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.
Inconsistent, maybe. Contradictory, hardly. Bruce Wayne has almost always been shown to either hate or fear guns. He has been shown several times to be wary of any alliance with a military company. I don't know that his company produces military weaponry in the comics. I know he's produced vehicles and grapples and armor and so forth. I have yet to see Wayne Enterprises make guns, bombs, missles, etc.
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.
Unfortunately, what you're speaking from is memory. And memories aren't that reliable. The way I conduct myself? Oh...you don't like that I question things rather than accept them blindly, and that I analyze things. But we already knew that.
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.
Obviously it is my questioning you had a problem with, because that's all the "Wayne Enterprises military connection" was. A discussion point. I never passed judgement on the film itself back then. I passed judgement on the script draft, which was tangible, and right there to be critiqued. The quality of the writing and the adaption based on the script. Unless you can find anything that indicates otherwise, you can spout on and on all you want about me passing judgement on the film based on the first draft, but you can't prove a thing.
Once again...prove it. While I said many times I would have preferred to have seen certain things (Talia Al Ghul, a different version of Falcone, no Rachel character), I also almost always said that the deviations taken in BEGINS worked fairly well.
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.
Do you even read my posts? I just told you why I might have done that, and you seem to have glanced right over it. The only reason I ever pointed out BEGINS "unfaithful" aspects was because at the time, many people insisted on bashing the previous Batman franchise for it's "unfaithfulness", and yet excused BEGINS for taking similar kinds of liberties. I had nothing against BEGINS. I had something against people's one-sided and irrational arguments against the previous Batman franchise.
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.
Huh? You make it sound like I BEGINS-bashed, when I don't recall doing so. I did not ever, as I recall, condemn BATMAN BEGINS as a whole product. Ever. What I did was point out that just like the Burton Batfilms, it was not a perfect adaption, and had its share of unfaithful aspects. I pointed out things like..."if you're going to complain that The Joker had a hand in creating Batman in BATMAN, how do you excuse Ra's Al Ghul's involvement in the act in BATMAN BEGINS"?
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.
I don't believe I ever, back then, said the script couldn't or wouldn't change, and I recall hoping and saying I wished it would in some areas. It did, in some areas, and I recall recognizing those things in my review of the film and discussion of it.
One that couldn't be any truer.
Truth without proof, huh? Classic.
Pray tell, where exactly in Year One does Batman 'acknowledge' the SWAT team is corrupt?
I believe he mentions Branden and his ties to the Commissioner when he's inside the apartment complex after the bombing. I could be wrong. My copy is an hour away.
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.
There's a difference between hurting someone who was attacking you to escape a deadly situation...and risking injury or serious death to someone who hasn't even attacked you to prove a point. What happened in BATMAN BEGINS is the latter.
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.
Yes, time was of the essence. And yet he had the luxury of slowing down a bit to climb/run over a police car, rather than just accelerating past it and saving time?
So he used certain tactics to quickly dispose of them and shake them off his tail.
This is my point: He didn't NEED to shake them off his tail. They weren't even aware of his presence until he ran them over.
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.
He cut it close because that's how the story is written. For Rachel to conveniently faint at that precise moment when he's almost home. What's your point? And he did engage in a bit of "further delay" when he essentially slowed down in the process of running over that police cruiser. Watching the film, I was kinda wondering why he didn't just run from the cops on the streets and keep running them over until he escaped. That would have been kooool.
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.
Hey, that's great. He's taking their car out of action. My point is...he didn't need to risk their lives to do so. They weren't even aware of his presence until he ran over their car. If he zooms past...with police cars coming behind him...they're going to have to either accelerate, and join the chase, or wait for their fellow officers to pass and join the chase.
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.
I know police tactics well enough. I'm aware of chase procedures. However, the cops in question weren't giving chase. They were apparently just parked there waiting. They don't even seem to be aware of Batman's presence nearby. They're clearly just sitting there at the scene, as the film shows the two officers inside the car not even driving, just sort of looking up in surprise when they hear the Tumbler coming.
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.
Yes, Batman SHOULD restrain himself, and generally does. Batman will do whatever it takes to minimalize contact, to avoid killing anyone. Especially, I would think, police officers who are ONLY DOING THEIR JOBS. You realize that you're comparing the possibility of broken ribs and internal bleeding to being absolutely crushed by a speeding tank? Either you can discuss the point on its own, or you can't. These aren't CRIMINALS we're discussing. These are POLICE OFFICERS.
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.
Fire is not the issue. The force of the explosion is. Why don't YOU watch the scene very closely? There is the clear flash of an explosion there. And the cars being tossed into the air, rolling, etc, at high speeds...can't really be argued. That's an extremely dangerous situation to be in. You realize that elements of a car can explode just because of the IMPACT from a crash, right? How else do you think that parts of cars catch on fire when they crash?
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.
It's not about whether people were killed or not, in the context of the film. It's about your absurd argument that what Batman did was appropriate. Personally, I think it's you who are just looking for excuses to ***** about me...since you brought this up in the first place.
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.
And newsflash, I don't think what he does there in YEAR ONE is the most appropriate thing to do, either.
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.
Dropping the roof on the SWAT team, obviously. How is that relevant to our discussion? Oh, he did something more reckless in some other comic, and so my argument that he's a bit reckless and apathetic in BEGINS is null and void? Sorry, doesn't work that way. I've seen Batman kill and torture people in the comics. That doesn't excuse what he does in BATMAN BEGINS any more.
But then again, we both know what you are going to choose, aren't we?
I don't know. Do we? I notice you skimmed over the part where I pointed out that in YEAR ONE, he's being attacked, and in BATMAN BEGINS, he isn't. Again: There's a HUGE difference between being ATTACKED (In YEAR ONE, he'd already been in a bombing, been shot, and was being shot at by multiple persons) and doing what it takes to survive...and in not being attacked, and attacking others anyway (the cops were just doing their job, and he felt the need to risk their lives...fairly needlessly. He could have evaded them in the Tumbler anyway).
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.
You would excuse and justify someone who attacks and risks injury and death to those who have not attacked them at all? Tell me...is it ok for an ambulance to smash into a stationary car full of kids because someone needs help in the back of it?
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?
Nope. I'm pretty keen on violence as a method, but not needless violence, which is what I see utilized here. I'm not keen on a character who has always been about determining who to harm and not to harm (hint: bad guys VS innocents and lawmen) harming people when there are other options. And it's hilarious that you can't handle me having that opinion.
