New Batman Begins TV spot: "You should see my other one..."

[Digifruitella]

http://www.worldofkj.com/SeeOtherOne.mov


"Guy dresses up like a baaat...clearly has issues..."

[EvilEd]

Awesome!

Scarecrow rides a fire-breathing horse? Fucking sweet! :D

http://img122.exs.cx/img122/1638/batsdk2or.jpg

I love the whole look of everything, looks like French Connection meets Blade Runner. Great stuff. I love the way he swoops down with the cape expanded, man that looks awesome, because it's real.

[Digifruitella]

when he glides? yeah, there's also a cgi of him in that clip, gliding, when the camera is behind him.

I can't wait for this, 2 months left!

[CyclicNightmare]

Originally posted by .Digifruitella.
when he glides? yeah, there's also a cgi of him in that clip, gliding, when the camera is behind him.
When?

[Silverload]

I really didn't like this TV spot, some of the scenes from it looked cool (loved the fire breathing horse and the Year One nod with Batman's backup) but this particular TV spot annoyed me. Guess it kind of gave me a Catwoman vibe. So far I'm just not digging Bale's Bruce Wayne, and I hope he doesn't spend too much time cracking annoying inside jokes about him being Batman.

Anyways, this TV spot is more to my liking: http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/0-9ABC/BatmanBegins/TVSpot3/

[CyclicNightmare]

Originally posted by Silverload
Anyways, this TV spot is more to my liking: http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/0-9ABC/BatmanBegins/TVSpot3/
That one is MUCH better.

[James Logan]

I'm diggin' 'em both. Sweet.

[ak]

Ok, so I didn't think this film looked up to much until I saw those TV spots. Since when did the Scarecrow have a fire-breathing horse? (Even its eyes are on fire). Amazing.

Infact, the horse thing surprises me because I thought the film was going for a more real-world thing, but I suppose this fantasy element looks great anyway.

In that 'other' TV spot, you notice Liam Neeson's character (Ducard?) is on that train in one shot...a final showdown perhaps?

[Silverload]

Originally posted by ak
Ok, so I didn't think this film looked up to much until I saw those TV spots. Since when did the Scarecrow have a fire-breathing horse? (Even its eyes are on fire). Amazing.

Infact, the horse thing surprises me because I thought the film was going for a more real-world thing, but I suppose this fantasy element looks great anyway.

I'm pretty sure the fire breathing horse is a product of Scarecrow's fear gas.

And as for Batman Begins being realistic, I think some people got the wrong idea about this. I'm thinking Nolan means that everything is only grounded in reality but takes place in a pulp fantasy, like the comics or Indiana Jones or James Bond (well maybe not all the Bond flicks).

[FilmBuff84]

Both TV spots give off different vibes, but i'm digging both of them. Definitely looks like it'll be one helluva ride. I actually though the 'one-liners' in the spot were quite amusing, but I hardly think it'll be 'Catwoman'-like. Those are two movies that don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, unless its 'Batman Begins will piss all over 'Catwoman' come this June.

[wheresdonnie?]

They both look great. I'm a little disappointed with the PG-13 rating, given that both the Burton Batmans had Rs (I think :D ), but they both look really, really cool. I just hope there aren't too many of the quips (look what happened to Batman and Robin, with a pun every 20 seconds). This is going to rock.

[EvilEd]

Originally posted by wheresdonnie?
They both look great. I'm a little disappointed with the PG-13 rating, given that both the Burton Batmans had Rs (I think :D ), but they both look really, really cool. I just hope there aren't too many of the quips (look what happened to Batman and Robin, with a pun every 20 seconds). This is going to rock.

All of the Batman film thus far have been PG-13. But this one is rated PG-13 for INTENSE Violence and DISTURBING Images. This is gonna rock.

I can def. see the inspiration from French Connection and Blade Runner in the footage thus far.

[Cipher Jo]

Actually the original Burton Batman was PG. That film was the schiz, so look for the new one upped a Rating to ROCK! I LOVE the new spots.

[EvilEd]

Originally posted by Cipher Jo
Actually the original Burton Batman was PG. That film was the schiz, so look for the new one upped a Rating to ROCK! I LOVE the new spots.

The first Batman was PG-13, not PG. All of them thus far and including Begins have been PG-13.

[Cipher Jo]

In this instance, I stand corrected. I was wrong for once. I could've swore it was pg, ah well. Begins will still rock!

[Digifruitella]

you guys dont need to worry about Batman Begins being realistic, it's going to rock. As for PG-13, its because the WB knows BB is the movie the fans have been waiting for, and they want teens to see this as well as hardcore bat fans.

the fire breathing horse is the outcome of the fear toxin.

[ak]

Originally posted by Silverload
I'm pretty sure the fire breathing horse is a product of Scarecrow's fear gas.

Ah, makes much more sense now. Still, though - A very cool idea!

[Mr-Blonde]

I sincerely hope that this will be a great film but am still unsure.

Everything looks promising so far but you can never tell untill the finished product gets released.

Hopefully this film will somehow erase the memory of the Joel Shitmaker films that has been etched into my brain.

[EvilEd]

Hopefully this film will somehow erase the memory of the Joel Shitmaker films that has been etched into my brain.

Say what you will of Batman and Robin (In fact, say nothing at all), but Batman Forever is a damn fine comic book adaption and is still as of right now the most true to the source material in my eye. Val Kilmer is a better Wayne/Batman, I like Keaton a lot as Bat's, but you can actually buy Kilmer kicking the shit out of someone. I thought the casting was fine. The whole Robin origin is damn near panel for panel from the comics. Sure, there's some mistakes (Jones goes waaaaay over the top), I'm not too big on the neon lighting, but when taken as a fun comic book adventure, it works.

[Digifruitella]

Dont be worried about the finished product.

Guys, I was one of the thousands of people who had read the leaked script, back in April of '04, an' lemme tell ya. This movie blew me away on script..and I have no doubt that it will do that again multiplied by a 100, when it hits the silver screen.

For those who HADN'T read the script, you have no idea what's to come and how amazingly COOL this movie is going to be. Yes, there has been rewrites, but I would bet 80 to 85% of what was in that draft is going to make it onto the film. This is by far Goyer's best screenplay - and c'mon..how can you be uncertain of its coolness when you have such a great master of filmmaking only after 2 mainstream (well 1 big mainstream) movies, as Chris Nolan..the man's not gonna disappoint anybody.

You can, relax..and enjoy these calm 2 months before the STORM.

[AwesomeJ33]

I'm all about Nolan and this film. We all agree that trailers give away way too much of the movie so I hope that Nolan put these spots together with that in mind because initial teaser trailer aside, all these spots are shady. Shady of course meaning WEAK.

[MisterTwister]

Batman Begins is really looking awesome. I love the look and direction of the movie and The Scarecrow is in it!! He's one of my fav Bat villains.

[Raul Duke]

I cant believe that I could careless about this movie. That batmobile still irks me

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by Raul Duke
I cant believe that I could careless about this movie. That batmobile still irks me

and after you come out of that theater, you're gonna say "wow, that was cool"

[soda]

Originally posted by EvilEd
Say what you will of Batman and Robin (In fact, say nothing at all), but Batman Forever is a damn fine comic book adaption and is still as of right now the most true to the source material in my eye. Val Kilmer is a better Wayne/Batman, I like Keaton a lot as Bat's, but you can actually buy Kilmer kicking the shit out of someone. I thought the casting was fine. The whole Robin origin is damn near panel for panel from the comics. Sure, there's some mistakes (Jones goes waaaaay over the top), I'm not too big on the neon lighting, but when taken as a fun comic book adventure, it works.

I call horse manure. Batman forever WAS a terrible comic book adaptation. Viz:

1. Dick Grayson's origin story was COMPLETELY wrong. As wrong as wrong could be, at least they didn't change his name, and his identity completely (like they did with Batgirl in B&R) but they came close. First of all, in the comics, Dick Grayson's parents were murdered by Tony "Boss" Zucco, not Two-face. I don't see how you could make a mistake THAT big and still be "accurate". Secondly, the murder was an extortion job (zucco was trying to get the circus to pay him "protection" money, a common mob practice), not an attempt to discover Batman's identity. Third, there was no bomb, and Dick Grayson didn't disarm it. Fourth, Dick Grayson was around the age of eight or ten when his parents died, he wasn't a full-fledged teenager. Fifth, in the comics, Batman recruited Dick Grayson to serve as Robin, Dick didn't "force" his way onto the team (or, if you believe Loeb's version in "Dark Victory", Dick did volunteer himself, but he wasn't pushy about it, and Bruce didn't try to talk him out of it). They only got TWO things right: that his name was Dick Grayson, and that his parents were murdered at the circus while they were performning their trapeez act. That's it. Everything else is wrong, I don't see how you can claim it's "panel-for-panel accurate" when it's absolutely nothing of the kind.

2. Two face was, IMHO, COMPLETELY over the top, and it stunk. Shoemacher was watching too many of the "campy" 60s TV shows. Talk to any batman comic book fans you want, and we universally deplore the 60s TV show, it butchered batman, and made comics a medium that was impossible to take seriously for the general public. It took the creative genius of Neal Adams and Denny O'neill in the 1970s to salvage Batman's prestige, and book sales, after all the damage done by the TV show. (although Batman didn't completely regain his street cred until Frank Miller's DKR). As for the Riddler, Jim Carrey's performance is easier to live with, for me. Two face has been pretty consistently portrayed over the years, and Jones blew the role completely, but the Riddler has gone through more than enough reinterpretation over the years that Carrey's Riddler might be accurate with some interpretation. However, what happened in the next movie was unbelieveable, Arnold destroyed Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy was butchered mercilessly by Uma Thurman, and Bane was the worst portrayal of any comic book character in any movie ever. (read Batman: Knightfall, to see what Bane is SUPPOSED to be like).

Bottom line, the last two Batman movies have been pretty horrible, with B&R sinking to Catwoman-esque horrible. I really hope this franchise has been revitalized with this flick, but I have my reservations. At least, the Batman Begins people have striven to get many of the comic book details right (like Robin's origin story), what's particularly heartening is that they paid attention to a "little detail" like honoring Paul Dini's law. For those of you who are curious:

Paul Dini's law - every single Batman / Ra's Al Ghul story MUST have the obligatory sword fight sequence.

really, the biggest doubt I have about this movie is Ra's Al Ghul, I 've seen some of Ken Wantannabe's work, and I don't find it up to snuff. Ra's Al Ghul should always be played as a cosmic / immortal / eco-terroist bad-ass. Here's the kind of lines that Ra's Al Ghul has to be able to deliver:

Batman - but that will cost countless lives!

Ra's - actually, dectective, we have counted, 3 billion, one hundred nintey four million, two hundred and twenty lives.

And he's got to be able to do it in a way that convinces you that he is dead serious about Killing that many people. You also need that voice inflection to make it work, there's a way that Ra's Al Ghul should say "bravo, detective" that only he can say.

[Raul Duke]

the combo of Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones >>>> every bad guy duo in a comic movie, they were great, and Val Kilmer was a great Batman. If it werent for Robin, that movie would of been held with the first 2 in everyone's opinion

[Sigur509]

Bale is going to be the best Batman yet.

I know it.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yowzer , i didn't think it could get any better , but every little new clip i see it does .

And say what you want about Batman Forever's flamboyant style , i can see tons of influences in Batman Begins with regards to Schumacker's vision , look at the scenes with him jumping off the roof . This looks like a cornucopia of Burton's vision and Schu's , but trust me , that's not a bad thing , it's fitting to combine what made the first three films great .


This should be the best film of the summer , maybe not the most succesful , but the most exhilirating and satisfying , i waited 10 years for another Batman film , this is going to be special .

I'm still a bit disappointed with Bale , for some reason , he'll be fine , and he was great in Equilibrium and American Psycho , but i just can't totally accept him as Batman . I'm sure that will all change when i see the Warner Bros logo cut to the new Bat logo , and i'll forget all my apprehension .

Man , this Nolan guy , this is a freakin' dream gig , and he looks like he's hit one out of the park , this is looking brilliant .


There's always a ton of hype with any movie released over the summer months , but Batman is one that should exceed expectations , it already is for me .

[soda]

couple of things:

IMHO, to say that Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of Two-face was on the mark is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You want to know why? Because that isn't the way two-face is supposed to be. Here's a clue, check out Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale's "Batman: the long Halloween", that's what Harvey Dent/Two-face is supposed to be about. Joel Shumacher completely glossed over the things that make two-face unique, and seperate him from the other bat-villians. As somebody recently said "all the bat villians are fried (crazy), they're just fried in different ways."

Anyhoo, IMHO, the batman movies, to date, have gotten progressively worse. The first one was the best, by a mile, the second was pretty good. The third one stunk, and the fourth one was so horrible, that we don't utter it's name without a priest present in the comic shops these days. The single greatest crime that Joe Shumacher perpretrated was the protrayal of Bane, Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy in B&R. He took three characters that had been given life in the 1990s and reduced them to pathetic caricatures. He undid, in one bold stroke, a decade's worth of toil by Paul Dini to build up Mr. Freeze (Mr Freeze was Paul Dini's invention, before him, Mr. Freeze was a fifth string bat-villian, then, the world saw "heart of ice", and Mr. Freeze was the coolest thing ever), and Poison Ivy, and the enire Broken Bat saga about Bane. Bane, in particular, became a joke, a total wash-out, in the books he was, and still is, one of the coolest bad guys ever. I feel for those of you who have only seen the movie, you guys have never seen the Jeff Loeb/Tim Sale Two-face, or the Paul Dini/Neal adams Riddler, or "the Broken Bat" Bane, or the "killing joke" joker, or the "no man's land" Ra's Al Ghul. I only hope Joel shumacher doesn't come back, direct Batman 6, and ruin Harle Quinn and Hush next. (that would be par for the villian-ruining course).

The difference between then and now is that in 1985, as the legend goes, Tim Burton read Frank Miller's "the dark knight returns" on a dark and stormy night, and was so inspired by the story, that he penned the screenplay for the original Batman movie right then and there. The original movie, and Burton's sequel, is not even close to the 60's TV show, it's much more like the post-apocalyptic nightmare of a Gotham city gone mad that the "dark knight returns" was. The Schumaker films are noticeably different, they are much more campy, much more like the 60s TV show. What does comfort me is that Nolan was asked what his influences for Batman Begins were in an interview, and he said:

Batman, year one, by Frank Miller

and

Batman: the long halloween By Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale

Nolan hit the nail on the head, he said exactly what bat-fans wanted him to say. Frank Miller and Jeff Loeb already wrote the perfect script for a Batman Begins movie, all Nolan has to do is follow it. I appreciate the fact that Nolan is keeping Carmine "the Roman" Falcone, that shows great consideration to detail on his part, and makes me optomistic about this film.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yeah , Bane was turned into a joke in the films , there was nothing about him that resembled the books . In the books he was some sort of genius with a homicidal bent , in the film he was reduced to poison Ivy;s lapdog pet , he would have been the one giving her orders if they followed the books .

Batman and robin , boy shu dropped the ball on that one , in the most grand fashion , but i think he contributed one important thing with BF , a sense of style , sometimes over the top with too much neon and such , but he did create some great setpieces that added another dimension to the batman films , i think some of the images still look great , and the artistic design overall , when he didn't go totally overboard , waorked in excellent fashion . I also like how he delved deeper into Bruce Wayne's guilt about his parent's death , and the catharsis , and eventual epiphany , he experienced by facing and sharing how and why he became Batman , with Chase Meridian . That was something Burton only touched upon , Shu took it a bit further , deeper into the mystery of batman . When he didn't get all flamboyant , BF was very effective , if they toned down the over the top sensabilities , fleshed out the villians a bit more , and delved just abit deeper into the origin of batman , the flm could have been perfect . But since the studio figured BR was too dark and depressing ( babies getting kidnapped and threatened with death , ouch ) , they went with something a bit lighter , and i think some of it does work to perfection , and some totally fails .


I don;t think there is anyway around it , BF has influenced all the other comic book hero movies that have come after , if you want to admit it or not . look at Spawn , Spiderman , Daredevil , maybe even X Men , from the style , to the look , to the narrative , to some of the action sequences , BF was groundbreaking , and this new one , the visual style and certain aspects of the narrative , resemble it more than some people would want to admit .

I said it before , but i'll repeat it one more time , it looks as though Nolan has combined the best elements of both visions , and added something of his own . He can say what he wants about this and that , but from the visuals i've seen so far , there is a strong BF visual influence going on . I don't mind , because the visuals weren't the prob in BF ( save for the bright neon ) , it was the characterizations with regards to the villians , and the campy , over the top sensabilities .

[soda]

Okay, I'll give you the "sense of style" part, since I really didn't notice that angle when I watched the movie (I've only seen BF twice, and Batman and Robin once). I'm not really the type of person who would notice things like that, anyway, so if you say it's true, well, you're probably right.

As for Bane, back in the 1990s, there was a sort of lull with the Batman books, Jeff Loeb hadn't started writing any of his stuff yet, so there was little out there. DC decided to do a huge Batman crossover event, "Knightfall". It's out in trade paperback form, as a three part thing (part one: broken bat, part two: who rules the night, part three: knightsend). Bane, in this story, is the Judas Iscariot of the Batman world, he was a former aid of Batman, who helped him fight crime, for a time, who got to know Batman, and eventually, turned on his former friend and ally. People often say that Batman isn't a superhero, he doesn't have a superpower. That's not true, Batman's superpower is his unbelievable will power, it takes a lot to break Batman's mind. Bane hatches a complex plan to do just that, and suceeds. It's a great story.

There is one thing you said that REALLY caught my attention:

"I also like how he delved deeper into Bruce Wayne's guilt about his parent's death , and the catharsis , and eventual epiphany , he experienced by facing and sharing how and why he became Batman , with Chase Meridian ."

In the comics, this sort of thing RARELY happens with Batman. A few years ago, in the "Bruce Wayne: fugitive" crossover, Greg Rucka and other bat-writers tried to do just this. Flesh out Bruce Wayne as a character, give the secret identity a life. It didn't go over so well. Don't get me wrong, the arc was good, and well-written, it just didn't fit so well. See, for the longest time, in the Batman universe, the sentiment has always been that "there is no Bruce Wayne". People tend to think of Batman as a costume, but he's not. When Bruce Wayne was eight years old, and his parents were shot by an unnamed gunman on a dark night in crime alley, Bruce Wayne died along with his parents, and Batman was born. Since then, there has been Batman, and only Batman, there is no Bruce Wayne, he's just the mask that Batman wears when he's not fighting crime.

In contrast, Spiderman is the polar opposite. There is no Spiderman, Spiderman is just the suit that Peter Parker wears to fight crime, but Peter Parker is the real person, Spiderman is the mask. That's how it's always been for Spiderman, very few people actually read his comic to see who Spiderman is going to fight, you read it because you care about Peter Parker, and because you emphasize with this kid whose life was a complete mess, then he got superpowers, and his life was an even bigger mess. Superman is the middle course between the two extremes, Superman is both Superman and Clark Kent, he's both the indestructable man of steel and the soft-spoken reporer for the daily planet, he's both a man who saves the world, and a man who has a family. He lives in the big city, but he grew up on a farm. He's comfortable amongst millions of people in the big city, but he also needs his alone time in his fortress of solitude. superman represnts balance.

The strange thing is that these takes on the heros is reflected in some of the villians they fight. Take the Joker, Batman's arch-villain, for example. In the comics, we know exactly one thing about the Joker before he became the Joker, his name: Jack Napier. That's it. We don't know what his job was, where he was born, what his favorite food was, whether he was married or not, what kind of car he drove, or how old he was, or how he became the red hood and was on that fatefull ledge at the monarch playing cards company. We don't know anything about the man behind the clown makeup, and from DC's perspective, we shouldn't know anything. The Joker is the Joker, was always the Joker and will always be the Joker, what he was before is irrelevant. There is no origin story for the Joker, maybe the greatest villian of them all.

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by soda
Frank Miller and Jeff Loeb already wrote the perfect script for a Batman Begins movie, all Nolan has to do is follow it

It was David Goyer. Not Jeff and Frank. Goyer nailed the comic books

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yes Knightfall in my opinion was the best batman story to date , they made him a 3 dimensional character , and even the residual characters were fleshed out effectively .

That's one of the reasons i liked BF so much , for the first time , they focused more on Bruce Wayne the man , instead of Batman the crime fighter , the crime fighting element was secondary in relation to the narrative , and i had more interest in this version as opposed to Burton's BW . I know some people hate BF , but that aspect , for me was very effective , even if schu fell flat in some other areas , Bruce Wayne was a real person in BF , he had doubts , fears , he was vulnerable , he was frstrated romantically , and he shared those sentiments , that fragility , with Chase , he confided in her , in order to understand why he became Batman , and why he continues to do so .

Now , i think it was very wise , maybe even brilliant , for Goyer and Nolan to expand on this theme and take it even further , i was always more interested in Bruce Wayne the man and his fallibilities .


I think Schu's biggest mistake with BF ( i wont even mention BR , thats a total disaster , but it looks terrific ) was contrasting the subdued exploration of Bruce Wayne's psyche and psychosis with two over the top , look at me perfromances by Carrey and Jones . They are two perfromances that would make Jack Nicholson's Joker blush . For me that's really the only negative with the third Bat film , the characterization of the villians and the performances of them . Everything else worked to perfection , and 10 years later , the film still looks great , some of the best visual fx in a comic movie film ever , it was def a head of it's time and ages well .


Now , i do see some of that visual influence in Nolan's version , some stronger than others . The lighting and the color pallette stand out as being similar , it's like a melding of Burton's Gotham ( this one is in london , but still , it's a big city ) and Schu's , which is a great thing , like i previously stated , it's like mixing milk with chocolate :) . It's very effective indeed .


This is going to be something truly special , this is the Batman everyone has been waiting for , i really don't see anything negative about this film anymore , it looks like everything i always wanted in the first 3 batman films combined . The first 3 contributed some terrific layers and visuals to the cinematic incarnation of Batman / Bruce Wayne , this one , Batman Begins looks to bring them altogether in grand , bold , convincing fashion , without going over the top like Schu did at times , and without becoming morose and self loathing , like Burton's vision was guilty of at times .

I'm getting all giddy thinking about this film , should have called , Batman : Ressurection . It's hard to believe that Nolan is so young , the guy is only going to get better .

[soda]

If you thought that "knightfall" was great, have you read some of the stuff that Jeff Loeb has done recently? (Long Halloween/Dark Victory/Hush). Seriously, "Hush" is un-freakin' believeably good! If you like Batman as more a psychological super-hero, and you like really cool honkin' bad guys, check out Hush, it's one of the BEST batman stories I've ever read. Long Halloween is a classic, too.

Anyway, I'm really happy to see that someone is really psyched for the new movie! It gives me hope, right now, my general feeling about Batman Begins is best summed up by a phrase that David Duchovny's Fox Mulder turned into a mantra over nine seasons on "the x-files":

I want to believe.

I really, really, really want to believe. I want to believe that Batman begins will be everything we've hoped for and more, but I just don't know. Some people on the net have claimed that they've read a leaked script, and that it was amazing, and what not. Fine, but from what I've seen, the jury is still out on this movie. Things that make me apprehensive:

1) there was no trailer/spoiler played at comic-con (San Diego) last year. These days, every single movie, that's even remotely comic book related, has a trailer, or a clip, or something playing at comic-con. It's the George Lucas law of marketing a summer movie. Star Wars had a breathtaking clip at comic-con, as did Sin City. Batman Begins? Nothing. It could have just been lack of preparedness (a sin in and of itself) or just that they had nothing cool to show, or whatever, but not showing anything at comic-con was a GROSS mis-calculation on the part of Nolan and co. It got the fans rumbling, and a lot of negative buzz going around the net.

2) Ra's Al Ghul. This is my BIGGEST issue with the movie. Here are the batman's MOST beloved foes:

Joker
Harley Quinn
Ra's Al Ghul

Harley Quinn has been on a meteoric rise to the top over the last decade, she's probably the fan bases' favorite villian, there is a cult of Harley quinn people out there. However, the two big ones are the Joker and Ra's. Messing up two face, or the Riddler, is one thing, messing with Ra's Al Ghul or the Joker is something very different. I would say that, in terms of getting it right, only Batman himself is more important to nail in this movie than Ra's Al Ghul, yes, I would go so far as to say that Ra's is more IMPORTANT to hit than the scarecrow is. Ra's Al Ghul is also the ONE character in this upcoming movie that scares me the MOST, because I think Nolan completely dropped the ball here. How can I be so sure? One name:

Rachel Dodson

Now, from what I'm hearing, this is the name of the character that is the "love interest" for Bruce Wayne is this movie. My question is: why? Everyone knows what the law is, right? Everyone knows that if it's going to be a Ra's Al Ghul story, there's only one choice for the love interest: Talia. If your going to do Ra's Al Ghul right, you have to have Talia, it's just that simple. Do Nolan/Goyer not understand this simple fact? Look, the reason why Catwoman did so hideously at the box office has in it a lesson for all those who would adapt comic books to the movies. When you decide to do this, there are advantages and disadvantages. The big advantage is that your working with an established mythology that has an established fan base, everyone already "knows what your work is about", and that's an advantage in making your film. However, the disadvantage is that the fan base will attempt to preserve the story the way it knows it, and if you deviate from the formalities and conventions of the mythology, you're asking for a heap of trouble. One of those conventions is Talia, by ignoring this simple thing, Nolan is jeopardizing his movie with the fans. I'm not saying he's heading for a Catwoman-esque disaster, what I am saying is that he needs to pay attention, and his box office results will show how well he's learned his lesson. I think Nolan is good, and I think this movie will be good, but will he be up to the standard set by Brain Singer and Sam Rami? I don't know, I doubt it. Would I trade Nolan in for Paul Dini/Bruce Timm, or Jeff Loeb, or Josh Wheddon, or Brain Singer, or Sam Rami? Yep.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I don't know too much about Talia and Ra Uh , so for me that aspect won't affect my feelings for the finished product , a case of ignorance being an asset instead of a hindrance i guess .


I remember when the LOTR films were starting prinicipal photography , the fan's were lamenting some of the changes that were being made , and it still came out terrific . One of the characters , a popular one , the Bombadil dude , was left out , and their seemed to be a minor outrage , people got over it though , because the product was so effective and expertly crafted . I'm sure Nolan didn't leave out , or alter the narrative as a result of an oversight , this guy and the screenwriter , Goyer , seemed to have been working very hard to do this one right , in the preproduction stage , during principal photography , and on through post production . This is both of their bick breaks , and Nolan is a huge fan of Batman , he must have changed the love interest for a reason . I couldn't say what that reason was , but for me , the guy has already proven he's a master filmmaker , even his first film " Following " could have showed you that . Then he follows it up with Memento and Insomnia . This guy knows what he's doing , i trust he'll deliver , and even exceed expectations .


With regards to the absence of a teaser at the comicon , that's easy , it wasn't ready , he would rather show the finished product than show something inferior just to please everyone . I can bet he wanted to show something , but why disappoint everyone with some slipshod clips , that would have had an even worse effect than not showing anything .


Also , i think he want s to keep the film as mysterious as Batman / Bruce Wayne will be in the film , he wants to preserve , or create an enigmatic aura surrounding the film , and showing it to a bunch of diehards , hopped up on sugar , at a comic con , would shatter that atmosphere . Plus , they already released a couple of trailers , so i don't see the big deal , people get so impatient sometimes , they want toknow every little detail before a film is released . Where is the sense of wonderment , suprise , or mystery with that , i see no puprpose in reading a script , or watching a bunch of clips before a movie comes out , it defeats the whole purpose , unless you are the one financing the film , chill out and enjoy the film when it's released , with minor spoilers . This film is in good hands , we're lucky a guy like Nolan is at the reigns . Forget Raimi , he made Spiderman a bit too goofy and silly , those films were littered with painful to watch one dimensional cliches , even Parker only existed in 2 dimensions , frustrated or heroic . Nolan looks to have taken great care to avoid any type of wimsy ( Burton's version ) , over the top characterizations ( Shu's films ) , and cartoonishness ( the Spiderman films ) .

This does look like a comic book character film done to perfection , and again , Nolan is the perfect guy to pull it off , much like PJ was the one to bring LOTR to life , not that i'm comparing the two films , but getting the right director , one who's not just cashing a paycheck , is critical , and they found their man in Nolan , at this point , i don't see anyone else bringing Batman back to life than him .

[soda]

Dude, can I just take a minute to say thank you for this conversation? You might have been able to figure it out already, but I'm a HUGE batman comic book fan. I have shelves and shelves of batman comics, some as old as the heyday of the silver age (1970s books). I've been such a big fan, for such a long time, that it would be hard to see another Batman and Robin, or even another Batman Forever, get made. You've gone a long way towards making me feel better about this movie, and at reassuring me about Nolan (I hadn't seen any of his work, except for Memento, which I thought was pretty good. This is a case of apprehension due to lack of information). Anyway...few things:

1) Talia. Just so that you know, Batman has a new girlfriend every other week in the comics (and he's had four different "girls" in each of the movies so far. BTW, vickie Vale, from the first movie, and Chase Merridian, from Batman Forever, are both classic silver age batman girlfriends of the week, the most notorious from that era was Silver St. Cloud.) By and large, these women are just "flings", they are girls that Bruce Wayne dates in order to keep up his playboy image, and to make sure no one gets suspicious that he's Batman. I suspect that Rachel Dodson, in this movie, is the next "girlfriend of the week". However, there are two recurring girlfriends that come up all the time, these two girls aren't "flings", they are the two women that Batman/Bruce Wayne REALLY loves. If Batman was ever to get married, there would be only two choices:

Selina Kyle
Talia

Selina Kyle is the one everyone knows (or should know), the world knows her as Catwoman, she's one of the original three Batman rogues from the very beginning (the other two being the Joker and Penguin). These days, Catwoman knows that Batman = Bruce Wayne (She was told this about a year ago in Batman #618, at the height of the HUSH arc), and she's largely left her life of crime behind her. She's joined up with the good guys. Talia is the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul, and every time Ra's comes back into Batman's life, so does his "beloved" Talia. This is, BTW, one of the classic contradictions of the Batman psychology, he's the ultimate crime fighter, the ultimate hero, the ultimate good guy, yet he has this thing for "bad girls". Batman is VERY much in love with both of these women, and, of course, the fact that he's in love with the daughter of his most dangerous enemy is always a bit of a plot driver. Talia really loves Batman, but she's fiercely loyal to her father, and, in her mind, in any conflict between the two, she will side with her father. That's a problem, as Ra's Al Ghul is an eco-terroists, nutcase, crazy person/genius bent on global domination and if half the world's population has to die, then so be it, type of super-villian.

In any case, there are three conventions that any Ra's Al Ghul story has to involve:

1) Ra's Al Ghul must have a plan that leads to world domination, and Batman has to stop it. Typically, Ra's plans are "bigger" than the rest of the Bat-rogues. The rest of the Bat-rogues are interested in villiany, but Ra's is the only one whose interested in cartoonish super-villiany.

2) there must be the obligatory Ra's Al Ghul - Batman sword fight sequence.

3) The love interest of the story, for Batman, must be Talia. Part of the plot always involves the tension between Talia's love for Batman and her love for her father. She doesn't want to see either one of them die or fail, her father and Batman, on the other hand....

Now, I'm not a stickler for conventions as most people, I believe that if you can ignore them and tell a good story, that's great. I wasn't one of those people who had a problem with PJ's decision on the LOTR (a decision I remember discussing with friends), however, that being said, after the disaster that I felt the last two movies were (and if you liked BF, or thought it was okay, that's great, more power to you) any deviation from conventions is more noticeable. In other words, PJ and LOTRs got a presumption of faith, they got an "okay, well, we'll wait and see..." because they hadn't screwed up a movie yet. Nolan, on the other hand, good, bad, or indifferent, is the next guy to take on a Batman movie after Shumacher, and after the disaster that was Catwoman, so his rope is a little tighter. Yes, Nolan is a different person, but this is still Warner Bros. whose in charge, and I'm not convinced they're learned their lesson.

2) As for the comic-con thing, if they had come right out and said why they weren't going to show us anything at con, it would have been better. In this case, silence wasn't the right move. Look, this isn't about spoilers, or about not having anything to show, or whatever, what this is about is something different. Now, whatever you think about Nolan, here's the bottom line: He's a rookie, and rookie's got to pay their debts, follow the rules of the game, and win respect. No one gives you anything as a rookie, you're starting from the bottom, and you have to work your way up. If George Lucas doesn't want to show us anything about Episode three at comic-con, guess what? That's fine and dandy, and nobody cares, because Lord Lucas is an old pro, a veteran, he's earned the right to buck conventions, he's earned the right to do it his way. But Nolan hasn't. Don't think of not showing something at comic-con as a spoiler issue, think of it as a diplomatic problem. say you were having dinner with the president at the white house, and it was expected of you that you would dance the waltz at least once (hypothetical). Say every visiting foreign dignitary had this expectation put on their shoulder, and say you were a horrible dancer. If your Tony Blair, the prime minister of England, one of America's oldest allies, and a frequent guest, it's not such a big deal if you dance or not, you've earned the right to not dance. However, if your the leader of some small country nobody cares about (like Kanizistan) and this is your first ever visit to the white house, you'd better dance. Doesn't matter if you can or not (ie, doesn't matter if your trailer is good or not), you'd better dance, and that is that. It's a respect issue. Showing a trailer at comic-con, or just a few pictures even, is considered a convention, an expectation that the fan base has of you. If you make a kick-butt movie, all sins will be forgiven (obviously), but if you don't, it will be held against you.

3) As for Spider-man, I and others of my kind, felt that Spidey 1 and 2 are the gold standard super-hero movie, the bar for which everyone else is shooting. Now, obviously, what Marvel. is doing with Spiderman is different from what DC is doing with it's characters, however, the genius of Sam Rami is the ability to understand Spiderman on the same level as the fans do, he'd obviously do a Batman movie VERY differently than he'd do a Spidey movie, just like Singer will obviously make Superman Returns very different from the x-men movies. Rami understands how Peter Parker works, how Parker should work with Mary Jane Watson, how he should work with Aunt May, how he should work with Harry Osbourne, and how he works with the rest of the world. Spiderman has never been about how Spiderman fights bad guys, it's always been about Peter Parker. Remember that scene, at the gala where the Astronaut guy announced he was marrying Mary Jane? Remember how Peter Parker spent forever trying to get a glass of champagne off of a tray? That's what Peter Parker is supposed to be about, the poor kid who can't seem to catch a break, and who can't seem to do anything right, personally or professionally.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I felt no matter how amazing some of the visuals were in Spiderman , the sense of wimsy and superficiality acted as a detriment . I understand it's based on a comic , but for me there was no sense of gravitas with any of the characters , the villians and the good guys . I never had a sense of danger and the villains in both films were a bit too cartoonish too take seriously , entertaining overall , yes , but lacking in the characterization and suspense department . Now , both villians , GG and Oct were not as close to cartoonish Two Face or Riddler , but they were still silly and non threatening . Thenh you have some residual characters that added nothing to the proceedings , they were even more cartoonish , from JJ to the lady who lived in Parker's apartment building , they were all too silly too take seriously . I do understand though , he was appealing to the mainstream crowd , so he had to keep everything light and simple , but i always imagine what someone like Cameron would have done with Spiderman , he would have added a darker edge that's needed to effectively create a sense of tension and aura of danger . What Raimi did was make an amusement park ride that the whole family can enjoy without challenging them too much , and for that i couldn't call Spiderman the gold standard .


And you have to give Batman credit , Raimi ripped scenes straight out of those first three films , Batman is still the gold standard ,. Remeber the world day festival sequence , were did i see that one before . It's simply a revised version of the parade the Joker has in Batman 1 . What about the cable car rescue , and the choice he has to make about who to save , that was done in Batman Forever , at the end in Nygmatech Industries , so i don't think Raimi is this untouchable , original filmmaker everyone is claiming , he took clues from the Batman films and the comics , but Batman's influence is there no doubt . In addition to the narrative thread about Parker wanting to tell MJ who he really is , more Batman influence . Raimi didn't do all he could have done with Spiderman , someone else prob could have , but now we'll never know .



Allright , i was thinking , maybe that Talia character you are referring to is in the film , but just hasn't been in any of the trailers yet , or maybe she has but for only a brief moment , if what you're saying is true , and she is a critical , important character , than there is a good chance she will be there , unless she doesn't get involved with batman until a later date , prob the second film , since this will be his first encounter with Ra , have to remember that , this is his first foray into the Batman psyche and his first encounter with the various villians he will battle his whole life . Even if she isn't though , i'm sure it will only be a minor gripe , considering the rest of the product seems to be terrific .



Now about Nolan , if you have any doubt about his ability , then i urge you to check out Following and Insomnia . Moreso Following , that way you can get an understanding , or a taste , of this guy's brilliance . He knows what he's doing , and he's going to make believers out of a good number of doubters , i'm sure of it . Following is an example of what a filmmaker can do with a limited budget and loads of ingeniousnous ( did i spell that right ? ) . This is the same attitude , skill and talent i fully expect him to bring to his first big budget film in Batman Begins , he still seems to have that resourceful , inventive , independent spirit from what i've been reading about some of the behind the scenes diaries and interviews . He just happens to have a larger budget , that's the only diff , but he's going to put his stamp on this franchise , much like Burton did .

[soda]

I wanted to get to one of the accusations you made in your last post, namely, the one that states that Rami ripped certain scenes off of the Batman movies and incorporated them into the Spiderman flicks. Two things:

1) first, I don't at all seen the similarities between the world day festival sequence thing and the Joker's parade. Simply put, they aren't even close. If you want to look for a parallel to the world day festival thing, here's what I would say: Spiderman is a New York City superhero. Unlike DC, which uses fictional names for it's cities (keystone city, sun city, gotham city, metropolis, etc), Marvel acctually uses the real city names of the places as they appear on a US map. I live in Milpitas, CA, for example, and my (small) hometown, and a street and old warehouse here, which both actually exist, once appeared in an issue of "West coast Avengers", a marvel comic! If marvel got such details right about my small corner of the planet, then they had to have gotten most of the details right about New York City (where Spiderman is based, and where Marvel's headquarters are), details such as the Macy's Thanksgiving day parade, and some of the other huge parades that the city of New York has over the course of the year. I think that would be the influence for the world day festival.

2) the more close parallel that you pointed out would be the Riddler's choice given to Batman in BF versus Spiderman's choice in the first Spidey Movie. There does, indeed, appear to be a direct influence, on the surface. However, dig a little deeper, and you find the truth. Here's something that I don't expect you to know, you aren't a hardcore comic book fanboy, like I am, so, for you to draw your conclusion that there was an influence is pretty natural. There isn't, and I can prove it. First, let me ask you a question:

Have you ever heard of a character named Gwen Stacey?

Gwen Stacey is the Lana (for Superman) and the Talia (for Batman) of the Spiderman world. She's Spiderman's other "huge" girlfriend/ love interest, after Mary Jane Watson. Back in the 70s, in order to put some more variety into the Spidey love affairs, and to try to build a love triangle, Gwen Stacey was added to the cast. In a recent story arc of the Amazing Spiderman ("Sins past", it was out about six months ago), the children of Gwen Stacey came back to take revenge on Spidey. See, the writers eventually concluded that Gwen was redudant, so she was given a horrible, horrible death, and Mary Jane Watson retook her place as alpha-female. Anyway, one of the things that Sam Rami did with the first two spiderman movies was to borrow a LOT of old Gwen Stacey storylines, cut out Gwen, insert Mary Jane, and put them right smack dab in the movies. The Green Goblin giving Spiderman the choice between saving the children or MJW in the movie is a VERBATIM copy of an old 1970s Gwen Stacey storyline that ran in "the amazing spiderman" comics! All Sam Rami did was pull out Stacey, plug in MJW, and put the comic book scene on the big screen, word-for-word. The reason why I bring this up is that a movie-goer would probably see that scene in the Spidey movie and think exactly what you did "aha, that's just copying BF." However, it isn't. There isn't a single Spiderman comic book fan who hasn't read that 70s story arc, it's considered an absolute classic. When Sam Rami put that choice scene in the movie, comic book fans would instantly understand WHERE he got it from, and that he was paying a homage to a classic comic book story.

Anyway, the principle thing that most Spidey fans like about Sam Rami's movies is that he's given us (relatively) fresh, new stories, but that he hasn't changed the relationship dynamics between any of the major characters. Norman Osbourne is dead, as he should be (and not *ahem* just on vacation in Europe), Uncle Ben is dead, Peter Parker's life is a mess, the Peter/MJW/Harry Osbourne love triangle is alive and well, Harry is bent on revenge, and to get it, he will do what he did in the comics: follow his father as the Green Goblin! That's what Spidey fans are literally drooling to see, and why Rami gets high marks, because we all want to see Spidey 3, and the huge showdown at the OK corral between Peter Parker as Spiderman and Harry Osbourne as the Green Goblin, former best friends, now sworn enemies. Rami has done a masterful job of setting up this plot line through the first two movies (Just like with the x-movies, through the first two xmen films, they done a masterful job of setting up "the Phoenix saga"). Harry versus Peter has that feeling of inevitability, and of utter coolness to it, that it should. It can be (and has been) argued that the only villian/hero pair in comics that exceeds the emotional punch of Harry versus Peter is Batman versus the Joker. which brings me to one of my complaints about the Batman movies. So far, the one thing the Spidey movies have over the Batman movies is the villians, which should never happen. Batman has the BEST rogues' gallery in comics, no one should beat his bad guys. IMHO, the best batman rogue portrayal thus far was Michelle Pfipher as Catwoman, that was really cool. The problem with Jack Nicholson's Joker was this: they did a good job with the humor (a smilex commercial is EXACTLY the Joker's style), what they didn't do a good job of was capturing the Joker's sadistic streak. However, in their defense, I will say this: they got the Joker's motivation PERFECT. That's the hardest part of the Joker to get right. You'll notice, he poisoned the entire city, yet he never demanded cash, or power, or anything else. That's because the Joker isn't interested in those things. He's motivated by just one thing, every crime he commits has one purpose: because he thinks it's funny.

BTW, it could be that talia is in the movie, but just doesn't have a prominent role. I hope so, and I hope I've done a good job of describing what her role usually is.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yeah , you're right , the batman villians , with the exception of Joker , up until this point were mishandled , but i really don't think the ones in Spiderman were done much better . First , disregarding the comic books fora moment , Dafoe's portrayal was obviously a direct channeling of Nich's Joker in Batman . Same evil grin , same sadistic laugh , same mannerisms , et all . It's obvious to me Dafoe must have studied or have been influenced by JN's perf , even if it was in a subconscious manner , the GG was a poor man's Joker , albeit more subdued , but nonetheless , that's another Batman influence . Then you have Doc Oc , one of the most non descript , and can i say , bland villian portrayals in any comic book film i've seen . Yes , the Oc visuals looked great , but Molina seemed to be sleep walking through the role . Is that his fault , maybe , but part of the blame goes to Raimi , he is the one fashioning the characterizations . To me , he came across as a textbook , conflicted baddie , nothing about the perf stood out , or distinguished itself . If someone else had played him , they may have been able to bring something memorable to the role . I admit Devito and Carrey may have went over the top , but damn , if those two goofy perfs aren't memorable , same goes for Nic's Joker , the standard of excellence for comic book villians , in my opinion . Molina , man , totally uninspired , like he was just reading off cue cards . A competent perf , but he didn't bring anything special to it to distinguish himself from the rest of the bad guy pack . Just think of the Joker , people still quote some of those lines , that character is still a major influence . I can barely remember anything that the Oc guy said it was so bland anyway .


I'm thinking though , that Nolan will do the bad guy thing just right , he won't go over the top with them and he won't subdue them into submission , these should be the most realistic and memorable villians in a comic book movie , ever .