Messages

I love how of all the points I made and the comments I made the only thing anyone focused on was one f***ing offhanded remark quoting something I had read about Halle's conditions for returning as Storm. And yes, it was that she replaced Cyclops and Professor X in their leadership roles, which is why Ratner killed them both off which is what my issue was with it. Thanks for the help TLF. I know I should have cited it myself but I honestly didn't expect such a big hullabaloo over that comment. Live and learn.

I haven't seen it said anywhere that Halle requesting more of a role led to Scott and Xavier being killed off. Scott already had quite a smaller role. And I don't see how that led to Xavier's death. Ratner didn't write the script. The writers in the commentary for the movie said they enhanced her role because they like her.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I still think Storm was given a leadership role X3, but I thought she was second in command to Wolverine rather than acting as the main leader of the team. I'm sure that's what Catwoman meant too.

Anyway, does anybody else think that some people's criticism of Catwoman's supernatural abilities to be quite odd? I've noticed that a lot of these detractors typically prefer to play down the fantastiscal aspects of the Batman lore as much as possible. Which is strange since Batman's many villains include the zombie Solomon Grundy, Man-Bat, the shape shifting Clayface , centuries old Ra's all Ghul and the list goes on. It's fine if some people feel like this approach doesn't work for Catwoman, but the vibe I'm getting is they're excessively critical of all otherworldly villains.

There are several different takes on batman villains. But that doesn't mean I wanna see a batman movie or show where the joker is revealed to be a supernatural being living off of healing liquid. That doesn't make that good. The joker is batman's arch nemesis, so naturally, like batman, it fits that he should be human himself. It's a similar thing with catwoman. She's a significant connection for him. Why does she, much like the joker, need to be supernatural? They are both reflections of batman, who is a human. They, as characters, or figures in that world, don't need a supernatural aspect.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I agree Dagenspear.

Halle Berry was given hardly anything to do in the first two X-Men films so she was right to demand more screen-time/action for an important character like Storm, not least because Storm is one of the X-Men team-leaders in the comic-books.  NOT Wolverine.  And besides, the films were rapidly turning into 'Wolverine and friends' instead of the 'X-Men' (as in plural), and it was only right that another character get some decent screen-time, not least because Wolverine would get his own spin-off movies in any case.

As for Halle Berry, it was not her fault but the fault of the screenwriters and director that the 2004 Catwoman movie was so bad.  Given a decent screenplay and production team I'm certain Halle Berry would have made a fine Catwoman.

Thank you. I don't disagree about Halle's capabilities either.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[only once]

Danny Elfman and Shirley Walker are by far the best Batman composers. Besides, the two collaborated together for a little bit during the production of B89's score. I think Walker was co-credited for conducting the closing credits. We were very lucky that BTAS and Walker's music continued on that noir-gothic vibe once Burton ended his run.

In my opinion, MOTP has the best screen origin story for Batman. We get introduced to Bruce dedicating his free time to become this hardened crime-fighter who is only one idea away from becoming a symbol to terrify crooks...until he encounters something that he never expected - he falls in love. I think this is a fresh take on Bruce's backstory, as it asks what could've happened if he met someone that could fill that empty void in his life. He begs to his parents' graves to give him a sign for a chance of happiness with Andrea, as he feels guilty to consider breaking the promise he made to them after they were murdered. And just as though he looks ready to move on him with his planned engagement to Andrea, she escapes Gotham because of the mob going after her and her father. Unbeknownst to Bruce over why she left, and having nothing else left to look forward to after this heartbreak, he fulfills his destiny to become Batman. After everything I described here, you'd be hard-pressed to not sympathise with Andrea when she told Batman the mob took everything she loved away from her.

Another thing I like about MOTP's backstory - Bruce figures out that he needs crooks to be afraid of him, and he says the word 'fear' only once. If this was Batman Begins, that word would be often repeated for about thirty times!

It is the theme. I feel bad for Andrea I do and it's not like she's completely fully pure evil, but she comes pretty close and becomes pretty hard to sympathize with the moment she abandons Bruce to a burning exploding fiery death to get revenge on the joker. I don't think Andrea and Bruce would've lasted. Bruce knew deep down that batman was his destiny. While even in a relationship with Andrea he still couldn't not want to help.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/trivia

It goes to show that she was banking on Catwoman to allow her become the main star of a superhero franchise, which she obviously didn't get to be in any of the X-Men movies.

Back on topic now...

That doesn't say that she made a condition that she become the leader and even if she did, the only change I can imagine is that it made her the leader instead of wolverine, because I remember in 2005 watching a fantastic four sneak peek for x3 and Avi Arad was talking about wolverine being the leader. James Marsden was already trimmed a lot from it, so it's not like she stole the lead from him.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.

I disagree. Jack was vain before his transformation, and afterwards he wanted to scar all beauty - to make it like himself. Be it artwork or Grissom's mistress. His past well and truly determined his future characterization.

I was talking about his background, not what we learn about him in the present day of the movie. That's characterization in the film. That seems a little lame to me.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

We do? Excellent! I must have missed it so please tell me his real name, how he truly got those scars, how he knew his way around the security at the mob bank and also how he hired the bank team at the beginning of the movie.

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant he was developed the exact same way that Jack Napier was. So basically we don't know 1/16th as much about the Ledgker as we do about Napier. Got it.

Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I meant no disrespect to Halle either, the "some chick" comment was because had anyone even heard of her in 1992? lol. I'm asking honestly, the first thing I ever saw or heard about her in was X-Men. And she's a good actress I guess, but I'm like bitter over the Catwoman movie turning into that garbage (which I never have and never will watch) and the fact that most of my issues with X3 are because Brett Ratner decided to cow to her demands about Storm being the leader or else she wouldn't do another movie which resulted in a lot of stuff that I won't say since even though the movie is 9 years old I don't want to get yelled at for spoilers.

Storm wasn't given the leader role in x3. I don't know what issues would come from that though if she had.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

I think Ledger put in a fine performance, but in terms of threat Bane was the more effective villain. He targeted the people head on whereas The Joker had specific targets. Let's look at Bane:

He hit the stock exchange and bankrupted Bruce Wayne.
He bashed Batman in combat and locked him up.
He cut Gotham off from the mainland and held it to ransom with a nuclear bomb.
He trapped all the police in the sewers and replaced them with his Blackgate prisoners and Tumblers.
Had the rich and powerful's killed, their property destroyed and others put on trial.

The Joker's masterpiece was Harvey Dent. Sure, people may have been worried. But the rest of his crimes didn't really affect the public at large. He kills a Batman imposter, sure. But really, those people had to expect risk in their behaviour. They did put a target on their back by taking up arms and going out at night.

I don't think people would care much if the mob was taken down, or Lau burned alive with all the cash. And yes, Joker blows up a hospital. But he gives them plenty of time to evacuate, so he pretty much just destroys an empty building. Bane on the other hand destroyed a football field without warning, taking down many players.

The ferry incident is where The Joker first targets common people. But even then, he gave them the power to save themselves by killing the criminals. Bane, on the other hand, gave people effectively no hope at all. He's effectively goading people to take control of a city which is being patrolled by militia, and with a nuclear warhead driving around.

Good luck.

The joker's threat status isn't what the issue is. He's a bad guy. He was gonna blow them both up if one didn't choose. He makes the innocent people look like the criminals.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

But you can easily argue the same thing for the B89 Joker. It could be said that Nicholson's Joker was the hero of the film and he was far more successful than Batman in purging corruption because he shot a corrupt cop, took down organised crime bosses, dismantled the mob, and was trying to purge greedy people from society. But it would be incredibly foolish to say any of that because:

A) Joker is a mass-murdering psycho who is trying to poison the whole town to death, and;
B) his murdering of the innocent Waynes led to Bruce becoming Batman. Yes, the Joker might've fooled the idiotic public into thinking that he was innocent and Batman is the real menace during the TV broadcast, but the audience knows better. It would be too neglectful for anyone to overlook these facts.

It's the same thing with TDK's Joker. Yes, he murdered mobsters, but he also killed people like Rachel, who was still innocent regardless if she worked in a corrupt system. Let's face it, anyone who thinks the Joker would have wanted for Gotham City to restore peace in the end would have to be a moron, and completely missed the point of what he was trying to accomplish in his outrageous corruption of Harvey Dent.

Sorry for being a killjoy, but I can't stand it when people make brainless theories like in that blog.

We saw that Joker's beginnings. He started off as a mobster himself, got double-crossed and then sought revenge on his ex-boss. He wanted to take over Grissom's operations anyway. Killing Grissom was a means to an end.

He then whacked the other mob bosses (A) because they were loyal to Grissom and (B) they're competition either way. He then took over operating crime in the city under his own umbrella.

Meanwhile the Joker in TDK eliminated the mob bosses but made no effort to replace them himself. The very closest he came was saying "this city deserves a better class of criminal, and I'm gonna give it to them". He then puts a plan in motion designed to protect Batman's secret identity. So one so inclined could believe that he wanted Batman to be viewed by the city as a criminal even though he knew Batman was a hero. Batman's a better class of criminal than the mob bosses the Ledgeker was laying waste to.

The ambiguity behind the Ledgker's motivations and history are precisely what allow that silly theory to have some ring of logic. We know exactly what motivated Nicholson's Joker and nobody could credibly argue he was a hero at all, much less a better hero than the Batman.

We know what motivated Ledgers Joker. He wanted chaos. He says that. He murderers an innocent woman and psychologically twists an emotionally broken man into madness. He tries to get ships of criminals and civilians to blow eachother up or he'll blow them both up. He doesn't try to make batman look like a criminal. He dresses civilians to look like his criminals. He's a clear bad guy.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!