Your Version of Batman Begins

[BatmAngelus]

You know the drill.  Reboot the franchise with Batman Begins, but work in the existing framework of the film.

A minor thing I'd change is that I'd have Bruce color the bat on his chest black.  Not just because it'd look more like the comic book Batsuit, but also because it would tie in, thematically, with his talk about Batman becoming a symbol.  What's the point of him sculpting a bat on the chest of the suit if nobody can see it?  Too bad the insignia got even smaller with the change of costumes in the next film.

The biggest thing I'd say is to have Bale keep the voice (and approach to the character) that he used at 0:50 in this scene throughout the entire trilogy.  It's less of a growl and more of a deep, foreboding voice that still would've believably disguised Wayne's voice.

Here's my take on Bale, for the record: He's actually my favorite live action Bruce Wayne, but he's one of the weaker Batmans in my opinion, so I always feel split when it comes to his performance in this trilogy.  I think he's spot-on with the playboy scenes.  His "private Bruce Wayne" scenes with Alfred and Lucius could've used a bit more intensity, but otherwise, he pretty much nails it.

When he's in the Batsuit, though, I'm turned off most of the time.  I don't think the voice itself was the problem, so much as how Bale acts in many of the Batman scenes of these films.  It's not just the growl, it's also the flat delivery of the lines, the weird pausing ("This city...just showed you..." in Dark Knight, for example), the impression that he's out of breath throughout, and his sometimes unintentionally funny facial expressions.  A lot of people just criticize the voice, but I see it as the whole performance once he's in the suit.

It's a shame because I think, in this scene, he gets it pretty much right and if he kept it up like this, I'd have more praise.

[Edd Grayson]

I feel the same way about Bale, a good Bruce but not so good Batman. Therefore I'd replace him or at least make his Batman more smooth.

Give Scarecrow more screentime and more lines, make it an important confrontation between him and Batman. Less training scenes.

[The Laughing Fish]

I respectfully disagree BatmAngelus. I thought Bale's acting and his voice especially throughout the trilogy is terribly cringe-worthy. I thought he played the Bruce Wayne role well in the third one, but he was stiff and emotionless in the previous two. As Batman, I don't understand how one can favor Bale's performance in one movie than the other.

I remember watching that scene with Rachel the first time and immediately thought "He's not going to sound like that for the rest of the film, is he?"...sure, his voice sounds a bit deeper in the sequels, but nonetheless it's still the same terribly hoarse, over-exaggered voice. And the scene where he screamed at Flass was awkward as well.

The only times I thought his voice was acceptable were lines such as "I'm Batman" (identical to Keaton), "You want me? Here I am", "Then why do you want to kill me?" and "You made a serious mistake".  I normally regard Bale highly in a fair bit of other films, which is why I'm saddened to say I didn't think he was any good in these movies. It would have been much better if he spoke in a calm manner, like in the closing monologue in American Psycho.

Before I first saw BB, thought that Lucius Fox would serve as a mentor to Bruce as he tries to understand not only how gadgets work, but also teach Bruce some engineering, forensics and science skills along the way. Instead, all we got was Q from the James Bond movies.  If we are going to keep the same plot in the film, then the changes I'd make would at least be improving the action scenes, in addition to Bale's voice.

[BatmAngelus]

I remember watching that scene with Rachel the first time and immediately thought "He's not going to sound like that for the rest of the film, is he?"...sure, his voice sounds a bit deeper in the sequels, but nonetheless it's still the same terribly hoarse, over-exaggered voice. And the scene where he screamed at Flass was awkward as well.

The only times I thought his voice was acceptable were lines such as "I'm Batman" (identical to Keaton), "You want me? Here I am", "Then why do you want to kill me?" and "You made a serious mistake".  I normally regard Bale highly in a fair bit of other films, which is why I'm saddened to say I didn't think he was any good in these movies. It would have been much better if he spoke in a calm manner, like in the closing monologue in American Psycho.

I was one of the people championing Bale to get the role back in 2004.  Obviously no one at the time would've predicted his approach to Batman.  I think everyone assumed that his voice in the Batsuit would be similar to his closing monologue in American Psycho or his narration in the Batman Begins teaser:

When I saw the movie, I was completely fine with "I'm Batman" and "Falcone sent them to kill you."  I was on board with Bale's Batman until we got to the Flass scene.  For me, this is where it went to hell.  It wasn't just the growl, it was the facial expressions and the shaking, which actually came off as Batman shivering since the scene was in the rain.  It was over-the-top and, worse, it was unintentionally funny when it was supposed to be scary.

If I had to re-direct the scene, I'd look at the comic book scene that influenced it from Haunted Knight.  Batman is not crouching, shaking, and yelling in it.  He just wants to intimidate a thug to get information.  That's what works so well about the scene from Dark Knight Returns (that probably influenced the Haunted Knight comic) where all Batman has to do to pump information from a Mutant thug is show him how high up they're hanging from a building.  His suit and his tactics are enough.

In the Haunted Knight comic, he's letting his full presence in the suit (and the fact the man is hanging upside down over several stories) do half the work.  Yes, he'd still say his lines with an angry tone, but he doesn't have to shout, growl, or shake to get his point across. 

People may say "But that's the Keaton approach," but hey, that worked and I think the approach would've fit since the whole movie built up the fact that he needed the suit and the imagery of the bat to strike fear in others.  It certainly wouldn't have lead to YouTube parodies.

Before I first saw BB, thought that Lucius Fox would serve as a mentor to Bruce as he tries to understand not only how gadgets work, but also teach Bruce some engineering, forensics and science skills along the way. Instead, all we got was Q from the James Bond movies. 

When it comes to the Nolan version of Lucius Fox, I feel that the fact that he's played by Morgan Freeman seems to make most forgive the problem that Freeman's part is pure plot device (and from a comic fan's perspective, he robs us of a chance of seeing Bruce develop his own skills in engineering and science).

I'll put it this way- Q works in the Bond movies  Sure, he's a plot device, too, but as a character, you don't question his motives.  It's the guy's job at MI6 to do this, he clearly loves doing this, and that's that.  He shows up in one or two scenes per movie, gives Bond what he needs, and serves his purpose.

Here, though, it's not that simple.  Lucius Fox's job isn't to supply weapons to a vigilante.  In Begins he's just an inventor who meets Bruce for the first time.  After the tour, Bruce asks to borrow high-grade military equipment with a not-very-believable cover story about spelunking.

And Lucius just lets him.  Then, hands him memory cloth and a TANK in his next visit.

Yes, Bruce owns the company and Lucius acknowledges that, but dramatically, it's awfully easy and convenient.

On a bigger issue, Alfred, Rachel, Gordon, and Dent all have different perspectives on Batman.  What's Lucius' point of view on Batman, who's using his inventions to terrorize Gotham criminals?  He doesn't have one.

Lucius doesn't really have much of his own agency or come into conflict with Bruce until the climax of The Dark Knight when he objects to the cell phone machine, but even that rang false to me.  He's not fine with hacking into phones to find the Joker, but he was okay with Bruce using the Tumbler against cops?

If I had to keep Lucius in the movies, then I like your mentor idea.  Have him play a part in Bruce's character development in taking responsibility for his family's company, as well as develop him as a character.  Batman's using this guy's inventions and company equipment in his war on crime.  How does Lucius feel about that?  What conflicts can that lead to?  This all could have been interesting to explore if done right.

[The Laughing Fish]

I just listened to that teaser trailer. Bale is such a good actor, which is why I expected from his performances. It's such a shame that he didn't speak like that throughout the whole trilogy. I suppose they wanted to do something radically different than what Keaton sounded like, but not if it's going to make it hard to watch.

On a bigger issue, Alfred, Rachel, Gordon, and Dent all have different perspectives on Batman.  What's Lucius' point of view on Batman, who's using his inventions to terrorize Gotham criminals?  He doesn't have one.

Lucius doesn't really have much of his own agency or come into conflict with Bruce until the climax of The Dark Knight when he objects to the cell phone machine, but even that rang false to me.  He's not fine with hacking into phones to find the Joker, but he was okay with Bruce using the Tumbler against cops?

Well said. I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who picked up Fox's double standards during that sonar scene. I thought Fox was in no position to criticize Batman since he had no problems supporting Batman's recklessness, which included collateral damage, causing bodily-harm to people, and kidnapping. Fox didn't give a damn about people's well-being when they were caught in the middle of Batman's violence, but now he is worried about Batman creating a machine that spies everybody...when Batman was only desperately trying to locate the Joker's whereabouts? So apparently taking such desperate measures is a huge no-no now? 

If I had to keep Lucius in the movies, then I like your mentor idea.  Have him play a part in Bruce's character development in taking responsibility for his family's company, as well as develop him as a character.  Batman's using this guy's inventions and company equipment in his war on crime.  How does Lucius feel about that?  What conflicts can that lead to?  This all could have been interesting to explore if done right.

I agree. It definitely would have been believable when Fox, after help create the man who he is by giving him all the knowledge AND resources, starts to doubt whether Batman is making a positive impact on society. Would Fox feel guilty for the monster he has created, and thought it would've been better to mentor Bruce by using his knowledge as a philanthropist, like his father?

As we got instead, like I said before, is Bruce counting on Fox to deliver all the equipment he needs to become Batman. And for me, that cheapens Batman as a character, because I always thought his intelligence and his variety of skills were a reflection of how determined he is to get rid of crime in Gotham. He is supposed to believe that outsmarting criminals is just as important as out-fighting them, and that's why he is trained in various intellectual and scientific skills. That shows how committed he is, and I never got that vibe from Bruce here. In my opinion, taking away his intellect is the equivalent of taking away Superman's ability to fly.

Damn, sorry for the long post - it's a strong subject for me.

[Silver Nemesis]

I agree with you completely about Bale, BatmAngelus. I've watched The Dark Knight twice in the past week, and Bale really was excellent as Bruce Wayne. Some people criticise the movie for its lack of humour, but I thought there were some very funny scenes with Wayne acting the jerk in public. Particularly the scene in the restaurant where he's trolling Dent about enjoying the ballet and not knowing his jurisdictional boundaries.

But as Batman, he just didn't quite work for me. There's the voice, obviously. But the weird faces he pulled when wearing the cowl were equally off-putting. I saw an interview with him once where he credited Alex Ross as an influence on his performance, and I think he was trying to imitate the scowl of the Ross Batman. Unfortunately his face just isn't suited to those kind of expressions. Batman is usually drawn as having a prominent lower lip, which is perfect for scowling. But Bale's upper lip sticks out slightly above his lower one. I suspect he was overcompensating for that with the whole face-pulling thing.

But I agree that he was the best live action Wayne we've had so far. His performance as Batman is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the character. It's just not my preferred take. Though I do think he got the voice right in the scene where he's talking to Rachel in the Batcave. Why couldn't he have spoken like that throughout the entire film?

[BatmAngelus]

That's another scene where I don't think I had an issue with the voice.  It's interesting that he credited the Alex Ross Batman, but I agree that he doesn't have the right face for it and the small mouth opening in the movie cowls didn't help.

Frankly, he looks best in the Batsuit when his mouth is shut, like when he sees the homeless man after knocking out Falcone or his glare to the League of Shadows men after Ra's goes up to the train.

As for another change, I'd actually make the Tumbler more Batmobile-like.  Perhaps the bat-head battering ram would've been too much but since this is Batmobile was a beast that crashed its way through anything, it wouldn't be a stretch for me. 

Like the "make the bat insignia black" suggestion, this is not just so that the movie would be more comic accurate. I think modifying the Tumbler with more of  a bat-look would've helped two major things:

1) Again, Bruce wants Batman to be a symbol.  Shouldn't his vehicle reflect that symbol?  You should look at the vehicle and immediately think that it's Batman's car, thus why I prefer the more traditional Batmobiles.
I know there are pictures online where the Tumbler is kind of shaped like a bat with wings folded over: http://www.batmobilehistory.com/2005-batmobile.php
But this is subtle.  Batman's not aiming for subtlety when he's behind the wheel or trying to strike terror into criminals.  His car should immediately scream "Batman."  Jimmy Fallon's "Tankman Begins" sketch parodied the flaw here perfectly.

2) On a story scale, this is a Wayne Enterprises assault vehicle.  Lucius Fox may have given it to him, but he did not build it all on his own with his bare hands nor is he the only soul on earth who's seen it.  There are dozens of people out there who know about this tank.  What are they going to think when they see it all over the news?

I realize that they made a plot point of this in The Dark Knight where Reese figured out the secret, but more people should've figured it out and I think this all could've been avoided in the first place had Bruce made more modifications to the Tumbler that would've disguised its unique features or had a bat-motif that took your attention away from it.

As it stands, all he did was paint it black (or have Lucius give him a black one).

[thecolorsblend]

Well said. I'm very glad that I'm not the only one who picked up Fox's double standards during that sonar scene. I thought Fox was in no position to criticize Batman since he had no problems supporting Batman's recklessness, which included collateral damage, causing bodily-harm to people, and kidnapping. Fox didn't give a damn about people's well-being when they were caught in the middle of Batman's violence, but now he is worried about Batman creating a machine that spies everybody...when Batman was only desperately trying to locate the Joker's whereabouts? So apparently taking such desperate measures is a huge no-no now? 

My problem with it is that it's illogical. There's a misapplied political metaphor there but aside from that Batman isn't a representative of the government. He's working to find a certain perp. That's the only reason the tech even exists. If we were talking about a fairly unaccountable bureaucracy wielding that kind of power, yeah, I'd be nervous too but whether Batman gives him the keys to the toys or not, Fox could probably figure out a way to dismantle it. Worst case, he could out Bruce to the public and let the law take it from there. Bruce was accountable at every step of the way. Fox's objection was completely illogical.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not fine with the Tumbler causing collateral damage but there's a big difference between out-in-the-open violence which is ultimately unavoidable as a means of self-preservation and using people's mobile phones to spy and keep constant surveillance on them. 

I realise a lot of you posters are US citizens and won't like what I have to say but if you were a non-US citizen you might resent the way the US government has been infiltrating the internet use of people outside your borders.  The US government clearly knows it's wrong because they dare not spy on their own citizens.  So when you guys are prepared to have your own government spy on you then tell me Lucius's objections to the sonar technology seems misplaced. 

[thecolorsblend]

I realise a lot of you posters are US citizens and won't like what I have to say but if you were a non-US citizen you might resent the way the US government has been infiltrating the internet use of people outside your borders.  The US government clearly knows it's wrong because they dare not spy on their own citizens.  So when you guys are prepared to have your own government spy on you then tell me Lucius's objections to the sonar technology seems misplaced. 

You're making a bit of a false equivalence though with Bruce's one-time use of the technology to find a specific target vs. my government's current unfiltered surveillance on anybody and everybody at any time without so much as probable cause. As shown in the movie, it's a benign thing which is ultimately discarded after fulfilling the intended purpose. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that implicit in the use and destruction of the machine is a condemnation of a bureaucracy having unchecked access to everything. An individual can and probably will make the choice to eliminate such intrusive technology while a nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy won't. An interesting point of view for a non-American, yes?

Finally... you do realize my government is spying on American citizens too, right?