Batman Begins Batman doesn't use guns because Rachel slaps him?

[dude stannis]

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. 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".

/>

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 b!tch 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.'