Batman to fight Batman. . .maybe

Rofl, Batman: Dead End, rofl rofl. I remember that movie, I somehow stumbled upon it looking for a batman begins hatred site and I watched it, it was flipping crazy, how the heck did predator and alien get in there I thought to my self.

But yea, that guy had the looks, but not the acting performance.

You were right about one thing, unlike Stan Lee material, batman has changed from author to author, and suggesting that Frank Miller's portrayal was the best was only an opinion, however, in the dark knight returns it seems to me nicholson plays that character perfectly.

For instance, Joker's gangster side vs. his pyscho side come out play easy enough. His laughter, his gags, they were all part of his psychotic behavior.

In Batman TAS, the batman 700 series, and in the old show it seemed to me Nicholson portrayed Joker the best way possible.

As for The Dark Knight Returns, I figured that could fit into Nicholson perfectly, except for the looks.

Which is why I bring back looks, I think that in Dead End, the long nosed green haired villain looked like a good Joker, but was really nothing special. Nicholson was the perfect joker, his looks being the only thing hampered him.

As for me being a fanboy, hell yes, and proud to say it. Just as every single person who makes pulp fiction their number 1 movie of all time should say.

We are all fanpeople and we all need to let that flag fly sometimes.

If you want to hate, contact [email protected], if you want to celebrate, then quit the act and join in the dance.

__________________

First off, I respect your opinion and your right to it. I'm actually kind of happy for you, you liking Jack as the Joker means you can still watch and enjoy the 1989 Batman, something I have not been able to do for some time now.

As far as the fanboy comment...I'm not sure if you mean that movie specifically or Batman in general, if you mean Batman in general I aam somewhat surprised. The reason being, most fanboy's I have spoken too and read comments from, hat that movie especially Jack's Joker. Don't take this as a shot, I'm just speaking from personal experience.

Also, your right, the Dead End Joker was more of a look, something I think is important (another thing that weakened Jack's version), but he could not act. The dialogue however was good IMO, I loved how he called him daddy, lol.

Either way, judging from Begins, Nolan will cast someone perfect who in my opinion will not have a problem out-shinning Jack. Ah well, guess we will just have to wait and see.

__________________
In the end...
Everything we do,
Is just everything we've done!
- Corey Taylor (2002)

As I stated before, I don't think outshining anyone is the point. For one, there is no "perfect" Joker, because there are so many interpretations. What might be perfect for you will not be perfect for everyone. Jack Nicholson did a stupendous job as The Joker, but now is the time to see another actor contribute to the role (not steal it away). Sure, I'll most likely make a decision about who played the better part once I've seen the Begins sequel, but my opinion really doesn't matter. What matters is that the actor plays the role competently and believably. As long as I see that, I'm happy.

(I think we'd all be happy with that.)

OK folks...one more time.... Batman begins IS the first film, in this series...

The new Batman films are not related to the old films in any way, except that they are Batman movies. The batman stories have been told and retold so many times, there is no one version by which all others are judged, it is just the version one prefers....

The new films are a re-telling, and are not part of the previous franchise. So far in this franchise, the Joker has not appeared, so there is no recycling going on. As for Nicholson, I thought he was an OK Joker, but he stomped all over the character and just acting like Jack Nicolson. I am sorry, but I just will not recognize the 1989 film as any sort of definitive Batman piece, because it just isn't. It's an enjoyable film, but flawed in many ways, IMO. The is no definitive Batman piece, just various re-tellings....

As usual, it all comes down to which one you like the best. For me, as a long, long time fan of Batman, longer than most of you kiddies have been alive, that version is Batman Begins, as far as films go.

As for the comics, I like many of the tellings, hence batman being one of my favorite fictional characters....

I do agree Keaton would make a good Riddler....


We all up to speed on the Bat stuff now, folks?

__________________

Oh darn, you got to say something before I did.

I wanna be the Joker.

Liam Neeson was star power that didn't resembler or portray the character of Rha's Al Ghul at all. Cillian Murphy was more star power loaded into the barrell as well, his character, scarecrow, was scarcely portrayed in his original light.

Nolan did a good job casting for a new batman and a new chief of police, Bale and Oldman, but all the rest were simply put forward as star power, Katie Holmes as the woman? You think she can take down any previous woman in a batman film? Alicia beats her to death, and alicia was the worst Batwoman/villain/girlfriend in all the previous films.

Also, the old butler was flipping awesome, why replace him with Michael Cane? Go, watch the old movies, and tell me that old man isn't better than Cane.

As for Morgan Freeman, I know it was a role cast deep into the archives of bathistory and it was great and all that, but why did a role of seeming unimportance go to him besides star power? None at all.

The list could continue on. Nolan didn't so much cast as did WB choosing the right sacrficial lamb. Nolan cast in Memento, not in Begins, and don't fool yourself about that.

As for Batman, I really enjoyed the movie, I really enjoyed the relationship between batman/girl wayne/girl wayne/joker batman/joker character development. I did not get this with batman begins, what I got, in my opinion, was another self righteous super hero story, the good guys have no flaws, the bad guys are always bad, trite crap with a predictable ending, something like Sin City, I would have to say.

As for the Nicholson casting, all the bat fans i've talked to who have said they hate him describe the character of joker getting unwarranted beef as in killing Wayne's parents (something which I didn't believe for a long time) and getting too much hold over the plot (no more than him being the villain). He was also given charge of gangs in the city, stuff that apparently didnt' happen in the comic books.

However, Jack Nicholson, to me, was perfect as the joker. Who else is psychotic and hillarious at the same time but not annoying like Jim Carey? It's Jack Nicholson!

Because, the thing is, in the dark knight returns, the joker is insane, like Jack, and he is sadistic, like who? like jack.

Jack Nicholson played himself becuase he WAS the joker. Most comic book fans probably hated the undue credit he got in Burton's Fatman.

I tell you to wait, if nolan's batman is anything to predict his future batmans with, we can deduce that not only will the Joker be some star role, but it will also be a boring, contrived character, with no depth or complexity at all.

Like Scarecrow, like Rha's Al ghul, and like all future batmans will be if Nolan doesn't get his act together.

I view Memento as completey different than batman begins. Pearce's friends had their insidiousness and their helpfulness, their problems and their resolutions, their wasn't a good vs. evil, and in the end, Pearce's craving for revenge was cured in the only way he could do it, he made the decision not only to stop being used, but also to stop killing.

Batman, on the other spectrum of randomness not only decided revenge was a good thing but decided he was going to do it in the name of his holier than everyone else's family name.

And don't give me any razzle about not taking revenge, he killed Al Ghul, regardless of what you want to believe or what the hypocritical script tells you.

I wouldn't classify Cillian Murphy as "star power."

Aside from a few cheesy lines at the end, she did fine. She wasn't supposed to be much of a love interest, anyway. If anything, she was a female Harvey Dent.

I don't have to go watch the old movies to tell you that.

If you want to make an excellent film, you cast for who's right for the role, not for star power. Peter Jackson can vouch for that. Who would you have rather Morgan Freeman played, if not Lucius Fox? What was so minor about his character anyway? The only other black actor in the film was Commissioner Loeb, and he had a MUCH smaller role (not to mention, Freeman wouldn't have been right for the part).

What are you talking about? Bruce Wayne is littered with flaws in Batman Begins. He carries a gun at one point. He screws up his father's name. He destroys his social life. He reconciles, of course. That's what heroes do. And the bad guy was the best kind of bad guy - the one who doesn't think he's doing anything wrong.

Did you think Batman was going to die? Did you think Gotham City was going to be blown up? Surely not.

So you think Frank Miller just conjured his Joker out of scratch? Many years of mythos went into that character, I assure you.

I doubt Jack Nicholson really laughs sadistically and spends his time killing people with toxic gas.

I'm not saying he won't be, because anything is possible. But I wouldn't pass judgment before I've seen it...

What does he need to do, then? You haven't mentioned any strategies he might employ to "make Batman better."

If you paid attention to the film, you'd know that he withdrew his desire for vengeance.

I'll give you that one. He didn't kill him, but he let him die. That bothers me a little (never said it was a perfect film), but it's not like he could have avoided that end anyway.

(And who's to say Ra's is dead? Anybody who knows the comics has been asking that question.)

I think they screwed up Ra's Al Ghul....did they even pronounce his name right? I remember it being pronounced differently in the animated series. instead of it being pronounced RAZ it was pronounced RAYSH

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I don't think the pronunciation matters, although I'm with you - "RAYSH" is a much better way to say it. His character was somewhat of a train wreck (pun intended), but they succeeded in making him something more than just a villain. They gave him an ideology to stand for, not just an empty goal to attain. And although he came off strong (like a villain) at times, he still felt like one dot on a moral spectrum - as if he really believed that what he was doing was right. And I credit that to Liam Neeson more than anyone.

Because everyone forgot to see 28 days later and the batman begins movie poster. Believe me, movie "kids" aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
Love interest is not important, acting and importance is what matters to me. Her importance was built up to be the friend in need from the past, this cliche role she failed miserably with her acting. She was a simple girl of telling the truth, doing the right thing, etc. She didn't have the fire of Michelle Phipheer being a lover/hater and everything in between or the greatness of Basinger as the lover of batman. She was cast in a cliche role and failed, was she ever good in any movie besides Pieces of April or The Gift?

Wow, the butler in the older movies was so much better than Michael Cane. He looked the part, acted the part, and more importantly, wasn't Michael Cane.

The fact is that Morgan Freeman, along with Neeson, along with Cane, along with Holmes were made by Warner Bros.. They needed a black man and they got one, this is my personal bias for the traditional try-out method and against the new age hollywood cast the star power deal. It was done in many movies that I liked, but I don't like that about them.

Yes, Bruce Wayne is littered with flaws. But how does he correct himself? He talks to the ONLY law abiding cop ever in Gary Oldman, the DA with a heart and a passion for Justice in Katie Holmes, the good, smart, intelligent, man kicked out for his brilliance in Morgan Freeman and he is coddled by the nice, serving but not complaining, dog-loyal Michael Cane. All the while living in the shadow of the good rich man father who is helping out those his business culture hurt by avoiding the evil politics of lawyers and politicians and businessman and being a God-fearing doctor not afraid of death and filled to the cusp with nobility.

Who was he fighting? The weak, perverse, and smart but not as smart as the good guys Cillian Murphy. The hell bent madman terrorist Liam Neeson? The evil company leader who is stupid and money craving and not as good looking as Freeman. The corrupt police force who uses fear to control the poor people of gotham but are actually cowards themselves.

Yea, batman was well developed, I can't deny that. But all his supporting roles were all cliche and boring. In previous batman films, villains were given a stage to show their personality, not just batman's. And now that we know batman's true identity, what is left to develop? Since the villains were short shotted in the first movie, is Nolan going to contradict himself in making the first? Or is he just going to ruin the best part about Batman and make the rogue gallery of the superman fetish and make batman and his self righteous cohorts the dispenser of all that is evil?

I didn't think batman was going to die because I knew every know it all in america was going to cry for a sequel.

I knew gotham city wouldn't be blown up because I saw the same plot in the first movie happen.

Yes, and Jack Nicholson's roles fit into that, it was Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson, who was the joker IMO. I'm not saying Frank's is different than everybody elses, merely saying that my batman knowledge fits into Jack's. Very jack-ass statement by you, might I add.

If you are serious, you could be the most ignorant human being on the surface of the earth (the underground dwellers of the nemok nemok clan are the most ignorant).

Jack's roles are often sadistic and blackely humorous, it is his motif IMO.

Well, the guy who first affronted me said that the casting would be great, so I said it wouldn't. It is impossible for us to judge, but if that guy said it would be great, then surely he would be violating judging before released. Wouldn't he?

Finally, I'm glad you asked.
A. take away the self righteous characters, put some flaws in there, there was only one Jesus.
B. Give more flavor to the villains and supporting cast.
C. Change the Batmobile
D. Add some steady camera and some interesting fight scenes.

Great, 3 contradictions in a row.

I did pay attention to the film, it is a entertainment only feature that has dialogue that an 8 year old can identify with.

He SAID he withdrew his want for vengeance, but his actions prove otherwise as you've outlined in your second paragraph there.

He let him die and killing him are the same thing, if one is in a percieved harm and you have the ability to save that person and yourself, then you are in charge of that human being's life. If for some reason batman was unable to grab a batarang, tie a piece of string from it, stick in neeson's *******, and toss it on building, then batman would not be responsible for killing Neeson, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a super hero might be able to do that, as he was to do so easily to himself, and so stylishly, might I add.

Rha's Al Ghul's whole daughter situation and the time warp deal were destroyed, but he can come back from the dead? Pick and choose what you want from bat characters is it?

And besides, thats not the point of my argument, Ra's Al ghul might be dead (at least until Neeson finishes the drunken irishmen 3 and decides he wants some more money) and that is what we should think. I do not care if he comes back or not, that isn't a point with me, I'm merely stating what happened to him and the hypocrisy of the script talking about not inducing revenge, yet committing it all the same.

Please never bring up the state of Ra's Al ghul's life ever again to me, ever, because I am a very angry individual who will ramble off to even greater heights of verbal ineptitude if that comment is brought up again.

Their, swallow that, oh, and don't hate me But do i don't care about your kittens.

28 Days Later was a sleeper (and arguably a hit), so I doubt many people in the States wanted to see it. He was a nobody in Cold Mountain, and I doubt many of the Batman Begins crowd ever saw Girl with a Pearl Earring. He's fairly unknown to the general public otherwise.

Not every character in a film can be round. The Rachel Dawes character was a minor one designed for a specific function. I'm glad it was a function other than "loving Bruce Wayne" (and hate that they went that way at the very end without even building up to it). And I'll make this statement. No female character in any other Batman film (save for Andrea Beaumont in Mask of the Phantasm, maybe) was any deeper than Rachel Dawes.

Michael Caine was much more personable. In the comics, Alfred is personable, and keeps Bruce Wayne in check. And as for looks, neither of them really match up. Alfred doesn't usually wear glasses, and he almost always has a mustache.

Like I said, not every character can be round. Let's keep in mind that this film is based on a comic book where EVERY character is either an archetype, or is crammed with way too much backstory and development to represent in a film. While I would have liked a little more variety of character, I didn't expect any. Even the best recent run of Batman comics, character-speaking, was on par with this film. And come on, you can't honestly say that previous Batman films have had more characterization overall than Batman Begins. In Batman, it was the Joker. In Batman Returns, it was the Penguin. The next two don't matter, because NOBODY was well developed. In Batman Begins, it was Batman (rightfully). Take those away, and every other character you end up with was either flat, or pretty close to it.

And as far as what Chris Nolan does from now on, he's got the freedom to develop characters as he sees fit. The first one MUST be all about Batman, because he's the most important character. If you can't characterize him (and spend an entire film doing it, if you have to), then you've got next to nothing. Suffice it to say, if the Joker had been played by someone far less talented than Jack Nicholson, Tim Burton's Batman would have bombed. He was the glue holding that entire film together. Michael Keaton was sufficient, but he should have been more.

All I was saying is that Frank Miller's Joker isn't the be-all-end-all Joker simply because he was inspired by other interpretations, and because he has inspired other creations. Actually, he's more of a dark horse variation. Miller's Joker didn't smile or laugh much at all, whereas most other Jokers can't stop laughing. Again, I'm not going to differ with you and say that ol' Jack didn't make me think he was the Joker. But the Joker isn't just one interpretation. He's all of them.

My turn to make jokes. Of course I wasn't serious. But I disagree with this last statement. If anything, his characters are usually cynical. Yes, he prefers black humor. But he isn't sadistic. And he's not the Joker. He shares characteristics, maybe, but he isn't the Joker. And he isn't the only actor who shares characteristics with the Joker.

Yep. And he's wrong to do so.

Nearly every Batman villain is self-righteous.

Agreed. Now that we know who Batman is, he'll need to do this. The Joker is a perfect opportunity.

I was apprehensive about the Tumbler at first, but I think it fits the character. And now that I've seen the film, I realized that was a pretty superficial concern anyway. As long as it fits the story, who cares what the Batmobile looks like? (I never liked the Batmobile anyway, but I realize it was in the comics.)

Agreed. I wouldn't like to see too much steady cam work, because the cinematography they did in the film was nice. But the fight scenes were horribly underdeveloped. I mean, it's Batman! Come on!

I went to work and thought about this a while, and this is what I came up with:

Batman didn't let Ra's Al Ghul do anything. Ra's is more than capable of keeping himself alive (because he proved he was already capable of plenty else). In fact, Batman saved him once already. This time, Ra's is trying to destroy Gotham. Batman isn't obligated to do anything but protect his own ass. What is he going to do? Bring Ra's to justice? With what evidence? What witnesses? The only people who saw Ra's do anything illegal was either Batman, Ra's thugs, or anyone who was coked out with that fear toxin.

Disagreed. If someone is trying to kill you, you try to stay alive. You don't try to look out for your attempted murderer. Batman didn't leave him bruised, broken, and defenseless. He left him on his feet. Standing. If Ra's was going to do something about it, then it was up to him. Not Batman. Maybe Superman mollycoddles his villains, but Batman makes them fight. Or die trying. That's it.

The Talia stuff was written for the comic book format, not for film. Translating a comic to film means picking and choosing. And the fact that Ra's can revive himself is more important than his daughter ever was.

Let's keep it civil, chief. I don't care what you say to me, but the moderators might. If I pissed you off or offended you, apologies. I see where I might have, so I'll keep an eye on myself from now on. I'm hoping you'll do the same.

Cillian Murphy just sold a thriller duet with Red Eye. He was listed in various magazines in his post penis performance in 28 days later. All the people I knew knew who he was. So you can call me a liar, but that wouldn't be fact, I could say you are wrong but it wouldn't be fact. What is fact is that people DO know who he is, so he is another ticket to sales (sin city's lineup, anyone?). People also do NOT know who he is, but they know that a name on a poster is enough to warrant him famous. So, in a sense we are both right, however, he is another ticket to more sales anyway for fans of the 28 days later riff.

So you call Rachel Dowes a simple character, for a specific purpose, and then call her the deepest character in bathistory? Incorrect, the Michelle Pfifer character had many levels of her persona that shown through in returns, she was complex, more than a love interest, more than a villain, she was the in between. Her purpose was ultimately her existence as a strong woman in control of her own destiny, but it was multi layered. Rachel Dawes was the best friend educating the other best friend on morality.

Don't tell me that Dawes was deeper than Pfifer or any other woman for that matter.

But it is your opinion, but I liken that statement above to a statement like "Uwe Boll is a better director than Alfred Hitchcock".

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's wildness remains the same.

You thought the old dude wasn't personable? You don't think him smacking around wayne in returns and forever was nothing? He may have not fit the look of a batman butler, but he was a butler, I half expected the one dimensional cane to jump out with a musket and start taking down names 1776 style.

I'm going to agree with you on the subject of of the comic book characters being deep with alot of backstory. But I'm going to disagree with you that a movie can't convey it, or relationship ties which you are also in clear fault of that which is faulty.

IN Batman, Jack Napier was created, we had a bond between batman and Joker right there. The two parralled each other, batman was well developed. How can the man and bat coexist (overplayed in forever, but it was deep in the first one), how does a female fit into the picture? How does the relationship between Joker and Basinger and Batman and Wayne connect. I thought this was what made the movie great, Joker made a good villain, Basinger made a good girl, and keaton made a great wayne, and a decent batman (which is better than bale's bad wayne and good batman). The motivations behind their actions is what drove me to liking the movie as much as I did. For instance, why does the Joker kill people? Is he insane? Or is their an ulterior motif to his operation? Basinger, at the end of the movie, will she care who batman is even if she knows? Keaton, do I look fat in this suit?

These questions penetrated my mind throughout the movie, I didn't have one un cliched character in begins to do that with. They weren't rounded so it wasn't complex, to me. And Batman's goodness comes from it's psychologically painful cast of villains, the best in comics according to many. If I can view the Joker as complex, as a character who has many layers of his personality, then the movie succeeded in being good to the identity of batman. Even "if" it was joe chill who killed wayne's parents. Because, like you said, in order to be truly original one must endlessly explain and endlessly explain.


And as far as what Chris Nolan does from now on, he's got the freedom to develop characters as he sees fit. The first one MUST be all about Batman, because he's the most important character. If you can't characterize him (and spend an entire film doing it, if you have to), then you've got next to nothing. Suffice it to say, if the Joker had been played by someone far less talented than Jack Nicholson, Tim Burton's Batman would have bombed. He was the glue holding that entire film together. Michael Keaton was sufficient, but he should have been more.


This I'm aware of, my friend, batman has been in existence since what? You and Opie were boys? My point was to say that Nicholson's sadism identified with Miller's, and that Miller's is just another telling of the Joker. Joker was laughing, Nicholson was laughing. Nicholson did alot of primo, Nicholson was the joker.

The Joker is quite cynical of society, wouldn't you say? And would you also say his methods of dispersal (besides the classic hand gun) are quite cynical to society as well? And Nicholson's smile which was feigned all over a Sandler movie kind of says it to me "This B*tch is crazy." Nicholson was the joker.



If I lead you to believe that was my point, shame on me, I expect the view of the villain to not be one of pure evil, but one of complexity, one of hate, like the JOker character in batman. He wasn't just "bad", he was complex, and like I'm told to think when I heart huckabees or endless line of kubrick flicks we are supposed to think at the end of a movie. The joker made me think. Neeson made me cry for the state of Ireland.

Exactly, we know who batman is. Batman in burton 1 was a crime fighter with a past who turned down love to fight crime. Batman in burton 2 was a human being who disagreed on his affinity for a woman of crime and his own willingness to fight crime.

Many things bother me about that vehicle. For one, it's use: to jump across bridges to tie connecting lines. My father, who is a retired engineer, said the method of connecting lines together is much easier than sending them across a giant cliff, it is in fact, quite simple. The batmobile was not only never used, but it wasn't sleek or sexy, and why must you go to the floor? NO style, no imagination, burton's fantasy was much more pretty.


The scenes they did in the movie were standard hero faire, visuals of darkness with an offshoot of light, focus city/hero. I'm studying them right now, my film teacher said it is textbook the way nolan did it, and he likes the film.

The fight scenes were awful, and not stylish like in batman.


I went to work and thought about this a while, and this is what I came up with:
Yea, batman isn't obligated, but he said he quit veangance. You make moot points about evidence, batman is batman and he will nab the guy as you've laready demonstrated to me.

Neeson could've been saved, and should've, he's Irish, I blame the English.

Batman, through a spectacular array of bad fighting scenes and forgettable music already managed to bring 89th time super Akido sports star unforgettable GOD MODE legend Neeson in about 3 seconds, he was already subdued. A police officer must arrest that suspect, save him from danger if plausible, it is procedure, and it is the right thing to do for many reasons "Revenge is wrong" "Could be the wrong Guy" and "Killing justifies death".

Attributes batman would want to stay way from. Maybe superman mollycoddles, but according to the words from Nolan's script so is batman. If Begins was to tell a story about revenge, then that would've made sense, but killing and letting die are the same thing. Even if it was Neeson's mess.

It's just a fact that the script was hypocritical, a fact.


Sorry, I forgot that batman was actually made into a movie first, then translated into a comic book. The Batman Stuff, Ra's Al Ghul stuff, Scarecrow Stuff was all written into comic book format, her story shouldn't have been sacrificed.

That statement you made is just silly.
You are right, Rodriguez pummeled Sin City in his own perverted version.
Ra's ability to revive himself more important than his daughter ever was? That's an opinion for debate in comicopolis, I found Talia's daughter to be Ra's depth. Also, Ra's MOST important feature was not his revive ability, but his daughter, which is the only reason why his character exists in the first place (or at least his relationship to batman). Please don't get into an argumen that goes nowhere.

I mean how can you say something so obviously opinionated as that as fact. I mean, I've said some crap in my day, but that shovels in the cake!


it's your cats that will pay, not mine, so mark a million years from now on your calendar, that is when a black hole is going to open up in the andromeda galaxy, look it up, chief.

I'm sorry, but no one knows who Cillian was in North America....yes there are a select few, the film fans, and the fans of his movies, but not enough to be titled A TICKET SELLER.....

28 days later introduced him.
Batman Begins gave him a name and a face.
Red Eye made him a star.

Like the man said, he wasn't well enough known to be called "star power." Nobody went to see Batman Begins because Cillian Murphy was in it. His name was on the poster because he was a villain, and that's what the marketers were trying to sell. When Batman Begins was released, Cillian Murphy was a nobody, comparatively. They could have casted Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom, and THAT would have been star power. I'm done arguing this. It doesn't matter how famous Cillian Murphy is.

Fine. You win. I don't want to compare two characters who were written for two separate purposes. There was no need for a deep, engaging female character in Nolan's first effort. A sequel, maybe. Not Begins. Michelle Pfeiffer was alright, but she had some ****ty acting to account for, too. Some of her lines were bad. And Burton took some liberties with Catwoman, anyway. In the comics, she never died, and then became Catwoman, and actually had nine lives. Lame. But, she served her purpose as dual personality to mirror Batman, which wasn't all that original or interesting anyway. Talk about predictable.

Rachel Dawes, for the most part, was solid and believable. Catwoman was dynamic, but she was an archetype. Nothing more.

Sure, he was personable. But he wasn't as prominent and engaging as Michael Caine. Michael Gough is Michael Caine-light, I think. He challenged Bruce in the same manner as Caine, but not as strongly. And he didn't feel as close to Keaton as Caine did to Bale. That's my opinion. Judge it all you want.
(And if you think Michael Caine is one-dimensional, go rent Quills.)

That was a complete fabrication by Tim Burton. Joe Chill murdered the Waynes, not Jack Napier. I'm not against someone taking liberties, but you say Batman conveys the backstory and relationships from the comics, and that never happened in the comics.

Vicki Vale wasn't in the comics prior to Burton's film, either.

The film was great, but instead of use the existing material, it took liberties. It didn't convey much of the comics backstory or relationships at all. So, I'm still right.

There were still token characters. Knox. Alfred. The Joker was deep. Bruce and Vicki were sufficient. But again, the depth they achieved had a lot to do with the liberties ken with the writing. It would have been a greater achievement if they had adapted the comics a little more closely and had the same success. But like I said, it would have taken a little bit more attention. Batman Begins stays close to the source material, takes liberties when it needs to (some are bad liberties), and remains a decent comic book adaptation. I'm not saying it's better than Batman, quality-wise, but I am saying Nolan took the bigger challenge, and was still pretty good.

Actually, I didn't say that. What I said was, there's alot of backstory. You don't have to explain it, but it takes a little more tact to get things right while picking and choosing.

I'm done arguing the Joker, because you're not getting what I'm saying. Nicholson was a fantastic Joker, but unless he could somehow play every version of the Joker all at once, he can't possibly be the Joker. He's an actor, and he played the role. Others are capable, too. But let's say I agreed with you - that Jack Nicholson was the essential Joker. Does that mean that no one else should play him ever? Who cares if he's the best Joker ever?

When did we start comparing the Joker and Ra's? The Joker was great. Ra's was satisfactory (which is my opinion). You win.

This is Nolan's Batman, not Burton's. Nolan isn't going to let people assume that Burton's Batman is what they should have in mind. He's going to show his own Batman, and rightfully so.

One scene was enough for me. We needed to see more Batman, not more car.

Batman isn't sleek or sexy or pretty. Why should his ride be?

I don't think they need to be stylish (in Nolan's film, mind you). Viewable might be nice, though.

What good would saving him be if there was no evidence? So Batman could do the moral thing and let him run free? How much of a tool would Batman look like for that? Batman swore off vengeance, and went to stop Ra's. He wasn't there to kill him, and he wasn't there to save him. In a fight to the death, if Ra's dies, he dies. Batman isn't responsible for him. That isn't vengeance. That's survival.

Okay, let's put this all into perspective. There is more at work here than just Batman and Ra's Al Ghul. They're on a speeding train. Ra's is coming dangerously close to killing everyone in Gotham. Batman came to stop the train. Ra's is trying to kill Batman, not because he hates him, but because he'll screw up the plan. Batman stops the train, and leaves Ra's to deal with himself. If he dies, he dies. Not vengeance. Batman stopped the train. Batman does favor bringing someone to justice, as his conversations with Jim Gordon indicate. But they're on a speeding that's going to crash, and Ra's is still on his feet. Save him and risk dying yourself, and risk more harm to Gotham? Or let him be, because he can take care of himself? Batman didn't "let" poor Ra's die. He did what he needed to do, and he saved his own ass, so that he could fight another day. It was Ra's who put himself in the position to possibly get killed. If you take a risk, you take responsibility. If Ra's died, it was his own fault. That makes PERFECT sense.

Yeah, except the Talia stuff you were talking about was in the comics BEFORE any film. Nice try.

The movie was about Batman and Ra's Al Ghul. Some of the material was sacrificed between the two. Much of Scarecrow's source material was cut, as he was a minor villain. Not much more room for a character who's worth more baggage than the film can handle. I'd like to see Talia, too - but not in the first film (why do the Talia thing when Batman is just getting started?). Talia would have taken too much from Batman's genesis, and the film would have suffered.

Apparently not.

Comparing two completely different films with two completely different goals gets us nowhere.

I'll give you that one. There's something to be said about the ideological aspect of the Lazarus pits (and how they relate to the philosophies of Ra's), but you're right: a round character is more important than a concept. I retract my previous statement. Only, Talia and Ra's are hit-or-miss in the comics, and anymore, they're something of a "don't go there unless you have to" routine.

A police officer?

..and I quote, from the film....

"Do I look like a cop???"

Talk about moot points...

No, killing someone is nothing like letting someone die, especially if the one dying set in motion the events leading to their own death. So, a madman starts a runaway train with a bomb-ish device on it, and because someone refuses to pull him out of it, they are murdering him? Horse apples.


Straw man, and should be ignored as such. The correlation between comic and film is a different argument, altogether. Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda...

Ad hominem. Stop attacking the people making the srgument, start attacking the ideas.

Keep reading. There are far more stories involving Ra's that are not Talia centric, than stories that are. You are merely stating your perception of the character. Whether or not Ra's originally came about just to support Talia, doesn't mean his character is forever limited to that capacity. Besides, this is yet another straw man, and isn't relevant to whether or not batman Begins is a well made film. As we have al;ready covered earlier in the thread, the film is just yet another re-telling of an old story, open to the creators interpretation. There is no definitive batman story...Didn't we go over this already?

Like this one?

You have done this litterally dozens of times since joining the forums. Try to remember that.

His entire argument regarding Jack Nicholson's Joker is his opinion entirely, and he states it as if it's an irrefutable fact. Which it isn't.

I beg to differ, I know from first hand experience that people quoted his name and associated it with 28 days later. He wasn't the ONLY selling point like Freeman isn't the ONLY selling point, or Michael Cane for that matter.

Like I said, I know people who knew him, you cannot argue the case any more. Tom Cruise wasn't chosen because it would have to be about Tom Cruise. They chose Ciilian Murphy because he was in a popular cult zombie film and they knew they could identify. Do not arguem with me any more on this topic.

I understand that liberties were taken, which I believe I was able to convey to you, although it appears that did not happen. Rachel Dawes was not well played, it was overacted and dismissable as undeep. She was a simple characterization, the good friend helping the buddy with is problem. Catwoman may have been cliche, but she had depth, and Pfifer is a much better actress.

Well I guess we can disagree about this all day. Michael Caine is a good actor, but I felt this was another WB star hat picker, their are many good "butlers" out there. The batman butler had a face that we could identify him with, now, instead, we have Michael Caine, as we do Morgan Freeman. Roles that require an actor, not a star, but a star for sales, WB's strategy.

Here is where things get hairy from you. I knew that these were liberties taken out of thin air from Tim Burton, but I was describing them to you as a means of telling a story. My personal belief on a historical film (or with source material) is that the idea be conveyed, and that the means to an end can be different if they manage to convey the same point.

Why you somehow chopped up my response and put it into correction mode is beyond me. The intent of posting my like for the first film had nothing to do with your irrevelant blast of continuity to the comics. So, you are right about something that was never debated.

Well, to be honest, the better script is a whole different debate. I thought Burton's set, cinematography, and yes, even acting performances were better than begins. So in that sense, Burton did a better job than Nolan.

And I'm not ignorant of the liberties taken, I realize that Begins was closer to the original story line. But was sacrificed to me was interesting characters, plot depth, and good action. If the script for Batman would be like Begins, yet have the appeal that Batman does, then it would be a better movie.

But i'm not going to give in to a hypocritical hogwash story, even if it is the beginning view of batman.

Yes, endless backstory. YOu shouldn't explain it, and tact is left up to the individual instead of getting things right? I thought leaving out Talia ruined Ra's Al Ghul, and Gotham City was a bit overdone like New York instead of Fantasy like in Burton, or burlesque in Schumaker.

Next topic.



Absolutely 100% agree with you on that, he rightfully should show his own batman. But I don't like it, that's my point. I use Burton's examples as examples of better days for the batman universe. My opinion, the whole reason for existence of this argument.

One scene wasn't enough for me, the car was beautiful in batman and it was sleek and sexy, something only a man who wears black would drive.
Batman IN YOUR VERSION isn't sexy or pretty. Apparently, catwoman thought he was, that's how we got the huntress, or was it dark angel...... Some batbaby came out of a sadistic S&M relationship. All black does that to a man/woman.

Horrible batmobile.

YOu say no evidence, but that is not important. Justice is relative, I don't believe killing is right, but Guy Pearce had to shoot the irishman in the back in order to continue justice, I understand. But, keep in mind, that we do not need to know about evidence because it didn't happen, this point is moot, evidence could be conjured up in any scenario, quit talking about this topic as it is irrevelant.

Batman had the ability to subdue Neeson, arrest him, and save him. Like I said, forget moot point evidence, it was all possible, and Batman didn't do it.

Note to Sedai: If you are in danger for your life, then you must take all means to save your life. But if you are facing a human being who has been rendered useless by you or another, and you can save that human being from danger as well as yourself, it is on you. Now, if that person would be trying to kill you, then you do not have to abide. But, as it was quoted in the batman movie "I don't have to save you". That quote not only implies that Neeson was rendered unusuable, but also in a percieved danger that batman could react too.

Batman, if he truly swore off vengeance, should've killed Neeson. Forget the moot point about evidence and all that razzle.

No, incorrect, Perfect sense statement was foolish. Batman is batman, a speeding train is ingrained into a hero's soul. It is practically Remedial Math for heroes.

You see, if batman was the type to say "Wallow in your own mess" or "Revenge is the only way to justice" then letting Ra's Al Ghul die on that train would've been a productive encounter.

However, he was against killing, and against revenge as quoted in the movie.

Now, both you and Sedai want to argue with me that he should've died, and that is a personal opinion that can't be argued, except for the script which hypocritizes (look it up) the situation. Think Hard "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." That is implying that NEeson has to wallow in his mess. The point of whether that is good or bad holds not pertinence to the topic because in the movie it specifically states that killing another human being is wrong. Batman's life is not in danger, and he has the ability to save Ra's Al Ghul, it's simple fact. That is PERFECT sense.

I must do an awful job of verbalization to you. Apparently you didn't get my sarcasm. I believe your previous statement was something that "Yea, but Talia wasn't in the movie" type deal. I was pointing out that all characters were in the comics before the movie, as it appeared you said that.


Scarecrow is an awesome villain, my favorite from TAS and Batman comics. Seeing him be nothing engulfed me in flames. Sure, Joker was f'ed up in Burton's movie, but at least he got some play. A minor character is a simple Bane or clayface. A complex character is Scarecrow. This was an all out miss by Begins.

Hmmm, meanwhile Bane is super complex, and was trashed in Batman and Robin. Bane is the only villain to ever beat Batman both physically and strategically, as showcased in the massive Broken Bat series in the early 90s. He bested Batman by running him ragged, and then taking him apart in a physical fight, eventually putting him in traction, after breaking his back. Certainly not a chump, or a pushover villain, by any stretch...

i love this thread!

to show how fair some members are sometimes though (maybe they were having a bad day - whom doesn't it happen to?),
here's a quote from another thread after a long post of mine:

http://www.movieforums.com/community...1&page=5&pp=25

i'm glad to see the word "ridiculous" written right! hehe
and of course i don't agree: if one likes reading, one will appreciate deeper discussions, and opinions that may take a long text to be expressed... plus the ones who don't wanna read, no one forces them.

and.......... wasn't anyone disappointed to see in Batman Begins
1) the trite ninjas (we see everywhere, too often)?
2) ninjas... in Tibet?
3) ninjas... like Daredevil's enemies The Hand, not like Ra'z Al Ghul army of killers in the comics?

that's about the only thing i didn't like (or would change) about that movie, plus of course Katie's cheesy part (probably wouldn't choose such a banal actress either...)

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Yes, all of my friends and fellow film-fans know who he is, too. But that's hardly every person who saw Batman Begins. Why don't you elaborate on who these people that you mentioned are, and why their points of view matter in relation to the entire viewing public.

I see. Because people you know are the only people in the world. That makes your point irrefutable. Yeah, that makes sense.

Look, we can theorize why Cillian Murphy was chosen all day, and we'd never know the right answer. So there is no reason to argue that question. What we were arguing, however, is "star power," and if Cillian Murphy could be classified as star power at the time Batman Begins was released. You've spoken your opinion, and I have spoken mine. The term is subject to interpretation, and we disagree. Neither of us is irrefutably right. End of conversation.

Yeah, because thinking you're irrefutably right makes you think you can talk to me this way. I'll argue what I want to argue.

Again, you've missed my point. Yes, Michelle Pfeiffer played the better part... IF you generalize the "female role." But what I'M saying is that it's an unfair comparison, because the two roles were created for two completely different reasons. Rachel Dawes wasn't deep because she didn't NEED to be deep. She's a minor character, and just because she's the only woman in the film DOESN'T make her the female lead. In fact, as I stated before, she was probably only put there to supplement Harvey Dent, and to keep the film from being a sausage fest. Katie Holmes' acting wasn't great, which is unfortunate, but here's my opinion: she did her job. I didn't need any great acting from her, and I didn't expect any either. She wasn't horrible, and her acting didn't ruin (or even really mar) the film. The writing could have been better with respect to Dawes, but I'm glad the better writing went elsewhere. You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine. We disagree. Neither of us is irrefutably right. End of conversation.

Do you really think the names brought the film down? That because they are stars made the film unaccessible to the viewing audience? There is a REASON why these guys are so well-known. They are incredible actors (with Oscars in tow), and from a filmmaking standpoint, you want the best actors fitted for the roles. Alfred is important. In the first film, Lucius Fox is important (and a welcome addition, I would argue). Solid, unknown actors could have done the job, of course, and no one would have complained. But Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman complemented Christian Bale's Batman, and made for a stronger film altogether. As I recall, people applauded their performances, and they were among the first re-signed.

As an aside, I'll agree that huge actors put into unnecessary roles CAN hinder a film. But in the case of Batman Begins, that was not what happened. Admittedly, I had my concerns about how many names were in the film before its release, but they all worked well together, and made a stronger film. That's my opinion, and judging from what others have said about the film, I don't think I'm alone.

And I agree. I wasn't saying Tim Burton did anything wrong. He crafted the story he wanted to tell without restriction, and it was great. I'm not against liberty-taking, so long as it makes for a good story. But what I said was, the bigger challenge is telling a good story WHILE sticking as close to the source material as possible. In my opinion, Batman Begins did this, and succeeded in telling a great story. So, more points to Chris Nolan. It's the difference between building with what you want, and building with what you've been given. Which is harder? Which deserves more praise for success?

I thought the Begins Gotham City was excellent, simply because it was based on Chicago (not New York), which was Bob Kane's inspiration. It was real-world, but it had a touch of individuality all its own, so that it felt more like Gotham, and less like Chicago. Burton's Gotham was nice and neo-gothic (similar to the Animated Series, which had an incredible city design). Both versions kept an attention to the original character. And while I applaud liberty-taking for the sake of freshness, Schumaker's Gotham was just silly. It didn't work.

I differ with every incarnation of the Batmobile, comics and all. They've all been stylish and dynamic and borderline gaudy, and none of them have EVER matched the character (well, except for the 60's Batman). If you're going to write a grim, brooding Batman, then you have to match him with a car that is grim and brooding. Otherwise, THAT becomes hypocritical. And yes, in my opinion, the style of Burton's Batmobile did not match Burton's Batman. It was a nice design, and I loved it when it first came out - but in my opinion, it doesn't match.

(And if I recall, I think Burton's Batmobile got as much screen time as Nolan's Tumbler. It might have gotten a little more, but it's gotta be close.)

So, in your version, he IS sexy and pretty? Did you like the Bat-nipples?

It was Dark Angel, and I hate both of those characters.

To you, that is.

Question: What did you think of Frank Miller's DKR Batmobile?

It is VERY much relevant, and with respect to the film, this point was NOT moot. In the film, the whole reason why they couldn't jail Falcone is because they couldn't get the EVIDENCE to convict him. So no, evidence cannot be "conjured up in any scenario," as you stated. And because of the fact that Batman was committed to using evidence to convict Falcone, one could assume that he would hold the same regard for Ra's Al Ghul. I mentioned that in my previous reply. Did you ignore it?

"Do I look like a cop?!"

I believe Sedai quoted that from the film. You must have either not seen it or ignored it. If Batman had "arrested" Ra's Al Ghul (ignoring for a moment that Batman can't actually arrest people), wouldn't that have been a hypocrisy of the script? Let's say he chained him up for the police to find like he did with Falcone. What could the police have done? Nothing. No evidence. No fingerprints. No witnesses worth their word. Don't tell me that evidence is a moot issue, because the film says it's not.

I explained why Batman didn't do it, and my explanation was reasonable. You ignored it, and you restated your own generalized point about "killing" and "letting die" being the same thing.

For one, they're not always the same. It's a circumstantial issue. And for another, I explained why your point doesn't apply here. Batman didn't "let" Ra's Al Ghul die. Earlier in the film, if you'll recall, Bruce saved Ra's from dying. Ra's was unconscious, and was in danger of dying through no fault of his own. On the train, however, that was a MUCH different issue. So let's be reasonable. Even goodie-goodie superheroes who don't seek revenge don't save their enemies, either. Batman didn't kill Ra's. Ra's killed himself. Batman didn't save Ra's because he didn't have to. Ra's had the responsibility to save himself. I shouldn't have to say this again. Interpret the film however you want, but don't try to argue generalizations while ignoring reasonable, relevant information and arguments.

Ra's was rendered useless? I'd say that's up for interpretation, and I don't know if you could reasonably make that case. He was conscious, and he was uninjured. Batman was on him, but that doesn't mean anything. If the fight was real, Ra's wouldn't have stopped to listen to Batman speak a few lines. He would have thrown Batman off him and kept fighting. He was NOT incapacitated. And even though he didn't, that doesn't change the fact that he was NOT incapacitated.

There you go. Right there.

No. It implies that he was NOT rendered "unusable." If he was incapacitated, then Batman WOULD have to save him (lest it be his fault). But Ra's was not incapacitated, and he was trying to kill Batman and everyone else, and he put himself in that position on his own accord. That being the case, the statement "I don't have to save you" applies.

Again, generalizing. Heroes differ. And anyway, Batman did play the hero. He saved Gotham City from Ra's Al Ghul. Let's keep in mind who was the VILLAIN here, and Ra's died because Ra's put himself in a position to get killed. Speeding train. Ra's wasn't tied to the tracks. Ra's wasn't handcuffed to the seats. Ra's was up and fighting, and not getting the hell off that train.

And was that all you could come up with to counter my arguments? A shallow attack on a reasonable statement (without even trying to disprove my points), and a generalization? Please try again.

And I've explained how Batman didn't kill Ra's OR seek revenge. He fought him, and ensured the safety of Gotham City. If that meant challenging Ra's to save his own ass, then so be it. Ra's put himself in a position in which saving himself was impossible, not Batman. Because of this, Batman does NOT have to save him. If Ra's dies, it's Ra's fault.

"You've sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke." Ra's Al Ghul put himself on a speeding train with an extreme possibility for death.

I've proven that there is no hypocrisy in the script.

You're arguing as if nobody has a choice. Ra's didn't have a choice to be on the speeding train and possibly get himself killed? Batman doesn't have a choice to save or not save, no matter the circumstances? You want to talk about character depth... The things that make characters deep, first and foremost, are the choices they make. Ra's made a choice. Ra's is responsible for himself. Batman is responsible for saving the people of Gotham - people who are under threat of dying through no choice of their own. Batman, before anything, has the responsibility to save those people, because letting them die - in THAT case - would be killing. Ra's put these people in this position, and put himself in harm's way to do so. Ra's made that choice, and as such, is responsible for that choice (and whatever happens as a result). End of story.

Yeah, this is just an argument of preference, of which I won't blame you. I couldn't care less about the Scarecrow, and even if I could, I'm not against dumbing characters down for story purposes. In Batman Begins, the Scarecrow didn't need to be major. In fact, I sorta liked how Crane didn't "become" the Scarecrow - he just "was". Made him creepier.

Who says minor characters can't be major, and vice versa? "Major" and "minor" has to do with how they are used by the author or filmmaker. It's not a lifelong distinction.

This thread has gotten off-topic. I'm done arguing these issues.