Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Herr Logan]

I don't like this perception of a subtle Joker presence at all. What the hell is subtle about the Joker?

• The hundreds (probably thousands) of people he's killed?

• Conspiring to drive the Commissioner insane (including shooting his daughter in the spine)?

• Bludgeoning Jason Todd with a crowbar?

• Utilizing a lethal toxin that leaves its victims with grotesque facial contortions and discoloration?

• Prancing around in a purple suit, causing mass chaos while laughing like a maniac?

Damn Goddamn right!

I respect Nolan's vision as a filmmaker and his right to craft, but this reeks. Before I hit DEFCON 1, I'm going to try to have a little perspective and assume this rumor is crap or someone misspoke. To render the Harlequin of Hate to a "small and mysterious" role flies in the face of decades of history. I don't want Batman to be relegated to the background, but is there no median here? This is Batman's greatest enemy BY FAR and any representation of him on-screen should be befitting of that. It's the goddamn Joker!

Well, as I said before, I'd rather seethe now and grin later, instead of the other way around, and since there's so much support for such a blasphemous deviation, I have to assume it's true. If I'm wrong, then that's a good thing, and I'll have saved the best (the grinning) for last.

Oh, there's a median there, believe it. It's just that Burton didn't find it, Nolan doesn't want to find it, and the teeming, bleating masses on these boards aren't interested.

I'm damn sure interested in seeing that kind of balance, while at the same time indulging something I once wrote off completely: the obligatory superhero love interest. Difference is, it would be with a faithful Selina/Catwoman and it wouldn't get overmelodramatic. The other thing is that the psychology for these characters would be explored in real terms, at least as much as possible.

I don't know if there's a real-life equivalent for the Joker (other than the histrionic and antisocial personality disorders, of course) or Two-Face, but I know that the Penguin, Scarecrow, Catwoman and probably even the Batman have psychopathology that real psychologists could explain. These puerile, ovine sycophants think that the story isn't "dark enough" if they stick to the source material and don't have the Joker kill a superfluous love interest. How about a movie that actually uses the word "schizoid" when talking about what might be wrong with Bruce Wayne as a child, much less an adult. If these people knew the first thing about psychology (and they obviously don't, since they think the Joker is a serial killer and could ever refrain from being a flamboyant attention ****e), they would know how fecking dark that by itself makes the movie, if it's followed up.
I don't know if a true schizoid could become the Batman (I don't know if such a person can successfully pretend to be a norman person for any amount of time, and I'm not sure they would want to), and I'm not saying he definitely has a schizoid disorder, but he shares a $hitload of those behaviors and the question should be raised. That's the kind of "realism" I want in my movie, not some watered-down, muted version of what is supposed to be an ostentatious clown.

In other news that doesn't result in a precipitous rise my blood pressure...

Herr, a while back you referenced the Scarecrow in your movie adaptation. I was curious as to your interpretation. Specifically, if use would be made of Crane's kung fu derivative, termed 'violent dancing'. I only stumbled across this facet of his the other day and haven't had a chance to see it in practice. However, I imagine it might give an opportunity to flesh out the character; possibly some latent psychological trauma manifested in a physical form (him being bullied and all). Of course, I've been satisfied with the classic interpretation of Scarecrow as a bully who only wields fear as a weapon. I wouldn't want his physical prowess to become so pronounced as to take away from that. Let’s not mention Scarebeast.

I would have him be the bullied-turned-bully (very much like the Penguin, but a whole lot more twisted, considering the Penguin just went after other scumbags for up-close-'n-personal revenge and then acted like a wannabe Falcone, while the Scarecrow puts anyone he can find in a drugged, terrified state), with limited martial arts skill. The only time he'll have any ability to really hurt the Batman physically is when he's under the influence of a toxin and/or is embroiled in combat with the Scarecrow's thugs. The Scarecrow will also use weapons such as scythes, and I want it to be just a rake the first time, since it would be great to have the Batman shamefully recount to Alfred that he was so screwed-up with fear toxin that he was beaten by one skinny guy with a rake. I think I outlined an unfinished sketch of a Scarecrow plot a while back. I'll try to search for it later, repost it and flesh it out a bit more.

Thanks for posting, man, really. These are troubling times, and it's good to see that hope still trundles on.

By the way, I love your new custom title.

 

[Mister J]

Damn Goddamn right!

It's funny (actually sad) how many don't seem to realize this basic tenet of the character.

Well, as I said before, I'd rather seethe now and grin later, instead of the other way around, and since there's so much support for such a blasphemous deviation, I have to assume it's true. If I'm wrong, then that's a good thing, and I'll have saved the best (the grinning) for last.

Despite my intent to restrain my outrage, I have had a few recent trips to the Bat-boards in an attempt to enlighten a few and to fight the good fight. So far I've been able to keep my tone from being truly acrid while making a few points. However, if this "In Nolan I Trust" crap becomes prolific, I fear the vitriol of my retorts will know no boundaries.

Oh, there's a median there, believe it. It's just that Burton didn't find it, Nolan doesn't want to find it, and the teeming, bleating masses on these boards aren't interested.

I'm damn sure interested in seeing that kind of balance, while at the same time indulging something I once wrote off completely: the obligatory superhero love interest. Difference is, it would be with a faithful Selina/Catwoman and it wouldn't get overmelodramatic. The other thing is that the psychology for these characters would be explored in real terms, at least as much as possible.

I don't know if there's a real-life equivalent for the Joker (other than the histrionic and antisocial personality disorders, of course) or Two-Face, but I know that the Penguin, Scarecrow, Catwoman and probably even the Batman have psychopathology that real psychologists could explain. These puerile, ovine sycophants think that the story isn't "dark enough" if they stick to the source material and don't have the Joker kill a superfluous love interest. How about a movie that actually uses the word "schizoid" when talking about what might be wrong with Bruce Wayne as a child, much less an adult. If these people knew the first thing about psychology (and they obviously don't, since they think the Joker is a serial killer and could ever refrain from being a flamboyant attention ****e), they would know how fecking dark that by itself makes the movie, if it's followed up.
I don't know if a true schizoid could become the Batman (I don't know if such a person can successfully pretend to be a norman person for any amount of time, and I'm not sure they would want to), and I'm not saying he definitely has a schizoid disorder, but he shares a $hitload of those behaviors and the question should be raised. That's the kind of "realism" I want in my movie, not some watered-down, muted version of what is supposed to be an ostentatious clown.

Exactly. There's a wealth of psychological profiling that can be referenced for both, Batman and The Joker. Part of why Batman deems The Joker so dangerous (outside of the obvious acts) is that he's unpredictable. The world is his stage and he'll perform how he damn well sees fit. For all his practical knowledge, Batman can't get a bead on him. That's scary in itself. Where did this 'shadowy manipulator' garbage come from? Joker wants to be noticed; he needs it. He's not going to wait for someone to get the punch line. He's going to force everyone to pay attention of it (and consequently, pay attention to him).

There's always room to explore the psyche of Bruce Wayne. Where is the line drawn between him and Batman? It's blurry to him because this is all still relatively new. His facade of billionaire playboy exacerbates the issue. While dealing with the antics of his soon-to-be greatest enemy, Bruce will inevitably hearken back to Alfred's words, "You're getting lost inside this monster of yours." This is thrilling and inspired storytelling. Save me the superfluous and hackneyed Hollywood crap.

I would have him be the bullied-turned-bully (very much like the Penguin, but a whole lot more twisted, considering the Penguin just went after other scumbags for up-close-'n-personal revenge and then acted like a wannabe Falcone, while the Scarecrow puts anyone he can find in a drugged, terrified state), with limited martial arts skill. The only time he'll have any ability to really hurt the Batman physically is when he's under the influence of a toxin and/or is embroiled in combat with the Scarecrow's thugs. The Scarecrow will also use weapons such as scythes, and I want it to be just a rake the first time, since it would be great to have the Batman shamefully recount to Alfred that he was so screwed-up with fear toxin that he was beaten by one skinny guy with a rake. I think I outlined an unfinished sketch of a Scarecrow plot a while back. I'll try to search for it later, repost it and flesh it out a bit more.

Fine imagery there. Flush out the potency of the fear toxin by having the beanpole whip the 6'2/220 trained badass...and with a rake no less! Now, that's juxtaposition. I look forward to that plot outline.

Thanks for posting, man, really. These are troubling times, and it's good to see that hope still trundles on.

I have no interest in mimicking this herd behavior, regardless of how much I enjoyed the first film.

By the way, I love your new custom title.

Much akin to the inspiration for my screen name and avatar, I'm an attention ****e.

 

[Herr Logan]

This is cut and pasted from a post on Page 37 of this thread. It was addressing that my original concept for a first movie included both the Penguin and the Scarecrow, but I've sinced dropped the Scarecrow as a necessary part of the first movie. Still, he should be in one of the movies (maybe the 4th) and these were some of my thoughts on that:


If, however, the story does include the Scarecrow, then Crane's plot will be mostly independent of the rest of what's going on. Jonathon Crane will be everything he was in the comics, but in addition to having been a professor at Gotham University (and fired from there due to his highly unethical experiments), he will, like in 'Begins' start out in the film as a psychopharmacologist at Arkham Asylum. Unlike in 'Begins,' he does not run
The connection between the Scarecrow and the Penguin-- which is why in my original idea the Batman pays another visit to Cobblepot after having been driven off-- is merely that Crane hires thugs to help him in his monstrous campaign against Gotham, and the Penguin has his finger on the pulse of the criminal underworld of Gotham. He's got the info. No respectable person in organized crime will have anything to do with Scarecrow (plus the Penguin, who is not considered by the local mobs to be truly respectable, but rather an eccentric, "new-money" charlatan with pretensions of standing), because he's not out for profit and the smart ones know that, even if the dumb thugs believe they'll actually get paid for their labor.

The Scarecrow will test the effect of his fear toxin delivered through liquid consumption. Perhaps at a high-society ball where all the drinks-- not just the alcoholic ones, or it wouldn't effect Bruce Wayne-- are spiked with the fear toxin? Bruce Wayne would be there, acting shallow and bored, and people would gradually start to freak out and panic. Bruce, during the panic, would notice a suspicious person dressed as a caterer/waiter/bartender sneaking out of the chaos, and he would follow him. The hireling leads him back to the the Scarecrow and his gang. After beating up the crew, the Batman comes face to face with the Scarecrow, and while he'd been fighting the fear drug's effects this entire time and rising above it, he cracks when he sees Crane in his costume. He is distracted enough by his hallucinations of unrelenting swarms of bats and his parents getting murdered over and over again that the Scarecrow kicks his ass using amateur martial arts and... I don't know, a rake or something. Anyway, the Batman would escape and return to the Cave, either by having Alfred pick him up or by climbing into his car and having the Batmobile's autopilot do the driving. As he stays in the Cave and waits for the toxin to run its course, he's too messed up in the head to even read over the case files he knows he should be reviewing for when he goes back into action. In fact, he can't even stay in the Cave because the bats are terrifying him. He has nightmares of his parents' murder, of the bats coming upstairs and assimilating his childhood home into the darkness that has become his life, of Alfred and Leslie being murdered, and of his getting taken down like a rank amateur by a flock of trained birds, a poisoned glass of ginger ale, and a spindly psychopath dressed in straw-stuffed burlap. He fears that all the years he spent training his mind and body to nigh-perfection were all a pathetic waste. He fears that his deliberate efforts to make Bruce Wayne a hopeless ditz in the eyes of the world have left him without a fruitful future, because he fears that he will have to give up his crusade and his playboy persona is all he'll be left with. He's left in this state for about two days, with the standard duration of the effects of the toxin (uttered by the Scarecrow to his hirelings, not to Bruce Wayne) for someone his size being about three or four days. After two days, he gets out of bed and goes back down to the Cave, staring down the bats, opening up his crime files, doing about a two thousand pushups (because he's behind on his exercises, you see), testing out all his most difficult athletic moves, and finally putting on his costume and staring himself down in the mirror. He's horrified by his own masked visage, but the renewed knowledge of the fear he inspires empowers him to carry on his war on crime and chaos.


This movie emphasizes intelligence, creativity, the power of fear (shown through organized crime, Bruce Wayne and the Batman's inner and outer conflicts, and the Scarecrow) and obsession more than passion and idealism, although there is that, too (more obviously portrayed on Gordon's part, though). There isn't going to be any damn kids saying "Batman will save us." I'd wait until at least the second film for the innocents of Gotham to trust the Batman at all. Even though the police will pursue the Batman in force, the fact that they fail to catch him strengthens the public's notion that he's an urban legend. He is an the asylum, or appear to do so, and he will be fired from his position the similar reasons as his being fired from the university. This event will push him over the edge and lead him to become fear itself-- the Scarecrow, with the full costume and everything. aggressive urban legend.He wants some ambiguity, but he truly does want people to spread the word. It helps him strike fear into the hearts of superstitious and cowardly men if they're thinking about him before he actually shows up.

I'd like to hear the Batman say a line that was changed in 'BATMAN':

Batman: You're trespassing.
Criminal: You don't own the night.
Batman: I am the night.

I'd also like him to say something ominous and dramatic to a gang leader, along the lines of:
"You're afraid. You've been afraid from the beginning. You hurt innocent people to make yourself feel strong. Strong enough to stand up to the things in the darkness that make you feel small and afraid. Strong enough to look that demon in the eye and tell it that you're not afraid anymore. Well, I'm here and I'm listening. Always here and listening. Is there something you'd like to tell me now?"

Thoughts on all that?

 

[Zaphod]

Herr: I am cnear finishing up my Bruce Wayne/Origin post, and plan to post it here in this thread sometime this weekend. I will post it in segments, first part being Bruce at the FBI. This is so we can dissect, analyse and creatively pick-apart as we go, as opposed too dealing with a single huge post with everything in all at once. In the meantime, it would be nice to talk about the final act of the movie, just to get some ideas rolling.

 

[Herr Logan]

It's funny (actually sad) how many don't seem to realize this basic tenet of the character.


Despite my intent to restrain my outrage, I have had a few recent trips to the Bat-boards in an attempt to enlighten a few and to fight the good fight. So far I've been able to keep my tone from being truly acrid while making a few points. However, if this "In Nolan I Trust" crap becomes prolific, I fear the vitriol of my retorts will know no boundaries.

Make sure to send me a link if you start layin' the smackdown. I love to see evil vanquished by a passionate spirit with a superior vocabulary.

Exactly. There's a wealth of psychological profiling that can be referenced for both, Batman and The Joker. Part of why Batman deems The Joker so dangerous (outside of the obvious acts) is that he's unpredictable. The world is his stage and he'll perform how he damn well sees fit. For all his practical knowledge, Batman can't get a bead on him. That's scary in itself. Where did this 'shadowy manipulator' garbage come from? Joker wants to be noticed; he needs it. He's not going to wait for someone to get the punch line. He's going to force everyone to pay attention of it (and consequently, pay attention to him).

Exactly.

Since a straightforward fight between the Batman and the Joker would be either one-sides or unrealistic (in the context of the mythos, not "reality," in the fact that the Joker has the strength of a madman, but the Batman is still too much man for him if he doesn't use flunkies and a lot of nasty trick-weapons), I want to have the Batman outsmart the Joker somehow. After all, the Joker is arguably a genius when it comes to setting up scenarios (sort of like scripts and blocking, like it was a stage performance, except he has to guide the Batman through his lines and blocking without the Batman presumably knowing any of it beforehand) and chemistry. I would probably have the Batman try to exploit everything that's obvious about the Joker's psychology. His narcissism and histrionic personality disroder are key targets. I don't know if you saw 'Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker,' but Batman Jr. attacked the Joker's ego to throw him off-guard. It would be nothing so blatant and climactic in a first Joker movie of a new franchise, but that could be one part of the Batman's battle plan. If not in the first climactic battle with the Joker, then perhaps a future one. Certainly he can use the histrionic aspect and lure the Joker that way, and also trash the equipment that allows the Joker to hijack TV broadcasts (cable and satelite included), not only to reduce the fear level in Gotham's innocent civilians but to piss off the Joker. This will flush him out to give a "live appearance" (and the Batman should be aware of the risk involved in this, and perhaps have other people spread the word to media sources that he tends to patrol a specific area, all the while keeping his "urban myth" status by not actually being caught on camera and having the extra police guarding the area keep the press away. Something like that.

There's always room to explore the psyche of Bruce Wayne. Where is the line drawn between him and Batman? It's blurry to him because this is all still relatively new. His facade of billionaire playboy exacerbates the issue. While dealing with the antics of his soon-to-be greatest enemy, Bruce will inevitably hearken back to Alfred's words, "You're getting lost inside this monster of yours." This is thrilling and inspired storytelling. Save me the superfluous and hackneyed Hollywood crap.

I would use the second movie's Selina/Catwoman storyline to explore that line between Bruce and Batman. It wouldn't be sappy or full of the kind of shallow pop-psychology that made people think 'Hulk' was a deep movie.' Also, it wouldn't have a happy ending, although it also wouldn't be an overwhelmingly depressing one, either. In my franchise, in a battle between the Batman and Bruce Wayne for who the true personality is, the Batman wins, period. That doesn't mean we can't have some good Bruce Wayne moments. It does, however, mean that the audience will not be able to walk away without knowing that the Batman is his life, and the face of Bruce Wayne is now merely a tool. The Batman will seem to have given up on a normal life, but there will be signs throughout the franchise that he is not a truly lost cause. He can still banter playfully with Alfred, and what he felt for Selina Kyle was real, but he can't be with her because she's a somewhat unpredictable criminal who likely won't stop stealing, and he can't allow himself to unravel over the chance that he can make a real relationship our of a screwed-up situation.

The first movie will set up the Batman character and show how he turned into an obsessed, grim predator of criminals and savior of the innocent.
The second movie will have him question whether there is any going back from the absoluteness he chose, and whether he even wants more normalcy in his life. The simple answer to that is that he doesn't. The complicated answer can be summed up by saying that, for the most part, he doesn't
The third movie-- if Robin is introduced in this one, which I would like-- explores the Batman's ability to connect with another human being (one he didn't grow up with or know before his world turned crazy), his desire to help people by doing more than throwing money into the city, beating up evildoers and slipping away in the night before the people he saves can say "thank you," and his willingness to work with a partner. Also, further experiences with loss (Harvey Dent) and how close he'll let people "in" at the risk of losing them (which does with the ability to connect).

Fine imagery there. Flush out the potency of the fear toxin by having the beanpole whip the 6'2/220 trained badass...and with a rake no less! Now, that's juxtaposition. I look forward to that plot outline.

Thanks.

Check out what I posted a little while ago.

I have no interest in mimicking this herd behavior, regardless of how muich I enjoyed the first film.

Much akin to the inspiration for my screen name and avatar, I'm an attention ****e.

So be it! You're one o' the good ones, for sure.

 

[Herr Logan]

Herr: I am cnear finishing up my Bruce Wayne/Origin post, and plan to post it here in this thread sometime this weekend. I will post it in segments, first part being Bruce at the FBI. This is so we can dissect, analyse and creatively pick-apart as we go, as opposed too dealing with a single huge post with everything in all at once. In the meantime, it would be nice to talk about the final act of the movie, just to get some ideas rolling.

Good to hear, Zaphod.

Gotta go be late to class for now. Talk to you guys later.

 

[Cullen]

Well, here's the death knell sounding for the next real Movie!Joker.

"I can confirm that The Joker role is a small and mysterious one in the sequel. It will be nothing like the Jack Nicholson-style showcase that the previous Joker provided."

This is automatically a failure. There's absolutely nothing "small" about the Joker's role in a proper Joker story, and the only mystery involved is who he was before he got bleached and how the hell he keeps escaping certain death.
Anyone who believes that it's acceptable to give the Joker a small role in a Batman film (not including a cliff-hanger cameo at the end of one film to set up a Joker-centric film coming up right after) is heretofore forbidden from saying so-- or at least arguing the point-- in this thread. I just want to make that clear. Faithfulness in no way includes a small role for the Joker. He is not a mystery mastermind who pulls strings from behind the scenes. He is not a phantom in the night who slinks through the shadows and brings subtle terror to Gotham. There is absolutely. Nothing. Subtle. About. The. Joker. Period!! Anyone who doesn't get that is in no way allowed to pollute this thread with an opposing statement. You either get the Joker or you don't. I don't want to see any bull$hit like this.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Thank you.

Jesus wept. The Joker as Kaiser Soze. As Sauron. The mind boggles. It simply boggles. You can't get more wrongheaded than that without being JMS.

Now my brain needs scouring. Thanks a lot for pointing that post out.

Your forbidding declaration, however, does bring up two points for me.

1. I can think of a way Nolan can do a "subtle" Joker and remain faithful to the character. I don't like this way, but it did occur to me.
2. I was playing with the notion of an extended cameo for the Joker in my first Batman movie. It wasn't as mastermind for the movie (so... wasteful...) but I thought it would add to the film

The first point really doesn't fit of this thread, and if you want to pass on my reasonings (not justifications for doing it, mind you, just how I see it could be done) great! That's fine.

The second point, though, I think I can justify and would be willing to give it a go. However, if you don't want to hear it, I will respectfully decline in giving it.

 

[Cullen]

I just read some of the other posts on this page. Let me just reiterate, I don't want a subtle Joker. Mark Hamill's version is, as I've said, the definitive Joker. That's what I want to see. No other.

However, I think a Joker subtler than NicholsonJoker can be done, and in character, too.

As I've said, that's not what this threads about and if no one wants to hear my crazy notion, cool.

 

[Herr Logan]

Jesus wept. The Joker as Kaiser Soze. As Sauron. The mind boggles. It simply boggles. You can't get more wrongheaded than that without being JMS.

Now my brain needs scouring. Thanks a lot for pointing that post out.

Your forbidding declaration, however, does bring up two points for me.

1. I can think of a way Nolan can do a "sutble" Joker and remain faithful to the character. I don't like this way, but it did occured to me.
2. I was playing with the notion of an extended cameo for the Joker in my first Batman movie. It wasn't as mastermind for the movie (so... wasteful...) but I thought it would add to the film

The first point really doesn't fit of this thread, and if you want to pass on my reasonings (not justifications for doing it, mind you, just how I see it could be done) great! That's fine.

The second point, though, I think I can justify and would be willing to give it a go. However, if you don't want to hear it, I will repectfully decline in giving it.

Whichever, whatever.

I'd like to hear about that second point.

I think I understand you, that the Joker isn't a primary villain in that particular movie, and will be given the spotlight in the following movie, right?

 

[Cullen]

I'd like to hear about that second point.

I think I understand you, that the Joker isn't a primary villain in that particular movie, and will be given the spotlight in the following movie, right?

Exactly. I'll get something up on it Friday/Saturday. It'll cover what I would do and why I'm doing it.

 

[Herr Logan]

Exactly. I'll get something up on it Friday/Saturday. It'll cover what I would do and why I'm doing it.

Cool. Thanks, Cullen.

 

[Herr Logan]

Where's the love?

 

[Zaphod]

Paitence Herr, paitence...

 

[Zaphod]

Some notes on the final act of 'The Batman':

• The Batmobile Chase. There needs to be one, naturally, however it shouldn't feel tacked on for the sake of appeasing the fans and general audience, but should fit in nicely with the Batman's mission at hand. In Begins they worked it in fairly well without it feeling contrived. In 'The Batman', I'm unsure whether Batman would have the autopilot feature already featured in his first car? I'd rather he didnt, seeing as how I want Bruce to do alot of driving himself in these scenes, to really demonstrate his skills with a vehicle aswell as on-foot.

• The set-up. I expect Batman to set-up a sting on a set of corrupt GCPD with some of Falcone's men in tow, which would initially force them all into police-custody until an investigation proper. This works well for a number of reasons: Firstly, with all the evidence Batman will collect throughout the film, it wont be admissiable alone given the means by which it was collected (we'll see Gordan and Batman discuss this problem earlier, it also features in as a similar plot-device in the FBI orgin of mine), and so the Batman and Gordan decide the only way to bring a charge against them is too first plan a set-up, so that those on the payroll, Loeb and many of Falcones men, are caught at a scene red-handed. Once this is a success, all the evidence which Batman had previously gathered is handed over from Gordan to Dent, and Dent presents it in court as a part of his investigation's collected evidence. This eliminates 'the tree of forbidden fruit..." problem for Dent, and the evidence is enough to convict Loeb and a good deal of the corrupt GCPD and Falcone faction forever.

In fact, I could imagine the set-up encompassing the Batmobile chase, easily.

Batman would go to Gordan, with the intent to formulate a plan in order to set-up and land Loeb and his men in the red. Batman tells Gordan to round up some cops and detectives he can trust. Gordan does so, amongst them is Montoya and Bullock, who we are briefly introduced to. (It's worth mentioning, that it would be made clear that Gordan doesnt want Bullock to know anything about Batman and the relationship they've forged, so he would keep Bullock firmly out of the know. Montoya would have her suspicions as to the rumours of 'a bat-creature preying on the criminals of Gotham' go, and would suspect that Gordan knows something more when he mentions 'their contact' to her). I havent got down the way in which Batman will implicate Loeb and his men at the scene, but it would involve Gordan and his entourage busting in on them, unmistakbly catching them in the act. The Batman, meanwhile, would be away from the scene, causing a distraction of somesort, to lead a good number of GCPD still on the payroll and a threat to the sting, away from the scene. I could imagine this scenario to encompass both the Batmobile chase, and the on-foot pursuit you touched upin earlier Herr.

 

[Zaphod]

ORIGIN PART 1 - BRUCE IN THE FBI:

We cut from young Bruce in the well, as bats swarm all over him and fill the screen with the sound of their rising cheeping, they merge – into the shots of bullets being fired. We then see Bruce, now aged 20, firing shots off from a handgun at a red-and-yellow target, his ears covered with earmuffs to drone out the sound, and standing in a shooting booth. A blue-overall top tells us that he is an ‘F.B.I Trainee’ in yellow-block capitals. A look of determination shows to us that Bruce is focused, but the shots he fires tell a different story. As he unloads on the target in front of him, we see that the shots hit haphazard upon the target, most of the land off-centre. Bruce continues to unload a whole clip of unsuccessful hitting shots, before placing down the gun down and taking of the earmuffs. He leaves the booth and confronted by the Weapons Instructor observing his progress. He takes out a clipboard and mark-sheet, noting down numbers and scores. He tells Bruce that he needs to improve his aim drastically if he is to move up from basic on ‘weapons’, and marks Bruce’s poor score down on his sheet. The instructor also muses as to how Bruce can manage to achieve great progress in every other area of training, but can seem to grasp the idea of shooting in the same manner. (“Y’know Bruce, it’s as if you don’t even want to hit that thing…”).

We then cut to scenes of Bruce making fast work of a survival/exercise course. He quickly and efficiently leaps, crawls, swings and climbs through obstacles, never ceasing speed, demonstrating a supreme athleticism. We’ll see what the Instructor meant when he said Bruce was well versed in every other area in these quick flashes. Finishing the course, Bruce jogs lightly through the grounds of the outdoors training areas of the FBI. We see other Trainee’s, practicing various skills, simulations are in progress, before Bruce is disturbed from his jog by a voice calling over. The Section Chief, set apart from the other trainee’s and instructors in a black suit and tie, makes his way across the training grounds to meet Bruce.

What follows is an exchange between Bruce and the Section Chief. We learn of Bruce’s past attendance of Universities (Cambridge, Sorbonne, where he studied psychology and criminology, and Berlin School of Science would all get a mention). The Chief would commend Bruce’s skills in these areas, saying that although he has only been a trainee for six-weeks he is making excellent progress in light of his prior educatory career. He goes on to tell Bruce, that in light of these achievements, he has been selected along with various other trainees at the facility to undergo an exercise in the understand of criminal psychology and the process of beauacracy. The Section Chief tells Bruce that he is to attend a trial being held in Washington, as a member of the jury, although outside voting on the sentencing process, to observe a specialist proceeding.

We cut to Washington, and a courthouse. Suits enter in and out, and inside we have a trial in progress. Bruce sits at the back, with a minority number of other trainee’s like himself. As the proceeding progresses, many of the trainee’s scribble notes onto paper, observing and making judgements on the process of the trial, however Bruce just sits and observes. The accused is a man, in his mid-to-late 30’s; wearing a black suit he sits in the box at the front of the court, a smug expression on his face. The charge brought against him is rape, and the alleged victim sits looking at him from her desk, a young, dark-haired fragile looking woman, seated next to her lawyer. As the trial goes on, Bruce observes the defendant with a keen and deducting eye. He notices and takes in every mannerism, habit and way of speech, which the accused exhibits; to Bruce it is the only evidence he needs in deciding for a fact that he is guilty. As Bruce does this, we the audience see everything he see’s in the defendant. However, it is very much a different story when we cut to the victim’s lawyer, who through all efforts and evidence cannot bring an admissible case against the rapist, even though he is guilty of the charge brought against him (It would be made clear that the rapist is guilty, even though no charge is brought against him as such. This would be shown through Bruce’s deduction and psychological profiling of the accused, so it would be made clear to the audience and not ambiguous). Bruce is still watching though; with every movement the defendant makes he infers to it his shrewd understanding of psychology, body language and perception. Bruce knows the rapist is guilty of the charge brought against him. This entire scenario would be very intense and unsettling. As we hear the trial proceed, with the victims lawyer questioning the defendant, we see the defendants movements and expressions spell out his guilt for us and Bruce. However, he’s appearance to all others in the court betrays no idea of him being guilty. The judge finally allows the defendant to leave, deciding that none of the evidence is tangible or solid enough to bring about any charge. The women seated across from the accused has to listen to this, and witness the system betray her, and let a man who raped her walk free of charge.

Now outside the Court House, Bruce stands alone, looking out over the city street in front. Witnessing the trial has driven home to him the unfairness of the system, which he serves. From out of the main doors comes strutting down the defendant, accompanied by his lawyer to a black sedan waiting at the bottom of the steps for their departure. Bruce observes him, and momentarily, the man notices Bruce’s stare out of the corner of his eye. Stopping by the car at the bottom of the steps, he looks at Bruce, grins, and ducks into the car before it pulls away from the court. A free man made of a guilty-rapist. Bruce cannot take anymore.


The next time we see Bruce, he's checking in his gun and equipment, and collecting his own things to leave the FBI. Now dressed as a civilian, Bruce leaves the FBI.


--


I have altered the origin events portrayed in the original story of Bruce in the FBI, because frankly it simply isn't very enjoyable watching Bruce shuffle papers in an office, and then just leave after lamenting on about the unfairness of the system. I want to show the audience, not tell them. The latter wouldn't have been a very exciting opening to older-Bruce, this way it brings in some drama to the opening while still retaining all the thematic elements which caused Bruce to leave the FBI in the first place. Having Bruce attend a trial, we see him utilizing his skills of psychology aswell as learning the hard way that he cannot work within such a system. The trial itself also provides us with a starting point for the choice Bruce makes as the Batman later on, in collecting evidence and in the conversation between himself and Gordan about it's lack of usefullness as an admissable source based on where it came from and how it was found. It would be these issues with evidence that allow the rapist to walk free.


This entire opening should run the exact time as the opening of 'Begins' did. The time it took for Bruce to wake from his nightmare in the Bhuntanese, to the time of being set-free on the road by Ducard in that movie, would be the same amount of time 'Bruce at the FBI' takes, screetime wise.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Mister J]

On the Scarecrow:

It would be good to get some mention of Crane's past, as a child as well as an adult. Naturally, the attention would be on him being bullied and ridiculed (by classmates and colleagues) and his obsession with fear. Perhaps even a reference to the murder he committed in high school. I know what you posted was just an overview, so you've probably given attention to something along those lines already. I do like the fact that you've chosen to embrace the comics.

I imagine the relationship between Scarecrow and Penguin to be tenuous; a sort of means to an end. Neither is exactly revered by the underworld. They exhibit a symbiotic relationship. Crane gets the use of goons to further his agenda and perhaps Cobblepot seeks to gain a little clout to garner 'respect' amongst Gotham's Mafioso. Their uneasy alliance could also be a tool that Batman uses to his advantage. Maybe a 'divide and conquer' scenario after he pieces together their association. I don't know how you want to play it, but I felt like blabbing.

I like how you've emphasized the crippling aspect of the fear toxin. In Begins, we did get to see its effect, but it was limited to brief imagery. Let's see the scenarios, hear the voices and get behind what truly (and literally) paralyzes someone with fear. This setup strengthens the audience's perception of Bruce's inner strength when he recovers from the toxin way ahead of schedule, as you alluded to.

Excellent quotes by Batman toward the end.

Make sure to send me a link if you start layin' the smackdown. I love to see evil vanquished by a passionate spirit with a superior vocabulary.

Rest assured, I will send over a link if/when I lose my patience. I've been able to remain calm so far and be courteous in pointing out why some people are just WRONG. Although, a few of us had to give attention to someone who envisioned The Joker as "completely and erotically obsessed" with Batman (because it's 'creepy'). I swear, if I could reach through this screen sometimes...

 

[Zaphod]

On the Scarecrow:

It would be good to get some mention of Crane's past, as a child as well as an adult. Naturally, the attention would be on him being bullied and ridiculed (by classmates and colleagues) and his obsession with fear. Perhaps even a reference to the murder he committed in high school. I know what you posted was just an overview, so you've probably given attention to something along those lines already. I do like the fact that you've chosen to embrace the comics.

I had some ideas on this myself:

While I agree that Crane's childhood and past need to be brought up somehow in his subsequent movie, I would rather avoid showing these scenario's through flashbacks. It seems like the most obvious route to go, but it runs the risk of burdening the movie with too many seperate back-storys to characters, especially villain characters. This is not to say I would prioritize the Batman character so far over his villains that they would cease to become the interesting and complex characters they are, but I can imagine better ways to portray the driving force of their characters without breaking the narrative for the sake of a flashback scenario. I like the idea of Batman investigating into the psychological profile of Crane, discovering a dossier which details Crane's accounts of physical and verbal abuse as an infant. Another way is by having Crane subjected to his own toxin, which I would certainly keep included from 'Begins' for our own movie featuring the Scarecrow. In this case, when The Scarecrow is doused with his 'fear-toxin', instead of invisioning a 'grisly-bat' apparition, he'd cower in fear at the imagined taunts and attacks of the school bullies, seemingly back from his past to torment him again.

 

[Mister J]

Zaphod, that does help with the flow of the narrative. Originally, I had thought of bringing Crane's past to screen while he was speaking to Penguin (who would remark at some point of Crane's garish attire and M.O.). Crane would begin to orate on the follies of those who teased him how he exacted revenge. Initially, my thoughts were that something along these lines (Crane's cruel vehicle of retaliation) would create viewer contempt. Maybe it gives him too strong of an aura; Scarecrow's nothing more than a bully.

However, having these scenes brought to life at the hand of his own toxin is smart. His experiences of being bullied are what led him to his obsession with fear in the first place. Perhaps some rapid flash sequences of him being chased in the schoolyard being taunted as a 'scarecrow'. We could even go as far as showing his colleagues at Gotham U. ridiculing him for his choice in wardrobe and preoccupation with books. The visual effect on Crane in real-time would have him backpedaling against antagonists that are only visible to him. Eventually, he falls and curls up in the fetal position while screaming to be left alone; maybe crying. As in Begins, there's a semblance of poetic justice there.

 

[Herr Logan]

ORIGIN PART 1 - BRUCE IN THE FBI:

We cut from young Bruce in the well, as bats swarm all over him and fill the screen with the sound of their rising cheeping, they merge – into the shots of bullets being fired. We then see Bruce, now aged 20, firing shots off from a handgun at a red-and-yellow target, his ears covered with earmuffs to drone out the sound, and standing in a shooting booth. A blue-overall top tells us that he is an ‘F.B.I Trainee’ in yellow-block capitals. A look of determination shows to us that Bruce is focused, but the shots he fires tell a different story. As he unloads on the target in front of him, we see that the shots hit haphazard upon the target, most of the land off-centre. Bruce continues to unload a whole clip of unsuccessful hitting shots, before placing down the gun down and taking of the earmuffs. He leaves the booth and confronted by the Weapons Instructor observing his progress. He takes out a clipboard and mark-sheet, noting down numbers and scores. He tells Bruce that he needs to improve his aim drastically if he is to move up from basic on ‘weapons’, and marks Bruce’s poor score down on his sheet. The instructor also muses as to how Bruce can manage to achieve great progress in every other area of training, but can seem to grasp the idea of shooting in the same manner. (“Y’know Bruce, it’s as if you don’t even want to hit that thing…”).

We then cut to scenes of Bruce making fast work of a survival/exercise course. He quickly and efficiently leaps, crawls, swings and climbs through obstacles, never ceasing speed, demonstrating a supreme athleticism. We’ll see what the Instructor meant when he said Bruce was well versed in every other area in these quick flashes. Finishing the course, Bruce jogs lightly through the grounds of the outdoors training areas of the FBI. We see other Trainee’s, practicing various skills, simulations are in progress, before Bruce is disturbed from his jog by a voice calling over. The Section Chief, set apart from the other trainee’s and instructors in a black suit and tie, makes his way across the training grounds to meet Bruce.

I think this is good. I would suggest changing the shooting range scene so that the target is large and has a figure of a human body on it, and Bruce's shots only seem to hit the extremities (arms, legs), sometimes with only grazing shots (at the very edge of the figure). These would be disabling shots, but this could look to the supervisor as completely by accident, and any law enforcement agency trains its officers to shoot for center mass, not disarming shots to limbs.
I just don't want it to seem to the audience that Bruce can't actually hit the target properly at all, even though they will eventually know that he has an aversion to guns. Perhaps Bruce can do all this very quickly, noticably rushing his tests to get them over with, and a supervisor could comment on that.

What follows is an exchange between Bruce and the Section Chief. We learn of Bruce’s past attendance of Universities (Cambridge, Sorbonne, where he studied psychology and criminology, and Berlin School of Science would all get a mention). The Chief would commend Bruce’s skills in these areas, saying that although he has only been a trainee for six-weeks he is making excellent progress in light of his prior educatory career. He goes on to tell Bruce, that in light of these achievements, he has been selected along with various other trainees at the facility to undergo an exercise in the understand of criminal psychology and the process of beauacracy. The Section Chief tells Bruce that he is to attend a trial being held in Washington, as a member of the jury, although outside voting on the sentencing process, to observe a specialist proceeding.

We cut to Washington, and a courthouse. Suits enter in and out, and inside we have a trial in progress. Bruce sits at the back, with a minority number of other trainee’s like himself. As the proceeding progresses, many of the trainee’s scribble notes onto paper, observing and making judgements on the process of the trial, however Bruce just sits and observes. The accused is a man, in his mid-to-late 30’s; wearing a black suit he sits in the box at the front of the court, a smug expression on his face. The charge brought against him is rape, and the alleged victim sits looking at him from her desk, a young, dark-haired fragile looking woman, seated next to her lawyer. As the trial goes on, Bruce observes the defendant with a keen and deducting eye. He notices and takes in every mannerism, habit and way of speech, which the accused exhibits; to Bruce it is the only evidence he needs in deciding for a fact that he is guilty. As Bruce does this, we the audience see everything he see’s in the defendant. However, it is very much a different story when we cut to the victim’s lawyer, who through all efforts and evidence cannot bring an admissible case against the rapist, even though he is guilty of the charge brought against him (It would be made clear that the rapist is guilty, even though no charge is brought against him as such. This would be shown through Bruce’s deduction and psychological profiling of the accused, so it would be made clear to the audience and not ambiguous). Bruce is still watching though; with every movement the defendant makes he infers to it his shrewd understanding of psychology, body language and perception. Bruce knows the rapist is guilty of the charge brought against him. This entire scenario would be very intense and unsettling. As we hear the trial proceed, with the victims lawyer questioning the defendant, we see the defendants movements and expressions spell out his guilt for us and Bruce. However, he’s appearance to all others in the court betrays no idea of him being guilty. The judge finally allows the defendant to leave, deciding that none of the evidence is tangible or solid enough to bring about any charge. The women seated across from the accused has to listen to this, and witness the system betray her, and let a man who raped her walk free of charge.

Now outside the Court House, Bruce stands alone, looking out over the city street in front. Witnessing the trial has driven home to him the unfairness of the system, which he serves. From out of the main doors comes strutting down the defendant, accompanied by his lawyer to a black sedan waiting at the bottom of the steps for their departure. Bruce observes him, and momentarily, the man notices Bruce’s stare out of the corner of his eye. Stopping by the car at the bottom of the steps, he looks at Bruce, grins, and ducks into the car before it pulls away from the court. A free man made of a guilty-rapist. Bruce cannot take anymore.


The next time we see Bruce, he's checking in his gun and equipment, and collecting his own things to leave the FBI. Now dressed as a civilian, Bruce leaves the FBI.


--


I have altered the origin events portrayed in the original story of Bruce in the FBI, because frankly it simply isn't very enjoyable watching Bruce shuffle papers in an office, and then just leave after lamenting on about the unfairness of the system. I want to show the audience, not tell them. The latter wouldn't have been a very exciting opening to older-Bruce, this way it brings in some drama to the opening while still retaining all the thematic elements which caused Bruce to leave the FBI in the first place. Having Bruce attend a trial, we see him utilizing his skills of psychology aswell as learning the hard way that he cannot work within such a system. The trial itself also provides us with a starting point for the choice Bruce makes as the Batman later on, in collecting evidence and in the conversation between himself and Gordan about it's lack of usefullness as an admissable source based on where it came from and how it was found. It would be these issues with evidence that allow the rapist to walk free.

No. Absolutely not.

I really do appreciate the time and thought you put into this, but I don't see any reason why there needs to be a rape trial gone wrong in a Batman movie.
For one thing, it doesn't serve the story. I mean, what exactly could the Batman do to prevent this? It's a matter of physical evidence and witnesses in rape trials. I sure as feck don't want to see the Batman approach a rape victim after the fact and tell her not to shower or drink coffee or otherwise wash out evidence of the rape (which is the right thing to do, but I never, ever want to see this in a Batman story), and the Batman sure as hell isn't going to take the stand at a trial.

The only thing the Batman can do that's worth even mentioning is to be patrolling at the right place and time to intervene while the crime is in progress, and that applies to any violent crime. What people in reality need to realize is that a robbery can turn into a rape, but that doesn't need to be brought up in a Batman movie.

I'm strongly against sexual assault playing any significant part in a Batman movie. The only reason I wasn't 100% disgusted with that exact same scenario being used in 'Daredevil'-- which we know was a mediocre movie at best (Director's Cut) and a terrible movie at worst (theatrical release) anyway-- was that I got some satisfaction when Daredevil murdered the rapist. I'm still disgusted with that, however, since Matt Murdock does not prosecute criminal cases and Daredevil does not kill.

I don't know how much true crime material you've read or how much you know about rape and sexual assault, or how the mere mention of it affects you emotionally, but I can't even read or hear the word without wanting to kill something. I don't want a big-screen representation of the Batman to be that dark. It's bad enough that kids see their parents gunned down in the street at age 8, we don't need to break out the big guns to show the audience what a fecked up city Gotham is.

Look, this isn't meant to be criticism, and again, I do appreciate the effort you put into this. I'm just explaining why I'm against it. This movie is supposed to represent the Batman of the comics, and Batman comics rarely ever deal with this scenario. Again, it doesn't make sense that this incident would further push him to being a vigilante, other than to say that it pissed him off and made him want to have the freedom to knock people's teeth out when they committed such an evil act. That's not the direction I want this to go. His primary M.O. is detection, and the violence is doled out as needed, but I don't want rape to in any way be interpreted as a motivating factor for the Batman.

This entire opening should run the exact time as the opening of 'Begins' did. The time it took for Bruce to wake from his nightmare in the Bhuntanese, to the time of being set-free on the road by Ducard in that movie, would be the same amount of time 'Bruce at the FBI' takes, screetime wise.

If you take what I said earlier to heart, then the timing needs to be reworked.

Thanks for posting, Zaphod.

 

[Zaphod]

I
No. Absolutely not.

I really do appreciate the time and thought you put into this, but I don't see any reason why there needs to be a rape trial gone wrong in a Batman movie.
For one thing, it doesn't serve the story. I mean, what exactly could the Batman do to prevent this? It's a matter of physical evidence and witnesses in rape trials. I sure as feck don't want to see the Batman approach a rape victim after the fact and tell her not to shower or drink coffee or otherwise wash out evidence of the rape (which is the right thing to do, but I never, ever want to see this in a Batman story), and the Batman sure as hell isn't going to take the stand at a trial.

The only thing the Batman can do that's worth even mentioning is to be patrolling at the right place and time to intervene while the crime is in progress, and that applies to any violent crime. What people in reality need to realize is that a robbery can turn into a rape, but that doesn't need to be brought up in a Batman movie.

I'm strongly against sexual assault playing any significant part in a Batman movie. The only reason I wasn't 100% disgusted with that exact same scenario being used in 'Daredevil'-- which we know was a mediocre movie at best (Director's Cut) and a terrible movie at worst (theatrical release) anyway-- was that I got some satisfaction when Daredevil murdered the rapist. I'm still disgusted with that, however, since Matt Murdock does not prosecute criminal cases and Daredevil does not kill.

I don't know how much true crime material you've read or how much you know about rape and sexual assault, or how the mere mention of it affects you emotionally, but I can't even read or hear the word without wanting to kill something. I don't want a big-screen representation of the Batman to be that dark. It's bad enough that kids see their parents gunned down in the street at age 8, we don't need to break out the big guns to show the audience what a fecked up city Gotham is.

Look, this isn't meant to be criticism, and again, I do appreciate the effort you put into this. I'm just explaining why I'm against it. This movie is supposed to represent the Batman of the comics, and Batman comics rarely ever deal with this scenario. Again, it doesn't make sense that this incident would further push him to being a vigilante, other than to say that it pissed him off and made him want to have the freedom to knock people's teeth out when they committed such an evil act. That's not the direction I want this to go. His primary M.O. is detection, and the violence is doled out as needed, but I don't want rape to in any way be interpreted as a motivating factor for the Batman.

Herr, allow me to say that by the sounds of your criticism, I think you may have taken this the wrong way somewhat, although not completely, I admit, but let me ask you this: Are you against the trial idea, without the rape, being included? If I were to change rape to say, murder, how would you feel about the scenario then? All the same, Bruce see's the lack of admissable evidence made against the accused during a trial, but knows the defendant is guilty, uses deduction and psychology to suss this, and leaves the FBI after seeing the accused walk out of court a free man, except, the rape is gone in favour of a more acceptable motive? Rape was a bad idea; I admit that now, and beleive it or not, I never once considered 'Daredevil' during the entire planning of it. I know its hard to beleive, but I have only seen that movie once, at the cinema when it first came out. I have also been doing Extremeties at school currently, so maybe that rubbed of on my judgement, I dont know, it was bad, tasteless idea, but I do see nothing wrong with the trial idea, and am very much in favour of it. With the rape gone, it still works. What do you think? Regardless, it simply isnt very enjoyable to watch Bruce shuffle papers as alternative, so get back to me soon on whether the trial idea (drastically altered) is appealing to you.

The trial scenario, and it's implications to Bruce, influence him as he learns the importance of admissable evidence, which will come into play during the story proper.[/I] Bruce would see that while the defendant is undoubtedly guilty (we'd learn as much through Bruce's use of deduction through psychology), the evidence brought against the accused isn't enough to persercute, and it should be. If this is the system and the way it treats wrongdoes, than he wants no part of it in this way. A

If you take what I said earlier to heart, then the timing needs to be reworked.

Hopefully not, if what I saud above about the scenario being altered in that one area is agreeable with you.

Oh, and what you said about the shooting range stuff, agreed.

 

[Herr Logan]

Herr, allow me to say that by the sounds of your criticism, I think you may have taken this the wrong way somewhat, although not completely, I admit, but let me ask you this: Are you against the trial idea, without the rape, being included? If I were to change rape to say, murder, how would you feel about the scenario then? All the same, Bruce see's the lack of admissable evidence made against the accused during a trial, but knows the defendant is guilty, uses deduction and psychology to suss this, and leaves the FBI after seeing the accused walk out of court a free man, except, the rape is gone in favour of a more acceptable motive? Rape was a bad idea; I admit that now, and beleive it or not, I never once considered 'Daredevil' during the entire planning of it. I know its hard to beleive, but I have only seen that movie once, at the cinema when it first came out. I have also been doing Extremeties at school currently, so maybe that rubbed of on my judgement, I dont know, it was bad, tasteless idea, but I do see nothing wrong with the trial idea, and am very much in favour of it. With the rape gone, it still works. What do you think? Regardless, it simply isnt very enjoyable to watch Bruce shuffle papers as alternative, so get back to me soon on whether the trial idea (drastically altered) is appealing to you.

The trial scenario, and it's implications to Bruce, influence him as he learns the importance of admissable evidence, which will come into play during the story proper.[/i] Bruce would see that while the defendant is undoubtedly guilty (we'd learn as much through Bruce's use of deduction through psychology), the evidence brought against the accused isn't enough to persercute, and it should be. If this is the system and the way it treats wrongdoes, than he wants no part of it in this way. A




Hopefully not, if what I saud above about the scenario being altered in that one area is agreeable with you.

Oh, and what you said about the shooting range stuff, agreed.

I'm in a rush at the moment, so I'll have to read this more thoroughly when I get back.

For now:

I'd be amenable to murder, but I'm still not sure the trial idea in general is conducive to the plot. We'll talk more about it.


What's "Extremities" in school?

More later.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

There's always room to explore the psyche of Bruce Wayne. Where is the line drawn between him and Batman? It's blurry to him because this is all still relatively new. His facade of billionaire playboy exacerbates the issue. While dealing with the antics of his soon-to-be greatest enemy, Bruce will inevitably hearken back to Alfred's words, "You're getting lost inside this monster of yours." This is thrilling and inspired storytelling. Save me the superfluous and hackneyed Hollywood crap.

Doesn't this contradict what you and I had discussed earlier about Batman being the true persona, even when he is not wearing the mask?

Rest assured, I will send over a link if/when I lose my patience. I've been able to remain calm so far and be courteous in pointing out why some people are just WRONG. Although, a few of us had to give attention to someone who envisioned The Joker as "completely and erotically obsessed" with Batman (because it's 'creepy'). I swear, if I could reach through this screen sometimes...

I hear ya.

As for The Joker having a small role, it doesn't sound very good at all. But there are several years ahead of us before the movie is relased. Things could change. In fact, this could all be pure rumor.

 

[Cullen]

Where's the love?

My thoughts are coming. I will have to push it back a bit, though. Sorry about that.

 

[Mister J]

Doesn't this contradict what you and I had discussed earlier about Batman being the true persona, even when he is not wearing the mask?

It's self-exploration and the revelation ultimately makes it clear to the audience that the Dark Knight is the true face. That's why I mentioned his public facade, it's something he rather not bother with. There are times when certain things about that public life appeal to him, but at the end of the day, he's unyielding in his mission.

 

[Herr Logan]

It's self-exploration and the revelation ultimately makes it clear to the audience that the Dark Knight is the true face. That's why I mentioned his public facade, it's something he rather not bother with. There are times when certain things about that public life appeal to him, but at the end of the day, he's unyielding in his mission.

Damn right!

My response to your earlier posts is coming, by the way. Thanks for posting.