1. Nolan's Batman is in a world that looks realistic, like our world, but who says that just because it looks like our world that it follows the exact same rules? It may looks realistic, but it's still a fantasy-based world with rules of its own. It's why we get items like the fear-gas, the microwave emitter, the sonar device, and so on. I really don't understand comments like "the microwave emitter wouldnt work in the real world" or "people would be vaporized because they're mostly water" should even matter, because since the machine is based in another world it's going to function a different way than if it were following the rules of our world. I think when it comes to the aspects of the film that include the microwave emitter, one of the things you're going to have to do is accept that the microwave emitter is what it is and functions as it functions, and if you're sold by the plausibility of this machine existing in this world, why wouldn't you be sold on the way it functions. You're either sold on the idea or you're not.
2. Just to touch on Ra's Al Ghul for a bit, even though some would argue that because of the way the world looks that Ra's is not immortal or the Lazarus Pit doesn't exist, I would argue that because the film is still fantasy-based despite it looking real, that the film's strategy in dealing with these types of aspects is to simply not talk about or address them. The same goes for the existence of other superheroes in this world, The Joker being able to form complex plans and pull them off with ease, and so on. Just because the film doesn't directly comment on the Lazarus Pit doesn't mean it doesn't exist in this world and Ra's isn't immortal. What Begins, and TDK as well, is doing is being purposely incoherent about such ideas, providing multiple interpretations on different ideas. If you want Ra's to be a regular man with decoys who possibly hands the title of Ra's Al Ghul down to the next guy, then you can. If you want Ra's to be as he is in the comics: an immortal who uses the Lazarus Pit to ressurect himself, then you can. The film purposely doesn't address this subject and leaves this open for interpretation, and so I personally don't consider it a missed opportunity for this not to be addressed in Begins because it doesn't need to be said in order for it to exist.
3. I personally don't see how Ra's plan could not have been interpreted as anything but a huge event. "Gotham must be destroyed", "Crane's been dumping his toxin into the water supply", the disappearence of the microwave emitter, and so on. The implication being made throughout the film suggests a major plot to attack Gotham. For the film to bring this up and hint at it throughout, but then not to follow up on it would've been an even larger misstep than the idea of train-fight scene to end the film. That said, I personally like what the final battle turned out to be. I felt there was a lot of excitement in the race against time to shutdown the emitter, I like how Batman's final battle with Ra's contributed to our understanding of Bruce's character. Sure, you could say that this has been done before and be right about that, but I'm not going to dislike something simply because "it's been done before". Yes, it's been done before, but I thought they did a good job blending incredible special effects and genuine tension to create a satisfying final confrontation. The use of music throughout also contributed to this feeling, and I enjoy going back to this particular piece from the Begins score quite a bit; I think there's a lot of emotion to be found in it.
4. In regards to Scarecrow, the simple fact about Scarecrow is that when he has characters fall prey to his fear toxin he is in control, but without it he's nothing more than a wimp. I didn't expect Scarecrow to be taken out by a minor charcter, so whether it be Gordon, Rachel or Batman, Scarecrow was going to be taken out like a wimp either way. I know a lot of people see Scarecrow as a potential threat as a major villain, as do I, but that was not his role to serve in this film (as well as TDK) and the one he did serve was an important one, which unfortunately left no room for an epic battle with him and Batman. I didn't mind Rachel taking Crane out at all, because A) it showed that Rachel is a stronger character than your average damsel-in-distress, B) it implies that though he is the hero that Batman cannot always be there to save people, as further emphasised in TDK, and C) much like the way Batman is constructed throughout Begins, Scarecrow isn't treated like he's born with his legendary status as a Batman villain. Part of this construction is how both the heroes and the villains are born with flaws. Batman underestimating Scarecrow as seen earlier in the film displays a hero who makes mistakes early in his career as a crime fighter, and Scarecrow is shown as having his weaknes and not just a Batman villain who will stand on his pedestal until Batman comes and knocks him down. Batman isn't the only guy who can touch these villains, and you can argue that it does take their status as villains down a notch and humanizes them, but then again, they are human.
5. When I first saw the fights in the theater it felt kind of nauseating. When I watched them later on DVD, they were crisp and clear. Scenes that looked too much like blurs became very easy to follow, and as a result I could appreciate how energetic they were. The blows in each fight were quick and brutal, delivering a very great impact. I loved this about the fights throughout the film and the same goes for the fight with the ninjas and the fight with Ra's. The same nauseating feeling, I might at, also applied to other films I saw in theaters involving actions scenes, only to become watchable on DVD.
6. The fear-toxin visions in the 3rd act were very similar to each other while still different enough for me to conclude that not everyone was having exactly the same type of vision when under the gas; even Batman's vision didn't exactly match the oens in the 3rd act while at the same time still recognizably a vision as a result of the fear-toxin. It's something that I honestly didn't really take a serious note of until after seeing the movie a few times and even then I didn't find it a big enough fault to derail any ounce of enjoyment of the 3rd act.
7. I never exactly understood all the hate for the Rachel character, and always though that her preaching to Bruce ("it's not who you are underneith...") was justified. Here is a character that has a clear sense of right and wrong that knows what Bruce is going through with his parents death and is trying to help see him down the right path, only to have Bruce decide he's going to solve his pain by killing Joe Chill. Then when Bruce comes back after 7 years and the first thing Rachel sees of Bruce is him acting like a fool in public. It's clear the image that Bruce has painted of himself to Rachel between these meetings is that of a grown man acting like an immature child, and Bruce has not done anything to really change that image of himself to Rachel ("Deep down you may still be that same great kid you used to be."), but more importantly Rachel as somone, along with Alfred, who still cares and looks for Bruce ("Just know that there are those of us who care about what you do with your future."), which is why I felt the final meetings with Batman/Bruce and Rachel were important as a way of properly tying up this subplot.
8. I understood the use of the little boy the first time in the film. The only way I can see Nolan bringing the same boy back again was so that Rachel could be portrayed as both a fighter for, and protector of the innocent in her own right, as seen with the scene with Scarecrow and Zsasz. All in all, it's a nice moment for the Rachel character and the boy's dialogue ("I told you he'd come") helps to reinforce just how much Batman is growing as a savior to the people of Gotham and how much faith these people are beginning to put in Batman. Didn't really mind it at all.
9. I could have done without the homeless man who likes the Batmobile and the guys in Wayne Tower. The homeless man was an attempt at humour by Nolan which, while harmless, was not funny, and I'm not exactly sure what Nolan was doing with those other guys. The repetition of something the audience already knows comes off as comedic in a situation that calls for panic, and I think showing an evacuation of the building would have been a better idea. These things really didn't bother me too much though because the editing and score kept things at a constant-hyped pace for me, so they were kind of glossed over without much after thought.
10. Scarecrow and Gordon's "yelling" moments. Scarecrow's yell was weird and wimpy (kind of like the character when no one is under his control), but it didn't bother me. I don't find anything really wrong with Gordon's yell when he final blows up the monorail tracks. I guess when it comes down to these things it's a matter of preference.
11. Don't understand what's wrong with the Batmobile taking Gordon to Wayne Tower. I don't really see it as blasphemous, and judging by the direction Nolan went in TDK and will probably go in B3, Gordon is to play an important role in these films, so I don't think Nolan wanted to keep the character on the sidelines like the way he was treated in the first 4 films, and I think it was important also to have both Batman and Gordon contributing towards saving Gotham in Begins. It emphasises that Batman simply cannot do this alone, and I believe this is going to come full-circle in B3 with the role Batman/Bruce and Gordon will finally play going into Gotham's future.
All in all, despite an insignificant issue with the some minor elements of the 3rd act, I really enjoyed it and thought it was a great climax to the film. Of course all these points that I made are my opinion and am not in anyway saying that other people are wrong if they don't share my opinion, as I'm sure what they're saying with theirs. And I also understand that a lot of critics have written on their dislike for the 3rd act as well, and I respect their opinions on the matter, but truth be told is that these days I really don't feel like I need to rely on other people's opinions, both negative or positive, to fuel my own opinion on a subject matter, and am putting faith in my own perspective on the film without any outside influences. So even though this thread is a discussion thread, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed sharing my opinion with you guys, and I enjoyed reading each of yours.
t:
