I like it. But I can't wait that long.
I think I'm going to hybernate and wake up in June for the opening.

Heavenly said:

Its going to be fantastic. There is very little in the script I don't like.

JediMaster said:

I hope you're right.

I still wake up shivering in a cold sweat thinking about what Joel Schumacher did to the franchise.

Boy, that's one bad memory I still can't shake!

.

giotto said:

The script for this one is about 180 Degrees from Shumacher. This one is actually the most faithful adaptation of the Bat to ever hit live action. oNly the animated series has depicted Batman better.

TheBatman said:

HEY WHY SO DOWN?

YOU LOOK GOOD IN TRAILER!

TheBatman said:

So, besides the costume, what don't you like about this?? I'm really having trouble understanding how a devout Bat-fan cannot be excited about a film that accurately portrays his origin (and, what's more, goes into more detail about his training and building of his arsenal). The costume doesn't look exactly like the comic, but I just don't think that's an issue (especially since I'm positive that it wouldn't translate to the big screen. It would look silly). The costume alone cannot be the thing that makes this film bad.

I'll break it down:

A great director (Christopher Nolan of Memento fame).

A screenwriter who knows the comics (JSA writer David Goyer)

An actor who is dead-on perfect for Bruce Wayne (American Psycho star Christian Bale)

A fantastic cast (Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer, Gary Oldman).

A script that combines the best elements of Batman: Year One with other bits of the mythos (also exploring his training, which has been shown in bits and pieces over the years).

JediMaster said:

I think Gary Oldman would have been better cast as R'as Al Ghul. I really can see him playing that role to perfection.

An what's with adding The Scarecrow to the mix? Can't a complex creature such as The Demon carry a movie as the titular villain all by himself?

.

JediMaster said:

Remains to be seen.

The other, so called "Batman" movies are too fresh and engraved in my memories. Just like the Spider-Man TV show. I didn't expect the Spider-Man movie to be so good. I just wanted it to remove those horrible images of Nicholas Hammond's stunt double, wiggling in front of a building, acting like he was climbing walls.

I can only hope this new movie will erase Michael Keaton, and George Clooney's, embarrassing portrayels.

I'll break it down:

Memento, weird movie.

David Goyer, haven't read his work.

Christian Bale, I don't know... was OK in "Reign Of Fire."

Michael Caine, Nigel Powers. Liam Neeson, Qui-Gon Jinn. Morgan Freeman, Spider-Man from the "Electric Company."

Script? Remanins to be seen.

I'm an artist. The most important rule is accuracy. Spider-Man was able to pull that off with his costume. Batman could've done it too. I never cared for the "all black" color scheme, and the black war paint around the eyes. I don't get it.

Other than that... I am waiting cautiously for this interpretation. I hope you're right. I hope it's good!

TheBatman said:

DUDE

SPIDEY SHOW LONG LONG TIME AGO

One of two movies I definitely have to see next year.

TheBatman said:

I agree that accuracy IS important, but I care more about the portrayls of the characters and whether or not the story is true to the source material. Costuming is not nearly as important (I'm not saying it isn't, just that it isn't the most important thing). You cite Spider-Man, which I agree was a fantastic adaptation. Its true that Spidey's costume was accurate, but what about the Green Goblin? His costume didn't look at all like his comic counter-part (and, in fact, looked downright silly), but it didn't matter because Willem Dafoe was perfect as Norman Osbourne. The film was great, even with this one bad detail (and, it should be noted, the Batman costume in this film is waaaaay more accurate than the GG costume was in Spider-Man). Why did this film succeed? Because the CHARACTERS and STORY were so true to their comic roots.

This script has a vengeful Bruce Wayne, who goes off to train himself, learn the ways of the criminal mind and perfect his fighting skills. He hides behind a billionaire playboy facade, to draw suspician away from his crusade. He is frightened by a Bat as a child, and thus uses this motif as an adult to put fear into criminals. He uses his fortune to build his lair and weaponry.

There are no silly one-liners, no dumb villians with retarded origins, no rubber-nippled Bat-suits and no Bat-credit cards. The mistakes of Burton, and the absolute ridiculousness of Shumacher are swept away.

The all-black Batman costume looks waaaaay better than a more 'faithful'
interpretation would. The grey and black look would just be laughable. You
might as well just put "Blam!" and "Kapow!" flashes up in the fight scenes
while you're at it.

giotto said:

I disagree with Oldman as Ra's, especially after seeing him as Jim Gordon:



As for The Scarecrow, they aren't really doing the "two villian" thing that has plagued the Bat films to date. In fact, this film only sets up The Scarecrow.


SPOILER ALERT. Do not read further if you don't want to know certain details about the story



Still with me? Okay, here's the deal: In the film, the character of Jonathan Crane (who will become the Scarecrow) is secretly working for Ra's Al Ghul's terrorist network, developing the fear gas in order to bring chaos to Gotham (a way of destroying the infrastructure of the cities of men). He tests his concoction on the inmates of Arkham Asylum (where he is employed). In his "experiments", he uses a mask to prevent himself from inhaling the gas. He has decorated this mask with frightful stitching to enhance the effect of the gas (you guessed it, it resembles a scarecrow's mask). The inmates come to call him "scarecrow" as a result. Its not until near the end that we actually see what leads him to become the villian we know from the comics. This film only sets up the Scarecrow, much in the same way that Spider-Man 2 set the stage for Harry to become the second Green Goblin.

For that matter, this movie only shows the tip of the iceburg with regard to Ra's. We see his organization, and we learn his intended goal, but it doesn't delve too deep into it. There is no mention of Talia, Ubu or The Lazarus Pit. It never states that these things don't exist, it just doesn't get into it. For the first time in the Batman movies, the villians are NOT the main focus. Certain things are set up to revisit in future films, but not everything is crammed into this one film (much in the same way that the Spidey and X-Men flicks have done it). With the way this movie ends, it could go in a lot of different directions. We could see more of Ra's Al Ghul's empire, meet Talia, see The Scarecrow, or other villians not seen here (and I won't even tell you the coolest hint we get at the end of this flick). This movie is completely rebooting the Batman franchise, and Goyer has been smart about it.

BorisFishpaw said:

I agree. Personally, I think the costume in this flick is about as accurate as you can get without making it a total joke. This costume has the Bat-emblem from the Bob Kane/Bill Finger design (which is the one currently being used in the comic and on the "Justice League" cartoon), and it reflects a matte-grey when light hits it. I really don't think it could be any closer without being silly.
[Edited 12/14/04 11:44am]

All I know is... I hope you're right Jedi. I hope it'll be as good as you say.

Who gives a shit, Christian Bale's in it - thats good enough in my book!

TheBatman said:

Dude, if that's your problem, you're never gonna like ANY film.

Take each on it's own merit - it ain't THAT hard!

I'm only like that about movies that bare my name.

TheBatman said:

You are killing me with the Burton bashing. The original is everything a Batman fan could hope for. Im a Bat freak. Very few special effects took away from the fantasy feel. Schumacher on the other hand will forever be my nemesis.

DarkKnight1 said:

To me, Burton's Bat-films were "close, but no cigar" (and I'm a Burton fan). There were cool things about it (the Batmobile rocked), but there were MAJOR flaws, especially with the character of Batman.

First off, Batman wouldn't kill. In that movie, he's throwing villians down shafts, blowing them up, AND telling The Joker that he's going to kill him. Sorry, but none of that is true to the character. Bruce Wayne was vengeful and willing to kill BEFORE he trained (although he never did), but once he became focused that changed. He values human life, even that of criminal scum. His mission is to bring justice, not death.

Keaton was able to capture the pathos of Batman, but never once did we see the facade that is Bruce Wayne. He was Batman all the time, even out of costume. The playboy image that he uses for Wayne is an important tool, to delfect suspicion from himself (no one would believe that such a vaccuos, self-centered playboy could actually be The Batman, even if he had the money to fund such a crusade).

Oh, and what is up with that retarded sub-plot that The Joker killed his parents??? Total crap. To erase Joe Chill from the equation is just plain stupid (it should be a common street thug, like Chill, who is responsible. Having his arch-nemesis be the perp is just dorky). Both the Joker AND Batman were created by horrific events, but each chose a very different way to deal with their pain. That's the POINT of their relationship to one another. To have them "create" one another lessens this, plus its just damned hokey.

To date, the best interp of Batman and his rogues has been the various incarnations of Batman: The Animated Series. Kevin Conroy is a perfect Batman

TheBatman said:

Me too!!!! I know its possible that they could screw it up, with a near-perfect script (and it isn't perfect, there are one or two points that irk me), a fantastic director and a great cast. I just don't think they will. Everything about it seems to be in line.

I also love how Nolan has chosen to light everything in the same tones as Batman: Year One, which is terrific, since Burton's films borrowed so heavily from The Dark Night Returns. The two, visually, are quite different, with BYO being a gritty, realistic take, and TDKR being a fantastical, futuristic tale. Both are valid interps, but I prefer to see Batman done is a way that is believable (especially for an origin story).

JediMaster said:

Unlike you I haven't had the privilege of seeing Oldman as Commissioner Gordon so I will take your word for it. Was this a good or a bad thing?

However, I am aware of Oldman's uncanny capacity to invest a character with a delicate balance of villainy and menace whilst resisting the urge to indulge in silly camp the way Tommy Lee Jones and Arnie did with their roles. A portrayal that will do the character of R'as Al Gul any justice will demand nothing less than an awareness of what makes a great and memorable villain tick.

This is why I could readily see Oldman as R'as, besides the obvious physical resemblance between Oldman and R'as, as portrayed by Neil Adams (whom I consider the definitive Batman artist).


.

JediMaster said:

Dude... you nailed it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. And yes, the Batmobile did rock... better than the new one from what I've seen.

I remember sitting in the theater and thinking to myself... WTF? Jack Napier didn't kill his parents. Weak.

All hail the Batman: Animated Series.

Now... if I could just get you to agree with me about that costume.

I'm just KEEEEEDDDIIINNNNGGG!!!

TheBatman said:

Yes, to date that is the best version of the Batmobile. The new one looks weird, but I get the idea behind it (I'm hoping they will show him tweaking it with every film until it becomes a sleek, bad-ass looking machine like in the comics).

Now, if the folks at Warners have woken up, like we're all hoping, then lets keep our fingers crosssed that they go to the animated series for more inspiration with this franchise. (If they ever do the Batman/Superman movie that they once talked about, they'd be fools not to base it on the "World's Finest" movie that ran on the animated series).