of Batman Begins fans are immature is kinda like saying a great majority of Batman Return fans are emo goths who wear black mascara and dress only in black while wearing black lipstick.

Kinda an ignorant thng to say.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But you cannot deny that he didn't think of how much he hated guns UNTIL Rachael slapped him. Bruce from the books NEVER got that far off course.

That's b/c he was thinking of vengenace. Can you think of another way for him to quickly kill the man who slaughtered his parents without any training whatsoever?

Bottomline is......he doesn't use guns b/c of what happened to his parents. And not b/c Rachel has some kind of Jesus Christ cure slap that allows one to "see the light". The scene after Rachel drops him off is key for that reason.

And, your wrong.....YES, he has gotten THAT far before in the comics.

Hell, Batman went that just a year ago. And that was Veteran Batman....not a young, lost teenager version.

[HalloweenRes]

I dunno what fanbase you've been a part of. A great deal of people (particularly Nolanites) would kick Tim Burton in the balls, given the chance.

Ok, maybe not EVERYONE likes Tim Burton's interpretations, but a lot of people do. I have read a lot of POSITIVE posts about Tim Burton's films on these boards.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

That's b/c REAL Batman fans know they owe Tim Burton a helluva lot.

But, when people refuse to given anyone else a chance....and don't give attention to detail to something like Batman Begins, it kinda pisses other people off.....creating some kind of weird inner Batman war.

No other fanbase has this. This inner-bia between they're OWN fanbase. It's funny stuff.

[blind_fury]

That's b/c he was thinking of vengenace. Can you think of another way for him to quickly kill the man who slaughtered his parents without any training whatsoever?

Bottomline is......he doesn't use guns b/c of what happened to his parents. And not b/c Rachel has some kind of Jesus Christ cure slap that allows one to "see the light". The scene after Rachel drops him off is key for that reason.

And, your wrong.....YES, he has gotten THAT far before in the comics.

Hell, Batman went that just a year ago. And that was Veteran Batman....not a young, lost teenager version.

I'll respond to this with an earlier reply:

Why did Bruce Wayne train in gunless combat his whole life?

Oh that's right because he knew he hated guns from the moment his parents were murdered and understood he had to find ways to fight crime without killing.

Nolan just made Bruce Wayne a lost fool who traveled the world because he was confused. Dude that's not Batman! :down

[DocLathropBrown]

I dunno Doc.....saying that a great majority of Batman Begins fans are immature is kinda like saying a great majority of Batman Return fans are emo goths who wear black mascara and dress only in black while wearing black lipstick.

Kinda an ignorant thng to say.

Igonorant? Well, that may be, but I didn't attempt to pass off what I said as anything but my personal observations about the fanbase. Take a look at the great majority of people praising BB. Not seasoned posters, but a great deal of them have poor sentence structure, grammer, and spelling. Something common among kids or people who just don't give a damn. And that's just part of my observations. I'm not saying that people are immature BECAUSE they like BB, rather, I'm saying that BB 'clicks' with a great deal of immature people because it's essentially "Batman for Dummies", and immature people are dummies, so of course they'll enjoy it... it's a Batman movie they can understand without hurting themselves thinking. Most of said probably-immature people turn right around and bash Burton's flicks... and I've never seen a mature person feel the need to tear down something for no other reason than just to do it. And I'm not talking disliking the films, I'm talking hating on the film for no good, intelligent reasons or for no reason at all.

As for goths being a big audience of BR's fanbase, I wouldn't doubt it. The emo weirdos are another form of immaturity; they can't cope with life because they aren't mature enough to. Emos wouldn't enojy the film for it being an adaptation, they wouldn't enjoy the subtext, to them, all it would be is "Batman's like me."

In truth, immature people could be great lovers of Burton's work as well. Batwing6655 comes to mind.... but I wouldn't respect them in the least. BB is just the most glaring bit because it's damn simplistic. And immature people don't have the depth or complexity to enjoy Burton's material, in most cases. But for them, BB is right up their alley.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Bruce didn't train in gunless fighting his WHOLE LIFE. He'd left around the same age that Bruce was in BATMAN BEGINS. And, with Joe Chill BACK IN CONTINUITY....the Batman Begins origin could become canon.

Batman HAS picked up a gun though. Him picking up a gun AFTER all the training is what doesn't make sense. That's NOT Batman....yet, Batman did it...in the comics....where the gospel exists.

And, having Bruce has a lost soul.....(calling him a fool is idiotic) is interesting and creates something the comics were too stupid to come up with. A sense of development. Batman is entirely too narrow in the books.....apprently he'd become Batman when he was 8 yrs. The training was just arbituary.

And, I've heard Bruce picked up a gun in BATMAN YEAR TWO as well.

And, again....it's different b/c Bruce can avenge his parents. In the comics, Batman actually shot Joe Chill when he got the chance to go back in time. He could have snapped his neck, or broken his chest cavity....but he shot him.

Attacking Batman Begins as if it's brokem some kind of law is insane b/c the comics has established it's all game. Claiming otherwise is beyond wrong.

[DocLathropBrown]

Batman is entirely too narrow in the books

That's the kind of thinking that lets people like Bryan Singer think it's okay to put Wolverine in black leather.

Going off of what the comic books did, for whatever reason, negates the film as an overtly "pure" adaptation. If the Batman story is narrow in the comics... then it needs to be in the film as well. It's not something for an ADAPTATION to fix. Good or bad, unless the circumstances are special, what's in the books needs to be what goes up on the screen. Artistic interpretation is one thing, but Nolan feeling that the story in the books needed "realistic" alteration to make Bruce an unfocused, relateable (to the average guy) schlub is unacceptable.

At least Burton only gave Bruce Social Axiety Disorder. When not nervous from a large crowd, his Bruce was quite focused and adult, which is how Bruce Wayne was the INSTANT his parents hit the ground. It's one of the most tragic, heartwrenching things about the Batman mythos, that Bruce grew up in that fraction of a second and never had a real childhood.

[Cryogenic]

I'll tell you what it is, and I expect to be bombarded with hate mail for this, but this is how I honestly feel about the Batman fandom. Everybody likes Batman Begins because it's all out there. Laid out, no room for interpretation, easy to understand.... it's simplistic and superficial, which most people are these days. If you look at a great deal of the major, major BB fanatics, they really seem to be immature. And nerdy people tend to be immature. Like the people who say that the Joker must be R-rated to be done right... that speaks of immaturity, that to be mature, something must be over-the-top adult. The Joker doesn't need to be Freddy Kruger to be done right.

People like Batman Begins because it helped them believe in Batman. Nobody has any suspension of disbelief anymore, and no imagination, it seems. When the fanbase can shun a highly intelligent and interpretive spin like what Burton gave us, in the face of Batman painting his suit black and beating us over the head with a theme of fear, that's when you know that a staggering level of the Batman fanbase lacks any kind of sufficient depth to them. A lot of the people who bash the Burton films gives reasons that are indicative of, to me, a lack of comprehension skills. Just because we didn't see Bruce perchase the Batmobile, we can't believe in it. And then, an even greater majority just bashes it for the sake of bashing, which is also a sign of immaturity.

Batman Begins is all well and fine, but excuse me if I want a Batman movie to engage me more on a psychological level, and I mean really engage me, not just present me with emotion and thematic elements and just expect me to appreciate them. Burton's films have been described as particularly "art house," and that couldn't be a better term. Burton was perhaps the best guy for the material, because he kept the material's mythic qualities and really played with it on a subtextual level. Nothing of which is in Batman Begins to parallel anything Burton did. And because most people can't pick up on the subtextual elements from Burton's material, they denounce it. If it doesn't slap them in the face with information, they cannot pick up on any of it. It's the same reasons why films like The Hulk and Superman Returns were disliked. They, along with Burton's Batman films, were too mature for a vast audience.

On another level, the faction of fans that are just content for Nolan to further alter the source material aren't fans. If you can't believe in Clayface on film, if you think the Joker has to carve in his smile, or put makeup on himself.... have no business calling themselves fans of the material. You suspend your disbelief when you crack open a Batman comic book, so you should do the same when you buy that ticket. The films are supposed to adapt the material, not heavily alter it and only resemble the source in name only. Just because Michael Keaton was a few inches shorter than Batman should be, and Jack Naiper killed his parents, they forgo everything else Burton did, ignore the wonderful adaptation of the material. I can't argue with those who dislike Burton's Penguin, among other things, because they're valid points, but if you're going to alter the material, at least make it a worthy alteration, as Nolan failed to do.

Unfortunately, I cannot discuss what I dislike about Batman Begins without praising Burton's material. This gives the appearance of a blinding bias, I know, but it all ends up as a comparison anyhow. Probably goes over the heads of most people as well. You never see me going into a Pro-Bale thread and breaking it up to sing the praises of Burton/Keaton. It never happens. Whereas, the Nolanites do this frequently on the other side. And there's that fact again; the immaturity. I'm content for people to enjoy BB. But B89? Anybody who likes that needs to be set straight, and I'm right, you're wrong. Keaton was short, so everything's invalidated, etc... whereas the Burtonites never do any such thing. In essence, with rare exceptions, if you "get" Burton's films, you're probably an adult. If you don't, chances are you have no depth whatsoever.

Let the hate notes roll in.

I think you have to be careful about over generalising, Doc.

But I do get the main thrust of your remarks.

I actually feel the same way when I see people declaring films like "Batman Begins", "Casino Royale" and Peter Jackson's take on "Lord of the Rings" -- all films that RAM everything down your throat -- as some of the best pieces of cinema in the last 5-10 years. More than that, some people have been hailing these things as classics and some of the greatest films ever made! I just find that position untenable. These films are some of the most unsubtle mainstream entertainments of the past quarter century. I think they actually INSULT a viewer's intelligence. By contrast, Tim Burton's films are works of art; rich in imagination and subtext. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I find it unfathomable than anyone could favour BB over Burton's take!

But I bitterly disagree on "Superman Returns". While it's a little less overt than BB, I think it has a whole host of its own flaws, all significant enough to severely compromise whatever artistry it does possess. I've seen SR once, and for me, that was quite enough. I can't comment on "The Hulk" as I haven't seen it, but it also looked heavy handed, not artistic and subversive! The last comic adapation I truly enjoyed was either "Sin City" or "The Mask". These modern iterations lack balls. They just have no style or panache.

You got quite into psychology there, Doc -- even if your assertions could easily be contended. I think you could have taken it further. I'd argue that *some* people feel a little embarrassed about liking this "silly comic stuff", so no matter how trippy or elegant an adaptation is, if it dares to remain in a fantasy world, then there's something wrong with it, and a better adaptation must be sought out and prayed for. Hence a lot of people liking these new versions of iconic characters like Batman and Bond. For "Batman Begins" and "Casino Royale" have saved them from their shame! And look at the critical responses to both -- overwhelmingly positive. Now no one has to hide their shame! Now it's "OKAY" to like this "silly comic / action stuff" because, gosh darn it, the critics agree. Yet these films are so banal in their literality, so tepid in their earnestness, and so facile in their excessiveness, that they collapse under the weight of their own silliness. How the hell can you play a man who dresses up like a bat straight? HOW? But BB wants you to see it that way -- so we have Gordon putting his faith in this sinister guy with a raspy voice to save the entire city, rather than arresting him for dressing like a sex maniac and behaving like a nut! There isn't a SINGLE line in BB as warped or bizarre as "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" And there really can't be -- because the writers thought more literally and wanted to make sure you GOT THE POINT. EVERY. LAST. DAMN. POINT. Ditto Bond. Ditto LotR.

In his video review, Ebert not only called BB "one of the best films of the year", but said he found the story captivating and engrossing. But what's captivating about a vengeful guy being trained to "fight evil" by a group of secret cliche ninjas? Or a master plot to destroy a city because it's "corrupt"? Or the idea of vapourising a city's water supply and freeing a serum and turning everyone insane? Or a finale involving a super-weapon and fist-fighting on a speeding train? Take the BB badge away for a second. Just imagine those ideas in their most abstract and basic form. Don't they sound EXACTLY like the same-old nonsense you'd read in the cheesiest comic book? Couldn't you just imagine those same ideas in the 60's TV show if they had a better budget? Or in some cheap lame-ass cartoon? They're so juvenile and ridiculous. Let's see: superhero (Batman) fights supervillain (Ducard) in a fight to the death (speeding train) while his deathray (water vapouriser) is inches away from full power (reaching final destination) MEANWHILE goofy police chief buddy drives supermachine (Batmobile / Trumbler) to avert catastrophe and save the planet (er, city). Cap it all with a stupid one-liner from the superhero ("I won't kill you, but...") so that all the 15-year-olds in the audience can scream, "YEEEEAAAAH!" and high-five each other. Give it neon and the name "Joel Schumacher" and it's complete rubbish; give it dull sepia tones and the name "Christopher Nolan" and it's one of the greatest films of the year. Apparently.

I think modern mainstream filmmaking is up the spout. I am reminded of the distaste that General Zod expresses when he arrives in the Fortress of Solitude: "Scruffy. So morbid. A sentimental replica of a planet [film era] long since vanished. No style at all."

[DocLathropBrown]

You know, it's funny. Opening night when I saw BB, I was loving it, but when the assistant came into the meeting room of Wayne Enterprises and started talking about the water vaporizer, I almost choked on my soda. I thought we'd switched movies for a second... the vaporizer felt so comic booky in a film that was overly realistic, that I was taken aback.

In the end, though, I'd rather have a film that reflected the comic book tone of the source material that trying to make Batman into a documentary.

And at the risk of overgeneralizing.... what I had to say wasn't nice anyhow, and I get sick of having to sugercoat my words around here. I'm not out to insult anybody in particular, but being PC won't get my point across. It's honestly how I feel about it. The fandom has sickened me with the approval and support of what I feel to be a poor film. I'll give the film credit for the things it does right, but as a whole, I'm totally unsatisfied with it. And that's in spite of what Burton gave us. If anything, what BB turned out to be ust made me appreciate Burton's work even more. I'll never forget watching BB the first time when I got the DVD, and then I read some Batman comics at random. Nothing in particular, just a few issues from the 70s and the 80s, and then I watched B89, and it was then that I knew what I had just seen was far closer in tone to the source material than BB, by a mile.

[Cryogenic]

You know, it's funny. Opening night when I saw BB, I was loving it, but when the assistant came into the meeting room of Wayne Enterprises and started talking about the water vaporizer, I almost choked on my soda. I thought we'd switched movies for a second... the vaporizer felt so comic booky in a film that was overly realistic, that I was taken aback.

In the end, though, I'd rather have a film that reflected the comic book tone of the source material that trying to make Batman into a documentary.

Right.

I just find the whole thing rather dumb and ridiculous.

Just take the flagrantly inconsistent approach to ethics. First, Batman refuses to kill a criminal and states he's above killing, then blows up the entire compound, almost certainly killing the criminal and dozens of others. Then he drives an armoured car over rooftops and trashes police cars. Finally, he fights a guy on a speeding train, culminating in his statement, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," killing him by leaving him to his death. The film has no moral centre. It can't get away with these things because it positions Batman as a noble vigilante figure, but then routinely tramples over that for the sake of sound and fury. But Burton took a more objective look: He made it clear that Batman was practically as dark and messed up as the criminals he fought (yet there was still far less recklessness from Batman in *his* films!). BB is at odds with itself. On the one hand, it wants to be deep and artistic, but on the other, it's just shallow and over-the-top crowd-pleasing nonsense.

[lujho]

Right.

I just find the whole thing rather dumb and ridiculous.

Just take the flagrantly inconsistent approach to ethics. First, Batman refuses to kill a criminal and states he's above killing, then blows up the entire compound, almost certainly killing the criminal and dozens of others. Then he drives an armoured car over rooftops and trashes police cars. Finally, he fights a guy on a speeding train, culminating in his statement, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," killing him by leaving him to his death. The film has no moral centre. It can't get away with these things because it positions Batman as a noble vigilante figure, but then routinely tramples over that for the sake of sound and fury. But Burton took a more objective look: He made it clear that Batman was practically as dark and messed up as the criminals he fought (yet there was still far less recklessness from Batman in *his* films!). BB is at odds with itself. On the one hand, it wants to be deep and artistic, but on the other, it's just shallow and over-the-top crowd-pleasing nonsense.

Yeah, it wants to have its cake and eat it too.

A more interesting take would be to go to great pains to show just how HARD it is to avoid hurting/killing anyone unneccessarily rather than "I'm no killer, but let's smash up a few cop cars and hope they don't get hurt". Killing is the easy way to fight crime - Batman has rejected that route because he doesn't want to kill anyone, ever.

The fact that he was entirely willing to kill Chill, no problems, shows that morally, this is a different Batman to the one in the comics (He didn't have a change of heart and decide not to to kill Chill, he had the opportunity stolen from him). Different to Burton's too, and I'm no fan of Burton's killer Batman, but at least it's consistent about it.

Anyway, having Chill be caught and imprisoned and known to Bruce his whole life was a mistake. The Wayne's killer works better as a nameless, long-gone symbol of all crime, a person Bruce has no certainty of ever discovering the identity or taking to justice. The fact that the killer escapes is supposed to be why Bruce decides on a general war on all crime... rather than just vengeance/justice on Chill.

[DocLathropBrown]

Anyway, having Chill be caught and imprisoned and known to Bruce his whole life was a mistake. The Wayne's killer works better as a nameless, long-gone symbol of all crime, a person Bruce has no certainty of ever discovering the identity or taking to justice. The fact that the killer escapes is supposed to be why Bruce decides on a general war on all crime... rather than just vengeance/justice on Chill.

Or at least have it kept a mystery for years, much like the Pre-Crisis books did. Bruce discovered Chill/Moxin as an adult, when he was already Batman, and at least in Burton's case, he pulled something similar.

[Paste Pot Pete]

What I can't understand is why Begins can be criticized for things that Burton's films get passes for.

You think Nolan improperly handled Bruce's distaste for guns? Fine, valid complaint.

But if that's how you feel, then you should have a serious problem with Burton, who completely disregarded this angle (one that's dominated Batman comics for the majority of his existence), whose Batman committed frequent homicides at the barrel of a gun (not to mention rockets, explosives, etc). Now most people write this off as Burton drawing inspiration from the early comics (a valid point), but why then could you not extend the same rationale to Begins, speculating that perhaps Nolan wanted to hint at Batman's darker, homicidal past by showing this temptation, while ultimately leading to the modern, more traditional "no-gun" policy?

And another point.

How can one criticize the "lack of training," aside from that by Ra's, in Begins, but accept Burton's, which doesn't even attempt to gloss over any training? Now, the most obvious answer to this is "well, Burton's movie wasn't an origin film; Nolan's was." To this I reply -

just like Burton omitted these adventures of Wayne, so too did Nolan omit certain aspects of Bruce's past. All we see is Bruce working with criminals, and training with Ra's. Does this negate any possibility of any other training he could've done? NO. It simply doesn't show it. We are told he studied the criminal mind; and it is pretty obvious that he has trained his body in combat and conditioning (he may not have been able to fight "600 men" before Ra's, but he held his own very well for a rich boy, and was able to climb through the Himalayas without dying).

So why didn't Nolan show the rest of his training? I don't know; maybe he wanted a more focused story - accomplished by the focusing in on one main aspect - Ra's, and his conflict of ideals. But all this is heresay, and ultimately irrelevant.

The question, again, is this -

Burton didn't show any training. His "ideas" of what shaped Batman are not even touched upon. It's just, how Bruce says, "something I have to do". And that vaguery is great, it works. But I don't see how complete lack of is better than tried at least.

Yet another point would be the Joe Chill situation. People say "I hate how Joe Chill was caught and then killed by the mob" and "I hate how Bruce almost killed him." Once again, valid points. But how could those same people say they didn't mind Joe Chill not even being the killer, and Batman actually killing his parents' killer, The Joker. Isn't an "imperfect" Joe Chill better than no Chill at all?

I just don't understand how one movie gets a free pass for completely omitting and changing huge aspects of the character while another gets bashed for "not doing those aspects good enough" for your taste. I'd be much more understandable for people to dislike BOTH. That I would get completely, as they both changed aspects of the character. I just don't understand how people can forgive the changes by one and condemn the (even smaller) changes of another.

[storyteller]

Personally i think the training with thieves and ninja training could account for detective skills. He can think like a thieve and is trained to notice things.

[blind_fury]

Yeah, ninja's have the skills necessary to become the world's greatest detective. :whatever:

[DocLathropBrown]

To be perfectly honest, I do have a small bias. Burton's films made me a fan. So I can accept the errors, especially considering that at least Burton has some excuses and brought us films that were so rich in subtextual meaning. But I can freely admit the errors that Burton makes.

But you've got here a reasoned and intreaguing counter-argument. Let's see what we have here...

What I can't understand is why Begins can be criticized for things that Burton's films get passes for.

Largely, my dislike for Batman Begins lies in the fact that the film was a new chance, it had the Burton material to show the way. Therefore, it had the chance to correct these mistakes and in some cases, didn't. That's a little sloppy, don't you think? Second, I have a bias against Begins because the majority of people that just eat it up disgust me, to them, there are no flaws and I'll be damned if you could get them to admit it. BATMAN is my most favorite film of all time and you won't catch me necessarily criticizing it, but I can freely admit its flaws. So part of my animosity against Begins springs from its reaction. It was really overwhelmingly offensive. But in an argument, I won't hold this animosity against the film for the sake of the argument.

You think Nolan improperly handled Bruce's distaste for guns? Fine, valid complaint.

But if that's how you feel, then you should have a serious problem with Burton, who completely disregarded this angle (one that's dominated Batman comics for the majority of his existence), whose Batman committed frequent homicides at the barrel of a gun (not to mention rockets, explosives, etc). Now most people write this off as Burton drawing inspiration from the early comics (a valid point), but why then could you not extend the same rationale to Begins, speculating that perhaps Nolan wanted to hint at Batman's darker, homicidal past by showing this temptation, while ultimately leading to the modern, more traditional "no-gun" policy?

I don't see this, unfortunately. Without any room for interpretation, you're left to what Nolan presents us, and there's no "wiggle room" to think that he may have done something this deep. The film is so simplistic on obvious levels that I have trouble believing that Nolan had anything going on between the lines, and if he tried, he failed so far. Burton gets a pass because of the admitted source used (the original material, like you said), but also between his two films, he set up an obvious arc for Bruce. He doesn't kill prior to the last act of BATMAN, and Bruce stopped killing in the last third of Returns, which ties into finding his parents' killer and seeing himself in Selina so that he pulls back and questions himself. This theory is backed up from Bruce's Burton-written monologue in Forever about revenge becoming your whole life, it happened to Bruce in the previous two movies.

However, to be fair, you wouldn't have picked up on this arc just from BATMAN, so it's entirely possible that Nolan is setting some things up which will make subtext clearer by the next film, but judging by Begins.... I doubt it.

And another point.

How can one criticize the "lack of training," aside from that by Ra's, in Begins, but accept Burton's, which doesn't even attempt to gloss over any training? Now, the most obvious answer to this is "well, Burton's movie wasn't an origin film; Nolan's was."

Ah. Interesting point.

Burton's film was an origin film, he just left the romanticism in Batman. A little too much mystery? I suppose. But the fact remains that little hints are dropped. The suit of armor was purchased in Japan by Bruce ("I bought it in Japan"), so we know he's been in Japan, probably around the world. He's obviously a master martial artist, among other things, etc...

At least, if Burton didn't want to give explicit details, he left puzzle pieces, gave us that option to make up our own minds. A great idea. Not exactly inaccurate to the comics, if anything, it broadens just how true the film may be. Bruce had never really relayed his stories of world travel to anybody in the books, we only know it because the narrators of the comics (the supreme DC diety) shows us flashbacks. So it's not something you could label "inaccurate". Now, should he have divulged the details? I'd say for a perfect adaptation, yes. But if you're not going to do that, at least don't disallow anything about his origin from the books, which Burton really didn't do. In every way, Nolan did this by re-writing the origin.

The most offensive thing about what Nolan did to the origin in the film is that he presented it poorly. He says a large inspiration was "The Man Who Falls" by Dennis O'Neil. Well, he seemed to miss the meat of the story. Some minor artistic interpretation is one thing, but Nolan switches Bruce from a man of many teachers to just one, makes him self-taught and disallusioned. Bruce in the books was never so scatterbrained. He went from one country to another, etc... knowing exactly where his life was headed. Bruce never was "truly lost" in the comic books, it was an invention by Nolan, is it's insulting to the Batman of the material. That's the antithesis of Bruce, not just Batman, but Bruce. Ever since his parents died, it's said he became Batman, well, that's true. He became as focused, as determined and as serious as he was as Batman. He didn't "grow" focused or determined after a while. Experience in the suit, better being able to predict what criminals might do? Yes, that came later, as "Year One" shows us. But he never wandered around the world adrift in his emotions.

To Burton/Keaton's credit on this matter, at least Keaton played a Bruce who gave off that aire of focus and intelligence. We can assume that his origin followed that of the Bruce in the books, that he did his worldly business in order and in good sense. People say Keaton played an already-experienced Batman. Not necessarily, if you'll notice, Bale's Bruce didn't fail beyond the realm of what's reasonable. The difference between the two is that Keaton didn't have the backstory that amplified any errors he might make into being blindingly obvious. And Burton didn't try to accentuate them, either.

To this I reply -

just like Burton omitted these adventures of Wayne, so too did Nolan omit certain aspects of Bruce's past. All we see is Bruce working with criminals, and training with Ra's. Does this negate any possibility of any other training he could've done? NO. It simply doesn't show it. We are told he studied the criminal mind; and it is pretty obvious that he has trained his body in combat and conditioning (he may not have been able to fight "600 men" before Ra's, but he held his own very well for a rich boy, and was able to climb through the Himalayas without dying).

It is heavily implied that he was self-taught in every matter, only recieving training from Ra's. The Bruce from the comic books wouldn't have gotten himself thrown in jail just trying to study criminals. He would have had a more direct, scholorly approach. The Bruce in Batman Begins is overly vengeful and pigheaded, really. He rushes into things (pre-Batman) just to experience it. It ties into what Nolan was trying to do, but that's a spin on the material that shouldn't be presented in an adaptation.

What Nolan does is craft an overall good movie, with an interesting character and a decently-written film overall, but it's only hardly half of what the guy in the comc books is. It's a poor adaptation but a good film on it's own, in spite of some parts of it....

So why didn't Nolan show the rest of his training? I don't know; maybe he wanted a more focused story - accomplished by the focusing in on one main aspect - Ra's, and his conflict of ideals. But all this is heresay, and ultimately irrelevant.

My sense of the material makes me think that he wanted to craft this overall theme that is detrimental to the comic material, and then shove it down our throats, when most of us got the point from the get-go, he repeated it for Joe McNobrains.

The question, again, is this -

Burton didn't show any training. His "ideas" of what shaped Batman are not even touched upon. It's just, how Bruce says, "something I have to do". And that vaguery is great, it works. But I don't see how complete lack of is better than tried at least.

Well, Nolan didn't try to do it like the comics showed us, he created some wild new spin on it. And like I said, ambiguity is great if you're not going to do it right, so at least it doesn't "trample any toes", so to speak. If Nolan had shown Bruce training with the real Ducard, Japanese senseis and others, it would have been good enough even if not perfect. But he didn't even try to do it the correct way.

Yet another point would be the Joe Chill situation. People say "I hate how Joe Chill was caught and then killed by the mob" and "I hate how Bruce almost killed him." Once again, valid points. But how could those same people say they didn't mind Joe Chill not even being the killer, and Batman actually killing his parents' killer, The Joker. Isn't an "imperfect" Joe Chill better than no Chill at all?

Once again, imperfection is fine, if you're trying to do it right. Nolan tried a completely other apprach and failed to make it very insightful. He tired, but it didn't work, at least not for me. And at least Bruce was kept in the dark about Naiper in BATMAN, making his role as Batman less out of avenging his parents' deaths and more out of keeping himself sane, like the man of the material. Bale's Bruce does what he does out of guilt. Bruce, in the books, doesn't feel responsible for their deaths. He knows there's nothing he could have done at the age of eight. Rather, he sees it has his responsibility to their memory, that to keep himself rational and being able to get out of bed every day, he has to do what he does, at least try to make a difference, to "prevent what happened to [him] from ever happening to anybody ever again", as Val Kilmer so eloquently put it in Forever. Nolan's Bruce says this is his intetion, to "Save Gotham", but this claim isn't consistant with his behavior in the film.

When Bruce finds Naiper as the murderer in BATMAN at least Burton did it for two reasons. One, as I've said before, for the arc. Bruce is allowed to make mistakes, and because of BATMAN being an origin story as well, he does make errors, and the error was killing Naiper (or trying to, he didn't actually succeed, not directly), which he learned because he recognized his aborrent vigilante behavior in Catwoman, noticing that he was hardly any different. It's not too much of a "trample your toes" alteration to the comics. It's actually not so much an alteration as an addition. An abstract analysis of the character. Second, he did it to try and bring in the sense of bitter, long standing struggle between Bruce and the Joker with it. With the film being the Joker's origin as well, Bruton couldn't simulate the relationship between the two that was in "The Dark Knight Returns", which he really dug, and I do too. We all do, right? Well, if they're fighting for a month or so, they aren't going to come across as bitter enemies. Hence the tie to Bruce that the Joker has... that Jack ruined his life from the get-go, and the added angle of Bruce not only causing Jack to go insane (though not intentionally), but also that (with the added "Homicidal artist" angle), Batman keeps bruising the Joker's ego and is a constant thorn in his side. Thus, you can get a sense of the archenemy vibe between the two in the end fight.

If you really think about it, what Burton did perfectly simulated the Joker's killing of Jason Todd in an abstract way. In the comics, the Joker hadn't done anything like that before. it can honestly be said that the Joker ruined Bruce's life in some ways. By having the Joker kill somebody just as imporant to Bruce (and why not tie in Bruce's origin as well?), you can swing it that the Joker in the film does something just as traumatic to Bruce in the film as he had already done in the books.

I just noticed that. Burton, you bloody genius, you.

I just don't understand how one movie gets a free pass for completely omitting and changing huge aspects of the character while another gets bashed for "not doing those aspects good enough" for your taste. I'd be much more understandable for people to dislike BOTH. That I would get completely, as they both changed aspects of the character. I just don't understand how people can forgive the changes by one and condemn the (even smaller) changes of another.

As I said, I've got a bias, but in light of what Burton brought, I can accept the alterations (First off because they really don't change too much as it is), because of what they brought to the films. Nolan's film should get more guff because it didn't really do any better than what Burton did, in my eyes. If anything, it was worse because for all of the changes it made to the material... it didn't have any kind of deep, intellectual and subtextual payoff. It wasn't "art house" like what Burton gave us, when really, Batman is the most artistic superhero there is. Burton brought us that powerful, mythological Batman that we love to admire. I always say that the difference between DC Comics and Marvel Comics is that DC's heroes are the ones you look up to, whereas Marvel's characters are the ones you relate to. This is how Nolan failed and Burton triumphed, in my eyes. I look up to Keaton's Batman. I'm too close to empathizing with Nolan's Batman, and that's not Batman. I mean, and I'm being hypocrticial here, I can relate to Keaton's Wayne more, psychologically (His Social Anxiety Disorder and the like), but he's still got the mythological quality of the guy from the books. But Nolan made Bruce too human, if that makes any sense.

[Bat Attack]

Nolan Vs. Burton. Didn't see that coming.

[DocLathropBrown]

Nolan Vs. Burton. Didn't see that coming.

Heh. :oldrazz: How true.

You just can't escape it when Begins is spoken ill of. You tend to bring up the example that you feel was done better. Or, at least I do.

I guess recently, any Nolan vs. Burton stuff that comes up has been my fault. But for me, it's the only possible equal. Old franchise vs. New, etc...

[Bat Attack]

:meow: Gah, I just felt like posting the kitty icon.

Now that thats out, I'm with you all the way with any Nolan vs. Burton discussions, Doc. :up:

[DocLathropBrown]

:meow: Gah, I just felt like posting the kitty icon.

Now that thats out, I'm with you all the way with any Nolan vs. Burton discussions, Doc. :up:

Even if I said you should give your life and possesions in tribute to Tim? That you should....

KNEEL BEFORE BURTON?!?

[Cryogenic]

TIM!

Just thought I'd complete the "Superman II" reference there. :oldrazz:

Concerning training and lackof: Perhaps Burton didn't show this aspect because it wasn't needed? We shouldn't really be interested in how Batman is, but who he is and why he is. The former is mechanical exposition; the latter are the flesh and blood of the tale itself.

Just look at "Star Wars". While we do see some training take place with Luke on Dagobah, it's kept to a minimum. We don't see Yoda constantly lecturing Luke on every last detail. He sticks to the basics. And we don't see Luke being taught lightsaber technique or specific Force abilities. Rather, what we see is TOTALLY rooted in state of mind. The Dagobah scenes perform an intellectual / psychological / dramatic function. But Nolan got very caught up in the external, non-psychological details of Batman's persona. For example: Although he DID include SOME psychological material, he also focused on the literal side of Bruce's training -- combat, theatricality and the like. But these details are really extraneous; they are the "how". And that approach continued on with examples like the smashing of the test mask and the unveiling of the tumbler. These are crude physical details that don't contribute to our understanding of humanity; they're there to pad the film out and mechanically connect simple dots. Can you imagine Jor El teaching Superman how to fly or put his suit on? That's basically what it comes down to in Nolan's tale.

Burton focused on the HUMAN ELEMENT. Through satire? Yes. Through histrionics? Yes. Through abstract metaphor? Yes. He didn't hold the viewer's hand and dumb his films down with irrelevancies. He kept them lean and mean. Just consider Bruce sleeping upside down. It's not only an excellent visual joke, but a comment on the sheer strangeness of the man himself. It couldn't possibly be literally true, but it's metaphorically true. Nolan turned it around and tried to make everything literally true. But that's no way to play a character like Batman. Think about it: a man who dresses and acts like a bat. It's an utterly ludicrous concept. No one could get away with that in real life. Trying to make it real destroys the sublime joke and essential beauty of the myth. Without myth, you have reality, and that's what we all live in. We should never be so cruel as to drag the figments of our imagination into it.

[DocLathropBrown]

Exactly, Cryo! Burton realized the ironic nature of Batman, and he literally said "I don't know how to put a big guy in a bat suit and not get inadvertant laughs from the audience." That's contrary to the point which we're discussing now, for the most part, but it still rings true. There is a level of absurdity in every comic book. Not intentional absurdity, but the fact remains, you have a guy dressing up like a bat, who really, aside from cape, looks nothing like a bat. A guy with Spider powers who wears a red and blue suit... completely not suitable for a "spider", wouldn't you say?

Even Richard Donner felt that you can only play the stuff seriously SO FAR. You have to acknowledge the absurdity in some form. Batman Begins wasn't fun. Just like how the X-Men films aren't fun.... they're too far away from what the material is supposed to feel like.

I think the greatest example of a sublime, rich-in-subtext comic book experience is the Adam West Batman series. If you go back and watch that show, it's funnier than Hell, and it is so because Batman is a comic book character, he can be played in all of these wonderful ways. In some ways, BB is like the 60s show in the fact that when it tries to be too serious, it's sort of sadly cringe-worthy. Not funny like the West show, because the West show was doing it on purpose.

[dude love]

That's the kind of thinking that lets people like Bryan Singer think it's okay to put Wolverine in black leather.


"What would you prefer? Yellow spandex?" :cwink:

X-Men comics often become convoluted and head scratchingly stupid, I'm glad Singer simplified them but not overly so, he still kept the themes of alienation on multiple levels that made the comics popular in the first place. Each to his own, though my friend. :yay:

[DocLathropBrown]

"What would you prefer? Yellow spandex?" :cwink:

I want to smack Bryan Singer for that one. It didn't have to be yellow, I actually would have prefurred the brown/orange suit, but the fact remains, with that line, he essentially told us that the source material is weak and foolish. NOT respectful to the diehard X-Men fans. If the source material is stupid, then we've got to be stupid for liking it so much, I guess.

And anybody who says that the yellow suit "wouldn't work" ain't an X-Men fan. If there's blood all over that yellow spandex after a fight, you'll believe the guy's a badass. The source material works just fine on screen. Look at films like Sin City, The Rocketeer, the Superman films and Spider-Man.

Gee, they all work, don't they? And for the most part, they're dead-on to the material.

X-Men comics often become convoluted and head scratchingly stupid, I'm glad Singer simplified them but not overly so, he still kept the themes of alienation on multiple levels that made the comics popular in the first place. Each to his own, though my friend. :yay:

Yeah, but at the cost of an accurate adaptation. Poor casting choices, no costumes and poor dialog ruin those movies. It would have been perfectly possible to do those films just the way they are, but accurate. Those films are XINO. It's a great sci-fi franchise. You've got a guy with claws coming out of his hands and a bald guy in a wheelchiar, etc... but it's a far cry from Xavier, Wolverine, Magneto and others.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Igonorant? Well, that may be, but I didn't attempt to pass off what I said as anything but my personal observations about the fanbase. Take a look at the great majority of people praising BB. Not seasoned posters, but a great deal of them have poor sentence structure, grammer, and spelling. Something common among kids or people who just don't give a damn. And that's just part of my observations. I'm not saying that people are immature BECAUSE they like BB, rather, I'm saying that BB 'clicks' with a great deal of immature people because it's essentially "Batman for Dummies", and immature people are dummies, so of course they'll enjoy it... it's a Batman movie they can understand without hurting themselves thinking. Most of said probably-immature people turn right around and bash Burton's flicks... and I've never seen a mature person feel the need to tear down something for no other reason than just to do it. And I'm not talking disliking the films, I'm talking hating on the film for no good, intelligent reasons or for no reason at all.



It;s a varied fanbase. And, with it being a NEW film.....course it makes sense that newbies will get onboard the train.

For what it's worth though, LOTS of Batman Begins haters have low post counts too and don't know how to spell either. There's a few post on this section that backs that up. But, maybe we should get sme age counts....lol, that should be depressing enough to try.


As for goths being a big audience of BR's fanbase, I wouldn't doubt it. The emo weirdos are another form of immaturity; they can't cope with life because they aren't mature enough to. Emos wouldn't enojy the film for it being an adaptation, they wouldn't enjoy the subtext, to them, all it would be is "Batman's like me."


I would, though. I liked BR......and I'm no goth. I know lots of BR fans....none of which are goths. I think it's just sterotypical b/c of the gothic sense going on in BR.

I mean, everyone knows if there's ONE superhero film Emo Goths love, it's THE CROW.

In truth, immature people could be great lovers of Burton's work as well. Batwing6655 comes to mind.... but I wouldn't respect them in the least. BB is just the most glaring bit because it's damn simplistic. And immature people don't have the depth or complexity to enjoy Burton's material, in most cases. But for them, BB is right up their alley.

Immature though?

I could be considered immature simply b/c I like to toss jokes up and down this forum, and one could consider ALL of us to be immature just by even liking the Batman character. It's tough for me to agree with something that is open to tons of interpretations.

That's the kind of thinking that lets people like Bryan Singer think it's okay to put Wolverine in black leather.

Worked out well, didn't it?

Besides, Wolverine wearing tight yellow spandex hardly counts as being narrow.

Going off of what the comic books did, for whatever reason, negates the film as an overtly "pure" adaptation. If the Batman story is narrow in the comics... then it needs to be in the film as well. It's not something for an ADAPTATION to fix. Good or bad, unless the circumstances are special, what's in the books needs to be what goes up on the screen. Artistic interpretation is one thing, but Nolan feeling that the story in the books needed "realistic" alteration to make Bruce an unfocused, relateable (to the average guy) schlub is unacceptable.


It doesn't negate the film as "pure" b/c of it's difference. The comics aren't "pure" then, simply because they've changed 100's of times. **** gets changed every 5 minutes, it's impossible to go with the "pure" interpretation b/c it frankly doesn't exist anymore b/c of the impossible lack of real continuity in the books themselves.

And, unrelatable? Bruce Wayne is 10x more relatable onscreen than he is in the books just by his origin.

Having Bruce be such a narrow character, already becoming Batman in his mind as an 8 year old and following this strict road journey from his 8 year old life to his 20's is completely unrelatable to ANYONE on this planet.

Things happen, **** changes....every plan hits it's bumps and mistakes.....unless your Bruce Wayne in the comics, of course. Even BATMAN MASK OF THE PHANTASM saw this and gave Bruce an alternative when he was a young man trying to find his path. Bruce being unfocused and lost is easily relatable to everyone, especially the everday man. Everyone has found themselves in that position in they're lives.....lost, not knowing what to do with they're lives, seeking something more than they can grasp.....I think you need to look at this all over again, b/c your sorely mistaken here.

At least Burton only gave Bruce Social Axiety Disorder. When not nervous from a large crowd, his Bruce was quite focused and adult, which is how Bruce Wayne was the INSTANT his parents hit the ground. It's one of the most tragic, heartwrenching things about the Batman mythos, that Bruce grew up in that fraction of a second and never had a real childhood.

Nervous in a large crowd? Hardly noticed that. He just seemed to be socially awkward and extremely anti-social.

The fact that he was entirely willing to kill Chill, no problems, shows that morally, this is a different Batman to the one in the comics (He didn't have a change of heart and decide not to to kill Chill, he had the opportunity stolen from him). Different to Burton's too, and I'm no fan of Burton's killer Batman, but at least it's consistent about it.


Wrong. He got the chance, and he killed him. Read the books. It's all there in the contuinty of the comics.

Anyway, having Chill be caught and imprisoned and known to Bruce his whole life was a mistake. The Wayne's killer works better as a nameless, long-gone symbol of all crime, a person Bruce has no certainty of ever discovering the identity or taking to justice. The fact that the killer escapes is supposed to be why Bruce decides on a general war on all crime... rather than just vengeance/justice on Chill.

Well, the comics seemed to diagree. They changed it. Again.

[DocLathropBrown]

It;s a varied fanbase. And, with it being a NEW film.....course it makes sense that newbies will get onboard the train.

For what it's worth though, LOTS of Batman Begins haters have low post counts too and don't know how to spell either. There's a few post on this section that backs that up. But, maybe we should get sme age counts....lol, that should be depressing enough to try.

I'd be for it. :oldrazz: Those people are like Batwing6655. They don't really "get" Burton's material, they just act like they do. If they did, they'd have to be more mature than to bash the opposition. Some of them (like Batwing6655) are obviously just Burton fans, not Batfans, who will defend what Burton did reguardless of it being good or not.

I would, though. I liked BR......and I'm no goth. I know lots of BR fans....none of which are goths. I think it's just sterotypical b/c of the gothic sense going on in BR.

I mean, everyone knows if there's ONE superhero film Emo Goths love, it's THE CROW.

Nothing wrong at all with The Crow. That movie's a masterpiece. It's the closest thing I can get to recreating the mood that a third Burton Batfilm would have had.

Immature though?

I could be considered immature simply b/c I like to toss jokes up and down this forum, and one could consider ALL of us to be immature just by even liking the Batman character. It's tough for me to agree with something that is open to tons of interpretations.

That's selling the material short. If you really "get" Batman on a deep, emotional level and can see the majesty in the character, and provided you're not kind of stereotypical nerd.... you're not immature.

Worked out well, didn't it?

Besides, Wolverine wearing tight yellow spandex hardly counts as being narrow.

Not to me, it didn't. But the average joe is all for the "realism" bunk, as proven by Begins' success. And it is narrow because it sells the material short. If it's good enough to be in the books, it's good enough to be in the films. I wanted to see the Uncanny X-Men on the screen, the guys I grew up with on the Fox series, I didn't get that. All I got was XINO.

It doesn't negate the film as "pure" b/c of it's difference. The comics aren't "pure" then, simply because they've changed 100's of times. **** gets changed every 5 minutes, it's impossible to go with the "pure" interpretation b/c it frankly doesn't exist anymore b/c of the impossible lack of real continuity in the books themselves.

To be fair, this is a good point, but no matter what the change is in the comics, the films should stick to the widely accepted bit. If they had JUST NOW reconned Bruce in the comics to be middle-Eastern, I think we'd better stick with the classic Bruce on the screen. It is not widely accepted (and thereby, closest to the meaning of "pure") that Bruce was a disallusioned fool wandering the world.

And, unrelatable? Bruce Wayne is 10x more relatable onscreen than he is in the books just by his origin.

No, that's what I mean. Nolan dumbed him down to make him relatable to the average idiot. I guess Nolan didn't believe that we'd buy a man so determined and so driven as Bruce is supposed to be.

Having Bruce be such a narrow character, already becoming Batman in his mind as an 8 year old and following this strict road journey from his 8 year old life to his 20's is completely unrelatable to ANYONE on this planet.

That's where the supension of disbelief comes in. We believe it in the books, why not on screen? Just because the average fool can't ever be that determined doesn't mean we should dumb down such a tragic character. It isn't narrow, it's strikingly serious and powerful.

For what it's worth, this relateability to Bruce Wayne is newly added by Nolan in a lot of ways. Although human, there were always parts of Bruce that were never relateable to but a few in the comic books. Raise your hand if you're a master martial artist? If you're rich?

See what I mean? Don't rob the character of the all of comicbooky roots that he has. Nolan only left half, the others needed to stay, too.

Things happen, **** changes....every plan hits it's bumps and mistakes.....unless your Bruce Wayne in the comics, of course. Even BATMAN MASK OF THE PHANTASM saw this and gave Bruce an alternative when he was a young man trying to find his path. Bruce being unfocused and lost is easily relatable to everyone, especially the everday man. Everyone has found themselves in that position in they're lives.....lost, not knowing what to do with they're lives, seeking something more than they can grasp.....I think you need to look at this all over again, b/c your sorely mistaken here.

I'm slightly hypocritical in my argument. I seem to say that it should be like the comics, unless it's a worthy alteration. What is an alteration worthy enough to diverge from the holy material? My point is that it needs to be a change that still resembles the comics, or makes an unobtrusive change. I hate that Bruce doesn't train with a bunch of teachers in BB, but I don't mind the new Batmobile origin, you know? Things like that.

As for relateability, like I said earlier: if you can't relate to the Batman of the books, then so it should be on screen. Bruce shouldn't be watered down into an average idiot for the audience to get into the film. We should only relate to him because of his mortality, that's all. Everything about Batman is supposed to be extraordinary despite his lack of powers. You take that away and you rob the audience of not only a great adaptation, but also you're selling the material short.

Nervous in a large crowd? Hardly noticed that. He just seemed to be socially awkward and extremely anti-social.

Well, what he displays can be best catagorized by SAD. At the Wayne party, he's jittery and unfocused, obviously because of the crowd, but alone, he shows too much focus to just be unsuave, since he quite obvious knows how to win the ladies, it's a crowd thing. When the group just thins down to Knox, Vicki and he, he's quite charming.... the audinece he's with isn't big enough to set off his SAD.

Wrong. He got the chance, and he killed him. Read the books. It's all there in the contuinty of the comics.

Oh, yes. "Year Two" I think, right? That was out of character for Batman at that point in time. Unless is was to the furtherment of a character arc (which I don't remember), making Batman suddenly kill-crazy revenge-fueled isn't Batman.

[Robin91939]

So I guess you guys missed the scene with Bruce holding the gun and the flashing scenes of Chill's gun, and then Bruce throwing it into the river?

oh yeah it's convenient to forget to ***** for no reason:up:
Well said.

-R

[lujho]

Wrong. He got the chance, and he killed him. Read the books. It's all there in the contuinty of the comics.

When did Batman kill Chill? I only know the golden age version, but in that, Batman discovers Chill but Chill is killed by other crooks.

Well, the comics seemed to diagree. They changed it. Again.

There's a huge difference between chill being identified and caught on the night of the Wayne's murder and Batman discovering his idenity well after he becomes Batman.

My problem with Begins is not with Bruce ever discovering his parents murderer, but when it happens.

This is how I'd have done it:

Wayne are killed, Chill, unknown, escapes and gets away with it.

Bruce Becomes bats many years later. Chill is just a nameless, (possibly faceless) boogieman who symbolizes all of the crime Batman chooses to fight.

Batman discovers the identity of his parents' murderer, quite some time (a few years?) after becoming Batman. He confronts him, and while he may have a very strong and natural urge to hurt or kill Chill (but not with a gun), the better angels of his nature cause him to decide to simply bring him to justice. He reveals his identity to Chill in the heat of the moment but is fully prepared to hand him in to the authorities anyway - even if it means being publicly discovered as Batman and facing the consequences. It would be worth it to finally get justice (not revenge) for his parents. He wants to do what's right and do it by the book.

Before Chill can reveal Batman's identity to anyone, he is killed by other criminals. Perhaps by the Roman or similar crime lord (Thorne?) for similar reasons he was killed in Begins. Despite Batman's efforts he can't prevent this.

His opportunity for justice (again, not vengeance) snatched away for him, he continues on as Batman.

[dude love]

I want to smack Bryan Singer for that one. It didn't have to be yellow, I actually would have prefurred the brown/orange suit, but the fact remains, with that line, he essentially told us that the source material is weak and foolish. NOT respectful to the diehard X-Men fans. If the source material is stupid, then we've got to be stupid for liking it so much, I guess.

And anybody who says that the yellow suit "wouldn't work" ain't an X-Men fan. If there's blood all over that yellow spandex after a fight, you'll believe the guy's a badass. The source material works just fine on screen. Look at films like Sin City, The Rocketeer, the Superman films and Spider-Man.

Gee, they all work, don't they? And for the most part, they're dead-on to the material.



Yeah, but at the cost of an accurate adaptation. Poor casting choices, no costumes and poor dialog ruin those movies. It would have been perfectly possible to do those films just the way they are, but accurate. Those films are XINO. It's a great sci-fi franchise. You've got a guy with claws coming out of his hands and a bald guy in a wheelchiar, etc... but it's a far cry from Xavier, Wolverine, Magneto and others.

Before I retort, just know I respect the hell out of you and if I sound rude or harsh at any point, I apologise in advance.

I think you're blowing things out of proportion. The suits would look stupid (Oh and don't ever question my love for X-Men, understood?), if you hadn't noticed, every comic book characters suits have been muted for their film counterparts. Even Hulks pants are a darker shade of purple. As cool as the Brown/Tan suit is, no one could possibly buy a dirty harry type character wearing that.

As far as poor casting choices and bad dialogue go, that's in the eye of the beholder. I was happy with both (Considering how hokey the dialogue in the Spiderman movies and especially Batman Begins).

And BTW

Wolverine: Badass emotionally conflicted loner, who finally finds a purpose in life after becoming a father figure mentor and eventually taking over as X-Men leader. Has the hots for Jean Grey. Check.

Professor X: A man looking to settle a conflict. Comparable to Martin Luther King and Mahtma Ghandi. Check. How you don't think he's Xavier I can't possibly comprehend.

Magneto: Militant. Will stop at nothing to get mutant supremacy. The Malcom X to Xaviers Martin Luther King. World weary. Check.

I don't want to continue this any further because it's Off Topic. (Unless you'd like to over PM, in which case I'd love to :yay: ).

[DocLathropBrown]

Before I retort, just know I respect the hell out of you and if I sound rude or harsh at any point, I apologise in advance.

I think you're blowing things out of proportion. The suits would look stupid (Oh and don't ever question my love for X-Men, understood?), if you hadn't noticed, every comic book characters suits have been muted for their film counterparts. Even Hulks pants are a darker shade of purple. As cool as the Brown/Tan suit is, no one could possibly buy a dirty harry type character wearing that.

As far as poor casting choices and bad dialogue go, that's in the eye of the beholder. I was happy with both (Considering how hokey the dialogue in the Spiderman movies and especially Batman Begins).

And BTW

Wolverine: Badass emotionally conflicted loner, who finally finds a purpose in life after becoming a father figure mentor and eventually taking over as X-Men leader. Has the hots for Jean Grey. Check.

Professor X: A man looking to settle a conflict. Comparable to Martin Luther King and Mahtma Ghandi. Check. How you don't think he's Xavier I can't possibly comprehend.

Magneto: Militant. Will stop at nothing to get mutant supremacy. The Malcom X to Xaviers Martin Luther King. World weary. Check.

I don't want to continue this any further because it's Off Topic. (Unless you'd like to over PM, in which case I'd love to :yay: ).

Eh, I see no reason to. But I should say that Patrick Stewert's Xavier WAS perfect. But they chose the wrong people for Wolverine and Magneto, and Wolverine was watered wayyy down from the books. He was far too nice and he was made too much of a focus at the cost of shafting Cyclops, which is a crime.

[Cryogenic]

With the exception of Halle Berry, the X-Men features were extraordinarily well cast, IMO.

And some of those lines!

"You don't know or you don't care?"
"Pick one!"

"Are you a God fearing man, senator? I've always found that such an odd phrase. I've always thought of God as a teacher: a bringer of light, wisdom and understanding."

"I was piloting black ops missions in the jungles of North Vietnam, while you were sucking on your mama's tit at Woodstock, Kelly. Don't lecture me about war!"

"You are a god among insects."

Some of those lines in "X-Men" and "X-2" (never seen the 3rd entry) are brilliant.

Great acting? Check. Great lines? Check. Great subtext? Check. The X-Men features had their problems, and I definitely think they exposed Singer's limitations for bigger fare (i.e. Superman), but they were and are solid movies, IMO.

[DocLathropBrown]

Great acting? Check. Great lines? Check. Great subtext? Check. The X-Men features had their problems, and I definitely think they exposed Singer's limitations for bigger fare (i.e. Superman), but they were and are solid movies, IMO.

Yes, they are. they just are too far from (and disrespectful to) the source material for my tastes. They're fantastic films. If they weren't supposed to be adaptations, I'd applaud them as one of the most original sci-fi films in years.

[dude love]

So....

How about Rachaels insitance that Bruce do some good for once and then totally acting differently once she found out he was Batman? That's always confused me.

[itsthebatman]

So....

How about Rachaels insitance that Bruce do some good for once and then totally acting differently once she found out he was Batman? That's always confused me.

What's confusing? She finds out he's doing good and stops giving him a hard time. In fact, she kisses him. Am I missing something?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How about Rachaels insitance that Bruce do some good for once and then totally acting differently once she found out he was Batman? That's always confused me.

Well, she wanted him to do some good for Gotham. But, she never exactly told him to become a vigilante to fight crime with his fists. It was probably overkill for her, really.

Plus.....we got the ending we wanted. The only ending Batman/ Bruce Wayne can ever really have, which is to essentially be alone.

And, they're future might have some light in it as well. I mean, there's hope, which is what I liked. It wasn't the happy endng we usually get in all Bat-films.....but there's a sense of hope for Bruce.

Btw, that ending added with some of the hints along the film, just seemed like Bruce and Rachel had a relationship way back when.

I'd be for it. :oldrazz: Those people are like Batwing6655. They don't really "get" Burton's material, they just act like they do. If they did, they'd have to be more mature than to bash the opposition. Some of them (like Batwing6655) are obviously just Burton fans, not Batfans, who will defend what Burton did reguardless of it being good or not.


Well, one could say the exact same thing about the dudes that bash Batman Begins. There have been some Burton fans that go all out the same manner you just described. Kinda hard to determine who thew the first stone when everyone's tossing 'em.

Nothing wrong at all with The Crow. That movie's a masterpiece. It's the closest thing I can get to recreating the mood that a third Burton Batfilm would have had.


I actually think it found a balance that Burton never did. If you think about it, The Crow seemed to be a blend of BATMAN 89 and BR's type of city. It looked gothic and yet gritty.

I agree, if Burton had made a third film.....and caved in to the response from BR, we probably would have gotten a cool hybrid of his B89 and BR ambience. It's too bad he got fired before he could, b/c he was totally game for it.


That's selling the material short. If you really "get" Batman on a deep, emotional level and can see the majesty in the character, and provided you're not kind of stereotypical nerd.... you're not immature.



I'm sure there are both of those lying all over this forum, not just in BB fans. There are some who prefer Burton's not b/c of an emotional level, but simply b/c of a visual palette. Plus, someone could connect on an emotional level with the character without actually being concious of it as of yet.

Not to me, it didn't. But the average joe is all for the "realism" bunk, as proven by Begins' success. And it is narrow because it sells the material short. If it's good enough to be in the books, it's good enough to be in the films. I wanted to see the Uncanny X-Men on the screen, the guys I grew up with on the Fox series, I didn't get that. All I got was XINO.


If it's good enough for the books, it doesn't mean it's good enough for the screen. Tons of ****ty stories prove that for me.

Besides, the comics liked it, and adopted the look. I don't think Wolverine has been in his costume for quite a while, actually.

To be fair, this is a good point, but no matter what the change is in the comics, the films should stick to the widely accepted bit. If they had JUST NOW reconned Bruce in the comics to be middle-Eastern, I think we'd better stick with the classic Bruce on the screen. It is not widely accepted (and thereby, closest to the meaning of "pure") that Bruce was a disallusioned fool wandering the world.


Widely accepted? Among fans? That's like asking to go insane. Tons and tons of continuity changes confuse things, especially with purists who were there with the character from the time before would cliam younger fans are stupid or don't understand the character for accepting a different updated version.

Plus, Bruce's origin is rather convulted and in and of itself. The movie really goes somewhere the comics has never gone before, b/c to my knowledge....the comics have only managed to devote less than a page to the Bruce Wayne that first left Gotham and began his journey. We never really have seen that teenage Bruce right before he left to travel the world, the most we ever got is when he is on his journey, and even that is convuluted.

No, that's what I mean. Nolan dumbed him down to make him relatable to the average idiot. I guess Nolan didn't believe that we'd buy a man so determined and so driven as Bruce is supposed to be.


Because it is unacceptable. Nobody is that determined from the age of 8 years old to the age of 25, where absolutely nothing gets in his way or disrupts his "plan". It's too narrow, and boring. A storyteller's job is to make things interesting, give the character something to overcome. Just making Bruce Wayne the most simple minded, tunnel visioned character who's life story from age 8 to 20 doesn't deserve more than a sentence is bad storytelling, and frankly.....kinda lazy.

The only reason the comics have allowed it, is b/c they're too busy building upon Batman....and not Bruce Wayne.

That's where the supension of disbelief comes in. We believe it in the books, why not on screen? Just because the average fool can't ever be that determined doesn't mean we should dumb down such a tragic character. It isn't narrow, it's strikingly serious and powerful.


Well, we don't believe in the books. How can we? He swings through the city like he were Spider-Man, knows about 800 different fighting styles, can defeat Superman and the entire Justice League without batting an eye lash.

There's no suspension of disbelief in the books. Doesn't have to be. AND, in the comics.....it's different. They can control what we see in single images. Film needs to control what we see in a continuous flowing set of images. within a single image, you can make something that is very much impossible, looks somewhat plausible. On screen, you cannot get away with that b/c you have to show all the inbetween. The suspension of disbelief in film is on a whole different level than on a medium that requires very little suspension....if any.

For what it's worth, this relateability to Bruce Wayne is newly added by Nolan in a lot of ways. Although human, there were always parts of Bruce that were never relateable to but a few in the comic books. Raise your hand if you're a master martial artist? If you're rich?


And, it's a good idea to make him more relatable. Especially in an origin film, where the alter ego gets less screentime than others......you have to do something worthwhile with the man behind the mask.

I'm slightly hypocritical in my argument. I seem to say that it should be like the comics, unless it's a worthy alteration. What is an alteration worthy enough to diverge from the holy material? My point is that it needs to be a change that still resembles the comics, or makes an unobtrusive change. I hate that Bruce doesn't train with a bunch of teachers in BB, but I don't mind the new Batmobile origin, you know? Things like that.


And who's to determine if it's worthy and not obtrusive? You? Or would there be some massive voting booth for all of us to determine?

It's entirely too open to ever get approval from most or everyone.

As for relateability, like I said earlier: if you can't relate to the Batman of the books, then so it should be on screen. Bruce shouldn't be watered down into an average idiot for the audience to get into the film. We should only relate to him because of his mortality, that's all. Everything about Batman is supposed to be extraordinary despite his lack of powers. You take that away and you rob the audience of not only a great adaptation, but also you're selling the material short.


That's unacceptable, especially in a time where the dark, brooding hero is a dime a dozen. Batman hasn't lasted over 70 years simply by staying the same. Making him more relatable is a smart move, and saying "either you get him or you don't. Either cnnect with his mortality or not" is too pigheaded to keep the character from surviving the next 70 years.

And, his mortality in Batman Begins was very present, and his emotional connection to his father was too. Things the comics have done.....somewhat.

Well, what he displays can be best catagorized by SAD. At the Wayne party, he's jittery and unfocused, obviously because of the crowd, but alone, he shows too much focus to just be unsuave, since he quite obvious knows how to win the ladies, it's a crowd thing. When the group just thins down to Knox, Vicki and he, he's quite charming.... the audinece he's with isn't big enough to set off his SAD.


See, I read that a different way. I didn't think he suffered from anything really. Besides depression and OCD, he just doesn't seem comfortable in his own skin. I didn't think it was really a crowd thing, just a "being Bruce Wayne" thing. He didn't look unfoused or jittery, either....he just fell in love with Vicki at first sight.

And, I never got the sense that he could be suave or a ladies man. I felt like he saw something in Vicki and automatically connected with her. He did have some charm though. His date with her at the mansion was going to be horrible.....until he let her see some of who he really is, with eating dinner in the kitchen with Alfred. It just looked like love, and not himbeing the ladies man.

Oh, yes. "Year Two" I think, right? That was out of character for Batman at that point in time. Unless is was to the furtherment of a character arc (which I don't remember), making Batman suddenly kill-crazy revenge-fueled isn't Batman.

But it's in the books. There's other stuff out there that covers things as well. It's all in the books, so it must be valid, no? Joe Chill having been a part of the comics is too. If it's been done in the books, it's fair game, isn't it?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

When did Batman kill Chill? I only know the golden age version, but in that, Batman discovers Chill but Chill is killed by other crooks.



Batman/Superman.......might have been the second to last run by Jeph Loeb. Interesting stuff.


There's a huge difference between chill being identified and caught on the night of the Wayne's murder and Batman discovering his idenity well after he becomes Batman.



Only in the comics, Chill was captured when Bruce was still a child. Pressumingly right after the Wayne murders.

My problem with Begins is not with Bruce ever discovering his parents murderer, but when it happens.

This is how I'd have done it:

Wayne are killed, Chill, unknown, escapes and gets away with it.

Bruce Becomes bats many years later. Chill is just a nameless, (possibly faceless) boogieman who symbolizes all of the crime Batman chooses to fight.

Batman discovers the identity of his parents' murderer, quite some time (a few years?) after becoming Batman. He confronts him, and while he may have a very strong and natural urge to hurt or kill Chill (but not with a gun), the better angels of his nature cause him to decide to simply bring him to justice. He reveals his identity to Chill in the heat of the moment but is fully prepared to hand him in to the authorities anyway - even if it means being publicly discovered as Batman and facing the consequences. It would be worth it to finally get justice (not revenge) for his parents. He wants to do what's right and do it by the book.

Before Chill can reveal Batman's identity to anyone, he is killed by other criminals. Perhaps by the Roman or similar crime lord (Thorne?) for similar reasons he was killed in Begins. Despite Batman's efforts he can't prevent this.

His opportunity for justice (again, not vengeance) snatched away for him, he continues on as Batman.

See, I prefer the Batman Begins (an dthe comics version, now, apparenltly) b/c it makes Bruce a nobler hero. Vengeance is no longer a possibilty.....not even from the get go. Justice for his parents death isn't even possible. This obsession of finding the moster that killed his parents isn't possible. He needs something more. He needs to find something else, other than vengenace....other than the chance that he will someday find the man who did this. It's actually more sacrifical, and less self indulgent and more heroic for him to become Batman.....knowing he will NEVER bring the man who killed his parents to justice.

That's why I prefer the Batman Begins Wayne killer angle, which the comics seem to be leaning towards now.

[lujho]

Only in the comics, Chill was captured when Bruce was still a child. Pressumingly right after the Wayne murders.

For that crime or something else. Is this a recent retcon? See I don't think that works nearly as well as the killer slinking off into the night, getting away with murder. It's nowhere near as poetic and totally weakens his motivation to become batman. If Chill is captured and imprisoned for the murder, then justice is is done. Young bruce doesn't have nearly as much to hang his feelings on. He's just experienced a tragedy that many people have experienced, but not as tragic and possibly personality-shaping as the killer getting away, never to be known (until much later). It just makes far less emotional sense for Bruce to become Batman in the "chill got caught straight away" version.

But then he really does become Batman for much different reasons (or by a different route) in the movie. It's just a different story - not just a slightly different version of it, but a different one alltogether. He ends up in the same place by the time he first puts on the mask but the road is different. I simply like the old version a lot more.

See, I prefer the Batman Begins (an dthe comics version, now, apparenltly) b/c it makes Bruce a nobler hero. Vengeance is no longer a possibilty.....not even from the get go. Justice for his parents death isn't even possible. This obsession of finding the moster that killed his parents isn't possible. He needs something more. He needs to find something else, other than vengenace....other than the chance that he will someday find the man who did this. It's actually more sacrifical, and less self indulgent and more heroic for him to become Batman.....knowing he will NEVER bring the man who killed his parents to justice.

That's why I prefer the Batman Begins Wayne killer angle, which the comics seem to be leaning towards now.

Maybe it makes him nobler from the point he realizes that vengeance is not the way, but before that moment he is far less noble, because he fully intends to kill. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was HIS decision and his alone not to kill Chill (and then Falcone's assassin kills him anyway). He's fully intending to commit an act of evil and it's pure dumb luck that stops it, not his own concience. It's barely a step away from attempted murder - it's intended murder.

Now, put the throwing away the gun scene *before* Chill gets killed, and remove the slapping scene, and I'd have far less of a problem with how Begins did it - it's clear that while he initially desires revenge, it's his own moral compass that tells him not to rather the actions of Falcone that rob him of the opportunity. Though I still think Chill being caught and known as the killer all through Bruce's life is far weaker.

Bruce becoming Batman in my scenario of Batman not knowing the killer till many years later after he became Batman (and as far as I know, the comics scenario for most of it's existence, until this apparent retcon), is still plenty noble and sacrificial enough. He still embarks on an unwinnable war against ALL crime, and I don't think he ever has any real expectation of discovering his parents' killer and bringing him to justice... a faint, unrealistic hope in the back of his mind, maybe. If he ever does discover Chill as an adult as he has in the comics, it'd be unexpected, a lucky coincidence. And Chill then getting shot by another criminal creates the inverse effect of the Begins version - his assassination robs Bruce of his opportunity to get justice, not vengeance.

[DocLathropBrown]

If it's good enough for the books, it doesn't mean it's good enough for the screen. Tons of ****ty stories prove that for me.

You're taking what I'm saying a little more literally than I'm intending. Well, it's text, so that's to be expected. I don't mean that we should see Batman fight Blockbuster or anything like that, but if it's part of the accepted canon currently, if it's part of "the bible," then it's fair game. The next issue of DC Comics won't suddenly put Bruce in purple suit in the next issue, you know, the suit he wears now IS his suit. I'm talking things like that. Like YO is the accepted origin story.... Bruce was not a lost twit in that.

Besides, the comics liked it, and adopted the look. I don't think Wolverine has been in his costume for quite a while, actually.

They didn't adapt it as much as you might think. He wore it (and still wears it off and on, I guess) in New X-Men, but now, he prettymuch wears a new variation on his classic Yellow suit.

Widely accepted? Among fans? That's like asking to go insane. Tons and tons of continuity changes confuse things, especially with purists who were there with the character from the time before would cliam younger fans are stupid or don't understand the character for accepting a different updated version.

Not among fans, good God, no. The comics don't change things as often as you claim. At least, not DC. Marvel changes **** every week, though. Once again, accepted things like YO are what I'm talking about...

Plus, Bruce's origin is rather convulted and in and of itself. The movie really goes somewhere the comics has never gone before, b/c to my knowledge....the comics have only managed to devote less than a page to the Bruce Wayne that first left Gotham and began his journey. We never really have seen that teenage Bruce right before he left to travel the world, the most we ever got is when he is on his journey, and even that is convuluted.

Pre-Crisis, we did. At least in YO, it's hinted at, and still generally considered to be the same as Pre-Crisis.

Because it is unacceptable. Nobody is that determined from the age of 8 years old to the age of 25, where absolutely nothing gets in his way or disrupts his "plan". It's too narrow, and boring. A storyteller's job is to make things interesting, give the character something to overcome. Just making Bruce Wayne the most simple minded, tunnel visioned character who's life story from age 8 to 20 doesn't deserve more than a sentence is bad storytelling, and frankly.....kinda lazy.

Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it lazy. Humans hold the capacity to be that way, just because the average joe isn't like that doesn't mean we can just ignore the original (and still current) story thread. It is not narrow or boring.... I can't believe I'm having to argue this with a fellow Batfan. It isn't simple-minded. If anything, it is a testament to how powerful Bruce Wayne really is, that he can not swerve from his path, that he can do what the average joe just can't!

And need I remind you that Bruce is not real? Comics do NOT have to adhere strictly to the average reality. If they did as you said, if they were as plebian as you think Bruce should be, then I hope you're not a fan of any hero with superpowers... because then you techincally shouldn't like them because they aren't "realistic" enough for your reading tastes.

The only reason the comics have allowed it, is b/c they're too busy building upon Batman....and not Bruce Wayne.

No.... becuase that's how they want Bruce portrayed.

Well, we don't believe in the books. How can we? He swings through the city like he were Spider-Man, knows about 800 different fighting styles, can defeat Superman and the entire Justice League without batting an eye lash.

We only don't believe because we know they're not real. Otherwise, when I'm reading an issue of Detective Comics, unless it's something radically out of character, I accept it as part of the world of the comics.... I have suspension of disbelief because I read comic books to escape. I don't read them because I want to see an average joe be average.

There's no suspension of disbelief in the books. Doesn't have to be. AND, in the comics.....it's different. They can control what we see in single images. Film needs to control what we see in a continuous flowing set of images. within a single image, you can make something that is very much impossible, looks somewhat plausible. On screen, you cannot get away with that b/c you have to show all the inbetween. The suspension of disbelief in film is on a whole different level than on a medium that requires very little suspension....if any.

It's no different, I think the fights in Spider-Man 2 prove that. I've never seen a more comic-accurate fight. Not in representation of particular panels, but in how we've always assumed Spidey moves.

No suspension of disbelief in the books? Are you kidding me? Well, I guess it's 100% true that you can live through getting bit by a radioactive spider or getting hit by gamma rays. Or that a city would allow vigilantism. No matter how bad the city was, in reality, there would be no truce.

And, it's a good idea to make him more relatable. Especially in an origin film, where the alter ego gets less screentime than others......you have to do something worthwhile with the man behind the mask.

I found him perfectly relateable on a human level already. They didn't have to make him so average I lost respect for him to let me relate to him. Bale's Wayne isn't the guy from the books who is so impressive and powerful that I admire him. I don't admire his Bruce Wayne at all.

And who's to determine if it's worthy and not obtrusive? You? Or would there be some massive voting booth for all of us to determine?

I'm just talking about as far as I'm concerned. There are people who obviously enjoy the changes from BB. But I DO think that the film could make changes that didn't so radically depart from the books. Becuase then it's farther from "adaptation" status and goes into a "reimagining", where it ceases to be anything like the original material, in most cases.

That's unacceptable, especially in a time where the dark, brooding hero is a dime a dozen. Batman hasn't lasted over 70 years simply by staying the same. Making him more relatable is a smart move, and saying "either you get him or you don't. Either cnnect with his mortality or not" is too pigheaded to keep the character from surviving the next 70 years.

Batman was the first dark, brooding hero. It's pathetic to back down and change him to keep interest. He's the original, he shouldn't have to be *****ed out of his original position just because people like you might flip out over him not being different enough from Daredevil.

You know, it's like the people who say that we can't win the war on drugs... so we should make them legal! That's pathetic. Just because things aren't perfect and the odds are against you doesn't mean you should give in. That's antithical to Batman, even. He knows he can't win Gotham back, but he keeps on anyway.

And, his mortality in Batman Begins was very present, and his emotional connection to his father was too. Things the comics have done.....somewhat.

It's looking like you accept anything BB does over the comics, when it should be the other way around.

See, I read that a different way. I didn't think he suffered from anything really. Besides depression and OCD, he just doesn't seem comfortable in his own skin. I didn't think it was really a crowd thing, just a "being Bruce Wayne" thing. He didn't look unfoused or jittery, either....he just fell in love with Vicki at first sight.

An interesting take. I read into it that there are more reasons that just love for him being unfocussed. I just trace everything from the human mind to a greater, more practical reason. I've never been THAT loopy over a girl, myself. But when I'm nervous from a large crowd (sometimes unknowingly), I'm prone to goofing up.

And, I never got the sense that he could be suave or a ladies man. I felt like he saw something in Vicki and automatically connected with her. He did have some charm though. His date with her at the mansion was going to be horrible.....until he let her see some of who he really is, with eating dinner in the kitchen with Alfred. It just looked like love, and not himbeing the ladies man.

Well, he wasn't so-much trying to be romantic to Vicki, but he was with Selina in BR.

But it's in the books. There's other stuff out there that covers things as well. It's all in the books, so it must be valid, no? Joe Chill having been a part of the comics is too. If it's been done in the books, it's fair game, isn't it?

It was vastly out of character for Batman at the time of it's publishing. I consider it a mistake unless it serves a greater purpose, like what Burton did. But YT didn't.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

For that crime or something else. Is this a recent retcon? See I don't think that works nearly as well as the killer slinking off into the night, getting away with murder. It's nowhere near as poetic and totally weakens his motivation to become batman. If Chill is captured and imprisoned for the murder, then justice is is done. Young bruce doesn't have nearly as much to hang his feelings on. He's just experienced a tragedy that many people have experienced, but not as tragic and possibly personality-shaping as the killer getting away, never to be known (until much later). It just makes far less emotional sense for Bruce to become Batman in the "chill got caught straight away" version.



Well, it was for the Wayne Murders. It was a recent retcon at the end of Infinite Crisis.

I don't know what Chill's ultimate fate is, though. I imagine he must die like in Batman Begins......b/c like you said, it doesn't work if Chill stays in prision b/c then justice has been served. The only way it works for me is the way it happened in Batman Begins, where Bruce tries to avenge his parents......but cannot, and never will be able to.


But then he really does become Batman for much different reasons (or by a different route) in the movie. It's just a different story - not just a slightly different version of it, but a different one alltogether. He ends up in the same place by the time he first puts on the mask but the road is different. I simply like the old version a lot more.



Well, there's no hope for vengeance. That's the biggest difference, I think. He cannot even dream of vengeance b/c it was taken from him.

Before the retcon, Bruce was still very much hoping to find the killer.....and probably would kill him if given the chance. He nearly killed the Joker for the death of his friend.....and the deaths and pain caused before that as well.


Maybe it makes him nobler from the point he realizes that vengeance is not the way, but before that moment he is far less noble, because he fully intends to kill. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was HIS decision and his alone not to kill Chill (and then Falcone's assassin kills him anyway). He's fully intending to commit an act of evil and it's pure dumb luck that stops it, not his own concience. It's barely a step away from attempted murder - it's intended murder.



The man murdered his parents. Killed them in cold blood, right infront of his eyes. That IS evil. Killing him is not, I think. Chill deserved to die, and I honestly cannot see how it is an act of evil to do onto the man who did onto his parents. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion......but Bruce was fully justified in feeling what he felt, and wanting what he wanted. He's human. He goes through that who thing time and time again in the comics.

He went a step further in the comics and ATTEMPTED to murder the Joker. Damn near choked the life out of him. And that's after he's been Batman for over a decade.


Now, put the throwing away the gun scene *before* Chill gets killed, and remove the slapping scene, and I'd have far less of a problem with how Begins did it - it's clear that while he initially desires revenge, it's his own moral compass that tells him not to rather the actions of Falcone that rob him of the opportunity. Though I still think Chill being caught and known as the killer all through Bruce's life is far weaker.



I think Bruce's moral compass as it's limits, he constantly walks that line....and he does need people to pull him away from the ledge. Characters throughout the years have played that role. Gordon did in the comics in HUSH.

I like the way it went down in the movie. I prefer how it went down. Vengeance was obviously something Bruce needed, or thought he needed. And, in the end.....I do think it makes him more heroic in the end, though.

Bruce becoming Batman in my scenario of Batman not knowing the killer till many years later after he became Batman (and as far as I know, the comics scenario for most of it's existence, until this apparent retcon), is still plenty noble and sacrificial enough. He still embarks on an unwinnable war against ALL crime, and I don't think he ever has any real expectation of discovering his parents' killer and bringing him to justice... a faint, unrealistic hope in the back of his mind, maybe. If he ever does discover Chill as an adult as he has in the comics, it'd be unexpected, a lucky coincidence. And Chill then getting shot by another criminal creates the inverse effect of the Begins version - his assassination robs Bruce of his opportunity to get justice, not vengeance.

But, vengenace is probably his greatest drive. The killer still being out there is something in his mind. Vengeance is a pretty self indulgent feeling, and yeah....he is sacrifical and noble....but I think taking away that strong drive and hope for revenge makes him moreso.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You're taking what I'm saying a little more literally than I'm intending. Well, it's text, so that's to be expected. I don't mean that we should see Batman fight Blockbuster or anything like that, but if it's part of the accepted canon currently, if it's part of "the bible," then it's fair game. The next issue of DC Comics won't suddenly put Bruce in purple suit in the next issue, you know, the suit he wears now IS his suit. I'm talking things like that. Like YO is the accepted origin story.... Bruce was not a lost twit in that.



Well, that's where the problem is. Comic fans like to have selective history. And since things alway change, it's never really known as to what is "exact". I mean, Year One is accepted.....partly. DC Comics, and many fans, don't like Selina being a $2 hooker, for example.

And, yeah...Bruce was actually a pretty lost dude. Even when he came back, he was pretty unfocused and lost on what he was going to do exactly. Fighting some no name pimp and getting stabbed by an 8 year old hooker and then almost getting killed by crooked cops......might count as being lost on the road to being Batman, I'd say.


They didn't adapt it as much as you might think. He wore it (and still wears it off and on, I guess) in New X-Men, but now, he prettymuch wears a new variation on his classic Yellow suit.



But......IT still imapcted the comics. It wasn't dismissed at all, and actually took quite a while to wear off. Only recently has Wolverine gotten his duds back.

Not to mention the entire X-Men team also saw the wardrobe change as well.


Not among fans, good God, no. The comics don't change things as often as you claim. At least, not DC. Marvel changes **** every week, though. Once again, accepted things like YO are what I'm talking about...



DC changes alot of stuff. It's just harder to keep track of b/c Bats has like 9 titles connected to his realm.....'Catwoman, Birds of Prey, Nightwing, Robin.....all those and others affect what happen his world. It's just really convulted.

The only stories I can think of that are wholly accepted in it's all entirety are mostly all the Jeph Loeb tales. Everything else seems to be up in the air for the picking. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. It's not so bad for writers to do what they want.


Pre-Crisis, we did. At least in YO, it's hinted at, and still generally considered to be the same as Pre-Crisis.



The basic outline is. He leaves for 7 years, and comes back. That much is for certain. Most of everything else is open to interpretation as to what happened before and during his journey. Year One is the interprettation that does tell what happens after. And, if you look at it.....it can still stand even with the Chill retcon.


Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it lazy. Humans hold the capacity to be that way, just because the average joe isn't like that doesn't mean we can just ignore the original (and still current) story thread. It is not narrow or boring.... I can't believe I'm having to argue this with a fellow Batfan. It isn't simple-minded. If anything, it is a testament to how powerful Bruce Wayne really is, that he can not swerve from his path, that he can do what the average joe just can't!



It's more than "just the average joe". It's a matter of life. Nobody can be that tunnel visioned, and....even IF they can be, it doesn't make for very good storytelling b/c there's interesting things to be told inbetween there.


And need I remind you that Bruce is not real? Comics do NOT have to adhere strictly to the average reality. If they did as you said, if they were as plebian as you think Bruce should be, then I hope you're not a fan of any hero with superpowers... because then you techincally shouldn't like them because they aren't "realistic" enough for your reading tastes.



It's not about being real. It's about being interesting. If NOTHING happens.....nothing at all inbetween age 8 and 20, it's less interesting than if stuff actually does happen.


No.... becuase that's how they want Bruce portrayed.



Pffttt.....Batman. Bruce gets less love in the comics than you think.


We only don't believe because we know they're not real. Otherwise, when I'm reading an issue of Detective Comics, unless it's something radically out of character, I accept it as part of the world of the comics.... I have suspension of disbelief because I read comic books to escape. I don't read them because I want to see an average joe be average.



Then your asking alot for a film to be a carbon copy, and then be called a carbon copy of another franchise by having Batman swing like Spidey.

The comics have the luxary of getting away with things like that. It's different on film, even animation.

It's no different, I think the fights in Spider-Man 2 prove that. I've never seen a more comic-accurate fight. Not in representation of particular panels, but in how we've always assumed Spidey moves.


But, it's quite different when your hero is in the super powered realm. Lots of things Batman does in the comics could be seen as superpower-like....which would confuse viewers who are supposed to think this man has none.


No suspension of disbelief in the books? Are you kidding me? Well, I guess it's 100% true that you can live through getting bit by a radioactive spider or getting hit by gamma rays. Or that a city would allow vigilantism. No matter how bad the city was, in reality, there would be no truce.



It's different when you've got real, fleash and blood actors acting these stories out. It's one of the debates as to wheter comics SHOULD ever be adapated to film in the first place b/c of the difference in how they must tell stories.

The only movie I've seen that exactly captures the entire concept of a comic book as been Sin City, really.


I found him perfectly relateable on a human level already. They didn't have to make him so average I lost respect for him to let me relate to him. Bale's Wayne isn't the guy from the books who is so impressive and powerful that I admire him. I don't admire his Bruce Wayne at all.



Why not?


I'm just talking about as far as I'm concerned. There are people who obviously enjoy the changes from BB. But I DO think that the film could make changes that didn't so radically depart from the books. Becuase then it's farther from "adaptation" status and goes into a "reimagining", where it ceases to be anything like the original material, in most cases.



Well, that's obviously up for debate. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are considered fantastic adaptations....and they're great departures from the actual comics.

One could argue it's not the actual stories that need to be carried over, but the spirit and heart of the material.


Batman was the first dark, brooding hero. It's pathetic to back down and change him to keep interest. He's the original, he shouldn't have to be *****ed out of his original position just because people like you might flip out over him not being different enough from Daredevil.



It's insane that you haven't notice how much he has changed over the course of 70 years. That **** is ****ing inevitable. Otherwise, he'd be a forgotten relic that only inspired other, and not actually a force as he still is today.


You know, it's like the people who say that we can't win the war on drugs... so we should make them legal! That's pathetic. Just because things aren't perfect and the odds are against you doesn't mean you should give in. That's antithical to Batman, even. He knows he can't win Gotham back, but he keeps on anyway


Marijuanne should be legal.

I'm not talking about a war, though. I'm talking about the evolution this character has undergone....and continues to undergo. Otherwise, we'd still have Superman beating up Nazis and being as racist as they are. Batman has stood the sands of time b/c he's such an epic and unbreakable character. But, also b/c the right tweaks have been done at right times. Modernization and all.


It's looking like you accept anything BB does over the comics, when it should be the other way around.



I think they did alot of things right. Learned from mistakes that the comics made. The comics **** up all the time. I know they're very far from perfect. Very far.


An interesting take. I read into it that there are more reasons that just love for him being unfocussed. I just trace everything from the human mind to a greater, more practical reason. I've never been THAT loopy over a girl, myself. But when I'm nervous from a large crowd (sometimes unknowingly), I'm prone to goofing up.




Well, I guess that's a cool part about the character. You can connect to him inyour own way. See similarities to him that you share.

I also think Bruce is kinda a klutz in the Burton films though. That seemed to kinda be Keaton's ****ick to his Bruce Wayne's charm. Kinda funny when paired up with Gough's Alfred.


Well, he wasn't so-much trying to be romantic to Vicki, but he was with Selina in BR.



lol....and it was still awkward!!

Hell, if Selina hadn't been so horny.....and wierd....he wouldn't had gotten kissed. Bruce seemed like an awkward guy to me. Just socially awkward. Keaton's Bruce never really seemed strong until his mask was taken off. With Vicki, once he'd let her in....he seemed to be much less awkward. Once Selina knew he was Batman, his awkwardness seemed to be completely no existant.

But, Selina totally made those moves on Bruce. Of course, he did ask her out.......but, with a limo and a mansion I could too, lol.

It was vastly out of character for Batman at the time of it's publishing. I consider it a mistake unless it serves a greater purpose, like what Burton did. But YT didn't.

I agree. If it does serve a greater purpose, than I'm all for it. If it serves to push a major theme, or major point.....I'm in.

[Hugebear]

Exactly!!!Replace Bruce's time with Ras with flashbacks to his training in escape artistry(14 years old), lock picking(10 years old), forensics(19 years old), military tactics/counter-terrorism(19 years old), ninjitsu(19 years old), jujitsu(14 years old), advanced psychology(14 years old), etc etc. People will understand why this guy is so good at fighting crime. He had dozens of genius mentors and he trained his ass off since he was 9. It will be explained why this guy reaches legendary status.

Save Ras for the end of the trilogy when Batman is worthy of such an adversary and Ras can refer to him as "detective". :up:

/>
Batman Begins, the focus should be on BATMAN himself. That’s what I really wanted to see. Not a Batman Begins filled with villains.That’s what I didn’t like about BB. There was no need for Ra’s to be Bruce’s mentor. They didn’t need to have a villain there. It should have been about Bruce’s time away from Gotham and how he was trained by many mentors around the world. No instead they did it to showcase Ra’s and his plans for Gotham.No Joker, but no Scarecrow or Falcone or Ra’s either!

[Cosmic]

Where should Batman refusal to use guns come from?
I wouldn't have Batman refuse to use guns. However, if he is going to use guns then I'd definitely put some kind of limitations on their use. I wouldn't want readers or viewers to be confused as to whether he was a hero or a villain. He might use a gun in self-defense...but only as a last resort, and never against an unarmed foe. Batman carried and used a sidearm in his first appearances, and I really don't see how it takes anything away from the character.

[Mr. Socko]

It was obviously because Rachel ****** slapped him.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Hugebear......I think Batman Begins did as good a job as any superhero film in focusing on the hero alone.

I mean, from the sounds of it......it seems like you don't want ANY villians to be in the film at all. So......who would Batman fight? A bunch of tornadoes? A tree from falling? He's gotta have a major villian.....otherwise, the film might be....well, pointless in that regard.

Batman's relationship with guns has changed a number of times. Once, he used them, as Cosmic pointed out. Then he didn't (DC mandated it) which is where we get the changes nowadays. There was a point where it seemed that Bruce Wayne had a phobia of guns. Terrorified to death of them at the very sight of seeing a gun. Frozen and motionless. Obviously, him having a phobia of guns is not a good thing. Otherwise, wouldn't he be afraid of the badguys who use them? Then, of course....how could he work with Jim Gordon or the rest of the police who also use guns?

He refuses to use them. They're not a part of his arsenal, simply b/c he doesn't like them. I think it's best like that. And, no matter what......in EVERY interpretation....INCLUDING Batman Begins....the reason is b/c the weapon was used to murder his parents.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Dp.

[blind_fury]

Batman doesn't realize guns were wrong weeks before becoming Batman. He knew he hated guns the moment his parents were shot which is why he never trained to use firearms.

If he was willing to fight crime using guns wouldn't his lifetime of training reflect that?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, he didn't realize that weeks before becoming Batman. His training does reflect that.

But, all that seems to contradict what has happened IN THE COMICS. Batman picked up a gun like twice last year in the comics.

[Hades]

Funny, I always saw the scene as Rachael gets him to realize that he was no better than Chill was for even considering it. Which is symbolized in the scene where he sees the gun and throws it into the river in disgust.

Probably one of the best scenes in the film; one of the few that I like.

But yes, I agree that it should have never been a question. If you're going to go the modern route and have Batman hate guns, then he shouldn't fall far enough that he gets that messed up. Bruce was never so disallusioned in the comic books. If anything, he had a clear, singular focus ever since his parents hit the ground.

Dammit, I just realized something I like about BB even less. Making Batman a beginner is all well and fine, but Nolan made him TOO much of a amatuer. Slipping up on his first night in the suit is fine, it was in YO. But wandering the world, adrift like some kind of scatterbrained fool? That's something I'd only expect to see Keaton's Wayne do, if at all! Bruce didn't plan on Batman from the get-go, but he travelled the world and trained with several instructors (not just one source; Ra's), quite sure in what he was doing. Determined and focused.

Man, Nolan just messed up on so many tiny levels, so many that it all adds up to one big screw-up as a whole. I think it made Bruce moer human and relatable. Most people if any aren't usually that focused and are found to doubt themselfs at least once.

[blind_fury]

It's ok to show Bruce Wayne lost and confused about his role as crime fighter to a point (Frank Miller briefly explored it in Year One) but Begins goes way too far by taking away Bruce's childhood resolve to become a the ultimate crime fighter. Begins also shows Bruce as someone who doesn't realize guns are bad until he's slapped by some girl. That's not Batman. Bruce Wayne doesn't need anyone to remind him guns are bad. This guy understood that since he was nine. In fact that's what seperates Batman from all other superheroes he's being training his whole life to become who he is. It's the only way someone could become the worlds greatest detective and legendary crime fighter. It would require decades of dedicated and highly advanced training and preparation. Wayne knew his life was going to be commited to a gunless war on crime since he was a boy, this is the reason he's so damn good. While we were watching saturday morning cartoons Bruce was studying escape artistry, forensics, and counter-terrorism. Batman is the ultimate crimefighter not only because he's rich or smart but because of his unmatched resolve and commitment. He thinks three steps ahead of everbody because he's been training hourly for these situations since he was 10.

Batman Begins doesn't show this Bruce Wayne. They show a confused fool who travels the world for no reason until he gets contacted and trained by ninjas who provide most of his skills to become Batman. What great luck this guy has!

Then this confused fool contemplates shooting the guy who shot his parents like he's the vengeful Frank Castle instead of the gun-hating Bruce Wayne.

And to top it all of Bruce Wayne doesn't even have to come up with gadgets. Fox has them all ready waiting for him to use. Again Batman doesn't need raw skill and a lifetime of training. He has dumb luck!

Wow. Who knew it was so easy to become the worlds greatest detective and crimefighter?

[blind_fury]

Well, he didn't realize that weeks before becoming Batman. His training does reflect that.

But, all that seems to contradict what has happened IN THE COMICS. Batman picked up a gun like twice last year in the comics.
Yeah alot happens "in the comics" that wouldn't be appropriate for an origin film.

People should know Batman's original convictions that shaped his training and view on crime fighting. This guy has trained to a level where he doesn't need fire arms to take down gangs. Why and how could someone without superpowers achieve this?

[El Payaso]

I'm not sure about the original question, but that must be one of the worst scenes in a Batman movie. I'll never know if because of Katie or what but the double slapping was pathetic. A cruel silence would have worked better, at least for Holmes' acting skills.

[The Kid]

That's why I loved Rachael so much in the film. Without her, Batman would be like the original batman who used guns.

[The Kid]

-deleted-

[The Kid]

-deleted-

[Hugebear]

Hugebear......I think Batman Begins did as good a job as any superhero film in focusing on the hero alone.

I mean, from the sounds of it......it seems like you don't want ANY villians to be in the film at all. So......who would Batman fight? A bunch of tornadoes? A tree from falling? He's gotta have a major villian.....otherwise, the film might be....well, pointless in that regard.

</p>

Well not exactly. I don’t consider, thugs, thieves, robbers, other typical criminals, villains.
For example the two muggers in batman 1989.
So there would be plenty of bad guys for Batman to fight in Gotham.
I remember when I heard that they wanted this movie to be about Batman and not the villains. That many people felt that in the previous movies Batman was overshadowed by the villains. So I thought that would be cool to see. So would Batman be boring if there are no villains like Ra’s and Scarecrow in the movie?&nbps;

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think the scene was odd b/c of Katie Holmes.

The way I imagine that scene should have gone down was with her crying. She's supposed to be disapointed in Bruce. Vastly disappointed. And seeing this guy she loves willing to stoop down the same level of a common criminal is breaking her heart and she slaps him for how badly he has her with his cowardice.

THAT'S how that scene was meant to be, I think. Holmes just seemed happy to slap a guy around, and not much emotion behind a bit of "sigh" in her performance.

[El Payaso]

I got it, with the first slap, he thought about dropping guns as weapons. The second one made him go 'Gee, I should give my coat to some bum.'
:p

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nah, the first one was where he realized everything. The second one was where he figured he should lie low for 7 years b/c Rachel's one crazy ass chick.