Batman Begins

[Jester of the FoS]

I was trying not to spoil the twist, which I loved (and anyone who likes surprises and hasn't read the above don't!). Just felt sad to see such an good actor underused in the west yet again.

[Cole Deschain]

Awesome flick.

Rewards the readers of the comcis without excluding those who don;t.

Oh yeah, and the Scarecrow was masterfully done.

This movie rules.

Hopefully, they'll not butcher it wiuth sequels. It ends exactly where it should.

I think I actually prefer it to the Tim Burton films... although they're different enough it's hard to say.

But for those of you who dread "camp," try this one on for size: Burton's movies were campier.

[Lost and Damned]

That one issue where it turns out that Two-Face framed the Joker, in that he, not the Joker, killed Bruce Wayne's doctor friend, and thus, nearly caused Batman to beat the Joker to death, I thought it was a marvelous piece of work.

Ah yes I remember that storyline, "Hush", brillant writing and superb artwork.

As for the film, i'm quite looking forward to it as it's been moved back to it's darker roots...

[AdamGarou]

I guess campiness really IS in the eye of the beholder. Or the beer-holder. Or whatever.

What I'm getting from everyone--or most everyone--is that Batman Begins portrays the kind of dark, gritty, realistic (however you define it) Batman I've been hoping they'd get back to since the Tim Burton films, showing the tragedy he experienced and how he dealt with it. And that sounds great--it's exactly what I was hoping to hear. That was the whole point of my original and follow-up posting, despite its various derailings and tangents.

The distinction Gemathustra is making seems to be between the movies and the comic characters, and that's fine. When I read his post, I understood him to be saying that a movie about Batman must be campy and ridiculous however it is handled, because it's about a man who runs around in a bat costume--no distinction being made at all. That's why I mentioned the comics, as evidence that the character was NOT originally created as an annoying, pun-making, pathetic whacko.

I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption to make, given the way the post was phrased, but it was apparently not what he intended. If that's the case, then I have to quote Dr. Gregory House:

"Clarification--it's a beautiful thing."

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

After reading the Batman/Dredd files, I think making either Die Laughing! or Judgement on Gotham into a movie would rock.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Can't wait to see this one. Sounds like they finally got it right.

I saw Batman & Robin for free, and wanted my money back.

Cole, I guarantee you at least one sequel, probably two. If it's as good as people are saying, it will make money, and if a comic book movie makes money, it'll get a sequel. (Unlike say, LoTR, they can't claim "that's it, no more story" They've been writing Batman stories for what, 60 years? No matter how well it ends, there's always more story.) All we can hope for is that the sequels get the same serious treatment, and hopefully can pull the same cast, writer, and director together.

[Brandi]

After reading the Batman/Dredd files, I think making either Die Laughing! or Judgement on Gotham into a movie would rock.

Given what they did to Judge Dredd last time they thought about making a movie about him, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Dominique]

From what I've heard, Nolan actually planned it to be a trilogy, with the second one revolving around the Joker and the third one revolving around Two-Face (which has led to a lot of speculation about Harvey Dent being a major good character in the second one who gets turned into Two-Face by the Joker, or something). Could be neat. Sequels usually aren't bad if they're planned from the beginning.

David--I didn't want to post any spoilers either, but I couldn't think of how to make my point without blowing the whole thing.

[frandelgearslip]

I never said, nor did I EVEN IMPLIED that the COMICS were campy, I ONLY said that the MOVIES were campy.
First off, please do not put words in my mouth EVER EVER again, and second, please explain to me how having penguin pall-bearers escort Danny DeVito's corpse into the water, or how Catwoman was making 9-lives' jokes while being shot to death were somehow not corny.

(I added the bold marks). Just wanted to say that I never mentioned the word corny. Corny and campy are two different things and I am not fan of the second movie and yes it may have been corny, but it wasn't campy. Rocky Horror picture show is campy, batman returns is corny.

No, you and frandelgearslip were wrong...
I wasn't talking about the comics being campy, my fussy-wuzziest Professor...
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MOVIES: I NEVER SO MUCH AS MENTIONED A SINGLE LETTER, LET ALONE SINGLE WORD IMPLYING OR INFERRING THAT I THOUGHT THE COMICS WERE CAMPY.

To repeat something that somebody else said "clarity". I mistook what you said to mean that you were talking about batman in general. Since two seperate people came to the same conclusion, maybe it was not our fault.

I like reading the comics when I get the opportunity to do so. That one issue where it turns out that Two-Face framed the Joker, in that he, not the Joker, killed Bruce Wayne's doctor friend, and thus, nearly caused Batman to beat the Joker to death, I thought it was a marvelous piece of work.

On a side note is that what happened. If your talking about Hush did two-face frame the joker? I thought the mastermind was the doctor friend and two face was a good guy during the series. (I think he might have killed the doctor friend at the end to save batman's life). Or something like that. I read it, but its been over a year since then.

Keep it restrained and keep it civil and please no dragging up old disagreements from over a year and a half ago and an entirely different website.

Are you being rhetorical or am I missing something

[Jester of the FoS]

Just trying to keep things on topic, which is Batman and not word semantics teetering on the line of becoming a major disagreement or a flame war. We need neither.

And once again we have a post that has nothing to do with the new movie and just brings up an argument that should have stayed dead after I was forced to pop in the first time!
I try to be the light fluffy member of the Fraternity because I'm a relatively silly guy but enough is enough. Unless you have something relevant to post about Batman or the new Batman movie. I don't care how interesting or informative the next rebuttal may be, final warning people.

So, to launch a possible new branch of conversation away from this:
The Tumbler? A nice change for the Batmobile, a modern twist on what it should be like or simply too much?

[Brandi]

If by "The Tumbler" you mean that tank-like vehicle, I wasn't crazy about it but it didn't detract from the movie.

Did find myself wondering how much it was supposed to weigh though-- during one scene it jumps onto a rooftop that I'm not convinced could hold a car that size if it weighed anywhere near what I thought it weighed.

[Gemathustra]

Did find myself wondering how much it was supposed to weigh though-- during one scene it jumps onto a rooftop that I'm not convinced could hold a car that size if it weighed anywhere near what I thought it weighed.

Do realize that in action movies, the laws of physics, as well as disbelief, are often suspended, or even cast out in favor of theatrics and eye candy.

[Jester of the FoS]

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

[Brandi]

Do realize that in action movies, the laws of physics, as well as disbelief, are often suspended, or even cast out in favor of theatrics and eye candy.

No kidding. But when you see this film, and see the rooftop scene I'm thinking of, you'll wonder too.

[frandelgearslip]

Just trying to keep things on topic, which is Batman and not word semantics teetering on the line of becoming a major disagreement or a flame war. We need neither.

point taken

And once again we have a post that has nothing to do with the new movie and just brings up an argument that should have stayed dead after I was forced to pop in the first time!
I try to be the light fluffy member of the Fraternity because I'm a relatively silly guy but enough is enough. Unless you have something relevant to post about Batman or the new Batman movie. I don't care how interesting or informative the next rebuttal may be, final warning people.

Now I am a little mad, you may be right about a semantics war (though I think there is a difference between corny and campy), but my post was about batman.

The first part was a response about the campiness of batman returns, since the majority of this thread has been about the campiness of the new movie and the campiness of batman in general I feel its a fair response. Gemathustra brought up batman returns for the first time in his post and I responded to it for the first time in my post. Its not like we had been posting arguements (semantic or otherwise ) for days about batman returns.

The second part I apologize for(to the moderators and the posters in general). Though I was explaining the reason a mistake had been made. The third of the three sentences may have been a little bit overboard.

The third part of the post was about the batman story arc Hush. I was wondering if I am thinking about the right story arc, because I remembered the details a bit differently. I was curious if I had the wrong story arc.

The 4th part of the post was in response to you about some arguement either Gemathustra and I had or Gemathustra and AdamGarou had a year and a half ago on the wizard boards that I have no memory of. I was wondering (and still am since the search functions at wizo don't work) if there was such an arguement or if you were being rhetorical.

Note this seems to be an overreaction to the 11 page flame war in the general messageboard(which I did not take part in). Of my second post only one sentence was overboard (and was nowhere near the territory of flaming).