giotto said:[quote]

JediMaster said:

Oh, indeed I did. I knew the twist from reading the script! Oh, I thought Neeson was PERFECT, and add in the fact that everyone was thinking of him in "Qui Gonn Jinn" terms...well, it really gave that twist some punch!

JediMaster said:

I'm not usually taken by surprise but, boy, did my jaw hit the floor (in a pleasant way) when I suddenly realised Neeson was the real Ra's Al Ghul


.

TheBatman said:

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, either can be correct. Its a middle eastern name, but it would be subject to regional dialect pronunciation. Personally, I prefer the long A sound to the way they pronounced it, but at least they were consistent.

giotto said:

JediMaster said:

Hey, that's very insulting to Madonna music videos!


Excellent assesment of the movies. But I think that the first two worked well because you didn't see "Batman" all the time. I don't think he was a secondary character by any means. Whenever Batman appeared in those movies, it was an event, as it should be. He wasn't overused. Yes, there was a lot more they could have done to explore the character but overall I thought they did a good job. Now when Joel tried to basically do his own "Batman Begins" by rehashing the past, it didn't work because the acting was terrible. Kilmer was really an awful "Batman", maybe worse than Clooney.

JediMaster said:

That was always kind of news to me. It was kind of an unpleasant surprise, but then when you watch "Batman:TAS" (the early ninties cartoon), it makes a lot of sense. I just hope they don't overdo it becuase they didn't in the series. "Batman" Gotham, the villians, etc.,should be the focus. not the playboy antics of Wayne and the fact that it's just an act. The more they stress it being "just an act" the more it seems like Batman is gay (which there is nothing wrong with, but it sends that message).

uPtoWnNY said:

I kind of look forward to see "Superman" and "Wonder Woman" but I would rather see a good "Catwoman" movie.

"Catwoman" was pretty bad, even though I ended up buying it on a previously viewed DVD. That being said, don't throw her away like garbage. I think the real reason I love "Batman Returns" so much is for "Catwoman". Dare I say that was really a "Catwoman" movie in many ways? Michelle Pffifer was awesome! If people didn't like it, tough crap, I thought she was great.

giotto said:

THANK YOU!

VinnyM27 said:

Totally disagree. Batman is a great character, and in the first two films he is relegated to a secondary role, where he constantly does things that are completely out of character (throwing villians down shafts, blowing them up in factories, etc). The first film was a Joker movie, the second was The Penguin and Catwoman show. The character was underused, especially for a series bearing his name. I personally believe this is because Burton did not truly get the character at all, and was doing his best to shift attention away from that fact.

As for Schumacher, his films aren't even worth discussing.

VinnyM27 said:

I've never gotten the impression he was "gay". To me, the act is to deflect attention away from his crusade. If he plays up the idea that all he cares about are babes, cars, booze and the jetsetter lifestyle, then the general public will never once suspect he is capable of being the Batman. It would be like finding out that Paris Hilton dresses up and fights crime.

I didn't think this flick overdid it all. In fact, I thought they struck the perfect balance. It had been ignored in all the other films, and its a critical part of the character.

VinnyM27 said:

Pfieffer was okay, but I don't fault her for the bad script. Catwoman has still not been depicted correctly, except in the animated series. I won't even discuss that Halle Barry piece of crap.

calldapplwondery83 said:

Oh man, that sucks! Well, you'll still enjoy the film!

Katie Holmes was the weak link in the film. The casting was all wrong for her; her facial expressions and tone are identical to her performance as Joey Potter on Dawson's Creek. The whole wrinkling of her forehead, widening her eyes, opening her mouth; the whiny/arrogant tone of her voice...it's all the same. She has no depth.

thescandalouslife said:

It would be cool if she dies in the first 5 minutes of the sequel... (They can take the full 5 minutes to show it...)

Neversin.

Neversin said:

JediMaster said:

You know, until this I thought you all were just stupid because everyone talked about Neeson/Rhas Al-Ghul (sp?). I guess my mind didn't want to make the connection! Will see it in 3 hours!
Maybe hitting my head against the wall will help me forget it!


...no.



...no.





...
[Edited 6/21/05 8:46am]

VinnyM27 said:

DAMN!!!

Bite your tongue. No one could be worse than Clooney.

Kilmer was harsh, and Forever is the only one of the 4 previous attempts, that I can sit through without wanting to throw-up.

BTW, I've just finished 'The Dark Knight Returns' and it was damn great! Liked it better than Year One. But why is Batman running around with a 13-year old girl? And who is this Oliver?
I thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was really interesting.
Hush will be next, then The Long Halloween and The Killing Joke and Dark Victory.

calldapplwondery83 said:

DKR is an alternate future for Batman. It's the first "Elseworlds" story

You should read TLH and DV (and, if you haven't read it yet, A Death in the Family) BEFORE you read Hush.

JediMaster said:

I thought about that, too. Is it really better that way? Already ordered Hush online, should be there by Thursday or Friday. Does it give anything away of THL story?

calldapplwondery83 said:

Not really. Just adds more resonance to some of the characters, particularly Harvey Dent.

TheBatman said:

Clooney does suck like a Hoover. Even HE hated himself as Batman, and detests the film he was in.

Finally seen it, too! Awesome. I think you all said what can be said about it. The only problem I had was the voice (and I've a translated German version, so I cannot comment on the original), I think it was overdone. Liked the suit, except for the mask. It should have less detail around the eyes, IMO, be a bit more simple. And the ears should go straight up, instead of slightly pointing inwards.

But the whole story, the actors, the atmosphere... GREAT!

One question, though: Maybe I just missed it, but what was Crane/Scarecrow's motivation?

Thinking of it, Bale especially did an awesome job.

Haven't seen it yet, i'm going to see it this weekend.
Very excited!!

noepie, that's terrible.

calldapplwondery83 said:

SPOILER!!!!
Crane's motivation was greed, plain and simple. He was a psychiatrist at Arkham who was on Ra's Al Ghul's payrole. He was payed to develop a weaponized version of the blue lotus flower that Ra's used in Wayne's training. He tested the "fear gas" on the Arkham inmates (which will presumably lead to the super psychoses of the inmates to dress up like mad hatters, killer clowns, etc) and used the "scarecrow" mask to heighten the effect. When dosed with his own gas, he had a mental breakdown, which led to his "Scarecrow" persona.

Thanks!
I really liked the effects they used when they showed the view of poisened people. Like Batman appearing with fiery eyes and mouth. BTW, does anyone know the PS2 game? Very good as well, IMO.

calldapplwondery83 said:

Haven't checked out the PS2 game yet. Sounds cool!