Batman Begins Who still likes/thinks Begins is better than TDK?

[redfirebird2008]

I thought Two-Face in Forever was bland, yet, he wore a bright two tone suit, HUGE purple bubble-gum scar on his face, and had many terrorist activities. He was "bland", as in it didn't stimulate me at all.

Just because the humor was there, doesn't mean it wasn't bland.

Cool? I don't care, I know there were more influences, I still think this is the most bland interpretation of Joker I have ever seen. Yeah, there was some good parts to him, but the overall package just screams dull.

Two-Face wasn't bland in Batman Forever, he was an over the top, campy villain.

And the point about the influences is that you made it a point to say that it was influenced only by the first appearances of the Joker. When someone corrects you on that, your response is, "I don't care." Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of whatever argument you're trying to make.

 

[Travesty]

Two-Face wasn't bland in Batman Forever, he was an over the top, campy villain.

Oh, ok.

And the point about the influences is that you made it a point to say that it was influenced only by the first appearances of the Joker. When someone corrects you on that, your response is, "I don't care." Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of whatever argument you're trying to make.

No, my point wasn't to say that the ONLY influence came from the first appearance, but that the way Joker acts(ie. bland, dull), is more influenced from the first appearance. I just don't care about those things, cause that wasn't my point.

 

[redfirebird2008]

...but that the way Joker acts(ie. bland, dull), is more influenced from the first appearance.

Just going to have to agree to disagree on that bolded comment.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Yikes! I have to go back a page just to see all the stuff! And what I need to respond to.

I have not dismissed anything. I have addressed everything you've said. You simply choose to interpret the scene as something differently, when it's pretty clear cut as to what Joker is saying to Batman.

My choice is the same as yours. To interpret the scene as each of us does. I don't really choose to watch that scene and find it not nearly as clear cut as you. Its how I see it. Everyone will see it differently, and whether you believe your interpretation to be the absolute and only correct one, you cannot deny that it all boils down to opinion.

And can you list me any scenes in those where Batman has to interrogate the Joker in order to get info out of him in order to save lives?

It would be rather foolish of Nolan and Co. if I could name six or seven instances where someone else had written such a similar scene... This scene is rather original, as it should be because we don't exactly want the screenwriters copying scenes word for word out of multiple comics now do we?
So no, I cannot. As such a scene does not take place elsewhere. At least... I don't think so...

You have completely missed the point.

All of those lines are quoted from a plethora of different scenarios, none of them remotely like the scene we're discussing in TDK. Joker arguing with Two Face, Joker addressing Gotham, Joker about blow up Gotham etc. How many of them are him talking to Batman? And better yet, how many of them are him talking to Batman one on one while in custody in the middle of a crisis?

You see the flaw of your arguement now? How much more funny can Joker get locked in an interrogation room being interrogated by Batman?

You also seem to be missing the point of that scene, too. This was to show Joker's philosophy, and how it's the polar opposite of Batman's. They injected just the right amount of Joker's dark humour into this scene, without detracting from the seriousness of the scene, and going over the top with it. Joker's humour was already well established in the movie by this point, too. And was further established many more times later, too. Like dressing up as a nurse, for example. Why should he get funnier here?

Now unless you can provide me with an example of a scenario where Joker was under interogation from Batman in a crisis, and came off as much more funnier as you claim, I'm afraid once again that your arguement is flawed.

Ok. 1) You did not ask me to provide examples of Joker humor in situations similar to the interrogation scene in the Dark Knight. Rather you simply said yes to my query as to whether or not you would like me to present you with some examples of quotes that I personally deem Joker humor. This is what you have asked for, and this is what I have given you.

2) Again, if I could find too similar a scene of Joker being interrogated by Batman to gain information crucial to the survival of loved ones, we'd all be bashing Nolan and whomever wrote the script for being unoriginal. Or perhaps not, but I believe you see my point. At least I hope so.

Just like in the comics. Can you tell me of any superhero who doesn't lose their cool when a villain blatantly mocks the hero like that when they have the life of a loved one in their hands?

Especially since Batman had no idea Rachel was in danger until Joker so mockingly told him right there. Even laughing in his face about it.

Yes. The Batman.

Ooooh that sounds like a challenge. Go for it, post some scans.

Btw, your mentioning of Return of the Joker movie above reminded me of when Batman went ape s*** and beat the crap out of Joker when he saw what he had done to Robin.

Is that the calm Batman you were talking about that you like so much?

I wondered when you might pick up on that. No, that is probably one of the pieces I like least about that movie, it demonstrates exactly the opposite range from earlier work in The Animated Series, which I use as my baseline for how Batman really should act. The whole scene seems extremely incongruous with most of The Animated Series, which does indeed demonstrate exactly the calm and controlled Batman that I value so much.

I think you missed the point of Joker's intentions towards Vicki in B'89. He had no intention of killing her. He was romantically infatuated with her. Batman knew this. Heck Joker was dancing romantically with her while Batman was dispatching his thugs.

Her life was in no immediate danger.

I assure you that I fully understood Jokers infatuation towards Vicki, however, Jack Nicholson's Joker being the truly unpredictable villain we all know from the comics, Batman knows that at any moment Joker may randomly decide to throw her off the roof. Indeed, he was there when Joker was telling Vicki about Alicia's (his previous love interest) 'accident' where she supposedly threw herself out the window. Joker's speech leaves no question that it wasn't exactly voluntary. At any moment, Batman knows this could be Vicki if she says or does the wrong thing to upset him, or if he just randomly feels like it.
And you seem to have locked on to this idea of 'immediate danger'. I'm not really talking about 'immediate danger' to Batman's loved ones. I'm talking about his consistant and ironclad control, that is present in absolutely any situation he is presented with. Being angry is not what Batman is about (as I see it anyways, again, opinion is everything in these debates). Justice is what Batman is about.

That's because Jim Gordon told him not to before he confronted the Joker in the funhouse. You'll recall when Batman first arrived on the scene, he immediately attacked the Joker. But Joker sprayed his arm with acid and escaped into the funhouse.

Batman then released Gordon from his cage, and Gordon told Batman that he wanted Joker brought in, and he wanted him brought in by the book because they have to show him that their way works.

Batman obviously did just that out of respect for his friend, because it's Gordon's daughter he crippled. It was Gordon that Joker tortured.

While its true he went right after the Joker, reading through it yet again, its clear his intention was never to mutilate the Joker. Yes he reined himself in even further after his talk with Gordon, but he was still fully in control of himself and not smashing the Joker left and right.

He knew that because he had just SEEN it for himself 5 minutes ago when Joker was getting his rocks off from Batman repeatedly pummeling him.

That's how he knew Joker was different.

Again, you do not give the poor police officer enough credit. He specifically states that from his twenty year experience he has learned the difference between punks who need a lesson in manners and freaks like the Joker who would just enjoy it. If the screenwriter was intending this cop to have just learned the fact that Joker is one of those from watching the interrogation, why would he have added the direct link from 'twenty year man' to 'knowing the difference'.

Again, we seem to interpret things differently. You may read that line as the cop figuring out that the Joker won't be affected by pain after Batman's assault on him, but I look at that and know that he's not talking about what he saw earlier. He's talking about previous knowledge.

Listen I'm not trying to insult you. And I apologize if that's how it seemed to you. I just find your analysis of this so very flawed, when most of it is very obvious.

I'm glad we're on an even keel, debating like civilized comic book geeks.
I find your analysis equally flawed, although a more apt term I would use would be biased, and while it appears obvious to you, there is much that does not appear obvious in any way, to me. Not for lack of trying might I add.

Yeah? Well they're sure keeping quiet about it whoever they are. Heck if you go and look in that huge Joker costume thread in Bat world, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is not dressing up like Ledger's Joker.

Indeed. Those who share my opinion are much too timid and are unwilling to risk their opinions being jumped upon in a similar manner as to what has been happening in this thread.
And it is indeed very sad, too many people have latched on to what is currently 'in style' and not gone with an alternative. I trust that this phase will pass as people realise that the Joker is much more than just this one image.

How was that not the case? Purple suit, gloves, green vest, green hair, white face, red lips etc. It was all there. Only the make up was styled in a more gritty scary manner.

No, not really.
Dirty purple suit, thats unkempt. Dirty,unrestrained, washed out greenish yellow hair. Muddy looking sometimes white face, lipstick covered lips.
Lets see... we're missing style, flair, class and consistancy.

Really? So, Batman tried hurting Joker, physically intimidating him, and simply outright asking him.

Can you suggest what he left out in his interrogation process?

As I've stated before, if I knew exactly what I would write Batman thinking of in his extremely intelligent mind to interrogate the Joker, I'd be writing the movies rather than this. I wish very much that I was clever enough to come up with things like that, or for that matter that I was as clever as the Batman himself.

Probably because there isn't anything else. You have to bare in mind the situation here. Batman and Joker locked in a room, lives in danger, time running out, and Batman was faced with a man who did not fear him, or pain, or death.

I certainly cannot think of what else Batman could have done, and neither can you, and we're both die hard Batman fans.

Why should some fancy Hollywood screenwriter know better?

Because Nolan and Co. proved themselves capable in showing how creative and intelligent Batman was in the previous film, why shouldn't they succeed here? Unless they've all had strokes that now impair their creative talents... Hmm, perhaps we should send them a fruit basket.

 

[The Joker]

My choice is the same as yours. To interpret the scene as each of us does. I don't really choose to watch that scene and find it not nearly as clear cut as you. Its how I see it. Everyone will see it differently, and whether you believe your interpretation to be the absolute and only correct one, you cannot deny that it all boils down to opinion.

Fair enough. But I have to confess that I find your reasoning behind your interpretation to be rather weak. No offence meant. But It's mind boggling how you can miscontrue Joker's dialogue like that.

*Shrug*

It would be rather foolish of Nolan and Co. if I could name six or seven instances where someone else had written such a similar scene... This scene is rather original, as it should be because we don't exactly want the screenwriters copying scenes word for word out of multiple comics now do we?

I'm not asking for six or seven instances. I'm asking for just one instance so we can make a comparison. I mean we can list dozens of stories where Joker tries to kills lots of people and Batman has to stop him. We know how he deals with them.

But we cannot do such a comparison here with the interogation room scenario, can we? So your arguement once again falls flat. You're dictating what Batman should have done, then when asked to make a comparison of a similar situation, you cannot provide one. Nor can you offer any suggestions at all as to how Batman could have improved his methods to get Joker to talk.

I think you see my point.

Ok. 1) You did not ask me to provide examples of Joker humor in situations similar to the interrogation scene in the Dark Knight.

I didn't think I'd have to spell that out in black and white. Since we're discussing a particukar scene here, I thought you'd know comparisons to such a scene was the obvious thing I was asking for.

I mean I can list dozens of other examples of great humour from Joker in TDK. But we're talking about this one particular scene here in specialzied circumstances. So the comparisons would be invalid.

2) Again, if I could find too similar a scene of Joker being interrogated by Batman to gain information crucial to the survival of loved ones, we'd all be bashing Nolan and whomever wrote the script for being unoriginal. Or perhaps not, but I believe you see my point. At least I hope so.

Exactly. But we can't. And you, like me, cannot offer any better alternatives to what was given. But I, like most of the fanbase, feel that Nolan did a top job portraying Joker's dark humour in this scene.

You for some reason feel unsatisified, and yet you can offer no suggestions for any improvements, yet you're a Batman fan and know these characters inside out.

Yes. The Batman.

The Batman? That cartoon series that practically everyone dislikes?

I wondered when you might pick up on that. No, that is probably one of the pieces I like least about that movie, it demonstrates exactly the opposite range from earlier work in The Animated Series, which I use as my baseline for how Batman really should act.

Because Batman was not faced with any such scenarios earlier in the series. So why would we see him act that way? Nothing like that happened to anyone he cares about until Return of the Joker.

I assure you that I fully understood Jokers infatuation towards Vicki, however, Jack Nicholson's Joker being the truly unpredictable villain we all know from the comics, Batman knows that at any moment Joker may randomly decide to throw her off the roof.

And how do we know that Batman knows that? If Joker wanted Vicki dead, he could have killed her in the mueseum or in her apartment.

Instead Joker went to the trouble of seeking her out because he doesn't want to kill her. He's romantically infatuated with her.

Why should Batman believe Joker was going to toss her off the roof? It makes no sense. And Joker had not inflicted any harm on Vicki. So why would Batman attack him so viciously? Batman did pummel the s*** out of Joker. But not because of Vicki. But because he killed his parents.

Indeed, he was there when Joker was telling Vicki about Alicia's (his previous love interest) 'accident' where she supposedly threw herself out the window. Joker's speech leaves no question that it wasn't exactly voluntary.

How does Joker's speech leave no question that it wasn't voluntary? Alicia was a beautiful woman who was mutilated by the Joker. It's no stretch to imagine she snapped and killed herself.

At any moment, Batman knows this could be Vicki if she says or does the wrong thing to upset him, or if he just randomly feels like it.

Again you have absolutely no idea what Batman knows. This is utter speculation on your behalf. Alicia allowed the Joker to mutiliate her.

From the two scenes we saw of her, she seemed to be reduced to some kind of ******ed vegetable that did anything Joker asked.

And you seem to have locked on to this idea of 'immediate danger'. I'm not really talking about 'immediate danger' to Batman's loved ones. I'm talking about his consistant and ironclad control, that is present in absolutely any situation he is presented with. Being angry is not what Batman is about (as I see it anyways, again, opinion is everything in these debates). Justice is what Batman is about.

Who said she had to be in immediate danger for Batman to lose his cool? Batman often reacts to a situation AFTER the damage is done.

Going back to the Return of the Joker, when Batman arrived in Arkham and accosted Joker and Harley. He didn't start beating up Joker on the spot right away. He asked him where Robin was. It was only AFTER he saw what Joker had done to Robin did he lose his cool and go crazy.

While its true he went right after the Joker, reading through it yet again, its clear his intention was never to mutilate the Joker.

Please explain where that is clear. He got out of the Batmobile and took an immediate dive on the Joker. That was his first reaction, to attack the Joker. If Joker had not sprayed Batman with acid, we both know Batman would have been beating the crap out of Joker.

Yes he reined himself in even further after his talk with Gordon, but he was still fully in control of himself and not smashing the Joker left and right.

He was in control because Gordon told him to be. Prior to talking to Gordon, his only instinct was to attack Joker.

How can you say that he was in control?

Again, you do not give the poor police officer enough credit. He specifically states that from his twenty year experience he has learned the difference between punks who need a lesson in manners and freaks like the Joker who would just enjoy it. If the screenwriter was intending this cop to have just learned the fact that Joker is one of those from watching the interrogation, why would he have added the direct link from 'twenty year man' to 'knowing the difference'.

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here for this poor police officer. Say I simply ignore the fact that he had just witnessed Joker getting his jollies from Batman beating him up, you just said yourself there that the Cop had 20 years experience.

How many does Batman have at this point? And explain why he should know better when he's never faced anyone like Joker before.

Indeed. Those who share my opinion are much too timid and are unwilling to risk their opinions being jumped upon in a similar manner as to what has been happening in this thread.

If they're afraid to have their opinion challenged then that is just ridiculous.

Freedom of speech on this forum. Mind you, Batman fans never struck me as the type who were afraid to speak their minds

And it is indeed very sad, too many people have latched on to what is currently 'in style' and not gone with an alternative. I trust that this phase will pass as people realise that the Joker is much more than just this one image.

Most people have. The difference is that most people like the Ledger Joker image the best. It's not that they dislike Joker's other images, it's just he's the fan favourite with most.

Nothing sad about that. We all have our favs. Doesn't mean the other styles are not loved.

No, not really.
Dirty purple suit, thats unkempt. Dirty,unrestrained, washed out greenish yellow hair. Muddy looking sometimes white face, lipstick covered lips.
Lets see... we're missing style, flair, class and consistancy.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any big absences of consistency.

As for style and flair, if you think a little bit of dirt on the suit dramatically changes the look, then you're having a laugh, man. All the Joker costume ingredients are right there.

As I've stated before, if I knew exactly what I would write Batman thinking of in his extremely intelligent mind to interrogate the Joker, I'd be writing the movies rather than this. I wish very much that I was clever enough to come up with things like that, or for that matter that I was as clever as the Batman himself.

As I mentioned above, you don't have to be a Hollywood writer to know a character. You're a Batman fan, yes? You've probably seen him use his smarts in every concievable situation, yes? But you can't think of anything different that he could have done when interrogating Joker in TDK.

Why? Probably because there is nothing else he could have done to get Joker to talk.

Because Nolan and Co. proved themselves capable in showing how creative and intelligent Batman was in the previous film, why shouldn't they succeed here?

Batman was dealing with ordinary common street scum who peed their pants at the sight of Batman in Begins. The methods he used in Begins were standard Batman techniques shown in millions of Batman comics.

As was shown in TDK, those types of terror tactics don't work on the Joker. This is a guy who'lll laugh when you beat the living hell out of him, or throw him off a building.

Unless they've all had strokes that now impair their creative talents... Hmm, perhaps we should send them a fruit basket.

We should......to congratulate then on delivering a brilliant Batman movie with TDK

 

[Ryan]

I still believe that the failure in TDK ( in my opnion) was not having Batman, who I thought would be the central character, come out on top. Yes, in Nolan's world, the Joker seemed to unflinchingly work his way throughout the movie with rare traces of frustration. Off the top of my head, he seemed pretty ticked when Batman had tripped up the truck and was charging at him on the Batpod (Hit me!) and also seemed less talkative when Batman reached him at top of the building at the end of the movie. I'm more or less basing my ideas of the Joker from the comic books. He's always been my favourite Bat-villain and yet I've never had a problem with him coming up on the losing end of well, every single comic I've ever read. Sure he's wreaked havoc, but ultimately its Batman that wins the war. I never got that feeling at all from this movie. Maybe more was planned for the third.

 

[Shaolin Kenobi]

I feel a bit out of my element here... I'm usually just so geeked to see Batman on the big screen that comparisons of the Gotham's look from BB to TDK are lost on me. Same with the bat suit... I seriously barely noticed. I will say though after reading I pulled up pictures on google to compare and it DID look cooler in BB. Some of the other "flaws" people mentioned are going to be more pronounced for me now... As far as the actual debate over which film is better... I loved them both.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I still believe that the failure in TDK ( in my opnion) was not having Batman, who I thought would be the central character, come out on top. Yes, in Nolan's world, the Joker seemed to unflinchingly work his way throughout the movie with rare traces of frustration. Off the top of my head, he seemed pretty ticked when Batman had tripped up the truck and was charging at him on the Batpod (Hit me!) and also seemed less talkative when Batman reached him at top of the building at the end of the movie. I'm more or less basing my ideas of the Joker from the comic books. He's always been my favourite Bat-villain and yet I've never had a problem with him coming up on the losing end of well, every single comic I've ever read. Sure he's wreaked havoc, but ultimately its Batman that wins the war. I never got that feeling at all from this movie. Maybe more was planned for the third.

Well there is a moment where he gets that look in his eyes, "Oh crap it didn't work." It's the part where neither ferry boat gets blown up. He's surprised that the people behaved the way they did. Batman teases him although it's not so much a victory for Batman as it is for the overall decency of humanity. Batman wasn't the one telling those people to not blow up the other boat.

 

[The Joker]

I used to think what Ryan said when I first saw TDK. But after further viewings and analysis, I saw Batman did win.

He saved the hospital staff hostages, and stopped Joker from blowing up the ferries. He saved Gordon's family from Two Face, and he saved Harvey's reputation and the hope of Gotham by sacrificing his own reputation, which wasn't all that great in Gotham anyway, by taking the blame for Harvey's crimes.

Joker didn't win. He didn't corrupt Gotham, he didn't destroy hope.

 

[Ryan]

Thank you for your response. I don't believe that the Joker actually won overall. Its true, like you stated, that as far as Gotham knows, Dent is still a hero and the police are still regarded in high esteem. However they did lose Batman as their hero because apparently he is to take the blame of the policemans' deaths. I can't say I pin that as a win for the Joker, as actually that was Batman's choice. However, what was lacking for me is a scene, which I've seen in so many comic books and early tv shows, where ultimately despite his best efforts the Joker expresses some sort of frustration over his inability to beat Batman. Earlier in the film, we got to see Batman being frustrated by not being able to crack the Joker and really turnabout would have been fair play. Again, I know someone will say that the Joker is different, that he can't shown the error of his ways. But again, I would point to my earlier statement which clearly showed the Joker frustrated at times in the movie. Having the Joker laughing and mocking the hero, as Batman flees the scene does leave the Joker as the winner of that final scene between these 2. Being the Great Detective, Batman was always able to show and demonstrate to the villains in the end that he has upper hand, which was not the case in TDK. Again, I loved the movie, just didn't like treatment of Batman in this one, and so BB gets the nod from me as the better Batman movie.

 

[BatMatt]

Nice input around here guys. Honestly, Batman Begins probably does a bit better at storytelling than The Dark Knight, and features a few less plot holes, but all in all TDK is a far superior film. Seeing as the quality of Batman Begins, that is a huge compliment.

 

[The Joker]

Thank you for your response. I don't believe that the Joker actually won overall. Its true, like you stated, that as far as Gotham knows, Dent is still a hero and the police are still regarded in high esteem. However they did lose Batman as their hero

But that's just it, they didn't lose Batman as a hero because Batman was never a hero to them to begin with. Gotham has always regarded him as an outlaw vigilante.

The Mayor is on the news talking about how the Major Crimes Unit are hunting for Batman at the beginning of TDK. Harvey's press conference shows how the people feel about Batman. Even Harvey is forced to admit that Batman is an outlaw but they are still happy to let him clean up their streets.

The Police were always trying to arrest him in Begins, too. He was even seen destroying Cop cars on the evening news in Begins. Really the status quo is not changing dramaticaly here except there'll probably be a more fierce hunt for Batman now in the third movie. Batman and Gordon will have to meet in secret.

Should be very interesting to see where it goes.

 

[Ryan]

I think I would have take issue with that comment that Batman was not a hero. Unless he was in the Marvel universe and had signed up with Iron man under the superhero registration program, pretty well every "hero' is a vigilante from Zorro to Spiderman. They are people going outside of the public framework to do heroic things. With that being said, they had been no outcry that Batman was a real menace until the Joker had actually made good on his threat to start killing people unless Batman turned himself in. The most that could be said is that Batman's popularity in Gotham was split as Nolan used dinner conversations in both movies that demontrated half the people thought Batman was doing good, and the other half thought that vigilantism was bad. Even the police were only half heartedly chasing Batman in the second film as shown by their Batman suspects..Elvis, Big foot and Abraham Lincoln pictures. The Mayor of course was following protocol. He cannot publically say that the Batman is allowed no more then Gordon can, but everyone was content to let Batman do the "dirty work". Dent as well pointed this out during his dinner conversation.

 

[Travesty]

But that's just it, they didn't lose Batman as a hero because Batman was never a hero to them to begin with. Gotham has always regarded him as an outlaw vigilante.

Really? Was that before the police just let him go straight into the bank in broad daylight, or was it before they let him on a crime scene to take away evidence, or before they let him stroll through the entire police precinct, and let him stand behind The Joker in a holding cell? Or before he just walked into the hospital during the day, just to give his old pal his luck coin? Or before standing a few feet away from firefighters after a building was blown up?

The Police were always trying to arrest him in Begins, too. He was even seen destroying Cop cars on the evening news in Begins. Really the status quo is not changing dramaticaly here except there'll probably be a more fierce hunt for Batman now in the third movie. Batman and Gordon will have to meet in secret.

That's how it should've been to begin with, and how it was portaid in Begins. Remember the SWAT team, and Gordon goes in without them, cause he knows him and Batman are semi-partners? Or how Batman showed up at his house, just to give him an "update"? That's the kind of Batman I like, not one that basically has a badge on, and can go where he pleases. What's the point of sneaking around, if you can just stroll through a bank vault in broad daylight?

 

[The Joker]

Really? Was that before the police just let him go straight into the bank in broad daylight,

Oh Travesty, you always make it too easy for me t:

Ra's Al Ghul: "You know how to disappear, we can teach you to become truly invisible".

You seriously think Batman just walked into the bank in front of everyone? Just like how he vanished a second after Gordon looked up. Nobody saw Batman in the bank.

Nobody sees Batman arrive or leave.

You want more examples? Disappearing from the rooftop in front of Gordon and Dent. Appearing beside the Joker unnoticed at the party.

Good training Ra's gave him t:

or was it before they let him on a crime scene to take away evidence, or before they let him stroll through the entire police precinct, and let him stand behind The Joker in a holding cell?

Gordon was in charge. He gave it the ok. You want a scan from the comics from Batman's early days where he did that?

And it's also most likely that Gordon has supporters of Batman like himself on his force.

Or before he just walked into the hospital during the day, just to give his old pal his luck coin?

Again with the stealth. Nobody saw him.

Or before standing a few feet away from firefighters after a building was blown up?

Yeah, because firefighters are going to engage a wanted vigilante, especially when they're putting out a burning building

That's how it should've been to begin with, and how it was portaid in Begins. Remember the SWAT team, and Gordon goes in without them, cause he knows him and Batman are semi-partners? Or how Batman showed up at his house, just to give him an "update"? That's the kind of Batman I like, not one that basically has a badge on, and can go where he pleases.

So you only like Batman from Year One? Because Batman has been going where he pleases with the blessing of the Police force for decades.

What's the point of sneaking around, if you can just stroll through a bank vault in broad daylight?

He didn't, as we've established above.

I think I would have take issue with that comment that Batman was not a hero. Unless he was in the Marvel universe and had signed up with Iron man under the superhero registration program, pretty well every "hero' is a vigilante from Zorro to Spiderman. They are people going outside of the public framework to do heroic things. With that being said, they had been no outcry that Batman was a real menace until the Joker had actually made good on his threat to start killing people unless Batman turned himself in.

Right. Because Batman's presence was beginning to have extreme adverse effects on the city. People were being killed in his name. Like Harvey said "We've been happy to let the Batman clean up our streets until now. One day Batman will answer for the laws he's broken. But to us, not to this madman".

The most that could be said is that Batman's popularity in Gotham was split as Nolan used dinner conversations in both movies that demontrated half the people thought Batman was doing good, and the other half thought that vigilantism was bad.

There was no split in the dinner conversations. There was one supporting voice at each meal. Harvey and that unnamed woman. And in the Begins case it was prior to when Batman started going real vigilante and attacking Cop cars and Cops with bats.

Even the police were only half heartedly chasing Batman in the second film as shown by their Batman suspects..Elvis, Big foot and Abraham Lincoln pictures.

I wouldn't use a corrupt Cop like Wurtz as a sterling example as to how an investigation is done.

The Mayor of course was following protocol. He cannot publically say that the Batman is allowed no more then Gordon can, but everyone was content to let Batman do the "dirty work". Dent as well pointed this out during his dinner conversation.

I know. That's what I'm saying. Nothing is going to drastically change here. Batman will still do his crimefighting thing, and he and Gordon will still be partners.

 

[Travesty]

Ra's Al Ghul: "You know how to disappear, we can teach you to become truly invisible".

I know, in Begins he used Ra's teachings, which weren't evident in TDK. And I don't really see how that quote applies to broad daylight? That's like someone wearing camo in the city, and thinking they'll be able to blend in, when in fact, you stick out like a soar thumb.

You seriously think Batman just walked into the bank in front of everyone? Just like how he vanished a second after Gordon looked up. Nobody saw Batman in the bank.

Nobody sees Batman arrive or leave.

Nobody? There's 2 detectives right in front of the vault door, and Rameriez was standing in front of Batman, which of course she saw, and then told everybody to scatter. Unless he materialized inbetween everybody, I don't know how you can "blend in to your surroundings" in such a well lit, secure, bank vault. And for such an "outlaw vigilante", he really did have an easy time getting into a secure bank vault guarded by police and detectives, even before Gordon saw him.

You want more examples? Disappearing from the rooftop in front of Gordon and Dent. Appearing beside the Joker unnoticed at the party.

Yeah, the rooftop disappearance was cool, in fact, I LOVED that scene. I didn't mind that, cause a.) it was at night, and b.) nobody else could witness him leaving. That was truly a Batman-scene to me.

Gordon was in charge. He gave it the ok. You want a scan from the comics from Batman's early days where he did that?

Hehe, "early days". Around the same time Batman was besides Robin, or around the time he still killed people with guns? Either way, I don't care to compare comics, when I'm just talking about this franchise(Begins vs. TDK).

Again with the stealth. Nobody saw him.

The point isn't if he can vanish away, but the settings he was in most of the movie. Yeah, Batman used to walk around during the "old days" all the time, and he also had shark repellent as well. Who cares, I'm talking about this franchise where that wasn't presented in Begins. When Ra's said "mind your surroundings", I think that also applied to blending in, and not sticking out like a soar thumb.

Yeah, because firefighters are going to engage a wanted vigilante, especially when they're putting out a burning building

"Gotham has always regarded him as an outlaw vigilante". So you're telling me an "outlaw vigilante" is at the scene of a burned down building, which has been mostly put out, and nobody thought, "hey, that outlaw vigilante just standing around probably didn't have anything to do with this, move along people, the outlaw vigilante is cool"? Ha!

My point is, I don't think he was regraded as such a vigilante as you're trying to make it. In Begins, yes, he was, but in TDK, no, not as much.


My other points are in regards to my own opinion of the character for this franchise. I like a Batman who stays in the shadows, or only comes out at night. You may also like that, but you happen to like a Batman who walks around in broad daylight, in this franchise. That's just a matter of opinion, and shouldn't be argued. I don't care if you like that, and isn't wrong, but to me, I don't like that, and is just one reason why I like Begins more then TDK. Which I thought was the reason for this thread, but turned into "why I love TDK, and lets not talk about Begins at all, and compare TDK to other comics" thread?

Oh Travesty, you always make it too easy for me

Well, I imagine it's always easy if you bend the rules of the entire point to threads, then yes, it should be very easy on you.

 

[The Joker]

I know, in Begins he used Ra's teachings, which weren't evident in TDK. And I don't really see how that quote applies to broad daylight?

Why shouldn't it apply to broad daylight? He was not standing in the dark when Ra's said that line, and then two ninjas dropped from the ceiling.

Something that was showcased later on in TDK when he appear beside the Joker at the party unnoticed.

Nobody? There's 2 detectives right in front of the vault door, and Rameriez was standing in front of Batman, which of course she saw, and then told everybody to scatter.

And the detectives did not see him, which is why Ramirez went out and cleared them off saying "Can we get a minute people, please", after Gordon gave her the nod. Why? Because Batman and Gordon were about to have a conversation which could easily be overheard and Batman's presence would be alerted.

And of course Ramirez saw him. He wasn't trying to hide from her. She was obviously on side with Batman, as we saw at the start when she brings Jim Gordon a cup of coffee while he's waiting for Batman.

Unless he materialized inbetween everybody, I don't know how you can "blend in to your surroundings" in such a well lit, secure, bank vault. And for such an "outlaw vigilante", he really did have an easy time getting into a secure bank vault guarded by police and detectives, even before Gordon saw him.

That's Batman. He does it all the time. He can appear and disappear even in well lit rooms. He did it several times in BTAS as well. He was always scaring Gordon by appearing randomly, and then disappearing on him.

Hehe, "early days". Around the same time Batman was besides Robin, or around the time he still killed people with guns?

Neither actually. This particular one I have in mind is from Batman :The Man Who Laughs, which showcases how Batman first met the Joker. Set in the time when Gordon was still a Leuitentant. It's completely serious, Batman is not a killer, and Robin has not even been introduced yet. It follows with Year One's continuity.

Hehe!

Either way, I don't care to compare comics, when I'm just talking about this franchise(Begins vs. TDK).

You don't compare to the comics? But you just complained above that Batman being able to appear in a vault unnoticed was not the Batman you know and love.

I'm sorry, Travesty, but you can't have it both ways here. TDK followed the rules of the comics. You can't cry foul over that.

The point isn't if he can vanish away, but the settings he was in most of the movie. Yeah, Batman used to walk around during the "old days" all the time, and he also had shark repellent as well. Who cares, I'm talking about this franchise where that wasn't presented in Begins. When Ra's said "mind your surroundings", I think that also applied to blending in, and not sticking out like a soar thumb.

Ra's never ever specified it can only be done at night. Never. I don't ever recall even seeing Ra's train Bruce at night.

Ra's: "Ninja understands that invisibility is a matter of patience and agility".

The only time Ra's mentioned surroundings was when doing combat. "Always mind your surroundings".

"Gotham has always regarded him as an outlaw vigilante". So you're telling me an "outlaw vigilante" is at the scene of a burned down building, which has been mostly put out, and nobody thought, "hey, that outlaw vigilante just standing around probably didn't have anything to do with this, move along people, the outlaw vigilante is cool"? Ha!

Travesty, stop a think for a moment, mate.

Why on earth would they think Batman was to blame for this, when the Joker freely admitted he kidnapped Harvey Dent and Rachel?

Please explain the logic behind that.

My point is, I don't think he was regraded as such a vigilante as you're trying to make it. In Begins, yes, he was, but in TDK, no, not as much.

I don't know how you can say that, especially when all of Gotham wanted Batman to turn himself in because of Joker's threats.

My other points are in regards to my own opinion of the character for this franchise. I like a Batman who stays in the shadows, or only comes out at night.

That's fine. I'm not critiquing what way you want to see Batman. We're discussing your criticism of HOW he did that.

It's fine if you didn't like that he did it. That's your opinion.

You may also like that, but you happen to like a Batman who walks around in broad daylight, in this franchise.

You're exaggerating, man. We saw him in two extremely brief daylight scenes. And he wasn't walking around anywhere in either of them.

Lets not make mountains out of molehills here.

That's just a matter of opinion, and shouldn't be argued.

Like I said above, that is not what I'm arguing. We're debating HOW he did it. That's what you were criticizing. You were claiming he was doing it in full view of everyone.

Well, I imagine it's always easy if you bend the rules of the entire point to threads, then yes, it should be very easy on you.

Says the guy who doesn't like the writing of Batman in this movie to be compared to the comics.

Oh the irony.

 

[Ryan]

I have to agree with Travesty on the stealth issue. I Bat begins I do feel that other then Gordon, the police were after Batman. However, in TDK, there is no real sense of urgerncy by the police or the city to remove Batman until the Joker actually "kills Gordon". I understand the whole "stealth" thing but if he was as leary of the police as he had been in BB, then he would never have let Ramierz see him enter the bank or let him been seen in the interrogation room, or investigating the room of the 2 people the Joker killed, or let himself be viewed by the Swat team on top of the building with Gordon near the end. All of these viewings, that were allowed by Batman, were in front of different members of the police dept thus showing he had some sort of arrangement with them via Gordon. Even Dent asks Gordon to "meet him" thus showing that its well known the 2 are working together. I feel that the dinner conversations in Bat Begins and TDK do show how people were split. Bat Begins certain people around the table felt he was crazy while the woman pointed out that she thought he was doing good. In tdk, the unnamed model doesn't agree with the whole vigilante thing and thinks more people should be like Dent while Dent himself defends the Batman. Good postings though by all.

 

[The Joker]

I have to agree with Travesty on the stealth issue. I Bat begins I do feel that other then Gordon, the police were after Batman. However, in TDK, there is no real sense of urgerncy by the police or the city to remove Batman until the Joker actually "kills Gordon". I understand the whole "stealth" thing but if he was as leary of the police as he had been in BB, then he would never have let Ramierz see him enter the bank or let him been seen in the interrogation room, or investigating the room of the 2 people the Joker killed, or let himself be viewed by the Swat team on top of the building with Gordon near the end. All of these viewings, that were allowed by Batman, were in front of different members of the police dept thus showing he had some sort of arrangement with them via Gordon. Even Dent asks Gordon to "meet him" thus showing that its well known the 2 are working together. I feel that the dinner conversations in Bat Begins and TDK do show how people were split. Bat Begins certain people around the table felt he was crazy while the woman pointed out that she thought he was doing good. In tdk, the unnamed model doesn't agree with the whole vigilante thing and thinks more people should be like Dent while Dent himself defends the Batman.

Ok, a few things:

1. Of course there was a greater sense of urgency to nail Batman in Begins. For one thing Batman was brand new vigilante in town, and they had no idea who he was or what he was after. He attacked Cops with swarms of bats, roughed up Flass, and plowed down Cop cars with the Tumbler. In TDK, he was still a wanted vigilante, but the Police force was more tolerant of him because he was doing some good for the city, even though he operated outside the law.
Even the criminals knew more about him, as was shown in the Maroni interrogation scene. "Nobody's going to tell you nothin'. They're wise to your act". But he was still a vigilante regardless.

2. Did things change dramatically when all of Gotham wanted Batman to turn himself in? No. Batman contemplated giving himself up, and nearly did, but he didn't. He kept on fighting. And he'll do the same in the next sequal. Wanted vigilante or not.

3. Jim Gordon was not the lowly Sargent he was in Begins. In TDK he was a Leiutentant, and then Commissoner, which gave him alot more authority over his men, and allowed Batman to move more freely around them.

4. That Russian lady was a ballet dancer, Ryan, not a model And since she wasn't a native of Gotham, I don't put much stock in her opinion of Batman.

Good postings though by all.

Likewise to you. And Travesty, for the most part

 

[Ryan]

Haha...good post. Can't say I disagree with anything you said in your latest post as I think that what my postings were trying to say. Hate to split hairs about the whole model/dancer thing, but in all actuality she's an actress in a Batman film. Whether or not she's from Gotham doesn't really matter, as Nolan felt her inclusion was important enough to have her on screen to present the other side of the argument (pro vs con of vigaltantes). Getting back to the thread however, TDK was probably the better film overall, however I liked Bat Begins as the better Batman film. I just felt it feature my hero more prominently.

 

[Travesty]

1.) You don't compare to the comics? But you just complained above that Batman being able to appear in a vault unnoticed was not the Batman you know and love.

2.)I'm sorry, Travesty, but you can't have it both ways here. TDK followed the rules of the comics. You can't cry foul over that.

1.) That's just my opinion on the character. Yes, I rather have a Batman that sneaks around in the shadows, but I also like other interpretations of him aswell. Although, when talking about this franchise, Begins had him as a "more in the shadows" kind of guy. We didn't see him in brightly lit parties, hospitals, bank vaults, interrogation rooms, etc. He was always in the dark, ducking down in the shadows, and mostly unseen. He blended in to the atmosphere, and I didn't get that feeling in TDK.

2.)But my point is the comparison over Begins to TDK, not comparisons of what rules TDK did/didn't break in the comics. The comics also had Batman in space with a Bat-chimp, but if they made a movie like that, should it be good, just cause it was in a few comics? I understand the movie followed some of the comic "rules", but for a character that's as old as Batman, it's hard to pinpoint what is truly Batman, when for some, Batman in space may be your shtick, and for others, a Batman that only stays in the shadow is more favorable. None of those are wrong, just what you like the most. And in my opinion, when comparing Begins to TDK, the character feels different to me, and I "still like/think Begins is better than TDK".

Travesty, stop a think for a moment, mate.

Why on earth would they think Batman was to blame for this, when the Joker freely admitted he kidnapped Harvey Dent and Rachel?

Please explain the logic behind that.

Look, this is getting ridiculous. We're BOTH arguing over assumptions, and this is close to pointless. You're arguing that all of Gotham wants to have Batman turn himself in, then you say he's a wanted vigilante, and then you say nobody wants to capture him, cause he had nothing to do with the blown up building? Have you stopped to think about that for a moment? And again, we're both working on assumptions, so I guess you can say this is all a matter of opinion.

I don't know how you can say that, especially when all of Gotham wanted Batman to turn himself in because of Joker's threats.

Because we saw many scenes when Batman was walking around before The Joker's threats and not being considered a "wanted vigilante"?

I will say this, I did get the feeling he was wanted when the SWAT teams were chasing him at the very end of the movie, other then that, no, not so much.

That's fine. I'm not critiquing what way you want to see Batman. We're discussing your criticism of HOW he did that.

It's fine if you didn't like that he did it. That's your opinion.

And my criticism comes from comparing how Batman was handled in Begins, to how he was handled in TDK. To me, it felt like a totally different Batman, and once again, is why I like Begins better.

Like I said above, that is not what I'm arguing. We're debating HOW he did it. That's what you were criticizing. You were claiming he was doing it in full view of everyone.

And in my opinion, he was for the most part. Also, I'm making comparisons based off of Begins to TDK.

Says the guy who doesn't like the writing of Batman in this movie to be compared to the comics.

Oh the irony.

Because we're not comparing the comics here, we're comparing Begins to TDK. Am I lost here, or am I in a different thread then I should be? Is this "who likes TDK better then the comics", or "how faithful is TDK to the comics" thread?

 

[The Joker]

Ok Travesty, I read thru your post twice before doing this reply, so how about we just agree to disagree after this one because I think we're repeating ourselves now. And when that happens, you know you're going around in circles, and it's time to call it a day. For what it's worth, I have enjoyed this debate with you. You're a nice guy.

And here...we...GO!

1.) That's just my opinion on the character. Yes, I rather have a Batman that sneaks around in the shadows, but I also like other interpretations of him aswell. Although, when talking about this franchise, Begins had him as a "more in the shadows" kind of guy. We didn't see him in brightly lit parties, hospitals, bank vaults, interrogation rooms, etc. He was always in the dark, ducking down in the shadows, and mostly unseen. He blended in to the atmosphere, and I didn't get that feeling in TDK.

Well like I was discussing with Ryan there above, in Begins, Batman was just establishing himself. Nobody knew who he was or what his motives were. Batman had to use forceful methods like mowing down Cop cars, and calling in swarms of bats to attack the Police in order to get his job done.

Even Gordon was wary of him until he delivered Falcone. That's when he started to trust him.

In TDK, Batman seems to have a more established personality in Gotham. Even the criminals know what he's all about, as was established with the interogation of Maroni.

And Jim Gordon had higher positions in the Police force in TDK, so that allowed Batman more freedom on the crime scenes.

2.)But my point is the comparison over Begins to TDK, not comparisons of what rules TDK did/didn't break in the comics. The comics also had Batman in space with a Bat-chimp, but if they made a movie like that, should it be good, just cause it was in a few comics?

If we're going to make comparisons to the comics, lets be serious here. Of course we don't want the crap from the comics shown on screen. I read a Batman comic a few years ago where they turned Leslie Thompkins into a murderer. Whoever came up with that brain fart should be fired.

We're comparing the good stuff from the comics that defines Batman and is accepted by the fan base. The reason I bring up established Batman traits from the comics is because it re-enforces that TDK was following what Batman is all about.

I understand the movie followed some of the comic "rules", but for a character that's as old as Batman, it's hard to pinpoint what is truly Batman, when for some, Batman in space may be your shtick, and for others, a Batman that only stays in the shadow is more favorable. None of those are wrong, just what you like the most.

And again, that is not something I've disputed. I've never argued with you what you like or don't like. We are discussing the how's and why's behind this stuff, yes?

That was our original debate point, wasn't it? How Batman had more freedom to move around the Cops in TDK.

Look, this is getting ridiculous. We're BOTH arguing over assumptions, and this is close to pointless. You're arguing that all of Gotham wants to have Batman turn himself in, then you say he's a wanted vigilante, and then you say nobody wants to capture him, cause he had nothing to do with the blown up building? Have you stopped to think about that for a moment? And again, we're both working on assumptions, so I guess you can say this is all a matter of opinion.

Whoa, backtrack here for a second. You're forgetting the situation here in this scene. Gotham wanted Batman to turn himself in when Joker was at large and killing in his name. But Joker had been captured that night, and it was shown on the news with all the reporters interviewing Harvey, and it was known that Batman aided in Joker's capture.

So why would the firefighters turn on Batman?

Because we saw many scenes when Batman was walking around before The Joker's threats and not being considered a "wanted vigilante"?

What scenes? We've already covered the bank vault one. There was no authorites around at the party in Bruce's penthouse, or the battle scene with Scarecrow and his men in the parking garage, or at Maroni's club.

After Joker announced that on the talk show with Reece that he didn't want a world without Batman, Batman turning himself in was not an issue anymore.

Joker was in fact protecting Batman because he found Batman to be too much fun, and thought a world without him would be boring.

So at what point prior to this was he simply walking around where he could have been apprehended by the authorites?

And my criticism comes from comparing how Batman was handled in Begins, to how he was handled in TDK. To me, it felt like a totally different Batman, and once again, is why I like Begins better.

And that's fine, mate. That's your opinion. I won't dispute that. It's your god given right.

And in my opinion, he was for the most part. And again, I'm making comparisons based off of Begins to TDK.

Which as we discussed above are not really valid because the situation in Begins and TDK were totally different.

Jim Gordon was a large contributor to that. You wouldn't see Commissoner Loeb tolerating Batman in his interrogation room.

Because we're not comparing the comics here, we're comparing Begins to TDK. Am I lost here, or am I in a different thread then I should be? Is this "who likes TDK better then the comics", or "how faithful is TDK to the comics" thread?

We're talking about how Batman was written in these movies. And the foundation of the Batman character comes from the comics.

Perfectly valid and within the context of this discussion.

Btw, Dark Guardian, I don't know if you're still checking in on this crazy thread still [], but maybe you'd like to have a look at this: http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/93918

Since you had a beef with the interrogation room scene, I thought you might be interested in reading that article. It's the best analysis of that scene I've ever read.

Explains it even better than I could.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Btw, Dark Guardian, I don't know if you're still checking in on this crazy thread still [], but maybe you'd like to have a look at this: http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/93918

Since you had a beef with the interrogation room scene, I thought you might be interested in reading that article. It's the best analysis of that scene I've ever read.

Explains it even better than I could.

Hey man, it may be crazy but its my crazy thread!

And while I found the analysis...enlightening and interesting, it doesn't change my feelings about the actual scene itself. This is just one of those things thats going to boil down to opinion.
Some like the yellow emblem, and some don't. There's no real reason behind it other than what looks good to some people versus others.
Btw, I am one of the people who likes the yellow emblem. But only when its done...tactfully.

Off to work, but I'll be back to rebuttal.

 

[Travesty]

Well like I was discussing with Ryan there above, in Begins, Batman was just establishing himself. Nobody knew who he was or what his motives were. Batman had to use forceful methods like mowing down Cop cars, and calling in swarms of bats to attack the Police in order to get his job done.

Even Gordon was wary of him until he delivered Falcone. That's when he started to trust him.

In TDK, Batman seems to have a more established personality in Gotham. Even the criminals know what he's all about, as was established with the interogation of Maroni.

And Jim Gordon had higher positions in the Police force in TDK, so that allowed Batman more freedom on the crime scenes.

All that is true, but this goes back to my point of Batman not being such the "outlaw vigilnate" that you were talking about to being with. Remember?

If we're going to make comparisons to the comics, lets be serious here. Of course we don't want the crap from the comics shown on screen. I read a Batman comic a few years ago where they turned Leslie Thompkins into a murderer. Whoever came up with that brain fart should be fired.

We're comparing the good stuff from the comics that defines Batman and is accepted by the fan base. The reason I bring up established Batman traits from the comics is because it re-enforces that TDK was following what Batman is all about.

Hehe, I wasn't trying to be a "drama queen", but I was just attempting to get my point across here. I felt like everything was in the gray, and I wanted my point to be very black&white, in order for you to see what I was saying.

That was our original debate point, wasn't it? How Batman had more freedom to move around the Cops in TDK.

Yes, it was one of the points, but my point was saying I like how Batman had to be more sneaky and not so much "in you face". Just because Gordon is higher up in the police force, dosn't mean Batman should have a badge. Yes, he has been portrayed like that in some comics, but I don't like that as much. It's not bad, but it's not my favorite. I liked the way Batman was portrayed in Begins more, cause I like him sneaking around more. You don't, so you like TDK more, and that's more then fine with me.

Whoa, backtrack here for a second. You're forgetting the situation here in this scene. Gotham wanted Batman to turn himself in when Joker was at large and killing in his name. But Joker had been captured that night, and it was shown on the news with all the reporters interviewing Harvey, and it was known that Batman aided in Joker's capture.

So why would the firefighters turn on Batman?

Exactly! My point was that he wasn't portrayed as such an "outlay vigilante" as you described. Get it?

What scenes? We've already covered the bank vault one. There was no authorites around at the party in Bruce's penthouse, or the battle scene with Scarecrow and his men in the parking garage, or at Maroni's club.

After Joker announced that on the talk show with Reece that he didn't want a world without Batman, Batman turning himself in was not an issue anymore.

Joker was in fact protecting Batman because he found Batman to be too much fun, and thought a world without him would be boring.

So at what point prior to this was he simply walking around where he could have been apprehended by the authorites?

Ok, hold up a second here. My point wasn't saying he could be apprehended, but just seen in general by anybody. Brightly lit areas should be a nono for Batman. When I was talking about the bank vault and other examples, I was just saying how easy it is for Batman to be out-and-about, even if there are police around. Remember, I want him to be more of an "outlaw vigilante", but I didn't get that feeling in TDK. I wanted him to have to sneak around, regardless of where he was at. I wanted Batman to have to blend into his surroundings, and not just step into the spotlight. That's what Superman is for.

Which as we discussed above are not really valid because the situation in Begins and TDK were totally different.

Jim Gordon was a large contributor to that. You wouldn't see Commissoner Loeb tolerating Batman in his interrogation room.

Yes, and I didn't really mind the interrogation room that much. Sure, I wish the lighting was MUCH darker, but what really made me mad, was how many officers were just watching. Yes, Gordon could get Batman into the room, but I don't like a crowd of people standing around. Again, if he was such a vigilante, then that shouldn't have gone down. Yes, Batman get's into places similar to that in the comics, but he mostly had to sneak around the majority of the cops/anybody.

Ok Travesty, I read thru your post twice before doing this reply, so how about we just agree to disagree after this one because I think we're repeating ourselves now. And when that happens, you know you're going around in circles, and it's time to call it a day. For what it's worth, I have enjoyed this debate with you. You're a nice guy.

I think that'll work. I never mind other peoples opinions, I was just getting to the point, and showing you exactly what I was saying, and visa-versa. But yes, agree-to-disagree.

 

[Ryan]

I don't really have too much of a problem of Batman becoming a part of the "establishment" I guess. He certainly was more accepted in TDK, as Gordon was allowing more of inner circle Ramierz etc to see him. Even Dent knew enough that turning on Gordon's Bat signal would bring the Dark Knight to the rooftop. Like Travesty said though, I don't want to see him carrying a badge either. I still like that mysterious side to the character. I was mainly disappointed big time by the lack of evolution of the character. The trailers talked alot about "how I see now what I have to become to stop" the Joker, but I never really feel that translated to the screen. Watching the trailers as a mini movie, you hear Batman down and out, then it looks like he turns it up a notch with Freeman saying "now that's more like it Mr. Wayne". I expected some sort of escalation either in violence, detective skills, intimidation, psychology....just...something! Instead Batman is presented as more or less just the "muscle' of the film who never really seems to change any of his approaches as promised by the trailer. I don't even mind that he couldn't beat or outwit the Joker in the interrogation scene, if it meant that at the end of movie he could have demonstrated to the Joker (and have the Joker begrudingly acknowledge in frustration) that Batman had outwitted him. Instead the final scene leaves the Joker laughing (after a 10 minute) lecture and a more or less speechless Batman scurrying to the next scene. Some sort of demonstration of Batman superiority in this scene would have been appreciated. I really didn't mind the rest of the movie, just was greatly disappointed in the presentation of my hero in the film.