BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

MaskedManJRK said:
Sounds cool. I got a lot of cool ideas for these--including my version of a early-years Batman trilogy, which includes YO, TLH, DV, and other, while not exactly EARLY-years, critically acclaimed comics.

Sounds great. Can't wait. Welcome to the Haven. :up:

I also have an idea for an hour-long drama that is some-what my Ultimate version of Batman--and by Ultimate, I don't mean just adding swear words and fingerless gloves, I mean a massive-sprawling story featuring all the characters in a cohesive manner.

Do you mean "Ultimate" as in the Marvel's 'Ultimate' line of comics?
Just remember that the watch-word for this thread is "faithful." Some minor changes to continuity and equipment and so forth are acceptable-- and actually a good idea for this thread, because it gives us a little something to think about instead of just "editing" a franchise's history to fit in a movie or TV show time slot-- but major changes such as the differences between the real X-Men and 'Ultimate X-Men' are frowned upon. Just lettin' ya know; if I read

But not right now, for it is past 12 and I must sleep. Soon, my friends...soon...:batman:

"Sleepiness is weakness of character; ask anybody."

--Hoban Washbourne, Firefly

:wolverine
 
Herr Logan said:
Do you mean "Ultimate" as in the Marvel's 'Ultimate' line of comics?
Just remember that the watch-word for this thread is "faithful." Some minor changes to continuity and equipment and so forth are acceptable-- and actually a good idea for this thread, because it gives us a little something to think about instead of just "editing" a franchise's history to fit in a movie or TV show time slot-- but major changes such as the differences between the real X-Men and 'Ultimate X-Men' are frowned upon. Just lettin' ya know; if I read

I hear ya, and it's nothing too drastic, I think. The worst I do is change circumstances of an origin/slight change as to how "who" became "what," but most of the changes I have are what have been suggested in the comics before, but never taken in as fully. I dunno, let me get the trilogy done first before I get further into that. Who knows, maybe if you like my ideas for the trilogy enough, you might trust it a little more. :up:
 
Good thread, but what was wrong with the Microwave Emitter?
 
Beelze said:
Good thread, but what was wrong with the Microwave Emitter?

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if a machine emitted microwaves in all directions and was powerful enough to cause water in underground pipes to burst out of those pipes as steam, it would severely harm the humans who were around it as well. It would either dehydrate or make people sizzle and/or combust, or otherwise burn. Like I said, I'm not completely sure about this, but it seems pretty damn logical.

This, however, is something I'm completely sure of:
Putting the direct effects of microwaves on humans aside, if the water burst out of the pipes as massive clouds of steam, that steam would burn the people it touched very badly. There is no argument against that. That means that everything that was said about 'Batman Begins' being "realistic" was full of $hit, because several things about the movie, the most obvious being the microwave emmitter, were completely implausible and only a blind, sheep-like studio apologist would dare lie to me with arguments to the contrary.

Other major examples of the pervasively unrealistic nature of the movie include:
  • The rappelling utility harness having straps over the shoulders but no actual pelvic harness, since you can't safely hang from a cable attached to belt that has no real harness.
  • Carmine Falcone, allegedly the kingpin of crime in Gotham City, being found in the vicinity of goons smuggling drugs. This would never happen to a real Mafia boss, period. Any argument to the contrary is, again, a complete lie. If he was a Capo, maybe, but never the top dog. That bull$hit doesn't even happen in 'The Sopranos,' much less real life.


Welcome to the Haven.

:wolverine
 
MaskedManJRK said:
I hear ya, and it's nothing too drastic, I think. The worst I do is change circumstances of an origin/slight change as to how "who" became "what," but most of the changes I have are what have been suggested in the comics before, but never taken in as fully. I dunno, let me get the trilogy done first before I get further into that. Who knows, maybe if you like my ideas for the trilogy enough, you might trust it a little more. :up:
My trust is not easily won...


...I've been hurt before. :(


;)
I look forward to your trilogy. :up:

:wolverine
 
Herr Logan said:
I'm not a scientist by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if a machine emitted microwaves in all directions and was powerful enough to cause water in underground pipes to burst out of those pipes as steam, it would severely harm the humans who were around it as well. It would either dehydrate or make people sizzle and/or combust, or otherwise burn. Like I said, I'm not completely sure about this, but it seems pretty damn logical.
It was never stated that it emitted microwaves in all directions, and if no one could build such a thing that didn't emit microwaves in all directions, and thus hurting people, people would never really consider building such a thing in real life (unless it was to be used in an area inhabited only by your enemies). Yet people have built things dealing with microwaves (laboratory equipment, microwave ovens). Just like a household microwave oven doesn't kill its user, because the area of effect is limited, the Microwave Emitter doesn't either, because it is a weapon which has a fixed direction of "fire" (or a direction you can configure yourself. In the train the direction was downwards, obviously, and on the cargo ship it could also have been downwards.) The Microwave Emitter would work quite similar to how LASER ("Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation") works - in fact, the term for what the Microwave Emitter is doing is MASER ("Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.")

About MASER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser.

Putting the direct effects of microwaves on humans aside, if the water burst out of the pipes as massive clouds of steam, that steam would burn the people it touched very badly. There is no argument against that. That means that everything that was said about 'Batman Begins' being "realistic" was full of $hit, because several things about the movie, the most obvious being the microwave emmitter, were completely implausible and only a blind, sheep-like studio apologist would dare lie to me with arguments to the contrary.
I think the clouds of steam would cool down and also disperse enough for a person to be able to wander into into the vapor and be effected by the panic-inducing toxin without being terribly burned. Batman himself passes through the bursts of steam very fast when he's hanging from the train, and even then he's only passing through the tops of the steamy clouds. Also, apparently Batman's suit regulates body temperature. Others do pass directly through fresh clouds, but we only see those people for a few seconds. Besides Batman there's only one man we see that is actually standing pretty much directly in a geyser of steam and who's face we clearly see, however, like with the other people, we only see that man for a second or so. So, for all we know, people standing in fresh clouds of hot steam did get burnt, but there were no scenes showing it (and the movie was PG13).

The rappelling utility harness having straps over the shoulders but no actual pelvic harness, since you can't safely hang from a cable attached to belt that has no real harness.
Actually, it doesn't have straps over the shoulders in the movie. There's a scene where he cuts them off, during the construction of his suit, and in the scene after his first meeting with the Scarecrow we don't see any straps. Now, couldn't the suit, combined with the belt (which might sit on real tight, unlike other incarnations of Batman where the belt is an actual, loose belt. Sure, we don't see him securing the belt tightly to the suit, but it's a possibility that he did), function as a suitable harness? Even if it couldn't, I wouldn't say this was a major screw-up.

Carmine Falcone, allegedly the kingpin of crime in Gotham City, being found in the vicinity of goons smuggling drugs. This would never happen to a real Mafia boss, period. Any argument to the contrary is, again, a complete lie. If he was a Capo, maybe, but never the top dog. That bull$hit doesn't even happen in 'The Sopranos,' much less real life.
I agree with this one. We were given no good reason for why Carmine Falcone himself would have to be at the scene. I guess this does decrease the realism of the movie, since realism doesn't only pertain to physics and so on, but also things like social behavior. The top dog doesn't babysit his goons, and Carmine did seem to be the top dog, or at least one of the top dogs, in Begins. Anyway, I haven't been able to rationalize this bit away. Still, this set-up, however unrealistic, did deliver one of my favorite moments in the movie though, namely the part where Batman breaks into the car and grabs Falcone. That same moment could've been included in a more realistic set-up though, I'm sure.

-------

Begins is still the most realistic of all the Batman movies so far, and fairly realistic on its own. First, the movie takes time to show the possibility of a man being able to train himself to be as good as Batman, and it shows him actually doing research on what's going on in Gotham, who he can trust, and how he can make things better. Technology-wise, it shows a realistic and protective suit being constructed using real technologies, or technologies believed to be possible and currently being researched on, and it shows vehicle doing things a vehicle could do in real life (the cars they built for the movie could do the things the Tumbler did in the movie). The panic inducing toxin isn't that far-fetched (then again, any movie using the Scarecrow would have to use it, unless they're trying some very different things with the character). Also, the movie pretty much abides the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. It has some science fiction in it, but such things are still grounded in reality (until proven to be impossibilities, of course).

There are probably some minor flaws in the areas I just mentioned, but nothing that really stands out. Instead, the unrealism in the movie comes mostly from human behaviour, specifically Carmine Falcone. He would probably not do what he did, being at the docks, but at least it wasn't impossible for him to do it. One could also speak of such a flaw when it comes to Ra's al Ghul's decision not to kill Bruce after having gotten him knocked unconscious in Wayne Manor... especially since he, only moments after, orders his men to "make sure no one comes out" (including Bruce, of course.) It is also a bit weird how the police force lost track of the Tumbler like that, but I suppose such a getaway is possible, seeing as the police was taken by surprise. Another thing that I don't like is the scene where Batman uses the Tumbler to jump to the spot nex to where Gordon is standing. I'm alright with him and Gordon meeting there by coincidence. What bugs me is that we don't see Batman taking any precaution as to not crush an innocent bystander. Perhaps he's got some heat vision goggles or whatever, so that he could see that it was safe to land at that spot, but we don't see him taking the precaution. He could've killed Gordon.

So, I hope the sequel's script is more cleverly written, and makes sure to see to that the villains are smarter, and that we get to see Bruce being less reckless (I know that was part of character development and that he did manage himself better towards the very end of Begins, where he tried to cause as little collateral damage as possible. I'm just saying the sequel shouldn't have him repeat those reckless mistakes). We should also see Bruce putting more effort into covering his tracks and thus protecting his secret identity from being revealed to the public (revealing that he was Batman to Rachel wasn't that smart, even with him trusting her not to tell anyone.) In other words, fix the character-related flaws/unrealism.

Welcome to the Haven.
Thanks. I'll keep reading, and I think I'll enjoy my stay. :)
 
Beelze said:
Actually, it doesn't have straps over the shoulders in the movie. There's a scene where he cuts them off, during the construction of his suit, and in the scene after his first meeting with the Scarecrow we don't see any straps. Now, couldn't the suit, combined with the belt (which might sit on real tight, unlike other incarnations of Batman where the belt is an actual, loose belt. Sure, we don't see him securing the belt tightly to the suit, but it's a possibility that he did), function as a suitable harness? Even if it couldn't, I wouldn't say this was a major screw-up.

I'm aware that the straps were cut off. I'm pointing out that they had it built in that incorrect fashion in the first place, and secondly, there was no proper harness attached to the belt before or after the Batman used it. No, the belt alone is not enough.


There are probably some minor flaws in the areas I just mentioned, but nothing that really stands out.

Thanks. I'll keep reading, and I think I'll enjoy my stay. :)

You need to re-read this, very carefully:

[FONT=&quot]Ground Rules:[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]If you believe that the movie adaptations already made are perfect or good enough and do not need revision or analysis, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so be on your way and don’t intrude where you have nothing to offer. Do not waste our time with conformist platitudes. Do not come in here and defend film decisions that are considered flaws by contributing posters, unless you have another aspect in mind that does need changing and post an equal or greater portion of text discussing a criticism or suggesting an idea for an existing or hypothetical product that is very faithful to the source material.[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]We’re here to talk amongst ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with the spirit of this thread is in no way obligated to read any of the content herein or reply. Any of the behavior I described above that occurs here is trolling, pure and simple. This thread isn’t about argument and hostility. The only personal criticism that should occur is that which is directed toward the producers (meaning anyone involved in the production in any way) of preexisting superhero products, and even that should be kept reasonably limited, since everyone who truly belongs in this thread is assumed to have some level of disagreement with said producers, sometimes to the point of resentment. We need not spend excessive time on blaming them for their failings, but don’t hold back your true feelings on those screw-ups either. Disagreement between rule-abiding posters is fine. Just keep it civil and within the guidelines. Or else.[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]Nobody[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is allowed to use terms like “fanboy,” “nerd,” “purist,” “hater,” or anything like that in a derogatory manner toward other posters or comic fans in general in this thread. The word "whining" and the like-- unless used with regard to a character in a movie, comic book or TV show (ex. “Spider-Man was quite the whiner...”)—is forbidden, as is “nitpicking,” and anything else intended to bully anyone into complacency and acceptance of existing products. The phrase “impossible standards” and anything to the effect of “movies and comics are different mediums, so there have to be changes,” “the general audience will not accept the same things comics fans will,” and “people want to see realism,” if not accompanied by a massive amount of faithful and potentially marketable ideas meant to compensate or work around these alleged “facts,” are also strictly forbidden.[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]It is okay to suggest minor deviations from the source material for this topic, as long as the majority of the ideas you put forth—or are simply replying to and agree with—are consistent with the source material and/or significantly more faithful than previous existing adaptations.[/FONT]

Again, it’s okay to disagree with a person’s criticism of a movie if you have another one to share, but do not post remarks about an existing or real-life upcoming film if you have no significant

I hope the guidelines are clear. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment, as long as they follow the rules and don’t make any criticisms that are not relevant to the thread. You either belong here or you don’t, and that choice is up to you , so have respect enough to let the environment herein reflect the title of this thread.
Anyone who violates the rules or causes trouble will be promptly reported.

Thank you for your cooperation.
complaints about any of the productions being discussed.

Read it and abide by it.

:wolverine
 
I was helping you come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as you claim. And if you had read my post carefully you would see that I had some complaints about the movie, too. We were discussing realism, and I defended Begins' claim to realism when it came to certain things, and attacked it when it came to other things. Now, I reread the emphasized rules and could not see how I broke them, so perhaps you should give my post serious consideration instead of telling me to "talk to the hand." Now, if this is a thread about how Batman movies could be made better, and stay truer to the source material, it might be good to realize what things the previous ones did right and what they did wrong, so that one can determine what they should focus the most on when it comes in the future films.
 
Beelze said:
I was helping you come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as you claim. And if you had read my post carefully you would see that I had some complaints about the movie, too. We were discussing realism, and I defended Begins' claim to realism when it came to certain things, and attacked it when it came to other things. Now, I reread the emphasized rules and could not see how I broke them, so perhaps you should give my post serious consideration instead of telling me to "talk to the hand." Now, if this is a thread about how Batman movies could be made better, and stay truer to the source material, it might be good to realize what things the previous ones did right and what they did wrong, so that one can determine what they should focus the most on when it comes in the future films.

You were "helping [me] come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as claim"? I'm going to ignore the unforgivably condescending tone of that and get to the point: this is not the place for defending pre-existing movies, at all.

You spent the majority of your post defending a movie that several people who've discussed this agree is flawed to whatever degree, and that the widely advertised claims of "realism" are lies (most of it is in the original thread, as this spin-off is new). You didn't contribute ideas regarding a new, more faithful Batman film, and your "complaints" are moot when you qualify most of them with excuses and tell me that "nothing that really stands out." I couldn't possibly care less about what you thought was "realistic" or not or what "stood out" for you; this thread is about constructing something more faithful and overall better, and there is no specific emphasis on being "realistic." I criticized the claim of the "realism" of 'Begins' because it is completely false; end of story. Anyone who wants to argue that 'Batman Begins,' the Spider-Man movies or the X-Men movies or any other existing superhero movies were actually "realistic" in tone are not welcome to do so here, at all.

I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your arguments earlier because they are just plain invalid, and this isn't the place for that anyway. I already verified my arguments on the "realism" of 'Begins' with a credible source months ago, and I'm not here to argue with you.
As for whether it's against the rules to argue that something is "realistic" instead of arguing that it isn't faithful, that's irrelevant. Why were you arguing that in the first place? What benefit is there in me knowing that you ignorantly believe something as ridiculous as the microwave emmiter's effects on humans and water or a 240 lb man using just a belt to hang from a cable being "realistic"? You argued against several criticisms of mine about how 'Batman Begins' was flawed, regardless of how it was flawed, and you didn't offer any real criticism of your own. I already established why what you consider to be your criticism is invalid, so don't pretend you don't understand. That's not acceptable behavior in here. You've got other threads where you can defend 'Begins' all you want, but here, it's forbidden to do so in the manner in which you have.

I feel really stupid right now. Why? Because I edited my initial response to you last night after considering the possibility that your original question could have been an innocent query asking my perspective, rather than a challenge for the purposes of debate. I thought my original assumption might be unfair, that I was overly harsh, and that you might actually be on board with this thread's philosophy. I was dead wrong and should have followed my gut instinct, but then again, you're the first person to go to such wordy lengths and smarmy behavior to undermine the rules of these threads. No one else has had the audacity to do this and then claim innocence so far.

I don't care how you chose to misinterpret what was plainly written as a warning to you; you are deliberately breaking the rules by defending those flaws without providing an equal or greater amount of original critical analyses or new ideas of your own. That is forbidden here. Did you get it that time? Not. Up. For. Debate.
If you want to continue this line of discussion, take it out of here and every other Safe Haven thread. That's not a request.

Either give an equal or greater amount of text containing real suggestions for a Batman movie that are strictly faithful to the comic, without subversive or resentful comments or any further words on the issue you wrongly think is up for debate, or keep silent in here. Otherwise you've broken the rules yet again and will be dealt with by a moderator. This thread probably isn't for you, as you'd know if you actually read the rules, and this is your final warning from me.

I reformatted the rules so there are nifty little bullet points dividing up the main tenets; maybe that will make it easier to read for the next person looking to provoke me in here.


:wolverine
 
Herr, as you requested, here's s portion of Bruce's tutlege under Kirig. Let me know what you think, with suggestions, tidbits, praise, rage, you name it (need I even ask you to do so anymore?):

ORIGIN PART 2 – BRUCE & KIRIGI

Bruce in Tibet, ascends a steep-mountain, hulking his body up the cliff-edge, climbing the towering edifice of rock and stone, making use of the vast array of equipment he has strapped about his person Next, we see Bruce rappelling up a cliff edge; he climbs the mountains ledge while utilizing an array of mountaineering equipment (chalk, carabineers, ascenders, ice-picks and axes etc). A voiceover narrates Bruce’ s journey, in which we learn of Bruce buying information and equipment to advance his expedition in locating Master Kirigi, as well as prior training garnered over the world after leaving the FBI. In this latter case, we’d actually see flashbacks to scenes of Bruce’s other worldly practises abroad, although these wouldn’t be simply thrown in at random, but would be set of by practises we see Bruce adopt in the present.

For example, Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible, we’d then cut to a scene of Bruce in Africa, we’re we see him learning ‘the right of human passage to which ordinary men are blind’, with Bruce’s movements in this scene paralleling those in the present narrative. Another scene would show Bruce hungry and tired, he see’s a tree bearing fruit high up, he takes out a sling and places a rock into it, he pelts the slingshot at the fruit above and then we cut to a scene of Bruce learning similar past-skills in bola and boomerang from Bushmen. All the while Bruce would be narrating these scenes.

Bruce now mounts a hill, overlooking a stone building of ancient design. Bruce traipses further onwards, making his way up the steps to the entrance of the castle, a monastery. Bruce reaches the large sealed doors, and stops in his tracks to regard the place. It is incredibly silent; the wind is the only audible sound. Bruce opens his satchel and takes out an ancient looking piece of scroll, this time it has illustrated a primitive but ingenious looking device, and instructions on how to operate it. Bruce looks to the door from the paper, the device is there in front of him too. It is a row of knobs, rotate able, which need to be turned to a specific point each in order to open the doors. Bruce presses and turns each of the knobs, and the doors loudly and slowly open to him.

Bruce enters a wide and stone-like chamber; he cautiously makes his way through the entrance and enters into an elegant but cold black-marble dojo like structure. He passes through this and down past a stone walkway until he reaches another open area. This time though it is occupied. Line and lines of ensemble monks peacefully appear seated, meditating. They are calm and silent, and directly ahead of them seat another monk, singularly placed upon a pedestal. There is nothing but silence. Bruce weaves in and out of the columns of monks, who are un-distracted by the visitor. Bruce attempts to get the attention of the head-monk, but fails to do so. He tries again, and again, but fails both times. Finally Bruce retreats to the entrance from where he entered. He seats himself down in the same meditation position and closes his eyes. Waiting. Biding.

We cut to Bruce in the monastery; he is worn and has his features obscured beneath a dirty, large beard. It is evident that Bruce has been solitary for a great deal of time from his physical appearance. When Bruce awakes, he is greeted by the head-monk. His name is Kirigi, and taking Bruce through the environment of his monastery, digresses to Bruce the nature of his practices here and that he will train Bruce if he so wishes. He enquires with an amused eye how Bruce came to know of the monastery, and Bruce would say something to the effect of “The secrets of ordinary men are easily bought”. When Bruce agrees to the training offered, he is presented with a broom by Master Kirigi, the bewildered Bruce is told that first he must serve the most menial and basic of tasks in order to be allowed serious and proper training. This final moment would offer a little touch of comedy to the audiences.

We now cut to a montage: We see scenes of Bruce sweeping and cleaning the monastery. He captures fish from the river and also helps prepare rice in the kitchens. He serves food and water to the monks, and is finally confronted by Kirigi who tells Bruce he can now undergo training proper.

From here, we see Kirigi take Bruce through a rigorous training off combat, ninja tactics (encompassing stealth and invisibility), and how to master explosive powders and shruiken. These scenes would be similar to those of Bruce learning from Ducard with the LOS in Begins, although they would be different enough in other areas to. Bruce would learn the use of gauntlets with Kirigi, and there would be elaboration on his use of explosive powder somewhat, mostly though the emphasis in this part of the origin would be Bruce mastering invisibility, stealth and martial arts.

In shruiken, Kirigi would first present Bruce with a single shruiken and ask Bruce to demonstrate his skill with throwing and aiming. Bruce would fire the single shruiken at one of the many wooden targets, and he hits dead on the central-eye of the target. Bruce looks to Kirigi, but the Master monk shows only the faintest of recognition. Kirigi then reveals a satchel brandishing an entire arsenal of shruiken, Kirigi then proceeds to fire of each and every one of them at the target faster than the eye can see, rotating his body as he does, firing them of from the side, front, back until all are spent. Bruce looks to the target and we follow his gaze, the wood of every target throughout the room has been practically destroyed from the shruikens, which embed themselves in each of the centre eyes of the targets. Kirigi looks at Bruce, Bruce concedes the point.
 
Zaphod said:
Herr, as you requested, here's s portion of Bruce's tutlege under Kirig. Let me know what you think, with suggestions, tidbits, praise, rage, you name it (need I even ask you to do so anymore?):

ORIGIN PART 2 – BRUCE & KIRIGI

Bruce in Tibet, ascends a steep-mountain, hulking his body up the cliff-edge, climbing the towering edifice of rock and stone, making use of the vast array of equipment he has strapped about his person Next, we see Bruce rappelling up a cliff edge; he climbs the mountains ledge while utilizing an array of mountaineering equipment (chalk, carabineers, ascenders, ice-picks and axes etc). A voiceover narrates Bruce’ s journey, in which we learn of Bruce buying information and equipment to advance his expedition in locating Master Kirigi, as well as prior training garnered over the world after leaving the FBI. In this latter case, we’d actually see flashbacks to scenes of Bruce’s other worldly practises abroad, although these wouldn’t be simply thrown in at random, but would be set of by practises we see Bruce adopt in the present.

For example, Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible, we’d then cut to a scene of Bruce in Africa, we’re we see him learning ‘the right of human passage to which ordinary men are blind’, with Bruce’s movements in this scene paralleling those in the present narrative.

I'm pretty sure I sent you a PM saying that I thought we would need to see the "present-day" Batman in full costume early on and several times in between the origin sequences to better keep the audience's rapt attention, and you're accomodating that nicely. While I didn't want to make such an obvious rhythm of having an alternating order of present and past scenes that showed Bruce/Batman doing very similar things in both timelines, after reading the quoted section above, it occurred to me that we could use both the techniques he learned in his journeys and the means by which he came to learn them.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all, but bear with me. What came to my mind when you mentioned the mountain climbing was a present-day scene where the costumed Batman is ascending buildings in Gotham City as part of his patrol or even a pursuit of a specific target or targets. He would much more quickly and easily ascend buildings as the Batman than as Bruce Wayne, since he has his grapnel with retracting cable, those ninja claw thingies to put over his gloves and overall a costume built with climbing in mind (as well as many other things, of course). By using a variety of relationships between the present and past images, it comes off as slightly less formulaic. Also, there is a broader range of freedom if the flashbacks do not reflect the Batman's current thought processes; he is not remembering these things based on what he sees now, necessarily, but if the image from one moment of the present seen by the camera mirrors one moment of the past, the camera uses that as a seque to go back in time to show the audience the life of Bruce Wayne. The transition would happen very abruptly, with a distinctive effect that wipes the screen.

Some examples that immediately spring to mind:
  • Batman ascends by retracting the cable running from the grapnel clipped to his streamlined trunks-harness / Bruce scales mountain using ropes and various gear to reach Kirigi's monastery
  • Batman watches a car speed through the streets of Gotham City / Bruce at age 13 or 14 drives around a track in a race car
  • Batman spots some bullet shell casings on a rooftop or pavement in an alley / Bruce Wayne accompanies a member of a CSI unit and learns about obtaining forensic evidence at the crime scene and then criminalistics techniques in a crime lab
There should be some sort of trigger scene at the end of each flashback that leads back to the present as well. There wouldn't have to be a back-to-present trigger for every origin scene, though; it only needs to be broken up if there's a significant jump in time (i.e. most of the scenes where Bruce is 14 can be done consecutively without many present-scenes breaking up the sequence).

I have a question about this part:
"Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible."
Where would he be during this, exactly? Is this in Korea, where Bruce is trying to reach Kirigi?

Another scene would show Bruce hungry and tired, he see’s a tree bearing fruit high up, he takes out a sling and places a rock into it, he pelts the slingshot at the fruit above and then we cut to a scene of Bruce learning similar past-skills in bola and boomerang from Bushmen. All the while Bruce would be narrating these scenes.

Bruce now mounts a hill, overlooking a stone building of ancient design. Bruce traipses further onwards, making his way up the steps to the entrance of the castle, a monastery. Bruce reaches the large sealed doors, and stops in his tracks to regard the place. It is incredibly silent; the wind is the only audible sound. Bruce opens his satchel and takes out an ancient looking piece of scroll, this time it has illustrated a primitive but ingenious looking device, and instructions on how to operate it. Bruce looks to the door from the paper, the device is there in front of him too. It is a row of knobs, rotate able, which need to be turned to a specific point each in order to open the doors. Bruce presses and turns each of the knobs, and the doors loudly and slowly open to him.

Do those two paragraphs occur consecutively?

Bruce enters a wide and stone-like chamber; he cautiously makes his way through the entrance and enters into an elegant but cold black-marble dojo like structure. He passes through this and down past a stone walkway until he reaches another open area. This time though it is occupied. Line and lines of ensemble monks peacefully appear seated, meditating. They are calm and silent, and directly ahead of them seat another monk, singularly placed upon a pedestal. There is nothing but silence. Bruce weaves in and out of the columns of monks, who are un-distracted by the visitor. Bruce attempts to get the attention of the head-monk, but fails to do so. He tries again, and again, but fails both times. Finally Bruce retreats to the entrance from where he entered. He seats himself down in the same meditation position and closes his eyes. Waiting. Biding.

We cut to Bruce in the monastery; he is worn and has his features obscured beneath a dirty, large beard. It is evident that Bruce has been solitary for a great deal of time from his physical appearance. When Bruce awakes, he is greeted by the head-monk. His name is Kirigi, and taking Bruce through the environment of his monastery, digresses to Bruce the nature of his practices here and that he will train Bruce if he so wishes. He enquires with an amused eye how Bruce came to know of the monastery, and Bruce would say something to the effect of “The secrets of ordinary men are easily bought”. When Bruce agrees to the training offered, he is presented with a broom by Master Kirigi, the bewildered Bruce is told that first he must serve the most menial and basic of tasks in order to be allowed serious and proper training. This final moment would offer a little touch of comedy to the audiences.

Okay, I'm torn here. I like this a lot, but I don't know if it's a better idea to do this than translate 'The Man Who Falls' directly.
The major differences between the two are these:

In TMWF, Bruce doesn't venture past the lobby/foyier/entrance and instead waits for Kirigi-- whose presence he can sense-- to bid him welcome. The voiceover narration would tell, "I waited for one week, then another, then another," and with each week being mentioned, Bruce grows more beard stubble and eventually a decent beard. Your version has the camera cutting out and fading back to an indeterminate amount of time.

In TMWF, Kirigi only says, "You may sweep the floor," and doesn't explain himself, and Bruce complies. The voiceover would announce the timeframe through all of this, as Kirigi comes back a month later and says "You may wash the dishes," and after two more months, "You may boil the rice." I sort of prefer the TMWF version of these events, but we should discuss it. While I'm all for lightening the dark, depressed tone of the movie every once in a while, I think that if directed properly, Kirigi saying, "You may sweep the floor," and Bruce just giving the right look could also provide a bit of levity. Good timing, Kirigi's delivery and Bruce's facial reaction could probably sell that scene as comical. Again, we should discuss all of this.

You clearly put a lot of thought into all of this and I won't discount that or dismiss it outright. It may be the case that your way is more audience-friendly, although a lot of this will have to occur quickly so that the story doesn't drag. This hypothetical concept would be the first Batman movie that attempts to explore a wide range of educational and character-building experiences in Bruce Wayne's pre-Batman life.

We now cut to a montage: We see scenes of Bruce sweeping and cleaning the monastery. He captures fish from the river and also helps prepare rice in the kitchens. He serves food and water to the monks, and is finally confronted by Kirigi who tells Bruce he can now undergo training proper.

As long as all of this was kept very brief in terms of actual movie time, I'm all for adding the fish-capturing.

Wait... no I'm not. Where the hell is he going to find a river? He's at the top of a freakin' mountain! :confused:

From here, we see Kirigi take Bruce through a rigorous training off combat, ninja tactics (encompassing stealth and invisibility), and how to master explosive powders and shruiken. These scenes would be similar to those of Bruce learning from Ducard with the LOS in Begins, although they would be different enough in other areas to. Bruce would learn the use of gauntlets with Kirigi, and there would be elaboration on his use of explosive powder somewhat, mostly though the emphasis in this part of the origin would be Bruce mastering invisibility, stealth and martial arts.

Sounds good. I'd also add the "theatricality and deception are powerful agents" element here. The "exploding powder" basically translates to smoke bombs in the Batman's future, because when the Batman uses explosives, he's using Semtex and so forth, not units of packed gunpowder.

We should see a demonstation of Bruce throwing a small packet of exploding powder that causes a smoke screen, and he should try to disappear. It's okay to show him screwing up, if that would get a quick laugh, because in the future we will see the Batman throw a smoke grenade and disappear completely, as well as disappear without such accessories.

In shruiken, Kirigi would first present Bruce with a single shruiken and ask Bruce to demonstrate his skill with throwing and aiming. Bruce would fire the single shruiken at one of the many wooden targets, and he hits dead on the central-eye of the target. Bruce looks to Kirigi, but the Master monk shows only the faintest of recognition. Kirigi then reveals a satchel brandishing an entire arsenal of shruiken, Kirigi then proceeds to fire of each and every one of them at the target faster than the eye can see, rotating his body as he does, firing them of from the side, front, back until all are spent. Bruce looks to the target and we follow his gaze, the wood of every target throughout the room has been practically destroyed from the shruikens, which embed themselves in each of the centre eyes of the targets. Kirigi looks at Bruce, Bruce concedes the point.

That's a very cool scene, but I'm not sure I understand the point of it, the way it's set up. If this is a competition, it's not valid if Bruce only has one throwing star and Kirigi has a satchel-full. If you made it a demonstration instead of a contest, that would be fine and would look great.

Thanks very much for posting, Zaphod. I like a lot of this. :up:

Keep it comin,' and I'll try to put something cogent together on the youth era and the Batman era.

:wolverine
 
I haven't gotten all the kinks out of the trilogy yet, but here's the basic idea for each movie to make you kiddies salavate for the real thing when it's all said and done.

BATMAN BEGINS
Yes, sounds exactly alike, but it's basically Batman starting out with Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and Carmine Falcone, and that's where the similarities end. It's a combination of Year One and Tales of the Demon, mixed in with bits of Four of a Kind, The Long Holloween, Blind Justice, Year Two, No Man's Land, and little references to the old-school 40's comics, and many more.
It would involve Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon's battles after coming back to Gotham City and trying to deal with the corrupt government and rampant crime. The main foil within Gotham City is Carmine Falcone (a more refined and powerful version than the movie), who uses an "assassin" that runs Arkham Asylum known as Jonathon "The Scarecrow" Crane to try and snuff out Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent, and if possible, the biggest distraction and Crane's most desired catch...The Batman.
Meanwhile, Batman and the other two hear strange talks about a mysterous benefactor currently located in the Middle East known as Ra's al Ghul. We see Bruce Wayne's connection to him and his alluring daughter, Talia, and in the third act, Ra's appears in Gotham to start up a plan to break apart the current corrupt way of government by using a specially made drill to forcefully create earthquakes. In the end, Batman stops Ra's from bringing the city down, and a while later, the three meet on top of GCPD headquarters, siting them to team up since it worked for the Ra's al Ghul trouble, to bring down the head mob ruler of Gotham City--Carmine Falcone. Cue credits...with a little bit at the end, showing Ra's beaten and half-dead put into the Lazarus Pits and coming back up, his insane laugh echoing...
(Also note, in between all of this, there would be small montages of Batman starting up, taking out other super-villians, some important for the other movies, like the Red Hood and introduction to Selina Kyle/Catwoman, others more insignificant, such as Mad Hatter or Ventriloquist/Scarface)

Next up, BATMAN: THE MAN WHO LAUGHS...
 
MaskedManJRK said:
I haven't gotten all the kinks out of the trilogy yet, but here's the basic idea for each movie to make you kiddies salavate for the real thing when it's all said and done.

BATMAN BEGINS
Yes, sounds exactly alike, but it's basically Batman starting out with Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and Carmine Falcone, and that's where the similarities end. It's a combination of Year One and Tales of the Demon, mixed in with bits of Four of a Kind, The Long Holloween, Blind Justice, Year Two, No Man's Land, and little references to the old-school 40's comics, and many more.
It would involve Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon's battles after coming back to Gotham City and trying to deal with the corrupt government and rampant crime. The main foil within Gotham City is Carmine Falcone (a more refined and powerful version than the movie), who uses an "assassin" that runs Arkham Asylum known as Jonathon "The Scarecrow" Crane to try and snuff out Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent, and if possible, the biggest distraction and Crane's most desired catch...The Batman.
Meanwhile, Batman and the other two hear strange talks about a mysterous benefactor currently located in the Middle East known as Ra's al Ghul. We see Bruce Wayne's connection to him and his alluring daughter, Talia, and in the third act, Ra's appears in Gotham to start up a plan to break apart the current corrupt way of government by using a specially made drill to forcefully create earthquakes. In the end, Batman stops Ra's from bringing the city down, and a while later, the three meet on top of GCPD headquarters, siting them to team up since it worked for the Ra's al Ghul trouble, to bring down the head mob ruler of Gotham City--Carmine Falcone. Cue credits...with a little bit at the end, showing Ra's beaten and half-dead put into the Lazarus Pits and coming back up, his insane laugh echoing...
(Also note, in between all of this, there would be small montages of Batman starting up, taking out other super-villians, some important for the other movies, like the Red Hood and introduction to Selina Kyle/Catwoman, others more insignificant, such as Mad Hatter or Ventriloquist/Scarface)

Next up, BATMAN: THE MAN WHO LAUGHS...

Sounds interesting, and very busy! This is going to end up being about 3 hours, right?

Also, Scarecrow is going to wear his costume, right?

:wolverine
 
Herr Logan said:
Sounds interesting, and very busy! This is going to end up being about 3 hours, right?

I'd try not too--the most I'd make it would be about LOTR or Harry Potter length, 2 and a half hours or so.

Herr Logan said:
Also, Scarecrow is going to wear his costume, right?

Yeah, it's some-what different in my mind--it's more brown/black rags with a mask similar to Begins and a straw hat, but most of the time he'd be mostly in the shadow when people aren't under the gas, and sometimes even when they are.

I think Scarecrow is essentially this ultimate creepy voyeur stalker guy, who would more prefer to sit back and watch the show as the person under the gas slowly goes insane, giving them suggestions every once in a while to make their torture even more frightening and worse.
 
MaskedManJRK said:
Yeah, it's some-what different in my mind--it's more brown/black rags with a mask similar to Begins and a straw hat, but most of the time he'd be mostly in the shadow when people aren't under the gas, and sometimes even when they are.

I think Scarecrow is essentially this ultimate creepy voyeur stalker guy, who would more prefer to sit back and watch the show as the person under the gas slowly goes insane, giving them suggestions every once in a while to make their torture even more frightening and worse.

As long as the Scarecrow wears his costume for at least half of his total screentime, that can count as "faithful."
In the comics, that costume is very important to him and he's rarely seen out of it, so it's necessary.

My own concept for Jonathan Crane has working as a psychiatrist at Arkham, but he's not the director there. He'd be fired from there, just like at Gotham University. After that, he goes all the way nuts, starts wearing his costume almost all of the time and tries to get revenge on the whole city by poisoning the water supply after getting back at a few select targets in person.

:wolverine
 
By the way, Zaphod, I think we should give the Batman a customized helicopter in one of the movies after the first one. While I can't see much use for a supersonic jet within the city limits, a helicopter is perfect, and he had one in the earlier comics.

If the Batman leaves the city, and especially if he travels overseas, then bring on the Batwing. For chasing cars or ascending buildings with maximum efficiency, the Batcopter!

:wolverine
 
Herr Logan said:
By the way, Zaphod, I think we should give the Batman a customized helicopter in one of the movies after the first one. While I can't see much use for a supersonic jet within the city limits, a helicopter is perfect, and he had one in the earlier comics.

If the Batman leaves the city, and especially if he travels overseas, then bring on the Batwing. For chasing cars or ascending buildings with maximum efficiency, the Batcopter!

:wolverine

We should disscuss this in more detail, before deciding on anything. The Batwing I would definately want to see, especially in a movie with Ra's Al Ghul where Batman would be travelling away from Gotham to confront his enemy. I like the idea of the Batcopter chasing cars, though.
 
Bathead said:
I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it.

As someone who has studied films and comics quite extensivley (and tried to write for both) I can tell you that they are two different mediums and different rules apply. However, these rules apply specifically to things such as pacing, story length, and the use of sound. For example, when transferring between the mediums, you have to understand that the filmmaker controls the pace at which the story is told in films, whereas the reader mostly controls the pace that a story is told in comics. Additionally, action sequences should not be scripted in the same way in both comics and films as there is no movement in comics (this may seem like a big duh, but a lot of modern comic writers write there scripts as if they were meant to be filmed - perhaps because so many of them are from film and television - this, IMO leads to somewhat clunky storytelling). I can't see how the medium barrier would effect such things as costumes, and character traits. You are correct in stating that "fans" use this as an excuse. The fact is, that most of us have very little knowledge of what really "works" on film (myself included), but that doesn't mean we should take the word of (often times) hack filmmakers who refuse to try new things when they say "it can't be done". In other words, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm OCD and couldn't resist the urge to point some minor flaws in your argument.

Bathead said:
Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names...
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.

If some of the kids on the Batman forums got their way, Batman would be the punisher with batarangs.

Bathead said:
And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.

It bothers me that, because comics are not a respected medium, there characters are disrespected as well. If you don't respect the characters, why attempt to adapt them? I don't think it's too much to ask for filmmakers to treat comic adaptations as they would novel adaptations (although a fair amount of those get butchered too). If you don't think comics deserve that treatment, than you have no business making a film about them.

Herr Logan said:
and no, Movie!R'as dying at the end of 'Begins' doesn't count as intentional or unintentional homicide by any legal definition whatsoever

Maybe not, but the real goddamn Batman would have at least tried to save Ra's:batman:
 
Zaphod said:
We should disscuss this in more detail, before deciding on anything. The Batwing I would definately want to see, especially in a movie with Ra's Al Ghul where Batman would be travelling away from Gotham to confront his enemy. I like the idea of the Batcopter chasing cars, though.

Well yeah, if he's going to fly out to Tibet or wherever Ra's Al Ghul holes up, he should definitely use the Batwing.
I'm not sure where Ra's Al Ghul would go in the franchise. We didn't talk about a fourth movie yet.
We should probably see the Batcopter before we see the Batwing.

This is only an idea I've been considering, but I was thinking that the fourth one could possibly be broken up into three parts that are essentially individual, one-hour "episodes." Robin should probably be present in some capacity in at least two of them, since he'd show up in the third movie. This would be a good place to show the Scarecrow and Mr. Freeze, and possibly Ra's Al Ghul, although I'll understand if you think Ra's Al Ghul should have a full movie's length to do his thing.

:wolverine
 
kame-sennin said:
As someone who has studied films and comics quite extensivley (and tried to write for both) I can tell you that they are two different mediums and different rules apply. However, these rules apply specifically to things such as pacing, story length, and the use of sound. For example, when transferring between the mediums, you have to understand that the filmmaker controls the pace at which the story is told in films, whereas the reader mostly controls the pace that a story is told in comics. Additionally, action sequences should not be scripted in the same way in both comics and films as there is no movement in comics (this may seem like a big duh, but a lot of modern comic writers write there scripts as if they were meant to be filmed - perhaps because so many of them are from film and television - this, IMO leads to somewhat clunky storytelling). I can't see how the medium barrier would effect such things as costumes, and character traits. You are correct in stating that "fans" use this as an excuse. The fact is, that most of us have very little knowledge of what really "works" on film (myself included), but that doesn't mean we should take the word of (often times) hack filmmakers who refuse to try new things when they say "it can't be done". In other words, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm OCD and couldn't resist the urge to point some minor flaws in your argument.

That entire paragraph exemplifies why you're one of my favorite posters ever.
That last sentence exemplifies why you're a candidate for being my soul mate. You know, in a friendly way :o

If some of the kids on the Batman forums got their way, Batman would be the punisher with batarangs.

The little plebeians...

It bothers me that, because comics are not a respected medium, there characters are disrespected as well. If you don't respect the characters, why attempt to adapt them? I don't think it's too much to ask for filmmakers to treat comic adaptations as they would novel adaptations (although a fair amount of those get butchered too). If you don't think comics deserve that treatment, than you have no business making a film about them.

Amen!


Maybe not, but the real goddamn Batman would have at least tried to save Ra's:batman:

This is true. He probably would have. Then again, I get the impression that the Batman doesn't care as much if the real Ra's Al Ghul dies or not, since he's not only a global threat, but he's already lived a lot longer than any human really has the right to. He shoved a sword right through him in 'Hush,' seemingly on the chance that Ra's might be close enough to a Lazarus Pit if it was a fatal wound.

I'm not justifying the entirety of that scene, I'm just saying it doesn't count as murder. No court would convict him on that particular charge (well, maybe in Gotham City, where convictions and aquittals are for sale) as even a manslaughter charge, since saving a terrorist from that kind of situation would mean going to "heroic" measures (that term may only apply in medicine in that capacity), or "above and beyond" what citizens are expected to do. You can't expect people who aren't sworn officers to risk their lives the way the Batman did. It's certainly doesn't count as "depraved indifference" or anything similar.

Anyway, my major criticism there would be that he shouldn't have said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
He should have said something along the lines of "You've killed yourself." I mean, he boarded a train carrying a potential weapon of mass destruction, didn't he? If the army was there and had a clue, they'd blow away those rail supports as well if they could.

:wolverine
 
Herr Logan said:
That entire paragraph exemplifies why you're one of my favorite posters ever.
That last sentence exemplifies why you're a candidate for being my soul mate. You know, in a friendly way :o

Suuuure.

Herr Logan said:
This is true. He probably would have. Then again, I get the impression that the Batman doesn't care as much if the real Ra's Al Ghul dies or not, since he's not only a global threat, but he's already lived a lot longer than any human really has the right to. He shoved a sword right through him in 'Hush,' seemingly on the chance that Ra's might be close enough to a Lazarus Pit if it was a fatal wound.

Good point, if Batman was ever inclined to bend his own rules, it'd be with Ra's.

Herr Logan said:
I'm not justifying the entirety of that scene, I'm just saying it doesn't count as murder. No court would convict him on that particular charge (well, maybe in Gotham City, where convictions and aquittals are for sale) as even a manslaughter charge, since saving a terrorist from that kind of situation would mean going to "heroic" measures (that term may only apply in medicine in that capacity), or "above and beyond" what citizens are expected to do. You can't expect people who aren't sworn officers to risk their lives the way the Batman did. It's certainly doesn't count as "depraved indifference" or anything similar.

Yea, I know, it's that damned cumpulsive urge to argue and nitpick. Just keepin you on your toes.

Herr Logan said:
Anyway, my major criticism there would be that he shouldn't have said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
:wolverine

I think that's my main problem with the scene. I don't blame Batman for not risking his life to save Ra's (it's arguable whether or not he would even have succeeded), I just hate that he was so damn glib about it.
 
kame-sennin said:

How many times in a lifetime do you think a person comes along who is as fastidious and persnickety as I am? Is it wrong to treasure what's right in front of me?!

*achem* Pardon my outburst. :o

Good point, if Batman was ever inclined to bend his own rules, it'd be with Ra's.

Then again, that was me attributing that attitude toward the real Ra's, and that's not who was in that movie.

Liam Neeson was great in his role. Then again, so was Jim Carrey when he played Movie!Riddler. That doesn't mean they wrote either character correctly.
Ra's Al Ghul without Talia and Lazarous Pits is not Ra's Al Ghul. Also, he didn't call Bruce "Detective," and I do believe this is important. Ra's didn't train the Batman, he sought him out when he was already trained and established as a paragon of human potential. It's a much better story decision to have Ra's seek out Bruce as a potential heir than to have him training Bruce, as there are other characters who can be shown training Bruce. Check out Zaphod's write-up for Bruce's training in Korea in our collaborative, largely faithful adaptation.

Also, the cause Movie!Ra's was fighting for is much more appealing to me personally than the eco-terrorist bit. That doesn't excuse changing the character and plot. Hell, at least eco-terrorist Ra's had a plan that made the slightest bit of sense-- kill most of the humans and start society over with a idealistic dictatorship. Movie!Ra's battled against crime and corruption by funding criminals and using corruption to get into a position where he can destroy entire cities at a time in order to fight poverty and crime. That makes no sense. You'd still have a much better chance at battling crime if you kill 90% of the population than by driving a city's population insane with fear. Isn't news of that occurrence going to panic other cities and bring military intervention? Anyway, I know I'm spending too much time analyzing this.

Yea, I know, it's that damned cumpulsive urge to argue and nitpick. Just keepin you on your toes.

Oh, I'm very much on my toes. I'm so on my toes, I'm also on other people's toes. Maybe that's why I'm disliked far and wide. :o

I think that's my main problem with the scene. I don't blame Batman for not risking his life to save Ra's (it's arguable whether or not he would even have succeeded), I just hate that he was so damn glib about it.

I guess that could be called "glib." I never really knew what to make of that, other than a reason for the villain to die without the Batman being made an "executioner."

:wolverine
 
I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone!
 
Zev said:
I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone!

Heh! :D

Thank you, Zev. That solves our problem perfectly. :up:

:wolverine
 
Zev said:
I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone!

:D:up:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,079,984
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"