MOVIES: Batman

[jedi hunter]

Originally posted by James T. Skywalker+Jun 23 2005, 12:13 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James T. Skywalker @ Jun 23 2005, 12:13 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jedi hunter@Jun 22 2005, 09:26 PM
I thought the Joker killed Bruce's parents. <div onClick="openClose('a33d4305fc6463cb46198fe1f491a007')" style="font-weight: bold">[ Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide]</div><div id="a33d4305fc6463cb46198fe1f491a007" style="display:none"> What was up with the guy at the beginig that shot his parents. I thought that was the joker until the guy was shot by the girl after the trial.</div>




and just in case some else hasnt posted this....

Here is a link to rumors and speculations on the possible upcomming batman.
Batman: Year one.
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808403071
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Dude, this film has absolutely no relation to the previous Batman films. It's a whole new continuity. They discarded those films and are starting over from scratch. Joe Chill was the killer of Thomas and Martha Wayne, not Jack Napier.

And the Batman: Year One project they were speculating upon in that Yahoo link was the film we're talking about here.

~JTS
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Sorry, Since this was a Batman thread and not much is known about Batman year one i figured i would post it instead of wasting topic space.

[Mann]

Paul Bettany=Riddler.

[BomarrPunk]

Now I'm hearing Sean Penn as Joker. That could be cool but I just ran through google images to see if I could find a picture to side-by-side with no luck! I wanted to find one of him smiling, the dude doesnt smile. Oh well, he could pull it off I'm sure.

[James T. Skywalker]

Please, no big-names unless they're so overly qualified to play the part that there is no reason not to go after them.

Sean Penn could NOT play the Joker, unless they wanna turn the Joker into a whining faux-journalist who shouts "impeach the President" every few minutes...

Mark Hamill shouldn't be the Joker, he's just a little too old for it. And we don't need too many ties to the cartoon...

Johnny Depp (another rumor) shouldn't be the Joker, just because of his associations to Tim Burton...

And again, why don't people start a "Batman Begins Sequel" thread, where this stuff would more properly belong?

EDIT: What the heck, I'll do that...

~JTS

[mtel1979]

Joker-Adrian Brodey.......thoughts?

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by mtel1979@Jun 24 2005, 03:20 PM
Joker-Adrian Brodey.......thoughts?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I always thought he would have made a good Crane. In fact he was my first choice to play Crane, but I'm happy with Cillian Murphy's job.

Sean Penn would indeed suck. He doesn't have the kind of energy it would take to play the Joker. Penn plays roles where it requires him to be soft spoken and then angry at times...he just doesn't make a logical choice for the Joker.

[Filoviridae]

Someone just needs to shoot Sean Penn and put him out of my misery. Never has there been an actor whose 'talent' was so inflated beyond what it actually is.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Filoviridae@Jun 25 2005, 12:04 AM
Someone just needs to shoot Sean Penn and put him out of my misery. Never has there been an actor whose 'talent' was so inflated beyond what it actually is.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Oh you just became my new best friend.

[mtel1979]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 24 2005, 09:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 24 2005, 09:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Filoviridae@Jun 25 2005, 12:04 AM
Someone just needs to shoot Sean Penn and put him out of my misery. Never has there been an actor whose 'talent' was so inflated beyond what it actually is.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Oh you just became my new best friend.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]


Hey, bud. What's your problem?


But honestly, that was his only great role............

[Mann]

my problem...? Sean Penn acting is a problem, but are you getting defensive about somehting?

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by Filoviridae@Jun 24 2005, 06:04 PM
Someone just needs to shoot Sean Penn and put him out of my misery. Never has there been an actor whose 'talent' was so inflated beyond what it actually is.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks this!

[mtel1979]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 24 2005, 09:11 PM
my problem...? Sean Penn acting is a problem, but are you getting defensive about somehting?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



If youv'e ever seen Fast Times you'd get the reference and like I said it was his only great role. I am in no way defending Sean Penn at all.

[Mann]

Originally posted by mtel1979+Jun 25 2005, 02:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mtel1979 @ Jun 25 2005, 02:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 24 2005, 09:11 PM
my problem...? Sean Penn acting is a problem, but are you getting defensive about somehting?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



If youv'e ever seen Fast Times you'd get the reference and like I said it was his only great role. I am in no way defending Sean Penn at all.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Awesome! Totally awesome! All right, Hamilton!

Sorry I didn't get the reference. I do now.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Filoviridae@Jun 24 2005, 07:04 PM
Someone just needs to shoot Sean Penn and put him out of my misery. Never has there been an actor whose 'talent' was so inflated beyond what it actually is.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

You know the old saying...If I don't have nothing nice to say (about Sean Penn), I shouldn't say anything at all. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

Well, I cant hold it in. He sux!

[Justin]

Well if you don't say bad things then your wishes will be trampled upon. Just look at how AICN has altered the course of mighty film studios with their "talkbacks."

If not for them and their profane anything-goes forum we would be getting that crazy J.J. Abrams/Jon Peters Superman (although to be fair I think a small portion of of that script wasn't too bad, but the bad stuff was WAY bad) and a comedy Green Lantern movie starring Jack Black.

[Mann]

J.J. Abrams is one of the very best people in show business.

That said his superman was not a good idea. this one they are making can out do it.

[Justin]

I think a lot of the problems (most of them actually) were studio-mandated things, because I had heard for a long time that Jon Peters was pushing for certain things that appeared in Abrams' draft to happen.

Although there were a few things that were probably JJ's ideas that I didn't really like all that much either.

But this discussion is for another thread. I believe we have a Superman Returns thread somewhere...

[JediBendu]

have only just got round to seeing it - and I'm kicking myself for waiting 2 weeks!

excellent film!!!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif

it eclipses the previous batman films by a factor of, oh say a billion!

the fact there's definitely another 2 in the works is enough to let me sleep easily at night style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/drool.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jun 25 2005, 05:17 AM
the fact there's definitely another 2 in the works is enough to let me sleep easily at night style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/drool.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

So did Christian sign on for a total of three? Does anybody know?

[Col. Vefalu]

Originally posted by P-Ray@Jun 25 2005, 08:21 AM
So did Christian sign on for a total of three? Does anybody know?
Christian Bale discusses "Batman Begins" (http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batmancb060805.htm)

Christian Bale on the Finished Film: Bale's signed on to three "Batman" movies and said he'll be doing them if people like this one. “I’m really happy with it. I think Chris did a fantastic job with it. I think it’s gonna be the first movie that really pleases the hard core graphic novel fans of ‘Batman,’ but also it’s something the people not familiar with can go along and just enjoy because it’s good filmmaking. You know, it’s a good story.”

Apparently, Holmes has been dropped (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2072.asp) from the sequel.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by Col. Vefalu+Jun 25 2005, 08:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Col. Vefalu @ Jun 25 2005, 08:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-P-Ray@Jun 25 2005, 08:21 AM
So did Christian sign on for a total of three? Does anybody know?
Christian Bale discusses "Batman Begins" (http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batmancb060805.htm)

Christian Bale on the Finished Film: Bale's signed on to three "Batman" movies and said he'll be doing them if people like this one. “I’m really happy with it. I think Chris did a fantastic job with it. I think it’s gonna be the first movie that really pleases the hard core graphic novel fans of ‘Batman,’ but also it’s something the people not familiar with can go along and just enjoy because it’s good filmmaking. You know, it’s a good story.”


<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

SWEET!!!!!!!!!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/victory.gif BALE IS BATMAN!!!!!!!

Favorite line: SWEAR TO ME! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif

[Justin]

My favorite line was "would you like to see my mask?"

[Mann]

Favorite Line: Do you expect to run into much gunfire in these caves?

[mattypo]

"didn't you get the memo?" style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[BomarrPunk]

I loved this exchange after the mask gets smashed...

ALFRED
Problems with the graphite mixture, apparently. The next ten thousand will be up to specifications.

BRUCE
At least they gave us a discount.

ALFRED
Quite. In the meantime, might I suggest, sir, that you try to avoid landing on your head?

All of the Alfred stuff was great.

[BobPalpatine]

Yea I liked the Alfred stuff too because he could get away with more light humor than Bruce could.

ALFRED
You can borrow the Rolls if you like sir. Just make sure you bring it back with a full tank.

[borgmatrix]

I saw "Begins" saturday. I'd heard a lot about it, and knew it was something different, but still found myself startled by it. It wasn't what I'd expected and as I left the theater, I wasn't certain if that was bad or good.

Well, the more I think about it, the more I like it. My major criticism is of the filming of the fights. I like the idea of giving us some sense of what Batman's opponents experience...the brutal blur as he come out of nowhere and turns their worlds upside down. But while I have no problem with making Batman's first fight simply an overall impression for effect, is it really necessary to use that approach every single time he fights? What exactly is the point of making every fight indiscernible? I question the need to even film the fights if we can't understand them. This was a problem, in particular, during the climactic Bats/Ra's battle. If there was anytime when we needed some visual clarity, this was it.

I also thought the movie felt a little rushed. There was so much packed into it's 2 hr, 20 min running time that I didn't feel everything had a chance to breathe. That's my initial impression, which could change upon seeing it again.

But everything else was quite good. I'd say, tentatively, this is the best of the Batman movies, but I need to let it sink in more before saying for certain. It's easily better than BR, BF, and B&R. In comparison to the '89 Batman, I don't know.

Now I'm going to mention some specifics and instead of wrapping all of it in spoiler tags, I'll just give a warning here up front. If you haven't seen it yet, read no farther.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Some of my favorite moments:

*The first time we see Crane put on the Scarecrow mask and spray his fear gas.
*The Tumbler leaping through the waterfall to enter the cave.
*Batman in action for the first time against Falcone's thugs. That brutal blur I mentioned above.
*Batman, ablaze, taking that fall and Alfred getting the hallucinating Dark Knight out of there.
*Near the end, seeing Batman as those exposed to the gas were seeing him: a bat creature with blazing red eyes and a gaping mouth.
*Batman interrogating Gordon's partner.
*Batman summoning the bats at Arkham, his drop down that stairway with his cape spread out, and watching him march through the halls after that, surrounded by bats.
*"Drunken Billionaire Burns Down Mansion"

[Virus]

Saw this movie tonight. Better than BR, BF and B&R by a long shot. However........and this is a big however, its about a 4 compared to Batman 1989 which is a 10. It just doesn't have a classic feel that the Keaton/Nicholson had and the plot doesn't pull you in as much. Also Burton adds a whole lot more than Nolan. Its still a great movie and its interesting to see where he came from (even though I hated how they changed it so that they Joker didn't kill his parents). I give it 3 stars out of 5. I'll comment more on this later. Especially about how bad a$$ the Batmobile is. I also pray they don't do a sequel but Hollywood execs won't let that pass them by. More to come on my comments.

[Justin]

They didn't change it so the Joker didn't kill his parents. That's something they changed for the Burton version. In the comics, Joe Chill was the two-bit mugger who shot the Waynes, just like in the new movie.

BTW why do you want them to not make a sequel just because you don't want to see it? The rest of us very much want to see a sequel and I think it's hardly fair to want to deprive us of one just because you don't want to see it.

[Justin]

Originally posted by BobPalpatine@Jun 26 2005, 09:58 PM
Yea I liked the Alfred stuff too because he could get away with more light humor than Bruce could.

ALFRED
You can borrow the Rolls if you like sir. Just make sure you bring it back with a full tank.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

My only problem was Alfred ought to have a more "refined" British accent in my opinion, if you know what I mean.

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 26 2005, 11:30 PM
Saw this movie tonight. Better than BR, BF and B&R by a long shot. However........and this is a big however, its about a 4 compared to Batman 1989 which is a 10. It just doesn't have a classic feel that the Keaton/Nicholson had and the plot doesn't pull you in as much. Also Burton adds a whole lot more than Nolan. Its still a great movie and its interesting to see where he came from (even though I hated how they changed it so that they Joker didn't kill his parents). I give it 3 stars out of 5. I'll comment more on this later. Especially about how bad a$$ the Batmobile is. I also pray they don't do a sequel but Hollywood execs won't let that pass them by. More to come on my comments.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Wow, guess you have never read the comics eh?

I really don't get your statement as to not doing a sequel. This is the kind of story that is set up for more than just one movie. There is a lot more to Batman than just his beginning. I think you have very little in the strength of the character that is Batman. Do you wonder why there is a reason he has been going on for so long in so many different mediums?

As for Burton's Batman being better...Well its all opinion, but I tried watching it yesterday and it just doesn't hold up well after watching Begins.

Oh well, to each his own.

Justin, the accent didn't bother me all that much. I thought the main part of the character came through. Alfred is just there to support Bruce/Bats during his harder times and to be his father figure. Which I thought he did pretty well.

[Daibutsusan73]

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 12:30 AM
Saw this movie tonight. Better than BR, BF and B&R by a long shot. However........and this is a big however, its about a 4 compared to Batman 1989 which is a 10.

(even though I hated how they changed it so that they Joker didn't kill his parents). I give it 3 stars out of 5. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>
Ha ha, whenever I see Pai Mei's face, I know to expect an unusual opinion.

Seriously though, I love Burton's Batman, but it's just that...."Tim Burtons Batman."

From your post Vurus I can tell you're not terribly farmilliar with Batman outside of the films. Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by Joe Chill in the comics, not the Joker.

[Justin]

The plot in Burton's Batman is also pretty thin. It's about the visuals much more than the story.

Danny Elfman's music has Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's beat though.

[Mann]

Well he already said he thougth it was a rip off...

Burton changed the history of Batman in order to make the Joker more evil than he was already. If anything the Joker was the reason the film was made.

In this film Batman is the story, as it should be. They have always done the villians...but this time Bale became the true embodiment of Bruce Wayne.

This is the style of filmmaking i would prefer to the Schumacher and Burton films. I love Burton and think he's a better director overall than Nolan (who might shows promise but hasn't had the kind of success Burton has had) but this series is for Nolan and directors like him.

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 27 2005, 12:49 AM
The plot in Burton's Batman is also pretty thin. It's about the visuals much more than the story.

Danny Elfman's music has Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's beat though.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yea, the score is the only thing I like more in Burton's Batman. Not that I don't like the one in Batman Begins. It just doesn't evoke the motion that Elfman's themes do.

I'm actually doing a study with some friends right now on how music affects the way a scene turns out. We are doing basically the same scene with different music behind it, which changes the way we edit it also. Its really cool how much music affects the vision of film.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 27 2005, 06:49 AM
The plot in Burton's Batman is also pretty thin. It's about the visuals much more than the story.

Danny Elfman's music has Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's beat though.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


So rigth on the second count (though it should be noted that upon its release, batman was criticized for its score)

on the first, I would say that the visuals are what makes the film great. Burton took the comic and popped it out on camera visually. Like Sin City does(but not as complete). The Oscar winning art direction out does Batman Begins, but Gotham as a whole is a much more realistic city in this film.

Which is the fundamental difference between the series:

Burton and Schumacher went for the unrealistic approach to the film. They also camped it up to the extreme.

Nolan went for the realistic.

that is what makes the difference.

My ratings
Batman Begins- ****
Batman-****
Batman Returns-***
Batman Forever-***
Batman and Robin-1/2*
Batman (TV movie)- **

[P-Ray]

I know that I personally can't wait for a sequel!

And Batman Begins is the closest to the comicbook version of Batman.

[cj790]

Seen it twice, loved it both times.
Easily the best screen outing for Bats IMHO - had more of the feel of the comics.

I loved the touches of humour with Alfred (Caine was perfect) and Fox.
"What's the point of doing all those push ups if you can't even lift a bloody log!" - great!
Even Bats himself made a funny now and then.

Bale was just tremendous. Best Batman yet (and I hate being so transitory in saying that just as the film comes out, but it's true IMHO). I can't heap enough praise on him, or the entire cast, for their performances. The script was very strong (best dialogue I've seen this year) and I had no problem with the pacing at all.

Stunning film.

[mtel1979]

The only complaint I had with the movie was that Alfred is skinny, Micheal Caine is not. That aside though Micheal Caine MADE Alfred in the movie and that more than makes up for his girth.

[darthimmus]

Got to love David Goyer...he understands comics. He also knows what will work and won't. He's writing a Flash movie now and it sounds like it's gonna be pretty wild.

[Virus]

All opinions. And I have mine as well.

Thanks for the info about Burton changing around the comics. That's interesting but to the general public, they don't know this. To just about everyone, the Joker killed his parents. Sure Burton rewrote the history of Batman/Bruce Wayne, but the fact that this was never done on film was his decision back then. He beat Nolan to the punch of showing this part of his life on film so his version is the standard. Its funny how people with these movies will defend the comics over the movies but when it comes to Star Wars, it the other way around. Think about it with this forum.

As for the sequel, I'm sorry if you want it but I don't see many people dying to see another one of these. This movie is just going to past breaking even at the box office (US) so the sequel will most likely do worse. Also, it has already confused tons of people by changing who killed his parents so its going to confuse even more non-comic book readers when they see the Joker again. Come up with something new Hollywood, you bore me.

I also really didn't care for the Scarecrow as the villian. Very weak and I never felt that Batman was in any harm throughout this film. But I guess this movie was aiming more towards Batman himself, which is nice.

[thechosen1]

I thought that this Batman was quite possibly the best of all of them, EXCEPT for maybe the first. I was getting tired and frustrated with the over the top villians and unbelievable storylines that in no way followed that of the comic books. I liked it because it was a much darker and subtle movie than the rest.

I thought Scarecrow was a great villian though maybe could have done a little more with him, I agree that I never really felt as if Bruce Wayne/Batman was ever in any real harm. But then again, was that really the point of the movie or was it more to exlplain his origins?

Now that I sit back, I'm not sure if they are doing a sequel, what if they are just tying it into the first Batman?

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 04:45 PM
All opinions. And I have mine as well.

Thanks for the info about Burton changing around the comics. That's interesting but to the general public, they don't know this. To just about everyone, the Joker killed his parents. Sure Burton rewrote the history of Batman/Bruce Wayne, but the fact that this was never done on film was his decision back then. He beat Nolan to the punch of showing this part of his life on film so his version is the standard. Its funny how people with these movies will defend the comics over the movies but when it comes to Star Wars, it the other way around. Think about it with this forum.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Well that is because Star Wars is first a movie and comics are just based on it. Batman is first a comic, all movies are just based on it. They are two completely different things. Batman has a following first and foremost because of the comics, not from the movies.

[thechosen1]

^agreed...

[borgmatrix]

Again, I'll give a spoiler heads-up since I might mention some specifics from the movie.

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 10:45 PM
He beat Nolan to the punch of showing this part of his life on film so his version is the standard.

It's not a question of beating one to the punch. Burton/Hamm made a choice to alter things and go with the Joker. Nolan/Goyer chose to stick with the original killer. That's all it is. There's no requirement that Nolan and Goyer follow everything Burton did. The '89 Batman is not the standard or the Batman bible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Its funny how people with these movies will defend the comics over the movies but when it comes to Star Wars, it the other way around.* Think about it with this forum.
[/b][/quote]
Star Wars began with movies, so that's the "true" and canon story. With Batman, its the comics that originated the stories, so its the comics that represent the official Batman universe. Whether or not most have read the comics, most do know that Batman came from the comics and should understand that represents the reality for the character, not Tim Burton. Was anyone puzzled in 1989 when the movie differed from the Adam West series? Was there any requirement that Burton stick with the "standard" of the 60s Batman movie? Of course not. That's ridiculous idea. We've got two different visions here, so naturally there are going to be differences. If people are too stupid to realize this is something different when early on Joe Chill, and not Jack Napier, shoots the Waynes (an obvious difference), one cannot blame Nolan, Goyer, or anyone attached with "Begins".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for the sequel, I'm sorry if you want it but I don't see many people dying to see another one of these.* [/b][/quote]
Go to rottentomatoes.com and read the reviews there. So many of them cite a definite interest in seeing another one. And I highly doubt everyone one of those favorable reviews are coming from diehard comic book fans. They're just people, and they loved the movie. And the box office results of these past two weekends indicate the general public is interested in Batman. There is going to be interest for a sequel. You weren't interested in seeing a new Batman before Begins arrived, so naturally you're not anticipating a sequel. But don't project that on everyone else.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, it has already confused tons of people by changing who killed his parents so its going to confuse even more non-comic book readers when they see the Joker again.* Come up with something new Hollywood, you bore me.
[/b][/quote]
This is so inconsistent. You're critical of "Begins" because it's not the same as the previous (Joker killing the Waynes), yet you're also complaining because you want somethign new? And you did watch the movie, didn't you? So why are you saying this? There's so much that's different about his movie, so much that has not appeared in the previous Batman movies in any significant form. It was strikingly different and I find it stunning you don't seem to recognize that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Very weak and I never felt that Batman was in any harm throughout this film. [/b][/quote]
So I take it you missed the scene when Batman was gassed, set afire, leapt out that high window, and had to be rescued by Alfred?

[thechosen1]

I agree wholeheartedly with your arguement up until the Batman being in harm thing. You have to admit that they could have done more to show the dangers Batman was in...

[Mann]

The general Public probably has forgotten that the orignal Batman had Joker killing his parents.

More people have probably read the comics anyway.

[thechosen1]

^ditto, most people (even one who doesn't read the comics) are pretty familiar with the death of Batman's parents.

[jedi hunter]

Very weak and I never felt that Batman was in any harm throughout this film.
So I take it you missed the scene when Batman was gassed, set afire, leapt out that high window, and had to be rescued by Alfred?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/quote]


very true.

[MANVERU]

I found that the Batman in this one was very intimidating!
Especcially when he held that fat cop upside down by a cable and was dropping over and over again.
Quote:
"WHERE IS HE!"

that was pretty scary!

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 28 2005, 12:35 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with your arguement up until the Batman being in harm thing. You have to admit that they could have done more to show the dangers Batman was in...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Physically, we saw him beat up by Ducard at the beginning. We saw, as I mentioned above, that scene in which he got torched and could have easily been killed. We saw the bruising on his arm after his first night out as Batman as well as reference to the fact he was still in bed at 3:00pm, definitely experiencing the after-effects of being involved in something so physical. After his conversation with Gordon, we saw Bruce take that desperate leap to escape the police, clearly hurting himself and which could have resulted in serious injuries. We saw Batman swarmed by the inmates at the end and barely pulling himself out of that. There was his fight with Ra's at the end, in which he was not only dishing out punishment, but taking hits as well. Come on. What else do you want to see? Does he need to get beat up in every scene? Let's not be unreasonable. I think he was shown to be in danger in plenty of situations and to hardly by invincible.

[thechosen1]

Well, all viable examples and I can see your point, but the movie just didn't give me a sense of danger of the hero overall...

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 28 2005, 03:38 AM
Well, all viable examples and I can see your point, but the movie just didn't give me a sense of danger of the hero overall...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I just don't see it as being any less danger than the other bat-movies. I truly don't. It seems like a criticism without a whole lot of weight. There was so much going on in this movie, that I think the amount of danger we did see him in fits proportionally with the amount of action. I mean he wasn't Batman until the latter half of the film. And most of the fights as Batman, he dictated by coming out the shadows and using the skills that he was taught. You know? This is Batman after all. You have to look at the context of the scenes he was in. Given all the stuff I mentioned above, and I'm sure some I didn't think of, I think they did just fine. I think to criticize it too much gets into nitpicking. And again, I just don't see it. Not at all. Not in comparison to the other bat movies and not in comparison to other superhero movies. What do the rest of you think?

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 27 2005, 09:38 PM
Well, all viable examples and I can see your point, but the movie just didn't give me a sense of danger of the hero overall...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


How exactly would you do that? They showed him in many situations where he was hurt or about to.

The thing about Batman is he is smart. He doesn't usually rush into a situation without planning. He's not going to die because of rushing into something.

I just don't get this argument. Are they supposed to make him seem like he is going to die? That wouldn't work because that just wouldn't fit into the story.

[thechosen1]

Don't get the wrong impression, I loved the movie.. in fact, the sense of danger really had a minimal effect on my liking of the movie, so I am not being overly critical... I enjoyed it because it was a great adaptation of the comics and it was a much darker film... Really, staying in bed until 3 and ending up with a few bruises? How does that coencide with danger? I did love the scene where he first encounters Scarecrow and he has to escape from the police. That actually was a scene that gave me a rush, and yes I understand that he wasn't Batman until in the latter half of the film. That actually was one of my more favorite aspects of the movie, they didn't try to rush away from his background and origins.

[Virus]

Originally posted by BobPalpatine+Jun 27 2005, 06:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BobPalpatine @ Jun 27 2005, 06:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@Jun 27 2005, 04:45 PM
All opinions. And I have mine as well.

Thanks for the info about Burton changing around the comics. That's interesting but to the general public, they don't know this. To just about everyone, the Joker killed his parents. Sure Burton rewrote the history of Batman/Bruce Wayne, but the fact that this was never done on film was his decision back then. He beat Nolan to the punch of showing this part of his life on film so his version is the standard. Its funny how people with these movies will defend the comics over the movies but when it comes to Star Wars, it the other way around. Think about it with this forum.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Well that is because Star Wars is first a movie and comics are just based on it. Batman is first a comic, all movies are just based on it. They are two completely different things. Batman has a following first and foremost because of the comics, not from the movies.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Very good point. Very good

[Virus]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 27 2005, 07:35 PM
The general Public probably has forgotten that the orignal Batman had Joker killing his parents.

More people have probably read the comics anyway.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm not trying to pick on you here out of everyone but I disagree and I feel that people outside of computer forums will agree that more people remember the movies than have read the comics. Most people don't read comics over the age of 15. But everyone has their interest. As for remembering Batman 1989, depends on your age but its nearly a classic so lots of people have seen it on TV and such.

I'm not trying to be a forum troll here (everyone is entitled to an opinion) but I just don't like the idea of having a sequel with the Joker. Thats what I was saying earlier is that I just don't want any of the other characters in these new films. A sequel would be alright (even with average box office results) but just don't reuse characters. If you read earlier I mentioned that my hat is off to Nolan for having new villians.

[thechosen1]

Actually, the majority of comic book readers are well beyond their teens

[BobPalpatine]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 27 2005, 10:33 PM
Actually, the majority of comic book readers are well beyond their teens
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yea, this is unfortunately why comics as a medium just isn't as popular as it once was. Although that is something for another thread I guess. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Mann]

Originally posted by Virus+Jun 28 2005, 04:28 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Virus @ Jun 28 2005, 04:28 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 27 2005, 07:35 PM
The general Public probably has forgotten that the orignal Batman had Joker killing his parents.

More people have probably read the comics anyway.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm not trying to pick on you here out of everyone but I disagree and I feel that people outside of computer forums will agree that more people remember the movies than have read the comics. Most people don't read comics over the age of 15. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Dude you must be out of touch with the world.

Have you ever heard of COMIC CON?!

[Daibutsusan73]

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 05:45 PM
As for the sequel, I'm sorry if you want it but I don't see many people dying to see another one of these. This movie is just going to past breaking even at the box office (US) so the sequel will most likely do worse. Also, it has already confused tons of people by changing who killed his parents so its going to confuse even more non-comic book readers when they see the Joker again.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Just about everyone I know has seen BB, and loves it, or at the very least think it was ok. Everyone also thought it was better than or equal to SW: EIII ROTS. All the folks I've talked about this film with can't wait for the sequil, and they all saw the original and still like it to this day. I haven't met one person who likes the original over this new one though, and nobody is confused about the Joe Chill/Joker switch.

I love the "Tim Burton Batman," and I think Jack Nicholson did an excellent job, however I am beside myself waiting for Nolan to do the Joker correctly. The Joker is a terrifying homicidal maniac, and a criminal genius I never felt that way about Nicholson's Joker. This sequil would be the perfect story to showcase Batman as a detective, since this first film introduced him as a great fighter.

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 11:28 PM
Most people don't read comics over the age of 15. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I worked at a comicbook shope for 3 years and managed another for about 1 year, and I have been a collector for almost my entire life. It has been my experience that most collectors are between the ages of 18-40.

[The Arbiter]

I wonder why the film did so badly at the box office.

[Findsman]

Originally posted by Daibutsusan73@Jun 28 2005, 01:54 AM
I love the "Tim Burton Batman," and I think Jack Nicholson did an excellent job, however I am beside myself waiting for Nolan to do the Joker correctly. The Joker is a terrifying homicidal maniac, and a criminal genius I never felt that way about Nicholson's Joker. This sequil would be the perfect story to showcase Batman as a detective, since this first film introduced him as a great fighter.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm right there with you. I was really encouraged by Nolan's treatment of the Scarecrow and am eager to see the way he treats the Joker. I'd love to see something that borrowed elements from The Killing Joke, a story that gave a perfect blend of the Joker's wild humor and homicidal psychosis. As well, I think your thoughts about concentrating on Batman's evolution as a detective in the next film are on target. This movie gave us a chance to see him become the warrior he needed to be to battle crime. The next should demonstrate the development of new skills like detection, as he begins to understand more thoroughly the complexity of the quest he has undertaken.

[Mann]

Originally posted by The Arbiter@Jun 28 2005, 02:32 PM
I wonder why the film did so badly at the box office.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


#1 two weeks in a row is not bad.

[TuskenRaider1]

Whats interesting is the potential for who plays JOker in the second one, if that is indeed how they go. there are some interesting tidbits in interviews with Nolan that ign had posted. They even have some suggs for casting.

I enjoyed the hell out of the new one. Tim's version has a place in my heart, and Jack will always be the joker, but who knows, this one was good, and the sequel has teh potential to be too.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 28 2005, 04:08 AM
Really, staying in bed until 3 and ending up with a few bruises?* How does that coencide with danger?* <div align="right">Quoted post</div>

It indicates that sometimes things like danger can be demonstrated in subtle ways. That scene shows he is human, not some invincible creature that manhandles people without getting hurt or incredibly exhausted. For Bruce to be so out of it the next day, and to have bruises, despite tearing through inept thugs like Falcone's proves that Bruce is very much in danger and can conceivably be hurt in any situation, even against small fry like them. And so when he finds himself up against a more potent villianous presence later (Scarecrow) and ends up hurtling out the window on fire, we can understand just how incredibly dangerous the world he's chosen to inhabit is and how easily he could be killed.

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 28 2005, 04:28 AM
I'm not trying to be a forum troll here (everyone is entitled to an opinion) but I just don't like the idea of having a sequel with the Joker.* Thats what I was saying earlier is that I just don't want any of the other characters in these new films.*

So from that perspective, it was probably a good thing that they went with Chill as the Waynes' murderer and not the Joker, right?

It was definitely a great move to go with new villains with this film, since they'd want to distance it from the last couple movies. Now that's it's out, though, and they've accomplished that, I think it makes sense to start using villains we've seen and doing them right. I'm not really directing that toward Nicholson's Joker, since he did do a nice job (though there is room for improvement with the writing of the character), but certainly some of the others, most notably Two-Face, could be done far better.

Eventually, if the series continues and does make money, I'd love to see a movie (or two or three) featuring Bane and based on the Knightfall storyline. If anyone wants to see Batman in grave danger, there's no better way I can think of than adapting that story.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A sequel would be alright (even with average box office results) but just don't reuse characters.* If you read earlier I mentioned that my hat is off to Nolan for having new villians.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Did you? What I remember was you criticizing the choice of Scarecrow as a villian because he's not a "classic" bad guy and Ra's al Ghul because no one knows who he is. So I'm a little uncertain what you'd prefer to see. Less well-known villains who haven't been seen in the movies, second-tier villains I suppose you could call them, such as Bane, Mad Hatter, Firefly, or Clayface, or the very well-known, popular villians who we have seen in the movies already, like Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, or Catwoman.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 28 2005, 02:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 28 2005, 02:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Virus@Jun 28 2005, 04:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 27 2005, 07:35 PM
The general Public probably has forgotten that the orignal Batman had Joker killing his parents.

More people have probably read the comics anyway.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm not trying to pick on you here out of everyone but I disagree and I feel that people outside of computer forums will agree that more people remember the movies than have read the comics. Most people don't read comics over the age of 15. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Dude you must be out of touch with the world.

Have you ever heard of COMIC CON?!
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

hahahah, you crack me up. I'm sorry but I haven't. I have better things to do than read comics. If you want to bash me, please send me a PM. I would love to chat kiddo.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 28 2005, 10:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 28 2005, 10:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-The Arbiter@Jun 28 2005, 02:32 PM
I wonder why the film did so badly at the box office.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


#1 two weeks in a row is not bad.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Only two films this summer have done that. So thats VERY impressive even though this summer has shown poor numbers.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Daibutsusan73+Jun 28 2005, 02:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Daibutsusan73 @ Jun 28 2005, 02:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@Jun 27 2005, 05:45 PM
As for the sequel, I'm sorry if you want it but I don't see many people dying to see another one of these. This movie is just going to past breaking even at the box office (US) so the sequel will most likely do worse. Also, it has already confused tons of people by changing who killed his parents so its going to confuse even more non-comic book readers when they see the Joker again.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Just about everyone I know has seen BB, and loves it, or at the very least think it was ok. Everyone also thought it was better than or equal to SW: EIII ROTS. All the folks I've talked about this film with can't wait for the sequil, and they all saw the original and still like it to this day. I haven't met one person who likes the original over this new one though, and nobody is confused about the Joe Chill/Joker switch.

I love the "Tim Burton Batman," and I think Jack Nicholson did an excellent job, however I am beside myself waiting for Nolan to do the Joker correctly. The Joker is a terrifying homicidal maniac, and a criminal genius I never felt that way about Nicholson's Joker. This sequil would be the perfect story to showcase Batman as a detective, since this first film introduced him as a great fighter.

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 27 2005, 11:28 PM
Most people don't read comics over the age of 15. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I worked at a comicbook shope for 3 years and managed another for about 1 year, and I have been a collector for almost my entire life. It has been my experience that most collectors are between the ages of 18-40.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]


I agree mostly with what you are saying and I never said that I disliked this movie. I thought it was just OK. Please go back and read what I have wrote and not make things up in your head. Thank you. As for people liking this more than Burtons 1989 version, I have only heard about 3 people who liked it more or they said they thought it was about equal. Most people (who were old enough to goto the theaters in 1989) said they like Burtons movie way better. Also from what I heard out of the theaters, people were saying it was good but not great. I also heard a few mention in the theater (grrr, hate when people talk) saying "didn't the Joker kill his parents?". These were also the people who liked that movie better, I being one of them. So please don't misread what I have wrote.

[Justin]

Virus, who are these "most people" you keep referring to? Are you out in the street making polls? I can not believe you continue to say you are an authority on what the majority of the people think, when you are basing it on your own opinions and those of your friends.

I also think you are seriously underestimating the average film-goer. I think people are intelligent enough to understand that it is a completely different take on Batman, just as Burton's version was completely different from the old TV show, which someone pointed out earlier.

I highly doubt many people are "confused" by the differences between Batman Begins and the previous films.

[Virus]

I was mentioning that these most people are people I know personally, at work, outside the theater, or online. So this is a good variety of opinions.

[Justin]

Well most people I know personally, at work, outside the theaters I have been to, or online completely disagree with you.

[thechosen1]

^lol....

but, um, back to the response to borgmatrix... so they show danger in subtle ways in a hero/action flick??? I'm sure that will catch on like wildfire...

[chreff]

Originally posted by The Arbiter@Jun 28 2005, 09:32 AM
I wonder why the film did so badly at the box office.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


It's not doing badly. It's box office is not on par with ROTS, but it's doing as good or better than the best performing Batman Films. You have to look at the world grosses now and not just the domestic. Once it has run in every country it will be very profitable. Plus, they make more money on the DVD's now too. X-Men only made $150 million, it was considered a hit! I think this one will do $300-350 million worldwide and will get another sequel.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by borgmatrix@Jun 26 2005, 07:53 PM
*Batman summoning the bats at Arkham, his drop down that stairway with his cape spread out, and watching him march through the halls after that, surrounded by bats.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I love that part. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif I was like HOLY style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/victory.gif

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 28 2005, 10:44 PM
but, um, back to the response to borgmatrix... so they show danger in subtle ways in a hero/action flick??? I'm sure that will catch on like wildfire...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif Aw, come on, man. Are you trying to give me a hard time? I listed several overt situations in which he was in danger. I just tossed that scene in as one more, albeit minor. All I'm saying is the movie had more than enough situations in which Bats was in danger and that those moments were comparable to past movies. If you felt otherwise, I'm not sure that's really the fault of the movie, since those moments are there.

Originally posted by Mark Skywalker+Jun 28 2005, 11:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mark Skywalker @ Jun 28 2005, 11:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-borgmatrix@Jun 26 2005, 07:53 PM

*Batman summoning the bats at Arkham, his drop down that stairway with his cape spread out, and watching him march through the halls after that, surrounded by bats.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I love that part. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif I was like HOLY style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/victory.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, that was very sweet. A lot of nice visual moments.

[Virus]

Originally posted by chreff+Jun 28 2005, 06:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chreff @ Jun 28 2005, 06:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-The Arbiter@Jun 28 2005, 09:32 AM
I wonder why the film did so badly at the box office.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


It's not doing badly. It's box office is not on par with ROTS, but it's doing as good or better than the best performing Batman Films. You have to look at the world grosses now and not just the domestic. Once it has run in every country it will be very profitable. Plus, they make more money on the DVD's now too. X-Men only made $150 million, it was considered a hit! I think this one will do $300-350 million worldwide and will get another sequel.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Here are the stats: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm

Almost any movie today will break even with its US and Worldwide numbers, but its how much it makes in the US that grants it a sequel. This will crack $150 easily and that will give the studio a thumbs up for another movie.

Here are the stats for all of the Batman movies: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm

This one won't beat out Batman but it will probably finish close to Batman Forever. Don't forget to factor in ticket inflation.

[chreff]

I know the factors, I used to be in film production.

The world gross actually has some importance now which is why so many films are now receiving simultaneous releases. While a domestic box office is a major factor, it isn't the final determining factor. Now, if it cost $100 million but made only a total of $30 domesticly (like Catwoman) then you can be sure there's no sequel even if it does well over seas. They make another $50-100 million in DVD sales in the US alone, so that actually has as big a factor as the box office. Plus merchandising. Maybe it'll only make its money back, but if it does well in video games and toy sales that alone can green light a sequel.

[thechosen1]

lol borg- yeah I was just busting your balls... I just didn't think it was all that "Wow" when it came to the action/danger scenes... but I still loved the movie

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by thechosen1@Jun 29 2005, 02:53 AM
lol borg- yeah I was just busting your balls... I just didn't think it was all that "Wow" when it came to the action/danger scenes... but I still loved the movie
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yeah, I understand. My big criticism was the filming of the fights. I hate the shaky cam, tight close-up approach, because we can't understand what's happening. I really hope they try something different for the fights in the next movie.

[spaceman2386]

I hear all this stuff about the joker, how do we know that he won't make that guy the joker we never did see him die.

the tight close up shots on the fights Scenes are just a popular way of filming right now.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by spaceman2386@Jun 29 2005, 06:55 PM
I hear all this stuff about the joker, how do we know that he won't make that guy the joker we never did see him die.

Joe Chill, you mean? No, he did die. Falcone sent someone to kill him.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>the tight close up shots on the fights Scenes are just a popular way of filming right now.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
That might be, but it doesn't make it a good choice. I know they wanted something gritty. I know they wanted to create a certain overall "impression". That's fine. But they have to be selective. That technique was perfect when we see Bruce's first night out as Batman against Falcone's guys. But in the climactic fight vs Ra's, we should have been able to see what was happening. A guy I know on another forum described it well and I'll just quote him:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It was a great application of movie editing to parallel the fast paced and often tight cut panelling of many comic fight strips. The fist, the blur and he's gone.. so I think in that respect the fast edit was great.. like steady cam, many people dislike the experience, but you can respect the reason for the use.

I found the part where it was glaringly unnecessary was against Ra's. With both having equal abililties, the confined space and the need for some clear plot motivations (the damage to the train console), it seemed a very inappropriate edit for that scene and sort of devalued it's application earlier. The technique was overused.. in a comic, you may get those fast and close cut fight sequences, but you always get a variation with a different paced sequence when the story requires it.. Batman Begins seemed to learn how to apply am effective comic orientated technique to it's fights, but it didn't seem to know when and when not to use it.
[/b][/quote]

[Mann]

The editing is in place to keep the film moving. If you blink you miss something. I mean the movie is over 2 hours already...they probably filmed a 3 hour film, and realized they needed to cut alot out.

But if you see Memento, you know that NOlan directs with the editors in mind. They picked him for this film BECAUSE he was fast paced, and could tell a story that way. Schumacher tries this with his camera and flashy editing, but it comes off goofy. Nolan makes it serious and scary.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 29 2005, 08:03 PM
The editing is in place to keep the film moving. If you blink you miss something. I mean the movie is over 2 hours already...they probably filmed a 3 hour film, and realized they needed to cut alot out.

But if you see Memento, you know that NOlan directs with the editors in mind. They picked him for this film BECAUSE he was fast paced, and could tell a story that way. Schumacher tries this with his camera and flashy editing, but it comes off goofy. Nolan makes it serious and scary.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

And I won't deny any of that. I love what Nolan did with the film, I'm glad he's the director, and definitely hope to see him continue directing the Batman movies. I just wish we could have gotten a better look at the Batman/Ra's fight. I'm not suggesting it be longer. Just filmed in a manner in which I could clearly see what happened.

[Mann]

Are we talking about Ra (Watanabe) or Ra/Ducard (Neeson)?

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 29 2005, 03:31 PM
Are we talking about Ra (Watanabe) or Ra/Ducard (Neeson)?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Wantanbe wasn't the real Ra's . Neeson was The real one.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Mark Skywalker+Jun 29 2005, 11:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mark Skywalker @ Jun 29 2005, 11:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 29 2005, 03:31 PM
Are we talking about Ra (Watanabe) or Ra/Ducard (Neeson)?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Wantanbe wasn't the real Ra's . Neeson was The real one.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

No kidding. But we don't know Watnabe's cahracter as anyhting but Ra's.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 29 2005, 11:31 PM
Are we talking about Ra (Watanabe) or Ra/Ducard (Neeson)?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I was talking about Neeson's Ra's and the fight on the train at the end. I'm ultimately fine with all the fights before it. I just with we could have seen that climactic fight with more clarity.

[Mann]

Yeah the Neeson fight was kind of off...but their fight before in training was tight.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 30 2005, 01:14 AM
Yeah the Neeson fight was kind of off...but their fight before in training was tight.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

The one outside with the swords. Yeah, that was cool.

I'll need to see the movie again to properly guage all the fights.

[ROR_JagFel_20]

What did you guys think of the movie? Personally, me growing up with Batman, and seeing the new version of the batmobile, I was really disappointed. But I wanted a second opinon before deciding to see it.

[Virus]

Wonder what the batmobile will look like if they do a sequel

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by ROR_JagFel_20@Jun 30 2005, 03:02 AM
What did you guys think of the movie? Personally, me growing up with Batman, and seeing the new version of the batmobile, I was really disappointed. But I wanted a second opinon before deciding to see it.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

If you're a Batman fan and haven't seen "Begins", you should definitely check out the new one. However, do make sure your expectations are in the right place. If you're only familiar with the Batman movies, you might be startled by what you see. "Begins" is very different from the previous movies, the Schumacher ones in particular, but also from Burton's. Be aware that the filmmakers set out to tell a Batman story with greater realism and which is truer to the comic book character. It's darker, edgier, grittier, and the development of the Batman character and the world he inhabits has greater depth than the previous movies.

Oh, and don't let the appearance of the new car deter you. That's too superficial a reason to not see the movie, and the car does rock. I loved it, as well its application in the film.

[Mann]

The car is one of the best parts of the film.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 30 2005, 12:15 AM
The car is one of the best parts of the film.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I agree!

And I'm saying this because I originally posted that I wasn't too thrilled with the look of it.

Well it was very practical and an excellent scene in the movie.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Virus@Jun 29 2005, 11:26 PM
Wonder what the batmobile will look like if they do a sequel
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I bet everything will be more refined in the next film, as foreshadowed by Alfred telling Bruce that the rebuilding of Wayne Manor would be an excellent time to "fix up the cellar" or whatever that line was.

I have a feeling that the suit, the cave, and the car will all be very similar to the way they appear in this movie but a little more streamlined. I don't think we will see any major retooling of the car the way there was between the Burton and Schumacher films.

[Mann]

Honestly, the Batmobile will probably change with some line from Gordon like "New Wheels?" and Batman saying "I upgraded" or something that cheesy (sounds like the "i'll get drive thru" line....but I think they wont be able to resist.

That said, the batsuit was already being altered in the course of this film. They might give him another change, but the suit looked fine.

[Mann]

Oh and Justin it was the "South East Wing" I think.

That said, Virus, You are interested in the sequel now?

[ROR_JagFel_20]

No offense but look at the comparison pics of all the batmobiles.

[P-Ray]

Cool!

I appreciate you doing this because I had forgotten what the Batman & Robin's Batmobile looked like.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by ROR_JagFel_20@Jun 30 2005, 07:02 PM
No offense but look at the comparison pics of all the batmobiles.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

My favorites the new one, followed by Burton's. I don't really care for the other three.

[Filoviridae]

I still prefer the new one...doesn't look as much like a clown car and having a plausible story behind it helps too.

Check out the news on Batman Begins II:

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/06/batman_begins_resets.html

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Mann]

Originally posted by ROR_JagFel_20@Jun 30 2005, 07:02 PM
No offense but look at the comparison pics of all the batmobiles.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Why would I be offended?

[Raganork8]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 24 2005, 09:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 24 2005, 09:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by mtel1979@Jun 25 2005, 02:15 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 24 2005, 09:11 PM
my problem...? Sean Penn acting is a problem, but are you getting defensive about somehting?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



If youv'e ever seen Fast Times you'd get the reference and like I said it was his only great role. I am in no way defending Sean Penn at all.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Awesome! Totally awesome! All right, Hamilton!

Sorry I didn't get the reference. I do now.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Ageed.
No more Katie!?
Good. if the other actors weren't so good her perfomance would have brought the movie down.

[Raganork8]

Originally posted by Mann+Jun 30 2005, 06:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 30 2005, 06:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ROR_JagFel_20@Jun 30 2005, 07:02 PM
No offense but look at the comparison pics of all the batmobiles.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Why would I be offended?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
cause your sensitive. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue2.gif

[Mann]

Originally posted by raganork8+Jun 30 2005, 11:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(raganork8 @ Jun 30 2005, 11:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Mann@Jun 30 2005, 06:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ROR_JagFel_20@Jun 30 2005, 07:02 PM
No offense but look at the comparison pics of all the batmobiles.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Why would I be offended?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

cause your sensitive. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue2.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

You're right I better get in touch with my inner child.

[ROR_JagFel_20]

I enjoyed the first batmobile that was in the TV series. I always wanted one like that.

[Justin]

The Batman/Batman Returns Batmobile was the coolest. I have no idea why they changed it. Although I have no idea why they did some of the things they did for Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

[Mann]

Ok here's something I want after this batman to do:

REDEEM MR. FREEZE!

Schumacher and Goldsman turned him into a clown on Par with Riddler and Joker...HE'S NOT A CLOWN!

and Cast Bruce Spence as him.

[Talcy]

I think putting Freeze in there would be a bit of a stretch given the current tone of the films. Which is a shame because, while scientifically it's all silly (the whole being frozen thing and the ice gun) within the context of Nolan's universe, Victor Friess (sic) is possibly one of the most tragic villians in the whole series alongside Harvey Dent (if they put him there they should include Gilda Dent, I say!), and it's things like that which appeal to me about certain villians - they're not just bad, they're profoundly damaged people, including Joker if you want to take The Killing Joke into account.

Also, I'm not sure where all of this hate towards Katie Holmes is coming from. I certainly didn't think she was bad. Competent, given the class of actors she was working with. I saw the need for her character - she represents the side of Batman that means more than just vengeance, but also justice. He won't kill and, within the confines of the film, I think it's because of her.

[Findsman]

I agree that Mr. Freeze would be a difficult character to interject into the new series, given the tone that Nolan has established. Still, I hate what Schumacher did with the character in Batman and Robin. It was a real disservice.

[Justin]

The only way they could do Mr. Freeze is A- don't call him "Mr. Freeze" and B- don't have a big gun that shoots streams of ice that freeze stuff.

They could do a plausible take on the character of Dr. Victor Freis.

[Mann]

Thinking about it now....Victor Freis might come off alot like Doc Ock did in Spiderman...However, his transformation would be awesome to witness.

again, Bruce Spence is perfect for the part.

[Justin]

No. He must be Patrick Stewart!

[Mann]

Originally posted by Justin@Jul 1 2005, 06:24 PM
No. He must be Patrick Stewart!
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Bruce Spence is the right height for the part. Stewart is too short.

[RollaFett]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Talcy Today, 05:07 AM Post #610
Also, I'm not sure where all of this hate towards Katie Holmes is coming from. I certainly didn't think she was bad.
[/b][/quote]

It's something I've noticed time and again on these boards. No one seems to like a single female actress alive. They're all terrible!
Kirsten Dunst in Spider-Man; Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four; Katie Holmes in Batman Begins; Halle Berry in anything, etc, etc. I don't know why there is so much hate towards so many actresses on these boards, but it's definately there.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Jul 1 2005, 08:25 PM
It's something I've noticed time and again on these boards. No one seems to like a single female actress alive. They're all terrible!
Kirsten Dunst in Spider-Man; Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four; Katie Holmes in Batman Begins; Halle Berry in anything, etc, etc. I don't know why there is so much hate towards so many actresses on these boards, but it's definately there.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Kirsten wasn't bad, but she didn't fit the image I have of MJ from reading the comics. The other thing is that I dont' find her attractive at all. But I have no criticism of her acting skills.

I haven't seen "Dark Angel", and haven't seen her in anything else, so I can't really comment on Alba.

I agree with you about Holmes. She was just fine. There's no great reason to criticise her.

Halle I like, but I'll admit its probably more looks than anything else. I don't know that I can honestly say any of her performance that I've seen are that brilliant. At the same time, I can't say she's really been all that bad either.

What might be a problem a lot of times is that an actress is present in a movie simply to fill the token female role, rather than for any meaningful or important role. I'm not saying that's the case with the actresses you've mentioned, but it's something that could be the case in a lot of cases.

[RollaFett]

I can't argue with you regarding the main reason for a female role. That said, that doesn't automatically qualify her for a 'she sucks!' comment all the time.
And the actresses I mentioned are just a few I've seen on these boards that consistantly get smashed for roles. I know that without opinions, there would be no point of these borads, but the constant 'actress bashing' is simply getting on my nerves.

[Otis_Frampton]

I love Kirstin Dunst, but she was SO miscast as MJ. She would have made a perfect Gwen Stacy, though (and she wouldn't even have had to change hair color).

-Otis

[Daibutsusan73]

That was my only real complaint about Spiderman, I didn't really like that they fused Gwen Stacy with Mary Jane. I thought it would have been very dramatic for her to die at the end of the film.

[Mann]

keeping with the Batman theme:

the focus of th Media on Katie Holmes was not needed. she doesn't do much to be good NOR bad. She's necessary for a female character for Bruce, but she isn't necessary for the other films. Her effect has been made and that was it.

Katie Holmes also NEVER CHANGED in all the years she aged in the film. Bale at least looked younger in the college years and 8 years later...but Homes looks the same. Only in the hotel scenes does she look older. Other than that she has an eternally youthful face...I want someone older.

[Daibutsusan73]

I think that is how she really looks though. She will probably look the same in ten years in reality, she just has a sort of baby face.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Daibutsusan73@Jul 1 2005, 08:58 PM
I think that is how she really looks though. She will probably look the same in ten years in reality, she just has a sort of baby face.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yeah but if they want to portray her as some kind of authorative figure, like an ADA...they should have someone who doesn't come off as such a young person.

[Daibutsusan73]

I can see were you're coming from. As I watched the film I knew people would have that opinion. I felt that she was correctly cast. I believed her as a twenty year old, and as a youthfull thirty year old. I'd rather have it that way, then have a thirty year old playing a not so young looking twenty year old.

[borgmatrix]

Something I've been wondering about. When Wayne was lying unconscious with his house aflame, Ra's said something about Bruce leaving him to die and how they were basically even now. What's he talking about? Bruce had saved his life. Is he, perhaps, unaware it was Bruce that got him out of there?

[Justin]

Yes, I think so.

[Count Dookie]

I finally saw this movie the other night. Holy crapola Batman!!!!!!!!!!! That has to be the best Batman movie ever!! I really liked the feel and the look of not just the city but Batman himself. I thought that it mirrored the comic books the best.

Very well done!!!

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by borgmatrix@Jul 3 2005, 12:37 AM
Something I've been wondering about. When Wayne was lying unconscious with his house aflame, Ra's said something about Bruce leaving him to die and how they were basically even now. What's he talking about? Bruce had saved his life. Is he, perhaps, unaware it was Bruce that got him out of there?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

You know, I've got the answer to my own question. I was thinking about this last night and it just hit me. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif I should have seen it sooner.

Bruce left Ra's to die after he fought his way out. Of course, it wasn't the real Ra's, but Bruce didn't know that at the time. Ducard (the real Ra's) was stung because if not for the decoy ruse, that could have been him. It probably would have been him. Essentially, Bruce had left him to die, and at Wayne's mansion, Ra's had a chance to even the score.

[Justin]

Actually I think Bruce just left him unconsious there so he thought he had left him for dead.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Justin@Jul 3 2005, 07:14 PM
Actually I think Bruce just left him unconsious there so he thought he had left him for dead.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Right. From Ra's eyes, it seemed like Bruce left him to die.

One other thing. When driving, what's with Batman having to lean forward to fire the Tumbler's weapons? There's nothing wrong with that, I guess, I just don't understand why that's necessary.

[Mann]

I guess that's how he aims the weapons better. I mean when looking at what he has to put up with in front of him while driving, he doesn't have the best view to shoot something.

[Jango]

I just went to see it for the second time it still is as good as the first time.

[Mark Skywalker]

BATMAN BEGINS Worldwide total reaches $268.1 million.

[Justin]

Sequel! Hopefully it won't cost more than $100 million to make.

[Mann]

You kidding? They will invest about 200 million in the next film if Begins pays off.

[Justin]

Well to be honest I don't want the Batman franchise to become the new Spider-Man franchise. I prefer the smaller more personal Batman stories to the crazy big-explosion stunt-heavy ones. That doesn't mean I don't like the action and Batmobile stuff, but I don't need to see massive action set-pieces for the sake of themselves.

I think they should throw the money at the Superman series (and the upcoming Flash movie, I bet that will be fantastic and hope it will become a franchise) and maybe a JLA movie (because you know that would easily hit 300+ million) but I like my Batman more cerebral.

[Mann]

Justice League would not be a good idea for a movie. Superheroes together don't work I think on screen. On TV, sure. But it would get too crowded.

I hope Flash doesn't suck. Overall he's a cool character, but his costume...so not threndy style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

Batman is the best DC character. Superman could beat him in a fight (the question of who would win always bugs me, cause Superman could snap Wayne in 2). it depends on how much this film makes to judge what the next film will budget as. so far, its doing great.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jul 6 2005, 06:12 AM
Justice League would not be a good idea for a movie. Superheroes together don't work I think on screen. On TV, sure. But it would get too crowded.

There is that danger. But Batman's already been re-established with "Batman Begins," Superman will be back next year, and if we similarly see Flash and maybe WW get a movie, then a lot of the character development will already be done. A Justice League movie could then get right into a story, perhaps giving slighly more focus to those heroes who haven't yet been developed via their own movies.

In fact, what might be nice is a Justice Leage Unlimited approach (the current animated JL series). Have the big guns appear here and there to coordinate things, but have the focus on some of the less well-known heroes. Each movie could put the spotlight on a different small group of heroes, like the animated show. Bats, Supes, WW, etc, would still be around, but would just provide support. That way you still feature a lot of heroes over the course of the series, but still get good character development with each individual movie by not trying to force in too many heroes in each installment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Batman is the best DC character. Superman could beat him in a fight (the question of who would win always bugs me, cause Superman could snap Wayne in 2). it depends on how much this film makes to judge what the next film will budget as. so far, its doing great.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I agree. Batman, IMO, is the most compelling of the DC heroes. And yeah, Superman would destroy him in a fight. I think it would be cool to see a Batman/Superman movie, though. I'd love it if they did something like the three part animated World's Finest in which there was a lot of tension between Bats and Supes as they tried to work together to stop Joker and Luthor. There were a lot of great moments featuring the two which just felt right, but they never forced things by trying to set up a Batman vs Superman story. Ultimately, they were on the same side.

[Mark Skywalker]

Here are some pothole's from begins that can be filled up in the sequel for more BATMAN characters to be added

(1) Gotham need's a new DA.... Harvey Dent aka Two-Face anyone?

(2)Arkham Asylum needs a new psychiatrist. since Dr. Jonathan Crane became the Scarecrow, Dr. Harleen Quinzelle aka Harley Quinn anyone?

(3)Gotham PD needs a new Detective Harvey BUllock anyone?

(4) Even thought she wasn't in The movie, She was mention in the novel , Ra's Al Ghul Daughter Talia Al Ghul as Bruce's new love intrest .

[chreff]

NUMBER 1 IS OBVIOUSLY A SET UP, BUT THE OTHERS I DOUBT AS THEY ARE FROM THE CARTOON.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mark Skywalker@Jul 6 2005, 09:01 PM
(1) Gotham need's a new DA.... Harvey Dent aka Two-Face anyone?

This is a certainty. We will see Dent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(2)Arkham Asylum needs a new psychiatrist. since Dr. Jonathan Crane became the Scarecrow, Dr. Harleen Quinzelle aka Harley Quinn anyone?
[/b][/quote]
I wouldn't mind this at all, especially since it looks like we will be seeing Joker next. I'd love to see her in one of the movies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(3)Gotham PD needs a new Detective Harvey BUllock anyone?
[/b][/quote]
This would be okay, though I don't know if I'd necessarily want to see him. I don't want characters popping up simply as a nod to fans.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(4) Even thought she wasn't in The movie, She was mention in the novel , Ra's Al Ghul Daughter Talia Al Ghul as Bruce's new love intrest .
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
When I first heard Ra's was going to be in "Begins", I was really, really hoping to see Talia. But, unfortunately, we didn't. Unless Ra's pops up again, I doubt we'll see her. There's no reason for her to just come to Gotham. If Bruce has to have a love interest, I'd want to see Selina Kyle introduced. That would work better since she does live in Gotham and will eventually be Catwoman. They could also use her in more than one movie, which would be cool. I don't want to see a new love interest every movie.

Originally posted by chreff@Jul 6 2005, 09:18 PM
NUMBER 1 IS OBVIOUSLY A SET UP, BUT THE OTHERS I DOUBT AS THEY ARE FROM THE CARTOON.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Harley was introduced in Batman: The Animated Series, but did subsequently appear in the comics. Harvey Bullock and Talia both originated in the comics.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This is a certainty. We will see Dent.[/b][/quote]

And with Memento Director Chris Nolan at the helm...there is but one man to play this role:

GUY PEARCE!

[chreff]

Originally posted by Mann@Jul 6 2005, 06:32 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This is a certainty. We will see Dent.

And with Memento Director Chris Nolan at the helm...there is but one man to play this role:

GUY PEARCE!
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I said that like 30 pages ago!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

I'm hoping Paul Bettany is the Joker too.

[Mann]

chreff, you weren't even aroudn 30 pages ago style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm hoping Paul Bettany is the Joker too.[/b][/quote]

VINCENT CASSELL...I kid you not.

And Bruce Spence as Mr. Freeze.

[James T. Skywalker]

Originally posted by Mann@Jul 6 2005, 05:01 PM
chreff, you weren't even aroudn 30 pages ago style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm hoping Paul Bettany is the Joker too.

VINCENT CASSELL...I kid you not.

And Bruce Spence as Mr. Freeze.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

God, please no Mr. Freeze. He's not that great of a character in the comics, and Ahnuld was a terrible choice for the film... why do we need him back?

And yeah, it'd be good to see Harvey Bullock or Renee Montoya in the future, but not necessary; for one, Jim Gordon's not the commish yet, and those two (and others) worked for him, not along side him, and two, if they want to stick with the early career of Batman, then there would still be very few "good cops" on the force. As I recall, in Year One only Gordon and one other guy was on the level.

~JTS

[Mann]

Mr. Freeze taken seriously could be a wonderful character. He's really quite tragic.

Schumacher made thefilm campy and unrealisitc. There;s a difference. I mean the Scarecrow could have also been campy...but they made him work.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jul 7 2005, 05:29 PM
Mr. Freeze taken seriously could be a wonderful character. He's really quite tragic.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

That's true. I'd prefer to see other villians, though. I expect we'll be seeing Joker and Two-Face next. After that, I'd love to see Bane. Or Clayface.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by borgmatrix@Jul 7 2005, 10:44 AM
That's true. I'd prefer to see other villians, though. I expect we'll be seeing Joker and Two-Face next. After that, I'd love to see Bane. Or Clayface.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



No Clayface, To much CGI involed to move him around, One thing I liked about Begins is theirs not alot of CGI in the movie. it was cooler .

[Mann]

yeah, Clayface would take the reality of this series away. That is what Nolan wants to bring out in the films. Clayface is just not realistic.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Mann@Jul 8 2005, 01:55 AM
yeah, Clayface would take the reality of this series away. That is what Nolan wants to bring out in the films. Clayface is just not realistic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

True, but I've been assuming Nolan will only be around for a trilogy. After that, the series could continue with another director, in which case, we could see Clayface.

But if Nolan's interested in doing more than 3, there's no way I'll be complaining. So if not Clayface, I'd be most interested in one of the following: Bane, Talia/League of Shadows, Catwoman, or possibly Scarface.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by borgmatrix+Jul 6 2005, 01:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(borgmatrix @ Jul 6 2005, 01:40 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Mark Skywalker@Jul 6 2005, 09:01 PM
(1) Gotham need's a new DA.... Harvey Dent aka Two-Face anyone?

This is a certainty. We will see Dent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(2)Arkham Asylum needs a new psychiatrist. since Dr. Jonathan Crane became the Scarecrow, Dr. Harleen Quinzelle aka Harley Quinn anyone?
[/b][/quote]
I wouldn't mind this at all, especially since it looks like we will be seeing Joker next. I'd love to see her in one of the movies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(3)Gotham PD needs a new Detective Harvey BUllock anyone?
[/b][/quote]
This would be okay, though I don't know if I'd necessarily want to see him. I don't want characters popping up simply as a nod to fans.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>(4) Even thought she wasn't in The movie, She was mention in the novel , Ra's Al Ghul Daughter Talia Al Ghul as Bruce's new love intrest .
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
When I first heard Ra's was going to be in "Begins", I was really, really hoping to see Talia. But, unfortunately, we didn't. Unless Ra's pops up again, I doubt we'll see her. There's no reason for her to just come to Gotham. If Bruce has to have a love interest, I'd want to see Selina Kyle introduced. That would work better since she does live in Gotham and will eventually be Catwoman. They could also use her in more than one movie, which would be cool. I don't want to see a new love interest every movie.

Originally posted by chreff@Jul 6 2005, 09:18 PM
NUMBER 1 IS OBVIOUSLY A SET UP, BUT THE OTHERS I DOUBT AS THEY ARE FROM THE CARTOON.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Harley was introduced in Batman: The Animated Series, but did subsequently appear in the comics. Harvey Bullock and Talia both originated in the comics.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

True.

[Count Dookie]

I've only seen Batman Begins once...I need to see it again. When the next movie comes out I hope they don't bombard it with new characters just to put them in. I think if this series is done correctly we can see many movies coming out of this.

With that said I really like Bale as Batman and hope that he would be willing to stick it out.

[master-kev]

Batman Begins was a brilliant film.

[Talcy]

I find it a bit strange that no one seems to have mentioned Penguin yet.

Not the freak as played by Danny De Vito. But a short, perverted, ugly, greedy, tastless criminal overlord.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by Count Dookie@Jul 10 2005, 05:49 PM
I really like Bale as Batman and hope that he would be willing to stick it out.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I'm sure he would. since BB is a smash Hit. Bale will be BACK as THE BAT. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif

[Findsman]

Originally posted by Talcy@Jul 11 2005, 08:46 AM
I find it a bit strange that no one seems to have mentioned Penguin yet.

Not the freak as played by Danny De Vito. But a short, perverted, ugly, greedy, tastless criminal overlord.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


That is an interesting thought. Nolan's take on The Penguin would be very interesting to see. I agree with your idea of The Penguin essentially being an undersized crime lord, perhaps connected to the organization left behind by Marcone in some way?

And yeah, I think Bale will stick around for the subsequent Batman films. I think I read somewhere that he's already contracted for the sequels, but I could be mistaken.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Count Dookie@Jul 10 2005, 08:49 PM
I've only seen Batman Begins once...I need to see it again. When the next movie comes out I hope they don't bombard it with new characters just to put them in. I think if this series is done correctly we can see many movies coming out of this.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Me too! And I can't wait to see it again. I just don't know when. I guess we should have went when we had the chance.
Originally posted by Count Dookie@Jul 10 2005, 08:49 PM
With that said I really like Bale as Batman and hope that he would be willing to stick it out.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes, that would be nice! I think I eventually stopped enjoying the Batman movies so much is because there were several different Bat Men and it lost is continuity ans consistency.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Talcy@Jul 11 2005, 09:46 AM
I find it a bit strange that no one seems to have mentioned Penguin yet.

Not the freak as played by Danny De Vito. But a short, perverted, ugly, greedy, tastless criminal overlord.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes...he is a very interesting character in the comics. I really like Batman Returns but they sure did change the penguin. I would really be interested to see him portrayed as he actually should be.

[Justin]

I liked the take on the Penguin in Batman Returns actually, but I prefer the comics version of recent years. The way he's written in Sam Hamm's original screenplay for Batman Returns is pretty interesting too.

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by Justin@Jul 11 2005, 08:22 PM
I liked the take on the Penguin in Batman Returns actually, but I prefer the comics version of recent years. The way he's written in Sam Hamm's original screenplay for Batman Returns is pretty interesting too.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I haven't read any recent Penguin stories, but in the past I never really cared for the character all that much. I wasn't all that excited about the BR Penguin either, though I did think Burton's take on him added something and was more interesting.

Since we've already seen a crime boss figure with Falcone, I wouldn't want to see Penguin anytime soon. I think there are other more interesting villains that should be utilized first. And if we do get Joker and Two-face next, I think it might best after that (assuming the series continues) to bring in villains we haven't seen in the movies yet, so that we're not just getting new versions of the villains already seen (like Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, etc). Give some other villains a chance, like Mad Hatter, Scar Face, Firefly, Bane, Black Mask, or someone else.

[BoHeDia]

I LOVED IT, I am still in a toss up as to whether i like bale or keaton as batman though...

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by BoHeDia@Jul 11 2005, 10:35 PM
I LOVED IT, I am still in a toss up as to whether i like bale or keaton as batman though...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

That's tough for me, also. I think Keaton's better as Batman, creating a more menacing visage with his eyes and his expression. I love that slight smile/smirk he often wears and the immovable force he portrays the character as. Taking both Bruce Wayne and Batman into consideration, though, I think Bale tops Keaton. His three personas (the Bruce Wayne social mask, the "real" Bruce Wayne, and Batman) make the "Begins" Batman a much more complete representation of the character. Of course, that's not really due to Bale being better than Keaton, but more because of the "Begins" script and the way in which it better utilizes the character. I think both did a fantastic job.

[James T. Skywalker]

Originally posted by borgmatrix@Jul 11 2005, 03:02 PM
Give some other villains a chance, like Mad Hatter, Scar Face, Firefly, Bane, Black Mask, or someone else.


Bane was in Batman & Robin, as Poison Ivy's pointless goon. Nowhere near the brilliant early characterization in the comics.

And while Mad Hatter, Firefly and Black Mask would be good (especially since Black Mask is more interested in destroying Bruce Wayne than Batman), Scarface and the Ventriloquist are two of the worst Bat-villains ever. Terrible.

~JTS

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by James T. Skywalker@Jul 12 2005, 12:34 AM
Bane was in Batman & Robin, as Poison Ivy's pointless goon. Nowhere near the brilliant early characterization in the comics.

That's right. Man, I must have completely blocked that out. He was used in such minor (and horribly wrong) manner that I think we need to see him again, and done right, to wash away the B&R version. That was truly a crime.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And while Mad Hatter, Firefly and Black Mask would be good (especially since Black Mask is more interested in destroying Bruce Wayne than Batman), Scarface and the Ventriloquist are two of the worst Bat-villains ever. Terrible.[/b][/quote]
I don't remember any of Scarface's comic appearances. But, for the most part, I loved his BTAS appearances. I think there's potential. He's not that typical appearance-wise and could be really creepy if used effectively. I'm not clamoring to see him, but I see some potential there.

[Mark Skywalker]

Originally posted by BoHeDia@Jul 11 2005, 02:35 PM
I LOVED IT, I am still in a toss up as to whether i like bale or keaton as batman though...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



(1) Christian Bale (BATMAN begins)

(2) Kevin Conroy(Batman: Mask of the Phantasm , Batman: The Animated Series & The New Batman Superman Adventures.Also The Justice Leauge & JLU.)

(3) Val Kilmer (Batman Forever)

(4) M