PDA

View Full Version : Batman Begins (merged)



Pages : 1 [2]

James Boba Fettfield
04-24-2005, 08:57 PM
Says the footage will be shown on May 18, RJay.

Slicker
05-16-2005, 07:32 PM
I just saw a commercial saying that during the 90 minute season finale of Smallvillethey'll show a 10 minute preview of Batman Begins.

For those that give a damn that is.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-16-2005, 08:45 PM
The international trailer is up: http://www.superherohype.com/news/batmannews.php?id=2990

I think it's the best one yet and shows MUCH more of Scarecrow in action. Cheers! :D

JediTricks
05-20-2005, 02:37 AM
Having seen the 10 exclusive minutes of this movie last night during Smallville, I have to say that although I still ain't feeling it with the casting of Christian Bale or Katie Holmes (and they're supposed to be the same age but he looks 10 years older than her, he's 5 I just checked), and the title is awful, Michael Caine's performance looks more nuanced than I expected (though his accent is way too working-class for the character Alfred is supposed to be, but most Americans hear any British accent as high-class ;)), the action looks more like Batman should be, and Liam Neeson looks to be PERFECTLY cast as Ra's Al Ghul (that beard blew my mind, put the whole thing together).

I just read that WB has spent $100 million on marketing for the film, the most ever for a movie's marketing. From what I've seen of the marketing campaign, they wasted their money, it's been a fairly poor showing so far and the current poster is terrible.

megaprime33
05-20-2005, 01:40 PM
You know I really don't know what it is, but I'm just not that excited over this movie. I still have the sour taste in my mouth from Batman and Robin. I know this won't be anything like that but, I dunno. It looks good, and I will probably go see it, but I'm not excited. It's like whatever, ya know?

JediTricks
05-20-2005, 10:48 PM
Probably trying to protect yourself from the possibility of being let down yet again. "Fool me 3 times, shame on you; fool me 4 times, shame on me" ;) I sorta feel the same way. I talked to my mother about the trailer today and she's really excited though, she's been a pretty big fan of Batman on and off all my life.

Hellboy
05-24-2005, 07:35 PM
Argghh!! I totally forgot about the 10 min. preview. I was on vacation and set my DVR to record LOST which shows at the same time as Smallville, oh well. :(

So what is the actual release date for the film? I'm seeing posters/billboards that say the 15th while others say the 17th, same with the trailers. :confused:

JediTricks
05-24-2005, 08:02 PM
Oooh, that's too bad, sorry to hear that. :( I think the preview is what really turned my interest around for this film, it was worth catching (though I inadvertantly spoiled something here from my previous comments, apparently, I didn't know about a certain other spoiler. Luckily, my spoiler should have been instantly obvious to anybody who was into Batman and watched the main trailer).

The official site says the 15th, which is a Wednesday.

James Boba Fettfield
05-28-2005, 12:53 PM
I think this might be the 10 minute preview footage: http://www.alldumb.com/item/11885/

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-28-2005, 01:44 PM
JT- Liam is playing Henri Ducard. Ken watanbe is playing Ras.

I watched the ten minute preview and i was VERY impressed. I liked the scenes with how Bruce was trained and how he got some of his gadgets and ideas. This movie is looking very promising.

James Boba Fettfield
05-28-2005, 02:07 PM
SPOILER!











But the film's twist is Ras is actually Liam Neeson. Which is why JT mentions he had a spoiler in his post.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-28-2005, 02:15 PM
oh hehehehehe i'm a putz. Didn't even see that. thanksfor the clarification, JBFF!

JediTricks
05-29-2005, 07:25 PM
Yeah JBF, thanks for explaining my original mistake! :p What really kills me is how I thought it was PAINFULLY obvious what my original claim was and now I see it's not, so my failure is now complete.

RooJay
06-02-2005, 01:22 AM
[07-04-2004]
Henri Ducard still looks suspiciously like Ra's Al Ghul to me. I'm still leaning heavily toward that having something to do with that secret plot twist I've heard that's suposed to come about near the end of the movie. :Ponder:

Spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:D Somehow I just knew! ;)

...and here's one from even further back:


[03-08-2004]My suspicion has only grown stronger in light of various bits of info I've been reading online today. In light of what might be considered spoilers, all those wary of such please be warned...
S
.
.
P
.
.
O
.
.
I
.
.
L
.
.
E
.
.
R
.
.
S...

I believe that Liam Neeson, and not Ken Watanabe, is the real Ra's Al Ghul. I will tell you why.
Original reports had indicated that Liam Neeson had actually been signed onto the project to play Ra's rather than this "Ducard" character as the current official word states. Fans of the comics immediately noted the physical similarities between Neeson and the comic’s version of Al Ghul; a brilliant bit of casting, I thought upon hearing this. Of course, as we all know it was later stated that Neeson was signed to the Ducard role and that Ken Watanabe had been brought on as "the Demon's Head.” Hearing leaked reports of Liam Neeson's physical appearance during filming - particularly his facial hair, which comic fans will recognize as being consistent with Ra's Al Ghul's appearance.
Making my rounds to the usual websites this afternoon, I came across a report on one of the major movie sites wherein one of the contributors offered an advance review of the script which he had been privileged to read (granted, it may not have been the final shooting script, but it jibes with other reviews I've read of the script as well as what we all know about the project). In the review (which was nothing short of glowing by the way) the writer lets slip that "Ra's Al Ghul is killed in an explosion, but Bruce saves Ducard's life" (but isn't he supposed to be immortal?!). Prior to Bruce donning the cape and cowl. For those keeping score - that leaves Ken Watanabe's "main villain" character dead fairly early on and Liam Neeson' Ducard character alive and well, and in the company and rather beholden to Bruce Wayne.
Not only is this Ducard more or less officially said to be a "mentor" to Wayne, but I also recall hearing rumors (particularly early on when Neeson was first revealed to be playing this character) that he'd been some sort of associate of Wayne's father.
I'm beginning to suspect that this Ducard is actually the real Ra's Al Ghul, going incognito in some sort of scheme to gain Wayne's trust, and that Ken Watanabe's character is actually a stand-in, possibly one of Ra's trusted generals in his "League of Shadows ninja cult" in actuality. Further compounding this notion in my mind is another review of the script, on yet another site that states that "Ra's is like the Keyser Soze of Batman's universe,” and we all know the kind of secret plot twist that particular allusion conjures up. I'm not entirely clear on what the significance of this Ducard could possibly be, otherwise.
Furthermore, I will even go so far as to say that I'm beginning to think that the real Ra's Al Ghul may even turn out to have been somehow involved in the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne. That he may have, in effect, "created" Batman intending to use him for his own purposes (something that at least one of the reviews implies, stating "Ra's Al Ghul tells Bruce that he wants to destroy Gotham, and through what they have taught him, he will be the one to do it.") Anyone else here seeing the perfect setup for a "Bruce...I am your father" type of plot twist here? Yet another allusion that I've heard in reference to this movie's supposed ending...

Sorry about that, but I just love it when I'm right! :D

JediTricks
06-02-2005, 01:34 AM
Takes me off the hook for being the first here to spoil it. :D It's pretty obvious when you look at him, and he just has the right feel IMO for the character, if he plays it big after the reveal it should be a darn good piece of casting.

RooJay
06-02-2005, 01:55 AM
Those were my thoughts exactly when the idea first hit me. ;)

Hellboy
06-02-2005, 06:35 PM
Takes me off the hook for being the first here to spoil it. :D

Yeah after RooJay posted his theory regarding the film's twist more than a year ago (jeez time flys) I've considered it a possibility, so your earlier post didn't spoil anything for me and I knew exactly what you were refering to. Considering early rumors had Liam Neeson cast as Ra's and the fact that he looks more like the character we know from the comic books than Watanabe does I think most fans will probably figure it out before seeing the movie but its still a great twist for those not as familiar with the history of Batman.

JediTricks
06-08-2005, 07:34 PM
I saw the Batmobile from this movie on a truck last Saturday, they covered it with a tarp but the wind blew it up and you could see the back. I was surprised at how much smaller it seemed in person, the toy and the trailer give it a sense of being larger, but it makes sense that it'd be the size of a small standard car. It looked really neat in person, made me want to see it in the film right away. :D

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-15-2005, 03:09 AM
Alright, i just got back from my midnight screening and it was FANTASTIC. The crowd was going nuts on several occasions. Here is my brief review, it has SPOILERS SPOILERS, knock knock (who's there?) SPOILERS.

1. It was shot beautifully. Gotham City has never looked so good. It's HUGE. We're talking NYC plus a few cities huge. What was really cool was that some of the scenes were filmed in chicago and myself being a native, i could tell what was Chicago and what wasn't. Kinda dorky. :p

2. The cast was awesome. Bale makes a terrific Batman as he has that perfect scowl and he adds a lot more voice to the character. Cain is SUPERB as Alfred and the two guys have a few great scenes together. Oldman is great as Gordon and Cillian is great as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, although i wish there was more of him. Freeman is great as Luscious and Ken/Liam are terrific as Ra's. You really hated Ra's at the end. Holmes was also solid.

3. The plot was also great as it actually involved the audience to think a bit. I had heard blips about the plot, but i was still piecing it together at times. Some fans might not like how Crane is used as he's more or less a pawn by Ghul for his ultimate goal for Gotham, but his scenes were great and downright spooky. Also, fans of the original flicks might not like how they're pretty much disregarding a lot of stuff from the old flicks (mentoin of the Joker, the bat signal, etc).

4. The lighting, the mood, the way batman grabbed his victims, everythinga bout this flick has that great Batman comic feel. While Burton did a good job with the first two, this set is gritty, horrid, close to noir and detective comics.

5. and holy smokes batman: not everything was wrapped up in a pretty little bow. Batman doesn't get the girl, not all the villians are taken care of and Bruce wayne's life is tore up at the end a bit.

All in all, it's a bold new direction for the batman films and i hope to god we get more of Nolan taking on more villians, hopefully the Joker, Riddler, whoever! Get the whole cast signed up NOW!

k, much needed sleep. night! :D

evenflow
06-15-2005, 01:13 PM
I am trying not to read anyone's spoilers, but how was the Scarecrow?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-15-2005, 01:25 PM
EF- for the time he was onscreen, Scarecrow was very well done. His mask is really good and once his victims get the fear toxin in them, all hell breaks loose. The visuals during these scenes are pretty excellent too. :D

General_Grievous
06-15-2005, 05:26 PM
I just saw it. Wow, it was so great. Beats down Batman Returns, Forever, and Batman and Robin single-handedly. I'm still trying to decide which was better, this or 1989's "Batman" (this would win hands down, if not for Jack Nicholson as the Joker). Everything was great about "Begins", most notably Christian Bale. Now this is the best actor who portrayed Batman ever. He nailed the character down pat. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow) impressed me a lot, too. But Liam Neeson didn't seem to be too into his character. I also liked the Joker nod at the end and how it set it up for a second one. Now for the spoilers:

But there was one thing I didn't understand, and this has to do with the publicity of the movie. I don't see it fit that Ken Watanabe gets all the publicity, like action figures, for Ra's Al Ghul since a) he's not really Ra's Al Ghul and b) he dies about twenty minutes into the movie.

Anyway, any comic book or Batman fan needs to see this movie. Great way to reintroduce Batman to the big screen and I hope many more sequels come out of it...but Joel Schumacher, STAY AWAY!!!

Hellboy
06-15-2005, 06:02 PM
I just got back from seeing this myself and also really enjoyed it. This is without a doubt the best Batman film to date giving us fans a much more comic book accurate depiction of the Dark Knight. I do think however that I might have had my expectations set a bit to high because I still found a few minor things that I thought could have been done a bit better.

Things I loved:
-Overall the suit looked great on film, much better than the pictures led me to believe it would look.
-I actually really liked this new Batmobile. My opinion totally changed after seeing it in action.
-Gotham City looked great. The handful of ariel shots really gave the viewer a great sense of scope. Something that was missing from the other films.
-Great acting by all the players, especially Bale and Neeson. Oldman and Cillian Murphy were great too even though their roles were smaller than I expected.
-The ending, bring on the Joker. :crazed:

Things I was a little bit disappointed with:
-Not enough Batman. The first time you see Bruce in costume its an hour + into the film. I more or less expected this considering it is an origin story but I still left wanting more Batman. Oh well, I felt the same way with the first Spider-Man.
-The plot never focuses on one of Batman's major strengths, his detective skills. Hopefully this will be explored in the next installment but I think they could have hit on it at least once in this film.
-Many of the fight scenes were filmed to close up. I understand Batman does most of his work in the shadows so seeing his every move would be difficult but I would have liked to have seen the camera pull back a bit so we could appreciate his fighting skills more.
-A few times in the film Batman's cowl seemed to tight around Bale's face. This was evident when he spoke as it seemed to squish his mouth a bit more than I think it should. It wasn't like this in every scene but the two I noticed in it was distracting.

Minor quibbles though. Like I said I had a good time and it was definitely nice to see Hollywood finally get this character right. I hope we don't have to wait to long for the next film. Now that the foundation has been set we can get to more Batman action. :)

RooJay
06-16-2005, 01:52 AM
From what I've heard, both David Goyer and Chris Nolan are seriously talking about wanting to get Crispin Glover to play Joker in the next movie. I really hope they manage to pull it off - I couldn't think of anyone more perfect for the role. I'm absolutely certain that Glover would give us the Joker as we've always hoped to see him on film! Imagine how frightening and creepy he'd be - I'm getting chills already! As an aside - while I did think Katie Holmes' character was pretty cool, I'd absolutely love it if she ends up as one of the victims of Crispin Glover's murderously psychotic Joker and that he ends up plugging her in the face or something. How cool ould that be? Don't get me wrong I didn't dislike her character at all - I just think it would make for some awesome story material for the next movie. :evil:

By the way, I should mention that I absolutely love this movie and cannot wait to see it again (and then again on IMAX...and then again at a regular theater...and well...did I mention I really loved the movie?) Everything was just perfect and I especially loved how they let us actually get to know Thomas and Martha and see them as a family before they were murdered; Linus Roache is frikkin' awesome!

I'll probably come back and post more reactions once I've let the awesomeness sink in a little more! :D

scruffziller
06-16-2005, 09:19 AM
From what I've heard, both David Goyer and Chris Nolan are seriously talking about wanting to get Crispin Glover to play Joker in the next movie. I really hope they manage to pull it off - I couldn't think of anyone more perfect for the role. I'm absolutely certain that Glover would give us the Joker as we've always hoped to see him on film! Imagine how frightening and creepy he'd be - I'm getting chills already! As an aside - while I did think Katie Holmes' character was pretty cool, I'd absolutely love it if she ends up as one of the victims of Crispin Glover's murderously psychotic Joker and that he ends up plugging her in the face or something. How cool ould that be? Don't get me wrong I didn't dislike her character at all - I just think it would make for some awesome story material for the next movie. :evil:

By the way, I should mention that I absolutely love this movie and cannot wait to see it again (and then again on IMAX...and then again at a regular theater...and well...did I mention I really loved the movie?) Everything was just perfect and I especially loved how they let us actually get to know Thomas and Martha and see them as a family before they were murdered; Linus Roache is frikkin' awesome!

I'll probably come back and post more reactions once I've let the awesomeness sink in a little more! :D

Don't hold your breath on Crispin Glover yet. Even cooler news is afoot for the sequel!!!!!!! Our esteemed Star Wars alumnist.......

Joker Rumored- It's down to Crispin Glover and Mark Hamill as the Joker? What are they going for, The Surreal Life? Meanwhile, Bale has said he'd like an R-rated cut because Batman's "got to do something sexual at some point." Batcuffs, anyone?

I think Hamill would make a good Joker visually. Since we already know he has the voice down. The way he looked in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, I think they could pull it off. Crispin Glover could do an excellent job but it would be a major chrachter change for him since he is not really loud and boisterous.

Beast
06-16-2005, 03:35 PM
Well.... I just saw it. It was good, but I had issues with it. The shakey cam incomprehensible fight scenes were annoying. And I felt the movie was rather slow paced and featured too much exposition. The final moment of the film between Batman and Liam Neeson's character felt horribly out of character. I'm sure you can figure out what I mean if you've seen the film. That said it was good, but I hope Batman 2 and Batman 3 are better. I still prefer the Keaton/Burton films a lot more than this one. But it was good on it's own merits.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 01:18 AM
Well, I saw it today and it really felt right to me, Liam Neeson definitely brought the heat I expected him to and made a terrific villain, Gary Oldman totally worked as Gordon even though I expected him to stick out (the car part near the end was a bit much, but not Oldman's fault), Rutger Hauer has a small part but a good one because it is a red herring but one that plays well and fleshes out the other side of Bruce Wayne without being an over-the-top villain, and the majority of the cast worked despite seeming off to me going in (Katie Holmes is the one element there that I still think doesn't work, her youthfulness and her lack of screen presence & maturity just didn't work for me, but it doesn't affect the film thankfully), the gritty realism chose substance over style and it was just a good time, the first movie I've seen in a while where I could have just stayed and watched it again. When Bats interrogates Flass, that was probably my favorite scene because Bale sold it better than ever and the rain looked right and the intensity of it all just was so high, very Batman comics. Something else I really loved was that so many of the visual effects weren't CGI which made them feel and look real and tangible, a major key to telling a "real world Batman story".


Many of the fight scenes were filmed to close up. I understand Batman does most of his work in the shadows so seeing his every move would be difficult but I would have liked to have seen the camera pull back a bit so we could appreciate his fighting skills more. I do agree with this, the cutting of the "Batman action" scenes started out great and mysterious which worked, but then they went too MTV where you have these myriad of cuts without really cohesively showing everything that's going on, both fighting and driving. It wasn't a failure to me, but it was something I didn't care for. Someone I was with described the fights cinemtography and editing as being like a real fight, you don't always know what's going on.

scruffziller
06-17-2005, 11:14 AM
So what is your guys' opinion on Mark Hamill possibly playing The Joker.

JetsAndHeels
06-17-2005, 11:32 AM
I saw it last night and thought it was great. Good to see a movie get Batman right. I thought the entire cast did a great job. The plot was very good too. All around a great job and a great film. This is how comic movies should be.

Ender82
06-17-2005, 03:55 PM
Holy crap! this movie was one of the best movies I have ever seen. It's so dark!

Pendo
06-17-2005, 04:58 PM
Two words:
BLOODY FANTASTIC

I saw Batman Begins this morning, I totally loved it!

PENDO!

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 08:04 PM
So what is your guys' opinion on Mark Hamill possibly playing The Joker.
He is too old, yes, too old to begin the training. Hamill is a great cartoon Joker, but I don't think that is what a movie version would want to aspire to.


I'm glad to see more voices added here, but it's sad to see it not really drumming up massive discussion so far, we've seen far lesser films get more conversations going about them on the 3rd day in theaters.

Clonetrooper630
06-17-2005, 09:25 PM
LOVE the film i saw it last nite & i'm going tonite again:D
One question Ra is still alive right??? he is kind of immortal acording to Birth of the Demon & Son of the Demon.........right anyone?????

Hellboy
06-17-2005, 10:33 PM
When Bats interrogates Flass, that was probably my favorite scene because Bale sold it better than ever and the rain looked right and the intensity of it all just was so high, very Batman comics.

I totally agree, it was definitely my favorite scene containing Batman. That is the side of Batman that Burton failed to capture in his films IMO. Sure Bats is calm cool and collected the majority of the time but when he needs to turn it up a notch, look out. :eek:


So what is your guys' opinion on Mark Hamill possibly playing The Joker?

JT- "He is to old, yes, to old to begin the training."

lol lol lol

Again I agree. If he was younger he might have been great but I think Hamill, much like Nicholson, doesn't possess the physical characteristics to represent The Joker properly. I actually can't think of a better choice than Crispin Glover at the moment. I can actually visualize The Joker's grin on Crispin's face but when I try to imagine Hamill in the role all I can think of is his guest spot on short lived "The Flash" television show as The Trixter. :ermm:

scruffziller
06-18-2005, 03:36 PM
I try to imagine Hamill in the role all I can think of is his guest spot on short lived "The Flash" television show as The Trixter. :ermm:

Yea, someone was telling me about that the other day. I remember the show quite well but I don't think I saw those eps. Was he not very good?
I do think that Glover would be the better choice visually. Its just difficult to see Glover being over the top boisterous the way that the Joker needs to be. Glover has always played the nuerotic, internally conflicted, restrained-rage, subtle evil persona. So I'm not sure what to expect Otherwise we may get a Joker that is off character worse than Nicholson was. Its too bad that he already played a Batman villian, typecast, and overloaded our senses with his presence.....but JIM CARREY would be THEE PRIME PRIME PRIME canidate for the Joker.

Hellboy
06-18-2005, 04:39 PM
Yea, someone was telling me about that the other day. I remember the show quite well but I don't think I saw those eps. Was he not very good?

I thought he did a decent job considering the character was a cheap ripoff of The Joker. I remember people talking about how he could possibly portray The Joker after it aired (IIRC it was the show's pilot episode) but to me he didn't quite measure up to my expectations, visually anyway. His strength was in his voice as we all now know after his very successful run on BTAS.


.....but JIM CARREY would be THEE PRIME PRIME PRIME canidate for the Joker.

Please noooooooo!!!

Once upon a time I thought Carrey would be perfect for the role but I'd hate it if he got the part now. I also considered John Malkovich a great choice as well but I think WB should try and go with unknowns or fairly unknown actors for the villain roles. IMO a big name star just creates a greater chance that the studio justifies giving them more screen time than our hero (especially if they spend a lot of $$ acquiring them) and the last thing we need is another series of movies that showcases the villains instead of focusing on the Batman.

JimJamBonds
06-19-2005, 02:49 PM
I saw Batman Begins last night and I have to say it was great although there were a few things that I didn't care for: 1) the Tumbler. Was it a cool car? Yeah but it wasn't a batmobile in my mind. It didn't have a bat "look" to it which odly enough I guess I really liked in the past. 2) Christian Bail did a great job but when he had the suit on did anybody else thing he was going a bit too low with his voice? It was like a dj going into his "annoucer voice", I understand that he'd want to sound different to help hide his identity but it was too goofy for me. 3) While watching Bail I kept thinking of the skit for Chappelle's Show in Season I where they remake movies and Bail looked like Keanu Reeves. "Whaats that Alfred? Wooow Mr. Fox. lol 4) The cop/Batman car chase... what was the point? Batman goes into stealth mode only to show himself infront of everybody what was gained? Also he jumps through a waterfall and then the cops lose his trail. Huhh??? :confused: :crazed: Overall though I liked the movie much Much MUCH better then Batman and Robin!

Bren2d2
06-19-2005, 02:59 PM
I saw this movie on Wednesday. I liked it, but I wan't totally blown away by it. My favorite one is still Batman Returns. I still recommend this movie though, definitely worth checking out.

scruffziller
06-19-2005, 04:44 PM
Overall though I liked the movie much Much MUCH better then Batman and Robin!

HUH!!???:eek: Just better than Batman and Robin?

From what most folks are saying this is rivaling the very first Batman movie from 1989.





JT- "He is to old, yes, to old to begin the training."

lol lol lol


But he's learned so much..............:D

JimJamBonds
06-20-2005, 12:01 AM
HUH!!???:eek: Just better than Batman and Robin?

From what most folks are saying this is rivaling the very first Batman movie from 1989.

Nope, I think BB is WAY better then B&R, I agree with the reviews that it rivals the first Batman movie. Although oddly enough the friend I saw it with last night said in a review BB was said to be the WORST!?!?! :confused: :confused: :confused: No freakin' way, BB was a very good movie.

General_Grievous
06-20-2005, 04:29 PM
I think that Willem Dafoe would have been perfect for the Joker. Think about it: he's about the right age for Joker (mid-40's), he's got the right physical appearance, and he's got the right evil smile and maniacal laugh to him. There's only one problem: he's already played that type of role in "Spider-Man", so the odds of casting him are slim to none. Pity. He would have been great for the role.

As for Crispin Glover, I really would rather not see Marty McFly's dad taking on the caped crusader.

Mark Hamill would be better off sticking with the animated Joker.

Anyway, who do you guys want to see as your favorite Gotham-ites in future Batman Begins sequels? Here's my list:

Joker- Willem Dafoe (as stated before, it's not gonna happen)

Harvey Dent/Two-Face- Clive Owen (this guy has the right look and he can pull off Two-Face. See "Sin City" and you'll know)

Barbara Gordon/Batgirl- Scarlett Johansson (Good actress and has the right look for Barbara, whether Batgirl will come into play or not)

Dick Grayson/Robin- Adam Brody (From "The OC". I don't know. This guy looks like he could play Robin. He could bring kind of a smart@$$ personality to him)

Killer Croc- Ron Perlman (I don't think they'd ever bring in Killer Croc, but if they did, Ron would be the guy for the job)

Harley Quinn- This is one I'm stuck on. You need an actress who can play a psycho to pull Harley off. Maybe Brittany Murphy?

Who do you guys want to see in the sequels, and who do you want to see playing them?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-20-2005, 05:43 PM
honestly, i would love to see absolutely no word of Batgirl and probably Robin. Batgirl just annoyed the crap out of me on the show, comics and Schmuachers god awful version. Robin would be a toss up, but not for a few more movies, at least.

Anyway, my thoughts on villians:

Joker- I just LOVE the idea of Crispin Glover doing this one. He's got the perfect frame for it and I think given the chance to unleash, he could pull it off wonderfully.

Penguin- Paul Giomatti. I think he's got a great voice for it and given the right makeup, etc. he could pull it off well.......but i don't know how tall he is.

Two-Face- Clive Owen would be great!! That one never came to me. Good thinkin'!

The Riddler- My buddy and I said that Robin Williams would be an interesting random choice, if Williams lost like 60 pounds. Never happen though and that's probably for the best. Maybe Adrian Brody could give him a shot as he seems like he's got the right character build for it and he has quite a wide rang of acting skills.

We'll see what happens though. :D

JON9000
06-20-2005, 08:12 PM
I do agree with this, the cutting of the "Batman action" scenes started out great and mysterious which worked, but then they went too MTV where you have these myriad of cuts without really cohesively showing everything that's going on, both fighting and driving. It wasn't a failure to me, but it was something I didn't care for. Someone I was with described the fights cinemtography and editing as being like a real fight, you don't always know what's going on.
I think the problem is that still after 15 years they haven't figured out how to make a batsuit that really allows for a free range of natural motion. Excepting Adam West's tights, of course! :eek:

Hellboy
06-20-2005, 08:28 PM
Here are just a few villain casting wishes off the top of my head. I hope we don't see Penguin or The Riddler so I'm not going to go there. But I do think Paul Giomatti is an interesting choice.

Two-Face: David James Elliot (JAG) -Don't ask me why but he is the first person who comes to mind.

Firefly: James Marsters (Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel) -Has the right cocky attitude and could nail the accent.

Mr. Freeze: Patrick Stewart (Star Trek) -To me Patrick would be the perfect Victor Freeze. Give him a kind of mechanized sounding voice and nobody would ever think of Professor X.

Clayface: Clancy Brown (Carnivale) -Having already voiced several comic book characters including Mr. Freeze on "The Batman" and Lex Luthor on "Superman TAS" this guy is destined to play a villain someday.

JediTricks
06-21-2005, 12:26 AM
One question Ra is still alive right??? he is kind of immortal acording to Birth of the Demon & Son of the Demon.........right anyone?????It's left up to debate at this point, I would argue he got pretty well smashed up, but it's possible he's still alive. If they decide to bring him back, it shouldn't be in the next one.


the Tumbler. Was it a cool car? Yeah but it wasn't a batmobile in my mind. It didn't have a bat "look" to it which odly enough I guess I really liked in the past. I thought it worked well because of that, Bats here isn't obsessed with his ego yet, the car is mainly another tool to get him from place to place when armor is required, not pimp the bat-brand. Plus, it reminded me of the batmobile from The Dark Knight Returns, basically a high-tech tank, only this one was sleeker.


Christian Bail did a great job but when he had the suit on did anybody else thing he was going a bit too low with his voice? It was like a dj going into his "annoucer voice", I understand that he'd want to sound different to help hide his identity but it was too goofy for me. I thought it worked, I don't like Bale's normal voice too much and it wasn't batman-y, this was darker and more fear-inducing, and made sense especially around Rachel since she might recognize his Bruce voice.


Barbara Gordon/Batgirl- Scarlett Johansson (Good actress and has the right look for Barbara, whether Batgirl will come into play or not) That character was invented for the '60s TV show, I think she can stay there. It is an interesting piece of casting though.


Dick Grayson/Robin- Adam Brody (From "The OC". I don't know. This guy looks like he could play Robin. He could bring kind of a smart@$ personality to him) Don't know him, don't care, Robin was an element of the comics that was a major force in kiddifying the Bat and should be kept away from the movies, his influence takes away a significant part of what makes the character who he is.


This movie I think is a good counterpart to the '89 Burton film, that one focuses on style and the pop-culture aspects of Bats, while this one focuses almost entirely on the substance of what the real Batman is about.

JimJamBonds
06-21-2005, 10:20 AM
I thought it worked well because of that, Bats here isn't obsessed with his ego yet, the car is mainly another tool to get him from place to place when armor is required, not pimp the bat-brand. Plus, it reminded me of the batmobile from The Dark Knight Returns, basically a high-tech tank, only this one was sleeker.

Good point there JT, its rather early in 'the game.' Maybe in the next one with the larger persona and batcave we'll see him diverge from the equipment laying around Wayne Enterprises and be a bit more 'batty.' :p

General_Grievous
06-21-2005, 11:13 AM
I never actually said I wanted Batgirl in the movie, I just thought that Scarlett Johansson would make a dead-on Barbara Gordon. Maybe they could make her Oracle, she could be paralyzed from the waist-down and she could help her dad and Batman. I don't particularly think they'll bring either her or Robin in, though. Maybe as little nods (like Colossus' cameo in X2) or something like that.

Anyway, I have some new news from tinsel town, straight from imdb. Read on:

Holmes Dropped from 'Batman' Sequel

Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman have signed to star in a second Batman movie, but love interest Katie Holmes has been dropped. Movie bosses are thrilled with the response to Batman Begins - it took $46.9 million in its first weekend at the US box office - and have snapped up the film's stars for a sequel. Bale as Batman was the first to put pen to paper, followed by Caine as butler Alfred and Freeman as Bruce Wayne's business associate Lucius Fox. But Holmes won't reprise her role as district attorney Rachel Dawes - reportedly because Warner Bros is angry her engagement to Tom Cruise has stolen media attention away from the movie. A source tells Pagesix.Com, "Everyone is in agreement that the movie's strength is with Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman." Adding of Holmes, "She won't be in the sequel... the next romantic interest will be a much stronger actress. Warner is happy that people are now focusing on who'll be playing the Joker rather than Katie and Tom."

I knew this was coming. I'm kind of happy about it, strange as it is. So I guess it'll be just like the last four films. Batman gets a new girlfriend every movie. Who'll be next? I'll bet producers will be looking for Natalie Portman or Sarah Michelle Gellar, since they were up for the role of Rachel in Batman Begins. With any luck, it'll be Natalie.

JimJamBonds
06-21-2005, 11:52 AM
Holmes Dropped from 'Batman'

Thats fine with me, I didn't think Holmes did all that much for the film. The thing I did find interesting was that Batman never really 'got' the girl, although he can 'get' her later, which I thought was a nice twist.

Hellboy
06-21-2005, 05:33 PM
I really don't care either way what Holmes does. She didn't really add anything to the film IMO, just about any actress could have done what she did. :neutral:

I do find it upsetting that WB feels the necessity to have a different love interest fill the void. If they're going to continue to stay close to the source material in this new franchise they should seriously reexamine their thinking. I've said it before but it deserves mentioning again, Bruce rarely has/had time for any type of relationship outside of the Batman persona. If you want to throw in the occasional date on Bruce's arm at some social function fine, but anything more serious than that just feels like a studio trying to broaden the film's demographic by shoehorning a love interest into the story. If this becomes the formula for each Batman film I'd wager with each new love interest Bruce will also reveal his secret identity by the films end. Lame. :p

JediTricks
06-21-2005, 11:23 PM
I never actually said I wanted Batgirl in the movie, I just thought that Scarlett Johansson would make a dead-on Barbara Gordon. Maybe they could make her Oracle, she could be paralyzed from the waist-down and she could help her dad and Batman. I don't particularly think they'll bring either her or Robin in, though. Maybe as little nods (like Colossus' cameo in X2) or something like that.I just had to be clear on this because Warner Bros is run by hamfisted morons who work hard to ruin good projects and franchises with dreadful executive decisions. If any of them saw a post like yours, it might give them awful ideas that could lead to major disasters.


(quoted IMDB news story about Katie Holmes being dropped from sequel) I knew this was coming. I'm kind of happy about it, strange as it is I agree with you, she was definitely a weak spot in the film and I thought Nolan was smart to play away from her as much as possible (I only suspect that's what he did, and that she was brought in by the WB because she had dealings with them and they wanted to primp her into their next contract-based golden girl), her performance wasn't strong as the article suggests and I'm glad she's not returning. Batman doesn't need a romantic interest, now that we've established he's just wearing a Bruce Wayne mask, it's time for him to grow cold to the outside world, we don't need more Vicky Vale crap (stupid Silver Age bullspit) with this type of Batman.

2-1B
06-26-2005, 04:21 AM
Good movie, I enjoyed it immensely and it's easily the best version of Batman I've ever seen (Adam West sucks, Burton's were okay but I'm not that into it, Batman & Robin, well, I won't repeat what everybody else said :p and even though Bats Forever is pretty sucky, I still love it in a cheesy way).

So, it was definitely my favorite Batman incarnation, C-Bale was the best Batman and I loved how goofy he got with his voice in the suit, well done there.

The only thing I didn't like about the movie was Scarecrow, I thought he sucked and it's because I don't like Cilian Murphy. That role could have been improved upon in casting, somebody didn't do his or her job there.

Good movie overall and I saw it immediately following the superior Land of the Dead but it held up really well and I enjoyed it. :)

There was one GLARING plot/character inconsistency though, and that comes at the end of the movie. Bruce Wayne / Batman is so concerned with justice but following a jewel heist he lets Rachel go only because he likes her - you can clearly see that she is smuggling a pair of diamonds in that blouse. lol

JetsAndHeels
06-26-2005, 09:28 AM
Saw it again last night and I enjoyed it even more. I picked up on some things I must have missed during my first viewing (of course I do that with most of the movies I see).
Definately the best of the Batman films so far. Can't wait to get it on dvd!!

2-1B
06-26-2005, 03:47 PM
Saw it again last night and I enjoyed it even more. I picked up on some things I must have missed during my first viewing

Like what ? :)

I'd be curious to hear so I can compare notes and if I missed it too, I will be alert next time I see it (I might be returning to the theater for a second showing of this, quite possibly).

El Chuxter
06-27-2005, 12:08 PM
I've not yet gone through this entire thread, but I saw this yesterday, and the short of it is:

Best Batman Movie Ever

Best Comic Book Movie Ever

Best Movie of 2005 Period

That was perfect in every way imaginable.

And did any other die-hard geeks cheer at the mention of Mister Zsasz?

El Chuxter
06-27-2005, 02:23 PM
Sorry, for the double post here, but I've looked through the comments and have to add:

Is Liam Neeson really R'as Al Ghul?

Seriously. Give it some thought, and the more you know about one of Batman's oldest foes (literally, since he's a couple of thousand years old), the more you'll wonder.

The man at the party going by the name R'as certainly looks like a younger version of Ken Watanabe.

In the comics, R'as Al Ghul can more or less reincarnate himself. And he prefers to allow others to do his genocidal dirty work than do it himself.

Ducard tells nothing of his past, aside from his wife having been killed. When was this? Twenty years ago, or a thousand?

Is Ducard R'as?

Is the man in the throne R'as, and is he the same as the man at the party?

Is R'as merely a title?

Did whoever is R'as lead the League of Shadows for thousands of years, or is the title passed down?

Throw in the line Ducard says about R'as having seemingly supernatural methods, and it gets even more interesting.

At face value, of course Ducard is R'as, and he's using a decoy.

But there's nothing to contradict the theory that he is still merely a lackey for an invincible foe.

This is the only thing that isn't clearly explained in the movie, and I think it's a beautiful touch. It's left ambiguous, for folks who know R'as Al Ghul from the comics and cartoons to debate. Sort of like "he was able to influence the midichlorions to create life," but even more subtly and beautifully done.

And another question: How the hell are you supposed to pronounce R'as Al Ghul? In the 'toon, it was "Raysh All Gool," and I was under the assumption that came from the character's creator, Denny O'Neill. O'Neill is a very intelligent man who does painstaking research, and I doubt he'd intentionally mispronounce the Arabic?

Or perhaps the pronunciation was changed for this so that it wasn't clearly Arabic, since the character in this film is from eastern Asia (probably China or Japan). Or possibly he's from France. Who knows?

Hellboy
06-27-2005, 03:13 PM
And another question: How the hell are you supposed to pronounce R'as Al Ghul? In the 'toon, it was "Raysh All Gool," and I was under the assumption that came from the character's creator, Denny O'Neill. O'Neill is a very intelligent man who does painstaking research, and I doubt he'd intentionally mispronounce the Arabic?

Or perhaps the pronunciation was changed for this so that it wasn't clearly Arabic, since the character in this film is from eastern Asia (probably China or Japan). Or possibly he's from France. Who knows?

Funny you bring this up, I've had an ongoing debate regarding the correct pronunciation of R'as Al Ghul's name with a friend of mine for years. I've always maintained that it was pronounced just like the Egyptian sun god Ra and was quite happy when they pronounced it that way in the film. My friend however uses the "Raysh" pronunciation because thats the way it was pronounced in BTAS.

Seeing as how the film used the same pronunciation I use I plan on sticking with that until I hear something more official. I've never understood how you can get Raysh out of R'as though. :confused:

JetsAndHeels
06-27-2005, 07:51 PM
Like what ? :)

I'd be curious to hear so I can compare notes and if I missed it too, I will be alert next time I see it (I might be returning to the theater for a second showing of this, quite possibly).


Well, for starters, I was able to understand the whole Chill/Falconi (sp) relationship and all...plus it was easier to understand the connection between the blue flower/the poison and how it was a part of the scheme Ras had to destroy Gotham.
You have to remember, I am a Superman guy, so I am not the expert when it comes to the Batman stories and all the villains. :)

JediTricks
06-28-2005, 12:07 AM
Chux, glad you liked it too, I dunno if it's the best movie of '05, but so far it's my choice.


And did any other die-hard geeks cheer at the mention of Mister Zsasz? I'm not die-hard, but even I noticed it. I wasn't 100% sure of who he was though as I haven't kept up with the books, but I recognized the name.

For me, there was no question that Neeson's character *was* Ra's Al Ghul and that Ducard was simply an alias, it's spelled out in the mansion confrontation scene. Plus, he looks the part and played it great IMO.


And another question: How the hell are you supposed to pronounce R'as Al Ghul? In the 'toon, it was "Raysh All Gool," and I was under the assumption that came from the character's creator, Denny O'Neill. O'Neill is a very intelligent man who does painstaking research, and I doubt he'd intentionally mispronounce the Arabic?

Or perhaps the pronunciation was changed for this so that it wasn't clearly Arabic, since the character in this film is from eastern Asia (probably China or Japan). Or possibly he's from France. Who knows? I thought Qui-Gon was going to be "key-gone" from the way it was written, then it went the other way, so that's 2 that Neeson's pulled on me. ;) I too was a little thrown by the pronunciation of the name, but it's a weird name all around and doing it more phonetically makes sense to me. Ra's Al Ghul definitely never looked like "raysh" to me so the cartoon initially confused me, then I accpeted that and the movie goes the opposite way.


I saw the movie again today, really awesome to be in a big crowd of non-kids during a Monday matinee (kids are fine too, but they're more expected to be at weekday afternoons during the summer - the '89 Batman was one of the first movies I saw by myself during summer break in fact). Every time I leave the theater on this one I feel like I'm still being drawn into the movie, haven't had that in a while.

2-1B
06-28-2005, 12:20 AM
I've lost some respect for the Batman franchise after learning about the immortality of this Ra dude, because people hype up the fact that Bats is a real dude and not some superhero, yet here he is now fighting immortal goblins or whatever, and it really kills that "real world" feel for me. Thankfully the movie did not include this part of the legacy of Ra's, or at least it is left ambiguous. :)

Right now I'd put this Batman as the 3rd best movie of '05 after Star Wars and Land of the Dead. :)

Hellboy
06-28-2005, 03:51 PM
I've lost some respect for the Batman franchise after learning about the immortality of this Ra dude, because people hype up the fact that Bats is a real dude and not some superhero, yet here he is now fighting immortal goblins or whatever, and it really kills that "real world" feel for me.

Well even though Gotham City may have that "real world" feel to it Batman still exists in a world occupied by other superheroes/villains so the fact that some of his enemies are something more than human is plausible. It doesn't change the fact that he is just a normal guy. Okay kind of normal, considering he still dresses up like a bat at night. :crazed:

Part of his appeal, to me anyway, is that Batman doesn't have any superpowers but can still hold his own with those that do because of his superior intellect, fearless attitude and extensive training.

Rocketboy
06-29-2005, 08:59 AM
Finally saw it last night. Incredibly well done. As others said: best Batman yet.
The only things I didn't like:
The unresolved Scarecrow thing. Catch him and toss him back in Arkham.
And the Batmobile. Stupid. And how is Batman going to save Gotham if he hurts or indirectly kills cops (by plowing over the cop cars and with all the bad accidents during the chase)?

As for Crispin Glover, I really would rather not see Marty McFly's dad taking on the caped crusader. I saw a photoshop mock up of himas the Joker online somewhere a while ago. I think he could do it.

Dick Grayson/Robin- Adam Brody (From "The OC". I don't know. This guy looks like he could play Robin. He could bring kind of a smart@$$ personality to him)So far, this doesn't seem like a Batman series that would even consider a Robin (well, neither did the old series at first...). Plus, havin Dick Grayson/Robin makes Bruce/Batman look like a pervert. ;)

I don't particularly think they'll bring either her or Robin in, though. Maybe as little nods (like Colossus' cameo in X2) or something like that.I think Barbara Gordon was in Batman Begins. Remember when Gordon takes the trash out? You get a glimpse of his wife and daughter (I think it was a girl - wasn't paying too close attention to them), she was no older than 8 or 9.

The Riddler- My buddy and I said that Robin Williams would be an interesting random choiceWasn't he originally supposed to play Riddler in Batman Forever, but dropped out?

And did any other die-hard geeks cheer at the mention of Mister Zsasz?Even though I only read Batman for a couple years (years ago) I caught it. Probably because he freaked me out when I first saw him in the comics. I noticed that you can even see his scars briefly.

JediTricks
06-29-2005, 07:40 PM
If I was going to lose respect for the Batman franchise, it'd be over Killer Croc. :p

Rocketboy
06-29-2005, 10:42 PM
Killer Croc was awesome in B:TAS, especially the "Almost Got Him" epsiode, where Bat villians tell tales about how they almosy got him.
"I threw a rock at him."

2-1B
06-30-2005, 02:52 AM
If I was going to lose respect for the Batman franchise, it'd be over Killer Croc. :p

Tell me about him and we'll see. :p

El Chuxter
06-30-2005, 12:12 PM
Killer Croc was awesome in B:TAS, especially the "Almost Got Him" epsiode, where Bat villians tell tales about how they almosy got him.
"I threw a rock at him."

It was a big rock!

:)

JediTricks
06-30-2005, 07:35 PM
Crocodile-man. Basically a guy who had a weird disease that made him grow a thick skin which looked like a crocodile, then he got real strong and um... yeah, became a criminal. Apparently there's been some changes to his backstory in his 22 years since he first appeared, sometimes he just had the skin thing and was taunted so he went bad, others he is actually mutating into a reptile, sometimes he's a bulletproof petty villain and others he's a major crime boss.

2-1B
07-01-2005, 03:10 AM
so he's a jack of all trades ? lol

kool-aid killer
07-02-2005, 05:14 PM
Part of his appeal, to me anyway, is that Batman doesn't have any superpowers but can still hold his own with those that do because of his superior intellect, fearless attitude and extensive training.

I liked BB but i also went away from it thinking that it could have been better. I guess my biggest complaint is that Batman just didnt seem to be overwhelmingly intelligent, do recall that he became lost when Morgan Freemans character explained what he had been hit with by the Scarecrow. I dont know, i would rate this one as better than the last two Batman movies but behind the first two, the alignment could change though if i were to watch the first two over again. Im against a Robin or Batgirl being introduced at all, it just seems like it would take away from the story. And introducing sidekicks leads us to crap like Schumachers films.

chrisc
07-02-2005, 07:00 PM
I don't know if someone brought this up yet. I didn't feel like reading the entire thread. At the end of the movie when they activate the vaporizer or whatever it is, why didn't the people right by it, and in it's path not get really messed up. If it vaporized the water in the pipes why not the water in the human bodies nearby????

Tycho
07-25-2005, 01:40 AM
OK, I really liked Batman Begins.

They set things up for the Joker too.

Who else could be the villains in these films?

Penguin
Catwoman
Poison Ivy
Bane
Riddler
TwoFace
Mr. Freeze
Scarecrow's still out there.

I don't care if they redo all of the original Batman movies and make them better - and cater to one or two (at most) super-villains per film instead of throwing in characters just to hype it up (like Bane was thrown in).

I agree about the sidekick thing. Perhaps the best way to even deal with Robin is to make him a Batman copy-cat and someone Batman doesn't get along with and tries to protect (since Robin is a kid gone vigilante) and then Bruce gives him tips and sort of trains him as Ras Ghul trained him. This would be different from both of them living in the Batcave together.

El Chuxter
07-25-2005, 12:15 PM
Two-Face would be a great choice. In this movie, there was an underlying theme about fear, and think of the possibilities for themes regarding identity if Two-Face is the baddie.

JediTricks
07-25-2005, 07:54 PM
Two-Face is one of the better bad guys in Batman's rogue's gallery I think, not to mention one of his earliest, he's a former DA who is now a twisted and insane crime boss. Although I think Tommy Lee Jones is a very good actor, his turn as Two-Face was not so great because stupid Joel Shumacher camped it up way too much, so I think Two-Face could be revisited easily in the next film.

Mr Freeze, Bane, and Ivy are all kinda "overly sci-fi" characters which I don't think would translate well to a movie setting (so of course Shumacher put them all in the same one). Others that would be too sci-fi silly would be Clayface and Killer Croc.

Catwoman is an interesting character in that she's kinda a crappy villain when played strictly that way, but a very interesting foil for Batman, especially long-term. However, if they go towards the Batman Year One angle I think it'll be disappointing, that was one aspect of the title I never cared for.

The Riddler was totally awful in his first cinematic turn, they should have just called the character "Jim Carrey Unleashed" because it was so little of the actual Riddler - he could make an interesting character played closer to the mark in the next movie, but he might come off flat because he's all about the puzzle which would be very hard to show cinematically. He could make an interesting foil for the Joker though as he thinks first and plans and traps and doesn't generally kill or put people at serious risk.

Penguin also probably would come off flat, if they play him true to form he's not really a killer or anything, just a very grand gentleman crook - he might make a good side-villain in a movie as just something we see Batman deal with, but I don't think he could carry any major portion of a Batman movie (again, the cinematic version we've already had being horrid IMO).

The Mad Hatter and the Ventriloquist would probably come off too generic to carry a movie.

Batman used to fight normal crime as well as supervillains, perhaps we could see somewhat of a return to that, or perhaps that mixed with Penguin or Two-Face.

mabudonicus
07-26-2005, 07:56 AM
Mebbe they should dust of Ol Calendar Man, he would be good in a live-action flick :D

El Chuxter
07-26-2005, 12:06 PM
Did you ever read the Giant Sized special from about five years ago where they tried to make Calendar Man a dangerous, credible threat? It's one of those cases where it just didn't work, and was pretty stupid in the end.

JT, I think Bane could be an excellent film villain, if he's not camped up like he was in that one film I've blocked from my memory. We're talking about the only villain to deduce Batman's identity from observation alone, and to recognize that Bruce Wayne is a mere disguise.

Hellboy
07-26-2005, 03:26 PM
Batman used to fight normal crime as well as supervillains, perhaps we could see somewhat of a return to that, or perhaps that mixed with Penguin or Two-Face.

I'd like to see something along these lines as well but instead of Penguin I think Black Mask and his gang of thugs could be worked into a nice story involving DA Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Unlike the comic version of Black Mask I think the character would benefit if his identity and origin remained somewhat clouded in mystery too.


Mebbe they should dust off Ol Calendar Man, he could be good in a live-action flick :D

Maybe they could throw Mirror Master and Capt. Boomerang in there as well. lol lol lol

As far as Bane goes I really liked how the character was portrayed in the comics with the breaking of the Batman and all but I'm not sure if I could see him working well in any other story arc. It would also be pretty difficult translating that story to film too due to it's length but after a few more movies I could definitely get behind the idea.

JimJamBonds
07-26-2005, 11:57 PM
Mr Freeze, Bane, and Ivy are all kinda "overly sci-fi" characters which I don't think would translate well to a movie setting (so of course Shumacher put them all in the same one). Others that would be too sci-fi silly would be Clayface and Killer Croc.

I don't think that could have been said any better then how you put it JT! :) I think Freeze, Bane and Ivy could have worked but the sci fi/everything is a joke angle didn't work. I actually don't think George Cloney was that bad of a Batman, its just that the 'Govanator' stunk up the movie so bad, he was the real problem in that film. Its the same problem that Batman Forever had, the focus was not on Bat's but rather it was on the bad guy.

JediTricks
07-27-2005, 01:59 AM
Mebbe they should dust of Ol Calendar Man, he would be good in a live-action flick :DGeez, that's worse than the "Man-Bat" reference I was about to make here. :p


BTW, I am quite sure that we'll never see any Batman movies with Black Mask as a main or even secondary villain, he's just TOO unknown by the general public, even casual fanboys.



JT, I think Bane could be an excellent film villain, if he's not camped up like he was in that one film I've blocked from my memory. We're talking about the only villain to deduce Batman's identity from observation alone, and to recognize that Bruce Wayne is a mere disguise.I dunno, the guy becomes basically an overly-perfect and generic villain at that point in the time we'd have to show who he is, he's super smart and super huge from some chemical in his body and agile and powerful and really a hard nut to crack in just 2 hours IMO.



Maybe they could throw Mirror Master and Capt. Boomerang in there as well. Hey, no Flash villains please! :p But while we're getting silly, how about Solomon Grundy, Amazo, Spaceman X, Queen Bee, or The Shaggy Man? Oh man, I feel dirty, DC has a lot to answer for. :crazed:


JimJam, I'm afraid I didn't care for Clooney's Batman much, he was too smirky and otherwise fairly generic in both roles as Bats and Bruce. He didn't seem to have any intensity about him and definitely didn't convince me that he was either a millionaire playboy or a superhero vigilante, his role was basically "George Clooney in a costume".

mabudonicus
07-27-2005, 07:49 AM
Oh man, I feel dirty, DC has a lot to answer for.
JT- up til now the Calendar Man was my "trump card" when arguing Marvel vs DC with one of my good friends (Black Racer is a sturdy one,too,though) but thanks to you I now have Shaggy Man to toss out there (and I know, Marvel has some doozies too, like porcupine and Leapfrog and Madcap)

And I still think Batman Forever was a pretty good film, the best of the first 4 at least, so anyone reading my comments keep that in mind as I've been told it's indiciative of a certain lack-of-taste syndrome :beard:

JediTricks
07-27-2005, 07:15 PM
Hee hee, The Shaggy Man is one of those characters where even his NAME just makes you scratch your head and wonder what the writers were thinking/smoking that day. Of course, the 25-foot-tall mindless hippie robot that he is takes you well beyond that into the abyss: http://www.comiceffect.com/Resources/justiceleague104.jpeg

I love this description of the character's history that I found off Google:

SHAGGY MAN. This insane character (drawn, surprisingly, by ElfQuest creator Wendy Pini) easily wins the 'What The ****' award for Who's Who Volume XX. Made out of an regenerative metal/plastic alloy, the Shaggy Man (who is described as "ape-like", even though he obviously resembles a dog) was a scientific experiment gone awry. He attacked the Justice League, because that's the kind of thing you do if you're a scientific experiment gone awry. At the same time, and bear in mind I am not making any of this up, the JLA was also fighting a monster that was originally a chunk of sentient meteor which had fallen to earth in northern Chile and was draining natural resources, like an interstellar Pinochet. They had the bright idea of creating a second Shaggy Man, and then throwing both the schmucks into a big pit with the meteor monster and letting them slug it out for the rest of forever. Great ****ing plan, am I right? Naturally, the Flash came up with it. Anyway, Hector Hammond got hold of one of the Shaggy Men and teleported it onto the JLA satellite, where it wrecked up the place until Green Lantern stuck it inside a Tylenol caplet. Then the other Shaggy Man got loose and went buckwhylin' all over Russia, when out of nowhere comes Batman (because all the Russian superheroes were out of town, I guess) and convinces the thing, which is obviously not that bright, to climb on board a rocket ship that then was launched into outer space. If you say so, DC!

Rocketboy
07-27-2005, 10:50 PM
And that is why I like Marvel.

El Chuxter
07-28-2005, 10:13 AM
Lest we forget, Rocketboy, Marvel has given us Stegron the Dinosaur Man and NFL Superpro. :D

darthvyn
07-28-2005, 05:34 PM
JimJam, I'm afraid I didn't care for Clooney's Batman much, he was too smirky and otherwise fairly generic in both roles as Bats and Bruce. He didn't seem to have any intensity about him and definitely didn't convince me that he was either a millionaire playboy or a superhero vigilante, his role was basically "George Clooney in a costume".

yeah, whenever anyone talks about clooney's turn as batman, i just say "hi, freeze... i'm doctor ross. i mean, batman." with his little jay leno-ish head-bob that he does.

JediTricks
10-19-2005, 02:38 PM
I bought Batman Begins the second I saw it yesterday at Target, it was $17 which wasn't the greatest deal but it was the only store I was at (I forgot yesterday was Tuesday, you see) and it was the only widescreen copy they had. I haven't opened it up yet, I plan on watching it and the extras soon though.

El Chuxter
10-19-2005, 02:46 PM
Don't open it. Take it back, and go to amazon.com. If you can wait to receive it, they've got the 2-disc version (which Target and Wal-Mart apparently aren't carrying) for just under $16.

Rocketboy
10-19-2005, 03:46 PM
Target carries the 2 disc version...just very few. Whne I got there are 2:30 yesterday, they had 2 left.

El Chuxter
10-19-2005, 03:58 PM
They lied to me!! Eh, what's new? :)

JediTricks
10-19-2005, 04:09 PM
Wow, thanks for the info Chux, you just saved me a bunch of frustration! I thought they all were the 2-disc version, stupid jerks trying to double-dip right out of the gate fooled me!

Reefer Shark
10-19-2005, 06:43 PM
I hit up a bunch of store yesterday, and I only saw ONE 2 disc edition at a local Target (I bought it of course). Very interesting. I wonder... Did they produce this thing in very low numbers, or did Target just not order very many?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-19-2005, 07:30 PM
Don't open it. Take it back, and go to amazon.com. If you can wait to receive it, they've got the 2-disc version (which Target and Wal-Mart apparently aren't carrying) for just under $16.

Yup, we got them at wally world too. I work electronics at my wal-mart and we only got in like 15 of the 2-disc version. I bought mine up at midnight. They sold out by tuesday night. :thumbsup:

Rocketboy
10-19-2005, 07:50 PM
The thing I don't get is that all the commercials seem to be advertising the 2 disc edition, yet there seem to be so few out there.

2-1B
10-20-2005, 01:10 AM
Circuit City has been advertising the single disc.

Jayspawn
10-20-2005, 10:08 AM
I finally was able to watch the movie last night having not seen it before. Pretty good watch! I like the 1st Michael Keaton film better but this is probably my 2nd favorite.

Cant wait to see the next one!

JediTricks
10-20-2005, 08:16 PM
Like an oaf, I didn't order the set from Amazon as soon as I saw your post Chux, and as soon as I came back a few hours later, it had jumped $5 in price. So, I ordered it from deepdiscountdvd for $19 (with the cheapo free shipping) only to see the words "backordered" in my email when the receipt finally came in, jerks. I would definitely not be surprised if Warner Bros ended up on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit over this.

El Chuxter
10-21-2005, 12:03 PM
However, to be honest, I'd prefer they do any double dipping upfront. I hate buying a DVD and finding out two weeks later that a fully loaded version is coming out in a couple of months.

It basically works this way for the most part: if I buy a DVD when it first comes out and is on sale, they'll anounce a new version as soon as I open it. If I don't take advantage of the sales the first week, they never revisit the title and it turns out to be one of the few that never drop in price.

Reefer Shark
10-21-2005, 01:05 PM
However, to be honest, I'd prefer they do any double dipping upfront. I hate buying a DVD and finding out two weeks later that a fully loaded version is coming out in a couple of months.

It basically works this way for the most part: if I buy a DVD when it first comes out and is on sale, they'll anounce a new version as soon as I open it. If I don't take advantage of the sales the first week, they never revisit the title and it turns out to be one of the few that never drop in price.

That's pretty much what happens to me all the time too....

Now I just make sure I buy whatever movies I have the slightest interest in during the 1st week of release. I end up with a lot of extra copies of movies because of this - I usually give the barebones versions away when the deluxe versions come out later (if I decide to buy the deluxe version).

btw: The 2-disc copy of Batman Begins that bought on Tuesday is still the only 2-disc version I've seen (and I've been to multple stores every day since).

I'm sure Warner Bros will press more copies, but right now it really does appear to be a rare specimen.

Rocketboy
10-21-2005, 03:25 PM
I haven't seen any more 2 discs since Tuesday when I picked mine up.
Just an empty rack where it should be.

General_Grievous
10-21-2005, 06:57 PM
I can't believe the shortage of deluxe versions. I've seen them in most of the stores I've been in, but there's only about two of them compared to the massive amounts of single disc versions. Why did they even release a single disc version in the first place?

JimJamBonds
10-22-2005, 12:23 AM
I can't believe the shortage of deluxe versions. I've seen them in most of the stores I've been in, but there's only about two of them compared to the massive amounts of single disc versions. Why did they even release a single disc version in the first place?

The Target I was in yesterday and all they had was the regular version, seems quite weird.

jonthejedi
10-22-2005, 03:11 AM
I think it's up to us to complain to the studios' home entertainment divisions to release one version with extras...period. They're testing the waters in several areas: First, no VHS on ROTS. Why, Fox Home Video was drowning in VHS returns. It just plain didn't sell-thru overall. They are also delegating how many DVD's are shipping to the mass merchants & retail chains. Again, why...because of what happened with Shrek 2 & Pirates...massive unopened returns to the studios. Second: they are testing the waters with 2 separate versions of hit films; a "bare-bones" version with just the film itself; and an extras-laden version that was supposed to be priced only a few dollars more. This wasn't the case with Batman Begins. I saw the single-disc version for $14 & change, yet the 2-disc(better) version was almost not-to-be-found, except at Best Buy, and it was 22.99. This is ridiculous, and I am going to *****, and keep *****ing. Fox tried to pull this crap with Master & Commander. Paramount is doing this next month with War of The Worlds!
Thirdly, I buy on street date week to get the good price, only to find a better version coming out several months later. This has happened with Hellboy, AvP, I, Robot, Day After Tomorrow, The Producers...I could go on & on. Complain to your local retailer, and email the studios...NOW!!!!!!

Rocketboy
10-22-2005, 10:12 PM
Not really liking the cover Batman Begins comes with I, yet again, attempted to make my own*.
I have 2 versions:
One with just the special features (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/Rocketboy78/DVD%20covers/BatmanBegins25.gif) and one with the synopsis and features (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/Rocketboy78/DVD%20covers/BatmanBegins25v2.gif).
Also, I whipped up a chapter list insert (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/Rocketboy78/DVD%20covers/BatmanBeginsChapterinsert25.gif).
Yeah, they're pretty simple, but I kinda like 'em like that.

Thoughts?



*(And now I'll get back to work on the Troops one Caesar.)

And if anyone happens to want one, shoot me a PM with your email.

I can make a single disc version, and since there are no special features, I could put the chapter list on the back if anyone wants one.

2-1B
10-22-2005, 10:50 PM
Well done Rock, those look great ! :)

So I finally found a 2 disc set today. I couldn't buy it right away on Tuesday because I've been busy with work and of course Wednesday night when I checked they were sold out. As were the first 3 stores I tried today in a neighboring town :rolleyes: until I nabbed one at Sam Goody for an extra $5 of course. Meh.

JediTricks
10-23-2005, 12:41 AM
They're testing the waters in several areas: First, no VHS on ROTS. Why, Fox Home Video was drowning in VHS returns. It just plain didn't sell-thru overallBoy is that the truth, you see how many of the boxed VHS TPM that TRU still has? That's the set with the authentic piece of 35mm film and the truncated Art of Ep 1 book, they can't sell these at a buck-fifty a piece and they have MOUNTAINS of 'em apparently.

Rocketboy, those are pretty cool.

I checked 2 Target stores and a Frys electronics today, as well as a 3rd Target yesterday, NO 2-disc sets and the only widescreen the Targets had was the one I returned yesterday. They have A LOT of the stupid Fullscreen ones though, I think WB is going to eat it big time on those, and they should both for putting out a 1- and 2-disc version AND for falling to the Pan&Scan crowd's demands who CLEARLY ain't supporting that right now. Stupid P&S, that was the one cool thing about the original '89 disc is it had WS on one side and P&S on the other - there are rare occasions where P&S can be useful, but I ain't buying a second disc for that.

2-1B
10-23-2005, 01:49 AM
Agreed on the P&S part JT, but the more I think about it, the more I like the THEORY behind the 2 different versions of Bats here. Of course, the execution is terrible with the 2 disc being so hard to find but in theory I don't mind putting out a barebones at the same time as a deluxe. It lets people get the movie only for a few bucks less and then if ya want the deluxe stuff you aren't snookered into double dipping later.

Had I not known better from my internet addiction lol , I would have bought Sin City right away but I knew to wait til December . . . but a bunch of people didn't.

Anyway, the distribution on Batman Begins sucks. :)

General_Grievous
10-23-2005, 10:22 AM
If you go to smaller DVD/Video retailers such as Suncoast or Sam Goody, they have plenty of the Batman Begins Deluxe DVDs.

2-1B
10-23-2005, 11:16 AM
Yeah, for $5 more like I had to pay. :D

JediTricks
10-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Agreed on the P&S part JT, but the more I think about it, the more I like the THEORY behind the 2 different versions of Bats here. Of course, the execution is terrible with the 2 disc being so hard to find but in theory I don't mind putting out a barebones at the same time as a deluxe. It lets people get the movie only for a few bucks less and then if ya want the deluxe stuff you aren't snookered into double dipping later. Considering how most of the places have the bare-bones at the same price as the deluxe, why not just skip the pointless bare-bones altogether and simply release the deluxe? Don't double-dip at all, that's the answer.

2-1B
10-23-2005, 09:39 PM
Because people are cheap and if they see a version for $3 less they will buy it. :grin:

El Chuxter
10-24-2005, 10:53 AM
Higher profit margin, too. Make more that cost less, and charge about the same. You make more profit on the cheaper one, so you try to get people to buy it instead.

Jayspawn
11-07-2005, 10:25 AM
Ok, I need you guys to settle a bet for me....

I've seen Batman Begins several times now and people tell me otherwise. But Ra's Al Ghul is the asian fellow played by Kevin Watanabe, Bruce fights him in the begging of the movie right? He dies in the temple destruction.

A bunch of coworkers are telling me that Ra's Al Ghul IS Liam Neeson. Liam's character Henri Ducard is part of the League of Shadows and does things in the name of Ra's Al Ghul. He says that throughout the whole movie.

So is Ra's Al Ghul Liam Neeson or Kevin Watanabe?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-07-2005, 10:33 AM
Ok, I need you guys to settle a bet for me....

I've seen Batman Begins several times now and people tell me otherwise. But Ra's Al Ghul is the asian fellow played by Kevin Watanabe, Bruce fights him in the begging of the movie right? He dies in the temple destruction.

A bunch of coworkers are telling me that Ra's Al Ghul IS Liam Neeson. Liam's character Henri Ducard is part of the League of Shadows and does things in the name of Ra's Al Ghul. He says that throughout the whole movie.

So is Ra's Al Ghul Liam Neeson or Kevin Watanabe?

If i'm correct, and i like to think i am: Watanbe poses as Ghul, but only contain Ducard's identity that he is in fact, Ghul himself, not Watanbe.

and as for that 2 disc, it's been DISCONTINUED, so if you have found it, count yourself lucky. :thumbsup:

2-1B
11-07-2005, 10:47 AM
Qui-Gon is the real Al Ghul. :)

and it's Ken, not Kevin. :crazed:

James Boba Fettfield
11-07-2005, 11:18 AM
and as for that 2 disc, it's been DISCONTINUED, so if you have found it, count yourself lucky. :thumbsup:

I think the two disc set is still being produced, just without the comic book.

LTBasker
11-07-2005, 12:15 PM
Yeah, the whole story is that the comic book that shipped with the deluxe had a misprint in the credits on the first page. They only list Bob Kane as the creator of the first Batman comic, but it was supposed to be story credited to Bob Kane and the illustrations credited to someone else. Some of the later deluxe sets have a white slip (free bookmark, yay :p) that takes place of the correction.

I think it was for the last of the run, some may have been recalled though. The "deluxe" edition will come out later without the slip cover and comic book as just a basic 2-disc release instead of correcting the comic.

You might want to check around some Wal-Marts though, I was at a Wal-Mart last Monday that had a fresh stock of deluxe editions in and was able to grab it. This Wal-Mart didn't have them when the movie was released, so there may be late shipments to find.

Don't worry though, the comic isn't really that great. It's too small to comfortably read.

El Chuxter
11-07-2005, 06:27 PM
Not a huge deal, as all the stories in it are frequently reprinted. I have lost track of how many copies of the story from Detective Comics #27 I have.

JediTricks
01-01-2006, 05:52 PM
HUZZAH! Last night at Target, I found the new 2 disc Batman Begins (the new box, no comic or nuthin'), I've been waiting for this for over 2 months! Talk about dropping the ball Warner Bros! Anyway, glad to finally own it and watch it, can't wait to check out the extras.

Tycho
12-23-2006, 05:34 AM
Well Batman Begins turned out wonderful. It's really interesting to read the speculation about movies before they're actually released, as is the case right now with Transformers.

But Christian Bale rocked in Batman and played the part perfectly.

I actually loved the whole casting job they did and Nolan made a masterpiece movie. You can't find anything to complain about with this one!

Rocketboy
12-23-2006, 10:07 AM
You can't find anything to complain about with this one!Katie Holmes.

El Chuxter
12-23-2006, 06:29 PM
I could forgive even her casting. She did a decent job, and that final scene where it's obviously chilly is quite a beautiful shot.

If, that is, you overlook the whole "Tom Cruise possessed her immediately after she film this movie and turned her into a freak that makes Rosie O'Donell look freaking hot" bit.

2-1B
12-23-2006, 06:51 PM
Tycho, why didn't you just start a new thread for this movie ?

Tycho
12-23-2006, 08:32 PM
Tycho, why didn't you just start a new thread for this movie ?

There's a couple Batman threads that are already running. I'm interested to hear what others had to say besides "the sound of my own voice" (although that's a beautiful thing) and thus I'm reading what others have said before me. If a thread exists for a movie, I therefore don't see the need to start a new one.

Also, reading perceptions from before a film's release, to right after, to a while later when everyone's had a good chance to digest a film is quite a treat.

KATIE HOLMES is hot in Batman Begins. I don't mind her at all and love her "Kristin Kreuk look" with her hair straight down. Tom Cruise gets all the hot women: Nicole Kidman was fine when she was younger, and Katie Holmes is pretty darn nice, too. I don't begrudge them for their romances. Tom's a lucky dude. If (that means IF) he's really bought into all this scientology thing and thinks he's important enough for a spaceship holding our creators or the descendants of them, to return to earth for him, then he's really nuts.

I'll say this without winding up too far into the Rancor Pit area - I'm Agnostic and thus I don't know what is really the case for our evolution or intelligent design, so that aliens made us (in their own image or some other) is entirely possible. Where Cruise goes overboard is deciding that is unequivably a fact and if it all ties in to Jesus and Christianity etc. such that he's also going to be on the spaceship etc. - there's not enough evidence for that either.

I'm sure some sort of scientology science, like creation science, "proves" their theories. That's fine if it works for them. I can't believe that, but I can't disrespect that actually. And finally, I actually respect that more, since it's out-of-the-box-thinking and not just going along with whatever's the most popular religion.

I don't ever see myself using that to attract girls or create a celebrity persona for myself - but people have fun with whack ideas all the time. You know I'd hand out Mouse Droids in little plastic baggies at Star Wars Celebrations if Hasbro would sell me a few hundred of them to me - mostly
because it would amuse me. So who knows that his religion doesn't just serve to amuse Tom?

As to liking younger girls? What guy really doesn't? As we age, everyone takes on a natural obsession with youth and if we are free from feeling obliged to uphold bonds of matrimony, we seek younger and younger partners. The worst part about Katie Holmes being with Tom Cruise is that she can't be with ME (not that she's my first pick - but she is cute).

Anyway, I suppose we're still on topic as this thread was a lot about the casting choices for Batman.

Gary Oldman as the young Lt. Gordon was an interesting choice that worked out well. I'm used to Oldman being "the bad guy" in his films and this was an unexpected role for him (from my perspective) and I really enjoyed his contribution.

Besides the cast, I'm busy reading a huge Batman Begins thread here on SSG and will contribute to it if I can. I'm also watching the Tim Burton movies, so I might have something to say about those.

But thanks to all for this casting discussion.

Oh darn! How could I forget to acknowledge an awesome performance by Liam Neeson as Rahs al Guhl? Dang he was one of the best "villains" in a Batman movie ever!

Tycho
12-23-2006, 10:18 PM
HUZZAH! Last night at Target, I found the new 2 disc Batman Begins (the new box, no comic or nuthin'), I've been waiting for this for over 2 months! Anyway, glad to finally own it and watch it, can't wait to check out the extras.

I just bought this the other day and haven't watched the extras. The one about the Batmobile "Tumbler" looks interesting. I've decided to watch the Tim Burton Batman movies first though.

In the meantime, there hasn't been Batman discussion for a year in this thread. How were the extras for those who have watched them?

(I'm still reading back on page 11 before the movie came out for those wondering if I'll have further comments. But there was nothing as of yet that I could add to this discussion. There's a separate casting thread about this movie that I've participated in, however.)

RooJay
12-23-2006, 10:36 PM
I thought the comic book style format of the special features was...kind of cute, but it was definitely a pain in the butt to navigate. I would have much rather they'd been presented in a more traditional format. The features themselves were cool enough though. Of course, I'm of the mind that you can never have enough special features, and this one did seem just a bit light.

Rocketboy
12-23-2006, 10:56 PM
I don't think I ever finished watrching the Special Features because it was such a pain in the *** navigating the menus. Of the ones I did watch, the Jimmy Fallon Tankman spoof was the best Special Feature.

The best part of the initial 2-disc edition was the comic it came with.

Tycho
12-23-2006, 10:57 PM
I got it at BestBuy for $14.95 and that was the same price they were asking for the one-disc regular edition, so I thought that was a bargain.

Rocketboy
12-23-2006, 11:01 PM
KATIE HOLMES is hot in Batman Begins. I don't mind her at all and love her "Kristin Kreuk look" with her hair straight down. Tom Cruise gets all the hot women: Nicole Kidman was fine when she was younger, and Katie Holmes is pretty darn nice, too. I don't begrudge them for their romances. Tom's a lucky dude. If (that means IF) he's really bought into all this scientology thing and thinks he's important enough for a spaceship holding our creators or the descendants of them, to return to earth for him, then he's really nuts.

I'll say this without winding up too far into the Rancor Pit area - I'm Agnostic and thus I don't know what is really the case for our evolution or intelligent design, so that aliens made us (in their own image or some other) is entirely possible. Where Cruise goes overboard is deciding that is unequivably a fact and if it all ties in to Jesus and Christianity etc. such that he's also going to be on the spaceship etc. - there's not enough evidence for that either.

I'm sure some sort of scientology science, like creation science, "proves" their theories. That's fine if it works for them. I can't believe that, but I can't disrespect that actually. And finally, I actually respect that more, since it's out-of-the-box-thinking and not just going along with whatever's the most popular religion.

I don't ever see myself using that to attract girls or create a celebrity persona for myself - but people have fun with whack ideas all the time. You know I'd hand out Mouse Droids in little plastic baggies at Star Wars Celebrations if Hasbro would sell me a few hundred of them to me - mostly
because it would amuse me. So who knows that his religion doesn't just serve to amuse Tom?

As to liking younger girls? What guy really doesn't? As we age, everyone takes on a natural obsession with youth and if we are free from feeling obliged to uphold bonds of matrimony, we seek younger and younger partners. The worst part about Katie Holmes being with Tom Cruise is that she can't be with ME (not that she's my first pick - but she is cute).Ummm...what the **** does any of that nonsense have to do with Batman Begins?

Tycho
12-24-2006, 01:04 AM
On page 11, JediTricks discusses his distaste for Bat-gadgets and his preference to Batman using his wits and detective skills, versus body armor and military hardware.

I also like to see him use his wits, such as in Burton's film when he cracks the Joker's chemistry-combination that lends itself to lethal make-overs. However, Batman is the last Ninja of the Shadow League Warriors, and Ninjas are weapons masters. Furthermore, Bruce is very wealthy and Wayne Industries does have a military contractor subsidiary at his disposal, as established in Batman Begins.

I think the whole way this story was presented was all perfectly logical and rocked. I'm still getting to people's impressions AFTER they saw the movie, but page 11 was before its debut, mind you.

Tycho
12-24-2006, 01:34 AM
Ummm...what the **** does any of that nonsense have to do with Batman Begins?

El Chuxter and Rocketboy made negative comments about Katie Holmes, with which I disagreed. I surmised the source of their comments were because:

a) she's with Tom Cruise who is likely almost 20 years older than she is

b) Tom Cruise supposedly converted her to scientology, which might be a very whacked religion, but I see it having little baring on whether you should disrespect Katie Holmes, or Tom Cruise, as there is nothing that proves them wrong in their beliefs. Though nothing proves their beliefs either.

In any case, whether Katie Holmes could contribute to Batman Begins (she did) had nothing to do with whom she marries, has children with, or what her pesonal religious beliefs are.

She's not Katie Holmes in the film. She's Assistant District Attorney Rachael Daas.

I just wanted to clearly establish WHY scientology etc. has nothing to do with Katie Holmes impact on Batman Begins.

2-1B
12-24-2006, 07:10 AM
No, she's not Rachel Daas in the film because that would require acting talent, of which Katie Holmes has none.

Rocketboy
12-24-2006, 08:38 AM
El Chuxter and Rocketboy made negative comments about Katie Holmes, with which I disagreed. I surmised the source of their comments were because:

a) she's with Tom Cruise who is likely almost 20 years older than she is

b) Tom Cruise supposedly converted her to scientology, which might be a very whacked religion, but I see it having little baring on whether you should disrespect Katie Holmes, or Tom Cruise, as there is nothing that proves them wrong in their beliefs. Though nothing proves their beliefs either.

In any case, whether Katie Holmes could contribute to Batman Begins (she did) had nothing to do with whom she marries, has children with, or what her pesonal religious beliefs are.

She's not Katie Holmes in the film. She's Assistant District Attorney Rachael Daas.

I just wanted to clearly establish WHY scientology etc. has nothing to do with Katie Holmes impact on Batman Begins.And I never mentioned anything about her personal life.
I just think think she's a terrible actress. I don't see why she was cast in a movie with so many great actors. She's the Jake Llyod of the film.

(And she hasn't been good looking in years, but that has nothing to do with her lack of acting ability)

El Chuxter
12-24-2006, 10:15 AM
I said she was hot, especially in the one scene, and did a decent job? How is that negative?

And referring to the fact that she now acts as if she's insane and seems to have forgotten how to groom herself, that's not negative. That's honest. It's a bit tragic, in fact.

2-1B
12-24-2006, 01:22 PM
Jake Lloyd in The Phantom Menace or Jake Lloyd in Jingle All The Way ?

Jargo
12-24-2006, 01:29 PM
Rutger hauer was completely wasted in BB. I mean, the guy can act, he's an action man, and they stuck him behind a boardroom desk. gae him precious little to work with and his character came over rather dull and worthless.

I still think the whole contrivance of the Wayne vaults containing exactly what Bruce needs at any given moment and Morgan freeman just idly sitting around waiting for bruce to ome calling is one of the movies major downpoints.

Katie Holmes I can take or leave. I'd sooner watch katie than Kim Basinger anyhoo.

I have a dislike of Liam Neeson. It's hard to separate the man from his characters. thus I gain no pleasure from watching him onscreen. And that whole bruce in the wildernes section never did it for me. the idea was there but the way it played out seemed a bit forced and frankly a bit dull. The movie only worked for me when we were back in Gotham and Bruce was kicking butt.

Michael Caine surprised me. I thought he was a bad choice for Alfred but now i think he did ok. given a further movie and a chance to expand his character and gel more with Bale i think he may become my definitive Alfred.

Bale himself. I'm still undecided really. I know it was supposed to be a darker Bruce, but it felt a bit flat to me. the broodiness was there but he doesn't seem very expressive. and because of that not very engaging. again a further movie with room to breathe and inhabit the role may change my mind.

if the movie was trying to give a more comic book feel graphically then i think it failed. If it was trying to be cleer with dialogue then it definitely failed. If it was trying to reinvent the wheel it failed. If like with star wars the best is yet to come and this was just the entree then whatever comes next really needs to be extra amazingly good or the whole thing will just die a death.

I think what really bothers me is the lack of fluidity to the movie. it feels very much like a bunch of set pieces linked with bothersom dramatic dialogue bits. The set pieces are all fine but it's the dramatic glue that binds them all together that seems lacking. which by contrast is completely the opposite of Ang Lee's Hulk movie. where the drama is good and the action sequences are crap.

It's be interesting to see what Ang Lee made of batman. I get the feeling he'd actually have done a good job and it would have been a world he could inhabit and really get to grips with.

Tycho
12-24-2006, 03:01 PM
How much of it is the director (who usually gets all the credit) or the writer who really puts the story together? I don't think Nolan or Lee are writers, and they can influence what happens after the fact of what is on the written page (Bryan Singer for that matter as well).

I think the story and the script are the most important. I have to say that the Spider-Man films have excelled there and have been top notch. Smallville's Miles Milar and Al Gogh did Spider-Man 2 (Dr. Octopus) and the story it told made it rock. Sure Sam Raimi came through immensely bringing out of it a great execution - but it could have been a cartoon (or even a comic book you had to turn pages with) and Milar & Gogh's story would have set an industry standard at a new high.

In terms of Batman Begins, it is excellent. I don't know how much was new contribution by the story and screenplay writer, and what is original Bob Kane (though I suspect it's mostly Kane's work revisited). This is pefectly traditional and really worked for this movie. Actually, that being said, even Doc Oc might be more Stan Lee than Milar & Gogh.

Some of the super-hero films have just been awesome. Others like X3 seem to have fell from those standards their predacessors have set.

The Hulk was great drama by the way, and I agree with Jargo's assesment about the action sequences versus the drama and the comic-book frame use in the movie was quite creative and original. (At least I hadn't seen that done before).

As to Chuxter's comment that Katie Holmes is insane now and can't groom herself? I have no comment. I haven't seen her in much, don't pay much attention to the tabloids (and if I do, I'm more interested in what the girls-gone-wild are doing than the married couples - like the new "no panties epidemic" that's gripped Spears, Lohan, and hopefully Hilton - maybe I've missed that picture - though those are not the girls I'd be interested in and yeah, I would turn them down....uh probably. I think I might have a weakness for Lohan or Hilton. Talk about insanity...) But wasn't the topic Batman Begins? Dang. How easy it is to get me off-topic. Well, if Katie Holmes goes wild, she'd make my "b-list." But I haven't paid her much mind and I wasn't a Dawson's Creek viewer, though in passing, I did think she was cute on that show in a gee-would-it-be-fun-to-be-a-sex-offender-kind-of-way.

JediTricks
12-26-2006, 11:07 PM
Keaton's detective work in the '89 film is minimal, we don't even see the batcomputer come up with it, the solution is kind of pulled out of thin air and thus we get only the briefest mention of him being a detective. In BB though, we see him investigating and interrogating, following leads, and collecting evidence though sub-legal channels.

As to my post on page 22 (it's on page 11 for Tycho because he's viewing 20 per page rather than the forum default of 10-per-page, I guess), they were able to use almost everything in BB the right way, the car wasn't even designed for Batman's use and had very few gimmicks beyond being tough and fast, the outfit wasn't just a dopey rubber muscle suit, they worked to explain everything's origin in a logical manner and used only a couple gadgets. The one thing I had to get past was the cowl, which is too rubbery and sculpted too corny. Still, the movie DOES get past all that somehow to feel just right, probably by showing the genesis of each and the logic with which Bruce chooses 'em.

One cool thing I read about the costume really is true:

To best pose as Batman, Bale studied graphic novels and illustrations of the superhero. Nolan said that Bale succeeded in his intimidating pose, recalling, "Everyone on set felt quite a charge when Christian would walk on in the Batsuit." Bale had a love-hate relationship with the suit, which had often sent him into foul moods, helping him transform into Batman. Bale said, "Batman's meant to be fierce, and you become a beast in that suit, as Batman should be — not a man in a suit, but a different creature."
Bale has some really awesome poses in the movie, he moves and stalks and even panics in the suit like the character rather than a Godzilla-reject.

JediTricks
12-27-2006, 05:28 PM
In my last post, I got very distracted and never finished my thought, it was that I felt the casting of Christian Bale as Batman was all wrong - the guy doesn't have the right look or voice, both of which he has are more working class and fairly specific - but his ACTING owned that part almost perfectly both in and out of the suit which won me over, just as Keaton had done in '89... I remember seeing a very early trailer for that Batman film with my mom in '88 and we were at a restaurant afterwards still talking about that casting and even whether or not we had even really seen what we had seen.


I could forgive even her casting. She did a decent job, and that final scene where it's obviously chilly is quite a beautiful shot.I couldn't forgive her casting, she is the one truly weak spot in the movie and it'd be just as good a film if she were edited out entirely. She's already done other movies showing off her implants, so the addition here was just to sucker a few extra guys into the theater.

Katie Holmes is to me a generic, babyfaced, crooked-smile-wearing TV actress with extremely limited range. She's cute in some light but not really anything noteworthy, and while a cameo I suppose wouldn't be too bad, she really shouldn't have anything to do with the next film. It would be bad for the plot, she's already rejected Bruce and has her own life to lead anyway, Bruce has let her go as well, it'd be a pointless side trip to focus on ADA Rachel Dawes again.



I just think think she's a terrible actress. I don't see why she was cast in a movie with so many great actors. She's the Jake Llyod of the film.That's not fair.... Jake Lloyd was a pretty good kid actor until Lucas got his mitts on the boy. :p



Rutger hauer was completely wasted in BB. I mean, the guy can act, he's an action man, and they stuck him behind a boardroom desk. gae him precious little to work with and his character came over rather dull and worthless.I think he did ok with the meager part they gave him, I was disappointed that they cast him at all merely because it signaled the character's evil intent, I would have been more impressed if they cast him but then he hadn't been a scuzzbag.


I have a dislike of Liam Neeson. It's hard to separate the man from his characters. thus I gain no pleasure from watching him onscreen. I thought he was brilliant here, he was such a great casting choice for Ra's al Ghul and I liked his performance a lot, he didn't hold back anything and play it gentlemanly the way he did with Qui-Gon and some of the other characters he's played lately, he went more for the throat with it and I found it a perfect fit.


Michael Caine surprised me. I thought he was a bad choice for Alfred but now i think he did ok. I feel the same way, Alfred is more upper-class and refined, Caine is more lower-class and raw, yet he did a good job with it and ended up nearly owning this part as well.



How much of it is the director (who usually gets all the credit) or the writer who really puts the story together? I don't think Nolan or Lee are writers, and they can influence what happens after the fact of what is on the written page (Bryan Singer for that matter as well).Like I told you in the Transformers movie thread, it differs from director to director. With BB, Nolan was passionate that this would be done right and he worked hand in hand co-writing the screenplay with David Goyer, Christopher Nolan helmed BB very well. I dunno who "Lee" is that you are referring to though, do you somehow mean editor Lee Smith?


I think the story and the script are the most important. I have to say that the Spider-Man films have excelled there and have been top notch.A great script can be done in by an inept director or by a meddling studio. IMO, the director has to have passion and understanding and direction for the work in order for it to shine.


Sure Sam Raimi came through immensely bringing out of it a great execution - but it could have been a cartoon (or even a comic book you had to turn pages with) and Milar & Gogh's story would have set an industry standard at a new high.Gough and Millar have been writing partners for a decade, and a lot of their previous projects have been utter dreck, such as the Timecop tv series and Lethal Weapon 4. Talent isn't enough, passion isn't enough, drive isn't enough, there has to be an excellence of execution to make a TV or movie project like that work.


In terms of Batman Begins, it is excellent. I don't know how much was new contribution by the story and screenplay writer, and what is original Bob Kane (though I suspect it's mostly Kane's work revisited).Batman Begins was written by director Nolan and the talented David Goyer (of the "Blade" movies and shows), the movie borrows from Frank Miller's classic "Batman: Year One" as well as Jeph Loeb's "Batman: Long Halloween" (Jeph Loeb wrote and produced some of "Smallville", and now is a producer on "Heroes") and "Batman: The Man who Falls" - all of those came after Miller's perennial classic 1986 "The Dark Knight Returns", the Batman book that changed comics forever (and also sorta ruined comic collecting :p).


Tycho, by bringing up the Christian Bale thread, I had to merge the 2 threads, now it's a big mess.