Well, I would say that the League of Shadows was a huge operation since they started the plague, Gotham's financial crisis, burned London etc. but the rest are good points.
I wouldn't say huge...a small group of people could have accomplished that. I'm talking about a massive, worldwide organization with many parts. I saw ninjas. Ninjas do not a massive, multilayered worldwide organization make.
What he does is what gets him off, but generally speaking, that doesn't always classify people as their sexual preference. There are drug addicts that can only experience happiness or "get off" when they are on drugs, but we don't call them "cokesexuals" or "heroinsexuals". I think the "sexual" term is really only applied , by society at least, when referring to other people (or in some cases animals).
The term "sexual" need not to be applied to only penetration. Some people, for instance, get a sexual high and release from drugs. Sexuality is subjective, sure, but it can be applied to things other than penetration or romantic excitement. I don't think it's going to far to say The Joker gets an almost sexual high/release off the murder of innocent people.
Is "seeing" the lazarus pit what makes him faithful, or how the character acts? No I didn't see the "Lazarus Pit", but it was severely hinted at that he might be immortal. And thats the reason FOR the "Lazarus Pit".
No, of course not, but The Lazarus Pit and the theme of immortality is one of the key aspects of Ra's Al Ghul's character. That can simply not be denied. And this was not touched on, other than the brief line about "some say he's immortal" at the beginning of the film. You know what would have been cool?
RA'S AL GHUL: But, if you make yourself more than just a man. If you devote yourself to an ideal...and if they can't stop you...you become something else entirely.
BRUCE: Which is?
RA'S AL GHUL: Immortal.
No you didn't. He was seeking to destroy/rebirth one city at a time, not destroy the entire human race and start over fresh.
But they only alter the intiation of the motive of his actions being from the state of the planet through pollution, but the desecration of the planet THROUGH CRIME. So be eradicating crime, and the people who take part in it, he is trying to re-store civilization and the world to 'balance'.
So, Ra's Al Ghul is stupid and shortsighted as well as small scale in BEGINS? I've got news for you, if Ra's Al Ghul's motivations were stopping crime in BEGINS, then Ra's Al Ghul's motivations changed from the comics, and that's a change to the character. And that means this version of Ra's Al Ghul wasn't terribly faithful.
Is Talia what makes up the true character of "Ra's Al Ghul"?
No, but you better believe that she's a HUGE part of the Batman mythos and a key component of Ra's Al Ghul's relationship with Batman. A Ra's where there isn't even a mention of her is not an incredibly faithful rendition.
We didn't see Joker as a nameless "red hood" in Batman 1989, but you proclaim that rendition of the Joker to be about as faithful as it comes.
This is being a little hypocritical is not?
No, it's not. You're using one thing that wasn't in the movie (the red hood, nevermind that elements of the Red Hood origin were obviously included) to prove your point, when there are many elements of The Joker that were translated properly? (Good luck using my own argument against me). You have see all the reasons BATMAN's Joker WAS faithful to the comics, before, right?
Just because you aren't getting every exact detail from the character of the comics, does not mean that the character on screen isn't an accurate representation from the source material.
Yes it does.
"Accurate" tends to mean:
-Conforming exactly to fact; errorless.
-Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
This portrayal of Ra's Al Ghul was not "exact", nor was it "errorless". And it did not deviate "slightly". It deviated in large ways. Such as having Ra's Al Ghul training Bruce with most of his important skills, and being the impetus behind Batman deciding to mask himself and become something else to fight crime.
No, but he was asking him to just be his heir. " You were my greatest student, It should be you standing by my side saving the world..." That is in certain words asking him and offering the chance for Ra's to in a way be his surrogate father, and as you read into it beyond that (which was blatantly obvious)...
Obvious, my ass. I'm not interested in what we can read into the line. You can read anything into any line. I'm interested in what the line means taken in context. And in context, it means he wanted Bruce to stand by his side and save the world. That's a partner, not an heir. The point is, there was no actual exploration of the "heir" theme in the film.
it means Bruce would have to carry a lineage and be the eventual leader of the League of Shadows. Duh.
Did you see any dialogue about Bruce being the eventual leader of the League of Shadows? Or maybe Ra's just wanted a capable man beside him as he sought to save the world? You do realize that Ra's only wanted Bruce at first for the microwave emitter, right?
Oh, and that piece of dialogue also goes to accurately reflect the Ra's from the comics, where he believe full heartedly that what he is doing is the right thing, and isn't actually trying to be malicious or evil.
I didn't say they didn't get anything about Ra's Al Ghul right. The very basic aspects of the character were intact.
What does calling him detective have to do with ANYTHING?
Why do we have to see Alfred call Bruce "Master Bruce" or "Master Wayne"? Because that's how the character addresses another character in the mythos. Because it's a nod to what he's called Batman since they met. It's faithful to the character.
It would be kind of pointless, and very weird to see a man who KNOWS the name of the person he is talking to, but calls him 'detective'???
Actually, it's as simple as having say, after Bruce figures out who he is, "Quite the detective". Too bad Goyer didn't think of that. I me an, he came up with "scrambling over the rooftops of Gotham"...
And once again, is the fact that he doesn't call him detective, actually straying from who and what the character is? No... he simply just doesn't clal him detective, cause its mad corny.
Why? Batman IS a detective.
Especially if he continued to call him that.
Then have him call him it once and leave it at that.
No, that wasn't in the comics at all. That was a twist, that was meant for the movie canon.
Yes, a twist that ended up being an enormous deviation from the comic book version of Ra's Al Ghul. Since Ra's Al Ghul never pretended to be anyone to get Bruce to train with him, especially "Ducard".
Ducard was as accurate as they come.
I suppose if you think that Henri Ducard was always only a secret identity for Ra's Al Ghul in the comics, that would be correct. As such, it's not.
He starts off training Bruce in various methodologies...and Bruce eventually comes to know of the true manner and intenions of Ducard, and finds out he is just as evil as the people he is fighting against.
Actually, that was Ra's. There WAS no Ducard.
In this case, in the end we find out he is Ra's Al Ghul. The fact that the actual Ra's Al Ghul goes by a seperate identity, to keep his secret safe, is realistic and adds an intriguing aspect to the character not found in the comics. It actually ADDS something to make it better.
Better? That depends on if you like the idea of a Ra's Al Ghul who goes around hiding behind fake names for whatever reason (fear, at it's base). The Ra's Al Ghul from the comic books and even the animated series would never have done that. He didn't admit he was The Demon's Head (I.E, he did not admit to a superhero that he was himself, The Demon's Head, the leader of an international League of Assassins) in their first meeting, but he never pretended to be anyone other than Ra's Al Ghul. Again, another deviation. And not one demanded by the "realistic" nature of BATMAN BEGINS. If anything, they missed their chance to hint even more at him being immortal (and hey, who in their right mind would want to see Liam Neeson in THAT swordfight against Bruce? Certainly not people who know he's one of the best swordsmen in Hollywood). Although I have to admit, I enjoyed the hell out of seeing Ken Watanabe growling and hissing and whatnot. Shades of Arnold Swarzenegger.
And, once again, I never said I didn't LIKE Ra's Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS, because I loved it. What I said was that he wasn't THAT faithful to the comic book version. Because he wasn't. They took the very basics of his connection to the mythology and remade him into something that fit the movieverse. I have no problem with admitting that. What I have a problem with is you continuing to insist that his connection to the mythology in BATMAN BEGINS was uber-faithful.
