Your Version of Batman Begins

[The Laughing Fish]

I just listened to that teaser trailer. Bale is such a good actor, which is why I expected more from his performances.

Damn it, I should really proof-read my sentences properly before posting anything. 

Anyway, I'm not American but I've always found the political themes in Nolan's movies to be a waste of time. I don't see them adding anything to the plot, other than trying to make the movies appear clever. Why should we even take that sonar scene so seriously? The movie is about a billionaire vigilante who takes the law into his hands! He's already doing illegal things, and should've remained a fugitive since the end of the first film, if this was supposed to be grounded in reality.

These themes don't make sense like in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, e.g. the US government are threatened by Batman's presence as he keeps Gotham City under control during a nuclear blackout, or the divided public opinion over Batman emerges since the government banned superheroes for years. These examples I thought made sense, and actually contribute to the plot. But the themes in Nolan's movies? They are either muddled because they aren't that well thought-out, or simply have no place being in the film at all.

On-topic, another minimum change I'd recommend for this movie: replace Katie Holmes and Tom Wilkinson. Holmes looked like a teenager and had no chemistry with Bale at all, and Wilkinson, despite being a good actor in his own right, can't speak in an American accent to save his life. BB and The Kennedy mini-series where he played JFK Sr. are proof of that.

[Edd Grayson]

Yeah, the political themes were a bit too much from Nolan. Joker doesn't have to believe in anarchy, that's not what the character is about.

[BatmAngelus]

I know I was the one who brought up the phone-tapping machine in the first place, but let's talk about that stuff in the appropriate thread, guys.
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2473.0

A change I'd make for Ra's and the ending:

I actually would've cut Ken Watanabe's part and been upfront that Liam Neeson was Ra's Al Ghul the whole time. 

Why?  Well, I don't think the twist in the movie is really that much of a twist.  We knew "Ducard" fully believed in the ideals of the League.  It was a no-brainer that the League of Shadows would return later in the plot after being built up so much in the first act.  So the reveal that the second-in-command guy was actually the boss isn't that dramatic of a twist.  In fact, it lead to debates at the time about whether Ra's al Ghul was a title inherited from Neeson after Watanabe's character's death.

Also, decoys tend to make sense as someone who could be targeted and assassinated while the real guy works behind the scenes.  But Neeson's Ra's was completely active.  Going to Bruce himself, training Bruce directly and over thin ice, going to Gotham to destroy it.  So I don't think the character really needed a decoy.

The "You burned down my house and left me for dead" line would've made more sense this way, too.  Without Watanabe's character, Bruce would have to go up against his teacher almost immediately after finishing training, making the monastery fight more dramatic.  The outcome at the end of the scene could've been ambiguous, then, whether or not Ra's was killed from falling debris.

The biggest change this would affect, from what I see, is Bruce rescuing "Ducard" from the monastery, which in a way gets called back and contrasted with the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" ending. 

However, I'm not really sure what they were trying to accomplish with the latter scene.  You've had Bruce saying that he won't be an executioner or take a life throughout the movie.  But at the end, he just decides to make that compromise and leave Ra's to die.  They don't explore it or bring up the hypocrisy.  It just happens and that's that.

I think it'd show more character growth, actually, if Bruce put his ideals into action (after all, Batman hasn't really been tested yet on whether or not to take a life) and attempted to bring Ra's out of the train with him.  Ra's wouldn't accept the failure and fights back, going down with the train.  Ra's gets the same fate without Bruce contradicting himself.  If anything, it shows that both characters stick to their ideals to the very end.

[DocLathropBrown]

Believe it or not... the only thing I'd change about this movie is its overt talkiness. And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead. Otherwise I completely enjoy the film. I guess I'd put Scarecrow in his proper costume at the end, implying that he had a full costume he'd wear when he was really torturing his patients. And I'd make Arkham look more like Schumacher's version.

But yeah. Pretty close to a great film. Even other things I dislike come more from the direction of the sequels than anything actually in Begins itself. I thought that Ra's eye close at the end (at the time, naive 2005 me) was signifying he was deoing some kind of immortalizing thing, and we'd see him again later where it would be revealed that he revived with the Lazarus Pit, and also he'd back-reveal that as long as the league had been around... he'd been leading them the whole time.

And I guess I'd have Bruce evacuate his home in a way that doesn't disgrace his family name but still seem like a goof. I'd have him be all like:

"Thanks for coming tonight everyone, but I feel kinda sick and really just want to be left alone. No, seriously. But don't think me rude... let's continue the party say, next week on Friday? Come back, we'll pretend we never stopped! I could just go to bed and leave you all here... but I'm greedy and I don't want any fun to happen without me! (laughs) Thank you, good night!"

[BatmAngelus]

And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

Even other things I dislike come more from the direction of the sequels than anything actually in Begins itself. I thought that Ra's eye close at the end (at the time, naive 2005 me) was signifying he was deoing some kind of immortalizing thing, and we'd see him again later where it would be revealed that he revived with the Lazarus Pit, and also he'd back-reveal that as long as the league had been around... he'd been leading them the whole time.

Hey, you and me both.  If you watch Begins without the sequels in mind, you figure that Ra's is referring to himself when he talks about sacking Rome.  That the loss of his "great love" was what inspired him to start the League of Shadows centuries ago.  And that sometime later in this universe, maybe not in another movie, but at some point, Ra's will return, via the Lazarus Pit, with Talia and Ubu.

But thanks to Rises, he was actually just a mercenary who joined up with the (existing) League after knocking up a warlord's daughter and was probably the 100th or so leader of the League.

[Silver Nemesis]

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.

Lol, it was meant to look like a bat?!



There's subtle and there's Rorschach test-subtle. And the Tumbler's resemblance to a bat, or lack thereof, definitely falls under the latter category.

[johnnygobbs]

And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

Isn't Julie Madison meant to be a socialite rather than a maid's daughter?

Anyway Matt Wagner can go screw himself...he's one of the few comic-book artists/writers to openly hate on the Burton films.  'Burton can't direct action' my ass...the cathedral fight at the end of the first 'Batman' is wonderfully imaginative and witty fight sequence and unlike many modern choppily-edited action-sequences, it's genuinely coherent.

[The Dark Knight]

'Burton can't direct action' my ass...the cathedral fight at the end of the first 'Batman' is wonderfully imaginative and witty fight sequence and unlike many modern choppily-edited action-sequences, it's genuinely coherent.

The B89 fight/action scenes are all varied and thus show us different facets of Batman's personality.

Opening: Shot down but gets up immediately to dish out justice. Playing up to his supernatural tag.
Axis: Swoops down and lets a goon hang by a wire. Skill.
Axis: Puts down a goon with one punch from behind a wall. Stealth.
Axis: Glides across to another platform. How he gets around without a vehicle.
Axis: Lifts Napier up off his feet with ease. Strength.
Axis: Escaping via smoke. Subterfuge.
Museum: Crashing down to rescue Vicki. Dramatic, theatrical and precise.
Alley fight: Standing firm to take on a sword goon. A defiant brick wall.
Axis revisited: Destroying the place. Use of gadgets to do his work, remote control Batmobile.
Cathedral onwards: Never say die, onwards we go.

[Silver Nemesis]

Anyway Matt Wagner can go screw himself...he's one of the few comic-book artists/writers to openly hate on the Burton films.

Would that it were so. Earlier in the year I started compiling a list of quotes from various comic creators where they gave their thoughts on Burton's Batman films. I figured it might make an interesting thread. But in the end I decided not to post what I'd found. With a few exceptions, most of their opinions were resoundingly negative. 

I'm not sure I could even post Mark Millar's "colourful" review of the 89 film without contravening the site regulations on swearing.

[BatmAngelus]

And I'd call Rachel Julie Madison instead.

I think they could've easily done this.  The Julie Madison in the original comics isn't much of a character anyway and Matt Wagner reimagined her as a lawyer in his Monster Men/Mad Monk arc around the same time, so they could've had some synergy here.

Isn't Julie Madison meant to be a socialite rather than a maid's daughter?

She is, in the original 1939 comics, though her background and upbringing were never really covered.  Still, switching that up would've been a small change compared to combining Ducard and Ra's into one character, having the League of Assassins train Bruce, having Jonathan Crane in charge of Arkham Asylum, turning Lucius Fox into a Q-type tech genius in on the plan, making Commissioner Loeb a good guy, etc.  I think Doc is suggesting the name change simply because Julie Madison is usually portrayed as Bruce's first love and it would've been nice to carry over a name from the comics.

I've also never understood the "can't direct action" criticisms on Burton.  Maybe it's partially 'cause I grew up on the movies, but all the action scenes felt coherent to me, which is a lot more than you can say for a ton of today's movies that employ the overrated shakey-cam effect.