Young Jack Napier's sidekick

[Bobthegoon89]

Bob's death scene is still a darkly funny moment to me and further shows the absolute insanity of The Joker in that he'll go so far as to shoot even the one man who perhaps can be truly called his "friend". I love how he still however needs to calm his nerves done after going thru with the act: "Going to need a minute or two alone boys..." LOL

But as well as being a funny moment and fairly a surprise too it seemed to me Burton flagged that moment up for another reason. If Bob really was that 2nd mugger then his murder by Jack has just robbed Batman of half his revenge. That's how that moment felt to me watching as a five year old. Obviously Bob had no part in actually murderering the Wayne's but he clearly contributed to their hopeless ordeal. Batman would as much want his revenge on him as Jack, but his death takes that opportunity from him.

This is why I'd very much like to see the deleted Batman vs Bob knife fight!

[riddler]

Well I'm in the minority here, because I like the idea of the second mugger being Chill.

But perhaps there's a compromise. We've always assumed Bob's surname was 'Goon' (doubtless related to the Boston Goons) and that his middle name was 'The'. But what if his full name was 'Joseph Robert Chill'? That would be a much better plot twist than Ducard turning out to be Ra's.

I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.

[thecolorsblend]

I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.

Mmm, I'd also permit the director or screenwriter saying so. Still, I do wish more people would have your policy though. Then Superman fans could stop arguing that Superman destroyed the Fortress of Solitude at the end of Superman II.

EDIT- Unless, of course, their argument is that Superman burned the joint down with Lex still inside it. Even then, I still don't buy it but there's something to be said for consistency, I think.

[Bobthegoon89]

I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.

Mmm, I'd also permit the director or screenwriter saying so. Still, I do wish more people would have your policy though. Then Superman fans could stop arguing that Superman destroyed the Fortress of Solitude at the end of Superman II.

EDIT- Unless, of course, their argument is that Superman burned the joint down with Lex still inside it. Even then, I still don't buy it but there's something to be said for consistency, I think.

Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.

[The Dark Knight]

Heh, I think those early Superman movies are a mess and the reboot is long overdue.

[thecolorsblend]

Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.

My gripe is, was and will always be how selective the Donner Cut fanboys are.

Fanboy- "This movie is better than Lester's!"

Me- "But the pacing is shot all to hell. And that ending makes no sense. Clark beats up the trucker for basically no reason at this point."

Fanboy- "You have to go easy on it, it's unfinished."

Me- "Mmm, okay. But Reeve's performance in the FOS scenes where he forsakes his powers is just BAD."

Fanboy- "Donner would have fixed that."

Me- "You don't know that. But whatev, a lot of those wire scenes are just CRAP."

Fanboy- "Remember man, this thing was pieced together from chewing gum and popsicle sticks. But it's better than Lester!"

Me- "You mean the FINISHED Lester movie that doesn't have jacked up sound effects, piss poor dubbing and a pretty coherent narrative?"

Fanboy- "UNFINISHED! BUT BETTER!"

Ugh, look, the Donner Cut can be unfinished or it can be better. It cannot be both. You don't get to handicap it on the myriad flaws and weaknesses it has but still argue it's somehow better than the finished, unhandicapped Lester version. The fanboys can pick the test we apply but let's apply it to both, shall we?

[Bobthegoon89]

Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.

My gripe is, was and will always be how selective the Donner Cut fanboys are.

Fanboy- "This movie is better than Lester's!"

Me- "But the pacing is shot all to hell. And that ending makes no sense. Clark beats up the trucker for basically no reason at this point."

Fanboy- "You have to go easy on it, it's unfinished."

Me- "Mmm, okay. But Reeve's performance in the FOS scenes where he forsakes his powers is just BAD."

Fanboy- "Donner would have fixed that."

Me- "You don't know that. But whatev, a lot of those wire scenes are just CRAP."

Fanboy- "Remember man, this thing was pieced together from chewing gum and popsicle sticks. But it's better than Lester!"

Me- "You mean the FINISHED Lester movie that doesn't have jacked up sound effects, piss poor dubbing and a pretty coherent narrative?"

Fanboy- "UNFINISHED! BUT BETTER!"

Ugh, look, the Donner Cut can be unfinished or it can be better. It cannot be both. You don't get to handicap it on the myriad flaws and weaknesses it has but still argue it's somehow better than the finished, unhandicapped Lester version. The fanboys can pick the test we apply but let's apply it to both, shall we?

Oh dear somebody argued this with you? Well everybody is entitled to their opinion. Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided. In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.

I mean I can go on and on and on lol I absolutely loathe that Lois shooting Clark moment. It's ridiculous. Not least cos it's a screen test that doesn't match in continuity. It also made HER a bit unlikeable. Sure it's a blank bullet but still, tricking Superman? Entrapment? Fraud? Why would this guy love her after that? Okay the original had the tacky pink hotel room and all but I found that scene more real and more full of emotion. The idea of Clark tripping deliberately or not is fascinating because they never answer it. Also it's a more shocking moment of that revelation. Lois' shock and all and Clark's look of I just screwed this whole thing lol Actually makes him human.

I'm divided on the portrayl of the 3 villains. Zod was menacing and great in Donner's version but I still enjoyed his humour when he's beating the weak of the Earth. Non was tougher but became a blander character. I liked him better when he was a big dumb idiot lol Ursa also seemed a lot cooler vocally in Lester's version but that may simple be because of the later reshoots.

But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.

[riddler]

simple math equations
1 + X = 3
you know X must be 2

this applies to events which are implied to happen off screen. The Joker ascended in the crime ranks. We don't see it happen, it's simply assumed.
-----------
(X - 2) * (X - 4) = 0
X must be either 2 or 4

What happened to the Joker and his goons in the dark knight after the joker threw Batman out the window? Either they ran away before Batman got back up there or he went back up there and chased them out.  Those are the only two viable scenarios.

-------------
X + Y + 5 = 67
impossible equation to solve based on the evidence.

All we know about the partner is he is not named or mentioned again in the series. You can forever theorize but it is a question with no distinct answer to.



Okay enough math I'll respond to the superman being brought up; Those films were pioneers and iconic for their time. Not disrespecting Donner, Lester, Reeve, or anyone there. Now I will fully admit I'm not a fan of the character superman; he already is invincible without kyryptonite. Add in the fact that according to the films he can turn back time and there's really no scenario where the stakes are raised. I prefer the green lantern, there's more humanity there, the ring adds an extra element and otherwise he has supermans powers but needs to be more creative. Anyhow all that aside the films just don't hold up for me. I'm sure they did the best with the resources they had and truth be told how many action films pre-1980 still hold up today? But the film industry has come a long way in the past 30 years, especially comic films. I was hoping Bryan Singer would give us a better film but he didnt. He seemed too focused on the art and attempting to essentially make Superman 2.5 than to take a chance and actually take advantage of resources he had that Donner and Lester didnt. Instead we got a superman version of indiana jones 4; "we waited all these years to see a film do the same thing he's already done." Lex luthor plans on stealing land with his goons and uses kryptonite against superman.. yawn. And not a single punch thrown by supes all film.

[thecolorsblend]

Oh dear somebody argued this with you?

It's not an uncommon viewpoint, believe me. This is particularly true of Singerman fans, who somehow think the Donner cut better ties in with Singerman (which, once you get past the Fortress being destroyed with Lex inside of it, makes sense in that not at all kinda way) and so forth.

Well everybody is entitled to their opinion.

And some opinions are friggin stupid. The superiority of the Donner Cut? One such.

Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided.

I'm okay with it on the grounds that Lois basically epitomizes what Clark had to leave behind in becoming Superman. I mean, let's face it, it ain't like Jor-El gave him much of a choice. Say whatever you want about SV but Clark became Superman on that show on his terms rather than 12 years of Kryptonian brainwashing. Anyway, as I say, I'm okay with it though because it's Superman (A) acknowledging that he was conscripted into that life (B) perhaps had some regrets in retrospect and (C) learned from the experience. In Lester's cut anyway.

In Donner's, he just took a mulligan, time-traveled and undid all of his mistakes. Because, y'know, he hadn't seen how badly wrong things can go when someone with his powers decides he know what's best for everyone else. Ugh...

In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.

That, and I think his scenes with his mother are more melancholy. With Jor-El, it comes off as rebellion. With Lara, it's her letting her son make his own decisions, knowing he's going to screw up but also realizing he has to learn from the experience. It's not like either of them knew the stakes they were really playing for. It seems more genuine to me that Superman would have this difference of opinion with Lara rather than a confrontation with Jor-El.

But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.

That's my beef too. Say whatever you want about Lester, he knew he was making an action film and understood that you needed a big opener to kick off the movie. Sure, it's tempting to ridicule some aspects ("sure, when I think 'terrorist', I naturally think 'Frenchies'.") but Lester's S2 (and, I would argue, even S3) have a lot of heart to them.

[Bobthegoon89]

Oh dear somebody argued this with you?

It's not an uncommon viewpoint, believe me. This is particularly true of Singerman fans, who somehow think the Donner cut better ties in with Singerman (which, once you get past the Fortress being destroyed with Lex inside of it, makes sense in that not at all kinda way) and so forth.

Well everybody is entitled to their opinion.

And some opinions are friggin stupid. The superiority of the Donner Cut? One such.

Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided.

I'm okay with it on the grounds that Lois basically epitomizes what Clark had to leave behind in becoming Superman. I mean, let's face it, it ain't like Jor-El gave him much of a choice. Say whatever you want about SV but Clark became Superman on that show on his terms rather than 12 years of Kryptonian brainwashing. Anyway, as I say, I'm okay with it though because it's Superman (A) acknowledging that he was conscripted into that life (B) perhaps had some regrets in retrospect and (C) learned from the experience. In Lester's cut anyway.

In Donner's, he just took a mulligan, time-traveled and undid all of his mistakes. Because, y'know, he hadn't seen how badly wrong things can go when someone with his powers decides he know what's best for everyone else. Ugh...

In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.

That, and I think his scenes with his mother are more melancholy. With Jor-El, it comes off as rebellion. With Lara, it's her letting her son make his own decisions, knowing he's going to screw up but also realizing he has to learn from the experience. It's not like either of them knew the stakes they were really playing for. It seems more genuine to me that Superman would have this difference of opinion with Lara rather than a confrontation with Jor-El.

But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.

That's my beef too. Say whatever you want about Lester, he knew he was making an action film and understood that you needed a big opener to kick off the movie. Sure, it's tempting to ridicule some aspects ("sure, when I think 'terrorist', I naturally think 'Frenchies'.") but Lester's S2 (and, I would argue, even S3) have a lot of heart to them.

I always figured the turning back of the world was merely placed in Superman II's Donner cut because it would have simply have been the way he would have ended the movie had he fully directed it.

I like Richard Donner but I found his commentary of his cut really bad taste. Slacking off the Salkind's and all that in every scene. It just came across arrogant. I don't think it was right how Lester took over but I thought his attacks on the highly successful (and much loved) theatrical version of Superman II were immature for a professional filmmaker.

Donner felt Marlon Brando was more important an inclusion but as Salkind stated it was the choice of the highly expensive "Mr Corleone" or using that budget on spectacular and ground breaking special effects. I'm glad he went for the latter personally. It didn't mean the sequel was "cheap" as some fans feel. Those action scenes at the end still excite and made Superman II memorable. The crew were doing unthinkable things in 1980 that superhero films wouldn't yet touch for years.

On the matter of the Reeve movies now being old fashioned well sure of course they are. What movies never date? It never stops my enjoyment of them. Just you wait and see what happens to the Nolan Batman films lol Many years yet but eventually that realism and modern day feel will have them age faster than fans can dream. Just the nature of time. That's the beauty of say Batman Returns. A bizaare Tim Burton fantasy version of a superhero whose timeless feel will make it last longer still. I don't think we'll ever have a more perfect Superman movie than those original two. They can do far more spectacular things sure but that doesn't make the movie better. It's already been done so well in 1978. Most of all though there is one thing they can never top: Christopher Reeve. He's the main reason they'll always be great and better.