Batman-Online.com

You know the drill.  Reboot the franchise with Batman Begins, but work in the existing framework of the film.

A minor thing I'd change is that I'd have Bruce color the bat on his chest black.  Not just because it'd look more like the comic book Batsuit, but also because it would tie in, thematically, with his talk about Batman becoming a symbol.  What's the point of him sculpting a bat on the chest of the suit if nobody can see it?  Too bad the insignia got even smaller with the change of costumes in the next film.

The biggest thing I'd say is to have Bale keep the voice (and approach to the character) that he used at 0:50 in this scene throughout the entire trilogy.  It's less of a growl and more of a deep, foreboding voice that still would've believably disguised Wayne's voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNYy6weiY0

Here's my take on Bale, for the record: He's actually my favorite live action Bruce Wayne, but he's one of the weaker Batmans in my opinion, so I always feel split when it comes to his performance in this trilogy.  I think he's spot-on with the playboy scenes.  His "private Bruce Wayne" scenes with Alfred and Lucius could've used a bit more intensity, but otherwise, he pretty much nails it.

When he's in the Batsuit, though, I'm turned off most of the time.  I don't think the voice itself was the problem, so much as how Bale acts in many of the Batman scenes of these films.  It's not just the growl, it's also the flat delivery of the lines, the weird pausing ("This city...just showed you..." in Dark Knight, for example), the impression that he's out of breath throughout, and his sometimes unintentionally funny facial expressions.  A lot of people just criticize the voice, but I see it as the whole performance once he's in the suit.

It's a shame because I think, in this scene, he gets it pretty much right and if he kept it up like this, I'd have more praise.

I feel the same way about Bale, a good Bruce but not so good Batman. Therefore I'd replace him or at least make his Batman more smooth.

Give Scarecrow more screentime and more lines, make it an important confrontation between him and Batman. Less training scenes.

I respectfully disagree BatmAngelus. I thought Bale's acting and his voice especially throughout the trilogy is terribly cringe-worthy. I thought he played the Bruce Wayne role well in the third one, but he was stiff and emotionless in the previous two. As Batman, I don't understand how one can favor Bale's performance in one movie than the other.

I remember watching that scene with Rachel the first time and immediately thought "He's not going to sound like that for the rest of the film, is he?"...sure, his voice sounds a bit deeper in the sequels, but nonetheless it's still the same terribly hoarse, over-exaggered voice. And the scene where he screamed at Flass was awkward as well.

The only times I thought his voice was acceptable were lines such as "I'm Batman" (identical to Keaton), "You want me? Here I am", "Then why do you want to kill me?" and "You made a serious mistake".  I normally regard Bale highly in a fair bit of other films, which is why I'm saddened to say I didn't think he was any good in these movies. It would have been much better if he spoke in a calm manner, like in the closing monologue in American Psycho.

Before I first saw BB, thought that Lucius Fox would serve as a mentor to Bruce as he tries to understand not only how gadgets work, but also teach Bruce some engineering, forensics and science skills along the way. Instead, all we got was Q from the James Bond movies.  :( If we are going to keep the same plot in the film, then the changes I'd make would at least be improving the action scenes, in addition to Bale's voice.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 10:23
I remember watching that scene with Rachel the first time and immediately thought "He's not going to sound like that for the rest of the film, is he?"...sure, his voice sounds a bit deeper in the sequels, but nonetheless it's still the same terribly hoarse, over-exaggered voice. And the scene where he screamed at Flass was awkward as well.

The only times I thought his voice was acceptable were lines such as "I'm Batman" (identical to Keaton), "You want me? Here I am", "Then why do you want to kill me?" and "You made a serious mistake".  I normally regard Bale highly in a fair bit of other films, which is why I'm saddened to say I didn't think he was any good in these movies. It would have been much better if he spoke in a calm manner, like in the closing monologue in American Psycho.

I was one of the people championing Bale to get the role back in 2004.  Obviously no one at the time would've predicted his approach to Batman.  I think everyone assumed that his voice in the Batsuit would be similar to his closing monologue in American Psycho or his narration in the Batman Begins teaser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu2ecPMX0kI

When I saw the movie, I was completely fine with "I'm Batman" and "Falcone sent them to kill you."  I was on board with Bale's Batman until we got to the Flass scene.  For me, this is where it went to hell.  It wasn't just the growl, it was the facial expressions and the shaking, which actually came off as Batman shivering since the scene was in the rain.  It was over-the-top and, worse, it was unintentionally funny when it was supposed to be scary.

If I had to re-direct the scene, I'd look at the comic book scene that influenced it from Haunted Knight.  Batman is not crouching, shaking, and yelling in it.  He just wants to intimidate a thug to get information.  That's what works so well about the scene from Dark Knight Returns (that probably influenced the Haunted Knight comic) where all Batman has to do to pump information from a Mutant thug is show him how high up they're hanging from a building.  His suit and his tactics are enough.

In the Haunted Knight comic, he's letting his full presence in the suit (and the fact the man is hanging upside down over several stories) do half the work.  Yes, he'd still say his lines with an angry tone, but he doesn't have to shout, growl, or shake to get his point across. 

People may say "But that's the Keaton approach," but hey, that worked and I think the approach would've fit since the whole movie built up the fact that he needed the suit and the imagery of the bat to strike fear in others.  It certainly wouldn't have lead to YouTube parodies.

QuoteBefore I first saw BB, thought that Lucius Fox would serve as a mentor to Bruce as he tries to understand not only how gadgets work, but also teach Bruce some engineering, forensics and science skills along the way. Instead, all we got was Q from the James Bond movies.  :(

When it comes to the Nolan version of Lucius Fox, I feel that the fact that he's played by Morgan Freeman seems to make most forgive the problem that Freeman's part is pure plot device (and from a comic fan's perspective, he robs us of a chance of seeing Bruce develop his own skills in engineering and science).

I'll put it this way- Q works in the Bond movies  Sure, he's a plot device, too, but as a character, you don't question his motives.  It's the guy's job at MI6 to do this, he clearly loves doing this, and that's that.  He shows up in one or two scenes per movie, gives Bond what he needs, and serves his purpose.

Here, though, it's not that simple.  Lucius Fox's job isn't to supply weapons to a vigilante.  In Begins he's just an inventor who meets Bruce for the first time.  After the tour, Bruce asks to borrow high-grade military equipment with a not-very-believable cover story about spelunking.

And Lucius just lets him.  Then, hands him memory cloth and a TANK in his next visit.

Yes, Bruce owns the company and Lucius acknowledges that, but dramatically, it's awfully easy and convenient.

On a bigger issue, Alfred, Rachel, Gordon, and Dent all have different perspectives on Batman.  What's Lucius' point of view on Batman, who's using his inventions to terrorize Gotham criminals?  He doesn't have one.

Lucius doesn't really have much of his own agency or come into conflict with Bruce until the climax of The Dark Knight when he objects to the cell phone machine, but even that rang false to me.  He's not fine with hacking into phones to find the Joker, but he was okay with Bruce using the Tumbler against cops?

If I had to keep Lucius in the movies, then I like your mentor idea.  Have him play a part in Bruce's character development in taking responsibility for his family's company, as well as develop him as a character.  Batman's using this guy's inventions and company equipment in his war on crime.  How does Lucius feel about that?  What conflicts can that lead to?  This all could have been interesting to explore if done right.

I just listened to that teaser trailer. Bale is such a good actor, which is why I expected from his performances. It's such a shame that he didn't speak like that throughout the whole trilogy. I suppose they wanted to do something radically different than what Keaton sounded like, but not if it's going to make it hard to watch.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 17:29
On a bigger issue, Alfred, Rachel, Gordon, and Dent all have different perspectives on Batman.  What's Lucius' point of view on Batman, who's using his inventions to terrorize Gotham criminals?  He doesn't have one.

Lucius doesn't really have much of his own agency or come into conflict with Bruce until the climax of The Dark Knight when he objects to the cell phone machine, but even that rang false to me.  He's not fine with hacking into phones to find the Joker, but he was okay with Bruce using the Tumbler against cops?

Well said. I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who picked up Fox's double standards during that sonar scene. I thought Fox was in no position to criticize Batman since he had no problems supporting Batman's recklessness, which included collateral damage, causing bodily-harm to people, and kidnapping. Fox didn't give a damn about people's well-being when they were caught in the middle of Batman's violence, but now he is worried about Batman creating a machine that spies everybody...when Batman was only desperately trying to locate the Joker's whereabouts? So apparently taking such desperate measures is a huge no-no now?  ::)

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 17:29
If I had to keep Lucius in the movies, then I like your mentor idea.  Have him play a part in Bruce's character development in taking responsibility for his family's company, as well as develop him as a character.  Batman's using this guy's inventions and company equipment in his war on crime.  How does Lucius feel about that?  What conflicts can that lead to?  This all could have been interesting to explore if done right.

I agree. It definitely would have been believable when Fox, after help create the man who he is by giving him all the knowledge AND resources, starts to doubt whether Batman is making a positive impact on society. Would Fox feel guilty for the monster he has created, and thought it would've been better to mentor Bruce by using his knowledge as a philanthropist, like his father?

As we got instead, like I said before, is Bruce counting on Fox to deliver all the equipment he needs to become Batman. And for me, that cheapens Batman as a character, because I always thought his intelligence and his variety of skills were a reflection of how determined he is to get rid of crime in Gotham. He is supposed to believe that outsmarting criminals is just as important as out-fighting them, and that's why he is trained in various intellectual and scientific skills. That shows how committed he is, and I never got that vibe from Bruce here. In my opinion, taking away his intellect is the equivalent of taking away Superman's ability to fly.

Damn, sorry for the long post - it's a strong subject for me.

I agree with you completely about Bale, BatmAngelus. I've watched The Dark Knight twice in the past week, and Bale really was excellent as Bruce Wayne. Some people criticise the movie for its lack of humour, but I thought there were some very funny scenes with Wayne acting the jerk in public. Particularly the scene in the restaurant where he's trolling Dent about enjoying the ballet and not knowing his jurisdictional boundaries.

But as Batman, he just didn't quite work for me. There's the voice, obviously. But the weird faces he pulled when wearing the cowl were equally off-putting. I saw an interview with him once where he credited Alex Ross as an influence on his performance, and I think he was trying to imitate the scowl of the Ross Batman. Unfortunately his face just isn't suited to those kind of expressions. Batman is usually drawn as having a prominent lower lip, which is perfect for scowling. But Bale's upper lip sticks out slightly above his lower one. I suspect he was overcompensating for that with the whole face-pulling thing.

But I agree that he was the best live action Wayne we've had so far. His performance as Batman is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the character. It's just not my preferred take. Though I do think he got the voice right in the scene where he's talking to Rachel in the Batcave. Why couldn't he have spoken like that throughout the entire film?

That's another scene where I don't think I had an issue with the voice.  It's interesting that he credited the Alex Ross Batman, but I agree that he doesn't have the right face for it and the small mouth opening in the movie cowls didn't help.

Frankly, he looks best in the Batsuit when his mouth is shut, like when he sees the homeless man after knocking out Falcone or his glare to the League of Shadows men after Ra's goes up to the train.

As for another change, I'd actually make the Tumbler more Batmobile-like.  Perhaps the bat-head battering ram would've been too much but since this is Batmobile was a beast that crashed its way through anything, it wouldn't be a stretch for me. 

Like the "make the bat insignia black" suggestion, this is not just so that the movie would be more comic accurate. I think modifying the Tumbler with more of  a bat-look would've helped two major things:

1) Again, Bruce wants Batman to be a symbol.  Shouldn't his vehicle reflect that symbol?  You should look at the vehicle and immediately think that it's Batman's car, thus why I prefer the more traditional Batmobiles.
I know there are pictures online where the Tumbler is kind of shaped like a bat with wings folded over: http://www.batmobilehistory.com/2005-batmobile.php
But this is subtle.  Batman's not aiming for subtlety when he's behind the wheel or trying to strike terror into criminals.  His car should immediately scream "Batman."  Jimmy Fallon's "Tankman Begins" sketch parodied the flaw here perfectly.

2) On a story scale, this is a Wayne Enterprises assault vehicle.  Lucius Fox may have given it to him, but he did not build it all on his own with his bare hands nor is he the only soul on earth who's seen it.  There are dozens of people out there who know about this tank.  What are they going to think when they see it all over the news?

I realize that they made a plot point of this in The Dark Knight where Reese figured out the secret, but more people should've figured it out and I think this all could've been avoided in the first place had Bruce made more modifications to the Tumbler that would've disguised its unique features or had a bat-motif that took your attention away from it.

As it stands, all he did was paint it black (or have Lucius give him a black one).

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 02:54Well said. I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who picked up Fox's double standards during that sonar scene. I thought Fox was in no position to criticize Batman since he had no problems supporting Batman's recklessness, which included collateral damage, causing bodily-harm to people, and kidnapping. Fox didn't give a damn about people's well-being when they were caught in the middle of Batman's violence, but now he is worried about Batman creating a machine that spies everybody...when Batman was only desperately trying to locate the Joker's whereabouts? So apparently taking such desperate measures is a huge no-no now?  ::)

My problem with it is that it's illogical. There's a misapplied political metaphor there but aside from that Batman isn't a representative of the government. He's working to find a certain perp. That's the only reason the tech even exists. If we were talking about a fairly unaccountable bureaucracy wielding that kind of power, yeah, I'd be nervous too but whether Batman gives him the keys to the toys or not, Fox could probably figure out a way to dismantle it. Worst case, he could out Bruce to the public and let the law take it from there. Bruce was accountable at every step of the way. Fox's objection was completely illogical.

I'm not fine with the Tumbler causing collateral damage but there's a big difference between out-in-the-open violence which is ultimately unavoidable as a means of self-preservation and using people's mobile phones to spy and keep constant surveillance on them. 

I realise a lot of you posters are US citizens and won't like what I have to say but if you were a non-US citizen you might resent the way the US government has been infiltrating the internet use of people outside your borders.  The US government clearly knows it's wrong because they dare not spy on their own citizens.  So when you guys are prepared to have your own government spy on you then tell me Lucius's objections to the sonar technology seems misplaced.  >:(

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 21:46I realise a lot of you posters are US citizens and won't like what I have to say but if you were a non-US citizen you might resent the way the US government has been infiltrating the internet use of people outside your borders.  The US government clearly knows it's wrong because they dare not spy on their own citizens.  So when you guys are prepared to have your own government spy on you then tell me Lucius's objections to the sonar technology seems misplaced.  >:(

You're making a bit of a false equivalence though with Bruce's one-time use of the technology to find a specific target vs. my government's current unfiltered surveillance on anybody and everybody at any time without so much as probable cause. As shown in the movie, it's a benign thing which is ultimately discarded after fulfilling the intended purpose. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that implicit in the use and destruction of the machine is a condemnation of a bureaucracy having unchecked access to everything. An individual can and probably will make the choice to eliminate such intrusive technology while a nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy won't. An interesting point of view for a non-American, yes?

Finally... you do realize my government is spying on American citizens too, right?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 02:54
I just listened to that teaser trailer. Bale is such a good actor, which is why I expected more from his performances.

Damn it, I should really proof-read my sentences properly before posting anything.  :-[

Anyway, I'm not American but I've always found the political themes in Nolan's movies to be a waste of time. I don't see them adding anything to the plot, other than trying to make the movies appear clever. Why should we even take that sonar scene so seriously? The movie is about a billionaire vigilante who takes the law into his hands! He's already doing illegal things, and should've remained a fugitive since the end of the first film, if this was supposed to be grounded in reality.

These themes don't make sense like in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, e.g. the US government are threatened by Batman's presence as he keeps Gotham City under control during a nuclear blackout, or the divided public opinion over Batman emerges since the government banned superheroes for years. These examples I thought made sense, and actually contribute to the plot. But the themes in Nolan's movies? They are either muddled because they aren't that well thought-out, or simply have no place being in the film at all.

On-topic, another minimum change I'd recommend for this movie: replace Katie Holmes and Tom Wilkinson. Holmes looked like a teenager and had no chemistry with Bale at all, and Wilkinson, despite being a good actor in his own right, can't speak in an American accent to save his life. BB and The Kennedy mini-series where he played JFK Sr. are proof of that.

Yeah, the political themes were a bit too much from Nolan. Joker doesn't have to believe in anarchy, that's not what the character is about.

I know I was the one who brought up the phone-tapping machine in the first place, but let's talk about that stuff in the appropriate thread, guys.
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2473.0

A change I'd make for Ra's and the ending:

I actually would've cut Ken Watanabe's part and been upfront that Liam Neeson was Ra's Al Ghul the whole time. 

Why?  Well, I don't think the twist in the movie is really that much of a twist.  We knew "Ducard" fully believed in the ideals of the League.  It was a no-brainer that the League of Shadows would return later in the plot after being built up so much in the first act.  So the reveal that the second-in-command guy was actually the boss isn't that dramatic of a twist.  In fact, it lead to debates at the time about whether Ra's al Ghul was a title inherited from Neeson after Watanabe's character's death.

Also, decoys tend to make sense as someone who could be targeted and assassinated while the real guy works behind the scenes.  But Neeson's Ra's was completely active.  Going to Bruce himself, training Bruce directly and over thin ice, going to Gotham to destroy it.  So I don't think the character really needed a decoy.

The "You burned down my house and left me for dead" line would've made more sense this way, too.  Without Watanabe's character, Bruce would have to go up against his teacher almost immediately after finishing training, making the monastery fight more dramatic.  The outcome at the end of the scene could've been ambiguous, then, whether or not Ra's was killed from falling debris.

The biggest change this would affect, from what I see, is Bruce rescuing "Ducard" from the monastery, which in a way gets called back and contrasted with the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" ending. 

However, I'm not really sure what they were trying to accomplish with the latter scene.  You've had Bruce saying that he won't be an executioner or take a life throughout the movie.  But at the end, he just decides to make that compromise and leave Ra's to die.  They don't explore it or bring up the hypocrisy.  It just happens and that's that.

I think it'd show more character growth, actually, if Bruce put his ideals into action (after all, Batman hasn't really been tested yet on whether or not to take a life) and attempted to bring Ra's out of the train with him.  Ra's wouldn't accept the failure and fights back, going down with the train.  Ra's gets the same fate without Bruce contradicting himself.  If anything, it shows that both characters stick to their ideals to the very end.

Believe it or not... the only thing I'd change about this movie is its overt talkiness. And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead. Otherwise I completely enjoy the film. I guess I'd put Scarecrow in his proper costume at the end, implying that he had a full costume he'd wear when he was really torturing his patients. And I'd make Arkham look more like Schumacher's version.

But yeah. Pretty close to a great film. Even other things I dislike come more from the direction of the sequels than anything actually in Begins itself. I thought that Ra's eye close at the end (at the time, naive 2005 me) was signifying he was deoing some kind of immortalizing thing, and we'd see him again later where it would be revealed that he revived with the Lazarus Pit, and also he'd back-reveal that as long as the league had been around... he'd been leading them the whole time.

And I guess I'd have Bruce evacuate his home in a way that doesn't disgrace his family name but still seem like a goof. I'd have him be all like:

Quote"Thanks for coming tonight everyone, but I feel kinda sick and really just want to be left alone. No, seriously. But don't think me rude... let's continue the party say, next week on Friday? Come back, we'll pretend we never stopped! I could just go to bed and leave you all here... but I'm greedy and I don't want any fun to happen without me! (laughs) Thank you, good night!"

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:15
And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

QuoteEven other things I dislike come more from the direction of the sequels than anything actually in Begins itself. I thought that Ra's eye close at the end (at the time, naive 2005 me) was signifying he was deoing some kind of immortalizing thing, and we'd see him again later where it would be revealed that he revived with the Lazarus Pit, and also he'd back-reveal that as long as the league had been around... he'd been leading them the whole time.

Hey, you and me both.  If you watch Begins without the sequels in mind, you figure that Ra's is referring to himself when he talks about sacking Rome.  That the loss of his "great love" was what inspired him to start the League of Shadows centuries ago.  And that sometime later in this universe, maybe not in another movie, but at some point, Ra's will return, via the Lazarus Pit, with Talia and Ubu.

But thanks to Rises, he was actually just a mercenary who joined up with the (existing) League after knocking up a warlord's daughter and was probably the 100th or so leader of the League.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 16:28
I know there are pictures online where the Tumbler is kind of shaped like a bat with wings folded over: http://www.batmobilehistory.com/2005-batmobile.php
But this is subtle.  Batman's not aiming for subtlety when he's behind the wheel or trying to strike terror into criminals.

Lol, it was meant to look like a bat?!

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmobilehistory.com%2Fbeginsbat.jpg&hash=0bdca215111e75790ef5fe31b6c8a7b2f1986301)

There's subtle and there's Rorschach test-subtle. And the Tumbler's resemblance to a bat, or lack thereof, definitely falls under the latter category.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:45

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:15
And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

Isn't Julie Madison meant to be a socialite rather than a maid's daughter?

Anyway Matt Wagner can go screw himself...he's one of the few comic-book artists/writers to openly hate on the Burton films.  'Burton can't direct action' my ass...the cathedral fight at the end of the first 'Batman' is wonderfully imaginative and witty fight sequence and unlike many modern choppily-edited action-sequences, it's genuinely coherent.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:19
'Burton can't direct action' my ass...the cathedral fight at the end of the first 'Batman' is wonderfully imaginative and witty fight sequence and unlike many modern choppily-edited action-sequences, it's genuinely coherent.

The B89 fight/action scenes are all varied and thus show us different facets of Batman's personality.

Opening: Shot down but gets up immediately to dish out justice. Playing up to his supernatural tag.
Axis: Swoops down and lets a goon hang by a wire. Skill.
Axis: Puts down a goon with one punch from behind a wall. Stealth.
Axis: Glides across to another platform. How he gets around without a vehicle.
Axis: Lifts Napier up off his feet with ease. Strength.
Axis: Escaping via smoke. Subterfuge.
Museum: Crashing down to rescue Vicki. Dramatic, theatrical and precise.
Alley fight: Standing firm to take on a sword goon. A defiant brick wall.
Axis revisited: Destroying the place. Use of gadgets to do his work, remote control Batmobile.
Cathedral onwards: Never say die, onwards we go.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:19
Anyway Matt Wagner can go screw himself...he's one of the few comic-book artists/writers to openly hate on the Burton films.

Would that it were so. Earlier in the year I started compiling a list of quotes from various comic creators where they gave their thoughts on Burton's Batman films. I figured it might make an interesting thread. But in the end I decided not to post what I'd found. With a few exceptions, most of their opinions were resoundingly negative.  :(

I'm not sure I could even post Mark Millar's "colourful" review of the 89 film without contravening the site regulations on swearing.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:19

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:45

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:15
And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

Isn't Julie Madison meant to be a socialite rather than a maid's daughter?

She is, in the original 1939 comics, though her background and upbringing were never really covered.  Still, switching that up would've been a small change compared to combining Ducard and Ra's into one character, having the League of Assassins train Bruce, having Jonathan Crane in charge of Arkham Asylum, turning Lucius Fox into a Q-type tech genius in on the plan, making Commissioner Loeb a good guy, etc.  I think Doc is suggesting the name change simply because Julie Madison is usually portrayed as Bruce's first love and it would've been nice to carry over a name from the comics.

I've also never understood the "can't direct action" criticisms on Burton.  Maybe it's partially 'cause I grew up on the movies, but all the action scenes felt coherent to me, which is a lot more than you can say for a ton of today's movies that employ the overrated shakey-cam effect.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 17:32

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:19
Anyway Matt Wagner can go screw himself...he's one of the few comic-book artists/writers to openly hate on the Burton films.

Would that it were so. Earlier in the year I started compiling a list of quotes from various comic creators where they gave their thoughts on Burton's Batman films. I figured it might make an interesting thread. But in the end I decided not to post what I'd found. With a few exceptions, most of their opinions were resoundingly negative.  :(

I'm not sure I could even post Mark Millar's "colourful" review of the 89 film without contravening the site regulations on swearing.

Really Silver Nemesis?  There's a discussion occurring on the IMDb boards at the moment on this subject (i.e. what comic-book artists think of Burton's Batman) and so far the only resoundingly negative references are Matt Wagner and Denny O'Neill.  Someone cited Grant Morrison, who I always have a lot of time for, but Morrison's comments, true to form, were very reasonable and quite generous to the Burton films.  He says that 'Batman Returns' backdrops look like theatrical sets, but even I'd agree with that and I certainly don't see that as a criticism, more a backhanded compliment that notes the deliberate theatricality of the Burton Batman films.

Anyway, I'd like to read those negative comments if you wouldn't mind posting them again, as upsetting as they might be to read.  I find it strange that the numerous haters and detractors on the IMDb boards haven't cited all the 'resoundingly negative' comments.  That's usually the first thing one would expect from a lot of them.

Mark Millar can hate on B89 all he wants, it won't change my opinion that Kick-Ass was an abomination of a movie and I can't imagine how the the comic must have been worse. Call me old-fashioned, but I personally don't like watching a ten year-old girl getting beaten up by a grown man.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Aug  2013, 11:29
Mark Millar can hate on B89 all he wants, it won't change my opinion that Kick-Ass was an abomination of a movie and I can't imagine how the the comic must have been worse. Call me old-fashioned, but I personally don't like watching a ten year-old girl getting beaten up by a grown man.

I didn't realise that Mark Millar hated 'Batman '89'.  He comes across as pretty amiable whenever he appears on TV. 

However, you make a good point about 'Kick-Ass' Laughing Fish.  I enjoyed the first film enough even though I still think it's wildly overrated, although it seems odd that someone who apparently hates 'Batman '89' would authorise the "wait 'til they get a load of me" payoff line at the end of the movie... :-\

But I'm rather disgusted by some of what I've read about the 'Kick-Ass' sequel.  Apparently one of the 'jokes', taken directly from the graphic novel, involves the main antagonist threatening and failing to rape the hero's girlfriend because he can't get a hard-on (oh, my aching sides... >:( ).  Comedy and extreme violence is a very difficult combination to successfully navigate but there is nothing remotely funny about rape.  By contrast, at least the violence in Burton Batman films was deliberately fantastical and rarely involved anything approximating excessive torture or sexual abuse, meaning that the lighter moments never jarred.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 16 Aug  2013, 14:22

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Aug  2013, 11:29
Mark Millar can hate on B89 all he wants, it won't change my opinion that Kick-Ass was an abomination of a movie and I can't imagine how the the comic must have been worse. Call me old-fashioned, but I personally don't like watching a ten year-old girl getting beaten up by a grown man.

I didn't realise that Mark Millar hated 'Batman '89'.  He comes across as pretty amiable whenever he appears on TV. 

However, you make a good point about 'Kick-Ass' Laughing Fish.  I enjoyed the first film enough even though I still think it's wildly overrated, although it seems odd that someone who apparently hates 'Batman '89' would authorise the "wait 'til they get a load of me" payoff line at the end of the movie... :-\

But I'm rather disgusted by some of what I've read about the 'Kick-Ass' sequel.  Apparently one of the 'jokes', taken directly from the graphic novel, involves the main antagonist threatening and failing to rape the hero's girlfriend because he can't get a hard-on (oh, my aching sides... >:( ).  Comedy and extreme violence is a very difficult combination to successfully navigate but there is nothing remotely funny about rape.  By contrast, at least the violence in Burton Batman films was deliberately fantastical and rarely involved anything approximating excessive torture or sexual abuse, meaning that the lighter moments never jarred.

That's true, although nowadays I wince whenever I watch that scene where Catwoman stops an attempted rape by slashing the punk across the face in Batman Returns. It never used to bother me when I was younger, but now the thought of it is disturbing.

Still, that is nothing compared to that trash called Kick-Ass. Comedy my ass! It was stone cold serious except for the opening scene of the movie. I heard that in the sequel comic, children are brutally murdered by the Red Mist. Maybe that's why Jim Carrey made a fuss about not supporting the film anymore. Then again, I'd respect him more if he'd donate his paycheck to charity.

QuoteThere's a discussion occurring on the IMDb boards at the moment on this subject (i.e. what comic-book artists think of Burton's Batman) and so far the only resoundingly negative references are Matt Wagner and Denny O'Neill.

I've avoided the Batman message boards on the IMDb for years, so I haven't seen that thread. But it's precisely because of the trolling on sites like the IMDb that I was reluctant to gather a lot of negative quotes in one place. But I suppose we should be objective about this, so I'll post the quotes over on the comic boards.

Denny O'Neil has voiced conflicting viewpoints on the Burton films over the years. He wrote the introduction to some sort of Batman Returns souvenir magazine back in '92 (the entire magazine was linked on this site at some point, but I can't find it now) in which he made some favourable comments about both of Burton's Batman films. But then Batman Begins came out and he jumped on the Nolan bandwagon. I can't really blame him for preferring Nolan's films though, since they're a lot closer to his take on the character. But it's a pity he's lost his appreciation for the earlier films.

Regarding Millar - he's written some fantastic comics (Red Son is one of the best Superman stories ever IMO) and in recent years he's made impressive headway in the film industry producing movies like Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010). He's also been hired as a consultant on Fox's upcoming shared universe films, including X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and The Fantastic Four (2015). So I've got a lot of respect for the guy. And in his defence I'll say that I read the Kick-Ass comic when it was first published and enjoyed it a lot. It's a lot funnier than the movie. The violence on the printed page was very slapstick, whereas in the film it came across as quite nasty. Another problem with the film was that it was already in production before the last few issues of the comic had been published. Consequently the movie starts off very faithful to the book, but ends up diverging from the comic quite drastically in the second half. Ultimately I didn't really like the film and I've no interest in seeing the second one. But the original comic is better than you might expect.

While we're on the subject of Millar, I feel compelled to point out that his latest movie, Kick-Ass 2 (2013), currently has a 27% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 22% rating amongst Top Critics. So far it's the lowest rated comic book/superhero movie of 2013 by quite a margin.

Batman 89 has a 70% rating.

Batman Returns has an 81% "certified fresh" rating.

People who live in glass houses...

QuoteI enjoyed the first film enough even though I still think it's wildly overrated, although it seems odd that someone who apparently hates 'Batman '89' would authorise the "wait 'til they get a load of me" payoff line at the end of the movie... 

That line was in the original comic too.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2FNewPicture-10.jpg&hash=1ff7ac06da102a9cb5f9f2102a5e29eefefe0653)

I think he used to like Batman 89, but recently changed his opinion after rewatching it.

QuoteI heard that in the sequel comic, children are brutally murdered by the Red Mist.

I haven't read the sequel comic, but I've heard about that scene. It's what put me off watching the new film.

The quotes are now posted under the Misc. section:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2477.msg36606

Let's move the Millar discussion there.

I kind of prefer Bruce and Alfred doing most of the work but I forgive Fox because if you ignore the fact that he wasn't a comic character (and let's face it if we accept Max Schreck in returns, we kind of have to accept Fox) he was an excellent character. It did create a satisfying ending with Earle.

Definitely I'd recast Batman and Rachel. In fact I'm not sure if I'd even have Rachel; I like the thought of Bruce being truly alone in the sense that Alfred is his only friend/family.

I'm not the one who came up with this idea here but someone else brought up Jim Cazievel and especially with Passion of the christ coming in 2004, that could have been wildly popular; he does different voices without being silly. Watch Person of interest, that character could easily be Bruce Wayne.


I would also redesign the batmobile to look more like a car.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 12 Jun  2014, 02:36
I kind of prefer Bruce and Alfred doing most of the work but I forgive Fox because if you ignore the fact that he wasn't a comic character (and let's face it if we accept Max Schreck in returns, we kind of have to accept Fox) he was an excellent character.

Correction: Fox was introduced in the comics back in the seventies, although he was portrayed as a CEO of Wayne Enterprises instead of the inventor/World's Greatest Detective in these movies. Like I said before, I'd rather have him serve as a mentor for Bruce; giving him all the equipment he needs as well teaching him all of his expertise in forensic science.

QuoteDefinitely I'd recast Batman and Rachel. In fact I'm not sure if I'd even have Rachel; I like the thought of Bruce being truly alone in the sense that Alfred is his only friend/family.

Is it just me, or would Bale have been better cast as Harvey Dent/Two-Face? He's better off playing troubled, deranged characters anyway. And besides, that stupid voice he does as Batman would be a much better fit for another character who is severely mentally ill.  ;)

QuoteIs it just me, or would Bale have been better cast as Harvey Dent/Two-Face? He's better off playing troubled, deranged characters anyway. And besides, that stupid voice he does as Batman would be a much better fit for another character who is severely mentally ill.  ;)

Heheheh. 8)

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Mon, 12 Aug  2013, 19:15And I guess I'd have Bruce evacuate his home in a way that doesn't disgrace his family name but still seem like a goof. I'd have him be all like:

Quote"Thanks for coming tonight everyone, but I feel kinda sick and really just want to be left alone. No, seriously. But don't think me rude... let's continue the party say, next week on Friday? Come back, we'll pretend we never stopped! I could just go to bed and leave you all here... but I'm greedy and I don't want any fun to happen without me! (laughs) Thank you, good night!"

Good fix.

What would I do with Begins?

- The childhood friend of Bruce's who grows up to enter the DA's office is Harvey Dent, not Rachel, and there would be at least a hint of masked psychological problems.

- The Mafia is a much more difficult foe to bring down. The ease with which Falcone was brought down was ridiculous; even the most incompetent mob boss knows not to be on the scene of a major drug shipment. Throughout Nolan's whole trilogy, the Mob never lives up to all the talk about how powerful it is. Frankly, though Warners would never allow it, I think Begins would've been stronger if the Mob was the only foe Batman fought, but at the very least, Falcone should've stayed out of jail and they shouldn't have come off as such a joke.

- Speaking of villains turned into jokes; the Scarecrow is one of my favourite Bat-villains, and he came off as a glorified henchman in Begins. He could've been behind the microwave plan and served as the main villain, but that leaves the League of Shadows with no pay-off. My solution? No League of Shadows. Don't show Bruce's training. Show the parents getting killed, show the confrontations with Chill and Falcone, but leave it a total mystery as to what his training was.

- I actually don't have a problem with "Fox as Q," but I would've let Bruce be more knowledgeable about the gadgetry.

- Better design for the Bat-suit and Batmobile.

- Much less expository dialogue.

The biggest things I would change would give Scarecrow much less, if any, connection with the League of Shadows, more like he's working for himself rather than someone else, and otherwise make it more of a surprise that the League of Shadows would come back and do what it planned to do (probably not announce its plan early on, instead be more vague about how they would try to bring reform even if it was always some villainous ways).

He barely has any connection to the League Of Shadows whatsoever already. He's basically a masochist that Ra's al Ghul found in Gotham, gave the fear toxin to and told him to mass produce it. It's not like he was a member of the LOS or something.