The Dark Knight What 'departures from canon' are not acceptable to you?

[Cristo]

Well, Arkard, you weren't helping when you copied down my idea word-for-word and posted it! I think I have the right to be mad, especially since everybody ignored my post from the get-go!!!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It already did, even before I saw BB. My thoughts on the character remain the same. It was a WB mandate that Nolan barely made work, and thus, I can't help but feel that without Rachel, BB would've been a better movie. Not only for Bruce to be more alone in the beginning, but so I could be spared of Holmes.

1.) I don't remember it ever being conclusively proved that the STUDIO had anything to do with Rachel's presence in the movie.

2.) Katie wasn't as bad as you make her out to be. She was the weakest link in the cast by far, yes, but the shortest guy on the basketball team is still taller than everybody at the supermarket, you know what I mean? Katie may have been outclassed by her co-stars, but she isn't a bad actress. Her biggest problem in Begins is that she didn't bring her A game. I don't know why she didn't, but she just didn't. She's a better actress than what she brought to that movie. Which, ultimately, is why Maggie Gyllenhaal being in TDK is such a good thing. Maggie's not the kind of actress who phones it in.

Are we really gonna go by general opinion on this? This IS the same crowd that still has people believing Joker killed Batman's parents. They don't know sh1t.

I know, I know. But the fact is that what is a big deal to you is not a big deal from a business perspective, or an artistic perspective, and when put into that context, your opinion is the buzzing of a fly to Warner's, and to Chris Nolan.

You do realize your last 2 sentences are exactly the same with a little bit of sugarcoating, right?

Sugarcoating is not the word I would choose. It's perspective. Put the first way, it sounds contrived. Put the second way, it's a completely valid concept. As a writer I'm big on the power of words. The words you choose can easily make something sound better or worse than it really is. Just as an example, every time a bunch of our guys get killed in Iraq, the media makes it sound like a slaughter, but the list of Americans who died in the US yesterday far exceeds the number of Americans who died in Iraq yesterday. And put into that context it looks a little different, doesn't it?

Or the Tet Offensive in Vietnam... was a military victory for the US, but the media made it sound like a loss, and public opinion turned against the war. And hence, the US was forced to pull out of Vietnam based on a successful military campaign. Now keep in mind, I'm not saying that either war is good or bad, or that we should or shouldn't be there. I'm just pointing out how the lost art of objectivity changes things.

If Maroni can be worked into the story with a sensible role, then that negates his supposed waste of space. Besides, I find it no worse than what Falcone was in BB.

And if you try, you can develop a scientific formula to make turds taste like Baked Alaska. Doesn't make it a good idea. It doesn't matter than you CAN do something. What matters is why you'd want to. Or to put it another way, I would ask you a question: why would you want to fabricate a function for Sal Maroni in the movie beyond scarring Harvey Dent?

Riddle me that, Crooklyn.

No need...it didn't, and will never apply to me. t:

I'm not so sure.

My point is the whole "anyone can -------- him and it wouldn't matter" argument just doesn't hold. You may have been fine with that particular change in B89, but pretty much everyone else has singled that out as one of the worst things changed from the comics, in an otherwise great movie.

Honestly? I feel the same way about the Joker shooting the Waynes as I feel about the rest of Batman '89. It only sort of resembles the comics, but it's a good movie that captured my imagination for a long, long time.

As long as it doesn't radically change characters and their relationships, yeah.

And do you think Joker scarring Harvey would radically alter their relationship?

Yes, and they were all molded into one in BB.

Arright, wise-ass. I do remember the scenes where Ra's taught Bruce escape artistry, criminal psychology, forensic science, gymnastics, boxing, judo...

I was exaggerating when I made that statement, but my meaning is still the same. Ra's was a very important figure in shaping Batman to what he is.

Of course he was. So was Joe Chill. So was Carmine Falcone. So what?

 

[Crooklyn]

1.) I don't remember it ever being conclusively proved that the STUDIO had anything to do with Rachel's presence in the movie.

Oh c'mon, you can't be that naive.

2.) Katie wasn't as bad as you make her out to be. She was the weakest link in the cast by far, yes, but the shortest guy on the basketball team is still taller than everybody at the supermarket, you know what I mean? Katie may have been outclassed by her co-stars, but she isn't a bad actress. Her biggest problem in Begins is that she didn't bring her A game. I don't know why she didn't, but she just didn't. She's a better actress than what she brought to that movie. Which, ultimately, is why Maggie Gyllenhaal being in TDK is such a good thing. Maggie's not the kind of actress who phones it in.

The problem stemmed from Katie being with such an outstanding cast. I mean seriously, list the cast off BB, and I guaranteed any random person will point at Holmes as the odd-man out. She just doesn't fit with that caliber. Gyllenhaal is a fantastic add, I only wish she were given this opportunity in the first place.

I know, I know. But the fact is that what is a big deal to you is not a big deal from a business perspective, or an artistic perspective, and when put into that context, your opinion is the buzzing of a fly to Warner's, and to Chris Nolan.

B89 is an exception to adapting comic books, at least in today's standards. It's no mere coincidence that the most highly praised/financial comic book films, are the ones that pleased both the general audience for simply being a good movie, but also the hardcore fans, for treating the source material right. You deviate from the latter, and you're guaranteed to run into problems.

And if you try, you can develop a scientific formula to make turds taste like Baked Alaska. Doesn't make it a good idea. It doesn't matter than you CAN do something. What matters is why you'd want to. Or to put it another way, I would ask you a question: why would you want to fabricate a function for Sal Maroni in the movie beyond scarring Harvey Dent?

Riddle me that, Crooklyn.

I'm not fabricating anything, as it's FACT, that Maroni is the one doing the deed. I just see absolutely no major reason to change this, with the exception of making things between characters more connected.

I'm not so sure.

I know more about the Bat mythos than the average joe, and probably a lot of the users here..so I think I'm justified in saying that no, that statement will never apply to me.

Honestly? I feel the same way about the Joker shooting the Waynes as I feel about the rest of Batman '89. It only sort of resembles the comics, but it's a good movie that captured my imagination for a long, long time.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's not stopping me from loving the hell outta the movie, but I still find it a glaring issue.

And do you think Joker scarring Harvey would radically alter their relationship?

How could it not? In your scenario, Joker CREATES Two-Face. They've always had a long-standing feud, but it was never *that* personal.

Arright, wise-ass. I do remember the scenes where Ra's taught Bruce escape artistry, criminal psychology, forensic science, gymnastics, boxing, judo...

None (with the exception of one) of which made it into the film, so that point is moot.

Of course he was. So was Joe Chill. So was Carmine Falcone. So what?

You're honestly gonna say that the level of influence Chill and Falcone had on Bruce "becoming Batman" were on par with Ra's?

 

[StorminNorman]

You're honestly gonna say that the level of influence Chill and Falcone had on Bruce "becoming Batman" were on par with Ra's?

Absolutely.

It was Joe Chill that gave Bruce the motivation.

It was Falcone that showed Bruce that Gotham needed saving.

Both of them forced Bruce to become Batman, Ra's simply gave him the method.

 

[Crooklyn]

Absolutely.

It was Joe Chill that gave Bruce the motivation.

It was Falcone that showed Bruce that Gotham needed saving.

These are true.

Both of them forced Bruce to become Batman

This isn't.

Falcone and Chill showed Bruce the ugly side of the world, and forced him to question what his role would be in life to counter-act these evils. It's clear Bruce wanted to do something about it. BUT, that is not what motivated Bruce to become Batman. He didn't see his parents die, to decide to wear a costume and fight criminals.

Ra's is the one that showed him this. Hence why, Ra's was a big part of Bruce becoming BATMAN. Not a man of justice. There's a difference.

 

[StorminNorman]

These are true.


This isn't.

Falcone and Chill showed Bruce the ugly side of the world, and forced him to question what his role would be in life to counter-act these evils. It's clear Bruce wanted to do something about it. BUT, that is not what motivated Bruce to become Batman. He didn't see his parents die, to decide to wear a costume and fight criminals.

Ra's is the one that showed him this. Hence why, Ra's was a big part of Bruce becoming BATMAN. Not a man of justice. There's a difference.

If Joe doesn't off Mommy and Daddy, Bruce does not become Batman.

If Falcone doesn't off Joe Chill and shows Bruce the dark side of Gotham, then Bruce never runs away and finds Ra's.

What is Batman though but a man of justice? If Batman didn't have the ears, he would still be the same character - he would just be the Dark Avenger or something. Ra's showed Bruce that he needed a symbol, Joe and Falcone gave him a reason to create it.

 

[Crooklyn]

If Joe doesn't off Mommy and Daddy, Bruce does not become Batman.

If Falcone doesn't off Joe Chill and shows Bruce the dark side of Gotham, then Bruce never runs away and finds Ra's.

They are a precedent for what's to become of Bruce. But not the underlying circumstance that makes Bruce don the cape and cowl.

What is Batman though but a man of justice?

A vigilante in a batsuit.

Ra's showed Bruce that he needed a symbol, Joe and Falcone gave him a reason to create it.

Like I said, Chill and Falcone were merely players in a series of incidents that led Bruce to Ra's.

Take for example:

A parties with B at a party
B coerces A to drink
B asks C to drive A home
C refuses, so A drives by himself
A later on hits D with a car due to drunk driving

Are B and C directly responsible for D's death?

 

[MechaOrga]

Departures from Canon are OK as long as it ADDS to the over all greatness of the movie.....I thought the departures in begins were very cool in my opinion(as i stated a few pages back).

Just came back from ghost Rider...wow.....just wow....

Guys and gals we are lucky to have MR. NOLAN

GHOST RIDER SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!!!!!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Like I said, Chill and Falcone were merely players in a series of incidents that led Bruce to Ra's.

Take for example:

A parties with B at a party
B coerces A to drink
B asks C to drive A home
C refuses, so A drives by himself
A later on hits D with a car due to drunk driving

Are B and C directly responsible for D's death?

They're as guilty as A is, really. C had an opportunity to do the right thing, and failed to act. B "coerced" A, which means that B had to twist A's arm. That makes B and C jackasses. It doesn't mean that A isn't guilty, either, as A is clearly an idiot. But one idiot doesn't negate the existence, or personal failures, of two jackasses.

Also, your example doesn't really correspond to the Chill/Falcone/Ra's/Bruce thing. Chill and Falcone had no real connection to Ra's. Chill and Falcone had no immediate connection to each other.

Falcone may not have even been a boss when Bruce was a kid. Ra's had tried to destroy Gotham through economics. He failed. Chill was a poor person who was driven to crime out of desperation. He killed the Waynes in a stick-up gone bad. Falcone does what he does, like Chill, in order to get by. The difference is Falcone has a higher level of operation. And he keeps the system broken and so more guys like Chill are out there doing crimes.

You want to say that if Ra's hadn't done what he did to Gotham initially, Joe Chill and Carmine wouldn't have been criminals? Of course they would have. And the same thing would have happened. And if it wasn't Ra's that Bruce found, it would have been somebody else. Chill and Carmine gave Bruce his anger and his guilt. Without those, there would be no Batman.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Oh c'mon, you can't be that naive.

What, it's not possible that Nolan and Goyer wanted a girl in their movie???

The problem stemmed from Katie being with such an outstanding cast. I mean seriously, list the cast off BB, and I guaranteed any random person will point at Holmes as the odd-man out. She just doesn't fit with that caliber. Gyllenhaal is a fantastic add, I only wish she were given this opportunity in the first place.

Didn't I just say all of that?

B89 is an exception to adapting comic books, at least in today's standards. It's no mere coincidence that the most highly praised/financial comic book films, are the ones that pleased both the general audience for simply being a good movie, but also the hardcore fans, for treating the source material right. You deviate from the latter, and you're guaranteed to run into problems.

Yes, but you just said it - it has to please both parts of the audience, as a good movie. It can't be a good movie if you start shoehorning 70 years of history into a two-hour film.

I'm not fabricating anything, as it's FACT, that Maroni is the one doing the deed. I just see absolutely no major reason to change this, with the exception of making things between characters more connected.

You didn't answer my question. I was saying that Maroni has no other function in the comics except to scar Harvey. You said that he could be GIVEN something else to do in the movie that would justify his presence.

What I am asking you is, why would you NEED to JUSTIFY his presence? If he needs justification, then he is already unnecessary.

I know more about the Bat mythos than the average joe, and probably a lot of the users here..so I think I'm justified in saying that no, that statement will never apply to me.

And yet you're still arguing your side of this case. Which means that you have completely lost touch with what is really important in the mythos. You're arguing over pointless details, rather than the overall quality and spirit of the work.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's not stopping me from loving the hell outta the movie, but I still find it a glaring issue.

Batman '89 is FULL of glaring issues. But it's still a hugely successful movie that is a big reason why we are here arguing about "The Dark Knight."

How could it not? In your scenario, Joker CREATES Two-Face. They've always had a long-standing feud, but it was never *that* personal.

But, they DO have a feud. And Harvey is out to fight crime in his own twisted way, because he was hurt by a crime lord. Well, regardless of whether it is Joker, or Maroni, or Rupert Thorne, that aspect of Two-Face doesn't change. And Joker, he's a psychopath who has no boundaries, really, and has been known to disfigure people for sport. So none of the characters is altered. Their relationship is altered SLIGHTLY. That is ALL.

Hell, that's a smaller change than anything they did with Ra's or Scarecrow in Begins, and I thought Ra's and Scarecrow were handled with a lot of respect.

None (with the exception of one) of which made it into the film, so that point is moot.

What the hell are you talking about?

Do you mean those skills, on Batman's part, were not showcased in the film? He did plenty of basic detective work. He was shown to have a lot of agility, which probably connotes some gymnastic ability in the way he's always perching on railings and swinging on handgrips in the train; he moves like a man who is comfortable with his agility. If it took him any effort to hop up onto a railing he couldn't disappear soundlessly and without apparent effort from those funky perches. It was shown (and mentioned by Ra's in case you have no grasp of reason) that Bruce had been learning to understand the criminal mind while he was on his travels. It's why he tagged along on some heists. Bruce clearly had already acquired a lot of martial arts training before joining the League of Shadows.

So the only missing is forensic science, boxing, and escape artistry. To which I would say that just because we didn't see it in the movie, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and later films (including TDK) can show that it did. We also don't know what Bruce studied in college (it could be relevant...I'm sure Princeton teaches criminology, psychology, boxing, gymnastics...)

Give up yet?

 

[Cobblepot]

I hope Nolan leaves in the silver dollar, if not that would be a serious let down.

 

[Crooklyn]

They're as guilty as A is, really. C had an opportunity to do the right thing, and failed to act. B "coerced" A, which means that B had to twist A's arm. That makes B and C jackasses. It doesn't mean that A isn't guilty, either, as A is clearly an idiot. But one idiot doesn't negate the existence, or personal failures, of two jackasses.

I'm not saying it negates anything. My point was B/C are similar to Chill/Falcone in that they helped create the situation that leads into the final outcome. But they are not the ones responsible for said event. We can agree on that at least, right?

Also, your example doesn't really correspond to the Chill/Falcone/Ra's/Bruce thing. Chill and Falcone had no real connection to Ra's. Chill and Falcone had no immediate connection to each other. [/quote]
I'm not trying to connect those 3 with each other. I was connecting them all with Bruce.

Chill and Carmine gave Bruce his anger and his guilt. Without those, there would be no Batman.

Read above, I'm not ignoring the influence that Chill and Falcone gave.

What, it's not possible that Nolan and Goyer wanted a girl in their movie???

Is it hard to believe WB mandated one? Especially since practically everyone in-the-know has said so?

Yes, but you just said it - it has to please both parts of the audience, as a good movie. It can't be a good movie if you start shoehorning 70 years of history into a two-hour film.

Not every single facet of the history, no. But then again I wasn't suggesting that. Take the good parts of the whole, and put it on film, which is what for the most part, the Spider-Man/Batman/X-Men films have done.

You didn't answer my question. I was saying that Maroni has no other function in the comics except to scar Harvey. You said that he could be GIVEN something else to do in the movie that would justify his presence.

What I am asking you is, why would you NEED to JUSTIFY his presence? If he needs justification, then he is already unnecessary.

In BB, the cape, cowl, suit, and origins needed to be explained. Clearly, all but the last is integral to tell the story. Are you saying the rest are unnecessary?

And yet you're still arguing your side of this case. Which means that you have completely lost touch with what is really important in the mythos. You're arguing over pointless details, rather than the overall quality and spirit of the work.

Do you honestly think I wouldn't want TDK to be faithful AND good? I'm insulted.

I'm arguing with you over this because you INSIST that it would be horrible to keep Maroni. Which I can't possibly understand, the courtroom scene would barely last 5 minutes, Maroni scars Harvey, and then we move on. Finito. It's the events afterwards that are more important.

But, they DO have a feud. And Harvey is out to fight crime in his own twisted way, because he was hurt by a crime lord. Well, regardless of whether it is Joker, or Maroni, or Rupert Thorne, that aspect of Two-Face doesn't change. And Joker, he's a psychopath who has no boundaries, really, and has been known to disfigure people for sport. So none of the characters is altered. Their relationship is altered SLIGHTLY. That is ALL.

Joker and Two-Face's relationship was merely two villains in the same city. They hold no particular ill-will towards each other. Joker scarring Harvey makes Joker right on top of Harvey's sh1t-list.

Do you mean those skills, on Batman's part, were not showcased in the film? He did plenty of basic detective work. He was shown to have a lot of agility, which probably connotes some gymnastic ability in the way he's always perching on railings and swinging on handgrips in the train; he moves like a man who is comfortable with his agility.

Lol, seriously man. Perching on a railing and briefly pulling yourself up on a handgrip aren't exactly prime showcasings of a highly fit athlete. You want agility? Look at the foot-chase in Casino Royale. THAT is agility.

It was shown (and mentioned by Ra's in case you have no grasp of reason) that Bruce had been learning to understand the criminal mind while he was on his travels. It's why he tagged along on some heists. Bruce clearly had already acquired a lot of martial arts training before joining the League of Shadows.

I wasn't arguing this. That was the one exception I already mentioned in my previous reply.

So the only missing is forensic science, boxing, and escape artistry. To which I would say that just because we didn't see it in the movie, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and later films (including TDK) can show that it did. We also don't know what Bruce studied in college (it could be relevant...I'm sure Princeton teaches criminology, psychology, boxing, gymnastics...)

So because it wasn't shown, you just "assume" he learned it anyway? I find it incredibly pointless to bring those things up if it was never shown on film. That doesn't help your point, nor mines.

Give up yet?

No?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I'm not saying it negates anything. My point was B/C are similar to Chill/Falcone in that they helped create the situation that leads into the final outcome. But they are not the ones responsible for said event. We can agree on that at least, right?

No, actually we can't. As I said, they contributed to the event, so they share responsibility. C should have driven A home, and B probably shouldn't have made hiim feel obligated to drink in the first place. I'm not saying that A isn't responsible, he certainly is -- but he is not the ONLY guilty party.

I'm not trying to connect those 3 with each other. I was connecting them all with Bruce.

Well then that would seem to defeat your own argument. As their connection to Bruce and their independent effects on his life make them partially responsible for the existence of Batman.

Read above, I'm not ignoring the influence that Chill and Falcone gave.

Then why would you say they weren't partially responsible for creating Batman?

Is it hard to believe WB mandated one? Especially since practically everyone in-the-know has said so?

Who has said so? I've never heard it outside of these boards.

Not every single facet of the history, no. But then again I wasn't suggesting that. Take the good parts of the whole, and put it on film, which is what for the most part, the Spider-Man/Batman/X-Men films have done.

Agreed. What does this have to do with Maroni?

In BB, the cape, cowl, suit, and origins needed to be explained. Clearly, all but the last is integral to tell the story. Are you saying the rest are unnecessary?

They spent mere seconds explaining where all the equipment came from. It was important in the name of believability, and for that reason room was made for it in the story. Maroni is not needed for believability, and he is not needed for the story unless they really want him, which so far we have no indication that they do. My point is that he can be left out without any harm or foul.

Do you honestly think I wouldn't want TDK to be faithful AND good? I'm insulted.

I know you WANT it to be good, but the fact remains if you knew the first thing about screenwriting we would not be having this discussion.

I'm arguing with you over this because you INSIST that it would be horrible to keep Maroni. Which I can't possibly understand, the courtroom scene would barely last 5 minutes, Maroni scars Harvey, and then we move on. Finito. It's the events afterwards that are more important.

I'm not saying it would be horrible to keep Maroni. I'm saying it isn't necessary. I'm just trying to open your eyes and maybe your mind. Yes, Maroni's scene might take five minutes. But if he isn't a central player in the story, who wants to see Harvey Dent put him on trial? It would have no bearing on the plot.

Joker and Two-Face's relationship was merely two villains in the same city. They hold no particular ill-will towards each other. Joker scarring Harvey makes Joker right on top of Harvey's sh1t-list.

That not what you said in the last post. Also, if Harvey cares about cleaning up Gotham - which is allegedly his goal, even as Two-Face - then Joker would be high on his ****-list regardless.

Lol, seriously man. Perching on a railing and briefly pulling yourself up on a handgrip aren't exactly prime showcasings of a highly fit athlete. You want agility? Look at the foot-chase in Casino Royale. THAT is agility.

LOL. Free-running is beyond agility - it is nearly superhuman. I would *LOVE* to see Batman move that way.

My point was that perching the way Batman does on those railings is not something you can do quickly and silently, especially while wearing armor and a cape, unless you are very agile, as it requires a good bit of balance and cat-like grace.

So because it wasn't shown, you just "assume" he learned it anyway? I find it incredibly pointless to bring those things up if it was never shown on film. That doesn't help your point, nor mines.

Sure it helps my point. Bruce clearly had some training that we didn't see onscreen. The amount, and exact nature of said training is up for debate, but the fact of its existence is indisputable. Which helps prove my point that Ra's did not single-handedly create Batman. Ra's was merely one of many teachers that Bruce had. Ra's was clearly an important factor, but on the other hand all of these elements and disciplines are important parts of the Batman identity, or it wouldn't be so important to people that many of them were not showcased more directly, if at all.

No?

Well, we'll keep at it then. *puts mouthpiece back in*

 

[Arkard]

dont you just love fight night?

 

[The Guard]

I've done this before, but it's always so much fun. Tim Burton's Penguin was "PINO"? How so? Doesn't "INO" imply that he doesn't resemble his comic book counterpart at all? Aside from the fact that he wasn't just goofy looking without being Burtonized and didn't speak with high airs and a complete pushover most of the time, he's every bit the core of The Penguin that I remember from the comics.

In the comics, up until about 1990 (conveniently about when BATMAN RETURNS started having an impact, hmmm), The Penguin was a crime boss (or a thief), who wore tails, used trick umbrellas and umbrella gadgets and birds to aid in his crimes, and looked odd and even humorous because of his squat appearance and his enormous nose. And that's about ALL he was until he became a slightly more interesting crime boss who also gave Batman information.

It's my personal opinion that Burgess Meredith more or less cornered the market on the dapper "lame-ass: Penguin portrayal. There was no point in repeating that performance. And BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES didn't exist yet, so...

In 1992, The Penguin had to be a dark character, as he was redesigned and meant for a fairly dark and surreal franchise. And as such, I think BATMAN RETURNS presented a great Penguin in a lot of ways. Here's why:

-The basic origin. Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot. The angle of royalty shunned and gone awry. Developing antisocial tendencies because of how he'd been treated, but still yearning for his "birthright".
-The actual look of the character. If you're going to make a freak, they nailed it. The nose, the shape, monacle, tophat, tails, you name it. You can't just make a man with a nose that size...and make him look human. It would look oddly more ridiculous, and literally be weirder than actually making him into a creepy-ass mutant.
-The umbrellas. Movie Penguin utilized trick umbrellas, both deadly and playful. And even the umbrella-copter! All straight out of a comic book.
-The use of birds. He had penguins and a giant duckmobile for god's sake. And pet birds! Another staple of the comic version.
-He was given an actual character arc, as opposed to the comic Penguin, who fairly rarely had one.
-Penguin's quest for power and recognition, via both political and criminal means
-Heck, even his little flirtation with Catwoman was comic born, I believe.

The minuses of his character in the movie can easily be seen as pluses, or faithful interpretations.

Case in point, him hanging out in the sewers (In Arctic World, mind you, and he's a penguin). That's about ten times more interesting than another "criminal penthouse", isn't it? It's also kind of metaphorical, and very much fits into the whole "Batman's villains have theme-hideouts" aspect, right out of the comics.

He spewed sexual innuendo. So does Penguin nowadays. And he's always been about women (at least since the late seventies or so).

Ok, so he was Burtonized. But then, so was Batman. So was Catwoman. And you have to remember, Batman and Ra's Al Ghul were both Nolanized, so maybe "izing" is ok, as long as the core of a character is intact.

Spewing mucous and biting people once or twice doesn't mean the Penguin didn't resemble his comic book self quite a bit (albeit a much darker and more thematically relevant version, and thank god, because try to put the comic book Penguin up against Burton's Batman). He even spoke in his fancy tones once or twice. Burton didn't create a character and name him "Penguin". He actually MADE something relevant and interesting out of what was already there in the comics that also fit his sensibilities; he didn't just completely reinvent The Penguin. He made a man who became a monster who pretended to be a man even as he did monstrous things, whereas in the comics, he was essentially a living joke, simply because of his appearance and his ineptitude. Burton layered some things over the Penguin we already knew. But the core of the character was very much there. And I thought that's what mattered in comic adaptions. Oh, no, scratch that...we all want versimilitude now. But we want our fantasy elements. Gotta have a realistic down to earth show...that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots. But as I recall, people didn't back in 1990 and 1991 when BATMAN RETURNS was being conceived. Which is probably one reason why the "lame-ass" Penguin BATMAN 2 script got jettisoned. And it is pretty bad, people. Buried treasure...killing kids and half of Gotham...buried treasure...killing kids and half of Gotham...

All Joe Chill was in the comics was a thug who killed Bruce's parents and displayed the kind of fear he would later use on criminals. The changes Nolan made in BATMAN BEGINS was having Bruce Wayne try to kill Chill before he ever thought about becoming The Batman. Bruce does almost kill Chill (or would he have?) in BATMAN: YEAR TWO, but is robbed of his revenge by The Reaper.

Nolan/Goyer's take on Ra's Al Ghul was clearly an attempt to condense Bruce's overseas training, and their way to efficiently skim down Batman's origin and add poetic drama to it. And it worked, sort of. It was a bit disappointing (and a disservice in some ways, though it did create some nice drama between the actors) for me to see him become the man who effectively "created" Batman by teaching him to use fear and the shadows, and unleashing bats around him while he gives a cheesy speech: "Focus! Master your senses! Concentrate!". It's arguably somewhat poetic, what with the student/mentor themes converging again, but it's also poetic in the 1989 BATMAN sense, so it sort of feels recycled. Because we've seen the whole viillan creates hero bit already, and seen it in a Batman franchise. Just once I'd like to see hero-creates-hero. Personally I don't think Bruce being told to overcome his fear makes the villain/hero connection any better in BEGINS than it was in BATMAN, as I feel Bruce should figure some things out on his own. I've also always felt that the bat as an omen doesn't work when it shows up OVER and OVER and OVER again until Bruce FINALLY figures it out. I much prefer for him to see it as a child...and then to see it years later, and make the "connection". Bats coming out of a box didn't do much for me.

"Connecting things" is not only done in comic book films. It's done in films, period. Why? Because in a two hour film with a lot to pack in, it can be a very efficient and thematically satisfying way to write, as long as it's not incredibly forced (Why, in BATMAN: THE MUSICAL, I have Harvey Dent going after The Joker and getting scarred! To music!). And as long as it's not incredibly forced, it could work. What that means is that Dent better be going after The Joker, waging his own war on crime, and he and Batman need to have a clear, powerful relationship (not the one he and Gordon had in BATMAN BEGINS, something closer, more concrete). I can see The Joker scarring Dent working, but it has to be thematically tied together, and can't just "happen". This isn't a "fall into acid", this is a fairly gradual building psychological change that becomes a turning point in Dent's life. Something much like the Killing Joke angle about how The Joker thinks everyone eventually snaps, pushed far enough, could be utilized here. The Joker could use Dent's scarring to try to push Batman over the edge.

I don't mind departure from canon, because even canon has departures from canon. I mind when people embrace one departure and reject another randomly, and not because of how well something was actually executed.

 

[Crooklyn]

No, actually we can't. As I said, they contributed to the event, so they share responsibility. C should have driven A home, and B probably shouldn't have made him feel obligated to drink in the first place. I'm not saying that A isn't responsible, he certainly is -- but he is not the ONLY guilty party.

B and C would have been responsible for getting A drunk, and thus in a jumbled state of mind to decide and drive while intoxicated. But the actual accident itself? No, I'd say that was all A, since his dumb ass decided to drive.

Well then that would seem to defeat your own argument. As their connection to Bruce and their independent effects on his life make them partially responsible for the existence of Batman.

I think we disagree on where and how it affected Bruce. But I guess for what it's worth we can agree that they had an effect, period.

Then why would you say they weren't partially responsible for creating Batman?

Because I firmly believe without adding Ra's into that equation, Bruce would have either become a cop (or some other law enforcement figure), or stayed a lost cause.

Who has said so? I've never heard it outside of these boards.

I'm pretty sure Jett has mentioned it on the BOF boards, and at least one of the former insiders here on this very forum.

Agreed. What does this have to do with Maroni?

I don't know, this argument has gone on for a week, but I'm just responding to things on a post-by-post basis.

They spent mere seconds explaining where all the equipment came from. It was important in the name of believability, and for that reason room was made for it in the story. Maroni is not needed for believability, and he is not needed for the story unless they really want him, which so far we have no indication that they do. My point is that he can be left out without any harm or foul.

Well apparently to you Maroni would need believability, at least to be in the story, as you think he's expendable. My point is that he can be left IN, without any harm or foul.

I know you WANT it to be good, but the fact remains if you knew the first thing about screenwriting we would not be having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with the ability to screenwrite.

I'm not saying it would be horrible to keep Maroni. I'm saying it isn't necessary. I'm just trying to open your eyes and maybe your mind. Yes, Maroni's scene might take five minutes. But if he isn't a central player in the story, who wants to see Harvey Dent put him on trial? It would have no bearing on the plot.

And if he was a central player? It's not far-fetched to assume the mob might play a big role in the next two sequels.

That not what you said in the last post. Also, if Harvey cares about cleaning up Gotham - which is allegedly his goal, even as Two-Face - then Joker would be high on his ****-list regardless.

LOL. Free-running is beyond agility - it is nearly superhuman. I would *LOVE* to see Batman move that way.

My point was that perching the way Batman does on those railings is not something you can do quickly and silently, especially while wearing armor and a cape, unless you are very agile, as it requires a good bit of balance and cat-like grace.

Sure it helps my point. Bruce clearly had some training that we didn't see onscreen. The amount, and exact nature of said training is up for debate, but the fact of its existence is indisputable.

Bruce clearly had martial arts training, yes. But beyond that, I say it's just optimism that the writers were thinking that far ahead when writing BB.

Which helps prove my point that Ra's did not single-handedly create Batman. Ra's was merely one of many teachers that Bruce had.

As I said before, I was exaggerating in stating Ra's as the only figure in creating Batman. But I took it back, explained it further and here we are.

Now I think you're just undermining Ra's role as much as I was originally over exaggerating it. "Merely" of the many teachers? Doesn't sound like a very important person.

Well, we'll keep at it then. *puts mouthpiece back in*

It's on like Donkey Kong.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

B and C would have been responsible for getting A drunk, and thus in a jumbled state of mind to decide and drive while intoxicated. But the actual accident itself? No, I'd say that was all A, since his dumb ass decided to drive.

Well, yes, but C declined to drive A home. And A just wanted to get home. Why didn't C drive him? C should probably have foreseen that not driving A home was going to lead to A driving while intoxicated. And if he was a decent human being he'd have driven the dude home. Also, in my estimation, planning to get drunk and not planning for a designated driver, or planning to get a homie drunk and not planning to give him a lift - shows an incredible lack of foresight, which makes A a cruddy person as well.

I think we disagree on where and how it affected Bruce. But I guess for what it's worth we can agree that they had an effect, period.

Wasn't it the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne that led Bruce to devote his life to fighting crime? Wasn't there even a scene of him at the grave that was cut from the film?

Because I firmly believe without adding Ra's into that equation, Bruce would have either become a cop (or some other law enforcement figure), or stayed a lost cause.

Maybe. Ra's certainly did help Bruce learn to focus his energies onto something constructive. But Bruce was already learning to understand the criminal mind, and learning to fight... which seems to imply that he did have plans of some sort. I think what Ra's taught Bruce (besides more fighting technique and use of fear) was discipline -- another essential quality of the Batman, true. I think Bruce would have come to the Batman thing sooner or later because the bat imagery was already in his life at every turn.

Essentially, I think that Ra's was used in a way that allows the casual viewer to get a sense of Batman's style and discipline from one training montage - and yet enough clues were left for the faithful fans such as ourselves to see more depth beyond just Ra's.

I'm pretty sure Jett has mentioned it on the BOF boards, and at least one of the former insiders here on this very forum.

Well, I don't read the BOF forums. And I don't know who the insiders are on these boards. It just doesn't seem to me like WB put a lot of muscle on Nolan with BB. They seem to have given him a startling amount of freedom to do his thing. I'm sure if they had squeezed him, the movie would have suffered considerably.

I don't know, this argument has gone on for a week, but I'm just responding to things on a post-by-post basis.

Aha. So, you're on the defensive?

Well apparently to you Maroni would need believability, at least to be in the story, as you think he's expendable. My point is that he can be left IN, without any harm or foul.

Believability has nothing to do with it. A mobster scarring a guy is totally believable. It's just that if Maroni is going to scar Harvey, then Maroni ought to be a major presence in the movie. But if Joker does it, it seems more interesting, thematically.

Look at it like this. In Begins, every character had a symbolic function. Falcone was the cancer plaguing the city; Chill was a dying cell; Alfred the good father figure, the voice of God; Ra's the bad father figure, the devil, tempting Bruce to fall and abandon all hope. Rachel the conscience. Scarecrow the debilitating, paralyzing fear, which is a weapon to anyone who wields it.

Continuing that theme, shouldn't Joker be the agent of chaos? What is it Jesus said, "I don't bring peace, but a sword." Basically stuff has to get worse before it gets better, and we know that's the theme of TDK. Or at least one of them. Escalation. So Batman has changed the rules of the game, upped the stakes, and that means that there has to be a Joker in the deck, the wild card that stands in direct opposition to the order that Batman is trying to create. Batman has his allies; Gordon, Rachel, Dent. Joker ought to be responsible for the chaos - for stripping these things away from Batman, until Batman stands alone, and has to make that choice all on his own - the light or the dark.

If Joker is to be the agent of chaos that I suspect he is; then it stands to reason that he should be the one who does the scarring, because he's the one who ought to really scramble Batman's eggs.

This has nothing to do with the ability to screenwrite.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the ability to screenwrite.

Bruce clearly had martial arts training, yes. But beyond that, I say it's just optimism that the writers were thinking that far ahead when writing BB.

Don't misunderstand me. I doubt they had a list of all the places that Bruce had been or the things that he had done. What I am saying is that Bruce was traveling the world for SEVEN YEARS and we saw a brief period of that time. We don't know everything that happened in that seven year stretch. And if, in TDK or beyond, they want to go back and show more of Bruce's training... they haven't burned any bridges.

Now I think you're just undermining Ra's role as much as I was originally over exaggerating it. "Merely" of the many teachers? Doesn't sound like a very important person.

As I said, EVERY ONE of Bruce's mentors brought something important to the table. Every skill that Bruce learned is an important part of being Batman. That doesn't undermine Ra's importance at all. It merely puts it in the proper perspective: that in Begins continuity, Ra's is partially responsible for the genesis of Batman. Ra's did not single-handedly create him, but he taught Bruce some crucial skills and discipline that are part of the Batman we know.

It's on like Donkey Kong.

And, that's another round. *squirts water in face*

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I've done this before, but it's always so much fun. Tim Burton's Penguin was "PINO"? How so? Doesn't "INO" imply that he doesn't resemble his comic book counterpart at all? Aside from the fact that he wasn't just goofy looking without being Burtonized and didn't speak with high airs and a complete pushover most of the time, he's every bit the core of The Penguin that I remember from the comics.

Heya, Guard, what's happening?

I'm not about to get into a debate with you while I have one going with Crooklyn; not that he's half as formidable an opponent as you are, but fighting on two fronts seems like a bad plan.

I will concede that I spoke too harshly when I called Danny DeVito's Penguin "PINO." Because you're right, most of the core elements of the Penguin are there. I think the truth of the matter is that it's just an interpretation of the Penguin that I don't like. LOL. I like the informer Penguin, I find him interesting.

When I knew they were doing Penguin for Batman 2 as far back as 1989, and having just seen Batman '89 and having appreciated the way it was populated with cops and reporters and mafia types, I had sort of imagined a Penguin for Batman 2 who was much more Don Corleone than Oswald Flipper-hands. An aging tough guy who had taken over the rackets in Gotham, short, balding, getting fat, and with a predilection for tuxedos, making him resemble a penguin. A guy with a thing for birds.

In retrospect it's not particularly exciting, but it's what I imagined.

With that said, I didn't hate Batman Returns when it came out; I loved it. But it really didn't hold up to repeat viewings. In a lot of ways neither did Batman '89, but I like Batman '89 better than Returns, if only for the less nightmarish quality of the production design, and the steamy, oppressive weight of Anton Furst's Gotham.

 

[Crooklyn]

Well, yes, but C declined to drive A home. And A just wanted to get home. Why didn't C drive him? C should probably have foreseen that not driving A home was going to lead to A driving while intoxicated. And if he was a decent human being he'd have driven the dude home. Also, in my estimation, planning to get drunk and not planning for a designated driver, or planning to get a homie drunk and not planning to give him a lift - shows an incredible lack of foresight, which makes A a cruddy person as well.

Lol, well at least we came to one conclusion.....the alphabet is full of drunk a-holes.

Wasn't it the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne that led Bruce to devote his life to fighting crime?

In the comics, yup. Not in BB though. They left him more of a lost cause (which I actually think is an improvement), rather than having Bruce decide right at that moment to become a vigilante (over the years I've grown to think the idea as preposterous).

Wasn't there even a scene of him at the grave that was cut from the film?

Nope, that's the first I've heard of it.

Maybe. Ra's certainly did help Bruce learn to focus his energies onto something constructive. But Bruce was already learning to understand the criminal mind, and learning to fight... which seems to imply that he did have plans of some sort. I think what Ra's taught Bruce (besides more fighting technique and use of fear) was discipline -- another essential quality of the Batman, true. I think Bruce would have come to the Batman thing sooner or later because the bat imagery was already in his life at every turn.

Mm, I don't know, that's a possibility. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. One of the things that helped Bruce overcome his fear, was the fear gas itself. Don't know if there are too many masters out in the world with that handy. So maybe Bruce would've become a vigilante, but chose a hawk or something.

Well, I don't read the BOF forums. And I don't know who the insiders are on these boards. It just doesn't seem to me like WB put a lot of muscle on Nolan with BB. They seem to have given him a startling amount of freedom to do his thing. I'm sure if they had squeezed him, the movie would have suffered considerably.

I don't think it was much of a squeeze. I've heard the 2 things that were mandated, would be a female character, and the rubber suit. Both of which were relatively easy to put into the story.

Aha. So, you're on the defensive?

Asides from the fact that we're always on the defensive during an argument, where'd you get that idea from that particular post?

Believability has nothing to do with it. A mobster scarring a guy is totally believable. It's just that if Maroni is going to scar Harvey, then Maroni ought to be a major presence in the movie. But if Joker does it, it seems more interesting, thematically.

And as I said, it wouldn't be a surprise if the mob was a big part of this franchise. Maroni can easily be incorporated into that part of the story.

Look at it like this. In Begins, every character had a symbolic function. Falcone was the cancer plaguing the city; Chill was a dying cell; Alfred the good father figure, the voice of God; Ra's the bad father figure, the devil, tempting Bruce to fall and abandon all hope. Rachel the conscience. Scarecrow the debilitating, paralyzing fear, which is a weapon to anyone who wields it.

Continuing that theme, shouldn't Joker be the agent of chaos? What is it Jesus said, "I don't bring peace, but a sword." Basically stuff has to get worse before it gets better, and we know that's the theme of TDK. Or at least one of them. Escalation. So Batman has changed the rules of the game, upped the stakes, and that means that there has to be a Joker in the deck, the wild card that stands in direct opposition to the order that Batman is trying to create. Batman has his allies; Gordon, Rachel, Dent. Joker ought to be responsible for the chaos - for stripping these things away from Batman, until Batman stands alone, and has to make that choice all on his own - the light or the dark.

If Joker is to be the agent of chaos that I suspect he is; then it stands to reason that he should be the one who does the scarring, because he's the one who ought to really scramble Batman's eggs.

Look, I know what you're saying. But honestly, in a 2.5 hour film, a 5 minute courtroom scene just seems like small-time compared to all the havoc Joker could cause throughout the rest of the flick. While I certainly would like Joker to be the center spotlight during TDK, I don't want him to be responsible for EVERYTHING that ruins Batman's day. What does that leave, say, the mob to do? Besides the stereotypical drug trade and such?

Don't misunderstand me. I doubt they had a list of all the places that Bruce had been or the things that he had done. What I am saying is that Bruce was traveling the world for SEVEN YEARS and we saw a brief period of that time. We don't know everything that happened in that seven year stretch. And if, in TDK or beyond, they want to go back and show more of Bruce's training... they haven't burned any bridges.

As I said, EVERY ONE of Bruce's mentors brought something important to the table. Every skill that Bruce learned is an important part of being Batman. That doesn't undermine Ra's importance at all. It merely puts it in the proper perspective: that in Begins continuity, Ra's is partially responsible for the genesis of Batman. Ra's did not single-handedly create him, but he taught Bruce some crucial skills and discipline that are part of the Batman we know.

Well I think we've seen the last of Bruce's training. We could always see more, but I don't see how that would provide anything useful to the story. The genesis was condensed (and understandably so), and I'd assume Nolan just wanted to cut to the chase and include the integral parts of Bruce's training.

In large part, Ra's is behind this. If there were something Bruce was taught, deemed important, Nolan would've surely glanced over it. We know Bruce can fight, great. And we also know that he has studied the criminal underworld, ok fine. But the final piece that puts this all together? Ra's. I put him above all the other trainers simply because he's offered Bruce something that no other could have provided.

And, that's another round. *squirts water in face*

I have a feeling we can single-handedly keep this thread alive for every day up until TDK is released. t:


*fingers begin crying*

Heya, Guard, what's happening?

I'm not about to get into a debate with you while I have one going with Crooklyn; not that he's half as formidable an opponent as you are, but fighting on two fronts seems like a bad plan.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[StorminNorman]

What's that supposed to mean?

Though you are quite intelligent, though often very wrong, and are quite a person to debate with, you are not The Guard.

Guard could say that the sky is green, that Kristen Kruek looks like a dog and that Batman is truly a pathetic wisp of a man and back it up with logic so foolproof that 40 people will send Ms. Kruek a dog collar the next day.

 

[Crooklyn]

Though you are quite intelligent, though often very wrong

I---stopped there.

Guard could say that the sky is green, that Kristen Kruek looks like a dog and that Batman is truly a pathetic wisp of a man and back it up with logic so foolproof that 40 people will send Ms. Kruek a dog collar the next day.

I wouldn't say it's fullproof logic, but he does come off very convincing. I remember looking at one of his posts and immediately became tired despite having nakie pics in another window.

 

[Cobblepot]

I hope Nolan leaves in the silver dollar, if not that would be a serious let down.

Whoohee...

 

[itsthebatman]

Whoohee...

Are you responding to your own posts?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Whoohee...

Why are you quoting and responding yourself?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Lol, well at least we came to one conclusion.....the alphabet is full of drunk a-holes.

LOL!!! So far, at least. Poor D...

In the comics, yup. Not in BB though. They left him more of a lost cause (which I actually think is an improvement), rather than having Bruce decide right at that moment to become a vigilante (over the years I've grown to think the idea as preposterous).

Yeah, you know it's interesting... you're right that they made Bruce seem like a lost cause... and yet, the other stuff, the learning to understand the criminal mind, etc. etc... would seem to contradict that. It's almost as though they left us enough room to think what we want. Kind of odd.

Nope, that's the first I've heard of it.

Really? I thought that was one of the often-discussed "missing" scenes from BB... along with Phase 2 Scarecrow. I've certainly heard it alleged many times here on the Hype...

Mm, I don't know, that's a possibility. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. One of the things that helped Bruce overcome his fear, was the fear gas itself. Don't know if there are too many masters out in the world with that handy. So maybe Bruce would've become a vigilante, but chose a hawk or something.

LOL, possibly. The ingredients were sorta there. He was afraid of Bats; his Dad taught him that all creatures feel fear - especially the scary ones. That's basically the theory behind Batman right there. And then Falcone puts whipped cream and sprinkles on it when he goes on at length about "da powah of feah." As in, "now dat's powah you can't buy. Dat's da powah of feah."

Even without Ra's, the ingredients were all there. All Ra's did was draw Bruce a picture and hand him the crayons.

I don't think it was much of a squeeze. I've heard the 2 things that were mandated, would be a female character, and the rubber suit. Both of which were relatively easy to put into the story.

Wait, that's the first I've heard of the rubber suit being WB mandated as well... I remember the rumors early on in the BB production that the suit would be cloth. I also remember hearing that they tested the cloth suit and for whatever reason it didn't work out to Nolan's satisfaction.

Asides from the fact that we're always on the defensive during an argument, where'd you get that idea from that particular post?

I'm not on the defensive. I'm on the offensive.

And as I said, it wouldn't be a surprise if the mob was a big part of this franchise. Maroni can easily be incorporated into that part of the story.

Sure. But then you're making up stuff for Maroni to do just so he can scar Harvey. Which is fine, if there's other stuff that's important that he can do. What I remember hearing (again, the truth of it being debatable) was that there would be a mob presence in TDK, a mob boss with ties to Bruce's father. If he's gonna have ties to Bruce's father, that sounds more like Lew Moxon than Sal Maroni. Which would be cool because that story about Bruce's Dad, and Joe Chill possibly having been HIRED to do the killing... is always a good little story. Personally I'd favor that over Maroni.

Look, I know what you're saying. But honestly, in a 2.5 hour film, a 5 minute courtroom scene just seems like small-time compared to all the havoc Joker could cause throughout the rest of the flick. While I certainly would like Joker to be the center spotlight during TDK, I don't want him to be responsible for EVERYTHING that ruins Batman's day. What does that leave, say, the mob to do? Besides the stereotypical drug trade and such?

I know what you're saying, as well. But scarring Harvey is an important dramatic moment, and because of it being such a big event in Batman lore, and it happening in a story that involves the Joker... it just seems like that moment should be given to the star antagonist. I'm not saying Joker has to be responsible for EVERYTHING that ruins Batman's day, but something that major? Totally. The mob has plenty of other things to do.

There was talk of more corruption being uncovered in TDK. I'd say that's mob territory. If Commissioner Loeb were to turn out crooked, that would be mob territory. Or if the mafia decided to try and put their own guy in the Mayor's office, or in charge of the police force, get rid of Gordon... anything. Lots for the Mob to do. And any of those stories would give Gordon a good storyline and could involve Flass as well, perhaps in a Bullock-like role, where he is supposed to get rid of Gordon and winds up helping Gordon clean house... SOOOO many possibilities that are so much more interesting than having Maroni around just to scar Dent.

Well I think we've seen the last of Bruce's training. We could always see more, but I don't see how that would provide anything useful to the story. The genesis was condensed (and understandably so), and I'd assume Nolan just wanted to cut to the chase and include the integral parts of Bruce's training.

But if it serves the story, more can be shown. Only if it serves the story, of course, but there are ways that it can do that. If some particular skill of Bruce's should be crucial to the story... if an old experience or specific lesson from his training days proves relevant to the case... it could be shown. I agree that it isn't likely, but it's possible. Again, no bridges were burned.

In large part, Ra's is behind this. If there were something Bruce was taught, deemed important, Nolan would've surely glanced over it. We know Bruce can fight, great. And we also know that he has studied the criminal underworld, ok fine. But the final piece that puts this all together? Ra's. I put him above all the other trainers simply because he's offered Bruce something that no other could have provided.

Perhaps so, but he still didn't single-handedly create Batman.

I have a feeling we can single-handedly keep this thread alive for every day up until TDK is released. t:

It can't be single-handedly, because there are two of us. But you're right, we probably could.

*fingers begin crying*

Bwahahaha!

[Rocky]Yo, errh, it ain't about how hard you can hit, errh, it's about how hard you can get hit, and still keep movin' forwud.[/Rocky]

What's that supposed to mean?

Though you are quite intelligent, though often very wrong, and are quite a person to debate with, you are not The Guard.

Guard could say that the sky is green, that Kristen Kruek looks like a dog and that Batman is truly a pathetic wisp of a man and back it up with logic so foolproof that 40 people will send Ms. Kruek a dog collar the next day.

That's what it means.

I wouldn't say it's fullproof logic, but he does come off very convincing. I remember looking at one of his posts and immediately became tired despite having nakie pics in another window.

They make little pills for that...