Anyone heard anything about this recently? The trailer looks really neat, for the little bit that it shows. Looks like we'll be getting lots of origin stuff. It seems very dark, in a completely different way than the first Keaton movie was.
I like the look alot more than Keaton's armored look.
IMDB says Michael Caine is Alfred, Gary Oldman is a young pre-Commisioner Gordon, and that badguys include Ra's AND the Scarecrow.
I'm gonna give this a fairly enthusiastic "looking forward to it" based on this little bit of info.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Had already watched the trailer online, but when we saw it before Collateral I immediately announced to my wife that we had to go see this. She was non-commital, not knowing what it was, until the end of the trailer when she saw the logo and agreed it was a must-see, even if it does star Christian Bale who she's been freaked out by ever since American Psycho.
But then, we seem to be doing better with the comic-book adaps. She walked out of Spider-Man, managed to sit through Daredevil (bit of a captive audience there, we saw it on a plane), tolerated X2, but if pressed would probably give The Punisher the award for Best Film Of 2004 Not By Quentin Tarantino Or Michael Moore.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just liked watching Travolta die horribly.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
He got so comprehensively fucked-over, I almost felt sorry for the guy. Almost.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
How much of it is taken from Year One anyway, and how much is new? The general set-up seems to be very similar to the comics.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
While powerful, Year One's big problem is the lack of a strong villain. It's really less about Wayne than it is about Gordon, most of the foes are merely the corrupt city authorities who oppose him.
All they've done with Begins is fill in Wayne's lost years (we're told in the graphic novel he's been studying abroad, and is only now returning to Gotham for the first time in many years) and using the period to produce some worthy adversaries with whom he already has some association or connection.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As long as they dont follow the major mistake of the other Batman movies: killing off the villans.
In the comics, NOT killing is Batman's one stoppig point (and saving grace) but in the movies all those would-by Arkham Asylum residents end up in the morgue. Probably because they'd never get those big-name actors to return for their roles in a sequel (not that any have done a good job anyway).
Looks like they're continuing the mistake of slapping a few villans into a movie rather than making one intresting. Too bad, really: Raas or the Scarecrow could have been made truly sinister instead of both having to split screentime.
Um...mabye I'm just biased by having actually read the comics nad seen the animated series, but should'nt Raas be more Arab looking (as opposed to asian)?
Crappy hollywood cheese: The new Bat-Hummer. Saving Grace: Rudger Hauer is in it!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't mind the Batmobile, especially if it's not used in the city much.
My guess is that Wayne will meet Ra's while abroad and that Scarecrow will be his main adversary once he returns to Gotham. But I was wondering why Ra's looks Asian too.
I don't know a great deal about the comics, but I've been underwhelmed by all of the movies so far. I want an awesome, dark, tragic Batman movie.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:NOT killing is Batman's one stoppig point
Well not originally, Batman did kill in the first few comics.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Defiantly looking forward to this one. From what I've seen it looks like they're doing the smart thing and actually showing respect for the source material, which I belive to be the main reason why the X-Men and Spider-Man movies have been so popular.
While Burton's two movies were certainly superior to Schumacher's cheese and glow-in-the-dark-punk ridden offerings, they were more a case of style over substance and the villans generally stole the show.
It also might be worth considering the kind of actors they've hired for the new movie. I mean when you have names like Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Maurice Micklewhite...sorry, Michael Caine, you know they're at least going to take it seriously.
quote:As long as they dont follow the major mistake of the other Batman movies: killing off the villans.
Well in the spirit of nit-pickery, it's strongly implied that Catwoman was still kicking at the end of "Batman Returns", Riddler did actually end up in Arkham and it's possible that Two-Face survived his fall. I'm loathed to admit it but I have seen "Batman and Robin" and as I recall Bane just got "unplugged" so the bloke might actually be alive. Freeze and Ivy on the other hand were defiantly alive and well and sharing a room in Arkham before the credits finally rolled. So technically only Joker, Penguin and maybe Two-Face were actually knocked off.
quote:Looks like they're continuing the mistake of slapping a few villans into a movie rather than making one intresting. Too bad, really: Raas or the Scarecrow could have been made truly sinister instead of both having to split screentime.
I suppose it depends on how they handle it. If they do go back to the tired routine of the last three movies where the villans team up to defeat The Bat, then yes, that would most likely suck. However, I don't think they'll go down that road. From what I've read it looks more like El Cabeza Del Demonio is more of a "Darth Sidious" like character, hanging back actionwise, while driving the plot of the movie. I've tried not to spoil myself too much on this one so I don't know exactly what Scarecrow's role will be, but like Aban, I presume that he'll just be the main trouble maker back in Gotham, while Raas is more like an outside force when Bruce is on his travels.
quote:I don't know a great deal about the comics, but I've been underwhelmed by all of the movies so far. I want an awesome, dark, tragic Batman movie.
Then watch Return of the Joker! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Jason, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Batman has always been a killer and a vigilante who has been motivated as much by his own desire for revenge as a longing for justice. He is a deeply psychologically disturbed individual, perhaps even on the same level as some of the villains he's defeated. And this is the very thing that sets him apart from Superman and his ilk. And many fans (including myself) like him for that very concept.
The only reason why many of the "big" villains in the comics were never killed by Batman is that they were so popular with the readers. And no one who is popular with the readers ever gets killed off. Well, except Robin.
In respect to the trailer, it looks pretty sweet, but then I've been fooled by too many great-looking trailers that turned out to be for shitty movies (NEMESIS!!) to allow myself to get overly excited. But I am looking forward to seeing it. I really think Bale is perfection incarnate for the character and Oldman looks good as Gordon. I like the casting of Caine as well, but I rather foolishly wish they'd put a little moustache on him like Alfred has always had in the comics and cartoons, and always lacked in the films. But that, needless to say, is a very minor thing.
So, are we supposed to see this movie in continuity with the others, or not? I have a feeling I'd like it better if they didn't try to tie it in to the crap (except for Burton's original) we've seen before.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
As far as I know, this movie is to be a clean slate, continuity wise. Not that the other movies were big on continuity mind you.
Posted by Utmost Nim (Member # 205) on :
Here's the problem with landing Batman in a more gritty, realistic and highbrow setting;
(paraphrasing the trailer)
"My parents were brutally murdered. I went all around the world to find answers, eventually ending up training in Asia to find focus and strength. Now I'm scared of my own thirst for vengeance, scared of what I'll do when I find what I'm looking for, what person I've become (maybe that which I hated the most) and also I dress myself in a rubber suit with cat's ears on the head, but it's supposed to look like a bat because I'm a man-bat now."
What part of this synopsis is, I don't know, out of place in a classic vengeance story that now sounds almost worthy of Shakespearean-caliber scenery and acting?
I've heard of plenty of movie adaptations that have been accused of lowering and belittling the original book/script (Dune, LOTR, Troy) but I hear of few movies that make a grander, more convoluted and self-righteous story than there was to begin with.
They're attempting to turn tripe into proverbial turnip, that's what!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Jason, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Batman has always been a killer and a vigilante who has been motivated as much by his own desire for revenge as a longing for justice. He is a deeply psychologically disturbed individual, perhaps even on the same level as some of the villains he's defeated.
You sure? The comics I've read have always been pretty clear that not killing is the one thing that seperates Batman from those he fights, the thing that stops him falling into the abyss, such as it were. Yes, he's a deeply disturbed individual who has basically sacrificed his own life in order to stop anyone else from suffering what he suffered. But that's balanced by his extended family, who help keep him (at least partially) sane.
Besides, you really think that Tim, Dick, Barbara, and Jim Gordon would ally themselves with him if he was a brutal Punisher-esc villian.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: And no one who is popular with the readers ever gets killed off. Well, except Robin.
Hang on...isn't that the exact reason why he was killed off?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Jason, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Batman has always been a killer and a vigilante who has been motivated as much by his own desire for revenge as a longing for justice. He is a deeply psychologically disturbed individual, perhaps even on the same level as some of the villains he's defeated.
You sure? The comics I've read have always been pretty clear that not killing is the one thing that seperates Batman from those he fights, the thing that stops him falling into the abyss, such as it were. Yes, he's a deeply disturbed individual who has basically sacrificed his own life in order to stop anyone else from suffering what he suffered. But that's balanced by his extended family, who help keep him (at least partially) sane.
Besides, you really think that Tim, Dick, Barbara, and Jim Gordon would ally themselves with him if he was a brutal Punisher-esc villian.
Liam's got it completely correct here: the one thing he does NOT do is kill. Joker pushed him right to the very edge by killing Jason Todd (Robin II) and Commisioner Gordon almost shot Batman to stop him from going over that edge. He did break Joker's neck, causing severe (if comic-book-temporary) parilysis.
Tim Drake became Robin because after Jason Tdd's death, Batman was slowly becoming more vioent and punishng himself for Todd's death: the idea is that Robin keeps Batman's violence in check.
Posted by Utmost Nim (Member # 205) on :
I remember a very disturbing Batman-mag, where he and Superman fought a blond girl who had become a vampire, it was really terrifying. Batman shoved a stake through her torso before she could drain Superman, who couldn't hold her off for some reason.
The same year, he fought some strange guy dressed out like the grim reaper, cutting people in half with his gigantic hand-scythe, that was the goriest mag I've ever seen. He did smack the guy over the edge of a skyscraper IIRC, and they solved the "no-killing" clause by making it so it was the reaper who let go of the ledge. Pretty lame.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Wasn't that the one where he strapped on a piece? I remember the cover, and the artwork was done by Alan Davis.
Mmmmm... Alan Davis...
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Batman: Year 2. I think that was the first time he ever was depicted with a gun.
Posted by Utmost Nim (Member # 205) on :
Maybe a codpiece but I don't remember him having a gun.
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
this is my rifle and this is my gun.. one is for shooting, the other's for fun!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The fact that he almost shoots someone with a gun is the primary reason he stopped being Batman when he got older, according to Batman: Beyond.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'll have to go back and look at that comic, but I'm fairly certain he shoots the Reaper in Year 2. Don't think it was fatal though. It was mostly because he was getting his butt whooped royally.
Posted by Utmost Nim (Member # 205) on :
I seem to remember he had a ballistic vest under his bat emblem, looked checkered, like an egg carton. Ah, the things we remember.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That was the idea behind the bat emblem. At least, according to Frank Miller.
"Why do they think I walk around with a bullseye on my chest? Impossible to bullet proof my cowl". Or something like that.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah, the idea was that the yellow would attract their aim. I remember that scene too, where Bats takes a hit in the chest and we see the armor underneath.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)