The Dark Knight Serious Topic: Should Batman be 'kept back' like in "Begins"?

[Castlewood]

Okay, this is going to be kind of a lengthy post, so I apologize in advance. However, I feel that this is VERY important, and must be discussed seriously. Please walk into this thread with a mature attitude, and with the intention of having an adult conversation. Here we go...






The thing that I LOVED about ''Batman Begins'' is that there wasn't too much Batman. In other words, it was nice seeing the development of Bruce's character for the first hour, and then seeing Batman in all his glory for the last hour. It felt like the perfect amount of Batman for the movie.
The problem I had with the previous four movies (mainly ''Batman & Robin'') is that it felt like TOO MUCH Batman.... There was no build-up. He just showed up all over the place, and often times, he wasn't even needed. Take ''Batman Forever'' for example, where Batman is only present because he's talking to Chase Meridian, who turned on the Bat-Signal in that embarrassing and shameful ''chicks-dig-the-car'' scene. Completely uneccessary.

So, the thing that conerns me about ''The Dark Knight'' is that the movie will be about a Batman that has already been established, and therefore, is able to be in the movie from beginning to end. That bothers me, because I don't want the movie to be riddled with Batman scenes. A Batman scene should have a build-up to it, it shouldn't just be there because it can be. Seeing a GOOD take on the character is something we should all privelage, and seeing the way Batman should be in that final hour of ''Batman Begins'' was my personal dream come true, as a life-long Batman fan. The other four just didn't do it for me, because I saw Batman right off the bat (no pun intended).
''Begins'' was much more emotional because we saw the origin - finally - and we felt for Bruce Wayne, and when we finally saw Batman HIMSELF for the first time in 8 years (The REAL Batman), it made the experience so much better.

So, will ''The Dark Knight'' lose it's emotional qualities because there's no origin, and no build-up for his appearance? Not to mention, the fact that the selling point for this movie will be The Joker's return to the big screen?
I'm scared that this will feel like B'89 again... do you feel that way too? I just get this vibe that Heath Ledger will be the star, and Bale will just be sitting in the passenger seat while Ledger drives the movie.

So basically, I think the best way to solve this problem (if it actually is a problem... you may not think it is, but I certainly do), is to keep Batman hidden for a WHILE... maybe for *almost* the first hour, like ''Begins''.
If they can use the first hour of this movie to develop The Joker, and Harvey Dent, and the Bruce/Harvey/Gordon relationship, it will make Batman's appearance in the movie sooo much sweeter, and it will feel more important to see him on the screen than seeing The Joker. Afterall, we're supposed to be rooting for BATMAN, not the Joker... and often times, I found myself favoring Nicholson's Joker in '89 more, since he was more entertaining. I almost wanted him to win. That shouldn't be!!

Also, and this is the most important point I have to make... Christian Bale is too damn good of an actor for us NOT to see him as Bruce Wayne as much as we did in ''Begins''. If this new movie is completely filled with Bale in the costume, it will seriously disappoint me that I can only see Bale's acting IN THE SUIT, instead of out of it.... Because honestly, Bale's acting as Bruce Wayne was far greater - and more interesting - than when he acted in the costume (although he nailed them both perfectly, in my opinion).
AND, Bale is a far superior actor to Ledger, so if we can see him act as Bruce MORE than Batman, then he will definitely be the driving force of the movie. There could be so many great Bruce/Alfred scenes, Bruce/Harvey scenes, Bruce/Lucius scenes....it would totally show Bale's capabilites as an actor, and it would keep the film interesting.




Do you agree with this? If so, why? And if NOT, why?

 

[chosen1]

I agree w/ everything you said.

When you made the comment of an established batman I'm assuming you meant batman is here and present. Because our batman at the end of BB was far from established. But its cool

Now as far as not having batman for the first hour of the film I'm sorry to say but I highly doubt thats gonna happen and I think you do too. You have a lot of concerns just like me and from reading your post I now have more concerns. I guess we are just gonna have to wait for more news.

I like the way you think.

 

[Castlewood]

Now as far as not having batman for the first hour of the film I'm sorry to say but I highly doubt thats gonna happen and I think you do too.

Oh, I know....definitely. I'm just praying that we don't see an entire movie filled with Batman. It just doesn't seem right to me.
Alright... maybe AT LEAST 35 minutes of this film without Batman would make me happy. It's pushing it, I know, lol.

 

[Silver Souper]

Okay, this is going to be kind of a lengthy post, so I apologize in advance. However, I feel that this is VERY important, and must be discussed seriously. Please walk into this thread with a mature attitude, and with the intention of having an adult conversation. Here we go...






The thing that I LOVED about ''Batman Begins'' is that there wasn't too much Batman. In other words, it was nice seeing the development of Bruce's character for the first hour, and then seeing Batman in all his glory for the last hour. It felt like the perfect amount of Batman for the movie.
The problem I had with the previous four movies (mainly ''Batman & Robin'') is that it felt like TOO MUCH Batman.... There was no build-up. He just showed up all over the place, and often times, he wasn't even needed. Take ''Batman Forever'' for example, where Batman is only present because he's talking to Chase Meridian, who turned on the Bat-Signal in that embarrassing and shameful ''chicks-dig-the-car'' scene. Completely uneccessary.

So, the thing that conerns me about ''The Dark Knight'' is that the movie will be about a Batman that has already been established, and therefore, is able to be in the movie from beginning to end. That bothers me, because I don't want the movie to be riddled with Batman scenes. A Batman scene should have a build-up to it, it shouldn't just be there because it can be. Seeing a GOOD take on the character is something we should all privelage, and seeing the way Batman should be in that final hour of ''Batman Begins'' was my personal dream come true, as a life-long Batman fan. The other four just didn't do it for me, because I saw Batman right off the bat (no pun intended).
''Begins'' was much more emotional because we saw the origin - finally - and we felt for Bruce Wayne, and when we finally saw Batman HIMSELF for the first time in 8 years (The REAL Batman), it made the experience so much better.

So, will ''The Dark Knight'' lose it's emotional qualities because there's no origin, and no build-up for his appearance? Not to mention, the fact that the selling point for this movie will be The Joker's return to the big screen?
I'm scared that this will feel like B'89 again... do you feel that way too? I just get this vibe that Heath Ledger will be the star, and Bale will just be sitting in the passenger seat while Ledger drives the movie.

So basically, I think the best way to solve this problem (if it actually is a problem... you may not think it is, but I certainly do), is to keep Batman hidden for a WHILE... maybe for *almost* the first hour, like ''Begins''.
If they can use the first hour of this movie to develop The Joker, and Harvey Dent, and the Bruce/Harvey/Gordon relationship, it will make Batman's appearance in the movie sooo much sweeter, and it will feel more important to see him on the screen than seeing The Joker. Afterall, we're supposed to be rooting for BATMAN, not the Joker... and often times, I found myself favoring Nicholson's Joker in '89 more, since he was more entertaining. I almost wanted him to win. That shouldn't be!!

Also, and this is the most important point I have to make... Christian Bale is too damn good of an actor for us NOT to see him as Bruce Wayne as much as we did in ''Begins''. If this new movie is completely filled with Bale in the costume, it will seriously disappoint me that I can only see Bale's acting IN THE SUIT, instead of out of it.... Because honestly, Bale's acting as Bruce Wayne was far greater - and more interesting - than when he acted in the costume (although he nailed them both perfectly, in my opinion).
AND, Bale is a far superior actor to Ledger, so if we can see him act as Bruce MORE than Batman, then he will definitely be the driving force of the movie. There could be so many great Bruce/Alfred scenes, Bruce/Harvey scenes, Bruce/Lucius scenes....it would totally show Bale's capabilites as an actor, and it would keep the film interesting.




Do you agree with this? If so, why? And if NOT, why?

hey man good post- you are reasonable to raise concerns but my answer would be that Nolan and company will address them appropriately. they are making a vastly different movie than B89 (as witnessed in teh way nolan subtlely and outwardly expresses the distance between his vision and previous ones). They have the advantage of the previous films' mistakes, as well as their expertise, and i'm sure it will be batman used effectively, not thrown in.

remember- the comics have a lot of batman, but the character is usually so purposeful, that it makes sense to see more of him in detective mode, etc. i'm sure it'll be along those lines, not just "set piece, batman arrives", "set piece, batman arrives."

 

[chosen1]

Oh, I know....definitely. I'm just praying that we don't see an entire movie filled with Batman. It just doesn't seem right to me.
Alright... maybe AT LEAST 35 minutes of this film without Batman would make me happy. It's pushing it, I know, lol.

Yeah I think it'll be more than 35 minutes of the movie w/out batman of course I dare say it'll be about just as much screen time as batman begins maybe a little more. But just dont expect it to be w/out bamtan for the first hour and a half of the movie.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

I don't think it should follow any set rule, really.

Since this is a sequel, we need to be put right back into the action. I want an opening sequence involving Batman doing his thing, only this time, we as an audience get the feeling that he has really grown into his role, and is much better at being Batman than he was in the 1st film.

After that, we can spend a bit more time with Bruce Wayne, Alfred, what's going on in Gotham, Harvey Dent, etc. But I don't think we should wait 30-40 minutes before seeing Batman this time. That doesn't mean we focus more on Batman and less on Bruce Wayne---I still want to see Bruce Wayne and how he's developed---I'm just saying, I want to be put right into the action and pick up where we left off, more or less.

 

[chosen1]

I would not like the opening scene to have batman No way

 

[Heretic]

I trust Christopher Nolan with my favorite character. I tend to think he will make this another Bruce movie, though obviously since Batman is already around you will see the use of him spread out throughout the movie as opposed to just in the second half.

However, though I agree with what the original poster said, how awesome would it be to see Batman actually doing detective work? The success of shows like CSI prove that people will watch the actual investigative process. Batman has never shown to have one iotta of detective skills in the previous series of movies, so I for one would LOVE a good mystery.

 

[lujho]

I've got to disagree. I don't want wall-to wall batman *action*, but Batman is the main character. I'd like to see more non-action and low-key scenes with Batman... just treating his appearances as you would any other hero in a movie... cop, detective, whatever. Batman driving in his car, batman talking to other people, batman snooping around places, batman doing work in the cave.

Being Batman is his job and you can't make a movie that is ABOUT batman doing his job and only have him doing it a small part of the movie. No Batman in the first hour? No way! I want to see way more Batman than Begins had.

There's no such thing as too much Batman (okay, you need a bit of Bruce too). There's such a thing as too much Batman in full-on action mode.

Big, important, dramatic scenes should be kept sparse and spread out for impact, but there's no harm in seeing low-key Batman stuff between them.

 

[superkong 500]

Good thread, I fully understand the first poster's concerns, however it must be noted that the story has to progress. This doesn't mean we won't get any characterization like we did in begins. The thing is that I don't think the movie should start with bats kicking ass, I think there should be some build-up anticipation before seeing him again I think it makes the moment more exciting. So I agree in many ways with the first post but we have to be realistic here and understand that TDK(as stated by nolan himself) will have a different approach.So maybe nolan will surprise us and give us something unexpected.

I mean being the sequel the general audience will be expecting an opening with batman taking on some crooks, but to be honest that's exactly what i don't want because we have seen that already in the other movies even B'89. I hope that the base from begins remains intact but at the same time have a completely different approach to the new story. As for how much batman should be in it? I say let the story determine that, and not just throw batman in more just to follow the cliche of other sequels which dictate that the hero has to appear within the first 5 minutes just because he's already been established.

 

[explode7]

^I think the whole movie shouldn't have batman actually

 

[Boom]

Bruce Wayne is the alter ego, not Batman. It's just like Rachel said. Bruce Wayne is the mask.

Lujho's right. Batman's the main character.

 

[explode7]

Hey its boom. Whats up dude?

 

[Castlewood]

However, though I agree with what the original poster said, how awesome would it be to see Batman actually doing detective work? The success of shows like CSI prove that people will watch the actual investigative process. Batman has never shown to have one iotta of detective skills in the previous series of movies, so I for one would LOVE a good mystery.

See, I TOTALLY agree with this. If Batman was on-screen without just action, that would be super.

For example... Batman talking to Dent and Gordon ontop of GPD Headquarters, with the bat-signal behind them - directly from ''The Long Halloween''.

Batman doing detective work... looking at blood stains on a Joker card, and running samples through the bat-computer.

Batman just TALKING to Joker, without there being action involved. I was hoping to see Bats and Scarecrow have an actual coversation with each other... instead of just ''You need to lighten up'' in one scene, and then ''Taste of your own medicine, doctor?''

I wanna see Batman/Joker fighting through WORDS, not just with fists. Some of the greatest moments of this film could be achieved through chilling dialogue between Christian Bale and Heath Ledger. I mean, these are two young, brilliant actors, and are both unofficially the ''leaders'' of their acting generation. I mean, look at the other losers that didn't quite make it: Freddie Prinze, Jr... Orlando Bloom... Elijah Wood... all of these ''incredibly hot guys'' that you see high school girls drooling over while they read their Tiger Beat magazines are just heartthrobs with no acting ability. You can disagree with that if you like... but while these guys were thrown on every magazine cover in the world, Christian Bale and Heath Ledger were making REAL, RESPECTABLE, MOTION PICTURES. I'm not saying you have to like ''Brokeback Mountain'', and I'm not saying you have to like ''Monster's Ball'', but no matter what, Heath Ledger made his mark amongst his peers in the same age group as him. Like Bale, who shined in ''American Psycho'', ''The Machinist'', and hell, even ''The Prestige'', he has certainly earned the title of ''REAL ACTOR''.

So for me, this is so much more than ''Batman vs. Joker''. This is two amazing actors of our generation paired together for the first time, playing opposites, playing enemies, and that's exactly why I think Nolan wanted Heath Ledger for Joker. I mean, HONESTLY, who else could match Bale's acting chops, while being in his age group, other than Heath Ledger??? This should've been the no-brainer of all time, and none of us saw it coming! I mean, while we were looking at pictures of people who LOOKED like Joker, Nolan was looking for someone who could actually BE Joker. I'm telling you, I can see Ledger doing Joker in my head right now, and it's going to own.

Now, if Leonardo DiCaprio was the man chosen for Harvey Dent, can you IMAGINE how freaking INSANE this movie could be??? I mean, when you think about those teeny-bopper actors that I mentioned before, Leo is definitely one who got out of that image and became a SERIOUS, respectable actor like Bale and Ledger. You can hate ''Titanic'' all you want, but this man gave us ''Blood Diamond'', ''The Aviator'', ''Gangs of New York'', ''The Departed'', and ''Catch Me If You Can.'' There's no doubt in my mind that it should be Leo.

If that was the ''trio''... picture this, okay? When I think of Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, and Leonardo DiCaprio, I see their careers still being alive 30 years from now, just like Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Christopher Walken, Marlon Brando, and Paul Newman. They're legends... so when you think about it, the pairing of these three young men would be like Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and all those others being in the SAME MOVIE, while in their PRIME.... in a BATMAN movie. That's how I look at it.

Not to mention, current legends would be in it, too: Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman.... I mean, Good Lord!! This could be amazing.

 

[lujho]

Bruce Wayne is the alter ego, not Batman. It's just like Rachel said. Bruce Wayne is the mask.

Lujho's right. Batman's the main character.

Besides... would you have an Indiana Jones movie where he was Henry Jones Jnr., suit-and-tie wearing Archaologist in a library for 90 minutes and Indiana Jones for 30? A Dirty Harry or Sherlock Holmes movie where only a 3rd of the movie was focusing on the lead doing his work solving a crime?

Batman is now a crime fighter, and the movie should show him fighting a crime. I don't need to check in with what's going on in his personal life, beyond a few establishing scenes. It's a waste of screen time.

NOR do I need or want large amounts of time focusing on other characters. We should mainly encounter other characters as Batman himself does. If you have a scene with Joker in it - have Batman AND joker in it. I don't need to see him plotting his evil machinations.

I'm not saying Bruce/Batman has to be in every scene, but it should be most of them, and it should be Batman (or Bruce doing Batman-type things) the majority of the time.

 

[The Sage]

Heck no. It was appropriate in BB because it was about how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Now that we're passed that, Batman needs to be seen more on screen. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about B89 and Batman Returns?

 

[Two-Face]

Heck no. It was appropriate in BB because it was about how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Now that we're passed that, Batman needs to be seen more on screen. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about B89 and Batman Returns?

Exactly, I don't want sme thing happening it's about the title character so why not use him right way.

 

[chosen1]

I mean being the sequel the general audience will be expecting an opening with batman taking on some crooks, but to be honest that's exactly what i don't want because we have seen that already in the other movies even B'89. I hope that the base from begins remains intact but at the same time have a completely different approach to the new story. As for how much batman should be in it? I say let the story determine that, and not just throw batman in more just to follow the cliche of other sequels which dictate that the hero has to appear within the first 5 minutes just because he's already been established.

I don't think the audience would expect that from this take on batman they know the movies seriousness from batman begins. I would say opening w/ a court scene with the joker already captured would be Key, then have the first 30 mins be the flashback type like they did w/ Bruce training. Then at the end of the first 30 min intro have the joker escape and batman have to track him down for the bulk of the film w/ other elements as well.

 

[Castlewood]

Heck no. It was appropriate in BB because it was about how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Now that we're passed that, Batman needs to be seen more on screen. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about B89 and Batman Returns?

But see, this is different, because when taken with a different approach, it could be OKAY to have less Batman. In ''Returns'', we barely saw Batman, and we barely saw BRUCE, too. The entire movie was Catwoman and Penguin, and Michael Keaton was kind of ''tagging along'' in a movie called ''Batman Returns'', when it REALLY should've been called, ''Batman Is Somewhere In This Movie... Can You Find Him?''
Christian Bale, if LEADING the movie and not anyone else, could make it okay for the same amount of Batman as in ''Begins''. He could be interesting and actually THERE, unlike Keaton, who just popped up for a few scenes - not his fault... it was totally the script, as well as Burton.

In fact, Keaton was given a serious disservice with that second movie, now that I think about it.
After B'89 was INFESTED with Jack Nicholson's Joker, like [FONT=&quot]diarrhea[/FONT] on someone else's toilet seat.... Keaton finally had his opportunity to be the LEAD in the next one, and it was totally taken from him.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Just curious...why would anyone want LESS of Batman, in a Batman film?

I agree with the idea of having more somber moments with Batman, Batman doing his job, Batman interrogating, talking to Gordon, just doing his thing.

And please, please, please, let us have a shot of Bale, costume on (cowl off), at the bat computer, with Alfred bringing him tea.

 

[kidbateman]

great thread. i think nolan will focus more on "bruce" then batman. and didnt he say he wanted to make more then just a batman film by taking it further away, such as in the case of the title of the film. oh and i think bale is one of the greatest actors around so he will with out a doubt out shine ledger. keaton couldnt do it because he was up against nicholson, which is a very good and larger then life actor. man has anyone seen nicholson in the departed he reminded me so much of the joker, and he kicked so much ass in that flick.

 

[Castlewood]

Just curious...why would anyone want LESS of Batman, in a Batman film?

In my opinion, less Batman would make the moments of Batman on screen MORE great.... if that makes any sense. Maybe it doesn't, lol. In my eyes, it works, but I totally understand if people think I'm ******ed.

I just reeeally want this to be good, and for it not to disappoint us, that's all. This is very important to me. It's definitely in the Top 5 issues of my life right now.

My life is this:

1.) College
2.) Job
3.) Bills
4.) ''The Dark Knight''
5.) Life itself

I would say ''girlfriend'', but I'm more of a player, and I try to avoid serious relationships. I don't have the time, nor the money.

 

[wikum]

I completely agree with the original poster of this thread.

Brue Wayne should be on screen twice as much as Batman and Joker. It gives more build up to the actual action parts.

After watching The Brothers Grim, I am very uncertain about Heath Ledger. Not because I think he's a crap actor, because he isn't at all. I just think he's almost too much of a nice guy to play the Joker. He may well pull it off and I hope he does, he kinda has the look already. Just a shame we didn't get someone like Bettany who I KNOW would have nailed being The Joker, especially when Ledger says "It's all in the eyes"...Bettany has the most brooding eyes.

Anyways good luck to Heath.

 

[ultimatefan]

I think that when Batman attacks thugs, it should be kept the way it is in Begins, where he´s "blink and you miss it", showing up from nowhere in the shadows, taking his victim quickly and effectively and disappearing again.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Okay, this is going to be kind of a lengthy post, so I apologize in advance. However, I feel that this is VERY important, and must be discussed seriously. Please walk into this thread with a mature attitude, and with the intention of having an adult conversation. Here we go...






The thing that I LOVED about ''Batman Begins'' is that there wasn't too much Batman. In other words, it was nice seeing the development of Bruce's character for the first hour, and then seeing Batman in all his glory for the last hour. It felt like the perfect amount of Batman for the movie.
The problem I had with the previous four movies (mainly ''Batman & Robin'') is that it felt like TOO MUCH Batman.... There was no build-up. He just showed up all over the place, and often times, he wasn't even needed. Take ''Batman Forever'' for example, where Batman is only present because he's talking to Chase Meridian, who turned on the Bat-Signal in that embarrassing and shameful ''chicks-dig-the-car'' scene. Completely uneccessary.

So, the thing that conerns me about ''The Dark Knight'' is that the movie will be about a Batman that has already been established, and therefore, is able to be in the movie from beginning to end. That bothers me, because I don't want the movie to be riddled with Batman scenes. A Batman scene should have a build-up to it, it shouldn't just be there because it can be. Seeing a GOOD take on the character is something we should all privelage, and seeing the way Batman should be in that final hour of ''Batman Begins'' was my personal dream come true, as a life-long Batman fan. The other four just didn't do it for me, because I saw Batman right off the bat (no pun intended).
''Begins'' was much more emotional because we saw the origin - finally - and we felt for Bruce Wayne, and when we finally saw Batman HIMSELF for the first time in 8 years (The REAL Batman), it made the experience so much better.

So, will ''The Dark Knight'' lose it's emotional qualities because there's no origin, and no build-up for his appearance? Not to mention, the fact that the selling point for this movie will be The Joker's return to the big screen?
I'm scared that this will feel like B'89 again... do you feel that way too? I just get this vibe that Heath Ledger will be the star, and Bale will just be sitting in the passenger seat while Ledger drives the movie.

So basically, I think the best way to solve this problem (if it actually is a problem... you may not think it is, but I certainly do), is to keep Batman hidden for a WHILE... maybe for *almost* the first hour, like ''Begins''.
If they can use the first hour of this movie to develop The Joker, and Harvey Dent, and the Bruce/Harvey/Gordon relationship, it will make Batman's appearance in the movie sooo much sweeter, and it will feel more important to see him on the screen than seeing The Joker. Afterall, we're supposed to be rooting for BATMAN, not the Joker... and often times, I found myself favoring Nicholson's Joker in '89 more, since he was more entertaining. I almost wanted him to win. That shouldn't be!!

Also, and this is the most important point I have to make... Christian Bale is too damn good of an actor for us NOT to see him as Bruce Wayne as much as we did in ''Begins''. If this new movie is completely filled with Bale in the costume, it will seriously disappoint me that I can only see Bale's acting IN THE SUIT, instead of out of it.... Because honestly, Bale's acting as Bruce Wayne was far greater - and more interesting - than when he acted in the costume (although he nailed them both perfectly, in my opinion).
AND, Bale is a far superior actor to Ledger, so if we can see him act as Bruce MORE than Batman, then he will definitely be the driving force of the movie. There could be so many great Bruce/Alfred scenes, Bruce/Harvey scenes, Bruce/Lucius scenes....it would totally show Bale's capabilites as an actor, and it would keep the film interesting.




Do you agree with this? If so, why? And if NOT, why?

First of all, have a cigar. You spelled Lucius correctly. It's almost like Christ arrived and cured some lepers.

Secondly, thank you for a well-formed, well-considered post. Those are good. No need to apologize for the length when the post is that intelligent.

Thirdly, my thoughts: Your fears are understandable, but I do not think you need to worry. The reason I think that is that Nolan and Goyer had balls enough to hold out Batman for the second half of "Begins," and even then there were almost as many Bruce scenes as Batman scenes. They seemed to understand exactly what you said - that there needs to be buildup to the Batman scenes. Batman's our guy, his appearances should not be wasted. It's possible to pick up some of the greatest Batman books and see only a few pages of the Masked Manhunter in action.

I don't think that Ledger's Joker will overshadow Batman. We've been told that Joke wouldn't appear for the first half-hour of the film. We were told that Bruce would have an adversary as well, so that he'd have stuff to do. I think that whatever the Nolans and Goyer do, the balance we appreciated in "Begins" will remain. Begins proved that Nolan knows how to handle a Batman movie. He even went out of his way to give us plenty of visual and thematic returns to the older films, and zig where they zagged, so to speak.

I've been through this before but here we are again: '89, Batman gets the girl. Forever, Batman gets the girl. Begins, Batman does NOT get the girl. Forever, Alfred gets clubbed over the head when Wayne Manor is invaded. Begins, Alfred clubs a guy over the head when Wayne Manor is invaded. 89, Batman gives Gordon the signal. Begins, Gordon makes the signal.

I could go on but the point is that, as Silver Souper addressed, Nolan has made a point of distancing his vision from those that have come before. So I think we're in good hands.