Ok...can you not handle someone having an opinion either? I'm not interested in how logical it is in a realistic setting...I discussed the issue then as I discuss it now...as a relevant issue for Bruce Wayne as a character. And yes, my notion would be idiotic...except that there's a precedent for it in the comics. Bruce Wayne abhors military weaponry and military production.
He just came back after several years in a self-imposed exile from Gotham and it clearly shows he just started learning about his company. Bruce Wayne abhorring all kinds of military weaponry and military production in the comics is just one of the many inconsistencies and contradictions between the different interpretations of the character. If not, then the comics Bruce Wayne is a class A hypocrite for not only allowing his company produce military technology, but also for utilizing it for his own war on crime in the case of which, I'd gladly welcome the ditching of such a logical discrepancy in the character. Sure, faithfulness to the source is all well and good, but not to the radical extent of which one shall have no choice but to accept the good with the bad just because. It's a comic book, not a goddamned religion.
That's a hell of a memory. That's what, 2...3 years ago? Can you quote me? Since you "distinctly remember" this...I imagine you can dig up some proof.
Yeah, pages upon pages of the same lengthy, over-drawn arguments over and over again eventually do get imprinted on some part of your brain. I'm not surprised how you have
conveniently forgotten the points of our 'discussions' because hey, you've probably engaged in so many worthless tirades in your time here that you simply didn't have the capacity nor the desire to remember any of it at all, eh?
As for proof, I would have dug up actual links to the posts if the Hype hadn't deleted pretty much everything from the pre-release days in the BB forum. Besides, I don't need to as I'm speaking from the personal experience of our countless encounters and from my perspective, is more than enough for me to freely express my disdain for the way you conduct yourself around this place.
More than likely, this is your complete inability to interpret anything I've written beyond the black and white. I never jumped on the filmmakers for failing to understand the character overall. I questioned certain aspects of their interpretation and their relevance and relation to the comics. As did almost everyone at some point. We had a lot of those kinds of discussions during the production of BEGINS.
Like I said, it's not just your 'questioning' I had a problem with. It was always quite apparent that you were overzealous and overly eager to pass judgment on the film even though all you had was a bloody first draft of the script. For someone who was simply 'concerned' about fidelity to the comics, you seemed to be unusually negative and resistant to any hopes or expectancy of your 'problems' being addressed in the film itself. In all my arguments with you, not once did I see you keep an open mind and wait until you've seen the damn film before firing on your endless reproach machine.
And I'm pretty sure that I never said BATMAN BEGINS wasn't faithful to the comics. I simply pointed out, many times, that BATMAN BEGINS, like BATMAN, made some pretty large deviations from the comic book mythology. This was mostly done because once details became known, a stringh of Burton-bashing began that was fairly unneccessary. I recall stating opinions about how things related to the comic world, not making enormous value judgements about the deviations taken by BEGINS.
Actually you did. Otherwise there would have been no purpose in trying to prove Begins
wasn't as faithful to the comics as you were touting it to be when it hadn't even achieved completion at the time. Exactly what I called your 'prematurely judgmental' attitude. In your valiant defense (and occasional patronizing) of the Burton films, you had already condemned Begins to no end in your critique. Precisely why you seemed so reluctant towards admitting even the possibility of your 'problems' with the script being addressed in any capacity in the theatrical cut even if someone brought it to your attention, for the simple reason that it would have undermined your position at the time.
One that couldn't be any truer.
Yes, Batman has harmed officers standing in his way before in the comics. But he's never run them over with a tank. Especially when, for all he knows, they're just decent cops doing their job. In YEAR ONE, for instance when he takes on the SWAT team, Batman pretty much acknowledges that the SWAT team is corrupt, and has at least some justification over what he does to Branden and his men. And he's being shot at...after they try to drop a bomb on him.
Pray tell, where exactly in Year One does Batman 'acknowledge' the SWAT team is corrupt? And I'm pretty sure Batman is allowed the license to engage in offensive behavior by hurting a few cops in the process of saving a life. Rachel was passing out and he was quickly running out of time. He didn't have the luxury of wasting it in outracing the cops in a lengthy game of cat'n mouse throughout the city. So he used certain tactics to quickly dispose of them and shake them off his tail. And his judgment was correct. He had cut it pretty close by the time he brought her to the cave. Any further delay and she might have not made it at all.
In BEGINS, he didn't NEED to "disable their vehicle", as you claim, in order to escape, as he was pointed in the opposite direction that they were, and he was already in motion and accelerating, while they were sitting still. In that tank, by the time those officers knew what was happening, they would have been far behind him in any "chase" that ensued. The aim of that scene is to show the tank driving over another vehicle to show its power and capability. Taking their vehicle out of the chase is secondary. And if that's what the filmmakers wanted to show, he could have slammed the car aside. He didn't have to run over it.
I never said the whole Tumbler chase scene was
not intended to showcase the action power of the vehicle in any way. Clearly it is. But at the same time, a lot of Batman's actions can be justified in the context of the situation.
As for your point about the cops not being able to catch up to him because he was going in an opposite direction, then you clearly know nothing about how the police contain such chases. A lot of the times, patrol cars giving chase break pursuit to corner or trap the fleeing vehicle by approaching them from other directions. That was exactly the purpose of Batman disabling their vehicle.
Whether he was trying to kill or maim the officers is irrelevant. He could have. Easily. Logic dictates that if you run over someone's car in a massive, tanklike vehicle, even at an angle, especially at a high rate of speed, that you run the risk of hurting them, or even killing them. I don't give a damn about what the film showed actually happening (Oh, the roof is a few inches from their heads? Thank the Lord!).
That is just grasping at loose straws. By the same logic, Batman should restrain himself for the simple reason that his breaking of bones and ribs of cops and criminals that often ended up in internal bleeding and ruptured organs of the victims
could have easily killed them if they weren't hospitalized at the right time. Batman is not afraid of taking calculated risks and being a bit brutal if the situation calls. Even though in the comics both his allies and his enemies realize by now that he doesn't kill, they criminals still fear him because of what he has done to them in the past.
No, but they did explode, destroy tires, and blow the cars into the air, flipping them several times, any of those elements which could have been lethal at those speeds. And they WERE bombs, which could have caught god knows what on fire or created more explosions.
Now that's just pathetic. Watch that scene again very closely. Those little 'bombs' were concussion mini-mines that are designed to register impact, not blow things up. That is why in the scene where the police car comes into contact with the mine, there is no fiery explosion. You just see the impact effect of the mine and then see smoke instead of fire. Which proves that it wasn't lethal as you're claiming it to be. You crying about the possibility of fire and explosions being caused by something that wasn't even an incendiary weapon clearly shows how far you're reaching here.
You've known some lucky people. People have died at much lower speeds in far lesser crashes. The fact that some stunt cars and a script that didn't show anyone injured or killed in those sequences in a MOVIE does not excuse the implications of such an action on Batman's part.
And I am still laughing at your absurdity of reproaching a
fictional character in a
fictional universe for what
could have happened in terms of
real-world possibilities. I thought after seeing so many films and reading so many comics, you should have realized by now that people are not as fragile and don't die as easily in the imaginary world as they do in the real one. You're just looking for excuses to b**ch about things.
Yes, Batman has hurt people, even cops, in the comics. However, I have never, ever seen him do something as reckless and frankly apathetic as dropping bombs in front of someone at a lethal rate of speed. There's a massive difference between breaking someone's arm, and blowing their car into the air at 80 MPH. Especially when they haven't done anything to HIM.
Just go read Year One then. The part where he takes down an entire squad of SWAT team members by kicking the support pillar which results in the entire roof structure collapsing down upon them could have been very much fatal. They could have easily died from the impact of the debris or suffocated to death under the rubble. In Begins, Batman throws concussion mines in front of a
single police car. In Year One, he brings down an entire floor on a whole team. I'll leave you to decide which is more reckless and apathetic. But then again, we both know what you are going to choose, aren't we?
Because when Batman injures people in the comics, it tends to be because he's being ATTACKED. Shot at, etc. In the movie, he's not being shot at. They don't even really do anything to provoke him. He's just being chased. And chasing people who flee is something cops DO fairly often.
He tried offensive maneuvers on the cops only twice, first when he smashed the first car outside Arkham. After that, he does his best to try to lose them by purely evasive actions - weaving in and out of traffic, launching off of parking lots, driving over rooftops and out speed his pursuers but they had him cornered from all sides. Like I said, it is easy to excuse and justify his actions within the context of the situation.
Moreso, it can easily be argued that Batman didn't HAVE to drive over that car and drop the bombs to effect his escape, as the Tumbler was clearly capable of evading cruisers without doing so. But the film demanded action, so...we got some reckless action sequences.
Of course there was 'reckless action' because the film demanded it, just like how there is 'reckless action' in the comics when the comics demand it. Ergo, it is
not out of character. You seem to have an increasingly soft and pacifist interpretation of Batman, Guard. Ever think you are maybe too timid to withstand fictional violence and not take it so personally?
Shameless self promotion? I'll wait for you to dig up proof on that, too. Although if it's self-******iating, then it's self-******iating. I won't deny it if that's what I said at the time. Although if I used it in defense and not to critique a piece of writing, then it's hardly the same situation as this.
Like I said, I don't
need to dig up any kind of proof against you. This is not some kind of proceeding to assign guilt. I'm speaking from what I learned about you through our endless arguments and nothing you or anyone else says is going to change that.
