Luigi Novi: What're you, a 30's film noir gangster moll, or something?
I can't wait for this new movie to come out. It's directed by Cristopher Nolan, has Christian Bale as batman, Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Lucuis Fox, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe. This movie is gonna rock
And it's being directed by Christopher Nolan, who's last two movies, Insomnia and Memento, were, to use a technical term f***ing brilliant. Plus, the main villian for this moive is going to be arguably the best Batman villian EVER. Rhas Al Ghoul(sp?)! I must admit to not liking Christian Bale all that much (I got to see American Psycho for free and I STILL wanted my money back), but this moive does have promise. Let's just hope they get a good writer for the screenplay.
From what I understand, Nolan agreed to direct it only if he weren't required to use CGI. I am so there!
Brian Webber: The main villian for this moive is going to be arguably the best Batman villian EVER. Rhas Al Ghoul(sp?)! I must admit to not liking Christian Bale all that much (I got to see American Psycho for free and I STILL wanted my money back), but this moive does have promise.
Luigi Novi: What're you, a 30's film noir gangster moll, or something?
No, movie is just one of those words I seem to always misspell. 
The last word in this sentence is mispeled.
New Info:
Michael Cain (sp?) as Alfred, Villian is the Scarecrow
I see they're using the "Batman Forever" suit instead of the original "Batman" / "Batman Returns" suit.
I liked the "Batman" / "Batman Returns" suit better.
Ditto. I think the photo makes it look a bit dorky, cuz it doesn't look right with a white background. It'll probably look better in the dark, in which Batman works better.
John,
The "Forever" suit was black rubber (hawT). This is...plastic vomit.
http://batmanbegins.warnerbros.com/
New teaser at the official site.
The best news for this film is that Joel Schumacher isn't directing! Thank heaven, it won't be another "Batman and Robin" !
Here's some footage of the new Batmobile. My opinion. Yuck!
The new Batmobile
You need Quicktime to view it.
The narrators are right; it does look like an ATV. The main problem with it is that the front of it doesn't seem to have any cover whatsover, and therefore no "bat" motiff. If they added that, it would look much better.
Geez, it's like a mini tank rolling around downtown. That's just doesn't look right. I miss the old batmobiles.
The one Dustin Nguyen is drawing in the current Batman story arc looks nice, and actually has some similarities to that Batman Begins version, such as the angular edges, except that, as I mentioned, it has a front to it.
I mean, if you think about it, the Batmobile probably IS, to all intents and purposes, a tank. But it should have a covering that obscures it.
Perhaps the designers were inspired by Frank Miller's version of it from The Dark Knight Returns? In it, it flat-out WAS a tank.
Hate it, hate it, hate it. That's not a BatMOBILE, it's a BatARMOUREDTANKLIKEVEHICLE. I wasn't crazy about Michael Keaton's Batmobile at first, but I like it now. This THING will not grow on me. If it's Batman's first Batmobile shouldn't it be something like a souped-up Viper or some contemporary sports car? That thing would be noticed in a hurricane or earthquake.
Take heart, Will. In last month's The Comic Buyers Guide #1598 (November), it was stated that it looks "far, far better in action than in stills." Try not to judge by incomplete pre-release material.
I'll try, Luigi. I guess I've been spoiled not only by Keaton's, Kilmer's, and Clooney's Batmobiles, but also the Batmobile from The Animated Series, and anything drawn in the comics.
This 'vehicle' is going to wind up being my least favorite, simply because I like cars more than trucks, motorcycles, or tanks.
I didn't like Clooney's batmobile, it was inspired by a 1930s roadster but to me it looked more like a suped up gocart.
The best Batmobile was Adam West's!
The best Batmobile was Adam West's!
I second that wholeheartedly. Coolest car in the whole world. It (or a decent replica) was here for a car show a couple years ago and I must have shot an entire roll of film on that vehicle alone.
I envy you, Influx. The two most famous cars I've seen are Keaton's Batmobile and KITT from Knight Rider. I'd pay good money to see the first car I ever fell in love with.
Brian; I agree about Clooney's car. A one-seater with no hood-- talk about being useless in a rescue ("Sorry, Vicki Vale, but there's no room, so you'll have to walk!"). I only bought the model because it was marked down to $5, and then I bought a second one to stick a custom hood on so it could pass for a 2-seater.
I would have gotten my own picture sitting in it but you had to get it with the Batman that was there -- in the Michael Keaton costume! An anachronism I did not want in my picture.
I believe the "Death-Mobile" from Animal House was the same type of car (before the modifications, of course!). I just watched the Double-Secret-Probation Edition (first time I'd seen the movie in years), and said "Hey! That's the Batmobile!!"
Keaton's first was the best. But I really liked seeing that double-page spread Jim Lee drew last year in Batman #615, during the year-long "Hush" storyline in that title, where he showed the entire lineup of Batman's various Batmobiles, including West's, Kilmer's, and various others from the book. The second volume of the softcover trade paperback (collecting issues 513-519) came out yesterday, and I can't wait to dig into it.
The original Batmobile was a 1955 Ford Futura that was highly customized. Actually the real car had a problem with overheating since the front batfascia didnt allow as much air to flow over the batradiator, the Deathmobile was a 1964 Lincoln Continental that Kent Dorfman borrowed from his brother and D-Day modified after the Delta's reported it stolen. It had suicide doors and is the same model that Kennedy was riding in when he was shot in Dallas.
George Barris did the Batmobile as well as the Monkee mobile, The Dracster from the Munsters, Supervan, the movie The Car (a Lincoln possed by Satan very interesting 70 movie ;-) ) Among others. He does some amazing work but oddly enough he didnt do the Animal House car. Car trivia is cool.
Actually, I read years ago that the Batmobile was based on a dream car called the Lincoln Futura; it was originally built in 1955. The car was used in the 1959 movie It Started With A Kiss. The Futura name was eventually adopted for a trim line of the Ford Falcon. The last I heard, it was in the Petersen Auto Museum, or something of the sort, in Los Angeles.
Ah, OK. Well, I was really "faced" the last time I saw Animal House anyway. Sorry for the slight derail...
Thats ok. And I have seen the original Batmobile listed as a Lincoln and/or a Ford Futura. For some reason my brain hung on the nameplate Ford. Either way its the same company and a cool car though.
OK, I think I speak for most people when I say, who gives a •••• about the car? As long as it's a good movie I couldn't care LESS about the ••••••• car!
Brian, the car is a very important part of people's Batman memories. For one thing, it reflects the design of the film, which is vital to any movie, but especially to a superhero movie.
Exactly I mean without the car what does Batman speed to the rescue in? What would Superman been without the big red cape or Captain America without the shield? The car is a vital part of the Batman mythos just like the rest of the gadgets and gizmos he has on hand.
Isn't Lincoln just a subbrand of Ford anyway? Like Buick is for GM?
Actually, Lincoln is to Ford what Cadillac is to GM, their luxury marque. Mercury is to Ford what Buick is to GM - the upscale nameplate.
Pretty much. It used to go from base to best: Ford-Mercury-Lincoln;Chevy-Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac(With Hummer no considered equal to Cadillac as Hummers are sold at Caddy dealerships) and Dodge-Plymouth-Chrysler.
Pic of Bats w/ Katie Holmes, with a brief article.
Another trailer, and this one shows the Batmobile in action. It appears that the front wheels will be completely exposed, which I don't like, and there's a bit too many angular edges and "plates" covering it. But hey, I'll get used to it.
There are now 82 production images at Movieweb.com, which include all the major characters, and which you can see in Hi-res here, or Low-res here.
Peter David says it's gold! (No spoilers.)
He's not the only one.
I saw "Batman Begins" yesterday evening, and I agree with Roger Ebert's view that "Batman Begins" got it right, contrary to each of the 1989-97 Batman movies. I feel that those movies suffered most from the decision to make Batman's world a fantasy world (established in 1989's "Batman"), which looked like an amalgam of the 1940s, the present (late 1980s through late 1990s), and a bits of Tim Burton's "Edward Scissorhands" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas". I also feel that those movies never made the action look realistic or convincing, Batman's costume looked and functioned more like a hindrance than a help (especially in fight scenes), and in the latter three movies, too much was on the plate (for example, "Batman and Robin" gave us not only two main villains in Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, but a third minor villain in Bain, a fiance for Bruce Wayne, a rift between Batman and Robin, the introduction of Batgirl, and a dying Alfred). By contrast, "Batman Begins" keeps the story pretty simple, by telling the story of how Batman begins (obviously), and further, the story is made as real-world plausable as it can be, without losing any of the character of Batman. An example of how "Batman Begins" improves upon earlier movies is in how it is explained why a man with no superhuman abilities, who would choose to be a masked vigilante, would also dress up as a Bat-man, with pointed ears and a cape. "Batman" from 1989 explained that Bruce Wayne fell into a bat cave as a child, was frightened, and the experience apparently stuck with him. However, "Batman Begins" goes further, most significantly by having Bruce Wayne explain to Alfred what he thinks he will achieve by fighting crime as a symbol versus fighting crime as Bruce Wayne. Another example of how "Batman Begins" improves upon those earlier Batman movies is in the fight sequences. Bruce Wayne has no super-powers, but as Batman, he's supposed to be able to take out at least half a dozen men at once in a fight. So how do you show that? Well, in the earlier movies, you show a bunch of idiotic henchmen come at Batman one by one, each getting dispatched with by a well-placed kick or punch. Or maybe you show a group of these henchman form a circle around Batman so he can use his guided Batarang to take them all out in a few seconds, one by one, while the remaining foes all just stand there waiting for their turns with the Batarang (see "Batman Returns"). However, in this movie, Batman uses stealth to reduce enemy numbers when the numbers are not in his favor, and when the numbers are more favorable, say six to one, all six attack Batman at once, and the action is shown with a lot of shadow and quick cuts. This works because I think we can only believe that Batman would prevail in such an encounter if the movie doesn't try to show the blow-by-blow in good lighting. Other improvements in "Batman Begins" include a Gotham City which looks like it could actually exist on our planet Earth (Chicago supersized and Gothamized), characters who seem like real people, a very practical Batmobile which doesn't look like "The Batmobile", a more realistic Batcave, a better Bat-cape, and a more serious tone. Several professional critics have said that "Batman Begins" isn't funny enough. However, I'd say that for a Batman movie, "Batman Begins" is about as funny as it ought to be, which is intentionally not, except for a few chuckles.
"a very practical Batmobile which doesn't look like "The Batmobile", "
But... but... it's the BATMOBILE! It has to look like the Batmobile!
Benn (from the Spider-Man 3 board): My hope is that they avoid the mistake the Batman movie frachise made and do not use more than one villain per film. If they must use more than one, then one of them should appear at the beginning of the film, be defeated, then move on to the main villain. But that's just me.
Luigi Novi: It isn't so much as whether they use one or two for me, but whether they do so for the right reasons. What I get from the latter Batman films, especially the last two, is that more than one villain was shoehorned into them simply for marketing and liscencing reasons. But as with any other story consideration, if it stems from narrative needs, and the writer can make it work, then I don't care; use two.
This movie, which I saw tonight, beautifully illustrates my point. It had a bunch of villains, depending on who you deem a villain. It had two main ones, Ras and Scarecrow. It even had secondary characters that served as more minor adversaries, namely Falcone and the Police Chief/the cops.
And it worked.
This movie was EXCELLENT. Goyer and Nolan have redemmed the franchise, and shown that we need no longer be haunted by the Stigma of Goldsman, Schumacher, and the Corporate Suits.
Characterization was at the forefront, the plot held together, the origin story was faithful, with minor alterations that may have enhanced it, action scenes and special fx were used in context, the science fictional aspects of the film were restrained and believable, and there were some nice touches that didn't go overboard as far as in-jokes or parody.
I saw the 12:01am opening show Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, and loved it!
I didn't even realize the movie was opening this week, and just by chance happened to pick up a paper to see what times Star Wars was playing so I could see it a fourth time. I still saw RotS, but it was mainly to kill time until midnight.
Wow, what a great movie. Kinda hard to say having only seen it once, but I think it may be the best... Batman movie... ever! Of course the only other real contenders are the first Keaton movie and the animated Mask of the Phantasm.
I noticed in the commericals this is also playing in IMAX. I may just have to drive across town at some point to see it that way.
Good film, only trails "Spider-Man" in terms of comic to screen adaptations in my humble opinion. The film was kinda Star Wars-like (and having Liam Neeson talk about balance didn't help) in the beginning, but the Gotham sequences were pure Batman. The Scarecrow was cool, but he didn't have much screen time. Katie Holmes had sort of a pointless role, but I guess you've got to have a love interest.
Hopefully if "Batman Continues" comes, I'd like to see this cast continue, but I'm not sure if heavyweights like Caine, Freeman, and Oldman can stay on for a recurring series. We'll see. The guy playing Bruce Wayne's dad was the evil alien in "The Forgotten," so that made me unconsciously chuckle during all his scenes.
Great movie, the way Batman should be depicted onscreen. One of the things that made it so good is the same thing that made Spiderman 2 and improvement over the original; much of the movie focuses on Bruce's internal demons and conflicts and how the Batman comes from that. It's fascinating to see.
Add to that several top notch performances by Bale, Oldman, Freeman, Caine, Wikinson, Neeson, and Murphy and you have one of the best comic book adaptations ever put to screen, and probably the best of the Batman films.
Nits and Notes:
-I don't really know if it's a nit, but how did they end up containing all of the panic that resulted from the several blocks of Crane's chemical that was released? They saved the city, but a lot of people were still exposed. And all the cops were stuck and infected in the Narrows. How long did it take to get them all out?
-I loved Ducard's line about "Is Ra's Al Ghul immortal? His methods supernatural?" Nice allusion to Ra's background from the comics and show while still keeping with the movie's more realistic tone.
-I do have to admit I didn't the reveal about Ducard's true identity coming.
-I'm a little disappointed that I didn't make the connection between Bruce's fear test in Asia and Crane's fear-inducing drug.
Katie Holmes has been dropped from the sequel, because her engagement to Tom Cruise has taken away some of Batman Begins' press.
The movie did $41 million in its opening weekend, and $71 million from Wednesday through Sunday. Frankly, I thought it would do better.
Good to know I wasn't the only one who didn't see Ras A Gul's secret coming.
A little ungrateful, isn't he? "You burned my house and left me for dead... now we're even."
Well, he didn't exactly leave you for dead... he kinda saved your life...
One thing that wasn't a surprise was the Sonic Generator... from the moment it was first referenced, I knew what it was going to be for.
Something interesting a friend pointed out about it, though... if the movie was going to be realistic (and R rated, at least,) the director would remember that human beings are 70 percent water... :-)
Ras' point, actually, is somewhat valid, if you consider who Bruce THINKS he is leaving to die and who he is saving in that sequence.
Good to know I wasn't the only one who didn't see Ras A Gul's secret coming.
Yeah, count me in that camp as well, though I was thinking in the earlier scenes that they should have just cast Liam as Ra's because he seemed more right for the part to me.
Katie Holmes has been dropped from the sequel
Big whoop. She was one of the weak points of the film. Frankly it would have worked just as well if instead of her character (forgive my ignorance, but was that character just created for the movie? I've been reading the comics for quite some time and don't recognize the character) you drop the whole "love interest" angle and instead have little Brucie's playmate be a young Harvey Dent.
Yeah, then you wouldn't have the damsel in distress stuff, but really, do you think Batman would care any less about saving a friend he didn't want to bone?
But Hollywood don't work that way, so like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin we have yet another seemingly intentional throwaway love interest. (I'm not docking Batman(1989) or Batman Returns for it, because frankly I don't think they knew at the time that Vicki Vale was a one timer, and Catwoman was supposed to wind up spinning off, (of course that lead to many years of development hell cumlinating in that dreck of a Halle Berry film, but that's neither here nor there.))
I think it's ridiculous that Bale, who is about 33, and Holmes, 24, were said to be childhood friends who looked the same age at the time of their childhood. Bale doesn't look to be in his early 20's, nor Holmes in her early 30's. The idea of her as an assistant district attorney was preposterous. At 24, she'd be a year out of law school. Yeah, you can do all the usual anti-nit logic gymnastics by speculating on her being such a gifted kid that she skipped two grades, but I still can't buy her in that role.
I bought Holmes and Bale as childhood friends; as an ADA, no way! They should've just made her like a legal assistant or better yet, a social worker, maybe an amalgamation of the Dr. Leslie Tompkins character.
Since Holmes is not coming back, I suggest killing the character off.
I actually thought that did look much younger in the hearing flashback. Maybe not college age (unless it was his last year of grad school), but younger than his "modern" appearance. He didn't look that much older than Holmes, IMO, but it was still tough to believe that she was supposed to be the ADA.
I may be misremembering, but I think this is the course of events:
1) Batman appears for the first time to beat up a bunch of Falcone's people on the docks and save Rachel. These actions are all the public knows about Batman1.
2) The Scarecrow encounters Batman for the first time and loses two flunkies.
3) He then easily gasses the Batman2, covers him with gasoline, lights him on fire, and watches him stumble through a high-story window3.
4) Two or three days later, the lights flicker in the asylum and the Scarecrow announces "It's the Batman."
He has a remarkably high opinion of Batman's recuperative powers and importance.
1 It is possible that Ra's Al Ghul might have given the Scarecrow, his man in Gotham, a little more info on the new vigilante in the city.
2 Given Alfred's description of the course of Bruce's illness (coupled with the ease with which the Scarecrow gives a fatal dose to Rachel) this seems like a fatal dose of fear gas. If Lucius Fox had not been a close associate Bruce probably would have died.
3 Granted, there was no Bat-body. . .
... The idea of [Holmes] as an assistant district attorney was preposterous. At 24, she'd be a year out of law school. Yeah, you can do all the usual anti-nit logic gymnastics by speculating on her being such a gifted kid that she skipped two grades, but I still can't buy her in that role.
I don't know how old Katie Holmes' character was supposed to be in "Batman Begins", but someone 24 years old who went straight from high school through college to law school, without taking a year off would probably be finishing his or her 2nd year of law school, or going into his or her 3rd year of law school, on average.
As for her character being an assistant district attorney, taking as a given that she graduated from law school and passed the state bar, it's not preposterous. In fact, it's not even far-fetched. District Attorney's offices (or State's Attorney's offices, which are equivalent) usually cover state counties and have a District Attorney or State's Attorney, who is one person elected for a multi-year term in a county-wide general election. Working under the District Attorney, or State's Attorney (way under usually), can be anywhere from dozens to hundreds of Assistant District Attorneys or Assistant State's Attorneys who handle and prosecute the felony and misdemeanor cases throughout the county. For example, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Illinois, covering Chicago, has roughly 900 Assistant State's Attorneys working in eight Bureaus within the office. Of those Assistant State's Attorneys handling misdemeanor cases, many will be relatively new hires, with most of those fresh out of law school. And some of the female Assistant State's Attorneys recently graduated from law school will look younger than Katie Holmes. I can say that it would be highly unlikely that an Assistant State's Attorney without a few years experience would be handling exclusively felony cases, especially as a first chair.
I actually thought that did look much younger in the hearing flashback. Maybe not college age (unless it was his last year of grad school), but younger than his "modern" appearance. He didn't look that much older than Holmes, IMO, but it was still tough to believe that she was supposed to be the ADA.
She wasn't supposed to be "the A.D.A." In the fictional District Attorney's Office in which the Katie Holmes character worked, there would be one "D.A." (District Attorney), and probably hundreds of "A.D.A.s" (Assistant District Attorneys) working under the D.A.
ah, i see. Okay
... The idea of [Holmes] as an assistant district attorney was preposterous. At 24, she'd be a year out of law school. Yeah, you can do all the usual anti-nit logic gymnastics by speculating on her being such a gifted kid that she skipped two grades, but I still can't buy her in that role.
Nonsense, Has ADA Barbie from Law & Order taught you nothing?
I only saw one problem with it, and that was I thought Bruce and his parents left a theatre showing The Mask of Zorro or something, I remember reading about it in a comic. Or did they change that bit on purpose?
Possibly. And yes, it was a Zorro movie.
BTW, the filmmakers have said to be greatly inspired by "The Long Halloween" graphic novel by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale, which is clearly evident in most of the Scarecrow scenes and some of the Falcone scenes (although the character of Falcone in the movie bears no relationship to the Don Corleone-like figure in the comic).
Instead of the Joker, I'd love to see a take on Harvey Dent instead in the next film. Or maybe a little bit of both.
Heartily advise any Batman fan to read that and the sequel, "Dark Victory" (which isn't quite as good but still up there).
I read TLH, but aspects of it were a bit confusing to me, and I wasn't motivated to buy DV. I'm also not very into Tim Sale, which is just badly watered-down Frank Miller.
Sale is sort of erratic; he is sort of Frank Miller-lite, but there are points in TLH which are spot-on, such as the great film noir sequences/death scenes (specifically the deaths of Johnny Viti, the Irish Gang, and the coroner).
"Ras' point, actually, is somewhat valid, if you consider who Bruce THINKS he is leaving to die and who he is saving in that sequence."-MikeC
Maybe- although it looked like it was hard NOT to leave him for dead... still, you'd think that percieved harm towards Ras (the figurehead) would be somewhat nullified by personal gratitude for saving Ras (the real one.) Kind of an ingrate, really.
"I only saw one problem with it, and that was I thought Bruce and his parents left a theatre showing The Mask of Zorro or something, I remember reading about it in a comic. Or did they change that bit on purpose?"-speedster2
Yes, though probably not the Mask of Zorro, since that came out in the 90s. :-)
They probably changed it so Bruce would ask to leave early, and thus feel more 'responsible' for what happened in the alley.
Another potential deleted scene:
As Comissioner Gordon enters 'weapons mode' on the Bat-tank, the scene shifts deep under-ground to the Bat Cave, where Alfred sits alone in thought.
Alfred, sighing: That manner was all that was left of Mr. Wayne's good name... and now it's destroyed.
Quick cut to Batman and Ras savagely duking it out
Cut back to the Batcave as Alfred brightens.
Alfred: Oh, wait! There's still the monorail he built! At least there's one thing about Mr. Wayne's good name that his son hasn't managed to destroy...
Cut to the Bat-tank, as Gordon pulls the trigger... :-)
I only saw one problem with it, and that was I thought Bruce and his parents left a theatre showing The Mask of Zorro or something, I remember reading about it in a comic. Or did they change that bit on purpose?
Yes, though probably not the Mask of Zorro, since that came out in the 90s. :-)
He probably was thinking of the Mark of Zorro. Though considering the age of Bruce in this movie, Zorro: The Gay Blade would have fit the timeframe better.
I noticed the opera in place of the movie, too. I managed to not say anything to MJ about it but it threw me off a little. Her Majesty's review of the movie has so far consisted solely of "Batman moved his lips funny". Thanks, Babe.
This was easily my favorite Batman movie, but I haven't watched the first animated series movie, either.
Other than the "people are ugly bags of mostly water" nit, I was lost in the timeline for Katie Holmes visiting Arkham. It was daytime when she left but by the time she arrived it was deep night. How far from Gotham is stately Wayne Manor?
When Alfred broke the first run of the bat-cowls with a hammer I thought for sure they'd go somewhere with it, but they didn't. Not a nit, just an observation.
The "base jumping" batcape was a cool idea but near the end it felt like he was pratically Kal-El zipping all over the place, or was I the only one?
A good movie overall, but not excellent.
SPOILERS:
The flying Batman sequences were VERY COOL!
The "good guy turned bad" idea has been overused and that's what ruined the movie for me.
(Bruce Wayne's mentor was good, then turned bad)
The "Batmobile" ruled.
The Scarecrow....YAWN! Without his "fear gas", he's useless. NEXT!!!!
The "millions of bats" scenes were very good.
Ya' gotta love Sgt. Gordon...I'm glad they brought that concept back instead of introducing the "60's version"
(Bruce Wayne's mentor was good, then turned bad) - John A. Lang
Well, technicaly he was never good in the first place... he just acted like it.
How about...best friend turned into worst enemy (?)
That plot is VERY TIRED.
Yet, many people didn't see it coming, or predict it... that's gotta count for something.
I mean, how many plots, when boiled down to the basics, are original these days?
I guess what I'm saying is... it didn't FEEL old and tired- even if it was.
For those of us that thought Star Wars Episode III was dark...Well, you ain't seen nuthin' until you've seen this.
BTW, The late John F. Kennedy Jr. was in his late twenties or early thirties when he was hired as an ADA for New York City. But...he hadn't even passed the bar exam then; he took it at least three times before passing.
Annie Parisse, who plays the new ADA on Law & Order, was 28 when she began the role.
BTW, The late John F. Kennedy Jr. was in his late twenties or early thirties when he was hired as an ADA for New York City. But...he hadn't even passed the bar exam then; he took it at least three times before passing.
It isn't uncommon for a law school graduate to be hired as an Assistant District Attorney or Assistant State's Attorney prior to that person passing the state bar exam. Until that person passes the bar exam, that person will still have the title "A.D.A." or "A.S.A.". However since that person will not actually be a member of the state bar until he or she passes the bar exam, the A.D.A. or A.S.A. in question will usually acquire a limited license to practice law under the appropriate Supreme Court rule of that state, which is effective until that person becomes a member of the state bar, and which allows that person to practice law under the supervision of another member of the same state's bar (e.g. any fellow A.D.A. or A.S.A. who is a member of the state bar). The expectation by the District Attorney's Office or State's Attorney's Office is generally that the A.D.A. or A.S.A. in question will pass the state bar exam within a few months, so that the A.D.A. or A.S.A. no longer needs supervision to perform certain job functions (e.g. doing trials, being left alone in a courtroom to run the bench, etc.). If, however, the A.D.A. or A.S.A. fails to pass the bar exam on the next go-round, he or she isn't generally given several chances to do so and remain employed. It could happen (especially if your name is John F. Kennedy, Jr.), but generally, by the second exam failure, the person would be fired.
Interesting article below. Just one quote and then a link:
"Batman Begins has become something of a cult hit among fans of free markets, individualism and Ayn Rand, among other things. Perform a cursory Google search with the terms "Batman Begins" and "capitalism," for instance, and you come up with a blogosphere love-fest, with conservative and especially libertarian commentators praising the film's pro-business, anti-statist themes.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100370.html
Well, darling, if it helps, I'm told that it wasn't Batman who was doing the duckbill lips, but that it's a Christian Bale thing.
So horribly distracting. He shoulda called himself Darkwing Duck.
But isn't the Wayne family just your typical limousine liberal?
A friend of mine is consistently honked off that they don't include the Zorro movie, but to be fair, they likely can't (or don't want to) affford the rights to the title for just one scene.
Possible error: All the Gotham City cop cars are dark blue/grey/black/whatever. When the Batmobile is about to jump off the parking garage roof, you can clearly see 3 white squad cars blocking off an intersection on the street below. These are obviously City of Chicago cops keeping the streets clear for the shoot.
Politics of Batman Begins???
Interesting article below. Just one quote and then a link:
"Batman Begins has become something of a cult hit among fans of free markets, individualism and Ayn Rand, among other things. Perform a cursory Google search with the terms "Batman Begins" and "capitalism," for instance, and you come up with a blogosphere love-fest, with conservative and especially libertarian commentators praising the film's pro-business, anti-statist themes.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100370.html
Funny cause when I saw the movie I thought it might tick off some conservatives. Thomas Wayne seemed like the ultimate limousine liberal. He almost ran the company into the ground doing good deeds for the poor because he felt that helping others was more important than money. A member of the board mentions that Wayne probably would not have approved of manufacturing heavy weapons and the “Gordon Gecko” type businessman basically says “who cares, where’re here to make money. I always thought the typical right wing view was that maximizing profit was the best thing to do because than they can create more jobs rather than giving a handout to the poor. Bruce learns that killing someone for revenge is wrong, he even refuses to kill a murderer, believing that having the man tried by "corrupt bureaucrats" is the right thing to do.
Also the article gets it wrong when it says that Joe Chill was sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. He was sent to prison; that's were he got the dirt on Falone that he used to bargain his way out of jail.
Well thank you for that opinion- rather than responding with any number of anti-Liberal flames that come to mind, I'll just say this: Obviously you were wrong.
Conservatives don't stand for blind profit, or murder vengance- it's really kind of sad that anyone would think they would.
Y'know, another question occurred to me the other day: Ras is dead now, but what about the rest of the group? Did Batman go and clean them out? Or are they still out there, plotting revenge on Gotham?
Ras al Ghul doesn't die!
Quote:Ras al Ghul doesn't die!
Zarm, I'm not trying to get into a fight or anything but I wanted to point out one more thing I thought would anger conservatives, actually theis was the big one, I just forgot to post it last time. Katie Holmes "bleeding heart liberal" speech about how the real problems with the city were pverty and when no one has money a million people become Joe Chill.
Meh... yeah, that does kind of bug me, as it seems to relieve any potential criminals of personal responsibility for their actions, but it's the kind of thing that movies take for granted anyway, so I'm used to it.
As for the flurry of posts above, perhaps I should restate the question... now that Ras al Ghul SEEMS to be dead to THE WORLD AT LARGE, what will happen to the league of darkness?
In "Batman: The Animated Series" the villain's name is pronounced "RAYSH Al Ghul" but in the movie it's pronounced "RAHZ Al Ghul". Given that they're both adaptations from a printed source, neither is really incorrect.
I thought the effects of the gas were a little unclear. Ras (or at least the Asian figurehead) said "Gotham must be destroyed," but in the end it seemed like only a small section of Gotham was being exposed to the gas. What was up with that?
I don't think the love-interest angle worked very well at all. I never read the Batman comics, but I am an avid fan of the current animated continuity ("Batman: The Animated Series", "Justice League", and "Batman Beyond"). I don't recall any character with the name "Rachel Dawes" appearing anywhere. Bruce Wayne (unlike Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Reed Richards, or others) doesn't have a consistent love interest. I don't know why every Batman film tries to create one. The animated series gets it right by showing that part of Bruce's problem is that he constantly alienates other people. "Batman Beyond" shows that Bruce never marries and will always remain alone. (**JUSTICE LEAGUE SPOILERS**: However, The upcoming Justice League Unlimited episode "Epilogue" will reveal that Cadmus leader Amanda Waller used some of Bruce's DNA to impregnate Mary McGinnis in order to create the new Batman: Terry McGinnis. So Bruce does end up with a son one day )
I did think that Rachel's position might open a door up to meeting a future nemesis. Assuming her boss is who I think it is.
I did love this movie though. It was everything I hoped for. I especially liked the expanded role of Jim Gordon. The Scarecrow was a surprisingly good villain. The mask was very simple but scary for some reason. I liked it
And who couldn't love that ending?! Calling card indeed!
TUE
"The bust. . . went down okay?"
"Yes. Get some rest now."
"Gotta keep fighting. . . never stop. . . what I try to live by. . . Maybe if I had been younger. . . coulda been like you. . . always wanted to be a hero. . ."
"You are a hero, Jim."
"I thought the effects of the gas were a little unclear. Ras (or at least the Asian figurehead) said "Gotham must be destroyed," but in the end it seemed like only a small section of Gotham was being exposed to the gas. What was up with that?"-TUE
They were racing towards the central mains. Had they reached that, the pressure explosion would have caused the water supply to go up city wide, and the entire city would have been exposed. That;s why Batman had Gordon blow up the bridge, rather than let the train reach the Wayne building (where the central mains were located.)
Ah. I must have missed that memo.
Thanks.
TUE
"Didn't you get that memo?"
Quote: "Batman Begins" is also a movie with conservative values. The hero is extremely rich with inherited wealth who has a strong sense of noblesse oblige to defeat the gangsters and villains who prey on the misery of other citizens, including the poor. Noblesse oblige is a Christian notion whereby to whom much is given, much is required, so that the wealthy and the blessed have a moral, biblical and Christian duty to be honorable, generous and responsible. There's certainly no socialist message in "Batman Begins." In fact, the government is just as corrupt as the villains."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45291
I'd say that they managed to strike a good balance, for once.
User X, I just want to point out that the reviewer you are quoting also called Bewitched an o'cult movie with a feminist spin and kingdom of heaven revisionist history and pro-muslim propaganda.
I can't speak for Bewitched, having not seen it... but Brian, that's exactly what Kingdom of Heaven WAS. (Maybe not pro-Muslim propaganda as much as less anti-muslim content than there was anti-Christian content, but certainly not an objective portrayal in any sense.)
Anyway, do you disagree with the reviewers statements about Batman Begins?
I knew Ducard was Ra's because he so strongly resembles Ra's in BTAS. Even though this is another stand-alone adventure reinventing (or more accurately reinvigorating) the franchise, after scratching my head for 2 minutes as this film tried to pass off the figurehead as Ra's, I wouldn't swallow it.
Of course, in BTAS, Batman doesn't meet Ra's Al Ghul until midway through its run. In this film, Ra's is the first arch-criminal he encounters. Ra's is Batman's mentor? I knew going into this film having seen no trailers and reading no spoliers, only waiting for a majority to praise this film did I go see it, I sensed the Burton/Schumaker continuity would be dismissed and this movie would start from scratch.
I'm pleased the love-interest did not work to the detrement of the film. Childhood sweethearts are not meant to be love intersts. Holmes was just there for sex appeal.
The film started slow but the payoff was wonderful. I could detect no nits of high value except where continuity is involved and it would be useless to compare this story agaisnt all other incarnations.
The Batman has always been a conservative themed comic. The whole story is about meaningless events, devoid of any social justice themes, and the criminals are always madmen, not corrupt businessmen or mad scientists.
Right, because corrupt bussinessmen are such under-used, non-cliched villains.
Seriously, how are the events meaningless? And how does the film fail to deal with social justice issues (any more than any other superhero film?)
Matt Pesti: The whole story is about meaningless events, devoid of any social justice themes
Luigi Novi: I'm not sure where you get this idea, since whether the plots are "meaningless" is really subjective, but even if this were true, what does that have to do with conservatism?
Matt Pesti: ...and the criminals are always madmen, not corrupt businessmen or mad scientists.
Luigi Novi: The criminals are a diverse bunch, and some are indeed corrupt businessman. The Penguin is one example of a corrupt businessman in Bats' rogues gallery, and although Lex Luthor is a regular villain of Superman's Luthor framed Bruce Wayne for murder in a year-long storyline in the Batman books.
The Penguin was only recently made into a corrupt businessman. When he was first introduced, he was just another weirdo supervillain.
True. But Matt's blanket statment is a bit inaccurate. I mean all of the criminals Batman faces are madmen? Is Ra's Al Ghul a madman? Or Killer Croc? Or Catwoman? Clayface? The Red Hood? Black Mask? Hush? Bane? Mr. Freeze? The KGBeast? You could make a case for some of these, like maybe Bane or Al Ghul, but Catwoman or Black Mask? Many of these are simply thieves, criminal entrepreneurs, or rival vigilantes.
Don't forget (when it comes to superhero movies) Max Whatshisname from Batman Returns, who was (I think... I could be wrong about this as I'm not as well versed in Batman lore as I am in Superman) a corrupt business-man invented just for the film. (And what does that say about the star power of the Penguin and Catwoman? :-) )
Coming to DVD on Tuesday Oct. 18, 2005
This fits the pattern, as Warner's has released all the Batman videos about four months after the movies' theatrical premiere(s). There is a special DVD set of the previous four films being released the same day.
Yeah...but no "Special Edition" in the universe can "fix" the horrible "Batman & Robin" movie
Just a side note, but Christian Bale also did an indescribably excellent job in the movies Equilibrium and The Machinist. He is, by far, one of the most talented actors in Hollywood. I always thought his role in American Psycho was a tad overacted and smacked of a bad Robert Wagner impression, I looked back at it with a more educated (read the novel and the movie makes a lot more sense) and an analytical eye and I realized his portrayal was a dead-on (no pun intended) choice.
As for Batman Begins, I watched the original Michael Keaton Batman before rewatching Batman Begins and realized something. Some of the elements in the telling of Batman's origin in both movies share a great resemblance. Here they are:
1) Gotham City is besieged by organized crime in the form of Carl Grissom (Batman) and Carmine Falcone (Batman Begins), both of whom harbor a thug responsible for Bruce Wayne's parents' deaths that they later devise a murder plot against (for the Joker, because he was with Grissom's girl).
2) The corrupt police officer Lt. Eckhardt (Batman) and corrupt police officer Lt. Flass (Batman Begins) practically being the same person all the way down to the overweight and hairy characteristics. If the writers were smart, I would've thrown in the name Eckhardt in Batman Begins as a "hint" that his police character is the same killed in Keaton's Batman.
3) Batman has a love interest who helps him save an imperiled Gotham City--with Vicki Vale as a reporter (Joker's chemical toxin breakdown), with Rachel Dawes as a District Attorney (Judge Faden blackmail photographs and some fear toxin antidotes).
Lastly, I noticed possible connections between Batman Begins and Batman (1989). In Batman, it's repeatedly mentioned that Commissioner Gordon has a file on Batman BEFORE the incident at Axis Chemicals. It makes you wonder if Commissioner Gordon in Batman was sort of playing dumb and simply dug out the Bat-signal he made. Additionally, the Alfred in the Keaton Batman knows what to do to help Batman, as if they've already thoroughly gone over the plans and procedures of Bruce Wayne's alter ego (hint, hint, Batman Begins). It also gives a familiar feel to the line the Alfred in the Keaton Batman says about not wasting time grieving over dead friends and their son and the Alfred in Batman Begins about not focusing on Bruce's past but his future. What do you all think?
"...Bad Robert Wagner impression, I looked..." Make that comma a period.
By the way, does anyone know what the extras on the two-disc DVD deluxe set entail? Cheers.
D. Stuart, according to the producers of Batman begins they are not in any way trying to have a direct continuaty with the other Batman films. They are beginging a new Batman timeline.
Why not?
I mean, how can ANYONE top Jack Nicholson's "Joker"?
Because donig so will limit the ability of the creators to tell their own stories, and with their own interpretations of the mythos. There's no more reason to continue the continuity of several years ago in the films than there is for the various animated TV series, the comics, etc. If one film continuity is to be continued, then who decides which it is? Why not the Adam West continuity, or the old film serials' continuity?
Well...whoever will do The Joker will have to go "over the top" to beat Nicholson's performance.
I don't really think that they have to beat it. It would be interesting to see another actor's interpretation on the character.
Though, for me, no one has ever topped Mark Hamill's joker.
Me, I'm curious to see how Willem Dafoe would interpret the Joker. I admit that this is influenced at least partially by the fact that Dafoe's physicality conforms more to the Joker's face and body type than Nicholson's, but it's also because he's an actor whose performance I'd like to see in that role.
I found it interesting that several years ago (either while the Schumacher franchise was still being produced or shortly thereafter), the comics magazine Wizard, in its regular Casting Call feature, in which it proposes who it would like to see in the individual roles of various comic film adapatations, also proposed Dafoe for a new Batman franchise.
Willem Dafoe as the Joker?
That would be interesting.
If the fear drug is transmitted through inhalation of water vapor, why hasn't anyone gotten a dose of the drug from the vapor of running a hot bath, making tea, or boiling pasta in the weeks Crane has been dumping the chemical in the Gotham water system?
Lastly, I noticed possible connections between Batman Begins and Batman (1989). In Batman, it's repeatedly mentioned that Commissioner Gordon has a file on Batman BEFORE the incident at Axis Chemicals. It makes you wonder if Commissioner Gordon in Batman was sort of playing dumb and simply dug out the Bat-signal he made. Additionally, the Alfred in the Keaton Batman knows what to do to help Batman, as if they've already thoroughly gone over the plans and procedures of Bruce Wayne's alter ego (hint, hint, Batman Begins). It also gives a familiar feel to the line the Alfred in the Keaton Batman says about not wasting time grieving over dead friends and their son and the Alfred in Batman Begins about not focusing on Bruce's past but his future. What do you all think?
"Batman Begins" (2005) IS NOT a prequel to "Batman" (1989). The two movies were separate productions based on the same source material, which was the Batman comic books published by D.C. The two movies also depict much different realities and differ in important details regarding who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. In "Batman", it was Jack Napier, later known as The Joker. In "Batman Begins", as in the comic books, it was Joe Chill, and The Joker didn't have anything to do with it.
Well...whoever will do The Joker will have to go "over the top" to beat Nicholson's performance.
I think most people were initially excited to hear that Jack Nicholson would be playing the part of "The Joker" in "Batman" (1989), given Nicholson's previously demonstrated flair for playing Devilish characters ("The Witches of Eastwick"), and characters with streaks of madness ("The Shining"). However, I don't think Jack Nicholson's "Joker" portrayal was especially impressive. For one thing, Nicholson was around 52 years old at the time (a bit old for the part, and a bit too well-fed), and even with Nicholson's hair application, his Joker had a noticeably receding hairline. Second, the "Joker smile" never really looked that good, because the effect relied entirely on makeup, and no matter what application was put on the edges of Nicholson's mouth, that smile wasn't going to look any bigger than normal (minor C.G.I. would have solved the problem, but it wasn't advanced enough in 1989). Third, I didn't feel the part was well-written, especially in constructing the transition from Jack Napier's persona to Joker's persona.
Personally, I thought they should've used a chin appliance, rather than cheek appliances, in order to replicate the Joker's physiognomy.
Also, in the Burton film, Batman and Napier came into contact before the latter became the Joker, whereas the end of Batman Begins indicates that the Joker is already operating before Batman has even heard of him.
I wasn't too impressed overall by Batman: Dead End, (http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/nonsw/batman_deadend/index.asp)
But I think that Andrew Koenig IS the Joker... just one example of a performance I think could beat Nicholson's any day.
Christian Bale wins Best Hero at the MTV Movie Awards.
Something I picked up during my umpteenth viewing on HBO- as Bruce and Alfred explore the cave below Wayne Manor, Alfred remarks that Bruce's ancestors were involved in the underground railroad, "moving free slaves to the North". This is evidenced by the brick tunnels and old elevator that they discover.
From this, we can assume that Gotham is in the Southeastern region of the country. Yet no one in Gotham speaks with an accent similar to any of the country's southern states.
Something I picked up during my umpteenth viewing on HBO- as Bruce and Alfred explore the cave below Wayne Manor, Alfred remarks that Bruce's ancestors were involved in the underground railroad, "moving free slaves to the North". This is evidenced by the brick tunnels and old elevator that they discover.
From this, we can assume that Gotham is in the Southeastern region of the country. Yet no one in Gotham speaks with an accent similar to any of the country's southern states.
The "Underground Railroad" had routes which included paths through the northernmost sections of the most northern states of the United States before 1865, even going into Canada (other routes went into Mexico, or destinations overseas). So the fact of Wayne Manor having for a time been a stop on one route of the Underground Railroad alone probably doesn't place Gotham City in any region of the U.S. more specific than "not west of Texas". Then, considering that no Gothamite heard to speak in the movie had a "southern (U.S.) accent", it becomes more likely that Gotham City is a northern U.S. city than a southern U.S. city. Further, considering that Gotham City, as seen in the movie, borders a very large body of water, it's becomes likely that Gotham City is a northern U.S. city bordering one of the Great Lakes (Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, or Superior), or is a northern U.S. city on the country's east coast. Based on the types of cargo ships which would be at the docks delivering Falcone's shipments, I'd lean toward the east coast (even though Chicago, IL filled in for much of Gotham City in the movie).
The locations of the various cities of the DC universe has always been a fuzzy thing to pin down. 
I've read from several DC sources, some canon and others not-so-much, that Gotham is in Delaware. Perhaps; however, some cities in the DC universe are not meant to have a real location much like Springfield in "The Simpsons," even though they claim it is in Kentucky but evidence proves otherwise.
Regarding the locations of various fictional cities in the DC universe, my information is that these locations have varied over the years, depending on the whims of the various writers at the time. For example, Metropolis and Gotham City have, on at least one occasion, been designated in a DC Comics storyline as "twin cities", akin to St. Paul and Minneapolis in Minnesota, on another occasion cities across the bay from each other, such as Oakland and San Francisco in California, and on other occasions hundreds of miles apart. In my opinion, Marvel Comics is better off not having to deal with this issue, since Marvel uses real cities to a far greater extent than DC (especially New York City).
On an unrelated matter, I just watched "Batman Begins" for the third time, and I was newly impressed by the way the movie enhanced Bruce Wayne's bat fear and his trauma associated with it. In this movie, and nowhere else as far as I know, it was Bruce Wayne's bat fear which played a significant role in the murders of his parents. It was this fear which caused Bruce Wayne to ask his father if the family could leave the opera early, resulting in the family exiting the opera house, absent crowd protection, to be quickly confronted by Joe Chill (the murderer). After that, Bruce Wayne was not only afraid of bats, but he blamed his fear of bats (and himself) for the murders of his parents. That's a lot more for Bruce to carry around for 20 years than the experience of falling into a hole and having a lot of bats fly at Bruce for a little while. Another aspect of the movie newly impressive to me is the detail in the establishment of Bruce Wayne's allegiance to the cause of Gotham City's salvation. The movie established Wayne family roots at Wayne Manor going back six generations (probably over 100 years). Bruce Wayne's father was established as a crusader in the cause of uplifting Gotham City and its population. If Bruce Wayne just wanted to fight crime, he could have done it any number of places, but this movie made it clear why the home town was the number one pick for Bruce Wayne.
Something I just noticed: When Bruce picks up the Chinese flower in the beginning of the film, the petals are a bright blue. I'm not sure what colors the leaves were in reality, but given the way the shot was lit/colored, they looked gray. Blue and gray, of course, are the colors of the Batsuit in the comics. In addition, the leaves are prickly, kinda like the scalloped bottom edge of Batman's cape. Was this intentional, or am I crazy?
After Batman escapes from a mob of drugged citizens by latching onto the passing el train with his grappling hook, Loeb sees him speed by, and we see a couple of manhole covers fall onto a cop car after being blown out of the street by the microwaved water. Aside from the obviously dubbed sound effects of them making impact, it's clear they weren't metal, because they don't fall with the weight of manhole covers, not even denting the cars where they hit them.
For someone who doesn't kill, Batman seems to do a whole lot of killing. The first time, he refuses to execute a criminal, and instead, blows up the entire building, with him and a bunch of other people in it. We see Ra's Al Ghul decoy #1 crushed under a piece of debris, and we are clearly meant to infer he is dead, as a direct result of the explosion Wayne triggered. As well, he trapped a whole bunch of ninjas in the burning building, including the man who he had refused to kill in the first place, probably leaving him to die anyway. Later on, he demolishes the supports to the track for the monorail Ducard was on, then destroys the controls for said monorail so he can't stop it, leaving him trapped on a doomed train saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," because apparently said death was not a direct result of his actions. I can just see this defense working out in a court of law if he were ever charged with either of these killings, "no, of course I didn't kill him, I just destroyed the track for the train he was on and trapped him on board it. That's totally different. And the other guy, I just blew up the building he was in and left him crushed under a piece of debris. I never killed anyone."
He blew up the building accidentally.
Moreover, the condemned man was helpless, and slated to be executed. It was that which Bruce opposed. I don't think he ever stated an opposition to use of deadly force in the act of self-defense, or defense of others, which is what his destruction of the Monorail was. His primary motive in destroying it, in fact, was to foil the League of Shadows' plan to poison the city's water supply, and he would've destroyed the Monorail regardless of whether Ducard was on it. That Ducard was killed was something for which Ducard was culpable, not Batman, who was only trying to save others.
Here's something I've wondered for a while. Toward the end of the movie, when Batman is being attacked by the crazed mob, he uses the grappling gun to grab the monorail and get pulled away. It always looked to me like he hit the bottom of the monorail, which seemed like that meant the rope should wrap around the monorail support at some point and possibly pull Bruce between the train and the track, likely killing him. Did I see that incorrectly? Did the hook really grab the side of the monorail or is there a gap in the middle of the track or something?
LOL!