# Batman Begins



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Watched it last evening. By far the best comic book movie I've seen. It didn't try to copy comic book charatcters, but real people. More what our minds eye remembers from childhood, than what actually was on the printed page. Super movie


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I just watched it over the weekend. 

I don't usually like movies that change the origins (like the _Superman_ movies) of the characters in books I've read. I didn't read Marvel comics much, so I didn't mind the changes in _Spiderman_, because I didn't know there were changes until I watched the DVD highlighting them--pretty neat commentary technique too, I thought.

I did read Batman comics, so I know the storyline, but this movie was so good, I didn't mind.

Big :up: !!!


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

I don't think the "origin" changes were all that horrible. After all, Batman has been reinvented a handful of times in the comics already. If anyone complains, they can always just say this was a pre-"Crisis" timeline. :lol:


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I haven't seen it yet but plan on buying the dvd. My 14 y.o. son saw it at the movies and said it was great.

I've never saw the one with Halle Berry either. Do you have to see all the other ones for Batman Begins to make sense?


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

ntexasdude said:


> I haven't seen it yet but plan on buying the dvd. My 14 y.o. son saw it at the movies and said it was great.
> 
> I've never saw the one with Halle Berry either. Do you have to see all the other ones for Batman Begins to make sense?


You don't even need to know who what when or where, bring some popcorn and enjoy.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

I liked this movie a lot. So did my daughters (we first saw it in the theater as a dad/daughters day out on the town). It's humorous in the right spots, dark in an edgy way and I liked the cast.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

Danny R said:


> I don't think the "origin" changes were all that horrible.


I don't recall that the comics' Bruce Wayne was in prison or ninja training. I certainly read them many years ago, so I might have missed that??

As I said, though there were changes, I thought it was an excellent movie which far surpasses any other Batman movie to date.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I vaugely recall Batman Returns with Michelle Pfeiffer in that black latex catwoman suit. Mama Mia!

I really don't remember the movie but the image of Michelle still lingers.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

_I don't recall that the comics' Bruce Wayne was in prison or ninja training._

Batman definately has had "ninja" training in the old comics, not to mention other training from bushmen, etc. Supposedly he was master of over a hundred fighting styles, etc.

Henri Ducard (played by Liam Neeson) was one of Batman's early mentors in the comics too, as he was a detective who taught him early crime fighting skills. I don't believe he was ever portrayed as a master of martial arts however or associated with Ra's al Ghul as he was in the movies though.

Ra's al Ghul likewise is in the comics and was one of Batman's enemies. He was created back in 1971 and was considered an equal to Batman in martial arts abilities. He never "trained" the young Batman though, but in the comic books he did want Batman to become his heir.

As in the movie, Ra's al Ghul knew Batman's identity and also freed all the criminals in Arkham to try and destroy Gotham.


----------



## parttimedevotion (Sep 1, 2005)

What about the cartoon i watched growing up on the WB Ra's al Ghul would regenerate in these lazerus pits and batman wanted his daughter those were great cartoons.............memories


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

Danny R said:


> _I don't recall that the comics' Bruce Wayne was in prison or ninja training._
> 
> Ra's al Ghul likewise is in the comics and was one of Batman's enemies. He was created back in 1971...


Well, that's part of the difference, I wasn't reading Batman when you were. I was pretty well finished with comics by 1971. I really did mean "origins."


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

This is a great movie that stands alone. You don't have to know a thing about Batman to understand it. My son got a little bent because it didn't follow the timeline, but he still liked the movie. Batman is one of our favorite "superheros" because he doesn't have super powers, he is a man who has trained himself, mentally and physically to achieve great things. And he has really cool toys. I liked the explanation in BB about where the really cool toys came from.


----------



## airpolgas (Aug 13, 2002)

Bogy said:


> ... I liked the explanation in BB about where the really cool toys came from.


Exactly! I also like the fact that he fails miserably in the beginning, like that crash in the fire escape, that prompted for the cape to double as a chute of some sort that controls his descent.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Reminded me a lot of Men in Black in that they spent a lot of time making sure that all of the plot points, twists, and character motivations were "believable".

Really well made.........


----------



## bobsupra (Jul 12, 2002)

Not only was Batman Begins a well made movie, the plot line doesn't insult you, the graphics are realistic (even the bat cave), and acting excellent (except for Gary Oldman playing Gordon)


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

This is absolutely the way super hero/action movies should be done. It was simply the best one yet. They finally got it right!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

bobsupra said:


> Not only was Batman Begins a well made movie, the plot line doesn't insult you, the graphics are realistic (even the bat cave), and acting excellent (except for Gary Oldman playing Gordon)


I kind of liked his portrayal. Remember, he is just an overwhelmed Lt. at this point, and was supposed to be a little flustered. I see him growing into the role next time around (when they hopefully make him Commissioner).

He's supposed to be the strong, principled type in that character. We know he can do over the top (Dr. Smith in Lost in Space, the villain from The Fifth Element), and he's played his share of flawed characters (Romeo is Bleeding, Sid and Nancy), but I think he was an interesting pick. Morgan Freeman gets to coast a little, but he lights up every scene he is in (and finally provides an easy explanation for the source of all Batman's toys).

I also like the tease about the Joker at the end of the movie. Hopefully they will make him the villain in the next one. Any votes on actors to play him? Crispin Glover might be interesting. Hugo Weaving could pull off the look and the malevolence, but could he pull off the humor?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I was both disappointed and apalled. Burning down Wayne Manor, killing the man who killed Bruce's father (and who became the joker). This was not Batman.


----------



## airpolgas (Aug 13, 2002)

Disappointed because of the plot, or the movie in general? Was it different from the Batman you were accustomed to?

I've read that the movie is based on the graphic novel The Dark Knight by Frank Miller. According to the Amazon review, he took it upon himself to reinvigorate the Batman character. Instead of going the same route of the other super heroes, he went dark, serious, and deep; which, in my opinion, actually works.

For the specifics you mentioned:

Killing the murderer is their way of sparing Bruce from "falling to the dark side." If he committed the murder himself, then he won't be any different from Ra.

Burning the manor is a convenient way to start from scratch and make the batcave more tech savvy, like Alfred hinted.

Joker was just a teaser for future movies, although I hope he's not on the next one yet. I think that will be too soon. He should come out when Gordon's a commissioner.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

Geronimo said:


> I was both disappointed and apalled. Burning down Wayne Manor, killing the man who killed Bruce's father (and who became the joker). This was not Batman.


that was first movie nonsense-in the comics, bruce wayne's parents were gunned down by a two bit hood named joe chill-when bruce wayne became batman, he came across chill and recognizaed him as his parent's murderer-he revealed himself to chill and when the criminal ran into a room full of his cronies and told them that he was the one responsible for "creating" the batman by killing his parents, the other thugs shot him dead in anger before they realized that he could tell them who batman really was. The Joker in the original comics was merely a flamboyant assassin who had been subjected to a chemical bath that bleached his skin and turned his hair green...

gosh, but i hate the creative shorthand these early films took...ugh


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

When graded on the bell curve that included the first 4 movies, this one was the Citizen Kane of the bunch.

I liked how they explained the motivation for Bruce, how he got his toys, and how Gordon and he first developed their symbiotic relationship.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

jrjcd said:


> that was first movie nonsense-in the comics, bruce wayne's parents were gunned down by a two bit hood named joe chill-when bruce wayne became batman, he came across chill and recognizaed him as his parent's murderer-he revealed himself to chill and when the criminal ran into a room full of his cronies and told them that he was the one responsible for "creating" the batman by killing his parents, the other thugs shot him dead in anger before they realized that he could tell them who batman really was. The Joker in the original comics was merely a flamboyant assassin who had been subjected to a chemical bath that bleached his skin and turned his hair green...
> 
> gosh, but i hate the creative shorthand these early films took...ugh


jr, I couldn't remember all the details, but I knew that the man who shot the Wayne's and the Joker were not the same person in the comic books. It was an interesting twist, but it was no more "accurate" than burning down Wayne Manor. These are comics, not documentaries.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

jrjcd said:


> that was first movie nonsense-in the comics, bruce wayne's parents were gunned down by a two bit hood named joe chill-when bruce wayne became batman, he came across chill and recognizaed him as his parent's murderer-he revealed himself to chill and when the criminal ran into a room full of his cronies and told them that he was the one responsible for "creating" the batman by killing his parents, the other thugs shot him dead in anger before they realized that he could tell them who batman really was. The Joker in the original comics was merely a flamboyant assassin who had been subjected to a chemical bath that bleached his skin and turned his hair green...
> 
> gosh, but i hate the creative shorthand these early films took...ugh


Wrong. the comic legend always had his parents killed by Jack Napirt---who became the Joker.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Chill


Geronimo said:


> Wrong. the comic legend always had his parents killed by Jack Napirt---who became the Joker.





> Batman's origin was established in the comic book Batman #1 (Spring, 1940), but the mugger was not given a name until Batman #47 (June-July 1948). In that issue, Batman discovered that Joe Chill, the small-time crime boss he was investigating, was none other than the man who killed his parents. Batman confronted him and revealed his secret identity ("I'm the son of the man you murdered-I'm Bruce Wayne!") and Chill, frightened, sought protection from his henchmen. Once his henchmen, who had all been arrested by Batman, learned that Chill was responsible for creating him, however, they turned on their boss and killed him.
> 
> In Detective Comics #235 (1956), Batman learned that Chill was not a robber, but actually a hitman who had murdered the Waynes on orders from a Mafia boss named Lou Moxon. In a flashback, we learn that Bruce's father, Thomas Wayne, had worn a bat costume to a costume party, where Moxon had shown up and forced him to remove a slug from his arm. Afterwards, Wayne testified against Moxon in court. The crime boss swore revenge, and hired Chill soon after. Batman confronted him years later while wearing his father's costume. Moxon, who had amnesia and so did not remember ordering the hit, suddenly remembered what he had done. Thinking Batman was actually Thomas Wayne's ghost, Moxon panicked and ran out into the street, where he was struck by a truck and killed.


Joe Chill has also appeared in a number of other story lines, with the story modified in different ways.


> Chill was not mentioned in the 1989 Batman film, directed by Tim Burton; in that film it was the young Jack Napier, who would later become the Joker, who murdered Wayne's parents.


Chief, it looks like you are only correct as far as the first Batman move.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

to be honest, it's been years since i was an avid comics reader and i realize that the DC "universe" has gone thru many "changes", but i know i got it pretty much on the money about joe chill(tho i didn't know how they fleshed it out later)-the joker, on the other hand, as far as I know, probably didn't have a name as such unless it was done later as a tie in with the first movie and in fact, they could very well have changed the story up during one of their multiple earth realighnments.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

jr, like you, my comix reading took place some time back. Mostly, the 60s. My son never really got into reading the comix like I did, although when I was buying them a lot of my collection had cost a dime. Now, when we we discuss Batman and other superheroes, my knowledge goes back to that time, while his is based on animated TV episodes. Which has a number of things all screwed up. :nono:


----------

