Today in 1989...

[Mr. LOL]

The third act is, indeed, much better. I don't hate everything from BB, but I don't enjoy the film as a whole.

You like the third act the best? I mean I loved the WHOLE movie, but the third act is easily the weakest of the three. The first two are simply great pieces of dramatic film making. So much plot, character development, and meaning. The last act while at times is some what cliched, and to me was saved single handedly by the final scene, which to me was the BEST ending to a Batman movie there could be.

And I don't think that necessary. The Joker was dark enough in B89, just make him young and you've got a fine Joker. Padering to dorks who think darker = more adult isn't necessary, and could make Nolan miss the point of the character.

Well, there is different takes on the character. There is the ultra goofy Joker, then there is a very dark and menacing Joker. B89's Joker was some what in the middle, with an edge towards the more goofy version of the character. He was kind of menacing, but not near as he could've been, or as horrific as he is at times in some of the classic comic stories. He can either be this is monster, or simply a "Shennanigans" jester.

If anything Joker, the character, is the biggest oxymoron there is. Which is what makes him so interesting. Joker is extremely dark (darker than Batman), but he's this ultra-depresses and tragic figure ... who comes a calling with a permanent smile attatched to his face. Either way, I don't think we'll see this serial killer-esque Joker out on the streets dancing to Prince. He probably has bigger fish to fry. But in terms of what we've seen so far, and been described. This Joker will be darker, more serious, and ultimately more adult like and mature. I guess you could say in comparison the Joker from B89 would be more "cartoon-esque."

 

[Mr. LOL]

What about the third act w/ the runaway trainrail, that was kind of O'Neil-ish. Sweeping action, the goons, the conclusion that things aren't really back to normalsy yet.

W/o a doubt, bro. That whole third act was ripped straight out of a comic.

Yea it didn't delve(sp) into any detective work of the Batman, but really no live action film has.

Not true. BEGINS has plenty of detective work.

- Bruce in disguise, tapping the D.A.'s office
- Bruce organizing a list of who to trust within the G.P.D.
- Putting together the pieces of a huge plot: missing microwave emitter, posion being dumped in the water supply, supplementing a cure, etc.

All of that is DETECTIVE WORK.

B89 had it, Returns had it, and Forever had it as well. Hell, even Batman and Robin all included detective work.

But judging from what Doc told me, he wouldn't really dig that anyway. He could barely tolerate what was done in BEGINS, imagine if they went MORE in depth ... like say TLH or something. Doc would fall asleep in the theatre.

He said BEGINS was too much of a crime drama already, and not enough fun thrown in there ...

But really, some of you have to realize what detective work is, and really how much should be shown in a Batman movie. First of all, this isn't a weekly comic where you can go super in depth to every aspect of the character and his job. You just can't. Too much material to cover, that happens to be way more important to the story. So if you're expecting 15 minute long scenes of Batman doing various detective work ... not gonna happen. Kids and people who don't get down with that and/or who have short attention spans would be squirming in their seats, and it probably wouldn't sit too well. Hell, I heard various middle schoolers, add afflicted, and youngsters complaining about the first two acts of BEGINS. Saying it was too slow, boring, etc. But to the grown ups, movie buffs, and people who get the character and enjoy him for his motivations, origins, and purpose ... that is where the MONEY is with the film.

 

[batbat_29640]

Mr. LOL
I wanted to get your opinion on what some proclaimed 'film analysists' claim to be the subtext of B'89. Mind you, this is not something that I can subscribe to in the least. Posters in various Batman threads claim that it was Burton's intention that Bruce doesn't know who his parents' killer is and doesn't realise this until the 'Childhood Remembered' scene.
Personaly I cannot buy such rubbish and if it is Burton's claim then I can only call BS!! I have my own answers for disbelieving this claim but I just wanted to know what your thoughts on this might be.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Mr. LOL
I wanted to get your opinion on what some proclaimed 'film analysists' claim to be the subtext of B'89. Mind you, this is not something that I can subscribe to in the least. Posters in various Batman threads claim that it was Burton's intention that Bruce doesn't know who his parents' killer is and doesn't realise this until the 'Childhood Remembered' scene.

Well of course Bruce doesn't realise.....that's the whole point of the scene. That's why it's called 'childhood remembered' because Bruce finally remembers what happened.

It's not a 'claim', that's exactly what happens in the film and with respect, it's pretty obvious.

 

[batbat_29640]

Well of course Bruce doesn't realise.....that's the whole point of the scene. That's why it's called 'childhood remembered' because Bruce finally remembers what happened.

It's not a 'claim', that's exactly what happens in the film and with respect, it's pretty obvious.

I just can't see it. The rest of the movie just takes away from that intent. From the time we first see Bruce in the cave until Bats drops napier he's clearly tailing Jack!
Later when Bruce is looking through Napier's police file you see the younger pic of Jack. Which he disreguards. As though he already knows who this guy is and what he did.
Hey if someone hands me proof that this was indeed Burton's intent with the film then I will let it go. Yet that will instill my dislike for B'89. If it's true that in B'89 that Bruce doesn't know who killed his parents then another thing they got wrong. Not to mention they didn't do a very good job of getting that message across.

 

[Mr. LOL]

Well of course Bruce doesn't realise.....that's the whole point of the scene. That's why it's called 'childhood remembered' because Bruce finally remembers what happened.

It's not a 'claim', that's exactly what happens in the film and with respect, it's pretty obvious.

Not true at all. Through out the movie, it is clearly evident Bruce knows who Jack is, and what he represents. That's why he's so quick to spring up to go to Axis and ditch his party. That's why as Batman he kind of remembers in the scene at Axis, as seen through certain eye movements when Jack is hanging over the edge of the balcony. And it looks as though Batman may have actually dropped Jack into the acid ... knowing it was his parents killer. This is also why later in the movie, Joker goes "You made me, remember? You DROPPED me into that vat of chemicals ... that wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try." And Batman replies with "I know ya did." That scene of "childhood remembered" doesn't mean he forgot, it's just the title of the scene, because of what it presents to the audience what Bruce already knows. And if Bruce did happen to forget who his parents killer was, and he just then remembers it, after he's turned into a clown, etc. Than Bruce Wayne is one of the biggest dumb asses walking the planet to forget something like that. This is why there are so many HUGE holes in B89's foundation story of Batman.

 

[ab38416]

You do realize that Bruce's memories of his childhood were repressed, right? It wasn't until he heard the "devil in the pale moonlight" line that his images of forgotten pain began to surface.

 

[El Payaso]

Not true at all. Through out the movie, it is clearly evident Bruce knows who Jack is, and what he represents. That's why he's so quick to spring up to go to Axis and ditch his party. That's why as Batman he kind of remembers in the scene at Axis, as seen through certain eye movements when Jack is hanging over the edge of the balcony. And it looks as though Batman may have actually dropped Jack into the acid ... knowing it was his parents killer. This is also why later in the movie, Joker goes "You made me, remember? You DROPPED me into that vat of chemicals ... that wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try." And Batman replies with "I know ya did." That scene of "childhood remembered" doesn't mean he forgot, it's just the title of the scene, because of what it presents to the audience what Bruce already knows. And if Bruce did happen to forget who his parents killer was, and he just then remembers it, after he's turned into a clown, etc. Than Bruce Wayne is one of the biggest dumb asses walking the planet to forget something like that. This is why there are so many HUGE holes in B89's foundation story of Batman.

So the movie is dumb and has plot holes because of your inability of getting some of the most obvious moments in it?

Bruce remembers totally who Jack Napier was just after he sees him on the Tv screen and pauses the image. Everything is made to make you get that, starting with Keaton's face, reacting to the memories the frozen image of Napier makes him remember. If he realized of who Napier was before, we'd obviously have had the Waynes' death flashback long before too.

As someone else said, he knew there was something weird about Napier when he first hear the 'devil under the pale moon light' line. Again, everything in that scene is made for you to get that. Once again, starting with Keaton's facial reaction to the words.

Batman went to Axis just because he heard that conversation between the policeman and Gordon, so he knows a criminal activity is taking place and he also knows where. And this is your third strike.

 

[The Joker]

You do realize that Bruce's memories of his childhood were repressed, right? It wasn't until he heard the "devil in the pale moonlight" line that his images of forgotten pain began to surface.

Exactly.

Joker: "You ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
Bruce: "What?" *Stunned look on his face*

Bruce had no idea Napier was his parent's killer until then. I thought that was made blatantly obvious.

 

[Mr. LOL]

You do realize that Bruce's memories of his childhood were repressed, right? It wasn't until he heard the "devil in the pale moonlight" line that his images of forgotten pain began to surface.

How do we know his childhood memories were repressed?

 

[Mr. LOL]

So the movie is dumb and has plot holes because of your inability of getting some of the most obvious moments in it?

Easy there, cowboy. Where did I say the movie was dumb? Just it has huge plot holes.

The reason we got the flashback so late was to leave mystery to the movie of who and how the Wayne's were murdered up until the very end, in order to give greater importance to the final showdown betweek Jack and Batman.

I just think it would be incredibly ******ed that Batman of all people, wouldn't remember who his parents killer was ... when he has consequently met him on SEVERAL occassions. But it is also contradicted by Batman's actions towards Jack, before he even becomes the Joker. He drops him into the acid for a reason, no? He pauses at the computer screen when he sees a police man talking to Gordon about Jack Napier. He had to have known who Jack Napier was, no? Asking Alfred for the file on his parents murder? It just doesn't make much sense. Is he as in the dark about who killed them, as the audience is? Don't you think it's OVERLY convenient he remembers JUST before Batman / Joker final showdown?

If he realized of who Napier was before, we'd obviously have had the Waynes' death flashback long before too.

Not neccessarily, it was a way to have build up.

As someone else said, he knew there was something weird about Napier when he first hear the 'devil under the pale moon light' line. Again, everything in that scene is made for you to get that. Once again, starting with Keaton's facial reaction to the words.

I took that as Bruce just having a flashback. He knew who Napier "was", as he told him. See, that's the whole reason for the "I knew this guy Jack, made mistake" dialogue ... then blow up. He knows dude killed his parents, that's why he even goes to the extent of not giving a **** in front of Vicki and Joker. He nuts out for a reason. He knows Napier killed his fam way before the "childhood remembered" scene. That scene to me, was made to purely give emotional resonance to the final showdown ... by giving the audience the step by step account.

So ... your swing and a miss.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

But judging from what Doc told me, he wouldn't really dig that anyway. He could barely tolerate what was done in BEGINS, imagine if they went MORE in depth ... like say TLH or something. Doc would fall asleep in the theatre.

He said BEGINS was too much of a crime drama already, and not enough fun thrown in there ...

You know, I can do without the snide insults. I thought you were the better guy? I make insults toward you, you get all bent out of shape, and then you turn around and make references to me being some kind of idiot. You're completely misrepresenting what I've said, and misrepresenting my opinion, so do me a favor, don't talk about me like I'm not here.

I want Detective work. The more, the better. My only point is that BB is more "grtty crime" than "Swashbuckling adventure", which I prefur. And just because YOU don't agree, don't act like I'm an idiot for having my own observation. Don't be so bloody ignorant to denounced my admitted opinions as false.

Don't discuss me or my opinions unless you are in a conversation with me. For all intents are purposes, you're talking about me "behind my back," and it's insanely childish, not to mention rude. And your lack of respect for me is amazing, to get into a conversation with someone else and essentially say "Doc's such a moron, he doesn't agree with me on this this and this." Which is what you did.

Just because you think it's detective work doesn't mean it is. So I'd appreciate that you, first, stop assuming that the way you feel is correct and because I disagree that I'm a moron, and second, have the professional discipline to respect someone who apologized to you, even though you didn't deserve it. Mad? You bet I am. I'm not even in the conversation anymore, and you're going around chuckling about how stupid you think I am like I wasn't ever going to see it, right AFTER you lecture me about insulting somebody being "bad". You're an egotistical hypocrite, and because I apologized for ever bothering to defend my opinion in the first place, you must think it's fine and dandy to do as you please, like you "owned" me.

You are specifically acting like your opinion is correct and everybody else's is insanity, and even if it their opinion, they're foolish for thinking it. You're a pompous and arrogent jackass.

Oh, and by the way: you're an idiot with no film comprehension skills. It is clear, based on the filmed intentions of the material, that Bruce Wayne does NOT recognize Jack Naiper as the murderer of his parents until the "Devil" line in Vicki's apartment. Yes, prior, he DOES recognize Naiper as Naiper, but not as the Wayne murderer. How stupid can you be? (And yes, I'm hypocritical now... I could care less) What would the point of Bruce's reaction be if not surprise? Do you even understand anything?

I mean, how can you stare at this film, watch the scene, see Bruce's newfound surprise at the line, and think that's a "flashback?" It's debateable asto whether or not he's having one right then, but it's clearly surprise, which, if he knew Naiper killed his parents, why would he be surprised?? Do you have even the most basic analytic skills?

Not to mention that the Comic Book adaptation and the novelization back me up on this. He does NOT know until the apartment scene. You know, it's a good thing that Batman Begins is so narratively simplistic and basic, telling everybody the intent of everything. That way, you don't get people like Mr. LOL confused.

And also: Batman did not throw Naiper into the chemicals. If he was going to let Naiper die, why would he have bothered grabbing his hand in the first place? And can you not understand a filmed moment? We see his hand SLIP OUT of Batman's. Batman did not let him go, it clearly slipped out because it was glove-to-glove; slippery.

And why would he have shown up in the first place? He's supposed to be helping the city, so why would he show up, only to undermine the police and kill Naiper? He is attempting to bring Naiper in alive to testify and bring down Grissom. Good God, why don't you pay attention to the movie?

I'm done. No more insults after this. But don't even try to defend yourself from this. Don't pull the "I didn't mean it as an insult" card, and don't try to deny your egotisim. It's in that post in-spades, and I've got you dead to rights.

Not to mention your cockeid analysis of B89 is proven wrong, not only by my words, but definitively by the novelization, script and comic adaptation. You don't have a leg to stand on, so don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend yourself.

All you can do is apologize to me for the insult. That's all you have the right to do for such hypocracy, egotisim and ignorance toward other's opinions. Once you apologize, all will be forgiven, but I still won't have respect for you after what you did and your behavior overall.

 

[Excel]

Yeah I think I saw that DVD on eBay once upon a time, no idea who the seller was though. Havent bothered seeing if it's still being offered, but it has run thru my mind a few times.

Couldnt agree more on a 4 disc Batman 1989 set.

I own the same dvd. its great. even has 2 vintage tv spots and a tv spot for batman cereal! it is, imo, far better than the special eddition dvd extras. it has a fantastic 20/20 segment, interviews, a lot fo making of featurettes; keaton is very odd in interviews for some reason; basically gives real insight into batmania 1989

 

[El Payaso]

How do we know his childhood memories were repressed?

Because he doesn't react immediatelly when he faces Napier, but much later and he remembers who is he almost at the end of the movie.

Easy there, cowboy. Where did I say the movie was dumb? Just it has huge plot holes.

The reason we got the flashback so late was to leave mystery to the movie of who and how the Wayne's were murdered up until the very end, in order to give greater importance to the final showdown betweek Jack and Batman.

It takes too much of a theory to create a plot hole out of nothing.

Bruce's reaction to both Joker's 'devil under pale moon light' line and then the frozen image tell us the pointless narrative device you describe was never that way.

I just think it would be incredibly ******ed that Batman of all people, wouldn't remember who his parents killer was ... when he has consequently met him on SEVERAL occassions.

That's the way reppressed memories work. Precisely the most affected person is who remembers the least about the traumatic incident. Hence reppressed memories and not skindeep memories.

But it is also contradicted by Batman's actions towards Jack, before he even becomes the Joker. He drops him into the acid for a reason, no?

Yes, apparently the same way he threw Johnny Gobbs and severely injuried many criminals before and after Jack. I don't think Batman was believing every one of those were his parents' killer though.

Batman threw Jack to the acid simply because he either wanted to kill him or Jack slipped from Batman's hand. That part is unclear in the movie because it seems that Batman made an affort to grab Jack's hand (exposing himself to the cops by doing it) so maybe Batman didn't even throw Jack into the acid to begin with but was trying to save him.

Batman met Jack and Joker several times but it was just after he remembers that he says 'You made me.' Guess what's the reason.

He pauses at the computer screen when he sees a police man talking to Gordon about Jack Napier. He had to have known who Jack Napier was, no?

Maybe that he was a a criminal. Just like people know who Carl Grissom is.

Not necessarily he was his parents' killer.

Asking Alfred for the file on his parents murder? It just doesn't make much sense.

It makes all the world's sense when we saw Bruce meeting the Joker for the first time and recognizes Jack Napier behind the white face, as he tells Alfred right after that "I think Jack Napier is alive." Therefore, he starts to find out as much of Jack as he can so he can catch the Joker.

If Bruce knew long time ago that Jack was his parent's killer, he would have asked Alfred for that file long time earlier. But he does just after he suspects Napier is the Joker.

Is he as in the dark about who killed them, as the audience is? Don't you think it's OVERLY convenient he remembers JUST before Batman / Joker final showdown?

Just as convenient as Kal-El's spaceship falling right on the Earth, specifically in the United States, or the radioactive spider biting a good young man, or a Gamma overdose not killing Dr. Banner. These things happen in comics and comic movies.

Not neccessarily, it was a way to have build up.

Something would have made us think he knew açearlier at the very least. Or that that flashback wasn't out of Napier's frozen Tv image.

I took that as Bruce just having a flashback. He knew who Napier "was", as he told him. See, that's the whole reason for the "I knew this guy Jack, made mistake" dialogue ... then blow up. He knows dude killed his parents, that's why he even goes to the extent of not giving a **** in front of Vicki and Joker. He nuts out for a reason. He knows Napier killed his fam way before the "childhood remembered" scene. That scene to me, was made to purely give emotional resonance to the final showdown ... by giving the audience the step by step account.

So ... your swing and a miss.

Your effort to create a fake plothole is admirable. You put a lot of imagination and pay lots of attention to details. The fact they're obviously wrong shoulkdn't stop the rest of us from admiring the effort. I can respect that but you just didn't get it.

 

[The Joker]

But judging from what Doc told me, he wouldn't really dig that anyway. He could barely tolerate what was done in BEGINS, imagine if they went MORE in depth ... like say TLH or something. Doc would fall asleep in the theatre.

Drop the snide remarks, man. You're not impressing anyone. If anything, you're putting people off reading your posts altogether.

Make your points without resorting to immature crap like that.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

You know, honestly, this is the first time Ive heard of this type of discussion.


The whole "Bruce knew who Jack was from the beginning". I dont see it. The monitor scene where hes listening to Gordon talking with the cop about "Napier cleaning out Axis Chemiclas" had nothing to do with him knowing who Jack was his parents killer. He knows that Jack is the right hand man of Grissom, the biggest crime boss in Gotham. And as Gordon says, "if we get our hands on him, we'd have Grissom". Also, "whos in charge?".."Eckhart, sir". Its safe to assume also that Bats also knows of Eckharts on grissoms payroll, so he knows this is a set up. He springs to action to try to help aprehend Napier to take down Grissom.

Him dropping Jack into the acid also had nothing to do with him knowing Jack was the killer. Jack slipped over the rail after being hit by the richochet bullet. Batman either lost grip, or decided to just let him fall. Thats a questionable scene, but it has nothing to do with the Jack killer thing.

He asks for the Napier file because he plans on doing some, yes, detective work on Napier after he finds out he is still alive and running Grissoms men. Also, there "young Jack" mugshot is obstructed. The one he handles and flips over is the current "Nicholson" shot. I believe that young mugshot was concealed for the purpose of the big flashback reveal for greater effect.

He first begins to remember during the "pale moonlight" phrase in Vickis apartment, thus his reaction. I

Him asking for his parents file is just showing that he is still brooding over the deaths and also reinforcing why hes Batman.

Its not until Bruce freezes that monitor that all the pieces are finally revealed to him and then remembers that night.

Now, I dont want to argue with anyone over this. If you choose to believe the other, then thats your right. But I just think theres a little too much thought going into a "conspiracy theory" of sorts.

 

[El Payaso]

You know, honestly, this is the first time Ive heard of this type of discussion.

Man, it's like claiming Bruce Wayne had a clone of himself that wore the Bat-suit too. And when Bruce was watching that tape with Gordon and the cop in his house and he made that worried face... well, he was worried about his clone and the moral implications of it. And when Batman seemed to be in several different parts at Axis Chemicals... yes, it was the clone. Makes sense.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Man, it's like claiming Bruce Wayne had a clone of himself that wore the Bat-suit too. And when Bruce was watching that tape with Gordon and the cop in his house and he made that worried face... well, he was worried about his clone and the moral implications of it. And when Batman seemed to be in several different parts at Axis Chemicals... yes, it was the clone. Makes sense.

Actually, in TAS there was an episode that involved a clone of Batman

 

[ShaneHelms]

Ill get some new pics up within the next couple days of my 89/92 stuff.

 

[batbat_29640]

Guys you really need to watch B'89 again!!! The change in emotion in Bats' eye when holding Jack over the railing . . . it's there!!! I noticed that 17 years ago. Another point to notice is when Bruce is looking through Napier's police file there is an old photo of 'Young Jack' as seen in the childhood remembered scene! He passes over it as if he's seen it before. To say that Bruce doesn't realise it's the same guy who killed his parents is just folly. He knows who killed his parents. That's a vital element to the Batman mythos.
But if anyone can prove that it was Burton's intent to make as though Bruce doesn't realise that Napier killed his parents . . . then thank you for proving how BAD B'89 was.

 

[batbat_29640]

The while point behind the scene 'Childhood Remembered' is that you see what Bruce can NEVER erase from his mind. Two gunmen, two shots, when the other guy runs after the shootings he screams "Come on 'Jack' lets go!!!"
To say that Bruce doesn't know who killed his parents before then is like saying "Oh well he's the world's greatest detective but he's just too stupid to put 2&2 together."

 

[souloffire]

I still remember like it was yesterday.

So do I. The year leading up to the release was torture(remember no internet). We had to rely on bits and pieces of info from mag's such as Starlog and Comics Scene (the Wizard of the 80's).

 

[The Joker]

Guys you really need to watch B'89 again!!!

No, we don't. Seen it enough times to notice everything that should be noticed

The change in emotion in Bats' eye when holding Jack over the railing . . . it's there!!!

Nope...don't see it. He looks a little stunned, and I attribute that to the fact that he failed to save Napier.

Another point to notice is when Bruce is looking through Napier's police file there is an old photo of 'Young Jack' as seen in the childhood remembered scene! He passes over it as if he's seen it before.

Young Jack?? It's regular aged Jack Nicholson in the file photo. Not the young look alike they used in the flasback scene.

To say that Bruce doesn't realise it's the same guy who killed his parents is just folly. He knows who killed his parents. That's a vital element to the Batman mythos.

Respectfully disagree. I think you're just seeing things that are simply not there. Making something out of nothing. A look in his eyes? A file photo?

But if anyone can prove that it was Burton's intent to make as though Bruce doesn't realise that Napier killed his parents

He does realise Napier killed his parents.......when Joker says the dance with the devil line.

then thank you for proving how BAD B'89 was.

Respectfully disagree once again.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Guys you really need to watch B'89 again!!! The change in emotion in Bats' eye when holding Jack over the railing . . . it's there!!! I noticed that 17 years ago. Another point to notice is when Bruce is looking through Napier's police file there is an old photo of 'Young Jack' as seen in the childhood remembered scene! He passes over it as if he's seen it before. To say that Bruce doesn't realise it's the same guy who killed his parents is just folly. He knows who killed his parents. That's a vital element to the Batman mythos.
But if anyone can prove that it was Burton's intent to make as though Bruce doesn't realise that Napier killed his parents . . . then thank you for proving how BAD B'89 was.

That "look" in his eye has been debated forever. Its always been the catalyst of his intentions on killing or not. I dont think it has anything to do with him knowing who Jack is or not.

As for Batman always knowing who his parents killer is, that has been changed thruout the mythos. First he doesnt know, the he knows, then he doesnt know. First its Chill, then it could have been Corbin. Its always changed depending on how the then current continuity on how the writers want to depict Batmans character. He remembers the tragedy of his parents death, but the details can be repressed due to the trauma of the actual event. The memories are triggered thru certain events that happen, like the "pale moonlight" quote. We see this same exact thing in Forever as well. There are specific details that Bruce just cant remember.


Also, as I said before, the "young Jack" mugshot is obstructed when Bruce opens the folder. Only the "Nicholson mugshots" are in full view. He flips them out of the way because hes not concerned on what he looks like, he trying to figure out his psychology. Hes interested in his profile.

The while point behind the scene 'Childhood Remembered' is that you see what Bruce can NEVER erase from his mind. Two gunmen, two shots, when the other guy runs after the shootings he screams "Come on 'Jack' lets go!!!"
To say that Bruce doesn't know who killed his parents before then is like saying "Oh well he's the world's greatest detective but he's just too stupid to put 2&2 together."

Bruce remembers the tragedy, like I already said, not the specific details. Thats why we the audience, along with Bruce, see the "childhood remembered" scene. We are "remembering" it together for the big reveal. Which leads into the grand finale of the film.

To say hes too stupid to know is a stupid statement. As a child he didnt know who the killer was because he was not instantly caught. If it was known who the killer was, then like in Begins, he'd be arrested. It took him years to find out who the killer was. Bruce was traumatized. They even touch on this when Vicki is reading thru the old news articles with Knox. "Look at his face", "What does something like this do to a kid?".


Like I've always said, movies can be perceived in different ways by different people. You can analize details to death and interprate them however you want. But I think sometimes poeple look too much into it.

 

[ThreeActRomance]

well...June 23rd 2009 does fall on a Tuesday (the day DVDs are released in the US at least)

i would like to see a 20th Anniversary 3 Disc Set of B89...maybe some new commentary by Tim Burton, Micheal Keaton, & Jack Nicholson. Full on like 2 hour documentry on the movie itself.

Also a "Fan Commentary" track would be interesting. Get like other Hollywood people who are known Batman fans to give their commentary to it (ie: Kevin Smith..hey..if he can commentate on Donnie Darko, why the hell not?)

then a huge Docuementry DVD on Batman in general. Kinda like the Superman one that was released.