The Dark Knight Rises Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

[Travesty]

I understand what people like you, and say Travesty to be saying. And you're consistent in your points, too. Other people, mainly returntovoid (no offense, dude) make criticisms that either make no sense, or are a contradiction, or a double standard.

And that's one of the reasons why I like debating with you or El Payaso. I can see your points clearly, and you stand by them, which I admire. I don't think any of us are asking/making anybody think one way or the other, we're just having fun talking about Batman. We just happen to be on opposite sides with our opinions, which is more then fine by me.

 

[The Joker]

Watered down as in "realismed". Would you enjoy a realismed LOTR? That's beside the point.

Seriously, how could you realism LOTR? Batman's world is arguably the most "real" of most superheros, because Batman is a normal guy, and his villains are mainly just psychopaths or disfigured psychopaths. He has got a few fantastical villains, too, no question.

But it's a lot easier to "realism" that than a world filled with wizards, monsters, magic, talking trees etc.

 

[Travesty]

Seriously, how could you realism LOTR? Batman's world is arguably the most "real" of most superheros, because Batman is a normal guy, and his villains are mainly just psychopaths or disfigured psychopaths. He has got a few fantastical villains, too, no question.

But it's a lot easier to "realism" that than a world filled with wizards, monsters, magic, talking trees etc.

Your points are valid, but he's just giving an analogous example. I can see what he's saying, even if Batman is "easier" to ground in "realism". Again, it's just an example.

 

[Mr. Earle]

these movies are adaptations, and one's with limited space for inclusion of material at that. not everything from the comics is going to make the cut nor should it. if you want a story that has all the things you seem to miss from the comics your only option is basically...the comics.

You miss my point. I dont want to see all the villains in one movie, i just want to see a mythos closer to the comics canon. Why are GL, Ironman, Superman, Thor, etc so close to their source material but Batman has to be realistic and crime-drama-ish in order for people to take him seriously. He is a superhero. GL makes light consturcts with his thoughts, Superman freezes things with his breath, and Batman fights Manbat with the help of a child dressed in flashy colours. Its that simple.

by your standard of watered down? yes. the lack of the savage land doesn't ruin the first x-men movie for me at all. likewise the lack of mongul, metallo, bizarro, etc. in the first 2 superman movies. the list of things that aren't the movies that i don't mind is gigantic.

Not being there doesnt exlude them from ever appearing. But the Nolanverse does exclude a huge part of the mythos on the basis of pretentious realism.

the same could be said of you in other threads, thank you for finally finding the one where your nolan bashing belongs. please endeavor to keep it here.

I am usually nagging about something, not about what other people are doing. Batman072 has a habbit of stepping in the middle of a conversation he is not taking part in, just to judge what others are doing.

Your points are valid, but he's just giving an analogous example. I can see what he's saying, even if Batman is "easier" to ground in "realism". Again, it's just an example.

Exactly. Thank you!


BTW, SHH is lagging so goddamn much today!

 

[The Joker]

Watering-down the material almost always happens when you have a multitude of subplots and characters in one movie. For example, I thought BB was a fantastic Batman movie with watered-down villains and supporting cast. On the flipside, I thought TDK was a wonderful ensemble flick with a memorable villain, but a watered-down Batman. I still liked both. But it would be nice to get a better balance.

Yeah, I'd agree with that for the most part.

And that's one of the reasons why I like debating with you or El Payaso. I can see your points clearly, and you stand by them, which I admire. I don't think any of us are asking/making anybody think one way or the other, we're just having fun talking about Batman. We just happen to be on opposite sides with our opinions, which is more then fine by me.

Thanks mate

Be boring if we all agreed anyway. "I agree", "Me too", "Well said".......yawn. I like a good debate/discussion. Makes for great reading.

Your points are valid, but he's just giving an analogous example. I can see what he's saying, even if Batman is "easier" to ground in "realism". Again, it's just an example.

Fair enough, but it was a rather extreme analogy. LOTR is way too fantasy based to ever be "realismed". There's literally nothing in it that's real. It's not even set on earth.

 

[Crook]

That's beside the point.

No it's not. I'm pretty sure I addressed the point very directly. You nag on Nolan's inclusive take, but fail to realize even if it was open, you wouldn't get everyone you wanted anyway. So in the end, I'm asking why the 'reason' matters, if you're led to the same conclusion?

Btw, why isnt anyone discussing the directional style? Did i just surpass Nolan almighty?

Join the line. Everyone here has creative juices flowing that involve specific scenes, dialog, and camera shots. It's a bit foolish to complain a director didn't pluck your ideas and put it on-screen. In terms of directing the camera, fight scenes have been Nolan's only true flaw. The guy shows amazing grace as a director that evokes a true auteur:

- After Joker delivers his chilling laugh on the video message, the scene abruptly cuts to a zooming shot of the penthouse, with no audio track. Such a subtle decision, but it gave time for the audience to process that awesome scene. Every time I saw it in the theater, you could hear chatter from the audience to the effect of "wow" or *gasp*. The lack of audio was almost a signal for the viewer to take a break from the film and replay that moment one more time. That's hard to achieve, especially from a simple transitional shot.

- The entire intro to the SWAT/Tumbler/Joker truck scene. The sense of dread in the air could be cut through with a knife. The looming Joker theme, the dusk setting, empty metropolitan streets, and then...a burning firetruck. Contextually a mere roadblock, but it represented the disruption of order and a clear sign of oncoming chaos. Moreover, that road would be paved for you by Joker and you have no choice but go along for the ride.

- Probably the best directed scene of the movie; Joker poking his head out through a cop window, basking in his success. Again the dusk setting provides a gloomy outlook, and the colorful sirens greatly contrast the cold streets that he's roaming through. Heath brilliantly mimics a dog taking a nice whiff of air, in probably the only time we see Joker at peace, amidst a path of destruction and despair. Nolan also directs the scene as Joker would view that moment. Ambient sounds are non-existent save for the sirens, an alarming sound that only a madman could find soothing. And the erratic movements of the car are strictly followed by the camera, jumbling the image in spasmodic fashion. Joker is in his element and he's at the top of the world.

I'll stop here, as I'm sure my cinematic nerd in me is getting too unruly. But I hope you get the point. Stop and look at Nolan has done with the films...as a whole. Seriously take into consideration the craftsmanship that has been put in a BATMAN, much less, a COMIC BOOK movie. As I've said before, maybe this isn't something that can be understood by someone who isn't very familiar with film. So I don't know how you interpret it. But seriously, TDK was jam-packed full of talent and material you could teach half a semester on it in a designated film course. Can you argue the same for his peers, like Favreau?

Other directors have one-upped Nolan in certain areas. But hey, no one's infallible. It's my point, however, that as an overall film director, Nolan imo has been the best to do it so far in this genre. So yes, you could nitpick on his missteps. I've done it plenty of times. But I guarantee I could be a lot more harsher on the likes of Favreau, for example. We're all a bit too comfortable jabbing at Nolan and praising (insert director), but try switching it up a bit. Analyze the good Nolan has done versus the bad that his peers have. You'd be surprised to see which 'list' ends up being bigger.

 

[lixdexia]

You miss my point. I dont want to see all the villains in one movie, i just want to see a mythos closer to the comics canon. Why are GL, Ironman, Superman, Thor, etc so close to their source material but Batman has to be realistic and crime-drama-ish in order for people to take him seriously. He is a superhero. GL makes light consturcts with his thoughts, Superman freezes things with his breath, and Batman fights Manbat with the help of a child dressed in flashy colours. Its that simple.

thor and gl haven't come out yet so you can't really comment on those, but how are superman or ironman any more faithful than the batman movies? i think you're glossing over their changes because you're not as familiar with them, they are there and in abundance.

and it's not like a crime/noir-ish approach to batman is something this film team invented, there is a substantial precedent for this approach to batman.

Not being there doesnt exlude them from ever appearing. But the Nolanverse does exclude a huge part of the mythos on the basis of pretentious realism.

how so? i've seen nothing in the 2 reboot movies that would prevent any character save two-face from (re)appearing?

 

[Travesty]

Thanks mate

Be boring if we all agreed anyway. "I agree", "Me too", "Well said".......yawn. I like a good debate/discussion. Makes for great reading.

Exactly!

 

[IBRAH08]

Because it's film and directors have the right to interpret the characters in their own way. The comics are there as a guide, not gospel. If people want what's in the comic, stick to the comic where they'll be less likely to be disappointed.

You've missed the original context of this quote, it was responding to the idea that comic movies should just be fun and nothing more.

 

[MacLeod]

In that case, its YOUR opinion the fight scenes should hold more weight, its your opinion Batman's fighting should be a bigger part of the story and its your opinion TDK's fight scenes weren't good.

And your point? Of course they are my opinion, but I never came off as stating that my opinions were fact, I only responded to the person that did that.

 

[MacLeod]

Well he trained for much longer than 7 years in the comics too

Technically, he started getting involved in some type of preparation from the moment he chose to fight crime. Formal training probably came later but much, much sooner than Nolan suggested. In the comics he studied science, criminology, martial arts, etc., and constantly worked out for years. In Nolan's version he had no idea what to do with his life for 15-20 years, got thrown in jail, was discoverd by Ra's, and then only after he realized Ra's was bad did he think of becoming Batman. That's a huge difference and the latter is not Batman to me.

 

[MacLeod]

I disagree with you on this. I prefer Begins to every other Batman origin, including "Year One" and "Mask of the Phantasm".
Nolan's Batman was scarred by his parents death and was commited to do something about it, he just didnt know what. How could a kid know anyway? How can a kid know about justice, about what to do with its life, about what would work and what wouldnt work as a life mission?
Nolan's Bruce discovered all that by himself. He didnt just say "i dont kill because killing is bad", he became Batman after a long spiritual journey around the world which i found mesmerizing and was perhaps the better part of Begins.

That was a good way of putting it. However, I still don't see it. A child over the age of 5 knows good from bad, right from wrong, and can say I want this to never happen again. Now, I'll give you that he doesn't know what do to about it fully, but the fact that Bruce decides so early on to perfect himself into something useful the essense of Batman, that fact that he's better than EVERYONE. Nolan's Batman isn't better than most of the people out there. He's smart but not genius level, and he has absolutly no training in anyting outside of a simple seven years of martial arts. Nolan's Bruce didn't discover anything, Ra's found him. Only after he realized that Ra's was bad did he think of fighting crime. If Ra's was good Bruce would still be in the mountains, which is why I don't see Batman in Begins, I still see the character needing training.

 

[MacLeod]

I would've much preferred that take too, but the only true difference is the point in Bruce's life that he decides to commit. The more important part is the dedication and the mission, so having a lapse in a few years isn't damaging to the character (of Batman). After all, in the comics Bruce may have wanted to fight crime during all those years, but he was never Batman until he put on that cape and cowl. It's from that point and forward that I'd be more concerned with.

I don't see it that way. Costume or not he was Batman when he started preparing hismelf for the costume. Also, it's not a lapse in a few years, it seems more than ten years, that's a lot.

 

[Crook]

I don't see it that way. Costume or not he was Batman when he started preparing hismelf for the costume. Also, it's not a lapse in a few years, it seems more than ten years, that's a lot.

Based on what interpretation, exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most if not all depictions of his origin show him preparing for a purpose in fighting crime, but he had no intention of actually dressing up as a Bat, or coming up with with a double identity, until well after his training.

 

[lixdexia]

Based on what interpretation, exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most if not all depictions of his origin show him preparing for a purpose in fighting crime, but he had no intention of actually dressing up as a Bat, or coming up with with a double identity, until well after his training.

as far as i know the only version of batman that this doesn't hold true for is gotham by gaslight in which he has the costume made and waiting on him when he returns to gotham.

also, heyzeus h macleod! multiquote is your friend...

 

[Moridin]

Only after he realized that Ra's was bad did he think of fighting crime.

Wrong. I suggest you watch that whole segment again.

Why do you think Bruce was travelling the world in the first place? Studying criminal fraternities from the inside, learning how to fight, etc.

"I seek the means to fight injustice" - Bruce's words when he first goes to the temple.

 

[weezerspider]

And your point? Of course they are my opinion, but I never came off as stating that my opinions were fact, I only responded to the person that did that.

Oh, I'm sorry I don't put IMO after everything I write. Its a forum. Every reply is in IMO unless its a proven fact, like the sun is a star. Please use common sense.

 

[lixdexia]

Oh, I'm sorry I don't put IMO after everything I write. Its a forum. Every reply is in IMO unless its a proven fact, like the sun is a star. Please use common sense.

...but that's exactly what he just said?

copycating is a terrible way to argue.

 

[Wams]

Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[General Vulcun]

As long as Nolan is at the head of this franchise, it should be his vision, and if his vision for Batman 3 is in the same general style of Begins and TDK, then B3 should keep consistency. When Team Nolan is done with the franchise, then the next vision for Batman can be established with a new creative team. But not for Batman 3.

There's doing something different within the confines of the style that Nolan has established for his trilogy (ex. the look of Gotham in Begins and TDK), but changing the overall style to something more fantastical is not a necessity to finish off the trilogy. Nolan should stick with what he's established.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

As long as Nolan is at the head of this franchise, it should be his vision, and if his vision for Batman 3 is in the same general style of Begins and TDK, then B3 should keep consistency. When Team Nolan is done with the franchise, then the next vision for Batman can be established with a new creative team. But not for Batman 3.

There's doing something different within the confines of the style that Nolan has established for his trilogy (ex. the look of Gotham in Begins and TDK), but changing the overall style to something more fantastical is not a necessity to finish off the trilogy. Nolan should stick with what he's established.

Agreed. But I fear that the next helmer will not only try and replicate Nolan's realism, but fail at it. Also, I really want it to get a little more out there at some point. I believe each Batman film should push the envelope more and more.

 

[jmc]

You miss my point. I dont want to see all the villains in one movie, i just want to see a mythos closer to the comics canon. Why are GL, Ironman, Superman, Thor, etc so close to their source material but Batman has to be realistic and crime-drama-ish in order for people to take him seriously. He is a superhero. GL makes light consturcts with his thoughts, Superman freezes things with his breath, and Batman fights Manbat with the help of a child dressed in flashy colours. Its that simple.

You want a Batman on film that represents how you see the character, which is fine, but you cannot use you're personal Batman preference as proof Nolan's Batman isn't being close to the source material. And as for Thor and GL, to bring that up as fact when we have no idea how close to 'canon' they are going to be is hilarious.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No it's not. I'm pretty sure I addressed the point very directly. You nag on Nolan's inclusive take, but fail to realize even if it was open, you wouldn't get everyone you wanted anyway. So in the end, I'm asking why the 'reason' matters, if you're led to the same conclusion?

Since Marvel is setting up its franchises in the same universe, i doubt that they will stop making Ironman movies after IM3 and the Avengers movie. They already went into too much trouble for them to drop it all and reboot. If Favreau leaves the franchise, they'll probably find someone else to carry on. Same with Thor and Cap. I prefer this to a trilogy with a more confined take on the characters, followed by another trilogy with its own continuity and its own spin on the characters. For once i want to see the characters evolve and mature throughout many films. I want to see Batman holding Jason's body, Tim Drake, etc...

Join the line. Everyone here has creative juices flowing that involve specific scenes, dialog, and camera shots. It's a bit foolish to complain a director didn't pluck your ideas and put it on-screen. In terms of directing the camera, fight scenes have been Nolan's only true flaw. The guy shows amazing grace as a director that evokes a true auteur:

- After Joker delivers his chilling laugh on the video message, the scene abruptly cuts to a zooming shot of the penthouse, with no audio track. Such a subtle decision, but it gave time for the audience to process that awesome scene. Every time I saw it in the theater, you could hear chatter from the audience to the effect of "wow" or *gasp*. The lack of audio was almost a signal for the viewer to take a break from the film and replay that moment one more time. That's hard to achieve, especially from a simple transitional shot.

- The entire intro to the SWAT/Tumbler/Joker truck scene. The sense of dread in the air could be cut through with a knife. The looming Joker theme, the dusk setting, empty metropolitan streets, and then...a burning firetruck. Contextually a mere roadblock, but it represented the disruption of order and a clear sign of oncoming chaos. Moreover, that road would be paved for you by Joker and you have no choice but go along for the ride.

- Probably the best directed scene of the movie; Joker poking his head out through a cop window, basking in his success. Again the dusk setting provides a gloomy outlook, and the colorful sirens greatly contrast the cold streets that he's roaming through. Heath brilliantly mimics a dog taking a nice whiff of air, in probably the only time we see Joker at peace, amidst a path of destruction and despair. Nolan also directs the scene as Joker would view that moment. Ambient sounds are non-existent save for the sirens, an alarming sound that only a madman could find soothing. And the erratic movements of the car are strictly followed by the camera, jumbling the image in spasmodic fashion. Joker is in his element and he's at the top of the world.

I'll stop here, as I'm sure my cinematic nerd in me is getting too unruly. But I hope you get the point. Stop and look at Nolan has done with the films...as a whole. Seriously take into consideration the craftsmanship that has been put in a BATMAN, much less, a COMIC BOOK movie. As I've said before, maybe this isn't something that can be understood by someone who isn't very familiar with film. So I don't know how you interpret it. But seriously, TDK was jam-packed full of talent and material you could teach half a semester on it in a designated film course. Can you argue the same for his peers, like Favreau?

Other directors have one-upped Nolan in certain areas. But hey, no one's infallible. It's my point, however, that as an overall film director, Nolan imo has been the best to do it so far in this genre. So yes, you could nitpick on his missteps. I've done it plenty of times. But I guarantee I could be a lot more harsher on the likes of Favreau, for example. We're all a bit too comfortable jabbing at Nolan and praising (insert director), but try switching it up a bit. Analyze the good Nolan has done versus the bad that his peers have. You'd be surprised to see which 'list' ends up being bigger.

Good post. Yes TDK has many great scenes and shots, its just some others are very disappointing, like the Sears Towers i mentioned. And this specific shot is so easy and yet it came off as very bland. As you said, no one is infallible.

That was a good way of putting it. However, I still don't see it. A child over the age of 5 knows good from bad, right from wrong, and can say I want this to never happen again. Now, I'll give you that he doesn't know what do to about it fully, but the fact that Bruce decides so early on to perfect himself into something useful the essense of Batman, that fact that he's better than EVERYONE. Nolan's Batman isn't better than most of the people out there. He's smart but not genius level, and he has absolutly no training in anyting outside of a simple seven years of martial arts. Nolan's Bruce didn't discover anything, Ra's found him. Only after he realized that Ra's was bad did he think of fighting crime. If Ra's was good Bruce would still be in the mountains, which is why I don't see Batman in Begins, I still see the character needing training.

I dont think that comics Bruce studied martial arts for much longer. Besides, Bruce is a genius, he doesnt need as much time to master something as a normal man.
That said, Nolan's Batman isnt such a genius, isnt a master scientist, detective or anything else his comic counterpart is. That reminds me of an issue where Alfred goes shopping and buys every after shave in the store. "Buy everything Alfed, i must be able to recognise every perfume and after shave."
God that was awesome!

thor and gl haven't come out yet so you can't really comment on those, but how are superman or ironman any more faithful than the batman movies? i think you're glossing over their changes because you're not as familiar with them, they are there and in abundance.

and it's not like a crime/noir-ish approach to batman is something this film team invented, there is a substantial precedent for this approach to batman.

how so? i've seen nothing in the 2 reboot movies that would prevent any character save two-face from (re)appearing?

I disagree. From all the rumors we re hearing, GL and Thor seem to be following the comics very closely. And IM has proved to be doing so.

Of course there will be differences, see movie Whiplash being Whip + Crimson Dynamo, but as far as the style and general philosophy, they have stayed pretty close to the comics. Hell, Ironman will be in the Avengers, but where is the Justice League?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as Nolan is at the head of this franchise, it should be his vision, and if his vision for Batman 3 is in the same general style of Begins and TDK, then B3 should keep consistency. When Team Nolan is done with the franchise, then the next vision for Batman can be established with a new creative team. But not for Batman 3.

There's doing something different within the confines of the style that Nolan has established for his trilogy (ex. the look of Gotham in Begins and TDK), but changing the overall style to something more fantastical is not a necessity to finish off the trilogy. Nolan should stick with what he's established.

Agreed.

Agreed. But I fear that the next helmer will not only try and replicate Nolan's realism, but fail at it. Also, I really want it to get a little more out there at some point. I believe each Batman film should push the envelope more and more.

I have the same fear.

You want a Batman on film that represents how you see the character, which is fine, but you cannot use you're personal Batman preference as proof Nolan's Batman isn't being close to the source material.

Its not personal preference, its how Batman is portrayed in the canon comic book series. I dont want them to follow his exact history without taking any liberties, far from it, but i've had enough of this confining realism that is strangling the fun out of this franchise.

And as for Thor and GL, to bring that up as fact when we have no idea how close to 'canon' they are going to be is hilarious.

In the post above i write that i base my opinion on the rumors that have been surfacing. Furthermore, an early script of GL has been leaked and i've read it and then there's this:

Mark Strong interview with USA Today:

http://www.**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=16744


Mark Strong Talks About Green Lantern's Sinestro

http://www.**************.com/images/users/gallerypictures/9221L.jpg


Brian Truitt of USA Today recently caught up with veteran baddie Mark Strong at the Who's News event. Strong, how has starring roles in the upcoming movies KICK-ASS, Robin Hood and John Carter of Mars will be heading to the New Orleans filming locations of Martin Campbell's Green Lantern sometime in June after he wraps on the Carter set.

http://www.**************.com/images/users/gallerypictures/10055L.jpg

"For anybody who’s familiar with the Green Lantern and the origin story, the film closely follows the early comics. Sinestro starts out as Hal Jordan’s mentor, slightly suspicious and not sure of him because obviously Hal is the first human being who’s made into a Green Lantern. He’s certainly very strict and certainly unsure of the wisdom of Hal becoming a Green Lantern," explained Strong.


"He is a military guy but isn’t immediately bad. It’s the kind of person he is that lends himself to becoming bad over the course of the comics being written, but initially he’s quite a heroic figure."


Strong commented on Sinestro iconic look, which will closely resemble the character’s early DC Comics days,"That widow’s peak and thin mustache was for some reason originally based on David Niven, and Hal Jordan was based on Errol Flynn. In the ‘30s and ‘40s, [Niven and Flynn] shared an apartment together in Hollywood when they were making movies and they were great friends. Obviously at the time, whoever was doing the original comics must have looked at them as guys doing very well in the film industry, and based those characters on them. So I would like to do justice to the Sinestro that was conceived for the comic books."


Comic purists should he happy to know that the filmmakers are worried about even the most minute detail when it comes to putting these characters on the big screen. Strong was recently fitted for special Sinestro contact lenses that he will wear for the film.

 

[returntovoid]

I loathed Burton for making the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill

There were actually two muggers instead of one the in the Batman 1989 flashback that were involved, the unnamed one that grabs the pearls and runs (probably is Joe Chill but left open to interpretation), the one that shoots them is Jack Napier.

Not a bad liberty taken considering all they did was change it from one mugger simultaneously doing all that to two muggers working together.

Burton's intention of making The Joker the murderer of his parents was probably just a throwback to his "Classic Universal Horror" films influence with the theme of monster creating monster like Dr. Frankenstein created Frankenstein Monster.

For more on the "Classic Universal Horror" films influence in Tim Burton's Batman films, check this link out.

"Classic Universal Horror" films influence

Batman using machine guns to kill his opponents

Batman would originally sometimes would kill criminals in the Bill Finger/Bob Kane comics of 1939-1940.

In Batman #1 (1940), Batman kills two thugs in a truck with a machine gun mounted on his Bat-Plane. Sound familiar???

I can't decide between the one with the marching army of rocket toting penguins

You think The Penguins strapped rockets on themselves just like that or they are mind-controlled???

The Penguin just strapped them on, it may be a bit too out there but so what, it's fun???

or the one where the Joker announces on TV that he'll be at the 200th anniversary parade at midnight and no Cops show up to arrest him

This is a really believable one and there is a logical explanation to it.

Gotham City in Batman 1989 was corrupt as hell, even the greedy citizens took the money The Joker was throwing (The Joker proved his point that humans can be greedy with that), there could also have been corrupt cops and the only trusted cop, Commissioner Gordon is not a superhero that he can come at so many places just like that.

Gotham City's corruption was first explained in Detective Comics #38 (1940) when Dick Grayson is trying call the cop to tell them that his parents were murdered but then Batman comes out of nowhere and stops him from doing so, he ask in the car why he should have not called the cops and Batman responds "Because this whole town is run by boss Zucco if you told what you knew, You'd be dead in an hour"

or maybe I'll watch the one with the ninjas in the Himalayan mountains conjuring up plots to balance justice with fear gas and microwave emitter machines

Ra's Al Ghul as you know, in the comics was a terrorist with crazy ideals that the earth should be restored to how it was in older times (no urban cities). So, fictional chaos causing things like fear gas and microwave-emitter would not be out of place in the field of terrorism since chaos is a part of it.